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

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@att.com>]

BUT, Jeff, sometimes one of the councilers knows much and others don't... important 
to do what you just did... provide more information at the same time.
Thanks. MC

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:58 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; Milton Mueller; council@dnso.org; Neuman,
Jeff
Subject: RE: [council] Key Challenges and Opportunities for the GNSO


Marilyn,

I do not dispute that ENUM is "of interest" to a number of stakeholders in
the ICANN community.  But lets not confuse "interest" with jurisdiction.  I
do not believe that the GNSO (the generic NAMES supporting organization) is
the appropriate venue for ENUM.  For those that are interested in
participating, please go to the ENUM Forum (in the US) or the ITU.  In
addition, individual countries are setting up their own fora.  I am not
telling people not to get involved.  I am just saying that involvement
should be elsewhere.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 12:17 PM
To: Milton Mueller; council@dnso.org; Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us
Subject: RE: [council] Key Challenges and Opportunities for the GNSO


this is interesting, but I hope that we can stick to the facts on topic of
ENUM. ENUM is an emerging
application which has implications for the DNS.  :-)

Who and what vehicle a country uses to operate a registry; or the  model
it follows in establishing registrars [used as generic terms here]; etc.
will be of broad interest to anyone interested in the DNS.

Having an awareness of ENUM, or even IPv.6 are all things "good" for all
of the ICANN stakeholders... and I don't see the need to overreact about
"authority" over  implementation.  Council can want information without 
seeking "authority".

So, let's deal with "facts" in discussing the issues of informational
concern to ICANN's stakeholders, and all agree
that as responsible Councilors, we are all committed to not confusing
readers, or each other. :-)

Some of the Councilors know more about ENUM than others, because of "other
day jobs".
Some are probably only now learning or hearing about it.  ENUM, of course,
is relevant
to the ccTLDs as well..... and users of the DNS...



-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:51 AM
To: council@dnso.org; Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us
Subject: RE: [council] Key Challenges and Opportunities for the GNSO



I also would resist giving GNSO any authority over the implementation
of ENUM. Mere use of domain names or even the DNS as a protocol
or system is not sufficient to invoke GNSO policy making authority,
which is restricted to management of the DNS name space. 

>>> "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us> 04/09/03 11:24AM >>>
I would object to including anything about ENUM in a description about the
GNSO's activities.  I personally do not believe that at this junction ENUM
falls anywhere in the scope of the GNSO's jurisdiction.  The rollout of ENUM
may or may not include registries and registrars as we know them today.  In
addition, although there may be privacy impacts of ENUM on consumers, they
do not relate to the management of the generic top-level domain name space.