Jason Barbour, ENP President

Robert L. Martin Executive Director

2006 PROGRAM PARTNERS 911 Enable Alliance of Information & Referral Systems

American Association of Poison Control Centers

AT&T

Bright House Networks Cingular Wireless

COMCARE Emergency Response Alliance Cyren Call

Emergitech

HBF Group, Inc. Illinois Chapter of NENA/APCO

InterAct Public Safety Systems

Intrado L. Robert Kimball & Associates

Level 3 Communications

Logistic Systems MapInfo

Motorola

National Academies of Emergency Dispatch

Neustar

OnStar Pictometry International Corp.

Positron Public Safety Systems

Qwest Rosum

Sprint Nextel

Suddenlink SunRocket

TCI

TCS Texas 9-1-1 Alliance

Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications T-Mobile

TruePosition

Verizon Vonage Holdings

WirelessWERX

Dr. Bob Cobb Development Director/Program Mgr

NATIONAL EMERGENCY NUMBER ASSOCIATION

4350 North Fairfax Dr. Suite 750 Arlington, VA 22203-1695

Toll-free 800-332-3911 Phone 703-812-4600 Fax 703-812-4675

www.nena.org

Summary of Topic Area Meetings #5 and #6: Requirements/Standards and Demos/Trials October 31-November 1, 2006 Executive Summary……………….…………………………………..2 Background…………………………………….……………………...5 Topic Areas…………………………………………………….……...5 An Overview of the Two Days………………………………….…….8 NG9-1-1 Strategy Plan……………………………………….…….….8 NENA NG 9-1-1 Development Structure…………………….…...…10 NENA-IETF NG9-1-1 Proposal – Transitional…………………..….12 i3 standards (NENA)………………………………………………....13 Operations Update…………………………………………………....14 Columbia University Emergency Services Coordination Workshop...15 I3 in more detail – “Boot time” – Getting Location……………….....15 NENA Data Technical Committee’s Role in NG9-1-1……….…..….19 Non-NENA Requirements/Standards……………………………..….20 Gaps in Requirements and Standards……………………………..….20 Standards/Requirements Development Acceleration on Policy…..….23 FCC Report……………………………………………………..…….23 NTIA Report……………………………………………………..…...24 2006 Report of Findings & Recommendations…………………..…..25 Testing/Implementations…………………………………………..…26 Texas A&M University NG9-1-1 Project…………………………....26 NG9-1-1 IP Network Opportunity Listing………………………..….31 NG Wireless Direct E9-1-1 in Indiana…………………………….....32 Program Partner’s role in NG9-1-1 trials, including DOT NG9-1-1 Program…………………………………………………………..…..36 Positive Action Steps that NG Program Partners want to Take…..….36 Recommendations for Testing and Demos………………………..…37 NENA’s Evaluation/Certification Role……………………………...37 NG Partner Program 2007……………………………………..…….38 Summary………………………………………………………..……39 Appendix A – Attendees………………………………………..…....41

- 2 -

Executive Summary NENA convened the fifth and sixth topic area meetings of the 2006 Next Generation (NG) Partner Program on October 31 and November 1, 2006, at the Hilton Hotel in Arlington, VA. The two-day meeting was facilitated by NENA Development Director Bob Cobb. Representatives from 23 NG Program partner organizations were present. A presentation and follow-up discussion was held surrounding NENA’s overall NG9-1-1 strategy plan including the status of development on transition plans. The NG9-1-1 Transition Planning Committee (NGTPC) has been created after a small group of Technical and Operations Committee leadership prepared an outline defining the scope and a starter set of deliverables. This Committee will be co-chaired by Billy Ragsdale (Technical) and Steve O’Connor (Operations). The Committee has been tasked with identifying transition steps useful to Public Safety Authorities and other stakeholders in moving from each type of 9-1-1 system and service environment starting point to NG9-1-1, and the related development actions needed to allow that transition to a fully capable NG9-1-1 service. The Committee is expected to expand the starting areas of consideration and move into any other areas deemed appropriate to the general objective. It is also anticipated that the NGTPC will create new Working Groups and assign some issues to existing Committees/Working Groups. A representative from NHTSA described the USDOT project and how work from the NGTPC should assist that project. There were additional presentations from NENA representatives detailing how their work ties into NG9-1-1 development.

• The NENA VoIP/Packet Technical Committee has transmitted several documents to various SDOs, both internationally and nationally for their review and comment and requested that the SDOs provide information as to what projects they are working on to aid in Next Generation. One gap they have identified is that there is no forum to pull together all public safety entities; i.e. Fire, EMS, Police, FEMA, DOJ, DHS, USDOT, radio, poison, Coast Guard, etc. NG will rely on XML data formats. The i3 process was also covered in detail. This committee has also identified several outstanding issues in location; details may be found later within this document.

• NENA Committee leaders and HQ Staff participated in an “Emergency

Services Coordination Workshop” hosted by Columbia University. The

- 3 -

meeting was very product and 50+ people representing 20 organizations were in attendance.

• An update was provided on activities being handled in the NENA Operations

Committee. They are in the process of reviewing over 100 comments that were received on the IP Capable PSAP Features and Capabilities document. A major issue has been identified with IP Relay Services and the issues text device/deaf communities encounter when trying to reach 9-1-1. More details may be found within this document.

• The NENA Data Technical Committee has completed “NENA Data Standards

for the Provisioning and Maintenance of MSAG Files to VDBs and ERDBs.” This document provides general system and process requirements for the VDB, ERDB, and 9-1-1 Administrator to maintain the MSAG and the alternate address records required to perform their prescribed functions in the i2 architecture. This document also provides related technical and operational policy information from NENA to facilitate implementation of the i2 architecture. This document is not a complete set of requirements, but instead provides insight to industry needs. It is expected that VDB and ERDB Operators will work in conjunction with their customers and 9-1-1 Administrators to further clarify additional requirements prior to development and/or implementation for local applications. The committee is also responsible for creating all XML and GML schemas.

COMCARE Director David Aylward provided an update on the broader NG emergency communications enterprise and discussed the role in connecting multiple public and private entities for effective emergency response. In order to have a complete NG Network, all stakeholders need to be in the same room and standards need to be broader. NG is not just 9-1-1, but all public safety. NG Program Partners discussed and identified gaps in requirements and standards for NG, as well as what activities need to be coordinated with others. Some of the gaps identified were authentication/authorization, rights management, policy mechanism, political battles/conflicts, testing, Federal and State leadership and funding. They also listed items that must be coordinated with others: education, mapping, funding, and public safety summit. The FCC and NTIA made reports as to what is going on in their organizations. The FCC has created the new “Bureau of Public Safety and Homeland Security.” The Bureau has three divisions: Policy, Public Communication & Outreach, and Communications Systems Analysis Department. NTIA has a signed agreement with NHTSA to “establish a joint program to facilitate coordination and communication between Federal, Stat and local emergency communications systems, emergency personnel, public safety organizations, telecommunications carriers, telecommunications equipment manufactures

- 4 -

and vendors involved in the implementation of E-911services,” as required by the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004. An overview of the Texas A&M University NG9-1-1 project was provided to the group, This project was funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce NTIA to develop a prototype NG9-1-1 system (100% IP) and to demonstrate enhanced capabilities including nomadic device location. Systems were installed in live PSAPs to test against NENA requirements. There were 14 project partners working towards NTIA’s goal. The value of this project is that it tests technology against NENA requirements, validates the requirements with call taker feedback and helps to determine gaps in standards. The systems components being used are determine location, identify emergency calls, route to correct PSAP, and present call to call taker. A final report on this project should be available 1st quarter 2007. INdigital Telecom gave an overview of “Project Crossroads,” an advanced technology E9-1-1 network for wireless calls in Indiana. INdigital telecom was selected by the Indiana Wireless E9-1-1 Advisory board to build a new 9-1-1 network. The rapidly changing needs of public safety required the construction of a Next Generation 9-1-1 network. Project Crossroads is the first generation of a comprehensive plan. It will improve the safety and security throughout the state. INdigital is now building an advanced self-healing next generation E9-1-1 network. The second generation of INdigital's work will form one of the largest private statewide 9-1-1 networks in the US. When it is complete, the IN911 network will have IP connectivity for all of Indiana's emergency service providers, providing them with a state-of-the-art platform for new types of emergency services. The IN911 network is a public / private partnership that has been developed without the use of tax dollars. Project Crossroads has improved public safety in these areas:

