[enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration

I think the confusion in this discussion comes from the clash of two
cultures and some misunderstandings.

e164.arpa is not a "normal" domain like .com/.net. It is more like
a sponsored domain. In .com the domain name holder is the owner of his
domain. In E.164 there is NEVER an ownership. Nobody OWNS an E.164
number
(maybe the ITU). E.164 numbers are assigned and the subscriber has the
right-to-use according to certain rules he has to obey.

The associated domain in e164.arpa is linked 1:1 to this right-to-use
of the E.164 number. If he is loosing this right to use, he is also
loosing the right-to-use of the e164.arpa domain. On the other hand,
he is the ONLY ONE who has this right-to-use, e.g. there is no first-
come, first serve, etc.

There is another difference (which I try to formulate here as
a non-laywer). A normal domain name holder in .com/.net and also
the ccTLDs has a direct contract with the Registry and the whole
thing has in most cases only two "tiers" (+ 1: the root)

In e164.arpa this is more complicated (and this seems also be part
of the current discussion) - there are more registries.

1. there is the root (ICANN and the DoC)
2. there is arpa (+ the IAB)
3. there is e164.arpa (+ RIPE and ITU-T)
3a. there is the group of countries (e.g. in CC+1)
4. there is the CC-level (the NRA and the "tier1" Registry)
5. there are the Registrars, the validation entities and the telcos
6. there is the end-user

This is a legal nightmare and a land of milk and honey for lawyers ;-)

BTW, I am wondering that especially people from the US are not caring
so much about and wondering that somebody wants sound legal constructs?

Richard


> -----Original Message-----
> From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf
Of
> Jim Reid
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 12:48 PM
> To: Thilo Salmon
> Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
> 
> >>>>> "Thilo" == Thilo Salmon <salmon at sipgate.de> writes:
> 
>     Thilo> I read that as "yes, it is a mapping", but "no, it is not
>     Thilo> (necessarily) an assignment". With few exceptions E.164
>     Thilo> numbers have already been assigned and the e164.arpa domain
>     Thilo> merely functions as a directory.
> 
> First of all Thilo, DNS is NOT a directory. Please don't confuse it
> with one. Secondly, an entry under e164.arpa *is* an assignment. The
> only way to get a number entered in the public tree is if (a) the
> country code has been delegated; (b) the registry for that country
> code delegates the number concerned. If that doesn't constitute an
> assignment, I don't know what does. Of course, whether that E.164
> number has been assigned by the regulator or a telco is another
> matter.