RESPONSIBILITY FOR HANDLING COLLECTIVE ADDRESS INDICATORS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91B00060R000100160021-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 24, 2013
• Sequence Number: 21
• Publication Date: February 26, 1988
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
Please read the attached package concerning the responsibility for
handling collective address indicators. Is there a solution to the problem?
The DO makes the decision as to who to add and who to delete, so itls logical
they should keep the list. However, I sense that OGC wants to know who is
excluded message by message. Why couldn't we add it to the front of the cable
in the form of a listing which states "not sent" as "exempted" to the
following stations? Please check this out and do an appropriate answer to the
SSA/DDA for my signature.
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
STAT
STAT
DO N07 use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, 'disposals,
clearances, and similar actions
.symbol, A~ency/Post)
S s~-/ A ~
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP
T0: (Name, otlice symbol, room
DulidJnp, Agency/Post)
Actlon
Approval
As Requested
Clroulate
Comment
Coordination
j Note and Return
Prepare Reply
S
ee Me
Signature
~~~
~~~ "~ ~
OPTION
h~urlA~
fPMR (~
Room No.-Bldg.
~~ o
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
OIT 10209-88
2 6 FEB 193
125X1
25X1
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, Information Management StaEE, DO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REFERENCE:
Edward J. Maloney
D.irector,,Office of Information Technology
Responsibili, ty Eor Handling Collective Address
Your Memo: dtd 5 Feb 88, Subj:
Request Eor Permanent~Retention of Stations and Bases
Excluded from Collectively Addressed Messages
1. Stations and bases automatically PxcludPd Erom Collective Addr?ss
Indicators (CAI) are the responsibility of the cognizant authority Eor each
collective address established. Office of Information Technology (OIT) is not
? authorized to add or delete stations and bases Eor a CAI unless appropriate
notification is received from the approving authority. OIT is only
responsible Eor maintaining current CAI addressees .in the communications
system utilized for addressing messages using a CAI. OIT communications
systems do not have the capability oaf maintaining long term records of the
type indicated in reference.
2. As OIT .is not the approving authority for a CAI, .it is sugg?stew the
office with approving authority also serve as the focal point Eor all r?cords
concerning that particular CAI. Tl~.is would provide a c l point for all
matters concerning a CAI including records-management.
war Malo
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
 ~r
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
C O N F I D E- N T I A LIT IRIS
~o J' ~D r ~3 1g~a
B 1988
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Information Technology, DA
ie , In ormation Management Staff, DO
'.25X1
SUBJECT: Request for Permanent Retention of Stations and
Bases Excluded from Collectively Addressed
Messages
REFERENCES: A. Draft B, Subject: Collective
Message IrLdicators
B. Memo to RPD/DA from OGC, dated 9 December 87,
Subject: Proposed Draft B
1. The Directorate of Operations (DO) requests that the
Operations Group of the Office of Information Technology (OIT)
maintain a history of all stations and bases excluded from
collectively addressed messages.
2. Many offices are not properly using collectively addressed,
indicators. In some 'instances offices are copying the indicators
from previously disseminated messages, eliminating stations and
'bases which should be included in the distribution. In addition,
many originators are not aware that there are stations and bases
automatically excluded from distribution. To alleviate this
problem the DO drafted the attached proposed to remind
originators of their responsibility when sending collectively
addressed messages.
3. The Office of General Counsel (OGC) did not concur on the
draft, stating that a permanent record has to be made of any
station or base which is automatically excluded from receiving any
message using a collective message-?-indicator. OGC suggested that
OIT be responsible for maintaining this information in the event
that questions arise concerning a station's knowledge of policy
information.
(~ n N F T P G` 1.T m T r r
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
 r
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
_ C O N F I D E-N T I A L
SUBJECT: Request for Permanent Retention of Stations and Bases
Excluded from Collectively Addressed Messages
4. Accordingly, we request OIT's concurrence on the proposed
course of action for maintaining a record of stations and bases
excluded on preestablished multiple addressed messages. ~~~e would
appreciate a response as ible because the Regulatory
Policy Division (RPD) has pending.
Attachments:
References
Director of Information Technology Date
C O N F I D E N T I A L
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
OGC-87-53366
9 December 1987
STAT
Regulatory Policy Division/DA
STAT
Associate Deputy General Counsel for
Administrative Law and Management Support
i STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
SUBJECT: Proposed
provision for the permanent retention of stations excluded from
collective message indicators is added.
Draft B on collective message indicators. I cannnot concur
with the proposed HN as it is presently written unless a
1. Per your request, I have reviewed Proposed
2. OIT should undertake the additional responsibility of
maintaining a permanent record of any station or base which is
automatically excluded from receiving any message using a
collective message indicator that would ordinarily include the
excluded base or station. 47ithout a system for the retention
of such information, potential questions regarding a station's
actual knowledge of important policy information can not be
resolved: In the case of stations or bases which are
specifically excluded by the originator of a cable, the
exclusion is noted on the addressee line of the cable itself.
Thus, the actual recipients of the cable can be determined from
the face of the cable. Where stations or bases are
automatically excluded from the message indicator, however, no
notation is made on the cable nor is there any other permanent
record of the exclusion made. It would be extremely difficult,
therefore, if not impossible, to determine whether a specific
station actually received a certain cable sent~out to a
collective message indicator address.
3. A system enumerating the stations or bases excluded
from a collective message indicator need not be organized cable
by cable but could be indexed chronologically, giving a list of
the particular stations or bases excluded for each date or for
given time periods.
4. If you have any further questions a
my non-concurrence, please contact
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
 STAT
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/04/24 :CIA-RDP91 B00060R000100160021-5