Subject: RE: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt

From: Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:05:11 -0700

ICANN was developed solely to break up the Network Solutions monopoly hold
on multiple TLDS domains and to add competition in providing the TLDs.

K

-----Original Message-----
From: Judith Oppenheimer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 10:02 AM
To: 'Jim Reid'
Cc: 'Patrik Faltstrom'; 'Pat Conley'; 'Richard Shockey'; 'Chip Sharp';
'Hollenbeck, Scott'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt 

Without beating this horse to death, I didn't say it wasn't a national
issue.  From a telephone numbering standpoint I agree with you that it is.
(I think I've made that clear on the other ENUM list.  My concern is that
the FCC rep doesn't seem to agree.)

I simply said ICANN wasn't a legitimate model.  For competition or for
anything else.

J

p.s.  Patrik:  Its the U.S. Dept of Commerce that controls the root zone
via contract with ICANN.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim
> Reid
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 10:45 AM
> To: Judith Oppenheimer
> Cc: 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Pat Conley'; 'Richard Shockey'; 'Chip Sharp';
> 'Hollenbeck, Scott'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt
>
>
> >>>>> "Judith" == Judith Oppenheimer
> <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>     Judith> Bad example.  ICANN is itself a gTLD monopoly, imposing on
>     Judith> the domain name industry the same prescriptive and
>     Judith> anti-competitive limitations we saw rejected yesterday by
>     Judith> the U.S., within which, there is also no real competition.
>
> This, like the rest of your posting, is wrong and completely misses
> the point. Whenever a name space contains unique identifiers -- domain
> names, telephone numbers, car licence plates, whatever -- there can be
> only one authority that issues them. That's the nature of unique
> names: by definition there's only one place to get them from. The
> logical conclusion of your argument is that things like passport
> numbers or social security numbers are monopolistic and anti
> competitive. This is absurd.
>
> The model Patrik is proposing for ENUM is not just sensible, it's the
> only one that will work in the real world. Governments will decide
> what they will do with their Tier-1 ENUM resource, presumably in
> consultation with interested parties like telco operators, regulators,
> industry associations, consumer groups and the country's ccTLD
> registry. How a government decides to define the framework for
> operating that resource will be up to them. This may or may not
> include competing registrars and telcos feeding ENUM records into the
> DNS via the nation's (non-profit?) ENUM registry. That decision has to
> be a matter of national -- in some cases international -- policy.
>
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
>

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

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

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:31:10 -0400

ICANN was created to bypass the Administrative Procedures Act.  To date it
has succeeded.

Re monopoly breakup, you might find this interesting:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/540693.asp

Judith

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Kevin
> McCandless
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 12:05 PM
> To: 'Judith Oppenheimer'; 'Jim Reid'

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:54:10 -0700

>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]> writes:

    Kevin> ICANN was developed solely to break up the Network
    Kevin> Solutions monopoly = hold on multiple TLDS domains and to
    Kevin> add competition in providing the TLDs.

There are many places to debate ICANN and its work. This list is not
one of them. Please take your prejudices about ICANN elsewhere. We
discuss ENUM here and ICANN has no involvement in that at all.

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:37:22 -0400

>discuss ENUM here and ICANN has no involvement in that at all.

As your ENUM co-chair  ... Thank you Jim.  Its not that we want to stifle 
debate here but as much as possible can we try to confine ourselves to 
technical issues surrounding 2916 ..please?

And as a personal note ..you are correct there is NO ICANN involvement in ENUM.

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640,  Fax: 815.333.1237
<mailto: [email-masked]> or
<mailto: [email-masked]>
<http://www.neustar.com>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 17:40:38 -0400

> And as a personal note ..you are correct there is NO ICANN
> involvement in ENUM

Yet.

If the FCC maintains a stance that VOIP is off bounds even in the context
of enforcing its own telephone numbering and service regulations, who do
you think will step in?

With rings on their fingers and bells on their toes?

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:37:43 -0700

>>>>> "Judith" == Judith Oppenheimer <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> And as a personal note ..you are correct there is NO ICANN

    Judith> Yet.

And the little green aliens from Tharg haven't invaded Earth. Yet.

    Judith> If the FCC maintains a stance that VOIP is off bounds even
    Judith> in the context of enforcing its own telephone numbering
    Judith> and service regulations, who do you think will step in?
    Judith> With rings on their fingers and bells on their toes?

Elvis? The Illuminati? These are more credible candidates than ICANN.

ICANN has the same responsibility and authority for VoIP or ENUM as it
has for any other internet protocol, like SMTP or HTTP: exactly
zero. ENUM is an activity for the IETF, IAB and ITU. ICANN has no
input. In fact if ICANN were to get involved it would probably be a
breach of its charter. And it's also hard to see what that involvement
could possibly be. ITU drives the E.164 numbering plan. That isn't
going to change without a new treaty that gets signed off by every ITU
member and telco. The ENUM protocols are driven by IETF and IAB. That
isn't going to change either. Therefore there is no role for ICANN to
fill even if it wanted to or could, which it can't. Not that I can
speak for ICANN or any of these other organisations.

Oh and ENUM encompasses far more than just VoIP.

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:31:40 -0400

> Oh and ENUM encompasses far more than just VoIP.

I couldn't agree with you more, though I'd hardly consider the IAB
unrelated to ICANN.

But ICANN may see otherwise.

http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm
FAQ #19
... In the case of the VeriSign/Telcordia ENUM World initiative, VeriSign
is offering registration services within .com at a lower-than-second level.
The current NSI Registry Agreement is mostly limited to registration
activities at the second level. VeriSign has used this feature to initiate
a "trial" that it notes "operat[es] on the DNS infrastructure, owned and
managed by VeriSign," that "will enable rapid resolution of
number-to-address mapping" and that "uniquely position[s]" VeriSign to
"play a critical role in future ENUM-based services." ICANN management
believes that, when a registry operator seeks to provide services by
leveraging the "DNS infrastructure" that it exclusively operates under its
registry agreement with ICANN, those services should be subject to
technical requirements and other policies developed through the ICANN
process. Concerns have been voiced that the ENUM World initiative,
depending on how it develops, may impair a sound technical enum
implementation based on open and non-proprietary standards. To address
concerns of this type, the new unsponsored TLD Registry Agreement covers
registry services provided by the registry operator concerning "Registered
Names," whether they are at the second or a lower level. ...

There are other indications of ICANN intent as well that I can forward you
if you're interested.

Judith

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 23:06:40 -0400

>There are other indications of ICANN intent as well that I can forward you

<sigh>  Ladies and Gentlemen is'nt there a fine list some where on the 
planet where conspiracy theories surrounding ICANN and comical and 
technically absurd concepts of multiple private instantiations of ENUM 
roots might be more appropriate ?

This thread began with a modest note of complement to Scott Hollenbeck on a 
interesting and complimentary technical draft on how 2916 might be used by 
various entities involved in the ENUM provisioning process private or 
public ...would someone care to comment on _its_ merits and applicability 
to the upcoming task at hand?

I believe that I speak for my co-chair that we do not want this list to get 
out of hand ... we have admin authority over the listserver and in 
appropriate cases we might use it.

---

From: "Mark Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 12:27:40 -0400

Hi Richard:

If you haven't noticed, we (others, myself and IITO), have tried to keep our
discussions of other Enum trees (the Golden Forest) out of this discussion
list.  We have done because of your general bias to the concept.

However, I just have to reply to your comment...
"technically absurd concepts of multiple private instantiations of ENUM
roots"

I have a few question...

What is your definition of technically absurd?

What is your definition of private?

Is the IETF and ISOC a private organization or a public one?

Do not already, multiple private instantiations of ENUM roots exist?
(e164.com, etc.)

Doesn't your company, Neustar, run it's own private instantiation of an Enum
Root at Enum.org?

Is enum.org public or private?

Is enum.org technically absurd?

I am sorry that you have such a narrow view of "Telephone Number Mapping".
Also, because RFC2916 has included in it, e164.arpa, as the preferred domain
for Enum, there are inherent (and intertwined) technical and policy issues
to take into consideration.  IETF issues, ITU issues, Member-State Issues,
Provider issues (including ITU sector-members), IAB issues, etc. (shall I
say, ICANN issues)

Maybe your right, maybe policy has been talked about too much.  Maybe the
problem is the inclusion of "POLICY" in RFC2916 of mandating specific
parties (namely all those entities mentioned above) into a technical
protocol.   If the ENUM protocol in RFC2916, did not include the POLICY
pre-supposition of e164.arpa (as an exclusive Enum tree), then many, if not
most of these discussions, would not be here?

I Hope that this is helpful in your quest to remove policy discussions from
this list.

Regards,
Mark

PS If anyone would like to help Richard and Patrik, a number of Enum
discussion lists are being created at www.EnumForums.org in September to
address many of the real world issues needed to make the Enum protocol
happen.  Just email your request to mailto:[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Richard Shockey
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 11:07 PM
To: Judith Oppenheimer; 'Jim Reid'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt

>There are other indications of ICANN intent as well that I can forward you

<sigh>  Ladies and Gentlemen isn't there a fine list some where on the
planet where conspiracy theories surrounding ICANN and comical and
technically absurd concepts of multiple private instantiations of ENUM
roots might be more appropriate ?

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 10:12:56 -0700

>I have a few question...

Unfortunately, none of them are relevant to the process of defining the 
ENUM technical specification.  Hence your questions need to find another forum.

>Is the IETF and ISOC a private organization or a public one?

There is plenty of documentation about the IETF and ISOC.  Feel free to 
review it.

>Do not already, multiple private instantiations of ENUM roots exist?

And plenty of alternate DNS roots.  Mere existence does not make a think 
reasonable.

At any rate, this group is focused on a DNS-based telephone number mapping 
service that is a formal extension to the global telephone service.  The 
other activities are not.

>  IETF issues, ITU issues, Member-State Issues,

You are making a basic logic error:  A participating in B does not mean 
that all things pertaining to A pertain to B.

In other words, none of this has anything to do with ICANN.  None of it.

d/

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

---

From: "Mark Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:02:09 -0400

Hi Dave:

To make you feel better, I give this quote, and will close the
conversation...

"Goods and Services are modularized and configured into systems, which
require a multiplication and constant revision of standards.  This leads to
wars for control of the information on which standards are based."
Quote from: PowerShift, by Alvin Toffler

Regards,
Mark

PS  Don't you work for Neustar as well?

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:13 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt

Unfortunately, none of them are relevant to the process of defining the
ENUM technical specification.  Hence your questions need to find another
forum.

d/

----------

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Mark
> Harris
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:28 PM
> To: Richard Shockey
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:16:39 -0700

At 11:02 AM 8/23/2001, Mark Harris wrote:
>To make you feel better, I give this quote, and will close the conversation...

feel better?  given that the note had nothing to do with the discussion of 
technical merit, I'm afraid that it had no impact on my feelings, and even 
less impact on resolving the debate.

>PS  Don't you work for Neustar as well?

They are one of my clients, yes.  And I also one participated in the design 
of BXXP (pre-IETF BEEP), having focused primarily on design of the 
multiplexing mechanism.

For reference, however, IETF work is supposed to be by individuals, rather 
than companies, and based on technical merit.

Depending on one's perspective, this can be viewed idealistically as an 
assumption that everyone wants a good standard, or else cynically on the 
assumption that everyone is biased, so that detailing the reasons for a 
particular person's bias is not overly helpful.

In general, IETF discussions limit ad hominems to questions of personality 
and genetics, rather than work affiliation...

d/

----------

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:38:08 -0400

I think we may need to modify Godwin's law for this list.
Citing Toffler, ICANN, black helicopters, or Allied Pipe.

I am employed by NeuStar.
Eric

---

From: "Mark Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:49:11 -0400

Hi Eric:

The good news is that, you Eric, "being on the inside", don't have to worry
about getting censored or kicked off the list for your "non-technical"
remarks.  :-)

Regards,
Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Eric
Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:10:59 -0400

>about getting censored or kicked off the list for your "non-technical"

Eric and others were privately warned ...but I'm publicly warning you ... 
we are not engaging in censorship only attempting to keep the discussion 
here focused on the technical tasks at hand.

We were lenient about discussion on this list so long as there were no 
other public forums available for policy and political issues surrounding 
2916 but since those forums exist ..those discussions are more appropriate 
there.

If you have a useful technical contribution to make here you are always 
welcome to do so here .. if you wish to discuss your theories of ENUM 
policy and US administration of ENUM take them elsewhere.

---

From: "Mark Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:52:07 -0400

Richard,

No problem; I am sorry that my replies to the discussions on this list have
made you so upset.

I appreciate the public warning; as I am sure Eric appreciates the private
one.

Silently yours,

Mark