1. 1 Presented by Dan Bart, Breakout Session Moderator December 14, 2005 Introduction to Breakout Session #3 Government-to-Individuals/Organizations

2. Breakout #3 Intro December 14, 2005 Slide 2 G-to-I/O Issues Discussed Need for clear decision points for dissemination and triggering devices. Compatibility of message to be disseminated (e.g., length of character packet strings and information imparted) and ability to deliver to appropriate geographic location of emergency (e.g., cell site(s) localization via Geographic Information System (GIS). Sensitivity from carriers over identification of cell site locations. Voluntary (citizen) nature of citizens receiving alerts. Are some alerts mandatory for the public good, and others can be discretionary?

3. Breakout #3 Intro December 14, 2005 Slide 3 G-to-I/O Issues Discussed Determine need for carrier-agreed standards for universal messaging capability/ability. Concerns (costs, population-related needs) by local governments (rural vs. urban) over deployment of G-to-I/O communication capabilities that allow for other technologies than mass media. Benefits of increased capabilities not well- known in many local jurisdictions (traditional Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) vs. enhanced EAS capabilities for G-to- I/O alerting). Number of devices that could receive message by government? Diminished return if too many devices for one contact vs. time taken away from alerting other contacts?

4. Breakout #3 Intro December 14, 2005 Slide 4 G-to-I/O Issues Discussed Automation of dissemination process to activate messaging capability. Timing (after what point is alert not valid—priority status and length of time for message attempts) FCC Emergency Alert System (EAS) NPRM—Comments did not include discussion on consequences of technology utilized. Government comments center around jurisdiction issues. Maximize utilization of networks (voice vs. data). Short data- centric messages more likely to get through and, thus, likely to notify more citizens.

5. Breakout #3 Intro December 14, 2005 Slide 5 G-to-I/O Issues Discussed Keep information succinct (thus, standardized message bit size). Standardized nomenclature needed. Utilize multiplicity of technological delivery platforms.  Don’t put all eggs in one basket. Mass public warnings vs. regulation of technology that impacts an individual. Clear delineation between local, state and Federal alerting levels.

6. Breakout #3 Intro December 14, 2005 Slide 6 G-to-I/O Needs/GAPs Discussed Geographic Information System (GIS) data need  Use geographic technology to limit message dissemination to affected people. Standard for information (format and type) to be disseminated and proper/adequate dissemination/notification. Consideration for persons with disabilities and need for multi- lingual message formats. Extension of EAS event codes to cover other events, categories or needs. Tagging of messages to indicate emergency alert status across network? CTIA should investigate the need/value of standardized SMS message length by either harmonizing length, or using a least common denominator length for Emergency Communications SMS messages.  That is, default to shortest length currently widely deployed.

7. Breakout #3 Intro December 14, 2005 Slide 7 G-to-I/O cross-cutting breakout issues and groups to involve in next meeting Prioritize capacity.  Data more likely to get through vs voice.  Recent London bombing reports confirmed this. Technology should address disability and multi-lingual issues. Should be looking across all areas for Next-Generation technologies. Groups to invite next time:  Satellite community, CTIA, CEA, FCC, NTIA, ARRL, state and local government CIOs/emergency managers [International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) and NEMA], Arlington, VA Alert System, possibly others.  Want presentations on NIMS, NRP, NIPP, Regional Technology Integration (RTI) DHS S/T.  Review Amber Alerts infrastructure