Wednesday, November 1, 2006

http://www.itpb.ucla.edu/

ITPB Meeting Summary

ITPB Members in Attendance: Kathryn Atchison, Elizabeth Bjork, Christine Borgman, Alfonso Cardenas, James Davis, Bell Jepson, Daniel Fabbri (undergraduate student representative), Sam Morabito, Alan Robinson, Gary Strong, Marc Meyerson for Scott Waugh

Guests: Jeff Baughn, Patricia Keating, Nick Reddingius, Ruth Sabean, Mike Schilling, Marsha Smith, Don Worth , Carol Zaima

Agenda:

1. Email and Logon Account Policy

Marsha Smith, representing OIT, reviewed the need for awareness and policy for the administration of email and logon accounts with regard to a number of atypical categories of requestors; these may include affiliated researchers, graduate students on unofficial leave, as well as extension faculty and students. All of these people are not included in either the payroll or registrar databases – the databases that authorize the provision of BOL accounts and services, as well as other campus services. For purposes of this summary these people are described as non-UCLA community persons.

Authorizing a non-UCLA community person to full BOL account services creates a conflict between the good intentions of the campus to extend privileges to persons outside the UCLA community and the contractual obligations of the Library for licensed digital content hosted on their servers and connecting to the campus network. The problem arises when requests are made by the UCLA community to give non-UCLA community persons full BOL services that includes remote access (dial-in, proxy, and VPN access¹). Remote access allows users to authenticate to the UCLA network as if they were on campus. Because there is no on-campus restriction to access licensed digital content, the library assumes that anyone accessing the network through VPN, proxy or dial-in is legitimate. Access by non-UCLA community persons (when not on campus) is explicitly prohibited by contractual obligations between the Library and the content providers. Therefore it has been the practice to limit BOL accounts to only the UCLA community. Without clear policy on the provisioning of accounts and services, however, tension is created between the service providers (in this case the Library and BOL) and those campus individuals who want to extend these services to non-UCLA community persons.

OIT created a recommendation table by category of people for ITPB review which in summary recommend:

• Provide an account to non-UCLA Community persons not in the payroll or registrar databases, but limit services to exclude remote access.
• For a special category called “spouses of deceased emeriti” who continue that account under their spouse’s name, the recommendation was to grandfather those that currently have accounts (<10), but in the future only provide accounts (in their own name) without remote access.
• For graduate students that have exhausted their leave of absence (they no longer are listed in the registrar) the recommendation was unclear. The Graduate Division does not make exceptions.
• Do not provide accounts or services to people who have left the University prior to graduation (students) or retirement (faculty).
• For UCLA retirees OIT recommended further investigation to understand how full services, in the future, can be legitimately provided. Until then provide an account without remote access services.

ITPB input:

• Most library materials are freely open to anyone on the Internet. The content in question is the licensed materials such as Nexus and Lexus.
• There is an increasing need for UCLA to extend its services to those providing value, especially donors, to the University. A policy limiting services could hinder these efforts.
• The issues are not solely IT issues; policy should follow existing human resource and registrar policies.
• There were concerns about security and privacy around the assignment of an account (in the case of deceased faculty emeriti) to another person, even if it is the person’s spouse. These practices should be reviewed in context with other Campus Human Resource or other policy that directs in these types of affairs.
• If services are denied to those that already have these services, a letter should go out explaining the background and reasons for discontinuing the services (as in the case of spouses of deceased emeriti).
• It was noted that all providers of remote access services (including local departments) should abide by the same practices and/or policies that restrict eligibility for BOL remote access services.
• There may be some people who should have access to full services but are denied because they are not in the payroll or registrar databases. Examples would include students who are away on an internship and no longer in the registrar database or students who are enrolled at another campus but attending UCLA. There should be an office that can review exceptions and make case-by case decisions on eligibility.

