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

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Heinze <x at ccn.net> writes:

    Chris> can you think of a practical solution to satisfy the ITU's needs?

I'm not yet sure what the requirements are: ie why you want RIPE NCC
to operate some E.164 number range for UPT and why this can't be done
by someone else who already has existing E.164 numbers. From an ITU
perspective, I think this has to be clear before any allocation of
E.164 space will be considered. In other words, you need to explain to
ITU that you have a need for space -- how much?? -- that isn't or
can't be addressed elsewhere. You may also need to show how this
number range will interwork with the rest of the telephony world. An
explanation of how other telcos and carriers can route calls to/from
this number range could be helful. Bear in mind too that talk of VoIP
implies telephony by-pass, which is something that makes telcos and
some regulators *very* uncomfortable. Going to ITU and saying "give me
a pile of E.164 numbers for VoIP so I can eliminate revenue for the
telcos who pay your membership fees" isn't likely to get a warm
reception. And the regulators will want to know about what will be
done about access to emergency services, universal service
obligations, QoS, lawful intercept, blah, blah, blah.

    Chris> but i also think it wasn't
    Chris> a bad choice for ITU to delegate tier 0 operation to RIPE.

You're playing with fire here. It was IAB who delegated e164.arpa to
RIPE NCC. [Not RIPE.] I believe ITU were not consulted about this and
they're still a bit annoyed about that. ITU would like to be listed as
the administrative contact for e164.arpa, which is another sore point.

    >> 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.

    Chris> i guess it's a sub-optimal idea to allocate the block to
    Chris> RIPE and RIPE only, the community of RIRs probably in the
    Chris> form of the NRO would be a better idea, as the space is
    Chris> meant to be used globally.  

I think it would be very helpful if you could sketch out a model for
how this proposed organisation would be structured and funded, what
the roles & responsibilities would be, etc, etc. Bear in mind there
could be legal issues too. Like the RIRs extending their monopolies or
going beyond their charter obligations, impact on EU competition
regulations, etc, etc.

    Chris> actually the work RIPE did up
    Chris> to now as tier 0 operator demonstrates the high
    Chris> qualifications of RIPE as an enum-operator at the tier 0
    Chris> and tier 1 levels quite convincingly.

Sure, the NCC does an excellent job at operating the Tier-0
registry. This is to be expected. However that pretty much rules them
out of operating any Tier-1 (or Tier-N) infrastructure.