Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

You mention a list (or lists) that you and others have compiled. Can you
point at it (or attach the documents or presentations) as I'm afraid I
don't have a good place to look?

One of the advantages that we have on this mailing list is that we can
indeed draw on the expertise of a wide variety of international experts.

I also don't understand your comment regarding 147. I thought we had agreed
that if a service exists as an emergency service, it will be added as an
SOS URN, even if there's already a counseling version that's somewhat
similar. Again, the user expectation should guide this since the goal is to
fall back to something that the user isn't (too) surprised by if the
service does not exist.

For France, the law seems to be at
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000030973250

Interestingly, the link (via Google Translate) offers the following helpful
advice:
"Finally, without calling into question the need of the Ministry of the
Interior, the majority of contributions reminds us of the inefficiency and
the risk of confusion associated with the multiplication of emergency
numbers. Some operators reiterate the request made by the French Telecom
Federation during the previous consultation of a reflection on the
rationalization of emergency numbers."

>From what I can tell, 197 is a number that combines two services, namely
for citizens calling in information about an attack or a child abduction.
The number is only activated after an incident and is otherwise dormant. In
the US, we call them "tip lines" (although they are used for crimes in
general, not just the two special cases). See
http://www.secourisme.net/spip.php?breve412&lang=fr

Henning

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[e-mail]
> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>