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

Hi.

Chris Heinze wrote:
>> [If the incumbent routes the call at all...]
> 
> well that's a question for the regulator then, isn't it.

...which in various countries IS the incumbent.

> i don't want to 
> nor see a reason why to mess with regulations. if a country decides to 
> ban voip-gateways (although still i don't really know a good reason 
> why),

Keep the minute meters of the 100% state owned telco glooming, for 
example? There has been precedence set in Belorussia AFAIR where two 
people went to jail for a considerable period of time for using VoIP. 
Interestingly, there was no law whatsoever prohibiting VoIP. The charge 
was something along the lines of "causing revenue loss to the incumbent".

> that's the country's decision and that decision has to be followed 
> in that country. but i don't think this is a good reason to prevent 
> everyone else from promoting voip.

That indeed is true. :-)

> the concept as such should work also without an 'assignment window'. but 
> i think it's not a too bad idea, otherwise most-popular-vanity-number 
> grabbing probably can not be prevented.

So? Why should it? If it's FCFS and I am faster that you, why shouldn't 
I get the most attractive number and you only the second most? Or 
vice-versa, of course! ;-)

Secondly: is an AW-type of measure really the appropriate means to deal 
with this very issue?

> also, depending on the policy, 
> conservation might be identified as an issue.

Coudl you further detail here? The only reason for depletion I can see 
is rather natural: a massive interest by individuals. As said already: I 
have hard times thinking about individuals who would like to have MORE 
than one number - isn't the whole exercise about subsuming various means 
of communication under ONE number?! ;-)

Cheers,

	-C.