Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Concerning the 197 service in France for Terror Alert – Child Alert, it is a single number for 2 very different purposes: the abduction alert AND the terrorist attack alert.
There is a single number because it is related to a dedicated procedures that can be launched including radio and TV programs interruption for alerting people and other national security procedures.

Best regards,
Marianne

De : Ecrit [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Aleksiev, Vasil
Envoyé : mardi 11 juillet 2017 10:36
À : Henning Schulzrinne
Cc : [e-mail]
Objet : 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.