Dear All, After Bangkok event, sometime early 2005, Guy Omidyar asked for some help in organizing it in India. I offered help and put him in touch with INFOSYS, a famous Indian software company. The email exchange went dry after start; suddenly, I was told that it is an IEEE event; then it was switched to a combined event; finally, what circulated was an IEEE event. I am a TC ^ rep from India waiting here not knowing what is going on! Your mail clarifies that I am not alone!! If any IFIP event is organized in India, I will be more than happy to help - find people to work with, sponsors, contributions, etc. - whatever it takes to succeed. Professor S V Raghavan Email: svr@cs.iitm.ernet.in Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai 600036 INDIA Tel: +91 44 2257 4359/4350 (Messages) Fax:+91 44 2257 0563 -----Original Message----- From: ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE [mailto:ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE] On Behalf Of Otto Spaniol Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 9:57 PM To: Guy Omidyar; ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: [ifip-tc6] WG 6.8 Dear Guy, we had a really excellent TC6 meeting in Wroclaw. You missed an impressive event! Shortly before the meeting we still had a small hope that you would be able to make it for the meeting but ..... Your participation would have been all the more welcome and necessary since your WG 6.8 report as well as the (more than imperfect) knowledge about past and planned events would have needed much clarification. Apparently there are no WG 6.8 meetings held since a long time. And you seem to concentrate your efforts towards towns such as Bishkek, Tashkent, ... where the organisation is risky due to political reasons; needless to say that few of the respective countries (if any) are members of IFIP or intend to join IFIP. It appears that the (few) members of WG 6.8 are not involved in your actions which come rather spontaneous and which migth be rather business oriented. We would have to enlarge the membership list of WG 6.8 by a reasonable number of experts from North America and Europe and that we should organise strong events in those countries (PWC 05 in Colmar was a very poor example and I will shortly explain why). Otherwise TC6 will remain weak or novnisible in the very important area of wireless systems. In particular, a lot of criticism was expressed concerning the announcement of WOCN 2006 which you distributed just before the meeting: ----------------------------------

Call for Papers

Third International Conference on Wireless and Optical Communications Networks WOCN 2006 http://WWW.WOCN2006.org April 11, 12 and 13, 2006 Bangalore, India Paper Submission Deadline: January 15, 2006 Publication on IEEE XploreTM and selected journals Sponsored by IEEE, IEEE Communications society

---------------------------------- Sponsored by IEEE (but not by IFIP)???? WOCN was always on the IFIP event list but here we don't find any mentioning of IFIP, there is no IFIP logo. Apparently no WG 6.8 knew about that activity before. Thus there is obviously a one-amn planning of WG 6.8 activities (at best). A lot of similar problems were expressed by the TC6 delegates who were present at the meeting. It was felt that you don't aact as WG 6.8 chairman but rather for other organisations or even for your own. Thus I should ask you some questions: 1. Do you still act as IFIP TC6 WG 6.8 chairman? 2. Do you intend to stay as chairman? If your answer is yes then we request from you a clear roadmap of further activities and a vision for the future. It will be essential that activities will be held inmajor countries (I admit that Bangalore, India, is a "correct" place for an event). We urge you for a clear statement about your IFIP activities. If we don't receive that message before Dec. 15, 2005 then we assume that you don't want to stay as WG 6.8 chairman and that we should initialize the procedure for finding a successor. Best regaards Otto cc.: TC6 delegates _______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6

Dear S V Raghavan, As far as WG 6.9, I am happy to include you in the group and your email in the list. Personally, I will appreciate very much your collaboration. I think we can do some interesting things in India. I’m planning to do a “virtual” meeting soon. Nevertheless I have to say that the way people joins a working group is still unclear to me. My best regards, anA S V Raghavan escribió:

Dear Professor Spaniol,

I would like to participate electronically or otherwise in the following Working Groups, as they are of interest to me professionally:

WG 6.2 Network and Internetwork Architectures WG 6.3 Performance of Communication Systems WG 6.4 Internet Applications Engineering WG 6.8 Mobile and Wireless Communications WG 6.9 Communication Systems in Developing Countries WG 6.11 Electronic Commerce - Communication Systems

Professor S V Raghavan Email: svr@cs.iitm.ernet.in

Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai 600036 INDIA Tel: +91 44 2257 4359/4350 (Messages) Fax:+91 44 2257 0563

Dear Ana and all,

As far as WG 6.9, I am happy to include you in the group and your email in the list. Personally, I will appreciate very much your collaboration. I think we can do some interesting things in India.

I'm planning to do a "virtual" meeting soon.

Nevertheless I have to say that the way people joins a working group is still unclear to me.

Joining the working group is not totally regulated. There are different models: - we may ask people who are known in the area due to publications, establishing of important intiatives etc. and then include them immediately after having obtained their willingness to contribute (which should be a little more than just a friendly smalltalk statement) - at the other end of the spectrum we could initiate a very detailed voting procedure where interested candidates supply there candidature by expressing their visions, including their CV etc. The voting would then be made by the actual WG members - and it might happen that the outcome is negative! Every few years the membership would have to be renewed by applying the same mechanism. This - to my opinion a little bit too much formalized - procedure is done for example by WG 7.3 (Modelling and Performance Evaluation). They want to keep the membership list small in order to keep the number of nonactive people as low as possible. You are free to define your own ideas but maybe you should have a look into the last pages of the recent meeting documents where the tasks of chair, wg chair, and national delegates are listed. You might want to contact other wg chairs about their habits in that respect. Best regards Otto