International Association for Cryptologic Research

Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting at Eurocrypt 2001

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


The IACR Board of Directors met on May 6-7, 2001 during Eurocrypt 2001
in Innsbruck.  Reports were received on the status of Eurocrypt 2001,
Crypto 2001, Asiacrypt 2001, Eurocrypt 2002, and Crypto 2002 as well as
on the Journal of Cryptology, the IACR Newsletter, IACR membership and
Secretariat issues, and IACR finances.

The Board accepted (subject to subsequent approval of the budget) a
proposal to hold Eurocrypt 2003 in Warsaw, Poland with Jerzy Gawinecki
as the General Chair and voted to ask Eli Biham to serve as Program
Chair.  The Board also accepted a proposal to hold Asiacrypt 2003 in
Taipei, Taiwan with Chin-Chen Chang as the General Chair and voted to
ask Chi-Sung Lai to serve as Program Chair.

The Board approved a motion to (when necessary) fund the travel of the
IACR President, Vice-President, or designee thereof to attend Asiacrypt
conferences.

The Board was made aware of the forthcoming completion of the term of
Journal Editor Feigenbaum, and a committee consisting of Berson,
Feigenbaum, and McCurley was appointed to search for a successor.

The Board appointed an Election Committee consisting of Balenson,
Desmedt, and McCurley.

The Board appointed a committee to explore issues regarding the
Secretariat with Clark as Chair, and Beaver, Desmedt, and Langford as
members.

The Board discussed and ultimately approved a proposal from Preneel to
grant FSE the status of "workshop sponsored by the IACR".  This includes
the IACR's acceptance of financial responsibility and a commitment that
FSE will meet financial requirements dictated by the IACR.  Workshop
dates, budget, venues, and General and Program Chairs would remain under
the control of an FSE Steering Committee, but workshop proposals would
be presented to the IACR Board for approval or modification at least
twelve months prior to each workshop.

	

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


Board of Directors Meeting
Eurocrypt 2001
Innsbruck
6 May 2001


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

Present were Balenson, Beaver, Benaloh, Berson, Biham, Cachin, Clark,
Dawson, Knudsen, Langford, Maurer, McCurley, Posch, Preneel, and Wright.

Proxies were held for Diffie and Landrock by Preneel, for Kim and Wolfe
by Dawson, and for Feigenbaum by Berson.

The agenda of the meeting was approved with additions by Dawson
(Asiacrypt Steering Committee), Benaloh (Program Chair guidelines), and
Diffie (proposal to fund a historical transcription).


************************************************************************
Minutes of the 20 August 2000 meeting were approved with amendments.
Motion by McCurley seconded by Preneel carried 14 to 0.
************************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________

Crypto 2001 General Chair Balenson reported on the status of the
upcoming conference.

He said that all was in order and things were just beginning to get busy
and that he was working with Treasurer Langford on on-line banking.  He
added that he would also be discussing the new budget format (introduced
by Crypto 2000 General Chair Franklin) with Langford.

Balenson then raised a question that had been asked by Crypto 2001
Program Chair Kilian on page limits.  Beaver responded that this is a
discretionary matter and that IACR is normally charged by
Springer-Verlag in 50 pages increments.

Preneel noted that full versions of papers can be published on the web
so extended lengths do not need to be accommodated in the proceedings.

Benaloh asked if Springer-Verlag had a hard upper limit on number of
pages in a single volume to which both Preneel and Beaver responded that
their limit was far beyond ours.

Beaver noted that there had once been a hard 18-page limit for each
paper and McCurley suggested that this was a place where the IACR should
not cut corners.

McCurley then raised a question that had been asked by Desmedt regarding
contingencies for power cut-offs in Santa Barbara.

Langford suggested flashlights be given as gifts for attendees and
Berson suggested "glow in the dark" items.

McCurley suggested that cut-offs would be likely this summer and asked
if generators were a viable alternative.

Balenson said that he would discuss contingencies with UCSB and that he
is working well with Sally Vito.

