IAOC Minutes 2012-06-21 IAOC Meeting 2012-06-21 14:00 UTC / 10:00 EDT Bernard Aboba [PRESENT] Bob Hinden [PRESENT, Chair] Dave Crocker [PRESENT] Scott Bradner [PRESENT] Lynn St. Amour [NOT PRESENT] Marshall Eubanks [PRESENT] Ole Jacobsen [NOT PRESENT] Ray Pelletier [PRESENT, IAD] Russ Housley [PRESENT] Drew Dvorshak [GUEST] Mia McAuley        [SCRIBE] Draft IAOC Agenda 1. Minutes 2012-05-24 2012-06-07 2. Bits-N-Bites - Go/No-Go 3. Legal Contract Update 4. Server Study Update - Dave 5. IETF 92 - The Americas 6. Fees for Subpoena, Legal Matter Responses 7. IAOC 2012 Goals 8. RFC Editors request 9. IETF 84 Vancouver Update 10. April Financial Statement 1. Minutes ========= The following minutes are ready for approval with modifications: 2012-05-24 and 2012-06-07. Scott moved, and Marshall seconded a motion to approve the 2012-05-24 and 2012-06-07 minutes with modifications. Without objection the minutes were adopted. 2. Bits-N-Bites ============ Ray reported on the status of sponsorships for Bits-N-Bites for Vancouver. There are 3 sponsors who have made verbal commitments, as well as the Internet Society sponsoring two tables. Ray said they were working on food and beverages better than usual Welcome Reception fare. The event would be for two hours on Thursday evening from 7 to 9. Resolution: The IAOC approves the Bit-N-Bites event experiment for IETF 84 in Vancouver. Marshall moves resolution seconded by Scott, for IAOC discussion and clarification. It is clarified that ISOC’s 2 tables are paid tables. The goal is to have better quality food and beverage than the welcome reception, which would mean the event will not be cheaper. The responsibility of the food will be the IETF”s, not the hotel’s, as is custom. We should make sure that this event is one of substance and the food and beverage should measure up. Similarly we will be held up to the NANOG metric, so we have made preparations to make sure it is memorable. This will be setting up a precedent. If it turns out it’s a floor we don’t want, we can address that. The assumption is there will be 500 people and the cost is $50,000, a break-even budget. It was also noted, however, that in earlier discussions the IAOC agreed to a requirement of a minimum of 3 sponsors, not including ISOC—this was based on a break-even $30,000 event charge. For comparison the welcome reception has around 700 people and is in the $35,000 range. The difference here is not serving wine and beer. There is push back that the price is quite high and that the event should be somewhat profitable. Yet leeway is considered as this is the first event and an experiment. There is only one chance to launch the event. If it is successful, the next time it will be easier to obtain sponsors and it would no longer be a break-even event.  There may be room for negotiation, the details are not clear exactly as of yet and we still have a lot of control over how much we’re going to spend.  Nothing has been approved yet. There is further discussion about possible methods to control budget, such as covering 2 drinks per person rather than covering unlimited. That is not how NANOG manages its event; they supply an open bar. The drinks are limited to beer and wine. A price comparison of the two methods is requested. The budget had been made assuming 2 drinks per person. Work will be done to get the budget under the 50K figure. Local breweries and options are also being looked into. A vote was taken on the above resolution: Aboba [YES] Hinden   [YES] Crocker [NO] Eubanks [YES] Bradner  [YES] Housley  [YES] The vote reflected 5-1 in favor of approving the resolution to go forward with the Bits-N-Bites experiment for IETF 84. 3. Legal Contract Update ==================== Ray reported that the Legal Services Contract is updated annually on 1 July. The Legal Management Committee recommends changes to the statement of work to reflect an increase in the base work and a reduction in Project, Task- Order separately compensated work, and a change in the compensation. The monthly compensation would be adjusted from . Project work would be restricted to significant or substantial work. Resolution: The IAOC approves an amendment to the Legal Services Contract with Contreras Legal Strategies adjusting the Retainer Fee to and altering the Statement of Work to include more services, and a limitation on Project Work to substantial or significant tasks, and requests the Internet Society to effect the approved amendment. Marshall moved, and Bob seconded the above resolution. There was general agreement that it would be better to raise his monthly fees and spend less time working out little details in which situation we spend more time negotiating than working. A vote was taken: Aboba [YES] Hinden   [YES] Crocker [YES] Eubanks [YES] Bradner  [YES] Housley  [YES] The motion passed unanimously. 4. Server Study Update - Dave ========================= Dave sent out the study, as of the meeting no one responded. Dave will re-circulate it and the IAOC will respond. 5. IETF 92 - The Americas ====================== Ray reported on the recommendations of the Meetings Committee for the IETF 92 meeting venue. The IAOC approved contract negotiations with the recommended venue. 