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 2004. The Board invited Don Coppersmith to deliver the 2003 IACR Distinguished Lecture. 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 term. 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 Secretariat. 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 minutes) - 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 conference. 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 DC. 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 Journal. 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 submissions. 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 Springer-Verlag. 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 convenience. 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 Officer. 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 conferences. 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 available. 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 available. 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 Officer.] 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 conference. 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 meeting. McCurley asked that Gawinecki and other General Chairs report their experiences with the General Chair Guidelines and suggest any necessary improvements. ________________________________________________________________________ Crypto 2003 General Chair Rose then reported on the status of the conference. 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 collected. ________________________________________________________________________ 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 2004. ************************************************************************ [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 Chair. 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 responsibilities. 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 meetings. ________________________________________________________________________ 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 process. 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 service. 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 members. 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 ballot. 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 Board. McCurley then suggested that the Board select the first three IACR Fellows and have them seed the Fellowship Committee to continue the process. 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 known. 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 proposal. 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 page. ________________________________________________________________________ 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 2003-2005. ************************************************************************ 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