IAOC Committee Meeting at 10:25 AM EDT, Thursday, 17 December, 2009 Participants: Lynn St. Amour [Present] Fred Baker [Present] Marshall Eubanks [Present, Chair] Bob Hinden [Present] Russ Housley [Present] Ole Jacobsen [Present] Olaf Kolkman [Present] Ray Pelletier [Present, IAD] Henk Uijterwaal [Not Present] Karen O’Donoghue [Scribe] Jewellee Dalrymple [Scribe] ******************************************************* IAOC Committee Meeting Agenda 0. Minutes Status 12/03/2009 09/17/2009 08/13/2009 02/05/2009 1. Day Pass for Anaheim Decision 2. Annual Giving Program Approval 3. WG Specs Development RFP Approval 4. ISI Extension Update 5. Python-Django IDIQ Response and Short Listing Approval 6. AMS Django Proposal Update 7. DPM Contract Approval 8. Calendar 2010 Approval ******************************************************* IAOC Committee Meeting The IAOC Committee meeting was called to order by the Chair at 10:25 AM. 0. Minutes Status The following sets of IAOC Committee minutes had been distributed in advance for Committee’s review: 12/03/2009 09/17/2009 08/13/2009 02/05/2009 It was noted that in the 12/03/2009 minutes there was a resolution in which there was an appointment to the Data Tracker position subject to contract negotiations and a formal name was used. The Committee discussed extracting the formal name from the minutes because it’s inappropriate to use a name until a contract has been signed. At this time, recently developed terms and conditions still need to be discussed with the candidate. When the contract negotiations are complete, the IAOC will send an announcement to the Community. It was noted that the 8/13/2009 minutes as presented seem a bit confused as they appear to address both the IAOC and IETF Trust meetings together. A motion to remove the Data Tracker’s PM formal name from the 12/03/2009 minutes pending contract negotiations and to approve the minutes with edits with as well as a friendly amendment to remove the 8/13/09 minutes for further review was made by Marshall. The motion was seconded by Fred. Hearing no opposition or abstention the motion was approved. 1. Day Pass for Anaheim Decision On 21 December registration will open for Anaheim, and the question put to the Committee is whether or not the Day Pass experiment should be continued. There were 121 day passes that were paid that represented about 11% of the attendance. Most who purchased a Day Pass were locals. 100 Day Pass holders were from Japan and 11 were from the US, including two people that were on NomCom. 62% were first- timers as the early survey results reflected. It was recommended that the IAOC not continue the Day Pass program in Anaheim because there will likely be a lot of people coming from California that would take advantage of the Day Pass program, which in turn would negatively affect the revenue. There were 1133 paid people in Hiroshima, and 121 of those were Day Pass purchasers. Had just 100 of them been full fare, the IAOC would have been 40k better off. Based on 19 survey responses, 56% had combined the IETF meeting with other business or a personal event in Japan. The biggest hit to revenue could be in Anaheim. Presenting the Day Pass program in Beijing is a better idea. It was noted that it's important for people to participate in the IETF and not just in the working groups. It was argued that the IAOC didn't have that big a hit on the revenue with the Day Pass program in Hiroshima. Anaheim would be a great place to evaluate the program. With two meetings the Committee should have enough data to say whether it's a good idea to continue the program or not. There is a demand for a one-day option, and it makes the meeting a little bit more attractive. Making everyone pay the full price is good for revenue, but it doesn't drive more people to the meeting. The experiment hasn't proved a failure so the IAOC should continue to use it and make the decision later based on more data. It was suggested the Committee send a general survey of the Community asking if the Day Pass program should continue or not. A motion to continue the Day Pass program in Anaheim was made by Ole. The motion was seconded by Marshall and was put to a roll call vote. Lynn St. Amour [No] Fred Baker [Yes] Marshall Eubanks [Yes] Bob Hinden [No] Russ Housley [Yes] Ole Jacobsen [Yes] Olaf Kolkman [No] Lynn and Olaf argued that they did not have enough insight in the risks associated with the proposal and that was the reason for voting no. The motion carried. Ray will advise Alexa at AMS to make sure there’s a day pass option on the Anaheim program. 2. Annual Giving Program Approval Drew Dvorshak presented an annual giving program proposal to the IAOC Committee for their approval. The annual giving program is a mode for people to give money to a cause they support on an unrestricted basis. “Friends of the IETF” is a working title for the purposes of this discussion, but is by no means the final title. It is a program for people who feel an affinity with the IETF and who would like to make annual contributions remembering the IETF in their giving. It would be administered by the IAOC, but it would be the IETF’s funds. Speaking to the projections slide, Drew noted that there currently is no data in which to make reliable projections, but the purpose of the table in the slide is not to show that the projections could only result in this. The key assumptions are that the IAOC has 10,000 unique email addresses, that there was a 2% initial response with a $15 average contribution and a target growth number of 10% year-to-year. If expectations are exceeded even by a little bit, it would make a significant difference. Another possibility is that many of the organizations that people work for have programs where they like to encourage their employees’ involvement in the community. This program will help them send a message to their employees letting them know that they’ll match funds to whichever charities they’re gifting to that year. Additionally, there are other things that could be implemented to tie in new programs that are being developed so that they work together. A good example is the IETF store. The IAOC could consider inviting people to join “Friends of the IETF” and could include a note stating that with a contribution of $50 or more the supporter will receive a coupon for 10% off their purchase in the IETF store. A robust annual giving program is a necessary precursor for many of the things that have been discussed in terms of alternative revenue streams, very large gifts, and bequests. Even if this only results in $10k to $20k per year, a program like this gives people who may be involved in the IETF and who are capable of giving large gifts an opportunity to show their support. And because of a donor’s annual involvement in this program, the IAOC might receive a large posthumous gift of cash and that would be a huge game changer. A holiday season launch is optimal for timing, but it’s lost at this point because of where we are in the month; it wouldn’t be possible to get a letter out before the end of the year. A better idea would be to send a one time email out with an invitation to become a “Friend of the IETF” and thus opt-in to the Friends of the IETF distribution list. A one-page handout on the Friends of the IETF could also be included in the registration materials as well as a response vehicle. So to recap, the idea of having an initial large campaign going out to the email addresses we have available could be a basis for consistent contributors. It’s hoped that the IAOC Committee will approve the Friends of the IETF annual giving program, approve an email with an opt-in clause, and pledge today to be among the first contributors. I’ll write the first $100 check and I’d invite anyone else who’s interested to join me. As individual members of the community the Committee supports the idea behind the program, but it was noted that an incorrect assumption has been made about the type of organization the IETF is. For example, this time of the year Cisco has food collection programs that everyone is very proud of, but if their corporate philanthropy department were approached with this program they’d most likely say, “Hang on a minute, aren’t we organizational members of ISOC? Don’t we give equipment? How is this different? We’re already contributing to the IETF in other ways.” Drew’s proposal shouldn’t be directed at the Cisco’s of the world, it’s more like 2nd or 3rd level companies. Drew replied that he believes that in most cases there’s not a detailed and concerted examination of every gift that’s being matched. It also often times comes from the arm of an organization that might not even be aware of other relationships the company itself may have with a particular organization, and again - this program is designed to encourage individual giving. It’s basically ‘backing the play’ of an employee that has several charities that they’re giving to. The matching is a bonus. The IAOC doesn’t have a good mechanism right now for giving, and this program might provide an answer for that; and the IAOC should have one. And if the IAOC has a program like this, all opportunities should be taken to let people know about it. There was concern among the Committee members that the IAOC is further asking the same people instead of finding a way to spread the load across to the people who are benefiting from our work but who aren’t coming to us directly. There's also an issue of people feeling that they’re being nickel and dimed to death. Drew suggested the IAOC make one attempt to let people know about the program. There’s also the fact that there’s an opt-in; anyone not interested wont’ hear about it again. If there is a piece put in the registration materials, it’s one piece of paper that maybe gets recycled if they don’t respond to it. It was noted that the IAOC should not harvest the working group email list for this because it would be construed as spamming. It was suggested that there could be a check box on the registration form for people who are interested in being a Friend of the IETF and in receiving more information. Lynn said that she appreciates what Ray and Drew are doing. In fact, she and Russ had earlier conversations about additional revenue streams and she’s clearly making this a priority for her in 2010. Also the board would like to see this continue to be a significant priority beyond 2010, and now is the right time to find additional revenue streams for the IETF. The program does need a little more work. It’s important to put a planned giving program in place. Lynn would like to work with Drew and John McNerney on this idea and others. The IAOC is not ready to make a decision. There are a number of things that need to be addressed so this action is concluded. 3. WG Specs Development RFP Approval Ray developed a draft RFP to be sent out. The timeline is as follows: issued on the 21st of December, which is Monday responses, back on 18 January, and for consideration by the IAOC on the next call which is 28 January. A motion to approve the working group specs development RFP to be issued on 21 December was made by Russ. The motion was seconded by Fred. It’s important that one could read it and submit a bid without having already been directly involved. There’s opportunity for questions and responses so if anyone feels that they didn’t have enough information it could be extracted. 7 January is the deadline for questions, and 12 January is Ray’s deadline for additional responses. The motion was put to a vote. Lynn St. Amour [Yes] Fred Baker [Yes] Marshall Eubanks [Yes] Bob Hinden [Yes] Russ Housley [Yes] Ole Jacobsen [Yes] Olaf Kolkman [Yes] The motion carried. 4. ISI Extension Update Due to a lack of time, this item was not addressed by the IAOC Committee. 5. Python-Django IDIQ Response and Short Listing Approval The IAOC issued an RFP to identify potential programmers. There were two rounds in the RFP. The first round was to help the Committee identify developers. Round two was to get that short list of folks and give them a particular application the IAOC wanted developed and ask them how they’d go about doing that from which a smaller group could be identified that the IAOC could enter into multiple contracts with over the coming three years. The IAOC received proposals from nine companies and nine individuals. Ray read the short list and the resolution. Resolved the following companies and individuals be advanced to the next phase of the RFP for Python IDIQ Development Contract: Companies 1. AMS 2. Concentric Sky 3. IOLA 4. Lincoln-Loop 5. SSG 6. Tivix 7. Viagenie 8. Yaco Individuals 1. Miquelito 2. Pujol 3. Saveland 4. Krylov 5. Penarrieta 6. Kolechkin A motion to approve the short list as proposed by Ray was made by Marshall. The motion was seconded by Fred. Hearing no discussion and no abstention, the motion was unanimously approved. 6. AMS Django Proposal Update Due to a lack of time, this item was not addressed by the IAOC Committee. 7. DPM Contract Approval Due to a lack of time, this item was not addressed by the IAOC Committee. 8. Calendar 2010 Approval Due to a lack of time, this item was not addressed by the IAOC Committee. The Committee Chair adjourned the IAOC Committee meeting at 11:31 AM EDT.