The most important single event in the IFIP program of activities
is the World Computer Congress, currently held every two years. So
far, 14 such Congresses have been organized by IFIP. The 13th was
held in Hamburg in September 1994, the 15th is scheduled to take
place in Vienna and Budapest in August and September 1998 (the 8th
Congress, in 1980, was also held in two countries -- Japan and
Australia), and the venue of Congress 2000 will be Beijing. IFIP is
delighted to return to Australia, in part to express our appreciation
and recognition of the contributions Australia and the other
countries of the Pacific region have made to the development of
information processing.
IFIP Congress '96 and its three specialized conferences are
focused on the latest developments in multimedia, information
highways, intelligent systems, mobile communications, and the use of
computer and communication technologies in teaching and learning. The
Congress format offers a unique opportunity to all participants to
discuss and contribute to subject areas having a critical impact on
the use and application of information technology in the future.
The organization of an IFIP Congress is not an easy task. Since
1991, when the IFIP General Assembly selected Canberra as the site
for Congress '96, preparations have been under way, with
contributions from many IFIP volunteers and Technical Committees, and
from IFIP as a whole. We are convinced that these efforts will result
in a very successful Congress.
I take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to
the organization of Congress '96. In particular, I express IFIP's
grateful thanks to the International Program Committee and the
hosting organization, the Australian Computer Society. Last, but not
least, I extend IFIP's thanks to all Congress '96 participants,
wishing them an enjoyable and professionally successful stay in
Canberra and hoping to see many of them in Vienna and Budapest in
1998.
Prof. Kurt Bauknecht
President of IFIP
The Australian Computer Society (ACS) was established in 1966 and
boasts a membership of over 16,000. The principal object of the ACS
is to advance professional excellence in information technology. The
ACS engages in a wide range of activities, both at the branch and
national levels, giving members the opportunity to participate (at
reduced rates) in conferences, seminars, workshops, meetings, and
other activities, enhance their knowledge, exchange information, and
hear from leading figures in the information technology (IT)
sector.
The ACS also conducts a certification program, which gives
professional members of the Society the opportunity to test their
professional knowledge against a defined benchmark and, if
successful, to have their achievement recognized.
Each member receives a monthly magazine, providing information on
the latest developments in IT, and the quarterly Australian Computer
Journal, an archival journal of research papers. Members also receive
the publications of their local branches. Members have access to
professional-indemnity and income-protection insurance plans
specially tailored to IT professionals and can join a credit card
rewards program offered by a major bank.
In 1994, the ACS introduced Internet access to its members at a
reasonable charge. Two major Internet service providers are
available.
The ACS recognizes that one of the benefits of IFIP membership to
ACS members is the opportunity it gives the ACS to attract
professional development events; thus, the Society is looking forward
to hosting the 1996 IFIP Congress in Canberra, as well as the IFIP
General Assembly that will follow.
IFIP Congress '98 in Vienna and Budapest
The 15th IFIP World Computer Congress, in 1998, marks the first
time that an IFIP World Computer Congress will be jointly organized
by the computer societies of two Central European countries: the
Austrian Computer Society together with the Hungarian John von
Neumann Computer Society. The event will take place in the capitals
of the host countries -- Vienna and Budapest, well known for their
style and for being cultural centers of the Central European region.
They are also centers for research and development in information
technology.
Keeping in mind that information technology is not a technology of
the past but one of the future, the Congress organizers have entitled
it "The Global Information Society on the way to the next
millennium," and the major part will cover technical, legal, and
social areas important for the Information Society of the future,
rather than dwelling on history.
The Congress will consist of the following seven carefully
selected conferences, which will give an excellent outlook of what we
can expect in the future:
The conferences will be organized in close cooperation with the
Technical Committees and Working Groups of IFIP involved in these
topics.
For further information, please contact
Austrian Computer Society Wollzeile 1-3, A-1010 Vienna, Austria tel: +43/1/512 02 35, fax: +43/1/512 02 359 e-mail: ifip98@ocg.or.at WWW: http://www.ocg.or.at/ifip98.html
Congress 2000 in Beijing
IFIP Congress 2000 will be held at the turn of the millennium, in
September 2000, in Beijing, China -- an ancient and modern city. For
more information, please contact
Mr. Mengqi Zhou
Secretariat, WCC 2000
P.O.Box 165
Beijing 100036, China
fax: 86-10-68283458, tel: 86-10-68283463
e-mail: mqzhou@public.bta.net.cn
or shaz@sun.ihep.ac.cn
The second IFIP Isaac L. Auerbach Award, commemorating our
founding president, will be presented to Prof. Dr. Lubomir Iliev (BG)
or his representative at the closing ceremony of IFIP Congress '96 in
Canberra, Australia, on 6 September. The Award is presented every
other year "to the individuals whose service in support of IFIP in
its mission is deemed by their peers to be extraordinary." The
recipients are nominated by Member societies of IFIP, and the
selection is made by the IFIP Executive Board. A medallion and cash
award are conferred.
Prof. Iliev is one of the founders of contemporary Bulgarian
Mathematical Science. He played a leading role in the development of
major areas of contemporary abstract mathematics: computational
mathematics, software, cybernetics, mathematical modeling, numerical
methods, probability theory and mathematical statistics,
optimization, etc.
Academician Iliev was born in the town of Veliko Tarnovo in 1913.
He graduated in Mathematics from the University of Sofia in 1934,
where he received his Ph.D. in 1938. He later studied in Munich.
Returning to Sofia University, he was appointed Assistant Professor
of Complex Analysis in 1947 and Professor in 1952. He was also
elected head of the Department of Mathematics and held the post of
Vice-Rector from 1951 to 1960. He served as General Scientific
Secretary of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences from 1961 to 1968,
after which he was vice-president of that institution.
Acad. Iliev was a pioneer of Bulgarian computer science. Because
of his perseverance and influence, cybernetics was officially
recognized as a science in Bulgaria, and in 1961 the Bulgarian
Academy of Sciences established the first computing center in
Bulgaria, as part of the Institute of Mathematics at the Academy.
Acad. Iliev was assigned the major role of first director of this
center. A particularly important activity was the creation of the
first Bulgarian computer. He established a team of young Bulgarian
experts whose product was the first Bulgarian computer,
"Vitosha."
He organized the chair of Computational Mathematics at the Faculty
of Mathematics of Sofia University and proved the necessity of
computer science and technology in education.
