ISC04-M1
Minutes of the ninth Meeting of the Committee held on 13 February 2004
Membership: Professor P Roberts (chair), Professor C J Backhouse, Mr T C Baseley, Mr P S Blake, Dr J H Chandler, Mr P Davenport, Professor T Kavanagh (ab), Professor C Oppenheim, Professor K C Parsons, Mr H M Pearson (ab), Dr S J Rothberg, Mr J M Town
In attendance: Ms V Blackett, Mrs M Morley, Dr A M
Mumford, Dr B Negus,
Mr C Spendlove (secretary), Mr D M Temple, Ms C Thomas
Apologies were received from Professor Kavanagh and Mr Pearson.
ISC03-M3
The minutes of the eighth Meeting of the Committee held on 17 October 2003 were
confirmed, subject to the following minor amendments:
ISC03-M3-4.
Amend references to “Corporate
Information Systems” in the minutes and terms of reference to “Corporate
Information Services”.
i. Support Services FITC (ISC02-M2-2ii)
The DVC confirmed that a decision had been reached that the support
services FITC role was no longer required, since support services preferred to
deal directly with Computing Services and Corporate Information Services. Karen
Newcombe would however continue to represent Support Services at Faculty
Information Technology Group meetings.
ii. Data Protection Training (ISC03-M2-3)
Pressure of business had meant that it had not been possible to make a
presentation at the first SCI Directorate meeting on 13 November 2003. This
item was to be included on the agenda for the next Directorate meeting which
was scheduled for 26 February 2004.
Secretary’s Note: This presentation took place as planned on 26 February 2004. Presentations have now been made to all Faculty Directorates.
iii. Student Information Vision Statement
(ISC03-M2-11)
The Registrar confirmed that the revisions to the vision statement were
underway and that a revised vision statement would be completed for
consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.
iv. External Organisations Access to
Information Services (ISC03-M3-7)
The DVC confirmed that this matter was now in hand. A recent example was
the memorandum of understanding relating to the University’s relationship with
the Ministry of Defence regarding the new Defence Technology Undergraduate
Scheme.
v. Access Control (ISC03-M3-11)
Corporate Information Services had liaised with Computing Services to
ensure that the PAT access points were included in the network notification
system which would result in Security automatically being made aware of access
outside of office hours.
ISC04-P6
The Committee considered Mrs Morley’s
paper. Further clarification was received as follows:
·
The University
currently published research output in publications and purchased copies of
these publications from the publishers.
·
Information
Services Committee had looked into this in 2002 and had determined that no
action should be taken until an outcome for the sector had become clearer.
Since that time open archiving had gained significant ground across the sector.
·
Professor
Oppenheim informed the Committee that the movement was supported by JISC (UK)
and the Soros Foundation (Worldwide) and that academics should follow one of
two routes:
-
Offer research
output to a traditional journal as at present but also to eprint repository.
-
Offer research
output to open access journals (600 open access journals were now in
existence), which were free at the point of use.
3.1. Resource Implications
JISC research was being arranged to obtain a firm indicator of the estimated
resource requirements. Setting up a repository was straightforward, simply
requiring the University to download free software and to make a reasonable
specification server available. The hidden costs were in the staff time
required to maintain and expand the repository. This would include both library
staff time and research staff time.
3.2. Quality Assurance
The Committee was informed that the Vice-Chancellor had raised concerns in
this area. It was AGREED that should the proposal go ahead, it would be
essential that this was tied in with the University’s publications database and
the quality assurance procedures surrounding this system.
3.3. Copyright
Professor Oppenheim informed the Committee that 40% of publishers surveyed
had already accepted that all research output could be made available via a
repository. A list of these publishers was available. It had originally been
set up by Professor Oppenheim and was now maintained by Nottingham University.
Since 60% of publishers considered publication via repository a breach of
copyright, an appropriate clause would need to be added to contracts with these
publishers. Professor Oppenheim considered that the current situation was
something of a game of bluff, since publishers need to publish research from
senior academics whilst junior academics need their research to be published.
Senior management approval and support for a repository would therefore be
essential.
3.4. Impact on Journals
There was some concern expressed regarding the impact of a research
repository on the viability of some fringe journals. The 600+ existing open
access journals were almost exclusively medical journals.
3.5. Marketing Tool
The Committee felt that an EPrint Repository could potentially be used as a
marketing tool, especially with regard to the recruitment of international
students.
3.6. Research Assessment Exercise
There was some discussion regarding the impact of an EPrint Repository on
the Research Assessment Exercise. The Committee considered that the process
would be simplified if all research output were held on the repository, but
this was unlikely to be the case because of copyright problems.
It was AGREED that:
The outcome of the
continuing exploration including consideration of the concerns raised regarding
the impact on fringe journals and the Research Assessment Exercise should be
reported to the next meeting of the Committee
ACT: MM
The PVC(R) or nominee
should be invited to the next meeting of the Committee to input into the
discussion in this area.
ACT: CS
Academic staff would be encouraged to
deposit their research output in the repository and to retain the rights to
electronic publication when research output was also published in journals. A
proposed mechanism for achieving this would be provided at the next meeting.
ACT: MM/CO
ISC04-P1, ISC04-P2
The draft policy was received and
considered.
It was considered that, since there were probably millions of messages
received and sent by University staff each year, it would not be feasible for
any individual(s) other than the email originator and/or receiver to categorise
email messages.
If individuals were to be expected to categorise emails for archiving
purposes, then the email system would have to support this process (eg.
automated tagging, standard folders – personnel, student records, finance etc).
The process would need to be quick, simple and obligatory.
No UK universities were currently archiving email. Whilst packages did
exist, these were not compatible with the University’s current email system.
It was thought that email archiving should be seen in the wider context
of records management and that there was a clear link to electronic document
management.
The Committee felt that almost everything had a continuing value. This
needed to be weighed against the University’s responsibility under the Data
Protection Act 1998 to weed out information which it was no longer necessary to
keep. Any email archiving system would also need to contain a mechanism for
deleting personal emails or the University would need to make a policy change
regarding personal use of university email.
The Committee
welcomed the draft policy and thanked Computing Services for obtaining the JISC
funding to carry out the research project. The draft policy was considered to be
a good starting point but it was felt that further work would need to be
carried out. It was AGREED that another report should be prepared for the next
meeting of the Committee building on paragraph 3.5 (Responsibilities of the
University) of the draft policy. This report would include detailed proposals
on what action should be taken, when, and by which members of staff.
ACT: CT
ISC04-P3
The Committee received the paper from
Mr Temple (further to an action placed on him at the last meeting of the
Committee). Further clarification was received as follows:
·
The potential
security risks associated with wireless networking (WN) were not limited to
those organisations utilising WN on campus at the moment. Rather these WNs were
potentially compromising the whole system.
·
If Computing
Services were so instructed wireless networks could be detected and deactivated
remotely. Some concern was expressed at the prospect of deactivating WNs
currently operating in the Students’ Union and other commercial areas where WN
could currently be seen as a competitive advantage.
·
The majority
of the James Frances wireless infrastructure would be located in the main
machine room in Haslegrave. There was no reason why the University could not
move forward with WN using HEFCE 3 capital funds.
·
The number of
WN frequencies was limited. WNs could potentially be operating on the campus
having entered unofficially. An example highlighted was the WN operation of ATM
machines.
·
Nottingham
Trent and Leicester Universities were about to commit significant amounts of
resource to WN.
The
Committee felt that further information was required in the following areas:
·
Who would be
the main users of a WN and what services would these users require?
·
What would be
the risks of operating a wireless network?
·
Who would
provide end user support (the Committee noted that Warwick University had a
team of staff devoted to supporting the WN)?
·
What
functionality would a WN have (eg printing)?
·
Would there be
any cost benefits?
It was AGREED that a Wireless Networking
Steering Group should be convened. This would consist of:
Mr Temple (Chair)
Registrar or nominee
FITG representative
Imago representative
A senior academic
An expert in the field from the Department of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering.
This steering group would be expected to report to the next meeting of
the Information Services Committee and to establish its own terms of reference
for approval at that meeting.
ACT: DT
ISC04-P4
The Committee received and considered the revised draft policy. Amendments were
requested as follows:
·
Reword
paragraph 5 (Non-Compliance) to make it clear that non-compliance was not an
option.
·
Include a
reference to a HOD/HOSS or Dean’s nominee in paragraphs 3.1. and 3.2.
·
Incorporate
advice from the Purchasing Office in paragraph 3.3,
It was
AGREED that the paper would be revised for consideration at the next meeting of
the Committee.
ACT: VB
ISC04-P5
The Committee received and considered the report from Dr Negus.
It was AGREED that:
7.1. Risk
assessment would be carried out within Computing Services and Corporate
Information Services as proposed in the paper.
ACT: BN/VB
7.2.
EMG would be
asked to determine where responsibility should lie for ensuring that similar
risk assessments (both IT and non-IT based) were carried out across the
University.
ACT: DVC
7.3.
EMG would be
asked to consider how the drafting of a high level, BS7799 consistent,
information security policy (which would refer to detailed IS and IT procedures
and policies) and the development of an associated implementation plan
(covering both IT and non-IT based information security) should be actioned and
in particular whether this should be allocated to a named individual or to a
working group.
ACT: DVC
The
Registrar invited Miranda Whyte (Data Protection Officer) to update the
Committee on progress to date in this area. Although the Registrar was formally
responsible for Freedom of Information Act compliance, Ms Whyte had been
assisting in preparing the publication scheme and in the process of recruiting
a Freedom of Information Office/Records Manager.
8.1 Publication Scheme
This would be available on the web by the end of February. Although not all
information would be available in this format immediately, it was intended that
as much information as possible would be made available directly from the
publication scheme web page via web links.
The University’s subsidiary companies needed to ensure that they had publication schemes in place. This was the responsibility of the subsidiary companies, not the University.
8.2 Public Right of Access to Information
(from 1 January 2005)
Requests for information did not
need to mention the Act specifically and responses were required within twenty
working days. The University needed to give some serious consideration to the
training as all staff needed to be aware when the Act applied.
8.3 Freedom of Information
Officer/Records Manager
The post (ALC3) had been advertised.
The deadline for applications was 20 February 2004 and interviews were to take
place on 18 March 2004.
Secretary’s Note: 19 applications have since been received and 5 candidates are being
interviewed.
The Registrar provided a verbal update on WAG’s current activities (see
paper ISC04-P18). The Committee noted that there was little in the way of
specific resource directed towards web development. The Registrar and Dr
Mumford were in the process of producing a budget proposal.
It was AGREED that WAG should become a formal sub-committee of the
Information Services Committee and that the terms of reference should be
considered and formally approved at the next meeting of the Committee.
ACT: JMT/CS
ISC04-P7
The report was received and noted. No further clarification was sought.
ISC04-P8
The report was received and noted.
ISC04-P9
The report was received and noted.
ISC04-P10
The report was received and noted.
ISC04-P11
The report was received and noted.
ISC04-P12
The minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2003 were received and noted.
ISC04-P13, ISC04-P14
The confirmed minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2003 and the unconfirmed
minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2004 were received and noted.
ISC04-P15
The unconfirmed minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2003 were received
and noted.
ISC04-P16
The report was received and noted.
ISC04-P17
The confirmed minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2003 were received and
noted.
ISC04-P18
The confirmed minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2004 were received and
noted.
21.1 Information Services Committee
Membership
The Chair proposed that Miranda Whyte be co-opted onto Information Services
Committee and that the Terms of Reference be amended accordingly for formal
approval by Resources and Planning Committee. This was unanimously AGREED.
ACT: CS
Friday 21 May 2004 09:30 in the Council Chamber.
Author – Chris Spendlove
Date – March 2004
Copyright (c) Loughborough University.
All rights reserved.