Mr. Khakhar drew attention to his report and said that the 1997 accounts were finalised in April 1998 in co-operation with IFIP's Auditor in Vienna. The Auditor’s report was delivered on April 15, 1998.
The 1997 Result, after amortisation and depreciation according to approved policies, and after Special Funds Provisions, is a surplus of 99,449 CHF. The Result meets the forecast of 100 K CHF made by the Treasurer at General Assembly 97 in Canela and moves IFIP’s funds to a new peak level.
Compared to 1996, the 1997 Result shows an increase in Income of 4% (irrespective of the Congress 96 accounts) while Expenses have declined by 5%. The Final Result, after Special Funds Provision of 143 K CHF, is an increase in IFIP’s General Fund by 99 K CHF, or 7%, to 1,499 K CHF. The latter amount equals 4.5 times the actual - and reduced - expense level in 1997.
Key figures for the last five years are:
(Amounts in K CHF) 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993
Income 570 646 606 513 567 Expenses 327 345 447 576 569 Result 243 300 159 -63 -2
Assets 2156 1889 1520 1380 1421 Liabilities 138 126 58 77 55 Funds 2017 1763 1462 1303 1366
The Total Income of 570 K CHF is much better than the budgeted 498 K CHF. Income from Return on Assets, managed by UBS London since 1990 is 4 K CHF and is far less than the actual return of 33 K CHF in 1996. Dues from Members were slightly below budget. Royalties from Publications increased by 22 K CHF, or 12%, to 206 K CHF. Proceeds from TC Events increased from 41 K CHF in 1996 to 97 K CHF.
Total Expenses were 327 K CHF, or 36% below budget and 5% below the 1996 level. This is due to savings in communications expenses, President’s reserve and Technical Support. The total Secretariat expenses for 1997 were 252 K CHF, or 15%, below the allocated budget.
Expenses of the 13 Technical Committees were in total 48% below the budgeted amount but display considerable variations. 9 TCs had a positive TC Fund balance available for 1997 and 3 TCs spent part of this balance during 1997. 8 TCs increased their Funds balance during 1997 while 3 TCs decreased it. For 1998, 9 TCs have positive Fund balances available, totalling 392 K CHF. The Technical Support expenses were 18 K CHF, or 69% below budget relating to AMB, TA and DCSC.
During 1997 two new funds, Pension Fund and Special Activities Fund, were generated. The pension fund is to be invested further in order to secure adequate pensions for the IFIP staff. The Special Activities Fund was created to meet requests made during GA 97 for initiating new activities of sustainable impact and of benefit to IFIP’s Members.
General Assembly unanimously APPROVED the 1997 audited accounts.
Mr. Khakhar informed that the Australian Computer Society had presented a detailed account of the Congress 96 expenses, which was evaluated by the Executive Board in Manchester. Congress 96 had made a financial loss and IFIP was requested to waive half of the guaranteed proceeds of CHF 100 K. EB carefully reviewed the situation and provisionally agreed to the ACS request for a reduced payment of AUD 50,000 to IFIP over 5 years (AUD 10,000 per year beginning in 1998). It is therefore recommended to General Assembly to approve the ACS request.
General Assembly APPROVED.
Mr. Khakhar informed that the financial status for 1998, as at 31 July, shows an income of 497 335 CHF. This represents membership dues (280 800 CHF), royalties from publications from the last quarter 1997 (113 068 CHF), proceeds from activities (93 440 CHF) and return on assets (10 026 CHF). Total expenses during the period were 88 K CHF and were mainly of administrative character. No other major expenses have occurred. For the remaining part of the year IFIP expects to receive income from royalties (50 K CHF), proceeds from activities (25 K CHF) and return on assets (100 K CHF). On the expense side, the Secretariat and other administrative expenses are estimated at about 200 K CHF. There would be other expenses related to administrative and technical support and a write-off of the outstanding 96 Congress funds. With these in mind, the Treasurer estimates that IFIP should make a surplus of 200 K CHF.
