IAOC Meeting 2012-11-29 15:00 UTC / 10:00 EST Dave Crocker [PRESENT] Bernard Aboba [PRESENT] Bob Hinden [PRESENT, Chair] Russ Housley [PRESENT] Ray Pelletier [PRESENT, IAD] Ole Jacobsen [PRESENT] Scott Bradner [PRESENT] Lynn St. Amour [PRESENT] David Kessens [GUEST] Mia McAuley [SCRIBE] Draft IAOC Agenda 1. Minutes 2012-11-07 2. Atlanta Update 3. RPS Way Forward 4. IETF 93 5. Tools Update 6. 2013 IAOC, Trust, and Committee Calendar 7. AOB 1. Minutes ========== The 2012-11-07 minutes from Atlanta meeting are not ready for approval. They will be ready for the Dec 13 call. 2. Atlanta Update ============== Ray gave an update on IETF 85. Registration revenue was down from its budgeted target by almost $30,000. Paid attendees were off by 49 persons from the Budget target. IGF was taking place at the same time and may have contributed to the shortfall. Hotel commissions are expected to be about $15,000 above the Budget. New Revenue was much higher than expected, by $47,500, due in large part to Verisign’s $25,000 contribution as Refreshment Sponsor. The rest of the new revenue comes from the Bits-N-Bites supporters: the Internet Society, ICANN, IPSO, A10 Networks, CableLabs, and Huawei, China Telecom, and Tsinghua University. Actual revenue appears to be about $8,000 above the Revenue Budget target of $1,022,250. 3. RPS Way Forward ================= Ray reported that the Remote Participation Services specs were accepted by the TMC, but they are not in such a state that it could lead to an RFP. Moreover, it is felt the field is moving so rapidly that it was a difficult time to set the requirements in concrete. There was a meeting with Meetecho in Atlanta to see where they were at in developing their specs and to ascertain their plans for the platform and service. The TMC concluded it would like to work with the Meetecho team over 2013 to advance the state of RPS as presented in their platform. The TMC is recommending a Collaborative Engineering Agreement be developed with them for 2013, though no terms and conditions are ready yet to be made available to the IAOC for approval. The hope is to begin work with them so that throughout the coming year we can see incremental improvements. The IAOC discussed the latest feedback on RPS before turning to the proposed agreement. We had reached out after the meetings to see how remote participation went according to the participants. It was commented that chairs had a tendency to ignore the world outside of the panel and that people at the microphone sometimes did not say their names and were not corrected by the chairs. It is agreed that all of the parts need work, perhaps the most so being management. Achieving good integration of remote participation with in-room participation is likely to require some changes both in the support software and participant behavior. Unfortunately the details are an open matter of research; hence the need for an on-going, incremental process rather than a classic RFP. The feedback on the Meetecho technology generally was that the audio and syncing with the slides worked well. Overall, the feedback lacks consensus. Some people think that the RPS comes close and some thought it was far off. After a discussion of the proposed Agreement it was noted that this is not what is normally meant by the term collaborative engineering agreement and the term was misapplied. Nor was the need for, purpose of, or goals of the agreement clear. What's the benefit of having it? Concern was expressed about the appropriate way forward and the proposed agreement. There needs to be planned inclusion of public review. Our strategy should be to have public review on snapshots, such as writing up a summary of what our plans are and what the assessments are. There is a need to document feedback we have received. The IAOC discussed the nature of the proposed agreement. The IAOC offers feedback to all its in-kind supporters. The nature of the agreement with Meetecho is not essentially different from what is typical for informal IETF collaborations with vendors. The difference being that Meetecho services are more involved formally at operating in the IETF than some of the other services from other companies. Therefore the nature of giving back feedback may involve more formality such as creating this agreement. Our current agreements with companies such as Cisco who want to let us use their products while receiving good exposure are no written down. The announcement should show the IETF as a way for people to experiment with their products in a way that is mutually beneficial and for the IETF that it is not favoring one solution or one vendor over another. By putting out a Request for Information (RFI), we may find additional parties who are interested. To not be inundated, it should be clear we are looking for information, not proposals. Criteria will have to be developed for filtering requests. It is emphasized that this agreement would not serve as a requirement statement. Rather than specific requirements, we should speak of a period of collaboration and discuss areas in which we want improvement. The next steps are for Russ to tell the community where we are and what we're doing with regard to Remote Participation Systems; for the TMC to develop an RFI to announce the plan for 2013 and ask if anyone is interested in participating to give equal opportunity; then sometime in January-February of 2013, if we have affirmative feedback, we could enter into an agreement with perhaps 2 or 3 parties regarding what we are going to do, our goal for the end results, and a plan of action to how that will happen. The TMC ideal would be to reach agreements before IETF 86. 4. IETF 93 ========== Negotiations are underway. 5. Tools Update ============= Ray presents an update on Tools development. The budget for this year was $215,000. So far $147,000 has been completed with projects totaling $184,000 still in work. Ray expects another $30,000 - $35,000 to be expended this year. The current projects are: YacoâNomCom Tool Development, AMSâMail Search & Archive Tool, Sandleman Software, Agenda Scheduling Tool, and IOLAâCharter Milestone Management Development. IOLA is also working on BackEnd Development, which we especially want to get done as it will complete life cycle data tracker; it is progressing steadily. IOLA is also working on DB Conversion CleanUP-Bug Fix. We are also awaiting a proposal from IOLA for the shim layer removal as part of the DB conversion project. Proposals in response to the RFP for Network Services are due December 17. There is the possibility that 1-2, or even 3, parties may be interested and bid. We are awaiting a proposal for the IAOC and Trust websites’ makeover. This should be available for IAOC action on Dec 13. The IAOC discussed where the budget for the RFC Editor is handled. Some of the $300,000 set aside in 2013 for Capitol IT is allocated to the RFC Editor. Heather, as the RFC Series Editor, discussed the requirements of the Production Center and the Publisher with AMS and she sent a recommendation to the IAOC. The IAOC then comes to an agreement with AMS, and it has been included in the 2013 budget. Heatherâ aware of the tools development numbers, but was not involved with negotiations with AMS. There is concern that someone involved in managing the business should be involved in the budget figures, some members feel it would be a good idea to begin involving her in that. On the other hand there is concern that the role is not a business role. It is agreed that it would be good to clarify in the coming year the position of the role. It was proposed that in IETF 86 the IAOC and Heather, RSOC and perhaps IAB representatives as well, sit down and discuss. 6. 2013 IAOC, Trust, and Committee Calendar ==================================== Ray sent to the list a tentative 2013 meetings calendar to review with the goal of adopting a 2013 calendar on the 13 December call. 7. AOB ======= A question arose as to what a quorum was now that the IAOC was down one member. According to the IAOC Administrative Procedures, A quorum for a meeting of the IAOC shall be a majority of the IAOC then in office. All decisions of the members must be approved by majority vote of the members then in office. Except for removal of the Chair, any action of the IAOC may be taken by e-vote upon the request of the Chair, or by consensus of the members. Actions of the IAOC taken by e-vote shall be duly recorded in minutes and retained in the IAOC's records. Bob adjourned the meeting at 11:04 EST.