[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
Agreed, Art, Let's stick to issues. Cheers, Rex At 7:54 PM -0800 2/15/09, Art Botterell wrote: >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 -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]