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

hi!

>>> Keep the minute meters of the 100% state owned telco glooming, for 
>>> example?
>>
>>
>> you really regard this as a _good_ reason? ;)
> 
> 
> depends on the PoV, I'd say. Being such a telco, keeping VoIP out of my 
> business has not only a good, but even numerous excelllent reasons for. ;-)

well in this case i can tell you really great reasons why everybody who 
wants to get any telephone number has to pay me 1EUR. :>

not valid, i'd say. this is a community forum, a collaborative forum, i 
think the reason 'because this way i can become richer faster without 
having to deal with competition' doesn't count too much in this 
context... at least i'm convinced that it shouldn't ;)

>> 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.
> 
> 
> Sure - that is what we are doing here right now, huh? ;-) Although I 
> still feel a slight lack of "broad participation from the interested 
> community"...

right. patrick, can you tell us how many subscribers are currently on 
this list?
i also received some mail regarding this discussion, i can just again 
ask everyone to take part in the public discussion here on the 
mailinglist, that's really much more effective than direct email only.

>> 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?
> 
> 
> What we always would need to bear in mind is:
> a) Is the aim of the policy really necessary? What is likely to happen
>    if there is no policy in this regard?

right. i'm convinced if there's no limitation at all, number grabbing on 
a large scale will occur. usually, what can be done will be done, i.e. i 
regard it as probable that there will happen things like considerable 
part of the space (or maybe even half of or the whole space) being 
parked by a single or a few organisations.
therefore i'd propose that this should at least be mentioned in the 
policies, something like the ip policy, so that assignments are only to 
be made if there's actually reasonable need by an enduser to actually 
use the number(s) to be assigned. i don't (yet?) see a necessity for a 
general limitation of one number per person, and i see a potential 
problem with companies limited to one number (and i doubt that such 
demands can be broken down to natural persons), so for these reasons i'd 
suggest not to create such a fixed limit.

> b) Is the measures of the policy likely to fulfil its aims?

i'm not sure whether such a policy needs a means of enforcement, esp. 
when human interaction by the registry has to be avoided (for cost 
reasons). i personally would like to discuss this more before coming to 
a conclusion for myself (any 'ripe-services insider' here who can 
comment on the workload usually created by a new lir 'without aw' 
compared to 'with aw'? is there generally reliable discipline of 
sticking to the policies by the lirs themselves, even without a special 
means of enforcement?).

> c) Is the application of a certain policy feasible for the entity
>    supposed to apply it? What if it fails partly or even in general? Has
>    the application of such policy any side effects, in particular
>    unwanted ones?

well ok i kind of referred to that above.
in case there should be a policy denying parking of assignments, i'd 
currently suggest to start with a slow-start-mechanism (e.g. aw), and 
evaluate the experiences after some while, whether such a mechanism 
turned out to be useful or unnecessary.

btw: anyone interested in a workshop on this topic?

kind regards,

	Chris Heinze