Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global)

Advisory Committee (GAC)

# Meeting Minutes

# *Washington, DCApril 27-28, 2005*

# 

**Convening and Introductions**

Operating under the guidance and support of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA) and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ or "Department"), the Global Justice
Information Sharing Initiative (Global) Advisory Committee (GAC or
"Committee") spring 2005 meeting was convened by\
Chairman Kenneth Bouche on April 27.

This summary covers events of the spring 2005 GAC meeting, held at the
Wyndham Washington, DC Hotel, 1400 M Street, NW. The proceedings took
place over the course of two days, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on April
27 and 8:30 a.m. to\
12:00 Noon on April 28. This report does not note evening adjournment on
the first day or reconvening on the second day. Also, in the interest of
document structure and report comprehensibility, the order of events
described herein does not necessarily mirror the agenda order. However,
the ***content*** is reflective of meeting activities and resolutions.

Chairman Bouche reviewed the agenda[^1] and invited participants to
introduce themselves. GAC members and proxies are listed below (for a
complete attendee roster, including federal partners, invited guests,
and support staff, please submit requests to Global support staff at
\[850\] 385-0600, extension 285).

> Robert Boehmer
>
> *National Criminal Justice Association*
>
> *Chicago, Illinois*
>
> Kenneth A. Bouche
>
> *SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
> Statistics*
>
> *Springfield, Illinois*

David Byers

*Conference of State Court Administrators*

*Phoenix, Arizona*

> George M. Camp
>
> *Association of State Correctional Administrators*
>
> *Middletown, Connecticut*
>
> William Casey
>
> *Criminal Justice Information Services\
> Advisory Policy Board*
>
> *Boston, Massachusetts*
>
> Thomas M. Clarke, Ph.D.
>
> *National Center for State Courts*
>
> *Williamsburg, Virginia*
>
> Steven E. Correll
>
> *National Law Enforcement\
> Telecommunication System\
> Phoenix, Arizona*
>
> Joseph Delgado (Proxy for Ed Reina)
>
> *IACP − Indian country Law\
> Enforcement Section*
>
> *Sells, Arizona*
>
> Michael A. DiLaura, Esquire (Proxy for\
> Barbara Hurst)
>
> *National Legal Aid & Defender\
> Association*
>
> *Providence, Rhode Island*
>
> Michael Duffy
>
> *Justice Management Division*
>
> *U.S. Department of Justice*
>
> *Washington, DC*
>
> Edward A. Flynn
>
> *National Governors Association*
>
> *Boston, Massachusetts*
>
> James Gerst (Proxy for Jerome Pender)
>
> *Federal Bureau of Investigation*
>
> *Clarksburg, Virginia*
>
> Blake J. Harrison\
> (Proxy for Michael Balboni)
>
> *National Conference of State\
> Legislatures*
>
> *Denver, Colorado*
>
> Jeffrey H. Herold\
> (Proxy for Charles Ramsey)
>
> *Major Cities Chiefs Association*
>
> *Washington, DC*
>
> Bart R. Johnson
>
> *IACP − Division of State and\
> Provincial Police*
>
> *Albany, New York*
>
> Thomas Lipps, Esquire
>
> *National Council of Juvenile and\
> Family Court Judges*
>
> *Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania*

Jay Maxwell (Proxy for Linda Lewis-Pickett)

*American Association of Motor Vehicle\
Administrators*

*Arlington, Virginia*

Harlin R. McEwen

*International Association of Chiefs of Police*

*Ithaca, New York*

Michael Muth

*INTERPOL -- State and Local Liaison Division*

*Washington, DC*

Thomas J. O'Reilly

*National Association of Attorneys General*

*Trenton, New Jersey*

Jeanette Plante, Esquire

*Executive Office for United States Attorneys*

*Washington, DC*

Douglas T. Robinson\
(Proxy for Matthew Miszewski)

*National Association of State Chief Information\
Officers*

*Lexington, Kentucky*

William B. Simpkins

*U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration*

*Arlington, Virginia*

Martin Smith

*U.S. Department of Homeland Security*

*Washington, DC*

Richelle G. Uecker

*National Association for Court Management*

*Santa Ana, California*

Jeffrey Washington

*American Correctional Association*

*Lanham, Maryland*

Carl Wicklund

*American Probation and Parole Association*

*Lexington, Kentucky*

Tim Woods (Proxy for John Thompson)

*National Sheriffs' Association*

*Alexandria, Virginia*

This was the first full Committee meeting presided over by Chairman
Bouche and GAC Vice Chairman Thomas O'Reilly. Due to the retirement of
former GAC\
Vice Chair Gerry Wethington as the state of Missouri Chief Information
Officer (announced at the end of 2004) and acceptance by former GAC
Chair Mel Carraway of the position of Federal Security Director of the
Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New Mexico, airports, a GAC election was
conducted electronically at the beginning of 2005. The process was
handled in accordance with the Global *Bylaws*[^2] and in assurance that
nominees for these two Global offices were 1) Committee members and\
2) "practitioners," that is, representatives from GAC-member
governmental agencies or government employees that represent
nongovernmental GAC-member associations. The new GAC leaders were
elected in time to conduct a mid-January Global Executive Steering
Committee (GESC) meeting to strategize Global's course for the coming
year.  

In addition to new leadership, the Committee was pleased to recognize
new GAC representatives: Robert Boehmer, Esquire, now representing the
National Criminal Justice Association; Thomas M. Clarke, Ph.D., now
representing the National Center for State Courts (NCSC); Lieutenant
Colonel Bart R. Johnson, now representing the International Association
of Chiefs of Police (IACP -- Division of State and Provincial Police);
the Honorable Thomas R. Lipps, now representing the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges; and Mr. Jeffrey Washington, now
representing the American Correctional Association.

**Welcoming Remarks**

***Federal Officials' Remarks***

John Morgan, Ph.D., Assistant Director, National Institute of Justice
(NIJ), focused his remarks on the "recognition and acceleration of
interest in Global" at all levels of government and sectors of the
justice and public safety communities. He highlighted a prime example of
this recognition: for the first time in the Committee's history, the
Administration has added a budget line item in support of Global and the
*National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan* (NCISP). He stated, "This
\[signifies\] important executive recognition of the long-term need to
improve information sharing\
capabilities . . . and we're very, very excited about that." Dr. Morgan
applauded the Committee's continuing commitment to providing concrete
recommendations leading to *action* as opposed to simply debating issues
with little end service to practitioners. While the Global Justice
XML[^3] Data Model (Global JXDM) may be the "brand" that epitomizes
Global assistance to the field, "this is just the tip of the iceberg."
In addition to the Global JXDM, Dr. Morgan cited enormous attention
given to the work of the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council
(CICC). He stated there is a "renewed recognition \[of the CICC\] within
the Office of Justice Programs, because this is an effort that is very
broad," involving colleagues in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and elsewhere, who "have a real need to extend information sharing
across the public safety arena." He concluded by expressing hope that
the Committee will continue to build on its impressive momentum.

Domingo Herraiz, Director, BJA, began his remarks by emphasizing DOJ's
commitment to the Global Initiative. From the collaborative relationship
between BJA and NIJ, to the new DOJ partnership with DHS on the National
Information Exchange Model (NIEM), to the Global line item in the
President's budget ("Those of you who work with federal budgets know
that just getting that line item . . . is gold."), all are positive
indicators within the Department that underscore strong support of
Global. "We know that Attorney General Gonzalez is squarely behind this
initiative." Director Herraiz informed attendees that BJA's role is to
manage and implement the recommendations of the Global Initiative and to
"take them to the next level." Specifically, this translates to
crystallizing the value-added aspect of BJA's information technology
(IT) efforts, "looking at both 'outputs' and 'outcomes' . . . asking
'what difference does \[the initiative\] make?'" Global, along with
other IT initiatives, should have performance measures and effective
methods of discovering return on investments. As a result, program
expenditures are easily justified and "that proven return on investment
is going to take this budget line to the next level . . . because again,
the more that we can invest in all the good work of Global, the farther
ahead we are in the long term."

He concluded by thanking the BJA training and technical assistance (TTA)
providers for their participation in a meeting held the previous two
days and for attending the GAC event as observers. TTA providers offer a
valuable link between the recommendations of Global, the efforts of the
program office, and practitioners in the field. The dialogue they
provide "helps us to justify resources to prevent duplication of
services and ultimately provides whatever needs are identified back to
the local level---back to the folks in the field. Bottom line is: it's
about practitioners." Director Herraiz introduced Ms. Rene Geiger, BJA
TTA Programs. Ms. Geiger outlined the structure of the TTA office and
services provided,[^4] most recently the *[Menu of Training
Opportunities](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/tta/TTA_Menu_4_2005.pdf),*[^5]
which lists all training courses currently funded through BJA TTA
partners.

***GAC Leaders' Remarks***

Chairman Bouche set the tone for his leadership tenure by underscoring
the tenets of *collaboration* and the responsibilities of *engaged GAC
membership.* He echoed Director Herraiz's appreciation of the TTA
participants for their assistance in helping translate the work of
Global into solutions for the field. He expressed thanks for the show of
collaborative support from federal partners, illustrated by the remarks
of\
Dr. Morgan and Director Herraiz and the attendance of BJA TTA providers.
He stressed to GAC members that, as a rule, they should feel comfortable
raising questions about presentations, briefings, or Global Working
Group reports "because this is the body that makes recommendations to
the Attorney General. We need to ensure we feel strongly about \[those
recommendations\]."

Vice Chairman O'Reilly commended members on Global successes and noted a
key part of the recommendation continuum is "outreach"---spreading the
news not only about resources, but about the Committee itself. This
proselytizing benefits the field but also assists in building GAC
collaborations with complementary agencies and efforts, such as DHS and
the transportation and environmental communities. Prior to his election
to vice chair, Mr. O'Reilly was appointed as the Global outreach
coordinator---a post he continues to fill. He outlined a number of ways
in which participants can exercise a *key* membership responsibility:
"pushing" GAC information down into their communities of interest "to
the policymakers, the appropriators, the various members of the
legislature, and definitely the executive branch." These educational
opportunities and resources will include:

-   Canned Global PowerPoint presentations, such as:

    -   Global 101

    -   Global Justice XML Data Model 101

    -   Global's Intelligence Work -- An Overview

-   Global/Global JXDM Executive Seminar

    -   Based on the Interstate Compact model, seminars will be hosted
        within states/agencies by groups such as the state Attorney
        General's Office, National Governors Association, or Council of
        State Governments

    -   A combination of Global 101 and a high-level briefing on the
        Global JXDM

-   Articles

    -   General, Global 101

    -   Boutique articles, for specific audiences or Global topics
        (e.g., Service-Oriented Architecture \[SOA\] in Justice
        Information Sharing)

    -   Global "success stories," targeted for distribution by a number
        of ways, including:

        -   Geography

        -   Discipline

    -   Securing "standing column space" in monthly trade or discipline
        newsletters

-   Targeted Speaking/Outreach Opportunities

    -   Using the Event Calendar, target conferences and ensure
        representation on select agendas

-   Build on the Global Outreach Plan previously approved by the GAC

Vice Chairman O'Reilly concluded by soliciting participation in outreach
efforts, reiterating that promulgation of Global and its recommendations
should be a priority of each Committee member.

**Committee Business**

The fall 2004 GAC meeting minutes, summarizing the September 28-29
meeting, were presented for approval. (The document was distributed in
advance for members' review and comment; this GAC meeting summary
review-and-approval process is a standing Committee procedure.)

**Recommendation:** Mr. Carl Wicklund, representing the American
Probation and Parole Association, moved to ratify the document without
change. Mr. George Camp, representing the Association of State
Correctional Administrators, seconded. The motion was brought to a vote
and passed unanimously.

**Action:** The document will be posted on the Global Web site and
provided in hard-copy format by request.[^6]

**Global Working Group Reports**

Global Working Group chairs provided updates on their efforts since the
last GAC meeting.

***Global Infrastructure/Standards Working Group***[^7]

Mr. Steven Correll, representative from NLETS -- The International
Justice and Public Safety Information Sharing Network, introduced
himself as the new chair of the Global Infrastructure/Standards Working
Group (GISWG). He briefed members on the activities of his group since
the last GAC meeting. Primary efforts have focused on continuing the
momentum of GISWG's ***A Framework for Justice Information Sharing: 
Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)***,[^8] which was presented for
Committee consideration at the fall 2004 meeting. The document included
an ambitious slate of recommendations. With the inclusion of an
amendment to add language emphasizing privacy policy development, the
SOA document was unanimously adopted by the GAC per the following
recommendation:

The GAC adopts this report (as amended to address privacy and
information quality issues) of the Global Infrastructure/Standards
Working Group, titled *A Framework for Justice Information Sharing: 
Service-Oriented Architecture* *(SOA).*

> Global:

-   Recognizes SOA as the recommended framework for development of
    justice information sharing systems,

-   Adopts the report's action agenda for its activities to further the
    utility of SOA for the justice community, and

-   Urges the members of the justice community to take corollary steps
    in the development of their own systems.

Since receiving the full support of the GAC, GISWG members have
reconvened twice to advance the SOA effort in a more tactical way. This
involved dividing members into three subcommittees representing key SOA
issues---registries, services, and standards---as well as employing the
expertise of a subject-matter expert to conduct a roundtable discussion
to focus the group's direction and frame SOA issues.

Subcommittee leaders have been charged with developing work plans, to
include recommendations to four key audiences:

1.  State and Local Policymakers

2.  State and Local Technology Managers

3.  Vendor Community

4.  Federal Funding Agencies

Additionally, Global support staff was charged with investigating the
role of interagency agreements (including service agreements,
memorandums of understanding, and interstate compacts).

Mr. Correll addressed Registries Subcommittee efforts, whose mission is:

-   To clarify the role and use of registries, and

-   To help drive deployment in the justice community.

Mr. Kael Goodman, New York City Departments of Correction and Probation,
chairs this subcommittee.

Thomas Clarke, Ph.D., chair of the Services Subcommittee, addressed his
group's efforts, the mission of which is:

-   To develop a process to identify, define, and deploy a consistent
    set of justice services and validate the process through the
    identification and definition of an initial set of justice services.

This subcommittee has already completed a good deal of work toward
resources for the field that will include:

-   An Executive Overview on Services

-   A Services Implementation Road Map---Dr. Clarke explained this is
    "really the meat of what we're trying to accomplish: to make a set
    of recommendations about the steps to take to create a reference
    architecture for justice services."

-   Services Implementation Scenarios---"We propose to write a series of
    scenarios . . . each one for a typical kind of jurisdiction, for
    example, a statewide CJIS system. We will give people a tangible
    description of what these \[services\] would smell and look like in
    'real life' . . . . How would they be typically governed? What would
    be the strategies for implementing them incrementally? How would
    they operate? How do practitioners know when they're done?"

Ms. Jennifer Zeunik, Program Manager, IACP Law Enforcement Information
Technology Standards Council (LEITSC) and chair of the Standards
Subcommittee, addressed her group's efforts, the mission of which is:

-   To promote utilization of appropriate standards for implementation
    of SOA in the justice environment in support of the broader Global
    vision of justice information sharing by:

    -   Identifying applicable standards currently available.

    -   Identifying gaps in available standards based on the Global
        vision.

    -   Identifying appropriate mechanism(s) to address based on
        identification and gap analysis of missing components to perform
        particular functions.

Each of the subcommittees will develop recommendations in support of
their mission statement. Initial deliverables from each of the
subcommittees will focus on further educating the community: high-level
tutorials to help policymakers understand the components (and associated
value propositions) of SOA. Several of these resources will be presented
for Committee approval at the fall 2005 meeting.

Mr. Correll spoke further to this importance and the difficulty of
"selling" SOA. He referred back to the time when promoting XML for use
in the justice community was anything but a forgone conclusion. "It was
the first thing out of the gate three years ago, and I had people from
within my community coming up and saying, 'Why are you spending time on
XML? We can't put gas in our squad cars. This is never going to take
off.' And I said, 'I think it's going to take off. I think it's a very
important component of information sharing. It's the *right* thing to
do.' Here we are three years later. Everybody's agreeing *across the
justice enterprise* that that was the right thing to do. Now we've come
back and said, how does XML fit into the total context of information
sharing, and what should Global's next goals be in this area? Should we
be exploring the architecture that holds the XML data model and provides
information sharing pathways that we haven't talked about before . . .
?" SOA is that architecture. "It allows you to go out and do an inquiry.
That type of architecture will hopefully work as well for justice
practitioners as the Orbitz or the Google searches that we do on our own
. . . ."

Mr. Correll authored an article on SOA for the justice community for the
IACP *Police Chief* magazine. The issue is slated for release in June.

Mr. Paul Embley, chair of the Global XML Structure Task Force (GXSTF),
briefed attendees on recent activities. In particular, he noted:

-   The inaugural Global JXDM Users' Conference will be held\
    June 8-10, 2005, in Atlanta, Georgia. The event will convene 250
    justice and public safety policy, management, operations, and
    technical staff members with sessions provided for each of these
    groups. This conference will cover the application of XML
    technologies, specifically utilizing the Global JXDM, to enable and
    facilitate all aspects of justice information sharing; the delivery
    of justice, public safety, and incident management; and the securing
    of our homeland. This year's conference is sponsored by BJA in
    partnership with SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
    Information and Statistics; and the GJXDM Training and Technical
    Assistance Committee (GTTAC).

-   Discussions with representatives from the Global Privacy and
    Information Quality Working Group (GPIQWG), BJA, and the Integrated
    Justice Information Systems (IJIS) Institute on convening a focus
    group to explore how technology can support privacy policy
    development and implementation. The event will likely take place in
    late fall.

Mr. Paul Wormeli, Director of the IJIS Institute and GTTAC chair,
provided a presentation on GTTAC. This "informal" group was established
in January 2004 in response to the justice community's need to better
understand and implement the Global JXDM. GAC member agencies contribute
greatly to this enterprise through the donation of their time,
expertise, and technical assistance resources; however, it should be
noted that GTTAC is related to (but *external*) from Global. GTTAC
member organizations include Georgia Tech Research Institute, GXSTF,
IJIS Institute, LEITSC, NLETS, NCSC, National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center, and SEARCH. Leadership of GTTAC is
assumed on a rotating basis.

With the support and guidance from BJA and OJP, GTTAC provides an
efficient and effective delivery of wide-range services and resources to
meet the needs of the field, coordinating the work of national service
providers to provide Global JXDM training and technical assistance. In
2004, this training and technical assistance crystallized in the
well-received Global JXDM Developer's Workshops, a new training series
for developers and practitioners. Two workshops were held in 2004---May
11-13, 2004, in Atlanta, Georgia, and November 8-10, 2004, in Syracuse,
New York---training over\
325 people to build Global JXDM applications correctly and effectively.
The workshop course, which continues to be available, provides 15 hours
of training, presented over\
3 days. It features hands-on exercises and experienced presenters with
topics that include fundamentals of the Global JXDM, external
enumerations, constraints, extension and substitution, relationships,
subschema generator tools, and best practices. Global JXDM Online
Training Materials,[^9] initially designed by GTTAC members for the
developer's workshops, are a comprehensive educational resource,
providing access to the workshop presentation slides, streaming video
segments, answers to participant questions, program agenda, speaker
information, technical documentation, practical exercises, and suggested
solutions to in-class exercises. The next developer training will be in\
Seattle, Washington, in conjunction with the Court Technology Conference
sponsored by NCSC. The following one will be in Phoenix, Arizona, in
January 2006, tied into the NLETS annual meeting.

GTTAC is continuing to support the implementation of the Global JXDM
through the following tools and resources:

-   Education and training, targeted per audience (high-level decision
    makers, midlevel implementers*,* and technologists and developers),
    such as the Global JXDM Developer's Workshop series. Presently,
    three Global JXDM training opportunities are slated for 2005.

-   Virtual help desk---Mr. Wormeli explained, "A major new initiative
    in our action plan is building a national virtual help desk
    containing a knowledge management system, so that anyone at an
    executive level or developer level can easily go to a single point
    for questions. We're doing this as a national model with\
    the IJIS Institute in conjunction with the George Washington\
    University . . . . We're hoping to have the beta version of this
    help desk and software installed and up and running by July. There
    will be a full demonstration at the Users' Conference in June."

-   Content-based search tool.

-   Performance testing.

-   Online database, enabling practitioner posting of Global JXDM
    implementation information.

***Global Intelligence Working Group***

Chairman Bouche, who also chairs the Global Intelligence Working Group
(GIWG), briefed members on the activities of his group and the CICC[^10]
since the last GAC meeting. Primary efforts have focused on:

-   Assistance with the Presidential Executive Order 13356
    Implementation Plan by recommending full-time representatives that
    have served as coordinators of local and state law enforcement input
    into the Implementation Plan. Regarding the Executive Order,
    Chairman Bouche noted: "I truly believe this will change the
    landscape of how information is shared by having that local\
    voice . . . ." He commended Mr. Richard Russell, DHS, and\
    Ms. Maureen Baginski, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as
    "true champions" and strong advocates for ensuring the local and
    state perspective in the planning process. This interest in the
    local voice has extended to the highest levels of government.
    Chairman Bouche was part of a team that made an intelligence sharing
    presentation to the Administration's Policy Coordinating Committee,
    a group of senior cabinet staff members that convenes on issues that
    cross a broad spectrum of agencies. "The reality is that there were
    people that have been running government at the highest level for a
    dozen years, and they were fascinated by the local involvement. They
    really started to understand, based on our conversation, how we fit
    into this . . . **.** Things are changing so fast, but when things
    change it's nice to know that we \[as members of the GIWG\] continue
    to get calls . . ." soliciting guidance and input.

-   Executive-level training on the NCISP and the importance of the
    intelligence process. Additional training sessions are being planned
    for the summer in places other than solely main metropolitan
    locales.

-   Mechanisms and processes to share intelligence working papers
    between agencies "as we start combining our traditional criminal
    justice intelligence with homeland security and domestic
    intelligence."

-   Tools to facilitate the training and certification of intelligence
    analysts. This includes providing input for the development of a
    single-page "outreach" document that describes reasons why law
    enforcement agencies need analytic capabilities. Chairman Bouche
    noted that analysts are now being hired from "nontraditional places
    . . . like universities---people in graduate school that understand
    business intelligence tools. . . . But, we don't have a
    comprehensive place for them to find out what *intelligence* tools
    are available, what trainings are available, so we're trying to
    \[develop an analytical toolbox\]. In addition to that, the FBI has
    a seven-week analytical course that is going to be deemed a
    'national academy for analysts.' They will\
    make slots available for state and local people that are incredibly
    generous . . . ."

The majority of the GIWG discussion centered on the *Recommended Fusion
Center Standards* report. The development of fusion center standards
began with a discussion of the fact that several local and state
agencies are developing fusion centers, using funds received from DHS,
with no standards to ensure interoperability with other centers or law
enforcement and homeland security agencies. The initial meeting of the
Global-sponsored Fusion Center Focus Group occurred in August 2004.
Participants represented local, state, and federal law enforcement
agencies. The focus group discussed numerous facets of fusion centers
and agreed that standards should be developed to assist law enforcement
agencies in establishing intelligence fusion centers in their states or
regions. The ultimate goal was to produce the presented document, which
includes basic elements of an intelligence fusion center, suggestions
and steps for agencies to establish fusion centers, model policies, and
other examples and materials to help implement a fusion center concept.

