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

[Jim Reid <]

>>>>> "Pat" == Pat Walsh <pat.walsh@localhost writes:

    Pat> I think the combination of Richard's excellent explanation of
    Pat> the numbering requirements and Staffan's subsequent
    Pat> conclusion says it all.  Identification and validation are
    Pat> basic requirements but need not be made into huge hurdles -
    Pat> while the specific number range(s) selected (geographic,
    Pat> mobile, personal, special new range ...) may well influence
    Pat> the level of complexity. Validation/identification via a SIM
    Pat> card and PIN may well be all that is needed.

This is of course a national matter. Our experience in the UK is that
there are a bunch of number types that are hard to authenticate and
validate: like preimum-rate and freephone numbers. These might be
easier or harder to deal with in other regulatory environments. Some
of these number types can't work with SIM cards. Though I suppose some
sort of PIN could work if telcos issued these whenever they provided
phone service. That could mean tweaking telco regulations which would
be anathema to most telcos.

    Pat> The ENUM e164.arpa domain has a direct dependency on the
    Pat> E.164 number and the regulatory rights and obligations for
    Pat> the former would be seen by a Regulator as essentially the
    Pat> same as for the latter.

Well yes and no. Names under e164.arpa are related to E.164 numbers
and are "officially" sanctioned by the powers that be. But they're
just domain names. They could easily go somewhere else in the DNS
tree, albeit without the blessing of IETF, ITU, national regulators,
etc. Not that I'm arguing for anchoring E.164 numbers elsewhere in the
DNS or promoting alternate trees. That would be madness.

I have concerns that a de facto solution could be imposed by the likes
of Microsoft or Cisco by virtue of their massive installed base. This
may not meet the valid concerns about national sovereignty, privacy,
authentication, customer safeguards, competition, etc that we're
grappling with. My fear is that the industry, especially a dominant
player, could decide it can't wait for these issues to be solved. So
if regulators push too hard down that path the outcome could be
unpleasant for everyone. The challenge will be to get the balance right
between the valid regulatory concerns and what is financially and
practically achievable.