IAOC meeting, 14:08 UTC, Thursday, 2010-09-16 Participants Eric Burger [PRESENT] Marshall Eubanks [PRESENT] Bob Hinden [PRESENT, Chair] Russ Housley [PRESENT] Ole Jacobsen [PRESENT] Olaf Kolkman [NOT PRESENT] Ray Pelletier [PRESENT] Lynn St. Amour [PRESENT] Henk Uijterwaal [PRESENT] Greg Kapfer [GUEST] Karen O'Donoghue [SCRIBE] Andrew Sullivan [SCRIBE] Agenda: ACTION 1. Minutes 2010-06-24 2010-07-28 2. ID Management Tool Work Order (AMS) 3. WG Charter Tool RFP 4. Community Draft Tracking RFP 5. IAOC Administrative Procedures UPDATE 6. Maastricht Financial Statement 7. IT YEF 8. 2010 Budget and YEF 9. 2011 Budget Bob Hinden called the meeting to order at 14:08 UTC. 1. Minutes The minutes were reviewed for the two meetings. Marshall Eubanks moved to accept the minutes. Henk Uijterwaal seconded. There were some reviews posted to the IAOC list noting some amendments that were needed. There were no objections to accepting them so amended. 2. ID Management Tool Work Order (AMS) MOTION: The IAOC approves AMS to replace Secretariat tools that manage Internet Drafts using python code at a cost not to exceed [redacted] and requests the Internet Society to enter into a Work Order with AMS to effect the project. Before the motion, Eric Burger asked whether the goal was to replace Perl and Cold Fusion or to get some new features. It was some of each: the work was necessary to be able to get along with other parts of the new database framework without requiring a flag day. Also, Russ Housley noted that there had been some serious security issues with previous code. Eric said this was acceptable to him, as long as rewrites of this sort don't become "flavor of the day" efforts every two years. Russ Housley moved. Henk Uijterwaal seconded. Ray Pelletier recorded a vote by roll call: Eric Burger [YES] Marshall Eubanks [YES] Bob Hinden [YES] Russ Housley [YES] Ole Jacobsen [YES] Lynn St. Amour [YES] Henk Uijterwaal [YES] The motion carried. 3. WG Charter Tool RFP Marshall Eubanks moved: The IAOC approves the issuance of an RFP for the development of specifications for the Working Group Charter Tool. Henk Uijterwaal seconded. Eric Burger asked whether this was really something that couldn't just be done on a spreadsheet. Russ Housley replied that the goal was more about visibility to the community and making things consistent. Marshall Eubanks asked whether the IAOC was potentially creating management problems by +sending out a new RFP, and thus potentially engaging a new software firm, for another in a series of small projects. Russ Housley noted that there was a previous suggestion to sole-source this, but the IAOC said, "No," on that occasion, so here is the RFP. Marshall Eubanks said that with that explanation, this worked for him. Ray Pelletier recorded a vote by roll call: Eric Burger [YES] Marshall Eubanks [YES] Bob Hinden [YES] Russ Housley [YES] Ole Jacobsen [YES] Lynn St. Amour [YES] Henk Uijterwaal [YES] The motion carried. 4. Community Draft Tracking RFP Ray Pelletier outlined the background for the tool. The tool is intended to allow community members to define their own filters for following Internet Drafts through the IETF processes. Henk Uijterwaal moved The IAOC approves the issuance of an RFP for the development of specifications for the Community Draft Tracking Tool. Marshall Eubanks seconded. Russ Housley expressed support for the tool because of the way it will make the IETF process more visible. Bob Hinden asked whether this would be like what happens when one is a WG chair (and gets all the emails related to WG documents). Russ agreed with the analogy. Bob noted that it would be possible to make this too complicated. Russ agreed, and said that was why specification development is the first job. Ray Pelletier recorded a vote by roll call: Eric Burger [YES] Marshall Eubanks [YES] Bob Hinden [YES] Russ Housley [YES] Ole Jacobsen [YES] Lynn St. Amour [YES] Henk Uijterwaal [YES] The motion carried. 5. IAOC Administrative Procedures Ray Pelletier provided a summary of the recent history of the administrative procedures document. He particularly highlighted that there were two requests for feedback: one on 12 August, and one on 10 September. All the feedback revolved around the issue of expenses, Section 5 of the Procedures. Ray Pelletier therefore proposed to add to the administrative procedures language that required reporting on such expense reimbursements both as part of the IAOC meeting minutes and as part of the IAOC Chair's annual report. Russ Housley moved The IAOC approves the IAOC Administrative Procedures dated 13 August 2010 as amended on 16 September 2010. Marshall Eubanks seconded. Bob Hinden said he was not strongly opposed to the text, but felt that perhaps there were not so many expressions of support for including this detail in annual reports. He therefore suggested that the document be amended to include the requirement for reporting in meeting minutes, but not the requirement to include such expenses in the annual report. Eric Burger expressed support for this idea, because it is possible that an expense could be for a confidential item, and then the amount would have to be suppressed in the meeting minutes. There is no provision for such suppression in annual reports. There was general agreement to alter the amendment so that Section 5.1 would read as follows: 5.1 BCP 101 section 4, paragraphs 13 and 14 state: The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation from the IASA, ISOC, or IETF for their services as members of the IAOC. The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses, and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. In furtherance of this requirement expenses for members of the IAOC may be reimbursed upon approval of the IAOC Chair, or by a consensus of the IAOC, for exceptional cases only. Any reimbursement of expenses to IAOC members for IAOC expenses will be reported in the minutes. Russ Housley and Marshall Eubanks accepted the friendly amendment to limit reporting to the IAOC minutes. Marshall Eubanks observed that, according to his notes, no expense payout has ever been made by the IAOC. Ray Pelletier recorded a vote by roll call: Eric Burger [YES] Marshall Eubanks [YES] Bob Hinden [YES] Russ Housley [YES] Ole Jacobsen [YES] Lynn St. Amour [YES] Henk Uijterwaal [YES] The administrative procedures document was adopted as amended. 