ITPB recommendations:

• As recommended, only the UCLA community, defined as persons in the UCLA payroll or registrar databases will be provisioned full BOL services, which includes remote access.
• As recommended non-degreed undergraduate students and non-retired, employees who leave UCLA will not be provisioned accounts.
• In the case of spouses of deceased emeriti faculty, a procedural change needs to be implemented and communicated to existing and future spouses. The deceased emeriti’s BOL account should be inactivated and the spouse should be offered a BOL account in their own name without remote access services. Email coming to the deceased emeriti address can be forwarded to the new email account.
• People who are affiliated with UCLA and that provide value to the university (research affiliates, faculty and students in the Extension program, donors, volunteers, and the like) should be provisioned an account without remote access services.
• Graduate students who have exhausted their leave and are no longer in the registrar system must petition the graduate division for the extension of any UCLA service. Campus account and email providers should follow the policies of the Graduate Division.

OIT recommendations (based upon ITPB input):

• Based upon ITPB input above, OIT will write a clear guideline on eligibility to clarify legitimate provisioning of accounts and services. This will be brought back to the ITPB for endorsement.
• As part of that communication, OIT will create an appropriate recourse for exceptions (approximately 50 each year) - people who are legitimately entitled to full BOL services but are not in the payroll or registrar databases.

2. TIF – Technology Infrastructure fee impacts on contracts and grants

The TIF changed the funding base for the campus technology infrastructure from phone charges to FTE. The charging unit for the TIF became the Full Account Unit (FAU). Expenses on contract and grant FAUs are heavily FTE based, which created a negative impact for contract and grants. Jim Davis has been working with APB and CTS to understand, at a detail level, the breadth and depth of these impacts on existing contracts and grants.

A distribution of FAUs was presented that showed negative and positive impacts. Of the 5,542 total contracts and grants, 4,716 (85%) are impacted negatively and 826 (15%) are affected positively. Of those with negative impact, 4,069 (73%) are impacted at $1000 or less with the average impact of $300. 639 (12%) were positively impacted, with an average impact of $355. Only a few were affected with gains and losses above $5000.00 - 29 (0.5%) are affected negatively, while 30 (0.5%) are impacted positively.

Some of the FAUs being negatively impacted have requested assistance or reviews of the charges. Vice Chancellor Steve Olsen’s office is encouraging Deans to deal directly with any hardship incurred during this transition year on existing contracts and grants. His office is dealing directly with those units that believe certain FTE should not be charged because they represent largely off-campus staff.

ITPB input:

• It would be useful to understand the impact of the TIF against the dollar size of the grant. Even though impacts may seem small, if they are charged against smaller grants the impact could be significant.
• The ITPB agreed with the suggested remediation paths and also suggested that there to be communication of the analysis and recourse steps that individual faculty can take for remediation.

Reports:

1. Repositioning IT – Principles/Process

Marsha Smith reviewed the revisions and refinements (italicized in the source document) made to the principles/process statements about how Repositioning IT (RIT) funds would be used.

2. Common Collaborative & Learning Environment      

Prof. Patricia Keating, Chair of the Faculty Committee on Educational Technology (FCET), reviewed the progress on the Common Collaborative & Learning Environment (CCLE).  The final CCLE Assessment Task Force report has been submitted to FCET.  The Committee will be reviewing the recommendations this month and will present their decision on which system to use at the December ITPB meeting.

The system selected will be one that provides what  is needed and allows users  (academic units)to opt in rather than mandate their participation.   It is estimated that the opt in process will take a minimum of two to three years, with the units in most need being the first to employ the campus-wide system.  It has not been determined where the system will be housed; a decision on this will be part of the presentation at the December ITPB meeting.

¹ Dial-in, proxy, and VPN access are means of accessing and authenticating to the UCLA network through a modem or by direct high bandwidth connection from a remote, non-campus location. A person remotely accessing the UCLA network through these services appears no different, for discussion purposes, as someone who is literally on campus.