IAOC Committee Call at 10:00 AM EST, Thursday, 15 October, 2009 Participants: Lynn St. Amour [Present] Fred Baker [Not Present] Marshall Eubanks [Present] Bob Hinden [Present; Chair] Russ Housley [Present] Ole Jacobsen [Present] Olaf Kolkman [Present] Ray Pelletier [Present; IAD] Henk Uijterwaal [Present] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- IAOC Agenda 1. Minutes Status of the 2009 minutes for 3 September, 7 September, 24 September, and 1 October Status of 2008 Minutes 2. 2010 - 2012 Budget Adoption 3. IETF 79 Update ----------------------------------------------------------------------- IAOC Agenda A roll call was taken and the Chair called the trust meeting to order. 1. Minutes Status of the 2009 minutes for 3 September, 7 September, 24 September, and 1 October The IAD began the minutes discussion with the status of the minutes for 3 September, 2009. These minutes require revision so they won’t be ready till the 29th. Regarding the subsequent three sets of minutes, the IAOC scribe has been quite busy with family medical matters and travel and this has delayed their production. Status of 2008 Minutes The former scribe provided all the available notes last week and minutes will be prepared for review and approval over the coming weeks. Discussion ensued in which it was made clear that the minutes were a priority and that additional help should be obtained to get them out quickly. 2. 2010 - 2012 Budget Adoption The IAD said that the Budget Subcommittee has prepared a presentation as background for IAOC adoption of the Budget. The presentation covered revenues, expenses, tools development, risks and opportunities. In 2010 the revenues should be $3.1 million, if the meeting attendance remains steady with 2009. The Chair noted that there should be more predictions or assumptions to make clear that these are predictions and so forth. The IAD will work with Greg Kapfer for the presentation to the ISOC BoT. The IAD discussed the 2010-2012 budget. The Budget assumes the registration rate is held at $635 as in 2009 and that the paid attendance will be 3,300. The hotel commissions are expected to be down as there would be no commissions in Asia and the commissions in Europe will be split with the travel bureau making the reservations. The IAD pointed out the risks regarding the host sponsorship: currently there is no host for Anaheim and while there would be a Host in Asia, if that should implode, we would not have a host in the Canadian backup venue. The New Revenue sources are assumed to contribute $70k based on a review of the opportunities. Of the $70k, $20k is already committed by Booz Allen Hamilton for Anaheim. Last year in 2009 the budget was $115k and the actual was $10k. In 2010 the Expenses are $124k higher than the 2009 Year End Forecast (YEF), principally due to increases in RFC Services and Meeting expenses. RFC Services: we had anticipated that the services would be lower in 2010 based on the competition for the services, but that didn’t turn out as we predicted. The Model change is driving increased costs to fund RSE compensation and expenses, and ISE administrative support and expenses. Meeting Expenses: there’s a $91k meeting cost increase over the YEF. We’re comfortable with the estimated numbers at this point, but we’re still ironing out what Asia/Canada is going to be. Administrative expenses are down $50k from the year-end forecast because of even lower telephone and travel usage expected for those activities. Secretariat contract labor is the same for 2009. It was held at 2009 levels when the contract was extended 1 year earlier in 2009. Tools Development budget: there’s an increased investment in tools development. The lifecycle data tracker project is $325k; RFC Services tools development is $100k; and project management is $150k. The amounts that had been set aside in 2008 and 2009 were not used because the projects were not ready. Right now the budget anticipates a fulltime project manager, but this will be reviewed during the project planning. Lynn noted that the multi-year efforts were delayed in 2008 and 2009 because IETF wasn’t ready with its architecture. She asked if that’s been resolved for this year, because if we don’t have this work done then it is self defeating. Russ replied that the IAOC is finally over the big hump that’s been the big delay. Russ verified that it should probably be the IETF as well. Olaf noted that the work of two years is being piled up here. He asked if it is realistic to assume that two years of work is being crammed into one. Russ replied no, but the IAOC should get started on as much of it as possible. There are a couple things that have been held off but that need to and can be done in parallel. There are some Secretariat tools that need to be converted to the new structure, and we need to begin using the new database structure. The IAD said there are multiple projects that can be undertaken. One is the Secretariat tools, as Russ described, another is front end tools and we have a project that’s getting underway for specing author and workgroup support. There is an IDIQ Python-Django development contract that’s under review by the tools committee and once that’s tweaked it will come back to the IAOC for release this year. So we’ll have the projects and multiple contractors to work on it. Russ noted that prioritization was discussed with the IESG, and they feel that getting the tooling done to support the Chairs is more important, so that’s what we prioritized. There is some tools money in the contract for the RFC editor, but we couldn’t do it all at once. It’s just a matter of how many balls can we have in the air at the same time. Lynn said her opening question was not to point responsibility for delays or to push back on the amount; it was more a matter of insuring that the IAOC understands the prioritization plan. The IAOC needs to be very clear and strong in setting expectations properly in the Community and having a good chance of delivering on that plan. ISOC 2010 contributions: the ISOC direct contributions to ongoing activities is $1,572k. It’s influenced by increases in RFC Services costs and meeting costs. Additionally, there’s a direct contribution to tools development of $575k and indirect contributions to the host/ NOC sponsorships of $910k ($225k yet to be secured in Anaheim) and $70k in New Revenue sources. Booz Allen Hamilton is sponsoring the breakfast and ice cream social for $20k. Risks: attendance is always a risk to be considered. In 2010 there was a slight decline, but