Subject: [Enum] Competitive ENUM services are a reality

From: "John D. Goodspeed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 02:42:54 -0400

I should think that the last thing the world wants is an Orwellian
"Authorized" monolithic structure owning or controlling Internet (enum)
telephone numbers. As a paying telephone number subscriber, I effectively
own my telephone number, therefore I shall choose to remain in control over
how and when it is made available to the general public via the Internet.

Only the best of competing private Internet telephone number (ENUM)
publication services will ultimately prevail. Only private publication
services can offer me, the consumer, ultimate control over my Internet
telephone number. Innovative private sector services will be the first to
market. From a practical point of view the consumer will decide what works
and the consumer will decide based upon enum features and/or advertising
mind share.

The consumer is king. The monopoly is dead. From now on think "open systems"
/ "open numbers".

Sincerely,

John D. Goodspeed

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

---

From: Ray Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:15:09 +0100

John,

While I agree that a monolithic structure may be wrong, and that 
competition in services is great.
(for example, Bango Numbers compete with some ENUM based companies), you 
underestimate the
need to provide a stable infrastructure to enable innovation.

Firstly, it is unclear whether a subscriber owns their number.   In many 
countries, a government agency
has the power to modify numbering plans.  In the case of Europe, an EU 
directive could override national
policy.   In addition, if you move between countries, or between Mobile 
Operators, in some cases you cannot move
your number "at will".

Second, you, as cunsumer, do not normally have any power to say whether the 
number is made visible or
not over the infrastructure.  Generally, you only have control over the 
policies used when the number is called, and
in many cases you can't even control that with certain types of 
number.  You may also have some control over visibility
in some directories.  For example, companies or the state may be able to 
track you down, even if you are ex-directory

Ray

>The consumer is king. The monopoly is dead. From now on think "open systems"

Ray Anderson    CEO   Bango.net Limited
www.bango.net/00454545

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 06:48:55 -0400

Hi Ray, John,

>policy.

As a general direction in empowering consumers in their
retention and control of numbers you might want to reference
the CEC Green Paper, Towards a European Numbering Environment,
COM(96)590, Brussels, 20 Nov 1996.  In addition, the European
privacy policies in general are quite strong in providing
protections to consumers as you note.

The CEC IS DG appears to analyse ENUM developments in terms
of anticompetitive actions by incumbent telcos within the
Green Paper framework.  Unfolding ENUM events provide them
with lots of fodder for concern.

In the U.S., the FCC's number portability policies have
effectively made phone numbers the equivalent of pointers,
albeit with an ambiguous user nexus.

--tony

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:14:38 -0400

In the U.S. subscribers of all wireline numbers, both portable and not,
have a choice to be listed or unlisted.

Subscribers of toll free numbers are granted privacy by tariff:  RespOrgs
are proscribed from revealing who the subscriber of a toll free number is.

Subscribers are granted "control over the tollfree number and service", not
"ownership," though some are obviously treated as assets (1 800 FLOWERS,
etc.)

However, telephone companies and RespOrgs do not own telephone numbers
either.  Numbers are considered a resource of the North American Numbering
Plan.

Judith

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Judith Oppenheimer
http://JudithOppenheimer.com
212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
Publisher, http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
"An important source of inside information," says InfoWorld;
"superb", "invaluable", "critically intelligent", "exceedingly
useful", report ICB Premium Subscribers.
ENTER HERE:  http://www.roibot.com/w.cgi?R1764_sig
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ray
> Anderson
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 6:15 AM
> To: John D. Goodspeed; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Enum] Competitive ENUM services
>
>
> John,
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:22:11 -0700

At 11:42 PM 8/16/2001, John D. Goodspeed wrote:
>telephone numbers

Sorry to see you take Tony's specious and silly bait.

To consider the question of "competitive" ENUM service, please provide us 
with some history about similar, competitive services, such as for street 
names/numbers, drivers license numbers, and the like.

No doubt you also are looking forward to "competitive" IP addresses?

sigh.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:33:11 -0400

John,

> I should think that the last thing the world wants is a ...

Could you provide me a pointer to the requirements you are thinking of?

> ... monolithic structure [allocating] Internet [resources] ...

Counter-examples?

Mechanism is good. Desire without mechanism is ... like legislation
forbidding snowfall ... slightly problematic.

Details please.

Eric

---

From: Ray Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:58:12 +0100

>have a choice to be listed or unlisted.

I think it is correct that there is nothing to stop somebody publishing a 
wireline number,
not owned by them, in a directory, even it the operator managing the number 
has been told not
to put it in their directory.

In the UK, there are several businesses collecting and publishing 
"ex-directory" numbers,
for example Tony Blair's, etc.

Also, whether a number is listed or not, the number is still accessible, 
simply by anybody
dialling in.

> > not over the infrastructure.  >
> > Ray
> >

www.bango.net/00454545

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:13:02 -0400

> to put it in their directory.

Where would they get the information, if not from the carrier or the
customer?

> Also, whether a number is listed or not, the number is still

Not all numbers can be dialed by everyone.  For example, caller ID-blocked
numbers can be rejected by called party, both on calling and on *69.  Toll
free numbers are often area code blocked, so only callers from the
customer's chosen areas can get through.  In addition, the ring-to
recipient on a toll free number is often not the subscriber.

Judith

> From: Ray Anderson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 3:58 PM
> To: Judith Oppenheimer; 'John D. Goodspeed'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Enum] Competitive ENUM services
>
>

---

From: Ray Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:55:53 +0100

Judith,

At 16:13 17/08/2001 -0400, Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
> > I think it is correct that there is nothing to stop somebody
> > publishing a  wireline number,  not owned by them, in a directory, even 
> it the operator
> > managing the number  has been told not  to put it in their directory.
>

Phone companies in the UK, and other agencies, appear to have access to 
information that
is not made public.   For example, Vodafone Directory Enquiries appears to 
have the name,
number and address of British Telecom ex-directory subscribers.  Similarly, 
if you pretend to be a Doctor
trying to reach a relative of a dying person, the Operator staff can be 
bullied into revealing the
number.  There are numerous other scams to get the info, especially since 
most people do not
withhold caller ID, even if they knew they could!

>recipient on a toll free number is often not the subscriber.

Sorry, you are right.  What I meant to say was that people can still try to 
dial
a number and its up to the customer / supplier to determine behaviour.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:34:42 -0700

Folks,

This is an IETF mailing list.  It is for technical discussions for the 
purpose of specifying standards.

This thread is entirely irrelevant to such an activity.

Please move it elsewhere.

d/

ps.  And for those who understand and respect this matter of appropriate 
scope and venue, it is important not to respond to further messages in this 
thread.

----------

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 08:12:21 -0400

Hi Judith,

>Where would they get the information, if not from the carrier or the

Basically SS7 based databases such as LIDB.  Integrating
ENUM implementations into the world of telephony signalling
except for discussion about LNP, rather got left out of
much of the ENUM dialogue.  It is very relevant to the
subject.

--tony

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 21:13:54 -0700

At 05:12 AM 8/19/2001, A.M.Rutkowski wrote:
>Basically SS7 based databases such as LIDB.

"SS7 based databases" are maintained by carriers.

>Integrating

In what way, Tony?  How does it relate to the charter of the ENUM working 
group?

d/

----------

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 09:19:36 +0200

Thanks Dave for pointing this out.

Due to bad food on the flight back from the IETF in London, I have been
completely offline the last week, and will slowly recover the coming 2-3
weeks.

As Dave points out, this mailing list is for the ENUM working group in the
IETF. I have seen on messages that the mailman stuff at ietf.org seems to
not be working, and I will talk with the administrator about this.

The charter of the wg is defined as seen on the IETF website, and anything
outside what is specified on that charter is out of scope, and not suitable
for discussion on this mailing list.

Regarding competition, I urge people which argue for competition using a
naming mechanism which is not based on the unique naming in DNS (i.e. more
than one root in the DNS tree is used) and this draft MUST contain issues
like:

  - Specific algorithms used for party which want to store things in
    DNS (the party which want to be called)
  - Specific algorithms used for party which want to lookup things
    in DNS (the party which makes the call)

Notice that I explicitly say that DNS is used, DNS which does not have
searches. And, given that DNS is used, RFC 2826 MUST be referenced and all
questions and concernes in RFC 2826 MUST be clearly addressed.

When you have published that I-D as an individual submission, let the
working group chairs know, and we will make a decision whether the document
is to be part of the working group charter.

Having arguments and discussions without documents turn the discussions
into pie throwing exercises.

Until such document exists, I will as wg chair decide that RFC 2916 is what
this WG is referencing, and RFC 2916 talks about one root in the DNS
hierarchy. Because of this, this mailing list is NOT for discussion on
"alternate roots" before documents exists which explain in great detail how
that is to work technically given requirements in RFC 2826.

I also urge people which DO belive in RFC 2916 to also write documents
which talk about how "competition" is handled (choice for the holder of the
E.164 number to get good service etc), and proceed like I describe above.

   Regards, Patrik

--On 08/17/2001 3:34 PM -0700 Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> scope and venue, it is important not to respond to further messages in
> this  thread.
> 
> ----------

Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>                         Cisco Systems
Consulting Engineer                                  Office of the CSO
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-6859131            (San Jose) +1-408-525-8509
        PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843  2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC