IAOC Minutes 9-30-10 Minutes of the IAOC Call, 10:00 am EDT (14:00 UTC), Thursday, 30 September 2010 Lynn St. Amour [ PRESENT] Eric Burger [PRESENT] Marshall Eubanks [PRESENT] Bob Hinden [PRESENT, Chair] Russ Housley [PRESENT] Ole Jacobsen [PRESENT] Olaf Kolkman [PRESENT] Ray Pelletier [PRESENT, IAD] Henk Uijterwaal [PRESENT] Suresh Krishnan [SCRIBE] Greg Kapfer [PRESENT, Guest] The Proposed IAOC Agenda for this meeting was 1. Minutes 2010-09-16 2. 2011 Budget 3. Venue Selection Criteria, Impact of Host upon 4. Donate Now Button 5. IANA SLA Update Bob Hinden called the IAOC meeting to order at 10:03 AM EDT 1. Minutes for 9/16 =================== Minutes were deferred until 30 September. 2. 2011 Budget =============== Ray mentioned that he and Greg had worked on a minor formatting change for the IAOC budget that splits sponsorship revenues into "in kind" and cash. He talked about the RIPE contribution to the 2010 Maastricht meeting and the TWNIC contribution to the meeting space and NOC expenses 2011 Taipei meeting as examples of the in-kind sponsorships documented here. Ray pointed out that there will be a small increase in the insurance expenses and Greg assured the IAOC that they were still within the budget. The IETF registration fee for 2011 is proposed to go up to $650 from the $635 of the last 3 years and the fee for the day pass, if continued, will stay at $350. The decision about whether to continue the day pass experiment or not will be revisited after Beijing. The day passes are expected to be revenue neutral at the proposed fee, based on the current estimates of how many day pass users would attend on full registration if the day pass program wasn't offered. The ISOC contribution excluding tools development would increase by $57K and including tools development would increase by $162K from the 2010 Year End Forecast. Marshall Eubanks made the motion to adopt the IETF 2011 - 2013 Budget version 7 and Bob Hinden seconded it. Discussion ---------- Greg Kapfer requested that the in-kind/cash split out be removed from the externally published budget. Bob and Marshall wanted to retain the split in the internally published budget. Bob will retain the information but will leave it in the backup slides of the budget presentation in case it is needed. Olaf wanted Ray to point out where the major risks are in the proposed budget. Ray mentioned that the Meeting Operations part - food and beverage, AV, power - was probably most risk-prone. Eric wanted to know more information about the transition expenses line item and why it was significantly higher in 2011. Ray mentioned that it was due to the RFC model restructuring and the new RFP for the secretariat function in 2011. Olaf wanted to know how much the RFC services costed 2 years ago when they were being performed by ISI. Ray replied that the cost was about $750K. Olaf remarked, in this case, that the RFC editor transition has not saved much money. Ray mentioned that this was because the current RFC Series Editor effort was underestimated. A roll call vote was then taken. Eric Burger [YES] Marshall Eubanks [YES] Bob Hinden [YES] Russ Housley [YES] Ole Jacobsen [YES] Olaf Kolkman [YES] Lynn St. Amour [YES] Henk Uijterwaal [YES] Motion carries Greg and Bob will work on forwarding the budget to the ISOC Board of Trustees. 3. Venue Selection criteria =========================== The meetings committee had discussed venue issues with Maastricht and the impact of the same on the meeting selection process. The conclusion was that the host sponsorship process sometimes leads to selecting less than desirable venues, such as Maastricht. The proposed solution was that the IAOC should select venues that work sufficiently in advance so that good venues are still available. The timing was not optimal, with the best venues becoming unavailable 2 - 3 years out and Hosts not becoming engaged until 18 months or less Ray mentioned that Drew worked with a potential sponsor who verbally committed to host the Prague IETF meeting. They later decided to host a different meeting instead and the IAOC had to commit to Prague without a host. Bob wants to change the policy to make venue selection further into the future. He thinks that the cities and the venues should be locked in even before getting a firm host commitment. This will avoid selection of sub-optimal venues like Maastricht. Bob wanted to have a sense of the IAOC on this topic. Marshall thought it was a good idea to do the venue selection much earlier. He thought there was a lot of complaints about Maastricht but the meeting itself went on fine. e.g. no working groups were without rooms. He wanted to know how this would affect the sponsorships. Bob wanted to start with cities with potential sponsors and then narrow down on those sponsors. Companies may have issues making commitments that far in advance, but it may be easier for them to budget. Lynn commented that these discussions would benefit from having the fundraisers on the call. She commented that Drew had previously mentioned that one of the few benefits that the sponsor gets is the opportunity to choose the venue.Lynn wanted to identify the"sweet spots" between the top-hitters from the venue survey and good sponsor prospects. She said that she would work on a fundraising model that worked to a longer horizon. Bob wanted to work on a schedule. e.g. 3 years out the venue needs to be locked in. Eric wanted to plan for 1 in 3 meetings being hostless and adjust the budget accordingly. He thinks that the attendees may be willing to pay additional registration fees for more desirable locations. Henk wanted to know what would happen if more/less meeting space is required if venues are picked 3 years out. Ray believes that the number of attendees has stabilized around 1100-1200 so it shouldn't be a problem. Marshall thinks that ability for sponsors to select venues is overrated and they should pay more for selecting specific locations. e.g. premium to pay for shuttle, reduction in guest room rates etc. Ole described that hosts may prefer to have meetings in specific locations for logistics reasons. e.g. Comcast's headquarters was in Philadelphia, and they could get people from their HQ to work in the meeting. He feels the reason the host is dictating a location because a venue was not locked in on time. Bob agreed and mentioned that this is why the venue decisions should be made further into the future. Eric believed that even if sponsors commit 3 years in advance, there will be some number that will renege. He just wanted to budget for such an eventuality. Bob saw general support for this notion and will work on a concrete plan to do this. Lynn wanted to know what the timeframe for the would be for the venue decisions in 2012. Ray mentioned that Drew is in the 10th/11th month of discussions with a potential host for one of the 2012 meetings who prefers having the meeting in a particular location. The venue is miles outside the city and was still available. Another city venue was also available and Jim, Marcia and Laura would be going there to perform the site inspection. Ray believed that latter is the better venue and this was confirmed by the survey results. The IAOC has to make the selection by December 2 to get it done in 2010. Ray mentioned the meeting committee will work on the details and present the recommendations with details supporting it to the IAOC. Marshall wanted to know if the potential Host Drew was talking to would sponsor if another city in a different country was picked. Ray stated it was not likely they would based on his experience. Bob believed that both the choices were good enough. Marshall believed that in some cases having a host is essential, e.g. Beijing, but it could be fine in other places if a venue were selected without one. Henk wanted to know what the penalty was to cancel a venue? Ray mentioned that we have never canceled. Bob and Ray thought that the host can pay the cancellation fees if needed. Ray mentioned that rescheduling was possible in some cases and if it was in the contract. Ole thought that we could have a backup venue like APRICOT does at the secretariat city. 5. IANA SLA update ================== Ray reported that we had not yet received a response to the IAOC suggested edits to the Agreement from ICANN. Russ was concerned that the IAOC was still talking about the 2010 SLA while it should be talking more about the 2011 SLA. 4. Donate Now ============= ISOC and Ray Pelletier are working on a Donate Now button for the IETF site. Ray showed a demo of such a button on the ISOC site. Bob Hinden adjourned the IAOC meeting at 11:02am EDT