Copyright 1996 CAUSE. From CAUSE/EFFECT Volume 19, Number 4,
Winter 1996, pp. 14-21. Permission to copy or disseminate all
or part of this material is granted provided that the copies
are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the
CAUSE copyright and its date appear, and notice is given that
copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for
managing and using information resources in higher education.
To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written
permission. For further information, contact Julia Rudy at
CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301
USA; 303-939-0308; e-mail: [email protected]
Guidelines for Outsourcing Remote Access
by Ardoth Hassler and Michael Neuman
As demand for Internet resources explodes on campus, faculty
and students increasingly want network access from off-campus
locations. Soaring demand has led numerous colleges and
universities to investigate outsourcing. This article offers
a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of
outsourcing remote access, including a sample checklist for
an RFP, based on the examination of the RFPs for outsourcing
remote access of six universities and a follow-up survey to
determine their outcomes.
As the resources of the Internet -- electronic mail,
discussion groups, and the World Wide Web -- become an
integral part of the process of scholarly communication,
faculty and students increasingly want access to these
resources from the locations where they do their work. And
given the asynchronous nature of Internet communication,
faculty and students want this access from home as well as
from campus. In the summary of his 1995 campus computing
survey, Kenneth C. Green noted that between 1994 and 1995,
use of e-mail (to cite just the most common Internet utility)
increased from 8 percent to 20 percent among faculty
surveyed.1
In the past year, growth in professors' use of
the World Wide Web is likely to prove still more striking.
Because computing services departments find it difficult
enough simply to meet the needs for on-campus computing, the
demand for remote access naturally leads a chief information
officer (CIO) or a computing services director to consider
three advantages of outsourcing remote access:
Improved Service
Outsourcing can provide broader (and sometimes better)
services than those currently available from on-campus
systems, and it can permit extending those services to
segments of the campus community (especially alumni) not
served by existing systems.
Cost-sharing by Clients
Computing services, like library services, are generally not
charged back to the segments of the campus community that use
them, so there is a limit to the number of new services that
can be introduced. Outsourcing remote access establishes or
extends the precedent of cost-sharing with the college or
university community so that scarce institutional resources
can be used for other priorities.
Partnerships with Vendors
While many institutions are simply seeking to add such basic
services such as PPP (Point-to-Point Protocol), TCP/IP
(Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol), and
asynchronous access, contracts with vendors (commonly one to
two years with the possibility of a one-year extension) may
soon extend to an array of other protocols and information
resources.
These advantages for outsourcing are compelling, but
drawbacks become apparent when the remote access is viewed in
relation to the current institution-based services and
systems. This article draws upon experience at the authors'
university, Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for remote access
obtained from five other universities, and a follow-up survey
conducted by the authors to determine outcomes of those RFPs
(see sidebar for details). The article describes the key
technical and customer-support services that must be provided
by the vendor, then describes ways to avoid the potential
institutional problems of decreased control of systems and
services, and concludes with a checklist of factors to
consider when creating an RFP for remote access.
Outsourcing And Improved Service
Outsourcing, in conjunction with passing along the costs to
the consumer, can expand services and extend them to a
broader segment of the institution without significantly
increasing charges incurred by computing services
departments. Many such departments are under increasing
pressure to extend service beyond the traditional client base
to include alumni, patrons of the institution, and the
community at large. Offering an array of network services to
this extended community is good for public relations, but
expanding the client base will inevitably impose peripheral
demands on an infrastructure already overtaxed. Consequently,
identifying in detail the vendor's services-both technical
and customer -- support -- will help to clarify both the
extent to which outsourcing can extend campus services as
well as the peripheral demands likely to be placed on the
system.
Technical Services
For what problems is the vendor's service a solution?
Circumventing a busy modem pool, extending Internet access to
alumni, providing students with remote access to the Web,
expanding access to the institution's high-speed network --
whatever the problems, the following five technical
components of the vendor's service are likely to require
careful consideration, and information about them must be
sought in the RFP for a remote-access vendor partnership.
