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

hi!

>>> [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.

if the legislator wants such a situation and in this course decides or 
lets the incumbent decide to suppress voip, that's a local regulation 
issue, i beleive.
i myself regard it - even in the case of a state pstn monopoly - as a 
not especially brilliant idea to prevent voip development, and also 
maybe they're all just waiting for global number space... ;)

>> 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?

you really regard this as a _good_ reason? ;)

>> 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! ;-)

well this principle (first come first serve) is certainly ok and i 
generally support it. but imagine, without a means like the AW and with 
an automated process, i just start a script and assign, let's say, the 
10000 most popular numbers like 1111..., 2222..., 3333..., 1234..., 
8787... to myself to park them, and then sell them. or i don't need to 
sell them, i just advertise them on my webpage as a nice add-on for 
people that become my customers...
(i personally wouldn't mind too much, because i have no big interest in 
special numbers, i certainly wouldn't choose a provider because of the 
numbers i can get there, but i assumed (keeping in mind that there are 
people who like to have a special number) that people might find this 
unfair - but i might be wrong. i don't know.)

i think as a policy issue this certainly is an issue that should be 
discussed with as broad participation from the interested community as 
possible.

should number-grabbing be forbidden by policy? if so, is a means of 
limitation/supervision/enforcement necessary?

or should the policy generally allow for only exactly one one-number 
assignment per person? if so, per natural person only? if not, only one 
one-number assignment per organisation? other ideas?

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

assuming a general consent that a means of limitation of unsupervised 
automated assignments is necessary or desirable, i think it is a helping 
means (otherwise it's probably superfluous). until now no better means 
came to my mind. suggestions more than welcome!

if it turned out to be superfluous that would of course be great, as it 
would further minimize work that couldn't be done by scripts, and also 
simplify procedures.

>> 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?! ;-)

you're probabl right here. what i wanted to say is that as there's 
naturally no policy yet, i don't want to say that there might not just 
pop up some other issues that require a slow-start-mechanism or means of 
'dampening' or something like that.

kind regards,

	Chris Heinze