8-10 September 1996, Canberra, Australia
3. Council Meeting
3.1 Call Meeting to Order
3.2 Approval of C1 96 Minutes
3.3 Nominations and Elections
3.4 Strategic Plan
3.5 Multiple Membership
3.6 Future Council Meetings
4. General Assembly Meeting
4.1 Call Meeting to Order
4.2 Approval of Agenda
4.3 Approval of Previous Minutes (GA Calgary 95)
4.4 President's Report
4.5 Secretary's Report
4.6 Executive Board Meeting Report
4.7 Elections
4.8 Telecommunications Project
4.9 Multiple Membership per Country
4.10 Harmonization of Professional Qualifications
4.11 Member Society Issues and Reports
4.12 Congresses
4.13 Treasurer's Report
4.14 Technical Assembly
4.15 Activity Management Board
4.16 Technical Committees and SGs
4.17 Committee Reports
4.18 Affiliate Members
4.19 Future Meetings
4.20 Other Business
4.21 Closing of Meeting
4.22 Annex 1 - STRATEGIC PLANNING
4.23 Annex 2 - GUIDELINES FOR IFIP REVIEW
COMMITTEE (RC)
WHO WHAT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA Reps. Promote discussion on the multi-membership issue
and on IFIP strategic planning within their
societies and provide further input to IFIP.
GA Reps. Assist Congress 98 OC in promotion and marketing.
GA Reps. Consider invitation for a future GA or Council
Meeting.
GA Reps. Respond to questionnaire about Congress 2000.
GA Reps. Review membership of TCs and degree of involvement,
seeking replacement where appropriate.
Goldsworthy Pursue the issue of Strategic Planning and prepare a
EB paper for distribution to Members prior to Council 97.
Goldsworthy, Produce contract for Congress 2000
H. Funk
President Progress contract for Congress 98
President Write to Member Society Presidents inviting their
contributions to Secretary the ongoing discussion
concerning multiple membership in IFIP.
President Express IFIP's concern to ICSU about overlap of goals
and objectives between IFIP and ICSU's initiative to
establish a scientific union in the field of Informatics.
P. Glenn Seeks participants/correspondents from Members for work
on professional qualifications and develop a draft
document for review by Council 97.
President Solicit stronger input to IFIP activities from France,
Ireland, Spain and other IFIP Members.
TC Chairs Prepare a recommendation for a structure and Terms of
Reference TA for TA to promote the role of TCs within
IFIP.
TC Chairs Seek closer contact with IFIP member societies and
continue to weed out unproductive members.
TC Chairs Consider if any WGs should be disbanded or merged.
TC Chairs Consider H. Funk's offer to prepare on-line
proceedings for one event not published by
Chapman & Hall.
TC & WG Chairs Make every effort to involve national member
Society in events held in its country. Chase payment
of sponsorship fees.
TC & WG Chairs Notify Secretariat promptly of terminated and
new appointments and address changes.
TC Chairs Oversee the proper completion and submission of event
request Secretariat forms in accordance with the newly
approved Guidelines.
TC 1 Continue to revise membership to match the
specifications for a TC.
TC 8 Consider incorporating SG 16 as a TC 8 WG.
TC 12 Produce and maintain activity statistics for
forthcoming Council and GA meetings.
Simons Comment on TC2 Review report.
R. Reis
Standing Committees Review charters, policy statements, rules and
pertaining guidelines and submit revisions, if
necessary, for GA endorsement
PC Revise Publications Guidelines and prepare
guidelines for alternative publishers.
PC Chair/Treasurer Consider the issue of royalties with respect to
out of print books and, if necessary, recommend to
EB the endorsement of an amendment to the publications
Agreement with Chapman & Hall.
CC Include monitoring and analysis of Congress attendance
in Committee's Job Charter.
Secretariat Publish the new edition of the Information Bulletin
by the end of November 1996.
SBC/Secretariat Complete review and publish the amended S& B before
Council 97.
All retiring Ensure successor is adequately briefed.
Chairs
All Consider volunteering for Newsletter Editorial Board.
Officers Present K. Bauknecht President Switzerland A. Rolstadas Past President Norway W. Brauer Vice President Germany H. Funk Vice President USA A. Goldsworthy Vice President Australia G. Fairall Vice President Zimbabwe A. Melbye Treasurer Denmark G. Morris Secretary Ind. Member Members Present W. Grafendorfer Austria R. Reis Brazil K. Boyanov (representing Bl. Sendov) Bulgaria P. Glenn Canada X. Yan China J. Dolezal Czech Republic M. Tienari Finland M. Toth (representing C. Gergely) Hungary M. Goyal India M. Gottlieb Israel M. Ozeki Japan K. Song (representing C. Lee) Korea J. Simons The Netherlands Z. Bubnicki Poland J. Granado Portugal C. Guy South Africa D. Khakhar Sweden/ICCC R. Johnson U.K./CEPIS J. Rosenfeld Ind. Member, NL Editor M. Jones Affiliate Member/FACE Members Represented by Proxy J. Navez to K. Bauknecht I. Privara to W. Grafendorfer G. Sacerdoti to A. Melbye TC/SG Chairs Present R. Kurki-Suonio TC 2 Chair P. Bollerslev TC 3 Chair G. Doumeingts TC 5 Chair P. Kall TC 7 Chair B. Glasson TC 8 Chair P. Jaervinen TC 9 Chair E. Hoerbst TC 10 Chair J. Hammond TC 13 Chair J. Gruska SG 14 Chair V. Cordonnier SG 16 Chair Observers Present T. Worthington Australia T. Miura Japan H. Sakai Japan K. Goto Japan B. Neumann TC 12 M. Hammond Chapman & Hall IFIP Secretariat Plamen Nedkov IFIP Secretariat Dorothy Hayden IFIP Secretariat Apologies G. Bequiraj Albania J. Navez Belgium Sendov Bulgaria Katsikas Greece D. Dolan Ireland C. Gergely Hungary Sacerdoti Italy C. Lee Korea M. Masduki Malaysia J. Cuena Spain J. Motiwalla Singapore I. Privara Slovakia M. Farah Syria R. Baeza-Yates CLEI /attended DCSC meeting/ R. Tanaka Honorary Member P. Bobillier Honorary Member H. Zemanek Honorary Member S. von Solms TC 11 Chair L. Carlucci-Aiello TC 12 Chair O. Spaniol TC 6 Chair T. Mikami TC 5 Past Chair P. Gupta Co-Chairman WCC 96 PC J. Brosveet IASC No news from Andorra, Armenia, Egypt, France, Nigeria, Tunisia, Russia, other Corresponding and Affiliate Members.
National Convention Centre, Canberra, 8 September 1996
3.1 Call Meeting to OrderThe President opened the meeting and welcomed Council members. He informed that Mr. Dolan was not able to come to Canberra and drew attention to the fact that 3 Council members were late for the meeting. This should be avoided in future.
3.2 Approval of Council 96 MinutesCouncil unanimously approved the Minutes of the March 96 Council meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Mr. Morris drew attention to the Council 96 Action List and reminded that some of the actions have been carried out while others are pending. He recommended that in future Council should review action lists so as to exercise control over the proper execution of envisaged activities.
3.3 Nominations and ElectionsThe Secretary announced that an apology was received from Mr. D. Dolan. According to IFIP's Statutes (Article 4.2.1) "a Trustee who has not attended two consecutive Council meetings is deemed to have resigned and a successor shall be elected". With this in mind, Mr. Morris advised that a third vacancy is open for the election of Trustees.
Mr. Morris pointed out that he is nominated by the Nominations Committee for Officers for a further term as IFIP Secretary. In order to proceed with the election Mr. Morris first has to be reelected as IFIP individual member.
3.4 Strategic PlanThe President advised that the issue of strategic planning will be discussed in detail during the ensuing General Assembly meeting. A brainstorming session will be organized with the participation of all GA representatives. EB has discussed the importance of a strategic plan and believes that marketing of IFIP can be undertaken only after the organization is able to formulate its future role and performance. For this reason a strategic plan is absolutely necessary.
3.5 Multiple MembershipThe President informed that following the President's Luncheon on 4 September the attending IFIP member society presidents were invited to discuss the issue of multiple membership in IFIP. This discussion needs further consideration by IFIP member societies before a decision can be taken by General Assembly. A letter will be sent to the Presidents of IFIP full member societies and to their GA representatives inviting discussion and recommendations.
Mr. Johnson drew attention to the fact that a background paper should accompany the President's letter. Mr. Morris advised that such a paper will be prepared.
Mr. Rosenfeld suggested that an article on this topic should be included in the IFIP Newsletter.
3.6 Future Council MeetingsThe Secretary reported that Council 97 is scheduled to take place in Bratislava, Slovakia, 2-6 March 1997. An invitation was received from the British Computer Society to host the Council meeting from 1 to 5 March 1998 in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that this invitation comes in view of the fact that IFIP had not recently held an administrative meeting in the U.K. and it is also associated with the forthcoming 40th Anniversary of the British Computer Society and the 50th Anniversary of an early computer developed in Manchester. With this in mind, BCS would be delighted if Council would accept the invitation. BCS is considering to host the meeting in Manchester which is promoting itself as the city of computing, however, final details are yet to be agreed.
Council unanimously ACCEPTED the invitation of the British Computer Society. Mr. Johnson was requested to convey IFIP's grateful thanks to the Officers of the BCS.
Closing of the Meeting
The President thanked Council members for their contributions and declared the Meeting closed.
National Convention Centre, Canberra, 8-10 September 1996
4.1 Call Meeting to OrderThe President opened the General Assembly meeting and welcomed all participants. He conveyed IFIP's warm appreciation and thanks for the local organization and hospitality arrangements to Mr. T. Worthington, President of the Australian Computer Society (ACS), to Mr. A. Goldsworthy, IFIP GA representative and to the officers and volunteers of the Canberra Branch of ACS who have worked hard to organize the GA and related meetings in Canberra.
Mr. T. Worthington thanked IFIP for the opportunity the ACS to host IFIP Congress 96 which has received wide media coverage in Australia. He also expressed his appreciation to meet with IFIP GA representatives and to address the General Assembly.
Australia is in the forefront of Internet developments and ACS is a prime promoter of the use of on-line working by IT professionals in the country. It has made significant progress with on-line communication with members for administration and governance and is preparing recommendations and proposals for international cooperation via the Internet. Similarly, IFIP should undertake further steps to move away from the paper paradigm and adopt on-line working. The IT community looks to international bodies such as IFIP for advice and guidance and IFIP must lead by example, also counseling governments, national and international institutions.
The President thanked Mr. Worthington for his encouraging remarks concerning on-line communications and introduced the newcomers to the IFIP General Assembly:
Mr. M.L. Goyal, newly appointed GA representative of India
Mr. K. Song, representing Mr. C. Lee (Korea)
Mr. G. Doumeingts, TC 5 Chair
Mr. B. Glasson, TC 8 Chair
Mr. P. Jaervinen, TC 9 Chair
and the following observers:
Mr. T. Miura, to succeed Mr. Ozeki as GA representative of
Japan
Mr. H. Sakai, Japan
Mr. B. Neumann, TC 12 Secretary
Mr. Morris announced the GA attendance, proxies, apologies and "no news" (please refer to the attendance list). 26 Full Members were present and another 3 are represented by proxy. Out of the 43 Full Members 38 currently have voting rights.
Quorum - 19
Present and proxies - 29
With this representation, the Secretary advised that the IFIP General Assembly in Canberra can proceed with its deliberations.
4.2 Approval of AgendaGeneral Assembly unanimously ADOPTED the Agenda.
4.3 Approval of Previous Minutes (GA Calgary 95)General Assembly unanimously APPROVED the Minutes.
4.4 President's ReportThe President referred to his written report and asserted that the relations with IFIP's Members should be the main focus of the operations of IFIP. All IFIP activities should be targeted at providing better and enlarged services to our members. Since GA 95, the President has conducted a number of consultations and has attended the 25th Anniversary of the Austrian Computer Society (also meeting representatives from Germany, Hungary, Slovakia), has visited the Greek Computer Society and the Malaysian Computer Society and has given a talk at SEACOMM 96 on trends and topics in information and communication systems integration which was attended by officers and members of MNCC.
With regard to external relations, Prof. Bauknecht was invited to deliver an address at the opening of the Second Congress on Informatics and Education organized by UNESCO in July 1996, Moscow and will attend the 25th General Assembly of ICSU at the end of September 96 in Washington D.C.
Mr. Bauknecht reported that the main asset of IFIP is the performance of its technical committees and working groups with over 60 events organized since last GA and 22 titles published during the current year. The outcome of WCC 96 will be discussed by GA. Preparations for Congress 98 are developing in a satisfactory time frame. Beijing was chosen as the site of IFIP Congress 2000. These and other issues in which the IFIP President was directly involved and responsible and these would be discussed under the appropriate agenda items. The satisfactory financial performance of IFIP is also encouraging.
The key word for IFIP at present is strategic planning. Important progress has been made but a lot of effort should be exercised to involve people in IFIP activities, to make IFIP activities better known and to better focus IFIP activities.
4.5 Secretary's ReportMr. Morris was pleased to report that since the last GA meeting both recently-elected Members, Armenia and Brazil, have paid all but a marginal amount of their dues for 1995 and have therefore met one of the criteria for formal admission as Full Members. Brazil has also met the other criterion, namely attendance at a GA or Council meeting and is therefore fully admitted. Armenia has yet to attend an IFIP meeting. IFIP's Bylaws require that the formal admission of a new Member shall take place not later than one year after election to Membership which in the case of Armenia occurred at the GA in Hamburg in 1994. On the same occasion the Academy of Sciences of Belarus was elected to Membership but has written to say that severe financial constraints have made it impossible for them to pay their dues. They acknowledge that they have therefore failed to meet IFIP's formal admission criteria but hope to participate in the future. The Admissions Committee report refers to this situation.
Albania, Ireland, Nigeria, Tunisia have lost voting rights as they have outstanding dues from 1995 onwards. The Greek Computer Society (GCS) is in suspension and faces a potential expulsion as dues are outstanding from 1994 onwards. The Greek Computer Society is struggling hard to meet its obligations and in 1996 has paid its dues for 1993. Its officers have reassured IFIP that further payment will be made by year end.
The Admissions Committee recommends the election to Associate Membership of the Philippines Computer Society and INFORMS to Affiliate membership.
Mr. Morris recalled that on several occasions he has described the task of moving the Secretariat from Geneva to Laxenburg with completely new staff as "non-trivial". This was an understatement since the Secretariat is not just replicating (often with substantial changes) procedures previously in use in Geneva but, in addition, developing a completely new, on-line information and communication network. The biggest problem was the recruitment of a capable administrative assistant. The Secretary is pleased to report that the problems now lie well behind and the arrival of Dorothy Hayden just a year ago has given IFIP an excellent team whose work has been valued by increasing numbers of IFIP people and who are making very positive contributions to IFIP's corporate effectiveness.
Following a proposal and discussion at the Council Meeting in Johannesburg an experimental edition of the Bulletin has been prepared for limited distribution to GA attendees. Such a directory will always be partially out of date the moment it is printed but IFIP people appear convinced of the value of a printed document. All of the information contained in the previous Bulletin (Number 26, July 1995) exists in electronic form where it is regularly and frequently updated. A great majority of IFIP people already have access to networked IFIP material and, clearly, the electronic version of the Bulletin is valuable to them.
The experimental edition of the Bulletin is significantly smaller than previous issues and aims to provide the information that most people need most often. GA attendees are urged to comment freely about the format. It is planned to publish the next edition by the end of November 96, reflecting changes at GA.
The last printing of the Statutes & Bylaws and Standing Orders took place several years ago since when there have been many changes and extensive revision. A complete review and, where appropriate, re-printing is planned for the next six months.
Mr. Bollerslev congratulated the Secretariat for the improvements.
Mr. Rosenfeld queried whether IFIP should be concerned by the fact that it has only 38 voting members.
4.6 Executive Board Meeting ReportMr. Bauknecht informed GA that many items were covered during the EB meetings in Canberra. Some will be addressed here while others will be dealt with under the specific agenda items.
The President reported that EB acknowledges the need for Strategic Planning as fundamental for IFIP's future and had agreed to devote a half day of the GA to the subject. EB brainstormed a list of vision statements which will be distributed to GA for further contributions. Mr. Goldsworthy will act as facilitator for the brainstorming session which will include syndicate work. The Secretary will designate group leaders and reporters (please refer to ANNEX 1).
EB will act as a Steering Group to pursue the subject and to prepare a paper for distribution to Members prior to consideration by C1 97 when it would be decided whether or not to employ a Marketing consultant. With respect to the consultants who have recently been approached, EB agreed that IFIP is not yet sufficiently prepared to proceed and that EB will review the position in March 97.
Mr. Morris reported that general satisfaction was expressed by EB with the progress made by the Secretariat and its performance was praised. It was recognized that the Secretariat is very well loaded and that any ideas which may cause additional work need to be carefully evaluated. If necessary, a specific costed request for additional resources should be made. Currently the Secretariat is managing well within its budget. It was agreed that Mr. Nedkov's job title be changed to Executive Director with no change in responsibilities.
With regard to Trademarks, Mr. Morris reported that the ISINM saga is now finished and IFIP has accepted the IEEE offer to deal with it. Recently IFIP was informed by the Australian Computer Society that there was a claim on the use of the word INTERACT in organizing INTERACT 97 in Australia but this problem has evaporated. EB agreed that the registration of other IFIP conference titles was too expensive and probably unnecessary. Where possible "IFIP" should be included in the title of conferences. The President added that this does not give IFIP 100% cover. As to ISINM, he is glad that a decision was made as he does not support the idea that IFIP should spend further funds to continue the case.
Mrs. Hammond shared that in fact the organizers have done well to alert IT professionals in Australia with regard to the forthcoming INTERACT 97 Conference and supports the recommendation to include IFIP in the conference title.
The President informed that there was a long discussion in EB concerning the creation of an International Union for Computing Science and Informatics (IUCSI). The main threat of IUCSI to IFIP is the danger of losing some of the more theoretical work and people to it. The President will attend the forthcoming ICSU General Assembly and would seek to convince ICSU that IFIP already covers much of the proposed activities.
Mr. Brauer informed GA that several years ago IFIP, a Scientific Associate of ICSU, explored the possibility to become an ICSU Scientific Member. Meanwhile, ICSU had started to work on an initiative to establish its own scientific union in the field of informatics. Mr. Brauer established contact with the initiative group for this union. He reported to Council 96 in Johannesburg and a decision was taken to pursue further contact. In April and June 96 Mr. Brauer met with members of the initiative committee and was assured that they wish close cooperation with IFIP. Since, according to them, IFIP is more oriented to applications and not confined to science as in the early years of its existence, they wished to form a body which is oriented towards basic research and have a congress every 4 years. They seemed to be very enthusiastic about the formation of IUCSI with support from academia and US organizations. Mr. Brauer had the impression that this initiative has gained strong momentum and their goal is not to compete with IFIP. He suggested that IFIP could form a science coordination board and that IFIP should insist on being represented in the new Union so as to avoid overlapping activities.
The President underlined that before a final decision is taken by ICSU to establish such a union, IFIP should stress that most of the activities they foresee are covered by IFIP.
Mr. Rosenfeld saw a contradiction in the fact that IFIP has already expressed support for the formation of this Union and now is conveying an opposite message. It seems that SG 14 and its Chair should be more directly involved.
Mr. Goldsworthy expressed concern that if this
initiative develops successfully IFIP will lose its scientific
component. IFIP should communicate to ICSU that as an Associate
Member of this organization it is not happy with the
developments. There should be no further delay. IFIP should be
proactive and urge ICSU that it is carrying out activities which
are supposed to be the objectives of this future Union. If this
is not done, IFIP will experience a drain of top class
scientists.
Mr. Kurki-Suonio considered that ICSU does not have a right idea of what IFIP is doing. Judging from the paper by J. Palis, the description of IFIP is somehow crippled and they seem not to be aware of TC 2 activities.
Mr. Gruska queried whether IFIP's response was appropriate to the idea of a group involved with theoretical informatics which first surfaced in the late 80s.
Mr. Tienari supported Mr. Brauer in establishing cooperation rather than opposing the establishment of this union. The idea of a theoretical informatics union cannot be achieved by IFIP in view of its diverse membership. Activities should be complementary and he does not perceive the developments as a threat to IFIP.
Mr. Brauer recalled that the message he conveyed in support of the future Union was a decision by GA in Calgary and not his idea. At the same time, in the paper by J. Palis describing the goals of the future union, besides the organization of an international congress (to which IFIP was supportive) two additional activity areas have surfaced. These are conflicting to IFIP and an objection should be voiced.
Mr. Reis considered that it should be well explained to ICSU that IFIP has a scientific component and it is the global federation in the field of computer science. Mr. Rolstadas asserted that IFIP should cover and bridge both science and applications. IFIP should consider holding parallel scientific and business forums in future.
The President thanked everyone for their contributions.
4.7 ElectionsFairall/ Zimbabwe unanimously RE-ELECTED for Vice-President (1996 - 1999) Morris/ Ind. Member unanimously RE-ELECTED for Secretary (1996 -1999) Khakhar/ Sweden unanimously ELECTED for Treasurer (1996 - 1999)
R. Reis/Brazil ELECTED Trustee (1996 - 1999) (27 votes) X. Yan/ China ELECTED Trustee (1996 - 1999) (21 votes) J. Granado/Portugal ELECTED Trustee (1996 - 1997) (18 votes) General Assembly APPLAUDED the elected Officers and Trustees.4.8 Telecommunications Project
The President referred to his report and informed that a project proposal was submitted to the Austrian Ministry for Science, Research and the Arts in December 1995. In August 1996 the Ministry officially confirmed the acceptance of the project proposal and issued a contract committing financial support of ATS 600,000.
The project concentrates on the following two general areas:
Development of a Hierarchical and Secure Document Distribution Infrastructure
This part of the project is targeted to develop a database environment for supporting the administration of IFIP's Secretariat which in turn would serve as information sources for construction and maintenance of IFIP's Internet services. The second major motivation for developing the databases is to facilitate IFIP's internal communications. A multilevel approach would be initiated, so that information can be sent out and retrieved using appropriate technology, from WWW at the top level, file transfer and electronic mail at an intermediate level, down to fax and traditional paper mail. This system would be open for embedding specific needs of technical committees and working groups.
The following structural approach is adopted:
A second phase is envisaged to develop a Multi-Technology Electronic Conferencing system. Apart from managing multimedia documents, user administration will be an essential issue in order to guarantee the necessary security and privacy.
Mr. Nedkov reported that in operational terms, the project work began soon after GA 95. Work was performed to provide the following:
Databases The IFIP Address and Events Databases are in operation. The Events Database is expanded to record information and provide reports on IFIP publications with Chapman & Hall.
Mail Servers Mail servers are established for GA, Council, EB, Publications Committee, Activity Management Board, IFIP Member Society Editors and the Project Steering Committee. Further work is in progress.
WWW The Information Bulletin, the Newsletter, Minutes of General Assembly and Council Meetings, Statutes and Bylaws, Events, Publications with C & H and other IFIP documents and information materials concerning IFIP and its activities, its members and bodies are provided on-line. Links are established to available member societies, TC and WG home pages.
Mr. Glasson expressed his support of this excellent initiative and shared with GA his satisfaction of the developments.
4.9 Multiple Membership per CountryMr. Bauknecht advised that a general discussion on the issue of Multiple Membership was held with member society presidents following the Presidents' lunch on 4 September. The basic idea of multiple membership is to bring more people to IFIP. In the majority of cases the multiple membership issue involves competing national organizations and this should be discussed on a broader base. It was agreed that the President would write to member society presidents telling them about the discussion at the lunch and advising them that a paper, prepared by the Secretary, would shortly be sent to their GA representatives seeking a response by 15 January, 1997 so that a report could be produced for the next Council Meeting.
4.10 Harmonization of Professional QualificationsThe President informed GA that the scheduled workshop during Congress 96 was abandoned and it seems that IFIP finds it difficult to handle topics of this nature. There was a need to involve direct specialist representation from IFIP Members.
Mrs. Glenn mentioned that there were technical difficulties with the organization of the workshop.
