Minutes of the Meetings of the Executive Committee of the Internet Society

22 April 2003
Executive Committee Meeting Minutes

Date: 2003.04.22
Committee: Executive Committee of BoT
Document: excom-03-003
Revision:
Supersedes:
Status:
Maintainer: Minutes taken by Christian Huitema.
Access: Unconfirmed

Present on the call:
Fred Baker
Rosa Delgado
Lynn Duval
Jim Galvin
Christian Huitema
Latif Ladid
Veni Markovski
Toshio Miki
Kees Neggers
Glenn Ricart
Lynn St. Amour

Financial status
Lynn St. Amour reports that we are a day away from availability of the 1st quarter report for 2003. We are in process of changing the report format by adding a PIR pillar, and also by preparing for project based accounting. At the end of the quarter, we had $136K cash available, including $40k restricted funds for the Postel award; the unrestricted fund correspond to three weeks of operation. We are expecting $300K from PIR. These funds have already been voted by the PIR board: 200k for standardization efforts, $100k for developing education activities. The accounts payable stand at $385K, the bulk of it corresponding to the RFC editor contract. In response to Glenn, Lynn states that we are accruing RFC editor dues on monthly basis, and that we have actually received an invoice for the first quarter.

The balance sheet will report the $5M endowment that is kept by ISOC on behalf of PIR; it will show as both asset and liability. The use of these funds is specified in the PIR by-laws; any expense above $50K shall be approved by ISOC.

The P&L shows a $130K loss for the first quarter. It would have been positive by $170K if the PIR funds had actually been transferred, but Lynn wanted the procedures to be well reviewed approved before actual money transfers. In response to Glenn, Lynn specifies that these contributions from PIR are treated as grants, and donât need to be accrued over time.

We are running a bit behind in org. revenues, and the trustees should keep up the fund-raising efforts.

Election
Voting starts today. Lynn hopes to finally get web based voting in place, but there is a slight chance that web based will not be ready, in which case vote will proceed by email, and web based voting will be introduced a few days later.

There are two open items regarding board appointed trustees. A personality was considered in December, but no progress has been made since. The ISOC web page lists Philippe Courtot termâs as 2002-2005, but in fact the board only appointed him for 1 year. Fred will approach Philippe and ask him about his intentions.

The nomination committee made its final report; there was no issue.

ECC development
We distributed a proposed MOU, but the scheduled poll has not started yet. The letter to chapter presidents has been drafted, but not yet sent. Most of the comments on the process came from Jonathan Robin, sometimes using inflammatory terms. Many people appear to be frustrated by the volume and the tone of irrelevant e-mail. The discussion confirms the urgency of direct contacts between Lynn and Jim and the chaptersâ presidents to specifically discuss the MOU and reach a consensus.

Rosa points out the level of frustration this process is causing in Europe. Latif looks at way to adopt by-laws faster. One way to break the impasse is to develop a coordination structure in another part of the world, thus providing a model of what regional coordination should be. In any case, we need to support Jim, and help the European chapters create a functional coordination. For that, we need direct contacts between Jim, Lynn, and the chapters.

INET 2004
Veni reports that there was little progress. Veni and the organization committee received an invitation to attend IGC 2003, but our questions have not been answered. Only few members of the committee are really active. Lynn suggests that the committee drafts an agreement that “works for ISOC”, and get IGC to agree on it. The agreement should specify the use of brand names, registration, grants, etc. Rosa points out that we have not had much direct contacts with IGC, whose organizers are busy finalizing their 2003 conference.

The specified agreement dates have now been postponed twice: the agreement was supposed to be presented 4/3/03, and then delayed to 4/22/03, and now to mid May. This is problematic, as it will leave less than a year to organize the next conference. How realistic is it to still plan for a May 2004 conference? For Veni, this only leaves us with a possibility to brand a conference fully organized by IGC.

According to Lynn, IGC envisages having INET speakers speaking in front of the general IGC attendance, creating synergy between INET and IGC. In response to Fred, Lynn sees the conference as a reasonable risk, given her trust in Artur Serra. (Artur is the president of the Catalonian Chapter of the Internet Society, and our contact with the IGC organizers.) She understands Kees and Christian’s concerns with delays. She believes that we can trim our management costs by limiting the number of sessions, e.g two tracks for two days. There may be an issue with the sponsoring of speakers, but IGC appears willing to help. IGC is interested with the co-branding, which will help raise their profile. IGC has a flexible registration model, and according to Artur is willing to pay for all support costs. In practice, a single program committee will be organizing a joint conference over 4 days.

The executive committee observes that, while Lynn’s proposal looks interesting, this is all based on private discussions. We need an actual proposal. It also appears that the work is being done by Lynn, rather than the board’s committee. This raises a concern about the use of Lynn’s time. Veni believes that the key issue for the committee has been the reliance on Artur as the single point of contact.

Kees wonders whether we still have enough time for a May 2004 conference. Fred would like to see actual progress; when will we have a plan? Lynn proposes that Veni, Rosa and her prepare a proposal, vet it with Artur, and get it accepted or refused by IGC in May. The task left to ISOC would be tractable, and the proposal looks attractive. In fact, there already has been some discussion on nomination of program committee members and selection of speakers. Lynn believes that all agreements can be in place by the 3rd week of May, with formal contracts to follow.

Glenn supports this plan, but asks for a hard deadline. Veni and Rosa commit to help Lynn achieve that goal. Kees complains that this subject is taking a large part of the execitive committee time. Fred observes that the board committee has all but concluded its work, and that Lynn should now work with Veni and Rosa to finalize the agreement with IGC. Lynn agrees with Fred’s proposal. Kees will be present in Barcelona at the time of IGC 2003, and may help Lynn, Veni and Rosa.

Miscellaneous
The article on zero-configuration re-published on the ISOC web page contains statements about the IETF standards that are in contradiction with the actual IETF decisions. There is a need to rectify this, probably by asking the IAB to prepare a correction. But this also raises the need to review all articles published on the ISOC web page, even if they are re-print from other publications. Lynn will check our publication process.