Dear all, to those of you who organise events (or want to help an organisor with the corresponding form): There is a trial to produce a new form which should be much clearer and much easier to use than the old one. A first sample of it which is based on my proposal made in Bangkok has been sent by Eduard Dundler from IFIP secretariat to Niko Schlamberger who is responsible for the renewal. Niko couldn't finalize it until now. Thus the old form is still valid. It is obtainable via: http://www.ifip.or.at/events/ifip_event_form.rtf or via: www.ifip.or.at >>> Events (left side) >>> Event Approval Guidelines
Event Form (including Statement of Understanding).
If the delegates agree we might informally use the modified version for our purposes. Once again: No payment will be made by IFIP secretariat for events which have not submitted an ERF and which, therefore, are not in the IFIP database. There are 19 (!) such events for the moment being for TC6. We'll discuss them all in Toronto. Best regards Otto Best regards Otto
Please find attached the Networking 2005 Report. Also attached is the Paper Topic Statistics. Regards Raouf
Thank you Raouf and congratulations for the excellent conference. Regards Edmundo -----Original Message----- From: Raouf Boutaba [mailto:rboutaba@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca] Sent: sábado, 7 de Maio de 2005 23:08 To: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Cc: 'Edmundo Monteiro' Subject: RE: [ifip-tc6] Access to Event Request Form Please find attached the Networking 2005 Report. Also attached is the Paper Topic Statistics. Regards Raouf
Dear Edmundo, As discussed at the last TC6, please consider to make Networking 2006 a single track conference with a single TPC. I also suggest to remove all the TPC members from Networking 2005 who have been unreliable. Best regards, Guy At 5:05 +0100 11/05/05, Edmundo Monteiro wrote:
Thank you Raouf and congratulations for the excellent conference.
Regards
Edmundo
-----Original Message----- From: Raouf Boutaba [mailto:rboutaba@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca] Sent: sábado, 7 de Maio de 2005 23:08 To: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Cc: 'Edmundo Monteiro' Subject: RE: [ifip-tc6] Access to Event Request Form
Please find attached the Networking 2005 Report. Also attached is the Paper Topic Statistics. Regards Raouf
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
-- ________________________________________________________________________ Prof. Guy Leduc Phone : +32 4 366 26 98 Université de Liège Secr : +32 4 366 26 91 Réseaux Informatiques Fax : +32 4 366 29 89 Research Unit in Networking (RUN) Email: Guy.Leduc@ulg.ac.be EECS Department, Institut Montefiore, B 28, B-4000 LIEGE 1, BELGIUM http://www.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/People/GuyLeduc/ CoNEXT 2005 - The E-NEXT NoE conference - http://www.co-next.net/
Dear Guy, Edmundo, and all:
As discussed at the last TC6, please consider to make Networking 2006 a single track conference with a single TPC.
I would not recommend such a drastic action. If we look at Networking 2005, then we have had - some 100 papers - some 40 posters - approx. 10 TC6 members ... and a total of just 200 participants. Thus there were only 50 "independent" participants. If we do the conference 2006 as a single track with maybe 30 papers then we might assume that the number of participants would be reduced by 70-80 more participants, i.e. no more than 120 or so. Ironically speaking: we should not refuse a single manuscript but invite them all as a poster contribution. Then the authors would come. More serious (a little bit): Maybe a two track event would be in order and some brilliant invited talks (such as given by Kumar in 2005) would be also more than welcome.
I also suggest to remove all the TPC members from Networking 2005 who have been unreliable.
No objection against that! Best regards Otto
Dear Otto, At 14:39 +0200 11/05/05, Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear Guy, Edmundo, and all:
As discussed at the last TC6, please consider to make Networking 2006 a single track conference with a single TPC.
Sorry, I really meant a single TPC, not a single track conference. I wrote too fast. 2 or 3 tracks are fine. Sorry about the confusion. Best regards, Guy
I would not recommend such a drastic action. If we look at Networking 2005, then we have had - some 100 papers - some 40 posters - approx. 10 TC6 members ... and a total of just 200 participants.
Thus there were only 50 "independent" participants.
If we do the conference 2006 as a single track with maybe 30 papers then we might assume that the number of participants would be reduced by 70-80 more participants, i.e. no more than 120 or so.
Ironically speaking: we should not refuse a single manuscript but invite them all as a poster contribution. Then the authors would come.
More serious (a little bit): Maybe a two track event would be in order and some brilliant invited talks (such as given by Kumar in 2005) would be also more than welcome.
I also suggest to remove all the TPC members from Networking 2005 who have been unreliable.
No objection against that!
Best regards Otto
-- ________________________________________________________________________ Prof. Guy Leduc Phone : +32 4 366 26 98 Université de Liège Secr : +32 4 366 26 91 Réseaux Informatiques Fax : +32 4 366 29 89 Research Unit in Networking (RUN) Email: Guy.Leduc@ulg.ac.be EECS Department, Institut Montefiore, B 28, B-4000 LIEGE 1, BELGIUM http://www.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/People/GuyLeduc/ CoNEXT 2005 - The E-NEXT NoE conference - http://www.co-next.net/
Dear Otto and Guy Thank you for your recommendations. I already had the intention to "cleanup" the TCP from the non active elements. Concerning the structure I agree with the three track model with a single TCP. Best regards Edmundo -----Original Message----- From: Guy Leduc [mailto:Guy.Leduc@ulg.ac.be] Sent: quarta-feira, 11 de Maio de 2005 13:58 To: Otto Spaniol Cc: Edmundo Monteiro; ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: [ifip-tc6] Networking 2006 Dear Otto, At 14:39 +0200 11/05/05, Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear Guy, Edmundo, and all:
As discussed at the last TC6, please consider to make Networking 2006 a single track conference with a single TPC.
Sorry, I really meant a single TPC, not a single track conference. I wrote too fast. 2 or 3 tracks are fine. Sorry about the confusion. Best regards, Guy
I would not recommend such a drastic action. If we look at Networking 2005, then we have had - some 100 papers - some 40 posters - approx. 10 TC6 members ... and a total of just 200 participants.
Thus there were only 50 "independent" participants.
If we do the conference 2006 as a single track with maybe 30 papers then we might assume that the number of participants would be reduced by 70-80 more participants, i.e. no more than 120 or so.
Ironically speaking: we should not refuse a single manuscript but invite them all as a poster contribution. Then the authors would come.
More serious (a little bit): Maybe a two track event would be in order and some brilliant invited talks (such as given by Kumar in 2005) would be also more than welcome.
I also suggest to remove all the TPC members from Networking 2005 who have been unreliable.
No objection against that!
Best regards Otto
-- ________________________________________________________________________ Prof. Guy Leduc Phone : +32 4 366 26 98 Université de Liège Secr : +32 4 366 26 91 Réseaux Informatiques Fax : +32 4 366 29 89 Research Unit in Networking (RUN) Email: Guy.Leduc@ulg.ac.be EECS Department, Institut Montefiore, B 28, B-4000 LIEGE 1, BELGIUM http://www.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/People/GuyLeduc/ CoNEXT 2005 - The E-NEXT NoE conference - http://www.co-next.net/
Dear Otto (all), In order to handle the publication problem with springer (and the special case of IWQoS'05), I need a copy of the IFIP - Springer agreement. More specifically, I wish to check if the agreement covers the price at which the "IFIP-LNCS" series should be sold (publicly or to conference organisers). If the agreement does not stipulate any constraint then it may be the case that, "legally", Springer is free to sell the "IFIP-LNCS" publications at a higher price. In MHO, the agreement should have covered the pricing issue. It should have stipulated that "IFIP-LNCS" should be sold at the same price as regular LNCS series. Anyhow, I think that we should discourage Springer from presenting two price lists to IFIP/TC6 event organisers. What means do we have to enforce this rule ? Best regards, Elie PS: I enjoyed the Toronto meeting and look forward to the next one -- *---------------------------------------------------------------------* | Prof Elie Najm Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications | | ENST - 46, rue Barrault -- 75013 Paris - FRANCE | | Elie.Najm@ENST.fr Tel: +33 (0)1 4581 7709 | | http://www.infres.enst.fr/~najm Fax: +33 (0)1 4581 3119 | | Networks & Computer Science -- Department -- Informatique & Reseaux | *---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Dear Elie and everyone, At 17:03 +0200 10/05/05, Elie Najm wrote:
Dear Otto (all),
In order to handle the publication problem with springer (and the special case of IWQoS'05), I need a copy of the IFIP - Springer agreement. More specifically, I wish to check if the agreement covers the price at which the "IFIP-LNCS" series should be sold (publicly or to conference organisers). If the agreement does not stipulate any constraint then it may be the case that, "legally", Springer is free to sell the "IFIP-LNCS" publications at a higher price.
There is nothing in the agreement that forbids Springer to sell at any price, but the problem is that Springer tells the conference organizers that the 30% increase is due to IFIP royalties, which is obviously not the case, and gives bad reputation to IFIP.
In MHO, the agreement should have covered the pricing issue. It should have stipulated that "IFIP-LNCS" should be sold at the same price as regular LNCS series.
I am afraid such agreement cannot go that far.
Anyhow, I think that we should discourage Springer from presenting two price lists to IFIP/TC6 event organisers. What means do we have to enforce this rule ?
Here is the email I sent to A. Hofmann on Monday on this issue:
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 12:26:45 +0200 To: "Hofmann, Alfred, Springer DE" <Alfred.Hofmann@springer-sbm.com> From: Guy Leduc <Guy.Leduc@ulg.ac.be> Subject: Re: AW: AW: IFIP publications in LNCS Cc: <gutsmied@fmi.uni-passau.de>, <iwqos@fmi.uni-passau.de>, "Guenther, Christine, Springer DE" <Christine.Guenther@springer-sbm.com>, Otto Spaniol <spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de>, Elie Najm <Elie.Najm@enst.fr>
Dear Alfred,
Let me come back to this issue of IWQoS 2005 and its publication in the IFIP LNCS series.
I was attending an IFIP TC6 meeting this week-end and was able to discuss this issue with the committee.
First of all, let me briefly quote article 31e of the "AGREEMENT BETWEEN IFIP AND SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA" I read:
"Royalties to IFIP for volumes published in IFIP LNCS will be paid as a one-time advance publication fee upon publication of the respective volume, and will be 10% of the estimated total sales of the volume, excluding bulk sales."
If our understanding is correct, this means that there is NO royalties due to IFIP on the bulk sales, and only 10% of royalties on (the estimated) post conference sales!
The current position of Springer LNCS on this issue, which consists of advertizing two price lists (one for standard LNCS and another one for IFIP LNCS) and of justifying the 30% difference as a result of royalties due to IFIP thus violates this agreement and should not be continued.
Therefore IFIP TC6 is firstly asking a clarification on this issue.
Then, regarding IWQoS 2005 in particular, we recommend to apply article 31e of this agreement, namely that the conference proceedings should be published in IFIP LNCS, but at the standard LNCS price.
Unless our understanding of the agreement is incorrect, we also recommend that this should be the case for all IFIP TC6 conferences published in IFIP LNCS from now on.
Finally, I copy this email to Prof. Otto Spaniol, chairman of IFIP TC6, and to Prof. Elie Najm who has taken over the chairmanship of IFIP WG6.1 since the 1st of January 2005. For this reason, Elie will now be in charge of this issue for IWQoS 2005.
Best regards, Guy Former IFIP WG6.1 chairman
Best regards,
Elie
PS: I enjoyed the Toronto meeting and look forward to the next one -- *---------------------------------------------------------------------* | Prof Elie Najm Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications | | ENST - 46, rue Barrault -- 75013 Paris - FRANCE | | Elie.Najm@ENST.fr Tel: +33 (0)1 4581 7709 | | http://www.infres.enst.fr/~najm Fax: +33 (0)1 4581 3119 | | Networks & Computer Science -- Department -- Informatique & Reseaux | *---------------------------------------------------------------------*
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
-- ________________________________________________________________________ Prof. Guy Leduc Phone : +32 4 366 26 98 Université de Liège Secr : +32 4 366 26 91 Réseaux Informatiques Fax : +32 4 366 29 89 Research Unit in Networking (RUN) Email: Guy.Leduc@ulg.ac.be EECS Department, Institut Montefiore, B 28, B-4000 LIEGE 1, BELGIUM http://www.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/People/GuyLeduc/ CoNEXT 2005 - The E-NEXT NoE conference - http://www.co-next.net/
participants (5)
-
Edmundo Monteiro -
Elie Najm -
Guy Leduc -
Otto Spaniol -
Raouf Boutaba