Re: [enum-wg] repost: Proposal for non-geographic ENUM E.164 UPTS for the general public

I think Chris's idea is good in principle, though I'm not sure about its practicality. As Patrik says, use of non-geographic E.164 numbers touches on awkward corners of national telephony regulations. I think the ITU would take a dim view of this too. And that's aside from them being uneasy (unable?) about issuing a chunk of E.164 number space to an organisation that isn't an ITU member. IIUC ITU directly controls E.164 numbers used for Universal Personal Telephony, so they could well be touchy about another entrant into that space. There would also be a conflict of interest given that RIPE NCC is already operating the registry for e164.arpa. So if the NCC was to apply for a non-geographic E.164 code and get it, this would probably need to be administered by a separate organisation from that running the e164.arpa registry.

One of the things Kim and I have planned for this wg is to keep a webpage updated with, for each CC/country, answers to questions on what rules exists for various things -- one of them being how integration of E.164 numbers is... But, questions are not to 100% ready yet. Basis comes from Joakim Strålmark of PTS (the regulator) in Sweden. Some of you might already have seen them. More info from Kim. Both Kim and myself (like many of you) are still deflating after an intense week at the IETF last week, but at the end of this week you should get more info from us. Does this sound like a "good thing for this wg to do"? paf

Yes, bringing facts from various countries over the subject sounds like a good thing to do! Adrian On Aug 9, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
One of the things Kim and I have planned for this wg is to keep a webpage updated with, for each CC/country, answers to questions on what rules exists for various things -- one of them being how integration of E.164 numbers is...
But, questions are not to 100% ready yet. Basis comes from Joakim Strålmark of PTS (the regulator) in Sweden. Some of you might already have seen them.
More info from Kim.
Both Kim and myself (like many of you) are still deflating after an intense week at the IETF last week, but at the end of this week you should get more info from us.
Does this sound like a "good thing for this wg to do"?
paf

On 9 Aug 2004, at 20:31, Patrik Fältström wrote:
One of the things Kim and I have planned for this wg is to keep a webpage updated with, for each CC/country, answers to questions on what rules exists for various things -- one of them being how integration of E.164 numbers is...
[ ... ]
Does this sound like a "good thing for this wg to do"?
paf
Yes, defny! Best regards, Niall O'Reilly

hi!
I think Chris's idea is good in principle, though I'm not sure about its practicality. As Patrik says, use of non-geographic E.164 numbers touches on awkward corners of national telephony regulations. I think the ITU would take a dim view of this too. And that's aside from them being uneasy (unable?) about issuing a chunk of E.164 number space to an organisation that isn't an ITU member. IIUC ITU directly controls E.164 numbers used for Universal Personal Telephony, so they could well be touchy about another entrant into that space.
ah, thanks for this kind of input, for me personally that's most interesting, because it's sometimes really hard to get a good view on ITU procedures. can you think of a practical solution to satisfy the ITU's needs? maybe richard stasny can tell us more, the status of visionng is a private organisation afaik, so delegation of space under +878 is obviously not impossible, i even guess chances are that ITU might prefer RIRs as the organizations who proved that they are capable of doing a very good job on coordinating number resources and making them available to the general public in a free and nondiscriminating manner. also, i guess the needs of voip users would be served if the RIRs/NRO operate the delegation process using polices from the ITU, the idea was not to take away control from somebody. actually, if the ITU provides for a similar solution, i know of a large community that would be more than happy, no matter whether RIRs or the ITU were in charge - but i also think it wasn't a bad choice for ITU to delegate tier 0 operation to RIPE.
There would also be a conflict of interest given that RIPE NCC is already operating the registry for e164.arpa. So if the NCC was to apply for a non-geographic E.164 code and get it, this would probably need to be administered by a separate organisation from that running the e164.arpa registry.
i guess it's a sub-optimal idea to allocate the block to RIPE and RIPE only, the community of RIRs probably in the form of the NRO would be a better idea, as the space is meant to be used globally. actually the work RIPE did up to now as tier 0 operator demonstrates the high qualifications of RIPE as an enum-operator at the tier 0 and tier 1 levels quite convincingly. kind regards, Chris Heinze
participants (5)
-
Adrian Georgescu
-
Chris Heinze
-
Jim Reid
-
Niall O'Reilly
-
Patrik Fältström