************************ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ************************ The IACR Board of Directors met on April 28, 2002 during Eurocrypt 2002 in Amsterdam. Reports were received on the final disposition of Asiacrypt 2001 and FSE 2002 and the status of Eurocrypt 2002, Crypto 2002, Asiacrypt 2002, Eurocrypt 2003, and Crypto 2003. Additional reports were received on the status of the Journal of Cryptology, the IACR Newsletter, web site, and ePrint Archive, IACR membership and Secretariat issues, IACR finances, the Asiacrypt Steering Committee, and on results of an exploration of costs for accepting the euro currency at Eurocrypt. The Board accepted a proposal to hold FSE 2003 in Lund, Sweden. The Board accepted a proposal to hold Eurocrypt 2004 in Interlaken, Switzerland with Jan Camenisch as General Chair. The Board voted to ask Christian Cachin to serve as Eurocrypt 2004 Program Chair. The Board accepted a proposal to hold Asiacrypt 2004 on Cheju Island, Korea with Kwangjo Kim as General Chair. The Board voted to ask Pil Joong Lee to serve as Asiacrypt 2004 Program Chair. The Board voted to Re-appoint Cachin as Newsletter Editor for the 2002-2004 term. The Board voted to accept sponsorship of PKC workshops beginning in 2003. The Board decided not to set up a "partial" electronic registration system but rather to work towards a fully-integrated system. ************************ DETAILED MINUTES ************************ Board of Directors Meeting Eurocrypt 2002 Amsterdam 28 April 2002 Board President Clark called the meeting to order at 10:02. Present were Benaloh, Berson, Biham, Cachin, Clark, Desmedt, Gawinecki, Kim, Knudsen, Langford, Matsumoto, Maurer, Preneel, Rose, Schoenmakers, Wolfe, and Wright. Proxies were held for Dawson by Kim, for Feigenbaum by Berson, for McCurley by Clark, and (subsequently) for Schoenmakers by Knudsen. ________________________________________________________________________ Clark asked for additions to the agenda which was then approved with a minor correction. The minutes of the 19 August 2001 Board meeting were then approved without objection. ________________________________________________________________________ Eurocrypt 2002 General Chair Schoenmakers then gave a status report on the conference. He said that there had been 457 registrants including the organizing committee and 93 students and that there were 12 accompanying persons. He said that the computer room providing Internet access would include 10 computers and additional laptop connections but would not be ready until Monday. Clark asked if there were delegates from countries not previously represented and Schoenmakers responded that he was uncertain but would give a national overview during the Membership Meeting. Clark asked if there had been any problems and Schoenmakers responded that he learned late about the need to send official letters of invitation to some delegates. Clark said that this information was now in the Guidelines thanks to Preneel. ________________________________________________________________________ Treasurer Langford then gave a report on IACR finances. Langford circulated a report prior to the meeting indicating a surplus of approximately $376,000 and surpluses received from each of the 2001 IACR conferences (approximately $35,000 from each of Eurocrypt and Crypto and $3,000 from Asiacrypt). Clark asked about Secretariat issues and Langford responded that we would begin charging conferences directly for secretariat services at the rate of $25 per person for Crypto and $10 per person for each of Asiacrypt and Eurocrypt (she indicated that the larger rate for Crypto was to cover the on-site services provided by the Secretariat). Wright asked where the break-even points were and Langford responded that it was 400 participants for Crypto and lower for each of Asiacrypt and Eurocrypt. Clark noted that this structure makes direct comparisons easier and thanked Langford for her work. ________________________________________________________________________ Schoenmakers then responded to a question about Eurocrypt 2002 proceedings by saying that they were 550 pages and thanked Eurocrypt 2002 Program Chair Knudsen for his work in creating the program and assembling the proceedings. ________________________________________________________________________ Clark then reported on issues regarding the euro currency. He noted that one IACR member was unhappy with euros not being accepted at Eurocrypt conferences, and Clark and Langford provided information to the Board on their research as to costs that would be incurred to enable acceptance of the euro. It was reported that since the UCSB can only process credit card fees in U.S. dollars, an alternate entity would have to be engaged to process euro credit cards, and the costs were estimated at approximately $25 (or 30 euros) per delegate. It was noted that previous Eurocrypt conferences had multi-currency registration, and that the process was simplified when the UCSB began to handle Secretariat duties. Desmedt suggested that this issue should be judged based on economics. Schoenmakers noted the problem of forward exchange rate changes for the euro. Biham asked if people could use euro bank transfers, and Langford replied that this could currently be managed only for on-site registration. Schoenmakers asked about the percentage of registrants that use credit cards, and Langford responded that it was in the range of 80-90% with the remainder of fees paid with bank transfers and some on-site cash. Clark noted that Eurocrypt 2003 would be held in Warsaw where the euro is not the local currency. ________________________________________________________________________ Clark then discussed the Membership report which had been distributed in advance of the Board meeting by Membership Secretary Beaver. It noted the number of IACR members as slightly over a thousand with a rapidly growing student membership. It was also noted that more work needed to be done on the database to incorporate FSE and bring things up to date. ________________________________________________________________________ Newsletter Editor Cachin then reported on the status of the Newsletter. He said that the Newsletter was running smoothly but that the web site might require some maintenance. Cachin then reported that the ePrint server was also running smoothly but that he and Mihir Bellare must occasionally reject submission as "out of scope". A particular instance of a an author's complaint about a rejected submission was then raised, and after a discussion the Board decided to support the decision of the ePrint managers while asking that the policy be clarified on the web site. The Board then voted to renew Cachin's position as Newsletter Editor for the 2002-2004 term. ________________________________________________________________________ Journal Editor-in-Chief Maurer then reported on the Journal of Cryptology. Maurer began by reminding the Board that he is serving this year as Editor-in-Chief jointly with his predecessor Feigenbaum. He said that the transition had been smooth and that there would be some changes to the Editorial Board. Maurer then noted that the backlog was fairly short and that there had been some difficulty in filling the winter issue. He added that he had received only eight new submissions in his four months as Editor but emphasized that he would not reduce quality to fill the Journal. Maurer lamented the fact that many good conference papers are never submitted to journals and described the need to encourage authors to publish in the Journal. Cachin asked what kinds of papers Maurer sought, and Maurer responded that he wanted the best papers from conferences to be re-written in journal form and submitted to the Journal of Cryptology. Berson suggested soliciting submissions at the beginning of IACR conferences and during the Membership Meetings. Wright suggested sending letters to invite particular submissions but cautioned against pleading during Membership Meetings. Desmedt suggested having special issues and asking Program Chairs to solicit their best papers. Maurer responded that he had discussed special issues with the Editorial Board and decided that this was not the best course. Clark wondered if the reduction in submissions was a trend due to new publishing paradigms. Maurer then asked the Board for an opinion as to whether he could be a co-author on a paper submitted to the Journal. Wright noted her experience on another journal in which the Editor-in-Chief was required to delegate duties for a paper in which there was a conflict of interests. Clark expressed a desire to support Maurer on his right to submit his own work to the Journal, and the Board agreed. ________________________________________________________________________ Clark then turned to the issue of archiving. He described discussions regarding the possible appointment of an IACR Archivist to be charged with managing and maintaining the works to which IACR owns the copyright. Cachin noted that he and McCurley had assembled electronic copies of some past conferences. Beaver arrived at this point. Wright suggested being careful to work in conjunction with Springer-Verlag, and Preneel noted that final submissions to Springer-Verlag are sometimes changed by Springer-Verlag. Schoenmakers asked why the PDF files produced by Springer-Verlag are not sufficient, and Preneel and Cachin responded that the IACR does not own these files. Clark agreed to work with Springer-Verlag on this issue and emphasized the importance of IACR maintaining copies under its own control and ownership. Berson asked if the archive should include Board papers and Wright asked if Rump Session papers should also be included. The Board agreed that the President appoint Hilarie Orman as the IACR Archivist for a renewable period and that she would report progress to the Board. Cachin noted that Board papers are available on the IACR web site and agreed to take responsibility along with McCurley and liaise with the IACR Archivist to assist in maintaining archives. Desmedt suggested negotiating with Springer-Verlag to gain access to their PDF files after one year. ________________________________________________________________________ At 10:49, the Board recessed for a ten-minute break. The Board reconvened at 10:59. ________________________________________________________________________ Clark noted that lunch would be held promptly at 12:30 and said that copies of the FSE 2003 proposal were being made. ________________________________________________________________________ Clark then reported on FSE 2002 as reported to him by Vincent Rijmen and Matt Landrock. He said that there had been 70 submissions of which 21 were accepted and that there were 100 participants. Because of the larger than expected number of participants, FSE 2002 would be reporting a surplus. It was also reported that the logistics of initiating IACR sponsorship had caused some minor problems. Schoenmakers said that he had been surprised by the effect of IACR dues being paid at FSE 2002 which caused some Eurocrypt attendees to be exempt from IACR dues. Cachin asked about registration issues, and Langford responded that registration had not been handled by the IACR Secretariat. Clark noted that Eurocrypt 2003 registration