|
SGA Ad-Hoc
ENUM
CONTRIBUTION
TITLE:
Views on various issues
DATE:
March 28, 2001
SOURCE:
Telcordia Technologies, Inc.
Verisign
ABSTRACT:
This contribution
provides views on some of the issues raised at the first SGA Ad-Hoc ENUM
meeting
NOTICE:
This
document is offered to the SGA Ad-Hoc on ENUM as a basis for discussion
and is not a binding proposal on Telcordia Technologies, Inc and Verisign.
Telcordia Technologies, Inc. and Verisign specifically reserve the right
to amend or withdraw the statements contained herein.
Introduction
At the first SGA
Ad-Hoc on ENUM several issues were raised and it was requested that
companies provide views for each of the issues.
The following contribution provides views on some of these issues.
Discussion
Issue:
Should the US participate in a common global approach with the
implementation of ENUM in the US (e.g., E164.arpa)?
·
If not, what are the other
options?
·
Will the US populate some of
its NANP resources into E164.arpa? Are
there any anti-trust issues?
·
Should the US industry work
at developing implementation procedures for other zones, e.g., .com
View:
It is recognized that multiple, competitive ENUM DNS zones may
be implemented and deployed in the marketplace, but it is our view
that this SGA Ad Hoc should focus on
developing procedures for a common designated
ENUM DNS zone which currently
is e164.arpa. However, it is recognized that events may alter this
designation but regardless of that outcome, this SGA Ad-Hoc should focus
on a global designated zone, e.g., E164.foo.
In addition, it is
our view that if this SGA Ad-Hoc, or whatever form it takes, continues to
meet as an open industry forum and collectively reach consensus on the
issues. Resolving issues in
an open industry forum should negate some of the anti-trust concerns.
Issue:
Is there an ongoing role for ITU bodies in the manner in which the US
implements ENUM?
View:
No. There was agreement in
the ITU-T that the only concern is to ensure that each Member State has
authorized the inclusion of its Country Code within the globally
designated ENUM DNS zone. The ITU-T has further stated that the
administration of the designated ENUM DNS zone corresponding to an E.164
geographic code, i.e., Country Code 1, is a national matter and is,
therefore, administered by the ITU Member State(s) to which the country
code is assigned.
Issue: What
are the implications for other countries in the NANP?
View:
Other countries in the North American Numbering Plan may be interested in
the implementation and deployment of ENUM.
In addition the agreements reached in this group will have
implications for other countries in the NANP and therefore it would be
beneficial to extend the participation and invite all interested parties.
It is understood that in order to widen the participation to other
countries that a different forum may be required.
Issue:
Should there be competitive Tier One Registries?
·
If so, how many?
·
Joint Collaborative effort?
·
What is the selection
process?
·
Sole industry responsibility
or what amount of Regulatory involvement?
View:
We believe that there should be a tiered provisioning architecture in the
designated ENUM DNS zone, and that within that architecture, competition
at the tier one registry level is provided.
In our previous presentation we suggested that the model to follow
is similar to the NPAC model. However, we do not have a firm view on the
exact number of tier one registries or a preferred model on how to divide
the NANP.
Issues:
Would there be a need for additional NANP
assignments to ENUM? And What are the effects of ENUM on NANP utilization?
Summary
|
