Re: RESEND RE: [Ieprep] Another version of a potential IEPREP charter (UNCLASSIFIED)

Janet P Gunn <> Fri, 07 July 2006 21:58 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyyLG-0000q6-HL; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:58:30 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyyLF-0000pn-89 for; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:58:29 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyyLD-0005GT-Vz for; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:58:29 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k67LwNsW015590; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:58:23 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: Re: RESEND RE: [Ieprep] Another version of a potential IEPREP charter (UNCLASSIFIED)
To: "Perschau, Stephen CIV NCS NC2" <>
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes 652HF83 November 04, 2004
Message-ID: <>
From: Janet P Gunn <>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:58:17 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 6.5.3|September 14, 2004) at 07/07/2006 05:57:16 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7fa173a723009a6ca8ce575a65a5d813
Cc:, ken carlberg <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

My comments on the first part.

* on the lines I changed




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.

"Perschau, Stephen CIV NCS NC2" <> wrote on
07/07/2006 01:29:37 PM:

> Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
> Sorry for having to resend this but the text deletions/modifications in
> Ken's proposed text did not go through as highlighted.  Ignore the
> previous email.
> Stephen Perschau
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Perschau, Stephen CIV NCS NC2
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 1:05 PM
> To: ken carlberg
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Another version of a potential IEPREP charter
> Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
> Essentially accept Ken's proposal with some modifications.  Still do not
> like the text that Ken didn't modify so my suggested changes are
> provided.  Hopefully the strikeouts and additions are visible.  This
> proposed text brings the charter in line with the deliverables and makes
> it clear that the focus is on MLPP for managed IP networks and public
> networks where permissible by regulations/law.
> Stephen Perschau
> <Text Proposed By
> Carlberg>---------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------
> Internet Prioritization and Preparedness (IEPREP) Charter
*> Prioritization involves identifying communications that have authorized
access to preferential treatment.

> Communities of interest have viewed prioritization as one step in
> facilitating response and recovery operations during emergencies/
*> disasters, or in other occasions where ordinary communications are
likely to fail
*>  and a particular sets of authorized users (e.g., first responders,
chain of command
*>  have a need to obtain  a service that might not otherwise be available.
*> These circumstance may involve communications over the Internet or
private IP
> networks/intranets.
*Delete> Natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and
*Delete> created by man (e.g., terrorist attacks, wartime events) may occur
*Delete> any time.
*> These users require
> immediate access to available telecommunications resources. These
> resource include not only: conventional telephone, cellular phones, and
> Internet access via online terminals, IP telephones, and wireless PDAs
> but also access to available network resources (e.g., bandwidth).
*> Both the commercial telecommunications infrastructure and
*> telecommunications infrastructures are  rapidly evolving to
*> Internet-based technology. The Internet community needs to consider how
> its protocols can support prioritized communications in these contexts.

*> There are different ways to provide prioritization: (1) in some contexts
> engineering or schemas that improve the probability of
*> establishing/maintaining communications during times of stress are
appropriate,  (2) in other contexts a
> more binary approach of displacing or preempting lower priority
*> communications is appropriate.
> <Text Proposed by
> Carlberg>---------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------

Ieprep mailing list