Subject: [Enum] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001

From: "Shaw, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:53:32 +0100

On January 17th, 2001, ITU hosted a one-day ENUM Workshop on 
administrative issues related to deployment of the ENUM protocol. 

Related workshop materials, including the Chairman's Report, are 
now available at:

http://www.itu.int/infocom/enum/workshopjan01/

Bob
--
Robert Shaw <[email-masked]>
ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor
International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int>
Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:35:26 -0800

Thank you for the link.  I have reviewed the power point presentations and
wanted to print them out.  Can we get access to the actual power point files
for easy printing??

-----Original Message-----
From: Shaw, Robert [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 6:54 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [Enum] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001

Bob

---

From: "Shaw, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:29:20 +0100

> Thank you for the link.  I have reviewed the power point 
> presentations and wanted to print them out.  Can we get 
> access to the actual power point files for easy printing??

Kevin,

They're also posted at:

Click on the "(PowerPoint)" link just to the right of each
title linked to the htmlized version.

Bob

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:29:23 -0500

At 06:31 PM 1/29/2001 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote:
>Hi David,
>
>>Is in-addr.arpa subject to anti-trust protection or extensive
>>regulation?  Is .COM?
>
>Yes, indeed.
>
>>The rub is in "assures uniqueness".
>
>It's all relative, and different implementations have
>different cost-benefit tradeoffs.  Generally, less
>government and more open competition have proven
>the better direction.  I'm confident the industry
>can work this out.
>
>e164.arpa might as well be named regulate_me.arpa.

And you accuse me of rhetoric...

Why don't you attempt to produce a reasoned technical argument instead of 
political platitudes.

The core issue now and has been that if Internet Telephony devices are to 
consistently and reliable connect with each other there is a need for a 
single clear DNS tree to retrieve NAPTR records from.

In addition to that there must be clear and consistent guidelines to 
prevent people from registering telephone numbers that do not belong to 
them. Your non intervention proposal ( essentially anarchy as I see it) 
guarantees that hijacking and other forms of consumer fraud would 
proliferate..and a key form of identity on the internet would be rendered 
useless...and with it the potential for an entire multi-billion dollar 
industry to grow.

RFC 2916 addresses the desire of consumers to be able to use their 
telephone numbers in the consistent and reliable manner for ALL forms of 
communications as they do now on the PSTN with the equal reliability of 
results.

The E.164 space is regulated and controlled in order to produce consistency 
in results. You pick up the phone and dial and it works. the PSTN ..like 
the Internet cannot search multiple databases to discover reliable end 
point information.

Internet Telephony is no different in that sense from PSTN Telephony.

I'd like to share some insights into this problem that the FCC addressed in 
its First Report and Rule on Number Portability.

While not specific to the problem at hand the FCC noted the importance of 
telephone numbers in creating competitive markets for telecommunications 
services.

I submit that what we are dealing with here is similar in many ways.

a. People will not use Internet Telephony IN A BIG WAY if they cannot use 
their telephone numbers.

b. If the resolution of those numbers into the DNS cannot create 
technically consistent results they will be essentially useless.

c. Therefore if it is the desire of Telecom Equipment Manufactures, ISP's, 
Government and other possible new entrants into Internet Telephony to 
create TRULY competitive markets for communications services using 
telephone numbers as names then implementation of RFC2916 is a necessity.

And ....I might add clearly is within the spirit of the 1996 
Telecommunications Act.

#######

 From the FCC Order and Report.....
29.       We note that several studies described in the record
demonstrate the reluctance of both business and residential
customers to switch carriers if they must change numbers.  For
example, MCI has stated that, based on a nationwide Gallup survey,
83 percent of business customers and 80 percent of residential
customers would be unlikely to change local service providers if they
had to change their telephone numbers.  Time Warner Holdings
states that consumers are 40 percent less likely to change service
providers if a number change is required.  Citizens Utilities notes
that approximately 85 percent of the discussions that its subsidiary,
ELI, has with potential customers about switching providers end
when those potential customers learn that they must change their
telephone numbers.  The study commissioned by Pacific Bell
concludes that, without portability, new entrants would be forced to
discount their local exchange service and other competing offerings
by at least 12 percent below the incumbent LECs' prices in order to
induce customers to switch carriers due to customers' resistance to
changing numbers.

      30.  The ability of end users to retain their telephone numbers
when changing service providers gives customers flexibility in the
quality, price, and variety of telecommunications services they can
choose to purchase.  Number portability promotes competition
between telecommunications service providers by, among other
things, allowing customers to respond to price and service changes
without changing their telephone numbers.  The resulting
competition will benefit all users of telecommunications services.
Indeed, competition should foster lower local telephone prices and,
consequently, stimulate demand for telecommunications services
and increase economic growth.

      31.  Conversely, the record demonstrates that a lack of
number portability likely would deter entry by competitive providers
of local service because of the value customers place on retaining
their telephone numbers.  Business customers, in particular, may
be reluctant to incur the administrative, marketing, and goodwill
costs associated with changing telephone numbers.  As indicated
above, several studies show that customers are reluctant to switch
carriers if they are required to change telephone numbers.  To the
extent that customers are reluctant to change service providers due
to the absence of number portability, demand for services provided
by new entrants will be depressed.  This could well discourage entry
by new service providers and thereby frustrate the pro-competitive
goals of the 1996 Act.

>--tony

Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison
NeuStar Inc.
1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005
Voice: 202.533.2811,  Cell : 314.503.0640,  Fax: 815.333.1237
<mailto: [email-masked]> or
<mailto: [email-masked]>
<http://www.neustar.com>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: "Douglas Ranalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:09:02 -0500

Richard,

Earlier today (Wednesday January 31) you wrote a long response to a note from Tony Rutkowski outlining various reasons for why you believe "e164.arpa" is the only way to go in delivering ENUM Registry services.  Outlined below are two sections that I'd like to explore further:

>In addition to that, there must be clear and consistent guidelines to 
>them. 

My sense is that we have broad agreement with the vision that validation is an important component of ENUM services.  Within this vision, there is no reason why a commercial ENUM service can't implement validation policies that are as good as, or even better than, the validation policies implemented by the multiple Registry operators that will exist around the world under the "e164.arpa" model.  As Judith Oppenheimer pointed out in a note earlier today, the challenges associated with validating control over an E164 number exist within the PSTN today.  Validation is an issue that needs to be addressed in both "public" and "commercial" ENUM implementations and I look forward to participating in this discussion as we move forward.      

>in results. You pick up the phone and dial and it works....

I'm sure you will agree that the definition of "regulation" in the PSTN has changed quite dramatically over the past several decades as "deregulation" has been introduced at multiple layers within the PSTN infrastructure.  Forty years ago this argument was used by AT&T to prevent end-users from connecting any  "non AT&T phones" to the telephone network.  As a commercial ENUM operator under "e164.com" I'm not against the idea of regulation in the ENUM space, I'm just against the idea of excluding competition.  This is a complex issue and I'll look forward to learning more about your views at the Ad Hoc meeting on the 12th to see if there is room for a common ground surrounding a regulatory definition of acceptable ENUM validation policies.

Regards,

Doug

Douglas J. Ranalli
Founder & Chief Strategy Officer
NetNumber
650 Suffolk Street, Suite 307
Lowell, MA  01854
[email-masked]
www.netnumber.com
978-454-4210 ext 22
978-454-5044 (fax)