IAOC meeting, 15:00 UTC, Thursday, 2010-12-16 Participants: Eric Burger [PRESENT] Marshall Eubanks [PRESENT] Bob Hinden [PRESENT, Chair] Russ Housley [PRESENT] Ole Jacobsen [PRESENT] Olaf Kolkman [PRESENT] Ray Pelletier [PRESENT, IAD] Lynn St. Amour [PRESENT] Henk Uijterwaal [PRESENT] Andrew Sullivan [SCRIBE] AGENDA 1. Minutes 2010-09-30 2. Venue Selection Implementation Program 3. Day Pass Program 4. IETF 83 Update 5. AMS awards IPR Management Tool Award Note about Materials Management Tool Award 6. IT Update DB Conversion Projects 2010 & 2011 7. Donate Now 8. Subpoena Update (added) Bob Hinden called the meeting to order and established that there was a quorum at 15:05 UTC. 1. Minutes The minutes for the meeting of 2010-09-30 were circulated. Some changes were needed and have been suggested. Henk Uijterwaal moved to adopt the minutes as amended. Bob Hinden seconded the motion. There was no discussion, and the minutes were adopted without objection. Bob Hinden noted that the goal for the publication timeline was not always being met, and expressed his desire to catch up as soon as possible. 2. Venue Selection Implementation Program Ray Pelletier presented extensive background on the plan (it is in tabular format unsuited for inclusion in a plain text document). AMS has prepared a very detailed plan to implement the new approach of selecting venues three years in advance. The plan entails a lot of work during the transitional period of 2011, so AMS recommended a half-time meeting planner for six months at the rate of [confidential] with a possible extension at the rate of [confidential]. Henk Uijterwaal made a motion: RESOLVED The IAOC adopts the Meeting Site Selection Plan dated 12 December 2010, including the part time meeting planner for six months, the funding for which is from the 2011 Transition Fund. Marshall Eubanks seconded. Henk Uijterwaal asked why IETF 85 and 86 were not included in the materials Ray presented. Ray answered that since they were already under contract, no negotiations would be needed. Marshall Eubanks asked whether there was someone in particular planned for the meeting planner position. Ray answered that AMS had someone in mind. Bob Hinden expressed support for the plan. Eric Burger observed that a three year lead time would perhaps alleviate some of the issues around visas. Marshall Eubanks asked whether identifying the city three years in advance automatically means that venues will be announced three years in advance. Ray responded that no announcement could be made until a contract is signed, but that the plan potentially allows for announcements that far ahead of time. Marshall noted that it could be risky, since if a sponsor really wanted to cover the costs of changing venue, then the venue could change. Bob Hinden agreed that the timing of announcements will need future thought. A vote by roll call was 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] The motion carried. 3. Day Pass Program Ray Pelletier presented some background, reminding people about previous discussion. He noted that it was important to come to a conclusion, in that registration is opening for Prague next week. Ray presented some data about day pass use: Of those using DP at IETF 76 a. 25 attended another meeting, 8 of them were 1st Timers b. 11 used DP again c. 5 attended all meetings (76 - 79) Of those using DP at IETF 77 a. 26 attended another meeting, 7 of them were 1st Timers b. 7 used DP again c. 8 attended all meetings (77 - 79) Ray outlined the input that was received. The IESG input was inconclusive, though Russ Housley is strongly against the program. The NomCom eligibility issue is resolved, however. The IESG left the decision to the IAOC. The meetings committee did not reach agreement and could not come up with a recommendation, so sent the issue to the IAOC for a decision. Marshall Eubanks made a motion: To continue the day pass program. Olaf Kolkman raised a point of order. He argued that the matter is a policy issue that needs a community consensus and therefore the IAOC does not have jurisdiction. Bob Hinden noted that the IESG said that the IAOC will make the decision. Olaf then observed that he thought the IESG needed to make an evaluation of the community consensus. Ray Pelletier asked whether the decision is a community consensus decision or a decision for the IAOC informed by community input. Bob noted that the program was started without consensus, but Olaf replied that it was an experiment, and the current proposal is to make policy. Eric asked Olaf where to go with the decision since nobody seems to be making it (and in particular, that the IESG had apparently sent it to IAOC). Olaf suggested to ask the IESG for a ruling on the community consensus. Russ Housley said that it appeared the IAOC was trying to send the issue back to IESG. Also, Russ noted that not continuing the day passes required no decision. Bob argued that the day pass decision was just another part of the IAOC's meeting operation responsibility, and not a serious policy issue. Olaf said that he more comfortable with the IAOC making the decision for this topic than with the meeting frequency. Ole Jacobsen said that he originally had thought it was an IAOC decision, but that the NomCom issues and other such things made him dubious. Olaf asked explicitly whether the IAOC felt it had the decision making authority, and asked the Chair to rule. The Chair asked each member in turn. Russ Housley said he thought the IAOC could make the decision given the discussion that happened in the last plenary meeting and on the IETF list. Ole Jacobsen said