Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

I think that the relative priority of "citizen to authority", "authority 
to citizen", "authority to authority",  and even "citizen to citizen" 
needs to be a matter of "local policy", and independent of any IETF 
defined mechanism.

Janet

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. 
NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to 
any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement 
or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such 
purpose.

From:
"DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <BD2985@att.com>
To:
"Brian Rosen" <br@brianrosen.net>, "ken carlberg" <carlberg@g11.org.uk>, 
"SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)" <DS2225@att.com>
Cc:
Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, earlywarning@ietf.org
Date:
04/07/2010 04:06 PM
Subject:
Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

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
attack.

Brian Daly

-----Original Message-----
From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
[mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Rosen
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:00 PM
To: ken carlberg; SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; earlywarning@ietf.org
Subject: 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

_______________________________________________
earlywarning mailing list
earlywarning@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
_______________________________________________
earlywarning mailing list
earlywarning@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning