Subject: RE: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for infrastructure E NUM?

From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:40:17 -0500

Hi, all:
 
I think that Steve has clarified an important point.
 
Keeping this in mind, let us view all upcoming proposals.
 
Cheers,
Radhika

  _____  

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Lind, Steven D, ALABS
Sent: Fri 2/3/2006 11:56 AM
To: Bernie Hoeneisen; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for infrastructure
ENUM?

Bernie, 

I think you've oversimplified the problem. You certainly could introduce 
a new tree or branch of the current tree above the country code, but the 
ITU would definitely have to change its procedures to recognize both 
trees. A country could opt-in to either of the two trees, both of them, 
or neither of them. The current interim procedures assume there is only 
one tree. 

The national sovereignty issue still exists, so if you introduce 
something above the country code, the ITU must address it somehow. My 
fear is that it will reignite the same debate that has taken place in 
Study Group 2 over the last 4+ years. While some service providers, 
particularly in Europe, are concerned over the current delegation 
placement, the only way to avoid the ITU debate would be to make the 
provider ENUM tree branch below the country code, thus making such 
decisions national matters. 

Thanks for raising this issue again, it is a very important one. 

Steve 

-------------------------------------------------------- 
Steven D. Lind, AT&T            Tel: 973-236-6787 
180 Park Avenue, Rm. A201       Fax: 360-343-2875 
Florham Park, NJ 07932          e-mail: [email-masked] 
-------------------------------------------------------- 

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