reluctantly that he thought the IAOC had the authority. Henk Uijterwaal said the IAOC has the responsibility. Eric Burger said the IAOC has the responsibility. Marshall Eubanks said that he thought it was the IAOC's responsibility, and that IETF participants would have objected already if they disagreed. Lynn St. Amour expressed her agreement with what others had said, and especially with Russ. Olaf Kolkman said he was conflicted, but he was more convinced after the discussion and he would go with the flow.. Bob Hinden concluded that the IAOC thinks it has the authority to make the decision. The point of order being addressed, Marshall Eubanks moved again: The IAOC adopts the day pass program as a permanent program. Henk Uijterwaal seconded. There was some discussion of the motion. Marshall Eubanks argued that the data suggests that some people use a day pass and then subsequently do additional work at the IETF. Russ Housley expressed strong disagreement, noting that most of those using the day pass were not newcomers to the IETF. Bob Hinden said that the post-meeting survey data strongly suggests most day pass users are not newcomers. Eric Burger asked whether the point is to punish people who don't go to the entire IETF meeting. Russ responded that he thinks it is important to encourage people to attend the whole week, because the hallway discussions are more important than what happens in the meeting rooms. Marshall returned to the data, and said that if one examines just first-time attendees, there is an 8% uptake rate. Henk Uijterwaal agreed, and noted that those are people who came back. Russ responded that while that is true, it is impossible to know whether those people would have paid the full meeting fee in the first place. Bob observed that the data is inconclusive, but that there seems to be some price sensitivity. There was very little use in Beijing, though that might in part be due to the student rate. Russ argued that the original goal was to attract new attendees, not to give a reduction to regular attendees. Henk Uijterwaal disagreed slightly, saying that he remembered the original motivation to be providing an incentive for people who would go only for one day actually to go. Olaf Kolkman proposed a friendly amendment: that day pass data will be re-evaluated for negative effects on full-week participation. Bob and Eric objected on the grounds that it was a different motion entirely, effectively running an experiment for another year. Marshall and Henk nevertheless accepted the amendment. Olaf clarified that what he wants to know is whether the day pass is actually attracting new IETF attendees. Bob replied that there is data from the surveys to answer this question, and that the community would expect a reason for extending the day program. That criteria needs to be defined as part of the decision to extend evaluation. Eric said that he disagrees with the premise that the program should attract new attendees. That appears to suggest that the only real way to participate is face to face: if you can't make it, then in some sense you are not welcome. If the goal is to increase participation, then if people use the day pass it is in some sense a gain because it maximizes participation that might otherwise not happen. Bob noted a suggestion that came up on the discussion list. If the goal is to encourage newcomers, then perhaps a better way is to offer a significant first-timer discount for the whole meeting. The day pass does not work that way, and if the goal is really to attract newcomers then this alternative might be better. Marshall asked whether that is something for consideration at the same time as the day pass, but both Bob and Russ argued that it is better to dispose of this item first. The final motion was restated: The day pass program is continued for 2011, and its renewal at the end of 2011 is subject to re-evaluation. A vote was taken by roll call. Eric Burger [YES] Marshall Eubanks [YES] Bob Hinden [NO] Russ Housley [NO] Ole Jacobsen [YES] Olaf Kolkman [YES] Lynn St. Amour [YES] Henk Uijterwaal [YES] The motion carried. 4. IETF 83 Update Ray Pelletier presented the state of the IETF 83 contract negotiations. [confidential] The registration process for this hotel requires people reserving a room to fax their registration. Reservation Guarantee: One night room and tax upon making reservation, 2 additional nights room and tax to be charged 15 days prior to scheduled arrival, which funds are not refundable. Early Departure: charged for the remainder of their stay. If the room is resold, refund for the resold room nights. Eric Burger asked whether he was reading correctly, that the first night and tax on registration is totally non-refundable under any circumstances. Ray confirmed it. Eric asked whether this met the site requirements. Ray said that it was acceptable but certainly on the harsher side. He thought the hotel knew it had strong bargaining power, because the other obvious candidate (a hotel across the street) is offering a rate of 235 EUR per night. Other hotels would be further away, whereas this hotel is attached to the Palais. Eric expressed strong worries about the community reaction to this agreement. Marshall Eubanks agreed, saying the penalties are too punitive for Paris at that time of year. Ray said that it was suggested to him that the hotel would not budge on this item, even for a higher room rate. Bob Hinden said that it would be extremely important to ensure this situation is clear (and the situation at other hotels as well) in the registration materials. Russ Housley said that if there were not alternative hotels with a different cancellation provision, then there would be a serious problem. Olaf Kolkman observed that the rates on Expedia in Paris at that time right now are well below this rate on average, although not for that hotel in particular. Marshall noted that hotel quality varies wildly in Paris. Ray noted that he was providing an update and was not asking for action by the IAOC. Bob observed that the requirement for registration by fax will also be controversial. Russ agreed, and suggested that an alternative hotel would be very important. Olaf asked to confirm that this was the same conference centre as the last meeting in that city. Ray confirmed that it was, but Bob noted that the hotel is not the same. This one was an overflow hotel last time. 5. AMS awards a. IPR Management Tool i. AMS is under contract to perform duties as the Secretariat for the IETF ii. Article 6 permits the assignment of Additional Work through a Work Order iii. AMS is being requested to rewrite the Perl CGI scripts used by the IPR Management Tool for managing Intellectual Property Rights metadata in the Datatracker database. iv. This work will belong to the IETF Trust and would be conveyed to the next vendor whenever appropriate. v. Cost: Not-to-exceed [confidential] vi. Project falls within the IT Capital Investment 2010 and 2011 Budgets vii. The subcommittee recommends the Work Order be issued Henk Uijterwaal made a motion: The IAOC approves AMS to develop tools that manage Intellectual Property Rights metadata in the Datatracker database using python code at a cost not to exceed [confidential] and requests the Internet Society to enter into a Work Order with AMS to effect the project. Russ Housley seconded. There was no discussion. A vote was taken by roll call: 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] The motion carried. b. Meetings Material Management Ray Pelletier reported that the award for the meetings material management tool was not yet up for decision because the meetings committee had not yet completed with it. There was reason to believe they would be done soon, and so the award would come up for an e-vote some time in the next week. 6. IT Update a. DB Conversion. The IAOC approved a motion at its meeting on 2010-10-14 to contract with IOLA for the conversion of the data tracker database. An initial work order was approved, and an overall budget. The idea was that, as long as the entire work fit inside the overall budget, additional IAOC approvals would not be needed. The first work order was completed [confidential]. Ray Pelletier reported that it is now clear that the work will require a series of work orders and, possibly, more money. A second work order for a second phase of the project was executed on 2010-12-03 [confidential], within the bounds of the overall budget for the project. The plan is now to return to the IAOC when a third task is ready to be undertaken. One of the following two options will be pursued then: (i) an additional amount of funding with which the subcommittee could manage subsequent Work Orders, or (ii) instructions from the IAOC that it would prefer to approve each Work Order and the funding for it. Russ Housley noted that it seemed to him that IOLA had convinced Henrik Levkowetz that the work was more complicated that he had estimated, but possibly not as much work as the worst estimates. b. 2010 and 2011 project status Ray Pelletier reported that some projects that were scheduled for 2010 will likely slip into 2011. Actual expenditures will likely be closer to $200,000. There are projects currently under work that complete in 2011. The amount to be spent on such projects right now is $104,837.00. The rest of the budget will be used by projects not yet started but still expected to complete in 2011. Olaf Kolkman noted that this meant there was about $300,000 for projects that no longer had a completion date. He asked whether that was a reasonable amount with which to complete everything. Ray said yes, and that he thinks the estimates are better than they were in 2010 because of lessons learned this year. Bob Hinden said that he had seen a more detailed version of the spreadsheet, and that he felt the estimates were realistic. Marshall Eubanks observed that the carry-over items all seemed to be in good shape. Bob agreed, except that the work on the datatracker may be an issue. Olaf asked whether there was action to take by the IAOC, and Ray said no. Marshall asked that in future a color code be adopted for project status. 7. Donate Now Ray Pelletier reported that there was a mockup of the Donate Now button done, and that suggestions had been received and were being implemented. The funds received through this program will be set aside for the IETF. The landing page will be on isoc.org so that the I ETF does not have to have separate merchant accounts and so forth. The page will have an IETF "look and feel". The work will probably be done early in 2011. Marshall Eubanks asked whether non-US residents could contribute. Ray said that ISOC only accepts US Dollars. Lynn St. Amour corrected that ISOC receives payment in US dollars, but that its payment processor charges the donor in the donor's currency and converts to US dollars. 8. Subpoena Update Marshall Eubanks asked Bob Hinden's indulgence for an update on subpoenas, in order to bring the meeting to a speedy end. Bob Hinden agreed, and the IETF Trust meeting was cancelled. [confidential] There was no further item for discussion. Bob Hinden wished everyone good tidings for the rest of the year, and adjourned the meeting at 16:18 UTC.