In preparing the 1999 Budget, the Treasurer took account of the 1997 Actual Result and 1998 Budget Approved as well as the requests of the budget holders. The 1999 Budget (Proposed) implies total income of 605 K CHF and total expenses of 547 K CHF, giving a surplus of 45 K CHF as a budgeted result. On the income side Royalties of 158 K CHF are foreseen. Other components of the income consist of Members Dues (280 K CHF), Proceeds from Activities (104 K CHF) and Return on Assets (63 K CHF). On the expense side, the Secretariat related expenses are estimated at 298 K CHF.
With these clarifications, the Treasurer moved that the proposal for the 1999 budget be approved.
General Assembly unanimously APPROVED.
(Please also refer to Agenda item 19.5)
Mr. Brauer drew attention to his report and said that TA supports the proposal of the TC Forum for the creation of a new function at the IFIP Secretariat to help event organizers in organizing IFIP events and to market IFIP events within the IT community. The idea is to have an additional person at the IFIP Secretariat for a minimum of 2 years who could develop corporate knowledge on major series of IFIP events, advise organizers on specific issues related to organization and event approval and facilitate in promoting and marketing IFIP events internationally. Mrs. Hammond and Mr. Glasson will prepare an initial draft for a job charter and this would be further coordinated with the AMB and MC Chairs. Mr. Aiken said that AMB also considered and is supportive of this proposal and feels that further progress should be closely coordinated with the Executive Director and the IFIP Secretariat. The TA Chair said that this is self-evident and Plamen and Dorothy would be closely involved in all further progress and decision making. Mr. Rosenfeld thought that it would also be useful to create at the Secretariat a repository of knowledge and guidance for future congresses.
TA considers it very important that all event organizers are made aware of the problem of event insurance. AMB should formulate a "memorandum on insurance of events" and the event form should be revised so as to contain a statement that event organizers have considered the insurance issues. IFIP should also look into the possibility of setting up a contingency fund. Messrs. Aiken and Nedkov reminded that this issue was discussed by EB and the recommendation is that there should be no change to the current policy, i.e. event insurance should be regarded as a local issue. The President confirmed EB’s recommendation on event insurance and said that a note of clarification should be incorporated in the Event Approval Guidelines.
The TA Chair requested EB to develop a scheme for sharing proceeds from World Congresses with TCs actively contributing to the organization of a Conference. As a general rule, TA proposes a 50% share when there is substantial involvement. The President said that EB would consider this with regard to Congress 2000 and onwards.
Mr. Brauer informed of the creation of new WGs
WG 1.6 "Term Rewriting"
WG 12.6 "Intelligent Information Management"
WG 13.5 "Human Error, Safety and System Development"
and of modifications to the names, aims and scopes of
TC 3, TC 12, WG 3.1, WG 3.2, WG 6.7, WG 8.2
TA supports the proposal of the IPC chair to add two new sub-conferences to the Congress 2000 program, namely on High Performance Computing (with an active TC10 contribution) and on Telecooperation (with strong TC8 participation). Other TCs are also interested and available to support the Congress program.
The TA Chair informed that TA would not support a change to the current rules for the participation of IFIP Member representatives in TCs and WGs.
TA requests the Publications Committee to consider carefully the technical details of IFIP’s cooperation with Kluwer and to ensure that the problems which occurred during the transition period causing severe problems to the operations of several TCs and their Working Groups will not occur again. The Publication contract should not be interpreted by Kluwer in a way which devalues the previously offered services by C & H.
Mr. Brauer drew attention to the TC 11 Statement on Information Security Assessment and Certification and said that TA proposes to GA to adopt it as an IFIP statement. Mr. von Solms pointed out that the statement is wide and generic and TC 11 aims to give some guidelines to societies that are active in the field. The President moved that GA adopt the document as an IFIP Statement.
General Assembly voted IN FAVOR.
