[enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...

The probem I see is that COCOM should be not involved in any Carrier ENUM
discussion. This may create some "dangerous" confusion on the role of EC and
governments on carrier ENUM

marco
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Shockey" <richard at shockey.us>
To: "Jim Reid" <jim at rfc1035.com>; "Stastny Richard"
<Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at>
Cc: "Andrzej Bartosiewicz" <andrzejb at nask.pl>; "Carsten Schiefner"
<enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de>; <enum-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...


> At 04:03 AM 12/12/2004, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> > >>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at> writes:
> >
> >     Richard> There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation
> >     Richard> in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa
> >
> >And the problem is......? IMO the only potential problem with this is
> >that private data could be made public through the DNS.
>
> exactly .. and BTW this is now the #1 topic of discussion within CC 1
>
>
>
>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
> NeuStar Inc.
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
> sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com
> ENUM +87810-13313-31331
> PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683,  Fax: +1
815.333.1237
> <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>