United States Joint Forces Command Joint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E)

1. United States Joint Forces Command Joint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E) Interagency and Multinational Information Sharing Architecture and Solutions (IMISAS) Technology Elements of Solutions Breakout Session 9 December 2010 Mr. Stan Howard, CTR Teledyne CollaborX IMISAS Project Technology Lead Joint Concept Development & Experimentation USJFCOM, J9

2. Requirements • COCOMs require a validated UIS Operating Concept. • COCOMs require Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) to implement the UIS Operating Concept. • COCOMs require a uniform interpretation of policies. • COCOMs require policies which balance enclave security concerns with UIS policy intent. • COCOMs require standing UIS protocols and procedures for engagement with UIS enduring partners.

3. Requirements • COCOMs require standing UIS protocol and procedure templates to support rapid integration with non-enduring and ad hoc mission partners. • COCOMs require a guidebook for cultural engagement with enduring UIS partners, particularly NGOs and IOs. • COCOMs require continuing enhancement of UIS information  and collaboration tools while a unifying technical solution is implemented. • COCOMs require a web based Unclassified Information Sharing Capability (UISC) that accommodates multimedia information sharing and collaboration among the spectrum of potential mission partners to include both real and virtual members.

4. Requirements • COCOMs require a collaborative portal which is available via the internet. COCOMs require a UIS portal which is centrally funded and provisioned to ensure uninterrupted service across all DoD enclaves. • COCOMs require a UISC that supports both enduring and ad hoc communities. • COCOMs require a UISC that supports both enduring and ad hoc communities. • COCOMs require a UISC that is rapidly scalable without losing information sharing and collaboration functionalities.

5. Requirements • COCOMs require an automated cross-domain capability from existing Secret Internet protocol Router Network (SIPRnet) and the Nonsecure Internet Protocol Routing Network (NIPRnet) to the UIS portal to enable agile information sharing and collaboration. • COCOMs require a UIS portal capability that integrates/federates synchronous, asynchronous, and multi mode services, including language translation, display fusion, social media integration and collaboration services. • COCOMs require a UIS portal emphasizing open source software, enterprise business practices, and modularity which permits integration and federation of rapidly emerging social networks and IO/NGO enclave systems. 7.)

6. Requirements • COCOMs require a UISC with sufficient interoperability at link, transport, network, and application layer. • COCOMs require a UISC that enables mobile terminal device users through synchronization services, Geographic Information System integration, sufficient application support for minimal portal collaboration, and a connection interface facilitating low cost bulk provision of devices. • COCOMs require a UISC that accommodates through physical or procedural mechanisms, information exchange with non-IP networks such as High Frequency packet or other data signaling protocols, radio voice nets, telephonic information, or face-to-face networks.

7. Requirements • COCOMs require a Knowledge Management/Information Management (KM/IM) UIS portal structure that reduces learning/training requirements for intended users. • COCOMs require clear and simplified lines of authority for managing information sharing risk and adjudicating competing DoD guidance for information release • COCOMs require procedural enablers to make UIS training more efficient and effective, accelerate user access to information, and empower KM/IM (i.e., document retention policy, metadata policy, library structure, document content and labeling standards, file and folder naming conventions, user friendliness, disaster recovery plan, prime source designation, access and control rules for information, help desk provisioning, action tracking, and version control).

8. United States Joint Forces Command Joint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E) Interagency and Multinational Information Sharing Architecture and Solutions (IMISAS) Technology Gap Validation and Prioritization Breakout Session 8 December 2010 Mr. Stan Howard, CTR Teledyne CollaborX IMISAS Project Technology Lead Joint Concept Development & Experimentation USJFCOM, J9

9. “.mil” Information Security Domain(s) JWICS SIPRNet DoE, DoJ NIPRNet COI Policy Lines .gov Commercial Internet ISPs All Internet Users (Good & Bad guys) UISUnclassified Info Systems

10. Commercial Designed Environments ~ Open Architecture DoD Designed Environments ~ Closed Architecture UIS Un-Class Collaborative Information Environment(s) Top Secret Networks ~ JWICS Secret Networks ~ SIPRNet Non-Secure Networks ~ NIPRNet gw Alliance and Coalition Multiple Classification Networks Partners Internet NGOs

11. IMISAS Technology Focus Areas • Geo-Spatial Information/UDOP/SA  • Translation • Identity Management • Disadvantaged User • Cross Domain

12. Technical Gaps (1) • A lack of common suite of information sharing tools results in a decrease in information sharing and often delays needed information exchange. 

13. Technical Gaps (2) • UIS web tool suites lack agility and dynamic scalability, limiting the range of operations that can be easily accommodated

14. Technical Gaps (3) • The UISC environment lacks a data sharing standard and system (or system of systems) for source vetting and identity management. 

15. Technical Gaps (4) • Enhancements are needed to ensure current language translation tools are available to increase fidelity to multiple geographic regions and associated languages and dialects. 

16. Technical Gaps (5) • Areas of responsibility have differing levels of infrastructure maturity, leading to interoperability shortfalls at link, internet, and transport layers, adversely impacting the geographic transportability of a physical information sharing solution. 

17. Technical Gaps (6) • Varying levels of infrastructure models dictate a disadvantaged user approach to be able to effectively share information in each model.

18. Technical Gaps (7) • Web portal accessibility is heavily dependent upon the integrity of supporting physical infrastructure, which may be absent or severely limited during natural disasters; in such cases, the IP component of the physical information sharing solution could be unavailable, or nearly so.

19. Technical Gaps (8) • A clear definition of the disadvantaged user community and the capabilities to support that user group is required.

20. Technical Gaps (9) • A single physical location of web hosting creates a single source point of failure for the UIS portal that jeopardizes COCOM’s continuity of operations.

21. Technical Gaps (10) • Information sharing between DoD and NGOs/PVOs is impeded by the incompatibility of the DoD’s hierarchical information exchange systems and the ad-hoc, decentralized processes of the latter. 

22. Technical Gaps (11) • Information management schemes are inconsistent among existing web portal implementations, leading to needless duplication of information, inefficient searches, lapses in event coordination, poor presentation of information to target audiences, and general information overload.

23. Technical Gaps (12) • Availability of government-provided imagery products is inconsistent, thus reducing the ability to dynamically respond to HA/DR operations and partner requests. 

24. Technical Gaps (13) • Diverse military culture and operational constraints among COCOMs necessitate work on both classified and unclassified government networks, as well as unclassified domains accessed via civilian internet service providers. Manual cross domain transfer mechanisms currently in place are cumbersome and inefficient, adversely affecting operations.

25. Technical Gaps (14) • Current UIS web tool suites give the appearance of demanding intrusive personal data requirements for access, a fact that potentially discourages new or non-traditional users from participation. COCOMs need an information- sharing web tool that limits demands for intrusive personal data in order to join a particular forum.

26. Technical Gaps (15) • The current UIS concept needs to both consider and include the Nontraditional Community of Interest (NTCI) participants’ operational processes in order to mitigate their and the COCOM’s perception of info sharing obstacles.

27. Technical Gaps (16) • A distributed architecture is required to mitigate service delays and loss of data from interruptions and time outs.

28. Technical Gaps (17) • Plans and procedures are required to implement emergency infrastructure in the event that disaster reduces capability of current systems.

29. Cross-Domain Solutions Reviewed

30. Knowledge Management Tools Reviewed

31. Collaboration Suites Reviewed

32. Identity Management