%
% revision history, most recent at top
%
% 20230124 Schwabe, Lepoint, McCurley. Too many changes to list - that's what source control
%              is supposed to track.
% 20190902 BP+CC: major update including  switch to parallel co-chairs
%              inclusion of conference/journal hybrids, 
%              videos/slides, rebuttals, terminology, publication in JoC, Springer contract,
%              IACR fund for student waivers, removed Newsletter and transparencies, physical 
%              proceedings
% 20150426 CC: submission format, after Board meeting
% 20150324 NPS: Added Moti's paragraphs, plus simplifications
% 20140922 CC: Updates for co-chair and terms of reference
% 20140903 NPS: Archivist update, parallel sessions
% 20140521 CC: President organizes award plaques, copyright form process
% 20140512 NPS:  Stronger PC Liaison role
% 20130712 mccurley: section on videos
% 20121219 CC: copyright URL
% 20120416 CC: co-chair clarification, encourage accepting even more papers
% 20110511 CC: more updates for co-chair system
% 20110511 CC: typographical edits
% 20100811: updates to reflect junior/senior chair system, amend
%   copyright policy, and clarify distinct conference/workshop roles.
% 20100130: update of contact info and use of WebSubRev, Josh.
% 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
% 20060329, AKL, made several changes throughout
% 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''
% 26.08.03, LRK, added that authors send all papers to archive@iacr.org.

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{url}
\topmargin=-5mm
\evensidemargin=0cm
\oddsidemargin=0cm
\textwidth=16cm
\textheight=22cm
\addtolength{\headheight}{1.6pt}
\newcommand{\cancel}[1]{}
\newcommand{\mymark}{$^*$}

\newcommand{\lastupdate}{January 2023}
\lhead{\sc IACR Guidelines for Program Chairs}
\rhead{\sc \lastupdate}

\title{\bf IACR Guidelines for Program Chairs}
\author{\mbox{}}

\date{\lastupdate
 \footnote{The most recent version of this document
    can be obtained from \protect\url{https://www.iacr.org/docs/}.}}

\usepackage[colorlinks]{hyperref}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\thispagestyle{empty}
\pagenumbering{roman}

\noindent
Dear Program Chair(s),
\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.  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 IACR Board of
Directors (``the Board''), the conference Steering Committee, 
preceding Program Chairs, and experienced
members of the community.  

This document also contains a number of rules that represent decisions
taken by the Board or by the IACR membership.  You are expected to follow
these rules: they can be recognized by the imperative ``must.''
Section~\ref{motivation} explains the motivation behind having rules and
the division of responsibility between you, the Board, and the General
Chair.

Agreeing to be Program Chair or Program Co-Chair of an IACR-sponsored
event implies that you will accept these rules and follow the
guidelines.  If you feel that you are unable or unwilling to do so, or
if you desire modifications be made from these guidelines, please
contact the Board or the Steering Committee beforehand.  Failure to do
so may result in someone else being invited to become Program Chair in
your place.
You are appointed well in advance of the event taking place.  In rare
cases, these guidelines may be changed by the Board or by the membership,
and if this happens, you are expected to cooperate with the Board for the
benefit of the IACR.

Your first contact is the \emph{PC Liaison Officer} of the IACR (currently
Bart Preneel, {\tt bart dot preneel @ esat dot kuleuven dot be}); please contact him as
soon as possible to get advice and insight from previous events, and send
feedback and suggestions for improvements of this document to him.

This document is intended for the Program Chairs of the three IACR
General Conferences (Asiacrypt, Crypto, and Eurocrypt) and IACR
Area Conferences (CHES, FSE, PKC, and TCC).  Appendix~\ref{app:hybrid} contains specific information 
for CHES and FSE that are Conference/Journal Hybrids. In this document, an
\emph{Event} or \emph{Conference} refers collectively to an IACR General 
Conference or Area Conference.  
From 2009 onward the IACR General Conferences have used a \emph{rolling co-chair
model} and in 2020 this was changed to a \emph{parallel co-chair model}. 
The Area Conferences are using several models. 
Section~\ref{cochair} explains your role as a Program Co-Chair. 

Above all, the Board hopes that you find your job rewarding.

\newpage
\noindent {\it Contributors to this document:
%\begin{flushright}\it
Scott Vanstone and Sherry Shannon (1991, 1995),
Ueli Maurer (1999, 2001), 
Lars R.\ Knudsen (2002--2004),
Arjen K.\ Lenstra (2006--2008), 
Josh Benaloh (2010), 
Christian Cachin (2011--2015, 2019),
Nigel Smart (2014, 2015),
Steven Galbraith (2020), 
Bart Preneel (2007, 2019, 2020),
Tancr\`ede Lepoint (2023),
Peter Schwabe (2023),
Kevin McCurley (2023).
}
%\end{flushright}

%\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
\pagestyle{fancy}
\pagenumbering{arabic}


%Note
%\section{Every word is Capitalized in any \section heading in this document.}
%\subsection{Only the first word is Capitalized in any \subsection and smaller heading in this document.}

\section{Motivation}
\label{motivation}

You as the Program Chair, the Board, and the General Chair have different
responsibilities regarding the organization of IACR events.

According to the IACR Bylaws, the Board ``manages, controls, and directs the
affairs [\dots] of the IACR'' and is therefore responsible to the IACR
membership.  In this role, the Board is ultimately the place where legally
the responsibility lies for the operations of the IACR and for IACR events.
The Board sponsors the conference (through taking financial
responsibility), maintains contracts with publishers, looks after issues
related to copyright, archiving of papers, selection of venues, and so on.

The Board guards the interests of the IACR members.  As the field grows,
the Board ensures continuity over the years; when the environment changes
the Board also responds to changes in the interests of the IACR\@.  Thus, the
Board defines the most important aspects of an event (length, format,
publication venue, etc.) as described in this document.  Many of these
matters require liaison with various external entities (publishers, for
example) and imply contractual obligations on or by the IACR\@.  The Board
also maintains infrastructure whose goal is to help the organization of
events (reviewing software, membership database, the Cryptology ePrint
Archive, CryptoDB etc).

Each IACR Area Conference has a Steering Committee that may provide complementary
guidelines and rules. As Program Chair of an IACR Area  Conference, your first point
of contact is the Steering Committee Chair, who can coordinate discussions 
inside the Steering Committee and with the IACR Board; you should contact the  
PC Liaison Officer for policy-related issues such as the update of these guidelines.

As Program Chair, you have full responsibility for implementing a fair
submission and reviewing process based on the highest scientific and
ethical standards.  Decisions about the scientific program, e.g., which
papers and talks to include are independently taken by you and your Program
Committee. The Board (or the Steering Committee) does not interfere with the selection of papers as
long as these guidelines are followed.  However, the Board (and/or the Steering
Committee) may give advice
which you may find useful on the selection of the committee, as it 
provides the collective memory of the IACR\@.
Note: the Program Chair may be involved in the selection of affiliated workshops, 
but this has typically been the responsibility of the General Chair.

The General Chair is responsible for all organizational matters relating to
a Conference except for the scientific content. The General Chair is also responsible
for the selection of the affiliated workshops, perhaps assisted by a Workshop Chair.
The Board delegates the
financial management and local organization of an event to the General
Chair. The obligations of a General Chair in this regard are outlined in
the Guidelines for General Chairs.



\section{Program Co-Chairs}
\label{cochair}

\typeout{BP: what does ex officio mean - do they write reviews?
CC: Yes.}%
From 2020/2021 onwards, IACR uses a \emph{parallel co-chair model} for its
General Conferences.  This means that two people are appointed as 
\emph{Program Co-Chairs for each new edition of a conference}.
Program Co-Chairs appointed for a given edition of a Conference 
automatically become \emph{ex officio} members of the program 
committee of the preceding edition of the same Conference. 
Note: CHES and TCC follow the parallel co-chair model while FSE has adopted 
the \emph{rolling co-chair model}. PKC uses the single chair model and sometimes
the parallel co-chair model. More
details for the Conference/Journal Hybrids CHES and FSE are provided in Appendix~\ref{app:hybrid}.

Wherever this document refers to the Program Chair of a Conference in the
parallel or rolling co-chair model, it means both Program Co-Chairs.

The Program Co-Chairs of a Conference are both equally responsible 
for the event. They should agree on a process
and working mode between them that suits them. They should bear a comparable
share of the workload. The Program
Co-Chairs may also consult with the PC Liaison Officer, with the
Board of Directors or with the Steering Committee. 

The names of the Program Co-Chairs must always appear together in all
publications regarding the event, such as in the conference
proceedings or on the conference website.  

%BP: rewritten to avoid redundancy 
The procedures for selecting Program Chairs are described in Section~\ref{pcselect}.



%The Program Co-Chairs of a conference in the rolling co-chair model
%are both responsible for the event. They should agree on a process
%and working mode between them that suits them.  A {\it suggested} 
%arrangement may be that ``junior'' chair defers to the ``senior'' chair for
%irreconcilable difference.  The Program Co-Chairs may also consult
%with the PC Liaison Officer or with the Board of Directors.
%
%The names of the co-chairs must always appear together in all
%publications regarding the event, such as in the conference
%proceedings or on the conference website; the terms ``junior'' and
%``senior'' should never be used for external communication.  Wherever
%this document refers to the Program Chair of a conference in the
%rolling co-chair model, it means both Program Co-Chairs.
%
%Program chairs and co-chairs are selected by the Board.  Although the Board
%may consult with a ``senior'' co-chair, he/she has no input into the
%process of selecting a ``junior'' co-chair.
%
%Since the planning for a conference starts usually 12--18 months before the
%conference takes place, the Board will select a ``junior'' chair for a
%conference at least 18 months before the conference takes place.

\section{Timetable} \label{timetable}
The following timetable lists the key tasks and when they should
approximately be completed.
All times are in months from time $T$ of your event.

Appendix~\ref{app:detailedtimeline} contains a more detailed timetable.
For the Conference/Journal Hybrids, an adapted timetable is provided in Appendix~\ref{app:hybrid}.

\begin{description}
\item[$T-18$]$ $
Inform yourself about your job, get in touch with your Program Co-Chair
(if applicable), and start planning (see Section~\ref{program}).
Contact the PC Liaison Officer for information.
\item[$T-12$]$ $
Select the Program Committee (see Section~\ref{pcselect}).
Run your proposed PC past the PC Liaison Officer and/or the Steering Committee Chair 
for feedback.
Contact Springer about the publication of the proceedings
(see Section~\ref{proc}), and get acquainted with
reviewing software (see Section~\ref{software}).
\item[$T-11$]$ $
Write the Call for Papers and put it on the
event 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, event webpage) 
\item[$T-5$]$ $
The discussion phase of the reviewing process.
\item[$T-4.5$]$ $
Send to authors the reviews for their rebuttal. Discussions continue. Make final decisions.
\item[$T-3.5$]$ $
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[$T-2$]$ $
Authors submit the proceedings versions to you.   Assemble the
proceedings, send the material to the publisher, and
upload everything also the IACR server.
Make sure authors have submitted the signed copyright
forms (see Section~\ref{proc}).
\item[$T-1.5$]$ $
Announce Rump Session Chair on your event 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 your event, you are responsible for the program (see Section~\ref{conf}).
\item[$T+1$]$ $
Send any relevant materials to the Archivist, the Communications Secretary,
the General Chair, and the Board
(see the detailed timetable in Appendix~\ref{app:detailedtimeline} for 
what to send where), and archive everything for at least a year
(see also Section~\ref{proc}).
\end{description}


\section{Planning the Program}
\label{program}

\paragraph{Overview.}
Consider how you want to run your event:
invited speaker(s), special sessions (e.g.\ poster session? 
difference in schedule?), best paper award(s), rump session, 
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.
The Board encourages experimentation and new ideas, but any change
which impacts the financial, publication, or local organization side 
of an event must be discussed with the Board first.

A Board decision in 2014, approved by a referendum in 2016, has decided to ask the
Program Chairs and Committees of the three IACR General Conferences in 2015
``to have parallel sessions for a significant part of the program.''  

% As a response to complaints about a lack of opportunities for
% publication, the Board recommended in 2012 that substantially more
% papers should be accepted than before at conferences (Asiacrypt,
% Eurocrypt, Crypto). As of 2015 the ``right'' number for all
% three venues seems to be at least 50 papers. 

Submissions to all IACR Conferences must be open to anyone and never by invitation only.
For General Conferences, the 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. 

\paragraph{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 your event
proceedings and may decline to do so.

\paragraph{IACR Membership meeting (General Conferences only).}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Membership meeting}
For the General Conferences you should schedule one~hour for an \emph{IACR Membership meeting};
typically this meeting is held immediately after the end of the
sessions on Wednesday (before the banquet or the beach BBQ).
The IACR President or his/her representative may also want to make
a short announcement during the opening session of the Conference.
For Area Conferences, you should consider to plan a short presentation 
on the IACR during the event.
%% comment by BP: perhaps general chairs of other events should show a few slides about IACR

\paragraph{Poster session.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Poster session}
Some attendees can only receive from their funding agencies a grant to
attend an event if they have a submission accepted.
Some events 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 your
event 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.

\paragraph{Best paper award(s) and top three papers.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Best paper award(s) and top three papers}
The Board strongly encourages Program Chairs to select one of the accepted
submissions to receive the best paper award and equally strongly encourages
Program Chairs to select the top three papers (including the best paper)
for invitation\footnote{Except for the Conference/Journal hybrids.} to the Journal of Cryptology. It should also be considered to select a best student paper (make sure
the criteria for a student paper are clearly defined). 
%BP should we make the latter not mandatory

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).

Be careful with conflicts of interest during the selection of the top three
papers and the best paper award. It is likely that a substantial fraction of
the program committee will have a conflict with one or more papers in the 
``longlist'' of candidates (typically 5-8 papers). One procedure which worked 
well in the past uses two steps: in step~1 all Program Committee members 
are allowed to recommend papers (for which they don't have a conflict) to the 
longlist; in step~2 a subcommittee is selected without conflicts in this
longlist; this subcommittee then chooses the top three papers and the best 
paper through a discussion and voting process.

The awards (including the top three papers invited to the Journal of Cryptology) should be mentioned in the foreword of your Conference
proceedings and at your Conference during the introduction of the papers
that received it.  For General Conferences, coordinate with the 
President about organizing and handing over a certificate for the best paper.  
A financial award should not be provided.

\paragraph{Rump session.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Rump session}
Current practice is for all IACR Conferences 
to have a rump session during one evening of the event,
to present recent developments, announce upcoming events, and to have fun.
Prior to your event, choose a person
to chair the rump session, with whom you determine how rump session
submissions are handled (including submission deadline, usually during
the event 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 at most 2.5~hours.  
Put all relevant information on the event website and make sure that the
program and the presentation material are available online afterwards.

\paragraph{Submission and paper format and length.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Submission and paper format and length}
For continuity among the Conferences, the Board
strongly recommends that submission are formatted in the same 
way as they will appear in the final accepted version.  
This should make it transparent to readers, as well as to reviewers, 
that the published version and the
reviewed version correspond to each other in length and scope.

For Conferences with proceedings published in Springer's LNCS series, the CFP should
include this requirement on formatting the submissions as follows:

\begin{quote}
Submissions must be at most 30 pages using the Springer LNCS format,
including title page, references, and figures.  Optionally any amount of
clearly marked supplementary material may be supplied, following
after the main body of the paper or in separate files.  
However reviewers are not required to read or review any
supplementary material and submissions are expected to be intelligible and
complete without it.  The final published version of an accepted paper is
expected to closely match the submitted 30~pages.
\end{quote}

\noindent For General Conferences, you must not deviate from this
principle and from the formatting requirement unless the PC Liaison Officer
agrees to it.

Note that as of 2015 Springer LNCS volumes will place any section 
in a paper called ``appendix,'' which appears after the bibliography,
to a place before the bibliography. Thus it makes sense to educate
authors to call the matter after the main body and the bibliography 
the \emph{supplementary material} and not the \emph{appendix}.

\paragraph{Submissions by Program Committee members.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Submissions by Program Committee members}
For General Conferences 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). The Area Conferences 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.
As Program Chair you cannot (co-)author a submission.  
In particular, for Conferences that use the co-chair model, 
no Program Co-Chair can (co-)author a submission.\footnote{The FSE Steering Committee has approved
an exception: the Program Co-Chair can submit one paper per year.}

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 five or six reviewers, as opposed to
the customary three reviewers for other submissions.

\paragraph{Dealing with unsolicited advice.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Dealing with unsolicited advice}
Your {\it scientific} choices and decisions while planning your event 
should be based on your own sound judgment, possibly with input 
from your committee members, members of the Board, 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 Liaison Officer of the IACR or an appropriate other 
member of the Board or the Steering Committee for assistance.

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

Program Chairs of IACR General Conferences are selected directly by the 
Board.  This appointment should be made about 18 months
before the Conference takes place.
%
Program Chairs of IACR Area Conferences are recommended by their
respective Steering Committees and approved by the Board.
The structure of each Conference (specifically
the possible use of co-chairs) is decided by the responsible
Steering Committee.

The Program Committee (PC) of an IACR General Conference should be able to address
the full range of research in cryptology; both theoretical
and applied.
The PC of an IACR Area Conference should have broad
expertise within the Conference's area of emphasis together with
sufficient experience in other areas of cryptographic research
to provide context for submissions that might cross between
sub-disciplines.
The PC should typically represent 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/young.
Other selection criteria:
access 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
recent IACR events may prove helpful).

To make sure you do not forget anything in the selection, you should run
your initial choice past the PC Liaison Officer (and Steering Committee Chair).  
This is to simply check
that all above aspects are covered, and for the corporate memory of the PC
Liaison Officer to be applied, as he/she is also a member of the IACR
Ethics Committee.  For example there may be issues with some PC members
which you may not be aware of from previous meetings.

\paragraph{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 event (based on previous years and the geographic location 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.

\paragraph{Finding PC member candidates.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Finding PC member candidates}
Recommendations of previous Program Chairs, the Program Chairs contact
of the IACR, and other members of the Board, are helpful to identify
suitable candidates.
A list of past members and of recommended new blood
can be obtained from the IACR Secretary.
Young, but sufficiently established people are often more dedicated and
enthusiastic than more senior people, but on the other hand are often 
more likely to accept papers which show technical brilliance over 
papers which will have lasting impact.
Thus a balance in ages is a good idea.
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.
It is an exception that PhD students serve.

\paragraph{Establish rules for the PC.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Establish rules for the PC}
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 event,
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 General Conferences 
must be anonymous to PC 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);
\item whether you will have a physical PC meeting (it varies; see below);
\item how many submissions by PC members are allowed and
how they will be handled (e.g., more reviewers, maybe held to higher standards);
\item how conflicts of interest are defined and will be handled (see 
Section~\ref{s_COI} for more details); 

\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 any other submission for which they have a conflict of
interest;
\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}

Keep in mind that the responsibility for the program lies with the PC and
ultimately with you as Program Chair.  It is not necessary to run the PC as
a democracy and you will have to decide if consensus cannot be reached.  On
the other hand, it is often better to work by consensus.

\paragraph{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 the timeline,
including rebuttal periods, and 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, try to avoid having any of your PC
members be surprised by any aspect of the way you are running your event.

\paragraph{Advisory Committee and Advisory PC members.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Advisory Committee and Advisory PC members}
For the General Conferences, the Program Co-Chairs of the coming year must serve as 
regular members of the program committee of the current year.  
In order to maintain the memory of the
review process, the Program Co-Chairs should compose an Advisory Committee 
consisting of the Program Co-Chairs of the previous year and the coming year
of the Conference. The Advisory Committee should be consulted for key decisions, 
including the composition of the program committee, the call for papers, 
the organization of the paper assignment, the organization of the review
and decision process and the selection of invited speakers. 

For the other Conferences, it is \emph{suggested} that Program Chairs of the same event
in the previous and the coming year (if selected already) are invited to be 
full or 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.

\paragraph{Physical PC meeting? }
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Physical PC meeting?}
Since the web-review 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
traveling.
\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. \emph{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
co-located with a related event.
\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 must
have negotiated with your General Chair. Financial support
should not be a criterion for selecting PC members. 
Select a procedure for the PC meeting before the meeting.  
At the meeting, announce the procedure and stick to it.


\section{Administrative Software}
\label{software}

For IACR meetings you must use the IACR version of the HotCRP software,
which was forked by Kevin McCurley and is hosted on \url{https://submit.iacr.org}.
This software is well-suited to the idiosyncrasies of IACR Conferences,
and it integrates into IACR's publication workflow process. The differences
include:
\begin{itemize}
\item import of possible conflicts of interest for PC members and authors;
\item preconfiguration of some standard settings used by IACR conferences;
\item integrates with the template that will be used for the conference
  website, so that the list of accepted papers and the program can be easily produced;
\item integrates with the ability to collect LaTeX of final versions
  of accepted papers, so that they can be used to produce the archive versions
  two years after the conference;
\item collects licence and copyright forms (they are different for ToSC/TCHES and
  Springer-based proceedings);
\item integrates with the program editor \url{https://iacr.org/tools/program};
\item provides a drag-and-drop editor to produce the front matter for LNCS-based
  proceedings;
\item integrates with software to send email to authors with instructions to
  upload slides, videos, and a record of who will present each paper.
\end{itemize}

There is considerable flexibility in how HotCRP can be configured for
a conference, allowing rebuttal rounds, and automatic review
assignments based on topics preferences collected from PC members as
well as topics identified by authors for their papers.  PC chairs may
also customize the submission form and the review form. For help on
setting up HotCRP, contact Kevin McCurley.
%
% The history of IACR custom reviewing software began with much
% appreciated systems developed by 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).
% Shai Halevi from IBM Research, USA developed an improved version of
% the Web-review software from COSIC that integrates the submission
% server in a neat way.  This WebSubRev software, with periodic updates,
% has been used by most IACR conferences and workshops since 2007 along
% with dozens of other events.  
%
%% Documentation, a demonstration, and source code for WebSubRev are available at
%% \url{https://people.csail.mit.edu/shaih/websubrev/}.

The submission deadline should be chosen such that a human operator is
present to monitor the final, say, two hours of the submission process.
It's possible to set a soft deadline in HotCRP so that authors who are trying
to submit in the last few minutes and encounter a busy server can still submit.
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 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.

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 make sure that the conference is listed in the IACR
calendar of events at \url{https://iacr.org/events}. The first thing
that goes on the conference website is generally the Call for Papers
(CFP).  The CFP should include the topics of interest, what types of
submissions are desired, and the list of PC members.  It has more or
less reached a \emph{de facto} standard and it is most convenient to
modify a previous CFP, using the same format.  Be explicit about the
rebuttal conditions and timing.  The list of program committee
members can be created using the tool at
\url{https://www.iacr.org/cryptodb/pc/}. Send the output with the text for
your call for papers to the General Chair or webmaster. Try to do this at least six
months before the conference.

\paragraph{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, workshops with proceedings,
or journals.
This is not allowed, as described further in the IACR policy on irregular
submissions.  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.
For copyright reasons a paper must not appear in an IACR venue 
and a journal without a substantially extended version being in the journal.
A sensible approach is to impose that authors notify Program Chairs
about parallel submissions to journals. 
Current online submission systems allow for the possibility to let
authors tick a box indicating that they follow your policy
regarding parallel submissions.

\paragraph{Anonymous submissions.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Anonymous submissions} Since 1990,
submissions to IACR General Conferences have been anonymous (blind), with the
exception of Crypto 2006 and Eurocrypt 2007.  In the 2006 ballot,
the IACR membership has approved with a strong majority the following
policy on anonymous submissions and review:
\begin{quote}
  Submissions to 
  IACR 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.
\end{quote}
You must abide by this anonymity policy and this policy should be
stated in the CFP\@.  This policy is recommended but not mandatory for
IACR Conferences; Program Chairs for Area Conferences should check with the
Steering Committee.

\paragraph{Submissions (co-)authored by PC members.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Submissions (co-)authored by PC members}
You may also state your policy about submissions by PC members (see Section~\ref{program}).

\paragraph{Conflicts of interest.} \label{s_COI}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Conflicts of interest}
The IACR has a Policy on Conflicts of Interest (COI) for program committee members and sub-reviewers of papers (\protect\url{https://www.iacr.org/docs/conflicts.pdf}). All General Conferences must comply with this policy. If any Area Conference chooses to follow an alternative
Conflict of Interest policy, that policy must be documented publicly and approved by the relevant Steering Committee.

The IACR COI policy states that a reviewer has an automatic COI with an author:
\begin{enumerate}
\item if one is or was the thesis advisor to the other, no matter how long ago;
\item if they shared an institutional affiliation within the prior two years;
\item if they published two or more jointly authored works in the last three years; or
\item if they are immediate family members.
\end{enumerate}
A reviewer has an automatic COI with a submission if he or she has an automatic COI with any
of its authors. Additionally, a reviewer has an automatic COI with a submission if the reviewer is authoring a paper (in submission or in preparation) whose content substantially overlaps that of the submission.
Check the IACR website for updates on this policy.

Authors can mark PC members they have a COI with when submitting their paper.
Program chairs should verify that sufficient expertise remains among the
reviewers who do not have a COI (in the case that authors would indicate too many conflicts). 

\paragraph{Dates.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Dates}
The CFP should contain submission deadline and notification date
(at least 6 and 3.5 months prior to your event, respectively),
and the schedule for authors of accepted papers 
(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'' and mention the time zone.
You can determine your own schedule by counting backwards from
Springer's hard deadline for your event (Section~\ref{proc}).
Please be aware that some authors need
a notification of acceptance before they can apply for a visa, hence
shifting this notification too close to the conference may be a problem.

In setting the schedule for submissions and the committee's work,
consider the schedules of previous IACR events.  Schedules of
Conferences, including non-IACR ones, depend on each
other, with submission deadlines of a non-IACR event often closely
following the notification date of an IACR event. It is therefore not
recommended to change the notification date once it has been announced
in the CFP\@.

Finally, when setting the submission, reviewing, and rebuttal dates, be mindful
of the worldwide holidays calendar in order to minimize inconvenience
to the authors and to the program committee. All
relevant dates, including rebuttal periods, must be clearly
communicated to PC and authors before the submission deadline.

\paragraph{Other CFP issues.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Other CFP issues}
Any special requirements, such as your decision (Section~\ref{program})
on submission and proceedings paper formats,
should be clearly stated in the CFP\@.

\section{Reviewing Process}
\label{reviewing}

IACR has issued guidelines for reviewers
\url{https://www.iacr.org/docs/reviewer.pdf}. Please read these carefully
and make sure your Program Committee members are aware of them. 

\paragraph{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 discussion facility
of the web-review system. Do not use email for some and the discussion
facility for other important messages, since PC members may miss them and fail
to respond in time.

\paragraph{Confidentiality.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Confidentiality} The whole reviewing
process and all submissions must be kept in confidence to the PC.
This rule must only be relaxed with your approval and in
well-defined cases, as described in this document and in the IACR
policy on irregular submissions.

\paragraph{Initial processing.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Initial processing}
Once the submissions have been received make sure that anonymity is not
breached by title pages,
PDF hidden information, or other ``features''. If needed edit the submissions
or request properly anonymized versions from the authors.
You may indeed decide to reject those submissions which do not meet
the submission criteria.

Make the resulting submissions available to the
committee members through the web-review 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 or
workshops.

\paragraph{Assigning the submissions.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Assigning the submissions}
One of your most important tasks is assigning submissions to the
individual PC members. 
The web-review system offers an automated assignment procedure 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-review 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 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 event (see Section~\ref{program}).

\paragraph{Irregular submissions.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Irregular submissions} You should enforce
the IACR Policy on Irregular Submissions \url{https://www.iacr.org/docs/irregular.pdf}
and consult with the IACR Ethics
Committee (chaired by the Vice President) if you discover any substantial
violations.  Irregular submissions typically fall in two categories:
\begin{description}
\item[Parallel submissions:] A parallel submission occurs when authors
  submit essentially the same material to one or more other events
  with overlapping reviewing periods.  They may
  be identified at any time during the reviewing process.  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 event(s), however,
  should be notified as soon as the double submission is identified.
\item[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, the IACR Ethics
  Committee must be involved and harsher action than a simple ``reject''
  could be appropriate.  Since establishing beyond doubt which party is
  responsible is probably beyond your and the IACR's competence, care
  should be taken.
\end{description}

\paragraph{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 $T-3.5$ in Appendix~\ref{app:detailedtimeline}
for further suggestions):
\begin{description}
\item[Phase 1:]
{\bf Individual reviewing.}
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-review 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-review 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:] {\bf Rebuttal.}
IACR Conferences have been following the new tradition in the computer science community
to give authors the opportunity to respond to the comments in a (brief) rebuttal. This can
be helpful to point out factual errors in the reviews, to resolve misunderstandings, or to 
better understand the impact of a shortcoming in a paper. It may also help weed out unfair comments. 
There seems to be a consensus that this improves the quality of the review process for a moderate
increase in workload. 

If rebuttals are used, it is even more important that all reviews are returned on time; otherwise 
some authors may be treated unfairly as they do not get the opportunity to respond to all the first 
round reviews. It may be helpful to have a short discussion phase among reviewers before the rebuttal in
order to resolve some conflicting comments. 

Reviews with strong criticism may result in a withdrawal of the paper during the rebuttal phase. 
You may also decide to issue early rejects after the rebuttal period. 
This has some advantages, but also presents the risks that authors may
use the quick first review phase as an oracle before submitting elsewhere. 

\item[Phase 3:]
{\bf Discussion.}
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 should 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 web-review
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-review 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. If these are not resolved
during the rebuttal phase, 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. If the review software allows for direction communications 
between authors and PC members, you should monitor and manage this carefully. 
An option that gives you more control is that you take the role of intermediary. 

Discussions can get heated especially when 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 emerges from ``discuss'' to the appropriate ``maybe'' category.
Solicit feedback on your moves, and do not hesitate to reconsider them.

\item[Phase 4:]
{\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-review system to engage the
entire committee in active online discussions. Also, in this case you may
want to devise an online 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-review 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 not
to fix a target number of submissions to accept (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). For mergers: set a clear policy in advance of the conditions
(e.g., what happens if the authors of one paper disagree). 

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}

\paragraph{Ethics.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Unfair behavior} Several previous
Program Chairs have reported observations of unfair or unethical
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.  In difficult
cases, especially if it seems likely to result in harm to the
reputation of any of the disputants or the IACR, contact the IACR
Ethics Committee.


\section{Selection Criteria for Papers}
\label{criteria}

\paragraph{Acceptance rate.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Acceptance rate}
The IACR Conferences 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. 
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.

\paragraph{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.

\paragraph{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 Completeness and clarity:
Is the paper well-written and does it contain all the details of the solution?
\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 groundbreaking.
\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.

\paragraph{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 
\emph{scientific} meeting and that there are other means than this event
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 Conference should also be considered to fall within
the scope of IACR General Conferences; similarly, high-quality papers that point 
out non-trivial flaws in widely deployed solutions (and/or solutions for such 
flaws) can strengthen the program.


\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~\ref{app:letters}.

\paragraph{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.

\paragraph{Feedback for authors of submissions.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Feedback for authors of submissions}
It is strongly {\it 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.

\paragraph{Instructions for authors of accepted submissions.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Instructions for authors of accepted submissions}
If the submission has been accepted, you should send the authors the
instructions for the authors/speakers. This will include at least
the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item
Instructions about preparing the proceedings version of the publication
and the procedure for submitting this material (Section~\ref{proc}); 
\item
Instructions for the copyright and consent (Section~\ref{proc}); 
\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; and
\item
Instructions on the presentation material. Encourage speakers
to copy their presentation well in advance to the central
computer used for the presentations at your event and to test that they
display properly. If they need their own laptop, make sure that they test
the setup well in advance. 
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}

\paragraph{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 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 not to interfere with
Program Chairs on these matters.
Note that the Ethics Committee is not an appeal body for rejection decisions; the
Ethics Committee deals only with complaints about unethical behavior. 

\paragraph{Information for the 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 the General Chair on a policy for giving grants to students.
Finalize the detailed schedule, taking into account constraints provided
by the General Chair and (for General Conferences) the membership meeting.


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

\paragraph{Proceedings.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Proceedings}
Proceedings of the General Conferences and the Area Conferences PKC and TCC 
are published within Springer's
Lecture Notes in Computer Science series. They should be available at the event.  
As IACR has an agreement with Springer that covers publication 
of these proceedings, no special procedure is needed. 
The contact at Springer is:
\begin{quote}
  LNCS Editorial Office, Springer-Verlag\\
  Computer Science Editorial\\
  Tiergartenstra\ss e 17\\
  D-69121 Heidelberg, Germany\\
  Tel.: +49-6221-487-8706\\
  Email: \url{lncs@springer.com}\\
  Web: \url{https://www.springer.com/gp/computer-science/lncs}
\end{quote}

Springer needs the final version of each paper and all other material
that will be printed in the proceedings (such as the foreword,
which you have to write) at least ten weeks prior to the event--- contact Springer
about the schedule).  Your task is described 
by Springer's ``Information for LNCS Volume Editors'' available online.
Collect the source files of final versions from all
authors using HotCRP and send the collection of sources to Springer along with
the email addresses of the corresponding authors. HotCRP also has a mechanism to
prepare the list of all reviewers (including subreviewers), and the table of
contents. Springer will
send the versions as they will appear in the proceedings (i.e., after
last-minute formatting done by Springer) to the authors directly.
%Request that the authors forward a copy of these proceedings versions of
%their papers to you. 
Check with Springer that they received all
papers. In the course of this process, handle the copyright transfer as set
forth below, and do not pay attention to an occasional message from
Springer referring to Springer's own copyright forms. 
Finally, you must retain the tex/latex/pdf files of
all papers and front matter as submitted to Springer according to the
paragraph on ``Archiving'' further down. Send these to the IACR archivist
at \texttt{archive@iacr.org}.

Typically the Program Co-Chairs or the single Program Chair are editors of
the proceedings volume.
%For conferences, which use the rolling co-chair model, this means that
%both co-chairs appear as editors.

Printed copies of the proceedings are no longer included with
Conference registrations; participants can explicitly request and pay for a copy
that will then be sent by mail to their preferred address; 
there is no guarantee that this copy will arrive before the event. 
IACR members and Conference attendees have online access to
the proceedings; this may be available already before the event starts.

\paragraph{Copyright and consent.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Copyright and consent} 

Authors of a paper must assign the copyright in the paper to
the IACR\@. This allows the IACR to publish the paper, and make sure
it gets archived for posterity.
No paper should be published without obtaining
a proper assignment of copyright as described in IACR's 
Copyright and Publication Policy.
This transfer is performed via the HotCRP system
when an author uploads their camera-ready version.

Note that, sometimes, Springer employees may send you standard instructions
to use the Springer copyright forms and to send the originals
to them. Please ignore these instructions as they conflict with the contract
between IACR and Springer.
% If Springer asks you for the completed copyright forms you may send
% them a PDF file containing all forms.

The IACR Copyright and Consent form also requests authorization to
distribute the slides and a video recording of the presentation. 
It also offers the opportunity to provide a license to distribute auxiliary information 
such as software accompanying the paper. 
 
Authors must approve the transfer of copyright and the 
distribution of slides and video recording in the IACR copyright 
and consent form. Exceptions can only be authorized by the IACR President.
This must be reflected in the Call for Papers.


\paragraph{Archiving.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Archiving}

The IACR, as copyright holder for the  materials submitted by authors, is
responsible for retaining the material in its own archive.  This includes
all source material for the technical papers and the front matter.  As the
papers have been managed through HotCRP, then the archiving process
is easy, as the authors must upload their versions through HotCRP.
In addition, you must save the front matter files (preface and
indices as embodied in tex, idx, and associated files) through HotCRP
as well.  Once this is complete send an email note
to the archivist at \texttt{archive@iacr.org} with a copy of the files
including the front matter.

The IACR strongly encourages that authors upload a version of their LNCS paper
to the Cryptology ePrint Archive as soon as possible. Details of
how authors should do this, what version to upload, and the relevant
IACR copyright notice are included when the authors sign the copyright
agreement.


\section{Before and at Your Event}
\label{conf}

You remain responsible for the program during your event.  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 your event.

\paragraph{Facilities.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Facilities}
Check the event facility, the overhead projectors, the audio equipment,
and computer projection facilities (computer with PowerPoint, PDF viewer,
preferably English operating system, no chopped off margins).
A pointer should be available.
Make sure that there is a backup for everything (even the power cables).


\paragraph{Session chairing.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Session chairing}
It is recommended that the session chair 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
to copy their presentation
to the event computer well in advance of their presentation; if they are using
their own laptop, the setup should also be tested well in advance. 
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.

\paragraph{Videos and remote participation.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Videos of talks}
The collection of videos of Conference presentations has started in 2013;
Since 2016 recording and publication of video and presentation occurs by default 
under a creative common's license (cf.\ Copyright and Consent).

Kevin McCurley maintains a YouTube channel with videos of talks from
IACR Conferences, and they are being archived for future
distribution.  See \url{https://www.youtube.com/TheIACR}.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, IACR shifted to having online conferences. Once the
pandemic had subside enough to allow travel for some, IACR
shifted to having hybrid conferences where some authors present in person and
some present remotely via Zoom or via a pre-recorded talk. During this time we
experimented with combinations of various formats for video:
\begin{enumerate}
\item All sessions are broadcast over Zoom, and a recording of each
  session is made at that time. These videos are later uploaded to
  YouTube so that people can watch the talks in the future. The slides
  are uploaded before the conference, and displayed on a laptop that
  is logged into Zoom (usually the laptop at the podium). This is now
  the recommended format.
\item In some cases, we asked authors to upload a 5-minute version of their talk,
  which was posted before the conference and linked from the program. These were useful
  for authors to promote their longer talk.
\item In some cases, we asked authors to upload full 20-minute videos, and were able
  to use them for the live talk in case the author could not attend the conference or
  were not able to present remotely due to weak internet connections.
\item In at least one case, we invited authors to upload videos about their papers of
  any length chosen by the author. Some authors uploaded hour-long videos.
\end{enumerate}
You are strongly urged to arrange for recording by one method or
another. The only real requirement is that authors have the right to
request no video be made by approval of the president. It's relatively
easy for Kevin McCurley to set up video and slides uploads, by running
a script to send email to authors with a personalized link to upload
their videos and slides.

The most important part of planning for this is to make
sure that the video production people record just the talks, because
editing the videos after the fact is very time-consuming.  The exact format
is less important, and you can choose from whatever is available at the venue.
It is important to have clear audio and video of the slides, but video of
the speaker is much less important.

\paragraph{Presentation Materials.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Presentation materials}
The presentation materials must be collected and distributed via the 
website under a creative common's license (cf.\ Copyright and Consent).

\section{Budget, Finances, and Reporting}
\label{budget}

\paragraph{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
must be submitted to the General Chair at least 8 months prior
to your event. Please remember to get approval from the General
Chair for any significant deviations from your budget before you make
them. 
In any case, follow the instructions you receive from the General Chair. 
If you do not receive such instructions, contact him or her.
Recall it is the General Chair who is responsible to the board
for financial matters, and not you; thus all budget decisions 
must be approved by the General Chair.

\paragraph{Financial Report.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Financial report}
Within three to four weeks after your event you must prepare a financial 
report for the General Chair. 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.

\paragraph{Confidential report for the Board.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Confidential report for the Board}
Around the same time, write a confidential report for the 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 an event
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}

\paragraph{News report for the IACR website.}
Write a report on your event for inclusion in IACR News
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 your event, or any other non-confidential matter
you see fit.

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

\clearpage
\appendix

\section{More Information}
\label{app:contacts}

More information is available on the IACR website at
\url{https://www.iacr.org/} including:
\begin{itemize}
\item Guidelines for Reviewers;
\item Guidelines for Authors;
\item Policy on Irregular Submissions;
\item Policy on Conflicts of Interest. 
\end{itemize}

\noindent You should also obtain information
about past Conferences.  Do not hesitate to contact 
the members of the Board for more information.

The current members of the Board are listed at
\url{https://www.iacr.org/bod.html}.
You get to the Board of Directors area on the website when 
you remove the string \url{.html} from this URL.
Important email addresses:\vspace{3mm}

\noindent
\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}\\
Communications secretary & {\tt info at iacr dot org}\\
Secretary & {\tt secretary at iacr dot org}\\
Board & {\tt bod at iacr dot org}\\
Archivist & {\tt archive at iacr dot org}
\end{tabular}



\section{Sample Letters to the Authors}
\label{app:letters}
%\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'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}.

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

\subsection{Cost Model for Proceedings}

The Board of Directors area on the IACR website contains details 
about the pricing model for conference proceedings.

%BP: I believe this number has been reduced?
In the current contract with Springer, no more free copies are provided;
in exchange Springer pays a financial compensation per volume.
The Program Chair may order a limited number of personal paper copies (say 3) via the
General Chair. 

%For Crypto and for Eurocrypt, 70 free copies of the proceedings are
%usually given, constituting of the 50 mentioned by Springer plus 20
%free copies in exchange for a presentation desk and a single delegate
%at the event.  The Program Chair may take a limited number of these
%free copies (say 3) and may 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.  If additional delegates of Springer attend the event,
%negotiate an \emph{ad hoc} solution with Springer (such as pay per social
%event attended)
%Shipping cost depends on the country (typically US-\$~2000 for a large
%event, but for Russia it was twice as much); clearance 
%through customs may require attention.

\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
event.  In order to preserve IACR's tax status IT IS IMPORTANT
that you document the qualifications and contribution to your
event 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 event.
In order to preserve IACR's tax exempt status, it is important that every
recipient of travel assistance contribute to your event 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. 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, 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}

\fi

\section{Detailed Timetable}
\label{app:detailedtimeline}
%\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 your event.
If the proceedings would be available only after your event, some parts
of the timetable can be delayed a little.
(Remember if your conference uses the parallel or rolling co-chair model,
everything applies again to both co-chairs together.)

\begin{description}
\item[$T-18$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
Read this document.
\item 
If you have a co-chair, meet or call your co-chair and discuss 
your experience from past events and/or your expectations for this
event.
\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 PC Liaison Officer, the IACR President and
other members of the Board.
%%%%%%%%% XXXX
\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 event 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 about the publication of the proceedings and
make clear arrangements and a time schedule for all contacts between
you and Springer. Make sure the electronic proceedings will be ready
before the event. 
\item
Inform yourself about the electronic submission and reviewing
software (see Section~\ref{software}).  Arrange an
infrastructure to install, test, and run the submission system.   Make 
binding arrangements if someone else runs it for you.  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 event.
\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
Submit your call for papers to the General Chair for publication on the event website and
arrange how to announce it in other locations. 
%BP: Program chairs should not have their own website
%Contact the IACR Webmaster to set up your event
%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 general 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 session policy, send it to the General Chair to be
included in the event announcement/registration information, and
announce it on the event 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 all reviews (except for conflicts);
\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 participate and solicit more reviews where needed;
\item consider contacting authors in whose papers small flaws have
been found after the rebuttal phase to verify 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 For the General Conferences, it is reasonable to aim for at most 80-100 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.
Act transparently.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-4.5$] Rebuttal period
\begin{itemize}
\item If rebuttals are used, the rebuttal phase should start 6-8 weeks after the submission deadline. Authors have typically 4-7 days to provide their rebuttal.
Discussion continue after the rebuttal period. 
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-3.5$]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.
Note that all students who present papers receive a waiver for the registration fee
from the IACR Fund for Student Presenters.
\item
Send the list of titles and authors of accepted submissions
to the General Chair or webmaster. This is available as a JSON file
export from HotCRP.
\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/best student paper award as well as the top three
papers that will be invited to the Journal of Cryptology.
Notify the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Cryptology about these papers.
\item
Brace yourself for feedback from authors and other unpleasant surprises.
\item
Send instructions to authors of accepted 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 General Conferences,
take into account the membership meeting). There is now a tool
at \url{https://www.iacr.org/tools/} to make
this much easier, using the JSON file export from HotCRP. The tool produces
a JSON output format that populates the conference websites.
\item Monitor the shepherding processes, if any.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-2$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
Due date for final papers: make sure the authors send the versions
of their papers as they will appear in the proceedings to you.
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 and consent form for each paper that will appear
in the proceedings.
\item
Write a foreword for the proceedings, including acknowledgments for all
those who helped, in particular all the external reviewers,
and mention which paper received the best paper award (if any) and which papers
have been invited to the Journal of Cryptology (if any). 
\item
Send all required material to Springer for publication of the proceedings.
\item
	You must also hand over all material as submitted to Springer
to the Archivist.
\item
	You must ensure that electronic scans of completed copyright forms for
all papers in the proceedings have arrived at the 
IACR Copyright Form Registry.
\end{itemize}
\item[$T-1.5$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item
Choose the Rump Session Chair and
announce this information on the event 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 Archivist ({\tt archive at iacr dot org}) to ensure that
your material is properly retained. See Section~\ref{proc}
for detailed instructions. 
\end{itemize}
\item[$T$]$ $
\begin{itemize}
\item At your event 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 your event.
\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 your event to be published
in IACR News to the General Chair.
\item
Submit your confidential event report (see Section~\ref{budget})
to the PC Liaison Officer and the President.
%BP: previous line was The Board - probably not the best option
\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 If you co-chair an event, establish a clear and open working
  relationship among the co-chairs.
\item Establish a good working relationship with the General Chair, the PC Liaison Officer,
and the Steering Committee Chair. 
\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
event.
\item Don't hesitate to ask for advice.
\item Read (and follow) the closing checklist ($T+1$ in Appendix~\ref{app:detailedtimeline}).
\item Abide by all the rules denoted by ``must'' in this document.
\end{itemize}


\section{Conference/Journal Hybrids} \label{app:hybrid}

FSE and CHES have moved from a conference mode to a Conference/Journal
Hybrid, with papers published in the IACR Transactions on Symmetric
Cryptology (ToSC) and the IACR Transactions on Cryptographic Hardware and
Embedded Systems (TCHES).  The main principles behind these journals are
explained in the FAQs: \url{https://tosc.iacr.org/index.php/ToSC/FAQ} and
\url{https://tches.iacr.org/index.php/TCHES/FAQ} and summarized below.

There are four submission deadlines and review periods per year; every quarter a new issue of the journal is published. 
The Conference program is composed of the papers accepted in the 12-month period ending 2-3 months 
before the Conference; presentation of the papers is mandatory.
The Program Co-Chairs are also called Co-Editors in Chief of the journals.

Obviously some of the rules and guidelines in this document do not apply and some other 
rules and guidelines are necessary. This section lists the major differences. Information 
on timing is included at the end. 

\paragraph{Rolling co-chairs (FSE).}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Rolling co-chairs (FSE)}

This section applies only to FSE that uses the 
\emph{rolling co-chair model}. 
In this model one person is appointed as \emph{Program
Co-Chair for two consecutive editions of the same Conference}.
During this time each Program Co-Chair serves in the first year as the
``junior'' chair and works with a ``senior'' chair who also served the
prior year.  In the second year of appointment, the Program Chair will
function as the ``senior'' chair and work with a new ``junior'' chair.
The ``junior'' and  ``senior'' chairs should bear a comparable
share of the workload.
The terms ``junior'' and ``senior'' are only used informally to
differentiate between the first and second years of appointment; 
the terms ``junior'' and``senior'' should never be used for external communication. 
The names of the co-chairs must always appear together in all
publications regarding the event: both should appear as co-editors in chief
in the journal and on the Conference website.  
A {\it suggested} arrangement may be that ``junior'' chair defers to the ``senior'' chair for
irreconcilable difference. 

\paragraph{Planning the program.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Planning the program}

An important consequence of the hybrid model is that one does not know the total number of submissions
for the Conference when deciding on acceptance. 
The experience is that more papers get submitted and accepted (sometimes after major revisions). This 
requires careful coordination with the General Chair, who may have to accommodate for more accepted papers
(and perhaps parallel tracks).  

A second difference is the selection of the best paper award: the recommended approach
is to nominate a few candidates (or possibly none) for each issue, and to make the decision after the 
papers for the final issue before the Conference have been selected. It has been decided to not invite
the top papers for the Journal of Cryptology. 

In order to allow for a high quality review in a short time, the page limit (excluding bibliography) has been 
set to 20 pages in the corresponding template.\footnote{See \url{https://github.com/Cryptosaurus/iacrtrans}; the amount of text on a page is larger than with the Springer LNCS format.} Longer papers (up to 40 pages) can also be submitted: in that case there is no guarantee that 
the paper will be reviewed for the current issue; the Program Chairs may delay the decision to the next
issue in order to allow for a proper review. 

Members of the Program Committee may submit one new paper per deadline\footnote{%
It has been decided to drop this restriction as an experiment for CHES 2021.}
and resubmit prior submissions that received a “major revision”. 
For TCHES, Editors-in-chief are not allowed to submit papers (neither new ones nor 
revisions of prior submissions) during the four issues they are handling.
For ToSC, one submission per year is allowed; this submission is handled by the other Program Co-Chair
outside the webreview system.

\paragraph{Program committee selection.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Program committee selection} 
In the hybrid model, the review load is more evenly spread over the year. However, the time available
for each review period is limited to two months. This means that the number of papers assigned in each round
to a PC member for each issue should be at most four to five. As papers are also resubmitted after revision,
more submissions will be received. It is thus recommended to make the Program Committee
sufficiently large (40 to 50 members). Moreover, PC members should have the option to ``opt out'' for one of the
rounds. 

It is not feasible to have a physical PC meeting in the hybrid model.

\paragraph{Administrative software.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Administrative software}

The HotCRP software must also be used in the hybrid model. As this software considers every issue
as an isolated Conference, this requires some additional bookkeeping by the Program Chairs and the
Program Committee members, in particular for long papers, that are reviewed for the next issue, and
major revisions. 

\paragraph{Review process.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Review process}

The reviewing process is similar to the one for regular Conferences with two main differences.
First, the review period is more condensed: five weeks are available for Phase~1, one week for Phase~2
and only three weeks for Phases~3 and~4.  The time from acceptance to camera-ready deadline is one month.
This requires careful planning and full collaboration from the PC members

As the review process has a memory, five final decisions can be made.
\begin{description}
\item[Accept] the paper as is.
\item[Accept with minor revision:] this corresponds to conditional accept (or `shepherding') 
described in Phase~4 in Section~\ref{reviewing}.
\item[Merge] the paper with another submission.  
\item[Accept with major revision:] the authors are invited to revise and resubmit their article to one of the
two following submission deadlines (if they fail to do so, their submission will be treated as a new one).
The authors should receive clear instructions on how to update their papers and which conditions need to be met.
For consistency, the reviewers will typically be the same as in the first review, or there will be a strong overlap.
Only one major revision is allowed for TCHES\@. 
\item[Reject:] this means that the changes required for acceptance are so large that this is a new submission (e.g.,
adding major new results).
\end{description}
For minor and major revisions, it is essential that the authors receive clear instructions on the 
conditions for acceptance. This requires that reviews are written very carefully and contain constructive, complete feedback (to avoid
the problem that new requirements are raised during the shepherding process or the second review).  
It is recommended to assign a lead reviewer during Phase~3 who is responsible for drafting these instructions
in consensus with the other reviewers. 


\paragraph{Proceedings.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Proceedings}

The IACR Transactions on Symmetric Cryptology and the IACR Transactions on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded System
are published online by the Ruhr University of Bochum (\url{https://tosc.iacr.org}
and \url{https://tches.iacr.org/}). The license is a Creative Commons license (BY 4.0) that allows for 
Gold Open Access. There are no costs associated with publication in these journals. 

The transactions expects its authors to submit camera-ready manuscripts. Authors who need professional copy-editing or other production services should seek outside assistance before submitting to the journals. 
Hence authors need to make sure that typesetting is of high quality and that references are standardized and clean.
A \LaTeX\ template has been created for the journal.\footnote{\url{https://github.com/Cryptosaurus/iacrtrans}}  
The final check is performed by the Program Co-Chairs and the Managing Editor. 

As the journal version is the final version available in Gold Open Access, there is no need to upload the final
version of the papers to the Cryptology ePrint Archive and there is no automatic upload. 
Authors may still chose to do so at their own discretion. 

\paragraph{Timetable.}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Timetable}

The timetables in Section~\ref{timetable} and Appendix~\ref{app:detailedtimeline} have to be amended as follows.
The first submission deadline of the Conference in year N is 1-2 months before the Conference in year N-1, 
that is, in $T-13$ (or $T-14$). This means that the Program Committee should be selected in $T-16$, 
the call for papers published in $T-16$ and the submission server opened in $T-14$ or $T-13$.  
Hence items 2-6 need to be advanced by 4-6 months.  Of course there are four submission/review cycles. 

It is strongly recommended to make a detailed calendar starting with $T-16$ and mark all important
dates such as submission deadlines, rebuttal openings, notification dates, minor revision process. Please coordinate
between co-chairs to make sure that at least one of you can dedicate sufficient time to the crucial moments.

A foreword spanning the one-year submission period of a Conference in the
hybrid model should be published in the last issue published before the
Conference takes place.
% \clearpage
% \section{Program Chair Terms of Reference}
% \label{app:terms}

% {\large
% \begin{description}
% \item[Role:] Program Chair/Co-Chair of \ ..........................................

% \item[Reporting to:] IACR Board of Directors and the ...................... 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 organizing of conferences
% and workshops and the publication of papers in proceedings and the Journal of
% Cryptology.

% The task of the Program Chair(s) is to select a balanced
% scientific program of high quality.

% \item[Responsibilities:]

% The Program Chair, resp.\ the Program Co-Chairs 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{https://www.iacr.org/docs/progchair.pdf}).
% \item
% Consult with the General Chair for the financial aspects and organizational
% aspects of the event.
% \item 
% If using the rolling co-chair model, make all decisions among the
% Program Co-Chairs by consensus; always use the names of the
% Program Co-Chairs together in external publications regarding the event.
% \item
% Select a balanced Program Committee.
% % , with Program Chairs of the same event
% % of the previous and the next year, if already selected, as advisory members
% % (when not using the rolling co-chair model).
% \item
% Set a policy on Program Committee member submissions.
% \item
% Publish a CFP on the event 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
% Preserve all proceedings material and pass it on to the Archivist.
% \item
% Collect and check IACR copyright forms according to IACR's procedures.
% \item
% Send a financial report to the General Chair within 4 weeks after the event.
% \item
% Send a report to the Board and (if applicable) to the respective 
% Steering Committee within 4 weeks after the event.
% \end{itemize}
% \end{description}
% Agreed by \\[3mm]
% Program Chair \hfill IACR President \hfill ....................... Steering Committee Chair
% }

\end{document}

%  LocalWords:  Honoraria usernames
