[enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration

At 02:45 PM 2/5/2005, John C Klensin wrote:

>Richard,
>
>I agree with everything you say, with two qualifications...
>
>(1) I'm not sure the world revolves around North America and the
>NANP.  Indeed, I consider that attitude to be harmful to the
>Internet and the IETF, regardless of what things look like from
>the vicinity of the beltway.

I don't disagree John ..far from it. However as a practical matter I have 
had conversations from industry representatives and interested parties in 
other countries something to the effect " well if the US and Canada dont 
care about ENUM why should we". That said I can categorically state that 
the Europeans and Asia-Pac nations have unquestionably taken the lead in 
both deployments and a variety of technical advancements and the 
forthcoming APRICOT in Kyoto will conclusively demonstrate that.

I am concerned that if discussions in the US and Canada get thrown off the 
track it will not be good for advancing the state of ENUM deployments in 
other countries.


>(2) Since said permanent delegate of Syria submits these things
>to SG2 and then uses the fact that they have been put on the
>agenda as motivation for arguing in other forums that this is an
>area under ITU control, there is a case to be made that the SG2
>management becomes part of the problem when they put these
>things on the agenda rather than ruling them out of order.  I
>understand at least some of the constraints under which they
>operate, but you should understand why, given that and the
>behavior patterns of the last several years, I don't completely
>share your confidence.

John ... I said "some" confidence :-) ...but laced with a very healthy dose 
of paranoia.

Best wishes as always ..


>    john
>
>
>--On Saturday, 05 February, 2005 14:28 -0500 Richard Shockey
><richard at shockey.us> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> I wonder how you (or we) should define "progress"?  We start
> >> with an area that was originally agreed to be an IETF
> >> responsibility with TSB participation on
> >> authorization/validation issues.  It then "evolves", at SG2
> >> insistence, to something that is assumed to involve at least
> >> some topics we should discuss together.  And now we have
> >> attained the pinnacle of a discussion within SG2,
> >> apparently-secret from the outside world, based on documents
> >> that are not generally available to the IETF and the ENUM user
> >> community.
> >>
> >> And, of course, unless ITU-T SG2 is planning to disrupt the
> >> Internet by setting up an alternate root, their deciding on an
> >> ENUM TLD is only slightly more likely to be relevant than
> >> their passing a Recommendation that changes the speed of
> >> light.
> >>
> >> Leslie, Scott, can these documents be obtained and released to
> >> the IETF ENUM WG and interested members of the community so
> >> that we can further evaluate the level of progress?
> >
> > Attached ...
> >
> > However considering the source of these documents  ..the well
> > known Permanant Delegate of Syria to the ITU I'm not overly
> > concerned about their impact, but this requires careful
> > monitoring.  John I'm in total agreement the principle that
> > the price of the Internet freedom is eternal vigilance .
> >
> > I have some ... some ..confidence in SG-2 management to "do
> > the right thing" here and in any event. IMHO the most
> > important task for the global ENUM community to accomplish is
> > getting the delegation for 1.e164.arpa to North America ASAP
> > and commence short lived trials that will lead to commercial
> > deployment.
> >
> > Once that is done I think we would have sent a message that
> > e164.apra is real and that further discussions on the matter
> > of a different root are futile.
> >
> > That process is well underway.. discussions over how the ENUM
> > LLC management entity will act are taking place almost weekly
> > . I'm also very confident that there well be responsible,open
> > ,and competitive bidding processes for both the US and
> > Canadian portions of the NANP within the late 2005 very early
> > 2006 time frame.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology
> > Initiatives
> > NeuStar Inc.
> > 46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
> > sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com
> > ENUM +87810-13313-31331
> > PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683,
> > Fax: +1 815.333.1237
> > <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
> > <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
> > <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<