(Please refer to ANNEX 2 for the Full text of the Statement)
Mr. Brauer informed that TA had considered publications of TC and WG state-of-the-art reports and believes that currently it is best to do this in electronic form. This issue will be revisited. TA had welcomed the announcement of the TC 1 Chair that 2 new WGs are in the process of establishment and they will actively cooperate with other TCs - WG on "Computational Logic" in cooperation with TC 2 and WG on "Formal Methods in Security" in close cooperation with TC 11. TA proposes that the task group on "Electronic Commerce" proposed by TC 6 should be a joint activity of several TCs, and requests the TC Forum to find an appropriate structure. TA recognizes the activities of the TC 5 Chair to restructure TC 5 and wishes him success.
Mr. Bauknecht informed that he had attended the 1st Conference on Electronic Commerce and had advised the organizers and TC 6 that the future establishment of a group should involve several TCs. He had offered to organize a follow-up event in Switzerland and would appreciate some guidance. Messrs. Casaca and Solms replied that the TC Chairs are investigating the matter.
Finally, Mr. Brauer informed that the series of TC Chairpersons' reports on the status of their TCs was continued in Budapest with a report of the TC 2 Chair. The IAPR representative delivered a separate report.
The President thanked the TA Chair for his hard work.
Mrs. Hammond drew attention to her report and said that in future, tutorials and other Congress activities requiring the involvement of TC Chairs should not overlap the organization of the General Assembly and related meetings. The TC Forum had considered the reporting procedures to GA. It was agreed that models for the structure of TC reports to GA should continue to be explored. The Forum had looked into the TC 11 Guidelines for its members in order to provide a possible model to other TCs.
The TC Forum Facilitator informed that TC Chairs were very pleased with the inclusion of the names of all WG members in the hard copy of the 1997 Bulletin. This is viewed as important as the Bulletin is a frequently used resource. The TC Forum recommends that WG members are included in future hard copy Bulletins. It is also recommended to consider including the WG aims and scopes in future editions. Mr. Morris advised that EB will consider the matter, however, it should be said that the hard copy Bulletin becomes outdated as soon as it is out of the printers. For this reason an online version is maintained by the Secretariat. The President referred to the PowerPoint presentation and the demonstration of the online Information Bulletin. Mr. Nedkov pointed out that practically everyone in IFIP should be able to have access to the Internet. IFIP should encourage the use of electronic repositories of information to facilitate its work and to be more efficient in its operations.
As to the future TC Forum organization, TC Forum Members felt that the time for changing the Facilitator should be altered to coincide with the close of the General Assembly each year. For this reason it was agreed that Mrs. Hammond should continue in office until the close of GA 99.
The President thanked Mrs. Hammond and the TC Chairs for their hard work in promoting IFIP.
(For the sake of integrity and to avoid overlap, many of the issues and recommendations of the TC Forum are reported under Agenda item 12)
Mr. Goldsworthy recalled the IEEE CS proposal at GA 97 for a new membership category called International Professional Society (IPS). In the light of earlier discussions on multiple membership during the March 98 Council meeting in Manchester it was felt that a major change such as introducing IPS was not the ideal solution.
On 22 May 1998 the IFIP President had written to the Presidents of all National Member Societies:
"...irrespective of whether you may or may not be in favor of more than one Full Member in respect of your country, it would be very helpful to have your view on admitting both ACM and IEEE Computer Society as Full Members for the US (each with all the rights and responsibilities of a Full Member, e.g. each would pay a full membership fee). This would be a special case and any similar applications from other countries/organizations would be dealt with on an individual basis. It is anticipated that it would be highly unlikely for such an application to gather the support of the General Assembly if the current Full Member from that country is opposed.
Saying this, I wish to encourage you to express the view of your society on admitting both ACM and IEEE Computer Society as Full Members."
62% of those who replied by 11 August were in favor of the President's proposal concerning the two societies, (or 8 Full Members out of 13). Two societies supported admission of both societies but with only one vote for the USA and three Full Members were opposed to changing the present system.
