Quick Scan ENUM

Document: Quick Scan ENUM

Client: Directoraat-Generaal Telecommunicatie en Post (DGTP) Contact: Thomas de Haan

Authors: Sander Paul van Tongeren / Ed Achterberg Telephone: 030-6349650 Mobile: 06-21285217 (Sander) / 06-53530320 (Ed) Project: E201.009 Date: 30-04-2001

1. Introduction...... 4 2. Summary ...... 5 3. ENUM general ...... 6 4. ENUM-Players ...... 8 4.1 Commercial players ...... 8 4.1.1 VeriSign GRS and Telcordia Technologies ...... 10 4.1.2 NetNumber...... 11 4.1.3 Neustar ...... 12 4.2 Non-profit ...... 12 4.2.1 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) ...... 15 4.2.2 ITU-T Study Group 2...... 15 4.2.3 Internet Architecture Board (IAB) ...... 15 4.2.4 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)...... 16 4.2.5 Internet Society (ISOC) ...... 16 4.2.6 Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)...... 16 4.2.7 TIPHON ...... 16 4.2.8 Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC). 17 4.3 Government ...... 18 4.4 End Users ...... 19 5. Implementation ENUM Standard ...... 21 5.1 Implementation models of ENUM...... 21 5.2 EP5-model ...... 22 5.3 Risks and issues of concern with ENUM...... 24 5.3.1 Telephone numbers ...... 24 5.3.2 Content of the ENUM database...... 25 5.3.3 Public need ...... 25 5.3.4 Competition...... 25 5.3.5 Price control on registration and usage of ENUM...... 25 5.3.6 Consumer protection (Slamming and hijacking) ...... 25 5.3.7 Security...... 26 5.3.8 Implementation of ENUM standard e164.arpa...... 26 6. Government ...... 27 6.1 Key questions on official ENUM...... 27 6.1.1 Pro’s and con’s of an officially endorsed ENUM ...... 27 6.1.2 Are the pro’s hard enough to justify an official ENUM? ...... 28 6.1.3 Match ENUM-policy with self-regulated Internet?...... 28 6.1.4 Could an official ENUM be seen as intervention?...... 28 6.1.5 Can both official and private ENUM systems co-exist? ...... 29 6.1.6 Can regulators prevent alternative private ENUM systems?...... 29 6.1.7 What happens if ENUM is publicly endorsed and official?...... 30 6.1.8 What happens if we do nothing? ...... 30 6.1.9 How will an endorsement change the market environment?...... 30 6.1.10 Are there other beneficiaries? ...... 30

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 2/35 6.1.11 Will it frustrate private ENUM implementations?...... 30 6.1.12 The right ENUM-structure? ...... 30 6.1.13 Can we still change it in e.g. 5 years? ...... 30 6.2 ENUM specific questions ...... 31 6.2.1 Single root versus multiple competing roots? ...... 31 6.2.2 Service level alternative ENUM-like solutions?...... 31 6.2.3 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR’s) within ENUM ...... 31 6.2.4 How would ITU IPR policy serve? ...... 31 6.3 ENUM and related technologies/services...... 32 6.3.1 Other developed or implemented initiatives/concepts?...... 32 6.3.2 Relation between ENUM and these initiatives and are they competing? ...... 33 6.3.3 What is the relation between ENUM and 3GPP? ...... 33 6.3.4 How will private DNS environment affect ENUM? ...... 34 6.3.5 Relation ENUM and telco’s...... 34 6.4 Related issues ...... 34 6.4.1 Authorization and authentication problems...... 34 6.4.2 Interest IETF/IAB to ask ITU to delegate the ENUM data?...... 34 6.4.3 What is the ‘legal standing’ of IETF papers? ...... 34 6.4.4 Management of the DNS server running the TLD and could there be a more distributed management between USA and ROW?...... 34 7. Terminology ...... 35

EP1 has been given the assignment by the Government (DGTP) to do a quick scan on how the Government may collaborate with the implementation of ENUM2 in The Netherlands. When using ENUM, EP refers to that stated in IETF’s3 technical specification RFC 29164, which was produced by a working group of the same name.

EP will focus on real value of ENUM and the generated potential benefits for all relevant parties. In chapter 4 we defined the players (commercial, non-profit, government and end users) and their interests.

