Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

Brian Rosen <> Wed, 07 April 2010 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D0813A68F9 for <>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.965
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VsR2+4Pjjzdg for <>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5723A67A4 for <>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1NzbQ3-00087I-Gy; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:00:12 -0500
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:00:04 -0400
From: Brian Rosen <>
To: ken carlberg <>, "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
Thread-Index: AcrWjOnQzIrOmfkWpkW9AHUa9LM3sQ==
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <>,
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for Authority-to-Individuals \(Early Warning\) Emergency " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:00:29 -0000

Generally, it's not a good idea for any service to impede any other service,
but we don't have to say that all the time.  Here, I think we don't have to
discuss how authority to citizen should be prioritized over citizen to
authority.  I rather suspect that an outgoing warning of an impending
typhoon is more important that an incoming kitty-in-the-tree call, but maybe
that's just me.

ATOCA may or may not be a replacement for something that exists.  Agree with
Ken, the market (and in this case, likely governments) will decide.

So I would not want to see this text in the charter.


On 4/7/10 3:48 PM, "ken carlberg" <> wrote:

> On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:30 AM, SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW) wrote:
>> "The ATOCA solutions will not adversely affect the ability of any access
>> technology to provide emergency services to the citizens (e.g. 9-1-1
>> calls) or to provide communication services to first responders or other
>> authorized emergency services personnel.  Additionally, ATOCA is not
>> replacement solution for any authority to citizen alerting supported by
>> any access technology."
> given the previous thread on this list, I'm a bit leery of that first
> sentence.  But, if it were agreed to add it in, then I would expect the
> individuals who make a claim that an ATOCA solution adversely affects 9-1-1
> type calls will be required to prove it instead of simply stating a position.
> as for the second sentence, that is out of scope of the IETF.  any deployment
> of what is considered an ATOCA solution is a market decision.
> -ken
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list