[In early June, Balenson forwarded a letter to the Board indicating that
UCSB had been exempted from possible power cut-offs.]

Balenson then said that he felt it was the job of a General Chair to
insulate the Board from inane requests (to which Berson mused that he
was failing at that moment).

Balenson concluded by noting that registration materials would be
available by the end of May.

________________________________________________________________________

Eurocrypt 2001 General Chair Posch then reported on the conference.

He said that as of 4 May 2001 there were 460 registrants representing 38
countries with more than 60 students representing 13 countries.  He
noted that there were few students from the U.S. and wondered if there
was a bias among U.S. students towards the Crypto conference.

Posch suggested that electronic registration would be very helpful and
also expressed the view that a single point of responsibility (rather
than responsibilities shared between the Secretariat and the local
booking service) would be a substantial improvement.  He suggested that
the registration form either omit hotel booking (perhaps giving
information for individual booking) or centralize booking with other
registration tasks.

McCurley suggested concerns about hotel funds going through the
Secretariat and observed the necessity of advanced block reservations.
Posch responded that block reservations require a 15% advanced payment.
Wright commented on the value of block reservations.

McCurley indicated that these issues are precisely why a local General
Chair is so important for Eurocrypt.  Posch expressed a desire for more
flexibility from the Secretariat.

Langford noted that the Secretariat would like to have electronic
registration.  Beaver added that the Secretariat does not want to assume
any liability.

Posch indicated that payments were not at issue but rather difficulties
in direct communication between the General Chair and the Secretariat.

Posch expressed a desire to collect funds in euros rather than dollars.
Langford asked about consistency with multiple currencies and noted that
most U.S. banks won't accept euros.  Posch replied that euros would be
sensible given the demographic of registrants.

McCurley suggested that opening a European bank account might make
sense.

Clark noted that time differences are a problem and suggested that the
General Chair Guidelines may need revision.

McCurley questioned whether electronic registration could be replaced by
better communication.

Clark asked whether there had been specific transmission problems.

Posch responded that he received faxes from the Secretariat followed by
an electronic spreadsheet.

McCurley offered to meet with Beaver and Langford to discuss these
issues further.

McCurley then asked about the feasibility of opening a European bank
account.

Langford agreed to explore this and look into other U.S. banks.

Balenson confirmed that these issues would have no impact on Crypto
2001.

Posch then reported that Eurocrypt 2001 had only small deviations from
the proposed budget.

McCurley inquired about the effect of currency fluctuation, and Posch
responded that the IACR has profited from the exchange rates.

Desmedt arrived at this point.

Posch stated that he expected a surplus of approximately $40,000.  He
noted that he had budgeted for the conference to break even with 300
attendees and a euro rate of $1.13 - $1.15 and that the budget had
benefited from both higher registration and a stronger dollar.

McCurley noted that it appeared that things were going smoothly and that
the General Chair had done a good job of handling problems.

________________________________________________________________________

Asiacrypt 2001 General Chair Dawson then reported on the conference.

Langford noted that Asiacrypt 2000 had shown a surplus of approximately
$4,000.

Dawson began by discussing the Asiacrypt Steering Committee and
announced that he had accepted a 2-year appointment replacing E. Okamoto
as chair and that E. Okamoto would take the position of vice-chair.

He then reminded the Board of the dates for Asiacrypt 2001 as 9-13
December 2001 with the venue of the Gold Coast of Australia
(approximately one hour south of Brisbane).  He said that the technical
sessions would be held at Somerset College which is approximately 20
minutes by car from the accommodations.  He noted bus service would be
provided and that lunchtime entertainment had been arranged.

McCurley asked if closer accommodations were available and Dawson
replied that they were not.

Desmedt asked that registrants be informed of the climate in advance.

McCurley recommended careful co-ordination with the Secretariat.

Dawson said that booking would be handled locally and that a 15% deposit
had already been paid.

He described accommodations in the Concord Hotel at Aus$114/room/night
and at the Grand Mercure Hotel at Aus$130/room/night.

Dawson also noted that Arjen Lenstra and Brendon McKay would be invited
speakers and estimated the registration costs to be US$450/person.

Berson mentioned that Asiacrypt 2002 General Chair Wolfe had, at the
Asiacrypt 2000 meeting of the Asiacrypt Steering Committee, expressed
difficulty in communicating with the Board and that a travel budget for
the General Chair was a concern of his.

Dawson asked that the IACR President or a representative attend
Asiacrypt Steering Committee meetings, and Berson responded that the
Board had decided by e-mail to do so.

McCurley suggested that future IACR presidents receive funding to attend
all (non-local) IACR conferences.

Preneel noted that a representative of the President may be sufficient.

McCurley added that Asiacrypt should schedule and hold an IACR Business
meeting.

Dawson then announced that the Asiacrypt Steering Committee had
recommended accepting a proposal from Taiwan to host Asiacrypt 2003.

McCurley noted that that a prior Taiwan proposal had been rejected
because of confusion regarding bundling of the proposal with a proposed
Program Chair and asked that the Board be more sensitive to cultural
differences.

Dawson expressed the view that it would be important to have a Program
Chair from Taiwan.

McCurley asked Dawson if he saw problems with the proposal, and Dawson
replied that he saw no major difficulties.

Wright asked if other proposals had been received, and Dawson responded
that the Taiwan proposal was the only substantial one (noting that a
previous Taiwan proposal was cancelled due to an earthquake).

Benaloh suggested that it was important for the Board to be clear in
exercising its control over the choice of Program Chair.

McCurley agreed but added that sensitivity was also important.

Maurer expressed concerns over the Program Chair selection process.

________________________________________________________________________

At 11:28, the Board agreed to an eight-minute recess.

The meeting reconvened at 11:43.

________________________________________________________________________

McCurley said that he felt that Asiacrypt 2001 looked fine and asked
Dawson if he had any details on the status of Asiacrypt 2002.  Dawson
said that he did not.

McCurley then raised the issue of travel budgets for General Chairs.

Preneel asked "What's in it?" for the Asiacrypt 2002 General Chair.

McCurley said that the Board will not pay for General Chair travel.

Dawson noted that Wolfe was scheduled to arrive in Innsbruck that
afternoon.

Clark asked that we formalize the Board position on travel for the IACR
President which had been discussed in prior e-mail.

Cachin drafted the following motion.

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

If financial constraints do not permit either the IACR President or
Vice-President to do so, IACR should cover Asiacrypt costs for the
President, the Vice-President, or a designee thereof from the IACR
general budget.

Motion by Clark seconded by Berson carried 19 to 0.

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

Dawson asked if these funds were to be out of the General Chair's
budget.

McCurley responded that this was intended to be paid for out of general
IACR funds.

McCurley then suggested an order for funding be the IACR President,
followed by the Vice-President, followed by a designee thereof.

Dawson asked if this would be in effect immediately, and both Berson and
Clark said that it would.

________________________________________________________________________


Crypto 2002 General Chair Wright then reported on the conference.

She said that she was awaiting receipt of the General Chair guidelines.

Balenson said that he was not relying on the guidelines for Crypto 2001,
and Beaver said that the guidelines were out of date.

Wright said that she will rely on tradition in planning.

Desmedt asked if a reduction in submissions had been a problem.  Benaloh
responded that submissions were comparable for Eurocrypt 2001 and Crypto
2001.

________________________________________________________________________

Benaloh then raised the issue of differences among Program Chairs and
asked if the guidelines required modifications.

Maurer said that personal dedication is fundamental in Program Chairs.

McCurley suggested that guidelines are necessary to set expectations.

Preneel expressed the view that lack on continuity is a problem.

Cachin said that the lack of permanent IACR hardware requires each
Program Chair to do work setting up submission and review software.

Preneel said that the Eurocrypt 2000 software is being maintained.

Clark said that both the Program Chair and General Chair guidelines are
out of date and asked members of the Board to submit changes to Maurer.

Desmedt suggested that Preneel's role as Eurocrypt 2000 Program Chair
made his experiences particularly valuable here.

