International Association for Cryptologic Research

Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting at Eurocrypt 2002

************************   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


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


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


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


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


Biham asked if people could use euro bank transfers, and Langford
replied that this could currently be managed only for on-site


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


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



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


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


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


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




Clark then raised the issue of electronic registration for IACR


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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