Ondrej, I raised a number of issues about this proposal when you first presented this to the ENUM WG. To the best of my knowledge these have still not been resolved. Wearing no hats, my concerns are as follows: 1 DNS Monitoring is not a core NCC service. It should not be doing this IMO. It's OK for the NCC to monitor its own name servers, but that's all. 2 By offering a commercial DNS Monitoring service, the NCC is distorting the market. Its presence presents other organisations from offering similar services because the barrier to entry has been artificially increased. And on top of that the NCC has cherry-picked the best customers. 3 The costs of the NCC's DNS monitoring service are not clear. Which raises the prospect of complaints about monopoly membership fees cross-subsidising non-core commercial activities. This is a particular worry of mine given that the NCC's initial investment in name server monitoring was met from its membership fees. 4 If any monitoring of ENUM delegations was to be done by the NCC, it must only be at the request of the Administration concerned. This avoids issues about national sovereignty. I accept this is unlikely to be a concern for many countries. But that will not be the case in the parts of the world that are hostile to Internet governance in its broadest sense being outside an international treaty organisation. It would not be wise IMO to open another window for those sorts of complaints and attacks. Issues 1-3 have parallels with the historical situation of the NCC providing DNS service for ccTLDs. That situation is beginning to get untangled. And for the same reasons outlined above: non-core service, competition concerns, cross-subsidy, etc. It seems unwise to be opening up the same can of worms all over again just as an earlier one is starting to get cleared up.