Re: Draft XG Charter

Hi All

Just want to clarify a point that has not been too clear in the last  
few emails. It may not be necessary in which case ignore it but for  
those unfamiliar with the ways some things work it might be of use.

International organisations, including those supplied by other  
governments, come in when they are "invited". They are essentially  
guests and have no rights to impose aid or support except where this  
has been prearranged. They don't just come in when domestic  
organisations and governments can't cope either (that would be  
considered invasion).

Predominantly overseas organisations and governments offer specific  
assistance which may or maynot be accepted by the affected nation or  
a pre-established working relationship with organisations within the  
affected country is already in place for disaster contingencies. The  
only exception is for the purpose of evacuating their own citizens  
that are in the affected area. To illustrate this, rural or wildfire  
fire fighters often send teams overseas to perform specific roles  
that supplement the domestic capacity of an affected country. They do  
this to help with specific response functions and to gain experience  
in specific deployments as well as to build interoperability capacity  
and to share their knowledge and skills with others. A specific  
instance of this would be where there is a need for fire jumpers -  
the US has a particularly well developed capability in this area due  
to terrain, size of forest fires, access to equipment (and people  
crazy enough to jump out of planes and into the middle of a forest  
fire). They have specialised techniques and skills that many other  
countries don't have either due to the expense of resources or lack  
of need. In the rare instances when this type of approach is of  
benefit then fire jumpers might be volunteered. A similar example is  
in coordination of wildfire response. New Zealand rural fire people  
often go to Australia to assist with the coordination aspects of  
managing large scale multi-front fire responses, not because  
Australians can't do it but because it helps to meet the capacity  
requirements and keeps the NZers trained up. These are just fire  
examples and I give them because most people can relate to and  
visualise such examples. There are of course many others at all  
levels of emergency management.

In summary the point I want to articulate is that many organisations  
and governments have standing overseas support arrangements but with  
the exception of nations that are under civil war it would be rare  
for aid to be provided as a "guns a blazin' hero on a white horse  
saving the day" approach. It isn't a matter of politics so much as a  
matter of manners and appreciation that those on the ground know what  
they need and that others will supply what is asked for. It is worth  
stating that this is quite distinct from long term recovery aid  
packages which I would not consider a part of assisting emergency  
management but of assistance to social and economic recovery.

Kristin


On 10/08/2007, at 15:41 , paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Chamindra
>
> Just to be clear Olli's statement is  not contrasting mine, but  
> reinforcing it
>
>  It is well understood - I think - that our work is 'non political' -
> Ollie reinforces this, and I think we all agree -  it is also true
> that our 'users' are (often) constrained by politics when making their
> emergency technology choices.
>
> The question that follows is: how can that 'aspect of reality', as
> well as the need for neutrality, be reflected in our work, and it what
> measure ?
>
> I know its a difficult one, and we should not necessarily find an
> answer, rather keep it as
> a 'reminder' of an aspect of our model that may beed some clever  
> engineering :-)
>
>
> pdm
>
>
>
> On 8/10/07, Chamindra de Silva <chamindra@opensource.lk> wrote:
>> I think Olle and Paola are talking at different levels of this  
>> issue. I
>> agree with both, but in a different context on each point.
>>
>> (1) In agreement with Olle: Interop standards should certainly be
>> apolitical and agnostic of any particular organizational  
>> sensitivities
>> and play to the lowest common denominator as much as possible. We  
>> have
>> to! otherwise it is not a standard which we can depend on and encode
>> into our systems to allow them to exchange data electronically.
>>
>> (2) In agreement with Paola: Terminology for end users and systems  
>> will
>> need to be configured to meet the target user group and organization,
>> national sensitivities. Certainly we can keep that terminology out of
>> this group, but it would still serve as a valuable standard and  
>> input to
>> forge the interop framework. I think saying there is political  
>> influence
>> is a bit strong, as it is more about creating ontologies that  
>> people can
>> use in common especially in sharing disaster information (human to
>> human) effectively (without ambiguity) across nationalities and
>> organizations.
>>
>> paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> So, what I am saying is that (1) I would like to keep all issues
>>>> originating in political structures out of the XG, and at the  
>>>> same time
>>>> (2) the work of the XG must be defined with an awareness of the
>>>> political issues in the field, so that important parties see the  
>>>> XG as
>>>> an opportunity, not a threat.
>>>
>>> HI Olle
>>>
>>> I am sure most of us will agree -  thing is that our 'users' must  
>>> move
>>> within political constraints and its the politics that prevents
>>> cooperation (more than the technology at times)
>>>
>>> therefore we should design accordingly  - if we simply  'avoid
>>> acknowledging' the issue,
>>> we may produce something that is not easily usable from that  
>>> viewpoint
>>>
>>>  How do you think such 'awareness'  and 'neutrality' should be
>>> reflected in our work?
>>>
>>> pdm
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT
> www.mfu.ac.th
> *********************************************
>
>

Received on Friday, 10 August 2007 06:34:19 UTC