Supported Protocols
Should the vendor provide merely dial-up Internet access or
should it supply access to campus servers as well? For the
former, TCP/IP through SLIP (Serial Line Internet Protocol)
and PPP are givens; for the latter, other protocols such as
IPX (Internet Packet Exchange) or Appletalk may be necessary
and will entail more serious considerations of security
measures and policy issues.2
Once the Internet is available
by remote access, members of the community are likely to want
remote access to the resources of the institution's high-
speed network as well. Currently, the majority of vendors are
only able to support PPP. Only one institution responding to
our survey reported a local provider offering IPX and
Appletalk. Many indicated that supporting such protocols as
IPX and Appletalk is under consideration.
Client Software
Because the RFP should itemize the software that the vendor
will supply, it is necessary to specify what the campus
community will need in order to operate in a stable,
familiar, and cost-effective environment. For stability, the
vendor's software must function on a full range of client
operating systems, including DOS, Windows 3.11 or 95, and Mac
OS. For familiarity, the vendor's software should include
common Internet utilities. For economy, the vendor's pricing
mechanisms should be noted carefully; for example, Netscape
provides free licenses to its Navigator browser for the Web,
so the RFP should seek to avoid charges for this utility. In
our survey results, as specified by the institutions, the
provider and/or institution are providing Trumpet Winsock
(for Windows 3.1 clients), Netscape, Telnet, FTP, MAC dialer,
terminal emulation (TN3270 and Telnet), and POP (Post Office Protocol) mailer client software.
Bandwidth
Access speeds/bandwidths determine the response time needed
for downloading image files or large text files over the
Internet, so the RFP should specify such standards as 28.8
kbps (or greater) and V.34 for dial-in ports. In the RFPs
reviewed in our study, ISDN dedicated telephone lines, when
mentioned at all, were generally included in future plans.
Indeed, in the outcomes, only two institutions have obtained
ISDN from their providers.
Absence of busy signals
The users' tolerance for busy signals (as a percentage of
calls to the vendor's host computer) is generally known to
the CIO or computing services director on the basis of
previous complaints. The vendor of remote access, therefore,
should be expected to match or exceed the current on-campus
standards for minimizing busy signals. The RFPs generally
specify the grade of service between P.00 (no busy signals)
and P.05 (busy signals occurring on five percent of the
calls). The majority of agreements examined in our study
accepted P.05.
Scope of access
An increasing number of faculty members want remote access to
the Internet not only from home but from a "home away from
home," when traveling for a conference or a vacation. Some
vendors provide such "remote remote access" by means of an
800/888 phone number. The charges per minute should be
negligible (either free or no more than $.10). Other vendors
can provide local access numbers in all major cities, a
service that can reduce the difficulties from dropped modem
connections associated with cross-country dial-in on a toll-
free (800) line. As would be expected, the larger, national
vendors are better able to provide 800/888 access and/or
local points of presence in major metropolitan areas. There
is often an extra charge for this feature.
Customer Services
The vendor's success in providing customer services will be
even more obvious to the campus community than its success
with technical services. And the vendor's success in easing
the faculty, staff, and students past obstacles -- especially
in the following four areas -- will reflect well on the
computing services department for brokering the contract.
Rapid Implementation
Once the contract is signed, the campus community will be
eager to take advantage of the service; consequently, a
minimal implementation period is recommended. In the RFPs
examined, the institutions typically expected implementation
within sixty to ninety days of signing the contract. By
contrast, survey respondents reported that implementation
ranged from two days to four months. Those institutions in
major metropolitan areas obtained connectivity more quickly.
Installation and Trouble-shooting
Easily installed software is essential. It is important to
consider setting a requirement that the client software will
"plug and play" for 90 percent of the users, and to determine
if the vendor offers installation assistance at a fee. Good
documentation is also essential in order to minimize the
impact on the computing services help desk. Even so, the help
desk must be prepared for questions about the vendor's
service and will need its own special access to the vendor's
support mechanisms.
Scope of Support
The RFP should specify expectations for service from the
vendor's help desk. Is coverage required twenty-four hours a
day, seven days a week, 365 days a year? What are the minimum
requirements for access to the vendor's customer service
organization for order processing, billing information, etc.?
