[Ccglrit-gcclrit] comments

Dear Tracy / Sam Following to my last day email , please find in below some comments about last draft documents LRIT . If possible for you , please refer it to relevant working group ( or in plenary) for consideration and inform me about the results Best regards Saeid Khorsandi Senior expert of marine communication Ports and shipping organization - Iran GENERAL COMMENTS ( To Mr. SAM RYAN ): 1- In order to do some arrangments between all working groups and also have a same policy in common points , I suggest all working group's chairmans have a meeting about the decisions at the end of each day . For example in last meeting ( third Ad Hoc ) , there was two different views in IDE-COMM and BILLING COSTING groups concerning the method of transaction messages as a flag state and necessity for LRIT info From ships associated with DC go out and back through IDE 2- In the last session ( third meeting ) output document of IDE-COMM included some important comments which have been written in left side of each paragraphs or tables , but in last draft document we couldn' t find any feed back or result of these comments . Please inform all members about results of discussion in these comments via the reflector. OTHER COMMENTS 1- According to part 10.3 of performance standards the IDE have continuous access to DDP . But in the system architecture figure in the Performance Standards does not have an arrow linking the Data Distribution Plan to the International LRIT Data Exchange . Also in figure 2 of draft document for communication, there is a direct link between DDP and IDE . This matter should be considered in IDE and DDP working groups. 2- About the access to information as a Port State , as far as you know a Port State request is always triggered by a Notice of Arrival but who is responsible for sending the NOA and how? For your information currently the format of NOA's are different around the world and being issued by the agent of ships to the destination port which the contracting government doesn't have any information about the ship destination. 3- According to performance standards , ships as soon as passing any country's sea borders ( for example port or coastal state borders) must automatically be configured according to DDP via their DC . How DCs are being informed , and find out their ships are passing the countries geographical Sea borders ? Maybe ship born equipment inform the DC but in this case the DDP should be installed in the ship's terminal !!! If DC has discovered a match , in this case ships should be configured in minimum interval for finding the exact time of border passing ( and the billing will be raised) 4- In last draft document of international data center : a. In part 1.2.2.2 term " identification" must be changed to " ship borne equipment Id." According to table 1 . It should be distinguished what is this " ship borne equipment Id "? b. As have been written in this document "IDC operator" means the individual responsible for the daily operation and maintenance of the International LRIT Data Centre , but the qualification of this operators and level of education should be considered by the working group ( IDC group) c. In part 1.2.3.2 term " the present Performance standards" must be changed to " the present technical spec." d. Part 3.2.1.2 is not needed.