From: Corey Murata <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:19:41 +0000

While the privacy concerns are serious and need to be addressed, I am
more concerned about the movement away from an IP authentication to a
completely credential based access.

As a public institution we provide on-site access to our resources to
all scholars, be they researchers from other institutions, high school
students, or the general public. All but a rare handful of our
licenses for electronic resources include "walk-in users" in the
category of "authorized users." We can do this currently with IP based
authentication. I do not see how this will be possible in the proposed
RA21 environment.

The fundamental flaw, as I see it, with RA21 is the assumption that
the only authorized users are those affiliated with a credential
granting institution. It ignores the "walk-in users" and it ignores
the tradition of scholars visiting other libraries to access resources
not available in their home library. Under RA21 scholars would only
ever get access to resources licensed by the institution granting
their credentials. This would be a tragedy.

Corey

****************
Corey Murata
Interim Director, Collection Analysis & Strategy
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195
(206) 685-9536
[log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:37:30 -0400

A colleague pointed us to this STM-led initiative:

http://www.stm-assoc.org/standards-technology/ra21-resource-access-21st-century/

And I found the recent presentation given at a recent CNI meeting:

https://www.cni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CNI_Resources_Shillum.pdf

The project is positively explained in the above sources.  Basically,
it's an effort to move away from IP authentication to more
sophisticated methods, which might help the user and also improve
publisher controls vis a vis published content.  Perhaps it might
reduce the SciHub (and like) problem?

I'd be interested in liblicense-l list members' comments on the pros
and cons of such an initiative and approach.  It would be most useful,
as this seems very important, and I'm guessing many of us feel
under-informed at this early stage.

Anyone on this list part of the pilots?

Thank you, Ann Okerson