Re: [emergency] Re: [CAP] NOAA Undermining International Standards?

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

Elysa -

Is it possible we've momentarily lost track of why we set out to  
forge standards in the first place?

The outcome you describe, in which some users adopt a new standalone  
system but others don't, while vendors pounce on the new system's  
shortcomings in an attempt to neutralize what they see as a threat to  
their own business models... isn't that exactly how our current  
patchwork of incompatible, uncoordinated systems got built?

HazCollect could be a success for America... a nationwide system that  
adds value rather than detracting from allied governmental and  
commercial offerings... just the sort of national warning framework  
we of the Partnership for Public Warning called for a few short years  
ago.  But a number of the folks who actually have experience and a  
stake in warning systems see serious problems with the way it's being  
deployed.  Even the NOAA manager himself acknowledges a shortcoming  
that needs to be fixed.

What I'm suggesting for the TC is nothing other than what Lee  
recommends and Tom endorses... that we state, forthrightly and  
factually, our concern about the incomplete way CAP is being  
implemented in HazCollect... not as opposition to the HazCollect  
program, but as a strong caution against deferring action on a well- 
known problem that risks serious ramifications.

- Art

PS - To those who cling to a fond faith that NOAA will eventually do  
the right thing if we just wait long enough, all I can do is keep  
asking "But what if they don't?"  Wishing alone won't make it so, and  
Herb's most sincere intentions still don't constitute a guarantee.   
The harsh reality is that once HazCollect deploys there'll be less  
incentive for NOAA to make changes, not more.  And as discussed  
earlier, there's more at stake here than just HazCollect's success or  
failure.