The short story to this is that Ms. Victory has formally expressed DoC's support for the ITU global efforts to coordinate the e164.arpa zone, one that is progressing consistent to RFC 2916. To quote, Ms. Victory "believes that the United States should seize this opportunity and take steps to participate in e164.arpa". Good news for the ITU.

This press release comes on the heals of the recent announcement by DoC to extend IANA functions to ICANN (without competitive bid) for another 3 years because ICANN is the "only responsible entity that can continue to provide seamless performance of the IANA functions". Ok. But per RFC 3172, ICANN obtains its authority (via DoC) to administer the .arpa domain as an extension of its IANA functions.

In the letter to Ambassador Gross, Ms. Victory states that "NTIA is committed to working diligently to resolve [ENUM] implementation issues with the FCC and the Department of State". Is this "commitment" merely a direct pass-off for the FCC and Department of State to go talk to the privatized ICANN? I mean, it's not like DoC can be confused for having a history of direct oversight or accountability of ICANN activities...more like pure delegation to the nth degree in the spirit of privatization for better or worse, including a "self-reform".

Meanwhile, the ITU is on record as questioning the private status of ICANN given its beholding to a single goverment. But, given this "Victory" of achieving formal USG support for its RFC 2916 ENUM initiative and certainly one that is crucial, will the ITU question this extension of IANA functions (and .arpa administration) to ICANN by DoC? It seems difficult to reconcile this.

We've seen this kind of language before from DoC such as "support competition", "promote innovation", "minimize regulation" and "preserve opportunity for alternative deployments" only to see these concepts delegated in totality to ICANN...ENUM is commonly referred to as the convergence of Telephony and Internet. For the US, it may well be titled "FCC meets ICANN". Should be interesting."

To begin with, I'm tired of these VoIP aka ENUM "we are the world" articles springing up everywhere claiming that they are saving entrepreneurs and consumers from PSTN regulatory stranglehold because "the internet isn't regulated."

That's why this story is exactly where it belongs - here on ICANNWatch, because we know better.

ENUM people have apoplexy every time the word ICANN comes up at a meeting because they have to keep up this premise of no regulatory body on the internet - they have to make these VoIP boys BELIEVE, or they won't help bring telecom over to the Promised Land.

How long will it take for "ICANN [to] become an unaccountable regulatory body that controls prices, services, and business practices" [icbtollfree.com] over VoIP companies too?

Whether ICANN or whomever DoC anoints and appoints, we know the internet is regulated, so if everything's on the up-and-up, why the face-to-face lies and PR subterfuge campaign?

Splain me that, Lucy.