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

Richard Stastny wrote..

> Christian writes:
> > If he is referring to e164.arpa then that is one thing if he is
> referring
> > to .arpa itself then that is quite another (I think!)
>
> Not really.
>

I disagree it is a really distinctive change because .arpa has other
delegations and constituencies to consider apart from ENUM.

For instance every reverse DNS entry in the world! This is why escalating up
the tree from e164.arpa to .arpa has enormous implications for Internet
users well beyond the very limited scope of ENUM itself.

> The legal mess in the root and .arpa is (was) not of ITU-T's concern,
> although they want to get in helpful to solve the problem ;-)
>

Well it is perhaps byzantine.:-) There may well be room for improvement :-)
but there are as Jim noted plenty of voices that believe the current
"structure" gives strength through diversity and  it works! Some credit is
due for that.

The scenario suggested by the Mr. Kisrawi has the DoC striking off .arpa or
replacing the IAB authority over .arpa and the existing delegations in .arpa
not being inherited by any successor "owner". This is a remarkable plot.
Perhaps it could happen

but

the whole Internet from root operators down the delegation trees would have
to take up the changes and the DoC and the ITU will have to recognise that
if people down the delegation trees don't like the changes they can do their
own thing. Particularly if they are not US based. Also I hesitate to think
of the reaction from countries around the world if the DoC behaved in such
an arbitrary and overbearing way.

So the scenario that is being raised by Mr. Kisrawi to justify the logic of
the argument is apocalyptic. It does not seem reasonable as it is not based
on experience of Internet management to date.

We may internationally believe that the DoC as a national regulator for the
US should step away from having final sayso over Internet resources that are
considered international but the US has been a good responsible mothership
for internetworking as has the role played by the IAB.


> Now with ENUM suddenly e164.arpa IS of ITU-T's concern, and it is
> only logical that they want to have a sound legal basis here.
>

Logic is not the issue! The issue is whether you cut or unravel the DNS knot
and having done that how do you put it back together again in a way that
does at least as good a job as we have today.
Humpty dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, all the kings
horses and all the kings men couldn't put Humpty together again! (to quote
an ancient British verse).

> But since the question of the legal basis of e164.arpa leads
> to the question of the legal basis of .arpa and this leads
> finally to the question of the legal basic of the root itself.
>
> Nabil's chain of thought is only logical.

but it misses the point that the higher up to the root you go the greater
the number of constituencies implicated in any changes. There is significant
impact in reverse engineering populated hierarchical structures. In
particular when these are self governing and independent of each other
organisationally.

That is why it is sensible for ITU-T as the good netizen it is to clearly
demarcate between operational measures to get services established today and
the longer range (and genuine) governance issues concerning
internationalisation and accountability over Internet resources.



Christian