| » About NACS |
Saturday July 4th, 2009 » Summer Session I |
|
|
| » About NACS |
Saturday July 4th, 2009 » Summer Session I |
|
|
|
June 1, 2006, 1:00 - 2:30 PM
Participants:
Document summarizing process and findings of the survey was provided.
Dana reviewed key points in slides 2-5 of his presentation.
Discussion focused on wireless and on University Hills.
Discussion on wireless brought out that this service on campus is most important to those (e.g., students) who use it at multiple, varying locations on campus, while many faculty have less, little, or no need of it on campus (even when they use it at home) because they work from fixed locations such as their offices and labs.
Discussion of NACS support for networking, especially wireless networking, in University Hills considered both the increased importance of network access to those living in University Hills and the fact that such service is reliably available from commercial sources. There was general agreement that having that service available from NACS is not as “hot” an issue as it was several years ago both because of the availability of high speed network connectivity from commercial sources and because of technical steps NACS has taken (most importantly, various types of Virtual Private Network (VPN) connectivity) to provide University Hills and other “off-campus” locations network access to the same resources as are available on-campus.
Other points raised about University Hills network access included the possible value of considering how other UC campuses handled similar situations where such similar situations existed and that the increased importance and use of network access by family members other than Irvine faculty and staff made the exiting commercial ISPs appropriate choices.
In discussing steps NACS should take in support of the UCI strategic plan, faculty shared that their academic units’ contributions to this plan might well provide further information that would be of value in shaping NACS’s plans.
In particular, while seeing a role for NACS in faculty recruitment in specific areas, the feeling was that at a campus-wide level, NACS’s efforts were well spent and appreciated in building, strengthening, and improving the services currently provided to accommodate new faculty and enrollment growth, with specific recognition of the growth in graduate student population.
Looking at the strategic plans advanced by individual academic units will be an important way of helping NACS shape its services to anticipate new opportunities and to meet specific needs.
Using both his own slides (7-10) and those from an ITGC presentation, Dana presented the history, purposes, and processes of that group (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/itgc/).
Gerry Munoff is the Irvine representative on the ITGC.
Dana reviewed various meetings of the Committee, its first campus visit (to Irvine on May 2), and meetings held thus far by its work and advisory groups:
Instructional Technology Work Group (April 21), Gary Matkin is the Irvine representative on this work group.
Research Cyberinfrastructure Advisory Group (Irvine participants are David Theo Goldberg, Harry Mangalam, Frank Wessel, and Albert Yee, the group met on May 19).
Discussion of how UCI input and participation can be incorporated in the ITGC effort and how that effort can benefit UCI IT planning suggested that participation and contribution are perhaps better sought at the departmental or school level rather than at the campus or individual level. In particular, discussions with various academic units on specific topics of interest to each unit were recommended.
Dana and Allen led a discussion of a “UCI Research Cyberinfrastructure” Draft Proposal which NACS submitted as part of its 2006/2007 budget request. This proposal and materials from UC discussions on “Strategic IT Directions and Opportunities for UC” were included in the materials provided to committee members.
NACS’s efforts in support of campus research are essential and appreciated.
What ways and in what directions these efforts can be strengthened and extended remain an important topic for continuing discussion and exploration.
Scott reviewed plans to protect desktop computers from external access by registering servers and services and blocking access to all other devices.
There is strong support for the goals of this program and support for the specific target of campus-wide implementation January 15, 2007.
There were also specific questions and concerns about certain aspects of the registration procedures currently under discussion.
Having multiple people being able to authorize changes in the registration status of the same IP address, suitable provisions for simplified handling of groups of addresses, notification about changes made, and other operational suggestions were discussed.
Recognizing that concerns and questions about registration and blocking may well be more wide-spread among portions of the university community than are likely to notice the effect of this activity, the suggestion was made that NACS make efforts alleviate such concerns by identifying for the general community some of the popular specific network based applications that will not be affected at the same time as it identifies those that will.
Scott’s brief review of email service problems, solutions, and enhancements (both achieved and planned) met with general appreciation.
