Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:21:03 +0200

>Well this whole discussion is interesting but realistically wont it be the NRA's that will define what is the >relevant entity(s) authorized to make entries in Public Carrier ENUM?
 
Agreed, but I would like to have some common understanding and agreement here
before we talk to ITU-T and the NRA's in ernest. If they get the impression that
nothing here is jeopardinzing their laws and regulations, the better.
 
And having aggreed upon pices of text here will also help to
write a delayed contribution to SG2 ;-)
 
Richard

________________________________

Von: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Gesendet: Mo 10.10.2005 16:49
An: Stastny Richard
Cc: [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Stastny Richard wrote: 

	Dear all,
	
	I do not want to define the requirements or rules for the entities
	defined
	in voipeer allowing them to peer and if there are different classes.
	
	I only want to make a strong recommendation here: entities called
	"carriers" allowed to make entries in Public Carrier ENUM MUST be
	a subset of the above set. One requirement of the subset is that all
	Members of the subset are able to peer with all other members.
	
	Otherwise the whole construct does not make sense.

Well this whole discussion is interesting but realistically wont it be the NRA's that will define what is the relevant entity(s) authorized to make entries in Public Carrier ENUM?

This is still the e164.apra tree.

	Having heard the arguments here, I come to the following conclusion
	(and I changed my mind ;-)
	
	An entity hosting the E.164 number in question as a destination
	network for the PSTN termination is also allowed to enter the
	E.164 number in question into Carrier ENUM. Carrier ENUM is
	the opt-in place for the entities SERVING E.164 numbers 
	On the PSTN (see below)
	
	Rationale:
	
	For my case A this is trivial, for case B and C even if the
	number is assigned directly to the End-User, they need a
	carrier to terminate or translate (in case of an IN-number)
	the E.164 number in question.
	
	The argument I brought forward during the discussion that we
	should not rely on the PSTN within the Internet is not valid, because
	E.164 numbers are PSTN names.
	
	The argument brought forward by Antion is also not correct in this case:

		The real (third party) Telco that controls the server should make the
		peering decisions for that server, but that does not make him the owner

	of >the delegation.
	
	If we follow this argument for number portability, we would end up
	finally
	with this:
	
	NP gives the end-user the right to keep the number, but as long as
	he ports the number form one carrier to the other. In all countries
	the number is still connected via a long rubber band to the original
	donor
	and zoomes back if given up. If the above statement from Antoin holds
	true
	here, the number should be kept by the subscriber.
	
	One could also argue that if the entity that has the right to use of
	a number is always the owner of the delegation, we have exactly what
	we have now in User ENUM. So it is the decision of the end-user what
	he is doing with the number = opt-in in ENUM. Again, this is USER ENUM.
	
	We all have seen that we have a problem here and that's why we want to 
	create Carrier ENUM:
	
	Carrier ENUM is the opt-in of the entities SERVING the E.164 numbers
	in question and it is assumed that such an entity will opt-in
	with all his numbers.
	
	This implies that an entity running their own servers will still
	need to use a "carrier" for entries in Carrier ENUM. They may agree with
	the "carrier" to enter their servers directly in this case (if they are
	also member of the peering subset - if not, they will need a "carrier" 
	anyways)
	
	Richard

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

-- 

Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>  or 
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> 
<http://www.neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>  ; <http://www.enum.org> <http://www.enum.org> 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

---

From: "Antoin Verschuren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:10:42 +0200

