Membership meeting
Wednesday  August 23, 2017

(Supporting slides are available on the IACR website.)

President Christian Cachin opened the meeting at 16h55, giving a brief
overview of the IACR, its conference/workshops, etc.  He highlights the 
recent changes: the Real World Crypto Symposium and the two transactions
(ToSC and TCHES). He reminded the membership that three of the directors 
have terms expiring this year, and encouraged members to run for office.

Treasurer Brian LaMacchia gave a report summarizing the IACR's
finances.  He highlighted the fact that the IACR has a robust financial
position. Moreover, due to migrating the IACR registration system to a 
new credit card processor the fees have reduced significantly saving 
$6500 for Crypto 2017 alone. The treasurer did recommend to not change 
the current IACR membership fee. A member asked about the scholarship 
policy for students. The treasurer explained that there currently is the
Cryptography Research Fund for Students that covers the registration fee for
student speakers, but otherwise this is up to the General Chair (but there
is a budget reserved for this). A concrete policy for this is work in 
progress. Cachin thanked LaMacchia for his continued hard work. 

Membership Secretary Douglas Stebila gave a report and showed that 
membership has slightly increased from last year. He highlighted 
the ongoing initiative to rewrite conference and membership system.
Moreover, it will be possible to pay using Bitcoin for future
conferences (starting with TCC 2017). Cachin thanked Stebila for his 
continued hard work. 

Cachin continued by giving an overview of the online services offered
by the IACR, the cryptography research fund for students, and video 
recordings of presentations. He reminded the members that the recording 
and publication of video and presentation occurs by default (with exceptions 
possible) since 2016. He made the members aware that a video maintainer is
needed. Cachin thanked Kevin McCurley for his many hours of work on this 
and the publication of the videos to the IACR YouTube channel. 

Cachin discussed the current topics and started with explaining
the current conflict of interest policy used and that the Board has decided
to revise this policy by making it more precise and more prominent. He 
outlined the principles of the CoI suggested by the Board and opened the floor 
for discussion. 

  A member expressed his opinion that he is worried by this potential new CoI 
  policy since it might reduce the quality of reviews since topic experts are 
  often co-authors. He expressed his view that it is sometimes better to be 
  biased than to reduce the quality of reviews. 
  
  Another member expressed her view that this new CoI is welcomed and is part 
  of the process of our community growing up since the current different CoIs 
  between the IACR events is confusing. She suggested clarification of the role 
  of the advisor in the CoI is needed. 
  
  Moti Yung (elected Director) explained the Board's reasoning for this CoI 
  policy and that there is room for leniency. 
  
  There was a question if chairs have freedom to make exceptions and Cachin 
  explained this is indeed the case. 
  
  A members noted that this new CoI policy is a good development since it is 
  all about avoiding the perception of being influenced. 
  
  A member suggested that the community is solving a problem which is not 
  present. Benaloh and Yung responded that there have been problems in the 
  past as observed and handled by the IACR Ethics Committee. 
  
  Another member commented that authors selecting PC members as a potential 
  CoI is insufficient since there might be subreviewers. 

The president brought to a vote if the Board should continue working on the CoI
policy with the principles as suggested by the Board and outlined in the 
presented slides. There was a clear majority in favor, abstentions were not 
explicitly asked for. 

Cachin continued to quickly outline the other Board discussions such as term 
limits and a proposal to be more carbon-neutral. 

The floor was opened for discussion:

  A member asked if diversity issues have been discussed. Cachin explained this 
  was not discussed at the Crypto Board meeting but that the Board is meaning 
  to consider this more formally.
  
  There was a question on how to improve the overall quality of scientific 
  presentations. Maybe a best presentation award?
  
  There was a concern about writing the preface in Springer in the past tense. 
  Cachin explained this is a tradition and suggested we follow this.
  
  A member observed that due to the success of ToSC the number of symmetric 
  papers to other (non-IACR) conferences has been reduced. Did the IACR 
  consider this effect on the crypto community?

The meeting was closed at 17h55.