McCurley asked that both Posch and Balenson critique the General Chair
guidelines.

Langford recommended forking the Crypto General Chair guidelines from
those for Eurocrypt and Asiacrypt.

McCurley suggested a single document with separate sections.

Benaloh asked if it would improve continuity to add a recommendation to
the Program Chair guidelines that upcoming Program Chairs be included
either as regular Program Committee members of as formal observers.  He
then asked how this might best be implemented -- by recommending that
the Program Chair for the chronologically subsequent IACR conference be
added, by recommending that the Program chair for the next in that
series of IACR conferences be added, or by recommending that the Program
Chairs for the next three IACR conferences be added.

McCurley said that the Board had the prerogative to make suggestions in
this regard.

Preneel expressed the view that the next three Program Chairs were too
many.

Clark suggested that continuity can be preserved by updating the
guidelines and that communication needs improvement.

Maurer accepted the responsibility of contacting and maintaining contact
with Program Chairs.

________________________________________________________________________

A proposal to host Asiacrypt 2003 in Taipei, Taiwan was then presented
by Shiuh Pyng Shieh.  Chi-Sung Laih and Chu-Hsing Lin were also in
attendance.

Proposed dates were 30 November through 4 December, 2003 with the Grand
Hotel of Taipei as the venue.  Room rates were given as approximately
US$120/night and registration costs were estimated at US$450 (exclusive
of IACR membership).  Support from other organizations was estimated to
be US$50,000.

The proposal was made in cooperation with the Chinese Cryptography and
Information Security Association and included Chin-Chen Chang as General
Chair.  It also recommended Chi-Sung Laih as Program Chair.

McCurley noted that the proposed General Chair was not present and that
the proposed conference room was limited to 400 people.  Shieh responded
that the proposed conference facilities could accommodate up to 600
people, and Dawson noted that the largest Asiacrypt to date had fewer
than 300 attendees.

Schoenmakers arrived at this point.

McCurley sought clarification that the conference room would be
adequate, and Dawson assured him that the facility is fine.

Langford asked if the estimated US$450 registration fee included IACR
membership, and Shieh responded that it did not.

Clark asked what the sponsorship funds were to be used for, and Shieh
responded that they would be used to subsidize costs.

McCurley noted that the date might conflict with the U.S. Thanksgiving
holiday (Nov. 27, 2003).

Dawson asked about airline connections to Taipei, and Shieh responded
that many direct flights are available.

Wright asked about the climate, and Shieh responded that average
temperature that time of year was approximately 63 degrees F.

McCurley asked Laih about his understanding of the IACR policy that the
Program Chair decision is made by the Board separately from the decision
of venue.  Laih responded that he was familiar with the procedures.

Maurer introduced himself to Laih as the Board liaison.  Laih expressed
the view that communication should not be a problem.

McCurley noted that Asiacrypt 2003 will include a Distinguished Lecture
that will be chosen by the Board.

Clark offered his thanks for the proposal, and applause was given by
all.

________________________________________________________________________


The Board then discussed the proposal with attention given to the issue
of how the Program Chair is selected.

Benaloh noted concerns that there was an impression that a Program Chair
was part of the proposal.

McCurley suggested that this issue was sensitive and takes time to get
precise and claimed this to be the responsibility of the IACR President.

Wright expressed the view that the proposal was sufficiently flexible.

Beaver suggested that the Board would have no difficulties rejecting
future proposals in which the Program Chair was an integral component.

Preneel suggested the need for an updated set of proposal guidelines.

Dawson asked if the Asiacrypt Steering Committee should recommend a
Program Committee Chair, and McCurley said that it should not.  He then
expressed regrets that the Board does not have a greater Asian
representation.

McCurley suggested that this issue needed to be clarified to the
Asiacrypt Steering Committee, and Dawson responded that it had not been
discussed there.

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

The Board then voted to accept the Asiacrypt 2003 proposal for Taipei,
Taiwan.

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

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

In a separate vote, the Board then voted to ask Chi-Sung Laih to serve
as Program Chair for Asiacrypt 2003.  [Laih subsequently accepted.]

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

The Board then recessed for lunch at 13:08.

________________________________________________________________________


During lunch, McCurley reported on the status of the Journal of
Cryptology.

He said that things were running smoothly with no outstanding issues but
that the contract with Springer-Verlag would need to be renewed shortly.

McCurley reported that this would be a transition year for the Journal
as Journal Editor Feigenbaum intended to retire at the end of the
following year.  He then expressed a need for a new editor to be
selected by the end of the current year in order to facilitate the
transition.

Several names were suggested, and McCurley appointed a committee
consisting of himself, Feigenbaum, and Berson to select a new editor.

McCurley also asked for the Board view on electronic publishing.

Beaver suggested that Springer-Verlag would be supportive of
"co-publishing".

________________________________________________________________________


The Board reconvened at 14:12.

Eurocrypt 2002 General Chair Schoenmakers reported on the conference.

McCurley began by apologizing to Schoenmakers about recent communication
problems which he said needed to be addressed.

Schoenmakers gave the dates of the conference as 28 April through 2 May,
2002 with the conference venue in the five-star Hotel Okura in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.  He said that the facility included a
500-person lecture room and estimated the registration fee to be US$580.
He gave details about the planned social program and noted the 30 April
"Queen's Day" holiday in The Netherlands.

Clark asked how many attendees were required for the conference to break
even, and Schoenmakers responded that the estimate was 400.
Schoenmakers also gave the conference web site URL of
http://www.ec2002.tue.nl.

________________________________________________________________________

Landrock then introduced Jerzy Gawinecki to offer a proposal for
Eurocrypt 2003.

Gawinecki described a proposal to host Eurocrypt 2003 in Warsaw Poland
6-10 May 2003 at the Hotel Victoria which has a conference facility
capable of holding 500-600 people.  He estimated the registration fee to
be US$600 with a break even point at approximately 450 attendees.

________________________________________________________________________

Membership Secretary Beaver then reported on membership issues and
relations with the IACR Secretariat.

Beaver reported that the UCSB was undergoing an audit and that a new
contract could not be negotiated until the audit was completed.  He said
that the status quo would remain in effect until that time.

Beaver noted that the present Eurocrypt conference would have no direct
presence from the Secretariat but that Sally Vito would be available by
telephone.  He also noted that the  UCSB conference services were
somewhat stressed since their best programmer had left.

Beaver said that Springer-Verlag would be offering electronic access for
the Journal of Cryptology that coming summer.  He also noted that IACR
membership was down to 921 from 959 the previous year.

Langford asked to be involved in payment discussions with the
Secretariat.

________________________________________________________________________

The issue of possible affiliate conference status was then discussed.

Preneel offered a proposal for FSE to be given the status of the first
IACR affiliated workshop.  The proposal included the following points.

1.  FSE maintains control of its conference venues, General Chairs, and
Program Chairs.

2.  IACR accepts financial risk and responsibility for FSE.

3.  FSE cash reserves would be turned over to the IACR.

4.  FSE registrants would become IACR members.

5.  FSE can use the phrase "Sponsored by IACR".

McCurley asked who the members of the FSE Steering Committee were.

Knudsen responded that the FSE Steering Committee consisted of the union
of the previous two FSE Program Committees.

Preneel asserted that it was not clear whether the FSE Program Committee
would always be identical to the FSE Steering Committee.

Posch left the meeting at this point.

Benaloh inquired about the size of FSE.  Preneel responded that the last
FSE had approximately 120 registrants which was smaller than recent
FSEs, it was believed, because it was no longer linked with AES
workshops and because the venue was in Japan.

McCurley asked about possible risks while suggesting that risks seemed
to be minor.  He then expressed his desire that there be a clear process
and asked what the process was for selection of the FSE Steering
Committee.

Wright asked if most FSE attendees were IACR members, and Preneel
responded that most already were.

Landrock expressed his view that FSE is a substantial conference that is
worthy of IACR sponsorship.

Biham predicted that FSE registration would continue to be in excess of
100 people for several years to come.

Berson noted that FSE was successful without significant organization
and seconded Landrock's support.

Benaloh expressed a desire for clarification of rules of Steering
Committee selection, Program Chair selection, and the like.

Clark suggested that the IACR was still struggling with the addition of
Asiacrypt and, although he wanted to endorse FSE, he expressed concern
about the IACR's ability to support it adequately.  He also said that
any agreed upon relationship must be made clear to the IACR membership.

Berson suggested the need for a proposal detailing the relationship of
FSE to the IACR.

McCurley indicated that since the FSE scope was, unlike Asiacrypt,
different from other IACR conferences, he felt that it needn't fit the
same IACR model.

Maurer asked if the scope of FSE could be broadened.  Biham responded
that the scope included more than just stream ciphers.

Clark asked for a more specific proposal, and McCurley asked that there
be written rules.

Wright asked for a straw poll to gauge the support on the Board for
incorporating FSE as an IACR-sponsored workshop.  Support was unanimous.

Benaloh asked if the FSE Steering Committee should select FSE Program
Chairs.  The general consensus was that it should.

Desmedt then announced that the PKC Steering Committee is prepared to
seek sponsorship.

McCurley said that the Board could entertain a formal proposal at lunch
the following day.

________________________________________________________________________

The Board then discussed the proposal for Eurocrypt 2003.

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

The Board voted to accept the proposal to hold Eurocrypt 2003 in Warsaw,
Poland subject to the approval of a budget at the Crypto 2001 Board
meeting.  The motion was made by Maurer and seconded by McCurley and
carried 17-0 with 2 abstentions.

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

________________________________________________________________________


The Board then took up the issue of planning for 2001 elections.

An Election Committee was appointed consisting of McCurley, Balenson,
and Desmedt.

McCurley asked that all members of the Board work to recruit good
candidates.

Maurer expressed a desire to find a good candidate for president
immediately.

For historical completeness, Berson was asked to list the prior IACR
presidents.  He provided the following list.

Denning
Massey
Berson (1 5-year term)
Landrock (2 2-year terms)
McCurley (2 3-year terms)

________________________________________________________________________

Treasurer Langford then gave a financial report.

She reported that Eurocrypt 2000 had a total income of $221,000 of which
$60,000 was returned to the IACR ($33,000 in IACR dues, a $10,000
allocation for the Secretariat, and a surplus of $17,000).

She reported that Crypto 2000 had a total income of $236,000 (not
including income for on-campus lodging) of which $83,000 was returned to
the IACR ($27,000 in IACR dues, a $10,000 allocation for the
Secretariat, and a surplus of $46,000).

She reported that Asiacrypt 2000 had a total income of $112,000 of which
$26,000 was returned to the IACR ($12,000 in IACR dues, a $10,000
allocation for the Secretariat, and a surplus of $4,000).

Langford then reported that the IACR had reserves of approximately
$350,000 as of 31 December 2000 with assets consisting of $203,000 held
in certificates of deposit, approximately $149,000 held in checking
accounts, and $175,000 held by UCSB and liabilities of $66,000 for the
Journal of Cryptology (the bill for which arrived in January 2001) and
$110,000 designated for specific expenditures in 2001.

Langford described the IACR Secretariat as her primary concern.

She also said that monetary limits on conference gifts may be desirable.

McCurley suggested that sponsorship of conference gifts might be
possible.

Berson noted that gifts have traditionally been representative of the
locale.

Straw polls were then taken in which the Board voted 9-2 that $30 was an
excessive expenditure on a gift, 5-8 against objecting to a sponsored
gift, and unanimously in favor of student sponsorship.

________________________________________________________________________

Newsletter Editor Cachin then reported on the status of the Newsletter
and related issues.

Cachin reported that things were generally going well despite some
problems with low-quality submissions to the ePrint server.

He said that reports were being solicited for the Newsletter with a June
1 deadline for the next issue.

McCurley thanked Cachin for his work on the IACR web site, and applause
was given by all.

Cachin suggested that ePrint submissions should be distinguished from
published papers (including those in proceedings).

Biham suggested that the Election Committee submit a report for the next
issue of the Newsletter.

________________________________________________________________________

Additional business was then discussed.

Preneel asked about possible updates to the IACR proceedings CD-ROM, and
McCurley responded that electronic access to past proceedings would be
forthcoming.

Clark said that he would like to have on-line access to the IACR member
database and information on conference payments, and he agreed to chair
a committee on which Langford, Beaver, and Desmedt would serve.

McCurley raised the issue of the Felton, et. al. paper describing a
break to the SDMI protocol and his subsequent withdrawal of that paper
upon threat of legal action.

Desmedt noted that the threat of legal action was directed against both
the authors and the conference.

McCurley asked what we would do if this happened at an IACR conference.

Beaver asked whether this was about academic freedom or an NDA
violation.

Berson said that we should wait until we see details of any such
potential case.

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

The Board then voted (in his absence) to ask Eli Biham to serve as
Eurocrypt 2003 Program Chair.  Biham accepted upon his return.

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

________________________________________________________________________

McCurley then compiled a list of items to be discussed at the
forthcoming Business meeting.

The list included announcements of upcoming IACR conferences (Crypto
2001, Asiacrypt 2001, and Eurocrypt 2002), forthcoming elections for
three IACR Directors and all four IACR Officers, reports on the
Newsletter and ePrint server, the Journal of Cryptology, and finances,
and an announcement of a possible Board decision to accept FSE as an
IACR-sponsored workshop.

________________________________________________________________________

The Board then adjourned at 17:33.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Board of Directors Supplemental Meeting
Eurocrypt 2001
Innsbruck
7 May 2001


Board President McCurley called the supplemental meeting to order at
13:17.

Present were Balenson, Beaver, Benaloh, Berson, Biham, Cachin, Clark,
Dawson, Desmedt, Diffie, Knudsen, Landrock, Langford, Maurer, McCurley,
Posch, Preneel, Schoenmakers, and Wright.

McCurley told the Board that he had had discussions with Jerzy Gawinecki
regarding the proposal for Eurocrypt 2003.  Berson suggested that Josef
Pierprzyk could act as a liaison.

McCurley also spoke about some issues regarding Asiacrypt 2002 and
announced for those who had missed it that Biham had accepted the offer
to serve as Program Chair for Eurocrypt 2003.

Preneel then presented a written proposal for FSE to be accepted as a
workshop sponsored by the IACR.

In addition to a history of FSE workshops dating back to 1993 and a
short description of the goal of FSE, the proposal (after subsequent
amendment) included the following elements.

1.  Interaction with IACR.

As of May 2001, the FSE Steering Committee consists of the following 10
members:  Ross Anderson, Eli Biham, Don Coppersmith, Cunsheng Ding,
Dieter Gollmann, Lars Knudsen, James Massey, Mitsuru Matsui, Bart
Preneel, and Serge Vaudenay.  The FSE Steering Committee intends to be
representative for researchers in the area.  The FSE Steering Committee
may decide to nominate new members.

All formal interactions between FSE and the IACR Board of Directors are
made through the FSE Spokesperson.  The FSE Steering Committee will
designate a Spokesperson to be an observer on the IACR Board of
Directors.

The FSE Steering Committee conducts most of its business by email.  It
also meets at every FSE workshop.  The IACR Board of Directors is
represented by an observer on the FSE Steering Committee.

2.  Workshops

The FSE Steering Committee submits at least 12 months before the
workshop a complete proposal for FSE to the IACR Board.  The proposal
includes General Chair, venue, budget, and Program Chair.  This proposal
is obtained after a screening process internal to the FSE Steering
Committee.  The IACR Board can approve this proposal or it can ask for
revisions.

3.  IACR takes financial liability for FSE, which implies that surpluses
go to the IACR and losses are covered by the IACR.  Any accepted
workshop shall be run according to the IACR's financial guidelines for
workshops.  IACR shall take responsibility for accepted FSE workshops.

4.  FSE attendees become members of the IACR and pay membership dues.

5.  FSE can use the phrase "workshop sponsored by the IACR".


McCurley asked about the financial status of FSE.  Preneel responded
that FSE had a small surplus that was in the custody of Bruce Schneier.

McCurley asked that FSE representatives review details of IACR
accounting, and Clark suggested that a requirement be added that FSE
will employ accounting conventions consistent with minimum requirements
of the IACR.

McCurley noted that the IACR has a legal accounting obligation, but
Langford indicated that the IACR does not have to account for monies
that it does not control.

McCurley then expressed the view that the IACR does not need to hear FSE
proposals twelve months in advance and suggested that this requirement
be changed to "in a timely manner".

Cachin asked whether it would be necessary to amend the IACR By-Laws,
and McCurley responded that this is already provided for.

Desmedt inquired about payment mechanisms employed by FSE, and Langford
responded that the payment mechanism should be up to FSE.

McCurley suggested that the IACR Treasurer have access to an
appropriately labeled joint account, but Langford noted that IACR
conferences typically have their own accounts.

Diffie asked if the FSE Program Chair would have a seat on the IACR
Board, and Preneel responded that this would not be the case.

McCurley indicated his understanding that the IACR would provide funds
and support.

Beaver asked if a separate continuing FSE account would change its
status.

McCurley expressed the view that FSE financial reporting should be
consistent with IACR conferences, that the Treasurer should have access
to accounts, and that reporting requirements be imposed.

Wright inquired whether we could just say that FSE must meet IACR
requirements.

McCurley indicated that this was a precedent and expressed the opinion
that uniform accounting would be necessary and that every possible step
should be taken to ease the burden on the IACR Treasurer.

Clark asked if FSE would accept minimum accounting requirements, and
Preneel responded that it would.  Clark then expressed the view that
this should suffice.

McCurley noted that IACR conferences have a responsible member of the
IACR Board.

Clark noted that the representation for FSE would not be dissimilar to
that for Eurocrypt and Asiacrypt.  He then suggested that the IACR
Treasurer put minimum accounting requirements in writing.

Wright suggested that concerns would be different for workshops less
successful than FSE.

Beaver expressed concerns regarding access to funds.

Benaloh suggested that references to accounting requirements be changed
to financial requirements.

Wright noted that the FSE Steering Committee may dissolve its
relationship with the IACR.

Desmedt asked what FSE stands for, and Preneel responded that the
ambiguity is intentional to allow for a possible change.

Desmedt expressed the view that specificity of the scope of FSE was
necessary to maintain its specialization, but Wright noted that the IACR
can discontinue its sponsorship at time.

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

The FSE proposal, with the five points listed above, was then offered as
a motion by Clark, seconded by Cachin, and carried 21-0 with no
abstentions.

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

Berson then asked that this information be added to the agenda of the
forthcoming Business meeting.

________________________________________________________________________

Diffie then brought an informal proposal to the Board which had been
raised in a prior e-mail exchange.

He said that the previous September, the final analysis of the "Tunny"
cipher had been declassified and that he was in the process of
transcribing and typesetting this work.  He said that funds had already
been secured for this effort, but that if the IACR were to support it,
its members could be eligible for a discount from the MIT Press.  He
estimated total costs for this project to be at $15,000.

Berson noted that it might be possible to channel private funding
through the IACR.

Diffie said that he would like to take this up with the Board via
e-mail.

Desmedt noted that any tax deductions for this purpose would likely be
limited to U.S. nationals.

Diffie emphasized the historical interest in this work.

Preneel asked about copyright issues, and Diffie responded that the MIT
Press would hold the copyright.

At this point, several members of the Board began to leave as technical
sessions of the conference were about to resume.

Diffie offered to make a specific proposal in the future.

The supplemental Board meeting then adjourned at 14:24.
________________________________________________________________________


Respectfully submitted
Josh Benaloh
IACR Secretary



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