The IEEE Computer Society responded that they would like to remain a part of IFIP and that the best way to achieve that is the IPS membership. Any similar proposal, however named, would be acceptable if it is consistent with the kind of flexibility related to the IEEE CS membership representation and international character. ACM wrote that it is committed to its participation in IFIP activities but does not wish to restrict its participation to that of a US only organization. FOCUS responded that as a creation of IEEE CS and ACM it would dissolve and no longer exist as of 31 December 1998. FOCUS supported the proposal of its owning members for an IPS. FOCUS further asserted that both societies would assist in finding a suitable US member to IFIP although they would not be able to play such a role.
The Task Group Chair ended his report by saying that the Task Group cannot put forward a clear recommendation reasonably encapsulating all views. The matter warrants and needs a GA debate. At the same time GA representatives should be supportive of the membership of the two societies. They have knocked on IFIP’s door and should be admitted. The nature of their representation is a secondary issue. GA has to be pragmatic and the prime issue is to admit ACM and IEEE CS as Full Members.
Finally, Mr. Goldsworthy referred to the Statutes and Bylaws Committee report and moved that GA approves the following:
a) In recognition of their status as
international professional societies it is proposed that the ACM
and the IEEE CS be admitted as Full Members of IFIP with effect
from January 1st, 1999.
b) It is further proposed that Statutes & Bylaws be amended
as follows:
Statute 3.1 (a) Line 3
Insert "normally" after "shall" to read
"…there shall normally be only one Full
Member…"
At the end add a new paragraph
"In very exceptional circumstances GA may approve the
admission of more than one Full Member from a country provided
that
1) each such Full Member shall satisfy the entry requirements
stated above
2) such Full Members shall mutually support each other’s
membership application.
Such Full Members shall enjoy the same rights and obligations as
other Full Members."
Mr. Granado pointed out that it is desirable to have the two societies as IFIP members but if two votes are given to the USA then all other national members should receive 2 votes as well.
Mr. Gottlieb opined that conclusions should not be made entirely on the Presidents’ replies and that the matter requires an extensive GA debate. Mr. Goldsworthy agreed.
Mr. Rosenfeld was uncomfortable that the whole membership issue does not follow the IFIP rules, i.e. to have a recommendation submitted by AC 40 days in advance of a GA meeting. Messrs. Goldsworthy, Bauknecht and Morris did not see any irregularities as the issue was raised during GA 97 and all Members were kept well aware of the developments since then.
Mr. Brauer was not happy that IFIP is working under time pressure to decide on this membership. He wondered whether the agreement to dissolve FOCUS is intended to precipitate a decision.
Mr. Kurki-Suonio said that the proposal to solve the problem is reasonable and pointed out that the former Soviet Union had in practice 3 votes in the UN.
Mr. Boynton stressed the credibility of the two societies and was in favor of admitting them to IFIP Membership.
Mr. Laprie reminded that information and reports were circulated by the Secretariat well in advance of the GA meetings. TC 10 supports the admission of both societies since organizations and not countries are represented in IFIP. Messrs. Johnson, Granado and Brauer disagreed as IFIP was established on the principles of national representation and while everyone wished to see the two societies active in IFIP the principle of "one country one vote" should be followed.
The President invited Ms. Carver, IEEE CS President, to address GA. Ms. Carver pointed out that 43% of the IEEE CS membership is non-US and this will soon exceed 50%. In her opinion, a representation of the USA would not do justice to the international membership of IEEE CS. ACM is in a similar situation. Any type of non-full voting rights would not be acceptable. Mr. Johnson was interested in the non-US representation on the IEEE CS Board. Mr. Elliott said that out of the 27 Board members 9 reside outside of the USA.
Mr. Rosenfeld was distressed with the idea that there will be no US national representation to IFIP. There should be someone speaking of the US interests in IFIP and this should be resolved together with any accommodation of the two societies. Mr. Johnson reminded again that IFIP is governed by Statutes and Bylaws which have evolved on the basis of national membership. Mr. Morris responded that the Statutes can be amended and, given the exceptional character of the two societies, GA could agree to have them as Full members if they accept the term "from the USA". Mr. Goldsworthy asserted that IFIP should be pragmatic in dealing with the US membership, and that of the two societies, just as it was pragmatic in introducing the concept of Regional membership years ago.
