% revision history
% 20080609: small clarification wrt copyright forms, Christian.
% 20080229: new policy wrt copyright forms, Arjen.
% 18.05.2007 Bart: minor editorial corrections and alignment
% with general chair
% September 2006, Arjen, major revision
% 26.08.03, LRK, added that authors send all papers to archive@iacr.org.
% 25.11.04, LRK, added that pc-chair should add sentence about double
%  submissions to call for papers and that pc-chair can have a
%  ``best paper award''
% 20060329, AKL, madeseveral changes throughout

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{fancyheadings}
\addtolength{\headheight}{1.6pt}
\lhead{\sc IACR Rules and Guidelines for Program Chairs}
\rhead{\sc June 2008}

\title{\bf IACR Rules and Guidelines for Program Chairs}
\author{\mbox{}}
%\author{Scott Vanstone \& Sherry Shannon \& Ueli Maurer}
\topmargin=-5mm
\evensidemargin=0cm
\oddsidemargin=0cm
\textwidth=16cm
\textheight=22cm
\newcommand{\cancel}[1]{}

\begin{document}
\date{June 2008
 \footnote{The most recent version of this document
    can be obtained from \protect\url{http://www.iacr.org/docs/}}}
\maketitle

\noindent
Dear Program Chair,
\vspace{4mm}
\par\noindent
The purpose of this document is to help you run a successful conference program.
For the most part it consists of guidelines that are not rigid rules but
rather a description of what worked well for past Program Chairs.
It also contains a small number of rules that you will have to follow.
This document is not complete; there
are many issues not addressed here that you will have to think about.
Use your own best judgment and feel free to seek out the advice of the
members of the board of the IACR, preceding Program Chairs,
and experienced members of the community.

The board of the IACR wants to encourage flexibility and new ideas.
Do not hesitate to experiment with parallel or poster sessions,
submission format and length, doing away with the free Tuesday
afternoon, or anything else you feel
comfortable with and that you think might be a good idea.
When making changes, please inform the General Chair, the president
of the IACR, and the PC Chairs contact (cf.\ below) or other board members,
so they are not taken by surprise by reactions from the membership.
Although new initiatives are welcome, do not feel obliged to make changes.
There are several issues where the IACR membership or board
has indicated their preference for a certain course of action. As a result
there are a few rules.
You are expected to abide by these rules: in this document and in the
`Best Practices' in Appendix~E they can be recognized by the
imperative `must' and they are also part of
the `Program Chair Terms of Reference' in Appendix~F.

This document is intended for the Program Chairs of the three IACR flagship
conferences (Asiacrypt, Crypto, and Eurocrypt) and all IACR sponsored workshops
(CHES, FSE, PKC, and TCC). In this document, `conference' therefore refers
to IACR conferences and IACR sponsored workshops.

This document will continue to evolve.
Please send your suggestions for improvements to
the {\em PC Chairs contact\/} of the IACR
(currently Arjen K.\ Lenstra, {\tt akl at epfl dot ch}).

You have full responsibility for implementing a fair submission and
reviewing process based on the highest scientific and ethical standards,
and to run the scientific part of the conference in a way that you
consider to be most beneficial to the membership of the IACR\@.
Above all, we hope you find your job rewarding.
\vspace{4mm}
\par\noindent
Scott Vanstone and Sherry Shannon (1991, 1995),
Ueli Maurer (1999, 2001), Lars R.\ Knudsen (2002, 2003, 2004),
Arjen K.\ Lenstra (2006, 2007, 2008)
%\footnote{{\bf Short note on the August 2006 rewrite. }
%Two conflicting approaches were considered for the rewrite:
%\begin{itemize}
%\item Shrink: follow Lars Knudsen's advice (`less is more'), remove all
%obvious, common sense recommendations and come up with a short,
%accessible set of guidelines.
%\item Grow: incorporate all comments received in the existing guidelines.
%\end{itemize}
%Initially, the first approach looked attractive, since it would
%lead to a succinct document and the expectation that most Program
%Chairs would actually read it. The second approach of further
%expanding an already intimidatingly voluminous set of guidelines did
%not look appealing. After all, what's wrong with trusting the common
%sense of the Program Chairs carefully selected by the IACR board?
%Why spelling out everything if it is obvious?
%
%It turns out that things are not so obvious.
%Having served on (too) many Program Committees and having experienced
%too many surprises, I am now questioning how helpful `Shrink' can be.
%We can only hope to prevent past mistakes if they are documented, warnings
%are given, and better solutions are suggested. Unavoidably, this leads
%to an ever growing set of guidelines. I apologize to the Program Chairs
%who have to wade through them, but I also hope it leads to a
%consistently higher scientific level of the IACR conferences and IACR
%sponsored workshops.
%
%This footnote will be removed from the version to be published.}
\pagebreak
\tableofcontents
\pagebreak

\section{Timetable}
\pagestyle{fancy}
The following timetable lists the key tasks and when they should
approximately be completed.
All times are in months from time $T$ of the conference.
Appendix~D contains a more detailed timetable.

\begin{description}
\item[$T-18$]$ $
Inform yourself about your job and start planning (see Section~\ref{program}).
\item[$T-12$]$ $
Select your Program Committee (see Section~\ref{pcselect}), contact
Springer-Verlag about the publication of the proceedings
(see Section~\ref{proc}), and inform
yourself about reviewing software (see Section~\ref{software}).
\item[$T-11$]$ $
Write the Call for Papers and put it on the
conference website (see Section~\ref{CFP}).
\item[$T-\{10,9\}$]$ $
Start discussing with your committee issues such as their topics of interest
for reviewing, invited speaker(s), and whether or not to have a physical
Program Committee meeting.
Make sure the submission server is up and running.
Finalize budget negotiations with the General
Chair (See Section~\ref{budget}),
\item[$T-7$]$ $
The Program Committee members should be able to use the reviewing software.
\item[$T-6$]
Papers have been submitted, reviewing begins (see Section~\ref{reviewing}).
Make rump session policy available (General Chair, conference webpage).
\item[$T-5$]
The discussion phase of the reviewing process.
\item[$T-4$]
Send to authors the decisions (see Section~\ref{criteria}), (cleaned up)
reviews, and instructions (see Section~\ref{commaut}). Finalize discussion on
invited speaker(s), and decide on the best paper award.
Notify the General Chair of your decisions.
\item[$T-3$]$ $
Appoint Session Chairs, coordinate the programs with the General Chair,
and wrap up the reviewing process.
\item[$T-2.5$]$ $
Authors should send the proceedings versions to you and
to Springer-Verlag. Send all your own proceedings contributions to
Springer-Verlag (see Section~\ref{proc}).
Upload to the IACR server all material as it will appear in the
proceedings and make sure authors have submitted the signed copyright
forms (see Section~\ref{proc} for the procedure to follow).
\item[$T-2$]$ $
Announce Rump Session Chair on conference webpage.
\item[$T-1$]$ $
Notify the Session Chairs of which session they will chair, and contact the
IACR Archivist ({\tt archive at iacr dot org}) about
the material that needs to be archived and how it needs to 
be submitted (see Section~\ref{proc}).
\item[$T$]$ $
At the conference you are responsible for the program (see Section~\ref{conf}).
\item[$T+1$]$ $
Send the relevant materials to {\tt archive at iacr dot org},
{\tt newsletter at iacr dot org}, the General Chair, and the IACR board
(see the detailed timetable in Appendix~D for what to send where), and
archive everything for at least a year (see also Section~\ref{proc}).
\end{description}

