Could someone
please explain why they see a conflict of interests here? Whose interests
are deemed to be in conflict, and how exactly might that affect the
content and the progression of the specification(s)?
Alessandro
From: Renato Iannella
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009
20:25
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: [emergency]
FEMA IPAWS Note on CAP Profile
On 20 Feb 2009, at 05:12, Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL wrote:
It is
FEMA’s responsibility to publish its standards and protocols. FEMA
will consider and adjudicate the OASIS IPAWS CAP Profile as appropriate in
preparation for its adoption of standards and protocols for the
Next-Generation EAS. FEMA recognizes that the FCC’s
2nd R&O does
not require standards and protocols to be published at this time regarding
security, multiple languages, alerts & warnings of special needs
communities, or of video media types. Hence, we feel that it is
reasonable to consider adopting the OASIS IPAWS CAP Profile as part of its
pending standards and protocols. Note, however, in accordance with
statements made publicly, that FEMA intends on pursuing the development of
additional requirements to address any outstanding issues for NG-EAS
systems.
Interesting comment; "FEMA will consider and adjudicate the OASIS
IPAWS CAP Profile"....
Let me ask this rudimentary (if not controversial :-)
question....why is there an IPAWS CAP profile being developed by OASIS?:
As a national profile - it should be the responsibility of FEMA (or
whoever is the responsible party in the USA) and if you need it
"standardised", then take it to NISO.
My recommendations to EMA (here in Australia) was for the AU CAP Profile
to be created and managed by EMA and, if necessary, taken to "Standards
Australia" for formal adoption.
I don't think there is any other OASIS standard that is specific to a
country?
Cheers... Renato Iannella
NICTA
