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

Hi Christian, folks,

Intiguing - Axel asked the quite reasonable question that it isn't clear
to the 3.4.e164.arpa. Registry all of the specifics of the policy they
were required to execute, who gets to set these, and/or whether or not
any general policies apply to all such registries.

What followed seems to be a discussion in Medieval Philosophy.
     "ENUM - What's in a word?"

In most countries, the Government or its anointed agency decides on the
delegation policy to be applied for delegations in ->their<- zone.

It's their zone because the E.164.arpa. delegation policies as executed
by RIPE-NCC and the TSB reflect in the IAB/ITU agreements and the ITU's
interim procedures. The interim procedures in turn reflect the E.164
assignment process.

Does each country have a right to choose the specifics of its delegation
policies? Of course. My chosen delegation policy for my domain is not
reflected in RFC1034/1035. Likewise for the holder of 3.4.e164.arpa.,
which Richard points out is RTR.

Now... coming back to the original thread -

The reasonable legal concerns are over whether the ITU is sure that the
interim agreement will continue to be executed, without a formal 
agreement
with the legal entity that controls the parent zone from which the ENUM
apex was/is delegated.

----------------------------------
As an aside...
Some people** who had assumed that they had a valid domain registration
in a certain gTLD were surprised to find that this situation had 
changed,
someone else was the registrant, and they were being asked for money to
transfer it back again.
It happens - often with the Registrar denying any knowledge of the 
original
registrant, up to an including receiving a copy of their own invoice 
and the
payment taken for the service which included renewal, with dates.

Are you surprised that any Country's representatives at the ITU are 
concerned,
with such antics going on under what might appear to be ICANN's purview?

**[I point out here - not to me, but to a colleague in the same office
    who registered a DotCom domain, or rather registered it for a while 
:]
----------------------------------

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 9 Feb 2005, at 20:21, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf 
>> Of
>> Jim Reid
>> Sent: 09 February 2005 10:54
>> To: Niall O'Reilly
>> Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net
>> Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
>>>>>>> Niall writes in response to jim's request for a dealer:
>>>> So "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or
>>>> national number plans", does it? What drugs are you on and
>>>> where can I get some? :-)
>>
>>     Niall> It seems it's time for me to have a 'booster-shot' of clue.
>>     Niall> I may not be the only one on the list who would benefit.
>>
>>     Niall> As I understood things, Christian's statement is _formally_
>>     Niall> correct, since ENUM is for embedding _already-assigned_
>>     Niall> E.164 numbers in the DNS.
>> To which jim in turn ripostes:
>> That's not what he said. It may have been what he meant. Christian
>> said "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or
>> national number plans". True, ENUM has no bearing on how E.164 numbers
>> are assigned. Or how national numbering plans are administered.
>
> That is what I wrote (with or without drugs. :-))
>
> But
>> since entries under e164.arpa should correspond to assigned E.164
>> numbers according to the national numbering plan, ENUM does reflect
>> how assignment of E.164 numbers are done.
>
> No it doesn't. ENUM simply records E.164 numbers once assigned. it 
> does not
> reflect the process of assignment.
>
> ENUM is not the expression
>> in the DNS of some random digit strings. Christian's remarks can be
>> read as implying ENUM has no relationship to E.164 assignments or
>> numbering plans.
> I am talking very specifically about the authority behind assignment of
> E.164 and that is not through the ENUM tree but the E.164 national
> delegations.
>
>>
>> Even so, ENUM does have something to do with national numbering
>> plans. Obviously the registrations under <CC>.e164.arpa should
>> correspond to the national numbering plan. For example in the UK
>> context, it's not (yet) possible to register premium-rate and free
>> phone numbers under 4.4.e164.arpa because authenticating them is too
>> hard. These numbers live in ranges that have been set aside for those
>> purposes in the national numbering plan. Similar problems could arise
>> with DDI blocks, number ranges set aside for VoIP or DSL, etc etc.
>> Thus ENUM is a representation of the national (and international)
>> numbering plan. That's hardly "nothing to do with it".
>>
>
> see above.
>
> Christian
>