It concerns the means by which we may focus the discussions in our Technical Com 
missions upon matters that are of real importance, so that our limited time may be used 
to better advantage. 
Briefly my proposal is: 
1. Prior publication of a limited number of invited papers on specific subjects. 
2. Discussions initiated by a panel of invited persons, one of whom should be the author 
of the paper. 
3. The marshalling, categorizing and filtering of the multitude of other papers that are 
presented to the Congress. 
Other international congresses have done this with remarkablv advantageous results. 
It is by no means a dream. I am sure we, too, can benefit from a better regulation of 
our procedures. 
Let me elaborate the idea a little further. 
1. Prior Publication 
a. The Commission Boards should start forthwith to consider what main siibjects they 
would like to discuss in 1960. 
b. By 1958 they should have crystallized their ideas as to perhaps 80 or 90 % of their 
subjects and their relative importance. 
c. At that stage they should invite contributions on these subjects from specific persons. 
A certain flexibility is required at this stage and considerable latitude should be allowed 
to the authors. 
d. These papers might advantageously be divided into two categories. 
i. Those of technico-administrative significance, in which many persons might have 
a vital interest and be critically affected by the outcome, although they might not be 
intimately conversant with all the technical details: e.g. how should we define camera- 
resolution for international use, or questions such as international terminology. 
ii. Those of specialized significance in which a few specialists might be interested: e.g. 
comparative merits of different computational procedures. 
e. It may take some 12—18 months to obtain these papers. They should be published in 
extenso at the very least 4 months before the Congress. The means of publication need 
not be discussed here and now. There are various possibilities. Perhaps a special issue 
of Photogrammetria might be the vehicle. 
f. In this way we may expect to establish in the course of time a tradition of excellence 
of presented papers. 
g. Finally the opportunity thus afforded for prior study of such papers will certainly lead 
to more fruitful discussions in the open atmosphere of extemporary speech and free 
interchange of ideas — particularly conflicting ideas. 
2. Discussion Procedure 
a. During the final two years of preparation for the Congress a few interested persons 
should be invited to come prepared to contribute to the discussions on particidar papers. 
A panel of such persons should be finalized perhaps before the programme is printed. 
b. The presentation of the paper should (with few exceptions) be by way of the author’s 
own comments upon it, simply to introduce his main points. 
c. This should usually be followed by comments from the panel, followed by comments 
from the floor. 
d. We have certainly seen some excellent discussions here along these lines, but equally 
certainly we have seen some terrible waste of time and of patience through inadequate 
preparation and regulation. 
3. Marshalling of the Payers 
a. If we are to deal in any adequate manner with the increasing mass of papers presented 
to the Congress — and not to be individually overwhelmed by — it is essential that 
they should be marshalled, categorized, and filtered by us, rather more strictly than 
has been possible heretofore. 
b. It is not proposed to limit what may be presented to Congress at the expense of 
individuals, but it is essential to exercise some control over what is published in the 
Archives and what is presented by title. 
c. In particular we need to exclude from the Archives what is principally a repetition of 
old matter rehashed, which might be thought by some to closely resemble advertising 
matter, and we need to encourage a high standard of contribution. 
d. There are various possible devices. I suggest: 
I. That in the first instance National Societies or National Delegates give an indication 
that the paper is not a totally unworthy contribution or entirely frivolous. Such an 
indication could be freely given. 
II. Secondly that Commission Boards acting jointly with the Administration should 
categorize the papers: