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

[Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>]

Well said Art !!

Renato

On 18 Feb 2009, at 01:34, Art Botterell wrote:

> Peter -
>
> Maybe it would be simpler to look at it the other way; could you  
> please
> point out for me any provision against conflicts of interest that DO
> exist in the current TC process?
>
> Currently I'm seeing two, or perhaps three, particular circumstances
> that raise conflict-of-interest concerns in my eyes.  First, we have  
> the
> unusual circumstance in the Emergency Management Technical Committee
> where a large number, perhaps a majority, of active member
> representatives are themselves contractors or sub-contractors to one
> particular member, and that member (DHS) is asking for unusual
> accommodations from the TC that its contractors may feel some pressure
> not to oppose.  Second, we have the problem of OASIS itself entering
> into a contract for services to DHS the terms of which it has not
> disclosed to the rest of the membership, thus raising questions about
> the independence and objectivity of staff advice to the TC, as well as
> larger questions about the OASIS organization's purpose and  
> priorities.
> And third (although one might view it just a combination of the prior
> two), we have our TC chair anticipating payments from DHS via OASIS in
> relation to an ongoing standards project, thus raising questions about
> the chair's freedom to lead the process in an unbiased way.
>
> As for ways to mitigate this problem, as has been suggested elsewhere
> I'd encourage the the Board to look at how other organizations do  
> it.  I
> can only suggest a few general strategies.  The TC process might  
> provide
> that members should recuse themselves from TC or organization-wide
> voting whenever they have a financial relationship with another member
> that might limit their independence of action.  A one-member-one-vote
> rule at the TC level might help guard against TCs being stacked by
> particular interests.  Also, the TC process could require that TC  
> chairs
> stand for election on a regular cycle, rather than making insurrection
> the only mechanism for reviewing a chair's performance.   And,  
> although
> it's arguably not within the scope of the TC process per-se, the OASIS
> Board could decline to enter into any contract or other obligation  
> that
> it isn't free to disclose fully to OASIS members.
>
> Those are just a few suggestions off the top of my head.  I'm sure  
> there
> are other things that could be done and I'd urge the Board to search  
> for
> them.  The general touchstones are transparency, fairness and
> inclusiveness, each of which is necessary to an open standards  
> process.
> Right now I'm not sure the TC process does as much as it could or  
> should
> do to protect them.
>
> - 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
>>>> "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> 02/17/09 1:03 AM >>>
> Hi:
> As an OASIS Board member, I've obviously been following this with
> interest and concern, along with fellow members.
>
> Could you clarify one statement for me please: "Regrettably the  
> current
> TC process offers no safeguards against such conflicts." Could you
> qualify/explain this and why you feel that the current contractual and
> process arrangement are, in your view, insufficient? Would you have  
> any
> suggestions to change/mitigate that?
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Peter F Brown
> Managing Director
> Pensive S.A.
> "Supporting the Information-Driven Enterprise"
> t: +32.2.346.4866
> m: +32.472.027.811
> w: www.pensive.eu
>
> Pensive S.A. is registered in Belgium, N° 895.677.610 (RPM Brussels)
> Registered Office: Avenue de Mercure 13/13, B-1180 Brussels
> Correspondence/Visits: Avenue Brugmann, 382, B-1180 Brussels
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Art Botterell [mailto:abott@so.cccounty.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:25 AM
> To: Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM
> Cc: oasis-board-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; renato@nicta.com.au;
> rexb@starbourne.com
> Subject: Re: [oasis-board-comment] Fwd: [emergency] Objections
> toDHS-Dict
> atedMaterial in the IPAWS Profile Draft
>
> Thank you for your why you take such pains to remind me of the very  
> point you quote me
> making!
>
> I'm unaware of anyone who's suggested that the content of the proposed
> draft is anything other than a TC matter, or who's asked the Board to
> interfere in TC matters.  It seems like this may have become a bit  
> of a
> strawman issue somehow.
>
> As for the DHS contract, I appreciate you sharing your opinion.
> However, as a longtime civil servant at various levels of government,
> I've learned to pay close attention to questions of conflict of
> interest.  As I'm sure you understand, conflict of interest is an
> ethical and "optical" matter as well as a legal one.  And it can come
> back to bite one in surprising ways, as each day's headlines remind  
> us.
> Regrettably the current TC process offers no safeguards against such
> conflicts.  Only your Board can protect OASIS' reputation on that  
> score.
>
> And my concern for our international credibility has nothing to do  
> with
> timezones.  It has to do with what I fear is a growing perception  
> among
> emergency managers around the globe that the OASIS EM TC has been
> co-opted by the U.S. authorities and is no longer a viable vehicle for
> developing global standards.
>
> I hope this has helped to clarify what I'm saying and what I'm not.
>
> - Art
>
>>>> Eduardo Gutentag <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM> 02/16/09 4:29 PM >>>
> Art,
>
> allow me a few personal comments, as a member of the Board of
> Directors but not on behalf of the Board, which has not discussed
> this matter.
>
> We are always glad to hear from our members, and I'd like to thank
> you for your efforts. That said, I do hope we are all on the same
> page and that no unfounded expectations underlie your messages.
>
> The Board does not generally interfere in TC matters; certainly
> not on technical issues, such as whether certain material should
> be included in an Appendix or not.
>
> In your message you mention repeatedly the OASIS process, as in
> - "There is no need under the OASIS process for us to include this
> language in full either. "
> - "So why is Appendix B in there?  Not in support of the OASIS
> process, clearly."
> - "There’s no compelling reason under the OASIS process for
> including the confusing, contradictory and extraneous material in
> Appendix B, "
>
> But please remember that the OASIS process is completely mute as
> regards what technical content TCs' specifications should include
> or exclude.
>
> The technical knowledge needed to determine which is the right
> decision in these technical matters resides within the TC,
> not the Board itself. The Board will intervene in the internal
> proceedings of a TC only if the appeal process specified in
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#appeals is followed;
> as you can see, this appeals procedure is process-centric, that
> is it can be triggered if the process is violated, not if there is
> disagreement on technical issues.  As long as the TC process is not
> violated or bent, the Board will generally avoid getting involved.
> Ultimately it is the OASIS Members who will decide whether they agree
> with the content of what the TC produces or not.
>
> As regards the contract that OASIS entered in with the US Department
> of Homeland Security, I personally do not believe it is necessarily
> different from contracts that I'm sure some TC chairs or members
> have with external funding entities, or from contracts many other
> standards organizations have with other funding organizations, of
> which you may not be aware because they might not be as transparent
> as OASIS is.  I do not see why OASIS should shy away from such
> funding sources, and I can assure you that if the EU Commission
> or some other regional entity (such as some Australian Government
> office, for instance, or a Chinese one perhaps) were to approach
> OASIS with a funding offer that was equally punctilious in its
> respect for our TC process, they would not be rejected out of hand
> either. And while we may be pr
> evented from showing you the contract
> to prove how innocent ithe Freedo
> m of Information Act provides a level
> of transparency thatattached to it.
>
> At the same time I cannot but see it in a positive way when an agency
> that could work in obscurity in some musty corner of an invisible
> office decides to publicly and clearly endorse the openness and
> transparency of the OASIS process.
>
> And regarding the very hairy issue of TC membership across more
> than two timezones, all I can say is that we (and many other
> organizations) have been trying to figure out a solution for a long
> time without having found one that would satisfy everyone. As it
> is, currently OASIS TCs have a lot of freedom to deal with it as
> they can. Some TCs have therefore two sessions of the same meeting
> per week, with zones A and B in one session and zones A and C,
> and/or zones B and C in another session the same week, so that
> everybody can participate, communicate and vote (check out how UBL
> does this). Other TCs have email participation and voting, thus
> having freed themselves from the tyranny of the clock. In other
> cases still, those who are in a given time zone in the minority
> (and therefore suffering from it) may choose to increase their
> numbers to tilt the balance, instead of withdrawing...As I said,
> it's not that we're unaware of the problem, it's that there is no
> universal solution that can satisfy all -- for now. Perhaps one
> day we'll hit on it and be able make it part of the TC process.
>
> On 02/14/2009 12:07 PM, Art Botterell wrote:
>> Dear OASIS Board Members -
>>
>> Since this matter seems likely to become public early next week, and
> since I think it may bear on some important questions of overall OASIS
> policy, I'm going ahead and forwarding this note from the Emergency
> Management TC list for your information.
>>
>> - 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
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject:
>> [emergency] Objections to DHS-Dictated Material in the IPAWS Profile
> Draft
>> From:
>> Art Botterell <abott@so.cccounty.us>
>> Date:
>> Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:49:42 -0800
>> To:
>> emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>>
>> To:
>> emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>>
>>
>> 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 lab
> eling it
>> non-normative can’t offset the overwhelming f> 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 com> 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 presse
> d OASIS to cover those
>> specifications with a veneer of public review by slipping it into our
>> document as an appendix.
>>
>> Working Group" to solicit comment
> s on... and thus build stakeholder
>> investment in... their own version of the Profile.  So it seems
>> reasonable to question whether DHS actually is com> 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, e-mail:
> oasis-board-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> oasis-board-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> --
> Eduardo Gutentag        |    e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
> Technology Director     |    Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 (internal x31442)
> Corporate Standards     |    Sun Microsystems Inc.
>              W3C AC Rep / W3C AB / OASIS BoD
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>

Cheers...  Renato Iannella
NICTA