[CAP] [emergency] NOAA Undermining International Standards?

[Curry, William (DCEMA)]

Art

Are you aware that the District of Columba and the National Capital Region
(NCR) as well as most of the East Coast states (all from FL north to include
PA & Delaware) now using the digital EMnet (Emergency Management Network).
This system has provided us with an interoperability solution for the EAS
and AMBER systems and we are moving forward to place the WEB EOC onto this
system for communications between EOC's. At this time to the best of my
knowledge this is the largest satellite-based emergency warning and
communications network in North America that is used by DC/ State and local
Emergency Management Operation Centers. This system is now serving 14 states
and protecting approximately 85 million people across the United States.  

Also in conjunction with MD and VA we have installed equipment into the
command centers of the CSX Railroad, AMTRAK, FEMA FOC and the National
Weather Service in Sterling, VA.

For emergency and priority dissemination of information equipment has been
installed in all of the major radio and TV stations in the NCR

A number of other states have also installed in other none State/government
Operational Command Centers which include railroad command centers etc.

In meetings with my counter parts we have all have an issue with all of the
other system that you refer to in your E-mail. We have a working system and
we have the broadcasters on line with us and we do not need any other system
to interface with. If they want to send information into our system we will
consider that but we want no part in adding any other point of failure into
our proven and working system.

The District, State and local emergency operations centers as well as a very
large number of our partners are moving forward with this working system and
all of the other systems are behind as you see.

Also FYI 
A large number of our counter parts across the border in Canada are also
going with this system which adds to the interoperability for the US Border
States in times of an emergency.

Bill  

____________________________________________________________________________
___________-

-----Original Message-----
From: cap-list-bounces at lists.incident.com
[mailto:cap-list-bounces at lists.incident.com] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:12 AM
To: Emergency Mgt XML TC
Cc: cap-list at lists.incident.com
Subject: Re: [CAP] [emergency] NOAA Undermining International Standards?

On Jun 1, 2006, at 6/1/06 6:12 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:
> Thanks for the heads up, Art,  Can you provide the specific parts  
> of CAP that are not being implemented?

Rex -

What's really tragic here is that the problem would be trivial if it  
didn't have such lethal potential.

First off, let me stress that my concern is NOT with the various NOAA/ 
Battelle requirements that certain CAP-optional elements be treated  
as mandatory.  (E.g., while one might debate the wisdom of mandating  
use of the legacy SAME coding on such a massive scale... thus  
perpetuating SAME's obsolescent and inflexible geographic targeting  
and slowing the move to true geospatial/location-based alerting...  
it's still a legitimate "profile" requirement in terms of the CAP  
specification.)

But where HazCollect left the fold altogether was in their unilateral  
choice not to support the CAP <instruction> element.  Which means  
that a well-formed CAP message, with the hazard description in  
<description> and the safety instructions in <instruction>, would  
lose a critical part of its meaning in transiting the HazCollect  
network.  Remove the sender's instructions from a message and people  
could get killed.

The ostensible reason for this is that the existing Weather Radio and  
EAS delivery systems are limited to two minutes of audio,  
corresponding to something like 240 written words.  The HazCollect  
answer has been to truncate the <description> field at 240 words and  
to ignore the content of the <instruction> element altogether.   
Obviously it would be a simple matter to concatenate-and-trim (or  
trim-and-concatenate) the two fields, but for some reason NOAA has  
chosen consistently to make excuses ("not in the original design" /  
"no money") instead of simply writing the requisite change order.

In delving into this with various NOAA and Battelle staff, an  
underlying concern has surfaced... that the existing NOAA "weather  
wire" teletype format makes no structural distinction between the  
informational and "call to action" section of their messages.  Why  
this would matter one way or the other is unclear to me, except  
possibly as reflecting a desire not to allow anything into HazCollect  
that would make pre-existing systems look bad by comparison.

A subtle but crucial distinction is involved here, between providing  
for compatibility with legacy systems and imposing the limits of  
those legacy systems on future technologies.  The OASIS Emergency  
Management Technical Committee and its predecessor, the CAP Working  
Group, both went to great pains in designing CAP to provide for back- 
compatibility without sacrificing the design requirements we drew  
from the social science research on how effective warning systems work.

But the real issue isn't a particular design choice, it's a policy  
under which NOAA seems to be trying to rewrite the CAP specification  
without consultation or formal process.  That goes to the credibility  
of the entire standards effort.

- Art
_______________________________________________
This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.  This
list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency Management TC.
Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
CAP-list mailing list
CAP-list at lists.incident.com
http://eastpac.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list

This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any
particular program or product other than the CAP itself.