3.8 Publications

Mr. Johnson referred to his report and said that in the second half of 98 serious problems were encountered by several TCs. Publications were one of the major items discussed during the January 99 meeting of EB. It was decided that Messrs. Bollerslev, Johnson and Nedkov should visit the Kluwer headquarters in Norwell to meet with senior Kluwer representatives and to discuss all problematic issues. These had to do with inappropriate communications, a rather extended production and delivery time, increased editorial workload and disappointing sales figures and royalties during 1998. The PC Chair reported that the Kluwer leadership was sensitive to these problems so as to avoid their future repetition and to gain confidence in the ability to develop an effective long-term relationship between IFIP and Kluwer.

The TC 3 Journal was also considered and it was agreed to arrange for a longer contractual arrangement to justify substantial investments on the part of Kluwer. In addition, TC 3 was encouraged to look for ways that would increase the number of individual subscribers at US $60 per year. The IFIP President is in contact with the WCCE 2001 organizers to check if a one-year trial subscription could be incorporated in the conference registration.

Mr. Johnson was pleased to report that there were several positive developments with IFIP’s Publisher. Kluwer has committed to a lead time of 12 weeks from the receipt of the manuscript. Publications will be marketed at a number of conferences (a list of such conferences is maintained) and it is expected that sales, particularly in North America, would substantially increase. The price matrix for bulk sales will remain the same as in 98 and changes will occur only in the year 2000. The Newsletter production continues in a satisfactory mode.

Finally, the PC Chair reported that the PC Terms of Reference and membership were considered. There would be a core group of 4 to 5 members with at least one TC Chair and the IFIP Secretary (acting as PC Secretary) and the IFIP Executive Director as ex officio member.

In 1998, 29 books were published and royalties totaled US $ 88,061 (US $ 38,606 from ITP sales and US $ 49,455 from KAP sales). Sales and royalties in 98 were very low due to the lack of significant promotion by ITP for the period July 97 - August 98 and because of the delay in getting the IFIP backlist into the Kluwer system. Kluwer believes that the shortfall is not lost but actually delayed. 25 to 30 new IFIP titles are envisaged to be published in 99. A straight-line projection of the sales for the last 5 months of 98 would yield US $ 680,220 in 99 sales revenue, however, Kluwer expects to do better.

Better marketing is essential for improving the performance of the IFIP series and activities foresee direct mail promotion, delegate databases, discounts, better visibility of IFIP books at conferences, exhibitions, an active and effective Kluwer website, advertisements in journals, abstracting services and other. Kluwer believes that the IFIP book sales in North America can significantly increase as a result of its marketing activities.

Finally, Mr. Delman reiterated that Kluwer guarantees a production and delivery schedule of 12 weeks after receipt of a CRC that is ready to go to press and needs no pre-production work. Templates are available from the Kluwer website and Ms. Y. Lambert yana.lambert@wkap.com , the new editor for the IFIP series, is available for further technical assistance and inquiries. Guidelines for IFIP Editors and Authors are in the process of development and will be provided soon.

Messrs. Berleur and Ausiello stressed that many important international conferences are missing in the Kluwer marketing list. Most conferences cover only the North American region. Mr. Delman responded that the conference list is under constant revision and updating and he would welcome any further suggestions.

Mr. Berleur was unhappy that many of the questions raised by the TC Chairs did not find an answer in the PC report. Mr. Johnson said he is prepared to quickly react verbally and to provide a written response later on.

Mr. Brunnstein welcomed the increased marketing efforts but was unhappy and would not support any attempts of Kluwer to acquire conference participation data so as to create Delegates Databases for marketing purposes. This, among many issues, is a matter of privacy.

Mr. Reis noted that, apart from the bulk sales, post conference sales are rather low. Mr. Delman said that the target for post conference sales, complementary to bulk sales, is in the region of 300-400 books worldwide.

Mr. Brunnstein’s information was that the contract with Kluwer is basically the same as that with C&H. In his opinion the Publication Committee should be more active in determining which proceedings are publishable and which are not. He recalled the case with the TC 9 Ethics book and said that what Publisher sees as marginal may actually turn into a best seller. Messrs. Brunnstein and Berleur stressed that the PC should be more proactive in asserting an IFIP publication policy rather than leaving this in the hands of the Publisher and Mr. Glasson thought that more guidance and policy statements should be available on procedures and contracts with non-standard publishers.

3.9 Marketing

Mr. Grafendorfer referred to the MC report and said that a leaflet entitled "This is IFIP" is in the pipeline and the last draft was reviewed in Goa. A final revision of the text and style would be carried out and then MC would proceed with the printing. The estimated cost per leaflet is 0.12 CHF. Leaflets would be sent to TC and WG Chairs and to Member societies but before that a survey would be carried as to their individual needs.

Advertising in the Newsletter was discussed. MC and EB are in favor. The following rates for B&W advertisements were set:

Full page US $ 800
Half page US $ 550
1/3 page  US $ 450 
1/4 page  US $ 350

Prices for inserts would be doubled but in all cases Kluwer will be consulted with regard to costs and MC would follow-up to investigate whether these rates are adequate. Issues related to the "screening" of advertisements impact on deadlines would be evaluated in detail, nevertheless, it is proposed that the Newsletter Editor would be responsible for accepting advertisements whereas the IFIP Secretariat would take care of financial matters.

The MC Chair said the Secretariat had encouraged Members to create links to the IFIP URL. It may be useful to establish and display at the IFIP website a list of Member Society events and a Web store for selling publications, hats, T-shirts, ties, etc. Mr. Nedkov responded that such things are best handled via links. After GA 98 he had written to IFIP’s Members suggesting they establish an "IFIP page" on their website where they could post their Annual IFIP Reports as well as information on conferences, publications and any other items they wish to market within the IFIP community and at large. When such nodes (with links to IFIP) are established the IFIP Secretariat would provide a central hub at the IFIP URL to guide visitors their way. Mr. Ramani thought that publications could be marketed via Amazon.com and also referred to the ICCC experience in the publications field.

Mr. Grafendorfer said that IFIP and IFIP’s events were often supported by other organizations and this should be acknowledged. A mechanism should be established so that supporters receive recognition in the Newsletter and in other IFIP publications. Mr. Johnson thought the logos of all supporters could be displayed at the IFIP webpage. Mr. Nedkov said that in principle supporters are not a defined category and there are so many of them, ranging from a handful which support IFIP centrally and having many others at the national level that provide support to IFIP events held in the respective countries. The latter receive recognition in the conference materials. Mr. Berleur did not support the idea of having company logos displayed on the IFIP URL.

The Newsletter Editor had informed MC that there are many inactive NL correspondents and that very few Calls for Papers are submitted.

With regard to the meeting with the TC Chairs, Mr. Grafendorfer said that a Marketing Strategy was requested to provide a mechanism and a channel for promoting conferences and publications, including non-Kluwer publications, and to enhance the profile of IFIP’s entities. MC had given some thought to this and would continue discussion by e-mail. It wished to consider marketing via electronic channels, advertisements in journals, printed material and a larger distribution of the Newsletter to universities and Member societies. TC and WG chairs are encouraged to provide information about their activities to Member Societies' journals and to the IFIP Newsletter.

3.10 Professional Qualifications

Mr. Samways presented to Council the last draft document related to the project "Harmonization of Professional Standards" which was prepared by Messrs. I. Mitchell (NZCS), P. Juliff (ACS) and J. Turner (ACM).

Mr. Morris was not clear how professional qualifications could be "harmonized". Now, this term is replaced by "professional standards". He wondered whether the document meant anything and whether such a document could really turn into a standard. He wished to know why the WTO suddenly disappeared from all references. Mr. Samways replied that WTO did not express interest and for this reason contacts continue only with ISO.

Mr. Brunnstein said that some years ago he was in touch with Ms. P. Glenn and had cautioned that there would be great difficulties with this project. For example, the preparation of the draft involved only representatives of English speaking countries. He thinks that instead of looking for standards and contracts IFIP should concentrate on contents. The Working Party had not approached SIG 9.2.2 which is a permanent group on ethics.

Mr. Boynton agreed with Messrs. Morris and Brunnstein and said that the project may relate to mobility of IT professionals but it would hardly have a significant impact on recruitment policies.

Mr. Rosenfeld opined that the project is on the agenda for a long time, unfortunately there is little value in the document so why should IFIP spend more money and waste resources.

Mr. Samways recalled that the membership of Writing Party was selected so as to cover the international scene. The document is presented to Council for comments and for moving on to the next stage. The good news is that ISO is interested and a draft Memorandum of Understanding is considered to allow IFIP to submit drafts to ISO for consideration and adoption as ISO/IFIP Standards.

Mr. Nedkov reminded that GA should endorse the project document before it can be submitted to ISO. Mr. Brunnstein requested for other viewpoints to be reflected in the document and said that TC 9 could help.

The President recalled that IFIP's Member societies are interested in the project and that work should continue. As to the Memorandum of Understanding he feels that the general attitude at Council is supportive.

3.11 Strategic issues and Corporate members

3.11.1 Strategic issues

Mr. Granado said that EB is keen on keeping an efficient communications channel for suggestions and criticisms and welcomes all appropriate contributions on strategic matters. At its last meeting EB decided to create two task forces:

Messrs. Morris and Johnson will work on a proposal for a new scheme for the organization of IFIP Council and General Assembly meetings:

Messrs. Morris and Granado will consider new forms for interaction and cooperation between IFIP and its Member Societies.

At GA 99 a Members’ Forum will convene prior to the GA meeting. IFIP Member societies would be requested to share experiences so as to identify issues of concern and projects of common interest.

Member society reports and proposals would be reviewed in order to consider and select a couple of small, interesting and innovative projects for GA’s approval. The success of such projects could lead to extending the scope and number of such activities, which in the longer term would widen the spectrum of services provided to IFIP’s Members.