Mr. Morris believed that harmonization of professional standards is an important topic for IFIP member societies. The problem is that most GA representatives are not experts or authorities on the subject. The only way that societies can be properly represented is by nominating their representatives for the project. He supported the continuation of the task force activities and IFIP should address the issue how to proceed further.
Mr. Rolstadas mentioned that when he visited member societies he always had an agenda. He requested their opinion on what IFIP should provide. The appropriate way to progress with the work of the this task force is to circulate documents to IFIP Members asking for their input.
Mr. Goldsworthy considered that there is a problem when issues are brought up at GA asking for decisions. This particular topic should be pursued directly with member societies. Following the preparatory work, a set of recommendations should be presented to GA for endorsement. Mr. Johnson advised that a mission statement should be developed by the task group and submitted for the endorsement of GA. There are many individuals and societies which would be interested to take part and he is in support of the project. Mr. Fairall also supported and informed that his society was in liaison with other organizations from his region and would be available to provide assistance. Mr. Rosenfeld felt that the way ahead is to involve as many people as possible.
Mr. Bollerslev congratulated Mrs. Glenn on her excellent briefing paper and was sorry to miss the meeting on 5 September. He believed that one of the reasons for low interest among European representatives is the fact that CEPIS already carried a similar initiative. Mr. Bollerslev offered to investigate a stronger WG 3.4 involvement.
Mr. Gottlieb wished to know whether member societies were requested to provide information on what they have done in this field and Mrs. Glenn responded that a lot of background information is already collected. There is extensive information from Japan, India and other countries on available courses, criteria for accreditation, syllabus of examinations, etc.
The President requested Mrs. Glenn to continue and to make direct contact with IFIP Members for contributions. A draft document should be submitted at Council 97, and a final document for GA 97 to approve or reject.
Mrs. Glenn outlined the following plan and schedule of further activities:
IFIP should interface with international organizations, ISO
and WTO in particular, in the development and implementation of
international IT professional/practitioner standards.
The IFIP task group would establish contact with IFIP member societies by 1 November 96 and request them to designate a representative. Participation from TC 3, CEPIS and SEARCC would be solicited. By 1 December 96 letters would be prepared on behalf of the IFIP President and sent to ISO and WTO explaining IFIP's interest in this project, outlining the approach and deliverables and soliciting their input. By the end of January 97, the task group expects to receive input from participant countries including the use of competency standards, tertiary education/training information, examinations, certification and other national or international recognitions. On the basis of this information, a draft document and schedule would be prepared and updated by mid February 97. At Council 97 in Bratislava, a presentation would be made with a list of assignments to be completed so as to meet the requirements of WTO and ISO for international professional standards.
Mrs. Glenn stressed that this schedule is dependent on the input of IFIP member societies and that she is pleased with the GA discussion on this topic. The President encouraged her to proceed.
4.11 Member Society Issues and ReportsThe Secretary informed that 20 member society reports were submitted to General Assembly. He shared the following observations:
The following specific requests were voiced in the reports:
Austria requests TCs and WGs to send more articles and materials for publication by member society journals.
Canada finds it difficult to market to its members the benefit of IFIP membership and encourages IFIP to document how its international initiatives support the work of its Members.
Singapore encourages IFIP to establish international standards for IT professionals and a professional development scheme for members to adopt. IT professionals meeting IFIP's standards could affiliate to IFIP as individuals.
Sweden considers that IFIP's activities in developing countries are very important and stresses the Nordic countries' interest for a stronger exchange of information between IFIP members using IFIP as a base.
Mr. Kurki-Suonio drew attention to Albania's report and inquired whether more could be done by IFIP to assist Albanian participation in IFIP events. The Chairman of DCSC, Mr. Gottlieb informed that Albania was offered CHF 1800 to assist its participant in Congress 96. This was a considerable contribution towards the travel expenses of an Albanian participant, however, the Albania society could not identify local funds to cover the remaining part. It was also expected that UNESCO would assist developing countries with a grant for IFIP Congress 96. Unfortunately, this support did not materialize. IFIP members from developing countries are encouraged to contact the DCSC Chair for future partial support to assist their participants in IFIP events. Mr. Gottlieb would send a letter to Albania explaining the situation and the DCSC policy to offer partial support as matching funds.
Mrs. M. Toth informed GA of the successful organization in Hungary of the International Olympiad on Informatics (IOI) with participants from 58 countries. She encouraged IFIP to take a more active role in the organization of future Olympiads. Mr. Bollerslev recalled that TC 3 was involved and represented at the IOI and the IFIP TC 3 Trophy was bestowed to the winner. Mr. Guy added that South Africa is a very active participant in the IOI and it has successfully contributed to these events as it has received major sponsorship from a life insurance company, SCSA being a joint sponsor.
The President thanked for the contributions and informed that there is a continuing concern with the involvement of some larger and older IFIP members, especially France, Ireland and Spain.
4.12 CongressesMr. Goldsworthy informed that attendance figures were low. There is no written report as it is too early to give final results. Decisions should be made on the basis of accurate statistics and the Organizing Committee will produce a final report and an analysis of the reasons for the low attendance. This would not be a historical resume but would rather serve as a base for discussion so that lessons can be learned for future congresses. Mr. Goldsworthy did not wish to go into detail but some of the reasons for the low attendance could be attributed to the fact that in Australia few people could afford to spend more than a week to attend conferences, the structure and content of Congress 96 may not have been the most appropriate, no grant was provided by UNESCO to support developing countries participation, another major conference in the field was scheduled in Melbourne soon after Congress 96.
Mr. Rosenfeld drew attention to the fact that only one delegate from the former Soviet Union took part in Congress 96 and considered it extremely important to base GA discussions on participation lists. Mr. Brauer advised that GA representatives and member societies should know how many participants from their countries attended the event. Mr. Gottlieb pointed out that it is imperative for future organizers to receive attendance figures.
Mr. Hoerbst drew attention to the importance of attendance figures with respect to the organization of future events. Statistics should be maintained over a period of at least 10 years. A body in IFIP should supervise this activity and should advise future organizers of events on the regional spread of expected attendance as all events have completely new organizers and succession very often fails. He recommended that an IFIP person or body is assigned such a function. The IPC Chair also recalled an idea to establish a congress steering committee which should provide the necessary links of experience and succession between congresses.
The President referred to the Congress Committee and inquired whether it can undertake such a responsibility. Mr. Guy explained that Congress Committee has a wide mandate and can accommodate this responsibility. Mr. Hoerbst proposed that maintenance and analysis of Congress statistics are included in the Committee's Charter.
Messrs. Reis, Guy, Boyanov, Gottlieb and Gruska pointed out that the registration fee for Congress 96 was very high and prohibitive for most participants from developing countries. The levels of congress registration fees should be closely monitored by IFIP in future. Mr. Granado considered the timing of the Congress as not well chosen with respect to participants from Southern Europe.
Mr. Rolstadas drew attention to the fact that only few GA representatives attended Congress 96. An explanation may be that the Congress topics were not attractive enough. However, it should be noted that they were kept well aware of the developments during past Council and GA meetings. Mr. Funk pointed out that he attended as his society insisted. Mr. Rosenfeld regretted that there was no evaluation of the congress outcome.
Mr. Hoerbst agreed that a critical factor is attendance expenses and mentioned that IFIP should consider how to make it possible for an average engineer to afford participation in IFIP events. He would pursue the possibility of involving IFIP TCs with the organization of Congress related conferences. Mobile Communications is a good topic and could probably be assigned to a technical committee.
Mr. Grafendorfer was impressed by the related video conferences in Canberra, Austria and Norway. Mr. Goldsworthy regretted that the PC Chair for Teleteaching 96, Mrs. S. Wills had received almost no support. Messrs. Boyanov and Bubnicki shared that the local organization for Congress 96 was very good.
The President and Mr. Bauer advised that a meeting of the OC for Congress 98 is forthcoming and a detailed report on the outcome of Congress 96 would be very useful.
Mr. Grafendorfer referred to his written report and advised that a joint Advisory Board is formed and that sub-committees are established to oversee specific tasks related to the organization. Responsibilities were split between the secretariats of the Austrian Computer Society and the John v. Neumann Computer Society. There will be a common participation fee for the whole Congress. Cooperation is intended with other international organizations such as the CEE, UNIDO, UNESCO, CEPIS, ACM, IEEE and other.
With respect to marketing, Mr. Grafendorfer informed that a Congress Press and Media Committee will be established so as to coordinate activities in the field. Public relations would be an important topic for the OC and more then 15 press releases are planned. A press conference was already held and, during Congress '96 in Canberra, presentations were delivered and well taken by Congress participants. The first announcement, including an information folder and a poster , was distributed in Canberra and internationally. On-line information is available via the IFIP Congress 98 home page at http://www.ocg.or.at/ifip98.html.
Mr. Khakhar felt that the deadline for submissions and notifications should be well timed with respect to the refereeing process. Mr. Simons referred to the practice in some universities not to allocate travel grants unless there is a notification of accepted papers at the beginning of the year. Messrs. Johnson, Tienari and Gruska considered the submissions date as well timed.
The President requested OC to send a letter to GA Members, inviting their response to the questionnaire concerning Congress 98 marketing.
Mrs. Toth reminded GA that the idea for this Congress originated as far back as 1989 and that the two societies are working together for more than 6 years. It is a major endeavor with the organization of 7 parallel conferences at different locations.
Mr. Gruska advised that cheep accommodation in student hostels should be available. Mr. Khakhar requested whether group reductions will be provided. Mr. Bubnicki wondered whether social events would be included in the registration fee. Mr. Gottlieb urged for a low registration fees for developing countries' participants.
Mrs. Toth responded that everyone is encouraged to attend. Social events and a cruise will be included in the conference fee. Reductions to group arrangements will be given to IFIP member societies (approx. 10% of registration fees, however, this is still to be decided). The lead currency for Congress 98 is the Austrian Schilling. There are negotiations with Austrian Airlines and MALEV for reductions on airfare. UNESCO and the CEE would be contacted with respect to support for developing countries. Mr. Hoerbst advised that IFIP 98 would convene under the general congress theme " The Global Information Society On The Way To The Next Millennium" as an umbrella organization consisting of the following conferences:
All these will be organized in close interaction with IFIP technical committees and with the strong involvement of Austrian and Hungarian representatives.
Members of the IPC include the IFIP President, respective TC chairs, chairs of the OC and Advisory Board, chairs of partial conferences, national representatives and other. Mr. Hoerbst informed GA that Mr. Bruce Shriver, President of FOCUS, has agreed to become IPC Vice-Chairman and Tutorial Chair.
Cross committees will coordinate transverse activities , for example the participation of large groups of young people. Mr. Johnson wondered whether these would be young IT professionals and Mr. Hoerbst clarified that the target group is rather teenagers for which a platform can be provided so that they could address future issues.
Messrs. Brauer and Boyanov expressed an opinion that there are possibilities to involve more CEE participants in panels and conferences.
Mr. Hoerbst advised that the highest registration fee would be for IFIP/SEC 98. If participants register for this conference they would have free access to all other conferences. Registration fees for Teleteaching 98 only would be much lower. Precise levels are to be decided.
Mr. Yan was pleased to present two letters to GA. One of them contained a questionnaire inviting GA representatives and member societies to suggest conference themes and topics and to propose possible candidates for the International Program Committee of Congress 2000. The second letter was from the Chinese government (Ministry for Electronic Industry) assuring the IFIP President that the participation and visa formalities of all bona fide Congress participants would be facilitated.
There are plans for TC 11 to hold IFIP/SEC 2000 in conjunction with the Congress and this would be further pursued. Mr. Yan assured GA that computers have wide applications in China and in the year 2000 the local Congress participation, professionals and students alike, would be significant.
The President thanked Mr. Yan for the letters and for his information and informed GA that in 1997 he will appoint the IPC Chair of Congress 2000. He urged GA representatives to complete the questionnaire and return it to the Chinese Institute of Electronics.
(Please refer to Agenda item 17.2)
4. 13 Treasurer's ReportMr. Melbye recalled the Treasurer's responsibilities to oversee the maintenance of accurate accounting, the proper collection of dues, royalties and other outstanding sums, the payments of all properly approved bills and to prepare statements and reports to Council and GA. He further stressed the Treasurer's authority to open bank accounts, sign transfer orders and prepare instructions on accounting and financial matters.
With respect to the 1995 Result, Mr. Melbye recalled that the accounts were finalized in February and reported to C1 96. The Auditor's Report, dated 19 July 1996, was available to GA. After amortization and depreciation according to approved policies, and before special funds provisions, the 1995 Result is a surplus of 159,565 CHF. This marks a significant improvement as compared to the budgeted 1995 deficit of 100,000 CHF. It compensates the deficits experienced during the previous three years and reestablishes IFIP's funds just above the peak level of 1991. Details were annexed to the Treasurer's report and are also reported in the C1 96 Minutes. The Final Result, after Special Funds Provision of 71 K CHF, is an increase in IFIP's General Fund by 88 K CHF, or 8%, to 1,125 K CHF.
Mr. Goyal wished to know the reason for the decline in Technical Support from 42,1 K CHF in 1994 to 29.5 K in 1995. The Treasurer clarified that this is due to a lower level of grant disbursement by AMB as compared to the previous year.
General Assembly unanimously APPROVED the 1995 audited accounts.
The Treasurer informed GA that a report from the Auditor was also presented to Executive Board. There were problems with the Auditor due to delayed assistance on accounting matters and training and the requested charges for the Auditor's services were very high.
Mr. Melbye drew attention to his report and informed that the first 6 months of 1996 show a total income of 448 K CHF, or 90% of the entire 96 budget. Total income is expected to increase marginally during the remaining six months. Membership dues are accounted when invoiced and may even be reduced if part of the outstanding dues by the end of this year is written off as dubious. Royalties were received from Elsevier Science Publishers (56 K CHF from sales during the entire 1995) and from Chapman & Hall (69 K CHF for sales during the second half of 1995). Further royalties are expected from Chapman & Hall for sales during the first half of 1996. Proceeds from events currently amount to 21 K CHF and hopefully other payments will come. 25 K CHF were received as the final payment from Congress 94. The Treasurer's estimate for the entire 1996 income is around 525 K CHF, or 25 K CHF over budget. In addition, the agreed contribution from Congress 96 of at least 100 K CHF is expected.
Expenses during the first six months are 124 K CHF, or 24% of the entire budget. However, there are services provided and costs which are not paid by the end of June. One concrete example is the Auditor's invoice for the first 6 months of 96 for 25 K CHF. Based on experience from previous years the Treasurer's estimate of the total expenses for 1996 would be in the order of 400 K CHF, or at least 125 K CHF below budget.
Under the assumption that ACS fulfills its contractually agreed obligation to remit to IFIP 100 K within 30 days following Congress 96, the Treasurer's estimate for the result of 1996 is a surplus in the range of 200 - 250 K CHF.
With respect to the 1997 Budget, Mr. Melbye informed GA that in preparing the original draft proposal for Budget 97 he had to rely on his own reflections, except for the part relating to the Secretariat. The budget originally prepared by the Treasurer implied a total income of 500 K CHF (the same level as in 1996) and total expenses of 475 K CHF (10% below the 1996 level). Thus, the suggested budget result was a small surplus of 25 K CHF.
In Canberra, following consultations with the respective budget holders and an assessment made by Executive Board, an amended budget (TREAS-3B) is proposed to GA envisaging a small deficit of 21 K CHF. While the income side remains unchanged (500 K CHF), the expense side is increased to 521 K CHF. This increase is largely due to the allocation of additional funds for future administrative support of activities envisaged by the Executive Board. There is a minor increase in the Secretariat's budget and in the support to technical committees.
The President explained that for strategic planning and future marketing activities a reserve was requested by EB which explains the increase in administrative support. Mr. Gottlieb wondered that his request as DCSC Chair was only partially honored. The Treasurer referred him to the available Developing Countries Fund and explained that this is also available to support important projects in developing countries. Mr. Gottlieb expressed his satisfaction with the response.
Mr. Melbye moved that the proposal for the 1997 budget, as amended, is approved by GA.
General Assembly unanimously APPROVED.
Since this was his last report to GA, Mr. Melbye took the opportunity to thank GA for the trust, cooperation and appreciation. He also thanked the Secretariat staff for their conscientious work in handling IFIP's payments and accounts and wished his successor all the best in his future work as IFIP Treasurer.
4.14 Technical AssemblyMr. Tienari referred to the TA Report and pointed out that the following issues were raised by TCs and SGs:
TC 2 State-of-the-art seminars will continue to be organized in the future. Working Groups 2.8 and 2.9 have close cooperation with ACM and IEEE groups with similar goals.
TC 3 The WCCE series of conferences are successful and other TCs should consider establishing similar event series in their field of specialization.
TC 5 An effort to restructure technical work within TC5 is underway.
TC 6 Several new working groups are under consideration. A task force is established and, in future, it would be assessed for upgrading into a working group.
TC 7 Revised texts for the aims and scope of several working groups would be presented for approval at a future meeting. There have been problems in getting TC7 proceedings published with Chapman & Hall.
TC8 A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis was initiated.
TC 13 The INTERACT series of conferences are successful.
SG 14 TA recommends that a new technical committee on "Foundations of Computer Science" is established by GA.
SG 16 This provisional specialist group should be given a more permanent status of a working group in an existing technical committee, TC 8 being the most suitable host . The final decision was postponed as the aims and scope should be prepared. TC8 should first discuss and approve the creation of this new working group.
Mr. Tienari reported that the following working groups were established by TA:
WG 3.7 Information Technology in Educational Management.
WG 6.7 Intelligent Networks.
WG 6.8 Wireless Communication.
WG 8.7 Informatics in International Business Enterprises.
Mr. Tienari informed that new aims and scope were approved for WG 6.4 on High Performance Networks and that TA endorsed a TC 6 decision to discontinue WG 6.5 on Upper Layer Protocols, Architectures and Applications.
Mr. Rolstadas inquired whether TA has further pursued a discussion on working groups which should be discontinued. Mr. Tienari expressed an opinion that such discussion should be led at the TC level as TA does not have specific knowledge on their performance. The President agreed that such issues should first be addressed at the TC level.
Mr. Rolstadas believed it would be useful to develop WG performance measures which should be followed by TCs. This would permit them to better monitor and survey WG activities. Mr. Khakhar considered it useful, besides performance measures, to account for subject areas.
Mr. Tienari informed of ongoing reviews in TC 7, TC 8, TC 9, TC 11 and TC 13 the status of which was reported by Mr. Ozeki. The TC12 review was initiated and a Review Committee was established with R. Johnson, W. Brauer, L. Carlucci-Aiello and B. Neumann as members.
The completed TC2 review report was discussed and approved by TA. Mr. Tienari recommended that a small group of GA representatives with interests in TC 2 activities should be formed so as to study the TC 2 report and give an external assessment. Mr. Goldsworthy agreed that with such an approach GA can contribute to a new perspective and provide a new input in TC Reviews. Messrs. Simons and Reis agreed to study the TC 2 report and provide recommendations.
Mr. Tienari advised that new TC Review Guidelines were approved by TA (please refer to ANNEX 2).
As the Guidelines refer to cognizant officers, Mr. Tienari advised GA that he opposes the view of abandoning the cognizant officer institution.
The President requested the issue to be debated under this Agenda item.
The Secretary referred to the C1 96 Minutes (p.16) where Council commissions SBC to draft changes to S & B to abolish cognizant officers. Mr. Tienari responded that this was not a TA recommendation and it only came during C1 96 deliberations. This was probably triggered by the fact that not all cognizant officers are properly chosen and some TCs have very high expectations of their activity. From his experience, the TA Chair considered their function as useful.
Messrs. Johnson, Brauer, Rolstadas and Khakhar believed there areas in which cognizant officers can be useful in future, in particular to assist TC contacts with IFIP Members.
Mr. Goldsworthy recalled that the cognizant officer institution was useful in the past, however, TC Chairs now have a vote in GA and the function has outgrown its usefulness. GA representatives Glenn, Glasson, Hoerbst, Jaervinen, Hammond, Simons, Fairall and Ozeki agreed and felt that there is a need for a leaner decision making scheme allowing TC Chairs to be more flexible and direct in their contacts with IFIP member societies. Mrs. Hammond was very pleased with a C1 96 recommendation to invite GA national representatives to TC meetings held in the respective countries. This was a very useful step and the real link between TCs and member societies. IFIP should take a further step by abolishing the structural deficiency of the cognizant officer institution.
Mr. Goldsworthy moved that the position of cognizant officers is abolished and the role of TC Chairs strengthened, especially in building relations with IFIP member societies. This would require appropriate changes to S & B and other documents.
The President called for a vote.
In favor 22
Against 6
Abstentions 5
Motion CARRIED.
(Please refer to Agenda item 17.9 with respect to the S &
B amendments relating to this decision).
With respect to the ongoing reviews and guidelines, Mr. Tienari clarified that this decision would imply that Cognizant officers are substituted by Council members and the President agreed.
Mr. Tienari informed that a task force (W.Brauer, A.Goldsworthy, R.Johnson, M.Tienari) was formed at the GA 95 to propose changes in TA operations. The preliminary discussion at TA showed that the proposals in the task force report cannot be implemented as such. There was a need of an IFIP Strategic Committee to discuss and propose to GA decisions on long range issues. TA, on the other hand, should become a TC forum where common issues of all TCs are addressed.
Mr. Goldsworthy clarified that it is proposed to establish two bodies - a smaller strategic planning committee focusing on issues of strategic importance to IFIP's future, and a body which would be an effective and representative forum for all technical committees. He moved that GA takes a decision on this proposal.
Mr. Tienari shared an opinion that the TC forum could retain the current name "Technical Assembly". The length of its meetings could be significantly shortened and technical decisions, such as the establishment of new working groups, could be made by Council and GA. It is more important for GA to consider the establishment of the Strategic Planning Committee, its charter and membership.
Mr. Glasson felt that there is a blurring of past history and future actions and advised that anything which requires full action in future should go to a full Council or GA meeting.
The President advised that these new considerable changes imply follow-up work which cannot be accomplished in Canberra. IFIP should move ahead and finalize the arrangements in Bratislava. In future, TC Chairs would report directly to Council and GA. Mr. Brauer believed that TA should be a forum only for TC Chairs. Its charter should imply that TA appoints its representative(s) to the Strategic Planning Committee.
An amendment prepared by J. Rosenfeld calling specifically for TC representation on the Strategic Planning Committee was defeated
The President requested GA to take a decision on Mr. Goldsworthy's motions:
Motion CARRIED (with one against and one abstention).
Motion CARRIED.
Mr. Tienari continued his report by emphasizing the importance of South-East Asia in the information technology field and that special effort is needed to encourage the countries of this region to be active in IFIP. It is also important to keep Eastern European countries actively involved in IFIP activities. IFIP's strength is embedded in its global operations and its broad coverage of the information technology field. This should be clearly kept in mind.
Mr. Rosenfeld inquired whether the organization of virtual conferences was addressed by TA. Mr. Khakhar informed that at its last meeting TC 6 has undertaken an experiment. However, he is not aware of its success as there is still no formal report on the project.
The President thanked the TA Chairman for his report. Since this was Mr. Tienari's last report to GA, Mr. Bauknecht expressed GA's appreciation of his contributions to IFIP and wished him well for the future.
4.15 Activity Management BoardThe AMB Chair, Mr. W. Grafendorfer drew attention to his report and said that new IFIP Event Approval Guidelines and Related Forms have been revised and distributed to AMB and TC/SG chairs. The guidelines are approved by AMB and will be distributed to the WG Chairs and Event organizers. They are also available from the IFIP ftp server. Event organizers would have to comply with the guidelines for all IFIP sponsored events. In particular, organizers are not allowed to use the IFIP logo if they are not willing to accept the provisions of the guidelines. Suggestions for improvements or changes for future revisions should be addressed directly to the AMB Chair.
The procedure for event approval is described in the guidelines. In general , preference should be given to the organization of events in member society countries. In the event approval process the national IFIP member society should be consulted through its GA representative so as to have its involvement and support to the organization. In order to minimize the administrative effort the responsible TC/SG chairs are authorized to approve the event, in cooperation with the IFIP Secretariat, in cases when no financial involvement (grants, loans, loss share) is requested from IFIP. In all other cases the approval of the AMB Chair is necessary. TC/SG and WG chairs are requested to follow up with event organizers on the proper submission of event requests to the IFIP Secretariat.
Mr. Grafendorfer reported that the Events Database is expanded so as to record information and to produce reports on Publications with Chapman & Hall. This includes ISBN, titles, editors, price, royalties and sales. If an approved event implies a publication the relevant information will be communicated to Chapman & Hall. The Publisher is also expected to report all requests for publications to IFIP Secretariat.
Mr. Grafendorfer informed the event statistics show a 21% decrease in the total number of IFIP sponsored events from 1994 to 1995. The number when IFIP was full or main sponsor has decreased by 26%. One reason is that not all IFIP events were properly registered. Fortunately, the trend for event proceeds was the reverse and the 1995 income from event proceeds totals 94,000 CHF while in 1994 it was 67,000 CHF. For the past 7 months of the current year the income from proceeds amounts to 22,000 CHF. In addition, 25,000 CHF were transferred as a final payment from Congress 94.
Mr. Grafendorfer recalled that income varies from year to year depending on the organization of major TC conferences. The AMB Chair advised that, after each event, a standard letter should be sent by TC chairs to the responsible event organizers requesting the sponsorship fee. In case of no response, an invoice should be issued on the basis of the expected participation recorded in the request form and update sheets. It is in the interest of technical committees to get the sponsorship fee as 75 % of the proceeds are attributed to the respective TC funds.
Mr. Grafendorfer informed that Mr. Kall has reintroduced an event report form for TC 7. AMB will develop a standard report form for all event organizers so as to get better feedback on the status of organized events.
Messrs. Johnson and Khakhar advised that IFIP sponsored events should be better marketed via email with an outreach to Internet lists of international events. With respect to publications, the number of full and main sponsored events should be closely monitored. Mr. Bubnicki expressed an opinion that in marketing and advertising IFIP events a coordinated effort is necessary Mr. K.-Suonio recommended that the guidelines should also provided in text-only or postscript formats.
**** NOTE to IFIP TC and WG Officers: the IFIP Event Approval Guidelines, Event Request Form and Statement of Understanding are currently available from the IFIP homepage at http://www.ifip.or.at/. These can also be downloaded from the IFIP FTP-Server (ftp://ftp.ifip.or.at/pub/events/) as ASCII-Text and Rich Text Format files. Hard copies of these documents can be obtained from the IFIP Secretariat upon request. ****
4.16 Technical Committees and SGsMr. Kurki-Suonio referred to his report and informed that the last TC 2 meeting was held in Oxford, England in July 96. The next meeting is scheduled for 30-31 May 97 in Konstanz, Germany. There are new TC 2 members from Canada and Norway. There are no news /no representatives from Australia, Poland, Italy , Tunisia, China and South Africa. Several changes have occurred in working group officers. In 1996, 3 titles were published with Chapman & Hall and all working groups are active. Some of them currently do not have their own planned events but act as steering committees and co-sponsor events of other organizations. The TC 2 Review was approved by TA.
The President thanked the TC 2 Chair for his report. He agreed that liaison with other organizations is desirable, however, IFIP working groups should carry out their own activities instead of supporting external events only.
Mr. Bollerslev referred to his report and mentioned that the last TC 3 meeting was held prior to Congress 96 in Wollongong, Australia. The next is scheduled for 23-24 August 97 in Harare, Zimbabwe. New representatives were appointed from Finland and Portugal while Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Singapore and Syria are not represented.
Mr. Brian Samways was elected TC 3 Chairman and would enter office on 1 January 1997. Other elections include Mr. R. Morel (Switzerland) as Vice-Chairman and Mr. P. Waker as Secretary. There are also changes in working group officers.
The overall status of TC 3 and its working groups is very good. There were problems with launching the TC 3 Journal on Education and Information Technologies, however, the first issue was out and two more issues are under preparation. Four working conferences were held since the beginning of 96. TC 3 was heavily involved in the organization of the UNESCO Congress on Education and Informatics, July 96, Moscow. At this Congress, two workshops were organized by IFIP representatives, and IFIP involvement extended to representation in the Congress Bureau and the preparation of the final Congress documents and recommendations. The UNESCO/IFIP Curriculum on Informatics in Secondary Education is now translated into 7 languages.
Mr. Bollerslev recalled that this is his last report as TC 3 Chair and thanked GA for its support to TC 3.
The President thanked the TC 3 Chair for his contributions to IFIP and encouraged his successor to follow the good example. Mr. Guy, as Past Cognizant Officer added his thanks and appreciation of Mr. Bollerslev's activity as TC 3 Chair.
The new TC 5 Chair, Mr. G. Doumeingts was appointed prior to GA 96 and presented the report on behalf of the Past Chairman, Mr. Mikami. The last meeting of TC 5 was held in May 96 in Trondheim, Norway. The next meeting is scheduled for 8 November 97 in Detroit, USA. TC 5 holds two meetings per year, one of them being organized by correspondence.
A new representative was appointed from Hungary. Working groups 5.6 and 5.7 have new Chairs. WG 5.9 should be more active and WG 5.11 is in a process of reactivation. The major forthcoming TC 5 event, CAPE' 97, is scheduled for 5-7 November 97 in Detroit, USA. Four TC 5 related events were held in 96 and another 11 are scheduled for 96 and 97. One book was published by Chapman & Hall and 3 other proceedings were contracted.
The restructuring of TC 5 is the major issue and will be carried out under the leadership of Mr. Doumeingts . Ideas to be considered are: finding a niche in business with strong emphasis on integration and application of technologies, attracting industrialists, drawing the attention of developing countries, defining the advantages of TC 5 and IFIP, accenting on the benefit of the committee's "customers" and others. A resolution to form a task force was endorsed by TC 5 aiming to pursue this project and to establish electronic communications media for TC 5 members. Mr. Doumeingts shared that a drastic change in TC 5 activities would have a negative effect. His objectives are to improve the TC 5 administration, to eliminate " sleeping members", to improve the planning of TC 5 events and to attract good experts.
Mr. Rosenfeld inquired whether the journal on Computers in Industry is totally divorced from TC 5 and Mr. Doumeingts reported that TC 5 took a decision to stop further negotiations with Elsevier/ North Holland with respect to this journal. Currently, members of the TC are investigating the market feasibility of launching a new journal. Mr. Rolstadas informed that Computers in Industry no longer carries the IFIP logo and one of the reasons for discontinuing the relationship with Elsevier was the fact that the Editorial Board was not under IFIP TC 5 control. Mr. Johnson advised that a new journal is not an easy endeavor and this was most recently experienced by TC 3.
Mr. Tienari requested to know more about the attendance figures of the CAPE series of conferences. The TC 5 Chair informed that earlier conferences were attended by 500-700 participants while CAPE'95 in China had approximately 200 participants.
Mr. Goldsworthy referred to inactive members and advised that these should be taken off the TC 5 membership lists once they are expelled. Mr. Doumeingts responded that the intention and practice was first to contact the respective member societies and advise them of their inactive representatives before it was decided to expel them.
Mr. Nedkov requested all TC Chairs to notify the Secretariat of decisions to expel inactive members so that the TC membership lists at the Secretariat are updated accordingly.
Mr. Khakhar delivered the TC 6 report on behalf of Mr. Spaniol who had sent his apologies for not being able to attend. TC 6 holds two annual meetings. In 1996, the 1st meeting was held in April in Montreal, Canada while the second is scheduled for 18-19 October in Harare, Zimbabwe. In 1997, the 1st meeting will take place on 2-3 May in White Plains, NY, USA while the 2nd will probably convene in Bulgaria.
New members were appointed from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Spain. The representative of India announced his resignation, however, TC 6 hopes that this decision will be reconsidered. Several working groups are updating their membership lists. A decision was taken to disband WG 6.5. Two new working groups are proposed for establishment (please refer to TA agenda item 9) and another two task groups were formed. TC 6 currently maintains a high technical activity level with 10 organized events in 1996.
Mr. Khakhar informed GA that it was decided to abandon all future attempts to legally pursue the authorship of the ISINM trademark and an agreement was reached between IFIP and IEEE concerning the future joint ISINM organization.
Mr. Rosenfeld queried the TC 6 involvement in SEACOMM conferences and Mr. Khakhar replied that every other year SEACOMM is sponsored by IFIP .
Mr. Kall referred to his report and informed that the last meeting of TC 7 was held in Neubiberg, Germany in June 96. The next annual meeting is scheduled to take place during the 18th TC 7 GC, 22-25 July 97, Detroit, USA.
IFIP member societies for Australia, Belgium China, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Singapore should consider nominating new representatives to TC 7. The activity level of the 7 working groups is good, with new chairpersons elected for WG 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.7. In the meantime, TC 7 is in a process of identifying a new chair for WG 7.1.
Mr. Kall advised that TC 7 experiences an ongoing publications problem. The reason is that according to Chapman & Hall's policy TC 7 events either do not generate manuscripts of the requested size or, alternatively, the notion of bulk sales inhibits the successful financial management of the conferences due to an unjustified increase in conference fees. With this in mind, TC event organizers are instructed to first contact IFIP's principal publisher. If an arrangement cannot be agreed editors are given the freedom to other publishers.
Mr. Nedkov informed that in his contacts with the TC 7 Chair there was agreement that TC 7 proceedings with alternative publishers should appear under IFIP copyright.
Mr. Johnson expressed his intention for PC to prepare basic guidelines for alternative publishers.
Mr. Glasson drew attention to his report and recalled that the last annual TC 8 meeting was held in April 96 in Tucson, USA. A SWOT analysis was undertaken by TC 8 and the results will be further investigated during the next TC 8 meeting , 27 - 29 June 97, Ambleside, U.K. Plans are to develop an action plan so as to ensure the continued healthy development of TC 8.
There are inactive representatives or lack of representation from Spain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, India, Korea, Singapore, Argentina and Hungary. The activity level of all working groups is good and all of them have scheduled forthcoming events. The aims and scope of the new working group on Informatics in International Business Enterprises were presented to TA for approval (please refer to agenda item 14). A well established communications network involving newsletters, WWW pages, list servers, directories, databases and journals is maintained and the cooperation with ICIS and ISWORLD net is well established.
Mr. Jaervinen reported that the last TC 9 meeting was held in March 96 near Jerusalem, Israel and the next one is scheduled for 11-12 May 97 in Corfu, Greece. New members to TC 9 were designated from Australia, the Netherlands and Norway. The TC 9 Chair requested IFIP Members to review their participation in TC 9 activities and to nominate new representatives in case they are not currently represented.
As a new TC 9 Chair, Mr. Jaervinen was concerned with the fact that 4 new working group chairs entered office at about the same time his term commenced. This created some initial difficulties which hopefully will disappear as the new management gains experience.
Working group activities include the publication of the book Ethics of Computing, development of guidelines for a curriculum in the history of computing, wide distribution of the WG 9.4 Newsletter "IT in Developing Countries" and the organization of the following conferences:
Mr. Hoerbst proceeded with his report by informing GA that his three year term is coming to an end and he would not be available for another term. In the past three years he focused on solving the financial issues between IFIP and TC 10, arranging a merger of WG 10.2 and WG10.5, widening the scope of TC 10 activities and strengthening WG 10.1 and WG 10.7 which were established during his term of office.
Mr. Hoerbst thanked Mr. Melbye for his help related to finances and informed GA that Mr. J-C. Laprie was unanimously elected as the next TC 10 Chair and would enter office by the end of 1996.
Brazil and Portugal are now represented on TC 10 which currently has 34 members. Out of these, 6 are inactive and Mr. Hoerbst urged GA representatives to take appropriate actions. The respective IFIP member societies will be informed accordingly.
A new chairman was appointed for WG10.1. With respect to WG activities , with the exception of WG10.6, all working groups are doing well. There are considerations to transform WG 10.6 into a SIG of 10.3.
TC10 plans to organize a workshop during Congress 98 and two conferences on Advanced Computer Architecture and CAD for VLSI during Congress 2000.
This being his last report to GA as TC 10 Chair, Mr. Hoerbst thanked all GA members for their support to TC 10 activities. On behalf of the Assembly, the President thanked Mr. Hoerbst for his excellent leadership and recalled that he will be attending future Council and General Assembly meetings as IPC Chairman for IFIP Congress 98.
Mr. Guy reported on behalf of the TC 11 Chair, Mr. von Solms, who had sent his apologies for not being able to come to Canberra. 1996 was a very good year for this technical committee consisting of a number of very successful activities. It held its annual meeting in May 96 in Samos, Greece in conjunction with IFIP/Sec 96. Future TC 11 meetings will take place during IFIP/Sec conferences, as follows:
The IFIP/Sec 96 was attended by more than 200 delegates from 28 countries. It was well organized and the final proceedings were available at the conference. WG 11.1. WG 11.2, WG 11.5 and WG 11.8 organized workshops on the day preceding IFIP/Sec 96. These 3 workshops were attended by about 70 delegates in total. WG 11.3 had its annual conference in July 96 in Como, Italy.
Two WG chairs had resigned and were replaced by newcomers. All WGs will have activities during next year either as part of IFIP/Sec 97 or separately. The TC 11 management is presently very happy with the WG activities and foresees that the current WG chairs will keep the WGs active and productive.
TC 11 has a number of special task forces active at the moment. These are:
Cooperation with IMIA continues. The TC 11 Chair was invited to be a member of the core Program Committee of IMIA's WG 4 Security in Medical Systems 97 conference in Japan.
The TC 11 list server and Web page, run by the TC 11 Vice-Chair, Mr. Posch, has grown in functionality and now acts as a very efficient method to disseminate information on a regular basis.
In summary, Mr. Guy reported that TC 11 is happy with its present situation and activities and is looking forward to a productive year. The President confirmed that the report reflects the very good shape TC 11 is presently in.
Mr. Goyal informed that at the end of July 1996 a letter was sent to TC 11 stating that India is committed to host the IFIP/SEC 99 Conference.
The TC 12 Secretary, Mr. B. Neumann conveyed Mrs. Carlucci-Aiello's apologies for not being able to come to Canberra. TC 12 held its annual meeting in May 96 in Bonn, Germany with a low attendance of 4 members due to late invitations.
There are no changes in the 5 working groups of TC 12. Most of their activities are in connection with established events of other AI organizations. Artificial Intelligence is an active field and an important mission of the TC would be to accelerate and improve the integration of AI with other information processing sub-fields. Mr. Neumann stressed that TC 12 needs a new focus of activities. It needs to find and fill a niche between computer science activities and artificial intelligence and knowledge based systems. The TC 12 Chair started work at the beginning of 1996 and this initiated a constructive process of giving the technical committee an IFIP profile. To this end, the WG 12.5 Chair had accepted to organize a conference on Information Technology and Knowledge Systems in conjunction with IFIP 98.
Mr. Johnson wished to know how IFIP member societies could be instrumental in assisting TC 12 to replace inactive members and finding new volunteers. Mr. Neumann replied that, unfortunately, full activity statistics are not currently maintained but this will improve in future.
The President thanked Mr. Neumann for the report and requested him to convey to the TC 12 Chair that GA representatives expect to receive activity statistics so that they may assist in identifying and supporting active representation in TC 12.
Mrs. Hammond drew attention to her report and informed that the last meeting was held in April 96 in Vancouver, Canada. The next TC 13 meeting is scheduled to take place by the end of this year, probably in London. Another meeting is already planned to take place in conjunction with INTERACT 97.
There are some difficulties with inactive members, however, the TC 13 Chair was pleased to report that there is an increase in TC 13 membership with new representatives from Canada, Italy and Portugal. Switzerland and Germany had replaced their representatives and replacements from Bulgaria and Sweden are expected.
Mr. B. Shackel (UK) was appointed as TC 13 Secretary. There are some changes in WG officers. All WGs are well established, however, there is a shortage of activities beyond 1996. Most of the effort is concentrated on the successful preparations and organization of INTERACT 97, 14-18 July, Sydney, Australia. There is a need to stimulate smaller working conferences and other scientific events and an e-mail discussion on future strategies was organized by the TC 13 Activities Planning Panel. It was decided to hold a workshop so as to discuss future activities during the next 5-6 years.
TC 13 is planning to establish an information system so as to provide general information and communication services to TC13 and WG members. This system would be linked to the on-line services provided by the IFIP Secretariat.
In June 96, TC 13 co-sponsored the APCHI 96 held in Singapore. This co-sponsorship is very useful in providing Asian interest in INTERACT 97 and would help building up activities in the Asia Pacific region.
Mrs. Hammond requested GA members to assist in popularizing INTERACT 97 which was the major event for next year. An International Program Committee for the conference is in operation with 72 members from 20 countries. 20 cooperating societies are supporting the organization. A Web site is in operation and wide sponsorship is anticipated. The bidding process for INTERACT 99 is in preparation. It is also encouraging to know that the proceedings from the INTERACT series of conferences are well received by the market ( INTERACT 95 proceedings were the 4th best selling IFIP book in 1996).
Mr. Funk stressed the importance of on-line conference information display and volunteered to assist INTERACT 97 with the establishment of appropriate links to its pages.
Mr. Tienari inquired about the INTERACT 96 attendance figures and the TC 13 Chair informed that some 230 delegates had taken part with about 70 to 75 paper contributions. This was less than normal as past conferences had generated up to 500 attendees.
The Treasurer expressed his appreciation of the fact that the TC 13 report incorporates comments on the budget and encouraged all TC Chairs to include such a section in their future reports to Council and GA.
The President thanked Mrs. Hammond for her report and wished TC 13 a successful organization of INTERACT 97.
Mr. Gruska informed that no administrative meetings were held during the reported period and business was carried by e-mail. Unless major theory meetings are organized in future (so that administrative meetings could be held in conjunction) this, according to Mr. Gruska, seems to be the most efficient way of doing business.
SG 14 currently holds a membership of 42 and an initiative is under way to update the membership lists and to bring fresh blood. A panel was established to review the SG 14 membership. Mr. G. Ausiello (Italy) will be the new chair from 1 January 1997. Other changes include Mr. D. Wotschke (Germany) as the new Chair of WG 14.2.
With reference to future meetings, Mr. Gruska informed that LATIN 98 is scheduled for 20-24 April in Brazil. Plans include a conference of Foundations on Computational Mathematics, January 97, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, a meeting of WG 14.3 in June 97, Rome, Italy and a conference in the field of cellular automata in 1998 in Chile.
Mr. Dolezal advised Mr. Gruska to work closely with Mr. Ausiello during the remaining months of 96 so that a smooth transition is achieved with full awareness of all membership changes.
Mr. Tienari drew attention to TA's recommendation and moved that SG 14 is transformed into TC 1 on Foundations of Computer Science.
Mr. Rolstadas recalled that this is a precedent and wondered if a renumbering of IFIP TCs would be necessary. Mr. Tienari asserted that there is no such need and in future there may be another application to claim TC 4.
GA unanimously APPROVED the establishment of TC 1 on Foundations of Computer Science.
The President recalled that this is the last report of Mr. Gruska to GA. He wished him well for the future and thanked him for his work for IFIP and for pursuing the objective to establish the new TC 1. Mr. Gruska thanked GA members for their support and shared his future plans to prepare a publication on fundamental aspects of computer science. He wished to see future IFIP Congresses well exceeding an attendance of over 1500 participants.
Mr. Tienari reported on the developments of SG 16 on Smart Cards and conveyed Mr. Cordonnier's apologies for not being present He attended the TA and other related meetings but had to depart earlier due to the preparations for the CARDIS 2 Conference. The group is in good hands and dedicated to carry out activities on a regular basis. In 1994, the group was involved with the organization of CARDIS 1, the first scientific conference on smart cards technology and advanced applications. The 2nd CARDIS conference is scheduled to take place from 18 to 21 September 96 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands with an expected attendance of 100 participants. There, SG 16 will convene to plan future activities and take a decision concerning the 3rd conference in the CARDIS series.
Mr. Tienari informed that TA recommends to TC 8 to initiate a procedure to establish it as a working group as soon as it presents its aims and scope in a written form. Mr. Glasson concurred that once the aims and scopes are presented he would ask for a decision on this issue at the next TC 8 meeting in June 97. Mr. Rosenfeld queried whether a mail ballot should be organized so as to speed the decision. Mr. Glasson informed that there was a similar experience with WG 8.7 and there is a need for discussion. Mr. Rolstadas agreed that TC 8 should follow its established procedures.
4.17 Committee ReportsMr. Ozeki referred to the Admissions Committee Report and in appreciation of the outstanding contributions to IFIP of Mr. G. Morris moved that he is reelected for a second term as IFIP Individual Member.
In favor 28
Against 3
General Assembly APPLAUDED.
Mr. Ozeki informed that an application was received from the Philippine Computer Society (PCS) for Full Membership in IFIP. All requirements for Full Membership of PCS were met, however, as PCS expressed some hesitancy about their ability to pay the full amount of the membership dues for a Full Member, the Admissions Committee referred them to the category of Associate Membership. This was accepted by the PCS Officers and Mr. Ozeki moved that PCS is accepted as IFIP Associate Member.
General Assembly ACCEPTED the Philippine Computer Society as an IFIP Associate Member.
The AC Chairman referred to the application of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) for Affiliate Membership. All requirements for such a membership were satisfied and AC recommends that INFORMS is accepted as an IFIP Affiliate.
General Assembly unanimously ACCEPTED INFORMS as an IFIP Affiliate Member.
The Academy of Sciences of Belarus was elected to Membership but due to severe financial constraints had failed to pay its membership dues to IFIP. Considering that Belarus may improve its financial situation in future, AC recommends that the period to satisfy the admissions criteria for Belarus be extended until December 1998.
General Assembly AGREED.
Finally, Mr. Ozeki informed that an application for Full Membership was received from the Department of Computer Aided Control Systems of the Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. However, AC still expects to receive more information with respect to the individual membership of this organization in order to prepare a recommendation to General Assembly. Turkey has also shown interest in joining IFIP and has informed that an official application will follow.
The President thanked Mr. Ozeki for all his hard work and contributions to IFIP and wished him well for the future. A new Japanese GA representative was designated to IFIP and the President was confident that the active participation from Japan would continue. Mr. Ozeki's connections to IFIP extended over a period of 18 years. In speaking about the role of IFIP in South East Asia, Mr. Ozeki stressed the importance of IFIP Congress 2000 and wished IFIP all the best as it approaches the threshold of the 21st century.
Mr. Guy reminded that Congress Committee is responsible for soliciting bids for sites for future congresses, performing site inspections and reporting on sites to the General Assembly. He drew attention to the Chinese request to GA members to provide a list of suggested topics for the 16th World Computer Congress in the year 2000 and urged GA representatives to respond.
Mr. Guy recalled that Executive Board had discussed the frequency of Congresses and as a result it was decided that the schedule for calling bids for Congress 2002 can be delayed. The President clarified that bids for 2002 would be invited in 1997 and site selection for 2002 could sensibly be postponed to 1998. Before that, IFIP should decide whether to choose 2002 or 2003. A draft contract for Congress 98 was prepared and will be progressed by the President. Mr. Funk in association with Mr. Goldsworthy will deal with an agreement for 2000.
Mr. Rosenfeld asserted that Congress Committee has a much broader role to play than site selection. Mr. Guy agreed and said this is basically happening with him offering advice and guidelines to CIE.
Mr. Gottlieb presented his report to GA and informed GA that there had been few responses to the initiative to launch an e-mail project for developing countries. From the replies, the common attitude was that costs for email use are high, there is a need for technical assistance in network management and standardization and assistance in training technical staff would be appreciated.
Participation fees for Congress 96 were prohibitive for developing countries. DCSC unanimously proposes to GA to agree on a procedure for offering reduced registration fees to DC. DCSC supports a policy of partial funding of DC participants' expenses expecting that the local society or the applicant would be able to raise matching funds.
Mr. Gottlieb informed that a book project was initiated offering complimentary copies of new IFIP publications with Chapman & Hall.
As to the definition of a developing country whose participants may apply for support, DCSC had agreed that these should preferably be IFIP member society countries and that individual requests should be evaluated on their merits. In general, projects should be initiated by technical committees and working groups. Support would be considered for IFIP events held in IFIP member societies from developing countries.
DCSC had considered a proposal from Mr. Reis to support, in cooperation with UNESCO, Computer Science Seminars held consecutively in different countries. A recommendation from Mr. Boyanov to have a stronger interaction with the CEC with respect to matching funds for DC support was favorably regarded by the Committee. Mr. Bollerslev had requested DCSC support for a TC 3 (WG 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5) Workshop on Capacity Building for IT in Developing Countries, August 97, Zimbabwe and the extent of DCSC support would be decided following an application and justification of the requested funds.
Mr. Gottlieb expressed the general feeling that the DCSC budget is insufficient to support major projects in developing countries, however, it could be used as seed money and matching funds to that of funding agencies and local organizations to initiate certain projects.
Mr. Rosenfeld was uncertain whether DCSC was persistent in its objectives. Future support of lecturers to visit developing countries is a worthy and appealing endeavor, however, this requires a lot of investigations. Mr. Gottlieb replied that the logistics could be handled by technical committees and the local societies.
Mr. Reis referred to the DCSC proposal to support regional summer schools on various topics. The President welcomed this idea and requested DCSC to give it further considerations.
Messrs. Fairall and Bauknecht encouraged TC Chairs to work closely with DCSC and to attend its future meetings during Council and General Assembly.
Mr. Khakhar drew attention to his report and referred to some of the difficulties experienced with the new Auditor. The President and the Treasurer would meet with the Auditor so as to consider appropriate measures.
Finance Committee had decided that its standing orders should be reviewed. This would be undertaken by correspondence and a recommendation would be presented to Council 97.
Finally, FC recognized Mr. Melbye's excellent work and proposes to GA to express its appreciation for his outstanding services to IFIP.
General Assembly APPLAUDED.
Mr. Melbye thanked GA and expressed a view that FC should reflect on the long term financial situation and discuss measures and targets for the sound financial development of IFIP in future. As a possible useful material it could consider his paper in the publication "36 Years of IFIP".
With respect to TC activities, Mr. Rosenfeld thought it better to have higher expense and income budgets rather than low ones. Mr. Hoerbst considered the income and expenses of TCs as a strategic issue which should be carefully monitored by a plan.
Mr. Melbye pointed out that the relation between membership dues and administrative secretariat expenses is important and IFIP has made a major achievement here. Mr. Johnson inquired about Austria's support for the administration and Mr. Melbye clarified that this was contractually agreed for a period extending 15 years and was part of the agreement to move the Secretariat to Austria. Mr. Rosenfeld thought it should be brought up as an income item.
Mr. Nedkov drew attention to his report and advised that some funding has been received to support IFIP events but the promised support for Congress 96 did not materialize.
The IFIP-UNESCO Liaison Officer represented IFIP at UNESCO General Conference in October 1995. Consultations were made on issues relating to IFIP-UNESCO activities and GA members and IFIP Officers were informed and advised on the procedure to apply for UNESCO sponsorship for IFIP related activities. Since GA 95, IFIP representatives had taken part in the UNEVOC Meeting, October 95, Paris , the Electronic Publishing Conference, 19 - 23 February 96, Paris, the Second UNESCO International Congress "Education and Informatics" (attended by the IFIP President and TC 3 members), 1-5 July 1996, Moscow, Russian Federation, the Global Information Alliance Meeting, Helsinki, 15-16 July 1996 and other.
The International Conference on Information Technology: Supporting Change Through Teacher Education, Kiryat Anavim, Israel, 30 June - 5 July 1996 was supported by UNESCO with USD 10,000 so as to assist regional participation. TC9 contacts were facilitated with the UNESCO Regional Office for Science and Technology in Latin America in order to obtain UNESCO support for the International Conference on Information Technology for Competitiveness - Experiences and Demands for Information and Vocational Training, Florianopolis 3-5 February 1997. The organizers of Capbit 97 and AFRICOM'96 were advised on possibilities to apply for UNESCO and other external funds and an application for a UNESCO grant was processed.
"Informatics for Secondary Education: A Curriculum for Schools", prepared for UNESCO by TC 3, was was additionally translated into Polish and Chinese during the reported period.
The International Directories of Experts and Institutions specialized in Informatics (prepared by the Secretariat of the IIP- UNESCO in late 1994) is in process of revision and Mr. Nedkov advised that updates and new entries from IFIP member societies and technical committees are solicited by UNESCO.
UNESCO is carrying out an evaluation of its associations with non-governmental organizations and IFIP's status will be considered in six month's time. The President will attend the IIP meeting in December 1996.
Mr. Johnson requested to know the department of the European Commission which was contacted for funds to support Eastern European participation in Congress 96. Mr. Nedkov responded that a request for a grant was submitted to Directorate General III of CEC which had previously supported IFIP Congress 94 and INTERACT 96. However, it may be that a new policy has been adopted by the DG III not to provided grants to an NGO during 2 consecutive years.
The Chairman of the Internal Awards Committee recalled that a letter was sent to TC and SG Chairs inviting nominations for the Outstanding Service Award.
In Canberra, Mr. Morris received nominations from the TC 10 and SG 14 Chairmen and he is happy to recommend to General Assembly to distinguish the following IFIP volunteers with the Outstanding Service Award:
Prof. C. Delgado-Kloos TC10/ WG10.5 Dr. E. Dirkx TC 10/ WG 10.3 Prof. C. Girault TC 10 Dr. T. Yanagawa WG10.5 Prof. H.-J. Kreowski WG 14.3
Motion unanimously CARRIED.
Mrs. Glenn informed that the Marketing Committee did not meet prior to GA. She recalled that there was a lively discussion at C1 96 resulting in a decision to seek an outside consultant who would prepare a proposal. She was able to find a consultant who made a proposal and this was forwarded to EB. Two more proposals were solicited from the USA. In Canberra, she found out that EB has initiated a strategic planning discussion and, therefore, Marketing Committee did not feel a necessity to meet.
Mrs. Glenn informed that she had submitted her resignation as Marketing Committee Chair.
The President pointed that the proposal which was submitted by the MC Chair was too general. The other two proposals, submitted via Mr. H. Funk, came too late to be properly considered before GA. During the EB meeting in Canberra, it was decided to postpone further discussion with respect to the hiring of a Marketing Consultant and to initiate the required in-house activities concerning strategic planning.
Mr. Rosenfeld pointed out that there is more to MC than the consultant. There is the Newsletter, IFIP Sponsors, visiting lecturers and other issues which this committee should continue to address. MC should continue discussing such initiatives and make sure they are not forgotten between meetings. The President confirmed that outgoing chairmen should prepare reports of what has been carried out so as to brief the newly appointed chairs.
4.17.7.1 IFIP Newsletter
Mr. Rosenfeld reported that the Newsletter continues as
usual. 3300 copies of each issue are sent to individuals, and 800
copies are sent to member societies. In addition, an average of
300 copies per issue are sent to event organizers.
The Newletter Editor is continuing the TC profiles: the TC9 profile is being prepared now. There are still no profiles for TC7, TC11, and TC12 and he would like to do the TC7 profile next. The Secretariat will take over the generation of the camera-ready copy for the events list that appears on the back two pages of the Newsletter. Since some of the present Editorial Board of the Newsletter that reads the draft articles of the Newsletter and comments regarding the factual and political correctness of the material are leaving IFIP, Mr. Rosenfeld is seeking more members and anyone willing to help would be most welcome. He also requests the TC chairs to check whether their correspondents, listed in the masthead on page 2 of the Newsletter, are actively keeping him informed of TC activity.
The President thanked Mr. Rosenfeld for his efforts in maintaining the high standard of the IFIP Newsletter.
Mr. Johnson was pleased to inform GA that the overall situation with IFIP publications is satisfactory. 34 IFIP titles are expected to be published in 1996. Royalties levels are close to originally budgeted figures. Approximately half of the royalties come from front list sales and the other half from back list revenues. The PC Chair is in regular contact with Publisher and TC chairs and is available to meet and discuss general publications policy and specific problems.
The PC Chair reported that during the meeting with TC chairs some specific issues were discussed but no major problem of general concern was identified. Organizers of events which generate low volume proceedings usually produce their own copies for delegates only. PC recommends that for such events on-line information should be provided with links to pages where specific event and proceedings information is available. Agencies could be contacted to provide this information on the Web and to organize the sales of reprints. Chapman & Hall will report on the feasibility of this approach during the next PC meeting and would also advise on copyright issues related to electronic publications.
Mr. Johnson advised that PC would proceed with the revision of the IFIP Publications Guidelines and he would also discuss with the Treasurer and Chapman & Hall an adjustment to the Publications Agreement with respect to out of print books.
With regard to a TC 8 event on the office of the future, Mr. Rosenfeld inquired whether there would be an electronic publication. Mr. Hammond responded that he was in contact with the TC 8 Chair and there is a market niche for selling CD Roms and books as a package deal. This is especially attractive to libraries. This approach is more flexible as it makes repackaging possible and permits the development of new revenue streams. There is a need to recapture all papers in electronic form. Macros and templates are provided on the Web and the primary objective is to get at least 50% of the papers electronically.
Mr. Funk informed that various software products were discussed during the PC meeting. He referred to "Acrobat" which provides a feature to translate documents into an appropriate electronic form. Mr. Guy pointed out that most word processing packages can deliver such an output. Mr. Khakhar drew attention to the fact the TC 6 is involved in the organization of a conference dealing with electronic publishing and this experience could be useful to Chapman & Hall.
Mr. Funk responded that on-line publications should provide added value such as links to reference materials and other. He volunteered to prepare an on-line publication of the proceedings from one IFIP TC event which would not qualify to be published by Chapman & Hall and invited TC Chairs to consider this offer.
Mr. Reis inquired about the distribution channels of Chapman & Hall as in many bookstores in the USA IFIP books are not available. Mr. Hammond pointed that IFIP publications are mostly reference literature and the primary market is libraries. Since few of the publications are "book titles" such as Ethics in Computing, Chapman & Hall tends to sell through catalogues and book sellers.
Mr. K.-Suonio requested to know if TCs could investigate alternative publishers. Mr. Johnson responded that Chapman & Hall, according to its agreement with IFIP, should have the first offer. In case no agreement is reached, TCs can proceed with other publishers keeping in mind that publications from IFIP events should be published under IFIP copyright.
Mr. Morris drew attention to the report of the SBC Chairman , Mr. Bobillier which was circulated to GA members well in advance of the GA 96 and moved that the following amendments to the Statutes and Bylaws are adopted by General Assembly:
"Members eligible to vote will be provided with adequate background information via mail, fax or e-mail, as appropriate, all of which will be acceptable media for returning votes, subject to appropriate security procedures".
Messrs. Funk and Johnson moved that in respect to Art. 4.3.2 the wording "appropriate security procedures" should be replaced with "appropriate VERIFICATION procedures".
GA unanimously ADOPTED the SBC proposal, as amended.
Mr. Morris referred to the discussions and decisions under Agenda item 14 (Technical Assembly) with respect to abolishing of the notion of "Cognizant Officer" which implies the following changes:
Motion unanimously CARRIED.
Finally, Mr. Morris informed that the SBC withdraws its proposal with respect to Multiple Membership. This issue would be further deliberated in consultation with IFIP Full Member Societies.
Mr. Rolstadas pointed out the WG Chairman's handbook should be updated with the current revisions. Mr. Morris agreed to identify the appropriate IFIP Committee and refer this responsibility to it.
Messrs. Morris and Rolstadas where happy to announce that the book "36 Years of IFIP" was published. 300 copies were printed at IFIP's expense and GA representatives and IFIP member societies will shortly receive a copy. Further distribution is considered.
Mr. Reis inquired whether copies would be available for sales. Mr. Rolstadas advised that the book is intended for complimentary distribution to IFIP Members, however, the Secretariat would investigate the possibility of making it available on-line from the IFIP URL.
Mr. Rolstadas and Mr. Bauknecht informed that the publication was made possible thanks to the great effort of Mr. H. Zemanek . IFIP should formally record with grateful thanks this contribution and a letter of thanks will be sent by the President to Mr. Zemanek.
General Assembly CONCURRED and APPLAUDED.
4.18 Affiliate MembersThe Secretary reminded that the FACE representative, Mr. Jones attended the GA and TA meetings and had submitted a written report. A report was submitted by IASC. CEPIS and ICCC were represented by Messrs. Johnson and Khakhar. Mr. Uhlig had conveyed his greetings and apologies to GA for not being able to come to Canberra.
4.19 Future MeetingsThe Secretary recalled that during GA 95 Mr. Reis informed the President that Brazil would be pleased to host a future General Assembly meeting. As a follow-up to this inquiry, a formal invitation from Brazil was received in August 1996. Another invitation to host the 1997 General Assembly meeting was kindly extended by the Finnish Information Processing Association. In view of the fact that several forthcoming IFIP administrative meetings are scheduled to take place in Europe it was felt by EB that the Brazilian invitation, if accepted by General Assembly, would create a balance in the future organization among geographical regions represented in IFIP. Mr. Tienari has shown understanding of this situation and if GA decides to hold its next meeting in Brazil he will consult with FIPA so that its invitation could be reissued for another future meeting.
General Assembly VOTED IN FAVOUR of accepting the invitation from Brazil.
Mr. Reis thanked General Assembly for the given opportunity to host a GA meeting in Brazil. He invited GA members to consider also attending the Annual Conference of the Brazilian Computer Society (BCS) and a one day seminar on IT developments in Brazil which will take place immediately before or after the GA meetings. BCS also proposes IFIP to invite the Presidents of Latin American computer societies to GA 97 as observers and to arrange a program of university visits and lectures.
Mr. Morris advised General Assembly of the forthcoming meetings as follows:
1997 Council Bratislava, Slovakia
Sunday, March 2 - 6
1997 General Assembly Gramado (Porto Alegre), Brazil
Sunday, August 31 - September 4
1998 Council U.K.
Sunday, March 1 - 5
1998 General Assembly EB - Vienna, Austria
Tuesday, September 1
GA - Budapest, Hungary
Saturday, September 5 - 8
1999 Council open for invitations
1999 General Assembly open for invitations
2000 Council open for invitations
2000 General Assembly Beijing, China
IFIP Member Societies are encouraged to consider the possibility of extending invitations for Council and General Assembly meetings.
4.20 Other BusinessThe President announced the responsibilities of the Executive Board and Trustees as follows:
EXECUTIVE BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES
K. Bauknecht President CH 95/98 Congress Chairmen
W. Brauer Vice-President D 95/98 Technology, Science,TA, TC 12 Rev. Chair
G. Fairall Vice-President ZW 96/99 Contracts,Admissions,
Marketing,
Developing Countries
H. Funk Vice-President USA 94/97 Congresses, Publications
A. Goldsworthy Vice-President AUS 95/98 Finances,Member Society Relations,
Management Development, Strategic
Planning
D. Khakhar Treasurer S 96/99 ActivityManagement Board,
IFIPSEC, TC 8 Rev. Chair
G. Morris Secretary IND. MEM 96/99 IFIPSEC,UNESCO, S&B, Int.Awards
TRUSTEES
P. Glenn CDN 94/97
M. Gottlieb IL 95/98
W. Grafendorfer A 95/98 Review Chair for TC 9
J. Granado P 96/97
C. Guy ZA 95/97 Review Chair for TC 11
R. Johnson UK 95/98 Review Chair for TC 13
R. Reis BR 96/99 Review Chair for TC 7
X. Yan PRC 96/99
Mr. Bauknecht announced the following appointments:
TECHNICAL ASSEMBLY
W. Brauer, Chairman
TC/SG Chairmen
Affiliate Member Representatives
Ex-officio: Executive Board
STANDING COMMITTEES
ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT BOARD MARKETING COMMITTEE
W. GRAFENDORFER, Chairman C. GUY, Chairman
E. Hörbst M. Gottlieb
R. Johnson M.S.Hj Masduki
M.L. Goyal I. Privara
B. Robinet S. Lee
S. von Solms R. Reis
X. Yan Ex-officio: PC Chairman
Ex-officio: Newsletter Editor
- DCSC Chairman
- Executive Board
ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE
X. YAN, Chairman R. JOHNSON, Chairman
P.A. Bobillier K. Boyanov
Z. Bubnicki J. Dolezal
G. Sacerdoti J. Simons
O. Spaniol
CONGRESS COMMITTEE Ex-officio: - Contracts Officer
C. GUY, Chairman - TC/SG Chairmen
P. Glenn - MC Chairman
M. Gottlieb Invited Observers:
J. Motiwalla - Chapman &Hall Rep.
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES STATUTES AND BYLAWS
SUPPORT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE
M. GOTTLIEB, Chairman P.A. BOBILLIER, Chairman
P. Bollerslev G. J Morris
M.L. Goyal J. Simons
J. Dolezal
J. E. D. Navez
BL. Sendov
Ex-officio: - Contracts Officer
FINANCE COMMITTEE INTERNAL AWARDS COMMITTEE
J. GRANADO, Chairman G. J. MORRIS, Chairman
J. Dolezal P.A. Bobillier
C. Gergely
P. Glenn
M. Gottlieb
M.S. Hj Masduki
J. E. D. Navez
Ex-officio: - Treasurer
TASK FORCE ON HARMONIZATION
AND ACCEPTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS FOR IT PROFESSIONALS
P. GLENN, Chairperson
J. Granado
C. Guy
R. Johnson
G. Morris
J. Simons
AD HOC COMMITTEES
NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE
FOR OFFICERS FOR TRUSTEES
G. MORRIS, Chairman R. REIS, Chairman
A. Goldsworthy R. Johnson
D. Khakhar M. Gottlieb
IFIP HISTORIAN IFIP NEWSLETTER EDITOR
H. ZEMANEK J. L. ROSENFELD
UNESCO LIAISON AND CONTRACTS OFFICER
P. NEDKOV
4.21 Closing of Meeting
On behalf of the General Assembly, Mr. K. Bauknecht expressed grateful thanks to the following GA members whose term was coming to an end:
Mr. A. Melbye was an IFIP GA representative for 19 years, out of which 16 years as a Council member and 10 years as member of the Executive Board. An economist by profession, he served for many years as IFIP Treasurer and devoted a lot of time to the successful management of IFIP finances. Another area in which he offered valuable support was the transition of the IFIP Secretariat from Geneva to Laxenburg. A memento (20 volume Dictionary of Music and Musicians) was presented to Mr. Melbye in appreciation of his many contributions and services to IFIP.
Mr. A. Rolstadas' term as Past President is over but he had agreed to serve as GA representative for Norway for at least one more year.
The President once again expressed IFIP's thanks to the Australian Computer Society for the excellent organization.
Finally, Mr. Bauknecht thanked all GA participants. The General Assembly in Canberra held very stimulating discussions with respect to the future of IFIP. It would be a big success if these ideas are materialized so as to give a greater focus to IFIP's future activities. Further steps and concrete decisions and actions should be taken in Bratislava. He strongly believed in the future of IFIP and hoped to receive the support and assistance of all IFIP member societies and GA representatives.
With these concluding remarks, the President declared the General Assembly meeting closed.
Two brainstorming sessions, the first at the Executive Board and the second at the full GA, produced a total of fifty "visions" for IFIP's future.
GA members then voted to identify the five most significant of these for more detailed analysis. Nine of the fifty received no votes and the others received from one vote to fourteen. A number of the "visions" had much in common and this applied particularly to those voted first, joint second and fourth. These were therefore treated as one in determining the list of five for further work and were clearly regarded as the most important for IFIP's future.
The selected five "visions" were allocated to five syndicates, who were asked to produce a set of objectives (what we want to achieve) and goals (a measurable outcome to test the achievement of the objectives).
The results were as follow:
1. Vision
The most desirable, global body for all computer societies (also embracing The global IT society and A node for the exchange of information between national and international societies)
Objectives:
Primary objective is to serve member societies (and not
specifically and directly members of those societies).
Goals/measures:
Percentage of societies and countries
in membership (out of, say 180)
Aggregate total of their individual members
How many member societies attend GA
How many inquiries received per week
How many books sold at member discount prices
Our unique selling (and differentiation) point should be our ability to provide member societies with what will help them and which is available from no other source e.g. e-mail lists of mail servers, address lists, event diary, the opportunity to coordinate events and provide publicity, international professional standards.
2. Vision
The most desirable "structure" for international working groups
Objective:
Provide an internationally recognized structure that accommodates
international groups to respond to, to address and to resolve
international IT issues.
Goals:
Provide: network of appropriate parties a communications network
3. Vision
The leading international conference organizer
Objectives: Every conference is of high quality
IFIP has access to leaders in all significant IT fields
IFIP has the financial strength to hold the conferences it
chooses
IFIP has good contacts with UNESCO and other international
organizations
Has the best management
Develops relationships with major IT industries and research
organizations
Has channels to professionals outside IFIP
Offers good value for money
Has early knowledge of important areas
Maintains a database of potential participants
Goals:
Acceptance rate for papers is no greater than 30%
The citation rate for papers in proceedings is at least five
citations per paper
At least three reviews per paper
Conferences are the first choice for at least 80% of authors
Post-conference proceedings sell at three times the number of
delegates
Zero complaints after conference
IFIP is first to launch conferences on new topics
Split 30% pure research conferences
50% mixed research and applications
20% pure business
Attendance at least three times number of presenters
4. Vision
An international bridge between science/research/development/production/marketing/selling
Objectives:
Achieve balance between academia and industry
Establish channels of communication between academia and industry
Find common ground between different communities (e.g.
mathematicians, physicists, engineers.... end users)
Encompass "emerging technologies" (e.g. networking,
PCs....)
Recognize emerging technology-driven culture changes
Recognize impact of technology on society (e.g.
cashless/networked society)
Goals:
Achieve at least 66/33 split between academia and industry
Establish electronic means to match requirements with resources
Help endorse technical benchmarks
5. Vision
Recognized as the pre-eminent international body for IT issues
Objectives:
The preferred source of advice for governments, business and the
IT communities
Encourage an understanding of the breadth of IT and its
implications Be involved in all topics, theory and practice
Milestones:
Number of requests for advice and the extent of "repeat
business"
Attendance of leading IT professionals and users at IFIP
activities
Recruitment of individual members who receive value for money
Wide acceptance of IFIP's standards by university and business
communities
Introduction
Scientific activities of IFIP are concentrated in Technical
Committees (TC), Specialist Groups (SG), and their associated
Working Groups (WG). The aims, their scopes and programs of work
of TCs and SG's are defined and approved by the Technical
Assembly.
To support the activities and efforts of TCs, SGs and WGs and to ensure that the objectives are met, regular scrutinizing of the TCs and SGs is necessary. The goal of a review is to reveal problems, to help and to spread out experience. Although all TCs, SGs, WGs are operating on a voluntary basis, it should be understood that membership of TCs, SGs, and WGs is an honor and carries obligations.
Appointment
Review of all TCs and SGs will normally be initiated by the
Technical Assembly whenever a TC or SG Chairperson enters office.
The Review Committee shall consist of the TC/SC Chairperson and
the Cognizant Trustee. The past Chairman and the secretary of
TC/SG could be co-opted. The Cognizant Trustee will be the
chairman of the Review Committee.
The Executive Board may in addition initiate a review at any time. In this case the Executive Board will nominate the Review Committee to be appointed by the President.
Operation
The RC provides a written report. The checklist of questions
below helps in planning the contents of this report.
1. The RC should endeavor to obtain as much information about the activities of the representative TC/SG as possible. National Societies of Member countries should be contacted for written input.
2. A draft of the written RC report should be discussed and revised by RC members. This report should contain statements whether the reviewed TC (or SG) reached or is making progress towards its objectives or not. In the latter case, suggestions for remedial actions and possibly new objectives and action plans should be prepared and presented. Positive experience of TC (or SG) should be emphasized too.
3. The report of the RC should be discussed in the TC (or SG) before it is finalized and presented to the Technical Assembly and General Assembly. The written RC report is submitted to TA within one year.
4. The TA chairman presents this report together with the recommendations of TA to the next meeting of the Council or General Assembly for approval and further action. The report is subsequently examined and commented by a group of 3 to 5 General Assembly members (national representatives). Furthermore, independent outside experts can also be requested to comment the review report and give their views on the work of the TC (or SG).
Check-list of questions that may be addressed by the review committee The checklist is divided in 7 items as below:
1. Composition
2. Financial
3. Objectives
4. Performance
books
documents
proceedings
submissions
conferences
seminars
geographical balance of activities
5. Penetration
6. Spread of Activities
7. General