Acad. Iliev contributed to the introduction of Bulgaria to the
international computer science community. In 1955 and 1956, thanks to
his efforts, Bulgaria became part of the informal cooperation of
several COMMECON countries in the field of computer science. He was
the first official representative of Bulgaria to IFIP, from 1965 to
1982, and he was President of the Bulgarian National IFIP Committee
from 1970 to 1982. During those years, he nominated Bulgarian
Technical Committee representatives to IFIP. Acad. Iliev also
actively helped in the work of the TCs. Under his auspices and IFIP
sponsorship, a number of workshops, symposia, and conferences were
organized in Bulgaria. He was an IFIP vice-president from 1974 to
1977 and was awarded the IFIP Silver Core for his service.
Prof. Iliev is a full member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,
a foreign member of other European academies, and an honorary doctor
of many universities. He has been a member of the governing bodies of
various scientific organizations: President of the Balkan
Mathematical Union (1974-77), President of the Scientific Committee
of the "S. Banah" International Center in Warsaw (1972-1977), and a
member of the International Institute on Applied System Analysis
governing body in Vienna (1972-1975).
IFIP is pleased to confer the second Isaac L. Auerbach Award to a
notable scientist who has served IFIP with distinction.
In January, Dr. Chrisanthi Avgerau (GB) assumed the chair of the
IFIP Working Group on Social Implications of Computers in Developing
Countries (WG9.4). In recent WG9.4 Newsletters, she has addressed the
challenges facing WG9.4. Because of the significant commitment of
IFIP to developing countries, we include some of her thoughts
here:
WG9.4 is now well established, with a large membership and ongoing
communication channels through our email list and the Newsletter. The
three conferences we have held so far brought together academics,
practitioners, and development agencies, and fostered stimulating
discussions on the relationship of information technology (IT) and
development. I begin my term as chairperson with the following
ambitions: to find sources of funding in order to subsidize
participation of people from poor countries in our international
conferences; to promote recognition of the issues of IT and
Development as a multidisciplinary area of academic studies and as a
professional practice; and to increase the value of the WG9.4
conferences.
Without being able to cover the expenses of participants from
developing countries who cannot pay, our conferences cannot reach the
audience they are intended to reach. Despite the frustration of poor
response to fund-raising efforts, we have to continue.
IT and Development as an Academic Discipline
My second ambition is to raise the profile of IT and Development
as a distinct field of research, teaching, and practice. Despite the
increasing amount of money spent on IT and telecommunications in
developing countries, few institutions recognize the need to study
the process of utilizing these powerful technologies in the diverse
developing world. The literature on "good practice" and expected
outcomes of applying IT and networking is based almost exclusively on
research in a few industrialized countries. The trend of
"globalisation" is often interpreted as a pressure to developing
countries to adopt the technologies and organizational practices that
prevail in the corporations of industrialized countries. This runs
the risk of imitating inappropriate solutions that retard rather than
promote development.
WG9.4 can raise awareness that studies on IT in developing
countries is not an esoteric, obscure pastime or an eccentric topic
of conversation that contributes fancy rhetoric to ministerial
speeches and footnotes to mainstream official reports. The issues
studied in our conferences and publications merit as much attention
as those concerning the business enterprises of industrialized
countries.
Finally, the organization of conferences that deliver value is the
most immediate of the tasks I set out. Our past conferences attracted
academics, practitioners, aid agency representatives and government
officials. We must continue to provide value for all these categories
of participants. Therefore, we need a mixture of high-quality
academic and practical sessions. It will be useful to have some
sessions dedicated to academic concerns run in parallel with sessions
covering practice. However, I think most sessions should continue to
address a mixed audience, aiming at cross-fertilizing ideas and
experiences from research and practice.
The presentation of empirical research results and analytical
papers contributing arguments relevant to the theme of the conference
will probably continue to be at the heart of our conferences,
although I think we should try to improve their value. Case studies
have proven an excellent way of communicating research and
development experience and of stimulating debate, and I believe we
must encourage well thought-out presentation and analysis of cases.
Moreover, I would like to introduce new types of sessions in our
conferences: tutorials, invited presentations of significant projects
or initiatives taken by institutions in developing countries, and
poster presentations.
High-Quality Conferences
But the most important aspect of a fruitful conference is the
quality of the presentations it includes. Too much emphasis on
methodical rigor may stifle interesting studies, while an "anything
goes" attitude can alienate participants by unconvincing "facts,"
interpretations, and speculations. Moreover, many of the authors of
the WG9.4 conferences come from countries that do not have a
well-established tradition of studies regarding technology and
society. It is important that our conferences do not lose the
spontaneity of expressing issues and perspectives seen valid in
different parts of the world. Nevertheless, if such expressions are
to be worthy of being communicated to an international audience, they
must be presented in a convincing way. I believe we must make an
explicit effort to improve our capacity to present convincing work in
our conferences. To some extent, improving the quality -- and
therefore increasing the impact -- of our conferences can be achieved
by adopting more specific themes.
Also, the quality of our conferences can be improved if organizers
and reviewers make an effort to facilitate the writing of papers.
Guidelines for writing conference papers will be available on demand
to authors. However, reviewers will be asked to contribute
value-adding reviews for the organizers and, more importantly, for
the authors.
All of these will be put to test in the organization of the next
conference, which is planned to be held towards the end of 1997 on
the theme of implementation and evaluation of information systems in
developing countries.
Enormous WG9.4 Membership
The recent meeting of the IFIP Technical Committee on Relationship
between Computers and Society (TC9) in Israel (16-17 March) discussed
the "problem" of our membership. Clearly, we are an odd group, with
too many rather inactive members, and a long list of applicants for
membership, without adequate plans for activities in which they can
be involved. (The WG9.4 membership is currently 148, with 92
applications for membership pending.) TC9 recognized, of course, the
success of our past conferences, the Newsletter, and the lively use
of our electronic mailing forum. Still, no new members were approved,
and we were advised to reconsider our membership.
I feel that for a group of our size as well as geographic and
thematic breadth, we can do more. Of course, the nature of our
members around the globe makes it difficult to organize frequent
working meetings as the means of elaborating on specific areas of IT
and development. But the vastness of our "catchment area" may require
regional activities, and we can make use of new technology to
overcome distance.
I suggest organizing three regional sub-groups: a) Americas, b)
Africa, Middle East, and Europe, and c) Asia and Australia. Each of
the three should set up its own activities, such as regional
conferences, and projects to study topics that are meaningful in the
local context. To avoid isolation, each sub-group should contribute
to the "global" conferences, the plenary WG meetings (which usually
take place during the global conferences), and the Newsletter.
We can also set up special-interest sub-groups (SIGs) to elaborate
on particular topics. The SIGs should also contribute to the "global"
events with well-thought-out reports and proposals. As for using
communication technologies to overcome the barriers of distance, our
group has already an excellent record doing so for the unstructured
and spontaneous exchange of views, which many find particularly
useful. The same technology can be used as the means for more
focused, and perhaps more structured, work of a SIG. However, we do
still need to allow for conventional communication channels as well,
as not all members use, or want to use, new communication
technology.
by Mr. Brian Samways (GB)*
At the end of June, in Kiryat Anavim, west of Jerusalem, the IFIP
Working Groups on Elementary and Secondary Education (WGs 3.1 and
3.5) held a joint conference entitled Information Technology:
Supporting Change through Teacher Education. This was the first time
these WGs have met in the Middle East. David Benzie (GB) was chair of
the International Program Committee and Yaacov Katz (IL) of the
Organizing Committee. The 70 attendees, with exclusive use of the
hotel where they met, had the opportunity to discuss and question
over 40 presentations from 18 different countries -- from Norway to
New Zealand and China to Canada. Although it was a diverse group with
differing backgrounds, delegates worked successfully and "bridged the
research and practitioner communities."
Much of the discussion on teacher education revolved around the
changes needed in pedagogy as well as information technology (IT)
usage. With one speaker reporting that less than 10% of teachers make
use of IT and another that over 70% of pupils prefer to use a
computer at home rather than school, it was clear there was need for
change. Much time was spent discussing professional development, the
limitations of assisted hardware-purchase schemes for schools, and
what role the Internet should play in education. On this last point,
it was felt that many politicians and service providers are
presenting unrealistic images of its use in education.
Focus Groups On Line
Of particular significance were the "focus groups," which met on
several occasions throughout the week and continued the professional
reports that the WGs had produced at the 1995 World Conference on
Computers in Education (see the December 1995 IFIP Newsletter). An
added variation this time was the on-line conference set up prior to
the event (the list server was actually in Australia), where
non-attending WG members were kept up-to-date and were able to make
contributions overnight for the focus groups to include the next day.
One outcome from these groups is expected to be the next publication
in the WG3.1 Guidelines for Good Practice series of booklets.
All 43 papers are to be included in the post-conference
proceedings, edited by Don Passey (GB) of WG3.1 and Brian Samways
(GB) of WG3.5 and to be published by Chapman & Hall. The
conference was sponsored by UNESCO, Aleph ad Taf Ltd., Computerstore
Ltd., Bezek Telecom, and Bar-Ilan University.
* TC3 secretary and IFIP Newsletter correspondent
At its May 1996 meeting in Samos, Greece, the IFIP Technical
Committee on Security and Protection in Information Processing
Systems (TC11) unanimously expressed the importance of promoting
international awareness of cryptographic policy. This concern arose
because of the current activity of the OECD (European Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development), as described in the
following press release issued by the OECD in May:
OECD EXPERTS BEGIN DRAFTING CRYPTOGRAPHY GUIDELINES
Cryptography experts from OECD countries have begun drafting a
proposal for OECD Cryptography Policy Guidelines that governments can
use as a guide to formulate their national policies on encryption.
Many governments are under pressure within their own countries to
develop a national position on cryptography, which is used in
computer technology to protect everything from product designs to
health and tax records and global correspondence. But the needs of
global technologies and applications require an international --
rather than a strictly national -- approach to policymaking. The
fast-paced development of the Global Information Infrastructure adds
an element of urgency.
The business community, individuals and national security and law
enforcement agencies are all pressing for encryption guidelines, and
the OECD will strive to reflect the legitimate interests of all these
groups as it drafts Guidelines. The private sector is closely
involved in drafting the Guidelines, with business representatives
from the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC)
participating at the meeting.
The OECD meeting, which took place on 8 May, was hosted by the US
Department of State in Washington, D.C. It was held immediately after
a Second Business-Government Forum on Global Cryptography Policy in
Washington, D.C., on 7 May, which was co-sponsored by the OECD, the
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the BIAC to the OECD. Two
similar conferences took place in Paris in December <1995>,
when OECD countries and business representatives met for the first
time to discuss international cryptography policy.
The process of drafting the OECD Cryptography Policy Guidelines
will continue at an experts' meeting in June and is due for
completion in early 1997.
The TC11 Role
With the OECD plan in mind, TC11 asked its national
representatives to inform their national societies about the ongoing
effort and the state of the discussion. The IFIP Member societies
should, in this way, be in a position to engage in national
discussion. Dr. Reinhard Posch (A), vice-chairman of TC11, accepted
the task of distributing information and eventually producing a
summary of the state of the international discussion. Among the
documents he has distributed to the TC11 community is the following
set of nine principles proposed at an ad hoc Meeting of Experts on
Cryptography Policy 18-19 December 1995, in order to assist national
governments in the development of policy. We quote these so-called
"Herson Principles" for the purpose of conveying the nature of the
concerns voiced by some of those active in the field of
cryptography.
1. Provide security with confidence
The first and dominant principle seeks to link two essential
concepts. It is axiomatic that the purpose of any public cryptography
policy is to provide security for the messages or other data which
are to be protected. Whilst recognising that no security is 100
percent perfect, it is essential that any cryptographic technique
that is made available for general use should meet a standard (not
necessarily formal) which is generally believed to be adequate for
the purpose, especially as regards the strength of the underlying
algorithm, its mode of use and the associated key management.
Confidence in such techniques, as well as the security that they
provide, may be derived in many ways, but the well-established
approach of independent third-party evaluation of products and
systems, against agreed criteria and methods, appropriately
certified, will encourage trust in the security services which are
subsequently provided.
2. Voluntary use
The trust which Principle 1 seeks to encourage is likely to be
achieved only if users of cryptographic techniques are not restricted
to techniques which are provided or defined by governmental agencies.
Users should be free in principle, and always subject to national
law, to use whatever cryptographic techniques they choose, including
those provided for general use. It is likely that greater trust will
be placed in cryptographic services which are clearly perceived to be
a matter of voluntary user choice rather than simply mandated by
national security or law enforcement authorities.
3. Market driven
The provision of cryptographic services and the development of the
associated products should be based primarily on the commercial
judgment of business and industry. It is assumed that the demand for
such products and services will grow and that companies will rise to
the challenge to supply them. This process should form part of the
normal way in which the market in Information Technology products and
services is driven and not be artificially forced by either
government mandate or restriction.
