CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > 1998-2003 Minutes > October 15, 2001 AC4 Minutes

Agenda

1. Welcome and Approval of Minutes
2. Bandwidth Issues Related to Students' Use of ResNet
3. Implementation Report on the Student Computer Ownership Expectation
4. New Microsoft Software License Changes and Issues
5. Course Management Symposium Overview

Minutes

Excused: Matthew Bishop, John Bruno, Angela Cheer, and Neal Van Alfen.

Absent: Cristina Gonzalez, Richard Grotjahn, Marilyn Sharrow, Mani Tripathi, and Pat Turner.

Guests: Tracy Bennett, Debra Castanon, Jeannette Dickens, Pat Kava, Dave Klem, Amy Slavich, Karen Soderquist.

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

I. Welcome and Approval of Minutes - Chair Plant

Chair Plant opened the meeting, welcomed Council members, and asked for approval of the minutes from the September 24, 2001 meeting. The Council approved the minutes as submitted.

Tracy Bennett summarized the data, voice, and video services provided to Student Housing residents. Bennett reported that ResNet serves both the campus-owned and private student housing facilities on and off campus. Costs to provide networking services approximate $1,000,000 annually, and the services are provided through contract with IET-Communications Resources.

Bennett briefly reminded Council members of ResNet issues Student Housing addressed in 2000-2001. Student Housing resolved the issue of slow connectivity by increasing bandwidth to the Internet by 300%, from 10Mbps to 40Mbps. In addition, access for Napster traffic was limited. Combined, these actions improved ResNet performance last year.

Amy Slavich reported on current traffic trends on ResNet. Inbound and outbound bandwidth is currently saturated, and a significant volume of traffic is unable to get through. This traffic results from residents' use of the Internet for peer-to-peer file sharing applications, including KaZaA which alone accounts for 57% of the traffic. Most of this network traffic is for incidental personal use.

Bennett and Slavich identified the following questions for Council consideration:

• Limit bandwidth for Internet peer-to-peer file sharing. Bennett and Slavich proposed an immediate limit on KaZaA to 8Mbps, and limits on other peer-to-peer applications as appropriate.
• Raise the total bandwidth obtained from the commercial ISP to 1GB. The campus recently reduced its cost for commercial services, and Student Housing could use the money saved to purchase additional bandwidth.
• Additional efforts by Student Housing to raise "good neighbor" awareness for Internet use. Student Housing has already developed a number of documents aimed at raising awareness about proper use of the campus network.

Council discussion revolved around the following issues:

• Whether KaZaA was being used for legitimate academic purposes. Bennett and Slavich replied that the legitimate uses are likely to be very limited.
• Whether the legitimate academic uses could be provided by other means such as the shared filespace ("MySpace") in MyUCDavis.
• The cause of the problem and other alternatives to treat it. The problem might be greater because the UC Davis machines are acting more as servers than clients for the peer-to-peer sharing.
• One alternative might be to control the bandwidth for those who use the application the most. Slavich noted that the technology to identify those individuals and limit their use of specific applications does exist, but not in the current campus network architecture. Slavich also replied that KaZaA software has the ability to identify and give priority to sites with large bandwidths before converting them into servers in the peer-to-peer system. Therefore KaZaA server activities are the main factor currently affecting the ResNet bandwidth.
• KaZaA issues related to the Digital Millennium and Copyrights Act (DMCA). Bennett noted that DMCA issues are treated separately and are not distinguished by the software used.

Pat Kava updated the Council on the progress made with the implementation of the Student Computer Ownership Expectation. Kava reported that online ordering through the UC Davis/Dell Purchase Program site is now available from http://computerownership.ucdavis.edu/. Approximately 300 machines were sold through the UC Davis Bookstore and professional schools in this first year of the program. Kava reported that IET surveyed 669 students during summer advising; 99% of those surveyed reported that they were aware of the statement of expectation and were already planning to come to campus with a computer. Other opportunities to raise awareness about the program to new students are under consideration for this year. Information sessions are already planned for Preview Day (October 27th) and for High School Scholars Day (Nov. 9th). The campus is working with Dell to donate a system for a drawing at one of these events.

Kava reported that the production of the single machines with a custom image caused significant delay in the implementation of the computer purchase program with Dell this year. Contrary to what the workgroup had been told, Dell is not set up to produce single computer systems with customized images. The workgroup therefore recommends discontinuing using custom images after this year so as to ensure timely availability and delivery of computers to students or their parents. Parents have indicated they find value in the program because of the support and endorsement by the campus. Kava also reported that the need to supply UC Davis software would be addressed by Bovine Online CD's (Bovine Online is an Internet toolkit specifically for UC Davis students, staff and faculty). Kava reported the workgroup recommends that the campus provide the Bovine Online CD's to all students, staff and faculty at no cost. Cost to the campus would be relatively minimal involving only CD reproduction and distribution, and software licensing.

Council asked if Dell would end their involvement with the program after the poor sales this year. Kava replied that Dell was committed to the program and understands the issues we faced this year. Kava noted that the sales program is now in place and will be available for next year's high school graduation period, the best buying season. The workgroup expects significantly more sales next year, probably close to 1,000 (a figure based on similar programs' sales at other campuses).

Council asked for a breakdown of the current sales by user and platform. Kava reported that sales are mostly to students; about 2/3 are desktops and 1/3 notebooks.

Debra Castanon provided an update on the licensing agreements with Microsoft and the new UC-wide software reseller. The new campus reseller, the Technology Resource Center (TRC), replaces Software Spectrum as the UC software reseller effective October 1, 2001. The Office of the President decided to select a new reseller after Software Spectrum announced plans to move away from the academic market. As with Software Spectrum, TRC will sell software products from Microsoft (Select program), Adobe, FileMaker, IBM/Lotus, and Symantec.

All purchases of Microsoft software licenses using the Select Agreement will be made through the new reseller. UCOP is also negotiating a Campus Agreement with Microsoft. The Campus Agreement is designed for volume purchases; the Select Agreement is designed for single or small purchases.

Castanon introduced Mark Ciabattari, the UC account representative from Microsoft. Ciabattari answered Council members' questions regarding the new licensing agreement.

Microsoft licensing has changed significantly with the introduction of the new "XP" products. Previous Microsoft licenses allowed upgrades to be purchased. In the new licensing model, all licenses must be kept current, and a new program to help maintain the currency of the software licenses has been introduced. This program is called "Software Assurance."

Major elements of the new Microsoft licensing and the UC agreement with Microsoft are:

• There are two product lines: the consumer and the business lines. In recent developments, Microsoft has announced that it will allow upgrades to Windows XP Professional from any operating system (including Windows 9.x), effective October 1, 2001.
• Deadline for upgrading to new versions of software programs: July 31, 2002.
• Users wanting new versions must have current software licenses and must purchase "software assurance".
• Licenses purchased through the Campus Agreement or Select Agreement program can be used on a university-owned or personal computer.

Castanon explained that determining how to license software for a department is complicated and IET will work with departments to help them optimize their purchases and Software Assurance agreements. She noted that the complex formulas in the Campus Agreement program are based on the number of FTEs and the number of workstations. The formula is used to determine the number of licenses a department should purchase.

Council asked for an explanation of how the number of FTEs would be determined, noting that a department's staffing numbers are unknown when you use the IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) count as described in the Campus Agreement formula. Ciabattari explained that these are the methods that Microsoft agreed to use for all universities but might change to address the campus' concerns.

Council members also asked about the costs involved in the new agreements. Ciabattari replied that the cost is based in part on how often the software is "refreshed". However, if you leave your licenses in their current status, the cost usually would be 10 to 15% higher. Ciabattari commented that if you do not know the number of technology assets you own and can't identify how often you need to upgrade, your costs could increase significantly. Ciabattari addressed a question about optimizing your purchases and need for upgrades. He noted that each department would need to determine the number of "knowledge workers", the number of workstations, and the need to remain current. Castanon replied that IET will assist departments in this determination. Dave Shelby, Assistant Vice Provost and Chief Operating Officer for IET, replied that Vice Provost Bruno would soon address this issue at a Council of Deans and Vice Chancellors meeting. Vice Provost Bruno will identify the criteria departments should use to assess their costs.

Other Council questions revolved around the new licensing model Microsoft is marketing and the specific situations that might require a department to upgrade. Ciabattari replied that Microsoft was moving away from a product model to a new service model. He stated that there was no need to upgrade unless the user chose to do it.

Harry Matthew informed the Council about the outcome of the one-day symposium on course management systems held on campus on October 3, 2001. Approximately 100 persons pre-registered for the symposium. About 1/3 were faculty (mostly Senate faculty) and 2/3 were administrators from academic and other departments. Besides UC Davis, attendees came from 6 other UC campuses (including UCLA, UCSB, UCB, and UCOP).

Matthews reported that the symposium provided the opportunity to exchange information and raise awareness about issues associated with course management systems.

Matthews reported that the symposium resulted in the following 3 recommendations by the AC4 Subcommittee on Course Management Systems:

• The development of the course management features to be included in MyUCDavis
• The future of the WebCT pilot program
• How to provide reliable delivery of course materials outside of MyUCDavis.

Matthews also reported that the subcommittee recommends that these efforts be taken up by the AC4 Education Subcommittee since the symposium completes the work of the Course management systems subcommittee.

Council discussed the recommendation for disbanding the Course Management Subcommittee and deferred a decision until the Education Subcommittee Chair could evaluate their ability to address the issues. The Council may also reconsider membership in the Course Management Systems Subcommittee to address the recommendations. Council expressed interest in evaluating the portal to determine the course management system components that can be addressed as applications rather than being embedded in the portal.

Council decided to defer further discussion of the recommendations to the Steering Committee.