CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > 1998-2003 Minutes > March 18, 2002 AC4 Minutes

Agenda

1. Approval of minutes
2. Announcements
3. Update on ITF fund expenditures
4. Antivirus Pilot Project Progress Report
5. Spam Issues and Resolution
6. Report from the AC4 Education Subcommittee on Course Management Systems

Minutes

Excused: Mike Allred.

Absent: Angela Cheer, Jack Farrell, Barry Klein, Bill Lacy, John Meyer, Paul Singh, Mani Tripathi, and Neal Van Alfen.

Guests: Simone Clay, Tor Cross, Bob Ono, and Keith Young.

Staff to the Councils: Randy Moory, Julie Saylor, and Babette Schmitt.

I. Approval of Minutes - Chair Plant

Chair Plant requested comments on the February meeting minutes. The minutes were approved as submitted.

Chair Plant introduced new Council members, Jim Case, representing the Academic Senate and Pam Torrey, representing Staff Assembly.

Campus Web-based resources for researchers
Chair Plant reported on behalf of Research Subcommittee chair, Mani Tripathi. Chair Plant indicated that the Research Subcommittee continues to work on the contracts and grants functionality with the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. Plant referred the Council to the written report from Tripathi for more information (see handout).

Julie Saylor reported on the instructional technology funds (ITF) that have already been committed for the next fiscal year and those that are still available for future possible requests. Saylor indicated that no new, additional funds are expected and that her report takes into consideration only monies that the campus has in its budget. Saylor notified the Council that, based on the information currently available, some requests for ITF funds will likely not be honored, starting next year and each year thereafter. She also noted that given the projected reduction in funds in the years to come, it will be difficult to continue to support at their current levels the programs that have already been allocated ITF funds.

Council asked if the tables in the handout included the ITF funds that Council recommended to support the Instructional Use of Computing (IUC) program. Saylor indicated that it was not included.

Council members recalled their intent to address funding issues on an annual basis at one time.

Bob Ono, Campus Security Coordinator, reported on the progress made in the assessment of antivirus server software products. Ono reminded Council members that currently the campus addresses antivirus issues at the desktop level, using Norton and Symantec antivirus products, which provides elusive control over viruses propagated by email.

Ono reported that Information and Educational Technology (IET) has been evaluating antivirus email server products for the last six weeks. This evaluation has shown that the campus will need to upgrade its hardware if it is going to install antivirus software on the mail servers. The campus also cannot rely on the least expensive products. These products are not robust enough for the volume of campus email. Ono also indicated that the Office of the President (UCOP) has initiated an evaluation with several vendors to determine the feasibility of a system-wide purchase of an antivirus product.

According to Ono, the scope of the licensing of antivirus products for the UC Davis campus remains an open question. Will it include only central IET mail servers or will it also include departmental servers?

Council had several questions for Ono.

• Council asked about performing a survey to determine the extent to which virus infection is reduced when antivirus software is applied. Ono replied that Virginia Tech has performed such a survey. They reported experiencing a drop of 1,000,000 infections. (Virginia Tech has a 26,000 student body, similar in size to UC Davis.)
• Council also asked about funding for antivirus software. Ono indicated that he is exploring funding opportunities. He estimates that there will be one-time costs of approximately $150,000 and $15,000 for ongoing annual expenses.
• Council asked about how the licensing would be obtained. Ono replied that antivirus software licenses are based on the number of email clients (not the number of email servers). The software could be installed on any number of servers.
• Council asked whether there were any indications that email would continue to be the primary mode of transmittal for viruses in the foreseeable future. Ono replied that industry projections indicate that email will remain the primary method for virus dissemination although other factors are also expected to come into play (e.g., Web-based viruses). Viruses are becoming more complex; they tend to target more than one mode of transmittal.

Bob Ono reported about spam and the issues associated with controlling it. Ono indicated that spam (or unsolicited email) has been a recurring problem on campus. Over the last few months, the volume of unsolicited commercial email has increased on our campus, and a similar trend has been observed at other campuses.

Preventing unsolicited email messages is a complex issue. Many Internet Service Providers have recently started blocking email based on the identity of known spam originators. Ono believes that such an approach would cause a number of problems in our campus environment, including the fact that it could block legitimate mail. These lists are also not always current or accurate.

Ono noted that the campus does maintain its own list of sources from which email is blocked. It does not however use any other lists from outside sources.

No UC campus has yet implemented a spam prevention system. In fact, UC Davis has done more in terms of spam control than any other UC campus. Ono suggested that we must continue to address spam from multiple fronts, including by:

• Expanding user education programs
• Continuing to publish articles (e.g., in IT Times, California Aggie) and expanding awareness training efforts
• Filtering spam
• Not responding to any spam
• Registering sites that generate spam

Council asked about:

• Controlling sexually explicit email. Ono replied that filtering such email messages into a custom folder may be the most appropriate control method. Council members noted, however, that using filters might not always be the most efficient solution as filters do not discriminate between legitimate and unsolicited email. Depending on how filters are set up, appropriate mail could be filtered along with the spam.
• Site relay email. Ono noted that most often email relay results from poor configuration of a site, but there are legitimate reasons to relay.

Council suggested Information and Educational Technology (IET) sponsor workshops, in collaboration with Student Housing and others as appropriate, to help the campus community learn how to address spam, use filters, manage email, etc. Ono noted that the security Web site (http://security.ucdavis.edu/) is being revamped. The site will serve as a major communication vehicle for spam and other computing and networking security issues.

Matt Bishop, chair of the Education Subcommittee, reported on the deliberations of the Subcommittee on Course Management Systems. Bishop reported that the subcommittee is finalizing their report and recommendations. The subcommittee is working on issues surrounding which software packages the campus should support. Bishop reported that the subcommittee is examining several issues, including:

• The impact of phasing out the support of WebCT and the need to ensure WebCT pilot participants and users can transition smoothly and effectively to the MyUCDavis course management system
• What features would need to be integrated into the MyUCDavis portal to offer the level of functionality faculty need and/or are accustomed to using
• How the campus will handle incoming faculty who are already using a course management system other than the one offered through the MyUCDavis portal (such as WebCT or BlackBoard)
• How WebCT could be integrated with Banner and other administrative systems in the event that campus departments opt to support this software package
• How much would be required to support WebCT as a major campus system (in addition to MyUCDavis) and what funds would be used.

Council members offered several comments about Bishop's summary of the subcommittee's deliberations:

• Council members commented that the Office of the President (UCOP) is looking at the issue of supporting all the course management systems for UC campuses. UCOP may facilitate bulk purchases of the various commercial products across all the campuses and bring together the developers of campus grown systems.
• Members also commented that caution must be exercised not to convey the impression that UC Davis does not welcome WebCT users. The subcommittee needs to report that their recommendation to officially support only one course management system (through the MyUCDavis portal) is primarily an economic decision. It is important to recognize that faculty will need assistance with other systems.
• Members also commented about the performance and "user friendliness" of the MyUCDavis course management system modules. Council needs to prioritize what features are needed in MyUCDavis to make it more complete. The campus also needs to examine whether to build or buy these new features.

Questions focused on the following issues:

• How other campuses are addressing their course management needs. It was noted that there was no good model for course management systems at any of the UC campuses. Many campuses around the country are looking to the Open Knowledge Initiative, sponsored by MIT and Stanford, to help resolve issues.
• What commercial software packages are used the most. Many early adopters selected WebCT as their course management system. It offers more features but is more difficult to use. More recent adopters appear to be using BlackBoard which appears easier to use.

For more information on course management systems, see the Subcommittee on Course Management Systems Web site at http://ccfit/comm_wkgrp/course_manage_sys.html.