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

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.

(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


--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>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<