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

hi!

 > I think Chris's idea is good in principle, though I'm not sure about
 > its practicality. As Patrik says, use of non-geographic E.164 numbers
 > touches on awkward corners of national telephony regulations. I think
 > the ITU would take a dim view of this too. And that's aside from them
 > being uneasy (unable?) about issuing a chunk of E.164 number space to
 > an organisation that isn't an ITU member. IIUC ITU directly controls
 > E.164 numbers used for Universal Personal Telephony, so they could
 > well be touchy about another entrant into that space.

ah, thanks for this kind of input, for me personally that's most 
interesting, because it's sometimes really hard to get a good view on 
ITU procedures.

can you think of a practical solution to satisfy the ITU's needs?
maybe richard stasny can tell us more, the status of visionng is a 
private organisation afaik, so delegation of space under +878 is 
obviously not impossible, i even guess chances are that ITU might prefer 
RIRs as the organizations who proved that they are capable of doing a 
very good job on coordinating number resources and making them available 
to the general public in a free and nondiscriminating manner.
also, i guess the needs of voip users would be served if the RIRs/NRO 
operate the delegation process using polices from the ITU, the idea was 
not to take away control from somebody. actually, if the ITU provides 
for a similar solution, i know of a large community that would be more 
than happy, no matter whether RIRs or the ITU were in charge - but i 
also think it wasn't a bad choice for ITU to delegate tier 0 operation 
to RIPE.

 > There would also be a conflict of interest given that RIPE NCC is
 > already operating the registry for e164.arpa. So if the NCC was to
 > apply for a non-geographic E.164 code and get it, this would probably
 > need to be administered by a separate organisation from that running
 > the e164.arpa registry.

i guess it's a sub-optimal idea to allocate the block to RIPE and RIPE 
only, the community of RIRs probably in the form of the NRO would be a 
better idea, as the space is meant to be used globally.
actually the work RIPE did up to now as tier 0 operator demonstrates the 
high qualifications of RIPE as an enum-operator at the tier 0 and tier 1 
levels quite convincingly.

kind regards,

	Chris Heinze