expectations are high with Maastricht, and if we go to Asia the registration number should be high there - over 1200. The sponsorship for Anaheim remains open, and for Canada if Asia falls through. Lynn said that she and Drew met a couple weeks ago to discuss Anaheim and she wondered if there’s any kind of concern if there’s an Internet Community sponsorship. It’s important that the Internet community (ICANN, RIR's, etc.) occassionally gets visibility tinto the IETF and vice versa. She asked that anyone has any concerns to drop her a quick note offline. The separate contingency budget item has been removed. It was used to address currency conversion risks, which have largely disappeared as a result of a policy of having the Hosts pay the venues directly in the local currency. Opportunities: the registration fee rate has remained constant for three years, 2008 - 2010. If things turn south a little bit then IAOC could change the rate; although, we’ve been trying to keep the fee from going up to keep attendance up. And attendance exceeding the budget would largely benefit the net results. 2011-2012 Budget Advice: Assumes the registration fees will not be increased. ISOC’s direct contribution would increase to $1,650k from $1,562k ($88k). There’s a slight decline to $1,606k ($44k) in 2012. ISOC's Contribution to Tools development for 2011 is $580k, and for 2012, $415k. Just for the IAOC's benefit, I also note that the total increase the IETF is requesting was approx. 75% of the total increase planned for in ISOC revenues (2009 vs 2010), and as this was not planned for we are looking at other ways to increase the funds available to us. Trust expenses will normalize in 2010 because it is expected that the legal expenses will go down because we won’t be doing as much TLP work. Greg Kapfer noted that during the budget process, they decided to compare everything to the year-end forecast because it gets very confusing to bounce back and forth when you compare the 2010 and 2009 budgets, so we’re focusing on how the 2010 budget compares to the 2009 year-end forecast. The second part of this chart [on screen] is to show that since the tools development is such a large item and increase, we didn’t want to cloud what is the ongoing function of IASA and IETF vs. what is the tools development. Keep in mind that the interest of ISOC is what the contribution that is being requested of ISOC is. It just so happens that Tools Development was added to the Expense. Marshall said that, although he doesn’t mind it being separated out, it needs to be made clearer. Henk agreed that the numbers should be the same, but there should be two separate sets of slides. Greg said they’ll change that for the presentation to the Board. The net effect is going to be a significant increase in the ISOC budget, which is largely tools driven. Marshall noted that he’d previously asked that there be some consideration if a meeting got cancelled. He asked if there’d been any progress on that. The IAD said that yes, Greg Kapfer and he had been discussing that in terms of the insurance, and a paper will come to the IAOC next week. A motion to adopt the 2010-2012 budget was made by Marshall. The motion was seconded by Henk. There was a roll call vote. Bob: [Yes] Henk: [Yes] Lynn: [Yes] [but with reservations around tour ability to meet the IT tools development plan] Marshall: [Yes] [thanked ISOC for funding the tools development] Ole: [Yes] Russ: [Yes] Olaf: [Yes] [via Jabber] The motion passed. 3. IETF 79 Update The IAD noted that the Host has requested the provision be removed from the contract; they’ll check another venue if the hotel does not remove the provision. There is a Canadian backup site visit scheduled for 19-20 October. There were no other hotels being considered in Asia. The Hilton doesn’t have available space for us. As our backup we’re continuing to work with the Vancouver site. The first option at the Vancouver hotel ended on 14 September; although they continue to work with the IAOC. If someone else comes to them with a check and a signed contract then that will change. 29 October is the date the IAOC has set aside to make a decision regarding the Beijing venue. We need an agreement with the Host regarding cancellation, F&B, AV expenses, etc. We also have to determine what action, information and assurances the IAOC requires in order to approve the venue contract; assuming the provision will not be removed. Is the question the IESG test: we need to run meetings as we always have, using the tools that we always have, with a critical mass of the traditional participants, discussing the usual topics. If we’re looking for information to answer the questions of the test then we need to know what all the questions are. The Chair said that if the IAOC can’t remove the provision, we shouldn’t have the meeting there and that’s the feedback received from the Community as well. If we could remove the provision then we could go to the Community and say we heard you and the removal of the provision was a success. Other hotels aren’t requiring this, other countries aren’t requiring this – it’s out of line. The IAOC shouldn’t accept the contract with the provisions. This particular version/ wording is unique to this hotel. We have two other hotels saying they don’t put it in. The IAD asked what the IAOC thinks the actual probability is of a meeting being cancelled as a result of a violation. The answer is that the chance is very low, but that doesn’t matter at this point. The IAD sent an email to the Chinese and they understand the seriousness of the request, and they’re pushing to have the hotel remove the contract provision and if that comes back with a negative they’ll look for another venue. At that point in time they’ll have run out of time and it won’t be possible to find another venue so we’ll be with Vancouver. The IAD asked the Committee individually if the provision is not removed would they vote for being in the Asia venue in November 2010. The matter was discussed by all, following which the IAD said that he’d follow up with the Host and that if the provision were not removed, and then on 29 October the IAOC expected to vote against approving the venue. The Chair asked if the IAOC has to vote on this on the 29th. The IAD said that the IAOC extended the Host MoU an additional 30 days, and we have the Vancouver property that will go away if we don’t take action on it. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Marshall. Hearing no objections or discussion, the IAOC meeting was adjourned at 11:07 am.