Mr. Rosenfeld wished to know whether IEEE CS, if accepted as Member, would be willing to be considered as a US society. Ms. Carver responded that IEEE CS does not wish to have the US label.
Mr. Gottlieb reminded that there would be serious problems if IFIP opens national competition for membership. The Israel Member of IFIP is IPA and there could be a problem if another Israeli society begins to lobby for IFIP membership.
Mr. Miura was positive about a strong IEEE CS and ACM participation in IFIP but felt that IFIP should comply with the "one country - one vote" principle.
Mr. Johnson was anxious to understand whether first there would be a vote on the proposed amendment of the IFIP Statutes and Bylaws and then a vote on the membership of the two societies. Mr. Morris expressed a view that there was a "Catch 22" situation and clarified that the two societies would have to become members on the conditions laid in the Statutes and Bylaws. It was said that IEEE CS does not wish to be regarded as a national Member. If the amendments are passed, a degree of multiple membership would be accepted and therefore the possibility of having two societies from the UK, Germany, Portugal and other countries would exist. On the other hand, if IEEE CS and ACM are not prepared to become Members from their country then GA is wasting time.
The President recalled the motion and encouraged GA to proceed with a vote on the SBC proposal.
The Secretary advised that the vote should be carried in two parts:
Mr. Rosenfeld inquired whether a positive vote on a) automatically would admit the two societies. The Secretary responded that admission is dependent on the conditions set in b).
Mr. Laprie felt that reference to IPS should be dropped in part a) and Mr. Masduki advised that there is an unnecessary commitment with part a). GA should first vote on the mechanics in part b).
The President requested to know whether GA wished to change the sequence of the vote by voting first on b).
General Assembly AGREED. (21 in Favor and 14 Against).
Mr. Aiken said he intentionally refrains from comments but wished GA to know that both the societies and IFIP had worked towards the possibility of membership. He is supportive of Mr. Goldsworthy’s comments that GA should be pragmatic and look at the broader picture of the long-term benefits.
Messrs. Goldsworthy and Morris explained that 75% of all votes cast on b) need to be in favor so as to pass the motion. Abstentions are discouraged since, if cast, they would be the equivalent of voting "Against".
The President clarified that both societies had agreed to consider extending the existence of FOCUS for one more year. If this motion is lost there would be no US representation as from 1 January 1999. With these words Mr. Bauknecht invited GA representatives to submit their votes.
General Assembly voted as follows:
For - 26 Against - 13 Abstentions - 2
The motion was LOST.
Mr. Granado stated that no one was against the two societies but there were problems and this should be clearly realized. He put forward again the idea of 2 votes per country. Mr. Elliott said that the societies are not interested in "half a status half a vote" arrangement.
Mr. Brauer was unhappy that the whole issue was discussed and voted under pressure. He thought that IFIP should revisit the issue in future and reconsider an IPS membership class. Ms. Carver reminded that this suggestion was forwarded a year ago.
Mr. Goldsworthy pointed out that it is acceptable to recommit a vote if an issue is considered of extreme importance and pleaded that GA agrees to recommit the vote of the persons who were against.
The Secretary admired Mr. Granado’s suggestion and said that IFIP went a long way to achieve a generally accepted agreement that both societies should be admitted, exceptionally, as members from the USA sharing one vote. Unfortunately, the two societies were not willing to compromise. When Mr. Morris was GA representative he always voted for the good of IFIP. Sharing a vote between the two societies is a small compromise and should not be regarded as the essence of membership. Mr. Rosenfeld wholeheartedly agreed and wished to know what would happen if both societies and FOCUS continue in IFIP. The Secretary said that FOCUS would be dissolved but the idea is to search for another society to represent the USA.
Mr. Aiken reminded that the IFIP leadership had actually encouraged the continuation of FOCUS. He was upset by the comments that IFIP is willing to compromise while the societies are not. The societies have negotiated in good faith and have maintained contact with the IFIP Executive Board all along.
