Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC)

1:30 - 3:00 pm - I.G. Greer 224

1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Discussion of Student E&T fee increase (Tim Burwell)
3. Follow-up on IT audit - workstation management
4. Recent legal actions for P2P activity
5. Workstation refresh - cycles, approach, etc
6. Update on campus communications plan for faculty and staff

1:30 - 3:00 pm - I. G. Greer Hall - Room 224

Persons Present:

Ex Officio members: Doug May (Acad. Computing Serv.), Jeff Williams (Chair, Info. Tech. Serv.), Tim Huelsman (Fac. Senate)

Voting Members: Brian Brown (Student Services), Robert Brown (Student Govt.), Gabe Fankhauser (Hayes School of Music), Kevin Howell (Coll. of Fine & Applied Arts), Len Johnson (HRS/Chancellor’s Office), Emory Maiden (Coll. of Arts & Sciences), Ed Pekarek (Coll. of Arts & Sciences), Justin Pittman (Student Govt. Assoc.), Dick Riedl (Reich Coll. of Education), Dragan Stefanovic (Coll. of Arts & Sciences), Peter Wachs (Student Development), Bill Ward (Academic Affairs)

Visitors: Steve Breiner (Instructional Comp. Serv., ITAC Recorder), Tim Burwell (Academic Affairs), Tom Van Gilder (Arts & Sciences), Pamela Graham (Arts & Sciences), Doug Brantz (Fine & Applied Arts), Oscar Knight (ITS Security Manager), Greg Simmons (Instructional Computing), Jeff Church (Instructional Computing), Charles (Mick) Kreszock (Instructional Technology Ctr.)

1) Welcome, Introductions, and recent Activity

Jeff Williams opened the meeting at 1:33 PM, greeted the assembly and referred those present to the online posted minutes from the September 10 meeting. He recognized a number of new ITAC representatives, and asked the members to introduce themselves for the benefit of all present.

2) Discussion of Student E&T fee increase

Williams introduced Tim Burwell who reported that research begun last year indicated that the Education and Technology (E&T) student fees Appalachian were 15th lowest of the 16 UNC institutions and that that was the result of attempts to keep tuition and fees low during last year’s cycle. He mentioned also that there had been a proposal for a $100 increase last year. He stated that the combined student fees of $225, when considered with tuition, left Appalachian with a revenue level third from the bottom in the UNC system. His research showed that the E&T fees netted some $400,000 for Information Technology Services (ITS) use with the bulk of the additional E&T revenues (roughly $1.2 million) flowing to departments for various uses. Additional revenues accruing to ITS include $200,000 from summer school allocations and and additional $120,000 in distributed salary monies. He noted that Appalachian had been able to achieve quite impressive infrastructure improvements, due primarily to the 1-time monies resulting from the bond referendum passed in November of 2000, but that the bond funds had been depleted. It was clear, noted Burwell, that Appalachian needs to establish a more stable and reliable funding mechanism to maintain its progress and to achieve needed improvements in the IT arena.The conclusions of his analyses, including a realization that we will be involved essentially in zero-based state budgeting, led the administration to request the $100 per year increase in per-student E&T fees, mainly targeted to IT needs, to provide approximately $1.3 million to be spent for service categories that directly impact students. The request will go to the Appalachian State University board of trustees for consideration at their December meeting.

Williams noted that ITS had been asked during the consideration of the fee increase request to identify as beneficiaries those uses that directly relate to student education. Among the issues identified were establishing a regular 4-year refresh cycles for the 1800 computers maintained for use in student computer labs, maintenance and refresh of the IT infrastructure, and personnel issues that directly impact educational activities.

Tom Van Gilder (A&S) asked whether the proposed refresh cycles would apply to computer labs that were originally established by the colleges. Doug May (ACS) replied that all publicly accessible labs would be included, if the request were granted. Van Gilder then asked whether faculty machines were to be included and May replied that faculty machines were expressly not included in this mechanism and that this funding can only be applied in direct support of instruction. He further noted that other funding, notably from state allocations, should be used for refreshing faculty machines and the related infrastructure, since those uses are considered routine office necessities.

Robert Brown (SGA) asked what would be the net impact on students as a result of the fee increase. Peter Wachs (Student Development) answered that the increase in E&T fees from $118 to $218 per year should have only slight impact, since all other fees were remaining essentially constant.

3) Follow-up on IT audit - workstation management

Williams reported that, to meet the requirements of our latest audit report from the State Auditors office, Oscar Knight, formerly in the Network Support Services area in ITS, had been appointed to the newly created position of IT Security Coordinator and will report directly to Williams. He noted also that this, and other requirements of the audit report, had been addressed by November 9. Included in meeting those requirements was the deployment of a scanning mechanism for compliance certification of workstations — initial results indicate that from 75 to 100 workstations (computers) had completed the soon-to-be mandatory process. He noted that the scan process would be required for all servers and faculty/staff workstations (computers) every 6 months to verify the absence of vulnerabilities. Those machines with Novell workstation management will be updated routinely and automatically but standalone machines will need to complete a (fairly rigorous) manual process to achieve their certifications.

Williams then introduced Knight, who explained the auditors’ concerns with issue of “null sessions” and described how registry changes related to this (and to similar vulnerabilities) were fixed remotely using Novell’s remote Workstation Management capabilities. Williams added that the recent “Paypal Phishing Trojan” (see an explanation and examples) and many others like it make it only prudent to be very careful with our access and with the machines that connect to our network and the Internet.

Brian Brown (Stud. Serv.) asked what plans for future security were being considered. He proposed that items such as a standard, university-sanctioned, reasonably secure browser, spyware scanners and removers, and other security-friendly items be included in the standard university computer OS build(s). Williams replied that those things and others are under consideration. May noted that information related to security of the Appalachian builds is always being included and considered. Kevin Howell (F&AA) suggested that Appalachian look at the Pest Patrol® be considered as a particularly effective possibility for spyware removal.

4) Recent legal actions for P2P activity

May reported that the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) had been granted subpoenas ordering Appalachian to provide names and contact information for three Internet addresses allegedly conducting illegal file sharing of copyrighted materials from within Appalachian’s network. On advice of the university counsel the information was provided to the RIAA and the students implicated in the allegations were notified of the action. May mentions that the recent spate of legal action by the RIAA seemed to cast a wide net with some 700 alleged offenders being targeted at some 226 institutions. He suggested we can use these unfortunate events to help educate the university community, students, staff, and faculty, as to both the criminal nature of and potential problems resulting from illegal file sharing.

May noted that on November 4 the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) has recently announced action plans similar to those of the RIAA, having sent letters to campuses and individuals threatening legal action against file-sharing abusers. Williams noted that UNC President Molly Broad had testified before congressional committees in Washington, DC, about the issue, and supports efforts to curb illegal file trading and sharing. There are system-level discussions occurring to determine how to address the P2P (peer to peer) issue and that recent efforts at Penn State to curb illicit file sharing by promoting legal alternatives has not been particularly effective at reducing the undesirable activity. Brantz asked about actions the university might take, such as warning individuals, to help curb the activity. May replied that there was a delicate position the university must take in order not to subject itself to losing it’s “safe harbor” status as an Internet Service Provider.

Robert Brown asked whether there might be system-wide recommendations as to P2P coming out of the system-level discussions. May acknowledged that as a clear possibility. Williams mentioned that those groups were following the testing of software at UNC-Charlotte that can supposedly prevent unauthorized transfer of copyrighted material. He added that the university probably needs to take a role in attempting to educate the nonuniversity public as well as out community about P2P issues.

5) Workstation refresh - cycles, approach, etc.

Williams noted that it appeared that establishing a formal, routine refresh cycle for computers on campus would likely be most successful if based a formula using the numbers of employees using them, leaving the localized administrators to allocate “refresh credits” appropriately, rather than attempting to centrally identify specific computers (using FAS or individual assessment) for replacement. He mentioned that the current CIO of the State of North Carolina would likely retain the position and that he anticipates that the state’s efforts to devise a statewide inventory would benefit Appalachian.

6) Update on campus communications plan for faculty and staff

Williams reported that the Communications Committee, chaired by himself and Len Johnson (Human Resources), had devised a mechanism for establishing email subscription lists that facilitate university communications. He stated that the current flood of locally produced email (via the SUBSCRIBERS and FACULTY listserves) made it almost impossible to communicate when important issues arose. Too many people simply delete or ignore those messages, buried in the volume of email they don’t want to receive in the first place. To alleviate the situation, the committee has recommended establishing two email lists, one for faculty and one for staff, that would be used only for critical notices - this list would subscribe every Appalachian employee immediately on employment and would not offer the recipient an opportunity to opt out. All other lists would target specific audiences and subscribes to those lists would be allowed to opt out of them at any time. Messages from the “voluntary” lists would necessarily carry instructions on opting out in every message. The proposed system would collect all of the list options (opt in or out) on a single management page accessible to all employees. Williams mentioned that other modes of communication were being considered, particularly for emergency-related information, including outbound calling and automated systems. The new subscription system for email should be active by early Spring semester, 2005.

7) Other items

Ed Pekarek (Computer Science) asked about the status of the IT status report issued by the consultant who visited the campus this (Fall) semester. Williams replied that the Vice Chancellors had received and were considering the report and its implications next week (11/16) and that he expected to hear more about the results following that discussion. He noted that the IT discussion was part of a more comprehensive discussion that would be looking at multiple issues facing the institution and administration.

Adjournment

Williams thanked the the members for their efforts, wished them well, and adjourned the meeting at 2:32