Subject: [Enum] Tier II roll out

From: Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:53:26 -0800

Rich:

Have you given any thought on how the tier II servers should be defined?  By
define I mean should they be divided up into sectors like area codes or by
using the first number or two after the country code?  Does it matter?  If
tier I has the NS and A record for finding the Tier two, can there be
multiple Tier II providers for say 913 area code?  Or would there be no
division for the Tier IIs since Tier I has the NS and A record.  

Your input is greatly appreciated.

Kevin McCandless
Senior Network Planner
Illuminet
913-814-6397
[email-masked]

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

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:33:40 -0500

Hi Kevin,

Since the USGOV designated forum and list for conducting these
ENUM provisioning issues with antitrust protection exists, you
may wish to send it to that list so we can deal with it in the
appropriate forum.

best,
tony

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:43:11 -0800

Tony,

Your previous attempt to introduce the anti-trust concern established that 
you had no basis for specific concern about anti-trust.

Why are you trying to re-introduce that bit of distraction again?

d/

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:11:41 -0500

>you had no basis for specific concern about anti-trust.

My note didn't deal with belief sets.  It was intended
to be informational.

The US government has established a forum and list
for dealing with these North American ENUM provisioning
issues and which has antitrust protection.  It will be the
forum used by those for whom that designation matters,
and not here.

--tony

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:53:52 -0500

At 11:11 AM 2/15/2001 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote:
>>Your previous attempt to introduce the anti-trust concern established 
>>that you had no basis for specific concern about anti-trust.
>

I want to make this perfectly clear Tony... this list is open to any 
reasonable discussion of subjects related to ENUM ...we have documents on 
the table that this WG has decided , may be Informational, that discuss 
models of ENUM administration and as such this forum as well as the USG 
forum are appropriate for those discussions.

I am not going to tolerate and blatant or subtle forms of intimidation here 
by you raising red herrings about anti-trust issues etc..

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: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:43:32 -0500

At 06:53 AM 2/15/2001 -0800, Kevin McCandless wrote:
>using the first number or two after the country code?  Does it matter?

IMHO it really doesnt matter from a technical perspective. If you look a 
the Pfautz/Yu drafts from a North Americian perspective it is necessary to 
resolve the number at T1 to the last digit because of portability 
concerns..then its a pointer to authoritive NS ..and those can be anywhere.

>If
>multiple Tier II providers for say 913 area code?

Of course the NS for T2 can be anywhere the delegation has been made at T1. 
The assumptions some of us have had for North America have those T2 holders 
could be service providers, enterprises, ASP, or my basement.

>Or would there be no

No problem and dont let Tony's flatulent rhetoric on anti-trust bother you. 
These are purely technical issues that are being discussed here.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:31:21 -0800

Folks,

Since many of you are new to the IETF, I'd like to clarify a couple of 
points about legalities of IETF activities:

Background:  I have worked in the IETF for 12 years, including holding a 
variety of Area Director and Working Group Chair positions.  I also wrote a 
substantial fraction of the original IETF formal documentation and 
instituted the working group chair training session.
I also am NOT a lawyer...

In these 12 years, Tony's occasional, recent comments have been the only 
time that anyone has raised anti-trust concerns in working group 
discussions.  Also within those 12 years, the IETF has not been the subject 
of a single lawsuit or investigation, for anti-trust or anything else.

The IETF has very much paid attention to its legal basis for operation, 
including obtaining legal guidance.

Of course my own legal assessment of the working group's activities is 
worthless.  However as Rich notes, the discussions taking place in this 
working group are entirely consistent with typical IETF work.

So, let's move on.

d/