International Association for Cryptologic Research

Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting at Crypto 2002

************************   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   ************************



The IACR Board of Directors met on August 18, 2002 during Crypto 2002 in
Santa Barbara.  Reports were received on the final disposition of
Asiacrypt 2001 and the status of Crypto 2002, Asiacrypt 2002, Eurocrypt
2003, Crypto 2003, PKC 2003, and FSE 2003.  Additional reports were
received on IACR finances, membership and secretariat issues, the status
of the Journal of Cryptology, and the IACR Newsletter, web site, and
ePrint Archive.


The Board voted to raise annual IACR dues to $88 for regular members and
$44 for student members.


The Board voted to appoint James Hughes as General Chair of Crypto 2004.


The Board voted to appoint Matthew Franklin as Program Chair of Crypto


The Board invited Don Coppersmith to deliver the 2003 IACR Distinguished


The Board appointed an Election Committee consisting of Benaloh, Desmedt
(Chair), and Rose (Returning Officer).


The Board held a discussion with Hilarie Orman regarding the role and
activities of the IACR Archivist.


The Board re-appointed Beaver as Membership Secretary for the 2003-2005


The Board voted to place a proposal on the fall ballot to establish an
IACR Fellow designation.


The Board voted to thank Cachin and Mihir Bellare for their outstanding
work in managing the ePrint Archive.



************************   DETAILED MINUTES   ************************



Board of Directors Meeting

Crypto 2002

Santa Barbara

18 August 2002



Board President Clark called the meeting to order at 10:00.


Present were Beaver, Benaloh, Berson, Clark, Dawson, Desmedt,
Feigenbaum, Gawinecki, Kim, Langford, Matsumoto, McCurley, Preneel,
Rose, Schoenmakers, Wolfe, and Wright as well as Hilarie Orman in the
role of IACR Archivist and Micky Swick who represented the IACR


Proxies were held for Cachin and Knudsen by Preneel, for Maurer by
Berson, and for Biham by Gawinecki.



The agenda for the meeting was reviewed.  It consisted of the following.


- Welcome participants - identification of proxies (Clark) (5 minutes)

- Review and approve agenda (All) (5 minutes)

- Approve Minutes from last meeting (Benaloh/Clark) (10 minutes)

- Crypto 2002 status (Wright) (5 minutes)

- Financial report (Langford) (5 minutes)

- Membership Secretary report (Beaver) (5 minutes)

- Newsletter/ePrint Archive report (Cachin) (10 minutes)

- Journal of Cryptology report (Feigenbaum) (5 minutes)

- IACR Archivist (Clark/Orman/McCurley) (5 minutes)

- 2002 Election (Clark) (10 minutes)

- Asiacrypt 2002 status (Wolf) (5 minutes)

- Eurocrypt 2003 status (Gawinecki) (10 minutes)

- Crypto 2003 status (Rose) (5 minutes)

- Program and General Chair List Maintenance (Benaloh) (15 minutes)

- Crypto 2004 General Chair Appointment (Clark) (5 minutes)

- Crypto 2004 Program Chair Appointment (Clark) (20 minutes)

- Fellows Program Proposal (Feigenbaum) (15 minutes)

- Appointment of Membership Secretary 2003-2006 (Clark) (10 minutes)

- Hosting of IACR website and associated facilities (McCurley/Black) (10

- DMCA follow up (Clark) (15 minutes)

- IACR Logo Update (Clark) (2 minutes)

- Other Business (Clark) (no more than 60 minutes)

- Draft agenda for Membership meeting (All) (10 minutes)

- Review of action items


Additions to the agenda were as follows.


- Rose to discuss Program Committee Guidelines

- McCurley to discuss Springer-Verlag contract

- Clark to discuss 2003 Distinguished Lecture

- Clark to discuss PKC 2003

- Clark to discuss FSE 2003

- Clark to discuss virtual conference proposal of Nigel Smart

- Dawson to deliver Asiacrypt 2001 financial report



Clark then presented a new form that he intended to use to collect
action items in advance of preparation of Board meeting minutes.


Berson asked that minutes be circulated sooner, and Benaloh committed to
circulating draft minutes within 8 weeks.



Crypto 2002 General Chair Wright then reported on the status of the


She began by noting that Jim Hughes had set up a wireless network for
use by delegates and expressed her appreciation for the work that he had
done in this regard.


She then said that things were going well with approximately 440
registrants (23 of whom received fee waivers).  She enumerated 333
regular registrations and 93 student registrations representing a total
of 34 countries.  She said that she anticipated a modest surplus of
approximately $5,000.


Rose asked about the typical walk-in registration, and Wright responded
that it was normally around 10-15 people.


Wright then took credit for the following new features of the conference
(most of which she was largely responsible for):  jackets being provided
as delegate gifts, provision of wireless networking, placement of cafe
tables outside the lecture hall, rebuilding of the beach stairway
outside of Anacapa Hall, and the scheduling of a softball game for the
free afternoon.



Treasurer Langford then addressed issues relating to a financial report
which had been circulated in advance of the meeting.


The report stated that IACR funds were stable, that Eurocrypt 2002 had
returned a surplus, and that early estimates were that Crypto 2002 would
return a small surplus.  It also said that tax filings for 2001 had been
completed with no significant issues.  It estimated the total IACR
surplus at $370,000 and suggested that it might be a little low given
total 2001 expenses of $616,225 and the undertaking of two new workshop
sponsorships.  Nevertheless, the report recommended no increase in the
$80 per annum IACR dues even though this would likely result in at least
a small loss.


Data on registration figures for other conferences was then requested.
Orman responded that CHES registration had held roughly even over the
past year, but Rose reported that Usenix attendance was down roughly 10%
-- although the decline might be attributable to the venue outside of


Langford then asked that she be informed as soon as possible regarding
any new expenses, changes, or the like.


After a discussion, Langford agreed to recommend raising the IACR
membership dues to $88 per annum for regular members and $44 per annum
for student members.


Preneel noted that the largest membership expense is the Journal and
asked about a lower submission rate.  Feigenbaum responded that
submissions were actually not lower but added that long-term support for
the continued existence of the Journal was still an open question.



The Board then voted to raise the IACR dues to $88 for regular members
and $44 for student members.  Motion by Langford, seconded by Desmedt,
carried 17-0 with 2 abstentions.





Clark then reported on the status of the Newsletter and related items in
place of Newsletter Editor Cachin.


Clark said that Cachin had proposed moving to a new server but had
reported that everything else was working well.


Orman expressed the view that the Newsletter was long and would be more
readable if it contained more structure.  She suggested a "clickable"
table of contents.


McCurley suggested that the Newsletter be smaller but more frequent
since it had become entirely electronic.


John Black arrived at this time.



Journal Editor-in-Chief Feigenbaum then reported on the status of the


Co-Editor-in-Chief Maurer had distributed a report in advance of the
meeting in which he expressed concern about a reduction in the number of


Feigenbaum reported that there had been some confusion regarding the
submission numbers and that they were not lower.  She added that the
fall, winter, and spring issues were already full and that work was
progressing on the summer issue.  She suggested that this was a nearly
ideal backlog.


Feigenbaum then suggested that the Board have a discussion at some point
regarding the continuation of the Journal in paper form.


Desmedt offered his thanks to Feigenbaum for her efforts and noted that
the Journal had become the fifth ranked publication in the Scientific
Citation Index -- ahead of the Journal of the ACM.


McCurley then noted that the contract for the Journal would soon need to
be renegotiated and volunteered to add this to his negotiations with
Springer-Verlag regarding the Proceedings contract.


Feigenbaum suggested that the Springer-Verlag LINK service was
inconvenient because of the need to use a shared password and that much
material was not available on LINK.


McCurley said that Springer-Verlag had been reluctant to guarantee full
availability of material.


Feigenbaum asked if we necessarily wanted to continue with


Orman asked whether Springer-Verlag owned the name "Journal of
Cryptology", and McCurley responded that the IACR owned the name.


Orman asked whether Feigenbaum's concern about the LINK password was a
matter of security or convenience, and Feigenbaum responded that it was


Gawinecki said that access to Proceedings would be nice, and Preneel
asked if a new Proceedings CD-ROM was planned.  McCurley replied that
there were no such plans.


Clark then assigned an action item to McCurley to work on contracts with
Springer-Verlag and to Cachin to distribute the current LINK password to
the membership.



Membership Secretary Beaver then reported on membership issues.


Beaver quoted from a report that was distributed electronically the
following day.


He mentioned a new username and password for LINK access that would be
distributed shortly.


He said that IACR membership (as of May) had fallen to 1108 in 2002 from
1129 in 2001.  He also reported that the membership included 781 men,
129 women, and 198 who had not indicated a gender.


Beaver then reported on the findings of the Information Technology
Committee regarding provision of membership services.  He said that
"KAVI" may be able to provide membership services similar to those
provided by the UCSB Secretariat and that the costs were estimated at
$6,000 per annum.  He said that this option would be investigated
further by the Information Technology Committee.


Clark asked about the condition of the current IACR database.  Beaver
responded that FSE delegates were not yet in the database.


Desmedt noted that "secret members" who had elected not to have their
names published needed to be made known to the Election Returning


Clark then asked that appropriate database statistics be made available
to the entire membership.


Benaloh asked why Beaver was classifying members by gender at all, and
Beaver expressed a view that describing the tabulated results of the
collected data could help to identify possible inequities.  Wright
suggested that this might me done less explicitly, and Rose suggested
that when this data is collected (such as for Crypto housing) a footnote
be included to explain why this data is being collected.  Beaver later
confirmed that the reason for collecting the data in the first place was
for UCSB housing purposes.



Clark then detailed the appointment of Hilarie Orman to the role of IACR
Archivist.  He said that Orman would assemble a catalogue of candidate
materials for archiving in conjunction with McCurley and Cachin.


Orman then requested available information on IACR materials in order to
make them permanently accessible.


Clark expressed a desire for an on-line archive, and Orman said that she
had obtained electronic copies of the last four years of IACR


McCurley asked what the goal was and where these materials would be
stored.  Orman responded that the goal was to increase access.


Feigenbaum asked if paper copies could be scanned to provide electronic
access.  Orman responded that this could be done but that the primary
focus would be on electronic source media.


Feigenbaum then noted that LaTeX versions of most Journal articles were


Clark then described the terms of reference for the Archivist role as
determining what is available and where it is found and filling in holes
in current availability.


Clark then took upon himself the action item of asking Program Chairs to
send Orman electronic versions of all IACR conference papers.


Orman then asked what materials were covered by the Springer-Verlag
contract, and McCurley responded that all IACR conferences and workshops
were covered.


Clark then requested that all people with relevant data sources provide
these data to Orman.


McCurley then returned to the issue of the purpose of archiving and
expressed the view that if the purpose were to increase access, then
this would be encumbered by copyright issues.  He then suggested that
the real purpose of archiving should be to protect materials to maintain
a distribution ability.  Preneel then expressed the view that archiving
and distribution are related and suggested that it might be preferable
to negotiate with Spring-Verlag for materials they already have


Clark reminded the Board that Springer-Verlag has exclusive paper
publication rights for three years and non-exclusive rights thereafter.


Clark then said that he would circulate terms of reference for the
Archivist position to the Board.


McCurley then asked if the rump session materials should be archived,
and most Board members seemed to feel that at least the rump session
program should be maintained.


Preneel took upon himself the action item of updating the General Chair
Guidelines to reflect the role of the Archivist and asking Knudsen to do
the same for the Program Chair Guidelines.



The Board then recessed for a ten-minute break at 11:21.


The Board reconvened at 11:32.



Clark noted that there would be a break for lunch at 12:30 and suggested
re-arranging the agenda by dealing with selection of General and Program
Chairs after lunch and bringing other items forward.



Clark then addressed the issue of elections and appointment of an
Election Committee.  He noted that the terms of Kim, Maurer, and Preneel
were expiring and that all three of their positions would be open.


An Election Committee was then appointed consisting of Benaloh, Desmedt,
and Rose.  [It was subsequently decided that Desmedt would act as
Election Committee Chair and that Rose would serve as Returning


McCurley noted that an announcement regarding the upcoming elections
should be made at the forthcoming Membership meeting.



Asiacrypt 2002 General Chair Wolfe then reported on the status of the


He said that everything was on track and noted that the boat to be used
for the excursion had been recently refurbished and should provide a
good experience for all attendees.



Asiacrypt 2001 General Chair Dawson then presented final financial
figures for the conference.


He said that there had been 164 paid delegates and 4 stipends given and
that even though the conference had set a break even point at 200
attendees, a surplus of $2,307.88 had been returned.



Eurocrypt 2003 General Chair Gawinecki then reported on the status of
the conference.


He said that a preliminary version of the web site was ready and that a
variety of hotels would be available.  He noted in response to a
question that the Hotel Sofitel would be the venue for the Board


McCurley asked that Gawinecki and other General Chairs report their
experiences with the General Chair Guidelines and suggest any necessary



Crypto 2003 General Chair Rose then reported on the status of the


He said that everything was steady and that he anticipated no major
changes although he was considering having different regional wines
featured each night.


McCurley suggested that the effects of wireless network access in the
meeting room should be monitored.  McCurley also noted that hotels are
often difficult to book in Santa Barbara and suggested providing more
information with advanced registration.


Desmedt suggested that a briefing of the IACR Officers on the status of
Asiacrypt 2003 be scheduled.



McCurley then raised the issue of contract negotiations with
Springer-Verlag and circulated a draft contract.  He then described the
terms of an agreement in principle which included IACR maintaining
ownership of copyrights and Springer-Verlag receiving exclusive paper
publication rights for three years and non-exclusive paper publication
rights thereafter.  He asked whether it was necessary to add an explicit
clause carving out the ePrint Archive's right to continue as is.


Desmedt asked if it would be possible to obtain on-line access to
proceedings, and McCurley responded that it would be expensive.


Feigenbaum asked if researchers had had trouble with access, and Rose
reported an example of a difficulty.


Beaver suggested that the ability to browse indices would be useful.


Berson expressed a concern that the relationship between the IACR and
Springer-Verlag was too dependent upon a single person at
Springer-Verlag, and McCurley responded that he had worked to establish
other contacts.


Beaver asked if the contract should be reviewed by a lawyer, and Clark
responded that it had been decided not to do so.


Wolfe asked if the IACR should accede to Springer-Verlag's wish to have
German jurisdiction, and McCurley replied that he had done some research
on the issue and saw no reason to object.


Rose suggested avoiding getting too deep into "legalese".


Clark asked if there were objections to signing the contract, and, after
some discussion, no objections were raised.


Clark then set an action item for Cachin to ensure that the ePrint
Archive include a statement that work submitted to the ePrint Archive
should not be identical to work appearing elsewhere.



McCurley then raised the issue of hosting of the IACR web site.  He
suggested that it was desirable to have a dedicated IACR machine to
obtain maximum flexibility and configurability.


John Black said that Cachin wanted a dedicated server that was managed
full-time by a third party.


Clark said that the Information Technology Committee should meet to
select a suitable service.


Feigenbaum asked why we were contemplating changes, and McCurley
responded that Cachin would like to be able to delegate access.


Clark then created an action item to have the Information Technology
Committee (consisting of Beaver, Desmedt, Langford, McCurley, and
Wright) explore alternative ways to support the needs of the IACR and
report back to the Board by the end of January.



The Board then recessed for lunch at 12:37.


The Board reconvened at 13:15.



Desmedt then reported on the status of PKC 2003.


He said that there had been 104 papers submitted and that everything
seemed fine.



Preneel then reported on the status of FSE 2003.


He said that everything was progressing well.


Wright noted the need to be careful with overlapping IACR conference and
workshop registration periods to ensure that correct dues payments are



Clark then raised the issue of Program Chair selection methods.


Clark had circulated in advance of the meeting a proposed process for
adding candidates to a selection list.


Benaloh said that he didn't want formal candidate lists to be maintained
but instead wanted lists to remain informal.


Feigenbaum said that the original intention was to simply maintain a
list of suggested Program Chairs without structure, and she added that
she had wanted to maintain the informal nature.


Clark said that he had had a perception of the lists as being more
formal with a view that all candidates on these lists had already been
deemed suitable.


Berson said that he recalled the original purpose of these lists as
solely to maintain an institutional memory.  He then asked if the
process was not working and what needed to be done to improve it.


Clark then expressed the view that the Board should ask that Program
Chair recommendations not be included in proposals.


Preneel suggested that any recommendation of a Program Chair should
include a short supporting statement.


Clark then said that he did not feel that it was necessary to maintain
formal lists.





The Board voted to ask James Hughes to serve as General Chair for Crypto



[James Hughes subsequently agreed to serve in this role.]




The Board voted to ask Matthew Franklin to serve as Program Chair for
Crypto 2004.



[Matthew Franklin subsequently agreed to serve in this role.]




The Board voted to ask Don Coppersmith to deliver the 2003 IACR
Distinguished Lecture at Asiacrypt 2003.



[Don Coppersmith subsequently agreed to deliver this lecture.]




The Board recessed for a five-minute break at 14:30.


The Board reconvened at 14:38.



The issue of Program Chair Guidelines was then raised.


Rose asked about Program Committee size noting that 175 submissions were
received by Asiacrypt 2002.  He expressed the view that consistency of
reviewing is difficult if the Program Committee is too large.


Preneel suggested that this should be the responsibility of the Program


Clark suggested considering two separate issues:  consistency or Program
Committee work and amount of work per Committee member.


Rose expressed the view that Committee members need to understand their


Preneel suggested that resubmissions make it desirable to have some
overlap between successive Program Committees.


Clark proposed that the latest Program Committee Guidelines be posted as
soon as possible, and there were no objections to this proposal.


Rose suggested that independent Program Committees would be useful.


Wright noted that the Program Chair Guidelines currently suggest an
overlap with previous Program Committees.


Desmedt then suggested extending conferences to accommodate more papers.
He also suggested parallel sessions.


Clark then suggested having a discussion by email in advance of the next
Board meeting.


Schoenmakers suggested that Program Chairs communicate with prior
Program Chairs.


Benaloh suggested that future Program Chairs be official observers on
prior Program Committees.


Desmedt then suggested that Program Chairs should be observers at Board



Clark then initiated a discussion of IACR logos.


He said that a color logo was in progress.


Schoenmakers noted that the Eurocrypt logo is constantly reinvented and
suggested that this might be simplified.


Wright asked whether other variants would be permitted.


Clark expressed the view that variants should not be permitted and that
the IACR logo should not be changed.  He added his view that conferences
should be able to add other distinctive logos.



Feigenbaum then initiated discussion of a proposal to create an IACR
Fellows designation.


Feigenbaum asserted that the Board must decide whether or not to support
the idea.


Benaloh said that he wants this to be decided by the membership rather
than the Board.


Clark said that he preferred this be decided by the Board.


Desmedt expressed the desire that the idea be separated from the


Rose suggested that the Board should make a decision and then take that
decision to the membership.


Feigenbaum asked if anyone thought that the designation was a bad idea.


Desmedt said that he wanted separate designations for research and
service Fellows.


Feigenbaum expressed the opinion that a Fellow should be a model citizen
of the IACR and not necessarily a brilliant researcher.


Clark observed that at Eurocrypt there was a consensus that the proposal
lacked sufficient detail and that greater detail had now been provided.


Berson asked why we would want to do this.  Feigenbaum responded that it
would recognize senior members who have been excellent citizens and can
use the designation to better represent the IACR and that it would also
give better standing to deserving individuals.


Berson said that he felt uncomfortable because such a designation would
possibly benefit him and Board members but supports the idea because of
his expectation that it would benefit the field.


Desmedt suggested that Fellows might be able to obtain grants more
easily and reiterated his view that the designation not be given for


Rose expressed the opinion that members of a selection committee would
be likely to be very self-critical.


Clark asked for a straw pole to get the mood of the Board.  Ten members
expressed support for the idea and seven abstained.


Feigenbaum then expressed the view that the process used by the ACM was
good.  It consists of a Fellowship Committee with long terms and a
rotating chair that receives nominations from and for any ACM members.
She said that it targets a maximum of 5% of the membership to receive
the Fellow designations.


Benaloh asked how the Fellowship Committee members would be selected.
Feigenbaum responded that the selection would be made by the Board
and/or perhaps by other means.  Benaloh asked if election by the
membership might be a suitable means, and Feigenbaum responded that she
thought not.


Desmedt suggested seeding the Fellowship Committee with several
luminaries selected by the Board and then have it appoint its own


Clark expressed general support for the proposal but asked that a
specific proposal be tailored to the IACR.


Rose suggested that a single vote be taken as part of the fall election


Desmedt insisted that the proposal be specific at the time of the vote.


