[145500] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: meeting network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Rubenstein)
Mon Oct 10 18:46:28 2011
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@corp.nac.net>
To: "frnkblk@iname.com" <frnkblk@iname.com>, North American Network Operators'
Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:44:50 -0400
In-Reply-To: <002b01cc879d$c5f2f130$51d8d390$@iname.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Years ago, on my own, when I used to attend, I used to call the venue about=
a month in advance and explain to them what was about to happen. Sort of a=
warning, per say. I explained, in detail, who NANOG was comprised of (I of=
ten would use the term "operators of the internet"). I explained even if th=
ey think they have seen this before, they haven't.
Some listened. Some didn't.
This would be something I would be willing to volunteer my time with - disc=
ussions with, and negotiations with, venues. It's all in the approach.
> Holding the last 10% of the meeting room payment seems like a good
> start for any venue.
>=20
> But as others have indicated, the market may be too small for free-
> market principles to be fully effective.
>=20
>=20
> I tried this approach many years ago, for a Blogher conference. The
> hotel's IT people were uncooperative, and incompetent, and they lied
> both about their network design and their equipment capabilities. I
> have since learned that this is par for the course. IMHO the only way
> to solve this problem is with big $$$ penalties in the contract, big
> enough that the incompetent IT people realize their jobs are on the
> line
> and relinquish control so experts can get access and set-up things
> properly.
>=20
> Also note - the conference or hotel's IT people will always claim they
> have "done this before with no problems" even when they haven't.
>=20
> jc