• Reduced E9-1-1 call setup time, so emergency calls connect faster • Improved call routing accuracy so emergency calls get to the correct

emergency service provider • Worked with emergency service providers and wireless carriers to perform

comprehensive network testing The Program Partners discussed what role they should play in NG9-1-1 Trials. Everyone agreed that they would like regular feedback (successes and challenges) on all demos, trials and implementations. They would also like to be involved in the testing process where their expertise will be useful. Funding for these efforts is a challenge and NENA HQ would like develop real funding solutions in the first half of 2007. NENA 08-001 Interim VoIP Architecture for Enhanced 9-1-1 Services (i2) standard indicates that NENA should assume the role in authorizing access to NG network by being or chartering the Valid Emergency Services Authority (VESA). VESA is the

- 5 -

agency that authorizes who may access the NG Emergency Services Network. NG Program Partners agreed that NENA should assume this role. Discussions were also held on NENA’s 2006 Report of Findings & Recommendations and the NG Partner Program for 2007. For more details please refer to the remainder of this report.

Background NENA’s NG Partner Program is a collaboration between public and private stakeholders. It was created to anticipate the impact of emerging technologies on 9-1-1 services. The ultimate goal of NENA’s initiative is to ensure that everyone has access to emergency services anytime, anywhere, from any device. The NG Partner Program management team provides strategic oversight for the program. The team establishes goals, timelines and the general process for reaching consensus and recommendations. It consists of senior executives from the participating partners along with top elected leadership and key staff support from NENA. In addition to NG Program Partners and NENA staff, invited guests in attendance included Jeff Cohen, Walt Johnson, Carol Simpson, FCC; Jenny Hanson , NHTSA; Thomas Hardy, Chris Algiere, NTIA; Michael Corso, Robert Mayer, NY Department of Public Services; Mark Grady, General Manager, INdigital Telecom; Ken Lowden, Executive Director, Indiana Wireless E9-1-1 Advisory Board; Ray Paddock, Step Function Strategies; and Dr. Walt Magnussen, Texas A&M University (TAMU). See Appendix A for a complete list of all attendees/partner participants.

Topic Areas Requirements/Standards and Demos/Trials October 31-November31 NG Program Topic Area Meeting The meeting began with a welcome from NENA Executive Director Rob Martin and all attendees introducing themselves. Bob Cobb provided a status report on NENA’s Next Generation Partner Program initiative. There are now a total of 34 Program Partners. The new partners in attendance explained what their companies do.

- 6 -

All future NENA conferences will highlight NG9-1-1 both in advertising, signage and presentations. The annual conference in June 2007 will highlight NG in the opening session. Additionally, there will be NG track sessions, an NG showcase in the exhibit hall and each Program Partner’s exhibit will be identified. A new NG9-1-1 Joint Tech/Ops Transition Planning Working Group has been created. Additional information on this group will be discussed later in this document. A new NENA education course, “Introduction to NG9-1-1” has been developed and will be facilitated by Eric Parry. The course description is: “What is Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) and how will it work? How is it different from our current system? This course will provide answers to these questions and more about the future of 9-1-1 technology. Presented at a basic, introductory and non-technical level, the target audience is non-technical PSAP personnel, people new to 9-1-1, or anyone who is curious to find out more about his latest wave of new technology that will change the landscape of 9-1-1.” The status of each 2006 NG Program topic area is as follows:

• Funding Summary distributed to Program Partners and placed on web - follow up conference calls to be scheduled by Patrick

• Data & Location/National Call Routing summaries sent to Program Partners – conference call to be scheduled week of 11/7

• Education summary distributed to Program Partners and placed on web

The next topic area meetings will be held in Crystal City, VA, at the Doubletree Hotel on December 5th and 6th. Items to be discussed are

o Interoperability o Disaster Planning o Funding o Planning for 2007

The status of action items from previous meetings are: • Funding Model WG

o Several funding models proposed o Summary paper being written o Will be discussed at December NG meeting

• Cost Estimate WG o Matrix of costs being completed o Sources of funding identified (Federal, State, Local, Private)

• Call for meeting of Federal Stakeholders o White paper on role of ICO o Recommendation to convene stakeholders o Waiting for formalization of ICO

NOTE: Jenny Hansen indicated the meeting will happen by year end

- 7 -

• Education for State & Local Government o Coordination with NARUC –Patrick Halley attending conference in

Miami in December o Potential Education Summit involving public safety and local/state

government organizations at 9-1-1 Goes to Washington o Additional discussions to be had in Dec. NG meeting

• Coordinate-Based Routing o WG has been formed within the NENA Operations Committee and is to be

chaired by Marc Berryman. The group’s goal is to examine GIS options for coordinate-based routing.

• Transition planning for NG9-1-1 o Joint Technical/Operations Transition Planning WG formed and initial

members recruited in September at the Joint Technical Committee Meeting in St. Louis

• N11 Summit with all N11 groups represented o Set for Dec. 7th – having such a meeting was an action item suggestion in

a previous NG Program Education-focused meeting. All Program Partners are invited to attend this meeting

• Discuss current status of all N-1-1 numbers • Identify common needs • Examine Interoperability Issues • Build Relationships

Bob Cobb reviewed the agenda for the next two days and informed the group as to some of the activities NENA Staff has been heavily involved in over the summer.

• Attended Chapter meetings o PSAPs very concerned about role they play in NG9-1-1

• Charlotte conference planning o Extremely NG focused

• Bob Cobb & Rick Jones attended a 2-day meeting regarding the USDOT tasks in the national pandemic flu strategic plan – NG will have an impact and there will be ongoing need to define that.

• Columbia University meeting with several international Standard Development Organizations (SDOs)

• Worked with ICO/FCC/USDOT to involve them in NG9-1-1 • NENA has formed an NG9-1-1 Joint Transition Planning WG

o Temporarily chaired by Billy Ragsdale and Steve O’Conor • State/regional initiatives to develop IP networks • 2007 – To be known as “YEAR OF THE DEMO/TRIAL”

- 8 -

An Overview of the Two Days Over the course of the two days, the group:

• Participated in a discussion on NENA’s overall NG9-1-1 Strategy Plan, and received updates from the Technical Committee Long Term Definition work group, Data Technical Committee and the Operations Committee.

• Participated in a discussion on NENA’s efforts to reach out to all public safety organizations, SDOs and federal agencies involved in public safety.

• Participated in a discussion on what other organizations are doing in the development of requirements and standards for NG.

• Participated in a discussion and identified gaps in requirements and standards for NG, as well as what activities need to be coordinated with others.

• Participated in a discussion on two NG projects: Texas A&M University and Indiana Wireless Direct Network.

• Participated in a discussion on what role Program Partners should play in NG9-1-1 Trials

• Participated in a discussion on NENA’s role in authorizing access to NG network by being or chartering the Valid Emergency Services Authority (VESA).

• Participated in a discussion on NENA’s 2006 Report of Findings & Recommendations and the NG Partner Program for 2007.

NG9-1-1 Strategy Plan Roger Hixson, NENA Technical Issues Director, provided the overall NG9-1-1 strategy plan including transition plan development status. An NG9-1-1 Transition Planning Group has been created following initial development a group made up of Technical and Operations Committee leadership and Committee Chairs formed a “strawman group” to prepare an outline defining the scope and a starter set of end deliverables to assist the overall NG9-1-1 transition plan in becoming a reality. The outline and deliverables will be turned over to the Joint NG9-1-1 Transition Planning Committee (NGJTP) which is initially co-chaired by the Technical Committee Chair, Billy Ragsdale, and the Operations Committee Chair, Steve O’Conor. The Committee has been tasked with identifying transition steps useful to Public Safety Authorities and other stakeholders in moving from each type of 9-1-1 system and service environment starting point to NG9-1-1, and the related development actions needed to allow that transition to a fully capable NG9-1-1 service.

- 9 -

The diagram below depicts the NG9-1-1 activity relationships as currently perceived:

NG9NG9--11--1 Activity Relationships1 Activity Relationships

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

FPP

NG E9-1-1 Program

NG9-1-1 Rqmt/Design

RFP USDoT Project

NG9-1-1 Implementation:Transition and

Ongoing OperationDevelopment(SDO Coord)

NENA Actions

Emergency Communications Environment

NRIC VII

Transition Plan

Strategic Plan (ICO?)

Sys OpsSystems Operations DevelopmentWith Performance Critieria

PSAP Ops Development

Tx A&M and other trials

RCH

The system/service migration starting points which have been identified are: • E9-1-1 with WLS Phase II to NG9-1-1 • E9-1-1 with WLS Phase I to NG9-1-1 • E9-1-1 to NG 9-1-1 • Basic 9-1-1 to NG9-1-1 • `Greenfield’ to NG9-1-1

In accomplishing the tasks outlined, the JTPWG is expected and invited to expand the starting areas of consideration provided in the outline, range into any other areas deemed appropriate to the general objective, and set their own sub-objectives and priorities. (Refer to NG9-1-1 Strategic Plan.ppt for additional information.) Questions and Comments from Roger Hixson’s presentation: The need to emphasize testing many aspects in an NG platform was noted.

All vendors would like to say they met the Test Report Format (TRF) for IP.

- 10 -

Want NENA’s input as cutting from E9-1-1 to NG9-1-1 is a flash cut; there are NO phases and NO turning back. We need to get it right the first time.

Combine operations with industry representatives and regulators with the goal of developing test scripts. NENA needs to announce this initiative before multiple government agencies start down this path and come up with different results.

Attending Program Partners agreed that operational testing must be a priority and is required. Jenny Hansen, NHTSA, described the USDOT Project that is in the contractor selection stage. It is a two-year project to design, develop and perform a proof of concept trial for NG9-1-1. Once the contract is awarded there will be more discussion and detail available. The RFP closed in early July. Final offers are currently being reviewed and they hope to identify and notify the awarded team by December 1, 2006. The defined scope is:

• Design a national architecture for emergency call routing and processing in an IP environment.

• Build & test a proof of concept – can be in lab, but want on the ground somewhere they are ready for NG

• Develop transition plan for PSAPs to follow to migrate to NG9-1-1 TAMU project’s test scenarios can be used as a starting point. NENA Staff asked for ANYONE in the room to please contribute any information they may have or are using for testing. It was suggested that the keeper of the Master Next Generation Plan will probably be the ICO if they ramp up and receive funding.

NENA NG 9-1-1 Development Structure Brian Rosen, NENA VoIP/Packet Technical Committee Long Term Definition Working Group Leader provided the status of NENA’s NG9-1-1 technical development structure. Refer to file “NG9-1-1Oct06Standards Update br3rh.ppt” Mr. Rosen talked about the NG9-1-1 architecture and SDOs. Recently, an External Liaison was sent to all SDOs who are involved in developing/designing the NG telecommunications & IP structure. There are high interest levels in coordinating general telecommunications [such as IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS)] with emergency requirements among various SDOs. Additionally, there is an effort to coordinate work with other portions of public safety.

- 11 -

Mr. Rosen indicated there is no forum to pull together all public safety entities; i.e. fire, EMS, police, FEMA, DOJ, DHS, USDOT, radio. As far as data standards, everyone is moving towards XML standards. The question was asked, “What is the motivation to implement NG?”

• This mechanism should save money. • All routing mechanisms for commercial and 9-1-1 would work the same.

At some point there is a need to require that all active networks identify location. Current outstanding issues in location are:

• Endpoint assertion of location is a change in paradigm; today networks assert location.

o The NG architecture is being designed to use the civic address that end user’s are aware of – NOT MSAG ADDRESSES. However, there will be capabilities to translate the civic address to the MSAG address that the emergency service provider is seeking.

• Location by Value vs. Location by Reference o In a complete NG environment, the location will be sent directly from the

device or a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) key will be provided. A URI typically describes the mechanism used to access the resource, the specific computer that the resource is housed in, and the specific name of the resource (a file name) on the computer.

• Location Protection by digital signature o The location would be signed by the LIS and the PSAP could

check/verify. The goal is to prevent wholesale forgery of location. • Plethora of Link Control Protocols (LCPs) leads to incompatibilities

o Different networks have different LCP needs; one size does not fit all. For compatibility endpoints must implement at least one protocol for any access network it could use.

Other organizations that are looking at protocols for how location can be determined include TIA, Open Mobile Alliance (OMA), IEEE, Cable Labs, 3GPP, and 3GPP2. ATIS/ESIF NGES is also working on documentation. Marking, Routing & Validation

• IETF defined effort (ecrit) as emergency calls are global and can come from anywhere, can be answered from anywhere, and can be originated on all kinds of devices and equipment.

• Marking is essentially done: service URN with sos tree (urn:service:sos) • Routing uses new Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol which is now

at Revision 2. LoST is a globally accessible, distributed and replicated database

- 12 -

that accepts geo or civic queries. LoST returns URI to route call to and returns “dialstrings” (911, 999, 116, etc.) for location, validity boundary for mapping, and validation error diagnostic.

Questions and Comments about LoST

• Any consideration to know if a real address or not known? For geo there will be certainty and confidence factors.

• Calltakers want to be able to say “X is at” or “X is near.” In addition to street address, a civic location can be down to an individual’s seat - building, room, floor, cubical, seat….

• LoST is not a big database; the data sits in many servers that talk to each other. • LoST is basis of plug and play for NG9-1-1 • LoST will work for IM, short message, video, data; it is protocol, media and nation

independent. • LoST is a database protocol (NOT a DB) to query the information you want. It

will return the PSAP you need to route to and then location. Need to build i2 VDB/ERDB and evolve to LoST for 9-1-1 valid addressing.

Location Standards by Others • TIA • OMA (Open Mobile Alliance) – mobile environments ONLY • IEEE (802l.1/11/14/….All at requirements/technology exploration phase • ATIS/NGES supposedly working on a document; NOT protocols. • IETF “Framework” document on big picture • IETF “phonebcp” document on requirements for phones and carriers to support

emergency calls • 3GPP work slowly aligning with IETF work • New PacketCable 2.0 work aligns with IETF work • EU Regulators trying to get involved, some Asian participation and alignment with

IETF work is evident (Korea, Japan)

NENA-IETF NG9-1-1 Proposal – Transitional Mr. Rosen reviewed the diagram below and indicated it needs to be updated with more explanation.

- 13 -

NENA-IETF NG9-1-1 ProposalTransitional

Mr. Rosen indicated there will be firewall standards for NG9-1-1.

i3 standards (NENA) Mr. Rosen indicated the i3 requirements are completed and have been sent to SDOs for their review. He emphasized that we are designing an Emergency Services Public Safety Network – NOT just 9-1-1. The group has started on “Guidelines for the Design of Emergency Service IP networks. Congestion control is a “big hole” and definitely needs work. Hope to have Stage 2 missing sections completed within the next couple of months. The i3 basic outline builds off IETF’s work. All calls are to be answered at the PSAP as IP, routed by LoST with location and call back information. In LoST there are CALLS and EVENTS. CALLS are signal exchanges of media with a defined beginning and end; i.e., voice, IM, Short Message, Video, etc. (they are interactive). An EVENT is a specific

- 14 -

incident. LoST route users will probably be (state level) Emergency services routing proxy.

Mr. Rosen acknowledged that security to prevent someone from entering invalid information is a known gap. The Emergency Services Routing Proxy (ESRP) uses LoST to get to actual PSAP. The PSAP uses LoST to route police, fire, EMS, poison control, etc. LoST data is map based and run by the 9-1-1 Authority. LoST is web based services available over ESInet.