Messrs. Goldsworthy and Grafendorfer urged that the vote should be recommitted. The Secretary recalled that EB has made it clear that the decision lies within GA and that there should be no misinterpretation on this. Mr. Ramani said that most GA representatives are confused from the long discussion and suggested that GA revisits the issue next day.
The President postponed the discussion.
Continuation of discussion on 8 Sept. 98
Mr. Bollerslev reminded of the proposed recommitment and said that EB had prepared a Resolution as follows:
IFIP GA agrees that
Mr. Rosenfeld was on the opinion that everyone should vote on this Resolution as it is not by itself a binding document.
The Secretary said that according to the rules, unless otherwise stated, an absolute majority of 50% in favor is required; abstentions would be the equivalent of voting "Against".
Mr. Gergely was not clear whether the resolution is an expression of intent or whether it is binding. Mr. Rosenfeld was unhappy with the unclear and misleading procedure. He wished to know what are the intentions. Mr. Bollerslev responded that the intention is to have ACM and IEEE CS admitted as Full Members.
The Secretary advised that only Full Members should vote on each of the 3 parts of the Resolution.
The 3 motions were CARRIED (with absolute majority) and, thereby, General Assembly APPROVED the Resolution.
Mr. Bollerslev moved that GA approves an amendment to the Statutes and Bylaws as follows:
Statute 3.1 (a) Line 3
Insert "normally" after "shall" to read "…there shall normally be only one Full Member…"
At the end add a new paragraph
"In very exceptional circumstances GA may approve the admission of more than one Full Member from the USA provided that
1) each such Full Member shall satisfy the
entry requirements stated above
2) such Full Members shall mutually support each other's
membership application
Such Full Members shall enjoy the same rights and obligations as other Full Members."
Motion CARRIED (by the required three-quarters majority) with Full Members and ex-officio Members voting.
For - 27 Against - 6 Abstentions - 3
Mr. Aiken wondered if, in addition to the Resolution and the Amendment to S & B, there would be a mail ballot for the admission of the two societies. The Secretary said that he would look into the rules but doubted that any additional ballot would be necessary.
Mrs. Hammond said it would be helpful if a short message on this is sent to the TC Chairs.
Mr. Morris said that in the submitted 24 national reports many society activities are mentioned and a number of references are made with regard to management issues, websites and electronic communications, financial problems, involvement in training and professional qualifications. Some societies refer to flexible organizational structures and links to industry. Many consider that priority should be given to the needs of developing countries and that further cooperative efforts should be initiated with Members and associated international organizations. Some refer to the ECDL and the money and prestige that it brings.
An edited selection of the reports would be considered for possible actions.
Mr. Siow referred to the ECDL initiative and said that in Singapore a PC proficiency certificate was introduced and IFIP Members are welcome to investigate this model. Mr. Fairall said that in Zimbabwe ECDL was renamed to ICDL (International Computer Driving License). Mr. Boynton thought that some aspects of ECDL correspond to similar Canadian initiatives. Mr. Bollerslev informed that IFIP and CEPIS have considered the possibility for IFIP to distribute an ICDL internationally.
3.14.3 Member Presidents' Meeting
Mr. Bauknecht informed GA that the Presidents Meeting and joint IFIP/CEPIS Presidents' Dinner was held during Congress 98 in Vienna. 12 Presidents were represented at the meeting and there was a very constructive discussion on membership classes, strategic planning and future priorities for IFIP. Some of the recommendations would be reflected in the discussion on strategic planning. The President was happy that EB had this opportunity to meet with member society presidents and listen to their views on a number of important issues. Such meetings will be organized during future IFIP congresses and Mr. Bauknecht encouraged presidents to plan attendance.
3.14.4 Member Society Priorities and Strategic Planning
Mr. Goldsworthy gave a brief overview of the ongoing process of strategic planning which was initiated during GA 96 in Canberra. He said that in May 98 the IFIP President had requested all member societies to identify the three most important issues which they feel that IFIP should address in its activity. IFIP Members from Albania, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Egypt, Hungary, Japan, Norway, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA had directly responded with proposals and further recommendations were made by other member societies in the 24 annual reports.
On the basis of this material and also in view of further discussion during the Presidents’ Meeting Mr. Goldsworthy has prepared the following Strategic Plan Action Agenda:
The President thanked all societies who had contributed with proposals and said that it is up to the new President to further progress this exercise by initiating concrete actions in the identified areas. Mr. Bollerslev responded that he would appoint a member of the EB to oversee further progress. Mrs. Hammond wished to point out that the Action Agenda also directly relates to the work of IFIP’s Technical Committees and in some of these areas TCs are active.
3.14.5 Membership of TCs and WGs
Mr. Morris referred to his paper which was commissioned by EB and pointed out the legal regulations, current status and arguments "for" and "against" possible limitations.
Technical Committees
Until 1995 membership of a TC was limited to "one representative from each Full Member". At GA 95 membership of a TC was extended in two ways (Bylaw 4.3.2):
Ignoring TC 1, which is in transition and has quite exceptional membership, of the remaining eleven TCs four have membership which conforms to the pre-1995 specification. Other TCs appear to have varying numbers of additional members. There are no central records to show into which of the above categories (a) or (b) these extra members fall.
The principal argument in favor of limiting TC membership to one representative per Full Member is that a TC is essentially a management committee for a technical subject and it should be Members' representatives who make the decisions, since Members fund IFIP.
The principal arguments in favor of opening up TC membership are essentially practical or pragmatic to secure more reliable international contributions to TC work and to involve handpicked scientists who are leaders in their fields.
Working Groups
WG "consists of technical experts.... without consideration of nationality. Membership is not restricted to those who belong to an IFIP Member society". Member societies are not involved in appointments to WGs and may not know the individuals. There are no records showing the affiliations of WG members. Any member of a WG may be appointed or elected to be an office-holder of the group.
The principal argument in favor of limiting WG membership to the members of Member societies is that it provides recognition that IFIP belongs to its Members who can reasonably expect to be a vehicle for feedback to its own members of the results of WG endeavors.
The principal argument in favor of open WG membership is that the best work demands the participation of the best people wherever they are to be found.
Mrs. Hammond said that the TC 13 information for the Bulletin was erroneously provided. The actual status is very much similar to other TCs, WG Chairs were included as TC members.
Mr. Brauer expressed the TA position that there is no reason at the moment to change the Bylaws and the current practice. As German GA representative he also wished to share that GI supports German participants in WG activities, especially when these are young people.
Mr. Gottlieb felt that the problem does not relate to the number of representatives but to voting rights.
Mr. Johnson was of the opinion that part b). of Bylaw 4.3.2 should fall and that it is in the interest of IFIP to have strong societies. IFIP membership should be valuable and for this reason IFIP’s members should have a stronger influence at the technical level. Mr. Bauknecht recalled that the "b." provision was introduced with a GA decision in '95.
Mr. von Solms said that the TC and WG membership is not a real issue and in most TCs the "b." option is not even considered. Even when it is considered national representatives are asked for approval. As to WG membership he should point out that it is in the interest of IFIP to have information disseminated as widely as possible. In many cases there are no official WG membership lists and the general tendency is to organize "open" rather than "closed" workshops. He would be happy with a strict organization at the TC level and with open mode WG operations.
Mrs. Hammond and Messrs. Glasson and Doumeingts pointed out that the scientific work is carried at the WG level while the TCs serve as management teams. Sometimes national representatives were not active and it becomes important to find others who are willing to contribute.
Mr. Casaca informed that TC 6 up to now has only one member per country. All experts are at the WG level – they can attend TC meetings but they are not members and do not have a vote. Most IFIP members are represented. He expects that IFIP GA representatives would be proactive in recruiting members from their societies when such representation is requested.
Mr. Aiken said that his society has addressed the issue on a case by case basis. Messrs. Laprie and Kall opined that there should be a dialogue between the TC and the Member societies on all appointments.
The Secretary thought that it would be extremely helpful for any future discussion if GA expressed its opinion on the subject by way of a straw vote which resulted in the following: