Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

"DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <> Wed, 07 April 2010 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04DE3A659A for <>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L8-ATcpn2nby for <>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642793A67A1 for <>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: []
Received: (qmail 29608 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2010 20:06:51 -0000
Received: from (HELO ( by with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Apr 2010 20:06:51 -0000
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o37K6oHk003579; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:06:50 -0500
Received: from td03xsmtp006.US.Cingular.Net ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o37K6g4C003408; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:06:42 -0500
Received: from BD01XSMTP003.US.Cingular.Net ([]) by td03xsmtp006.US.Cingular.Net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:06:42 -0500
Received: from BD01MSXMB016.US.Cingular.Net ([]) by BD01XSMTP003.US.Cingular.Net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:06:40 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:06:39 -0700
Message-ID: <FDFC6E6B2064844FBEB9045DF1E3FBBC4F8133@BD01MSXMB016.US.Cingular.Net>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
thread-index: AcrWjOnQzIrOmfkWpkW9AHUa9LM3sQAADURQ
References: <> <>
To: "Brian Rosen" <>, "ken carlberg" <>, "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Apr 2010 20:06:40.0820 (UTC) FILETIME=[D6566740:01CAD68D]
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 20:06:56 -0000

Absolutely false!!

You have no clue what the incoming emergency call is about - it could be
a kitty in the tree call, as you put it, or it could be "I just had a
heart attack and need help immediately".

An authority to citizen "call" should never take priority over a citizen
to authority, and this is regulated ni the FCC rules for CMAS.

And your typhoon analogy proves the point - a typhoon is known several
days in advance, while you have minutes to take action on a heart

Brian Daly

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Brian Rosen
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:00 PM
To: ken carlberg; SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig;
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

Generally, it's not a good idea for any service to impede any other
but we don't have to say that all the time.  Here, I think we don't have
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
that's just me.

ATOCA may or may not be a replacement for something that exists.  Agree
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
>> technology to provide emergency services to the citizens (e.g. 9-1-1
>> calls) or to provide communication services to first responders or
>> authorized emergency services personnel.  Additionally, ATOCA is not
>> replacement solution for any authority to citizen alerting supported
>> 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
> individuals who make a claim that an ATOCA solution adversely affects
> type calls will be required to prove it instead of simply stating a
> as for the second sentence, that is out of scope of the IETF.  any
> of what is considered an ATOCA solution is a market decision.
> -ken
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list

earlywarning mailing list