In chapter 5 we will describe four existing ENUM-models and the major issues of concern are highlighted. We also introduce an rough draft of a alternative model (EP5). In chapter 6 we will answers the questions raised by DGTP.

1 Electronic Paper 2 Telephone Number Mapping 3 Internet Engineering Task Force: http://www.ietf.org 4 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2916.txt

ENUM is a complex and all-embracing issue. In this quick scan we have listed the players and tried to shed some light on important issues. We are unfortunately not able to provide DGTP with a final and a clear set of recommendations. We suggest to have a workshop together with DGTP and EP to complete the questions in more detail. This workshop can be used as a starting point for a consultation.

The discussion about the actual implementation of ENUM is still going on. Given the different roles of the players in each model, it will take some time to come to an worldwide agreed standard model. The competitive position of Internet Service Providers (ISP) and Telecommunication Service Providers (TPS) will drive the needed government attention.

Given the lack of firm commitments and clear directions, any consultation will also need to form a ‘public’ opinion.

If the discussion on a ENUM standard will take too long, a small chance exists that other initiative will launch their services. Already some services are launched to provide easy access to (Mobile) internet resource from a (mobile) telephone handset. These initiative could set the scene and potentially one of them could become a de- facto standard.

We recommend DGTP to wait and review the situation after more clarity is available on the ENUM standard within the ITU, IETF and the role of the TSP and ESP. In the mean time a (informal) consultation could be held to get feedback from the market. If E164 numbers are going to be used, some interference of DGTP is needed, as this might have impact on the existing number plan.

What Is ENUM?5 ENUM is a protocol and a database that maps telephone numbers to Internet domain names. The domain name that corresponds to the telephone number will be written in reverse order and is included under a specially allocated second-level domain.

ENUM, an idea of Patrik Falstrom6, allows a phone number to also serve as the basis for someone's e-mail address. The arrangement would effectively allow a person to reach all kinds of devices by knowing a single contact number.

Under his plan, the ENUM domain name for, 1-202-456-1414, would become 4.1.4.1.6.5.4.2.0.2.1.e164.arpa. That's the phone number backward with ".e164.arpa" tacked on to the end. The system would recognize both as belonging to the same person. As can be seen, both the trunk code (area code without the first zero) and the country code 1 for the U.S.A. form part of the domain name. The trunk code and the country code appear closest to the special second-level domain .e164.arpa.

The ENUM domain name is mapped further to other kinds of addresses (e.g. e-mail addresses, SIP URL7 for “IP telephony”, mobile telephone numbers, web addresses stored in special records, so-called NAPTR8 records) which can thereby facilitate various communication solutions where telephone numbers are used as the only call identity.

Falstrom picked ".e164.arpa" in part to appeal to the egos of both the telephone and Internet worlds: "e164" is an ITU9 standard that describes the format of telephone numbers used around the world, while ARPA is the acronym for the Advanced Research Projects Agency, the U.S. government agency that gave birth to the original Internet. The name ENUM is adopted by the telephone numbering working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

Under Falstrom's plan, users would not be required to use the common number; they could still maintain separate phone and e-mail listings. But if they so chose, they could take advantage of the system to simplify their contact information (the establishment of a single contact number for individuals). This would, for example, allow the business card of the future to contain a single number rather than a long list of addresses for home phone, office phone, fax, cell phone, and email.

Various services will use the Internet to translate that one number into service specific addresses. For instance, users could go to a Web site and set up their preferences. If someone typed in a contact number to send an email it would be directed to a corresponding email address. A phone call would be routed to one number or forwarded to a second -- such as a pager or cell phone -- if there was no answer at the first, depending on what preferences the user at the other end selected. It might even possible for people to route certain calls, say from a spouse, to one number and all others to another.

5 http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/draft-shockey-enum-faq-01.txt 6 Patrik Falstrom, a Cisco Systems Inc. engineer, is the founder of ENUM [email protected] 7 Session Initiation Protocol Uniform Resource Locators 8 Naming Authority Pointer 9 International Telecommunication Union

• “ENUM seems destined ultimately to emerge as the most important new Internet platform since the World Wide Web - perhaps even eclipsing it in long- range importance. A measure of its broad significance was the Internet standards speed record recently set by the initial adoption of the ENUM specification on the road to an Internet standard.”10

One of the reasons for the attention surrounding ENUM may be that it solves a problem that exists today in obtaining real speed with “IP telephony”. ENUM transforms the end users’ communications identities11 in real time in connection with, for example, calls from the public switched telephone network (PSTN) to the Internet or another IP network. Communications identities are obtained from the numbering plan for E.164 numbers and the name plan for the Internet domain names. ENUM can be viewed as a means for service and network convergence12

10 http://www.enumworld.com/ 11 Communications identity is a generic term including both a name, a number or an address. For explanation of these three terms refer to ITU-T Recommendation E.191 [2]. This new english term is introduced in this report in absence of a suitable well-known generic english term covering both a name, a number and an address for use in electronic communications networks (e.g. PSTN, ISDN, PLMN, Internet and PSPDN) 12 Post & Telestyrelsen, 30 March 20001, Reference no. 01-9734

To define the players and their interests we decided to split the field in separate parts: Commercial players (4.1), non-profit (4.2), government (4.3) and End Users (4.4).

Non-profit Commercial 4.2 4.1

Services Standardization

ENUM

Policy Content

Government End Users 4.3 4.4

Figure 1. ENUM-environment with the four ‘players’ who (will) make ENUM: Companies (commercial), non profit organizations (standardization), Government (policy) and the end-users, that will deliver the content for the ENUM-databases and will use it to contact other End users.

4.1 Commercial players It is primarily the two American companies, VeriSign (4.1.1) and NetNumber (4.1.2), which intend to offer “ENUM-like” functions under their own second-level domains (.enumworld.com for VeriSign and .e164.com for NetNumber). VeriSign has already today a special status in the domain name market as the sole registry for the popular top-level domains .com, .net and .org, and surely views its involvement with its own “ENUM” function as a possibility to acquire for itself market advantages before ITU’s 189 Member States have decided on ENUM under the second-level domain .e164.arpa.

Besides the above-mentioned selection of commercial “ENUM-like” functions, one can in DNS find other second-level domains that could be aimed at similar purposes. Among others, NeuStar (4.1.3) has registered .enum.org and Lucent .e164.org. However, these companies state that they do not at present have any plans to launch commercial “ENUM-like” functions, but they have mostly used the domains for various information and testing purposes.

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 8/35 For Internet service providers that have not been allocated an E.164 number by OPTA13, ENUM may offer an interesting functionality. They could, with the assistance of ENUM, be able to connect customers that have E.164 numbers directly to their IP network and with the assistance of these numbers arrange “IP telephony’” calls for their customers, although these E.164 numbers really belong to another public telecommunications operator, the so-called access network operator.

University of Miami law professor Michael Froomkin, who has testified before Congress about Internet issues, said a telephone-Internet address book might end up being more valuable than the combined systems that NeuStar and Network Solutions currently manage -- especially if it ends up assigning a unique number to each person. It could prove to be the ultimate marketing database, a vein of information that people might prefer to keep private. It could be used to track and trace people around the world and build dossiers about them. The discussions around ENUM are more politically than technical. ENUM has become part of an international tug of war over who might one day run a merged communications network.

It's a battle being waged in the Washington area by two companies on either side of the Potomac, each with designs on managing the central database. NeuStar Inc., with headquarters in Northwest Washington, currently oversees the master list of telephone numbers for North America. Over in Herndon, Va., sits its counterpart in the Internet world, Network Solutions Inc., a VeriSign Inc. unit that doles out addresses for Web sites.

NeuStar got its telephone contract, worth $4.8 million last year, from the FCC14. VeriSign got its Internet deal from ICANN15 and now makes more than $400 million a year off the domain-name business.

13 Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit (OPTA) 14 Federal Communications Commission 15 Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names: http://www.icann.org

enum world.com e164.com

EN UM

enum .org

NeuStar 4.1.3

Figure 2. Commercial players

NeuStar executives were instrumental in creating the ENUM standard and the company has been lobbying for the government to approve the proposal as quickly as possible. VeriSign, on the other hand, is pushing regulators to stay away from the debate, leaving it up to the marketplace to decide. The company already has begun testing its own alternative system, which lets users type phone numbers into their mobile devices to reach Web sites such as www.delta.com.

4.1.1 VeriSign GRS16 and Telcordia Technologies17 The ENUM World test-bed18 is a joint development project of Telcordia Technologies and VeriSign Global Registry Services. The ENUM project is the convergence point of the public switching telephone network (PSTN) and the Internet. Each of these companies brings unique and valuable skills to this project from both of those domains.

The goal of ENUM World is to create a development environment that will allow service providers to test their applications for functionality with the proposed ENUM standard. The first step in the ENUM World project is the establishment of a trial system where users can register telephone numbers and associate service specific addresses to those numbers.

16 http://www.verisign-grs.com/ 17 http://www.telcordia.com/ 18 www.enumworld.com

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 10/35 The primary purpose of the ENUM World trial is to provide operational experience with the proposed standard for deployment of ENUM-based services to help identify solutions that work in the real world. A functional end-to-end environment will help separate academic theory from operational fact, allowing participants to gather valuable experience that will help mitigate the risks associated with deploying services. It should be noted that there is not yet an approved standard and that alterations to the current proposals being considered may result in the need to fundamentally change the test-bed. None the less, early testing experience with the current proposal will facilitate rapid adoption by the applications developers and the general public once the standard is in place.

Therefore, secondary objectives of the trial are:

• To provide an environment that will allow users to concentrate on service development rather than the set up of the testing infrastructure. • To increase the likelihood of interoperability amongst ENUM-based services through the use of a single environment shared by multiple development organizations. • To give the industry the opportunity to explore, and hopefully resolve, some of the open questions around ENUM, including authentication and authorization of the phone number.

Telcordia provides service management systems globally to administer and update numbers for toll-free and local number portability services. Every toll-free call in the U.S. depends on Telcordia software. This robust service management platform will be used to provide similar capabilities for the trial system.

VeriSign Global Registry Services (VeriSign GRS) is the leading provider of domain name registry services and Domain Name System (DNS) support to the Internet. The division maintains the definitive directory of over 24 million .com, .net, and .org Web addresses and is responsible for the infrastructure that propagates this information throughout the Internet and responds to over 1.5 billion DNS look-ups daily.

4.1.2 NetNumber19 NetNumber provides secure, reliable, ENUM-compliant directory services to the Internet-Telephony industry. NetNumber's ENUM program is the outgrowth of a three- year intellectual property, technology development and standards body effort launched by the team20 in 1997. NetNumber was the first company to offer an ENUM service designed for carrier-grade operation and continues to lead the emerging market for ENUM services.

19 http://www.netnumber.com 20 http://www.netnumber.com/partnersBus.jsp

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 11/35 4.1.3 Neustar21 NeuStar, Inc., based in Washington, D.C., is committed to administering high quality, even-handed and competitively neutral infrastructure services to the communications industry. NeuStar provides registry services to the entire North American communications industry. As the Local Number Portability Administrator, NeuStar manages the registry database that is a critical component for the routing of all telephone calls in North America. Neustar also acts as the North American Numbering Plan Administrator. This associated registry database contains all of the area codes and central office codes (or exchanges) in North America.

4.2 Non-profit So far the only group to act on Falstrom's proposal is the IETF, a standards body made up of roughly 3,000 academic and industry volunteers from around the world. The task force's recommendations are advisory. The organization has no enforcement powers. Its authority comes from the moral suasion of its member base, many of whom helped build the Internet in the first place.

The task force has been coordinating its efforts with the ITU, the United Nations treaty organization that has more formal power over the world's telephone network. The ITU, though, is still debating the issue.

According to IETF’s specification for ENUM, it is stated that those ENUM domain names that correspond to telephone numbers shall be located under the top-level domain .arpa. This was established when IESG22 decided to publish the specification in August 2000. Originally, .arpa comprised the only top-level domain in the Internet domain name system (DNS), but by a decision of IAB23 year 2000 .arpa has been rearranged as a domain for infrastructure related purposes.

The responsible administrative organization for the top-level domain .arpa is IETF and the responsible technical organization (registry) is IANA24 in accordance with an agreement between ICANN25 and IETF. IANA is now a part of ICANN. IAB is the responsible administrative organization for the second-level domain .e164.arpa and has for a limited period delegated the technical responsibility for this second-level domain to RIPE NCC26 in Amsterdam.

As regards ENUM, the intention is that every country should notify ITU that they wish to execute delegation of country code zones, i.e. the level which for The Netherlands corresponds to .1.3.e164.arpa. ITU shall subsequently notify RIPE NCC so that delegation can be executed. This procedure will thereby be able to safeguard that the respective Member State in ITU, on the part of The Netherlands the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management has authorized the introduction of the information for its country code in DNS.

21 http://www.neustar.com 22 Internet Engineering Steering Group: http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html 23 Internet Architecture Board: http://www.iab.org 24 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority: http://www.iana.org 25 Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names: http://www.icann.org 26 Reseaux IP Europeens Network Coordination Centre: http://www.ripe.net

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 12/35 The choice of top-level domain .arpa. for the ENUM function has not been completely free from controversy. The issue is indeed still considered to be open and not finally resolved in the ITU, while in the Internet world (IETF/IAB) it’s decided that .arpa should be used for ENUM.

There are in particular three different matters worthy of mention as regards appropriate second-level domain for ENUM.

• From the very first there were discussions within, among others, the ITU, and also inside the IETF, about whether ENUM should be located under the second-level domain .e164.int. ITU has the ambition of becoming the registry for the top-level domain .int. • Secondly, some countries consider that the current choice of .arpa., to place in parts of their national E.164 plans, feels less satisfactory as it is still really the U.S. Department of Commerce, which through its agreements with ICANN, has the ultimate right to decide as regards some parts of the domain name system for Internet as the U.S. ultimately can control the authoritative root name server in DNS. • Thirdly, the commercially created parallel second-level domains for “ENUM-like” functions will undermine the thought behind ENUM according to IETF’s intentions. It is primarily the two American companies, VeriSign and NetNumber, which intend to offer “ENUM-like” functions under their own second-level domains (.enumworld.com for VeriSign and .e164.com for NetNumber). VeriSign has already today a special status in the domain name market as the sole registry for the popular top-level domains .com, .net and .org, and surely views its involvement with its own “ENUM” function as a possibility to acquire for itself market advantages before ITU’s 189 Member States have decided on ENUM under the second-level domain .e164.arpa.

Besides the above-mentioned selection of commercial “ENUM-like” functions, one can in DNS find other second-level domains that could be aimed at similar purposes. Among others, NeuStar has registered .enum.org and Lucent .e164.org. However, these companies state that they do not at present have any plans to launch commercial “ENUM-like” functions, but they have mostly used the domains for various information and testing purposes.

Knowledge that there are now several second-level domains intended for ENUM creates some problems. First and foremost, the question arises for the national regulatory authorities, which administer the E.164 plan, of in which domain name branch the support of ENUM shall occur. Shall IETF’s intentions with ENUM under the .e164.arpa branch be supported, or should other second-level domains also be possible for ENUM?

It may with several domain name branches be difficult for the final customer to know in which such branch he should have his ENUM information stored. There is in the domain name system only an opportunity to make direct searches for a particular domain name. There are thus no search functions between several branch structures under different second-level domains, to identify a final customer’s stored ENUM information.

IETF ENUM TIPHON ITU-T SG 2 Working Group WG 4 (e.164.arpa) (DNS) 4.2.7 4.2.2 4.2.1

IETF TIPHON ITU-T

RIPE NCC ETSI ITU 4.2.8

ICANN ICANN Address Protocol Supporting Supporting Organization Organization

IESG ICANN 4.2.4 4.2.6

IAB 4.2.3

ISOC 4.2.5

Figure 3. Inter-relations Non-profit parties

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 14/35 4.2.1 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) The IETF is the protocol engineering and development arm of the Internet. Though it existed informally for some time, the group was formally established by the IAB in 1986. The IETF is a large open international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual.

The actual technical work of the IETF is done in its working groups, which are organized by topic into several areas (e.g., routing, transport, security, etc.). Much of the work is handled via mailing lists. The IETF holds meetings three times per year.

The IETF working groups are grouped into areas, and managed by Area Directors (AD). The AD’s are members of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Providing architectural oversight is the Internet Architecture Board, (IAB). The IAB also adjudicates appeals when someone complains that the IESG has failed.

The IAB and IESG are chartered by the Internet Society (ISOC27) for these purposes. The General Area Director also serves as the chair of the IESG and of the IETF, and is an ex-officio member of the IAB.

4.2.2 ITU-T Study Group 2 Responsible for studies relating to:

• principles of service provision, definition and operational requirements of service emulation; • numbering, naming, addressing requirements and resource assignment including criteria and procedures for reservation and assignment; • routing and interworking requirements; • human factors; • operational aspects of networks and associated performance requirements including network traffic management, quality of service (traffic engineering, operational performance and service measurements); • operational aspects of interworking between traditional telecommunication networks and evolving networks; • evaluation of feedback from operators, manufacturing companies and users on different aspects of network operation.

