From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #110 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, November 27 2000 Volume 01 : Number 110 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:26:22 -0500 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" Subject: RE: [wg-b] Re: [wg-c] telephone numbers in domain names. >> The enum working group chair is Richard Shockley Richard Shockey works for NeuStar. Re leadership, he is the working group chair. >> NeuStar was created (many years ago) Its a Lockheed Martin morph, proposed in December '98 and approved by the FCC in November '99: In December, 1998, Lockheed Martin (which was found to be in violation of the FCC's neutrality requirements) agreed to spin off its Communications Industry Services (CIS) unit, which administered the North American Numbering Plan, to an newly created affiliate of investment banker E.M. Warburg Pincus: NeuStar. On November 17, 1999 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an Order approving the proposed transfer of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) administrative functions from Lockheed Martin IMS Corporation to NeuStar, Inc. >> I have nothing against pulver's business model; all I've said about that is >> that they don't need the .tel domain to pursue it. >>It sure made a lot more sense than the other proposals for .tel! Actually, I did have a problem with the business model re its policy plans: "iTAB seeks authority from ICANN ... over the core policies that define the utilization of ".tel" as a shared resource for bridging the addressing gap between legacy telephone numbers and emerging standards of the Internet-Telephony industry." "Following the current practice with all Internet top-level domains, the registration of E.164 numbers in the DLS will be managed by a single trusted "Registry". It is assumed that this exclusive Registry function will fall under the regulatory control of ICANN." Two levels below ICANN in the .tel food chain is the "E.164 Registrant: E.164 Subscriber or designated representative that registers numbers and an associated ADS in the top-level DLS." David Peek (speaking for iTAB's .tel) told me, "One of the core tenets of our registration policies is to reinforce the property rights of "subscribers" in the E.164 name space, whereas the e164.arpa (ENUM) structure delegates control of all registration functions to the 240+ government entities that regulate the PSTN today." Good idea, but ICANN with its existing revocation policy, is hardly a subscriber rights advocate. As for ENUM policy issues, I have concerns there too. Perhaps Shockey said it best just one year ago: >Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:29:30 -0500 >To: e164-to-ip@l... >From: Richard Shockey rshockey@i... >Subject: Re: scope of the ENUM WB >I may be wrong but this proposal may raise some red flags in Geneva. >This clearly touches on their "space". Again this is >very very delicate area. >There are issues of capabilities, scaleability, integration...the >list is endless here. > >...we have a whole pot load of other issues to deal with such as >what is the effect of putting billions of numbers into the existing >DNS system? Security, authorization, number ownership and control. > >I won't even try to comment the Layer 10 issues of the ITU, ESTI, >EMA/VPIM etc. >>they don't need the .tel domain to pursue it. Well, the ITU wouldn't mind having it: ITU Letter to ICANN, November 1, 2000: "The ITU would suggest that particularly careful reflection is warranted as to the global long-term benefits to the Internet community in allocating certain TLDs at this time—especially considering both the irreversibility of such a decision, and that it may preclude, perhaps other, more beneficial, future uses. One example is .tel, which has an obvious mnemonic link to telephony, and particularly IP Telephony services." Judith Judith Oppenheimer, 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Publisher, http://www.ICBTollFreeNews.com President, http://www.1800TheExpert.com FREE 800/Domain Classifieds, http://ICBclassifieds.com Domain Name & 800 News, Intelligence, Analysis > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Harald Alvestrand > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 3:56 AM > To: Judith Oppenheimer; 'Robert F. Connelly'; wg-c@dnso.org > Cc: 'NSI Registrars Mailing List'; registrars@dnso.org; wg-c@dnso.org; > wg-b@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-b] Re: [wg-c] telephone numbers in domain names. > > > At 13:25 22/11/2000 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > >There are obvious benefits of keeping ENUM out of ICANN's > clutches, but > > > >(a) the IETF ENUM working group's leadership contains people > from Verisign > >and NeuStar and others no doubt too, who are or will be > competing with > >Pulver/NetNumber for commercial supremacy in the ENUM > marketplace: note > >ENUM's rush to strike a deal with the ITU, literally just weeks ago, > >questioned by some ENUM followers, > > The details of this issue can be inspected in > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-itu-sg2-liason-enum-00.txt > The enum working group chair is Richard Shockley, who has a > Netcom address. > The published RFC 2916 was written by Patrik Fältström of Cisco. > I'm not sure what you mean by "leadership".... > > >and (b), that rosy ITU path is not without thorns ... for example, > >"1.e164.arpa" represents an area that's actually shared > between several > >North American countries; even within the US, the delegation > to the ITU is > >managed by the State Department while the regulation of telephony is > >managed by the FCC. > > actually I believe the "1" number space is managed by > NeuStar, and that > NeuStar was created (many years ago) expressly for the > purpose of managing > this number space. > > >(At the area code level its no better. Who has authority over > >"2.1.2.1.e164.arpa"? Is this the New York State public utilities > >commission, Verizon, or a third party? > > probably you would have to ask NeuStar which telephone company > [0..9].2.1.2.e164.arpa is assigned to; I believe numbers are > handed out to > companies in blocks of 10.000 or so. > > > Still further, a potential use of > >ENUM is to bypass the local carrier, for example to send documents as > >e-mail instead of faxes; this means, potentially, a loss of > revenues. So > >while the users of phone numbers have an interest in listing > their numbers, > >the phone companies are conflicted.) > > the easiest way to do this is of course to publish your email address > instead of your fax number; enum is intended for the case > where you for > some reason have a number, and no email address. > > I believe the common case here is where you wish to reach the > net/phone > gateway that provides service to this number; I have no idea how the > business models of such gateways will work out, but one > possibility is that > the subscriber gets the ability to be reached from an IP > phone as part of > his normal telephone subscription. In that case, the > management hierarchy > proposed by the ITU makes sense. > > >Bottom line: the IAB/IETF/ITU alliance against > Pulver/NetNumber's .TEL is > >business, not altruism. > > I have nothing against pulver's business model; all I've said > about that is > that they don't need the .tel domain to pursue it. > It sure made a lot more sense than the other proposals for .tel! > > -- > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com > +47 41 44 29 94 > Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:00:24 +0100 (MET) From: DNSO Secretariat Subject: [wg-c] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences [ To: as listed below ] 24 November 2000 The next Names Council teleconferences are scheduled for: Tuesday 19 December 2000 Wednesday 24 January 2001 The Intake Committee welcomes your input up to 21 days before the date of each meeting. The agenda is expected to be published 14 days in advance of the meeting, and the related documents 7 days in advance. Agenda for 19 December 2000 NC meeting: please submit your input before 28 November 2000 to agenda@dnso.org Agenda for 24 January 2001 NC meeting: please submit your input before 3 January 2001 to agenda@dnso.org DNSO Secretariat - -- Preparation of agendas for NC meetings - -------------------------------------- At its 21 September meeting the DNSO Names Council (NC) requested the Intake Committee (IC) to assist it with the preparation of agendas for NC meetings. The IC invites suggestions for agenda items from the following groups: * members of the Names Council * the Names Council Secretariat * the ICANN Board * members of the ICANN Board * the ICANN Officers and Staff * the GA Chair * members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org or the GA voting register * subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group Agenda suggestions may be submitted to agenda@dnso.org, see archives in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/agenda/Arc00/maillist.html In order to give sufficient notice to NC members and to allow time for consultation within Constituencies items must be submitted 21 days before the date of the meeting. Names Council Intake Committee Philip Sheppard, Caroline Chicoine, Paul Kane, Youn Jung Park, Michael Schneider - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:44:20 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand Subject: RE: [wg-b] Re: [wg-c] telephone numbers in domain names. At 09:26 24/11/2000 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: >Actually, I did have a problem with the business model re its policy plans: > > "iTAB seeks authority from ICANN ... over the core policies that > define >the utilization of ".tel" as a shared resource for bridging the addressing >gap between legacy telephone numbers and emerging standards of the >Internet-Telephony industry." > > "Following the current practice with all Internet top-level > domains, the >registration of E.164 numbers in the DLS will be managed by a single >trusted "Registry". It is assumed that this exclusive Registry function >will fall under the regulatory control of ICANN." I had problems with this plan too, but perhaps in a different sense than you. I believe that letting customers claim rights to a number in e164.com when they have lost all rights to the same number in the real telephone number space will lead to much confusion and no gain. The telephone number space is the reality, and all spaces that mirror it, whether e164.com or e164.arpa, are its shadows (to misuse Platon's imagery). Having shadows that linger when the reality is gone benefits nobody. But I believe Pulver knows what it's getting into, and its failure to maintain its shadows properly in e164.com will be a matter between them and their customers, not a problem for the Internet as a whole. Therefore, I may be concerned, but not worried. IMHO, of course. - -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com +47 41 44 29 94 Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:54:12 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] forwarded for Judith Oppenheimer >From: "Judith Oppenheimer" >To: "'Harald Alvestrand'" , >Cc: >Subject: RE: [wg-b] Re: [wg-c] telephone numbers in domain names. >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 22:47:29 -0500 > >Harald, extend that to its (unwelcome) possibilities ... having laid the tm >characteristic onto phone numbers, imagine trademark owners extending that >right to alpha versions of telephone numbers subscribed to others ... > >I can too easily envision trademark owners UDRPing unsuspecting POTS line >subscribers in order to hijack all the alpha variations of their marks ... >its a stretch, but considering some of the UDRP interpretations and >rulings, I take nothing for granted. > >> The telephone number space is the reality, and all spaces >> that mirror it, >> whether e164.com or e164.arpa, are its shadows > >Maybe, maybe not ... folding numbers into the DNS creates a new hierarchy >... remember Richard Sharkey's warning ... > >>Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:29:30 -0500 >>To: e164-to-ip@l... >>From: Richard Shockey rshockey@i... >>Subject: Re: scope of the ENUM WB > >...>...we have a whole pot load of other issues to deal with such as >>what is the effect of putting billions of numbers into the existing >>DNS system? Security, authorization, number ownership and control. >> >>I won't even try to comment the Layer 10 issues of the ITU, ESTI, >>EMA/VPIM etc. > >Judith > >Judith Oppenheimer, 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert >Publisher, http://www.ICBTollFreeNews.com >President, http://www.1800TheExpert.com >FREE 800/Domain Classifieds, http://ICBclassifieds.com >Domain Name & 800 News, Intelligence, Analysis > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no] >> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 8:44 AM >> To: Judith Oppenheimer; wg-c@dnso.org >> Cc: wg-b@dnso.org >> Subject: RE: [wg-b] Re: [wg-c] telephone numbers in domain names. >> >> >> At 09:26 24/11/2000 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: >> >Actually, I did have a problem with the business model re >> its policy plans: >> > >> > "iTAB seeks authority from ICANN ... over the core >> policies that >> > define >> >the utilization of ".tel" as a shared resource for bridging >> the addressing >> >gap between legacy telephone numbers and emerging standards of the >> >Internet-Telephony industry." >> > >> > "Following the current practice with all Internet top-level >> > domains, the >> >registration of E.164 numbers in the DLS will be managed by a single >> >trusted "Registry". It is assumed that this exclusive >> Registry function >> >will fall under the regulatory control of ICANN." >> >> I had problems with this plan too, but perhaps in a different >> sense than you. >> >> I believe that letting customers claim rights to a number in >> e164.com when >> they have lost all rights to the same number in the real >> telephone number >> space will lead to much confusion and no gain. >> The telephone number space is the reality, and all spaces >> that mirror it, >> whether e164.com or e164.arpa, are its shadows (to misuse >> Platon's imagery). >> Having shadows that linger when the reality is gone benefits nobody. >> >> But I believe Pulver knows what it's getting into, and its failure to >> maintain its shadows properly in e164.com will be a matter >> between them and >> their customers, not a problem for the Internet as a whole. >> Therefore, I may be concerned, but not worried. >> >> IMHO, of course. >> >> >> >> -- >> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com >> +47 41 44 29 94 >> Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no >> >> > > ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #110 **************************