Information Technology Planning Board
Meeting Summary
Friday – December 14, 2007

 

ITPB Attendees:  Kathryn Atchison, Russel Caflisch, Alfonso Cardenas, Mitch Creem, Jim Davis, Michael Goldstein, Xue Hua, David Kaplan, Kathleen Komar, Alan Robinson, Andrew Royer, Gary Strong.  Guests:  Ross Bollens, Carmela Cunningham, Larry Loeher, Jack Powazek, Nick Reddingius, Margo Reveil, Libbie Stephenson, Kent Wada, Don Worth 

Agenda Item 1:  November 2007 Meeting Summary

The November 2007 meeting summary was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 2:  Research & Educational Data Management Working Group Report

Alan Robinson reported on the Research & Educational Data Management Working Group.

Issues:

• Need for a good inventory of the data resources on campus.
• Need to establish common practices defining how datasets are assembled.
• Need to establish common rules for how data is protected.
• Need to define commonality in how to protect data from vandalism or for disaster recovery.
• Need to work with Contracts and Grants to develop a standard template for data management plans required by most grants.
• Need for disaster recovery plans for digitally stored items.  Related concerns include the deterioration of the physical resource and technology changes that could impact access to digital materials.
• Need for an understanding of who owns the problem of education about - and ongoing support for - research and educational data management.
• Need for a plan on how long the data will be kept, what should be destroyed and when it will be destroyed. 

Agenda Item 3:  Emergency Planning Presentation

Jack Powazek, AVC-General Services, presented an overview of the campus emergency communications.

Early in 2007, the UCLA Emergency Notification System (ENS) was comprised of several emergency message delivery mechanisms that required separate input and updates.  An emergency planning team was created and charged with developing a comprehensive campus emergency notification system.  Requirements for the new system were defined as:

• Reliability
• Ability to receive on multiple devices
• Adequate bandwidth for timely communications
• Interoperability with other emergency communication systems
• Scalability

UCLA opened a bidding process to select an Emergency Notification Service for BruinAlert, with the main goal being that the university could get a message to all students, faculty and staff within 15 minutes.  A system called AdHoc was chosen.

The main problem, however, is not technology, but rather with compiling correct email addresses and cell phone numbers from students, faculty and staff.  Staff information is the easiest to compile, but the University has a very low number of correct email addresses and cell phone numbers for students (approximately 39 percent several requests studuents) and a fairly low number for faculty.  The University is working to get this information compiled and confirmed.

Agenda Item 4:  IT Policy

Jim Davis introduced Margo Reveil in her new position as Assistant CIO and said that Margo has begun creating a group of IT Compliance Officers that will subsume the current SB 1386 coordinators.  UCLA organizations will be asked to appoint a compliance officer who will be part of this group.  Draft Compliance Officer letter.

Ross Bollens, UCLA Security Director provided a status report on the network scanning project that has begun across campus.

Kent Wada, UCLA IT Policy Director, reported that effective Jan. 1, 2008, AB1298 will expand the scope ofSB1386.  SB 1386 is the breach notification law that requires notification to individuals when their personal information has been compromised.  The law has been expanded to include medical and health insurance information used in conjunction with an individual’s name to be defined as “personal information” (AB1298 Extends SB1386).

Kent Wada reported on the AIS inventory of personal and sensitive information maintained by various units on campus.  Actions resulting from the survey include:

• Five-minute modules are being created to educate staff and faculty on privacy issues and the protection of personal information.
• The Security Administrators Consortium will be reconvened.
• Development of a set of higher minimum standards for all servers connected to the network that contain personally identifiable information.
• Establishment of a blanket prohibition for storing personally identifiable information on portable devices such as laptops.

Kent Wada presented an overview of Be AwareYou’re Uploading (BAYU),which is a service designed by the University of Michigan that automatically notifies users of university networks that files are being uploaded using peer-to-peer file-sharing technology.  Student Affairs is interested in this product so that students can be notified of the file-sharing.

Security Working Group Report

Jim Davis provided an overview of the Security Working Group meeting.  The primary security goal for the campus is to balance protecting data while providing an open environment for intellectual pursuit.  The working group determined that the most important focus is on communication with the faculty about IT security. 

Discussion:

• Faculty are sympathetic to security concerns, but have little or no tolerance for additional tasks or training.
• It is almost impossible to avoid some of the home computing-use issues through training and awareness.  Particular home-use issues include other family members using the machine, maintaining minimum standards on home machines that VPN in to the network, personal information and other protected data being accessed from home machines, and training.
• Online training should be avoided at all costs.

Agenda Item 5:  CCLE & Intellectual Property Working Group Report

Kathryn Atchison reviewed four topics of discussion from the CCLE & Intellectual Property Working Group meeting.

• Intellectual property issues related to sharing learning content
• Open courseware initiative
• Assessment
• Classroom facilities

The group determined that accountability for sharing and protecting intellectual property needs to be defined and that faculty (and their TAs) need to be educated on the intellectual property issues.  Although it was decided that the Open Courseware Initiative was not a priority for UCLA, the issue of open courseware in terms of data management and archiving course materials should be addressed.

Agenda Item 6:  Campus Wireless Telecommunication Strategy Working Group Report

Jim Davis presented an overview of the discussions from the Wireless Working Group meeting.

Working Group Conclusions:

• UCLA does not have an institutional wireless vision.  There is an institutional approach for open public spaces but there is significant variation of opinion about building wireless spaces.  UCLA has not institutionally considered a range of applications, and while the current infrastructure is set up for uniform access, nothing has been implemented for roaming.

• It’s not clear exactly what the demand is for wireless and what students really want.  When students are asked, there is demand for wireless, but not so much within departments, from deans, etc.  How do we rationalize the demand we hear from students with the EDUCAUSE survey that shows an increase in wireless usage, but that it’s still low?

• There’s a need for a formal needs assessment that would be similar to a marketing study.  Assessment should:
• Include data on what is expected and needed in the future (rather than just what is currently being used).
• Identify barriers, needs and competitive advantage.
• Identify what other universities are doing.
• Be done by a group with expertise in surveying and needs assessment.
• Be done periodically

• There’s a need to determine the existing funding capacity of TIF for expanding existing wireless technologies as well as to look toward emerging wireless technologies.  The group has asked Mike Schilling, CTS, to assess TIF funding options.
• A technical and infrastructure model will be developed for an overall campus plan. The Next Generation Network team will take wireless forward as a TIER initiative.

Agenda Item 7:  ITGC Report

Postponed until the next meeting.

Substituted Report on Computational Data Infrastructure & Collaboration Working Group Report

Russ Caflisch presented a summary of the Computational Data Infrastructure Working Group’s discussion on issues related to the development of data centers.  The existing data centers on campus are run by Academic Technology Services on the principle of shared resources and cluster hosting.  As part of the hosting agreements, research groups owning clusters that reside in the data centers allow others the use their machines during idle times.  A main discussion point of the group was about informing faculty about these facilities and convincing them to participate and place their individual clusters in the campus data centers.

Other issues:

• Rapidly rising utility costs for power and air conditioning in the data centers must be addressed.
• Current projections indicate that data center space is rapidly being filled and that a significant shortage will occur in the future.
• The impact of new NSF and NIH requirements for storage and availability of data produced under grant funding needs to be reviewed in concert with data center space.
• There is concern that there is a waste of energy and that excess capacity exists.  Consolidating computational resources and making space available through data centers would improve efficiency.

Next Meeting:  Tuesday – January 29, 2008, 9 – 11 a.m., 2121 Murphy Hall.