I don't see a contract between ITU and US as resolving the issues raised as it remains debatable that IETF and IAB are US entities. I'm curious that Mr. Kisrawi appears not to have any operational concerns for management of 3.6.9.e164.arpa as things stand but of political control over .arpa and the root. His argument applies equally to the management of .sy or any other domain so his paper is really not about ENUM at all. It is the usual rehash of the so called Internet Governance debate. ITU has agreed a procedure with the IAB and RIPE over ENUM. It seems a bit late for ITU to start questioning the legal ownership of .arpa now and totally out of context to do so citing ENUM which represents a tiny amount of Internet traffic and is only one protocol to extend reachability for E.164 numbers. So maybe this group could make some representation into the ITU debate on ENUM to focus on what ENUM is and what it is not in particular in regard to regulatory issues (e.g., ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or national number plans) might be helpful to steer ENUM out of these waters. Is this something RIPE could do? Having said this these top level arguments are not going away and so the IAB as others in the Internet world need to establish its rights over .arpa and assert them but this is not an ENUM issue. Christian
-----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Stastny Richard Sent: 07 February 2005 14:34 To: John C Klensin; Richard Shockey; Andrzej Bartosiewicz; enum-wg@ripe.net Cc: paf@cisco.com; Leslie Daigle; sob@harvard.edu; swinehart@icann.org Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
John writes:
there is a case to be made that the SG2 management becomes part of the problem when they put these things on the agenda rather than ruling them out of order.
I think you do not know how ITU-T works (maybe having in mind some other bodies)
I can only fully agree here with Andrzej: .
Delegate of Syria submitted his contributions. It's his right. Every government (Member State) or Sector Member can submit his contributions, and the discussion can go forward.
In addition, Mr. Kisrawi is not questioning ENUM or e164.arpa in his contribution, he is only questioning the legal status of the domain name holder of e164.arpa, namely:
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) c/o IETF Secretariat Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) 1895 Preston White Drive Suite 100 Reston, Virginia 20191-5434
He is also questioning the legal status of .arpa and finally the root servers, which is IMHO a valid question.
He is also fully aware of the de-facto role of the DoC and he is also proposing a feasible way forward:
"The final problem is more serious. ICANN cannot, on its own, make changes in the root server system. ICANN proposes changes, which are approved by the United States Department of Commerce (DoC). Once the change is approved, DoC transmits it to Verisign, who implements the change in what is commonly called the "hidden root server" (located within the United States and under US jurisdiction). The change is then automatically propagated to all other root servers around the world.
Thus, DoC could change the entity to whom "arpa" is delegated, and this could result in loss of ITU's administrative control.
A possible solution could be a formal bilateral agreement between the USA, a Sovereign State, and the ITU."
So Mr. Kisrawi raises a valid question in asking the ITU-T to make sound legal contracts for important infrastructure issues
best regards
Richard Stastny
________________________________
Von: enum-wg-admin@ripe.net im Auftrag von John C Klensin Gesendet: Sa 05.02.2005 20:45 An: Richard Shockey; Andrzej Bartosiewicz; enum-wg@ripe.net Cc: paf@cisco.com; Leslie Daigle; sob@harvard.edu; swinehart@icann.org Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
Richard,
I agree with everything you say, with two qualifications...
(1) I'm not sure the world revolves around North America and the NANP. Indeed, I consider that attitude to be harmful to the Internet and the IETF, regardless of what things look like from the vicinity of the beltway.
(2) Since said permanent delegate of Syria submits these things to SG2 and then uses the fact that they have been put on the agenda as motivation for arguing in other forums that this is an area under ITU control, there is a case to be made that the SG2 management becomes part of the problem when they put these things on the agenda rather than ruling them out of order. I understand at least some of the constraints under which they operate, but you should understand why, given that and the behavior patterns of the last several years, I don't completely share your confidence.
john
--On Saturday, 05 February, 2005 14:28 -0500 Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> wrote:
Hi.
I wonder how you (or we) should define "progress"? We start with an area that was originally agreed to be an IETF responsibility with TSB participation on authorization/validation issues. It then "evolves", at SG2 insistence, to something that is assumed to involve at least some topics we should discuss together. And now we have attained the pinnacle of a discussion within SG2, apparently-secret from the outside world, based on documents that are not generally available to the IETF and the ENUM user community.
And, of course, unless ITU-T SG2 is planning to disrupt the Internet by setting up an alternate root, their deciding on an ENUM TLD is only slightly more likely to be relevant than their passing a Recommendation that changes the speed of light.
Leslie, Scott, can these documents be obtained and released to the IETF ENUM WG and interested members of the community so that we can further evaluate the level of progress?
Attached ...
However considering the source of these documents ..the well known Permanant Delegate of Syria to the ITU I'm not overly concerned about their impact, but this requires careful monitoring. John I'm in total agreement the principle that the price of the Internet freedom is eternal vigilance .
I have some ... some ..confidence in SG-2 management to "do the right thing" here and in any event. IMHO the most important task for the global ENUM community to accomplish is getting the delegation for 1.e164.arpa to North America ASAP and commence short lived trials that will lead to commercial deployment.
Once that is done I think we would have sent a message that e164.apra is real and that further discussions on the matter of a different root are futile.
That process is well underway.. discussions over how the ENUM LLC management entity will act are taking place almost weekly . I'm also very confident that there well be responsible,open ,and competitive bidding processes for both the US and Canadian portions of the NANP within the late 2005 very early 2006 time frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@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> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<