Participants

• Lee Amenya, UCSD
• Roger Phillips, UCSD
• Everett Stauffer, UCSD
• Warren Leung, UCLA
• Datta Sharma, UCLA
• Arlene Allen, UCSB
• Russ Harvey, UCR
• Terry Toy, UCR/CDL
• John Kamminga, UCM
• Curtis Bray, UCD
• Dedra Chamberlin, UCB/UCSF
• Benn Oshirin, UCB/UCSF
• Bruce James, UCOP
• Kalpa Barman, UCOP
• Eric Goodman, UCOP
• Steve Lau, UCOP
• Jeffrey Crawford, UCSC

Agenda

Tanya Egloff was introduced in absentia

Tanya will be providing meeting support; scheduling, taking minutes, etc.

UC Trust proposed to be subsumed into ITAG

• Will continue as a working group of ITAG, that brings information about IAM issues, strategy, etc. to the ITAG group.

Dedra wants to work out leader rotating chair mechanism for UCTrust

• Suggestion #1: Chair + Vice Chair. 1 year term. After 1 year, Vice Chair takes over as Chair, new Chair selected.
• General support for this model was expressed on the call.
• Compared to TAS group, which does "ask for volunteers, then do secret ballot for new VC from among them"
• If we went to voting (for chairs or otherwise), would we want to formalize voting or who gets to vote. I.e., does everyone vote, or one person per campus.
• Perhaps UCTLeads perform the actual voting

Eric Goodman and the new IAM Lead position at UCOP

• Still on the topic of "chairing" meetings
  
  • Alternative would be to have Eric just be the chair (or a co-chair)
  • Can be beneficial to have campus perspective to drive the agenda (arg to not have Eric be chair)
  • Could be that Eric stays "ex-officio" member, but others (e.g., Bruce) act as campus rep or lead (e.g., Bruce James)
• What is the appropriate role of this position?
  
  • If we looked at UCTrust as a managed service (with central direction) could be more efficient;  as opposed to each campus developing processes and UCTrust doing more "corralling of existing process".
    
    • Can't be done by "overnight emails" and hoping they are responded to.
  • Referred to climate survey and LMS; process was definitely done by individual campuses. Could this position be leveraged to assist in these processes?
• Asked Eric for input on role of position
  
  • Not an operational position, so wouldn't be involved in day-to-day approvals. But could definitely involved in defining process, perhaps getting some form of "uber approval process" to avoid each campus having to negotiate release
  • Will look for what common services would be useful for all campuses to leverage in the IDM space. E.g., a central IDM solution more robust than the current UCNetID service.
  • Will also maintain information about what each campus is doing to help with sharing information between the campuses.
• Agreed that the n ew position won't solve all existing issues and for the near term will likely be focused on Path. But there is a need for some level of planning and direction for commonality of services. Not just "we'll do our thing and collaborate when we feel like it".       

InCommon Silver/LoA

• InCommon has announced the IAAF framework (not just Silver)
• Where are campuses in terms of InCommon Silver Cert
  
  • UCSB: Designed to be InCommon Silver.
    
    • Waiting for some other campuses nationally to certify before certifying, but think they are compliant
    • Have defaulted to Bronze; force Silver - small % age have gone through the Silver uplift
  • UCSD: They believe they are pretty close. But not looking to intiate an audit.
    
    • What's the resistance?
    • Not nec. resistance, just not doing it yet.
    • Are actually doing visual evaluation of everyone, including non-employees.    
    • E.g., collecting driver's licenses info. About 90% have been validated.
    • UCOP: Has some work to do. Maybe $60-70K of development to complete the process.
  • UCD: Did not receive funding to implement, but did all the planning.
  • UCB: Did a lot of planning. Got some resources, but InCommon Silver hasn't raised very high in their prioritization process, so there's no real driver?
  • UCLA: Looking to do a 2014 certification. Want to use the upcoming relpacement physical card system to leverage to get to silver.
• Should campuses go through the process for Bronze just to test drive the process?
• Does UCTrust want to recommend an LOA requirement for UCPath access?
  
  • Should we require UCTrustBasic?
  • Should we require InCommon Silver for all users?
    

    • No, mostly for pragmatic reasons (can't realistically Silver certify all accounts).

  • Should we require InCommon Silver for elevated privilege users?
    
    • If we did ID a subset of users that are "elevated privilege" users, that might be a good way to get started towards Silver that's not as onerous as "all employees".
• How would people go about auditing?
  
  • Karl had talked about getting a group of auditors together and forming a group to collaboratively audit campuses
•  If anyone initiates a review, please keep the UCTrust list informed!       

Service Provider request process

• How is the process working?
  
  • For some it's working really well, but for others it seems pretty arbitrary about whether people are using it and doing the updates.
  • Tanya's time came in via a formal request to ITAG, that may be the correct process to get resources to support the process.
  • Warren (as a new member of the group) found the page helpful in providing guidance.
• Other elements of UCTrust as a service
  
  • Berkeley has a new resource working on revamping the Wiki content. Looking to get better admin resources, more of a professional service