OASIS Emergency Management TC

Re: [oasis-board-comment] Re: [emergency] Objections toDHS-Dictated Material in the IPAWS Profile Draft

  • 1.  Re: [oasis-board-comment] Re: [emergency] Objections toDHS-Dictated Material in the IPAWS Profile Draft

    Posted 02-16-2009 03:38
    Hi Bob,
    
    To the best of my knowledge the TC Process is being followed. In 
    addition we have sought OASIS guidance on these topics. Since I am 
    not a co-chair of the Subcommittee formed to address the CAPv1.1 
    IPAWS Profile, nor am I an officer of the TC, I don't believe I 
    should be answering for the SC or the TC so I am copying the SC and 
    TC mailing lists with this reply.
    
    
    Best Regards,
    Rex
    
    At 7:53 PM -0500 2/15/09, Bob Freund wrote:
    >Is the TC Process being followed?
    >thanks
    >-bob
    >
    >On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:42 PM, Rex Brooks wrote:
    >
    >>Thanks Renato,
    >>
    >>Good to know.
    >>
    >>Cheers,
    >>Rex
    >>
    >>At 10:14 AM +1000 2/16/09, Renato Iannella wrote:
    >>>I fully support Art's comments below.
    >>>
    >>>I must also inform you that this is one of the reason's why I did 
    >>>not recommend that NICTA continue its membership of OASIS.
    >>>
    >>>Cheers...  Renato Iannella
    >>>NICTA
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>On 15 Feb 2009, at 05:49, Art Botterell wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Friends -
    >>>>
    >>>>If you look at this 71-page document you'll see that almost two-thirds
    >>>>of it isn't OASIS work-product at all.  The actual draft Profile,
    >>>>including an appendix created by the CAP Profiles Subcommittee, makes up
    >>>>only 25 pages.  The other 46 pages, Appendix B, are actually a
    >>>>separate--and in many ways contradictory--document created by the U.S.
    >>>>Department of Homeland Security.
    >>>>
    >>>>I believe that including that non-OASIS content in our draft for public
    >>>>review is unnecessary, confusing, risky and ultimately damaging to the
    >>>>credibility of the OASIS process and this Technical Committee.  I also
    >>>>believe it's against the public interest, as I'll discuss in a moment.
    >>>>
    >>>>It's UNNECESSARY because the same DHS document is already referenced and
    >>>>linked in section 1.5, "Non-Normative References," along with several
    >>>>other references that weren't included in full.  There is no need under
    >>>>the OASIS process for us to include this language in full either.  
    >>>>For
    >>>>simplicity, if for no other reason, we shouldn't obfuscate our document
    >>>>with a large block of redundant material, particularly if we're serious
    >>>>about seeking meaningful public review and comment.
    >>>>
    >>>>It's CONFUSING because although the DHS material purports to be a
    >>>>requirements document, it's actually written in the form of a fairly
    >>>>detailed specification, one that contradicts the draft OASIS Profile on
    >>>>a number of very significant points and goes far beyond it on others.
    >>>>Putting that conflicting material in an appendix and labeling it
    >>>>non-normative can't offset the overwhelming fact that it still would
    >>>>comprise the largest part of the document.   And including a mass of
    >>>>extraneous and inconsistent material in the draft can't help but muddy
    >>>>the public comment process.
    >>>>
    >>>>It's RISKY because we're being drawn into uncharted legal and procedural
    >>>>waters. The traditional role of OASIS has been to generate voluntary
    >>>>standards that folks can use or choose not to use.  But here we're being
    >>>>asked by DHS/FEMA to conduct what they've told us on several occasions
    >>>>they plan to treat as the public review component of a federal
    >>>>regulatory process, one that will have significant financial and
    >>>>political implications on a number of industries, jurisdictions and
    >>>>other stakeholders.  That's a very different activity, and not one I
    >>>>think most OASIS members contemplated when they joined the organization.
    >>>>Although we may hear opinions on the subject, the fact is that we
    >>>>simply can't know what sorts of liabilities, legal expenses or other
    >>>>ramifications might arise from such an undertaking, not only for OASIS
    >>>>but also for the individual members of this TC.
    >>>>
    >>>>And it's potentially DAMAGING to OASIS and the OASIS standards process
    >>>>because it creates an appearance that OASIS and particularly the
    >>>>Emergency Management Technical Committee are no longer independent and
    >>>>honest arbiters but now merely agents of the U.S. government.  (That
    >>>>impression can only be deepened by the fact that the chair and most of
    >>>>the members of the CAP Profiles Subcommittee... and many if not most of
    >>>>the active members of the EM TC... are themselves DHS/FEMA contractors
    >>>>or subcontractors.  And further, that OASIS itself has entered into a
    >>>>side contract with DHS.)  We've historically heard complaints from
    >>>>international members that this TC is excessively U.S.-oriented; we
    >>>>don't need to add fuel to that fire.
    >>>>
    >>>>So why is Appendix B in there?  Not in support of the OASIS process,
    >>>>clearly.  It's there, I'd suggest, because OASIS has been recruited,
    >>>>perhaps unwittingly, into a radical experiment in the privatization of
    >>>>federal regulation launched under the previous Administration.  
    >>>>And that
    >>>>experiment is now being pressed headlong to completion before the new
    >>>>Administration has a chance to consider it.
    >>>>
    >>>>That's a strong claim, I know, and the mechanics of such things may be
    >>>>unfamiliar to many OASIS members, so please bear with me while I expand
    >>>>on it a bit.
    >>>>
    >>>>The C
    >>>>AP IPAWS Profile will ultimately be binding on the radio, TV,
    >>>>satellite, cable and cellular telephone industries, among others, and on
    >>>>state and local jurisdictions nationwide.  Historically, such federal
    >>>>regulations have gone through mature and well-defined procedures for
    >>>>open public comment and review managed, in this particular subject area,
    >>>>by the Federal Communication Commission.
    >>>>
    >>>>However, in June 2006 an Executive Order (EO 13407) made the Department
    >>>>of Homeland Security the lead agency for public warning, with the FCC,
    >>>>NOAA and other federal agencies tasked to support DHS.  Being quite a
    >>>>young federal agency, as such things go, DHS... of which FEMA is now a
    >>>>department... has not had time to develop fully its own processes for
    >>>>developing regulations.
    >>>>
    >>>>In the case of the cellular alerting program (and with a bit of prodding
    >>>>by way of congressional legislation) DHS partnered with the FCC in 2007
    >>>>and 2008 to conduct an advisory committee process followed by two cycles
    >>>>of rulemaking with formal public comment and reply-comment processes.
    >>>>
    >>>>But in the case of IPAWS, which is meant to integrate multiple public
    >>>>warning systems (EAS, cellular, NOAA Weather Radio and others) into a
    >>>>single coordinated national capability, DHS has taken a different and
    >>>>much less collaborative approach.  They've hired contractors, most of
    >>>>them with little or no experience in public warning, and developed a
    >>>>detailed set of technical specs, and then pressed OASIS to cover those
    >>>>specifications with a veneer of public review by slipping it into our
    >>>>document as an appendix.
    >>>>
    >>>>Meanwhile, DHS has proceeded separately through its "Practitioner
    >>>>Working Group" to solicit comments on... and thus build stakeholder
    >>>>investment in... their own version of the Profile.  So it seems
    >>>>reasonable to question whether DHS actually is committed to the OASIS
    >>>>process, or whether they may simply be using OASIS to create, if not a
    >>>>rubberstamp endorsement of their own agenda, then at least an illusion
    >>>>of public and expert review of a document we've actually found to have a
    >>>>number of serious shortcomings.
    >>>>
    >>>>In short, we need to consider the possibility that OASIS is being used
    >>>>in an attempt to shortcut the regulatory process and reduce the
    >>>>transparency of government.
    >>>>
    >>>>The justification that we're including this appendix as "a service to
    >>>>the users" is both transparent and irrelevant.  Including an appendix
    >>>>that explicitly contradicts the actual OASIS recommendation is hardly
    >>>>doing anyone a service.  And in any event, nothing prevents DHS from
    >>>>publishing any additional information it deems beneficial or necessary
    >>>>by its own means.  Ultimately the CAP Profile will only be one part of
    >>>>the regulatory framework required for IPAWS.
    >>>>
    >>>>In summary, then:  There's no compelling reason under the OASIS process
    >>>>for including the confusing, contradictory and extraneous material in
    >>>>Appendix B, and a number of important reasons not to.
    >>>>
    >>>>I hope you'll join me in acting prudently on Tuesday to remove this
    >>>>unnecessary appendix from the draft before it hopelessly confuses the
    >>>>public review process and perhaps permanently damages our reputations as
    >>>>advocates of an open standards process.
    >>>>
    >>>>And there's no need for haste here, except perhaps on the part of some
    >>>>of the DHS bureaucracy.  The IPAWS program has been ongoing for at least
    >>>>four years; we've been involved for less than ten weeks.  And DHS
    >>>>representatives have already advised us that they plan to come back with
    >>>>amended or additional requirements in the foreseeable future.  So please
    >>>>don't be swayed by any implication that we're somehow obliged to release
    >>>>this document prematurely.
    >>>>
    >>>>- Art
    >>>>
    >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>>>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    >>>>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    >>>>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    >>>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    >>>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
    >>
    >>
    >>--
    >>Rex Brooks
    >>President, CEO
    >>Starbourne Communications Design
    >>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
    >>Berkeley, CA 94702
    >>Tel: 510-898-0670
    >>
    >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: oasis-board-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
    >>For additional commands, e-mail: 
    >>oasis-board-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 1001.p7s (    /    ) (0135EDFE)
    
    
    -- 
    Rex Brooks
    President, CEO
    Starbourne Communications Design
    GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
    Berkeley, CA 94702
    Tel: 510-898-0670