Prior to the meeting, GAC members were asked to review the document in
anticipation of a request for formal Committee recommendation. Chairman
Bouche outlined the document's impetus, fusion center concept, and
overview of recommended standards; this information is concisely
captured in the paper's "Executive Summary."[^11] Before opening the
floor for comments, he noted, "At this point, I'm looking for your
approval to take this draft report and send it up to the Department of
Justice. This is going to be \[Global's\] recommendation . . . . Federal
partners are reviewing this and incorporating \[portions\] into their
activities, but there will be no changes without your approval as to the
overall direction or the basic tenets of the recommendations." Chairman
Bouche noted this was truly a collaborative effort with DHS, and per
their rules, the document would undergo a thorough review within their
agency as well. Mr. Duffy added that DOJ would simultaneously be
conducting a similar vetting process. However, as previously noted, no
substantive changes will be made without express approval of the
Committee.

GAC-member comments included requests for the expansion and clearer
definition of the concept of "partners," to include institutional and
community corrections and Indian country personnel, and to delineate
what the "public safety" community entails; fine-tune Standard 7 to more
strongly specify technologies, as opposed to requesting the readers
"consideration"; and to stress, at the beginning of this document, the
importance of leadership criteria.

**Recommendation**: At the conclusion of the discussion, William
Simpkins,\
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, moved that *Recommended Fusion
Center Standards*, amended as necessary per guidance from Committee
members, DHS, and DOJ, be recommended to the U.S. Attorney General for
appropriate action.\
William Casey, Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy
Board, seconded. Chairman Bouche brought the recommendation to a vote;
the motion passed unanimously.

***Global Privacy and Information Quality Working Group***[^12]

Jeanette Plante, Esquire, representative from the Executive Office for\
United States Attorneys, introduced herself as the new chair of the
GPIQWG. She briefed members on the activities of her group since the
last GAC meeting. Primary efforts have focused on completion of the
*Privacy Policy Development Guidebook* ("Guidebook")*,* a practical,
hands-on resource targeted to the justice professional assigned to
actually ***develop*** their agency's privacy policy. Ms. Plante
reviewed the outline of the document,[^13] and forecast that members
would have the document for review and comment by early summer. Formal
recommendation of the resource may take place electronically to expedite
the official release. As Chairman Bouche noted, "You have done some
great work on this. It's moved along over the course of the last year
very rapidly, and what I would like to do is make it move along even
*more* rapidly. This is one of those products that we're all waiting for
. . . ."

Moving ahead, GPIQWG will pursue its goals by continuing to recommend
resources that facilitate the protection of privacy *and* ensure
information quality in integrated justice systems. These efforts are
anticipated to yield the following:

-   Compendium of states' privacy laws and corresponding Attorney
    Generals' opinions (if available). This compendium would serve as a
    consistent reference baseline across the states and dovetails well
    with the GPIQWG Guidebook section on "analyzing the legal
    requirements."

-   Sample privacy policies to serve, not as prescriptions (or "model"
    policies), but rather exemplars ("promising policy strategies").

-   Focused energy on the issue of "information quality" through the
    following activities:

    -   Determining specific GPIQWG goals and objectives related to
        information quality.

    -   Securing subject-matter experts, as necessary, to help frame the
        issues fully.

    -   As a result of the above dialogue, determining additional GPIQWG
        membership needs.

    -   Providing BJA, OJP, and the practitioners' field with
        recommendations and guidance regarding information quality. The
        format taken for these recommendations will be determined
        through group dialogue and input from subject-matter experts.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Identified requirements and best practices for information sharing
    technologies while considering security, privacy, and information
    quality issues.

-   Coordinated GPIQWG activities with those of the GAC/Working Groups
    as well as complementary efforts (e.g., the Law Enforcement National
    Data Exchange \[N-DEx\] Project, GIWG) to formulate a unified and
    comprehensive approach to privacy and data quality issues for
    justice information sharing.

***Global Security Working Group***

Ms. Chelle Uecker, representative from the National Association for
Court Management, introduced herself as the new chair of the Global
Security Working Group (GSWG). She noted that the majority of her
presentation block would be filled by briefings on security efforts
emanating from her group. These presentations on the *Federated Identity
and Privilege Management Security Interoperability Demonstration*,
*Regional Information Sharing System Trusted Credential Project,* and
*DHS Service-Oriented Architecture: Security and Identity Management
Component* are highlighted in the following section of this summary,
"Focus on Security." She noted these presentations will serve as good
primers for GSWG recommendations anticipated for fall 2005.

Ms. Uecker distributed "So you want to set up Wi-Fi . . ."[^14]---a
document to assist practitioners in setting up wireless access points on
their networks. This document is an example of the type of "hot topics"
resources that GSWG will be offering to the justice and public safety
communities---quick-read booklets and one pagers offering practical
advice on security-related issues. GAC members were asked to review the
document and provide comments directly to Ms. Uecker or Global staff. In
the near future, the booklet will be posted on the Global Web site[^15]
and will be available in hard copy, upon request.

**Federal Briefings**

***Law Enforcement Information Sharing Program (LEISP)***

Mr. Michael Duffy, representing the Justice Management Division, DOJ,
and\
Mr. Harlin McEwen, GESC member and representative from the IACP,
provided the update. This subject has been addressed by the GAC and
select members of the Committee on several previous occasions.

By way of background, the LEISP Strategy is the information sharing
strategy for DOJ; component agencies of DOJ may develop supporting
initiatives. Key objectives include:

-   Resolving information sharing problems within DOJ.

-   Fostering trust with law enforcement nationwide through adoption of
    "need-to-share" policies and practices.

-   Coordinating information sharing initiatives across the federal
    government.

-   Collaborating with law enforcement partners nationwide to
    interconnect existing and planned information systems.

-   Focusing on information needs, not technology capabilities.

The Department proposes to achieve these objectives by adopting new
information sharing policies and practices, as well as by implementing a
unified Department--wide technology architecture that will enable DOJ to
more easily partner with the community of local, state, tribal, and
other federal law enforcement agencies. The LEISP is not a new
information system, but rather a strategy for exchanging information
through the systems that support those organizations. The LEISP Strategy
serves as a key component of the Department's contribution to fulfilling
the President's Executive Order 13356 *Strengthening the Sharing of
Terrorism Information To Protect Americans* and implementation of the
*Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.* The LEISP
Strategy also identifies how DOJ will support implementation of Global's
*National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan*.[^16]

Mr. McEwen recounted that at the invitation of DOJ officials, selected
Committee members (mainly from the law enforcement sector) have been
directly involved in critiquing the draft plan through two iterations of
review and comment. "It was clear to us in the initial draft that there
was a need for more recognition of the work that had been done at the
state and local levels." The resulting revised draft was again reviewed
by Global and returned to DOJ for consideration. Eventually, all
Committee members will receive the document with request for feedback.
"This \[process\] is a good example of a greater partnership between
state and local justice communities and the federal sector and how
Global fits into that \[relationship\]."

Mr. Duffy thanked Global reviewers for their comments as well as the
entire Committee's openness to engage in the LEISP dialogue: "We greatly
appreciate the amount of time you've devoted to helping us with these
issues, not just in terms of the two drafts but the continued
conversations. You've given me time on the agenda---both here as well as
in the working groups---to present our ideas to gain feedback, and
that's been invaluable." He highlighted several of the main issues for
additional refinement:

-   More effective leveraging of Global recommendations and resources.

-   Clearer depiction of how DOJ and DHA are coordinating activities.

-   Emphasizing that LEISP will leverage existing local, state, and
    regional systems and initiatives, such as NLETS, Regional
    Information Sharing System® (RISS), and the NIJ-sponsored
    Comprehensive Regional Information Sharing Project (CRISP).

-   Treatment of privacy issues---Mr. Duffy briefly touched on the\
    Seattle, Washington, LEISP pilot site that plans to be operational
    in September. As part of the process, local, state, and federal
    privacy policies will be reconciled to enable information sharing,
    ultimately yielding valuable "lessons learned" for the entire
    justice community; Mr. Duffy will follow-up with the GPIQWG to
    explore leveraging complementary efforts.

-   Exploration of Global-recommended architecture principles such as
    SOA---This issue will also be explored by the Seattle pilot site.

Chairman Bouche commended Mr. Duffy and the LEISP officials for
including Global members in the drafting process. He emphasized that not
only will the new intelligence-related legislation impact the LEISP, as
previously mentioned, but indeed will impact *most* of the federal IT
initiatives---including Global. At this point, the Committee is taking a
"wait-and-see" position, anticipating opportunities that the
*Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act* may provide. Mr. John
Russack, formerly with the U.S. Department of Energy, was recently named
Program Manger of the Information Sharing Environment. Chairman Bouche
looked forward to a mutually beneficial relationship between Global and
Mr. Russack's agency.

**Local, State, and Tribal Briefings**

***TOPOFF Full-Scale Exercise***[^17] ***-- New Jersey Participation,
Lessons Learned***

Vice Chairman O'Reilly briefed attendees on the recent TOPOFF exercise
held in his home state during the week of April 4-8, 2005.

By way of background, the TOPOFF Full-Scale Exercise (T3 FSE) is a
congressionally mandated exercise series managed by DHS Office of State
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. The FSE was held in
five venues---including New Jersey---and involved more than 10,000
participants representing more than 200 local, state, tribal, federal,
private sector, and international agencies and organizations and
volunteer groups.  The FSE offered agencies and jurisdictions a way to
exercise a coordinated national and international response to a
large-scale, multipoint terrorist attack. It allowed participants to
test plans and skills in a real-time, realistic environment and gain the
in-depth knowledge only experience can provide. The TOPOFF 3 scenario
depicted a complex terrorist campaign and drove the exercise play
through the homeland security system, beginning in Connecticut and New
Jersey and leading to national and international response. Over the
course of several days, fire personnel conducted search and rescue,
hospitals treated the injured (played by role players), subject-matter
experts analyzed the effects of the attack on public health, and top
officials deployed resources and made the difficult decisions needed to
save lives. An internal Virtual News Network (VNN) and news Web site
provided real-time reporting of the story as an actual TV network would.
The mock media kept players up to date on unfolding events and enabled
decision makers to face the challenge of dealing with the real-world
media. Only participating agencies could view the VNN broadcast.

The state of New Jersey was one of the two state venues selected to
participate in TOPOFF 3; the other was Connecticut. The exercise tested
the state's ability to coordinate interagency preparedness and response
plans to a biological response, conduct epidemiological and criminal
investigations, supply medication to ill patients, and deploy assets
statewide. New Jersey was the first state ever to have statewide
participation in a TOPOFF exercise. Eighty-four hospitals; 22 Local
Information Network Communications Systems (LINCS) agencies; all 21
counties; and hundreds of local health departments, government agencies,
law enforcement agencies, first responders, academic institutions, and
businesses participated. Moving forward, New Jersey will use the lessons
learned from this full-scale exercise to examine the preparedness and
response plans at the state and local levels, as well as interactions
with the federal government and private sector. Interestingly, the
crises were not all simulated. The exercise began on a Monday at Noon,
the day before the Delaware River flooded, leaving 26 feet of water in
the state house.

Vice Chairman O'Reilly recounted lessons learned, including the
following observations:

-   Regarding technology issues---Recovery plans and hot sites are
    imperative. "That's not something that necessarily our
    appropriations process wants to hear about. . . . They feel like if
    you've got one of something, that's enough."

-   Importance of balancing training with technology---In some cases, it
    was "too much, too fast" with the technology and equipment and not
    enough depth of training of personnel. "It was fine if we operated
    at a day shift level . . . but for three days we ran 24/7, and you
    start to exhaust the people who have total familiarity with the
    equipment."

-   The "personal touch" is important: In the Emergency Operations
    Center (EOC), a computer was used to provide bihourly updates. This
    was fine for routine information dissemination and management, but
    when an issue required continuous monitoring or special handling,
    "you could see the lack of personal touch, especially when fatigue
    started to set in with people \[in the field\]."

-   Policy issues need to be anticipated, such as travel bans during
    certain medical emergencies. A comprehensive review of statutory
    authority (and contingency for allocation of emergency authority) is
    also important.

-   Private sector involvement is imperative in terms of business
    continuity and maintaining critical infrastructure. As a result,
    "you have to think about liberalizing some of that information
    exchange \[historically the purview of law enforcement\], because
    government can't do everything in that magnitude of an event."
    (Note: This issue led an observer to raise concerns about privacy
    implications.)

-   Health department information systems and medical examiners'
    information systems are crucial pieces of the puzzle.

-   Finally, while "technology certainly plays a significant role,
    there's the human issue that you can't forget. We will go back and
    train, train, train, and that's the purpose of tabletops . . . ."

***Justice Information Sharing in Indian Country***[^18]

Tribal information sharing needs and unique challenges continue to be a
concern of the GAC. In addition to ongoing measures in recognition of
these issues---for example, tribal representation on the Committee and
working groups, a Global-sponsored focus group expressly exploring this
area---the GESC, in crafting the April agenda, highlighted Indian
country information sharing projects.

Chairman Bouche introduced Ms. Ada Pecos Melton, President, American
Indian Development Associates (AIDA), to provide a briefing on the New
Mexico Pueblo Crime Data Project (in this section, "Project").

Ms. Melton began by explaining that the impetus for the information
sharing focus, which grew into the **New Mexico Pueblo Crime Data
Project,** began in the juvenile justice arena. "Several of us were
involved in developing policies that would impact the way in which our
state \[New Mexico\] worked with Indian nations with regard to juvenile
delinquency and child welfare matters. We went through a process of
helping the state change its codes to be more user friendly for tribes.
One of the things we did was include provisions that required criminal
justice agencies and juvenile justice agencies to consult with Indian
nations for information sharing and data exchange purposes (one of them
being for predisposition reports). This also helped us address and
understand how information on underage drinking was being exchanged."

In 2003, the state of New Mexico and three Indian nations, the Pueblos
of Acoma, Laguna, and Zuni, embarked on an effort to improve criminal
record information sharing across state, tribal, and federal
jurisdictions. This effort has the potential to be mutually beneficial
to sovereign tribes and the state and federal government. It is
attracting attention as an important case study that deals with complex
philosophical, policy, and technical data sharing issues involving
traditional justice systems and tribal sovereignty.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, it took a tragedy to jump-start
this change and improvement in the justice system. In January 2002, on
the Laguna Pueblo Indian Reservation, a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
employee crashed into a car while driving intoxicated on the wrong side
of the road. Two couples traveling home to Nebraska were killed, and New
Mexico was thrown into the spotlight. Families of the deceased sued the
BIA, claiming it was negligent. The driver was reported to have had nine
prior drunk-driving arrests, although the BIA was unaware of many of
them.

This heavily publicized case was the catalyst for the formation of the\
New Mexico Pueblo Crime Data Project, which focuses on improving tribal
crime data management, integrating justice information sharing systems,
and developing methods for crime data sharing among state, tribal, and
federal agencies. The three New Mexico Pueblos (Acoma, Laguna, and
Zuni), along with state and federal agencies, are participating in the
Project, which is guided by an advisory committee of state, tribal, and
federal law enforcement and court representatives. The Project is
supported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), OJP, DOJ, and
administered by AIDA. Training and technical assistance is provided by
SEARCH.

At this stage of the Project, strategies are being designed to:

1.  Develop an effective crime data sharing and management policy.

2.  Develop appropriate data collection instruments and reporting
    methods.

3.  Implement appropriate intergovernmental agreements between Indian
    tribal governments and state agencies for crime data sharing.

Next steps on the road to data sharing include:

-   Developing a governance strategy that best meets tribal sovereignty
    requirements with state and federal justice entities.

-   Developing a model process guide for developing and entering into
    DWI information sharing agreements between the states and the
    tribes.

-   Having the Zuni, Laguna, and Acoma Pueblos conduct IT assessments
    with assistance from AIDA and SEARCH.

-   Using the Justice Information Exchange Model (JIEM) tool[^19] to
    define information exchanges that occur among justice entities with
    each tribe, among the three project tribes, and state and federal
    government.

-   Defining change transactions and documents that conform to Global
    JXDM.

-   Developing an SOA that best meets the unique state, tribal, and
    federal data sharing requirements.

-   Gathering information and developing a methodology for standards in
    *data quality* among the tribes, to ensure that the data collected
    and shared are accurate and timely.

Ms. Melton stated that the Project has raised infrastructure issues that
need to be addressed---not just in this effort, but likely in all Indian
country information sharing activities:

-   Policy Concerns

    -   Leadership support---local, state, tribal, and federal.

    -   Expertise.

    -   Institutional knowledge---"Because we lack institutional
        knowledge, we really need to look to people like yourselves to
        find mentors, to find people that will help us in Indian country
        learn lessons that you have . . . the kinds of things that
        you've gone through."

    -   Coordinated efforts.

-   Systems Concerns

    -   Lack of affordable technology and equipment.

    -   Access to power, communication lines, etc.

    -   Lack of expertise.

    -   Importing expertise and transferring or localizing knowledge.

    -   With regards to technology, Ms. Melton underscored the
        following: "One of the most important messages that I want to
        deliver is that the technology part has probably been the
        *easiest part*; the most important \[and challenging\] thing
        we've had to deal with is learning how to consult effectively
        with Indian nations."

-   Sustainability Concerns

    -   Lack of funding for equipment, licenses, warranties, and
        maintenance agreements.

    -   Human resources.

-   Visibility Concerns

    -   Building partnerships with local, state, intertribal, and
        federal governments---"This is something that is important in
        terms of what your Global Advisory Committee is doing. In order
        for the voice of Indian country to be heard, there has to be\
        consultation . . . If change is going to happen fast for us in
        Indian country, it's important for people like you---people who
        have the resources, people who have knowledge, people who have
        power---that you share that with us. . . . What we'd love to be
        able to do is to partner with your groups, to be included as
        part of the group who should be at the table."

    -   Building tribal capacity---role of federally funded TTA. On this
        note, Ms. Melton segued into introducing the component of the
        presentation by stating: "The SEARCH group \[the Project's TTA
        provider\] has been wonderful with helping us with their
        knowledge."

Ms. Kelly Harris, Deputy Executive Directory, SEARCH, outlined the TTA
work provided to the Project---the strategies, components, and
performance measures of the effort. She began by comparing tribal
information sharing concerns to issues faced by the larger justice
community: "We're just as excited to be learning about the issues and
challenges that they face and helping them. The important thing is to
think about the parallels: we're all facing the same big issues, the
same challenges of policy, of operations, of technology, of turf issues.
Those issues are there for us, and they're there for the tribes,
although they've got added complexities because of the number \[of
tribes\] and the sovereignty \[factor\], but these are things that are
clearly being worked\
through . . . ."

**TTA Strategies to Support the Project:**

1.  Governance---Establish a project advisory committee (PAC) comprised
    of state, tribal, and federal representatives that will provide
    leadership, direction, input, and assessment for the successful
    completion of projects related to this initiative.

2.  Assessment and Development---Develop tribal capacity to share crime
    data intertribally and with the state of New Mexico.

3.  Analyze Information Exchanges---Define the exchanges that can and
    should occur among and between tribes and the state and federal
    government.

4.  Implement Standards---Establish minimum data collection and
    reporting standards that meet the needs of various agencies and also
    provide sufficient information for meaningful crime data analysis.

5.  Conform to Global JXDM---Define exchange transactions and documents
    that conform to this important standard.

6.  Provide Access---Establish tribal access to the National Crime
    Information Center (NCIC) and other state and national crime
    databases.

**Priority Data of Project**

-   Establish DWI information exchanges between courts and law
    enforcement and within the tribes.

-   Expand those exchanges to include state and federal agencies.

-   Continue with domestic violence, juvenile justice, and criminal
    history information.

**Success Factors**

-   Strong commitment on the part of the participants:

    -   Tribes

    -   State

-   Collaborative support from partners.

**Outcomes of Success**

-   Better decision making and justice administration for the tribes and
    state.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Increased information sharing in support of improved public safety.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Use existing information sharing models and develop models where
    needed to be shared and leveraged by others.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Additional development in support of the Global JXDM.

Ms. Harris concluded with a comment on the mutual benefits of
collaborating with tribal partners: "I think the important point to take
away from this is not what SEARCH did, or what anybody else did with the
tribes, but the fact that we can leverage the models and the work that's
been done in the justice community, through Global . . . and use those
in the tribal communities as well. And then, simultaneously, we're
building new models with the tribal communities that can enhance our
work \[in the justice community\]."

Mr. Philip Propes, Program Director, Center for Information Technology
Engineering, National Center for Rural Law Enforcement (NCRLE), briefed
attendees on several ongoing projects supported by his agency.

-   **Intertribal** **Integration Project**

> Through funding from BJA, NCRLE has worked for years with Navajo,
> Hopi, and Zuni representatives to develop an integrated data system
> between all three tribes. These efforts have resulted in the
> successful creation of a technical infrastructure that is allowing
> effective information sharing among the tribes' justice agencies and
> will serve as a template for future technology integration initiatives
> in other tribal and rural law enforcement communities across the
> nation.
>
> Activities in support of this effort have included:

-   Conducting technical needs assessment within criminal justice
    agencies from each tribe.

-   Facilitating a focus group in Window Rock, Arizona, for each of the
    three tribes.

-   Creating a final report for BJA and preparing customized business
    cases for each tribe.

-   Holding a Navajo Nation Criminal Justice Summit in\
    Kayenta, Arizona.

-   The tribes have been divided into 10 districts for local and wide
    area networks.

-   Three phases are being implemented for information sharing at the
    state, tribal, intertribal, and federal levels.

-   Data centers will be established within each tribe for the
    anticipated sharing of justice information.

-   Equipment purchase, setup, and technical training are being provided
    by NCRLE via the grant project.

> The status of the effort is as follows:

-   Phase two is now under way, and phase three will follow in the next
    fiscal year

-   Networks completed (Phase I):

    -   Navajo Nation:

        -   New Mexico---Crownpoint and Shiprock

        -   Arizona---Chinle, Kayenta, Tuba City, Dilkon, and Window
            Rock

    -   Hopi Tribe:

        -   Keams Canyon and Kyokstmovi, Arizona

    -   Pueblo of Zuni:

        -   Zuni and Black Rock, New Mexico

-   NCRLE has installed 42 wireless network bridges, 39 servers, 200 new
    workstations, 750 existing computers, and 195 cable drops.

-   NCRLE has provided network, Internet, and e-mail services to 42
    agencies and over 1,200 tribal personnel.

-   NCRLE has provided technical training to 100 general users and 25
    network administrators in Farmington, New Mexico.

> Continuing project goals include:

-   Phase II---Setting up centralized data centers for each tribe.

    -   Establishing connections with data centers from remote
        districts/locations within each tribe.

    -   Including shared data from courts, police, and prosecuting
        attorney offices.

    -   Connecting the Navajo, Hopi, and Zuni data centers to begin
        information sharing, based upon the wishes of each tribe.

    -   Integrating platforms and software from multiple agencies.

-   Phase III---Begin sharing information with surrounding nontribal
    agencies.

    -   Sharing electronic information, based on the wishes of each
        tribe, with surrounding towns and counties.

    -   Begin sharing information, again selected by the tribes, with
        state and federal agencies.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Tribal Technology and Information Sharing Outreach Program**

> The purpose of this BJA-funded effort is to provide technical
> information and materials for tribal justice agencies to empower them
> to better assess, plan, and implement information technology and
> information sharing systems within their justice agencies.
>
> NCRLE developed the Tribal Justice Information Sharing Site
> (TJISS)[^20] to serve as a repository for information technology
> training materials and assessment tools. All the documentation at
> TJISS is available for download free of charge, not only to tribal
> agencies but to rural law enforcement in the state of Arkansas and
> throughout the nation. A comprehensive self-assessment questionnaire
> is available free of charge for any agency to use to evaluate,
> administer, and plan their IT programs and resources. Agencies
> nationwide can use our toll-free help desk (877-47-TJISS) or online
> technical support knowledge base to ask computer, network, or software
> questions.

-   **Tribal Criminal History Records Improvement Program**

> This Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)-funded program focuses on:

-   Providing technological interconnectivity between the Hopi and the
    Pueblo of Zuni.

-   Developing the necessary support data mechanisms for integration
    with federal databases.

-   Enhancing the tribes' judicial and law enforcement databases

-   Implementing criminal history record automation.

-   Sharing relevant data with national and state databases and BJS.

-   Utilizing the Global JXDM.

At the conclusion of the Indian country presentation, Committee members
and observers alike commended the presenters' work. Chairman Bouche
commented that it was exciting to see advancements on both the
technological and relationship-building fronts. He introduced Ms. Norena
Henry, Senior Program Manager, American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs
Desk,[^21] OJP, as an invaluable liaison between tribal activities and
the justice community---particularly Global.

**Success Stories From the Field**

***State and Regional Success Story -- Extending Project Passport***

Mr. David Byers, representing the Conference of State Court
Administrators, provided a "success story from the field"---Extending
Project Passport, an effort shepherded by NCSC. He began by expressing
the importance of highlighting real-life examples of Global work: "In
serving on Global, after all these presentations and projects that are
going on at a national level, you sometimes wonder if any of these
things are really trickling down to 'real people' in the streets: law
enforcement officers doing their job or citizens. I'm going to talk to
you about a project that is affecting real people, right now today. In
the justice business . . . the right information at the right place at
the right time literally can mean the difference between justice and
injustice and, in some cases, life and death. This project deals with
bread-and-butter type of law enforcement activity---orders of protection
. . . ."

The goal of Extending Project Passport is to build upon the earlier
success of the original Project Passport. Project Passport was designed
to improve recognition and enforcement of orders of protection within
and between states and tribes by encouraging states to adopt a
recognizable first page for orders of protection (i.e., by including
common elements and format). The project originated with Kentucky and
its seven bordering states that came together to develop a recognizable
template. The model template of the recognizable first page for
protection orders developed by the Kentucky project is now used in
Kentucky and six of its border states. Since that initiative, the model
template has been adopted as a first page by several other states. It
has also recently been used in a similar regional initiative for the
Southeastern United States. Extending Project Passport will convene two
different regional meetings to create consensus on further adoption of
the model template of the recognizable first page. Approximately 16 to
18 U.S. states and territories, as well as contiguous tribal regions,
are expected to participate in the Western-Pacific and North-South
Western meetings. Using a recognizable first page for protection orders
will strengthen the safety net for battered women and their children by
offering greater consistency in the issuance and enforcement of orders
of protection. The meetings will also serve to educate state teams about
the intricacies associated with federal laws that pertain to orders of
protection.

A major component of this project is also the promotion and use of XML
technology to improve the comparability of data entered in protection
order registries across states. NCSC will accomplish this in several
ways:

-   An educational overview of XML, related applications, and the Global
    JXDM will be presented, specifically as it relates to domestic
    violence and protection orders.

-   An XML-based protection order form (using the Kentucky model first
    page as the basis) will be developed and demonstrated.

-   A dialogue with front-line personnel, in regard to paper and
    electronic information sharing, will be facilitated through the
    regional meetings.

Mr. Byers reported that in addition to expressly utilizing Global's work
vis-à-vis the Global JXDM, the project holds true to a fundamental
Committee tenet: collaboration. "We're going region to region to bring
together a multidisciplinary group of state and tribal
leaders---technology people, policymakers, judges, administrators, law
enforcement officers---at these meetings, and they're introduced to the
model template, the model order, \[and\] . . . the front page. They are
introduced to the project's benefits, and before they leave, they work
up a regional state-by-state plan to implement that model template. And,
while this started out to be a regional project, it really has become
'national' because everyone's adopting basically the same format. We're
going to wind up with a national standard template." Privacy issues are
handled on a regional basis, through memorandums of understanding, to
best address localities' concerns.

Attendees expressed their appreciation for the presentation and for the
work of the NCSC. Mr. Patrick McCreary, BJA, Global Designated Federal
Official, commended: "I really appreciated this presentation. It brings
it \[Global's work\] all to a 'real-world,' practical level. Generating
a list of these success stories gives value to everybody in the field,
and maybe makes it easier to sell the whole \[information sharing\]
process to others because they see that there's a practical end result."
Chairman Bouche concurred, adding this project is "something that state
legislatures can really get a handle on when you talk about funding.
They can see that there's value."

A number of participants asked: How can someone begin using the
project's good work immediately? Do they need to wait until their entire
region has completed the process? Interested parties were urged to
contact Ms. Denise O. Dancy, Project Director, NCSC, (757) 259-1593, or
<ddancy@ncsc.dni.us>, for further information and assistance.

***Federal Success Story---Leveraging the Work of Global: The National
Information Exchange Model***[^22]

Mr. Michael Daconta, DHS, and Mr. James Feagans, DOJ, provided a NIEM
Model briefing and status report. In their opening remarks, both men
commended Global for their fundamental work on which NIEM is building:
"This is an *evolutionary* process \[extending\] the Global JXDM." Also,
they attributed the project's impressive momentum to "collaboration and
partnership," themes echoed throughout the meeting as integral to
information sharing successes.

The NIEM project is an interagency initiative to provide the foundation
and building blocks for national-level interoperable information sharing
and data exchange. The NIEM project was formally announced at the Global
JXDM Executive Briefing on February 28, 2005.[^23] It was initiated as a
joint venture between DOJ and DHS, with outreach to other departments
and agencies.

The goal of the NIEM is to prevent fragmentation and semantic\
noninteroperability in XML standards within and across agencies through
a proactive, collaborative initiative to develop and implement common
XML information sharing standards that meet critical homeland security
data exchange needs. To that end, NIEM has the following objectives:

-   Develop a unified strategy within DOJ and DHS for an XML-based
    information sharing capability.

-   Develop an initial implementation of the NIEM that satisfies
    Executive Order 13356 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
    (HSPD)-11.

-   Develop an exchange layer for the XML profile implementation of the
    Federal Enterprise Architecture Data Reference Model (FEA DRM).

-   Develop an XML profile of NIEM that implements the FEA DRM.

-   Provide technical assistance and training to local, state, tribal,
    and federal organizations seeking to implement revisions to the
    Global JXDM and support the new national standards emerging from
    joint efforts under this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

-   Develop and demonstrate an application of the NIEM for the Bureau of
    Border and Transportation Security (BTS) operational domain
    involving customs and border patrol agent data exchange as the first
    pilot.

-   Build out a framework for many pilot use cases under the umbrella of
    the NIEM.

As highlighted at the beginning of the presentation, the base technology
for the NIEM is the Global JXDM. The NIEM will leverage both the
extensive Global JXDM reference model and the comprehensive Global JXDM
XML-based framework and support infrastructure. NIEM ultimately looks
forward to extending the good work of the Global JXDM to the national
level by developing partnerships, providing collaborations, and
presenting a unified strategy that will enable the entire justice and
public safety community to effectively share information at all
levels---laying the foundation for local, state, tribal, and national
interoperability and joining together communities of interest.

The NIEM concept embodies "next generation" enterprise data management
technologies at the conceptual and implementational levels. In his
discussion of architectures and technologies, Mr. Daconta allayed GISWG
Chairman Correll's earlier concerns regarding promulgation of SOA for
justice information sharing: "I know the chairman is worried about
'selling' SOA. But I'm here to tell you: you may have to sell it today,
but you're not going to have to sell it soon. \[SOA\] . . . is coming
like a freight train. When I looked at . . . all of the requests coming
in from DHS agencies regarding where they want to take their technical
architecture, they all say 'SOA.' And the story of Service-Oriented
Architecture is being repeated all across the federal government \[and
private industry\]."

Key aspects of the NIEM concept include modularity aligned with common
and stakeholder-specific information needs; stakeholder consensus; and
the collaborative development, sustainability, and reuse of sets of core
data types. "Universal core data types" will have applicability across
all information domains. "Core data types" will have applicability
across two or more (but not all) information domains. Individual domains
can reuse and extend these core data types to meet domain-specific
needs. The following figure shows three information domains represented
by DHS, DOJ, and "Other," which may include other federal departments
such as the U.S. Departments of Defense, State, and Transportation and
the Intelligence Community (IC). Responding to a Committee member
comment, Mr. Feagans concurred that in the current diagram, "local and
state law enforcement needs" are not adequately depicted. They are
assumed under the "DOJ" domain but should be more specifically
delineated to represent the particular information sharing challenges
and concerns faced by this constituency.

![](media/image1.png){width="3.707638888888889in"
height="3.3333333333333335in"}

The development strategy includes a pilot project that develops the NIEM
as a "rebranded" version of the Global JXDM, extending its scope and
aligning its structure and associated processes to include the concept
of core data types. While NIEM is an ambitious undertaking, the
development strategy mitigates risks by leveraging the proven
technologies and processes of the Global JXDM; revising and extending
the Global JXDM architecture, components, and processes for the NIEM
based on an extensive Global JXDM knowledge base of successful
applications and lessons learned; applying industry best practices; and
scoping the initial NIEM release to a small high priority set of core
components. Mr. Daconta and Mr. Feagans both strongly emphasized that
NIEM will **not** disrupt Global JXDM users. This point was echoed by
Mr. Embley, when he noted: "I want to compliment the \[development
strategy\] approach that they're using. Both DOJ and DHS have involved
the Global JXDM community. So . . . just to repeat: Global JXDM is going
to keep working and keep meeting the needs of the field \[while\] NIEM
\[explores a\] kind of 'test bed' to find out if there are modifications
to make this \[model\] easier to use for a larger audience. I really
appreciate that approach, because the users out there that have made
these Global investments to date are protected."

The NIEM strategy will provide core value propositions and benefits in
several respects:

-   Facilitate growth of data model through harmonization of new data
    components.

-   Coordinate independent project teams within DOJ and DHS.

-   Separate core entities and attributes from domain specific.

-   Produce multiple modular schemas (universal core,
    community-of-interest core, and domain specific).

-   Facilitate discovery of reusable data components.

-   Facilitate assembly of reusable exchange packages.

-   Adopt a standard for assigning context.

-   Demonstrate use of core in federated query.

-   Coordinate joint development and joint governance of core entities
    and exchanges.

-   Maintain compatibility with Global JXDM for future work.

-   Provide effective support and assistance for practitioners.

> The NIEM activities summary and status update was delivered as
> follows:

-   Approved by the DOJ/DHS Chief Information Officers (CIO) offices in
    February 2005.

-   DHS/DOJ announced NIEM on February 28, 2005.

-   DOJ/DHS CIO Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) key points were to:

    -   Rename Global JDXM to signify broader scope.

    -   Add DHS/DOJ content.

