================================================== Board of Directors Meeting Eurocrypt 2009 ================================================== Date: Sunday, 26 April 2009 Time: 10:00am - 5:00pm Place: Maritim Hotel, Cologne In attendance: Bart Preneel, Ed Dawson, Thomas Shrimpton, Arjen Lenstra, Serge Vaudenay, Christian Cachin, Tsutomu Matsumoto, Josh Benaloh, Antoine Joux, Matt Franklin, Alexander May, Eiji Okamoto, Olivier Billet, San Ling, Jean-Jacques Quisquater Opening Matters ============ Welcome participants - identification of proxies (Preneel) (5) Shrimpton for Ramzan Lenstra for Haber, Berson Preneel for Handschuh, Hughes Benaloh for Halevi Vaudenay for Pointcheval (no proxy for Black) Review and approve agenda (All) (5) ----------------------------- There were no additions. Approve Minutes from last meeting (Shrimpton) (5) ------------------------------------------ The Crypto'08 BoD minutes were approved unanimously. Actions/Matters Arising from last meeting (Preneel) (15) --------------------------------------------- Co-location: Lenstra wondered if the IACR should continue to support all of its current conferences/workshops, given that attendance at certain of these is low and dropping. Should conferences be dropped/subsumed? The discussion was tabled until later by Preneel. Eurocrypt 2009 status (May) (10) EC general chair May reported that there were 430 registered at the time of the meeting, nearly a record number. Eurocrypt was sponsored by Horst Goertz and DFG (a German research foundation), in a total amount of nearly 100K Euro. The EC'09 budget will yield a slight surplus. About 20 students were supported (12 from Bochum). The GC asked the following: 1. Should the IACR maintain a bank account holding Euro? The GC noted difficulties in dealing with currency fluctuations (when finalizing a budget, there is a need to fix an exchange rate), and also that bank transfers internal to the EU are difficult because payments cannot be made in US dollars. 2. Should the IACR consider holding EC at universities? For some infrastructure purposes (for example, wireless access) it could be easier, he said. Preneel responded to 1.: o IACR does have an account through HSBC; this helps for intra-Europe transfers. o This point has been raised previously, and after long discussions it was decided to leave things as they are. While the current set-up can make things somewhat difficult for the EC GC, but most of the long-term effort falls to the Treasurer and the membership secretary, who have to deal with 7 events per year; given that we are a volunteer association, it is better to leave things as is. o For budgeting purposes, the EC GC can use the exchange rate at the time that registration was opened Benaloh added that he appreciates the treasurer's and membership secretary's significant efforts, but also underscored the effort for EC GCs. To the GC's second question: there was a general brief discussion about things that might be difficult, for example scheduling around classes. That said, there is no en/discouragement on the part of the IACR on the matter. Officer's Reports for approval ============================== Treasurer (Preneel obo Handschuh) (5) Preneel noted that currency fluctuation (between the opening of the registration and the time of the payments) is an issue that affects profit/loss of an individual event but the IACR levels these. Conference and workshop attendance in general is very strong, and all 2008 conferences/workshops ran a surplus. The IACR is financially healthy, with sufficient reserves. He remarked that the IACR targets break-even budgets, and attempts to keep overhead at less than 2%. Vaudenay wondered how much it would cost to extend the current IACR policy of free registration for student presenters at conferences to workshops. Preneel estimated that this would affect about 60 students per year, or approximately $12-15K per year. Vaudenay asked then if the policy could be extended. It was suggested that the figures be gathered for presentation at the CRYPTO'09 board meeting for further discussion. Appointees Reports for information ================================== Newsletter (Preneel obo Hughes) (5) ---------------------------- Preneel noted that we have had relatively few newsletters recently, although now there is a website that can carry typical newsletter information. He raised two questions: 1. How does the new proposed website fit with current IACR services? 2. How is content solicited (e.g. book reviews), and what content should appear? Cachin responded that there should be someone in charge of maintaining the content (for editorial purposes). He stated that the proposed newsletter website is not very compatible with other IACR servers (the eprint server, for example). It was noted that there is a fair bit of overlap between the administration of the newsletter server and servers providing other IACR services. Cachin suggested that we should consider a more integrated approach. JoC Editor in Chief (Franklin) (5) --------------------------- EiC Franklin reported that as of March 1, he handles new submissions while outgoing EiC Maurer continues to deal with papers already in the pipeline. He said that the pace of new submission appears to be about 90 per year (roughly same as in previous years). Existing policies are being followed. Franklin has begun to carefully consider web-based reviewing systems; he had nothing to report at the meeting, but hopes to make progress on this matter in the near future. In general he thinks the existing tools that he has used are too "heavyweight" for the JoC's needs. Preneel reminded the board of a decision from the last meeting to solicit three or so papers (best papers, in particular) from the flagship conferences and workshops. Membership Secretary (Preneel obo Halevi) (5) ------------------------------------- Preneel reported that membership continues to climb, currently around 1500 members (approx. 360 students). That IACR online membership services (registration, submission, reviews, etc.) stable, and that the IACR cryptoDB went live in October 2008. Archive (Preneel obo Orman) (5) --------------------------- There was some discussion about how easy it is to use various systems to collect copyright forms and prepare a final package for Springer. Joux was in favor of the Easychair system, which he said made things completely automatic. Preneel stated a preferred for Halevi's system (which also provides excellent support for the editor). Cachin reminded the board of the special arrangement that the IACR has with Springer with respect to the copyright forms. Preneel noted that in discussion with Springer, they are willing to give the IACR the tarfile of the proceedings as submitted by the authors. Internal Committee Reports for information ========================================== Fellows Committee (Preneel obo Yung) (2) --------------------------------- The committee has selected five fellows this year: G. Robert Blakley, Oded Goldreich, Arjen Lenstra, James Massey, and Michael Rabin. Lenstra wondered if there is a mechanism for replacing members (over time) on this committee. Preneel responded that there is a mechanism, and also reminded that the committee is independent of the board. Election Committee (Preneel obo Hughes) (5) ----------------------------------- Cachin (an election committee member) commented that five ballots arrived after the deadline. After following up with the late voters, it seemed that the ballots arrived in time, but the voters were unaware of the deadline. The problem appears to be that the election ballots were sent late this year. Vaudenay was concerned that members were asked to vote on bylaw changes while the ballot form only contained a link to the revised text and not the text itself. Preneel suggested that it would have been better to include printed portions of the bylaws with the ballots, but it is not clear what portions, as they should be read in context. It was noted that about 25% of members returned votes. e-Voting Committee (Benaloh obo Halevi) (20) ------------------------------------ Benaloh commented that he thought that e-voting technology is sufficiently mature, and that there are several demonstrated problems with the current system. Thus, it is time to move forward with a board decision on the matter. As a next action, Benaloh wanted to know the current feeling of the board on e-voting, and if positive, for the committee to proceed with the task of recommending a specific system. Quisquater remarked that UC-Louvain recently employed an e-voting system, and that it presented some unexpected problems. On the whole it operated properly (i.e., the cryptography was fine), but there were some logistical issues. Preneel proposed to form an executive committee, chaired by Benaloh, to focus on requirements and testing, and for this committee to recommend a candidate system to the board. Benaloh suggested that Halevi and Haber should also be on this committee. Electronic publishing Committee (Preneel) (20) -------------------------------------- Preneel reported that the IACR may now put proceedings online (in its archive) two years after publication. He has asked Springer if this can be reduced to one year, but no official response had been returned (later on Springer has given a negative response). ISI-Thompson, who provides an major ranking service (the Science Citation Index or SCI) that has important impact on funding and hiring in several countries, has moved LNCS from the journals to the ISI proceedings division. However, for proceedings there is no publication of impact factors. The Journal of Cryptology is included in SCI and has an excellent citation record. Citations in the JoC of LNCS are not reported but citations of JoC in LNCS are included; they account for about half the citations of JoC. Preneel commented that McCurley has reported that offering an on-line publication and index service is more difficult than anticipated (in particular, large organizations such as ACM are difficult to deal with). Preneel noted that some universities (e.g. MIT, Harvard) are moving to having a central university-controlled repository instead of using Springer Link. This has impacts for the IACR copyright agreement with Springer, because an institutional repository is not a personal homepage. The IACR currently pays $160K each year to Springer for their services. There was some discussion about the value added by Springer for this cost, returning frequently to the issue of citations and indexing. Preneel pointed out that indexing is an important issue for many IACR members, and noted that the version that Springer allows the IACR to post online is, in fact, is different from the version made available via Springer Link. This can have the effect of splitting citations to the same paper. Cachin remarked that it is important to keep in mind that people want to cite the official version. Thus, we should not attempt to prepare our own "official" version in addition to Springer's, as this will just confuse things. He suggested that the IACR should either do everything for ourselves, or pay Springer and continue as-is. Preneel suggested three potential publication models: o the "entirely online", with no official printed proceedings o STACS/USENIX model, which would require developing our own publishing service (and probably staff) o Open-Access with Springer, paired with an attempt to negotiate costs to the IACR He also noted that the preproceedings model (used at FSE) can save money and provide a "bound" printout for attendees who really want a paper copy at the conference (for FSE 2009 this cost was below 5 EUR). Vaudenay remarked that at FSE'08 preproceedings were, in fact, quite expensive. Preneel concluded that he will continue to discuss these issues with Springer and report again at Crypto '09. Appointments ============ Membership Secretary (Preneel) (5) --------------------------- The board voted unanimously to reappoint Shai Halevi as membership secretary. Newsletter Editor (Preneel) (5) ----------------------- A member noted that the newsletter editor ought to be seriously concerned with the content and management of content on the newsletter website. Other members agreed, and even suggested that it should not be one person developing all content. Some candidates for the position were discussed, and the board voted to approach two candidates about the position. [After the meeting, Christopher Wolf accepted the position as the new newsletter editor.] Conferences since last BoD Meeting ================================== Asiacrypt 2008 (Dawson obo Batten) (5) ------------------------------- Dawson reported that there were 190 attendees, including 33 students. The profit was larger than expected, many as a result of currency fluctuations between the Australian and US dollars. The board expressed their thanks to Lynn Batten for her work and an excellent conference. Forthcoming Conferences for information ======================================= Crypto 2009 (Preneel obo Black) (2) ---------------------------- Preneel had nothing specific to report, simply stating that everything is proceeding as normal. Asiacrypt 2009 (Okamoto) (10) ------------------------- Okamoto reported that the submission page is now open, and the venue is fixed. All information about the conference is now available from the AC'09 website. Eurocrypt 2010 (Billet) (10) ---------------------- GC Billet reported that the main venues (for the reception, sessions, lunches and rump session) are secured. He remarked that sponsorship has been difficult to find because of the financial crisis, but the budget is nonetheless on track as proposed. A member wondered if the University of Nice might be able to provide some sponsorship, and Billet agreed that investigating this avenue is a good idea. Asiacrypt 2010 (Ling) (10) --------------------- GC Ling reported that the AC'10 budget is now about one-half of what was originally proposed as a result of a change in the main hotel, which is now the Swissotel. (GC Ling commented on how nice is the area around the main hotel.) He noted that the conference is projected to run a slight loss, mostly a result of currency fluctuations. Steering Committee Reports and Workshop Proposals ================================================= Asiacrypt Steering Committee (Matsumoto) (5) ------------------------------------- Chair Matsumoto apologized for the committee's failing to reach a decision. Berson (via Lenstra) and Ramzan (via Shrimpton) both expressed their disappointment that the SC did not carry out what is their main duty. Dawson responded that the committee had been running successfully for many years, and this is the first time that this has occurred. Preneel added that it was probably a wise decision for the SC to forward the issue to the board. Matsumoto remarked that he will be the chair of the AC steering committee for the next two years, replacing Kwangjo Kim. TCC 2009, TCC 2010 proposal for approval (Preneel obo Damgaard) (10) ---------------------------------------------------------- Preneel remarked that there were some difficulties in dealing with conference hotels (this seems to be a recurring difficulty for general chairs who organize conferences in large hotels), but that the conference ran smoothly. TCC '10 is proposed to be held in Zurich, Switzerland (at ETH). Preneel noted that there is a date collisions with FSE '10, but that this is unlikely to present a problem for either workshop. The board accepted the proposal with no objections. PKC 2009, PKC 2010 status (Joux) (10) ------------------------------- PKC 2010 is proposed to be held in Bangkok, Thailand. Several members expressed concern about the political situation there; the proposed general chair is experienced but does not have a strong involvement in the cryptologic community. It was decided to not accept the proposal. Preneel will convey these concerns to the steering committee ad ask them to prepare a new proposal. For PKC 2009 the financial result was positive. No detailed report was available. FSE 2009, FSE 2010 proposal for approval (Preneel) (15) ---------------------------------------------- Preneel reported that FSE '09 was the largest ever with 221 attendees. FSE '10 is proposed to be held in South Korea. The board accepted the proposal without objection, although Preneel will talk to the FSE and TCC general chairs to see if either can move their proposed dates (to avoid the previously mentioned collision.) CHES 2008, 2009, CHES 2010 proposal for approval (Quisquater) (15) --------------------------------------------------- Quisquater reported briefly on CHES'08, which was the largest CHES ever hosted in the US. For CHES '09 (to be held in Lausanne), he reported that everything is proceeding as planned. CHES '09 received the largest number of submissions in CHES history. There is a proposal for CHES '10 to be colocated and coordinated with CRYPTO '10 (Wednesday morning until Friday afternoon). There was some concern that the overlap will effectively make for parallel sessions. Other members thought this was in fact a good thing, giving more choices to the attendees of both CRYPTO and CHES. A member reported that he was happy to see a lower registration fee than at previous CHES workshops. With 17 in favor and 3 abstentions, the proposal for CHES'10 was passed. Conference Proposals for discussion/selection ============================================= Eurocrypt 2011: Tallinn, Estonia (Lipmaa) (30) ------------------------------------ The board heard an excellent presentation for the hosting of Eurocrypt '11 in Estonia with Helger Lipmaa as general chair. A member asked about the registration fee, and upon what it was based. Lipmaa responded that it was based on a break-even budget estimated on 400 attendees. Some members noted that 400 may be unrealistic, but then it was determined that even with fewer attendees there would not be a significant change in the budget as long as the estimated sponsorship level is met. The board voted, with only one abstention and all others in favor, to accept the proposal. Asiacrypt 2011 (60) ---------------- The board heard two excellent proposals for the organization of Asiacrypt 2011: one from Hyung Joong Kim for Seoul, Korea; and one from Xuejia Lia for Beijing, China. There was a discussion of the merits of each proposal. Some members expressed concerns about the visa process in each country. A member wondered if it would be possible to accept both, one for 2011 and one for 2012; it is possible, said Preneel. Members of the AC steering committee (present at the meeting) pointed out that the committee asked only that the board decide on 2011, not both 2011 and 2012. After additional discussion the board voted in favor of Seoul, (18 for, 2 abstain.) In addition, the board voted on the motion to strongly recommend to the AC steering committee that they select the Beijing proposal for 2012. The vote was 14 for the motion, 1 against, 7 abstentions. Conference Chairs ================= Program chairs reports (Lenstra) (10) ----------------------------- Lenstra will summarize the reports and distribute this summary via email for discussion at the CRYPTO'09 BoD meeting. Eurocrypt 2011 Program Chair (Preneel) (20) ----------------------------------- Several good candidates were discussed, and a candidate was selected. Preneel will approach the candidate. [After the meeting Kenny Paterson accepted to be program chair.] Asiacrypt 2011 Program Chair (Preneel) (20) ---------------------------------- Again, several good candidates were discussed, and a candidate was selected. Preneel will approach the candidate. [After the meeting Dong Hoon Lee accepted to be program chair.] Other Business ============== Access to IACR reading room for China/India (Preneel) (5) --------------------------------------------- Preneel reported that Springer is willing to provide tokens for the IACR reading room for Chinese and India researchers who may not be able to afford the IACR membership fee. One way to formalize this would be to offer to membership in these countries through their national organizations, the CACR and the Indian ACR. There was concern about "corresponding membership" status, and how one defines who is eligible for this. Also, the process by which the status is granted. Some were concerned that it was logistically not feasible to handle cases on a person-by-person basis, so national associations only should be considered for the status. Members discussed whether or not such a status and the corresponding free Springer token should be made part of the IACR bylaws. There was also concern about discrimination complaints, although some members noted that IEEE handles some policies on a regional basis. No conclusions were reached, but it was clear to all that further discussion on this matter is required. Halevi would be requested to investigate the logistics. Discussion of co-location of IACR events --------------------------------- For historical perspective, Preneel noted that the community had decided on the model of adding new workshops rather than expanding the flagship conferences (the model of some other communities). This is a double-edged sword, he noted: it provides a good service to the community by providing outlets for papers, but also imparts administrative overhead. Collocation of workshops with larger conferences might give a way to compromise between the two models. It also allows for some economy of scale in terms of shared effort and resources. There are also potential disadvantages: attendees need to travel for a longer period of time, the logistics may be more complex and there is a risk that papers on a specific topic would not be accepted for a flagship conference if around the same time a workshop on this topic would be held. Following Lenstra's earlier question, there was some discussion of continued IACR support for all workshops, in particular those with low attendance. Some members voiced the opinion that they did not care if attendance is low as long as the scientific content is solid. In general, the board was sympathetic to the idea of collocating even if just for economic reasons. In any case, IACR will be able to observe the CRYPTO/CHES '09 collocation experiment, and return to the discussion after that. The meeting was closed at 5:30pm.