[Ecrit] R: country specific emergency URNs

[Procopio Roberto <[e-mail]>]

Dear All,

I share the points raised by Vasil. In some of the emails below I red that a way forward could be to identify a reasonable mapping between an emergency service and the related sos urns. I don’t think that this is a good way forward. The reason is that this way forward requires a consolidation of emergency service requirements among different countries and this requires a deep understanding of the emergency services definition in each country.

Simply looking at the emergency services collected in the table shared by Vasil, it can be understood that services having the same name can have different requirements in different countries. This mistmatch generates problems in the emergency service operation as showed in the example raised by Vasil (e.g. roaming, borders). If we look at future possible deployments of mobile networks, we can also find other scenarios (such as cross-national MVNO) where is crucial to identify exactly one specific emergency service in one country.

Therefore in my opinion is very important to guarantee the flexibility in the naming definition of the sos urns. As Vasil said, this flexibility was one of the reasons behind the proposal of the country specific emergency URN.

BR
Roberto

Da: Ecrit [mailto:[e-mail]] Per conto di Aleksiev, Vasil
Inviato: martedì 11 luglio 2017 10:36
A: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: [e-mail]
Oggetto: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

Hello,
I do not agree with your interpretation of emergency services. In one country only the local authority can define what are the emergency services. Since there is law saying that 147 Telefonseelsorge is emergency service, it shall be treated as such. Regarding the vehicle with flashing lights dispatched – you cannot guarantee for that the respective operator on 147 will not send the police for example via its own channel if this is needed. So in my understanding the approach shall be based on local law. Regarding the benefits in routing of having all the emergency services in one country under sos subspace I have given examples already. In the file that I have send I have added only the emergency services for Austria with the respective link to the written law. The same is done from other 3GPP CT1 delegates who have given the info regarding the other countries in the file. Ecrit experts can check the links and read the respective law requirements written in the languages of the respective country.
Regarding 197 service, the original name of the service of the name in French is: Alerte attentat – Alerte enlèvement from the provided link with written law. So I suppose this is a little bit different meaning from what is written as translation – according to Google it is more regarding alert abduction and attack. It was filled in the file from Orange delegate in 3GPP CT1, so I suppose more explanation from her will follow. If there is Ecrit expert speaking French, he can also help.
The list is present already – done with help of 3GPP CT1 delegates from the respective countries, but only some countries in Europe present there. It is seen from the list that consolidation between different countries is not so simple and it cannot be done without reading the law of the respective country on the respective language.
I consider talking with regulator not so easy – it has to be done via the official channels. I expect the regulator, when wants to start a new service, to have a meeting with all the operators present in one country and to discuss the details about. On such meeting every operator can state its opinion and discuss the requirements and possibilities. The requirements for the solution will be finalised and then the regulator can publish the respective law. Gathering such meeting is not in mine authorities. The result of talking only with some of the attending parties in process will be only speculation regarding a future decision. I am also not sure if this is the process in every country.
That is why 3GPP CT1 tried to register country specific emergency URN as a simple solution for countries where the emergency services are different from the common ones.

Best regards,

Vasil

Von: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[e-mail]]
Gesendet: Montag, 10. Juli 2017 14:45
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

We can't predict what unknown third parties, such as regulators, will do, but since registrations of sos URNs is not a high-effort project, we can always go back and try again. I think it is incumbent upon standards organizations to explain that these are "mechanical" protocol constants, not user interface elements.

The most productive way forward would be to enumerate the services by description (and, for concreteness, the [short code] number and country) and whether these services are meant as emergency services (i.e., a vehicle with flashing lights get dispatched) or as counseling (i.e., somebody provides advice or information over the phone, with no expectation that anything or anyone is dispatched to your location). That way, we can collectively judge which ones are sufficiently similar and avoid any collisions, as well as judge whether a hierarchical label is useful. As I mentioned, the goal is collision avoidance within a country and rough categorization, without worrying about fine details. (After all, we don't get too concerned for 112/911 of how each country or region organizes their fire brigades and whether dispatch is done across services, integrated or separated by service.)

From your note, it is clear that we're lacking an authoritative description in some cases. For example, I admit that I don't understand the 197 service (why would children call in terrorism alerts?). I'm afraid in some cases, nuance or substance has been lost in translation (literally, in some cases).

Since you seem to have a good list of emergency services, maybe you can get this started and others can chime in. Again, I wouldn't worry about the labels at this point as that is probably more of a distraction.

In some cases, I think it would be helpful to have somebody with local knowledge contribute, possibly after consulting with local authorities.

Henning

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi to all,

In my first bullet regarding unique emergency URN I have given the example with differences between IMS and CS and to show that emergency numbers are handled differently and also to show the roaming treatment. For every emergency number defined by regulator it is needed to have sos domain. Sos triggers the respective routing with emergency category and this is different from the CS treatment where some numbers currently are not handled as emergency and detected as such on a later stage. I am glad to understand that this is also the view of ECRIT and for every emergency service defined by local law there shall be sos definition.

In my second bullet regarding difficulties of consolidating services in different nations I have given examples of 142 – Telefonseelsorge (telephone soul care), 106 – Mental problems hotline. Just looking to the names - the services look quite similar, so how these two services will be named under sos? Sos.soulcare and sos.mentalhealth?
197 – Terror Alert – Child Alert in France – I suppose the name shall be sos.terror-child? I think somebody from France should explain the specifics regarding this emergency service.
114- Child emergency in Italy – here is easy – sos.children.

In my third bullet regarding counselling services in one country considered as emergency in other I have given examples of 147 and [phone]<tel:+49%20800%201110333>. I suppose 147 (emergency service for children and youth) shall be sos.children-and-youth. The service does not have the same name as 114- child emergency in Italy. [phone]<tel:+49%20800%201110333> shall be counseling.children.

In my fourth bullet regarding the will of the local regulator – I fully agree that the urns may even look like sos.1, sos.2, sos.3, sos.4 … But the problem might be that the local regulator does not think so. Till now in Austria there is no law regarding routing of IMS emergency calls, but when it is written it could be written inside that urns shall be sos.telefonseelsorge, sos.kinder.147.

I see a problem with that I am not authorized to make registrations regarding emergency URNs – I am not representing the regulator or the other operators in the respective countries.
Of course I could try to define sos.children and I agree that this will be enough, but if the regulator later decides that this is not ok?

Best regards,

Vasil


__________________________________________________________________________________________
Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, destroy all
copies from your system and do not disclose or use the information for any purpose.
Diese E-Mail inklusive aller Anhaenge ist vertraulich und koennte bevorrechtigtem
Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat sind, informieren Sie
bitte den Absender unverzueglich, loeschen Sie alle Kopien von Ihrem System und
veroeffentlichen Sie oder nutzen Sie die Information keinesfalls, gleich zu welchem Zweck.

Think before you print!

T-Mobile Austria GmbH
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dr. Andreas Bierwirth (Vorsitzender), Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Rolf Nafziger (Vorsitzender)
Firmenbuch: Handelsgericht Wien, Sitz Wien, FN 171112k, UID ATU 45011703, DVR 0898295
Konto: UniCredit Bank Austria AG IBAN: AT93 1200 0528 4407 2301, BIC: BKAUATWW

T-Mobile – Das verbindet uns.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. 

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. 

Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.