IAOC Committee Call at 10:47 AM EST, Thursday, 3 December, 2009 Participants: Lynn St. Amour [Present] Fred Baker [Present] Marshall Eubanks [Present] Bob Hinden [Present, Chair] Russ Housley [Present] Ole Jacobsen [Present] Olaf Kolkman [Present] Ray Pelletier [Present] Henk Uijterwaal [Present] Jewellee Dalrymple [Scribe] Karen O’Donoghue [Scribe] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IAOC Agenda 1. Data Tracker PM 2. Counsel Contract Update RFP Schedule 3. WG Requirements RFP 4. ISI Extension 5. RFC Editor Transition RFC Production Center & Publisher 6. Retreat (Date & Location) 7. IETF 76 Survey ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The IAOC Committee meeting was called to order at 10:47 AM. 1. Data Tracker PM Ray discussed the need for a Project Manager for the Data Tracker project, including the unique requirements needed in such an individual, such as knowledge and experience with the current data tracker, tools, their redesign and the application software - both perl and python-Django. Resolution Whereas the IETF will be engaged in the redevelopment, enhancement and extension of its IT Data Tracker, including database and applications, and Whereas the project requires a PM with unique knowledge and experience in the current database, tools, their redesign, and application software, and Whereas (Company) has committed to providing (Individual) for up to 25% of his time for this project, and 25% for other IETF tools work. Resolved that the IAOC appoints (Individual) as the Data Tracker Project Manager, subject to contract agreement. Be it further Resolved that the IAOC agrees to provide expenses necessary to fulfill the role and to pay for such personal time as may become necessary from time to time when the responsibilities require the incumbent to expend personal time beyond the time contributed by the employer. A motion to accept the resolutions was made by Marshall. The motion was seconded by Bob. Bob pointed out that this will require some oversight. It won't be a contract issue, but [Individual] will have to be managed to some degree. There's a risk in doing this, and overall the Committee should do it, but we need to understand the risks. Russ noted there’s some bigger risk in not doing it. Bob further stated that if the Committee just hands it off and doesn’t pay attention for 6 months we could get into trouble. Ray mentioned that these are contractual issues. The individual will report to Russ for technical oversight, and Ray himself will be responsible for the administrative part. There won’t be any announcements made about the appointment until the contract is executed. A roll call vote was taken. Lynn: [Yes] Bob: [Yes] Henk: [Yes] Fred: [Yes] Marshall: [Yes] Olaf: [Yes] Ole: [Yes] Russ: [Yes] The motion carried. 2. Counsel Contract Update Counsel has submitted a proposed engagement letter. Ray has referred the insurance issue to Greg for next week. The expectation is that on 7 January, we’ll have an RFP ready for the IAOC to look at and approve, and by March at Anaheim we’ll be in a position to review proposals. That’s the timeframe we’re looking at. 3. WG Requirements RFP Ray - This started as the possibility of a sole source contract, however the IAOC didn't feel that was appropriate. Before you is a statement of work for the Data Tracker front end, Author and Working Group Specifications Requirements. Deliverables / Tasks Internet Drafts WG Document State Diagram - 1 Feb Requirements for Data Tracker Extensions for Working Group Chairs - 12 April 0. Deliverable will build upon Internet Draft ver -00 of WG Document State Diagram 1. The Contractor is to refine the I-D, and publish Ver-01 by 1 February. The focus of this revision will be to incorporate comments and feedback from the stakeholder group, and anyone else from the IETF community who takes an interest in the work. 2. The Contractor will produce a version-00 I-D of Requirements for Data Tracker Extensions for Working Group Chairs by February 15th, 2010 by mapping the WG Document State Diagram into clear “Requirements for Data Tracker Extensions for Working Group Chairs”. 3. The Contractor will participate in IETF-77 in March 2010, to refine and revise the Requirements for Data Tracker Extensions for Working Group Chairs I-D. 4. The last deliverable will be the submission of a revised I-D on “Requirements for Data Tracker Extensions for Working Group Chairs” by 12 April 2010. The Committee should take the remaining deliverables and the adjusted timeframe and issue an RFP this month. RESOLUTION: Whereas the IETF desires to extend the Data Tracker to support Authors, Working Group Chairs and Working Groups. Whereas the development of such an extension requires the development of community approved specifications. Whereas the IAOC desires to effect this specifications development in a timely and cost effective fashion to progress the Data Tracker Project. Resolved: The IAOC approves the foregoing Statement of Work and timeline for inclusion in an RFP. Be it Further Resolved: The IAOC directs the IAD to develop the RFP and send it to the IAOC list for review prior to the 17 December call. A motion to accept the resolutions was made by Russ. The motion was seconded by Henk. A roll call vote was taken. Lynn: [Yes] Bob: [Yes] Henk: [Yes] Fred: [Yes] Marshall: [Yes] Olaf: [Yes] Ole: [Yes] Russ: [Yes] The motion carried. Ray noted the RFP will go out to the list before 17 December. 4. ISI Extension The document has been prepared, and we’ve run it by ISI and USC and we’ve gotten good feedback. They sent Ray a formal copy of the budget and he’ll run that by ISOC and get authority from Lynn and Greg to move ahead. 5. RFC Editor Transition The transition is proceeding for the RFC Production Center and Publisher and we’ve gotten periodic reports that things are going fine and there are no crises. There is an awful lot of work as there are more active files with the work than what AMS had when transferring the Secretariat from NeuStar. The one hanging chad is the transfer of the rfc-editor.org domain from ISI to the Trust. It turns out that there’s a lock on it as a result of an agreement between PIR and ICANN, so we’re waiting for approval for the transfer of the domain. I am expecting that tomorrow. We do want to continue to have the lock. 6. Retreat (Date & Location) The Committee may or may not have turnover in one or two positions. Ole and Marshall are up this year. The question is, should we have a retreat and if so when and where (the Committee met in the US the last few retreats – Reston and San Jose), additionally, should it be before or after the next IETF? Lynn mentioned that ISOC could host the IAOC in Geneva. Further discussion ensued regarding when. Before the IETF meeting in Anaheim, or after so that the new people are involved, if there is turnover. Possibly the week after the RIPE meeting, which is the first full week of May. Ray will send out a ‘doodle poll’ and the Committee will revisit this topic if any more people get appointed. 7. IETF 76 Survey Ray received a lot of feedback in the last 24 hours. There have been suggestions for surveys of workgroup chairs and others. He’s happy to create something using SurveyMonkey under the Committee’s account if the IESG desires. There will be a first-timer survey as well as one for the day passers. Fred sent out an email regarding surveying working group chairs and others with regard to the effectiveness of the meetings. He asked how people’s experiences at the meetings were. Some of the key contributors decided to not come to Hiroshima and as a result one of the Chairmen decided to hold a WebEx meeting. The WebEx was a mess because it wasn’t being managed by the Secretariat. Marshall suggested adding something along the lines of “don’t do this yourself.” There are people who have Web Ex accounts who might attempt this. The Committee was aware of the ECRIT and eNom issues. They had key contributors who could not come to Hiroshima, but a few Committee members were totally unaware that a backup plan had been attempted. It’s a good idea to find out via a survey why people didn’t attend, but it should be incorporate that into the general survey. A motion to adjourn the IAOC Committee meeting was made by Bob. The motion was seconded by Henk. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 11:18 am.