InCommon Technical Discussions

[Michael A Grady <>]

That's a key reason I had added to the work plan on Attribute Release that its folks like the VC for Research that can get things to change, and outreach straight to Registrars etc. It's a marketing campaign, with targeted messages. Maybe we can leverage past (or present) ties to the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA, still CIC while I was there) to get input from the  BTAA Senior Researcher group, and Registrar group, and CIO group on what/where/who/how we need for this to happen.

Of course, if we could get NSF, NIH, etc. to make it a mandate that researchers can use their institutional federated identity to access research collaborations, we'd have it solved ;-)  The mandate on data management plans a few years back is what got VCs for Research, and CIOs, and University Librarians, etc. talking about what the institution was going to need to support their researchers for that. Of course, more legal clarity/perspective on what FERPA does and does not require wouldn't hurt either, along with agreement on how informed consent can play into this.

We've got, or are getting (depending on your opinion of uApprove versus the CARMA effort), relatively easy ways to support a broader release policy, but we need to convince the policy makers. (And those are rarely the IDP operators.)

On Mar 31, 2017, at 7:39 PM, Wu, Albert <> wrote:

+1 on TechEx17.

 

Also: do we have much reach into each campus’ research community? As in, how many IDP operators have close contacts with our respective research community? At least at UCLA, we certainly could/should do better in that area. I know it can be challenging, though it may be helpful to promote some degree of idea sharing between the IDP operators and our respective campus research community as we try to tease out an way to tackle this issue…

 

albert

--
Michael A. Grady
IAM Architect, Unicon, Inc.