forms would need a tick box for those who were already IACR members by virtue of FSE 2003 registration. Rose asked about those not wanting to be IACR members and Wolfe inquired about those who had purchased membership before registration. ________________________________________________________________________ The newly printed FSE 2003 proposal was then circulated. Preneel reported that two proposals had been submitted and that Lund, Sweden had been selected as the preferred venue. ************************************************************************ Desmedt moved to accept the FSE 2003 proposal for Lund, Sweden with a minor date correction. Preneel seconded, and the motion carried 19 to 0. ************************************************************************ ________________________________________________________________________ Clark then raised the issue of electronic registration for IACR conferences. He said that he had contacted several companies who want to handle all registration and payment and that web hosting companies seemed to reference only similar package services. Clark then said that he had found one company that would be willing to simply write a front end for us and do the web hosting. Clark described the detailed process that would be involved and the company that would do the development work. He noted that we would have to pay for the development but that the company would then provide the hosting for free for one year as a trial. Desmedt asked if the UCSB offered any similar services, and Clark replied that it did not. Cachin asked about the company that would be doing the development work, and Clark provided further details. Cachin asked if the same company could also host the IACR web site, and Clark responded that it would be possible but recommended not making that commitment yet. Wright suggested that this could be good as a trial and asked about pre-population of forms. She then asked whether this would be available for Crypto 2003 and how it would be budgeted. Clark responded that it could be available for Crypto 2003 and that funds would come directly from the IACR rather than from a conference budget. Biham asked whether this service could be added to some component of the current IACR environment such as the ePrint server. Clark said that a commercial agreement seemed necessary and that this could presumably be better integrated with other IACR services in the future. Biham asked whether credit card security would be an issue, and Clark agreed to check. Langford noted that the IACR Secretariat had handled credit card numbers from other sources in the past. Beaver expressed a concern about the new application that would have to be learned by the Secretariat and asked whether this could be easier for the Secretariat to use. Clark agreed to explore this issue. Wright asked whether this development work could be performed immediately, and Clark responded that it could. Cachin asked who would own the resulting applications, and Clark responded that the IACR would have ownership. Clark said that form filling and database management were outside of the scope of this proposal and enumerated the risks as including the fact that this would be new work for the company and that hacking could make this service unavailable. Maurer expressed a desire for a more integrated approach. Biham asked whether encrypted e-mail to the Secretariat could be used to provide a more complete solution, and Cachin suggested the use of PGP. Berson noted the need to select an option. Schoenmakers suggested that this not be publicly branded as a trial. Clark outlined two options: waiting for a more integrated approach or going with the trial immediately. A straw poll indicated a slight preference for waiting, and Clark agreed to hold this for further discussion in committee. ________________________________________________________________________ Crypto 2002 General Chair Wright then reported on the status of the conference. She said that there had been a large number (175) of submissions and that there were about 38-39 acceptances (a rate of 21-22%). She said that things were generally running smoothly. ________________________________________________________________________ Asiacrypt 2002 General Chair Wolfe then reported on the status of the conference. He said that things were going well and noted that the New Zealand dollar had strengthened. ________________________________________________________________________ Kim then reported on Asiacrypt 2001 for General Chair Dawson. He circulated a report showing a final surplus of $2,307.88. ________________________________________________________________________ Kim then reported on Asiacrypt 2004 for Asiacrypt Steering Committee Chair Dawson. He reported on a proposal to hold Asiacrypt 2004 at the Shilla Cheju Hotel on Korea's Cheju Island south of the Korean mainland. McCurley arrived at this point. Clark asked about hotel rates, and Desmedt responded that off-season rates were low while Kim added that this would be during the off-season. Desmedt reported his personal experience with and support for this facility. Clark offered his thanks to the Asiacrypt Steering Committee. Benaloh asked about the facilities for the technical sessions, the Kim detailed many suitable meeting rooms at the hotel. ************************************************************************ Preneel moved to accept the proposal to hold Asiacrypt 2004 on Cheju Island, Korea with Kim as the General Chair. The motion was seconded by Berson and carried 18-0 with 1 abstention. ************************************************************************ ________________________________________________________________________ Eurocrypt 2003 General Chair Gawinecki then reported on the status of the conference. He began by describing his exploration of support from various official organizations but his need to have the full Program Committee in place before obtaining such support. Gawinecki then described the venue in the TPSA conference hall in Central Warsaw as 20-30 minutes from the airport by taxi or train with many nearby hotels. He noted a 553-person capacity in the venue and meals to be held in the Quo Vadis Restaurant. Clark asked if preparations were going well, and Gawinecki responded that they were and that he would be discussing the full Program Committee with Program Chair Biham. Preneel asked how hotel booking would be handled, and Gawinecki responded that he will be negotiating with hotels. ________________________________________________________________________ Crypto 2003 General Chair Rose then reported on the status of the conference. He said that not much active work had yet been done and that no substantive changed were planned. ________________________________________________________________________ Preneel then reported that no formal proposals had yet been received for Eurocrypt 2004 and that he had asked Cachin to post a request for proposals on the web site. Cachin said that he had done so and also taken the opportunity to prepare with Jan Camenisch a proposal to hold Eurocrypt 2004 in Interlaken, Switzerland with hotels within walking distance of the conference venue. McCurley asked how hotel booking would be handled, and Cachin responded that it would not yet be high season and that a conference organizer would give a good deal to handle everything. ________________________________________________________________________ The Board recessed for lunch at 12:32. The Board reconvened at 14:15. ________________________________________________________________________ Discussion of the Eurocrypt 2004 proposal for Interlaken, Switzerland then resumed. ************************************************************************ Desmedt moved acceptance of the Interlaken, Switzerland proposal with Jan Camenisch as General Chair subject to details which it empowered the President to work out during the week. Beaver seconded the motion which carried 17-0 with 1 abstention. ************************************************************************ The Board then voted to ask Cachin to serve as Program Chair for Eurocrypt 2004. [Cachin subsequently accepted.] The Board also voted to ask Pil Joong Lee to serve as Program Chair for Asiacrypt 2004. [Lee subsequently accepted.] ________________________________________________________________________ Desmedt then initiated a discussion on the issue of quality control for IACR conferences. He suggested that formal requirements be established for Program Chairs to create lists of proposed Program Committee members together with justifications and submit these lists to the Board. Wright suggested that this might best be limited to new conferences, and Clark suggested expanding the Program Chair Guidelines in the alternative. Biham expressed a concern that this would only shift to the Board the problem of selecting Program Committees rather than just selecting Program Chairs. He then asked how Program Chairs would go about soliciting Committee members. Would it be necessary to bring an ordered list to the Board? Benaloh expressed the view that this could be done as a condition of new IACR sponsorship of conferences but that it did not seem reasonable to impose such a new condition on extant conferences. Wolfe suggested that presence on the Board's internal list should indicate prior approval by the Board. Wright observed that this is a procedural matter and suggested the need for the process to be clear to both the Board and all other parties. Berson expressed the view that this kind of micromanagement and attempts at optimization were unnecessary since the quality of conferences is determined by their papers. Preneel expressed the view that the internal list should be informal. Clark then asked for a volunteer to amend the Program Chair Guidelines, and Preneel responded that Program Committee selection is already discussed in the Guidelines but not enforced. Desmedt said that he didn't care what method was used but that quality control was important. Clark said that he did not want the Board more involved in Program Committee selection. Wright suggested the possibility of having a Board member (perhaps whichever Director is charged with maintaining the Program Chair Guidelines) act as a mentor to the Program Chair, and Desmedt immediately volunteered to fill the role. Maurer said that he viewed Knudsen's role of managing Program Chair Guidelines to include serving as a liaison between the Board and Program Chairs, and Clark said that he thought it was clear that the role of managing the Program Committee Guidelines included working with Program Chairs. Benaloh suggested that the Guidelines manager should provide a specific contact when delivering the Guidelines, and Berson suggested that this contact should be the Guidelines manager. Clark then asked Knudsen to fill this role, and Knudsen agreed to do so. Several Board members then expressed the view that this discussion had not been productive. McCurley suggested the possibility that the Board should create a list of potential Program Committee members and mandate that a minimum percentage of Program Committee members be chosen from the list. Knudsen expressed his preference to place trust in Program Chairs, and the discussion ceased. ________________________________________________________________________ The Board then recessed for a ten-minute break at 15:55. The Board reconvened at 16:07. ________________________________________________________________________ Desmedt then raised the issue of IACR sponsorship of the PKC workshop. He circulated a revised version of an earlier proposal that eliminated the prior option for PKC attendees to NOT pay an IACR membership fee. Several concerns were expressed and discussed including the 12,000 euro loss suffered by PKC 2002, the high variability of PCK attendance, the relatively short history of PKC, and the process for selecting members of the PKC Steering Committee. ************************************************************************ After a lengthy discussion, Desmedt moved that PKC become an IACR sponsored workshop as of 2003. Kim seconded the motion which carried 17-1 with 1 abstention. ************************************************************************ ________________________________________________________________________ Clark then presented a proposal made by Feigenbaum to establish a program for designating IACR Fellows. Benaloh expressed the view that the decision of whether or not to establish a fellows program should be made by the IACR membership rather than the Board. Desmedt suggested that such a program should distinguish between research and service with a different selection process for each. Berson observed that the ACM model is for fellows to have distinguished themselves in BOTH research and service. Wolfe suggested the possibility of reserving "fellows" for those who had distinguished themselves for performance and using "honorary fellows" for those who had distinguished themselves for service. McCurley said that he was now in favor of a fellows program but that the current proposal was sketchy. He added the view that we should not try to match every aspect of the ACM Fellows program. Cachin expressed his agreement with McCurley as well as his support for a single category of fellow. Clark expressed a concern that the proposal had too much motivation and too little process. Wright expressed the concern that the small size of the IACR might make it seem as an attempt to give IACR Fellow status to people who didn't get honors elsewhere. Maurer noted the difference in culture between the U.S. and Europe which he described as that in the U.S. people are more willing to promote themselves and those around them. Desmedt suggested that a sub-committee study this matter, and Clark said that he would ask Feigenbaum to flesh out the proposal. McCurley asked how decisions would be made as to the targeted number of fellows -- would a certain number be given annually or would a certain percentage of the membership be targeted. He also asked whether we would want one or two categories of fellows and how and when announcements would be made. Clark noted that 0.2% of IEE members are fellows. A straw poll indicated that most of the Board favored a single category of fellows. McCurley suggested that an award ceremony would be desirable, and Wright suggested that it would be good to hold such ceremonies during conferences while staggering the venues. Clark said that he would ask Feigenbaum to respond to these issues. ________________________________________________________________________ Wright then raised the issue of the IACR logo. She noted that the official logo was almost always replaced by a color version in web postings. Clark proposed endorsing the color logo and agreed to work with Cachin to clean this up. ________________________________________________________________________ Desmedt then brought to the attention of the Board a proposal by a member to videotape IACR conferences. The proposal included the establishment of a Director position for a videotaper. Concerns were also raised about FSE not always accepting credit cards and the provision of Internet access at conferences and workshops. Rose noted that good quality videotaping is difficult and expensive. Wolfe observed the need to have an "opt out" option for speakers. Clark estimated the cost at 5,000 pounds per conference. Benaloh suggested that videotaping could be put under the purview of an IACR archivist. McCurley suggested instead videotaping just the Distinguished Lectures. Clark suggested that future General Chairs might wish to obtain quotes. McCurley noted that MSRI has a paid staff responsible for videotaping and offered to seek details. Rose said that he would also like to explore this issue. In response to the other topic mentioned, Clark noted that Internet access is generally provided at IACR conferences. ________________________________________________________________________ Clark then gave a brief follow-up on issues related to the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Wright mentioned that she had drafted a letter together with Feigenbaum on the subject. ________________________________________________________________________ In the category of other business, McCurley suggested that the Board members think about how they feel about the health of the IACR, whether the IACR should expand to include computer security, and whether the IACR should do more in education. ________________________________________________________________________ An agenda was then prepared for the Membership Meeting which was scheduled for 16:10 on Wednesday. Clark and Langford agreed to take the lead in any discussions on the use of the euro currency. ________________________________________________________________________ The meeting adjourned at 17:23. ________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted Josh Benaloh IACR Secretary