This is my third email on the subject of ENUM. (on a diet)
Firstly; I would appreciate and hope that experts including members of NZNOG
do not argue to justify why USER ENUM should NOT be implemented in New
Zealand. It is not up to individuals to quantify how it will be used or the
value of it to end users and application developers in the fullness of time.
It is instead up to our community to actively promote and facilitate the use
of any reasonable protocol on the Internet.
The truly unique fact about 4.6.e164.arpa is that it is an officially
sanctioned/moderated top level domain using the stable DNS ENUM services.
ENUM (the protocol) is operational around the world and also in New Zealand
via DNS client USER ENUM enquiries made both to countries already actively
using e164.arpa as well as other registries such as e164.org TLD's.
For myself I see this as a real issue of my personal Internet usage rights
in New Zealand. Imagine if we were still considering whether New Zealand
should have its own CC TLD. That is the situation we are in with respect to
USER ENUM 4.6.e164.arpa. I cannot opt-in to register my New Zealand
telephone number and all my associated communication services while ~50
countries can. Imagine if each internet protocol had to be approved by
local entities such as the MED, TCF and InternetNZ. Eg. email or http/https
web or skype or h323 - such a scenario is impossible to countenance. Yet
User ENUM 4.6.e164.arpa delegation has been "frozen" for years by agreements
between the MED (TCF and InternetNZ). 4.6.e164.arpa delegation must be
approved by the MED and as such I recommend that the MED delegate it to
themselves and fast track operation and policy implementation.
New Zealand Telco companies who are members of the TCF already use PROVIDER
ENUM as a backroom routing protocol. There is nothing they need from USER
ENUM 4.6.e164.arpa but they do need to co-operate with the authentication
process for establishing USER ENUM registrations.
The political issue here of USER ENUM is why New Zealanders are being
'prevented' from using this service.
We need a least cost, least capture USER ENUM Registry to be established
which puts ENUM client users as well as application developers interests as
the prime consideration.
Issues concerning +1 delegation:
Previous emails suggested that the United States +1 delegation was lapsed as
there was no demand - This is not the situation.
It is useful to appreciate that +1 represents a number of Caribbean
countries as well as Canada and the United States and the complications that
this fact originally had. +1 had been registered delegated for trial to
"CC1 ENUM LLC" (a private company Country Code 1 ENUM Limited Liability
Company). This Company's shareholders include AT&T, Sprint-Nextel, and
Verizon etc - Board Papers show the stake-holder were/are not in themselves
interested in supporting USER ENUM instead their primary goal was PROVIDER
ENUM with delegation of 1.e164.arpa to the Company.
The US State Department however "refused" to renew the +1 registration to
CC1 ENUM LLC in February 2008 as the Company does not need the delegation to
operate PROVIDER ENUM. Indeed the Company is proceeding with PROVIDER ENUM
using 1.e164.us. (which is not a sanctioned ITU ENUM).
Then in May of 2008, positively supported by United States Representatives,
the ITU SG adopted "new" guidelines to cover delegation of numbers such as
+1 which represent multiple countries. Therefore Canada and the other
Caribbean countries are also supporting this guideline.
What appears to have happened is that because CC1 ENUM LLC was only really
interested in routing optimization, the US Government has pulled the plug on
it because it was making no plan for USER ENUM and rather than letting the
LLC remain as the Delegee the U.S.G. decided to prevent capture by this
entity. This situation closely mirrors that in New Zealand - the networks
want PROVIDER ENUM but eschew USER ENUM.
The actions of the US Government in May 2008 (Geneva) show that they are
very keen for USER ENUM to be enabled for the 1.e164.arpa countries.
My advice to the Minister:
On the 19th December 2008 I wrote to Ministers of the NZ Government
requesting (in one part) that implementation of USER ENUM be expedited and
set as a KPI of the relevant Ministry.
I was completely unaware at the time of the application that was to be made
on the 23rd of December by Mr. Jones for delegation of 4.6.e164.arpra.
Unless the ITU receives a letter from the MED within 60 days of Mr. Jones'
application the ITU will refuse the application. This notice of refusal
will then be communicated by the email list to every international
subscriber to the list (private/corporate/government) and will show New
Zealand, I suggest, in a disorganized and poor light. (No criticism of Mr.
Should this ENUM 4.6.e164.arpa registration situation then be repeated again
and again and again then Kiwis will look like Thanksgiving turkeys.
( Previously InternetNZ's ENUM Task Force Chairperson.)
(NZNOG conference timing provides conflicts with my current schedule :( ) I
suggest Andrew Ruthven and Don Christie from Catalyst be invited to attend
any panel session NZNOG has)