The RFPs in our study typically called for toll-free services
extending Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
and Saturday and Sunday from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Pricing
Considerations here include start-up, usage time, and
tiering. If there is a start-up fee, what services will it
cover? Will the user incur a new start-up fee if he or she
leaves home for the summer, or will the vendor permit a "stop
out" fee that would keep the user's account open but
inactive? Will the vendor provide unlimited access? If not,
what is an acceptable level of service? Typically, the study
RFPs requested that "N" hours be included in the base rate
with an hourly charge for anything over an N of about fifteen
hours.
Can the vendor support tiering, that is, lower rates for off-
peak usage? For example, usage might be unlimited between
1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. or summer usage may be available at a
lower rate. Most importantly, the cost of the remote access
must be competitive. On the basis of the completed surveys,
those institutions using local providers have typically been
able to obtain flat fees for unlimited access. Those using a
national provider typically have a base rate averaging around
$12-13/month for sixty hours with a $.95/hour charge after
that. Some have an option of a higher rate for unlimited use.
One vendor offers unlimited use in off-peak hours, which vary
from agreement to agreement. The majority have a $10-25
start-up fee.
Relationship to Current Institution-based Services
Consideration of the scope of the vendor's technical and
customer services naturally raises the issue of the
relationship of the outsourced services to the institution's
own. At one end of the outsourcing continuum, the vendor
could be asked to provide all Internet services for the
institution, though in the RFPs examined all preferred to
maintain the relationships with their current providers of
campus-to-Internet connections, while reserving the option to
transfer to the dial-up vendor in the future.
More frequently at issue is the question of modem pools,
which many institutions maintain simply for access to their
mainframes and minicomputers. Should these be dismantled in
favor of support from the vendor? If so, restricted-use pools
may be desirable to allow institution staff access to these
systems in an emergency. These "backdoor" pools may present a
security threat if not closely monitored, so a backdoor pool
with specified maximum size should be included in the RFP to
ensure that this resource does not appear to "compete" with
the vendor's resources. Only one of the institutions surveyed
is not continuing to maintain a modem pool. The majority have
no plans to stop maintaining their modem pools because they
support different services from those provided by the
vendors.
Electronic mail and personal Web space constitute another
issue, since some vendors will offer to provide them on their
servers as part of the base offering. Vendor-supplied
electronic mailboxes may not integrate well if the college or
university system is attempting to standardize on one on-
campus system for all users. The RFP should specify whether
or not these services are available to subscribers who are
funded from the institution. On the other hand, if alumni or
other "friends" of the institution pay their own way under
this plan, it may be desirable to allow them to select
electronic mail and Web pages as an option, particularly if
the institution does not provide this service for them. All
of the institutions surveyed continue to provide e-mail to
their users; however, eleven institutions permit the vendors
to offer additional e-mail services. In some cases, there is
an added fee for this service.
Finally, it is important to determine whether "downstream"
connections through the institution will be blocked from off
campus. Institutions are sensitive to having people from off
campus access the Internet through their connection. Further,
it is important not to impact the institution's bandwidth to
the Internet. By requiring the vendor to provide direct
Internet service to those who dial in, the institution can
filter traffic at the router level to ensure that dial-in
users cannot leave the campus backbone by way of the
institution's Internet connection. This would allow the
institution to use a separate provider for Internet service
for the campus backbone. However, vendors generally assign
users an IP number from a block of their own. This may
prevent off-campus users from accessing some online services,
such as Encyclopedia Britannica, since they must be accessed
from an IP number with the institution's domain. As for
campus users of the Internet, a "non-circuitous" routing
should be specified, since institutions will not want their
clients routed "across town" or across campus via distant
nodes.
Because the vendor's technical and customer services will
have an impact on so many corresponding systems on campus,
the institution ought to conduct a pre-test of the remote
access. Prior to signing the contract, the institution should
obtain five to ten demonstration accounts, encourage faculty
and computing personnel to experiment with them for at least
a month, and gauge the effect on the institution's systems.
Outsourcing and Decreased Control of Systems and Services
In ways even more important than modem pools and mailboxes,
outsourcing remote access must be carefully coordinated with
the institution's existing computing services and systems. At
the most basic level, directors of academic computing
frequently must balance the conflicting goods of responding
to requests for new services while managing the limited
resources of a complex system. The new services available by
remote access, even though provided by a vendor and billed
directly to the customer, nevertheless come at a cost of
decreased control over systems and services, especially in
such areas as security and management. In preparing their
RFPs, CIOs and computing services directors can minimize the
complications of decreased control.
Security and Authentication
As faculty experience network access from home, their list of
requested resources has grown beyond e-mail and discussion
groups to include the World Wide Web and, more recently, the
resources of the campus high-speed network. Protecting the
institution's Internet connection and the campus LAN
infrastructure will become increasingly difficult as remote
users press for more complete access to files and servers.
Systems that had not been previously exposed outside the
campus backbone, such as Novell file servers running IPX, may
suddenly be open to attack if IPX is specified as a protocol
requirement. These dial-in ports may need to be classed as
on-campus resources in order for legitimate users to have
complete access.
If alumni or other "friends" of the institution are permitted
access to the modem pool, the vendor may be exposing the
campus network and its resources to outsiders who would
otherwise be considered unauthorized. Access to this pool
should be restricted to faculty, staff, and students in order
to reduce security risks. Consequently, the institution's
needs for security must be carefully spelled out in the RFP
in four distinct areas.
Global network security
Teamwork with the vendor is essential. All of the RFPs in our
study articulated general responsibilities for security,
including working closely with one another, with the campus
Internet provider, with the Computer Emergency Response Team
(CERT), and with organizations such as College and University
Information Security Professionals (CUISP).
Authentication
The conditions under which the vendor seeks authentication
from legitimate users at remote sites must strike a balance
between maintaining security of campus systems and avoiding
inconvenience to the campus community. For example, while it
is appropriate to permit only one session per username, it
may be helpful to achieve consistency between the vendor's
policies and the institution's on such matters as length of
usernames and passwords so that the user need not learn two
different sets of rules.
Audits
The vendor should be required to provide complete auditing of
every user given access to the system. The institution may
also require the vendor to accept requests for new accounts
only from an on-campus service provider who can screen the
applications. Or the vendor may need access to the student
information system and lists of faculty and staff in order to
validate requests to sign up for the service.
Non-disclosure
Because the vendor is likely to learn a great deal about the
security systems that the institution has in place, the
contract must contain a non-disclosure clause about security
and privacy. The good news from the completed surveys in our
study is that most respondents who have had sufficient time
to evaluate security and procedures report that the vendor's
security provisions meet or exceed their expectations.
Management and Marketing
Campus computing organizations are continually engaged in the
effort to establish control over an array of constantly
growing and changing systems; consequently, the decreased
control of systems and services that accompanies outsourcing
must be managed satisfactorily within the terms of the
contract.
Location of Equipment and Maintenance
If the servers and other equipment necessary for remote
access are located at the vendor's site, the institution must
determine (and express in the RFP) its tolerance for outages.
If the equipment is to be located on campus, the vendor is
likely to request conditioned space and utilities. The vendor
may also expect the institution staff to monitor the
equipment and swap "hot spares," returning the bad parts by
mail for repair. If such "pair-of-hands" maintenance is
considered acceptable, the institution should have exclusive
use of the equipment and could expect a per-user rebate as
well. In either case, it is necessary to specify how much
notification must be given for maintenance and upgrades
(typically, forty-eight hours). Given the likelihood that
computing services staff will become engaged in on-campus
support of the vendor's equipment, it may be advisable to
reject that option. Indeed, the majority of institutions
responding to the survey report that the equipment is located
off campus. Of the four institutions in our study who have
the equipment located on campus, the vendor is performing
monitoring and maintenance.
Management reports
It is important to specify the types and frequency of reports
required -- including utilization reports, sign-up rates,
time-of-day usage statistics, lists of complaints and their
resolutions, and statistics on blocked calls -- and to
determine the frequency of the reports -- either monthly or
quarterly -- and specify that they be delivered in machine-
readable format as well as hard copy.
Marketing
Even though the vendor will be providing services to the
campus community and charging individuals directly, the
institution must still have the final word on how, when, and
where the remote access is marketed. Because faculty and
students are likely to argue that Internet access has always
been free on campus and should be free from off campus as
well, a careful job of publicizing and "selling" the service
will be necessary. Consequently, while information from the
vendor can facilitate the process of education, it will be
the task of the computing services department to muster the
fiscal arguments for remote access in order to win the
endorsement of relevant advisory committees and
constituencies. For this purpose computing services will need
data on the costs of maintaining and upgrading modem pools
and of adding new SLIP/PPP services, and then will need to
weigh these services against enhancing and maintaining
wiring, equipment, facilities, and services on campus for
faculty, students, and staff in offices, labs, and residence
halls.
In the context of this educational effort, the institution
may want to promote the new remote access service by giving
it a name that resembles its telephone and video services.
For example, at Georgetown University, where the sports teams
are known as the Hoyas, the service could be called "Hoyanet
Access" or "GUnet Access." It is important, however, for the
institution to guard the use of its logos and trademarks, and
designs for all marketing materials should receive the
expressed permission of the institution before being
distributed to clients. One-third of the institutions
responding to our survey have elected to let the vendor
solely market the services.
Billing
Ideally the institution should also be able to propose
billing practices to serve the interests and practices of its
clients. For example, since the institution may want to
subsidize its faculty in varying degrees, the vendor should
agree to bill academic departments, or even to share the
billing between a department and one of its members.
Flexibility in payment plans should also be arranged, so that
users can choose to be billed by the month, academic term
(semester or quarter), or academic or fiscal year. Discounts
for pre-payments -- either by individual or the institution -- should be incorporated into the plan.
Summary
Information Week reports that by 1997, corporate spending
for remote access will average $8.[5] million per company, up
81 percent from 1995. Hardware and software acquisition costs
for remote access will be about 23 percent of the $8.5
million, meaning that about 77 percent of the costs will be
for sustaining an installed base.3
While we have not found
data specific to higher education, similar trends must be
occurring in colleges and universities as the demand for
remote access increases. For many institutions, outsourcing
remote access is proving to be a viable option for providing
service. Nevertheless, the institution's request for
proposals from vendors must carefully spell out the technical
services to be provided and acceptable levels of performance,
the customer services ranging from implementation to pricing,
and the relationship of the new service to such current
services as modem pools and Internet access. In addition, the
RFP should attempt to ensure high standards of security and
authentication, marketing and management, and use of the
institution's name and insignia.
Sidebar 1
CHECKLIST FOR AN RFP ON
OUTSOURCING INTERNET ACCESS
Services from the Vendor's Server
Supported Protocols
___ TCP/IP
___ SLIP, PPP
___ IPX
___ Appletalk
___ Others:
Client Software Provided
Software Cost
___ Trumpet Winsock _____
___ Netscape Navigator _____
___ TN3270 _____
___ VTxxx emulation _____
___ MAC dialer _____
___ FTP _____
___ Telnet _____
___ Others: _____
Speed/Bandwidth
Specify the modem speed capable of being supported by the
host:
___ 28.[8] Kbps
___ 14.[4] Kbps
___ 9600 baud
___ V.34 protocols for dial-in ports
Busy Signals
Specify the grade of service desired (and cost):
Response Cost
___ P.00 (no busy signals) _____
___ P.05 (busy signals on 5 percent of calls) _____
___ Other: _____
Scope of Access
Specify the telephone charges required for the following
connections:
Point of Call Cost
From institution city or town _____
From surrounding metropolitan area _____
U.S. connections from beyond current area code _____
International connections _____
Vendor's Customer Services
Implementation Period for Contract
___ 30 days
___ 45 days
___ 60 days
___ Other:
Guaranteed success rate for software installation
___ N.A.
___ 75 percent
___ 90 percent
___ Other:
Vendor's documentation
Content. Check all that apply:
___ Software installation guide
___ Trouble-shooting guide
___ Vendor help-desk information
Availability. Check all that apply:
___ from vendor by surface mail
___ from institution
___ via World Wide Web
Vendor's help-desk coverage
Hours per day Specified days per week Weeks per year
Pricing Options
Start-up: Specify any costs and conditions.
Stop out: Specify any costs and conditions.
Usage time and costs per month
Unlimited use:
Base costs: (number of hours) (incremental costs per hour)
Tiering options for off-peak use:
Specify options and prices.