Operations Update NENA Operations Issues Director, Rick Jones, provided an update on some of the issues they are either working on or concerned about:

• A new company, TalkPlus, is deploying a new product that allows cell phone users to add multiple TalkPlus virtual numbers for inbound and/or outbound service to their existing cell phone. The first major market TalkPlus plans to service is the online dating community. Virtual phone numbers provide an added layer of privacy and security for anyone who dates random strangers, whether they meet them at a bar or through a dating service. TalkPlus has recognized that need and has partnered with a yet-to-be-named online dating service. Theoretically, you could have a different virtual number for each dating partner. The service has not yet been spelled out, but should cost roughly $10 monthly.

• Determining WiFi location is needed; at least two vendors can do today • The Operations Committee NENA IP Capable PSAP Features and Capabilities

document has completed TECH/OPS review and received over 100 comments. The WG hopes to resolve these comments and have ready for public review within 20 days or so.

• MAJOR ISSUE: IP Relay Services – millions of text devices – deaf community • Ops working group is addressing text based pre-arrival protocol and should have

their work into the USDOT project by May 2007. • With NG, Telecommunicator Emergency Response Taskforce (TERT) assistance

can be virtual and accomplished from anywhere there is NG IP network or Internet connectivity.

• Some Calltakers may have limited skills in taking multiple IMs – this need will have to be a requirement in NG. Job descriptions and training will need to be updated.

• Contingency Planning/Survivability • Any device capable of reaching 9-1-1 should be able to do so and provide a valid

location

- 15 -

• In NG, PSAP is a concept, not necessarily a specific location. In reality, Calltakers could work from home and take 9-1-1 calls.

• Full interoperability – VoIP, Video, Radio, Data, IM o It was suggested that patient record information tracking may start with a

9-1-1 call and Operations may want to take a look at that.

Columbia University Emergency Services Coordination Workshop Mr. Rosen continued with an update on the emergency services coordination workshop hosted by Columbia University. The meeting was requested by IETF/3GPP chairs to bring together SDOs working on various technical standards. There was a very big turnout for the meeting - 50+ people representing 20 organizations. Generally, there is good cooperation among all groups. There is currently a conflict between OMA and IETF location work, which is a definite problem. There is a perceived conflict between ESIF/NGES work and IETF L7 work. A contact list was established and there will be another meeting in six months.

I3 in more detail – “Boot time” – Getting Location When IP phones boot (fixed or mobile), they will ask the Access Network for a location. This is called “Configuration” and the protocol is a Location Configuration Protocol. The location comes from a Location Information Server (LIS). If the location is civic, it is validated (“9-1-1 Valid”) against the LoST database before it is put in the LIS. IETF’s draft “Emergency Call Phone BCP”(best current practice) indicates ALL phones will implant DHCP, LLDP or L7. A comment was made that this seems to have regulatory issues the same as WiFi, WiMax, etc. as they currently have no requirement to provide location. Mr. Rosen indicated that the Columbia University meeting pointed out to various SDOs that location is essential and they need to go back and discuss. Every new access technology will need to use one of the protocols defined to work with LoST. A comment was made that small businesses; i.e., coffee shops may be responsible for something not there today. Mr. Rosen indicated that the number of stakeholders in the Emergency Service Network has greatly increased and everyone will have to know if they need software/firmware/new access point to provide location. “Boot Time” Query LoST

- 16 -

When location is identified, the phone or device will use it to query LoST. LoST provides:

• Validation: This should always work for Access Network locations and for self-reported locations configured in the phone.

• Local DialStrings: This is “9-1-1” for North America and solves the problem of what to dial when the user is nomadic and it is also tied to location.

• Boundary: This is a hint at the polygon or address level that identifies when to requery LoST as location may change (mobile devices). The mapping will be good as long as the location stays within the boundary.

• PSAP URI: The PSAP URI is an address where a 9-1-1 call may be sent. Calling 9-1-1 The phone will recognize that the call is local (visited) and maybe the home dialstring. The phone will attempt a location update and LoST route. If the data is not available, the cache value of the information will be used if the location or route does not return right away. The call is placed to “urn:service:sos” in the Route header and the ‘PSAP URI’ from LoST is placed in the Request URI. The routing is completed by normal SIP routing and includes location and call back information in the SIP Signaling. This process will take two seconds and the protocol works today within the two seconds. Call Routes to Emergency Services Routing Proxy (ESRP) ESRPs will be behind monster firewalls and session border controller probably at the State level. The ESRP routes call to PSAP, using LoST for fine grained route data if needed. There is some controversy over whether identity of PSAP should be revealed so the solution will handle both cases: Allegheny-county@esrp.pa.us vs. psap@esrp.pa.us. There might even be another level of ESRP, for example county level. A comment was made that NENA could go into business and offer a service to all rural counties to provide them NG. ESRP routes are based on location, time of day, congestion, PSAP status, etc. and are CONTROLLED BY PSAP POLICY RULESET. A PSAP proxy is actually another instance of an ESRP that may route to a call taker based on location, media preference, language preference, etc.

Call is answered at PSAP as SIP (signaling protocol) All calls are answered as SIP and routed by LoST. The location and call back information for all calls is in the signaling. Call signaling may have additional information about the person calling such as medical data, emergency please contact, information supplied by subscriber to the VSP carrier, etc. This information source is probably operated by 3rd party and supplied as an opaque key (URI) that is not traceable to a specific user. Users must opt-in to the 3rd party’s services.

- 17 -

Call signaling may also have additional information about the call, which is supplied by the VSP carrier or 3rd parties who are part of the call (3-way call). The information may include contact data, telematics data, additional reference in the location field such as, “go here for floor plans.” The data must be supplied as either URI to the actual data or a 24x7 telephone number. PSAP routes to Secondary (Responder) PSAPs if necessary The PSAP queries LoST for secondaries, based on service (police, fire EMS, poison control, Coast Guard, etc.) and location of the caller. The query into LoST is always location+service and LoST always outputs a URI. This service may also be used in countries that do not have a single number for emergency services; however, in North America it is used for secondary routing. A hazmat call in one location is of interest to surrounding areas, but a solution for provisioning this in LoST has not yet been defined. This information will probably be data than can be input and defined as to who may have access to the data. Have not discussed how to get information to ALL affected PSAPs and not just the primary, but Mr. Rosen thinks it can be handled using EVENT. This needs to be defined in more detail.

The calltaker will be able to create an EVENT if multiple PSAPs are involved and determine which ones are to be involved. The PSAP CPE would rebid automatically for provider info.

A secondary query is done when the call comes in and the result displays the “ELTs” to be used. The call is forwarded (actually bridged) to the agency and arrives with location & call back information. Legacy Wireline post Transition After NG transition, legacy wireline can be handled by a gateway between TDM and SIP. There will need to be an ALI-like table mapping a telephone number to the location. After the mapping is completed the call arrives at PSAP with location and call back information. A decision still needs to be made as to who runs the gateway.

Identifiers and Incidents i3 has a notion of an “incident” and more than one call can be associated with an incident. Any agency can declare an incident and associate calls with that incident. i3 facilitates logging, status reporting and can be used for routing. Incidents can “nest” for example an earthquake causes multiple highway collapses, each of which generate multiple calls. Each collapse is an incident, but the earthquake is a higher level incident containing all of

- 18 -

the collapse incidents. Each call is assigned an identifier, as well as each incident. The identifier is assigned by the first agency that handles or declares the incident or caller. All actions are logged by incident and/or call identifier. For example, when a call is forwarded to a secondary PSAP, the call ID is included. The secondary can query the primary using that call id for any information the primary developed about the call. Services Services beyond call (SIP) services & Routing/Validation (LoST) services can be provided on the ESInet. Most of these services use a web service paradigm. PSAPs can also be a provider of services as well as users, for example the query for info based on call identifier. The ESInet uses standards based service directories (UDDI) and protocols/interface descriptions. 3rd Party Calls i3 allows authorized entities to place 3rd party calls which route by the location of the caller, via 3rd party (relay or telematics call center). The call is established as a 3 way call on a PSAP bridge with all parties identified. This service would be used by OnStar, relay and central alarm monitoring services and controlled by PSAP policy ruleset + authorizations. Policy Just about everything is controlled by a PSAP policy rule set with standardized representation, policy store and editor. All services use the same ones and PSAP management gets to edit the policies which require most services to conform to those policies. Security Everything is secured. ESInet is NOT considered a walled garden, but EVERYTHING is authenticated and authorized. All services will use standards based mechanisms such as “Single Sign On” (one authentication, multiple authorizations) and role based authorizations. Everything is originated by PSAPs and other agencies on the ESInet, which is encrypted, integrity protected and authenticated. Federated Identity may used for other kinds of agencies on the ESInet. PSAP Policy ruleset controls authorizations (by role) and there are rules that can be applied to individual data items.

- 19 -

Test Mechanism A test mechanism needs to be developed that allows a user to test if his call will route and provide accurate location and callback # along with any other information available. The data is encrypted and depending on sensitivity may be really encrypted. Verification is extremely important and a BIG GAP. It is not too early to start and no one can be in charge. This effort must be a meeting of equals.

NENA Data Technical Committee’s Role in NG9-1-1 Refer to file “DTC Report to NG Requirements - Standards.ppt.” Delaine Arnold, NENA Data Technical Committee (DTC) Chair, provided an overview on the committee’s role in setting data standards for NG9-1-1. The DTC is completely responsible for all NENA Data Exchange Formats detailed in NENA 02-010 (http://www.nena.org/media/files/NENA02-010Standardupdated02-25-06_BOARDAPPROVED.pdf) , currently 2.1, 3.1 and XML (http://www.nena.org/xml_schemas/nena.htm) versions. Some of the issues the group is working on are VED (Vehicle Emergency Data) formats with ComCare and others, standard XML naming syntax, monitoring eGOV initiatives (DOJ, IEEE, Fire, EMS, EDXL), create a Class of Service for Fixed Wireless, and MSAG exchange formats. This group is also reviewing the differences in NENA XML & PIDF-LO to determine if any updates need to be made to either format. The DTC is also responsible for defining all data creation and maintenance standards for Local Exchange Carriers, ALI Service Providers and 9-1-1 jurisdictions as detailed in http://www.nena.org/media/files/NENA02-011StandardApproved110904.pdf. The issues this group is working on are data distribution (NPA/NXX is no longer valid), Wireless Discrepancies, VoIP Discrepancies and No Record Founds, and creating standard sub-location abbreviations; i.e., APT, RM, STE (reviewing USPS Publication 28). Last year the DTC formed a new group to determine how today’s MSAGs would be provisioned and maintained in VDBs and ERDBs and who is responsible for what tasks. A new standard, NENA 02-013, should be approved by NENA’s Executive Board within the next few weeks. Issues being worked on include how the various house number formats need to be handled in the V7 interface (LIS to VDB for pre-validation); V7 discrepancy reporting – requirements have been outlined and referred to the VoIP Technical Committee i2.5 WG to define the solution and interface; and statistical reports/data VDB/ERDB Operators need to retain for the future. The DTC’s GIS working group has recently completed the GIS Data Collection and Maintenance Standard (NENA 02-014), which is currently in the NENA approval process. The next issue this group will address is converting NENA’s GIS Data Model to

- 20 -

GML. Several of the Program Partners indicated this would be an i3 requirement and does need to be completed.

Non-NENA Requirements/Standards David Aylward, Executive Director of COMCARE, spoke to the group on the broader NG emergency communications enterprise and discussed the role in connecting multiple public and private entities for effective emergency response.. He indicated that some organizations are not developing NG requirements properly. NG is not just 9-1-1, but all public safety. All stakeholders need to be in the room and standards need to be broader. The computer guys want use cases with flow diagrams so they can program. Developing use cases with flow diagrams is an ideal mechanism for capturing functional requirements. Groups should look at multiple use cases and determine what line items are the same. All groups need to share data and bring in practitioners from all public safety fields. He warned the group to be careful when using the term “data standards” as other entities also have data standards; i.e., DOJ XML data dictionary. COMCARE and others are involved with message resources; i.e., CAPS, EDXL distribution element. He suggested that NENA look at EDXL as every tool/CAD must be able to accept these messages (payload). Some examples are Public Warning (bull dozer, FEMA); HAVE (hospital info – which are open, how many beds, services provided) and Situational Awareness. Services/protocols need to be defined for when I send this message to you, what do you do with it. HHS (Health and Human Services) is made up of the American health information community and is trying to get everyone to agree on storing health records; i.e., how many young people have heart problems can be determined from hospital and 9-1-1 calls Core Services – Facilitation Services: Any organization that will be accessing or retrieving from the public safety NG network needs to get together and create/maintain a service called AUTHENTICATION, AUTHORIZATION, ROUTING. This would define who can send/receive messages to/from whom and who can not send/receive any information.

Gaps in Requirements and Standards Jim Nixon facilitated a group discussion to identify gaps in requirements and standards.

- 21 -

• Authentication/Authorization o Need to get a group together including a couple of corporations who want

to support this effort. National Emergency Alerting and Response Systems (NEARS) has started this effort, but they need corporate involvement to support.

o Broad as well as specifically 9-1-1/Public Safety • Common security mechanisms across Public Safety • Rights Management

o Application rules – by role and application o Tool to provide single access to multiple applications

• Policy Mechanism o Who controls “policy” – No one working on – need policy editor,

common policy, where stored, policy enforcement – broader than 9-1-1

• Registration and related database management o Need comprehensive list of all PSAPs o Need to agree on mechanisms and then decide who does it o Fire authenticate / police authenticate AND then they get together to

decide what data to share o Registration needs to be at the call taker level and each call taker should

only require 1 password to access multiple applications/systems/databases

• Political battles/conflicts on who decides what/how and who will control use of money and rules that affect Emergency Communications and NG9-1-1 management. Opt-in, and default rules that must be changed – if not, rule stands?

• Misunderstanding of policies – take those who want to participate and hope the

dissenters come along • Testing for NG compliance

o Test Report Format (TRF) is in use federally o Guidelines that vendors have to meet to claim NG9-1-1 o Capabilities certification process o Need to define what is required to be NG9-1-1, versus NG9-1-1 compliant

• Federal and State leadership gap on looking at the whole of emergency communications rather than just radio aspects. MUST break down GAP between radio and 9-1-1 and others.

• Broad use cases: What are they? There is a lack of inter-agency use cases.

- 22 -

• Funding: $100 million is being spent to develop standards for health care; maybe

$100,000 in other areas.

Coordinated Roles • Education to avoid single use, low capability planning of networks!!!

o Need better coordination of federal programs affecting NG9-1-1/Emergency Communications standards

o Advertising to Public Safety world on what’s going on, impact on local plans

o Need emphasis on identifying and advertising roles/responsibilities for NG9-1-1 and Emergency Communications

o NEED STRONG LOCAL/STATE/FEDERAL COORDINATION TO INCLUDE 9-1-1 AND ALL EMERGENCY SERVICES

o Policy leadership at all levels - starting at National and filtering down to State, County, Local

o Have ICO, FCC, NTIA, etc. jointly generate a Summit on needs/concerns? After award of RFP by USDOT, use the contractor to start

stakeholder discussion on needs? o Lack of inter-agency use cases o Coordination of data (NENA DTC-Delaine Arnold) o Does actual NG9-1-1 model as first application have to happen to “make it

real?” Do we need a description of how NG9-1-1 solves multiple issues? Hearing impaired, Call Center access, N11, budgetary constraints, etc. At what level is it economically appropriate to install NG9-1-1?

o Need map of what actions, standards, etc. are needed to enable. Rick Jones will have the Operations Committee will work on.

o Can commercial and other actions fill some of these needs?

