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

["Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>]

Agree. Motion withdrawn.

Tony Harris
----- Original Message -----
From: <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com>
To: <harris@cabase.org.ar>; <Mueller@syr.edu>; <council@dnso.org>;
<Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 5:48 AM
Subject: RE: [council] Key Challenges and Opportunities for the GNSO


> 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.
>
>
>
>