Re: [802SEC] Should we continue to meet in Hawaii?
While I am ignorant of meeting costs on the western side of the Pacific
Rim, I am in general in agreement with the sentiments expressed by
Geoff, Tony and Pat.
Please don't get me wrong, I greatly enjoy Hawaii as a vacation
destination and I enjoy Kauai in particular. The Hyatt Regency Kauai is
a first class hotel. But our purpose is business and for that purpose,
such venues are a "waste". A waste because we pay a significantly
higher rate and have little or no time to enjoy what we pay extra for.
For those who arrive early, stay late or just skip some of the meetings,
a venue like Kauai is a low cost or free vacation. For those who do
none of those, it is a waste.
Thanks,
wlq
Geoff Thompson wrote:
>
> Given the high costs of having it in Hawaii (and possibly Japan) we could
> probably net people ahead by having it in Australia, New Zealand or Korea.
>
> If we were really doing this in Hawaii for (1) business and (2) the
> convenience of folks from the Far East then we would be having the meetings
> on Oahu. Let's not kid ourselves. we come here for the resort factor,
> appropriate or not.
>
> Geoff
>
> At 08:24 AM 11/12/2002 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
> >At 01:21 12/11/2002 -0700, pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
> >
> >>Colleagues,
> >>
> >>The original rationale for meeting in Hawaii was to meet our Pacific Rim
> >>attendees halfway once every two years. We reached this decision many
> >>years ago after an unsuccessful search for economically feasible venues
> >>in Australia, Japan, etc.
> >>
> >>The previous search was done before the recesion in Japan and neighbors.
> >>Also, there have been new venues constructed since then. For instance,
> >>the IETF had a meeting in Yokohama at the Yokohama Grand
> >>Inter-Continental Hotel. There is a Pan Pacific Hotel across the street
> >>for overflow.
> >>
> >>Given the costs of meeting in Hawaii, the SEC should investigate the
> >>possibility of meeting on the West side of the Pacific instead of in the
> >>middle.
> >>
> >>Pat
> >
> >I agree.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >