IAOC Call at 10:00 AM EDT, Thursday, August 21, 2008 Participants: Lynn St. Amour [Present] Fred Baker [Not Present] Bob Hinden [Not Present] Russ Housley [Present] Ole Jacobsen [Not Present] Ed Juskevicius [Present] Olaf Kolkman [Present] Ray Pelletier [Present, IAD] Jonne Soininen [Present; Chair] Greg Kapfer [guest, ISOC CFO] Marshall Eubanks [Secretary] --------- Action Agenda 0. Minutes 1. ISI Programmer Proposal 2. Review IAOC Job Description 3. 2008 - 2009 IASA Goals 4. APs [Action Points] Update Agenda 1. Capitalize Tools Development Rationale 2. ISOC Membership Expense 3. 2009 Budget Overview ----- Roll was called and Jonne called the IAOC meeting to order. Lynn St. Amour [Present] Fred Baker [Not Present] Bob Hinden [Not Present] Russ Housley [Present] Ole Jacobsen [Not Present] Ed Juskevicius [Present] Olaf Kolkman [Present] Ray Pelletier [Present, IAD] Jonne Soininen [Present; Chair] Action Agenda 0. Minutes Ray asked the Committee to read and comment on the minutes that were sent to the list. 1. ISI Programmer Proposal ISI has submitted a proposal for development work for enhancement of the Errata program and to develop the Cluster Management program with a cost of $27,000. The IAD recommended the approval of the project and that the funds be taken from the Copy-Edit services budget as it was clear that budget was going to be less than one half of its $60,000 budget, in fact only 10% of the Copy-Edit Services Budget had been expended to date. Discussion and questions: If ISI does not manage to spend it, what happens? The IAD noted that there is no money carried over, so it will have to come from the 2009 Budget if needed. Do we know what we expect to get from the development? Yes, the Errata portal and the Cluster Management program. It was noted that we cannot process the errata against standards track documents until the changes are made, and living without an errata is not an option. A motion to approve the ISI Programmer Proposal was made by Russ. The motion was seconded by Ed. A roll call vote was taken: Lynn St. Amour [Yes] Russ Housley [Yes] Ed Juskevicius [Yes] Olaf Kolkman [Yes] Jonne Soininen [Yes] The motion carried. 2. Review IAOC Job Description An IAOC job description needs to go to NomCom today. [See job description below.] A motion to approve the IAOC job description with the corrections by Russ was made by Ed. The motion was seconded by Russ. Jonne asked if anyone was opposed. The motion passed by acclamation. Jonne said he would send the description to NomCom after the meeting. 3. 2008 - 2009 IASA Goals Not taken up due to time constraints. 4. APs [Action Points] The IAD noted that an update was sent this morning. The Network RFP - a draft SOW was sent to the volunteers for their review. He will tickle them. Alcatel Lucent was contacted for IPR, but no response as yet. Jorge said that since the disclosure is not compliant with RFC 2026 it should not be effective. An effort was being made to convince them to remove from the site. Trust Tax Return - Not done because not necessary. ISOC's statements have been audited. Should be noted on Trust web site. Update Agenda 1. Capitalize Tools Development Rationale Greg stated that the question is about the policy for capitalizing software development. The rules says that this has to be a substantial expenditure (over $ 5000 for ISOC) and have over a 1 year life, and that they not be in the category of a maintenance or fix for an existing system - it can be an upgrade, but not a maintenance or fix. Those are the rules. It appears that most of the software work done by the IAOC falls under these rules. It is also necessary to make clear what the total capital outlay is. That is why we started including a line item for capital development. Underneath the ISOC Contributions line there is another line for Capital Expenditures. That line could be brought up in the Expenses part. Discussion: IAOC doesn’t have a choice but to follow the ISOC accounting practices, and a good idea to include the Capital Expenditure in the Expenses part of the budget. Will be retroactively applied to July so that it begins at the start of a Quarter. 2. ISOC Membership Expense Greg said that the IETF had a vendor who provided NOC services in Vancouver, IETF 70, and for some reasons it was not recognized for Vancouver. We have been recognizing these expenses - this should have been recognized in 2007 and it was not. It was asked if in the future it would be shown as an expense to the IETF, and Greg said it would be shown as an expense and as an offsetting sponsorship. 3. 2009 Budget Overview The IAD and Greg provided a summary level of the 2009 budget. Greg said there are not a lot of surprises in expenses. The biggest exception is the other meeting expense increase, which is offset by additional sponsorships for both Stockholm and Hiroshima. So, although there is a large increase, it is largely offset by sponsorship. The IAD said they were about to execute the contract with the ANA Hotel [Hiroshima] and that cost might come down. It was noted that the anticipated ISOC contribution is higher. Greg said that the hotel commissions are likely to be lower. The IAD noted that the IAOC typically has budgeted $60k or higher from main and overflow hotel commissions per meeting. In Hiroshima, at the ANA, we have a very small room block, something like 1200 room-nights, but with the overflow hotels the Japan Travel Bureau is handling the reservations and their commission is paid for from the overflow hotel commissions, so we are shut out of that. So, we expect to be short $40k for the year from that. Greg noted that regarding the registration fees, the IAD has done a study of attendance, and is projecting 3300 attendance for the year. Ray said the assumption is that the registration fee would go from $635 to $650 and attendance if 3300 for the year. This year, if Minneapolis fulfills expectations, we will be at 3446 for the year. However, Minneapolis frequently underperforms. What we have seen year to year is a slow decline in attendance, and looking at the venues for next year, San Francisco, Stockholm and Hiroshima, that's where that number comes from. It seems that attendance is going down 2% or more per year. It was suggested not to look at Stockholm 95. It was felt that the IETF is different now; however, one thing that will affect us is the economic downturn we are facing. Trying to predict how that will affect us is difficult. We can assume that the numbers will not be as big next year as this year. Whether the number is 3325 or 3300 or whatever is hard to predict, but if we over-predict we are in trouble. It was asked what the room night cost in Hiroshima is, and the IAD said it’s under $150. Discussion: Jonne noted that the bigger issue is if companies continue to support standardization in the downturn or not. The IAD said the IAOC hasn't been in Asia for a while and Hiroshima might attract a lot of attendance. It was felt that in both Sweden and Japan ISOC could encourage attendance. It was suggested the IETF consider using court transcriber like ICANN does and projected the transcription up on a screen. Perhaps a simultaneous translation into Japanese in Hiroshima. Jonne said this should be discussed in the Meeting Subcommittee. The IAD noted that the Budget Subcommittee is meeting this Tuesday and every Tuesday into October. The Budget adoption decision will be on 2 October. A motion to adjourn the IAOC Committee meeting was made by Jonne. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 11:03 am EDT. IAOC Job Description: IAOC Requirements: This note outlines the expertise and duties for a member of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC). The structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) is described and regulated in BCP101. BCP101 defines the IASA as: The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) provides the administrative structure required to support the IETF standards process and to support the IETF's technical activities. As of the time at which this document was written, this included the work of IETF working groups, the IESG, the IAB, and the IRTF. Should the IETF standards process at some future date come to include other technical activities, the IAOC is responsible for developing plans to provide administrative support for them. Such support includes, as appropriate, undertaking or contracting for the work described in [RFC3716], including IETF document and data management, IETF meetings, and any operational agreements or contracts with the RFC Editor and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). The IASA is also ultimately responsible for the financial activities associated with IETF administrative support, such as collecting IETF meeting fees, paying invoices, managing budgets and financial accounts, and so forth. The IASA is responsible for ensuring that the IETF's administrative needs are met, and met well. The IETF does not expect the IASA to undertake the bulk of this work directly; rather, the IETF expects the IASA to contract this work from others and to manage these contractual relationships to achieve efficiency, transparency, and cost effectiveness. The IASA is distinct from IETF-related technical functions, such as the RFC Editor, the IANA, and the IETF standards process itself. The IASA has no influence on the technical decisions of the IETF or on the technical contents of IETF work. Note, however, that this in no way prevents people who form part of the IASA from participating as individuals in IETF technical activities. The exact mechanics of how the IAOC operates and governs are further described in BCP101. Besides providing the above mentioned Operational support for the IETF together with and through the IAD, the members of the IAOC as well as the IAD serves as Trustees of the IETF Trusts, that holds the IETF’s intellectual property assets, for example in the form of copyrights to the RFCs, the name IETF, logo etc. BCP101 in paragraph 3.2 defines the role of the IAOC as: The IAOC's role is to provide appropriate direction to the IAD, to review the IAD's regular reports, and to oversee IASA functions to ensure that the administrative needs of the IETF community are being properly met. The IAOC's mission is not to be engaged in the day-to-day administrative work of the IASA, but rather to provide appropriate direction, oversight, and approval. Therefore, the IAOC's responsibilities are as follows: · To select the IAD and to provide high-level review and direction for his or her work. This task should be handled by a sub-committee, as described above. · To review the IAD's plans and contracts to ensure that they will meet the administrative needs of the IETF. · To track whether the IASA functions are meeting the IETF community's administrative needs, and to work with the IAD to determine a plan for corrective action if they are not. · To review the IAD's budget proposals to ensure that they will meet the IETF's needs, and to review the IAD's regular financial reports. · To ensure that the IASA is run in a transparent and accountable manner. Although the day-to-day work should be delegated to the IAD and others, the IAOC is responsible for ensuring that IASA finances and operational status are tracked appropriately, and that monthly, quarterly, and annual financial and operational reports are published to the IETF community. · To designate, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, the person or people who carry out the tasks that other IETF process documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director. The IAOC's role is to direct and review, not to perform, the work of the IAD and IASA. The IAOC holds periodic teleconferences and face-to-face meetings as needed to carry out the IAOC's duties efficiently and effectively. If there is no IAD or if the IAD is unavailable, the IAOC may temporarily assign the IAD's duties to individual members of the IAOC. The update (RFC4371) to the original BCP101 (RFC4071) outlines the IETF Trust. The IETF Trust is therein defined as: A Trust ("the IETF Trust") has been formed for the purpose of acquiring, holding, maintaining, and licensing certain existing and future intellectual property and other property used in connection with the administration of the IETF. The Trust was formed by the signatures of its Settlors and initial Trustees. The Settlors, who contributed initial intellectual property to the Trust, were ISOC and the Corporation for National Research Initiatives. The Trustees of the IETF Trust are the members of the IAOC, and the Beneficiary of the IETF Trust is the IETF as a whole. In its administration of IPR under the terms of BCP 101, the IASA, including the IAD and the IAOC, will treat the IETF Trust rather than ISOC as the proper entity for ownership and licensing of IETF IPR. Specifically, references to ISOC in sections 3.1, 5.3, and 7 of [1] shall be interpreted as referring to the IETF Trust wherever IPR issues are concerned. The duty to serve as Trustees is added to section 3.2 of [1]. Based on the above mentioned roles, duties, responsibilities and experience in operating the IASA so far, the current IAOC believes the following set of experience is valuable in serving as a member of the IAOC as well bringing value to the IAOC · Previous management experience, such as team-leader, group Director etc is essential. · Previous budget responsibilities. The ability to work with Budget and financial terminology, as well as basic knowledge of accounting and auditing practices and regulations is essential. · Previous experience in the IETF, and a good understanding of the IETF processes, such as having been a working-group chair, IESG or IAB member, certainly helps. At the time of writing of this note, the IAOC and the IETF Trust, operates through conference calls and two face-to-face retreats per year. In addition, the IAOC has formed a number of subcommittees that are made up of its members. At the time of writing, this call-schedule is 10.00-11.00 EST 1st Thursday of each month, IAOC call 2nd Thursday of each month, IAOC subcommittee call 3rd Thursday of each month, IAOC/Trust call However, these call times will be adopted to suit the current membership of the IAOC, and are only provided to give an overview of the workload. In addition, the work required will vary periodically depending on the items on the IAOC/Trusts plate. For example around times of RFPs issued for the various contracted services, the load will be higher. On average over the year the time commitment is likely to be 5-10 hours a week. Mail volume is generally low, but there are periods of contract and related paper reviews.