Ah, here's where I think I was missing something.  I was viewing the 
retention schedule as a classification of the "what" and "how long" of 
records, with corporate policy and process implementation driving the 
"where" and "how."  Is this simply a different approach or am I actually 
incorrect? 

And I do agree with Ginny about maintaining backup data for a short period 
of time.  We consider it a DR copy, and do the same.  But there will 
always be some gap, and that data, to me, is what we in the backup world 
most need to be concerned with in the case of legal holds. 

_________________________________

Kathleen Hallahan
Freddie Mac





   Robert Kleppen <[log in to unmask]> 
   Sent by: Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
   08/15/2007 04:14 PM
   Please respond to
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
Re: Backup Tapes as a Records Series - Question from a Newbie






I agree with you that records located on backup media are not (or
shouldn't be) the official record and the 'storage location' for the
official record wouldn't note the backup media.  What I was attempting
to highlight is that this media is a 'storage location' for copies of
those records. The records schedule should reflect the existence of
these locations in addition to where the official record resides.

I guess some may not see this as a part of their records schedule but
I have found this will greatly increase an organizations ability to
reconcile the records for destruction.

Simplistic Example: Official record A is stored in X location for 6 years.
Copy of record A is stored on backup media for 7 years. < oops!

Robert









List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]