Re: dangerously flawed study on Naming, Numbering and Addressing to be presented at DG INFOSOC workshop

[Jim Reid <]

Michael, I've skimmed through this report by Political Intelligence.
IMO there are a handful of niggling errors that are not that important
in the overall context of the report -- how DNS resolution works, 8
out of 9 .arpa servers are in the USA, etc. Taken as a whole, it seems
a reasonably fair document, based on my skim through it. Perhaps my
cursory glance at the report has missed something. What specifically
are the fundamental facts that have been misunderstood and the flawed
conclusions that follow? If you could point me (and others) at
specific page numbers, I'd be grateful. This will save me falling
asleep by having to carefully read a 160 page EU report. :-)

My biggest gripe with the report are the throwaway and misleading
references to alternate ENUM roots. Everyone with a clue knows these
are stupid and unworkable. I suspect that they were added for political
reasons. It's probably just a nod towards some misguided people in the
Commission who have a bee in their bonnet about this. Golden tree =>
monopoly => BAD. Multiple trees => competition => GOOD. Sigh.

If there are comments or corrections to be made on this document, how
should this be done? As you say, it would be very bad if political
decisions were based on faulty data.