-------------------------------------------- IACR Board of Directors Meeting, CRYPTO 2009 -------------------------------------------- Date: Sunday, 16 August 2009 Time: 10:00am - 5:00pm Place: Flying A Room, UCEN, UCSB Officers: Bart Preneel Dec 2010 President Ed Dawson Dec 2010 Vice President Thomas Shrimpton Dec 2010 Secretary Helena Handschuh Dec 2010 Treasurer Elected Directors: Tom Berson Dec 2009 Director Arjen Lenstra Dec 2009 Director Serge Vaudenay Dec 2009 Director x Christian Cachin Dec 2010 Director Tsutomu Matsumoto Dec 2010 Director David Pointcheval Dec 2010 Director Josh Benaloh Dec 2011 Director Stuart Haber Dec 2011 Director x Antoine Joux Dec 2011 Director Appointed Directors: Christopher Wolf Dec 2011 Newsletter Editor Shai Halevi Dec 2011 Membership Secretary x Ueli Maurer Dec 2009 JoC Editor Matt Franklin Dec 2011 JoC Editor Conference General Chairs: x Alexander May Dec 2009 GC EC2009 John Black Dec 2009 GC CR2009 x Eiji Okamoto Dec 2009 GC AC2009 x Olivier Billet Dec 2010 GC EC2010 Zulfikar Ramzan Dec 2010 GC CR2010 x San Ling Dec 2010 GC AC2010 Steering Committee Representatives: Tsutomu Matsumoto Asiacrypt David Pointcheval PKC Ivan Damgaard TCC Bart Preneel FSE Jean-Jacques Quisquater CHES Others: Hilarie Orman Archivist x Kevin McCurley Database Administrator (Members marked with "x" did not attend.) Opening Matters =========== Welcome participants - identification of proxies (Preneel) Proxies: Wolf (May), Halevi (Cachin), Vaudenay (Billet), Matsumoto (Ling), Handschuh (Joux) Review and approve agenda (All) The agenda was approved without modification. Approve Minutes from last meeting (Shrimpton) The minutes were approved without modification. Actions/Matters Arising from last meeting (Preneel) President Preneel reported that Springer is prepared to provide additional reading room tokens for Chinese and Indian researchers who cannot afford the normal IACR membership fees. Halevi commented that we can use our servers to provide reading room service to these communities, and that he is waiting for input from representatives of the Chinese and Indian crypto communities regarding this. (Further discussion was tabled until later in the meeting.) His opinion is that technically it is easy to accommodate this. Crypto 2009 status (Black) GC Black reported 399 paid attendees, and that he expects some additional on-site registration (perhaps 20-40). He noted that some registered attendees had to cancel at the last minute, and asked for advice on providing refunds. The board suggested that he handle these cases as he prefers. Officer's Reports for approval =================== Treasurer (Handschuh) Treasurer Handschuh reported strong financial support from sponsoring organizations, as well as strong attendance at IACR events. She noted that the effects of recent currency fluctuations, particularly the Euro to USD exchange rates, have been smoothed out by the IACR. The IACR's budget reserves remain healthy despite the economic downturn. She remarked that this was the first full year of giving full registration waivers to student speakers via monies provided from the Marconi fund. A member noted that we collect membership fees that total about twice what we pay to Springer, and asked it if was possible to reduce membership fees for all. There was some discussion about a small reductions in the membership fee, for example by $10 to $15. Preneel noted that a lot of the Springer money is spent on print versions of the JoC, which is less popular with our members than our proceedings. He felt that this matter is related to that of reducing fees, and it was suggested that we postpone any potential fee reductions until we have a better understanding of cost/service issues related to Springer. The discussion continued briefly, with various members providing ideas for how/when to reduce the fees (and potentially use some of the yearly excess money), but no conclusions were reached. Preneel noted that we would have additional discussions related to this topic in the afternoon. As a follow-up to a comment made at the EC'09 board meeting, a member remarked that we might consider waiving student speaker fees at IACR workshops, too. Preneel estimated that about 80% of (say) FSE papers have student authors. He noted that most advisors have the funds to pay for their student authors, and perhaps the IACR's money would be better used in supporting needier cases. There was some agreement on this, but it was not clear how one determines "need". It was noted that the current informal policy is that advisors can write to the general chair and ask for waivers, and that in the past these have almost always been granted. (For student travel, in particular.) Another member wondered how low registration fee would need to be in order to attract additional Chinese and Indian members? Preneel said that the IACR has no data on this at present. Guidelines for Approval ======================= [none] Appointments ============ [none] Lenstra noted that he will not run for the board next year, and so someone will need to fill his role as overseeing PC chair guidelines. Benaloh will take over this role, with the thanks of the board. Appointees Reports for Information ======================================= Newsletter (Wolf) Editor Wolf gave an overview (previously circulated to the board via email) of issues currently facing the newsletter, as well as some new ideas. Some of the new ideas include: a database of PhDs on crypto topics; book reviews (already Springer has provided a list of approx. 