4. Open and non-discriminatory
The "Market Driven" provision of such services should not be
limited because the specifications of the techniques, protocols or
interfaces are kept secret or are available only under restrictive
licensing arrangements. Equally, subject to meeting the agreed
criteria, any organisation that so wishes should be able to offer the
range of services without discrimination.
5. International perspective
In the Global Information Society, it is increasingly clear that
the provision of solutions which are solely national in character
will not be taken up by users and therefore will not contribute
towards either the development of international trade in or the
availability of trusted cryptographic services. Acceptable solutions
will thus need to take an international perspective so that secure
communications are potentially available across national borders.
This principle is especially critical as a complement to the
protection of essential national interests embodied in Principle
6.
6. Recognises national responsibilities
Individual Nation States have a sovereign responsibility both for
their own law enforcement and the protection of national security.
The wider use of cryptography is perceived by some to be potentially
detrimental to these interests. Thus any provision of cryptographic
services must work in sympathy with the relevant national
requirements. Whilst these requirements are vital, Principle 6 also
recognises that they must be placed in proper balance with the
requirements of Principle 1.
7. Technically effective (perhaps feasible?)
The provision of security with confidence also implies that the
various techniques, protocols and tools should actually meet the
practical needs of the anticipated users. In particular, the
procedures which must be executed in order to exploit the service
must be technically feasible, insofar as unsophisticated users cannot
be expected to have a detailed understanding of the underlying
techniques and assumptions on which the service is built. Equally,
national law enforcement and security authorities require that
effective and timely lawful access to secret and private keys should
also be technically feasible.
8. Legally effective (perhaps acceptable?)
It is a natural consequence of the provision of any public service
that there will be occasional disputes between the parties. It is
thus a prerequisite of the provision of cryptographic services that
the legal consequences of their introduction are fully understood and
that the resulting offerings should be legally acceptable. This
particularly applies to the liability of service providers in
guaranteeing the security of stored secret and private keys and the
possible subsequent access to such keys by the lawful request of a
third party.
9. Permits future enhancement
Although many techniques for providing publicly available
cryptographic services have been suggested, it is generally agreed
that considerable further development is required before such
services will grow to meet the needs of the widest possible user
community. Certainly there is not yet any published proposal which
currently meets all the principles outlined above. It is thus vital
that no design decisions are taken that preclude future enhancement
of the proposed services. In particular, a staged approach to the
introduction of cryptographic services is preferable so as to ensure
that all the above eight principles are maintained in a proper
balance with one another.
The preceding list of principles is among the many documents
collected and disseminated by Dr. Posch from and to the IFIP
community. The prime goal of the interchange of information about
cryptographic policy is to enable electronic commerce and the global
information infrastructure. This topic is vital, and the results
should strike a balance between the needs of governments and
business. Governments are starting to develop their positions.
Denmark, France, Germany, and the U.K. have done this in a more or
less formal way. Anyone who is interested in contributing to this
dialog or receiving the documents should contact Dr. Posch at the
following address:
Prof. Dr. Reinhard Posch Applied Information Processing Graz Univ. of Technology Klosterwiesgasse 32/I A-8010 Graz, Austria tel: +43 316 873 5510, fax: +43 316 873 5520 e-mail: rposch@iaik.tu-graz.ac.at http://www.iaik.tu-graz.ac.at/iaik.html
Since the OECD guidelines are scheduled to be released as early as
February 1997, early communication is advised.
The IFIP Technical Committee on Communication Systems (TC6) and
its Working Group on Architecture and Protocols for Computer Networks
(WG6.1) announce the merging of two hitherto separate conferences,
FORTE and PSTV, into a joint conference to be held 8-11 October in
Kaiserslautern, Germany. FORTE/PSTV'96 will address formal
description techniques (FDTs) applicable to communication protocols
and distributed systems. The conference will be a forum for the
presentation of the state of the art in theory, application, tools,
and industrialization of FDTs, and will provide an excellent
orientation for newcomers.
The conference will offer 24 research papers, 4 industrial usage
reports, 5 tutorials, and a number of tool demonstrations. Invited
talks will be given by Andre Danthine (B), Manfred Broy (D), Ed
Brinksma (NL), and Lothar Mackert (D). Tutorials will be held 8
October. Tool presentations will take place in parallel with the
conference presentations 9-11 October. Participants will receive the
final proceedings, published by Chapman & Hall, at the
conference.
FORTE/PSTV'96 is being organized by the University of
Kaiserslautern and sponsored by IFIP TC6/WG6.1. Financial supporters
are Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Siemens, Deutsche Telekom, SUN
Microsystems, Q-Labs, and the Stadtsparkasse Kaiserslautern.
For further information, please contact
Jan Bredereke University of Kaiserslautern P.O. Box 3049 D-67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany tel: +49 631 205-3287 or 3426 fax: +49 631 205-3956 e-mail: forte.pstv96@informatik.uni-kl.de URL: http://www.informatik.uni-kl.de/aggotz/forte.pstv96
On 1 May, IFIP published Ethics of Computing; Codes, Spaces for
Discussion and Law, edited by Profs. Jacques Berleur (B) and Klaus
Brunnstein (D). The book, published through the IFIP publisher,
Chapman & Hall, views ethics from an international perspective.
This represents the latest step in a project begun in 1988, when
Prof. Harold Sackman (USA), then chairman of the IFIP Technical
Committee on Relationship between Computers and Society (TC9),
undertook to create an IFIP code of ethics. The work was later
assumed by a task group of TC9 chaired by Prof. Berleur, culminating
in the publication of this book. Prof. Brunnstein was chairman of TC9
during most of the period during which the task group worked.
The book is described by the publisher as follows:
Ethics of Computing represents the first attempt to confront, on a
world-wide basis, the way computer associations face up to their
social responsibilities in an age increasingly dominated by
information and communication technology.
This major reference work deals with codes of ethics and conduct,
and related issues. Some 30 codes of national computer societies are
compared and analysed in depth. To put these into perspective, there
are discussion papers covering methodological, philosophical, and
organizational issues.
Major chapters of the book are
Other contributions from IFIP Member societies and Working
Groups
Approximately 40% of the book comprises the text (in English) of
codes of ethics and conduct of 30 computer societies, and commentary
on the major codes. In addition, the chapter by Berleur and
d'Udekem-Gevers presents an analysis of the codes and guidelines, in
terms of topics covered, wording, groups involved (e.g., employers,
employees, students), sanctions, and many other areas. An appendix
provides means of locating topics in the various codes. The book also
contains an extensive bibliography, in addition to the bibliographies
of the individual chapters.
