International Association for Cryptologic Research

Minutes of the BoD Meeting at Eurocrypt 2000

Board of Directors Meeting
Eurocrypt 2000
14 May 2000

The Board President called the meeting to order at 10:01.

Present were Beaver, Benaloh, Berson, Biham, Cachin, Clark, Kim, Landrock,
Langford, Matsumoto, Maurer, McCurley, E. Okamoto, T. Okamoto, Posch,
Preneel, Van Oorschot, and Vandewalle.  Swick was also present representing
the IACR Secretariat.

Proxies were held for Diffie by Preneel and for Vandewalle by Landrock
(during Vandewalle's absence).

The agenda of the meeting was approved unanimously.

Minutes of the 15 August 1999 meeting were approved.  Motion by Preneel
seconded by Berson carried 17 to 0.

Eurocrypt 200 General Chair Vandewalle reported on the conference.
Corporate sponsorships from Cryptomathic Belgium, PWC, Utimaco Safeware,
Europay International, Isaserver, and Ubizen netted approximately $23,000 in
additional income.  Ancillary (non-participant based) expenses were
approximately $56,000.  This includes approximately $6,000 in student
stipends, $12,000 for the lecture hall, $11,000 in organizing committee
expenses, $6,000 in program committee expenses, and $10,000 refunded to the
IACR secretariat to repay the advance previously provided.  Regular
registration was $370 and student registration was $90.

McCurley asked about the availability of internet access and Preneel
responded that 12 machines have been made available.

McCurley reminded Vandewalle to acknowledge the corporate sponsors and
Vandewalle provided the Board with further information about each of the

McCurley asked about the availability of proceedings and books and Preneel
responded that these had been sent by Springer-Verlag.

Clark asked about participant costs and was told by Preneel that some of the
sponsors received free registration (the loss of approximately $2,500 in
registration fees had already been accounted for in the net income from

All gave thanks to Vandewalle for his work on the conference.

McCurley asked about the adequacy of the IACR guidelines to the Program
Chair and Preneel suggested the need for an update.

McCurley asked about the arrangement with the IACR secretariat and Preneel
reported that there were only minor glitches.

Vandewalle mentioned the need for early hotel reservations, and Preneel said
that new hotels were found after the original hotels became fully booked.

Clark offered compliments to Vandewalle and Preneel for the selection of the
Hotel Montanus for the Board.

Eurocrypt 2001 General Chair Posch then gave a report on Eurocrypt 2001.

Posch stated that a website had been set up at
McCurley asked if we should register the URL  Cachin felt
that this was unnecessary.  Posch said that he prefers to maintain the web
site locally.

Posch asked the Board about sponsorship guidelines.  McCurley said they were
unstructured.  Langford asked about tax consequences of large contributions.
McCurley said that the IACR is incorporated in the U.S. and must follow U.S.
tax laws and its own mission.  Langford offered to send tax information to
Posch.  Posch asked if there was any decision process and McCurley responded
that this was open.

McCurley commented that any decision on distinguished lectures was reserved
by the Board and asked if Posch needed to make any deposits as yet.  Posch
responded that he did not.

The date for Eurocrypt 2001 was given as 6-11 May 2001.

McCurley asked Posch to present info on Eucrocrypt 2001 at the Business

Asiacrypt 2000 General Chair Matsumoto then reported on Asiacrypt 2000.

Matsumoto said that preparations were going well.  The registration fee
would be $595 with a $75 reduction for early registration and a $80
reduction for IACR members.  Expected income was given as 15,982,000 yen
(with an exchange rate of approximately 100 yen to the dollar).

McCurley asked about the paper submission deadline and was told by T.
Okamoto that it would be May 25.

Matsumoto agreed to discuss budget details separately with Langford.

McCurley asked if there were any outstanding issues.  Matsumoto said that he
wanted to use corporate donations to reduce the registration fee below $500
but that corporate financial difficulties had limited this option.

McCurley asked about the possibility of electronic submissions, and T.
Okamoto said that submissions would be accepted by e-mail.

The issue of relationships of IACR with other conferences was then

McCurley said that Asiacrypt had been the recent focus, but that
relationships with other conferences such as Fast Software Encryption, the
Information Hiding Workshop, and Financial Cryptography could be considered.

Preneel said that the Fast Software Encryption conference has no formal
committee.  It had been a small workshop in 1993 and 1994 and grew
substantially from approximately 30 participants to approximately 200
participants when paired with the AES workshop.  It is expected to stabilize
at approximately 100 participants.  Matsui will be the next Program Chair.
The conference has never lost money but has no financial reserve.  It uses
IACR copyright forms.

McCurley noted that Ian Goldberg is not requiring any copyright assignment
in conjunction with the Financial Cryptography workshop.

Preneel emphasized that if the Fast Software Encryption conference were to
be sponsored by the IACR it should be done in a way that does NOT cause
related papers to be rejected from any of the current IACR conferences.

Maurer said that no guarantees are possible.

Preneel said that guidelines to support this position are possible.

Van Oorschot suggested that it might be best to NOT emphasize this point.

Clark asked about the advantages to IACR of an affiliation with the Fast
Software Encryption conference.

Landrock suggested that it could increase both IACR's prestige and

Maurer expressed the opinion that sponsorship of high-quality conferences is
advantageous to IACR and asked whether IACR conferences should have separate
content and flavor.

McCurley observed we have previously distinguished conferences only by
regionalization and that discrimination based on content would be a new

Maurer said that he would be happy to have Fast Software Encryption be a
premier IACR conference in its area.

Biham asserted that it is essential to maintain author choice in where to

McCurley suggested that he thought that content-based bias had not been a
problem, but Van Oorschot said that he had seen IACR program committees
reject papers from conferences on the basis of their being more appropriate
for Fast Software Encryption.  Preneel shared Van Oorschot's concern in this

Berson offered the Information Hiding Workshop as another example of a
conference toward which some IACR program committee's have redirected

McCurley expressed dilution of quality as his major concern.

Van Oorschot observed that hardware papers are regularly rejected from the
Crypto and Eurocrypt conferences.  Preneel added his belief that this had
been a consistent problem.

McCurley asked if we should be directing IACR program committees to include
more hardware papers.  Maurer expressed the opinion that these are separate
areas.  Benaloh voiced a concern about an even greater reduction in quality
of submissions.

McCurley asked about recent conference acceptance rates.  Preneel said that
the acceptance rate at Eurocrypt 2000 was 26% and that 31 out of 116 papers
[27%] were accepted at Crypto 2000.

McCurley asked about how the co-ordination of additional IACR conferences
would be managed.  Preneel suggested a model like that used for Asiacrypt
with a separate steering committee.

McCurley asked for a specific proposal.

Van Oorschot said that the financial stability of the IACR would be a
benefit to Fast Software Encryption.

McCurley suggested that the Fast Software Encryption conference might shrink
dramatically after the AES competition is over.

Berson said that the IACR should be open to new sponsorships but expressed
concern over the managerial stress that this would place on the IACR.

Benaloh suggested the possibility of waiting a year until after AES to make
a decision about Fast Software Encryption.  Preneel countered that the Fast
Software Encryption conference had 120 participants prior to being linked
with AES workshops.

McCurley reiterated the concern about management of additional conferences.
Van Oorschot suggested that a Eurocrypt steering committee (similar to that
of Asiacrypt) could off-load some of IACR's management burden.  McCurley
expressed support for this idea.

Maurer observed that this opened a greater issue of IACR Board structure and
the possibility of forming sub-committees to perform some of the management.

Clark contrasted the contributions IACR would offer to Fast Software
Encryption, including financial insurance, organizational assistance from
the IACR Secretariat, and legal support such as maintenance of copyrights,
with the primary benefit of additional prestige that Fast Software
Encryption would bring to the IACR.

McCurley suggested the possibility of merging the Fast Software Encryption
conference with the workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems.
Berson expressed the opinion that this kind of high-level planning was the
wrong model and that the IEEE open conference model was preferable.
McCurley agreed that an open model was good but reiterated concerns about
dilution of quality.  Van Oorschot voiced the opinion that the IACR should
not become bureaucratic.

Benaloh asked about stressing of the IACR secretariat and whether Fast
Software Encryption participants should become IACR members.  The consensus
was that this was possible and desirable.

Beaver asked for details on the IEEE model for managing conferences.  Berson
responded that the IEEE heavily taxes conferences and uses these proceeds to
manage risk and absorb losses.

Beaver suggested that other conferences might want to ally with the IACR so
long as the IACR does not micromanage them.

Biham asked where we see the IACR in twenty years.  McCurley expressed the
desire that it be similar to today.  Landrock asked whether the Crypto and
Eurocrypt conferences would represent a smaller portion of the IACR's
activities.  Van Oorschot asked if it would be expanded to cryptography and

Preneel suggested that any decision on Fast Software Encryption be made in
the context of future consequences for other conferences.  Biham added that
we should have precise criteria for other conferences allying with IACR.

Clark reminded the Board that historically the IACR had a "sponsored by
IACR" status and an "in cooperation with IACR" status for conferences and
expressed the opinion that the primary concern is consistency of future
criteria.  Clark then asked that a specific proposal be solicited from the
Fast Software Encryption organizers.

McCurley said that he felt that management was still a concern.

Preneel said that about half of Fast Software Encryption participants also
come to IACR conferences.

Biham suggested that some Fast Software Encryption participants find that
conference to be more manageable than IACR conferences.

McCurley asked about an independent committee for Fast Software Encryption
citing management advantages, more direct selection of a Program Committee
Chair, and avoidance of micromanagement as advantages.

Berson voiced the view that this would be a good model for "sponsored

McCurley said that he wanted to eliminate the "in cooperation with IACR"
status and didn't favor adding new designations because of implied IACR
approval of the conferences' content.

Clark described major issues as legal and financial.

Benaloh suggested that financial stability should be a major concern.

Maurer suggested looking at other organizations for models to follow.

Berson suggested the appointment of a committee to consider the issue.

E. Okamoto said that IACR needs to change to respond to growth.

McCurley suggested the need for a model for workshops to be incorporated
into the IACR.

Clark supported Berson's suggestion that we should create a committee to
deal with the issue before it becomes more urgent.

McCurley asked Preneel, Biham, and Maurer to act as a committee to explore
guidelines for IACR sponsored workshops.  Berson, Langford, and Clark
offered their resources to help with the committee.

Beaver suggests that a better name than "workshop" could be advantageous.

Clark asked for the committee to report back to the Board at the next IACR
Board meeting in Santa Barbara.  The committee members agreed to do so.

Van Oorschot noted that Springer-Verlag will publish the RSA conference
crypto track proceedings starting in 2001 and that we have no control over
this literature.

McCurley expressed a desire to restructure the IACR Board and by-laws to
provide for committees with specific duties.

The issue of the IACR Secretariat was then discussed.

Swick proposed that the Secretariat no longer attend Eurocrypt and Asiacrypt
conferences expressing the view that this is both unnecessary and burdensome
on the Secretariat.  She proposed that the IACR instead follow the Eurocrypt
'99 model in which funds are sent directly to the Eurocrypt committee rather
than filtered through the Secretariat.

Preneel expressed the view that the Eurocrypt 2000 committee would have had
difficulties handling credit card payments directly.

Langford suggested that the IACR could advance funds as necessary.

Clark observed that the IACR has historically asked the Secretariat to send
personnel to conferences for coordination and noted that the job of the
Secretariat has recently been extended substantially.

Berson asked if payment to the secretariat had increased commensurately to
which several members responded that it had not.

Beaver suggested that Preneel's concerns about cash flow could be isolated
and that the conference seed funds may need to be increased from the current

McCurley expressed a strong desire to make web-based conference registration

Swick said that most of these things were possible but that physical
presence by the Secretariat at conferences was the primary burden.

McCurley noted that database entry has relied on physical presence.

Matsumoto said that Asiacrypt 2000 is relying on physical presence of the

Swick said that Secretariat presence at Asiacrypt was less of a problem but
that the timing of Eurocrypt in May posed a significant problem for the

McCurley then appointed a committee to report on the IACR relationship to
the Secretariat.  The committee included Beaver, Posch, Matsumoto, Swick,
and Langford.

Clark asked that the committee report back at the Board's next meeting in
Santa Barbara and the committee members agreed to do so.

IACR Treasurer Langford then presented a brief financial report.

Eurocrypt '99 broke even with $222,000 in income after returning $48,000 to
the IACR.  Of this $48,000, $28,000 went to member dues, $10,000 was paid to
the secretariat for services, and $10,000 repaid the advance supplied by the

Crypto '99 had $244,000 in income.  $74,000 was returned to the IACR of
which $30,000 went for member dues and $10,000 repaid the IACR advance.
This left a $34,000 surplus.

It was also reported that an additional $7,000 surplus was returned to the
IACR from Eucrocrypt '97.

As of 31 December 1999, the IACR reserve consisted of $200,000 in CDs,
$115,000 in a checking account, and $15,000 held by the Secretariat.  After
expenses, the total surplus was $260,000.

An extension on taxes had just been filed to keep the IACR in conformance.

Clark suggested that after a recent failure to renew the domain
name that the responsibility of domain registration should be turned over to
the Treasurer.  Langford agreed to accept this responsibility.

The Board recessed for lunch at 12:31 and reconvened at 13:59.

The Board then considered proposals for Eurocrypt 2002.

Nigel Smart presented a proposal to hold Eurocrypt 2002 in Bristol, UK.

A second proposal was planned, but due to a scheduling misunderstanding, the
second proposal and final decision was postponed until the following day.

Asiacrypt Steering Committee Chair E. Okamoto then briefed the Board on
Asiacrypt 2001.

He reminded the Board that Asiacrypt 2001 had previously been approved for
Taiwan but that the offer to host the conference was withdrawn after the
1999 earthquake.

He then reported that the Asiacrypt steering committee had recommended that
the conference be relocated to Queensland, Australia.

Colin Boyd then briefed the Board on a proposal to host Asiacrypt 2001 on
the Gold Coast of Queensland, Australia.  Dates were given as 9-13 December
2001 for a conference hall with a capacity of 400 and hotels within 10-15
minutes by bus.  Ed Dawson was proposed as General Chair and Colin Boyd was
proposed as Program Chair.  Early registration fees were estimated at $495
(exclusive of IACR membership).

After some discussion, the Board approved this proposal.

The Board then devoted some time to discussion of Eurocrypt 2002.

A particular concern was timing of the conference.  (Eurocrypt 2000 was held
the same week as the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy in Oakland.)

Berson reported that this conflict was due to a late change in the dates for
the Oakland conference and that this conference would henceforth be held the
week following the second Sunday in May.

The consensus of the Board was that efforts should be made to avoid future
conflicts with both the Oakland conference and the Symposium on Theory of
Computation (STOC) and that this could best be done by scheduling Eurocrypt
in early May or even late April.

The topic of IACR elections was then discussed.

McCurley noted the need to appoint an election committee.

Clark volunteered to serve as returning officer.

Newsletter Editor Cachin then reported on the Newsletter.

Cachin said that there was generally little technical material but that
content usually consisted of unsolicited announcements, organizational
issues, and advertisements for open positions.

Cachin asked if we should seek or accept payment for position

Berson expressed concern about spam from headhunters but suggested that
accepting donations is reasonable.

McCurley suggested that we dictate a format for position advertisements.

Cachin then reported on the IACR e-print archive.

He said that it had approximately 20 papers and was hosted on Mihir
Bellare's machine at UCSD and was administered by himself and Bennet Yee.

He then suggested the appointment of an IACR website master.

McCurley noted that Cachin was serving in three roles:  newsletter editor,
web master, and e-print archive manager.

McCurley suggested the need for a publications committee.

Cachin suggested the possibility of an IACR machine.

McCurley expressed a need for the IACR to better define its approach to
electronic publication and to include Springer-Verlag in the process.

Cachin offered that readers want both hard and soft copy available and asked
if it were possible to share copyright.

Biham asked whether copyrighted items could be included on the e-print

McCurley answered that copyrighted items could be included if their
copyrights were held by IACR.  He then referred to the IACR copyright
agreement which can be found in

Clark suggested that authors may publish their work on their own web sites
but that IACR encourage them not to do so for twelve months.

Cachin said that he did not want authors to publish identical papers in
Springer-Verlag and on the e-print archive.

McCurley expressed a desire to maintain good relations with both
Springer-Verlag and authors.

McCurley noted that members have frequently asked for electronic versions of
both current proceedings and back issues of the Journal.

The Board then discussed Program Chairs for upcoming conferences and voted
to ask Colin Boyd to serve as the Program Chair for Asiacrypt 2001 and Lars
Knudsen to serve as Program Chair for Eurocrypt 2002.  [Both subsequently

Preneel raised the issue that many people had expressed concerns regarding
deadlines for IACR conferences being unbalanced (Crypto 2000 deadline
falling only 2.5 months after the Eurocrypt 2000 deadline).

The Board then appointed an election committee consisting of Clark, Kim, and
Maurer.  [Benaloh subsequently replaced Maurer because of Maurer's
anticipated absence from Crypt 2000.]

The Board then agreed to meet over lunch on 15 May 2000 to hear an
additional proposal for Eurocrypt 2002 and discuss further business.

An agenda for the Business Meeting was established including announcements
for subsequent conferences and reports on finances, the Newsletter, and
upcoming elections.

The Board then formally voted to accept the Asiacrypt 2001 proposal and
separately voted to ask Colin Boyd to serve as Program Chair.

Van Oorschot asked that attempts be made to reduce costs for the conference.

The meeting was adjourned at 16:55.

Board of Directors Supplemental Meeting
EuroCrypt 2000
15 May 2000

The Board President called the supplemental meeting to order at 12:44.

Present were Beaver, Benaloh, Berson, Biham, Cachin, Clark, Franklin, Kim,
Landrock, Langford, Matsumoto, Maurer, McCurley, T. Okamoto, Posch, Preneel,
and Van Oorschot.

Berry Schoenmakers and and Henk C. A. van Tilborg presented a proposal to
hold Eurocrypt 2002 in the Netherlands.

Matt Franklin then gave a brief status report on Crypto 2000.

He said that all was going well but that the costs would increase
approximately 5% due to UCSB food and service increases.

Berson asked whether such increases were typical.

Beaver responded that the previous year's increase was approximately 3%.

Votes were then taken on the proposals for Eurocrypt 2002 and the Board
accepted the Netherlands proposal with a preference for siting the
conference in a single hotel in Amsterdam.

The supplemental meeting was adjourned at 13:56.

Respectfully submitted
Josh Benaloh
IACR Secretary

[ IACR home page | IACR Newsletter page and archive | This issue ] © IACR