GSC Emergency Communications Task Force Report (GSC-EM TF)

1. GSC Emergency Communications Task Force Report (GSC-EM TF) Chantal Bonardi, GSC-EM Task Force Convenor GSC-18 Meeting, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis, France

2. GSC-EM TF goal, AS DEFINED INITIALLY • Goal: discover and document a coordinated approach on how to provide emergency communications before, during and after a significant disaster • Expected outcome of the GSC-EM TF: • Identify commonalities, gaps and possible overlaps of standards in each region • Catalogue of what exists in each region and what may exist tomorrow on a global scale • Collect regulatory requirements • Broad scope: Public Safety was considered in the report, and not only Emergency calls • Results of the Task Force study: report (word version) to be delivered at GSC#17 • Based on the “word” report, make suggestions to the GSC for harmonization GSC-18, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis

3. FIRST PHASE: ORGANIZATION AND ACHIEVEMENTS • First phase: from GSC-EM TF start (early 2012) to GSC#17 (May 2013) • All GSC SDOs participated: • ARIB (Japan), ATIS (United States of America), CCSA (China), ETSI (Europe), ISACC (Canada), ITU (United Nations), TIA (United States of America), TTA (Korea) and TTC (Japan), • Also input from India and on one topic from Australia, via GSC SDOs. • Dedicated mailing list: GSC-EM@LIST.ETSI.ORG • 50 people subscribed (submitted by GSC SDOs). • Monthly confcalls (from June 2012 to April 2013) • Average of 9 participants/confcall, • Aim of confcalls: discuss new input and update draft word report accordingly. • GSC-EM TF word report delivered to GSC#17: publically available and widelydistributed. • GSC#17 agreed to continue the work of the Task Force until GSC#18, in order to complete the report, like covering all the regions and main countries. GSC-18, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis

4. SECOND PHASE: ORGANIZATION • Same organization as for the first Phase: • Communication via the GSC-EM mailing list: still 50 people subscribed, • Monthly confcalls (from September 2013 to June 2014): less participation. • New contacts were provided by GSC SDOs, with the aim to get information from other countries and regions: • New contacts from: Africa, Central America (i.e. Mexico), South America (i.e. Argentina, Brazil, Caribbean, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela), Arabic States (i.e. United Arab Emirates), Asia and Pacific (i.e. Australia, Indonesia, Israel, New Zealand, Philippines, Taiwan), Commonwealth of Independent States (i.e. Russia), • These contacts were subscribed to the GSC-EM mailing list only if they were GSC SDO Members: very few were in this case, • Non-GSC SDOs Members could not attend monthly confcalls on a regular basis:the majority of our contacts were in this case. • A list of the regions/areas/countries the Task Force could cover was set up, with contacts details and status of the foreseen information delivery information. GSC-18, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis

5. SECOND PHASE: SUCCESSES AND DIFFICULTIES • What can be considered as a success? • The GSC-EM Task Force got new appropriate contacts for new regions worldwide and for a lot of new countries, • They are happy to be able to contribute • Updated information was provided by all GSC SDOs, where relevant. • What has been difficult? • It took time to find appropriate contacts, despite great efforts • It took time to make them understand what the Task Force was expecting from them, • It generated a lot of work, as the majority of them could not be subscribed to the GSC-EM mailing list, • It is a big effort for most of these new contacts to collect information and to be able to contribute on time. GSC-18, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis

6. SECOND PHASE: ACHIEVEMENTS • Information for new clauses has been provided for the following regions: • Central America, with Mexico • Arabic States, with United Arab Emirates • Asia and Pacific, with Israel and Taiwan for Public Warning System • For other regions (like Africa, South America or CIS) or countries, that were planned to be covered as well, the Task Force got appropriate and motivated contacts. • But it has not been possible to collect information within the timeframe available • Updates have been provided by all GSC SDOs to ensure the information is still accurate, and to fill in clauses that were empty in the first word report. • An updated “word” report is delivered to GSC#18 (document GSC(14)18_004), that also includes updates in the Conclusions and Suggestions clauses. • Changes in clauses 11 and 12 are indicated in blue in the further slides GSC-18, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis

7. REMINDER ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE GSC-EM TASK FORCE WORD REPORT • The 4 scenarios "in case of emergency“ were considered. • GSC SDOs’ regions were extended to other regions so now the report includes • North America, Central America, Arabic States, Asia and Pacific, and some countries for each region; and Europe • Global standards (like 3GPP and ITU standards) were also included. • Regulatory aspects per country or region are also part of the word report. • Ongoing standardization and regulation initiatives were also considered. • Future possible standards were added. • Conclusions and suggestions finalise the report. GSC-18, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis

8. CONCLUSIONS OF THE GSC-EM TF WORD REPORT OF THE SECOND PHASE (1) • Regulatory approach • Different National regulations for emergency communications exist in each of the countries covered • In some regions there is collaboration between countries for regulation • Availability of a dedicated spectrum for Public Protection and Disaster Relief is rare • In most countries this topic is under study, but not all • Availability of standards • 3 scenarios, in case of an emergency, are covered: alerting the individuals, alerting the authorities, communication between and among authorities: • All countries/regions covered have implemented the main standardized systems, but are not necessarily the same • A national or regional emergency mandated number exist (but is not the same worldwide) • 4th scenario “communications between individuals”: there are no standardized systems for this scenario. • It is worth noting that for this type of communications, today, social medias play an important role. GSC-18, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis

9. CONCLUSIONS OF THE GSC-EM TF WORD REPORT OF THE SECOND PHASE (2) • Future standards • Possible new technologies for public safety (such as Reconfigurable Radio Systems): under study at the moment, • ITU-T Focus Group on Disaster Relief Systems, Network Resilience and Recovery has finalized its study in June 2014, • This group has identified potential study areas for standardization that may lead to further work in ITU-T Study Groups, mainly SG2 and SG15, and so to possible global recommendations • Recent technologies such as LTE have been mandated for public safety in some countries (like in U.S.A.). There is increased focus on LTE in many countries, even if not mandated. • Standards cooperation • Some initiatives of SDOs cooperation already exist such as 3GPP, MESA, CMAS (Canada and U.S.A.). • Collaboration between countries or regions is very important. • Collaboration between all SDOs (and not only GSC SDOs) seems essential for a coordinated approach. • Considering the difficulty to get information from non-GSC SDOs’ countries or regions, it has to be studied what would be the best and more appropriate way. GSC-18, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis

10. Suggestions OF THE GSC-EM TF WORD REPORT OF THE SECOND PHASE (1) • Having the same system deployed everywhere in the world, for each kind of communication (such as alerting the individuals) could be an ideal solution • But regulatory requirements are different from one country/region to another • Will future technologies solve this issue, or will interoperable solutions between different systems have to be worked out? • Encourage and enhance collaboration between SDOs worldwide, and see if harmonization of standards could be better developed • Collaboration is already in place in some parts of the world where there are regional (or partly regional) approach (such as Europe and Canada/U.S.A.) • SDOs have a very good opportunity to collaborate on new capabilities and new technologies for emergency communications and public safety GSC-18, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis

11. SUGGESTIONS OF THE GSC-EM TF WORD REPORT OF THE SECOND PHASE (2) • Encourage interoperable solutions • The report provides a better knowledge of existing technologies/capabilities and gives an opportunity to work with SDOs worldwide to develop interoperable solutions where possible • In order to facilitate interoperable solutions and reduce cost and time of deployment, public safety solutions should, whenever practical, be based on global commercial standards. • SDOs are encouraged to consider • public safety support when writing standards; • and required standardization time and deployment cost. • If the GSC would like the GSC-EM Task Force to continue its work, in order to complete the “word” report (mainly with new countries and regions), the Task Force would need more time and also recommendations on how to proceed with non-GSC SDOs. GSC-18, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis

12. GSC#18 is invited to • Note the interim conclusions and suggestions in slides 8 to 11. • Encourage and enhance collaboration between SDOs worldwide, and see if harmonization of Standards could be better developed. • Encourage interoperable solutions based on global commercial standards. • Give more time and guidance to the GSC-EM Task Force to enable it to complete its “word” report (see document GSC(14)18_004). GSC-18, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis

13. Special thanks to the participants of this Task Force who have provided the new contacts, and have worked hard to try to get information on time! Contact Details: chantal.bonardi@etsi.org Thank you! GSC-18, 22-23 July 2014, Sophia Antipolis