IFIP - A VIEW FROM SOUTH OF THE EQUATOR

IFIP was born and nurtured in the northern hemisphere, more specifically in central Europe, even though its founder was an American. Elsewhere in this volume it will be seen that from its birthplace of Paris IFIP has been heavily focused in Europe. This brief note is to give a perspective of IFIP from Down-under - from South of the Equator.

I have been fortunate to have attended General Assembly (GA) and Council meetings since the GA meeting in Stockholm in 1974. My perspective and understanding of IFIP is based on very close involvement in its affairs during that whole period of some 22 years and not merely from that of a spectator or attendee at meetings.

I think it is important to emphasize that aspect, as the view one gets from looking through the window from the outside is quite different from that one gets from being on the inside.

I attended my first IFIP meeting in Stockholm as President of the Australian Computer Society. Australia and Japan were the two bidders for the 1980 Congress. The decision on the site for that Congress was due to be made at Stockholm. Both had been bidders before, Japan for the Congress 74, and Australia for the Congress 77, of which 74 had been won by Sweden and 77 by Canada (Toronto). John Bennett wrote in his paper in the 25 years volume "Some Australian Reflections" the following sentence: "Prior to the General Assembly meeting at which the venue decision was to be made,, Heinz Zemanek, then IFIP president, attended the ACS national conference in Sydney, and from an informal conversation with me at the time about possible reactions within ACS if our bid were to be unsuccessful, the possibility of a split congress emerged."

As it turned out the Stockholm meeting was a milestone in the history of IFIP Congresses. After losing the 1977 bid both Australia and Japan were determined not to lose again in 1980.

Japan had sent to Stockholm a group of senior Japanese headed by Dr. Omi whose proud boast was that he was the same age as the (then) Emperor of Japan. Australia had sent me as President and our GA representative, Professor John Bennett.

My first GA was an intriguing introduction to IFIP politics. I clearly remember early in the meeting the representative from the German Democratic Republic, Professor Lehmann, making an impassioned and angry speech in response to another delegate using the phrase "East Germany" as the member nation. Lehmann was to have none of this commonly used shorthand and thundered (he was a large man physically) that his country was the German Democratic Republic and was to be referred to in that manner and no other and he took it as an insult to be referred to as "East Germany".

For someone like myself, far removed from Europe and somewhat politically unsophisticated at that time I was rather bemused by all this. After all everybody in Australia referred to East Germany. The term German Democratic Republic was never used. Little was I to know then that in the subsequent years I would become inextricably immersed in this somewhat unique politically and culturally sensitive environment.

The second example of IFIP politics was the reaction of the GA in relation to a decision on choosing a site for the 1980 Congress. The GA members had been heavily lobbied by both the Australian and Japanese representatives and it became apparent that GA members were very reluctant to choose between the two.

However, a choice had to be made. We (Australia) came up with the idea, for the first time, for a Joint Congress. This was a novel idea and one that the GA found some difficulty in coping with, not surprisingly as the proposed sites, Tokyo and Melbourne, were not exactly "next door neighbours".

There were constant meetings during the week in Stockholm between me and the Japanese to convince them of the practicality and the benefits of the idea. After all it was a compromise proposal which would suit both Australia and Japan, both ending up with the Congress.

Finally, after many phone calls to their board of the Information Processing Society of Japan in Tokyo the Japanese agreed to the proposal.

This was another learning experience for me. The consensus seeking style of Japanese decision making. After every meeting with me they would ring Tokyo and confer with their colleagues. I never made one call to Australia because as President of the Australian Computer Society I was quite happy to take whatever decision needed to be taken. I am not suggesting which system might be better, only highlighting very different approaches in two cultures to decision making and individual responsibility.

The proposal was put to the GA that the Congress be split between Melbourne in Australia and Tokyo in Japan. The first week would be in Tokyo and the second week in Melbourne. Keynote speakers would speak at each site but the rest of the program would be different so that delegates could attend both halves of the Congress if they wanted.

The idea was just too radical for the GA and they gave Australia and Japan until the next GA, a year later in Rio de Janeiro, to provide a detailed plan to demonstrate the practicality and viability of the proposal.

We did this and at the 1975 CA the decision was taken in support of the proposal. I became Chairman of the Australian Organizing Committee, Mr. Ozeki became Chairman of the Japanese Organizing Committee, and the Congress became one of the most successful in the history of IFIP.

The idea is being repeated about two decades later with the 1998 World Congress, with the two sites being Vienna and Budapest, somewhat closer to each other than Melbourne and Tokyo.

I enjoyed the experience of organizing the Congress, not least of which was attending the Council and GA meetings between 1975 and 1980, as Chairman of the Organizing Committee and getting to know the people in IFIP and the idiosyncrasies of an international organization.

It is true that the vast majority of contributions came from Europe in the early years and Europeans were thus a relevant factor in the overall operation of IFIP; but time going on, IFIP should aim at an appropriate balance between North and South.Coming from the southern hemisphere I was considerably struck by the Euro-centric attitudes in IFIP. For many the rest of the world may not have existed. For example, one matter I complained of almost immediately was the common practice to refer to seasons in the timing of events. It was just assumed that planning an activity for the summer meant May through August. It just so happens that in half of the world that is winter. Unconscious perhaps, but a thoughtless dismissal of the world below the equator. Even today I still have to bring this matter to attention from time to time.

Another issue constantly raised is how "far away" countries like Australia are. Europe is also far away from Australia and it is assumed that Australians (and others in the region) just have to put up with the distance, the travel and the cost but Europeans did not.

Australia has been very active in IFIP through its various representatives and as a result has been successful in attracting many events to Australia. In almost every instance these have been very successful. For example, Congress 1980 and the World Conference on Computers in Education in 1990 which drew the largest participation of any WCCE to that time.

Member societies constantly ask what is the benefit of belonging to IFIP. Australia is no different.

The benefits must be value added services and products for the members of member societies. IFIP activities bring to Australia speakers and participants who might not otherwise visit the country. Australians are thus able to hear and talk with leading figures from around the world.

These are direct benefits to members in Australia and help to Justify membership of IFIP.

Australia is host to 1996 14th World Computer Congress and is only one of four IFIP member nations that have had the Congress twice. Of the fourteen Congresses held since 1959 only two (both in Australia) have been held in the southern hemisphere.

As Chairman of the Congress Organizing Committee for the 1996 Congress I have the somewhat dubious honor of being the only person in IFIP? history to have been foolish enough to undertake that role twice.

We have had to work harder to extract benefits from IFIP compared with member countries in Europe who have a constant proliferation of activities which give their members many more opportunities to participate and thus to benefit from IFIP.

Interestingly, this isolation affects not only the Asia Pacific region, but also Africa and South America and unfortunately, the United States as well. In the USA IFIP is seen as a European organization and despite its founder (Auerbach) being an American it has never been able to successfully overcome that image.

I replaced Professor John Bennett as Australia's representative in 1980 and was elected a Trustee that year. I served as a Trustee for 3 years and was elected a Vice President in 1983. I was then elected as President-elect in 1985 and served as President from 1986 to 1989.

I remained a member of the Executive Board as Immediate Past President for one year and was then re-elected as Vice-President. In Harare in 1991 (for 1 year) in Toledo in 1992 for (3 years) and in Calgary in 1995 (for 3 years). For sixteen of those 22 years I have been fortunate in not only attending GA meetings as Australia's representative, hut also Council and Executive Board as an office bearer of IFIP.

In electing its officers IFIP tries to reflect the geographic diversity of its membership whilst at the same time electing appropriate people for the particular positions to be filled. This is no easy task and the unwritten history of IFIP is replete with fascinating behind-the-scenes maneuvers to elect the right people. Maneuvers that sometimes do not always work out as planned.

As an office bearer I had the opportunity to chair a number of Committees during those years. Undoubtedly the most interesting and significant one was the Activity Planning Committee, whose main role was really approving the activities of the Technical Committees and Working Groups.

I felt there was a major deficiency in the IFIP structure in that there really was no appropriate forum in which long term strategic issues were addressed. The GA was too large, too cumbersome and had too many other matters on its agenda. To try and rectify this I succeeded in getting the GA to broaden the charter of the Activity Planning Committee and rename it the Activity Development Board.

However this still did not provide what I thought was a suitable forum and when I became President in 1986 I gained the GA's support to establish the Technical Assembly, whose main role was to focus on the long term growth and development of IFIP.

For a number of reasons the Technical Assembly slowly slid back into an unwieldy, agenda driven forum for reports from Technical Committee Chairmen, attended by an increasingly large number of observers and participants and in effect became almost a duplication of Council.

At the GA in Calgary in 1995 some debate took place on the role of the Technical Assembly and a Task Force was set up to review it. I was a member of that Task Force and at the GA in Canberra in 1996 it will be recommended that it be renamed the Strategy Forum and its membership reduced to a small number of key players and its role will be to focus on strategic issues. All its administrative functions will be transferred to the Activity Management Board and its agenda will be issue driven and not process driven.

IFIP is facing many threats and competition all over the world from existing and emerging bodies in the IT field. It has a need to become more effective in its strategic thinking and direction. It is to be hoped that this latest initiative will help in this respect.

The Asian Pacific area, particularly South East Asia, comprises the fastest growing economies in the world. The same applies to IT, and yet IFIP has failed miserably in that part of the world. It has not been for the want of trying.

In the early 1980's IFIP endorsed a new category of Regional Member to cater for groups of countries to become a member, where the individual countries for whatever reason could not or could not afford to. The first such regional member admitted in 1982 was the South East Asian Regional Computer Confederation comprising initially India, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand as members which has since grown to Australia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and Thailand. Canada is an associate member. Attempts to establish an African Regional Group and a South American Regional group failed.

In a further attempt to more actively involve such countries in 1992 a new category of Associate Member was introduced. This allowed individual member countries of Regional Members, who were not full members, to automatically become members in their own right. However, todate this has also failed to attract those countries who are eligible.

We have not yet been able to identify what needs to be done to have IFIP accepted as being able to add value in the IT arena in those countries.

However, it is important that IFIP not walk away from this challenge and it must continue to try and identify what needs to be done to attract to its membership countries from these parts of the world. Unless it does this it will find its role and influence gradually diminished.

Looking back over those 22 years at IFIP I have no doubt at all that the Australian Computer Society, its members and IT practitioners in Australia generally, have benefited significantly from our membership of IFIP. There is no doubt at all that had we not been members we would not have attracted to Australia those IFIP events which we have. This would have isolated Australia even further from the world stage.

Membership of IFIP has also given many Australians the opportunity to participate in Technical Committees, Working Groups, conferences, seminars and workshops which they would not otherwise have had. Australia has also been able to make a positive contribution in a number of ways to IFIP. Hopefully it will continue not only to belong but also to be an active and enthusiastic member so that members of the Australian Computer Society and IT practitioners generally in Australia can continue to gain benefits and be active participants on the world stage.