6. Maastricht Financial Statement Ray Pelletier provided a preliminary financial statement for the Maastricht meeting. He said he was still awaiting a report from AMS, currency conversion numbers from sponsorships received and payments made, and reconciliation of numbers between ISOC and AMS. After correcting for switched values in the NOC Sponsorship columns, it appeared that total revenues were below the budget by nearly $11,000, but that expenses were below those budgeted by $192,114.00. At this point it appeared there was about $480k net to be applied to other IETF expenses. Ray drew particular attention to the discrepancy in the food budgeted and actual expenditure: expenditure was $83,450.00 below budget. Russ Housley said that, if the low expenditure on food resulted in running out of food at breaks, people would be annoyed. Henk Uijterwaal asked why the budget was so far off on food. Ray explained that some things that should not have been in the original budget (e.g. the IESG, IAB and IAOC breakfast meeting costs, the ISOC advisory board meeting) were included. Bob Hinden asked why. Eric Burger asked whether this was because it was a single contract, so that these were flow-through items. Ray Pelletier confirmed that was the reason, and said that when the Maastricht budget was prepared the additional inclusions were missed and should have not been included as IETF expenses as they are paid for separately (ISOC) or expensed elsewhere in the budget. Eric asked whether this shouldn't happen for every meeting, and Ray said that it hasn't in the past. Lynn St. Amour said that in the past there were discussions of presenting the data with supporting notes, and that she did not feel the current presentation detailed enough. Marshall Eubanks asked that in-kind donations be counted separately, because they are always cost-revenue balanced by definition. Greg Kapfer confirmed that the in-kind contributions ought to be reflected in both the expenses and revenue. Ray Pelletier said they were not. He said he would do the report over again and send it out. Marshall Eubanks asked that the in-kind contributions simply be separated out so that they can't be confused. Marshall Eubanks asked why there was a $12,168 deficit in the Travel Meeting line. Ray Pelletier explained that staff usually get 1/2 price rooms (so that's what is in the budget), but that in this case that was not available. 7. IT Year End Forecast Ray Pelletier presented the year-end forecast for IT. He said there would be a meeting the following day with Russ and Bob. Bob Hinden said this was to make firmer the forecast for the end of year, and wanted it to be as accurate as possible. He expressed some concern about when projects are paid for and which items would actually be completed by the end of the year, as the funds can't be carried forward. 8. 2010 Budget and Year End Forecast Ray Pelletier presented the year-end forecast for the overall budget. Marshall Eubanks asked whether the numbers in this presentation would be affected by the changes in the Maastricht report. Ray said no, as the data came from different spreadsheets. The overall picture was that revenue predictions were short by $109,000 while expenses are over by $59,000. Marshall Eubanks asked whether, given the results from Maastricht, Anaheim was badly over budget. Bob Hinden said it was, since there were neither host nor NOC sponsors. Eric Burger asked to ensure that revenues include only real cash, and not in-kind contributions. Ray Pelletier said he would check. 9. 2011 Budget Ray Pelletier presented a draft 2011 budget. There is a significant increase in revenue due to the meeting fee increase. Marshall Eubanks asked whether this assumed a drop in registrations. Ray said no. Marshall asked whether it assumed a day pass. Bob Hinden said it did, at 60 users/meeting at a rate of $350/pass. Ray Pelletier noted that RFC services showed an increase, but that it was a placeholder value until all information would be available. Ray Pelletier noted that the budget was down for meeting costs from the previous year, to $800,000. Ray also noted that there were considerable transition expenses in this draft, because the secretariat contract is up and so transition might be needed. The special projects line is up because it covers a full year of tools support. In addition, there might be some expenditure on part time editors, to help through the RFC services restructuring. There was some discussion on the reporting of IT Tools development, but Greg Kapfer said that while it might be reported awkwardly, it makes the most sense because of the way accounting rules and regulations require the tools projects to be capitalized. Bob Hinden said that he expected to have a final draft budget by the end of the month for people to review. With no further issues before the IAOC, Bob Hinden adjourned the meeting at 15:14 UTC.