[CAP] GAO Report on Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS)

Thu Oct 1 09:49:12 PDT 2009

David,

There's more.  Having the semantics (data dictionary) for alerting
messages defined is unquestionably important.  But the federal
government is speaking with multiple voices on the comms system that
would haul such messages around too.  

Here's a place to pick up on the thread:

-------------------------

Released:  09/28/2009.  ADDITIONAL COMMENT SOUGHT ON PUBLIC SAFETY,
HOMELAND SECURITY, AND CYBERSECURITY ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL BROADBAND
PLAN. (DA No.  09-2133). (Dkt No 94-102 09-137 06-229 07-100 09-47
06-150 05-196 07-114 09-51 )  NBP Public Notice # 8, PLEADING CYCLE
ESTABLISHED. Comments Due:  11/12/2009.  WCB . Contact:  Jennifer A.

Manner at (202) 418-3619

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2133A1.doc

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2133A1.pdf

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2133A1.txt

------------------------

What you have at the federal government level is a reprise of the
bellhead / nethead schism elsewhere in the industry.  The DHS grant web
site for communications has P25 smeared all over it -- a rather
unsuitable, circuit-switch vehicle for transport of CAP messages that
only reaches to EMS, not citizenry.

Meanwhile over in another part of the federal government you have the
National Broadband Plan.  $7.2B of grant money; a third of which is in
USDA ('broadband' and 'reach to rural') and two thirds in Commerce
(NTIA) ('broadband' and 'underserved').  (The 'quotes' because that's
the language in the legislation and it's not defined).
	And FCC is charged with drafting the National Broadband Plan.  The clip
above refers to that.  The FCC paper mill is clearly on the track of
extending the internet, which means that it's very appropriate for
transport of CAP messages.  (FCC has had a definitional problem with
'broadband' but it's pretty clear that the radio-WAN technology will be
IEEE 802.16 and/or LTE, both of which are routable networks).  

Context for the above clip.   FCC had a Notice of Inquiry running in
spring/early summer on the National Broadband Plan (their deadline to
Congress is next Feb).  Apparently FCC grasped that internet 'reach to
rural' and reach to emergency services overlapped heavily and it doesn't
make much sense to erect two infrastructures.  (Emergency services was a
also-ran in the original NOI).  And that next generation 911 (and cyber
security) is central part of the problem and does not belong off in some
other corner of their bureaucracy.

On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 08:44 -0700, David E. Price, SRO, CHMM wrote:
> This report is very critical of FEMA and DHS inaction and lack of 
> progress. It mentions CAP several times.
> 
> David E. Price  SRO, CHMM
> Senior Consequence Analyst for Special Projects, CBRNE
>    (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, and Explosives Accident/Safety Analyses)
> Counterproliferation & Operational Intelligence Support
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> P. O. Box 808  L-073
> Livermore, CA  USA  94551
> ======================================
> Emergency Preparedness: Improved Planning and Coordination Necessary 
> for Development of Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, 
> GAO-09-1044T, September 30, 2009
> 
> <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d091044t.pdf>
> 
> "IPAWS will make use of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), which is 
> an open, non-proprietary digital message standard compatible with 
> multiple applications and telecommunication methods. CAP has been 
> developed for use by emergency management officials in sending all 
> types of alert messages and can be used as a single input to activate 
> multiple warning systems. FEMA-required by the executive order to 
> adopt alert standards and protocols-intends to adopt CAP and to 
> publish its IPAWS CAP Profile standard.
> 
> "FEMA began initiatives related to IPAWS in 2004, yet national-level 
> alert capabilities have remained unchanged and new standards and 
> technologies have not been adopted. IPAWS has operated without a 
> consistent strategic vision and has been adversely affected by 
> shifting program vision, lack of continuity in planning and program 
> direction, and poorly organized program information from which to 
> make management decisions. Therefore, as state and local governments 
> are developing their alert systems, IPAWS program implementation has 
> stalled and many of its functional goals have yet to reach 
> operational capacity. Additionally, FEMA's investment in the IPAWS 
> pilot projects-seed initiatives intended to test alert technologies 
> and form the foundation of IPAWS-has resulted in few lessons learned 
> and few advances in alert and warning systems. Furthermore, FEMA does 
> not report on IPAWS spending or progress in achieving goals, which 
> limits transparency and accountability for program results.
> 
> "Additionally, local officials we surveyed had little to no 
> communication with FEMA, were generally unaware of the IPAWS program, 
> and overall, lacked an understanding of the CAP alert standard. "
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.incident.com/pipermail/cap-list/attachments/20091001/82edc72a/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting Protocol.  This list is NOT part of the formal record of the OASIS Emergency Management TC.  Comments for the OASIS record should be posted using the form at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=emergency
> CAP-list mailing list
> CAP-list at lists.incident.com
> http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
> 
> This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of any particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
-- 
Rex Buddenberg
Naval Postgraduate School
Code IS/Bu
Monterey, Ca 93943
831/656-3576