\section{Program Chair Terms of Reference}
\label{terms}
As part of your acceptance to be Program Chair, the board of the IACR requests
that you read and sign the Program Chair Terms of Reference (cf.\ Appendix~F).
If you are unable or unwilling to do so, or request that changes are
made in the document before you sign it, someone else may be invited
to become Program Chair in your place. Once you have
signed you are expected to take on the responsibilities
as set forth in the Terms of Reference.
\section{Planning the Program}
\label{program}
Consider how you want to run your conference:
invited speaker(s), special sessions (parallel sessions? longer program?
poster session? non-standard schedule?), best paper award, rump session,
submission and paper format and length,
how many submissions by Program Committee members
are allowed and how those submissions will be handled,
the various other Program Committee related issues mentioned in the
next section, and whatever else you may come up with.
In any case, submissions to all IACR conferences and IACR sponsored
workshops are open to anyone and never by invitation only.
The IACR board may have notified you that you have to schedule an hour
for an IACR distinguished lecturer.
Title and subject of his/her presentation are determined by this lecturer,
from whom you have to obtain all relevant information (such as slides) to put
on the IACR website after the conference.
\par\noindent
{\bf Invited speakers. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Invited speakers}
Once your Program Committee has been selected, discuss
invited speaker(s) with them. The choice of speaker(s) should be yours,
with input from your committee, and should
not be guided by pressure from other parties. Invited speakers
are often invited to speak about a subject of your and your
Program Committee's choice, but you may also leave the choice of topic to them.
The invited speaker(s) and the IACR distinguished lecturer (if any)
should be invited to contribute an abstract or a full paper to the
conference proceedings and may decline to do so.
\par\noindent
{\bf IACR Membership meeting. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Membership meeting}
For Asiacrypt/Crypto/Eurocrypt, you should schedule 1~hour for an IACR
Membership meeting; typically this meeting is held immediately after the end of the
sessions on Wednesday (before the gala dinner or beach BBQ).
The IACR President or his representative may also want to make
a short announcement during the opening session of the conference.
\par\noindent
{\bf Poster session. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Poster session}
Some attendees can only receive from their funding agencies a grant to
attend a conference if they have a submission accepted. Some conferences
have therefore introduced poster sessions. You may consider
accepting submissions for a poster session if the submissions are of high
enough value and if they can
receive a proper display at the conference site. You should coordinate
with the General Chair to determine whether a poster session is feasible
and desirable. If you choose to have a poster session, the decision to
accept a submission for it should only be taken on scientific grounds.
\par\noindent
{\bf Best paper award. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Best paper award}
The IACR board encourages Program Chairs to select one of the accepted submissions
to receive the best paper award. It is not uncommon for funding decisions
to be made based on such types of awards. Having them evens the
battlefield with other branches of science where such awards are common.
Keep this in mind while deciding if you want to give a best paper award
(in principle---at a later stage you and your committee should decide
if there is a paper that is worth this honor).

The award should be mentioned in the foreword of the conference proceedings
and at the conference during the introduction of the paper that received it.
Some conferences have issued a plaque or certificate, but you
can handle this in the way you see fit. However, a financial compensation should not
be provided.
\par\noindent
{\bf Rump session. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Rump session}
These days, all IACR conferences have a rump session during one evening of
the conference, to present recent developments, announce upcoming
conferences, and to have fun. Prior to the conference, choose a person
to chair the rump session, with whom you determine how rump session
submissions are handled (including submission deadline, usually during
the conference itself) and submissions are selected (usually by the Rump Session
Chair and possibly yourself). Remember, and remind your Rump Session Chair,
that rump session submissions can be rejected. You may consider doing so
to avoid known-to-be-bad repeat-performances. Aim for
a rump session that lasts about 2.5 hours.
Put all relevant information on the conference
website. After the conference, the rump session program should be
published on the conference
website and in the IACR newsletter, and rump session speakers should be
encouraged to make their material available
(for instance in the cryptology ePrint archive or on the conference website).
\par\noindent
{\bf Submission and paper format and length. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Submission and paper format and length}
This is a contentious issue on which it is hard to reach agreement. You
should decide not only on the format of the submissions (number of pages
of main body, total number of pages including appendices, point size, margins),
but also on your requirements with respect to the papers as they will
appear in the proceedings: should the proceedings papers be self-contained
and fully
understandable within the proceedings size restriction (usually around
20 pages per paper), or do you find it acceptable that details are
relegated to the author's (possibly non-permanent) website?
Your policy may have consequences for your acceptance criteria,
for authors' decisions whether or not to submit their work to your
conference, and for Program Committee member candidates to accept your
invitation to join your committee.
\par\noindent
{\bf Submissions by Program Committee members. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Submissions by Program Committee members}
For Asiacrypt, Crypto, and Eurocrypt it is recommended that a PC member
is single author for at most one submission or co-author for at most two
submissions (not both). CHES, FSE, PKC, and TCC have their own policies
which are usually less strict, such as at most two accepted submissions
per PC member: best check with the Steering Committee or with the
Program Chair of the previous year.
You cannot (co-)author a submission.

It is recommended that PC member papers are kept to a higher standard
than the other submissions. Generally this is achieved by assigning
submissions (co-)authored by PC members to six reviewers, as opposed to
the customary three reviewers for other submissions.
\par\noindent
{\bf Dealing with unsolicited advice. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Dealing with unsolicited advice}
Your choices and decisions while planning the conference should be
based on your own sound judgment, possibly with input from your committee
members, IACR board members, or others from which you seek advice.

If you feel that you are unduly guided or pressured one way or another
by anyone---including your General Chair---you should ask the PC Chairs
contact of the IACR or an appropriate other IACR board member for assistance.

\section{Program Committee Selection}
\label{pcselect}

The Program Committee (PC) needs to be able to address the full range of
research in cryptology.
It typically represents all major geographic areas.
Committee members should be competent, fair, reliable, and
qualified professionals dedicated to research and having
a wide range of interests and backgrounds---academic/industrial
research, theory/applications, experienced/new blood.
Other selection criteria:
access to email and to external reviewers
(e.g. Postdocs, senior PhD students), not the same people
on too many committees in a row (but at least one member of the PC of the
previous IACR conference may prove helpful).
\par\noindent
{\bf Size of the Program Committee. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Size of the Program Committee}
Base the size of your PC on the number of submissions you expect for
your conference (based on previous years and the place where it will
be held) and the recommendation that each PC member should review
between 15 and 25 submissions. If the number of submissions turns out
to be much larger than expected and the reviewing load would become too
high, the PC can be enlarged by a few members.
\par\noindent
{\bf Finding PC member candidates. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Finding PC member candidates}
Recommendations of previous Program Chairs, the PC Chairs contact
of the IACR, and other IACR board members, are helpful to identify
suitable candidates.
A list of past members and of recommended new blood
can be obtained from {\tt secretary at iacr dot org}.
Young, but sufficiently established people are often more dedicated and
enthusiastic than more senior people.
It is an exception that PhD students serve.
It is not uncommon that Program Chairs are contacted by volunteers
eager to serve on the committee or by people making unsolicited suggestions
whom to invite. Such requests and recommendations can safely be ignored.
The PC Chairs contact and other members of the board will be happy to
provide you with feedback during your selection process.
\par\noindent
{\bf Informing PC member candidates. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Informing PC member candidates}
When inviting people to serve on the PC you should inform them upfront about
all relevant aspects of the process as you intend to run it and that
may influence their decision to accept your invitation or not:
\begin{itemize}
\item the decisions you have made while planning your conference,
including your decision on the submission and paper formats;
\item the phases of the reviewing process;
\item the time commitment the PC members will have to make (the equivalent of
at least two to three full weeks working time);
\item that the submissions for the IACR flagship conferences (Asiacrypt, Crypto, Eurocrypt)
must be anonymous to program committee members throughout the reviewing process; authorship
should only be disclosed by the program chair in rare instances involving conflicts or other
special circumstances;
\item if the PC member reviews will be anonymous with respect to each other
(usually they are not);%\footnote{Anonymity of reviews was
%proposed during the reviewing process of several recent asiacrypts,
%and was adopted at least once. This footnote will be removed from the
%version to be published.}
\item whether you will have a physical PC meeting (it varies; see below);
\item how many submissions by Program Committee members are allowed and
how they will be handled (e.g., more reviewers, maybe held to higher standards);
\item the PC members' responsibility to act in an ethical way, including
informing the Program Chair if they are inadvertently asked to review their
own submission or a submission by their advisor or one of their current
students, or anything else that you or the PC member feel raises the
possibility of a conflict of interests.
\item the PC members' responsibility to select competent external
reviewers (if so desired) and to inform these subreviewers of the paper
selection criteria (see Section~\ref{criteria});
\item any other decision you made that may influence the
acceptance of prospective PC members.
\end{itemize}
\par\noindent
{\bf Keeping PC members informed. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Keeping PC members informed}
Make a clear record of whom you invite and of their responses. It is not
uncommon for people to forget they have accepted. It is therefore a good
idea to regularly schedule a `liveness test' for your committee members
between their acceptance and the start of the actual PC member activities.
Keep everyone who has accepted to be on your PC informed of any decision
you may reconsider and change: they may desire to opt out if the change
is not to their liking. In any case, avoid that any PC member is
surprised by any aspect of the way you are running your conference.
\par\noindent
{\bf Advisory PC members. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Advisory PC members}
You should ask the Program Chairs of the same conference
in the previous and the coming year (if selected already) to be advisory
members. Advisory members have full access to the information exchanged
during the reviewing process but are not expected to contribute
to the reviewing or decision process.
\par\noindent
{\bf Physical PC meeting? }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Physical PC meeting?}
Since the review administration software is in use, it can be argued that
a physical PC meeting is not needed anymore and in fact a purely Web-based
decision process may be better. Some arguments are:
\begin{itemize}
\item All committee members can take part, usually even when they are
travelling.
\item All the previous discussion is available and can be conveniently
referred to by everyone.
\item All decisions can be made over a reasonable time period, with
the opportunity to consider all the arguments and look up any references.
\item There is less chance (though still possible) for one or two strong
personalities to dominate the discussion. Ad-hoc decisions
are less likely to occur than at a physical meeting.
\item Time savings and environmental issues.
\end{itemize}
On the other hand, there are also arguments in favor of a meeting:
\begin{itemize}
\item It is easier for PC members present at the meeting to get informed
about and involved in decisions and discussions on submissions
which they have not
reviewed. This results in a more uniform application of decision criteria.
\item It may be more time efficient, especially if the PC meeting can be
collocated with another conference.
\item It is much more fun.
\end{itemize}
If you have a physical PC meeting, each member should be given a chance
to attend. You should encourage them to pay for the trip out of their
own resources, but if this is not possible, you should reimburse
(part of) their trip expenses from your budget which you should have
negotiated with your General Chair. Financial support
should not be a criterion for selecting PC members.

\section{Administrative Software}
\label{software}

A variety of software packages for submission and reviewing
have been used by previous Program Chairs.
It is recommended that you familiarize yourself with the main features
of the packages
and use the one(s) you like best (it is unlikely that you will reach
consensus when discussing this issue with your Program Committee).
It is essential that a reliable and competent technical support person
is put in charge of installing and maintaining the software on the
host system. This person should be on call on a daily basis for the
entire submission and reviewing period and should be able to provide
a stable system. All data and the server should be backed up in
case of a catastrophic failure. Make sure, however, that you yourself
are comfortable using the software---this cannot be delegated.

The submission deadline should be chosen such that a human operator is
present to monitor the final, say, two hours of the submission process.
Although access will dry up almost completely within minutes of the deadline,
it will be intense in the hour before, and a soft landing should be provided
so that submissions will not be excluded because they were competing for
bandwidth. Nevertheless, be strict.

%A free {\bf electronic submission server} software package was written
%by Sam Rebelsky, with a Web-based interface provided by Meaw
%(Chanathip Namprempre) for Crypto 2000. Joe Kilian was responsible for
%its first IACR use (Crypto'98) and has provided much help
%since then. Colin Boyd, Asiacrypt 2001 Program Chair, has agreed
%with Meaw to package the software with a GPL statement and instigate an
%``Updates'' file, allowing the software along with any modifications to
%be passed on to successive Program Chairs, in analogy of the Olympic torch.
%A {\bf review administration} software package was written by Joris
%Claessens, Wim Moreau, and Bart Preneel of COSIC in Leuven, Belgium.
%The software is maintained at COSIC, currently by Bart Preneel.
%The rights are with the authors, but in exchange of a copy of the proceedings
%they are willing to allow its use for future conferences.
%Please inform the authors of any changes you make in the software.
The first, much appreciated, initiatives to create web-based
submission and review systems were due to Sam Rebelsky, Meaw
(Chanathip Namprempre), Joe Kilian, Colin Boyd, and Joris Claessens,
Wim Moreau and Bart Preneel from COSIC in Leuven, Belgium.
More recently, combined submission and reviewing packages have been developed
by Thomas Baign\`eres and Matthieu Finiasz from Serge Vaudenay's lab
at EPFL in Lausanne, Switzerland, (used for all 2006 IACR conferences)
and by Shai Halevi from IBM Yorktown Heights, USA, (used for PKC06 and
CT-RSA 2007) which is an improved version of the Web-review software
from COSIC that integrates the submission server in a neat way.
A commercial package was used by Victor Shoup, the Crypto 2005 Program Chair.

The board does not want to push you one way or another. Nevertheless,
in the long run it would be best if the software selection converges to
a single package that can be installed on the IACR server, thereby
avoiding PC member surprises, or annoyance, of having to get used
to yet another system. Inform yourself, and make your choice. The IACR
already offers to host and run Shai Halevi's system on the IACR server.

Once you have decided on a particular package, make sure well before
reviewing starts that you and all your PC members can access and use it.
It is recommended that you check the semantics of the grades and adjust them
to your needs.
Inform your PC members that they should not share their access credentials
with the subreviewers or anyone else.

\section{Call for Papers and Schedule for Submissions}
\label{CFP}

You should draft the Call for Papers (CFP), send it to the General Chair, and
make sure that the final version is put on the conference
website prior to the conference: 11 months before the IACR flagship
conferences, 8 to 9 months before the IACR sponsored workshops.
The CFP should include the topics of interest and what types of
submissions are desired.
It has more or less reached a {\em de facto} standard and
it is most convenient to modify a previous CFP, using the same format.
The IACR logo is available at \url{http://www.iacr.org/forms/} in various formats.
\par\noindent
{\bf Statement on parallel submissions. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Statement on parallel submissions}
There is a persistent problem of parallel submissions of essentially
identical submissions to multiple conferences. This is not allowed.
Recent CFPs therefore include the following text:
\begin{quote}
IACR reserves the right to share
information about submissions with other Program Committees.
\end{quote}
The CFP should also clearly state how parallel submissions to journals
are handled. This is for you to decide.
Current online submission systems allow for the possibility to let
authors tick a box indicating that they follow your policy
regarding parallel submissions.
\par\noindent
{\bf Anonymous submissions. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Anonymous submissions}
Since 1990, submissions to IACR flagship conferences have been anonymous
(blind), with the exception of Crypto 2006 and Eurocrypt 2007.
In the 2006 Fall ballot, the IACR membership has approved with a strong majority
the following policy on anonymous submissions and review 
{\em ``Submissions to the IACR flagship conferences
should normally be anonymous to program committee members throughout the reviewing process; authorship
should only be disclosed by the program chair in rare instances involving conflicts or other
special circumstances.''}  You {\em must\/} abide by this anonymity policy and this policy should be
stated in the CFP\@.  This policy is recommended but not mandatory for IACR workshops;
program chairs for workshops should check with the Steering Committee.
\par\noindent
{\bf Number of (accepted) submissions (co-)authored by PC members. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Numbers of (accepted) submissions
(co-)authored by PC members}
Your decision about the number of submissions or accepted submissions
(co-)authored by PC members may also be stated in the CFP.
\par\noindent
{\bf Dates. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Dates}
The CFP should contain submission deadline and notification date
(at least 6 and 4 months prior to the conference, respectively,
with the exception of FSE where it is 3 months and 6 weeks, respectively),
and the expectations of accepted authors
(such as due date for the proceedings version of their submissions).
For the submission deadline, avoid specifying a time of day that
allows ambiguous interpretation such as ``12:00 PM''.
You can determine your own schedule by counting backwards from
Springer-Verlag's hard deadline for your conference (cf.\ Section~\ref{proc}).

In setting the schedule for submissions and the committee's work,
consider the schedules of previous IACR conferences.
Schedules of conferences, including non-IACR ones, depend on each
other, with submission deadlines of a non-IACR conference often closely
following the notification date of an IACR conference or workshop. It
is therefore not recommended to change the notification date once
it has been announced in the CFP.
\par\noindent
{\bf Other CFP issues. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Other CFP issues}
Any special requirements, such as your decision (cf.\ Section~\ref{program})
on submission and proceedings paper formats,
should be clearly stated in the CFP.

\section{Reviewing Process}
\label{reviewing}
{\bf Communicating with your committee. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Communicating with your committee}
At any time during the reviewing process be responsive to all parties
involved. Make sure you inform your PC members if you are out of touch
for an extended period of time. Throughout the reviewing process,
consistently use the same communication method to send messages to
your entire committee. This can be email or the message-board facility
of the web-review system. Do not use email for some and the message-board
for other important messages, since PC members may miss them and fail
to respond in time.
\par\noindent
{\bf Initial processing. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Initial processing}
Once the submissions have been received make sure that anonymity is not
breached by title pages,
Postscript headers, or other `features'. If needed edit the submissions
or request properly anonymized versions from the authors.
Make the resulting submissions available to the
committee members through the Web-reviewing system, and give them a few
days to indicate their reviewing preferences. Spend those days glancing
through the submissions, to get an idea of the general quality
and how well the various areas are covered, while trying to
identify submissions that have been submitted to other conferences.
\par\noindent
{\bf Assigning the submissions. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Assigning the submissions}
One of your most important tasks is assigning submissions to the
individual PC members. Some reviewing software packages offer automated
assignment procedures based on the PC member's preferences and expressed
areas of interest. As helpful as this may be, you are responsible for
the final assignments and this involves manual labor.
Make the assignments based on the
PC members' preferences and areas of interest
(as expressed by them using the Web-reviewing system).
Consider assigning the entire responsibility for handling submissions
for which you may have a conflict of interest (such as by your students
or subreviewers) to another committee member.
Each submission should be reviewed by at least three committee members who can
be expected to have a reasonably high level of confidence in their reviews,
at least one of which should be an expert and at least one of which should be
a relative outsider to the submission's subject. To help assess
their relative
merits it helps if all submissions on a similar subject have overlapping
reviewers. Attempt to avoid conflicts of interest by not assigning
submissions to friends, colleagues, students, or PhD advisors of any of
the authors.
Assign submissions from committee members to as many reviewers as
you decided upon when planning your conference (see Section~\ref{program}).
\par\noindent
{\bf Identifying and handling parallel submissions. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Identifying and handling parallel submissions}
At any time during the reviewing process submissions may be identified
that are submitted, with essentially the same material, in parallel to one
or more other conferences.
Ask your PC members, in particular those serving on other program
committees, to be on the look-out for such submissions.
They should be rejected. The authors of parallel submissions
should be told about the rejection only
at the final decision time when all other authors get notified. The Program
Chair(s) of the other conference(s), however, should be notified as soon
as the double submission is identified.
\par\noindent
{\bf Plagiarism. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Plagiarism}
Occasionally substantial parts of existing publications are submitted,
virtually unchanged and without the addition of new material, by
other `author(s)'. In such cases harsher action than a simple `reject'
could be appropriate, but you or the IACR are not the parties to do so.
Since establishing beyond doubt which party is responsible is probably
beyond your and the board's competence, care should be taken
and jumping to conclusions should be avoided. Contact the `author(s)' to
get their take on the matter and possibly, depending on your findings,
inform their department's chair or dean. Use your and your PC's sound
judgment and tread with care. Do not make any public announcements without
the approval of the board of the IACR.
\par\noindent
{\bf Actual reviewing. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Actual reviewing}
The reviewing consists of the following phases, supported by
the reviewing software
(also refer to $T-6$ through $T-4$ in Appendix~D for further suggestions):
\begin{description}
\item[Phase 1:]
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsubsection}{First evaluation period}
{\bf First evaluation period} by Program Committee members.
Each reviewer should grade (1) the quality of a submission and (2) his or
her confidence in the grade, and should give detailed comments
about the submission.

It is the responsibility of each PC member to review the
submissions you assign to them and to return the reports to you
(or enter them in the Web-reviewing system) by the
deadline. Reviewing can be delegated by a PC member to external reviewers,
but the responsibility remains with the PC member.
PC members should enter all reviews themselves in the Web-reviewing system
and, to avoid breaches of confidentiality of the reviews,
not share their access credentials with their subreviewers.

The comments in the report should be divided into three sections:
comments for you, comments for the entire committee, and comments
intended for being sent to the authors (duplication can be avoided).
As the reviewing process progresses, these comments should be revised.
For instance, a reviewer who dislikes a submission, but is convinced later by
the other PC members that the submission is good, should revise the report
before it is sent to the authors.

To obtain independent opinions about each submission, there is no interaction
and discussion among the reviewers during phase 1.

At the end of this phase make preliminary decisions putting submissions
with consistently high (or low) scores with sufficiently high confidence
in the `maybe accept' (or `maybe reject') category, while putting
the others in `discuss'.

\item[Phase 2:]
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsubsection}{Second evaluation period}
{\bf Second evaluation period.}
Give the PC members access to your preliminary decisions and to
each others' reviews. Authors
among them should not be given access to any information related to
their submissions. Also, reviews and discussions may be made invisible to
PC members if you feel that there is a risk of conflict of interests.

Ask the committee members to check carefully
the preliminary decisions you proposed and to oppose if they do not agree.
Ask all committee members to look at borderline submissions.  For controversial
submissions (those that received both high and low grades and thus ended up
in `discuss'), ask the involved
reviewers to sort out their conflicting opinions, and possibly assign further
reviewers.  For submissions with low overall confidence values
you should assign the submission to further reviewers. During this phase,
the committee should use the discussion feature of the review administration
software to communicate.

It is absolutely necessary that you take an active role during this second
round and force reviewers to respond to other reviewers' comments and
contributions to the discussion, to make
precise why they support or dislike a submission, etc. Many reviewers tend to
be quite passive unless asked explicitly to make a statement regarding
a submission. Sometimes it is necessary to be harsh with lazy reviewers.

It is also necessary to remind your PC that discussions on submissions should
take place in the open forum as provided by the Web-reviewing software,
and that it is inappropriate for them to engage in `private' email
or other discussions behind others' (and your) back.

Often small flaws are found in interesting submissions. In such cases you
may consider contacting the author(s) to see if a technical flaw can easily
be corrected or if a `gap' in an argument can be filled with some
additional clarifications. In general authors are very responsive to such
requests. You should take care of these communications with the
author(s) and not delegate it to one or more of the PC members.
Report your communications in the Web-reviewing system.

Discussions can get `interesting' in the sense that the PC members
cannot reach agreement. It is not uncommon that outside arbitrators, i.e.,
specialists in the field of the contentious submission that are not
on the PC, are asked to give their opinion. You should contact these
arbitrators after agreeing with the warring parties about
the procedure that will be followed and whom you should ask.

During this phase gradually move submissions for which no new issues
are brought forward from the `maybe' categories to the corresponding
`accept' or `reject' category, and move submissions for which a clearer
picture emergences from `discuss' to the appropriate `maybe' category.
Solicit feedback on your moves, and do not hesitate to reconsider them.

\item[Phase 3:]
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsubsection}{Final decisions}
{\bf Final decisions.}
At this point a reasonably clear picture should have emerged, with not
too many submissions (ideally not more than about 50) still in the `discuss'
category. Initiate a discussion among the entire committee to reach
final decisions.  If a physical PC meeting is held this is done during
that meeting. Otherwise, use the Web-reviewing system to engage the
entire committee in active online discussions. Also, in this case you may
want to devise an email voting mechanism to reach final decisions.

Schedule your and your committee's work in such a way that decisions are
finalized well before the notification deadline, and such that submissions
are moved between the categories in an orderly fashion that is properly
discussed and agreed upon by your PC members. At the end of the process
the two `maybe' categories and the `discuss` category should be empty,
and a majority of the PC should support the final decisions.

If there is no physical PC meeting, decisions on PC member submissions are
taking place as for other submissions, where the Web-reviewing system is
used to exclude the author(s) from the discussions on their submission. With
a physical PC meeting the PC member submissions can be handled before or
after all other decisions have been made. If you handle decisions before the other decisions
but do not communicate them to the PC members involved, they will be more relaxed
during the rest of the meeting. It may be better for a balanced
decision to handle the PC member submissions during the meeting at the
time when the submission would be discussed if it were not a
PC member submission,
and to ask the author(s), if present, to leave the room
when their submission is discussed. In all cases it is helpful if no fixed
target is set for the number of submissions to be accepted (see
Section~\ref{criteria}).

For each submission there are four possible outcomes: accept, conditional
accept (`shepherded'), proposed to be merged with another submissions
(and possibly shepherded),
or reject. Agree with the shepherds of shepherded submissions on the terms
of acceptance and on the way the shepherding process is organized (with
you as proxy between shepherd and author(s), or via direct communication
between shepherd and author(s)). It should be realistically possible for
the author(s) of shepherded submissions to fulfill the terms of acceptance of
their submission(s).

If you decided to have a best paper award, decide with your PC members
which accepted submission should receive it, if any.
You may consider excluding PC member (co-)authored papers from
consideration for the best paper award; if included they should be
held to a higher standard.
\end{description}
\par\noindent
{\bf Unfair behavior. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Unfair behavior}
Several previous Program Chairs have reported observations of
unfair behavior by some committee members, especially for
pushing the submission of close friends. Be aware that such things
can occasionally happen and do not hesitate to stop them.

\section{Selection Criteria for Papers}
\label{criteria}
{\bf Acceptance rate. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Acceptance rate}
The conferences sponsored by the IACR have reached a high standard and,
as a consequence, quite a low acceptance rate ranging from below
20\% to 30\%. It can be expected that the acceptance rate will stay
in this range, although the average quality of submissions has increased
over the years. If the acceptance rate would get much lower for your
conference you may want to consider extending the program (parallel
sessions, no free afternoon, a longer program, poster  session).

You should communicate to the PC a policy about how the total number of
accepted submissions will be determined. Obviously, the number of accepted
submissions should approximately match the number of slots you intend to fill.
But avoid fixing an explicit target for the total number of accepted
submissions, also to facilitate discussion of PC member submissions.
\par\noindent
{\bf Main acceptance criterion. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Main acceptance criterion}
The most important criterion for accepting a submission is its overall
quality. It will also depend on the number of submissions to be
accepted, whether there is a desire to try to balance the number of
papers in different areas, and the number of submissions on any given topic.
In any case, it should be understood that the content and the presentation
of the material in a paper should be at an advanced level.
\par\noindent
{\bf General acceptance criteria. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{General acceptance criteria}
Criteria for selecting the set of accepted submissions include the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item
Novelty:
Does the submission contain scientific contributions that have not previously
been published and which are novel to an expert in the field?
\item
Interest to the experts:
A paper should be of interest to the experts in the field. There are
papers, for example papers with mathematical results with little
cryptologic significance, which are completely novel and correct but
simply do not attract a cryptologist's interest.
\item
Correctness:
The technical part of a paper should be correct. However, a few minor,
correctable errors are not sufficient reason to reject a submission if the
rest of it is correct and interesting.
\item
Quality of the presentation:
Is there reason to expect the final version and the presentation
to be of high quality? Will the paper be the basis for an interesting talk?
\item
Does the paper lead to new directions in cryptology, for instance by
proposing new concepts? This may be sufficient reason to accept a submission,
even if the technical contributions are not ground-breaking.
\item
Can the proceedings version of the paper be expected to meet the
requirements (if any) as set forth in the Call for Papers?
\end{itemize}
Communicate all criteria to your PC members and ask them to communicate
the criteria to their subreviewers.
\par\noindent
{\bf Theory, practice, and scope. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Theory, practice, and scope}
Cryptology is a field that ranges from deep theory to concrete
applications. It is particularly fruitful that the gap between theory
and applications is bridged by some of the papers.  As a consequence there
is always a trade-off between selecting theoretical papers and application
papers, but there cannot be an ultimate rule for balancing between
the two.  You should keep in mind, however, that you are chairing a {\em
scientific} conference and that there are other means than this conference
for informing the community about the state of the art in applications.
Mere progress reports on industrial projects and product-related articles
should not be accepted. But high quality papers that would fall within the
scope of an IACR sponsored workshop should also be considered to fall within
the scope of the flagship conferences.



\section{Communication with Authors}
\label{commaut}

It is recommended that you communicate with the corresponding author
(confirmation of receipt, acceptance/rejection letter) by email or, in
exceptional cases, by regular mail. Sample letters
are given in Appendix~B\@.
\par\noindent
{\bf Sending notifications. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Sending notifications}
All notifications (accept, conditional accept, merge, or reject) should
be sent to the authors more or less simultaneously. Avoid sending them
in batches, such as `easy' rejects one day, and the tougher nuts (i.e.,
rejected at the very last stage of the discussion stage) the next day.
Schedule your activities in such a way that there will be no
notification delays.
\par\noindent
{\bf Feedback for authors of submissions. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Feedback for authors of submissions}
It is strongly suggested to send to the authors as much information
obtained from the reviewers as possible, especially for rejected submissions.
It has been observed that fewer complaints are received
if feedback is sent a few days after the notification.
Ask the reviewers to edit their reviews in such a way that the reviews
do not contradict the decision and include as much material from the
discussion phase as possible. You should make sure that rude, derogatory,
or unhelpful
remarks are removed before the reviews are sent to the authors.
For shepherded submissions you or the shepherd should clearly communicate
to the authors the terms of acceptance of the submission. Usually, the
author(s) of shepherded submission are asked to submit a revision of their
submission to the shepherd at least two weeks before the proceedings
versions of the papers are due. During these two weeks the shepherd can
review the revised version and if necessary further guide the author(s)
to make additional changes. Shepherding and
merging can be an intense process for you, the shepherd, and the author(s)
involved. Avoid judgmental remarks, and make sure not to change the
terms of acceptance in the course of the shepherding process.

The ratings given for the submissions may or may not be
communicated to the authors.
If they are, inform your PC members about it, and ask them to make sure the
overall scores are inline with the decision (otherwise you risk
upsetting authors of rejected submissions).
Authors of rejected parallel submissions get no other information than
`reject' along with some strong language that parallel submissions
are not allowed.
\par\noindent
{\bf Instructions for authors of accepted submissions. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Instructions for authors of accepted submissions}
If the submission has not been rejected, you should send the authors the
instructions for the authors/speakers. This will include at least
the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item
Time, date, and length of the talk, possibly the identity of the Session Chair,
and instructions on where and when to meet the Session Chair prior to
the session in which the paper will be given;
\item
Instructions on the presentation of material for the proceedings,
when and where to send this material; and
\item
Instructions on the presentation material. You should provide information
both for laptop-based presentations and for those
using transparencies. For laptop-based presentations, encourage speakers
to copy their presentation well in advance to the central
computer used for the presentations at the conference and to test that they
display properly.
You may also ask speakers of
laptop-based presentations to bring back-up transparencies, but these
days that is no longer needed. You may instruct the speakers
to use sufficiently large fonts and to make appropriate use of colors.
If there will be a practice room, indicate it in the letter.
\end{itemize}
\par\noindent
{\bf Dealing with complaints. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Dealing with complaints}
Sometimes authors of rejected submissions get upset and complain
to you, to your PC members, to members of the IACR board,
or to other members of the community.
This happens in particular when the authors feel that the reviewers
have not done a sufficiently thorough job, for instance by not reading the
complete submission. Dealing with such complaints is unpleasant. Obviously,
they are best avoided by making sure that reviews are accurate (since you
cannot be expected to read all submissions entirely this is the
responsibility of the reviewing PC members) and that rejections are
not based on arbitrary arguments (this is your job). Despite all
precautions, there will always be complaints. You (and not your PC members)
should deal with the complaints to the best of your abilities, possibly by
soliciting additional feedback from your committee. However, decisions should
not be reconsidered once notifications have been sent to the authors.
The decisions are your full responsibility:
it is the policy of the board of the IACR not to interfere with
Program Chairs on these matters.
\par\noindent
{\bf Information for General Chair. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Information for General Chair}
Send the list of titles and authors of the accepted submissions
to the General Chair.
Depending on your assessment of the situation shepherded submissions may
or may not be included, with or without the name(s) of the author(s).
Agree with your General Chair on a policy for giving grants to students.
Finalize the detailed schedule, taking into account constraints provided
by the General Chair and the membership meeting (for flagship conferences).

\section{Proceedings, Copyright and Archiving}
\label{proc}

\par\noindent {\bf Proceedings. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Proceedings}
The conference proceedings are published within Springer-Verlag's
Lecture Notes in Computer Science series. With the exception
of the FSE proceedings, they should
be available at the conference. The contact at Springer-Verlag is:
Alfred Hofmann, Computer Science Editor, Springer-Verlag,
Tiergartenstrasse 17, D-69121 Heidelberg, Germany (Phone
+49-6221-487-85 99; fax +49-6221-487-85 88; email
{\tt alfred dot hofmann at springer dot com}).

Springer-Verlag needs the final version of each paper and all other material
that will be printed in the conference proceedings (such as the foreword
which you have to write) at least ten weeks prior to the conference (with
the exception of FSE where you may have more time---contact Springer-Verlag
about the schedule). Collect the source files of final versions from all
authors and send the collection of sources to Springer-Verlag along with
the email addresses of the corresponding authors. Springer-Verlag will
send the versions as they will appear in the proceedings (i.e., after
last-minute formatting done by Springer-Verlag) to the authors directly.
Request that the authors forward a copy of these proceedings versions of
their papers to you. Check with Springer-Verlag that they received all
papers. In the course of this process, handle the copyright forms as set
forth below, and do not pay attention to Springer-Verlag's messages referring
to Springer-Verlag's own copyright forms. Finally, you must upload
to the IACR server tex/latex/pdf with
all papers and front matter as submitted to Springer.

Coordinate with the General Chair the
delivery of the final proceedings prior to the beginning of the
conference. Note that Springer-Verlag will also put the proceedings
on the Web and will request the corresponding information from you.

\par\noindent {\bf Copyright. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Copyright}
Authors must assign their copyright to the IACR using the IACR copyright form.
Authors must download the IACR copyright form from
\url{http://www.iacr.org/forms/}, print it out, and sign it. The authors must
then either send the signed forms by fax to the IACR Copyright Form Registry
at +1 (815) 572-9739, or scan the form into PDF format and send it as an
attachment by email to {\tt copyrightform at iacr dot org}. The form must be
received two and a half months before the conference takes place.

The phone number is a fax-to-email gateway that sends a scanned PDF file to
the IACR server. You can check the arriving emails via a webmail interface
at  \url{https://secure.iacr.org/webmail/} with username ``copyrightform'';
the password is available from the IACR PC Chairs contact and from the
IACR secretary. Since there may be multiple conferences with overlapping
form collection periods, you should check the arriving emails, create a
subfolder for your conference, and sort the emails on the server
appropriately for archiving.

Note that Springer-Verlag employees may send you standard instructions
to use the Springer copyright forms and to send the originals
to them. Please ignore these instructions (cf.\ supra).  
If Springer asks you for the completed copyright forms you may send
them a PDF file containing all forms.

The IACR copyright form and the IACR Copyright Form Registry should
\emph{only} be used for IACR sponsored conferences and workshops.


\par\noindent {\bf Archiving.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Archiving}
Make sure that the electronic proceedings as published by Springer-Verlag
and all other relevant materials are retained for IACR\@. Proceed as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Upload to the IACR server all material as it will appear in the
proceedings.
\item Write a CD with the tex/latex/pdf with the papers and front matter
as submitted to Springer, plus the  electronic scans of the completed
copyright forms that have been uploaded to the IACR server.
If you cannot write a CD then contact the archivist 
({\tt archive at iacr dot org}) to arrange for an alternative method 
for sending the papers.  A website, special ssh account at 
\url{http://www.iacr.org}, or email of a compressed archive
can be arranged.
%\item Put the CD and the author copyright forms 
\item Put the CD
into a box or double-wrapped sturdy envelope.
\item Contact the IACR archivist ({\tt archive at iacr at org}) to get 
the mailing address.
\item Send the package via a reliable courier service.  If this is not
possible, let the archivist know about this and explain what
delivery method you will be using.
\end{enumerate}


\section{Before and at the Conference}
\label{conf}

You remain responsible for the program during the conference.  Therefore
you should be available when problems arise (e.g. if speakers do not
show up or if sessions have to be moved because of technical problems). Of
course, this responsibility is shared with the General Chair.
It is customary for the Program Chair to present entertaining statistics
about the submission and reviewing process. This can be done during
the membership meeting (if there is one), the rump session, or at the
opening of the conference.
\par\noindent
{\bf Conference facilities. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Conference facilities}
Check the conference facility, the overhead projectors, the audio equipment,
and computer projection facilities (computer with Powerpoint, PDF viewer,
preferably English operating system, no chopped off margins).
Clear transparencies, pens, and a pointer should be available.
Make sure that there is a backup for everything (even the power cables).

\par\noindent
{\bf Session chairing. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Session chairing}
It is recommended that the session chairpersons meet with each author
for that session.
This meeting can take place during the first cocktail
party or at lunch or breakfast prior to the session. The Session Chair
should explain that each talk will be timed and that it is important
to keep on schedule. The Session Chair should also encourage speakers
of laptop-based presentations to copy their presentation
to the conference computer well in advance of their presentation.
The Session Chair has the responsibility to keep
the speaker within the time limit.  The Session Chair will direct the
question and answer time after each author's presentation. The Session
Chair may promote questions and ask relevant questions if there are not
any from the floor.

\section{Budget, Financial, and Reporting Issues}
\label{budget}

{\bf Budget. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Budget}
It will be necessary for you to prepare a proposed budget for the
expenses that will be incurred by you and the Program Committee.  This
will need to be submitted to the General Chair at least 8 months prior
to the conference. Please remember to get approval from the General
Chair for any significant deviations from your budget before you make
them. Appendix~C gives some instructions, including how to
estimate the cost of the proceedings. In any case, follow the
instructions you receive from the General Chair. If you do not
receive such instructions, contact him or her.
\par\noindent
{\bf Financial Report. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Financial report}
Within three to four weeks after the conference you must
prepare a financial report (using the same accounting codes)
for the General Chair (see Appendix~C).  This report should include a list
of all expenses and be sent along with all of the receipts to the
General Chair.  If you have paid directly for any of the expenses, the
General Chair will reimburse you. However, for anything other than
organization charges, the General Chair should be billed directly in
order to keep your out of pocket expenditures to a minimum.
\par\noindent
{\bf Confidential report for IACR board. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Confidential report for IACR board}
Around the same time, write a confidential report for the IACR board
summarizing your experience
with your PC members, the review process, your assessment of the outcome,
your suggested changes to this document, and anything else you think the board
may find useful to be made aware of. A suggested structuring of this report
is as follows.
\begin{quote}
\begin{description}
\item[General assessment.]
Report on the `big picture'.
\item[Major alerts.]
Report on any exceptional issues that required you or your committee to take
unexpected action as part of the selection process.
\item[Changes.]
Report on changes you made compared to the `usual' way of running a
conference and describe your experience.
\item[Submissions.]
Report on numbers of submissions, accepted submissions, rejected submissions
(including parallel submissions), and withdrawals.
\item[Parallel and other irregular submissions.]
Report on the scale of the problem, any particular steps that you
took to discover parallel submissions, and how you dealt with them.
\item[Committee membership notices.]
Report on any members of your committee who demonstrated particular
skills or commitment that you feel should be brought to the attention
of the board.
\item[Author issues.]
Report on out-of-the-ordinary communications with authors, in particular on
complaints that you have received from authors.
\item[Guidelines comments.]
Report your proposed changes to the Program Chair guidelines.
\item[Other issues.]
Report on anything else you feel the board should be made aware of.
\end{description}
\end{quote}
\par\noindent
{\bf Newsletter report. }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Newsletter report}
Write a report on the conference for inclusion in the IACR newsletter
and send it to the General Chair. This report should not contain any
confidential issues. It may for instance include the statistics you
presented during the conference, or any other non-confidential matter
you see fit.


%========================================================================

\clearpage
\appendix

\section{Important IACR Email Addresses}
\label{contacts}

The following email addresses may be of use:\vspace{3mm}

\begin{tabular}{ll}
President & {\tt president at iacr dot org}\\
Vice President & {\tt vicepresident at iacr dot org}\\
Treasurer & {\tt treasurer at iacr dot org}\\
Membership secretary & {\tt iacrmem at iacr dot org}\\
Webmaster & {\tt webmaster at iacr dot org}\\
Newsletter editor & {\tt newsletter at iacr dot org}\\
Secretary & {\tt secretary at iacr dot org}\\
Board of directors & {\tt bod at iacr dot org}\\
Archive & {\tt archive at iacr dot org}
\end{tabular}





\section{Sample Letters to the Authors}
%\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{B: Sample letters to the authors}

%
%\subsubsection*{Confirmation of receipt}
%
%Although this is no longer relevant with the current online submission
%systems, an example of the confirmation of receipt letter is the following:
%
%
%\begin{quote}
%Dear \rule{30pt}{1pt}:
%
%Thank you for submitting your paper (s) \rule{30pt}{1pt} to Crypto
%(Eurocrypt) (Asiacrypt)  \rule{15pt}{1pt}.  We have received over
%\rule{20pt}{1pt} submissions for this year's conference, which makes
%for a very difficult task of selecting those to be presented.  The
%committee is currently reviewing all of the submissions with the goal
%of setting a final program by \rule{30pt}{1pt} (date).
%
%A decision of your contribution will be mailed by \rule{40pt}{1pt} (date).
%
%Sincerely,
%
%Program Chair
%Crypto (Eurocrypt) (Asiacrypt) \rule{15pt}{1pt}
%\end{quote}
%


\subsection{Rejection Letter}


An example of a rejection letter is the following:

\begin{quote}
Dear author,

I am sorry to inform you that your submission \rule{80pt}{1pt} was
not one of those accepted for CONFERENCE\@.

The review process for CONFERENCE
has been a challenging and delicate task for the Program Committee.  Each
paper was carefully evaluated by at least three reviewers.  The work was
very difficult because of the large number of high quality papers which
were received and the relatively small number which could be accepted.
There were \rule{18pt}{1pt} papers submitted and only \rule{18pt}{1pt}
time slots available for presentations.

The Program Committee members have put in a significant effort in order to
provide useful feedback to the authors, but due to time constraints, this
was not always possible.  If comments were made that we believe would be
beneficial to the authors, they will be sent shortly.

Thank you very much for submitting your work to CONFERENCE,
and we hope to see you at the conference.

Sincerely,

NN \\
CONFERENCE program chair
\end{quote}


\subsection{Acceptance Letter}

An example of the acceptance letter is the following:

\begin{quote}
Dear author,

It is our pleasure to inform you that your paper
\rule{60pt}{1pt}
has been accepted for CONFERENCE\@. Congratulations.

Please confirm receipt of this email, and provide us with the (corrected)
title and complete list and affiliations of authors (the submission server
did not always retain this information).  This will allow us to distribute
the list of accepted papers. Please confirm that one of the co-authors will
present the paper.

The selection of the papers has been a challenging and delicate task.
Each paper was carefully evaluated by at least three reviewers.  The work was
very difficult because of the large number of high quality papers which
were received and the relatively small number which could be accepted.
There were \rule{18pt}{1pt} papers submitted and only \rule{18pt}{1pt}
time slots available for presentations.

The program committee members have put in a significant effort in order to
provide useful feedback to the authors, but due to time constraints, this
was not always possible. However, we expect that you do your best to take
into account any comments received while producing the final version.

Within a few days I will send you the comments and detailed instructions for
preparing the final version (Springer Verlag's llncs style).
In order to be included in the proceedings, the final version of your paper must
reach us by \rule{30pt}{1pt}. This is a firm deadline.
Note also the strict length limit of \rule{10pt}{1pt} pages.

On behalf of the Program Committee I would like to thank you for your
submission and your support to CONFERENCE\@.
I am looking forward to meeting you in \rule{20pt}{1pt}.

Sincerely,

NN \\
CONFERENCE program chair
\end{quote}

\noindent For instructions to authors see Section~\ref{commaut}.


\section{Format of Budget and Financial Report}
%\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{C: Format of budget and
%financial report}

\subsection{Cost Model for Proceedings}
The following is a verbatim quote from Springer--Verlag, included
with permission from Springer-Verlag.
It should be helpful to estimate the cost of the proceedings.
For Crypto and Eurocrypt, 70 free copies of the proceedings are
given (as opposed to the 50 mentioned below) in exchange for
a presentation desk and a single delegate at the conference.
You can take a limited number of these free copies (say 3) and you can
reserve a number of free copies for PC members who cannot attend,
but the remainder of the 50 (or 50+20) free copies should be
provided to the General Chair as copies for the participants.

Shipping cost depends on
the country (typically US-\$~2000 for a large conference, but for Russia
it was twice as much) and whether the proceedings
are shipped to the conference or sent to every attendee individually after
the conference (FSE).

\begin{verbatim}
As to the financial side, no royalties are paid for editing LNCS Proceedings,
however a standard number of 50 free copies of the book are given to the
editor(s). Additional copies needed for distribution at the meeting or for
contributing authors etc. can be bought at a discount of (at least) 45 % off
the list price; this discount is increased to 47.5 % or 50 %, etc. if at
least 100 copies or at least 200 copies, etc. are bought (respectively). The
list price of an LNCS Proceedings volume essentially depends on the number of
pages needed, as shown in the LNCS price list appended below. Please note that,
besides the costs for the books, the transportation costs also have to be
covered and that the list prices might be changed over time.

          2004 LNCS/LNAI Price List
          *********************************************************
          LIST PRICES FOR LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE
          (effective: January 29, 2004)

          NUMBER of PAGES                         EUR
           up to  250                            42.00
              251-300                            45.00
              301-350                            48.00
              351-400                            52.00
              401-450                            56.00
              451-500                            60.00
              501-550                            64.00
              551-600                            68.00
              601-650                            72.00
              651-700                            76.00
              701-750                            80.00
              751-800                            84.00

The page number ranges refer to the total number of pages (i.e. Roman numbered
front matter pages plus Arabic page count).

This list gives the full EUR list prices. For bulk orders of conference
proceedings a discount off these list prices is granted; this discount depends
on the number of copies bought. In addition to the cost for books shipped to
conferences, the transportation cost has to be covered.

The list prices of volumes with more than 800 pages are calculated individually.
As a rough approximation, EUR 3.00 are to be added for each additional 50 pages
needed beyond 800 pages; there are (slight) reductions for high printrun titles
or multiple-volume proceedings.
\end{verbatim}

\subsection{Format for Program Committee Budget}

Your budget should use account numbers from the IACR Chart of Accounts
and would possibly include the following:

\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lr}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf Income estimates} \\
Seed money                              & \$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
Other (explain)                         &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\

& \\
TOTAL INCOME                            &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
& \\
Expense estimate & \\
Seed money                                              &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
Invited lecturers                                       &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
Travel assistance (including travel & \\
         for Program Committee meeting)                 &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
Organization & \\
\hspace*{.25truein}postage/courier charges              &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
\hspace*{.25truein}telephone                            &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
\hspace*{.25truein}copying                              &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
\hspace*{.25truein}secretarial help                     &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
Proceedings                                             &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
Meeting Facility (for Program Committee meeting)        &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
& \\
TOTAL EXPENSE   &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Please explain anything else which you feel needs explanation.


\subsection{Format for final Program Committee Financial Report}

\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllr}
3XX&    \bf Income Accounts & &\\
& 311 & Seed money received &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
& 399 & Other income (explain) &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\

&     &   & \\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\bf TOTAL INCOME} &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt} \\
& & & \\
4XX & \bf Expense Account & & \\
& 411 & Seed money returned &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
& 432 & Organization* & \\
&    & postage/courier charges  &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
&    & telephone                        &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
&    & copying                  &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
&    & secretarial help         &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
&433 & Meeting facility*                &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
&441 & Invited lecturers*       &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
&    &    (has to be documented) &\\
&442 & Travel assistance*       &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
&    & (has to be documented) &\\
&451 & Proceedings*             &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt}\\
&    &   & \\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\bf TOTAL EXPENSES} &\$\rule{60pt}{1pt} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

Those categories marked with a * require receipts or paid invoices for
all expenses in the category.


\subsection{IACR chart of conference account definitions}

\paragraph*{3XX Income Accounts}

\begin{description}
\item[311] Seed Money Received.
IACR will provide ``seed money'' to the General Chairs.  In order to get
seed money, you will need to contact the General Chair.  (Pay it back
from account 411.)
\item[311] Other Income. Keep track of other income,
the amount and an explanation.  (Most likely you will not have any income
other than  seed money from IACR.)
\end{description}
\paragraph*{4XX Expense Accounts:}
\begin{description}
\item[411] Seed Money Returned.
Should equal the amount in account 311.
\item[441] Invited lecturers.
Honoraria and other amounts paid to
distinguished researchers invited to present a paper at your
conference.  In order to preserve IACR's tax status IT IS IMPORTANT
that you document the qualifications and contribution to your
conference of every account 441 recipient.  Get a signed receipt from
each invited lecturer.
\item[442] Travel assistance (including travel for members to
attend the Program Committee meeting).
Amounts you spend to defray
travel expenses for some of the attendees of your conference.  In
order to preserve IACR's tax exempt status, it is important that every
recipient of travel assistance contribute to your conference somehow
(e.g. giving a paper, help with organization).  Please document how
you make your travel decisions, who got how much, and why.  This can
be a very sensitive area both with the tax authorities and politically
within IACR\@.  Get receipts.
\item[432] Postage or courier charges (to deliver papers to Program
Committee, notification letter to authors, etc.) Get receipts, especially
when you reimburse yourself.
\item[432] Copy charges. Get receipts, especially when you reimburse
yourself.
\item[432] Telephone charges for calls to authors, selected speakers,
Program Committee members, Springer-Verlag, General Chair, etc. Again
get receipts, especially when you reimburse yourself.
\item[432] Temporary or secretarial help.  Get receipts.
\item[451] Proceedings.  Any charges related to the publication of the
proceedings.
\item[499] Other expenses. If you cannot figure out where else to put
an expense, put it here and provide an explanation.
\end{description}


\section{Detailed Timetable}
%\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{D: Detailed timetable}
The following timetable is an expanded version of the one given
in Section~1.
It contains some potentially useful reminders and suggests
common sense approaches to a variety of issues.
All times are in months from time $T$ of the conference.
If the proceedings are available only after the conference, some parts
of the timetable can be delayed a little.

\begin{description}
\item[$T-18$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
Read this document.
\item
Talk to experienced people in the community about their experience as
Program Chair or committee member.
Try to obtain information about how program committees
are run in other scientific communities in related areas.
\item
Make up your mind how you want to run this process.
If you intend to implement major changes compared to how it is usually
done, you may want to solicit feedback from the IACR's president and
other board members.
\item
Design a detailed plan and timetable of your job and the committee's
work.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-12$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
If you were invited as an advisory member of the Program Committee
of the same conference a year before the one you are responsible for,
observe the process, consider what you would do
differently, and what you could improve.
\item
Select the Program Committee (see Section~\ref{pcselect}).
Inform the candidates that you invite for your committee about
the reviewing process (see Section~\ref{reviewing}), the time
commitment they will have to make, and of the way you intend to run the
process before they decide whether or not to accept your invitation.
\item
Contact Springer-Verlag about the publication of the proceedings and
make clear arrangements and a time schedule for all contacts between
you and Springer, including the shipping of the proceedings to the
conference site.
\item
Inform yourself about the electronic submission and reviewing
software (see Section~\ref{software}).
Test it on your computer infrastructure or make binding arrangements
to run it under someone else's supervision. Get help if needed.
The submission server should be available at least three months before
the submission deadline.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-11$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
Make sure you have working contact information for all your committee members.
\item
Draft a Call for Papers (CFP; see Section~\ref{CFP}).
You can base your draft on the previous CFPs for the same conference.
\item
Solicit feedback on the draft from the General Chair and
the members of your committee, finalize the CFP based on their comments,
and stick to the dates given in the final CFP.
\item
Contact the IACR webmaster to set up the conference
website and place the CFP on it.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-10$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
Ask each of your committee members to specify the topics in which
he or she does or does not want to review submissions.
\item
Solicit input from your committee about invited speakers:
how many, and whom to invite.
Be aware that there may be an IACR distinguished lecture at your conference.
Invited speaker(s) or IACR distinguished lecturer may decide to have a paper
in the proceedings.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-9$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
Decide whether or not you want to have a physical Program Committee meeting,
possibly with input from your committee.
\item
Make sure the submission server is up and running.
\item
Finalize negotiation on the budget (See Section~\ref{budget}) with
the General Chair.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-7$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
Make sure the reviewing software is up and running.
\item
Send usernames and passwords for access to the reviewing software to
each of your committee members. Make sure that your committee members
understand that they should enter all reviews themselves, including
reviews by subreviewers, and that their access credentials
should not be shared with anyone else (including their subreviewers).
\item
Check that all committee members can access the reviewing software.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-6$]First evaluation period.
\begin{itemize}
\item
You should have the submitted papers by now.
Initiate the reviewing process (see Section~\ref{reviewing}):
\begin{itemize}
\item make the submissions available to your committee members so they
can express their preferences;
\item based on their preferences and their lists of specified topics,
assign the submissions to the committee members;
\item remind your committee members that from now until well after the
reviewing all discussions about submissions between them and authors
should be channeled through you;
\item make sure the committee members can enter reviews;
\item
determine rump ression policy, send it to the General Chair to be
included in the conference announcement/registration package, and
announce it on the conference webpage.
\end{itemize}
At this point the first stage of the reviewing process starts.
Usually, committee members cannot read each others' reviews at this stage.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-5$]Second evaluation period: the discussion phase.
\begin{itemize}
\item
Once the majority of the reviews has been entered:
\begin{itemize}
\item put submissions with consistently low (or high) scores of sufficiently
high confidence in the `maybe reject (or accept)' category,
but keep the others in `discuss';
\item give the committee members read access to each others's reviews;
\item encourage the committee members to discuss the reviews with each other,
in particular for submissions with diverging scores.
\end{itemize}
\item
While discussions are taking place:
\begin{itemize}
\item monitor the discussions, encourage inactive committee members
to particpate and solicit more reviews where needed;
\item consider contacting authors in whose papers small flaws have
been found to see if the problem can be fixed, and notify the reviewers
of your initiative;
\item gradually move submissions from the `maybe' categories to the
corresponding `reject' or `accept',
replenishing the `maybe's with submissions from `discuss' for which
consensus is reached;
\item do not hesitate to reconsider your assignments;
\item be flexible, but make sure that a clear picture emerges.
\end{itemize}
\item It is reasonable to aim for at most 50 submissions in
`discuss' at the end of the discussion phase.
\item
Make up your mind how to make the final decisions: during the Program Committee
meeting if there is one, or using some other well-defined process otherwise.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-4$]Final decisions.
\begin{itemize}
\item
Decide for each submission if it will be accepted, conditionally accepted
(`shepherded'), proposed to be merged with another submission, or rejected.
Make sure that the shepherds know and agree which conditionally accepted
submission they will be shepherding and agree with them on an interaction mode
between shepherd and authors (directly or via yourself as a proxy).
\item
Notify authors of the decision (see Section~\ref{commaut}).
Ask your committee members to edit their comments for the authors within
two or three days of author notification, and to
include useful material from the discussion phase.
\item
Once you have made sure that the comments do not contain contradictory,
unhelpful, or rude remarks, send them to the authors.
\item
Agree with your General Chair on a policy for giving grants to students.
\item
Send the list of titles and authors of accepted submissions
to the General Chair.
\item
Finalize the discussion on invited speakers with your committee,
and notify the General Chair of the speakers and topics.
\item
Decide, possibly with input of the committee members, on
the best paper award if you want to have one.
\item
Brace yourself for feedback from authors.
\item
Brace yourself for other unpleasant surprises.
\item
Send instructions to authors of non-rejected submissions to prepare
manuscripts for the proceedings.
For shepherded papers you may want to act as proxy between authors
and shepherds.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-3$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
Ask the committee members for the names of all external reviewers.
\item
Appoint Session Chairs (committee members often volunteer).
\item
Determine the program schedule in collaboration with the General Chair in
order to coordinate the technical and social programs (for flagship conferences,
take into account the membership meeting).
\item Monitor the shepherding processes, if any.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-2.5$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
Due date for final papers (not for FSE): make sure the authors send the version
of their paper as it will appear in the proceedings not just to
Springer-Verlag but to you as well.
Make sure you get the proceedings contributions of your invited speaker(s)
and IACR distinguished lecturer, if applicable.
Make sure you get a completed copyright form for each paper that will appear
in the proceedings.
\item
Write a foreword for the proceedings, including acknowledgements for all
those who helped, in particular all the external reviewers,
and mention which paper received the best paper award (if any).
\item
Send all required material to Springer-Verlag for
publication of the proceedings.
\item
You must upload to the IACR server all material as submitted to Springer
so that this material will be immediately available to the IACR archivist.
\item
You must have electronic scans of completed copyright forms for all papers
in the proceedings and all forms must be uploaded to the IACR server.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-2$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
Choose the Rump Session Chair and
announce this information on the conference webpage.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-1$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
Notify the committee members and Session Chairs of the program schedule
and of which session they will chair.
\item
Contact the IACR archivist ({\tt archive at iacr dot org}) to find out
what other material should be mailed to the archivist
besides final versions of all the papers (tex/latex/pdf) 
as they will appear in the proceedings, your foreword, and the electronic
scans of all completed IACR copyright forms. See Section~\ref{proc}
for detailed instructions. 
\end{itemize}
\item[$T$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item At the conference you remain responsible for the program
(see Section~\ref{conf}). You may want to say something about your experience
during the IACR membership meeting, the rump session, or at the opening
of the conference.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T+1$]Closing checklist.
\begin{itemize}
\item
Send electronic versions of all requested material to {\tt archive at iacr dot org}.
\item
Send the list of rump session presentations, including authors and titles,
to both {\tt newsletter at iacr dot org} and to {\tt archive at iacr dot org}.
\item
Submit the financial report to the General Chair (see Section~\ref{budget})
along with receipts.
\item
Send your contribution to the report of the conference to be published
in the IACR newsletter to the General Chair.
\item
Submit your confidential conference report (see Section~\ref{budget})
to the board of the IACR.
\item
Archive all material for at least one more year (see also Section~\ref{proc}).
\item
Take a well-deserved rest.
\end{itemize}
\end{description}

\section{Best Practices} % (to be expanded)}
%\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{E: Best practices}
\begin{itemize}
\item Read this document.
\item Be responsive and communicative.
\item Don't be judgmental in your communications to authors.
\item Stick to the dates, once published.
\item Be clear to all parties affected about the way you will be running your
conference.
\item Don't hesitate to ask for advice.
\item Establish a good working relationship with the General Chair.
\item Read (and follow) the closing checklist ($T+1$ in Appendix~D).
\item Abide by the following rules:
\begin{itemize}
\item Submissions to IACR flagship conferences must be anonymous
throughout the reviewing process.
\item Authors must assign their copyright to the IACR.
\item You must upload to the IACR server all material as it will appear
in the proceedings and all scanned copyright forms.
\item Within three to four weeks after the conference,
you must prepare a financial report for the General Chair.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}


\clearpage
\section{Program Chair Terms of Reference}
%\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{F: Program Chair Terms of Reference}
{\large
\begin{description}
\item[Role:] Program Chair of ............. 20..

\item[Reporting to:] IACR Board \hspace{5mm} and .......... Steering Committee

\item[Purpose:]$ $

The IACR's purpose is to further research in cryptology and related fields.
It does this in many ways, but primarily through the organising of conferences
and workshops and the publication of papers in proceedings and the Journal of
Cryptology.

The purpose of the role of Program Chair is to select a balanced
scientific program of high quality.

\item[Responsibilities:]

The Program Chair shall:
\begin{itemize}
\addtolength{\itemsep}{1mm}
\item
Follow the IACR rules for Program Chairs as specified in the IACR Rules
and Guidelines for Program Chairs (\url{http://www.iacr.org/docs/progchair.pdf}).
\item
Consult with the General Chair for the financial aspects and organizational
aspects of the event.
\item
Select a balanced Program Committee (with Program Chairs of the same conference
of the previous and the next (if already selected) year as advisory members).
\item
Set a policy on Program Committee member submissions.
\item
Publish a call for papers on the conference website.
\item
Uphold the IACR policy for anonymous submissions and review
(for Asiacrypt, Crypto, and Eurocrypt).
\item
Uphold the IACR policy on irregular submissions.
\item
Make decisions after open consultation with the Program Committee while
respecting scientific ethics and integrity.
\item
Upload to the IACR server all proceedings material and electronic scans
of copyright forms well before the conference.
\item
Collect IACR copyright forms and send them to the IACR archivist.
\item
Collect final papers and send these to the IACR archivist.
\item
Send a financial report to the General Chair within 4 weeks after the event.
\item
Send a report to the IACR Board and (if applicable) to the ........... Steering Committee
within 4 weeks after the event.
\end{itemize}
\end{description}
Agreed by \\[3mm]
Program Chair \hfill the IACR president \hfill the ........... Steering Committee Chair
}
\end{document}