Institution Systems and Services
Current Systems
Modem pool:
___ Retain ___ Discontinue
Electronic mail and Internet access:
___ Retain ___ Discontinue
Security
___ Collaboration with security professionals: Specify.
___ Consistency with institution structures and
policies:
___ simultaneous logins
___ passwords
___ other:
___ Auditing of access privileges and user transactions
___ Non-disclosure clause about institutional security
and privacy procedures
Management
Location of vendor's servers and maintenance
___ on campus ___ off campus
Reports requested of vendor:
Kinds Frequency Format
___ Utilization reports
___ Sign-up rates
___ Time-of-day usage statistics
___ Lists of complaints and resolutions
___ Statistics on blocked calls
___ Other:
Marketing
Access to addresses:
___ students ___ faculty ___ administrators ___staff
Permissions/safeguards regarding institutional logos
and trademarks. Specify.
Billing mechanisms. Check all that apply:
___ Direct billing to customers only
___ Full and partial billing to institutional departments
Sidebar 2
Five universities contributing RFPs to author Ardoth
Hassler's study were Florida Atlantic University, Florida
State University, North Carolina State University, University
of Alabama/Birmingham, and University System of Georgia.
Georgetown University's own "Memorandum of Understanding" was
also used in the study. The RFPs were obtained through the
electronic discussion list of the Southern Computer Center
Directors. (This directors' group, with participating
institutions from Texas to Washington, D.C., has held an
annual meeting each spring for more than twenty years.)
In October 1996, a follow-up survey to determine outcomes of
RFP processes for outsourcing remote access was distributed
to the Southern Directors' discussion list and to the CAUSE CIO electronic discussion list. All five of the institutions
that originally submitted RFPs completed the survey, with two
indicating that they are still negotiating agreements with a
provider. In addition, twelve other institutions that have
chosen to outsource remote access responded to the survey:
Brigham Young University, George Mason University, Georgia
State University, Hamilton College, Lewis and Clark College,
Pepperdine University, Rice University, University of
Georgia, the University of Montana, University of Puget
Sound, University of Tennessee/Chattanooga, and University of
Tennessee/Martin.
Of the seventeen institutions responding, seven have
contracted (and one is in process) with MCI, one has
contracted with Sprint, one has contracted with IBM Advantis,
one has contracted with BellSouth, and six use local
providers. The average length of the agreement is two-plus
years. Most institutions signed on for only one or two years;
three signed on for five years. As this article goes to
press, Georgetown University's own service contract is in the
process of being awarded.
Georgetown's Memorandum of Understanding is accessible
through the CAUSE Information Resources Library at
http://www.cause.org/ir/library/text/csd1099.txt; Florida Atlantic University's
RFP is available at http://www.fau.edu/irm/css/modem-rfp.html; and a copy of the author's follow-up survey is
available at:
http://www.georgetown.edu/acs/people/hassler/.
Endnotes:
1 Reported in Thomas DeLoughry, "Reaching a Critical Mass," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 January 1996, A17.
Back to the text
2 IPX is required for Novell files servers that have bound
IPX as their only protocol. Novell servers can also bind
TCP/IP to eliminate the need for additional protocols on the
campus backbone, although this will come at some cost to
performance and security. Windows NT servers bind the TCP/IP
protocol by default.
Back to the text
3 Richard Adhikari, "So Far Away, Yet So Close,"
Information Week, 8 July 1996, 58-64.
Back to the text
Ardoth A. Hassler ([email protected]) is
Executive Director of Academic Computing and Information
Technology and CIO for the main campus at Georgetown
University. She has served as chair of the CAUSE Nomination
and Election Committee, is a member of the CAUSE Recognition
Committee, and is serving as program chair for EDUCOM'97. She
has made numerous presentations at CAUSE, Educom, ACUTA,
Southern Directors, and other professional organization
conferences.
Michael Neuman ([email protected]) is Director of
the Research, Curriculum, and Development Group within
Academic Computing Services at Georgetown University. In that
capacity he helps faculty integrate computing into their
research, teaching, and developmental projects. Currently Dr.
Neuman is president of the Association for Computers and the
Humanities, and he has recently published articles on
developing electronic texts of standard critical editions,
and maintaining humanities resources on the Internet.
...to the table of contents
![[Comments]](/ir/library/html/cem/comments.gif)
![[Search]](/ir/library/html/cem/search.gif)
![[Home]](/ir/library/html/cem/home.gif)