• Mapping

o 9-1-1 MAP – calls are being routed by commercial maps and shouldn’t be o 3 addressing entities – USPS, NENA, 9-1-1 AUTHORITY o Need mapping consistency and effect on Quality of Service o Base map issues o Convergence of needs – take action to accelerate?

• Define “Interoperability” – expansion of concept

o Presented, Scaled and Sold at regional level at a minimum o Need to start from ground up and have NG 101 course o Make an economic case for why NG9-1-1 is effective

- 23 -

• Funding

o What justification info is needed for NENA to actively advise Public Safety entities about what we believe should be done at local, state and federal levels for NG9-1-1 and Emergency Communications? ACTION: OPS to research.

• Public Safety Summit: Need summit of ALL parties interested in NG – NENA,

FCC, NTIA, NHTSA, ICO – NHTSA works on this very well. ICO planned to bring together private industry and public program partners. Decided to wait until RFP is assigned and assign contractor to start stakeholder discussions. What to get 9-1-1 ahead of the game instead of behind.

• NG9-1-1 systems operation and performance criteria for providers?

NENA (Roger Hixson/Rick Jones) will summarize action items for attendees.

Standards/Requirements Development Acceleration on Policy

FCC Report Carol Simpson provided an update on FCC activities. • New Bureau in FCC – Bureau of Public Safety and Homeland Security – 98

employees • ICO – mandated, but not funded • FEMA reorganized – Office of Emergency Communications (radio only??) • Jeff Cohen & Walt Johnston & Carol Simpson – FCC Public Safety

o 3 divisions Policy – developing rules and policies, 9-1-1, public safety

Interoperability, licensing spectrum Public Communication and Outreach – coordinate emergency

response – lead point for disasters Communications Systems Analysis Department – outages and

security at national level o Will be working with Public Consumer’s dept. and Deaf Community

Summit o Outage reports being used to identify types of outages and performance

improvement, root cause, by carrier – trying to understand the “health” of the network

- 24 -

The FCC appreciated being at this meeting and wants NENA to stay in touch with the new Bureau of Public Safety and Homeland Security.

NTIA Report Thomas Hardy provided an update on NTIA’s activities. Background On April 13, 2006 an agreement was signed between the Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Department of Commerce, National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA). “The ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004 required these parties to “establish a joint program to facilitate coordination and communication between Federal, Stat and local emergency communications systems, emergency personnel, public safety organizations, telecommunications carriers, telecommunications equipment manufactures and vendors involved in the implementation of E9-1-1services.” This new, National Implementation Coordination Office (ICO) has been tasked with coordinating activities related to E9-1-1 programs nationally. In particular they are mandated to planning:

1. Work with established public safety and industry organizations to support E9-1-1 implementation on technical systems and new technology issues.

2. Coordinate Discussions with Federal agencies to plan improved federal coordination of E9-1-1 related activities

3. Develop a comprehensive outreach and communications strategy including an ICO website.

4. Develop, collect, and disseminate information concerning best practice models, procedures and technologies from successful regional, state and local E9-1-1 activities.

5. Through the use of available data on the status of E9-1-1 deployment and PSAP readiness, target technical assistance to appropriate, regions, states ands localities.

6. Monitor, assess and formulate recommendations concerning local state and federal regulatory issues impacting E9-1-1.

7. Asses local, state and federal funding mechanisms, cost projections and other financial issues impacting E9-1-1 implementation.

8. Analyze current and future technologies impacting E9-1-1 deployment.

o Working with Public Safety division o Telecomm policy o FCC for federal spectrum

Military radar CIA NSA IRAC

- 25 -

o Signed MOU between NTIA and NHTSA to put together ICO – providing support for ICO web site (http://www.e-911ico.gov) – up and operational in a couple of weeks

o Coordination and discussion w/federal agencies on 9-1-1 o Develop Comprehensive outreach and strategy o Develop “best practices o Support successful state and local E9-1-1 activities o PSAP readiness o Waiting on spectrum auction to fund 9-1-1 activities o Work w/NENA to put positions forward o Analyze future technologies and their impact on 9-1-1 o Advise White House on telecom policy o Work with Federal PSAPs – what’s good for them might be good for

public

It was requested by the group that the FCC, NTIA and NHTSA work together to layout future of 9-1-1. • ICO under both NHTSA and NTIA – double layers of bureaucracy above ICO. ICO

is product of congressional mandate. By law both agencies involved. • ICO will be physically housed at NHTSA and NTIA will manage the website. • Need help from NENA/PSAPs to populate the ICO website. • Involved with TOP program. Originally funded TX A&M NG program.

2006 Report of Findings & Recommendations Facilitated by Bob Cobb, a brief discussion was held to determine how the 2006 Report of Findings & Recommendations would be handled. Suggestions from Program Partners include:

• Build on 2005 report • Emphasize topic area results • Incorporate any white papers and other documents developed this year • Widespread distribution via various methods

o Program Partners o Conference/Chapter meetings o ENP magazine as insert

• Include a CD-Rom with last years report and all documents from 2006 • Annual Summary Reports should be progressive narratives from year-to-year.

Write up on what you have today and the logical steps from moving from today both upward to NG and outward to other emergency agencies.

• Include the TAMU and any other demos/trials’ Final Report results in the NG2006 Summary Report.

- 26 -

Testing/Implementations Texas A&M University NG9-1-1 Project Dr. Walt Magnussen Refer to file “NENA Partners meeting TAMU Presentation November 2006.ppt” Walt Magnussen provided an overview of the TAMU NG9-1-1 project, which was funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce NTIA to develop a prototype NG9-1-1 system (100% IP) and to demonstrate enhanced capabilities including nomadic device location. Systems were installed in live PSAPs to test against NENA requirements. There were 14 project partners working towards NTIA’s goal. The value of this project is that it tests technology against NENA requirements, validates the requirements with call taker feedback and helps to determine gaps in standards. The attribute results being used are:

• Tested and works • Additional development needed before tests can be completed • Additional standards needed • Not tested (must be Policy based)

The system components being used are Determine location, Identify Emergency Calls, Route to Correct PSAP and Present call to call taker.

- 27 -

NG9-1-1 DIAGRAM

NG 911 diagram

Bridging (conferencing) is very important in the NG processes:

Adding other parties

- 28 -

NG-911 NOMADIC LOCATION – 4 Options • DHCP – Gets IP w/IP Location Address • LIS (sees physical location on port) • GPS • Self reporting

NG-911 Nomadic Location

Participating PSAPs include Brazos County 911 District – Bryan TX, City of College Station – College Station TX and Albemarle ECC, Charlottesville VA. A defined testing methodology has been established and all documentation results are being reviewed by PSAP Directors, State Coordinators and NENA Technical Staff. Final results will be published. The project is using an Internet2 10G private backbone which already exists and no money has been spent to support the network. Could easily add other universities. Also have access to two 10G to Europe and Asia and one 10G to Australia.

- 29 -

ESN Emulation

ESN emulation

Test Criteria: The project team identified over 150 test attributes based up NENA documents. The attributes were split into 50 test scenarios and each test completed to all 3 PSAPs.

- 30 -

Tests conducted include:

• Call completion – signaling • Multiple media support – voice, video and data • Location acquisition • Callback • Third party calling – first responders and other agencies • Civic location validation • PSAP call routing • Support for private ESN and commodity Internet access • Data base distribution • Incident logging • Others

Benefit to participating PSAPs includes exposure to NG9-1-1 technology, providing input into design and architecture and the additional knowledge will help them towards NG911 transition of their PSAP. Current status of the TAMU Project: • 3 PSAPs installed • 37 of about 50 sessions completed (120 plus attributes) • Project ends in Dec. 2006 • Working on project extensions from other sources and partners

Next Steps • Final Report – Jan thru March of 2007 • ENP magazine “Lessons Learned Article” • Place a copy of the TAMA Final Report results in the NG2006 Summary Report.

TAMU submitted a proposal to DHS in October for IP based video and audio quality testing. A formal RFP has been submitted. If funded, this project will have direct impact on NG9-1-1 work. Discussion on A&M presentation: Mr. Magnussen indicated that most of the issues encountered during the project were on the access part of the backbone – not the network itself.

- 31 -

Impact of NG on PSAP: • Training on user interface • TAMU students developing NG9-1-1 aren’t concerned with user interface so they had

to do more PSAP training • 3-4 different types of images will appear on screen (video, IP, text, etc.) – lots of

multi-tasking required. Job requirements will need to change to test for multi-tasking skills

• Call taker job may become similar to Air Traffic Controller job • Large flat screen monitors and dual monitors were used • Convergence of audio, video, data will probably happen at same time • Human factor is real critical to PSAP management; DOT Program will also be

looking at this • How will call takers/dispatchers that see (video) some type of major trauma be dealt

with? They may not be able to continue their job requirements. Will need crisis intervention counseling.

• GIS component – static maps –digital, oblique aerial imaging – role of dispatcher becomes real critical

• PBX environment locations will probably be better in an IP environment

NG9-1-1 IP Network Opportunity Listing Roger Hixson – Refer to file “NGnetOpportunityMASTER.xls”

• IN Network • CA • NC • Elmore County AL • Oregon • State of Montana • Washington DC • Allegheny County PA • Texas 9-1-1 Alliance • TX CSEC • State of TN • VA • Minneapolis/St Paul Metro Area • TX A&M trial • VT • Anywhere there is a viable IP network, NENA could do a trial work for NG9-1-1

- 32 -

What is a planned NG9-1-1 system? If the network is expandable to take calls from various entities via IP should be on NENA’s list. Contact Roger Hixson for updates to listing/spreadsheet.

NG Wireless Direct E9-1-1 in Indiana INdigital Telecom –, Mark Grady Refer to file “NENA - IWDN_presentation_11-01-2006.ppt” This project was initiated in April 2003 and implementation development began in April 2005. Getting to the future was completed through two generations of change. (1) Project Crossroads connects wireless E9-1-1 calls to the existing landline routers and routes E9-1-1 calls via an existing IP network. (2) IN911 Network is a next generation network currently be used for delivery of wireless calls and expanded usage is being developed. IN911 overlays the landline network and there are redundant T-1s to each PSAP. https://www.in911.net/crossroads/ • The funding fee for wireless 9-1-1 is 50¢ (formerly 65¢) and is distributed to PSAPs

as a supplemental payment and INdigital for network elements specific to wireless call delivery. There is no cost to PSAP for network, operation or maintenance. The Board has previously paid for Phase II mapping and startup equipment and software.

• Completely private network – there are common touch points to the outside world. • INdigital Telecom is certificated as Wireless, CLEC, LEC, VSP and Emergency

Service Provider. • 17 contracts negotiated in 9 days. • No legislation to hinder them

The network goals of the project were wireless direct access from two new selective routers to all PSAPs with new levels of redundancy and reliability. Expected efficiency and improvements were the ability for full statewide call transfers, improved call setup and delivery time, voice and data delivery over the same network and a flexible 9-1-1 infrastructure that can accommodate future public safety applications. The PSAP goals were to integrate with existing equipment; provide a path to full i2 with a forklift upgrade; accept, route transport and display any 9-1-1 input data (text, video, ACN) that can be sent using an IP network; facilitate low cost disaster recovery and simplify training requirements. Unique features of the IN911 network include 24x7 monitoring, statewide coverage, PSAPs know what is going on, all the facts are just a mouse click away and redundancy is built in.

- 33 -

Inside the PSAP are 2 fully redundant routers, UPS, maximum network power in the smallest possible space, and maximum future capability for data and information transfer. AT&T in Indiana owns all the PSAP equipment, network and routing. Verizon has ANI/ALI controller in CO. Priority links into PSAP so can’t go directly in. INdigital is currently working with PSAPs to deploy OnStar directTM. Process takes 30 days from development to deployment. Several PSAPs have completed final testing and are going live with OnStar direct connectTM. Eligible PSAPs will get authorization forms to test/approve direct connect service. OnStar InfoPassTM development work will begin in 1Q2007 Mark demonstrated a live E9-1-1 call in “real time.” Get an interactive pop-up ALI viewer screen in the corner of the map and they have a rebid key and network status indicator.

Display with ESNs in upper left corner along with ALI display in lower right. Under the ALI screen the network access and rebid key are displayed. The PSAP will know right away if there are any network problems and will know when to rebid.

ALI DISPLAY Network Status / Rebid

- 34 -

NG hurdles • PSAPs who own their equipment • PSAPs who have the ANI/ALI controller in the Central Office • PSAPs with “tied” equipment – the closed LEC environment

Currently, PSAPs that able to utilize IN911 are those that own their own system and PSAPs that use the CO ANI/ALI controller. PSAPs not able to use IN911 are those that lease their equipment. By working through the small telcos who own INdigital, PSAPs are able to add push-to-talk, access to hospitals, etc.

- 35 -

Consolidation of trunks: • 982 trunks to less than 100 trunks. • Cut trouble reports from 250 a month to 0. • All conversions were drive-tested • Reduced wireless call set up from 22 seconds to 5 seconds • Reduced RBOC costs to wireless carrier.

Access to the PSAP is not limited to Indiana. The State has reached out to 4 surrounding states and will include their wireless on the Indiana network. CLOSED NETWORK and they do not experience denial of service attacks as it is a very controlled environment. When work arounds are required, make them as technically simple as possible. Can NOT do VoIP until Indiana legislation changes; this is the same for the majority of states. Indiana has always been a 100% cost recovery state. Ken Lowden is working on draft legislation to present to the State. INdigital has shareholders who are concerned with liability. That’s why they became a certificated carrier in the states they operate in. Going to KY next. Once the IP circuits up the IN911 Network is capable of handling large relay call centers. They have begun working with the IN Relay Service. Only 8 people have worked on this project from INdigital. Kimball was the project manager. INdigital has created standards based interfaces to enable vendors to utilize the IP based IN911 Network. Current work involves PSAP equipment manufacturers, mapping systems developers and telematics service providers. IN originally received RFPs from 2 other telcos and one said trust me we’re the phone company, it will work. Telco still does not have IP working today (11/01/2006).

- 36 -

Program Partner’s role in NG9-1-1 trials, including DOT NG9-1-1 Program Paul Mallett facilitated a discussion on Program Partner’s role in NG9-1-1 trails, including the USDOT NG9-1-1 Program. • Program Partners have had no input to NG trials; NENA staff was involved. • Program Partners would like to see “Lessons Learned” from demos/trials • Guy Roe, MapInfo, told the group that he has asked for help from NENA and they

did - Staff and Technical Chairs. Vendors only need to ask and NENA will work with them. It’s a win/win for all.

• Program Partners wants input/output/updates from demos/trials. Every NG meeting should have someone giving an update on their demo/trial - academic and commercial trials.

• Program Partners become the conduit/clearing house for advertising the demos/trials. • Review output of demos/trials, review and assign action items if necessary. • Input into standards and best practices • When conducting demos/trials, tie to NENA standards and ID what worked, what

didn’t and what needs development work. Create a development punch list about what is not yet done in relation to which standard is being testing.

• What portions relate to NENA and/or other SDOs? • Commercial vendors can go back to their companies and say out of XX trials this

item was missing. • 50% of the time is setting up people and infrastructure – 50% testing. • Separate “LIVE” and “TEST” areas. Expand demos/trials to include deployments.

Positive Action Steps that NG Program Partners want to Take • Identify what is missing/not addressed. Advertise for someone to test these items.

Possible funding to cover cost? • Who’s doing what and what’s not yet done? • Track new applications/systems/services that can be deployed on an NG network.

Find test beds for pilots.. • Can NOT wait to build network until LoST and other systems are built and working.

Need to do like Indiana which is to prepare network and be in a position to start adding new features/functionalities as they become available. This message needs to get out to all public safety entities.

