Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM)

["B C" brettlists@localhost]

I just realised that I responded directly to Antoin and missed cc to
the group, so here was my response, apologies for the confusion.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:25 AM, B C brettlists@localhost wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Antoin Verschuren
> <Antoin.Verschuren@localhost wrote:
>> PDP Number: 2008-05
>> Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM
>>
>> While I strongly support the proposal for more than 1 anycast assignment
>> per TLD/ENUM tier1 operator, I do have some problems with the definition
>> of the ENUM tier1 operators.
>>
>> Where it says:
>>
>> "ENUM operators as defined by the ITU"
>>
>> I think it should say:
>>
>> "ENUM tier0/1 operators as defined by RIPE NCC"
>>
>> I wouldn't want the ITU to determine who should get address space, and
>> the counterpart for IANA in the ENUM space is RIPE NCC.
>> I see the ITU more in the role ICANN has with regards to TLD's, or
>> perhaps even the US DOC.
>>

 However the reason this was put there is that as I undertstand this
 area, it's not the RIPE NCC's responsibility who gets an ENUM Country
 Code, those are I believe approved by the ITU and then administred by
 the RIPE NCC. So I think "ENUM tier0/1 operators as defined by RIPE
 NCC" would be factually incorrect.

Regards

 Brett