Mr. Rosenfeld wondered whether this was the net outcome of the brainstorming in Canberra. The President said that it is part of it and more will come. Mr. Morris informed that he has summarized and reported material from Members’ reports. A selection was available. A "bottoms up" approach would be suggested whereby Societies report and propose projects at the Members’ Forum which are then presented to GA for approval.

Mr. Miura recalled that during GA 98 in Budapest Mr. Goldsworthy had presented four items under the Strategic Plan Action Agenda, the first one being to "institute a program to more actively involve participation from industry".

Mr. Miura thought this to be very important and following GA 98 arranged a meeting with the Japan Electronic Industry Development Association – JEIDA – to introduce IFIP’s activities and seek their interest in IFIP. Contact between IFIP and JEIDA may prove beneficial for both organizations. One possible outcome could be to have JEIDA representatives as members of IFIP WGs. Mr. Miura considers that if the JEIDA – IFIP relationship develops well the example could be used to develop further relationships with industry in other countries.

JEIDA is an influential non-profit organization representing the electronic and information industry in Japan. It is interested to acquire a better understanding of the market needs and lead technologies in areas in which IFIP operates.

Mr. Tabata briefly presented JEIDA’s activities.

Mr. Johnson found the presentation very stimulating and wondered what the nature of corporate membership could be. Would the JEIDA representatives express their corporate or their personal views at the WG level? The President clarified that there is currently no corporate membership and this category should not be confused with Affiliate membership. Mr. Bauknecht advised that currently WG membership is by appointment in view of qualifications and not through representation.

Mr. Brunnstein found the proposal excellent. Moreover, it comes from a Member society, which provides patronage. WG membership slots could be developed to accommodate JEIDA representation. Mr. Bollerslev said that EB thought it was a good idea and for that reason had requested Mr. Miura to make a presentation to Council and to invite comments. Mr. Glasson found the proposal interesting and did not see any serious obstacles. Mr. Berleur believed that the issue should be considered at the various IFIP levels before a decision is taken.

Mr. Rosenfeld thought it might be useful to know more about corporate members of national Member societies. Mr. Brunnstein said that GI has several corporate members and representatives from industry. These do not have voting rights. German ministries are also interested in GI’s work. Mr. Ramani said that in India corporate membership was established as a mechanism for industry to participate in conferences.

Mr. Morris wondered about the nature of this cooperation – would it be bureaucratic or technical? If JEIDA were to appoint a representative would it be from the Association or from one of JEIDA’s members? Mr. Miura informed that as JEIDA has WGs the idea is to send experts from its WGs to the IFIP WGs. Mr. Masduki thought that there would be great value if such a scheme was adopted.

Mr. Grafendorfer said that he sees no problem if TCs and WGs accept JEIDA representatives immediately. Mr. Rosenfeld responded that it is true for WGs but not the case with TCs. Mr. Glasson, as TC Chair, was prepared to explore ways to bring JEIDA representatives to IFIP. He sees a "win-win" situation, which is a good symbol and both sides should optimize on it.

The President was pleased to note so many positive comments and said that the issue would be brought back to EB to prepare a paper for GA 99 consideration. Mr. Reis was of the opinion that IFIP should move forward quickly. If everybody is in agreement then the matter should be processed faster so that Council can provisionally accept JEIDA and then formalize the decision at GA 99.

Mr. Morris was not clear of the scope of such a scheme and thought that this should be clarified. Provided TC Chairs are in agreement, WG Chairs can be encouraged to accept JEIDA representatives. Later on, if deemed useful and necessary, IFIP could consider establishing a new membership class. Mr. Granado was in support of such an approach as it has strategic implications.

The President thanked Mr. Miura for initiating this discussion and said that he would see that there is further input from Council and GA representatives so that a formal decision can be made in Kuala Lumpur.

Mr. Granado informed that a group consisting of Messrs. Masduki, Glasson and himself had met with Mr. Miura and his staff to progress the matter a little further. It was agreed that the main issue is to find an organizational framework for cooperation between IFIP and JEIDA. Mr. Johnson wished to know whether JEIDA’s participation in WGs and possibly TCs would imply the payment of a subscription fee or a donation. Mr. Rosenfeld thought it wonderful to move ahead quickly and said that JEIDA should share the costs of any administrative overhead. He wondered what influence JEIDA would have in IFIP.

Mr. Berleur pointed out that yesterday's discussion did not make any reference to membership while today implications are made.

Mr. Brunnstein believed that JEIDA's representation should be encouraged at the technical WG level. However, any considerations with respect to a Corporate membership scheme should be first consulted with IFIP's Members. Mr. Granado agreed.

Mr. Miura noted that many opinions and ideas were expressed on the issue of links between IFIP and industry. Currently, Japanese firms do not know IFIP well. Mr. Miura considers that the matter should be currently processed within the allowable S&B provisions. In parallel, consultations should continue for a more formalized decision by GA 99.