[#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter?

Carsten

On 18 Jul 2009, at 17:35, Carsten Schiefner wrote:

> Christian,
>
> Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>> ENUM is neither a product nor a service. ENUM is a protocol.
>> [...]
>> Trying to link ENUM to any particular financial model is counter  
>> productive. Each market participant can decide for themselves how  
>> or why they might leverage ENUM. But they can only do this if it is  
>> implemented.
>
> Indeed. As you said: ENUM is a protocol. But no settlement protcol,  
> for sure.

:-). But ENUM as a protocol does not preclude use of other protocols  
including those for settlements.

>
>> So the Regulator should allocate all numbers with ENUM.  Then the  
>> Regulator will underpin universal service and seed both critical  
>> mass and low per unit cost.
>
> Coudl you please elaborate a bit here? Do you call for regulators to  
> make ENUM mandatory?
>

I am saying that when an E.164 is allocated (to an operator) by a  
regulator it should be entered into the ENUM tree even it simply  
returns the tel: uri for the number itself.

There is a separate step that a regulator may require of  operators  
providing numbering to then delegate that resource and authority to  
expand the ENUM information for a number to or on behalf of a user. I  
am not convinced that making this second step mandatory is necessary  
provided that users have the ability to port numbers meaningfully. A  
test for this is whether there are genuine market options for users to  
change operator to implement ENUM.



> Thanks and all the best:
>
> 	Carsten
>

best regards

Christian