We quote here some of the more interesting sections of the book.
In his chapter, Dr. Holvast discussed general aspects of ethics. He
introduced it as follows:
At long intervals, the same question is raised: Are we
(technicians, scientists, and users of technology) responsible for
the problems that are caused by the introduction of technology? The
answers given are not uniform, but the fact that the question is
raised shows that we are beginning to realize that our technology is
capable of not only constructing the world but destroying it as well.
And we are becoming conscious of this destruction through the
confrontation with questions dealing with environmental pollution,
nuclear power, and, more recently, questions surrounding genetic
engineering, such as DNA recombination and the use of test-tube
fertilization on older women.
At this moment, this question is not only raised, but an answer is
also expected. Very often, ethics are looked at with the full
expectation of containing the answers. Through this, it is expected
that norms in science, and solutions, be formulated as ethical codes.
The same types of problems and questions are raised in relation to
information technology. In this field, too, the demand for codes is
increasing.
In this paper, we go more deeply into detail on ethical norms and
the possible solutions, such as ethical codes and codes of conduct,
but specifically into the responsibilities that should be accepted in
reference to a broad range of topics.
With regard to an IFIP code of ethics, Dr. Holvast commented as
follows:
For an international organization like IFIP, formulating a code
acceptable for all Members will be an impossible task. There is
clearly a certain ethical relativist thinking behind the following
comment: It is impossible to formulate an ethical code for once and
for all. Cultural and, especially, political differences make this
impossible. Although I agree in some sense with this type of
criticism, ethical relativist thinking is, in my opinion, strongly
related to one of the ethical theories, consequentialism. The way in
which the results (in this case, information technology) are seen
depends on the cultural and political situation in various countries.
In this sense, there are differences between developed and developing
countries, between East and West, between democratic and less
democratic societies -- all of them possible Members of IFIP. This
situation is even more problematic when one considers that Members of
IFIP are not individuals but primarily national scientific or
technical societies.
This does not mean that IFIP should do nothing. It only means that
it is impossible for the 1990 Draft IFIP Code of Ethics to be
accepted. IFIP needs general principles that will be accepted by all
national societies. In my view, these principles must consist of
deontological <i.e., related to the theory of moral obligation --
Ed.> statements. One of the statements might be the suggestion
that every national society produce a national Code of Ethics, taking
into account what has already been discussed by many national
constituencies.
Much of the discussion in the book concerns professionalism. In
his chapter, Prof. Brunnstein cited a number of fatal or otherwise
serious incidents attributed to improper system design (aircraft
crashes, autopilot malfunctions, radiation overdoses, accidental
shooting of civilian aircraft, breeches of computer security). Eur.
Ing. Sizer also concentrated on professional standards.
In concluding their comparative analysis of codes, Berleur and
d'Udekem-Gevers wrote the following:
Codes do not pretend to solve all questions, but they may help to
create awareness, supplement the law, and reinforce ethical
behaviour. When the role of self-regulation increases, the roles of
ethics, law, and codes have to be more carefully scrutinized, but
they may lean on each other. Codes offer a "framework on ethics" that
may help to maintain openness and fuel the needed dialogue in the
"spaces of discussion."
In the foreword, Profs. Berleur and Brunnstein wrote
IFIP has opened "space for discussion," creating a Special
Interest Group (SIG9.2.2 on Framework on Ethics), which will, in
particular, analyze issues and conflicts that may arise in the
cooperation between IFIP Member societies with different codes of
ethics. It aims at improving understanding and formulating ethical
issues. But it will also increase international cooperation which, in
specific questions such as personal liberties and privacy or in the
domain of security, has proven valuable in providing general
guidelines now enacted into law in many countries.
SIG9.2.2 has assembled a list of contact persons from IFIP Member
societies and other organizations, in order to fulfill its mandate.
Others who wish to participate are encouraged to contact the
chairman:
Prof. Jacques Berleur Institut d'Informatique Facultes Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix Rue Grandgagnage, 21 5000 Namur, Belgium tel: +32 81 72 49 76, fax: +32 81 72 49 67 e-mail: jberleur@info.fundp.ac.be
The book closes with a section of IFIP recommendations. We quote
from it extensively here:
What Can IFIP Do?
IFIP does not intend to provide its Member societies with precise
guidelines for codes, but to advise them to consider the
recommendations outlined below when writing or updating their own
codes. IFIP cannot actually state what "ethics" the Member societies
should espouse. It can, however, outline certain principles that all
might want to consider and take account of in their codes.
In this book, IFIP provides all the material needed for its Member
societies to consider: some 30 computer societies' codes, their
analysis, comments on the most important codes, the philosophical
background of cultural diversity, and papers on some more sensitive
questions.
In accordance with the diversity of histories, cultures, and
social and political backgrounds of IFIP Member societies, IFIP
regards it as essential that, when wanted or needed, codes of ethics
or of conduct (or guidelines) should always be developed and adopted
within the Member societies themselves. IFIP offers its expertise in
assisting such developments, collecting and disseminating material
about established codes, and organizing international debates on
further developments.
The analysis of the subject presented in this book shows that we
have to be aware of the distinction between "codes of ethics" and
"codes of conduct." The codes studied show a large heterogeneity in
their titles and no systematic relationship between the titles and
the contents. A code of ethics might be favoured when a society's
main purpose is to develop a mission statement, giving visions and
objectives. Some commentators consider that the expression, "code of
ethics" is related to codes that are oriented more toward the public
or society as a whole. The expression "code of conduct" seems to be
related more to a profession. This distinction has to be treated with
care.
Today, certain people who have been working for a long time on
this issue think that "the rules of conduct have to reach beyond the
well-structured body of computer scientists to the larger circle of
computer users. We must shift from a deontology of informaticians to
an objective deontology of informatics under the control of the law."
From this perspective, codes are seen more as preparing for the law
or specifying it than as self-regulatory instruments, and are written
to address a large audience. ...
Main Topics of the Codes
Five main topics are developed in nearly all of the thirty
codes:
Respect
This includes respect for the interests or rights of the people
involved, for the prestige of the profession, for the interests or
rights of the public, for the welfare and health of the public, and
for the quality of life. Sometimes it also includes respect for the
reputation of the computer society, for the quality of life of the
people involved, for the public in general, for the environment, and
for the differences of the public.
Personal (or institutional) qualities
These include conscientiousness, honesty, positive attitude,
competence, and efficiency. In practice, the terms
"conscientiousness" and "honesty" are frequently encountered under
the expressions "acceptance of responsibility" and "integrity."
Moreover, appeals to "respect for requirements or contracts or
agreements" and to "conscientious work" are also frequent. Other
topics relating to "conscientiousness" and "honesty" are
"professionalism," "credit for work done by others," "good faith or
goodwill," "concern to meet overall objectives," and the "courage of
one's convictions."
With regard to "competence" and "efficiency," two other terms are
very common: "professional development and training" or "limitation
of work to the field of competence." Two others are also worth
noting: "general competence" and "effectiveness or work quality."
Information privacy and data integrity
"Confidentiality" is required by nearly all the general codes of
the IFIP societies. "Privacy in general" and "respect for property
rights" are appealed to quite often. Four other topics, "no computer
crime," "no information piracy or misuse," "data integrity," and
"data minimization," are less frequent.
Production and flow of information
"Flow of information to involved parties or people" is required by
the majority of the codes. "Information to the public" is also
insisted upon. Half the set of codes call for "comprehensive
information." Several codes also ask for the "production of tests,
evaluations, results, or specifications" or for the "flow of
information from the involved parties or people."
It should be noted that "information privacy" and "free flow of
information" may become contradictory. Between the two concepts, some
balance has to be found.
Attitude towards regulations
"Regulations" do not appear as a major theme. Less than half the
codes require "respect for the code," "respect for the law," and
"respect for IT and professional standards." Few codes refer to
"development of standards," of the "law," or of the "code itself";
some consider "sanctions" against a breach of the code. Regulation of
the code itself is often taken into account outside the code, and is
therefore considered in the section on procedures. ...
Computer-Specific Ethical Issues
Computer-specific ethical issues arise as the result of the roles
of computers such as
Other computer-specific ethical issues include
The reader of the individual codes will observe that a very small
amount of text is devoted to these computer-specific issues (CSIs).
For example, the code of ethics and professional conduct of an
association of information-service-industry companies makes only one
reference to a CSI, as follows: "Member companies should strictly
abide by the law and any contracts entered into regarding
intellectual property rights." Note that this item only cautions the
members to obey the law. Some topics do not appear in the codes at
all, e.g., computer viruses and the use of computers to disseminate
socially undesirable information. Most of the concerns of the 30
codes would be expected to be addressed in the codes of any
profession: respect, conscientiousness, honesty, etc. Even some CSIs
are treated in a manner that might well be appropriate to other
professions. For example, one code discusses confidentiality as
follows: "The information scientist should treat data, obtained
within the framework of the assignment, confidentially and may only
use these for the purpose for which they were given. ... It is
ethically irresponsible towards people and institutions to use these
data for other purposes than they were supplied for, or to treat them
carelessly so that a third party could use or abuse these data." The
same statement would be appropriate for codes of ethics of
physicians, lawyers, or bankers, for example. Significant treatment
of CSIs is difficult to find anywhere in the codes.
The recommendation section of the book continues as follows:
Broader Ethical Issues
When speaking of computer ethical issues, one cannot avoid
mentioning some broader-scope issues that are real questions today
and are most often examined in the literature on computers and
society.
...
Spaces for Discussion
One of the main tasks for IFIP will be to create "spaces for
discussion." This could be done through actions such as
Therefore, IFIP will collect, compare, and help disseminate knowledge on developments in the national societies. In the case of controversies, it will also advise on the resolution of problems in projects with professionals from countries that have very different codes.
...
IFIP hopes that its national societies will issue codes or
guidelines along the lines suggested here, including a careful and
flexible attitude to changing technologies.
Professor Kurt Bauknecht, president of IFIP, was born in Zurich
and received his education there. The Federal Institute of Technology
awarded him the B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Electronic Engineering in
1960 and 1966, respectively. Between those years, he worked as a
development engineer in the computer industry in Paris. After
receiving his Ph.D. degree, he served as a Senior Research Associate
at the University of Zurich, where he was appointed Associate
Professor of Computer Science in 1970 and Full Professor in 1973. He
is presently Director of the Departments of Computer Science and
Computing Services. He served as Dean of the faculty from 1984 to
1986. Since 1971, he has also been Lecturer at the Business
University of St. Gallen. In 1993, he was named honorary professor of
the University of Vienna.
Prof. Bauknecht's professional interests are focused on
information management and security in information processing.
He has been president of the Swiss Federation for Informatics, the
Swiss Member society of IFIP. He is currently president of the
Informatics Conference of Swiss Universities, a member of the Swiss
Research Council, a member of the board of the Swiss Academy of
Technical Science, and president of the expert committee of the Swiss
Informatics Priority Research Program.
His activity in IFIP dates back to 1974, as the Swiss member of
various Technical Committees (TC4, TC7, and TC8). Since 1985, he has
served as the Swiss representative to the GA. He was elected trustee
in 1990 and vice-president for technology and finances in 1992. He
also chaired the Technical Assembly (TA) from 1992 to 1995.
When not engaged in professional activities, Prof. Bauknecht
enjoys skiing, mountain climbing, and hiking. He is also a frequent
visitor to opera houses around the world.
-------------------------------------
Prof. Bauknecht's Goals for IFIP
In presenting his goals for IFIP, Prof. Bauknecht makes the
following points:
In outlining the challenges facing IFIP to the March 1996 Council,
he stressed the following actions:
IFIP's Role
In his opening address to the second UNESCO Congress on
Informatics and Education, which took place in Moscow in July, Prof.
Bauknecht characterized IFIP as the leading, truly international,
apolitical organization that encourages and assists in the
development, exploitation, and application of IT for the benefit of
all people. IFIP helps to bring together professionals at the leading
edge of practice and experience and acts as a catalyst to advance the
state of the art.
He also drew attention to the information server IFIP is building,
which will greatly facilitate the internal and external IFIP
information flow. The system will especially serve the needs of
developing countries and respond to other requests for information,
participation, and support.
Mr. Peter Bollerslev, chair of the IFIP Technical Committee on
Education (TC3), was born in Copenhagen in 1936 and has lived his
entire life in Denmark, primarily in Copenhagen. After serving in the
Danish army for two years, he studied education, receiving his degree
in 1959. He worked as a teacher at the Experimental School in
Copenhagen from 1959 to 1961 and, at the same time, as a lecturer at
the Emdrupborg College of Education. He also studied psychology and
mathematics at the University of Copenhagen (1957-1962). He was a
lecturer at the College of Education in Aalborg from 1962 to 1980 and
since 1980 has been a principal lecturer at N. Zahle College of
Education in Copenhagen. Mr. Bollerslev served as Her Majesty's
Inspector in the Danish Ministry of Education for Mathematics and
Informatics in Teacher Education (1970-1987), and since 1987 he has
been a General Inspector in the Ministry of Education. Since 1990, he
has been the Director of the Center for Applied Informatics in
Teacher Education and has participated in numerous committees on
mathematics and informatics in the Ministry of Education. In 1993, he
was instrumental in organizing the Seminariernes BrugerServiceCenter,
which provides support for the administrative and educational use of
information technologies to schools of education, physical therapy,
occupational therapy, and ergonomics.
Mr. Bollerslev has worked with and prepared reports for the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, UNESCO, and
the Nordic Council of Ministers. He is also the author or coauthor of
approximately 250 textbooks in mathematics and informatics for
schools and teacher education.
He has been a member of the Danish Data Association for many years
and has been a very active member of its Education Committee for a
long time.
He joined IFIP as a member of Working Group 3.1 (Informatics in
Secondary Education) in the mid 1970s and was its chairman from 1985
to 1990. Since 1978, he has been the Danish representative to TC3.
After having served as vice-chairman of TC3 for a couple of years, he
became chairman in 1991. His term expires at the end of 1996, but he
will remain with IFIP as the Danish member of the General Assembly,
succeeding Mr. Aage Melbye.
The next IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education, WCCE
2001, will take place in July in Copenhagen, and Mr. Bollerslev has
accepted the position of conference chairman.
Peter Bollerslev has four children from two marriages. His son,
Tim, is a professor of economics at Jefferson University in
Charlottesville, Virginia. His oldest daughter, Anne, is a journalist
who recently worked for a radio station in San Salvador but is now
back in Denmark, working for a newspaper. The middle daughter, Io, is
stage-struck, eagerly trying to obtain admission to the Danish
Theater School. The youngest daughter, Mette, is still at home and
beginning upper secondary school. Peter now lives with Hanne, who is
an editor of talking books for Gyldendal Publishers.
In his spare time, he likes to read, play bridge and golf, and
travel. He enjoys spending his holidays in France and at his summer
cottage on the small Danish island of Laes=D7. He also loves good
food and wine. He enjoys cooking and has a wine cellar with several
hundred bottles of excellent wines.
Mr. Bollerslev's vision with regard to IFIP is that the Federation
will take a leading position in the future and become THE
international IT (information technology) organization which, in
cooperation with UNESCO and other international organizations, will
develop and disseminate information about developments and fruitful
initiatives in education about IT and with IT, useful to both
developed and developing countries. Such engagement will of course be
of great benefit to the Member societies of IFIP.
The IFIP Working Group on Computers and Work (WG9.1) announces the
sixth International Conference on Women, Work, and Computerization,
to be held 24-27 May next year in Bonn, Germany. This series of
conferences has a tradition of interpreting the word
"computerization" not just in the narrow sense of computing systems,
but also in a broader sense that includes the organizational and
social context in which computer systems are designed and used. WWC
97, the latest IFIP conference on this topic, is being organized by
the Special Interest Group on Women's Work and Informatics of the
German Member society of IFIP and is cosponsored by the German
National Research Center for Information Technology.
The theme of WWC 97 is Spinning a Web from Past to Future. Papers
will discuss how different areas of society are being transformed by
computer technology, with particular emphasis on changes in women's
work and life and how these have come about. Such transformations
include transition from women's traditional work to work based on
modern technology, from communicating within personal communities to
communicating within virtual communities, and from traditional job
roles to new perspectives on "who does what."
The International Program Committee plans presentations of both
empirical and theoretical research. International perspectives will
be particularly stressed. Several different types of contributions
are planned: regular papers, discussion notes, posters, tutorials,
videos, and demonstrations of software. In addition, worldwide
teleconferencing sessions are planned. Contributions will include the
following topics:
Can women's desire for interpersonal networking be realized by new
information technology (IT)? How can multimedia and telecooperation
be used successfully in order to improve women's living and working
conditions? What is the impact of the transiency and changeability of
electronic artifacts?
Which aspects of feminist perspectives can be integrated into
informatics? Which paradigms and metaphors have contributed to the
construction of computer (software) and the theory of computer
science? Do they exclude women? How should computer systems be
designed to consider the requirements of women, e.g., user
interfaces?
Technical and social/political chances for flexible
time-management; what are the restrictions? No more jobs without
IT-knowledge? Global division of labour: on the way to equality?
Has feminist criticism of IT changed women's strategies for
gaining access to and influencing new technologies? Can women's
influence be recognised in formative processes of informatics?
Is it possible to identify an attitude that is specific only to
women in their use of technology? What implicit strategies in the
information society can be identified that exclude women from
important political, cultural, and social contexts? What happens to a
gendered language in human-computer interaction and in
computer-mediated communication?
WWC 97 will also provide a special opportunity for women working
in computer science to meet and share experiences. Contributions
written only by women will describe individuals' contributions to
computer science research. (Contributions by both women and men are
sought for all other Conference topics.) The authors will explain why
they chose this field of work and whether there are any specifically
female points of view and contributions which are relevant. They will
also discuss the consequences of their work for women.
For further information, please contact
IFIP-WWC97 c/o Doris Koehler Hamburg University Computer Centre Schlueterstr. 70 D-20146 Hamburg, Germany fax: +49 +40 - 4123-6270 e-mail: IFIP-WWC97@rrz.uni-hamburg.de URL: http://www.uni-hamburg.de/~frauen/first.htm
by Ms. Diane Whitehouse (GB)*
The IFIP Working Group on Computers and Social Accountability
(WG9.2) now solicits nominations for its fourth Namur Award. The
Award, created in 1991, is given every two years to an individual,
group, or association for their outstanding contribution, with
international impact, to the awareness of the social implications of
information technology. Recipients' contributions can constitute a
publication, design, lecture, project, action, or some other
achievement in the spirit of the Award. The recipient receives a
commemorative plate and a certificate at a special celebratory
meeting of WG9.2 in Namur, Belgium, hosted by the city's
dignitaries.
Former recipients are Prof. Joseph Weizenbaum (M.I.T., U.S.A.),
Dr. Riccardo Petrella (head of the European FAST programme), and Mr.
Carlos-Alberto Afonso (representative of the Alternex Community,
Brazil). Details can be found on page 3 of the June 1996 IFIP
Newsletter.
If you know of a person, group, or association worthy of this
Award, please submit your entry promptly to
Prof. Jacques Berleur Institut d'Informatique Facultes Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix Rue Grandgagnage, 21 5000 Namur, Belgium tel: +32 81 72 49 76, fax: +32 81 72 49 67 e-mail: jberleur@info.fundp.ac.be
Entries should be received before November 1, 1996. The entry
should include the nominee's name and details, the reasons for the
nomination, and any supporting documentation, as well as the
submitter's name, address, and contact information. All submissions,
discussions, and votes relating to the Award are kept strictly
confidential.
WG9.2 looks forward to receiving many noteworthy submissions, and
to the pleasure of acknowledging, for the fourth time, a
distinguished contribution to this particularly important field of
awareness within the domain of IFIP's work.
* former secretary of WG9.2
FIP WG8.2 Work. Conf. on Information Systems and Qualitative Research 31 May - 3 Jun 97, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. papers due: 1 Sep 96 contact: Allen S. Lee e-mail: AllenLee@Management.McGill.ca or Jonathan Liebenau e-mail: Liebenau@LSE.ac.uk WWW: http://www.cba.uc.edu/faculty/leean/8-2-call.htm Intl. Conf. on Open Distributed Processing -- ICODP 97 26-30 May 97, Toronto, On., Canada papers due: 27 Sep 96 contact: ICODP'97 Jacob Slonim IBM Centre for Advanced Studies 844 Don Mills Road North York, Ontario, Canada M3C 1V7 tel: +1 (416) 448-2245, fax: +1 (416) 448-2859 e-mail: icodp97@vnet.ibm.com Thirteenth IFIP WG10.5 Conf. on Computer Hardware Description Languages and Their Applications -- CHDL '97 20-26 Apr 97, Toledo, Spain papers due: 1 Oct 96 contact: Eduard Cerny Universite de Montreal, Dept. IRO C.P, 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville Montreal (Quebec), Canada H3C.3J7 tel: +1 (514) 343-7472, fax: +1 (514) 343-5834 e-mail: cerny@iro.umontreal.ca Thirteenth IFIP Intl. Information Security Conf. 14-16 May 97, Copenhagen, Denmark papers due: 1 Oct 96 contact: Louise Yngstrom c/o Jan Carlsen Coopers & Lybrand P.O. Box 2709 DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Ninth IFIP TC10 Intl. Conf. VLSI'97 26-29 Aug 97, Gramado, Brazil papers due: 20 Feb 97 contact: Luc Claesen/VLSI'97 IMEC/Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Kapeldreef 79 B-3001 Leuven, Belgium tel: +32-16-281203, fax: +32-16-281501 e-mail: Claesen@imec.be
Will event organizers please note that calls for papers cannot be
listed in this column until the events have been approved by
IFIP.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND COUNCIL (AND RELATED MEETINGS)
GA 6-10 Sep 96 (Fri.-Tues.) Canberra, Australia Council 3-6 Mar 97 (Mon.-Thurs.) Bratislava, Slovakia GA (contiguous to IFIP Congress '98) Vienna, Austria, or Budapest, Hungary GA (contiguous to IFIP Congress 2000) Beijing, China
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, SPECIALIST GROUP, AND WORKING GROUP
MEETINGS
WG2.1 17-22 Feb 97 Bischenberg, Alsace, France
WG2.2 23-27 Sep 96 Macao
97 Graz, Austria
WG2.3 26-31 Jan 97 Napa Valley, CA, U.S.A.
27 Sep - 1 Oct 97 Alsace, France
WG2.4 Jun 97 Berlin, Germany
98 Colorado, U.S.A.
WG2.8 23-27 Sep 97 New Paltz, NY, U.S.A.
TC3 1-2 Sep 96 Wollongong, Australia
97 Ghent, Belgium, or The Netherlands
Sep 98 Vienna, Austria
99 Copenhagen, Denmark
WG5.7 6 Nov 96 Kyoto, Japan
TC6 18 Oct 96 Harare, Zimbabwe
Apr/May 97 New York, NY, U.S.A. or Cambridge, U.K.
TC7 Jul 97 Detroit, MI, U.S.A.
Jul 99 Cambridge, U.K.
WG7.4 Sep 96 Braunschweig, Germany
WG8.2 Dec 96 (with ICIS) Cleveland, OH, U.S.A.
Dec 97 (with ICIS) Atlanta, GA, U.S.A.
WG9.5 97 Brazil
TC10 Sep 96 Canberra, Australia
WG14.3 Sep 96 Manchester, U.K.
SG16 19 Sep 96 (with CARDIS) Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Executive Board
K. Bauknecht President CH 95-98 A. Rolstadas Past-Pres. N 95-96 H.L. Funk Vice-Pres. USA 94-97 A.W. Goldsworthy Vice-Pres. AUS 95-98 W. Brauer Vice-Pres. D 95-98 G.R. Fairall Vice-Pres. ZW 95-96 G.J. Morris Secretary GB 93-96 A. Melbye Treasurer DK 93-96
Trustees
M. Ozeki J 93-96 D. Dolan IRL 94-97 D. Khakhar S 93-96 W. Grafendorfer A 95-98 P. Glenn CDN 94-97 M. Gottlieb IL 95-98 R. Johnson GB 95-98 C. Guy ZA 95-97
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE and SPECIALIST GROUP CHAIRMEN
TC2: R. Kurki-Suonio SF 95-97 TC3: P. Bollerslev DK 91-96 TC5: T. Mikami J 93-96 TC6: O. Spaniol D 92-97 TC7: P. Kall CH 95-98 TC8: B. Glasson AUS 96-98 TC9: P. Jaervinen SF 96-98 TC10: E. Hoerbst A 93-96 TC11: B. von Solms ZA 94-98 TC12: L. Carlucci-Aiello I 96-98 TC13: J. Hammond AUS 95-98 SG14: J. Gruska SK 89-95
A Austria AUS Australia B Belgium BG Bulgaria CDN Canada CH Switzerland D Germany DK Denmark GB United Kingdom I Italy IL Israel IRL Ireland J Japan N Norway NL The Netherlands S Sweden SF Finland SK Slovakia USA U.S.A. ZA South Africa ZW Zimbabwe