Subject: [Mtgvenue] Publishing Venue Contracts (was Re: IETF 97 - Registration and Hotel Reservations Open Now!)

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:00:45 -0400

John,

    I'm forwarding the enclosed and responding on this list as I think
this is the WG that can effect change that is desired by the community. 

In the message below you say:

> Of course, if the contract were posted, even in redacted form,
> we could presumably find that out, but the IAOC has decided that
> information is too secret for us to know.

As covered at IETF96 in [1] The IAOC has decided to support the
professional staff's position that  disclosing even our contract
template would significantly weaken the IETF's negotiating position with
venues.

Said another way, it is the position supported by the IAOC that
disclosing  hotel contracts (templates) would unacceptably increase the
costs of meetings.  Now it's hard to quantify this increase, but the
IAOC is supporting the recommendation of professions who do this for a
living, i.e., experts. 

The reason I raise this on this list is that fundamentally this is a
cost vs transparency tradeoff and if the community decides that it
prefers transparency *and* is willing to foot the bill then direction
can be given to the IAOC to change its behavior.   Direction would be in
the form of an RFC, e.g., one of the drafts being discussed in this group.

Of course, there may still be portions of contracts that the other party
requires to be confidential, in which case those sections would need to
be redacted.

I am specifically *not* advocating any position or policy change.  I'm
merely pointing out that if you want to change the IAOC's current
policy, the community has the power to do so via this WG.

Lou

[1] Slide 21, https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IAOC-IETF96-Plenary-Final.pdf

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: IETF 97 - Registration and Hotel Reservations Open Now!
Date: 	Thu, 11 Aug 2016 21:45:08 -0400
From: 	John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
To: 	grenville armitage <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

--On Friday, August 12, 2016 11:32 +1000 grenville armitage
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> t's quick -- 4hrs after your email is sent, and the Conrad
> Seoul (Headquarters Hotel, block of 400 rooms) website is
> already saying "The requested rate is not available. View
> other available rooms and rates below." for a GIETF booking
> between Nov.12 and Nov.19

What you didn't mention is that the rooms that are still
available have starting prices at about twice the rate listed in
the announcement and go up from there.  So I wonder, is that a
block of 400 rooms at the IETF rate?  Or a block of a few rooms
at the IETF rate with the rest of the 400 held for us at any
price the hotel thinks it can get?  

Of course, if the contract were posted, even in redacted form,
we could presumably find that out, but the IAOC has decided that
information is too secret for us to know.

I was considering actually coming to that meeting, but, at circa
USD 450/room/night including taxes... not likely.

best,
    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 10:25:53 +1200

Hi Lou,

Thanks for your clarity.
On 18/08/2016 10:00, Lou Berger wrote:
...
> costs of meetings.  Now it's hard to quantify this increase, 

I believe it's not just hard, it's impossible without trying it, and
that is an irreversible test by its very nature.

> but the

I claim no special expertise, but I've been on both sides of a number
of contract negotiations in various different areas, and it's in many
ways like the game of poker: showing your cards to your opponent is
a guaranteed way of losing money. What you can and probably should publish
are the rules of the game: how we evaluate bids. But that is in effect what
this WG is doing, by discussing criteria in public. Once the criteria are
agreed, they will be available to bidders. I think that's enough.

So my conclusion is that the current IAOC view on this is correct.

   Brian
   (former IAOC member, and peripherally involved in one or two
    failed previous bids for IETF venues)