Dear Otto, I do agree with what Guy wrote. I feel we are being railroaded by IFIP's rulers. One result from agreement with the Springer proposal will certainly be that we continue to be captive to Springer. We are already suffering from this in that being captive prevented us from negotiating with Google. Perhaps Springer is the best we can do. The contract certainly has very strong benefits for Springer while IFIP, again as captive, has very little freedom of action. Thanks to Guy Leduc, discussion has begun within our committee. But the chances of producing a careful analysis in eight days are small. Regards, Harry Guy Leduc wrote:

Dear Otto,

I'll try my best to review this, but let me say that only 8 days to let us review this document and comment on it, when it is so important, is not enough.

For example, I am away amost all the time this week and busy with lots of things.

Do they really want our comments? If so, they should give us a bit more time. Of course if they don't want our comments and want to expedite a decision, this is the right way to proceed. I always noted that they let things sleep for months (or years) and then suddently they need an answer within days.

We have a short group in TC6 headed by Harry Rudin. Perhaps would it be nice to have a short exchange of views within this group before replying anything.

Best regards, Guy

Dear Otto, thank you for your energy. 1) It is encouraging to hear that the discussions are in a preliminary state. 2) If I, speaking only for myself, have to give feedback at this minute it would be to say that the contract is very good for Springer. Springer would have an ideal amount of flexibility while we in IFIP are held captive once again. All the obligations are on IFIP's side. I cannot deny that the Springer offer might be the best we can do but I would hope otherwise. The LNCS problem and the cost of producing CDs ought to be settled as part of the offer. Again, speaking only for myself, I agree with you and do not believe that we in IFIP can do the job ourselves. 3) As to what you, Otto, call "Googlish speculations", again the problem that Google sees is that our current conference publications are assigned to Springer. There may well be other problems, too, but IFIP's having assigned publication rights to Springer is the first stopping block. I think that would be clear to any business person. 4) Otto, how about your asking the Publications Committee if we can send a copy of the Springer offer to Ms.Cathy Gordon, Director, Business Development, cathyg@google.com, asking for comment? 5) As to comments on the "New IFIP strategy", I have already burned my fingers on that one. With the resources that IFIP has I think we should concentrate on doing what we are doing now rather than wishing "IFIP must be the global first choice (preferred choice) regarding ICT" and "Become the ‘Think tank’ of ICT internationally"to quote from the document. It is a lovely wish and I would also like to bask in it but we may have to take over the IEEE, ACM, and ITU as a start. Oh, oh, here I go again. I wish I knew how to convey my feeling of a lack of realism politely. My feelings of loyalty to IFIP require that I also state that I do not approve of the idea of spending a lot of IFIP resources to make someone "Marketing Manager/Stakeholder Manager/..(whatever name is chosen) on a contract basis of say 2 or 3 years" OK, there you have it. Some of you must be feeling that TC6 made a mistake in granting me special status so that I can continue..... Best regards anyway, Harry Otto Spaniol wrote:

Dear Guy (L), Harry, and all others,

Guy Leduc wrote:

...

...

I'll try my best to review this, but let me say that only 8 days to let us review this document and comment on it, when it is so important, is not enough.

For example, I am away amost all the time this week and busy with lots of things.

Do they really want our comments? If so, they should give us a bit more time. Of course if they don't want our comments and want to expedite a decision, this is the right way to proceed. I always noted that they let things sleep for months (or years) and then suddently they need an answer within days.

We have a short group in TC6 headed by Harry Rudin. Perhaps would it be nice to have a short exchange of views within this group before replying anything.

---

Harry Rudin added:

...

I do agree with what Guy wrote. I feel we are being railroaded by IFIP's rulers. One result from agreement with the Springer proposal will certainly be that we continue to be captive to Springer. We are already suffering from this in that being captive prevented us from negotiating with Google.

Perhaps Springer is the best we can do. The contract certainly has very strong benefits for Springer while IFIP, again as captive, has very little freedom of action.

Thanks to Guy Leduc, discussion has begun within our committee. But the chances of producing a careful analysis in eight days are small.

I have a slightly different view:

We have complained very much that IFIP doesn't offer a suitable digital library. It was always wanted that the procedure towards a DL must be much faster. And now, when we get a concrete proposal, we claim that things go too fast(?). Studying the Springer offer and giving first commetns on it (the decision procedure within IFIP will last until March 2007 (Council meeting) or even until Sept. 2007 (General Assembly) can easily be done within eight days or within 192 hours). It would be a pity - and an easy apology for further TC6 complaints - if we abstain from giving concrete comments. I would not like to repeat the story with the "New IFIP strategy" where TC6 just said that it is not worth the paper on which it was printed but when we were asked what we had to object concretely our "falcons" were suprprisingly quiet.

We have heard so often about some mysterious negotiations with Google (but we have never(!) seen a single printed line of such an offer). Personally, I don't give a penny or an EURO cent on these speculations any more.

Now to the Springer offer (from my point of view):

A. Nothing is for free, i.e. Springer would charge 20% on the bulk sales and a management cost of 60.000 USD per year (75.000 USD in the first year). The increase of bulk sale will make things more complicated for conference organisors; nevertheless, if you take a careful look into conference budgets then you will see that publication costs are, whereas substantial, still a minor factor in the global budget, sometimes less than the conference dinner. Thus we should be a little bit more realistic.

B. The analysis made by Joe Turner shows that the expected cost of the Springer offer is less than the "brute force" solution offered by BCS - which is gladly accepted in UK by the research community! (And the latter fact proves that such a solution may be quite acceptable).

C. The "home made" solution is the biggest risk since for redundancy reasons we would have to have to hire additional personell (since a single person might be ill or in holiday or unwilling or incompetent or leaving the job....) as well as additional hardware/software for redundancy - maybe even at different locations. Furthermore such a mome made solution would definitively be much less professional.

D. A serious question is about who would be paying the management cost: Would it come from IFIP central (and thus indirectly from the TC's - at least in part) or from the TC's directly? Probably not all of the TC's will participate; thus TC6 would have to pay a significant part, probably at least 10.000 of the 60.000 USD. Once again we have to see that open access will not come for free. We will need new business models for IFIP in order to survive.

E. Another major concern (see the analysis made by Joe Turner) will be the situation of small events who get the e-only publication offer. These costs are definitively too high in the current offer. However, these events can live very often with a CD-ROM + a local preprint. It has to be admitted that this is no "open access" but it would be reasonably cheap.

F. A major point (for me) is the fact that LNCS publications are not included in the present offer. We have many series which publsih in LNCS - such as "Networking xx" for example. Thus those conferences would not be included in the Open Access bundle or they would have to give up their LNCS publishing tradition. I would request that (if IFIP is keen to go along with the Springer SSBM offer) that one should try to include the IFIP-LNCS volumes (of course not the total amount of LNCS volumens).

In summary: The Springer offer is (for me) a step forward in the correct direction. It is better than expected (subjective view!). Apparently (once again a subjective view!) some people in IFIP (and in TC6 in particular) are not so happy with the new offer. If I can express one wish to those people: Please give concrete examples concerning deficiencies in the Springer offer (which may then be discussed with Springer) and make concrete proposals for better solutions (not only Googlish speculations).

Best regards Otto

Dear Otto and colleagues, There are certainly many business areas where one openly asks for bids or offers to have a certain job done. Of course, I have no idea what has gone on during IFIP's prenegotiation with Springer. Is Springer aware that we have an offer from BCS? A good idea might be to ask Springer if it would be all right with them, i.e., if they would mind, our showing the contract to Google. They may well say "no" but at least they would think that we might be looking elsewhere. With best regards, Harry Otto Spaniol wrote:

Dear Harry and others,

Harry Rudin wrote:

...

4) Otto, how about your asking the Publications Committee if we can send a copy of the Springer offer to Ms.Cathy Gordon, Director, Business Development, cathyg@google.com, asking for comment?

I asked the IFIP publication committe for that and Roger Johnson answered as follows:

--------------

Dear Colleagues

In my opinion it would be a clear breach of confidence to make available to Google details of contract negotiations with Springer. This would be very dangerous for our future dealing with Springer. Negotiations are conducted on the presupposition of confidentiality on both sides unless an alternative arrangement is agreed. How would we feel if publishers were invited to tender for services to IFIP and they revealed to each other their proposed bids. Not only would we be angry it would also be illegal in every legal jurisdiction I have dealt with!

It would be possible to ask Google to make an offer for similar services but Springer's position/involvement should not be revealed.

Roger

******************************************** Dr Roger Johnson Dean, Faculty of Social Science & Honorary Secretary, International Federation for Information Processing Birkbeck College, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX UK. Telephone: (+44) 20 7631 6709 FAX: (+44) 20 7631 6727 URL: http://www.dcs.bbk.ac.uk/~rgj College location: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?P2M?P=wc1e7hx&Z=1 IFIP: http://www.ifip.or.at/

----------------------

Now, whereas Roger's statement is just one of possible feelings I think that we should resepct the wish for confidentiality.

A question to Harry Rudin: Since you, Harry, are in contact with Google: Would it be possible for you to "white wash" or to anonymize some corner points of Springer's offer - and ask Google for a competitive or better proposal? I know from beforehand that this will be difficult due to the copyright conflicts but this situation will hold for everybody else (I wonder that the BCS proposal can live without it). Thus from a pragmatic perspective we might be forced to accept the Springer offer if we want to have a suitable DL before the end of the actual Springer contract (i.e. before the end of 2009).

Best regards Otto

Dear all, ...and here is another statement from a Pub Comm. member: Dear Joe, and all, I am afraid you and Roger are 100% right and this is quite serious for us as responsible members of the PC. We are its members à titre personnel, not e.g. as representatives of any privileged TC. It is evident from the emails that Otto has circulated/is circulating the proposal in TC6 in spite of its equally evident confidential character and that at least one person in TC6 or elsewhere (Harry Rudin) is involved in separate, non-IFIP endorsed, negotiations with outsiders (Google). So the breach of confidence must be assumed a fact and may expose us, i.e. IFIP but also maybe personally as commission members, to repercussions from Springer. Clearly I reject these unprofessional actions and wish to distantiate myself from the situation they create. I therefore consider myself forced, with enormous reluctance, to ask for a formal position on this by IFIP, preferably by word from IFIP President and President-Elect (cc:). Failing that please consider this as my letter of resignation from the PC with immediate effect. Kind regards --Robert Meersman (from Perth, Australia) ------------------ Private comment: This is hard stuff. The offer made by Springer was not marked as "confidential" (and in other cases even the most boring statements are already marked as "strictly confidential"). I don't think that IFIP can forbid us to discuss publication alternatives with others. Now Robert meersman asks for a formal position of IFIP, probably directed against me. Or he will resign. Let's see what happens. Best regards Otto

Otto, et al Between you, Guy and Harry, a lot of the points I had have been covered (I glad I'm not the only one who doesn't know what "STM" is in this context). My higher level concerns are: (a) TC6 is one of the more important TC6s when it comes to publishing (and therefore IFIP revenue) but we are not being given reasonable time to consider proposals such as Springer's, proposals which could have a fundamental effect on the way we operate. (b) If we go to Springer (or any publishing house), we have to make sure that we don't suffer in the same way as happened when Chapman & Hall got taken over and servers were arbitrarily shut down. (Going out of business is one thing, changing policy is another) (c) Springer say that they will have to modify the framework to include Open Access - in other words: it doesn't include it now! It would be nice to produce a co-ordinated list of comments but I don't have time, given that today is the deadline. Regards Peter Peter Radford T: +44 (0) 20 7446 4248 M: +44 (0) 7770 305506 ________________________________ From: ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE [mailto:ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE] On Behalf Of Guy Leduc Sent: 23 November 2006 18:26 To: Otto Spaniol Cc: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: [ifip-tc6] Fwd: SSBM open access proposal Dear Otto, Although I'm not supposed to have read the Springer bid (I presume), I prepared a few comments below (seconded by Harry R). BTW, we have never seen any competing bid, like the BCS one. So, no comparison is possible. And there is no Google bid (at this stage). Best regards, Guy Overall, the Springer (SSBM) proposal looks interesting. I will skip its strenghts, to focus on its weaknesses/concerns. 1. Such DL will likely bind IFIP to SSBM in the long run, even after the current agreement. The next bid from SSBM to remain IFIP's publisher will not be easy to circumvent if SSBM "owns" our DL. And SSBM can of course exploit that to propose a less competitive proposal with maybe higher cost for IFIP. 2. It is stated that this proposal is a one-year trial! Nobody knows how SSBM will change the rules later. 3. If this proposal is accepted, it would be wise to set up a procedure that makes sure IFIP can get back its publications (IFIP actually holds the copyrights, not SSBM) if SSBM ceases to be IFIP's publisher. 4. IFIP should keep the copyrights of anything published by SSBM (open access or not). 5. The IFIP-LNCS series is as important as the IFIP series, while the SSBM proposal leaves IFIP-LNCS completely out, for unknown reasons. I'd advise to include IFIP-LNCS in this agreement. Note that IFIP-LNCS proceedings are already more expensive than standard LNCS. If they become open access, their price may increase even more. To complensate, we may suppress printed copies, which are useless and on which IFIP gets almost no royalties anyway. 6. Electronic-only (E-only) publications will be the usual scenario for all conferences, not only for the small ones. Therefore, the proposal should extend E-only publications to all our conferences. Moreover, conference organizers should be allowed to prepare a local CD-ROM with the proceedings to be given to the participants (under IFIP copyrights). Note however that IFIP is presently bound to the agreement requesting at least 22 titles (with > 50 copies and > 200 pages) per year, but this should not be accepted in the future. 7. On page 8, we find "conference organizers will receive both the print and the electronic product". What does it mean? Will Springer prepare CD-ROMs for conference organizers? Any associated extra cost? 8. Budget-wise, this proposal costs a lot. But I'm not sure it's possible to find another less costly solution. IFIP should request funding from UNESCO to support its open access DL (at least partly). 9. What is an STM publishing facility? That's all I see for now. -- ________________________________________________________________________ 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/ Interested in an open source toolbox for network traffic engineering? Try TOTEM: http://totem.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/ At 9:15 AM +0200 11/16/06, Otto Spaniol wrote: Dear all, please study the open access proposal made by Springer SSBM and comment on it. Best regards Otto ---------------- Anfang Weiterleitung ---------------- Betreff: SSBM open access proposal Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. November 2006 18:14 Uhr Von: Joe Turner <turner@cs.clemson.edu> An: Arrigo Frisiani <arrigo.frisiani@unige.it> , Eduard Dundler <eduard.dundler@ifip.or.at> , Jerry Engel <g.engel@computer.org> , Jan Wibe <jan.wibe@plu.ntnu.no> , R. Meersman <meersman@vub.ac.be> , Roger Johnson <rgj@dcs.bbk.ac.uk> , Otto Spaniol <spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> , Ron Waxman <ron.waxman@computer.org> To IFIP Publications Committee: Attached is a proposal from SSBM for a method of addressing IFIP's wishes for an open access repository for electronic documents. I also have attached my initial analysis of this proposal. The Publications Committee has been asked to review the proposal and to make a recommendation regarding the proposal to the IFIP Executive Board. Our recommendation should assess the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. We should not try to say whether the proposal should be accepted or rejected until we have a clearer picture of the alternatives, although we could potentially say that it should be rejected if we find it unacceptable. We also could recommend further negotiation to improve parts of the proposal that we find objectionable. Keep in mind that we have two possible alternatives at this time: the BCS proposal and providing in-house facilities to implement a version of the prototype that was done by Dipak. However, we do not have the level of analysis and detail that is provided in the SSBM proposal for the other two possibilities, although the BCS proposal is so straightforward that there may be no need for additional detail. A good way of proceeding at this point would be for us to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the SSBM proposal, keeping in mind the other two proposals (as well as the possibility of additional options) but not trying to do much comparison. If we can reach a decision on the viability of the SSBM proposal and its points that should be improved if possible, then that would be a very useful result to present to the EB. Please study the SSBM proposal and send your comments and questions to the PC members. Please also include any comments on my analysis. It is my hope that my analysis can be used as the first draft of our report, adding our summary analysis and recommendation(s) at the end, but if it cannot be easily modified to reflect our opinion then we can create another document. The EB will meet in December, but the agenda is essentially full and it is unlikely that they will have enough time to consider the proposal then. Klaus has requested that we send our recommendation as soon as possible, hopefully within a few weeks, so he can decide what further action is needed. So please try to send your comments to the group by November 24, and we can have a discussion of the proposal and the comments by email. Joe ----------------- Ende Weiterleitung ----------------- Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IFIP Open Access Pro#4D6EF6.pdf (PDF /CARO) (004D6EF6) Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Analysis 111506.doc (WDBN/«IC») (004D6F07) _______________________________________________ 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/ Interested in an open source toolbox for network traffic engineering? Try TOTEM: http://totem.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/ This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.