Re: RE : data point - anonymous E.164 number usage

[Staffan Hagnell <]

Could a conclusion be that -
 
1. Identification and validation of an E.164 Subscribers is not handled uniform, but rather different for different types of services in different countries.
 
2. The requirement on identification and validation of an ENUM Subscriber is not supposed to be less then the identification and validation made for the corresponding E.164 Subscribers (doing the same type of transaction, e.g. registration)
 
--> the same type of identification and validation could be considered sufficient for administer an ENUM Subscriber as is used when administer the corresponding E.164 Subscriber.
 
E.g. if showing a SIM card is considered to a proper requirement for identification and validation of an E.164 Subscriber, it could also be considered a sufficient requirement for identification and validation of an ENUM Subscriber!
 
Of course, it would be nice to have a single solution for identification and validation of all ENUM Subscribers (but I am skeptical to the possibilities that there will be such one in the short run).

Regards,
-Staffan

Stastny Richard wrote:

I fully agree with Olivier:
 
We have here two complete separate problems:
 
1. Identification required to get an E.164 number.
This is a problem that has nothing to do with ENUM and should be kept 
completely separate. That prepaid cards are given out in some (most) countries
without proper id is NOT an ENUM problem.
 
If some legal entity wants to get the identification of a person or entity assigned
an E.164 number, it should use the existing infrastructure. This is also holds if they
want to know the identity holding an e164.arpa domain related to this number if 
no contact information is available.
 
ENUM is not here to solve OPPs (Other People Problems)
 
2. The only thing that ENUM needs to provide is consistency in the
E.164 name space, that is: a e614.arpa domain shall only be delegated if
and only for the period of time the associated E.164 number is assigned to 
a person or entity and it shall be delegated to the SAME person or entity.
 
As Olivier shows this does not necessarily require to reveal the entity of the person, 
especially not on mobile phone if you use the access to the identification token
(e.g a SIM-card), but there ara also possibilities for fixed lines.
 
For regulators, they should only state the requirement and not the procedure
how to do this, because you can do this in many different ways. They will of course
have the right to check a given procedure if it complies to the requirement given.
  

[cut]