[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: [oasis-board-comment] Re: [emergency]Objections toDHS-Dictated Material in the IPAWS Profile Draft
Rex, I'm afraid this may be a bit of a red herring. No one has suggested that the TC process isn't being followed. The questions facing us have to do with whether including this particular outside material in a Committee Draft is appropriate or wise. As best I can tell, the TC process is silent on that question. Separately the Board may or may not want to take up some other OASIS-wide issues having to do with the prudence of entering into undisclosed side-contracts with members, and with whether the existing TC process is really adequate in light of this peculiar experience. However, those aren't questions for the TC, and I trust we won't allow ourselves to be distracted from the real issue before us. - 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 >>> Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com> 02/15/09 7:38 PM >>> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]