IAOC Call at 10:00 AM EDT, Thursday, 01 October, 2009 Participants: Lynn St. Amour [PRESENT] Fred Baker [PRESENT] Marshall Eubanks [PRESENT] Bob Hinden, Chair [PRESENT] Russ Housley [PRESENT] Ole Jacobsen [PRESENT] Olaf Kolkman [PRESENT] Ray Pelletier, IAD [PRESENT] Henk Uijterwaal [PRESENT] Greg Kapfer [GUEST] Karen O'Donoghue [SCRIBE] Proposed Agenda: 1. Minutes 2. Contract Approvals RFC Production Center RFC Publisher Message to IAB Next Steps 3. IETF 79 Venue Qualifications Host MoU 30 day Extension Venue Contract Update Host-ISOC Agreement (3rd Agreement) Insurance Coverage Survey Update Bob Hinden called the IAOC meeting to order at 10:00 am EDT. Minutes The first order of business was the approval of IAOC meeting minutes. Minutes for the 09/09/03 meeting were circulated in advance of the meeting. These minutes are adequate based on what has historically been produced. However, it was felt that given recent comments on the minutes from the community, more detail is required. The IAOC members felt that the IAOC should be producing minutes that are more useful to ourselves and our community. The consensus of the meeting was to postpone approval of the minutes to allow for the addition of more detail including rationale. As a result, no minutes were approved. Contract Approvals The discussion moved onto the second agenda item: contract approvals. Ray Pelletier provided an overview of the RFP Production center contract. This will be a two year contract with AMS with the option for two renewal terms of two years each. The contract includes a provision for scaling back work if we find ourselves in a bad financial situation. It also recognizes that the overall model is undergoing change and will continue to evolve over the next two to five years. As a result, the contract allows for modifications to support this evolution. The staffing levels are similar to what was provided by ISI. The production center cost is higher than had been originally anticipated; however, the RFC Publisher function will be included at no cost if the RFC Production Center contract is awarded as well. One question raised was whether or not this contract included the integration into the general IETF database structure. Ray clarified that this is covered under another effort. The contracts for the Secretariat, the Production Center and the Publisher are separate contracts and do not impact each other. Ray Pelletier provided draft text for a motion regarding the RFC Production Center contract in an email prior to the meeting. Russ Housley moved and Bob Hinden seconded this motion. There were friendly amendments that were accepted to change "Therefore I move" to "Resolved" and to edit the text slightly to state "the Internet Society be requested to enter into a contract". Olaf Kolkman made two observations during the discussion of the motion. First, thank you to all for completing this effort, and second, please include the motion in the text for the IAB message. The final motion for voting states: Whereas that the IAOC has competed the RFC Production Center contract in an RFP in conformance with the IAB Model Whereas that AMS is qualified for the RFC Production Center contract award by its experience, existing relationships with others in the process and community, demonstrated performance, established formal and informal communication lines, a demonstrated flexibility and willingness to work with the stream managers, contract administrators, IETF, IAB, RFC Series Editor, and the community, and a good understanding of the IETF culture, and Whereas that an Agreement has been reached with AMS for the performance of RFC Production Center services Resolved that AMS is awarded the RFC Production Center contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of that Agreement and Further, that the Internet Society is requested to enter into a contract with AMS for the performance of RFC Production Center services in accordance with that Agreement on 8 October 2009, and Further, that the IAB is notified of the actions of the IAOC in fulfilling the IAB Model for the RFC Production Center A roll call vote was taken, and the motion carried unanimously. Ray Pelletier also provided draft text for a motion regarding the RFC Publisher contract in an email prior to the meeting. Russ Housley moved and Bob Hinden seconded the motion. Friendly amendments were accepted to change "Therefore I move" to "Resolved" and to edit the text slightly to state "the Internet Society be requested to enter into a contract". The final motion for voting states: Whereas the IAOC has negotiated an Agreement with the IETF Secretariat for the RFC Publisher contract in conformance with the IAB Model Whereas AMS is qualified for the RFC Publisher contract award by its experience, and demonstrated performance, and Whereas an Agreement has been reached with AMS for the performance of RFC Publisher services Resolved that AMS is awarded the RFC Publisher contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of that Agreement and Further, that the Internet Society is requested to enter into a contract with AMS for the performance of RFC Publisher services in accordance with that Agreement on 8 October 2009, and Further, that the IAB is notified of the actions of the IAOC in fulfilling the IAB Model for the RFC Publisher A roll call vote was taken, and the motion carried unanimously. The final item related to these contracts is the note from the IAOC to the IAB on how the IAOC has fulfilled its responsibilities with respect to these contracts. This note will be sent along with the amended motions to the IAB. Ray Pelletier went over the proposed note that was distributed via email prior to the meeting. There was some discussion on the individuals identified for specific roles and the possible implication that the functions are not as severable as was intended. It was clarified that they are severable from a contractual perspective, but the execution of the contracts is allowing the contractor to take advantage of matrix management within their organization for cost reduction measures. The consensus was the note was good enough and additional time for editing was not required. The only modification of the note was a spelling correction. Marshall Eubanks moved to direct Ray to send the note as modified. There was no objection and the motion carried. Ray Pelletier concluded the discussion of contracts by noting that the next steps were to send a request to the Internet Society asking them if they can execute the contract by 13 October, 2009. Additionally, ISI is prepared to host AMS to begin the transition of the RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher functions. IETF 79 The IAOC discussed the results of the online survey and community notification on the list regarding the Special Agreements provision of the hotel contract. The online survey was announced to close at 9:00 today, but it was not set up to automatically shut down. Ray will close it after this meeting. The question was raised about releasing the comments from the survey to the community. Because the participants were not warned in advance that their individual comments might be released and because those comments may be identifiable by individual, it was felt that the comments should not be released. The original notification to the community indicated that the IAOC would make a decision today, but that is not going to occur. Therefore, the notification to the community should include the survey results in statistical form and a note that says a final decision has not yet been made. Ray Pelletier will prepare a proposed announcement today for IAOC review and possible release to the community tomorrow. IAOC members felt that this announcement should be released as soon as possible. Bob Hinden has already sent a note to the Chinese Host Point of Contact. The Host MOU expired on 30 September without a successful conclusion because of the last minute issues raised. Ray prepared a motion to extend the Host MOU for 30 days to allow additional time to resolve and finalize outstanding issues. This motion was distributed via email prior to the meeting. There is a backup venue option currently available in case the planned option falls through. Marshall Eubanks moved and Bob Hinden seconded the motion. In the discussion, the question of agreement on the part of the Chinese Host was raised. It was indicated that they were in agreement with the extension. The final motion for voting states: Whereas the Host and the IETF have entered into a Host MoU for IETF 79 that expired on 30 September 2009 due to an inability to complete certain conditions Whereas the Host and the IETF have exercised due diligence in fulfilling the conditions of completing a venue agreement that meets the approval of the IAOC and Whereas it is possible that such conditions could be fulfilled within the next thirty days by the continued due diligence of the parties Resolved that the Host MoU between ("the Host") and the IETF be extended thirty (30) days for the purpose of the fulfilling the conditions in the MoU There were no objections, and the motion carried unanimously. Greg Kapfer joined the call and discussed the work ISOC has been doing to look at the issue of insurance. They have been looking at the general question of what is the exposure to the IETF and to the Internet Society should an IETF meeting be cancelled. ISOC will be providing a report to the IAOC and the ISOC Board of Trustees on this topic. This analysis includes an evaluation of the costs that could be involved along with trying to quantify what the risk would be, both with and without insurance. This report is expected within the next week. At this point, the preliminary analysis indicates that the cost would not be inconsequential but the likelihood of this happening is small. IT Direction and Budget Russ Housley provided background on the database redesign and datatracker efforts including where we were 2 years ago, what has transpired in the interim, and what the status is now. In addition, he provided via email the following summary of conclusions and actions from the Tools team discussions with respect to the database redesign and datatracker deployment. They are included here in the minutes to provide rationale for the following motions. 