| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
DoC "opts in" to e164.arpa
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 7 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
DoC is not in love with ITU. ITU would like a new TLD for ENUM. e164.arpa is controlled by RIPE-NCC and the IAB guys. ITU and the US-based telecom and internet interessts have been fighting about this for months. Victory is (surprise!) expressing support for the U.S.-based telecom industry-IAB/Internet community root for ENUM and dashing hopes for an ITU root, as well as, of course, dashing cold water on free market advocates for competing roots.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
| Starting Score: |
2 |
points |
| Extra 'Interesting' Modifier |
|
0 |
|
| Total Score: |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Those of us who are working with voice-over-IP systems (i.e. those of us who are setting up our own call setup systems, such as Cisco's Call Manager or Vocal) are probably going to continue cross-linking our dial-plans. If this trend increases then voice over IP may end up using enum directly cross-linked like the URL's of the world wide web rather than depending on some catholic, all mighty top level ENUM hierarchy, except as a last-effort fallback.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
"e164.arpa is controlled by RIPE-NCC and the IAB guys."
yes, this is a good point of clarification. ICANN is in effect the TLD administrator for .arpa (via IANA) and has formally delegated the second level e164 to RIPE, known as "tier 0"...and this was accomplished by the IAB.
That the ITU has wanted to move away from .arpa (and ICANN..and the USG...and the IAB...and RIPE) was not something I was familiar with. I would be curious to see where have they been "fighting" this one out. I recall that the ITU did propose to assist in administering .arpa in its comments submitted to ICANN Reform (and one of the few bullet points it zeroed in on). But, I was not aware of a formal "fight about this for months".
Also, are you saying that US based telecom interests stand to gain by tier 0 being in the USG/ICANN controlled .arpa? I can make a few guesses why this would be true but would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
Ray
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
