Please respond to the following comments where appropriate, by October 1, 2001 even if you have provided the information to me before:

Response:

Enclosed is the response to the comments on Korean ICEE proposal dated September 22, 2001. I briefly responded to the comments and I therefore feel that some of my response might not be appropriate to our respected ICEE/ISC members. Your advices will be appreciated if you also feel that way. Thanks for your cooperation. Look forward to seeing you in Manchester.

Kwang Sun Kim

To : Dr. Aung Win September 29, 2001

Secretary General of ICEE-ISC/iNEER

Subject : Response to the comments on Korean ICEE proposal

Below are my response to the comments dated on September 22, 2001 on Korean ICEE proposal:

1. The proposal followed the ICEE guidelines. If there are other information required by the iNEER(?) guidelines, I would like to have more specific comments on the information missed. Then I am willing to add more information on the proposal.
2. As a young and small university, KUT has been evaluated as one of the best 18 universities out of 182 four year universities in Korea by Ministry of Education, Korean Association of University Education, and Choongang Daily Newspaper( which is the only one nationwide daily newspaper to evaluate all the private and public universities every year). As a public university which is being financially supported by Korean Government, KUT has enough infrastructure such as faculty members and staffs who have already work experiences in government and industry, financial resources whose criteria in the evaluation are one of top three universities in Korea, and the conference facilities which were already used at Korea Society of Mechanical Engineering National Conference in 1999. More than 500 papers were presented at the Conference and it was so successful. KUT has also operated HRD Institute which has its own building to provide various advanced technological seminars and short courses for more than 5000 engineers, technical teachers every year. Even though KUT has enough resources in Chonan, we think that ICEE2005 will be held both in Seoul and at KUT.
3. The ICEE Conference will be managed by experienced organizing committee members including myself and other faculty members from KUT and other universities. I have experienced to organize two major International Conferences as a chairman of organizing committee such as "1998 International Forum on Engineering and Technological Education" and "1999 International Conference on Engineering Education for Developing Countries". Both Conferences were being held both in Seoul and at KUT.
4. At Korea-Taiwan-USA Trilateral Workshop on Engineering Education and Research which was held in Oslo, Norway, on August this year, the nine experienced professors from six different major Korean universities were participated. Those professors will do their important roles to host ICEE2005. The six universities are Choongnam National University, Korea National University for Education, Hanyang University, Kyungbook National University, KUT, Seoul National University for Technology. Three professors for Chosun University, Seoul National University ,and Yonsei University were not able to attend the Trilateral Workshop this year because of their other schedule although they expressed their interests in participating at ICEE.
5. The building fee means the expense for using the Conference facilities in Seoul.
6. The expenses are a little subject to change as the ICEE will be held in 2005, four years later. The funding supports from Government (outside of KUT) were included at the lowest level and more fundings from the industry are expected. The more detailed/updated budget will be reported at ICEE/ISC meetings in the next coming four years.
7. Our organizing committee will follow the iNEER guidelines for ICEE/ISC share of the registration fees as being suggested. The more fundings will be definitely coming from the other government and industry sources as we are advertising the final decision of ICEE2005 to be held in Korea.
8. The budget is proposed based on 300 participants and I believe that the budget bases for 200 participants or 400 participants will not give any big changes because the expenses will be scaled down or up depending upon the number of participants. The scales of funding will be also flexible as mentioned above and they are believed to be enough to cover the changes of the range of 100 participants.
9. The tentative ICEE program including session structure, banquet, award ceremony, technical tours, will be very similar to that of ICEE2000 and ICEE2001. We will be more emphasizing the technical tours since the areas close to KUT are the industrialized high technology complexes. Samsung Electronics, Hynix Semiconductor, Choongnam Techno Park, Korea Research Institute for Industry Technology, and Research Institute for Automotive Parts are located within 20 or 30 minutes distance from KUT.

11. President Dr. Won Ki Kwon of KUT was officially present at the ICEE/ISC Meeting in Oslo, Norway, on August this year to make a clear statement to support ICEE2005 in Korea and distributed his strong letter of intention to the members of ICEE/ISC at the meeting. This implies that there will be no problem to sign MOU between ICEE and KUT.
12. I have no problem to co-chair the organizing sessions with a person both from Korea and a person from another country if ICEE/ISC suggest to co-chair the organizing committee.

Kwang Sun Kim, Ph.D.

Professor of School of Mechantronics Engineering

Dean of Graduate Studies

Korea University of Technology and Education

e-mail : kskim@kut.ac.kr

Please respond to the following comments where appropriate, by October 1, 2001 even if you have provided the information to me before:

Dear Doctor Aung:

Enclosed please find the information that you requested on your

September 21, electronic message to Dr. Ramon E. Vasquez regarding the

Feedback for UPRM's ICEE Proposal.

Please feel free to contact doctor Vasquez if you have any doubt or

question. We hope this information will be of help.

Cordially yours,

Aracelis Rosado, Secretary

1. The head of our Institution is the Chancellor. He will sign the MOU. We do not anticipate any problem with the MOU attached.
2. Tentative Agenda

1. Plenary (two hours)
2. Technical Session I (Parallel up to 10. Duration 1:30 hours)
3. Lunch (two hours)

1. Technical Session II (Parallel up to 10 / Duration 2:00 hours)
2. Break (30 minutes)
3. Technical Session III (Parallel up to 10 / Duration 2:00 hours)
4. Dinner (Day three / Banquet and Awarded Ceremony)

Morning – Workshops and Tutorials

Afternoon – Continue Workshops and visit to UPR Mayagüez

Night - Dinner and visit the Phosphorecent Bay

3. Tentative List of Organizing Committee

Dr. Ramón E. Vásquez General Chair

Prof. Lueny Morell Co-General Chair and Chair of Financial Committee

Dr. Jorge Vélez Arocho Chair for Local Arrangement and International Affairs

5. Budgets:

1. We have secured the sponsorship from the other local Colleges of Engineering in Puerto Rico. We will be submitting the letter of support at a later date.
2. We have secured the participation of some of our Latin American associates. Dr. Jorge Vélez will be submitting a report to us on a later date to be submitted to you.

3. PROPOSAL FROM SINGAPORE

Please respond to the following comments where appropriate, by October 1, 2001 even if you have provided the information to me before:

6. Do you agree to joint-chairing and organizing of sessions by a person from your country and a person from another country?

Dear Dr Win Aung

Upon discussion with my Dean of Engineering Prof W J Ng, my response to the

feedback for Singapore's ICEE proposal is as follow:

1. Many thanks for the compliments.

2. Although the Faculty of Engineering of NUS does not have many direct

involvement with the iNEER/ICEE community, it has strong records of

participation in many international networks and collaboration with many

well-known institutions. In addition, members of the Faculty management as

well as many academic faculty staffs have collaborations and cooperation

with iNEER/ICEE steering committee members through education and research

channels. When the Faculty submitted the proposal in July 2001, it intends

to host ICEE in either 2005 or 2006 as the year 2006 will see the changeover

of faculty management with a new management team heading by a new Dean. Thus

at the present moment, NUS is only able to provide a firm commitment to host

ICEE 2005 or ICEE 2006 and an in-principle commitment to host ICEE 2007. I

hope that ICEE can appreciate our situation.

3. The budget for 200, 300 and 400 full paying participants are given in the

attached EXCEL file for your reference. Kindly note that we are able to

reduce the conference registration fee to US$450 or below.

4. The tentative program is given in the attached word document file.

5. The tentative list of organising committee members is also given in the

attached word document file.

6. The role of Singapore Tourism Board is for attendance building for the

conference. They will sponsor NUS staff to attend future ICEE to promote

ICEE in Singapore if Singapore is accepted to host the conference.

7. The tentative list of co-organisers and supporters is also given in the

attached file.

8. Our Vice-Chancellor's Office has gone through the MOU and the Office has

indicated that there would be no problems for our Vice-Chancellor to sign

the MOU back in July.

9. In-principle, NUS has no objection for joint-chairing and organising of

sessions by other persons from outside NUS or from outside Singapore.

However, it will be greatly appreciated if NUS is given an opportunity to

comment or make suggestions before the above arrangement is formalised.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have further queries. Best

regards,

Colin C F Leung

cc Dean of Engineering

ICEE Singapore ad-hoc committee members

3. PROPOSAL FROM POLAND

Questions:

Please respond to the following comments where appropriate, even if you have provided the information to me before:

1. Using city and campus maps, please provide information on locations of probable conference lodging and tentative conference session locations to show their relative distances.

2. The budget does not include expenses for a conference banquet. Is this an oversight? If not, please include it and show three (3) budgets based on assumed registration of 200, 300 and 400 attendees.

3. "Please show a tentative ICEE program, including session structure, banquet, award ceremony, technical tours, etc."

4. Please provide a tentative list of organizing committee members.

5. "How would changing the year from 2005 to 2006 affect your conference? What are the implications of your anniversary celebrations in 2005?"

6. Do you agree to joint-chairing and organizing of sessions by a person from Poland and a person from another country?

7. For the purposes of early planning, please develop three revised operating budgets each based on the following attendee counts: 200; 300; and 400.

8. How do you promote strong participation from Eastern and Central Europe and Germany? What other regions do you want to see participate and cooperate with these countries? How do you promote interaction between these regions and other regions?

9. iNEER guidelines require that the head of the institution, that is, the President, Chancellor or Rector, sign the MOU and be responsible for the finances of the ICEE. Will this be a problem? Will he have any problem with the provisions of the attached draft MOU?

10. "The proposals from Coimbra and Gliwice unfortunately come rather too soon after Norway, the UK and Spain, all of which are in the general area of Europe. I would therefore exclude these proposals from consideration for the ICEEs in 2005 or 2006 on the grounds that there needs to be a reasonable geographical spread in the venues for the conference. Similarly another bid from the USA should probably not be considered before 2007".

Response:

Dear Professor Aung,

Please find below the response to the comments concerning the ICEE-2005 Gliwice proposal. I believe that all questions are answered by me and of course I will be ready to answer any other additional questions and doubts in Manchester next week.

1. I include as attachment to this e-mail 2 maps as requested - the city centre map and the campus map. Most of the hotels proposed for the conference participants are placed in the city centre which is approximately 1km away from the SUT central place. Several other hotels are placed up to 10-15 km away from the SUT campus. Within the SUT campus there is one hotel

and several dormitories that could be possibly chosen by some participants. 3 main buildings of SUT with lecture halls for ICEE-2005 sessions are approximately 500m away one from another. The university canteens in which it is proposed to have ICEE-2005 lunches are also 300-500m away from the SUT campus center.

2. In the ICEE-2005 Gliwice proposal budget section the 3rd row should be "conference dinner" and not repeated "conference lunch" (the lunches cost is included in the 2nd row). The budget includes the average cost of 5 dinners one of which is the conference banquet. Therefore the banquet is included in the conference budget and it will take place in the old midieval castle of

Toszek, 15 km from Gliwice. The banquet will include the dance possibilites of course. Concerning the costs of the conference and the fees please allow for the following comments:

a) it is assumed that there wil be 400 participants attending both the Gliwice and Krakow part of the ICEE-2005. The fee for the whole conference (including Krakow part) will be 350 US $.

b) in the case of 300 participants planned the fee should be 375 US $ and for 200 participants - 400 US $.

c) the fees above include the meals and in particular the banquet.

3. We want the structure and the program of the ICEE-2005 to be the typical one. The conference will take place in Gliwice from Monday till Wednesday and on Thursday and Friday in Krakow. The banquet with dance including the iNEER /ICEE award ceremony will take place on Wednesday evening, the opening reception - on Monday evening. It is planned that technical tours and visits especially to the car producing factories in Gliwice and around would take

place on Tuesday and possibly Thursday. Krakow sightseeing tours are planned for Friday afternoon. We believe that it is too early to define the conference sessions topics in detail as the first Call for papers are planned fro the beginning of 2004 and several new trends and concepts in

engineering education could become important by then.

4. As mentioned in the ICEE-2005 Gliwice proposal the General Chairs roles would be taken by the SUT Rectors, Prof. Wojciech Zielinski and Prof. Remigiusz Sosnowski. The Organizing Committee will be composed from the Silesian University of Technology staff members.

Dr Jerzy Moscinski wil be the Chairman of the Organizing Committee. Other early appointed members of the Organizing Committee will include Dr Jaroslaw Figwer and Mrs Joanna Denkowska. It is supposed that the Organizing Committee will include vice-Deans from the most involved faculties of SUT.

5. It will be much easier for the Silesian University of Technology to organize the conference in the year 2005 than in 2006. The year 2005 is the year of the 60th anniversary of the SUT foundation. There will be several celebration meetings and symposiums and including such important event as ICEE-2005 as part of the anniversary celebration would help in publicising

the conference in Poland and Europe. It woud be easier to get additional funding concerning the conference, it would be easier to invite important guests for the conference, it would be easier to publish the chosen conference materials.

6. Of course we agree to joint-chairing and organizing of sessions by a person from Poland and a person from another country, there would be no problem with this.

7. The original budget in the ICEE-2005 Gliwice proposal was calculated for 400 attendees with 350 US $ fee per participant for the whole conference in Gliwice and Krakow. As mentioned above, in the case of 300 attendees the conference fee should be chosen as 375 US $ and for 200 attendees - it shoud be 400 US $. In all cases the fixed costs are almost the same, only the

transportation costs are less for less participants.

8. Concerning the participation from Eastern and Central Europe and Germany we should stress that for the last 40 years before the year 1989 the collaboration with universities from Eastern and Central Europe was almost the only one possible and therefore it was heavily promoted. We still have very good contacts with several universities from these countries, e.g. in few days we host in Gliwice the symposium for Rectors of more than 20 Ukrainian univerisites. The other factor concerns the European TEMPUS PHARE and TACIS programmes. Poland was the beneficiary of the TEMPUS PHARE and Polish universities have a lot of experience that will be utilised by

Eastern Europe countries as TEMPUS TACIS beneficiaries - this would promote the more close collaboration between Polish universities - as SUT – and other Eastern and Cetral Europe countries universities. Concerning Germany, it is now by far the most important partner for SUT in

the students and teachers colaboration and exchange programme, Socrates. We have very good contacts with German universities and regions and it would be surely possible to promote the strong ICEE participation from this country.

In general the costs of travel, accommodation and subsistence with respect to ICEE-2005 in Poland and participants from Eastern and Central Europe would not be high which could enable such strong participation.

We believe that "typical" participants of the ICEE conferences would also attend the ICEE-2005 in Gliwice and that means that we could enable the meeting, discussion, making contacts and planning the collaboration between educators from various regions, the links that would stay alive after the ICEE-2005 in Gliwice, probably mainly by means of Internet based contacts, collaboration and teaching.

9. We understand that we would be obliged to sign the MOU, we have analysed this in July this year and let you know that we are ready to sign it in the approppriate time. Now I would like to confirm, that the Silesian University of Tehnology Rector would sign the Memorandum of Understanding as proposed by iNEER, in the case of the ICEE-2005 organization in Gliwice.

It is difficult to comment on the proposal of excluding Gliwice and Coimbra from ICEE-2005 (and 2006!) consideration. We believe that there were no such rules in the past and that there are no such rules now. We believe that we declared our will and readiness to organize the next at this time ICEE (ICEE-2004) almost 2 years ago and there were not many other candidates at this time. With additional candidates we were not successful in the competition for ICEE-2004 organization, we believe now that we could be granted the organization of ICEE in 2005 on the basis of our ICEE-activeness and potential.

If you assess that I was not clear in some of the above points please let me know.

Sincerely yours,

Jurek Moscinski

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dr Jerzy Moscinski

Rector's Representative for International Co-operation

SOCRATES Coordinator

Fifth Framework Programme Regional Contact Person

Silesian University of Technology

Akademicka 16

44-100 Gliwice, Poland

Tel: +48 32 237 1084, Fax: +48 32 231 8085

E-mail: J.Moscinski@polsl.gliwice.pl

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

4. PROPOSAL FROM VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, BLACKSBURG, VA, USA

Questions:

Please respond to the following comments where appropriate, by October 1, 2001 even if you have provided the information to me before:

1. The budget on page 9 does not provide for expenses for a banquet. Is this an oversight? If yes, please include it and develop and show three (3) budgets based on registration of 200, 300 and 400 attendees.

2. Please show a tentative ICEE program, including session structure, banquet, award ceremony, technical tours, etc.

3. Please provide a tentative list of organizing committee members.

4. iNEER guidelines require that the head of the institution, that is, the President, Chancellor or Rector, sign the MOU and be responsible for the finances of the ICEE. Will this be a problem? Will he have any problem with the provisions of the attached draft MOU?

5. Please provide the letter of support from your president, Dr. Charles Steger.

6. "To the extent possible at this time, please provide letters of intent for support from corporate sponsors/donors."

7. Please provide letter of support for the $10,000 support provided by VPI.

8. Do you agree to joint-chairing and organizing of sessions by a person from your country and a person from another country?

9. "The proposals from Coimbra and Gliwice unfortunately come rather too soon after Norway, the UK and Spain, all of which are in the general area of Europe. I would therefore exclude these proposals from consideration for the ICEEs in 2005 or 2006 on the grounds that there needs to be a reasonable geographical spread in the venues for the conference. Similarly another bid from the USA should probably not be considered before 2007."

Response:

Win,
I've read through your request here and note that item #9 indicates that our proposal would not be considered for acceptance until 2007.  My first question is, why not 2006?  I believe that Florida is in 2004 and understand that it may be better to not have two US conferences in a row. Is a one year gap not large enough? Also, given that we are having three conferences in Europe in a row (2001, 2002, 2003), is it such a bad thing to have two in a row in the US (2004, 2005)?

My second question is whether or not we should be entertaining multiple proposals for multiple years in the future. It seems that we are better off having three years' worth of conference venues accepted at any one time and be entertaining proposals for the fourth year out on an annual basis. From the point of view of INEER, we should stay as flexible as possible in order to take advantage of opportunities and situations that may arise. From the point of view of a group proposing a venue there are multiple problems: trying to enlist support and make any detailed plans for a date six or seven years in the future is not a fruitful exercise. Who know how many of the prospective program committee members will be with us in seven years; the value of the dollar is likely to change dramatically; we may have a new university president; etc.

Let me know your feelings on the questions above.

Also, I have attached a call for papers for a very similar conference that you may already know about, but if not, we should have some liason to this group.
---jgt

 

5. PROPOSAL FROM PORTUGAL

Please respond to the following comments where appropriate, by October 1, 2001 even if you have provided the information to me before:

Dear Dr. Aung,

Thank you for the "e-mails" you just send to me. I took in the due

consideration all the questions you made. As we have here, in Coimbra, a

Proposing Committee to the ICEE2006 with the representatives of the all

Engineering Departments, I have called all of them for a meeting to be held

on the 11.10.2001. Then I will let you know what we have decided. However,

my feeling is that we are going on with the proposal in the right terms you

think convenient.

Yours sincerely,

Carlos Sá Furtado

Additional Response Received on October 27, 2001:

Dear Dr. Win Aung,

Sorry for the delay I am answering your mail. As I mentioned in my previous

mail, I have to promote a meeting of the group behind the proposal to host

the ICEE 2006 in Coimbra, in order to discuss and answer your comments.

It seems for us, here in Coimbra, to be essential to know when you think to

be reasonable, from a geographical point of view, to hold an ICEE in

Portugal. In 2006, 2007, or beyond? We will follow your orientation.

Let me now answer and comment the specific points you raise in your mail.

1. We are obliged for the compliment.

2. We are prepared to enlarge the Portuguese participation in future ICEEs.

Besides, we intend to organize a Portuguese-speaking Countries Conference

on Engineering Education.

As you can see on pages 5 and 6 of our Proposal , it is not "a one man

project". The organizing committee is highly motivated, and only reasons of

circumstance led that just I was present in Oslo.

3. As far as the "Note" is concerned, the Faculty of Sciences And

Technology ( Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia) has the right autonomy to

fully support the ICEE. I am sending by post the corresponding commitment.

However, if you think more adequate to get the support of the Rector of the

University, this will be done.

4. We do not have any problem with the signature of the MOU with the

implicit financial responsibility.

5. We do not have to pay to the University the utilization of the

installations.

6. We will send the required letters of support, when you think is timely

adequate. Three years before the eventual date of the organization is or is

not enough?

7. As I said right in the beginning, we are prepared to follow your advice.

8. At this distance, we can assume that the banquet will cost 40-50 euros

for each attendee.

9. Tentative sessions are mentioned on page 3. Social Programme and

Technical Tours come on page 7 . If you require, at this early

stage, an overall layout will be prepared and send it to you.

10. The members of the organizing committee come on pages 5 and 6.

11. Not only we agree but we welcome the joint-chairing of the sessions.

12. On this, we wait for your advice, which will be followed.

I hope I have answered your questions and remarks. If not, I am prepared to

clarify further.

I wait for your comments and orientations.

Best wishes,

Carlos Sa Furtado