EM CAP Profiles SC

 View Only

  • 1.  FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile

    Posted 02-19-2009 19:13


  • 2.  Re: [emergency] FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile

    Posted 02-19-2009 19:42 
    Please note that nothing in that statement describes any need for the DHS "requirements" document to be included in the OASIS draft for public review.  

I'm pleased, in fact, to read that DHS acknowledges that the OASIS work will be, at most, only "part of its [DHS'] standards and protocols."  Thus we needn't feel any obligation to try to include everything under the sun in OASIS documents.

However I'm not sure exactly how the word "adjudicating" is being used here, as both OASIS and DHS are described as doing that.  It does sound impressive, though.

- Art



Art Botterell, Manager
Community Warning System
Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff
50 Glacier Drive
Martinez, California 94553
(925) 313-9603
fax (925) 646-1120

>>> "Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL"


  • 3.  Re: [emergency] FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile

    Posted 02-19-2009 20:25 
    > Following a request from the FEMA IPAWS Program, I am forwarding the
> below statement. 

Thanks for this.  I'd like to summarize how I understand appendix B fitting into this statement, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Essentially, due to the tight timelines, there is a comment process underway for the original requirements document that is not yet complete.  The Oasis process was started before this was done in order to meet the tight timelines.  The plan is to use the Oasis comment period to merge both comment periods by including all of the comments to the original requirements document, despite the documents being different.  So in effect 2 sets of comments for 2 different documents using 1 process.  This is why the requirements document is being added to the profile in its entirety, contrary to normal TC practice.

I assume that at the end of the 60 day comment period, as part of addressing comments, the next draft of the profile will remove appendix B since the need to comment on both documents will no longer be necessary, and it will return to being just a reference.

If this is the plan, perhaps some wording should be added to the beginning of appendix B to help clear things up and prevent any confusion as to the role of appendix B both now and in future drafts.

-- 
jake@jpw.biz
--


  • 4.  Re: [emergency] FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile

    Posted 02-19-2009 20:25 
    > Following a request from the FEMA IPAWS Program, I am forwarding the
> below statement. 

Thanks for this.  I'd like to summarize how I understand appendix B fitting into this statement, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Essentially, due to the tight timelines, there is a comment process underway for the original requirements document that is not yet complete.  The Oasis process was started before this was done in order to meet the tight timelines.  The plan is to use the Oasis comment period to merge both comment periods by including all of the comments to the original requirements document, despite the documents being different.  So in effect 2 sets of comments for 2 different documents using 1 process.  This is why the requirements document is being added to the profile in its entirety, contrary to normal TC practice.

I assume that at the end of the 60 day comment period, as part of addressing comments, the next draft of the profile will remove appendix B since the need to comment on both documents will no longer be necessary, and it will return to being just a reference.

If this is the plan, perhaps some wording should be added to the beginning of appendix B to help clear things up and prevent any confusion as to the role of appendix B both now and in future drafts.

-- 
jake@jpw.biz
--


  • 5.  Re: [emergency] FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile

    Posted 02-20-2009 01:27 

    On 20 Feb 2009, at 05:12, Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL wrote:

    It is FEMA’s responsibility to publish its standards and protocols.  FEMA will consider and adjudicate the OASIS IPAWS CAP Profile as appropriate in preparation for its adoption of standards and protocols for the Next-Generation EAS.  FEMA recognizes that the FCC’s 2nd R&O does not require standards and protocols to be published at this time regarding security, multiple languages, alerts & warnings of special needs communities, or of video media types.  Hence, we feel that it is reasonable to consider adopting the OASIS IPAWS CAP Profile as part of its pending standards and protocols.  Note, however, in accordance with statements made publicly, that FEMA intends on pursuing the development of additional requirements to address any outstanding issues for NG-EAS systems.

    Interesting comment; "FEMA will consider and adjudicate the OASIS IPAWS CAP Profile"....

    Let me ask this rudimentary (if not controversial :-) question....why is there an IPAWS CAP profile being developed by OASIS?:

    As a national profile - it should be the responsibility of  FEMA (or whoever is the responsible party in the USA) and if you need it "standardised", then take it to NISO.

    My recommendations to EMA (here in Australia) was for the AU CAP Profile to be created and managed by EMA and, if necessary, taken to "Standards Australia" for formal adoption.

    I don't think there is any other OASIS standard that is specific to a country?



     
    Cheers...  Renato Iannella
    NICTA



  • 6.  RE: [emergency] FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile

    Posted 02-20-2009 13:31 
    




    Could someone 
please explain why they see a conflict of interests here?  Whose interests 
are deemed to be in conflict, and how exactly might that affect the 
content and the progression of the specification(s)?
    

     
    

    Alessandro
    

     
    

     

    

    
  
    
  
    
  From: Renato Iannella 
  [mailto:renato@nicta.com.au]
    Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 
  20:25
    To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
    Cc: 
  emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [emergency] 
  FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile

    
  

    
  
    
  
    On 20 Feb 2009, at 05:12, Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL wrote:

    
  
    
    
    It is 
    FEMA’s responsibility to publish its standards and protocols.  FEMA 
    will consider and adjudicate the OASIS IPAWS CAP Profile as appropriate in 
    preparation for its adoption of standards and protocols for the 
    Next-Generation EAS.  FEMA recognizes that the FCC’s 
    2nd R&O does 
    not require standards and protocols to be published at this time regarding 
    security, multiple languages, alerts & warnings of special needs 
    communities, or of video media types.  Hence, we feel that it is 
    reasonable to consider adopting the OASIS IPAWS CAP Profile as part of its 
    pending standards and protocols.  Note, however, in accordance with 
    statements made publicly, that FEMA intends on pursuing the development of 
    additional requirements to address any outstanding issues for NG-EAS 
    systems.
    
  

    
  
    Interesting comment; "FEMA will consider and adjudicate the OASIS 
  IPAWS CAP Profile"....
    
  

    
  
    Let me ask this rudimentary (if not controversial :-) 
  question....why is there an IPAWS CAP profile being developed by OASIS?:
    
  

    
  
    As a national profile - it should be the responsibility of  FEMA (or 
  whoever is the responsible party in the USA) and if you need it 
  "standardised", then take it to NISO.
    
  

    
  
    My recommendations to EMA (here in Australia) was for the AU CAP Profile 
  to be created and managed by EMA and, if necessary, taken to "Standards 
  Australia" for formal adoption.
    
  

    
  
    I don't think there is any other OASIS standard that is specific to a 
  country?
    
  

    
  

    
  
    
  

    
  
    
  
    
  
    Cheers...  Renato Iannella
    
  
    NICTA


  • 7.  RE: [emergency] FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile

    Posted 02-20-2009 15:19 
    Hi Alessandro,

I suggest you look through the official archived record of the emails 
concerning these issues. I would start with 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/archives/200902/msg00026.html

I would not want to paraphrase or risk misquoting anyone's messages. 
There were, I believe a couple of messages prior to this that could 
be useful for understanding the situation.

Cheers,
Rex

At 8:30 AM -0500 2/20/09, Alessandro Triglia wrote:
>Could someone please explain why they see a conflict of interests 
>here?  Whose interests are deemed to be in conflict, and how 
>exactly might that affect the content and the progression of the 
>specification(s)?
>
>Alessandro
>
>
>
>
>From: Renato Iannella [mailto:renato@nicta.com.au]
>Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 20:25
>To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>Cc: emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [emergency] FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile
>
>
>On 20 Feb 2009, at 05:12, Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL wrote:
>
>>It is FEMA's responsibility to publish its standards and protocols. 
>> FEMA will consider and adjudicate the OASIS IPAWS CAP Profile as 
>>appropriate in preparation for its adoption of standards and 
>>protocols for the Next-Generation EAS.  FEMA recognizes that the 
>>FCC's 2nd R&O does not require standards and protocols to be 
>>published at this time regarding security, multiple languages, 
>>alerts & warnings of special needs communities, or of video media 
>>types.  Hence, we feel that it is reasonable to consider adopting 
>>the OASIS IPAWS CAP Profile as part of its pending standards and 
>>protocols.  Note, however, in accordance with statements made 
>>publicly, that FEMA intends on pursuing the development of 
>>additional requirements to address any outstanding issues for 
>>NG-EAS systems.
>>
>
>Interesting comment; "FEMA will consider and adjudicate the OASIS 
>IPAWS CAP Profile"....
>
>Let me ask this rudimentary (if not controversial :-) 
>question....why is there an IPAWS CAP profile being developed by 
>OASIS?:
>
>As a national profile - it should be the responsibility of  FEMA (or 
>whoever is the responsible party in the USA) and if you need it 
>"standardised", then take it to NISO.
>
>My recommendations to EMA (here in Australia) was for the AU CAP 
>Profile to be created and managed by EMA and, if necessary, taken to 
>"Standards Australia" for formal adoption.
>
>I don't think there is any other OASIS standard that is specific to a country?
>
>
>
>Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>NICTA


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670


  • 8.  RE: [emergency] FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile

    Posted 02-20-2009 16:06 
     

> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 9.  RE: [emergency] FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile

    Posted 02-20-2009 16:17 
    Thanks for the clarification, Alessandro,

For myself, I don't consider it a Conflict of Interest, but I can be 
seen as compromised by the fact that I have accepted a subcontract 
from OASIS, at least verbally, to help facilitate this work. I have 
not been given instructions about how to carry out this work, nor 
have I been pressured to take any positions with regard to the issues 
under consideration. My current position with regard to the inclusion 
of Appendix B in the candidate Committee Draft for a 60-Day Public 
Review is that I have no preference strong enough to prompt me to 
support including or deleting it. This doesn't happen very often, but 
it is now.

Cheers,
Rex

At 11:06 AM -0500 2/20/09, Alessandro Triglia wrote:
>
>
>>  
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 10.  RE: [emergency] FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile

    Posted 02-20-2009 16:17 
    Thanks for the clarification, Alessandro,

For myself, I don't consider it a Conflict of Interest, but I can be 
seen as compromised by the fact that I have accepted a subcontract 
from OASIS, at least verbally, to help facilitate this work. I have 
not been given instructions about how to carry out this work, nor 
have I been pressured to take any positions with regard to the issues 
under consideration. My current position with regard to the inclusion 
of Appendix B in the candidate Committee Draft for a 60-Day Public 
Review is that I have no preference strong enough to prompt me to 
support including or deleting it. This doesn't happen very often, but 
it is now.

Cheers,
Rex

At 11:06 AM -0500 2/20/09, Alessandro Triglia wrote:
>
>
>>  
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 11.  RE: [emergency] FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile

    Posted 02-20-2009 15:19 
    Hi Alessandro,

I suggest you look through the official archived record of the emails 
concerning these issues. I would start with 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/archives/200902/msg00026.html

I would not want to paraphrase or risk misquoting anyone's messages. 
There were, I believe a couple of messages prior to this that could 
be useful for understanding the situation.

Cheers,
Rex

At 8:30 AM -0500 2/20/09, Alessandro Triglia wrote:
>Could someone please explain why they see a conflict of interests 
>here?  Whose interests are deemed to be in conflict, and how 
>exactly might that affect the content and the progression of the 
>specification(s)?
>
>Alessandro
>
>
>
>
>From: Renato Iannella [mailto:renato@nicta.com.au]
>Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 20:25
>To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>Cc: emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [emergency] FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile
>
>
>On 20 Feb 2009, at 05:12, Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL wrote:
>
>>It is FEMA's responsibility to publish its standards and protocols. 
>> FEMA will consider and adjudicate the OASIS IPAWS CAP Profile as 
>>appropriate in preparation for its adoption of standards and 
>>protocols for the Next-Generation EAS.  FEMA recognizes that the 
>>FCC's 2nd R&O does not require standards and protocols to be 
>>published at this time regarding security, multiple languages, 
>>alerts & warnings of special needs communities, or of video media 
>>types.  Hence, we feel that it is reasonable to consider adopting 
>>the OASIS IPAWS CAP Profile as part of its pending standards and 
>>protocols.  Note, however, in accordance with statements made 
>>publicly, that FEMA intends on pursuing the development of 
>>additional requirements to address any outstanding issues for 
>>NG-EAS systems.
>>
>
>Interesting comment; "FEMA will consider and adjudicate the OASIS 
>IPAWS CAP Profile"....
>
>Let me ask this rudimentary (if not controversial :-) 
>question....why is there an IPAWS CAP profile being developed by 
>OASIS?:
>
>As a national profile - it should be the responsibility of  FEMA (or 
>whoever is the responsible party in the USA) and if you need it 
>"standardised", then take it to NISO.
>
>My recommendations to EMA (here in Australia) was for the AU CAP 
>Profile to be created and managed by EMA and, if necessary, taken to 
>"Standards Australia" for formal adoption.
>
>I don't think there is any other OASIS standard that is specific to a country?
>
>
>
>Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>NICTA


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670


Related Content