Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

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.

Brian

On 4/7/10 3:48 PM, "ken carlberg" <carlberg@g11.org.uk> 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
> earlywarning@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning