RE: [council] Key Challenges and Opportunities for the GNSO

[tony.ar.holmes@bt.com]

Tony
The ENUM sessions at ICANN were really aimed at raising awareness and
ensuring those involved in that community understand the issue well enough
to be able to differentiate fact from fiction. There's so much hype and
misinformation around on ENUM, it even makes ICANN activities look simple! 

In recognising that and giving the subject air time, the Board provided a
platform for initial discussion and gave an undertaking that progress will
be monitored with an update likely to be given at an ICANN meeting next
year.

At this stage that is all that's needed. I don't believe there's any need
for the GNSO to add this to their agenda, or for that matter any additional
action required within ICANN at all. We already have the IETF, RIRs, ITU,
ETSI, National Administrations and numerous spin off national based
activities underway. Quite amazing  for a simple protocol development that's
still to prove its worth in the commercial environment.

Time may well prove the point you raise and if ENUM blossoms to its full
potential there may well be some aspects the GNSO wish to discuss, but at
this stage I don't see any reason to include any reference to ENUM.

 Tony 

-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Harris [mailto:harris@cabase.org.ar]
Sent: 14 April 2003 22:50
To: Milton Mueller; council@dnso.org; Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us
Subject: Re: [council] Key Challenges and Opportunities for the GNSO


Council colleagues,

I did not dream a simple suggestion would stir up such
a heated opposition!

Just for the record:
- I quoted an example from the ITU itself.
- No one suggested the GNSO has authority over the E.164
  numbering plan.
- I would refrain from asking the ITU any such question, I fail
  to see the need to do so.
- In my limited technical understanding of ENUM, I do see a root
   server in the operational diagrams. If the current root servers that
   operate in the domain namespace as we know it (not the alternate
   roots) are involved in the ENUM "unique assignments"(as Milton calls
them),
   then I do consider that ENUM is a service that merits the attention
   (not the empowerment) of the GNSO, since the operational stability
   of the Domain Name System would appear to be of some interest to
   our Council.

Also for the record, my motion to include ENUM in the Council agenda
still stands. Since calling it a "key challenge or opportunity for the GNSO"
is so resisted, perhaps it can be classified under some terminology such
as a "new technological development that merits some attention" ?

Tony Harris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <harris@cabase.org.ar>; <council@dnso.org>; <Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [council] Key Challenges and Opportunities for the GNSO


Antonio:
>>> "Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar> 04/09/03 12:23PM >>>
>I think we subscribe to different cable TV ?

I hope so! (AOL-Time Warner is big, but I hope it
doesn't control Argentina's cable system.)

>The ITU states:
>The ENUM protocol is a mapping into the Internet Domain Name System (DNS)
of
>parts or all of the international public telecommunication numbering plan
>defined in ITU-T Recommendation E.164.
>And this has nothing to do with the GNSO ?

Precisely so. It would seem to have something to do with ITU?
Or do you believe GNSO has some authority over the e.164
numbering plan?

If you want to have some fun, try asking someone from
ITU whether they think ENUM constitutes an "opportunity"
for ICANN's GNSO...see what reaction you get. :-)

>I am not proposing the GNSO place ENUM on the agenda for policy
>making, but wonder if it can be affirmed that ENUM does not constitute
>a "key challenge or opportunity for the GNSO", or will it be implemented
>in a parallel DNS unrelated to the one I am familiar with ?

My research center website is "implemented" using DNS, among
other protocols. Does GNSO consider my site a "key challenge or
opportunity?" Unless I completely misunderstand what you are
saying, there seems to be a fundamental confusion here.
ICANN manages assignments within DNS. It does not
manage new applications that happen to use DNS
as an input.

Anyone can create an applicationthat maps domain names
to anything else; e.g., credit card numbers, national ID numbers,
etc. Content distribution networks (CDNs) do interesting
things with domain names.

ICANN has no authority over applications that use
DNS. It has authority over unique assignments of
the DNS name space. Full stop.