[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
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
>> 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
>> 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
"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
>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,
>>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 Oppenheimer, 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
FREE 800/Domain Classifieds, http://ICBclassifieds.com
Domain Name & 800 News, Intelligence, Analysis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 3:56 AM
> To: Judith Oppenheimer; 'Robert F. Connelly'; email@example.com
> Cc: 'NSI Registrars Mailing List'; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
> 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
> 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
> >"126.96.36.199.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
> 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, firstname.lastname@example.org
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no