ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
ITU is making progress in debate on ENUM: Group : itu-t updated : 2005-02-01 23:58:06 title : [ D 20 ] Administrative control for ENUM url : http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e <http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e&parent=T05-SG02-050216-D-0020&t ype=mitems> &parent=T05-SG02-050216-D-0020&type=mitems Group : itu-t updated : 2005-02-03 23:58:05 title : [ TD 32-WP1 ] Evaluation of a new gTLD exclusively for Global ENUM implementation url : http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e <http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e&parent=T05-SG02-050216-TD-WP1-0 032&type=mitems> &parent=T05-SG02-050216-TD-WP1-0032&type=mitems Documents available only for TIES (ITU) users. Andrzej.
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? thanks, john --On Friday, 04 February, 2005 12:35 +0100 Andrzej Bartosiewicz <andrzejb@nask.pl> wrote:
ITU is making progress in debate on ENUM:
Group : itu-t
updated : 2005-02-01 23:58:06
title : [ D 20 ] Administrative control for ENUM
url : http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e <http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e&parent=T05-SG02-0 50216-D-0020&t ype=mitems> &parent=T05-SG02-050216-D-0020&type=mitems
Group : itu-t
updated : 2005-02-03 23:58:05
title : [ TD 32-WP1 ] Evaluation of a new gTLD exclusively for Global ENUM implementation
url : http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e <http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e&parent=T05-SG02-0 50216-TD-WP1-0 032&type=mitems> &parent=T05-SG02-050216-TD-WP1-0032&type=mitems
Documents available only for TIES (ITU) users.
Andrzej.
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> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
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> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
At 02:45 PM 2/5/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
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.
I don't disagree John ..far from it. However as a practical matter I have had conversations from industry representatives and interested parties in other countries something to the effect " well if the US and Canada dont care about ENUM why should we". That said I can categorically state that the Europeans and Asia-Pac nations have unquestionably taken the lead in both deployments and a variety of technical advancements and the forthcoming APRICOT in Kyoto will conclusively demonstrate that. I am concerned that if discussions in the US and Canada get thrown off the track it will not be good for advancing the state of ENUM deployments in other countries.
(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 ... I said "some" confidence :-) ...but laced with a very healthy dose of paranoia. Best wishes as always ..
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> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Richard,
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
You have attached two documents submitted by Syria. You have forgotten to submit the document I have pointed at ("Evaluation of a new gTLD exclusively for Global ENUM implementation"). This document shows that not only Syria is interested in administration of ENUM. I will not forward this document to the list because I haven't written consent from ITU to publish this document. I suppose that you have the permission because you have already forwarded the remaining contributions, so please forward the document to the list. Best, Andrzej.
John,
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.
ITU, as the international _treaty_ organization, is responsible for global coordination of the E.164 numbering. ENUM is the mapping E.164 numbers into the Internet domain names. I'm not surprised that ITU is interested in ENUM, as the part of E164 numbering. Nobody is objecting to the fact that E.164 numbers are coordinated (at the global level) by ITU. 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.
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.
ENUM is one of the key issues in the ITU work program 2005-2008. My intention is to inform the enum-wg that ITU is progressing in the discussion on ENUM, as declared last year: http://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2004&issue=10&ip age=agendaProgramme&ext=html Andrzej.
participants (3)
-
Andrzej Bartosiewicz -
John C Klensin -
Richard Shockey