Fwd: Draft liaison statement on Public ENUM under e164.arpa for the September 2026 ITU-T Study Group 2 meeting
Dear colleagues, I am sharing this message the DNS, Database, RIPE NCC Services Working Group mailing lists to ensure all relevant working groups are informed. If you wish to share thoughts in response, please reply to the thread on the RIPE NCC coop-WG mailing list. Regards Hisham ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Hisham Ibrahim <HMI@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 at 17:40 Subject: Draft liaison statement on Public ENUM under e164.arpa for the September 2026 ITU-T Study Group 2 meeting To: <cooperation-wg@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Following the earlier discussions on Public ENUM under e164.arpa, I have prepared the following draft liaison statement for the September 2026 ITU-T Study Group 2 meeting. In my draft I tried to: - clarify the RIPE NCC’s position following SG2-C-0196*, - support the confirmation of the revised interim procedures**, - outline how the responses to TSB Circular 123*** could inform the treatment of individual delegations, - and provide an updated overview of the operational status of the current delegations. I would appreciate feedback on my draft and I would appreciate it if you could share any comments or concerns, particularly on the technical, procedural or governance aspects, by 25 August, so that the RIPE NCC can incorporate the feedback before finalizing the submission. Many thanks in advance for your review. Regards, Hisham * https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/ENUM_liaison_statement_ITU_T_SG2.pdf ** https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/inr/enum/Pages/procedures.aspx *** https://www.itu.int/md/T25-TSB-CIR-0123/en To: ITU-T Study Group 2, September 2026 Meeting Title: RIPE NCC liaison statement on ENUM (e164.arpa) Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC thanks ITU-T Study Group 2, the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau, the Internet Architecture Board, Member States and ENUM delegation operators for their continued engagement concerning Public ENUM under e164.arpa. The RIPE NCC operates the e164.arpa zone as the IAB’s designated operator under the established coordination arrangements involving the IAB, ITU-T and the RIPE NCC. 1. RIPE NCC position At the February 2026 meeting of Study Group 2, the RIPE NCC submitted contribution SG2-C-0196. The contribution arose from an operational question concerning support for ENUM domain objects through the Registration Data Access Protocol, but also raised broader questions concerning the future status of ENUM and e164.arpa. Following subsequent engagement with the IAB, ENUM delegation operators and members of the RIPE community, the RIPE NCC recognizes that those broader questions did not accurately reflect the established distribution of responsibilities. This statement therefore clarifies and supersedes the relevant parts of SG2-C-0196. For the avoidance of doubt, the RIPE NCC supports the continued operation of Public ENUM under e164.arpa and is not proposing its closure. SG2-C-0196 no longer represents a request for Study Group 2 to determine the technical or architectural future of ENUM or e164.arpa. Any future consideration of a system-wide change would require coordination involving the IAB, the relevant IETF and ITU-T processes, the RIPE NCC and affected stakeholders. 2. Operational status and revised procedures The RIPE NCC has reviewed the 46 current delegations recorded in the RIPE Database. Of these, 23 showed no DNS issue at the top delegation level, 17 appeared non-operational and six showed partial DNS issues. These findings identify a registry-maintenance and data-accuracy issue. They do not provide a sufficient basis for a system-wide conclusion concerning Public ENUM or e164.arpa. The RIPE NCC therefore welcomes the revised Interim procedures for Geographic Country Codes (ENUM administration ad interim) contained in TD423 Rev.1/PLEN. The revised procedures provide an appropriate mechanism for addressing individual non-operational or expired temporary delegations while preserving functioning delegations and the ability of Member States to confirm, update, withdraw or subsequently restore their delegations. Responses to TSB Circular 123 may provide useful information concerning the status and intentions of individual national delegations. The RIPE NCC considers that such information should inform individual cases under the revised procedures, rather than a system-wide conclusion concerning Public ENUM or e164.arpa. 3. Request to Study Group 2 The RIPE NCC respectfully invites Study Group 2 to: - confirm that the revised procedures contained in TD423 Rev.1/PLEN will come into force at the September 2026 meeting and will provide the applicable mechanism for addressing individual non-operational or expired temporary delegations; and - continue coordination with the IAB, the RIPE NCC, the relevant IETF processes and affected stakeholders on any broader questions concerning the technical or long-term status of ENUM and e164.arpa. Once the revised procedures come into force, the RIPE NCC intends to apply them systematically and transparently, including by refreshing its technical assessment, engaging with relevant delegation operators where possible and submitting substantiated cases to TSB. The question of Registration Data Access Protocol support is separate from the continued operation of Public ENUM and will be considered through the appropriate technical and community processes. The RIPE NCC remains committed to working constructively with Study Group 2, TSB, the IAB, Member States, delegation operators and the RIPE community to maintain e164.arpa in a stable, accurate and technically sound manner.
On 17 Aug 2026, at 15:48, Hisham Ibrahim <HMI@ripe.net> wrote:
I would appreciate feedback on my draft and I would appreciate it if you could share any comments or concerns, particularly on the technical, procedural or governance aspects, by 25 August, so that the RIPE NCC can incorporate the feedback before finalizing the submission.
Hisham, your proposed document is deeply flawed and unfit for purpose. That means I object to your proposal and obviously do not support it. I could go into this in detail but there's not enough time to do that. A submission to the next Study Group 2 meeting has to be submitted by tomorrow. BTW, that submission must be submitted as a Contribution. It can't be a Liaison Statement. Contact me off-list if you want an explanation. The Contribution that gets submitted by the NCC must be short and leave no loose ends that would open opportunities for nit-picking, requests for clarification, further unwelcome interference by the ITU and so on. Your suggested text won't do that. The objective must be to kill off C196 and leave no opportunities at ITU for exhuming it. C196 needs two shots to the head, just to be sure. If C196 drags on and on and on, it will be bad for everyone. Here's the text that should go in this Contribution. I hope it gets community support. The RIPE NCC regrets to inform Study Group 2 and the TSB that Contribution SG2-C-0196 (C196), was ill-prepared and based on misunderstandings. It does not reflect the opinion of the NCC or the RIPE Community. The RIPE NCC sincerely apologises for the confusion which has been caused. C196 should therefore be withdrawn. We respectfully request colleagues pay no further attention to C196 and proceed on the basis it had never been submitted to Study Group 2. We are happy to confirm there are no technical or procedural changes to the operation of the e164.arpa ENUM registry. RIPE NCC is pleased to inform Study Group 2 and the TSB that the current, long-standing agreements around this registry remain in place and are unchanged. It has no plans to alter them. The RIPE NCC will continue to operate this registry in the same neutral, stable and professional manner as it has done since e164.arpa was created.
Dear Jim, Hisham, Agree and support the point this should be a Contribution proper and not an (unrequested LS). I recall RIPE NCC is a full sector member of ITU-T, so there should not be any obstacle to submit a contribution – apart from a now tight deadline – and, as a member, RIPE NCC staff should also be part of the subsequent discussion and decision. Especially given the current situation is largely attributed to miscommunication and misunderstandings, I think it is essential for RIPE NCC staff to be present and participate, up to and including the closing plenary. As for the content - I think indeed a "this didn't happen" should be considered a reasonable outcome for all parties concerned. Last I looked, the e164.arpa zone was not empty. And I know of at least one delegation that still functions both administratively and technically (that operator identified itself on the mailing list). Any responsible DNS operator would not close a zone with active delegations, at least not without a proper risk assessment and a plan. As Jim suggested, better not drag this on and move along quickly – nothing to see, nothing happened. My two cents as a long time participant in ITU and with an even longer track record in Internet Governance. Best, MarcoH -- Sent from one of those tiny devices and on a personal title
On 24 Aug 2026, at 15:36, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2026, at 15:48, Hisham Ibrahim <HMI@ripe.net> wrote:
I would appreciate feedback on my draft and I would appreciate it if you could share any comments or concerns, particularly on the technical, procedural or governance aspects, by 25 August, so that the RIPE NCC can incorporate the feedback before finalizing the submission.
Hisham, your proposed document is deeply flawed and unfit for purpose. That means I object to your proposal and obviously do not support it. I could go into this in detail but there's not enough time to do that. A submission to the next Study Group 2 meeting has to be submitted by tomorrow. BTW, that submission must be submitted as a Contribution. It can't be a Liaison Statement. Contact me off-list if you want an explanation.
The Contribution that gets submitted by the NCC must be short and leave no loose ends that would open opportunities for nit-picking, requests for clarification, further unwelcome interference by the ITU and so on. Your suggested text won't do that. The objective must be to kill off C196 and leave no opportunities at ITU for exhuming it. C196 needs two shots to the head, just to be sure. If C196 drags on and on and on, it will be bad for everyone.
Here's the text that should go in this Contribution. I hope it gets community support.
The RIPE NCC regrets to inform Study Group 2 and the TSB that Contribution SG2-C-0196 (C196), was ill-prepared and based on misunderstandings. It does not reflect the opinion of the NCC or the RIPE Community. The RIPE NCC sincerely apologises for the confusion which has been caused. C196 should therefore be withdrawn. We respectfully request colleagues pay no further attention to C196 and proceed on the basis it had never been submitted to Study Group 2.
We are happy to confirm there are no technical or procedural changes to the operation of the e164.arpa ENUM registry. RIPE NCC is pleased to inform Study Group 2 and the TSB that the current, long-standing agreements around this registry remain in place and are unchanged. It has no plans to alter them. The RIPE NCC will continue to operate this registry in the same neutral, stable and professional manner as it has done since e164.arpa was created. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-services-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi Marco, I just want to comment on one statement:
the e164.arpa zone was not empty. And I know of at least one delegation that still functions both administratively and technically (that operator identified itself on the mailing list).
It's useless. When a single operator uses the entire technology stack without interoperability, the technology should not be considered for wider use. Please stand for the shutdown. -- Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov, not an ITU participant, just a RIPE/RIPE NCC member
On 8/24/2026, at 18:19, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net> wrote:
Dear Jim, Hisham,
Agree and support the point this should be a Contribution proper and not an (unrequested LS). I recall RIPE NCC is a full sector member of ITU-T, so there should not be any obstacle to submit a contribution – apart from a now tight deadline – and, as a member, RIPE NCC staff should also be part of the subsequent discussion and decision.
Especially given the current situation is largely attributed to miscommunication and misunderstandings, I think it is essential for RIPE NCC staff to be present and participate, up to and including the closing plenary.
As for the content - I think indeed a "this didn't happen" should be considered a reasonable outcome for all parties concerned.
Last I looked, the e164.arpa zone was not empty. And I know of at least one delegation that still functions both administratively and technically (that operator identified itself on the mailing list).
Any responsible DNS operator would not close a zone with active delegations, at least not without a proper risk assessment and a plan. As Jim suggested, better not drag this on and move along quickly – nothing to see, nothing happened.
My two cents as a long time participant in ITU and with an even longer track record in Internet Governance.
Best,
MarcoH -- Sent from one of those tiny devices and on a personal title
On 24 Aug 2026, at 15:36, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2026, at 15:48, Hisham Ibrahim <HMI@ripe.net> wrote:
I would appreciate feedback on my draft and I would appreciate it if you could share any comments or concerns, particularly on the technical, procedural or governance aspects, by 25 August, so that the RIPE NCC can incorporate the feedback before finalizing the submission.
Hisham, your proposed document is deeply flawed and unfit for purpose. That means I object to your proposal and obviously do not support it. I could go into this in detail but there's not enough time to do that. A submission to the next Study Group 2 meeting has to be submitted by tomorrow. BTW, that submission must be submitted as a Contribution. It can't be a Liaison Statement. Contact me off-list if you want an explanation.
The Contribution that gets submitted by the NCC must be short and leave no loose ends that would open opportunities for nit-picking, requests for clarification, further unwelcome interference by the ITU and so on. Your suggested text won't do that. The objective must be to kill off C196 and leave no opportunities at ITU for exhuming it. C196 needs two shots to the head, just to be sure. If C196 drags on and on and on, it will be bad for everyone.
Here's the text that should go in this Contribution. I hope it gets community support.
The RIPE NCC regrets to inform Study Group 2 and the TSB that Contribution SG2-C-0196 (C196), was ill-prepared and based on misunderstandings. It does not reflect the opinion of the NCC or the RIPE Community. The RIPE NCC sincerely apologises for the confusion which has been caused. C196 should therefore be withdrawn. We respectfully request colleagues pay no further attention to C196 and proceed on the basis it had never been submitted to Study Group 2.
We are happy to confirm there are no technical or procedural changes to the operation of the e164.arpa ENUM registry. RIPE NCC is pleased to inform Study Group 2 and the TSB that the current, long-standing agreements around this registry remain in place and are unchanged. It has no plans to alter them. The RIPE NCC will continue to operate this registry in the same neutral, stable and professional manner as it has done since e164.arpa was created. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-services-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-services-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
participants (4)
-
Hisham Ibrahim -
Jim Reid -
Marco Hogewoning -
Sergey Myasoedov