There are some problems with VeriSign's approach.
For one thing, it rejects the necessity of addressing service integrity (800 is toll free, 900 is pay-per-call, etc.) This could wreak havoc on the U.S. 800 industry and marketers, and leave consumers open to a whole new generation of scams.
It also rejects the necessity of ascertaining that the assignee of a country code domain is the authorized entity.
VeriSign's POV, as posted,
"The Internet Domain Name System is a private, enhanced service that provides name mappings for Internet users. Under long standing law and policy, such services are not subject to regulation in most countries, especially the U.S.
E.164 is a numbering plan for Public Telecommunication Services. Those services are subject to considerable regulation.
Simply placing an E.164 number in an Internet based services directory shouldn't make that directory the subject of ITU jurisdiction and oversight. Indeed, it shouldn't make it the subject of any government regulatory schema.
... Don't these procedures adversely affect the existing providers of these services such as NetNumber?* Why is an intergovernmental body being asked to do something that adversely affects an existing U.S. provider? ... perhaps most important, it this kind of administrative and long-range policy going to be helpful to ENUM kinds of developments? or harmful?"
Contrast this last question with VeriSign's self-serving statement that, "Although there are significant legacy reasons for a so-called single Internet DNS root, this has no relevance to ENUM." (February 2002, STUDY GROUP 2 – CONTRIBUTION NN, "THE DNS RBL SERVICE – AN EXISTING ROBUST EXAMPLE FOR EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTIPLE DOMAINS FOR ENUM")
*Interestingly, NetNumber just posted an ITU Study Group 2 contribution "Additions to E.A-ENUM" that says "In the USA Delayed Contribution COM2-D46 it was stated that “… the implementation of such a system must neither preclude deployments of ENUM and other similar protocols in any other top level DNS domain, nor restrict the development of other innovative services that may serve as competing ENUM alternatives.” We believe that this principle should be recognized in E.A-ENUM. NetNumber goes on to propose language to be added to the current draft of E.A-ENUM.
To which VeriSign replied, "While we certainly support this contribution, it remains inexplicable how the U.S. could support *any* administrative-regulatory schema for an Internet-based information service pursuant to an ITU-T Recommendation."