> the opt-in place for the entities SERVING E.164 numbers

If you look at it this way, and decide that that is the purpose of
Carrier ENUM, I agree with your model.
However, I see problems in provisioning or validating registrations
here.
The contract between the number holder and entity terminating in the
PSTN is usualy a private contract.
The outside world or registry cannot validate this in an easy way.
For the terminating party to prove that they are indeed entitled to
terminate that number block into the PSTN, they have to go back to the
number holder to generate that prove that they are indeed the
terminating party.
What I'm simply saying is why do we make things more complex here, and
simply aquire the prove directly from the number holder.
In the private contract between the terminating party and number holder,
the terminating party can simply insist that the contract is only valid
(they can only offer the service) if the number holder enters his
numberblock in the Carier ENUM tree, delegating it to the terminating
party.
The carrier ENUM tree is then simply the place where a carrier-of-record
is defined, as the NRA does not have this information.
In this way, validation for a registry is much easier, since they can
validate according to the assignment of the NRA.
Ease in validation will get deployment faster, and let's be fair, the
majority of assignents is directly to the real Carrier.
A number holder not being a Carrier is an exception, with the burden
that belongs with it. If he wants to be seen as a semi carier, he has to
take over some carrier tasks, one of which is entering his numberblock
in the carrier ENUM tree.

Antoin Verschuren

Technical Advisor
Policy & Business Development
SIDN
Utrechtseweg 310
PO Box 5022
6802 EA Arnhem
The Netherlands

T +31 26 3525510
F +31 26 3525505
M +31 6 23368970
E [email-masked]
W http://www.sidn.nl/

---

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:27:34 +0200

Hi,

I can follow your arguments, but
see inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Antoin Verschuren
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:11 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM
> 

This raises the question how this is "validated" now in the PSTN. How
does a carrier now "prove" to the outside world (the other carriers and
the NRA that he is serving an IN number on behalf of a number holder and
that this number has to be routed now via his network?

> simply aquire the prove directly from the number holder.

I am not sure that things are more complex, it seems more a chicken and
egg problem. Most number holders will be happy that the carrier selected
will do
the formalities required.

> is defined, as the NRA does not have this information.

Is it true that the NRA does not have this information?

> in the carrier ENUM tree.

See above

And, as Rich pointed out, the detailed procedures in this case will be
anyway national matter.

Richard

---

From: "Nieminen Klaus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:59:36 +0300

Hello, 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Stastny Richard
> Sent: 11. lokakuuta 2005 14:28
> To: Antoin Verschuren; [email-masked]
>> In the private contract between the terminating party and number
>> holder, the terminating party can simply insist that the contract is
only
>> valid (they can only offer the service) if the number holder enters
his 

>> party. The carrier ENUM tree is then simply the place where a
>> carrier-of-record is defined, as the NRA does not have this
information.
> Is it true that the NRA does not have this information?

At least in some cases NRAs do not have information about the network
that serves the numbers directly assigned to the users. I do not know,
if the same problem exists also for number ranges assigned to telcos,
but I assume that this may be tha case at least for numbers that are
further delegated to other service providers (e.g. Skype) by a contract.

For ported numbers I believe that all implementations involve the use of
databases that contain information on the network with which ported
numbers are associated. Therefore this should not be a problem.

regards,

- Klaus -
___________________________________________
KLAUS NIEMINEN
Senior Adviser
Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority
Internet and Information Security
P.O. Box 313
FIN-00181 HELSINKI
FINLAND
tel.: +358 9 6966 634
fax: +358 9 6966 873
e-mail: [email-masked]
www: http://www.ficora.fi

---

From: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:21:44 -0400

Klaus,

If done right, ENUM would replace the number portability databases
eventually.  It does not make sense to use one database to validate the
data in another database.  The operational procedure for validating data
should be inherent to the database.

Mike

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Nieminen Klaus
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:00 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> At least in some cases NRAs do not have information about the 
> network that serves the numbers directly assigned to the 
> users. I do not know, if the same problem exists also for 
> number ranges assigned to telcos, but I assume that this may 
> be tha case at least for numbers that are further delegated 
> to other service providers (e.g. Skype) by a contract.
> 
> For ported numbers I believe that all implementations involve 
> the use of databases that contain information on the network 
> with which ported numbers are associated. Therefore this 
> should not be a problem.
> 
> regards,
> 
> - Klaus -
> Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority Internet and 
> Information Security P.O. Box 313
> FIN-00181 HELSINKI
> FINLAND
> tel.: +358 9 6966 634
> fax: +358 9 6966 873

---

From: "Nieminen Klaus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:57:23 +0300

In most CEPT countries MNP is implemented using centralised NP
databases. These are typically managed by a consortia of network
operators, so NRAs may not have any information about ported numbers.
Well, I think that this fact is not very important.

At least also Malta and Cyprus has distributed MNP databases, but does
this mean that the validation information is not available or is it
possible to gather the required data from multiple databases maintained
by different operators?

regards,

- Klaus -

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Otmar Lendl
Sent: 11. lokakuuta 2005 16:41
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

On 2005/10/11 15:10, "Pfautz, Penn L, NEO" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>                                            Maybe some of those whose 
> countries use "onward routing" etc. can confirm whether there is any 
> centralized database outside of the network detailing those 
> arrangements.

Austria uses onward routing for fixed line NP. There is no centralized
DB which shows which number has been ported to whom.

The NRA only keeps tabs on what number have been ported, but this DB
does not include the information necessary to route calls.

/ol
--
< Otmar Lendl ([email-masked]) | nic.at Systems Engineer >

---

From: "Rosbotham, Paul" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:11:58 +0100

My view is that these type of issues are firmly in the category of "national matter".  All that need be agreed at this level is the principle that the database be populated by the carrier that provides the PSTN termination for the number in question.  How this is achieved is something which will vary by jurisdiction.

As it happens, some places where onward routeing is used are considering usage of carrier ENUM to supersede the existing solution.

Regards,

Paul Rosbotham
Manager, Interconnect Strategy & Technology Regulation
Cable & Wireless plc

Tel :	+44 1772 451506
Mob :	+44 7957 805573

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tue Oct 11 15:00:15 2005
Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Otmar:
Thanks. As long as the ported-to carrier is indicated in the NRA
database that is enough for determining the carrier of record for
carrier ENUM.

Penn 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Otmar Lendl
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:41 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

On 2005/10/11 15:10, "Pfautz, Penn L, NEO" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> countries use "onward routing" etc. can confirm
> whether there is any centralized database outside of the network
> detailing those arrangements. 

The NRA only keeps tabs on what number have been ported, but this
DB does not include the information necessary to route calls.

/ol

This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service,  visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/ 
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies.

---

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:27:55 +0200

I could live with the definition Paul provided:

Carrier ENUM is a database populated by the carrier that provides the
PSTN termination for the number in question. How this is achieved in
detail is a national matter. 

Richard

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Rosbotham, Paul
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 4:12 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

My view is that these type of issues are firmly in the category of
"national matter".  All that need be agreed at this level is the
principle that the database be populated by the carrier that provides
the PSTN termination for the number in question.  How this is achieved
is something which will vary by jurisdiction.

As it happens, some places where onward routeing is used are considering
usage of carrier ENUM to supersede the existing solution.

Regards,

Paul Rosbotham

Tel :   +44 1772 451506
Mob :   +44 7957 805573

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tue Oct 11 15:00:15 2005
Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Otmar:

Penn

-----Original Message-----

/ol

This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail
security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a
proactive managed e-mail security service, visit
http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/ 

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be
subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s)
named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not
read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained
in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail
and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies.

---

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:32:12 +0200

Yes,

I also agree with the additional statement from Paul and what Rich said

>As it happens, some places where onward routeing is used are
considering usage of carrier ENUM to supersede the existing solution

And

>NRA's looking at Carrier ENUM should consider carefully what
requirements are necessary to maintain ligitimate >centralzed ancillary
data on a TN that might be useful in the future.

The Carrier ENUM Registry could very well evolve to such a database.

Richard

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Richard Shockey
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 4:20 PM
To: Nieminen Klaus
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Nieminen Klaus wrote: 

Penn, Michael and all, 
 
My message was that in most cases we do have the required information
available and I think that we should not focus on the implementation
details in this question. As Penn mentioned, I believe that these issues
can be solved.
 
However, there are cases that may cause problems and my question is:
Should we take also these cases into account in our work or do you think
that this is should more likely to be solved nationally?

Clearly these are national issues but this brings up the subject of how
much information any ENUM registry should keep, carrier or public.

This a well known issue in classic domain registry operations ..the
Thick vs Thin model of Registry. Time and Time again its has been
conclusively shown that the maintance of a Thick Registry is in the long
term best interests of all parties.

One of the things this WG has done is move forward IRIS EREG as a
potential repository for information associated with a TN that might be
useful to NRA -  LEA etc.

In the US ENUM TAC LLC requirements document we specified the use of
IRIS for "Contact-Info"

http://enumllc.com/tac/docs/t1b/V7-052605_TAC_Tier1B-Reqs.doc

Penn is right .. the situation in Europe is complicated by the lack of
independent registry data associated with a TN. Way too often the
incumbent i is permitted to hold such data which complicates the process
of NP. 

It is clear that many European countries now realize the disadvantages
of centeralized databases and are reconsidering their options. IMHO the
Thick ENUM registry is the only way to go ..its only then a question of
what data is necessary to keep centrally and how that data is protected
by various privacy regulations etc.

NRA's looking at Carrier ENUM should consider carefully what
requirements are necessary to maintain ligitimate centralzed ancillary
data on a TN that might be useful in the future.

- Klaus -
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Pfautz, Penn L, NEO [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 11. lokakuuta 2005 16:26
To: Nieminen Klaus; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM
 
Klaus:
Unfortunately not all portability implementations use network databases
(I assume it's network databases rather Rather than admin ones to which
you refer) Maybe some of those whose countries use "onward routing" etc.
can confirm whether there is any centralized database outside of the
network detailing those arrangements. 
 
Nonetheless, I do think that for the most part it will be possible to
determine who the carrier providing the PSTN point of interface for an
E.164 number is and thus the carrier-of-record for carrier ENUM. If this
information were not generally available the E.164 number would not be
of much use anyway. I could think of workarounds even in the
non-centralized LNP situations and, frankly, if those cause some pain,
if should be thought of in terms of penance for making an erroneous
choice with respect to the implementation of number portability. (:-)
 
The day may/should/will come when interconnection is all IP-based and
some form of ENUM Registry IS the database of record for number
assignment and then we can have a debate about what it means to be
carrier of record again, but for now the approach of using the entity
that provides the number assignment/PSTN PoI is, I think, quite
workable.
 
Penn Pfautz
 
-----Original Message-----
Nieminen Klaus
 
Hello, 
 
One clarification:

	-----Original Message-----
Behalf

Of Stastny Richard

		In the private contract between the terminating party
and number 
		holder, the terminating party can simply insist that the
contract is

only

		valid (they can only offer the service) if the number
holder enters

his 

		numberblock in the Carier ENUM tree, delegating it to
the terminating

		party. The carrier ENUM tree is then simply the place
where a 
		carrier-of-record is defined, as the NRA does not have
this

information.

 

regards,
 
- Klaus -
___________________________________________
KLAUS NIEMINEN
Senior Adviser
Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority Internet and Information
Security P.O. Box 313
FIN-00181 HELSINKI
FINLAND
tel.: +358 9 6966 634
fax: +358 9 6966 873
e-mail: [email-masked]
www: http://www.ficora.fi

-- 

Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>  or 
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> 
<http://www.neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>  ;
<http://www.enum.org> <http://www.enum.org> 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:57:33 -0400

In the UK number portability model, perhaps the donor operator _should_ 
be the carrier-of-record for carrier ENUM.  The donor is, after all, 
the only carrier known to PSTN routing databases for a ported number. 

This could actually work in reasonable ways. 

(1) The donor could populate carrier ENUM with direct pointers to 
    recipient operators' gateways.  Thus, for calls from originating 
    carriers who choose to do a carrier ENUM query, the donor operator 
    could avoid having to handle the prefix and re-injection function.

(2) The recipient operator could use End-user ENUM to populate any 
    other NAPTRs that it might determine to be useful (this would 
    require end-user opt-in, but that could be obtained as part of the 
    original porting transaction.) 

(3) Carrier ENUM could be used to build a number portability database 
    that could eventually eliminate the donor operator's (unwanted and 
    costly?) involvement in PSTN call routing for ported numbers. 

Determination of which party is the carrier-of-record (PSTN POI) is a 
national matter.  Some countries could use the donor model, and others 
could use different models.  The IETF should design Carrier ENUM to work 
regardless and independent of the national carrier-of-record decision.

Jim Baskin

Clive Feather wrote:

>Pfautz, Penn L, NEO said:
>> of much use anyway.
>In the UK model, the national call routeing system points at the "donor
>operator". Calls are routed to that operator, who then adds a prefix to 
the
>number - pointing at the terminating operator - and re-injects the call
>into the network to be re-routed. Thus to identify the carrier providing
>the PSTN point of interface:
>(1) You need to identify the donor operator.
>(2) You need to ask the donor operator to indicate whether the number has
>    been ported and, if so, who the recipient operator is.
>
>It's (2) that's the hard bit, because there is no mechanism for it and no
>commercial or regulatory imperative to create one.

---

From: "Rosbotham, Paul" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:02:30 +0100

As Chair of the UK group that's looking at NP solutions in the NGN era, I'm going to ask that we call a halt to this particular thread because, as Jim says in his final paragraph it is one which is clearly a national matter (no offence Jim, I realise you're only trying to help).  

Should carrier ENUM come to fruition, it could well form the nucleus of the central database that is used for NP in the UK : however, it is premature to determine this, and once again this is clearly a national matter.

As I outlined earlier in the week, I don't believe that IETF need go any further than specifying that the entity populating Carrier ENUM be the one providing PSTN service to the number in question.

Regards

Paul Rosbotham

Tel :	+44 1772 451506
Mob :	+44 7957 805573

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 6:58 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Jim Baskin

the

---

From: "James McEachern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:35:42 -0400

Paul,
I realize you asked to halt this thread, but I have one question for clarification.  Rather than "specifying that the entity populating Carrier ENUM be the one providing PSTN service to the number in question", wouldn't it make more sense to specify that the entity populating Carrier ENUM be the one authorized by the national regulator to populate Carrier ENUM for the number in question?

Based on the previous discussion I can imagine that in some circumstances it might be advantageous for the regulator to have the donor carrier populate Carrier ENUM.  If it truly is up to the national regulator, perhaps we should simply recognize this, rather than presume what the regulator will decide?

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rosbotham, Paul
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 3:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Regards

Paul Rosbotham

Tel :	+44 1772 451506
Mob :	+44 7957 805573

-----Original Message-----

Jim Baskin

the

---

From: "Rosbotham, Paul" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:11:38 +0100

Jim

I could live with that modification.  The one "gotcha" I would caution of, however, is that in some cases the regulator may not be willing to get involved, and prefer to leave it to the industry players to sort out amongst themselves.  For example, I know that in some countries Administrations have grappled with how to deal with (user) ENUM because they are barred by statute from involvement in internet addressing issues.  As a compromise, how about we agree something along the lines of "Ordinarily the entity populating Carrier ENUM will be the one providing PSTN service to the number in question, but the detail of this is one which may specified by the relevant national regulator."

Regards

Paul 

-----Original Message-----
From: James McEachern [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 7:36 PM
To: Rosbotham, Paul; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Paul,

Jim

---

From: "James McEachern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:03:39 -0400

Paul,
I'd be happy with your proposed modification - or even simply stating that "the entity populating Carrier ENUM is a national matter".

Jim  

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosbotham, Paul [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 1:12 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: McEachern, James [CAR:5N00:EXCH]
Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Jim

Regards

Paul 

-----Original Message-----
From: James McEachern [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 7:36 PM
To: Rosbotham, Paul; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Paul,

Jim