6. Fees for Subpoena, Legal Matter Responses ===================================== Ray provided background for considering the imposition of fees for legal requests for information. He noted that the IETF receives requests for information, documentation, authentication or other matters or processes through subpoenas and less formal means that require manpower and materials to be expended. A Schedule of Fees is an appropriate and reasonable means to recover the costs associated with such efforts. Subpoenas and other requests involve real work and real expenses. Charges are customary. Goal is for the IAOC to develop a policy to send to the community for comment. The discussion will be moved to the IAOC list, taken up again on the July 5th call, and July 19th will be the possible action target. It’s important that the document provides the rationale for the choices being made. The ‘why’ section is good. The document must be robust against misreading and it is careful to put some effort into that. We will send it back to the legal management committee, they will take one more cut at it, it will be sent to the IAOC list for discussion on the next call before sending it on to the community, 7. IAOC 2012 Goals ================= Ray gave an update on the draft IAOC 2012 Goals. The goals will be updated and sent to the list for further review and comments. They will be reviewed and hopefully adopted in July. 8. RFC Editors Request =================== Ray summarizes the RFC Editor’s request for a FTE editor for the period July through December 2012. As RFC activity is high, RFC Production Center needs editing support. We have received a request from the RFC Production Center through the RSE, and with her support, for 1 FTE for July – Dec. The IAOC has approved the same editing support for Q1 and Q2 in order to address the 2011 backlog, the AD turnover surge and provide transition support for the RSE. Funding for that was at the funding level. The justification for continuing for the balance of the year is that submissions remain at historically high levels, and the RSE needs project support. We did receive a cut on the fee, and have reached an understanding at . Ray believes this will become the new manpower floor as it does not appear that the workload in recent years is an aberration but the norm. We have provided “transition” assistance in the past so that we could observe whether there was a new trend. It’s real. The funds are available in the RFC Series Editor budget. Scott moves, Marshall seconds. Resolution: The IAOC approves the expenditure of for the continuation of the current level of editor support for the RFC Production Center for the period July - December 2012. A vote was called: Aboba [YES] Hinden   [YES] Crocker [YES] Eubanks [YES] Bradner  [YES] Housley  [YES] The motion passed unanimously. Heather will be notified of the approval. 9. IETF 84 Vancouver Update ======================== The numbers are looking good. Telus is providing connectivity. The site visit went well and we established relationships with the venue’s staff. People are feeling very good about going into this. The costs associated with making site visits are requested and Ray will provide the figures. It is likely they range around . The Committee considers this one of the side effects of contracting 3 years out. For example, the staff will change and the venue may change, another site visit will be necessary a month prior. The IAOC would like to be able to review site visits deliverables. What are the measurables? How can we judge if this is a good thing or not? They have the purpose of beginning the meeting itself. We have the intuition is this is a good practice but how do we effectively measure if this is helpful? It is hard to measure. One example of helpfulness is finding problems ahead of time. This is a documentable benefit. A report can be made simply listing all we discovered during site visits that we had not known. It can be helpful to use and record even subjective data such as, ‘I now feel comfortable about X whereas before I did not know how it was going to be.’ For example, if a site visit would have solved issues like the Monday plenary sound in Paris, it’s already worth it. There are problems that we know about from history, and unless we look for those in visits like this we will not see them. Part of the activity then of the site visit is a detailed run through with names of people on the site who are committed to the various activities (like making sure sound people will be there Sunday for Monday’s meeting). Other items include: where they place the rooms, needed extra space, meeting with the AV/IT staff, working out networking arrangements. We did not get a written trip report but this is the type of feedback we have been getting. It would be useful to get something in writing about what the expectations are going in, what was fulfilled, what they learned that they did not know before. We always go over a debriefing with them. The discussion on the site visit debriefing has been useful but is something that should most likely go to the meetings committee, not something that the IAOC should review every meeting. Ray asks for the IAOC to provide clarification on what type of details it wants to be informed of. As a rule of thumb, the IAOC wants to be aware of the developments it will be asked about by the community. When money changes and the rationale is a good example. It will help to be aware of trivial problems, not in order to manage it but to be aware of it for the community. 10. April Financial Statement ====================== Ray reported that the 2012 Budget is in a positive position thru 30 April. Revenues are $130k above Year To Date (YTD) Budget. Expenses are $147k below the YTD Budget. The Revenues Story: Actual: $1,341,660 YTD Budget: $1,211,500 Variance: $130k a. Registrations: $80k above YTD Budget b. Hotel commissions: $19k above Budget c. New Revenues (sponsorships Breaks, etc): $33k above budget d. IETF Sponsor (space, Welcome Reception): $70k above budget e. NOC: - $75k (High in-kind estimate for circuits when Budget prepared; It’s a wash in Expenses) The Expenses Story: Actual: $1,880,463 YTD Budget: $2,027,663 Variance: $147k a. Meeting expenses: $62k below YTD Budget b. RFC Services: $36k below YTD Budget c. Special Proj: $10k below YTD Budget d. Trust: $11k below YTD Budget The Capital Tools Investment: $65k The IAOC commends the financial figures as excellent. Part of the reason we did so well is that when we budgeted for Paris, we assumed 75% sponsorship but had 100%. There was no additional business to discuss. Bob adjourned the meeting at 11:14 AM EDT.