    -   Rework model and tools (to support modularity).

    -   Status: Signed.

-   Regular national NIEM Program Management Office meetings.

-   Identifying pilot projects and exploring the expansion of IC
    involvement.

    -   DHS State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness
        Office (SLGCP) Innovative Technology Evaluation Pilots (ITEP)
        are participating.

-   Developing Concept of Operations (CONOPS), Project Management Plan
    and National Joint Governance Structure.

-   Develop public information NIEM Web site; cloned Global JXDM,
    supporting tools, and development Web site.

-   Pilot Progress:

    -   DHS Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency Border
        and Transportation Security Pilot.

        -   Status: Completed (April 11-13)

    -   Immigration and Customs Enforcement mapping Enterprise Logical
        Data Model to NIEM.

    -   Discussions with DHS Directorate of Information Analysis and
        Infrastructure Protection and the Federal Emergency Management
        Agency.

    -   Add NIEM content for the FBI; U.S. Drug Enforcement
        Administration; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
        Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; Case Management-Litigation;
        and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys

-   National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Partnership

> Next steps include:

-   DHS/DOJ pilot projects.

-   First draft of NIEM CONOPS (scheduled for comment May 1).

-   Creating a standard format for the Component Mapping Template.

-   Project Tiger Team (consisting of all pilot projects) was formed to
    develop and test component mapping template.

    -   Product will be posted to the NIEM Web site.

-   Project Tiger Team (consisting of all levels of government) was
    formed to develop NIEM interim and national governance.

An important closing point was the explanation of NIEM "key decision
points" in support of a participatory approach to the development and
governance processes. At significant points (e.g., insertion of
technology, change in model structure), feedback from the broader
community (including Global) will be considered before proceeding.
Global members were asked to identify where these key points may be and
what list of requirements should be met before the project moves beyond
a key decision point. Suggestions can be forwarded to Mr. Daconta or Mr.
Feagans.

**Complementary Efforts**

***Environmental Council of the States***

Ms. Molly O'Neill, State Director, Network Steering Board, Environmental
Council of the States, was invited to brief members on the National
Environmental Information Exchange Network ("Exchange Network").[^24]
Exchange Network activities parallel Global efforts in that they concern
facilitating information sharing among constituency members, involving
different levels of government, and utilizing XML. Additionally, the
Exchange Network is already employing a registry (a focus of the GISWG)
and completing return-on-investment case studies (a priority highlighted
during the meeting's opening remarks). By leveraging this complementary
initiative, the Committee may advance its own work as well as explore
possible partnerships in the future. Director O'Neill began by noting,
"I will talk about the cost-benefits we are starting . . . to document .
. . but I will say this: When we started the National Environmental
Information Exchange Network, it wasn't necessarily to save money. It
was because we had to get information into the hands of people who
needed to make decisions. So, as I'm talking about the state
participation, please understand that the people who are participating
in this aren't doing it necessarily for cost savings. But in the world
that we live now, we have to demonstrate that return on investment."

The Exchange Network is a new approach for exchanging environmental data
between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, and
other partners. The Exchange Network became operational in 2003 after
performing its fist automated data exchange. Today, the Exchange Network
consists of more than 30 state partners. Director O'Neill highlighted
the community's reception to the effort: "This is a *voluntary* program.
We have all these states who say, 'This is the way we want to do
business; we're tired of doing things in different formats. We're tired
of trying to do double data entry into our own system.' This is a
voluntary program that all 50 states are incorporating and have some
kind of plan to adopt."

Using the Internet and standardized data formats, the Exchange Network
trades information between nodes or portals maintained individually by
participating partners. A node is a point of interaction between
participants on the Exchange Network and is a collection of specific
technical and policy components that are utilized to provide and receive
information via the Exchange Network.

Data Exchange Templates (DETs) and schemas, data standards, and data
Trading Partner Agreements (TPAs) are also used to ensure data integrity
by clearly defining data needs and establishing standards for
transmission. The use of TPAs adds to the list of benefits of the
Exchange Network, by providing:

-   A common approach to environmental information exchange that is
    manageable by the Agency.

-   A transition from traditional information exchange approaches to a
    data-centric approach focused on data quality.

-   Enhanced potential for data integration.

-   Reduced costs to exchange data.

-   Enhanced Agency control over its data.

Using the Exchange Network, states and other partners make information
accessible to EPA. EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) is the point of
entry (or node) for environmental data exchanges with the Agency. Each
EPA program, such as Air or Water, assists in the development of
exchange formats for its business subject-matter area, coordinates with
CDX to receive transactions based upon these formats, and has the
capacity to exchange data in its own system with CDX. Also, CDX enables
submitters to access their data by using Web services and ensures
streamlined, electronic submission of data via the Internet.

The Exchange Network grant program provides funding to state, tribal,
and territorial partners to encourage data integration efforts using the
Exchange Network. The priorities of the grant program include:

-   Projects that directly help states and tribes participate in the
    Exchange Network.

-   Development of Exchange Network nodes.

-   Implementation of key environmental data flows using the Exchange
    Network.

-   Collaborative, innovative projects that demonstrate how the Exchange
    Network can be used to enhance data sharing and environmental
    decision making.

Director O'Neill walked through an interstate water issue case study to
illustrate Exchange Network use. She noted that a similar scenario---one
perhaps more applicable to Global members' worlds---would follow the
tracking of hazardous waste transport, given the express implications to
homeland security. (Prior to the Exchange Network, it was not always
possible to track shipments from state to state.)

With the Exchange Network, EPA and its partners receive many benefits,
including:

-   Improved data quality. The Exchange Network eliminates faulty data
    entry, duplicative data entry, and transmission of incorrect file
    formats.

-   Better data integration. Partners using the Exchange Network can now
    integrate environmental information across disparate sources,
    programs, and databases.

-   Improved availability of environmental data. The use of Web services
    and the Internet enable the Exchange Network to provide immediate
    access to published data, without any lag in time as experienced in
    the past.

-   Cost savings.[^25]

**Featured Topic: Focus on Security**[^26]

***Federated Identity and Privilege Management Security Interoperability
Demonstration***

The Federated Identity and Privilege Management Security
Interoperability Demonstration (in this section, "Demonstration") is a
side project of members of GSWG's Global Security Architecture Committee
(GSAC), who are undertaking this proof of concept to strengthen future
recommendations of the GSAC vis-à-vis a proven security product. By way
of background, the GSAC is comprised of practitioners actively managing,
supporting, and/or developing state, regional, and national systems. The
group is focusing on the following business need: *the recognition that
networks and information systems exist that involve substantial
investments in technology, governance structures, and trust
relationships. Failure to enable interoperability between the available
information systems continues to impede law enforcement and government
officials' ability to take effective actions when they are not aware of
other information known about a person or event.* In response to the
implementation of the *National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan,* the
GSAC scope of activities are to develop an "overall" NCISP
Interoperability Framework and to define a set of jointly agreed-upon
and standards-based security mechanisms, communications protocols, and
message formats.

Mr. George March, Director, Office of Information Technology, RISS,
began by analogizing the Demonstration effort to a construction process:
"Anytime we build a facility we need to consider what the purpose of
that facility is, who the users are going to be, how are they going to
use it . . . whether that facility happens to be a home or an office or
an application of some kind, or an information sharing system . . . .
What we're doing now \[with the Demonstration effort\] is building a
strong foundation." Continuing the analogy, Ms. Christina Rogers,
California Department of Justice, added, "We're at the point now where
we're going to try to decide what mixture of concrete we want to have."

-   The goal of the Demonstration effort is a multidirectional
    electronic exchange of criminal intelligence information, achieved
    through secure systems interoperability between networks and
    information systems currently not capable of doing so.

-   The scope is to develop and prove an identity and privilege
    management service that can be used to apply authentication and
    access controls by disparate systems and networks desiring to make
    their resources "sharable."

-   The deliverable will be the demonstration of a universal mechanism,
    implementation independent and nonvendor specific, designed to share
    trusted assertions (agreed set of attributes) that can be used to
    apply authentication and access controls. "Basically what that means
    is recognizing that we all have our investments, we all have our
    systems, we all want to offer and share information, but we *do*
    want to keep it secure. We want to prove we can share securely by
    adding on and layering to the \[Global JXDM\] effort that's been
    done . . . so it can be leveraged."

-   The following are participation premises of the Demonstration:

    -   Participants retain control over their resources (dissemination
        and access control decisions made locally).

    -   Participants register and administer their subscriber base.

    -   Participants can implement local technologies.

    -   Participants agree to a minimal set of policies, procedures, and
        standards allowing for subscriber authentication and privilege
        information to be passed between participants.

    -   Participation does not preclude independent, out-of-band,
        bilateral agreements between participants.

-   A use case was presented as follows:

    -   A valid subscriber of System "A" can access applications of
        System "B" (a federation participant).

    -   A valid subscriber of System "B" can access applications of
        System "A" (a federation participant).

    -   A subscriber is "registered" locally and is not required to\
        reregister to another federation participant's system or
        application.

    -   A subscriber authenticates locally and is [not]{.underline}
        required to\
        reauthenticate to another federation application.

        -   This is true even if that subscriber has traversed multiple
            applications within the federation.

    -   Subscriber information is passed to the federation system or
        application.

        -   Access control decisions can be made without local
            provisioning.

Ms. Rogers concluded with a status report on the Demonstration.
Cooperative agreements have been established, funding has been
identified from a variety of sources (DOJ, DHS, BJA, and NIJ), and an
initial data requirements survey on industry specifications and
recommendations/common usage profile has been conducted. The survey
report has been drafted and will be circulated to selected practitioners
for review and comment. The concept demonstration piece is "coming soon"
(two or three weeks).

***Trusted Credential Project***

Director March spoke about the Trusted Credential Project (in this
section, "Project") being undertaken by RISS.

He outlined the trusted credential issue as follows:

"A component of this \[secure information sharing\] depends on
individuals identifying themselves to access their own system. Then,
those participating in the information sharing exchange would be able
to---without leaving their own system---cross the bridges from one
system to another without having a need to reauthenticate as an
individual; there will be no new activity on their part. Once on their
own system, whoever has agreed to participate in this federated
environment can cross those bridges. Ultimately, all of this depends
upon the method by which an individual authenticates themselves to their
own native system and then moves forward and how that individual
identity is preserved \[and\] secured as they cross those boundaries
from place to place.

"RISSNET™ has been in place since 1996. From its very beginning, as with
many other information technology systems, a single credential has been
issued for access to the system. This is not unusual. We \[RISSNET\]
chose ours, other systems chose theirs. For a variety of reasons, RISS
understood that as we expanded our own participant community, we might
not want to impose our credential on others, particularly if they
already had a pocketful of credentials.

"There are two issues in this trust concept. First of all, can you trust
the vetting process that the other agency has used to issue that
credential. Secondly, can you trust the credential itself: is it state
of the art? is it strong? is it composed of the proper elements? So, the
two 'pillars' are 1) trust in the way the credential was issued and 2)
trust in the quality of the credential itself."

-   The mission of the Project is to permit users with credentials from
    trusted partners to access resources available via RISSNET without
    using the user authentication credential (V-ONE SmartPass) currently
    required.

-   The objectives of the Project are to:

    -   Identify industry-leading technologies for user authentication
        and access control.

    -   Develop, test, and demonstrate methods to recognize and accept
        credentials in addition to those currently used on RISSNET.

    -   Provide expanded information sharing and collaboration while
        allowing all partners to keep their current infrastructure
        investments intact.

-   The Project components are:

    -   Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP).

        -   OctetString

    -   XML/Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML).

    -   Enterprise Portal Elements.

    -   PK Certificates, SecureID Tokens, SSL Virtual Private Networks.

    -   Trust Pillars.

        -   Agency vetting

        -   Credential composition

    -   Governance and policy components are *not* part of the project.

The Project is divided into two phases. Phase I involves building a
foundation for information sharing and collaboration among trusted
organizations and demonstrating RISSNET's ability to allow vetted users
with X.509 certificates (issued by trusted partners) to access resources
currently only available via RISSNET to users presenting a valid V-ONE
SmartPass credential. Phase II will:

-   Build upon lessons learned in Phase I.

-   Develop a Federated Identity Management infrastructure that will
    operate on the current RISSNET architecture.

-   Implement an enterprise information technology portal as the focal
    point of access to offered resources.

-   Build a robust and flexible system that allows for interoperability
    with a wide variety of potential partners with whom RISS can work
    to:

    -   Agree on a set of rules governing federated authentication,
        authorization, and access control.

    -   Agree on a set of individual and role-based privileges.

    -   Generate and consume the proper SAML assertions.

    -   Make the appropriate privilege-management decision based upon
        the content of the SAML assertions.

-   Ensure initial and continued system interoperability with the
    Federated Identity and Privilege Management Security Demonstration
    project.

None of these activities will interfere or conflict with the
Demonstration described by Ms. Rogers.

***DHS Service-Oriented Architecture: Security and Identity Management
Component***

Mr. Martin Smith, from the Office of the CIO, DHS, briefed the group on
his department's approach to security for their information sharing
architecture. He prefaced his remarks by tying the presentation to Ms.
O'Neill's. "What we're talking about here is very consistent with that
vision of service-oriented architecture. The security business just adds
another dimension. \[It appears that EPA is combining\] . . . all of the
data into a large container so people can see it. That's a very typical
kind of \[SOA\] arrangement. But I think you'll appreciate that---as the
data gets more sensitive and the number of people gets larger---there's
less data you can put out on that basis. Until you have more control
over who, in that environment, can see exactly what, you're not going to
be willing to put out as much data. *That's* the role of this security
layer . . . ."

DHS's security efforts have to fit into the Information Sharing
Environment framework as envisioned in Executive Order 13356, which
called for "establishment of an interoperable terrorism information
sharing environment to facilitate automated sharing of terrorism
information." An interagency group (Office of Management and Budget,
DHS, DOJ, U.S. Department of Defense \[DoD\], the intelligence
community, and others) delivered recommendations to the President in
December 2004 that included the vision of a national shared information
exchange "environment," based on SOA. The term "environment," not
"network," was used to express the boundary defined by flexible access
control. "When people hear 'network' they think of wires and only the
communication part. Security is so important because your access control
system really defines what the boundaries of your network are; it's not
defined by a physical network."

The DHS access control requirements are as follows:

-   "Federated"---to support a common pool of credentials, roles, and
    permissions with distributed maintenance.

    -   This facilitates "harvesting" existing trust relationships at
        federal, regional, and local levels.

-   Fine-grained---this application needs accountability to individual
    person and individual transaction.

    -   Sharing requires control. "The tighter control you have, the
        more sharing you can do. If I can be really sure this very
        sensitive information is going to get to the ten people that
        need it and *not* to anybody else, then I can share it. If I
        can't be sure of that, I can't share it."

    -   Enables a comprehensive audit capability.

-   Beyond role-based access control (RBAC, e.g., a person employed by
    DHS) to attribute-based access control (ABAC, e.g., a person
    employed by DHS to work in this specific division and with clearance
    to this certain level) and policy-based access control (PBAC).

One of the key components of the security effort is the implementation
of PBAC, a framework to determine appropriate distribution (mandatory
access control and need to know), required to automate access decisions.
Attributes of this framework include:

-   Three sources of data (about the content, about the requestor, and
    about the environment or situation) plus policy rule set (e.g.,
    security and privacy rules).

-   Key assertion: the distribution decision is not made by the data
    custodian.

-   "Separation of concerns"---originator is expert on the content;
    directory holds user credentials and roles; policy is created by
    management.

Technologically, the DHS model converges Liberty Alliance[^27] and SAML
architectures.

The benefits of implementing the DHS security model for the information
sharing environment include:

-   Order-of-magnitude gain in speed, cost, and consistency of
    decisions.

-   Instant, consistent response to changes in environment or in
    policy---"If we can automate 20, 30, or 40 percent of those
    decisions, you can vastly increase the speed and efficiency of
    information flow without losing control over the information sharing
    policies you're responsible for maintaining."

-   The ability to be implemented gradually, via
    "refer-to-human-decision" option.

-   Superior alternative to originator control; can be enforced via
    digital rights management technologies.

-   Automated process can provide full audit (addressing privacy
    concerns) and data for process improvement.

Mr. Smith concluded by stating, "This is not going to be done tomorrow.
It's an 'emerging best practice,' and we're trying to get there as fast
as we can."

Mr. Harlin McEwen commended the work of DHS but cautioned a factor which
*must* be considered is the human element: "At the end of the day, after
you get all this done, you're going to have a huge problem of managing
the people you give access to; you have to ensure somebody keeps track
of the people that get fired, go to jail, retire---\[those people\] who
no longer should have access." Several Committee members concurred with
this comment.

**Concluding Discussion**

Additional points of interest regarding educational and outreach
opportunities were highlighted.

Ms. Harris requested that Global members and meeting attendees mark
their calendars for March 13-15, 2006, when SEARCH will sponsor its
biennial *Symposium on Justice and Public Safety Information Sharing*.
The primary audience is state and local practitioners working on justice
and public safety information sharing issues, and the event is expected
to draw over 1,000 participants. The program is tailored for three types
of attendees: policymakers, operational personnel, and technologists. A
real benefit to participants is the showcasing of tools, resources, and
TTA opportunities to advance their efforts. Ms. Harris expressed the
hope that a strong Global presence would be involved in the
Symposium---from providing suggestions in the planning stages, serving
as presenters, and/or participating as attendees. For more information
about the event as it develops, please refer to the SEARCH Web
site.[^28]

Chairman Bouche noted that over the course of the meeting, he realized
that new members---a hallmark and strength of the GAC via the addition
of new perspectives and unique expertise---are sometimes at a
disadvantage: while a longstanding representative knows about ongoing
Committee efforts (e.g., Global JXDM), a new member is brought in
"midstream." To "even the playing field" for all members as well a
provide refresher briefings for interested participants, a new feature
of GAC events might be workshops on selected technical topics, such as
SOA. The GESC will consider this during the midyear planning meeting,
scheduled for August.

As previously noted, the importance of success stories cannot be
overstated for both their inspirational message to practitioners and
promotion of Global's good work. To that end, Chairman Bouche suggested
contacts be made with the regional projects in the *Extending Project
Passport* effort to discover additional real-life examples of successful
justice information sharing. Additionally, these anecdotes should be
featured in the Global newsletter, possibly under the heading "Success
Stories From\
the Field." Committee members or meeting observers were encouraged to
submit suggestions for staff follow-up.[^29]

At the fall 2005 GAC meeting (likely mid-to-late October), Chairman
Bouche forecast a streamlined format. "We will be working with the
presenters in advance to ensure that presentations stimulate discussion
and decision making. In the future, you \[members\] should be setting
direction and making decisions for most of the meeting." There is a
possibility that the GAC meeting format will be changed to one full day
instead of two half days. "I am seeking your quick input on this. This
change in format is being considered to make it more convenient for the
membership." Members were encouraged to express their thoughts on the
meeting structure to Chairman Bouche.

**Adjournment**

Chairman Bouche thanked Committee members, program officials, and guest
presenters for their participation and expertise. He reviewed the dates
of the upcoming Global Working Group meetings[^30] and requested GAC
members not already involved in a working groups to "make that
commitment."[^31] Having no further business and hearing no further
questions, Mr. Correll made a motion to adjourn the spring 2005 GAC
meeting. Ms. Uecker seconded. The motion was brought to a vote by
Chairman Bouche and carried unanimously.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 Noon on April 28.

**Attachment A**

*Global Advisory Committee*

*Spring 2005 Meeting Agenda*

Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative

Advisory Committee Meeting

April 27-28, 2005

Wyndham Washington, DC

1400 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

\(202\) 429-1700

# Agenda -- Page One

***[Wednesday, April 27, 2005]{.underline}***

+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 1:00 p.m.      | ***Convene***                                       |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 1:00 p.m. --   | -   Welcoming Remarks                               |
| 1:45 p.m.      |                                                     |
|                | > *Kenneth Bouche, Global Advisory Committee (GAC)  |
|                | > Chair*                                            |
|                |                                                     |
|                | -   Introductions                                   |
|                |                                                     |
|                | -   Global Business                                 |
|                |                                                     |
|                |     -   Ratification of September 2004 Minutes and  |
|                |         Annual Report                               |
|                |                                                     |
|                | > *Kenneth Bouche*                                  |
|                |                                                     |
|                | -   Ongoing Importance of Outreach                  |
|                |                                                     |
|                | > *Thomas O'Reilly, GAC Vice Chair*                 |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 1:45 p.m. --   | Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Message            |
| 2:00 p.m.      |                                                     |
|                | > *Domingo Herraiz, Director, Bureau of Justice     |
|                | > Assistance (BJA)*                                 |
|                | >                                                   |
|                | > *John Morgan, Ph.D., Assistant Director, National |
|                | > Institute of Justice*                             |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 2:00 p.m. --   | Law Enforcement Information Sharing Program (LEISP) |
| 2:15 p.m.      | Update                                              |
|                |                                                     |
|                | > *Michael Duffy, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)* |
|                | >                                                   |
|                | > *Harlin McEwen, International Association of      |
|                | > Chiefs of Police*                                 |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 2:15 p.m. --   | > Global Infrastructure/Standards Working Group     |
| 2:45 p.m.      | > Update                                            |
|                |                                                     |
|                | -   Chairman's Report                               |
|                |                                                     |
|                | > *Steven Correll, NLETS -- The International       |
|                | > Justice and Public Safety Information\            |
|                | > Sharing Network*                                  |
|                |                                                     |
|                | -   Global XML Structure Task Force Chairman's      |
|                |     Report                                          |
|                |                                                     |
|                | > *Paul Embley, Practitioner Resource Group*        |
|                |                                                     |
|                | -   Global Training and Technical Assistance        |
|                |     Committee Update                                |
|                |                                                     |
|                | > *Paul Wormeli, Integrated Justice Information     |
|                | > Systems (IJIS) Institute*                         |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 2:45 p.m. --   | > Success Story From the Field: Extending Project   |
| 3:00 p.m.      | > Passport                                          |
|                | >                                                   |
|                | > *David Byers, Conference of State Court           |
|                | > Administrators*                                   |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 3:00 p.m. --   | > ***Break***                                       |
| 3:15 p.m.      |                                                     |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+

Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative

Advisory Committee Meeting

April 27-28, 2005

Wyndham Washington, DC

1400 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

\(202\) 429-1700

# Agenda -- Page Two

***[Wednesday, April 27, 2005]{.underline} (continued)***

+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 3:15 p.m. --   | > Global Privacy and Information Quality Working    |
| 3:45 p.m.      | > Group Update                                      |
|                |                                                     |
|                | -   Chairman's Report and [Privacy Policy           |
|                |     Developer's Workbook]{.underline} Presentation  |
|                |                                                     |
|                | > *Jeanette Plante, Esquire, Executive Office for   |
|                | > United States Attorneys*                          |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 3:45 p.m. --   | TOPOFF Exercise: Lessons Learned, Information       |
| 4:00 p.m.      | Sharing Issues                                      |
|                |                                                     |
|                | > *Thomas O'Reilly*                                 |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 4:00 p.m. --   | Collaboration Success Story -- Executive Briefing   |
| 4:45 p.m.      | Recap and the National\                             |
|                | Information Exchange Model (NIEM) Project           |
|                |                                                     |
|                | > *Michael Daconta, U.S. Department of Homeland     |
|                | > Security (DHS)*                                   |
|                | >                                                   |
|                | > *James Feagans, DOJ\                              |
|                | > *                                                 |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 4:45 p.m. --   | Open Discussion                                     |
| 5:00 p.m.      |                                                     |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 5:00 p.m.      | > ***Adjournment***                                 |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+

Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative

Advisory Committee Meeting

April 27-28, 2005

Wyndham Washington, DC

1400 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

\(202\) 429-1700

# Agenda -- Page Three

***[Thursday, April 28, 2005]{.underline}***

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 8:30 a.m.        | ***Reconvene***                                   |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Kenneth Bouche*                                |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 8:30 a.m. --     | > Panel: Tribal Issues and Justice Information    |
| 9:15 a.m.        | > Sharing                                         |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   New Mexico Pueblo Crime Data Project and      |
|                  |     [Sharing Criminal Record Information Among    |
|                  |     New Mexico Tribes and State]{.underline}      |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Ada Melton, American Indian Development        |
|                  | > Associates*                                     |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Kelly Harris, SEARCH, The National Consortium  |
|                  | > for Justice*                                    |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Information and Statistics*                    |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Inter-Tribal Integration Project              |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Phillip Propes, National Center for Rural Law  |
|                  | > Enforcement*                                    |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Tyler Lastiyano, Pueblo of Zuni Department of  |
|                  | > Public Safety*                                  |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Tribal Technology and Information Sharing     |
|                  |     Outreach Program                              |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Phillip Propes*                                |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 9:15 a.m. --     | Global Intelligence Working Group and Criminal    |
| 9:45 a.m.        | Intelligence Coordinating\                        |
|                  | Council Update                                    |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Chairman's Report                             |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Kenneth Bouche*                                |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 9:45 a.m. --     | Complementary Efforts: Cost Savings Realized --   |
| 10:15 a.m.       | National Environmental\                           |
|                  | Information Exchange Network and the U.S.         |
|                  | Environmental Protection\                         |
|                  | Agency                                            |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Molly O'Neill, Environmental Council of the    |
|                  | > States*                                         |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 10:15 a.m. --    | ***Break***                                       |
| 10:30 a.m.       |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative

Advisory Committee Meeting

April 27-28, 2005

Wyndham Washington, DC

1400 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

\(202\) 429-1700

# Agenda -- Page Four

***[Thursday, April 28, 2005]{.underline} (continued)***

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 10:30 a.m. --    | Global Security Working Group                     |
| 11:15 a.m.       |                                                   |
|                  | -   Chairman's Report                             |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Steven Correll\                                |
|                  | > Chelle Uecker, National Association for Court   |
|                  | > Management*                                     |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Emerging Technologies---Next Steps in the     |
|                  |     Information Sharing Puzzle                    |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  |     -   Federated ID and Privilege Management     |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > *Christina Rogers, California Department of     |
|                  | > Justice*                                        |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *George March, Regional Information Sharing     |
|                  | > Systems*                                        |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Martin Smith, DHS*                             |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 11:15 a.m. --    | Open Discussion                                   |
| 11:45 a.m.       |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 11:45 a.m. --    | Wrap-Up, Next Meeting, and ***Adjournment***      |
| 12:00 Noon       |                                                   |
|                  | > *Kenneth Bouche*                                |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

**Attachment B**

Outline:

*Privacy Policy Development Guidebook*

**Privacy Policy Development Guidebook\
Contents**

**Section 1 Message From the Chair**

**Section 2 Introduction**

**Section 3 Privacy Policy Overview** (*bridges introduction to the
\"meat\" of guide*)

> 3.1 What Is a Privacy Policy?
>
> 3.2 The Intersection Between Privacy and Information Quality
>
> 3.2.1 What Is Information Quality?
>
> 3.2.2 Impact of Data Quality on Privacy and Public Access
>
> 3.2.2.1 Example of Impact of Poor Data Quality
>
> 3.2.3 What Generates Data Quality Issues?
>
> 3.2.4 Future Guidance Statement

**Section 4 Governance**

4.1 Identifying the Champion

> 4.2 Resource Justification

4.3 Identifying the Project Leader

4.4 Building the Project Team and Stakeholder Contacts

**Section 5 Planning**

> 5.1 Developing a Vision, Mission, Values Statement, and Goals and
> Objectives
>
> 5.1.1 Vision Statement
>
> 5.1.2 Mission Statement
>
> 5.1.3 Values Statement
>
> 5.1.4 Goals and Objectives
>
> 5.2 Writing the Charter

**Section 6 Process**

> 6.1 Understanding Information Exchanges
>
> 6.1.1 Tools to Assist With Understanding the Flow of Information
>
> 6.1.1.1 Justice Information Privacy Guideline
>
> 6.1.1.2 JIEM Tool
>
> 6.1.1.3 Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
>
> 6.1.1.4 Focus Groups (Interviews)
>
> 6.2 Analyzing the Legal Requirements
>
> 6.2.1 Introduction
>
> 6.2.2 Approach to the Legal Analysis
>
> 6.2.3 Focusing the Legal Analysis
>
> 6.2.3.1 Suggestions for Approaching the Legal Analysis
>
> 6.2.3.2 Potential Sources of Legal Authority and Limitations
>
> 6.2.3.3 Particular Events and Actions
>
> 6.2.3.4 Information Related to a Specific Person
>
> 6.2.4 Performing the Legal Analysis
>
> 6.2.4.1 Principles
>
> 6.2.4.1.1 Collection of Information
>
> 6.2.4.1.2 Information Quality Relative to Collection and Maintenance
> of Information
>
> 6.2.4.1.3 Sharing and Dissemination of Information---Public Access
>
> 6.2.4.1.4 Provisions Relevant to the Individual Whom Information Has
> Been Collected
>
> 6.2.4.1.5 Information and Record Retention and Destruction
>
> 6.2.4.1.6 Agency or Project Transparency
>
> 6.2.4.1.7 Accountability and Enforcement
>
> 6.2.4.2 Specific Laws to Examine
>
> 6.2.5 Checklist
>
> 6.2.6 Resources
>
> 6.3 Using FIPs as a Starting Point (*law enforcement exception
> discussion*)
>
> 6.4 Identifying Critical Issues and Policy Gaps

**Section 7 Product (Developing the Elements of the Privacy Policy)**

> 7.1 Vision and Scope for the Privacy Policy
>
> 7.2 Outline and Organizational Structure
>
> 7.2.1 Introduction
>
> 7.2.2 Definitions
>
> 7.2.3 Applicability
>
> 7.2.4 Legal Requirements and Policy Guidance
>
> 7.2.5 Accountability (*responsibility for implementation/compliance
> monitor*)
>
> 7.2.6 Process for Revisions and Amendments
>
> 7.3 Writing the Privacy Policy
>
> 7.3.1 Making the Policy Choices---Filling In the Gaps
>
> 7.4 Vetting the Privacy Policy
>
> 7.5 Resources
>
> 7.5.1 Some Common Elements of Current Policies
>
> 7.5.2 Policy Example(s)

**Section 8 Implementation**

8.1 Formal Adoption of the Policy

8.2 Publication

8.3 Outreach

8.4 Training

**Appendix A**

> Case Study: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority and
> Illinois Integrated Justice Information System (IIJIS)
>
> A.1 Background
>
> A.2 The Challenge
>
> A.3 Objective
>
> A.4 Strategic Planning
>
> A.5 Project Team
>
> A.6 Project Process
>
> A.7 Lessons Learned
>
> A.8 Best Practices

**Appendix B**

> Definitions

**Appendix C**

> Acknowledgements

**Appendix D**

> Compendium (p*rovided as a Web link*)

**Attachment C**

*So you want to set up Wi-Fi...*

[^1]: ***Attachment A.***

[^2]:   Located at <http://it.ojp.gov/documents/GACBylaws.pdf>.

[^3]:   Extensible Markup Language

[^4]:   More information about BJA's Training and Technical Assistance
    services is available at
    <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/tta/index.html>.

[^5]:   Located at
    <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/tta/TTA_Menu_4_2005.pdf>.

[^6]:   Hard copies of Global documents are available from Global
    support staff by calling (850) 385-0600, extension 285.

[^7]:   The GISWG summary was compiled from the chair's and speakers'
    remarks and accompanying PowerPoint presentations available online
    at <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=69>.

[^8]:   Available at <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=57>

[^9]:   These materials are available online, fee free, at
    <http://www.it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=155>.

[^10]: Viewed as one of the cornerstones of the *National Criminal
    Intelligence Sharing Plan* implementation, (located at
    <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=93>) the CICC was established
    to provide recommendations in connection with the implementation and
    refinement of the Plan. The CICC serves as advocates for local,
    state, and tribal law enforcement and supports their efforts to
    develop and share criminal intelligence for the purpose of promoting
    public safety and securing our nation.

[^11]: Located in the Resource Library section of the *National Criminal
    Intelligence Sharing Plan,* available at

    <http://it.ojp.gov/documents/ncisp/>.

[^12]: The GPIQWG summary was compiled from the chair's remarks and
    accompanying PowerPoint presentations, available online at
    <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=69>.

[^13]: ***Attachment B.***

[^14]:   ***Attachment C.***

[^15]:   Located at <http://www.it.ojp.gov/global>.

[^16]:   Located at <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=93>.

[^17]:   Much of the background information about the TOPOFF Exercise
    was taken directly from the DHS\
    Web site, located at [http://www.dhs.gov](http://www.dhs.gov/).

[^18]:   The presentation summary was compiled from the speakers'
    comments, accompanying\
    PowerPoint presentations (available online at
    <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=69>), and information
    available from a variety of online sources, including
    <http://www.search.org/files/pdf/NMpolicyIB.pdf>,
    <http://www.ncrle.net/CITE/index.htm#Integration>, and
    <http://www.ncrle.net/CITE/index.htm#Integration>.

[^19]:   More information on the JIEM tool is available at
    <http://www.search.org/programs/technology/jiem.asp>.

[^20]:   Located at [http://www.tjiss.net](http://www.tjiss.net/).

[^21]: For more information, please visit
    <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/americannative/whats_new.htm>.

[^22]:   The presentation summary was compiled from the speakers'
    comments, accompanying PowerPoint presentation (available online at
    <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=69>), and NIEM information
    available at [http://www.niem.gov](http://www.niem.gov/).

[^23]: More information on this event is available at
    <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=195>.

[^24]:   The presentation summary was compiled from the speakers'
    comments, accompanying PowerPoint presentation (available online at
    <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=69>), and information
    available at <http://www.exchangenetwork.net/index.htm>.

[^25]:   Director O'Neill noted that return-on-investment issues are
    being documented. For additional information, readers are encouraged
    to visit <http://www.exchangenetwork.net/benefits/index.htm> and
    review this presentation's corresponding PowerPoint presentation,
    located on <http://it.ojp.gov/global>.

[^26]:   The "Focus on Security" summary was compiled from the speakers'
    remarks and accompanying PowerPoint presentations, available online
    under at <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=69>.

[^27]:   The mission of the Liberty Alliance Project is to establish an
    open standard for federated network identity through open technical
    specifications. More information on the project is available at
    <http://www.projectliberty.org/>.

[^28]:   Located at <http://www.search.org/>.

[^29]:   Information success stories can be submitted to Global staff at
    <drinehart@iir.com>.

[^30]:   Global events are listed on the OJP IT Event Calendar, located
    at <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=5>.

[^31]:   To volunteer for a working group or learn more about
    opportunities for Global involvement, Committee members should call
    Global staff at (850) 385-0600, extension 285.