• Finding a state network can be difficult. Need a list of networks in place. • HQ staff needs to have a project planning meeting.

- 37 -

o If you had “X” dollars what amount would you devote to demos/trials, education, etc? What are the high value packages we can use for all aspects of NG911?

• It was pointed out that NENA has done better than any other profession to reach out to other entities. Need to showcase who those entities are?

• During demos/trials include costs as an output. How much to deliver 9-1-1 calls in an NG environment?

• NENA must come out in the first half of 2007 with a real funding solution. Can NOT do anything without funding.

Recommendations for Testing and Demos • TAMU has lab type processes and there is another University who wants to

participate. What can be done in a lab environment? Publish list of what needs to get done.

• Universities should do trials where the final results will allow grants to be used to recover costs.

• TAMU will share test plan. DHS proposal provides some scenarios to test. Additionally, the NG Requirements document can be used to establish test scenarios.

• Look at IEEE, IETF, ATIS, etc. and see if we’re testing/meeting those specs during trials/demos. Specs are usually public information but don’t know if anyone is looking at them. These organizations in many cases don’t even know what NENAs working on. Need end-to-end testing.

• NENA needs a defined test plan model with detailed listing of specifications to be tested.

• All testing must be end-to-end testing.

NENA’s Evaluation/Certification Role Roger Hixson and Rick Jones facilitated discussion on NENA’s evaluation/certification role. VESA (Valid Emergency Services Authority) • Any entity that accesses NG Emergency Services Network • Program Partners agree NENA should do this • IP certification standards and protocols exist today • In today’s world there is certification on all transmissions from LECs, CLECs,

WIRELESS and VSP indicating they are ok to use the network. • We’re talking about network, data, voice, video, IM, etc.

- 38 -

• i2 document clearly defines VESA process throughout the entire NENA 08-001, NENA Interim VoIP Architecture for Enhanced 9-1-1 Services (i2), standard.

• Involves encryption/certification/authorization • Need to certificate the VPC/VDB/ERDB/PSAPs – any entity that touches the

Emergency Services Network. • There may be instances where it’s not a certified carrier/entity who will try to dial 9-

1-1; i.e.; uri of sos. Shouldn’t allow this as that puts us back to uninitialized phones. Others felt that 9-1-1 or sos should not be blocked

• Advertise to outside world that if you plan to send calls to 9-1-1, you MUST BE certified to access the Emergency Services Network.

• Also need to consider certifying PSAP Equipment and NG Components o NENA has always steered away from Underwriters Lab model. o We could use NENA’s FPP process. o NENA develop proposal and bring back to Program Partners.

NG Partner Program 2007 Bob Cobb facilitated a discussion of NENA’S NG Partner Program for 2007. • 2007 will be “The Year of Demos/Trials”

o Information sharing/technology transfer o Punch List – extent to which fulfilled o Status Report o Solicit info & join program o Look at effect on Telecommunicators - DOT has Human Machine

Interface/Human Factor requirements in the RFP o Can we assign something discussed by Program Partners to Technical or

Operations Committees or some external entity? YES. o Continuation of further review on where we are with SDOs o Integration with other efforts going on in federal government and/or other

international entities. 9-1-1 should be a central point for Public Warning, but they are not Patient records Geospatial N11s Location Determination Integrate with ITS and other regional members (11-12, each region

handles 5-6 states). USDOT Traffic Management and Congestion

- 39 -

Systems looking to set up a consolidated PSAP for first responders and evacuation

What is a PSAP? A communication hub in an NG environment. Stakeholder coordination (National Governor’s Association

[NGA], State Associations, Information Officers) • We have a plan for NG911 and send out message saying

we’ve identified these needs – can you help? • Have a meeting in Charlotte so they can see demos/trials

for real o Relook at 2005/2006 action plans and see where we stand on each. If they

are not done add to 2007 NG Plan. o What needs to be done to complete standards in a more timely manner

Regulatory agencies need to step up and say – DO IT

Summary What are the action items for the NG E9-1-1 Program (now named NG Partner Program? (Includes points in the preceding text)

• Need to get a group together including a couple of corporations who want to support this effort. National Emergency Alerting and Response Systems (NEARS) has started this effort, but they need corporate involvement to support.

• Need map of what actions, standards, etc. are needed to enable? Per Rick Jones, OPS will work on this item.

• Roger Hixson and Rick Jones will identify NG9-1-1 systems operation and performance criteria for providers and summarize action items for Program Partners.

• NENA needs to develop model VoIP legislation. Ken Lowden will share the IN VoIP legislation draft with NG Program Partners.

• Program Partners wants input/output/updates from demos/trials. Every NG meeting should have someone giving an update on their demo/trial - academic and commercial trials.

• Consider creating a specialized demo for NG at national conference. This will help make PSAPs aware of what products actually work and what is vaporware. It is hoped that by having this demo, PSAPs will stop buying products that can not be upgraded to IP. Need to be able to support multiple PSAPs in the demo environment. Set up an Emergency Services Network in the Exhibit Hall and see

- 40 -

how the calls can move from vendor to vendor. Be sure to include OnStar. JUNE 2007 IS NATIONAL. Consider installing video screens and put internet web cam at each participating booth. (Note: Will NENA verify that all products demonstrated and claiming to be NG compliant are really compliant?)

• Consider developing a tour with audio at National that would guide you through the vendor hall explaining the NG process at various booths. Motorola has done this with their MotoVision presentation and they have an invitation only presentation/video that walks through the process from the 9-1-1 call to the conclusion. Incentive would be to give every one a “card” that would list all the NG booths. They would take to each booth and get stamped and receive some kind of “incentive.”

• With the concurrence from the Program Partners, NENA will investigate what is required, including costs, to become the VESA (Valid Emergency Services Authority) to certify and authorize that a specific agency is entitled to transmit to or receive from information on the NG Emergency Services Network.

• NENA will consider what would be involved in certifying PSAP Equipment and NG Components. Review FPP documentation to see if that could be used.

• NENA Staff to review 2005 and 2006 action plans and see where we stand on each. If they are not done, they will be added to the 2007 NG Plan.

- 41 -

Appendix A – Attendees NG Program Partner Attendees: Dale Morgenstern, AT&T John Garner, Cingular David Aylward, COMCARE Bob Burkhardt, Cyren Call Bob Gojanovich, HBF Group Norm Forshee, IL NENA & APCO Chapters Marc Koffskey, InterAct Public Safety Systems Christian Militeau, Intrado Tim Gundlach, L. Robert Kimball & Associates Martin Williams, Level 3 Communications Charlie Stortz, Logistic Systems Guy Roe, MapInfo Mary Brooner, Motorola Barry Bishop and Brian Rosen, NeuStar Bill Ball, OnStar Phil Rotheram, Positron Public Safety Systems Patrick Donavan, Sprint Nextel Don Mitchell, TCS Jim Nixon, T-Mobile Jim Goerke, Texas 9-1-1 Alliance Paul Mallett, Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications (CSEC) David Froneberger, Liz Colunga and Paul DeLorimiere, Verizon John Cummings, Vonage Phil Martin, WirelessWERX Invited Participants: Jeff Cohen, Walt Johnston and Carol Simpson, FCC Jenny Hansen, NHTSA Thomas Hardy and Chris Algiere, NTIA Michael Corso and Robert Mayer, NY Department of Public Services Mark Grady, Indigital Telecom Ken Lowden, Indiana 9-1-1 Office Ray Paddock, Step Function Strategies Dr. Walt Magnussen, Texas A&M University NENA Officers and NG Program Team: Rob Martin, NENA Executive Director Dr. Robert Cobb, NENA Development Director Patrick Halley, NENA Government Affairs Director Roger Hixson, NENA Technical Issues Director Billy Ragsdale, NENA Technical Committee Liaison Rick Jones, NENA Operations Issues Director Pete Eggimann for Steve O'Conor, NENA Operations Committee Liaison Delaine Arnold, NENA Data Technical Committee Chair & Scribe