CANADIAN ALERTING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS RICHARD MOREAU, CHIEF - INTEROPERABILITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE DOUG ALLPORT, SENIOR ADVISOR, ACTING GENERAL MANAGER – MASAS MAY 1, 2012

PRESENTATION Canadian policy considerations Public alerting Alerting between officials

SHARED GOVERNANCE FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL Public alerting CAP – Canadian Profile (CAP-CP) Multi-Agency Situational Awareness System Others

LANGUAGE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

PROXIMITY TO THE UNITED STATES

NATIONAL (PUBLIC) ALERT AGGREGATION AND DISSEMINATION SYSTEM (NAADS) Privately owned Result of regulatory decision/considerations Public/private governance council Pelmorex (The Weather Network/MétéoMedia) Federal, provincial and territorial alerting authorities Broadcasters CAPAN

PUBLIC ALERTING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Broadcast Intrusive List Table of event, urgency, severity and certainty combinations Owned by federal, provincial and territorial group Common Look and Feel Broadcast crawler length, tone, colour, audio length, quality, content Led by province, with public and private participants Issuer Rights One of 140 event types, one or more levels of severity, for a single town, township, city, etc. Managed by provinces using NAADS interface

CANADA-U.S. POLICY TO BE DEVELOPED Beyond the Border Action Plan Page 25: “The second working Group will focus on cross-border interoperability as a means of harmonizing cross-border emergency communications efforts. It will pursue activities that promote the harmonization of the Canadian Multi-Agency Situational Awareness System with the United States Integrated Public Alert and Warning System to enable sharing of alert, warning, and incident information to improve response coordination during binational disasters.”

MULTI-AGENCY SITUATIONAL AWARENESS SYSTEM INFORMATION EXCHANGE

WHAT IS AN ENTRY? Less than an alert Reduces over-alerting Provides an alternative for those who are not allowed to issue an alert Use case: Issue CAP alert that shelters are open Identify shelter locations with an Entry, and update them regularly without issuing alert updates, hourly per location, for example.

SCOPE POLICY Restricted access Hub: “the break-out room” MASAS-X Common Hub Moving from restricting what we share to restricting what we don’t! Road closures, severe weather, check points, area of operation, command posts, plumes, evacuation zone, shelter water stations, shelter status, staging area, Supply depot, live cameras, media events, sensors, sitreps, earthquakes, space weather,...

AUTHENTICATION CONSIDERATIONS 1.We authenticate agencies, they manage authority. 1.We will give them the opportunity to configure user accounts for their agency. Ex: “Read Only”, “Training Mode Only”. 2.NGO’s must be “endorsed” by a public agency to gain access.

FUNDING Currently operates a s a federally funded “Pilot” Transition to a cost-shared model is currently under study

OWNERSHIP POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Alternatives have been studied and are now under review May be owned and managed by a co-operative Every user is a member subject to common “evergreen” bylaws “Membership” agreement instead of “Participation” or “Service” agreements

MORE DETAILS IN PRESENTATION LATER, AND DEMONSTRATION THURSDAY