Rose suggested that the IACR Bylaws be amended to establish a Fellowship
Committee and include general goals but not details.


Clark asked what details would be appropriate, and Desmedt asserted that
a Fellowship Committee should not be selected by a single Chair.


Rose noted that the ACM Bylaws have a simple high-level description of
the existence of ACM Fellows.


McCurley expressed the desire that a Fellowship Committee be as
independent as possible.


Rose suggested an individual be appointed as a Chair and asked to select
the first Fellowship Committee.


Clark asked for volunteers to support Feigenbaum in drafting a detailed
proposal.  Berson, McCurley, Preneel, and Rose volunteered.


Clark expressed the opinion that the Bylaws should not specify process.


Feigenbaum then suggested the need to settle on a process.


Desmedt asserted that most Board members are not elected by the
membership.  [A subsequent count revealed that 12 of 21 Board members
were elected directly by the membership with the remaining 9 appointed
by the Board to fill various roles.]


Feigenbaum suggested that the Board select a Fellowship Chair who then
selects 4 other Fellowship Committee members.


Clark asked if a five-member Fellowship Committee was reasonable, and
general agreement was given to the size.


Feigenbaum suggested that the Fellowship Committee be self-replacing.


Berson suggested the Committee be seeded with two people selected by the


McCurley then suggested that the Board select the first three IACR
Fellows and have them seed the Fellowship Committee to continue the


Rose said that he was happy with Feigenbaum's proposal.


McCurley asked why the Bylaws should be amended, and Benaloh responded
that it would add credibility to the designation.


Feigenbaum then suggested the Fellowship Committee members serve
five-year terms, that the Board select a Fellowship Committee Chair who
would then be charged with selecting the rest of the initial Fellowship
Committee on staggered terms, and that the Committee target a maximum of
5% of the IACR membership for this designation.


Clark then asked how the Board felt about appointing a Chair who would
appoint the remaining Committee members.


McCurley asked if the Chair would be known to the membership at the time
of voting on the proposal, and the consensus was that the Chair not be


Clark then proposed that the Election Committee place on the fall ballot
a proposal to establish an IACR Fellows program with an appropriate
amendment to the Bylaws and that the Board appoint two members who would
be charged with selecting three other members according to Feigenbaum's


Desmedt then suggested that no person should simultaneously be on both
the Board and the Fellowship Committee.



Clark moved the passage of his proposal and Rose seconded.  The proposal
that the Election Committee place on the fall ballot a proposal to
establish an IACR Fellows program with an appropriate amendment to the
Bylaws and that the Board appoint two members who would be charged with
selecting three other members according to Feigenbaum's proposal carried
10-4 with 4 abstentions.



Feigenbaum then agreed to post details of the proposal on the IACR web



Clark then raised the issue of appointing a Membership Secretary for the
2003-2005 term.


Clark asked Beaver if he was willing to continue in the role.


Beaver said that he felt that he had gotten behind and that he wanted to
have an opportunity to catch up and work on Information Technology
issues.  He added the view that transitions are difficult.


Clark then took upon himself an action item to distribute terms of
reference for the Membership Secretary position.


Beaver then left the room.



The Board then voted to re-appoint Beaver as Membership Secretary for



Upon his return, Beaver accepted the re-appointment.



The Board then addressed a "virtual conference" proposal offered by
Nigel Smart.


However, it was found that there was insufficient support and bandwidth
on the Board to pursue the proposal at this time.



Clark then initiated a follow-up on issues relating to the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act.


He said that he was in the process of drafting a letter regarding the
DMCA and European Union directives and that he would circulate this
letter within the next four weeks.


He added that he believed that the IACR should be apolitical but noted
that these issues directly impact the ability of IACR members to do
their jobs and negatively impacts the field.


McCurley suggested many prospective recipients of Clark's letter.



Clark then compiled action items for the Membership meeting.



McCurley then asked that the Board re-affirm support for the editors of
the ePrint Archive and their editorial control.



McCurley then moved a vote of thanks to Cachin and Mihir Bellare for
their outstanding work in managing the ePrint Archive.  Berson seconded,
and the motion carried 18-0 with 1 abstention.




The meeting adjourned at 17:08.





Respectfully submitted

Josh Benaloh

IACR Secretary

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