50 titles, and Taylor & Francis have sent about 40 books); a "status on" column that would summarize the current status of an area of crypto. He is also currently updating the "Events and Jobs" part of the newsletter website. He noted that the migration to a more comprehensive content management system is made difficult by security concerns, and he is working with Cachin on this. As a long-term goal, he would like to have an "IACR News Central" that would be an up-to-date source for jobs, events, competitions, calls-for-papers, and so on. This would allow members to quickly determine what is new and of interest. A member wondered who would be the target audience of an "IACR News Central", since it is difficult to both interest the average layperson and also serve the expert community. Wolf recognized that this is indeed an issue for further study. Several members thanked Wolf for his fresh new ideas and his overall plan. Wolf asked if the IACR would be willing to pay for someone to help with the initial programming asks, perhaps $3K-4K. There was some concern about opening access to the IACR servers to additional people; this access would be continuing since the code would need to be maintained, updated, etc. A member noted that we are a volunteer organization, and it may send the wrong message if we begin to pay for services. Haber moved that that Wolf be granted a maximum of $4K for these tasks; Lenstra seconded. The motion passed unanimously. JoC Editor in Chief (Franklin) JoC Franklin reported that the JoC is healthy and the hand-off from Maurer has been going smoothly. The number and quality of submissions is "high". He noted that JoC is currently 13th of 85 (in CS theory) on the ISI impact factor ranking. He continues to consider various software support tools for reviewers and editors. Preneel briefly presented an overview of some slides received from Jennifer Evans from Springer. Membership Secretary (Halevi) Halevi reported that membership trends continue as they were; growing slowly. He mentioned a request from Springer to change the format of our address list so they can disambiguate/manage the mailing list more carefully. He said he will be happy to help them with this task (with care taken to protect member privacy), but that he is against doing the detail work since we already pay Springer a substantial fee and they should take the lead on this. It was suggested that the UCSB Crypto administrative team might be able to help, too. Archive (Orman) Orman reported that we are up-to-date through the first half of 2007 in the archive. She remarked that it remains a challenge to get from the program chairs the material she needs in the format she needs it. She also noted that in some cases it is not possible to generate pdf from the source she receives, and that in some others the generated pdf is not the same as what was actually published (typically as a result of Springer's editorial work on the volumes). Preneel noted that Springer has promised to provide material that is currently due to the IACR but not yet delivered. For example, the proceedings of AC 2000, PKC 2003, FSE 2004 and CHES 2004. Database administrator (McCurley) [No report.] Internal Committee Reports for Information =============================================== E-Voting Committee (Benaloh) Benaloh quickly noted that the process has resulted in two final candidates, which will be demonstrated to the board in the afternoon. (See discussion below.) Fellows Committee (Preneel obo Yung) This years fellows (Michael Rabin and William Blakley) will receive their awards at the start of the rump session. He encouraged people to send their nominations for 2010. Election Committee (Cachin) Benaloh (for Cachin) reported that nomination forms have been prepared, and the committee is prepared to receive names. Electronic Publishing Committee (Preneel) Preneel gave an overview of the annual expenses of publishing proceedings and the JoC. The total of cost is approx. $160K. He has asked Springer what they could offer instead of publishing printed volumes, but he has not yet received a formal offer. (The current cost per paper of free electronic access is about $1500 for individual requests.) The are willing to produce USB sticks for LNCS proceedings for a price. Preneel noted that in principle this shouldn't actually have any impact, since we all have access to the IACR reading room, but that the content there often lags behind by some time. He noted that total open-access to IACR LNCS papers is not even a matter for discussion from Springer's point of view. Preneel is currently in discussion with the USENIX folks to learn how they handle their open-access publishing model, what are the production costs, etc. He also mentioned that STACS has dropped Springer and publishes their own papers (everything on-line). As he has before, he reminded the board that there are a number of tedious details to be handled in the publishing process. A member remarked that Springer probably does a substantial amount of professional editorial work in preparing its volumes, and that we would become responsible for this work. It was suggested that if a paid editorial position were advertised, IACR members would be interested. Preneel also reminded that Thompson counts citations to the JoC, but not to LNCS volumes. However, Thompson does include LNCS in ISI proceedings, and does count citations from within the LNCS volumes to the JoC, which makes up about half of the JoC's impact. The matter of indexing will be a serious issue for the IACR if we adopt a new publishing model. A member wondered what is the ultimate goal? Preneel responded: timely, open access, but only if it does not come at the expense of damage to members' careers (wrt citations, rankings, etc.) As an intermediate goal, to reduce the current lag of two years from publication to open access; perhaps one year is possible at this point? A member wondered if it was necessary to fight for open access if most papers are already available on authors' websites? In response, there was some concern about not having access to the same version that was published at the event, and that this can make it more difficult to properly cite previous work. Conference Chairs ====================== Program chairs reports (Lenstra) Lenstra gave an overview of a recent round of chair reports. From these he had compiled a short list of items for board discussion. In short, some chairs observed a trend that the conference programs are increasingly theory oriented, and worried about perceived exclusion of research (and alienation of researchers) with a more of an "FSE/CHSE orientation". There was also a proposal for the IACR to consider either "rolling chairs" or "co-chairs" because the PC chair's job is quite heavy, and (relatedly) because it is hard for first-time chairs to innovate. A member wondered if it is at the PC chair's discretion to make radical changes, e.g. parallel sessions. Lenstra responded that it is, but there are of course logistical issues. It was noted that at EC 2008 it would have been easy to accommodate parallel sessions. The idea of a "rolling chair" was discussed: a rolling chair would be appointed for more than one year, and there would be more than one rolling chair at a time. This allows for overlap from year to year. (It was noted that some communities do this for both technical and general chairs.) A member mentioned experience with rolling chairs, and that it works only if more senior rolling chairs actually work with the junior chairs. It was noted that, for example, Crypto 2009 explicitly has David Wagner (Crypto 2008 chair) and Tal Rabin (Crypto 2010 chair) as advisory members. The Crypto 2009 program chair, Shai Halevi, mentioned this was been useful, but a true co-chair could be more useful. There was a general discussion about the merits of co-chairs and rolling chairs. The board seemed to prefer the rolling chair idea, and after discussion it was recommended that a draft set of guidelines be prepared for this. Preneel moved that the IACR adopt a rolling PC chair format for the flagship conferences -- one junior and senior chair -- with the normal process being that the junior chair becomes the senior chair the following year. Lenstra seconded. 20 in favor, 2 abstentions; the motion passed. Preneel reported that a member had emailed to him a concern that there is no written set of ethical guidelines for program committee members (or subreviewers). The IEEE offers such guidelines, and these are clearly shown on all review forms. Our guidelines are folklore at this point. Orman and Haber offered to take the task of formalizing these guidelines. Program and General Chair List Maintenance (Preneel/Shrimpton) Crypto 2011 General Chair After some discussion, the board selected Tom Shrimpton to be general chair of Crypto 2011, and he subsequently accepted. Crypto 2011 Program Chair The board deliberated over several excellent candidates, and the President will approach the selected candidate after the meeting. [Phillip Rogaway subsequently accepted.] Distinguished Lecturer =============== Crypto 2011 After several rounds of voting, the board selected a potential lecturer, who will be approached by the President after the meeting. [Ron Rivest subsequently accepted.] Conference Proposals for discussion/selection/approval ========================================== Eurocrypt 2012 in Cambridge (proposed general chair: Nigel Smart) Preneel (obo Smart) reviewed an early proposal for EC 2012. The organizers made an early proposal because they have a temporary reservation for a conference site that is likely to expire in the next month. After discussion of the proposal's merits, a vote was taken: 21 in favor, 2 abstention, 1 against. The President will approach the organizers after the meeting. Strategy and general issues ====================================== Potential donation to IACR for scientific awards (Preneel) A potential donor proposed to establish an annual award for the "IACR Student of the Year." One board member expressed concern that giving a single award may send the wrong message to other good students (at least to the others who were being considered), and suggested the possibility of several (perhaps five) smaller awards. There was some discussion about how winners would be determined, the amount of effort required on the part of the award committee, etc. Some additional proposals were made, but as these were not exactly in line with the donors suggested use of their money, it was decided that further discussion with the donor is needed. Access to IACR reading room to a broader audience (Preneel) Preneel revisited a discussion (from the last board meeting) of providing tokens to the IACR reading room; Springer has said they are willing to support this. China and India are of particular interest, as they have active crypto communities and have hosted IACR conferences/workshops in the past. However these are not the only countries of interest, and the board would gladly consider extending special consideration to other countries that develop active crypto communities. Status of LNCS and Electronic publishing (Preneel) [See discussion, above.] External Committee Reports for Information ============================ Asiacrypt steering committee (Matsumoto) Matsumoto reported briefly that there are no major issues to discuss at this time. CHES steering committee (Quisquater) Quisquater gave a short overview of CHES 2009. He noted the addition this year of special "Hot Topics" sessions, as well as special sessions organized to address specific problems, such as differential power analysis side-channel attacks. He reported that preparations for CHES 2010 are progressing smoothly. It will be collocated with Crypto. FSE steering committee (Preneel) Proposals are being received for 2011, and it is hoped that a full satisfying proposal will be ready by the fall. PKC steering committee (Pointcheval) PKC 2010 will be at ENS in Paris, May 26-28, just before Eurocrypt (in Nice). Proposals for PKC 2011 are being received. TCC steering committee (Damgaard) TCC 2010 will be in Zuerich, and all is proceeding according to plan. Proposals for TCC 2011 are expected in time for EC 2011 BoD meeting. Conferences/Workshops (since last BoD Meeting) (10) ================================================== Eurocrypt 2009 (May) Wolf (obo May) reported a small loss (approx. $3000), largely an effect of the weather on scheduled events. He also expressed some dissatisfaction with the hotel. Nonetheless, the organizers were happy with the event, and received positive feedback from attendees. There were 447 participants, one of the largest Eurocrypts ever. Thirteen scholarships were given to local students, and also an additional thirteen were provided by the IACR via the Marconi society gift. Forthcoming Conferences for information =========================================== Asiacrypt 2009 (Mambo obo Okamoto) Mambo reported some data for Asiacrypt 2009, which received 300 submissions this year (nearly a record). Eurocrypt 2010 (Preneel obo Billet) Preneel reported that everything is on track, although they are still searching for a banquet venue as the original one pulled out. Crypto 2010 (Ramzan) Ramzan reported that he is attempting to leverage social networking (e.g. facebook) to advertise the conference, serve as a central location for photos, conference comments, etc. Also he wants to provide something simple to potential donors so that they know what they are getting in return for their investment. Asiacrypt 2010 (Matsumoto obo Ling) Matsumoto reported that the organizing committee is still working to finalize the main hotel. Swissotel is the current most likely candidate. E-Voting Demonstrations and Discussion ============================== David Chaum very briefly discussed the PunchScan system, and showed an example of the ballot. His recommendation to the board was that the IACR should have a competition complete with academic-style peer review. (He did not specifically recommend any particular system to the board, but feel that his system is very good and he would be happy if the IACR chose to adopt it.) A member asked if there were any platform-specific issues with Chaum's system, and he said there are not. He also remarked that it would be easy to deploy with the existing IACR membership database, simply using email with pdf attachments. He stressed that one needs the Acrobat reader in order to properly use the demonstrated interface. A member asked if it was possible to run it on something other than the IACR server, and he said it was. As a follow-up, it was asked who (of the PunchScan team) would provide support for running on a non-IACR server; Chaum responded that the team had people ready and willing to provide the support. It was asked if a "red-team" was invited to attack/audit his system, and Chaum responded that the code is public source, and it has been part of previous competitions in which it was thoroughly evaluated. Ben Adida presented a demonstration of the Helios system. Board members had various suggestions for the user interface. A member asked to see some of the source code, and another asked if there the documentation was sufficiently complete to allow people could develop their code. Adida gave a web address for all of the documentation, and also displayed a section of the source code. A member asked about platform support: Adida responded that Java needs to be installed, and that the code runs in Safari, Firefox, IE and Opera. Another member expressed concern about anonymity, because one must log in to the casting server. Adida noted that at that point the plaintext is erased, only the encrypted ballot remains. Adida remarked that all of the code is open-source, and displayed the webpage of the open-source host from which all libraries, etc. could be downloaded at any time. One board member remarked that it could be useful to allow for a second channel (regular mail, mobile phone) for verifying a ballot. After the presentations, the board debated on how to move forward. Members of the e-voting committee commented that they would feel comfortable with either system, but that perhaps they were both still a bit immature. Several board members seemed happy with the idea that the IACR might run the systems in parallel in a trial election. The e-voting committee will take as an action to set up a fake election, using the two systems. (The real 2009 IACR elections will still be performed via the current paper-based system.) After the trial, the board (and the membership) will decide on which of the new systems to adopt, if either. There was some discussion about the timing of the trial fake election and of the real IACR election. Out of that, it was also suggested that Chaum's system should not be put to the test on the membership until after the board has a chance to try it themselves; the board agreed. Tentatively, the trial election will be held in December, after the real (paper-based) IACR election. Finally it was suggested that the e-voting system should be hosted on a non-IACR server (say at a university) to avoid any appearance of IACR insider meddling. ==================== Proposal: IACR Strategy discussion (all) There was a short continuation of the tabled discussion on reducing the registration fees. It was suggested to reduce to $80/$40, which was an earlier price point. Preneel will mention a lowering of the fee (although not a specific fee) at the membership meeting. The Bylaws stipulate that the Treasurer should make a formal recommendation to the Board; this will be scheduled for the Eurocrypt 2010 BoD meeting. The meeting was closed at 5:50pm.