1. The database redesign is nearly complete. The tables associated with the datatracker are stable enough for design work to begin, and in some cases it already has begun. 2. After a discussion of the various deployment approaches, it became clear that the IESG datatracker needs to be rewritten for there to be a smooth transition. The IESG datatracker is currently a collection of perl scripts with embedded SQL command to perform database queries and updates. The public-facing datatracker used to be a collection of perl scripts too, but it was already rewritten using the Django framework. That rewrite was needed to close some serious security holes. The best way forward is to merge the IESG datatracker and the public-facing datatracker, so that both use the Djando framework and a common data model. It is the common data model that will facilitate the incremental transition to the new database structure. This project is too big for a code sprint effort, so a contractor will be needed. 3. There are also many tools used by the Secretariat that use the database. The Secretariat can make their own decisions about the best way for them to transition their own tools to the new database structure. However, it should be pointed out that the Djando admin interface will probably eliminate the need for some of the Secretariat tools. 4. The merge of the IESG datatracker and the public-facing datatracker requires an authorization model. The model needs to accommodate read access from anyone, write access from the IESG members, and write access from the Secretariat. However, we should not be short-sighted. Plans for WG chair support, RFC Editor support, and IANA support should all be considered. The authorization model needs to be sorted out in the next few weeks. 5. The merge of the IESG datatracker and the public-facing datatracker does not have to keep the user interface exactly as it is today. This is an opportunity for minor improvements; the improvements must not significantly impact the project. 6. The IAOC will be asked to start the process to hire a qualified contractor as soon as the authorization model is sorted out. The process might be able to start before then, but potential contractors cannot offer estimates without this information. 7. Some members of the Tools Team are needed to answer questions for the contractor regarding the existing code, existing database, and new database. Some members of the Tools Team are also needed to perform QA on the contractor's deliverables. There has been no disagreement with the way forward described above. It has also become clear that in addition to the IESG datatracker, there are companion tools that are used by the Secretariat that make use of the database. These tools need to be converted as well. They are used for IESG telechat agenda management, IESG telechat minutes, and so on. After discussion with the Secretariat it is agreed that these tools should also be converted to Django at the same time that they are modified to use the new database structure. AMS is willing to do this work, but if we are going to dictate a timeline, then we need to pay for the additional resources that will be needed to do the work. The current contract allows for these additional resources to be applied. There is some money in the 2009 tools budget that has not been used yet. We could begin this work with that money understanding that it will take ongoing resources in the following years. The work that needs to be initiated as soon as possible is the planning effort that needs to precede the detailed coding effort. Based on this rationale, Russ Housley prepared the following motion: Resolved that we direct Ray to get a quote from AMS to convert these tools to Django and to the new database structure. The quote should include a list of the tools that are impacted by the database redesign, a timeline, and a not-to-exceed cost for the work. Marshall Eubanks moved and Fred Baker seconded the motion. There was no objection and the motion carried. Russ Housely also prepared the following motion: Resolved that we direct Ray to put together an RFP for an IDIQ task order contract with the first task to be awarded being the IESG datatracker conversion. In the discussion it was pointed out that this approach would provide us with a stable of qualified Django programmers that can quickly execute specific task orders as needed. Russ offered to help put together the Statement of Work for the first task. This should be put in place as soon as possible with an expected first award in early 2010. Marshall Eubanks moved and Henk Uijterwaal seconded the motion. There was no objection and the motion carried. A question came up about whether or not we needed a motion for the WG front-end specification effort. It was pointed out that we could go to the people we have under contract. Additionally, it really needs to be a current or previous working group chair if possible. The expectation is that we will permit the sole sourcing of a contract to develop the author and working group chair specification. This contract would come back to the IAOC for approval. Bob Hinden moved and Henk Uijterwaal seconded a motion to adjourn the IAOC meeting at 11:18 am EDT. Hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned.