Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Page Properties

Status

Status
colourRed
titleSTALLED

Description

Sharing of E-resource Licensing Information across UC
(SILS Phase 4 Deliverable)

Decision summary

Escalate to OT
Coordinating at ERES subteam level is problematic:

  • Solution involves improving communication to groups involving positions that make collection development decisions and leverage license negotiation processes, which is outside of ERES subteam’s scope

  • ERES has summary, but unable to identify appropriate target audience and communicate this decision status upward to formally recognized stakeholders group in the UC Libraries or CDL Shared Collections

  • Possible solutions may involve additional discussion and research to identify specific groups and/or goals that would benefit from these solutions

Decision summary:

  • Centralize focus on facilitating communication around licensing. Replace UCD-hosted listserv and migrate to a centralized, CDL created and managed listserv/slack channel and/or CKG to leverage licensing dialogue, with goal to increase communication around terms negotiations, pricing, wording in licenses, advocacy with licenses (ADA, etc) Moderator to list will include collection development staff and those directly involved in licensing.

  • Additionally, CDL will work to determine clarify the appropriate policy from a legal process perspective for sharing local licenses between campuses and CDL, document compliance workflow. If appropriate, CDL will host website in support of SILS initiative and creation of web content by ERES and CDL Shared Collections.

Owning group

Approver

Consulted

Operations Team, E-resources subteam, Acq subteam

Informed

Decision-making process

Priority

Target decision date

Date decided

Background

Phase 4 delegated workplan work plan deliverable:
Create a shared storage space where the entire license documents for UC Tier 1-3 e-resource licenses can reside, so that we can compare terms obtained previously within the system. It would be of additional benefit to share information about ongoing license negotiations, as well as those that have failed and reasons why.

  • CDL has already implemented the display of Tier 1/2 license terms in Primo. For discussion here, license terms are different from sharing the full legal agreement.

  • There is no collective project to display Tier 3 license terms – this may be locally determined as campuses are at different phases of their implementation and familiarity with Alma Licensing. Again sharing license terms in Primo is very different from a select group of librarians sharing full license agreements.

  • Tier 3 - need to distinguish between Tier 3 acquisitions that are linked to a Tier 1 agreement (i.e. adding a Taylor & Francis title using an addendum that is linked to Tier 1 agreement - Assisted Tier 3s). Also there are local resources with potential to roll up to a Tier 1 or 2 acquisition, or small specialized database of interest to only one campus.

  • E-resources team assumes that the project to display license terms is a different discussion than actually uploading license documents for sharing

  • To date, the only existing UCLAS group associated with this type of work is the CDL Licensing Liaisons, which exists outside of the SILS structure. Given the CDL website has no record of group activity, this may be outside the scope of the Licensing Liaisons, and an alternative structure may be forming a CKG for this work.

  • See file below for request from SCLG

...

Licensing - AEFG Handoff Document
AEFG Response to TSELG

Recommendations

CENTRAL REPOSITORY

...

  • Are there legal issues with sharing specific negotiated license terms among campuses? Need to find out legal ramifications, if any. If necessary to invoke CA Public Records Act - outline that process of having a formal record on file prior to sharing documents.

  • Are there legal issues to sharing actual license documents to parties that are not named in Tier 3 contracts?

  • Would it suffice to share only Alma license terms and not actual documents? This deliverable examined the situation as a need to share the entire legal agreement between campuses and CDL.

  • We need to clarify UCOP’s position, which should provide a baseline for consensus among other signing authorities at the individual campuses about what they can and cannot share from their Tier 3 licenses as well

  • Best practices: the importance of campuses using The Regents of the University of California, for [Campus] as the Licensee for their local agreements. Prospectively this will solve issue of sharing.

  • Best practices: campuses should not include confidentiality clauses that pertain to the terms and conditions of the agreement, per UC policy. Clauses pertaining to confidentiality of proprietary information may be acceptable.

COMMUNICATION

Perhaps end goal might be better met to focus on facilitating communication around licensing; leverage a listserv or other shared platform for licensing dialogue. Increased communication around terms negotiations, pricing, wording in licenses, advocacy with licenses (ADA, etc). Although there is an existing group called the CDL Licensing Liaisons, this may or may not be the target group to be tasked with this deliverable, which would also include project prioritization in coordination with CDL and allocation of staffing resources to use this pathway to achieve the goal of sharing licenses across the UC.

  • Review UC documentation/website in support of new librarians understanding the cross-campus community/eco-system of licensing as a whole. Make listserv information centrally available for new licensing librarians to discover their colleagues.

  • Current listserv is under publicized and hosted at UC Davis rather than CDL: uclr@ucdavis.edu

  • We recommend centralizing communication about licensing through Slack Community channel (or similar)

  • We recommend adding interested non-Technical Services staff (including liaison librarians and administrators)

...

  • Who should be included in a Slack channel or listservWho should be included in a CKG?

  • Should listserv be hosted by CDL Shared Collections?

...

Stakeholder group

Impact

Local campus librarians who have licensing responsibilities
CDL Licensing Liaisons

Feedback as users and target audience. This may not be the right group either, with focus on sharing campus licenses. Not necessarily staffing that tracks CDL licenses.

Collection Development roles at local campus

Feedback as users and target audience

CDL Shared Collections

Coordinator of workflow content in sharing licenses, listserv moderator (add, delete and screen member access), and communications moderator to identify beneficial opportunities on behalf of the campuses

...