[enum-wg] repost: Proposal for non-geographic ENUM E.164 UPTS for the general public

How is this proposed +8787 different from the current +87810? (Other 
then the goverance portion?)

-James Seng

Chris Heinze wrote:

> hi!
> 
> the company i'm with is providing services in the voip-area, and we had
> and still have our problems with the situation with telephone-numbers
> for voip-services in general. we were observing that other companies
> have the same and similar problems, and that several - mostly quite ugly
> - workarounds are being started, but that's all not very promising. also
> recent trials and decisions in our region didn't make us very confident
> that there's a working solution to this problem anywhere in sight.
> so we thought it might be a good time to start a discussion about
> possible solutions to the telephone-number problems, and we consider the
> just-in-time creation of the ripe enum-wg a good omen. ;) we put
> together a kind of proposal for a possible solution, just to contribute
> to the discussion and have something to talk about.
> 
> we're very curious whether there is general support for a request of
> non-geographical E.164 UPTS-space for enduser-assignments handled by
> public registries, and in case there is, what is your idea about the
> following proposal, what should be done different?
> we're hoping some proposal for action towards some solution that is
> capable of finding consensus in the WG and the respective other involved
> institutions can be produced.
> 
> so let's become formal and to the point: