International Association for Cryptologic Research

Minutes of the BoD Meeting at Eurocrypt '99

Board of Directors Meeting
EuroCrypt '99
2 May 1999


On 20 March 1999, Journal Editor Feigenbaum brought to the attention of the
Board a problem wherein papers accepted for a special issue of the Journal
exceeded the normal page count for a single issue.  Following a discussion
by  e-mail, the Board approved the following proposal submitted by
Feigenbaum by a
vote of 10 to 2 with 1 abstention.

I propose that the Board approve the expenditure of $20,000 for an
exceptionally  long "special issue" of the Journal of Cryptology.  This
issue will probably be  one of the four issues of volume 13 (2000), but
there is a chance that it will be  the last issue of volume 12 (1999).  It
will be roughly the size of three normal  issues (perhaps slightly larger).
The rest of the issues in volume 13 (or 12)  will be normal-sized issues.

The subject of the special issue is secure multi-party function evaluation,
and the editorial board member in charge of it is Oded Goldreich.  The
$20,000  covers all production, printing, and mailing costs and will thus
have no effect  on the price that Springer charges subscribers, including
libraries, for J.  Cryptology.

The Board President called the meeting to order at 10:06am.

Present were Benaloh, Berson, Biham, Cachin, Clark, Franklin, Hruby,
Landrock,  Maurer, McCurley, E. Okamoto, Preneel, Upton, and Van Oorschot.

Proxies were held for Beaver by McCurley, for Feigenbaum by Upton, for T.
Okamoto  by Maurer, and for Vandewalle by Preneel.

It was noted that there would be no report this meeting from Journal Editor
Feigenbaum but a report was promised for the Board meeting in August.

Minutes of the 23 August 1998 meeting were approved with modifications.
Motion  by Preneel seconded by Berson carried 9 to 0.

EuroCrypt '99 General Chair Hruby reported on the conference.  The
conference  budget was within expected bounds.  The budget anticipated 380
attendees.  At  that point, 373 had registered.  [Final registration was
383.]  Data was provided  for 375 registrants (sic) among whom 315 were full
charge (146 early and 169  late) and 60 were student rate (38 early and 22

$23,000 had been advanced by the IACR, of which $10,000 was returned to the
IACR,  $10,000 was used for Program Committee expenses, and $2,400 was used
for booking  the concert.  Clark asked about totals and was told that the
$10,000 returned to  the IACR was borrowed at a rate of approximately 30
Czech Koruna per U.S. Dollar  and returned to the IACR at a rate of
approximately 35 Czech Koruna per U.S.  Dollar but that the conference was
expected to produce s surplus of approximately  $10,000.

Clark praised ITC (local arrangements company) for their promptness and
general  competence at organization.  All agreed with applause.  The quality
of the local  organization precluded any need for a visit from the
Secretariat and thereby  reduced costs.

Upton asked whether the student registration count was typical and was told
that  10% students was the normal count.

McCurley expressed concern about the lack of growth in attendance numbers
over  recent years.

A EuroCrypt 2000 status report was given by Preneel.

The conference will be held in Bruges, Belgium, 14-18 May 2000.  Joos
Vandewalle  will be the General Chair and Bart Preneel will be the Program

Two sheets of information were distributed on planning and budget.  Some
information can be obtained at and at  and
[Note the last URL is  corrected from the information sheet.]

The conference sessions will be in a flat lecture room with a 500-person
capacity.  All hotels will be in the old city within walking distance from
the  conference site.  The city has 1500 hotel rooms that generally have no
vacancy in  May. 300 three and four star hotel rooms have already been
booked.  200 two star  hotel and bed & breakfast rooms are in the process of
being booked.  Advanced  payment of first night's hotel will be necessary.

A professional conference organizer is now doing the work for $15 per
participant  and a fixed fee of $3,000 rather than the typical fee of 8% on
hotel bookings.   There are a variety of hotel booking and payment options
for participants.   Landrock suggested that individuals handle their own
booking.  McCurley seconded  this but expressed concern that some
participants might find no hotels available.   Clark suggested that the
Secretariat can co-ordinate booking.  Upton expressed  that the intent was
to have central booking.  Van Oorschot questioned the effect  on the
registration forms.  Upton suggested offloading work to the secretariat
whenever possible.  Landrock suggested budgeting for 400 participants.

Preneel suggested pre-booking Hotel Montanus for Board members and
encouraged all  Board members to stay at this hotel.

AsiaCrypt Steering Committee Chair E. Okamoto presented details on upcoming
AsiaCrypt conferences.

AsiaCrypt '99 will be in Singapore.  It is not sponsored by the IACR.  Hotel
costs will be approximately $80 per night and registration will be
approximately  $400.

AsiaCrypt 2000 will be held in Kioto Japan, 3-7 Dec 2000.  It is sponsored
by the  IACR, and details will be forthcoming at the Crypto meeting in

AsiaCrypt 2001 is being recommended for Taiwan together with possible
General  Chair and Program Chair recommendations.

McCurley questioned when final decisions could be made for the General Chair
and  Program Chair for AsiaCrypt 2001.  Consensus was that the current
timing should  be continued.

A report on EuroCrypt 2001 proposals was given by Clark.

There are no active proposals for EuroCrypt 2001.

A planned proposal for Villach, Austria (which was later moved to Vienna
because  of logistic concerns) was withdrawn two days prior to the board
meeting.  It was  conjectured that the organizers were dissatisfied with the
apparent requirement  that the venue be changed from Villach to Vienna.

Clark discussed plans to solicit bids from potential organizers in Italy,
U.K.  (Bath), Greece, Sweden, Norway, U.K. (Scotland), Ireland, Netherlands,
and  Poland.

McCurley suggested that the IACR web site resume the (discontinued)
solicitation  of proposals for EuroCrypt hosts.

Clark promised to vigorously pursue the U.K.-Bath option and expressed
concerns  that the Santa Barbara meeting might be too late to commit to a

McCurley wondered if a permanent conference coordinator position within the
Board  would make sense.

Berson suggested that European Board members take the lead in this regard.

Landrock and Clark agreed to serve as primary Board contacts for proposals.

Clark asked for Board consensus that proposals must be able to accommodate
500  participants and that hotel accommodations should be near the
conference venue.

Berson asked whether Israel is, for these purposes, part of Europe.  The
consensus was that it is.

McCurley urged that the local organizer be a regular member of the crypto

McCurley asked whether the Board should appoint the Program Chair for
EuroCrypt  independent of the selection of the local venue.

Maurer urged that the Board should select the Program Chair.

Landrock agreed to make a presentation at the Business Meeting to solicit

Van Oorschot suggested that the Board consider Program Chair proposals as
part of  any bids but that such proposals not be required and that the same
be true for  AsiaCrypt.  [Clarification:  We should make it clear that
submitters of bids are  expected to honor their commitment even if their
recommendation for Program Chair  is rejected.]

It was requested that an announcement be made to all EuroCrypt participants
that  the Business Meeting would immediately follow the final technical talk
on  Wednesday.

McCurley suggested that discussion of Program Chairs be held at the Santa
Barbara  Board meeting.

Preneel initiated a discussion about the relationship between the Fast
Software  Encryption Workshop (FSE) and the IACR.  He asked that the IACR
hold copyrights  for FSE publications and asked whether FSE might enjoy the
same relationship with  the IACR that used to be enjoyed by AsiaCrypt.

McCurley asked to what extent the IACR should affiliate with other
conferences  and with how many other conferences.  He also asked about the
intellectual  content responsibility for copyrights owned by the IACR.

Berson observed that copyright ownership does not imply endorsement of

Landrock suggested that the IACR support FSE and that other conferences be
considered on a case-by-case basis.

McCurley told of meeting with Springer-Verlag regarding the contract for the
Journal but that no contract yet exists for IACR proceedings.  He said that
the  IACR owns copyrights for EuroCrypt '99 papers and that Springer-Verlag
would have  exclusive publication rights for the first three years and
non-exclusive rights  thereafter.

Biham noted that the current copyright agreements do not mention journal
publication of related results.

McCurley expressed a dislike for "duplicate" publication.

Biham suggested that the IACR not enforce its copyright against journals.

Benaloh asked whether the IACR should pledge to not enforce copyrights
against  journals.

Cachin urged that no such pledge be included within the copyright form.

Biham asked how much a publication must be changed to constitute a new work.

Clark expressed a preference to not make any explicit licensing policy and
suggested that licensing is the correct alternative to copyright

Berson voiced the intent of IACR to be a benevolent copyright holder.

The proposal that IACR be willing to become the copyright holder for FSE
publications was made by Preneel and seconded by Maurer.  It carried 15 to

Berson asked that IACR strategic planning include the long-term
relationships  between the IACR and other conferences.

McCurley disapproved of the IACR taking direct responsibilities for other
conferences asserting that the purpose of the IACR is to support the
scientific  activities of its members by maintaining the current
conferences, journal, and  newsletter.

Clark offered that strategic planning is beyond this kind of operational
planning  and should include long-term goals and directions of the IACR.

Berson suggested considering the formation of an organizing committee and
seeking  better used of technologies such as conference calling to
facilitate Board  discussions.

McCurley expressed the opinion that the Board has dealt effectively with
these  matters in the past with the current structure.

At this point the meeting recessed for lunch.

During and after lunch, various strategic items and topics of interest to
individual members were discussed, and new Board members were asked to tell
what  issues were most important to them.

McCurley stated his view of IACR's mission was to make sure that conferences
run  smoothly and to maintain scientific integrity.  He also indicated his
strong  interest in moving towards electronic publishing.

Cachin expressed an interest in having an electronic preprint server for
cryptographic publications.

McCurley voiced potential problems with copyrights of materials on a
preprint  server and questioned who would manage it.  He also questioned the
utility of  having yet another place to search for papers.

Cachin expressed an opinion that administration would be minimal but
acknowledged  possible complications with respect to anonymous submissions
and copyrights.

Maurer asked how we can best support the field.

Benaloh asked whether we should accept more papers and noted that the
original  purpose of anonymity was to avoid favoritism.

Clark suggested a triage of papers into three categories:  archival papers,
recent papers (about one year old), and late-breaking papers, and he
suggested  that different mechanisms might be best suited for each category.

Maurer suggested considering bifurcating crypto into a Theoretical
Cryptography  conference and applied conferences.

Preneel expressed a preference against this kind of specialization.

McCurley asked that there be a concrete proposal on a preprint server.

Cachin recounted many of the disparate issues that this touches upon.

A discussion then followed on the topic of anonymous submissions.

McCurley noted that in a recent Business meeting, the membership voted to
maintain the anonymous submission policy.

Preneel said that a recent poll among Program Committee members was nearly
evenly  divided on the issue.

Biham asked what obligations the authors had to not announce their results
during  the Program Committee review process.

After discussion of some extreme examples (such as e-mailing an unsolicited,
non-anonymous copy of a submission to all Program Committee members),
Preneel  suggested a "push versus pull" distinction wherein authors should
feel free to  post copies of their work on web pages, preprint servers, and
the like but should  not mail out unsolicited copies to Committee members.

Upton urged that we make clear that we don't discourage non-anonymous
distribution of submissions.

Berson suggested that anonymous submissions may no longer be practical.

Clark offered a proposal that we clarify the Program Committee guidelines to
specify that we do not discourage distribution and re-visit the issue of
anonymous submissions at the next EuroCrypt Board meeting.

McCurley expressed concerns about changing the policy back and forth and
agreed  to put the topic on the agenda for the Santa Barbara Board meeting.

Biham then raised the issue of creating a server for making technical
reports  available for fast distribution.

McCurley asserted that Springer-Verlag would object to this.

Cachin expressed the opinion that such a server would be helpful to the
research  community.

Franklin listed important issues to him as maintaining IACR excellence,
abolishing anonymous submissions, and observing the experiences of other
institutions with regard to electronic publishing and distribution with an
eye  towards updating IACR policies.

Hruby offered that a publications server would facilitate updates to

Benaloh listed maintenance of IACR excellence as his paramount issue and
expressed some concerns over the Board's recent decision-making processes.

Clark suggested that the decision-making processes need refinement and that
e-mail is often the wrong medium.


McCurley suggested that the Board form a sub-committee to look more
carefully at  publishing issues.

A sub-committee was formed consisting of McCurley, Biham, Cachin, and
(pending  her consent) Feigenbaum and charged with delivering a report at
the Santa Barbara  Board meeting.

Preneel then raised the issue of awards and honors.  He said that he had
found no  consensus on whether to establish best paper awards and urged that
we should  establish clear mechanisms for inviting IACR Distinguished

Maurer asked whether the Board should decide on Distinguished Lecturers.

Preneel asserted that clear and regular procedures are paramount.

Van Oorschot said that we need to know what procedures, if any, exist.

Maurer suggested that Preneel should prepare a formal proposal for the Santa
Barbara Board meeting.

Benaloh expressed the opinion that only the Board should award Distinguished
Lecture awards.  This was confirmed as the consensus of the Board, and
Maurer  agreed to include this conclusion in the Program Chair guidelines.

McCurley suggested that we have an IACR Distinguished Lecture at AsiaCrypt
2000  as part of the first IACR sponsored AsiaCrypt.

A proposal was offered by Preneel and seconded by Berson that candidates for
IACR  Distinguished Lecturer be nominated and submitted to the IACR
president by August  1 of each year and that the Board may make a selection
from among those  nominated.  The proposal carried 15 to 0.

McCurley then raised the issue of IACR elections.

Clark suggested that the Secretariat can and should handle the distribution
and  collection of election ballots.

Landrock, Biham, and Franklin agreed to serve on the election committee.

Benaloh asked whether is was necessary to vote on the By-Laws again to
correct  problems introduced by printing errors in last year's amendments.
The consensus  of the Board was that another vote was unnecessary.

Preneel asked that the By-Laws be maintained in ASCII format.

McCurley then raised the issue of how to best use and oversee the job of
IACR  Membership Secretary.

Clark volunteered to serve as liaison to co-ordinate Board issues with the
Membership Secretary.

Upton expressed the view that we need closer contact with the Membership
Secretary and suggested that the Membership Secretary either be a member of
the  Board or be directly overseen by a single member of the Board.

Clark commented that Y2K compliance was going well but that updated versions
of  Access software would be necessary to achieve compliance.

Benaloh offered to obtain and deliver copies of Access 2000 to Clark,
Preneel,  and the Membership Secretary.

Upton then presented a financial report stating that both the EuroCrypt and
Crypto conferences returned surpluses of between $10,000 and $20,000 in
1998,  that total IACR reserves were now in excess of $200,000, and that
1998 tax filing  was underway.  Upton stated that he did not anticipate
recommending an increase  in IACR member dues.

McCurley asked that a more detailed report of IACR finances be published in
the  Newsletter.

Cachin then reported on the Newsletter.

McCurley noted that Cachin had assumed administration of the IACR Web Site.
Congratulations were given by all.

Cachin reported that the Newsletter has been moved to the Web Site and
solicited  conference reports for the Newsletter.

Clark asked how many paper copies of the Newsletter were being distributed.

Cachin answered that anyone who wishes may ask the Membership Secretary to
print  and mail a copy of the Newsletter.

Clark expressed the opinion that the Membership Secretary has provided good
service to the IACR and noted the importance of members keeping their
addresses  current with the Membership Secretary.

Hruby stated that 10% of this year's EuroCrypt announcements were returned
by the  postal service as undeliverable.

McCurley offered thanks to Cachin for his efforts.  Applause was given by

McCurley offered thanks to Upton for his efforts.  Applause was given by

Since Beaver was absent, no report on Crypto '99 was presented.

Cachin noted that no Call For Participation had yet been distributed for
Crypto  '99.

[Beaver subsequently said that he was following the usual schedule by not
sending  out registration materials too early.]

Franklin reported that Crypto 2000 planning was proceeding uneventfully.

McCurley suggested that there be an integrated discussion at the Santa
Barbara  Board meeting to decide on Program Chair lists and other issues for
EuroCrypt,  Crypto, and AsiaCrypt in 2001.

McCurley then gave an update on the status of the CD-ROM of past Crypto and
EuroCrypt proceedings.  He said that after much work, the CD-ROM was
complete and  had been delivered to Springer-Verlag for reproduction and
distribution and that  copies would be available for sale during this
conference.  He said that  Springer-Verlag had agreed to send out two copies
to everyone who had ordered one  in recompense for the production delays.

Clark noted that the address labels had become out of date and urged that
updates  be sent to by May 12 to ensure that the CD-ROMs
are sent to  current addresses.

Clark also noted the outstanding, "super-human" work done by McCurley on the
CD-ROM.  Applause was given by all.

Clark also asked that Springer-Verlag be urged to make the CD-ROM available
to  IACR members at the original IACR discounted price.

In addition, Clark noted that CD-ROM sales through obtained via
an  IACR link could be eligible for a 5-15% kickback to IACR.  He also
suggested that  one of the copies available for sale be held for a quality
control check.

[Note:  It was subsequently discovered that there were problems with the
CD-ROMs  on some platforms, and correction before distribution was
anticipated.  Also  Clark obtained a commitment from Springer-Verlag to
offer the CD-ROMs for sale at  a discounted price.]

A proposal was offered by Van Oorschot and seconded  by Upton that decisions
made  by e-mail should be included in the following Board meeting minutes.
The  proposal carried 15 to 0.

A brief discussion then followed about items to be included in the Business
Berson asked that attendees be reminded that they are, unless they've
specifically asked not to be, IACR members.

McCurley stated that he would remind members of the general IACR functions,
announce upcoming conferences and meetings, update members on the CD-ROM and
the  May 12 deadline for updating addresses, remind members of the
Newsletter  submission deadline of May 31, report that both IACR sponsored
conferences  produced surpluses during the prior year, and tell new members
how they could  receive membership for the 1999 calendar year.

Action items noted by McCurley included EuroCrypt 2001 site selection,
upcoming  IACR elections, and distribution of the CD-ROM.

McCurley then moved to adjourn.  The motion was seconded by Clark and
carried  unanimously at 4:49pm.

Respectfully submitted
Josh Benaloh
IACR Secretary

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