Lead Study Group on Service definition, Numbering, Routing and Global Mobility

4.2.3 Internet Architecture Board (IAB) The IAB is responsible for defining the overall architecture of the Internet, providing guidance and broad direction to the IETF. The IAB also serves as the technology advisory group to the Internet Society, and oversees a number of critical activities in support of the Internet.

27 http://www.isoc.org

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 15/35 4.2.4 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) The IESG is responsible for technical management of IETF activities and the Internet standards process. As part of the ISOC, it administers the process according to the rules and procedures which have been ratified by the ISOC Trustees. The IESG is directly responsible for the actions associated with entry into and movement along the Internet "standards track," including final approval of specifications as Internet Standards.

4.2.5 Internet Society (ISOC) The Internet Society is a professional membership organization of Internet experts that comments on policies and practices and oversees a number of other boards and task forces dealing with network policy issues.

4.2.6 Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the non-profit corporation that was formed to assume responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions previously performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities.

The Board of ICANN is composed of nineteen Directors: nine At-Large Directors, nine selected by ICANN's three supporting organizations, and the President/CEO (ex officio). Five of the current At-Large Directors were selected according to a vote of Internet users worldwide.

The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and ITU-T Study Group 2 are discussing collaboration on the operational, administration and delegation issues related to deployment of ENUM protocol-based services. This requires extensive consultation with administrators of resources derived from the international E.164 numbering plan including national and integrated numbering plan administrators.

4.2.7 TIPHON28 Recognizing the urgent need for common solutions, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, ETSI29, has established TIPHON "Telecommunications and Internet Protocol Harmonization Over Networks".

The initiative for the creation of TIPHON was a joint one between a number of ETSI members and the ETSI Secretariat. Since its creation, support for the project has continued to grow and at present more than 40 ETSI members and other companies have committed their support. All of those members are major players in telecommunications and information technology, and most of them are companies with substantial global business. Other companies are most welcome to join the project under the normal terms of ETSI membership.

28 http://www.etsi.org/tiphon/ 29 http://www.etsi.org/main.htm

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 16/35 The project's objective30 is to support the market for voice communication and related voice band communication (such as facsimile) between users. It will ensure that users connected to IP based networks can communicate with users in Switched Circuit Networks (SCN - such as PSTN/ISDN and GSM), and vice versa. As well as between users in SCN, where IP-based networks are used for connection/trunking between the SCN involved.

The support comes in the production of appropriate ETSI deliverables: technical specifications and reports. In addition, the activity will include validation and demonstrations, in order to confirm the appropriateness of the solutions proposed.

Given the universal nature of IP networks, the prime goal is to produce global standards. As ETSI is essentially a European body, it recognizes that co-operation with relevant groupings in ITU-T and IETF is necessary.

ETSI specifically believes that it has a role in opinion leadership and in helping to build consensus between all the major market players. The Institute co-operates closely with relevant Fora, especially the IMTC VoIP Activity Group.

KPN is the only Dutch Telecom operator who sponsors the project TIPHON. AT&T and Neustar have jointly proposed two potential reference models for national ENUM implementations. The purpose of the current contribution by KPN31 is to broaden the discussion on potential models through the introduction of a new model (Model III, European style). This new model is meant to complement the existing ones (see chapter 5).

4.2.8 Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) The RIPE Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) is one of 3 Regional Internet Registries (RIR) which exist in the world today, providing allocation and registration services which support the operation of the Internet globally. The RIPE NCC performs activities primarily for the benefit of the membership in Europe, The Middle East, The North of Africa and parts of Asia; mainly activities that its members need to organize as a group, even though they may compete in other areas.

The services provided ensure the fair distribution of global Internet resources in the RIPE NCC service region required for the stable and reliable operation of the Internet. This includes the allocation of Internet (IP) address space, interdomain routing identifiers (currently BGP autonomous system numbers), and the management of reverse domain name space (currently in-addr.arpa and ip6.int).

The RIPE NCC also provides services for the benefit of the Internet community at large including the development and maintenance of the RIPE Database, administrative support for the RIPE community, and the development and coordination of new projects.

The RIPE NCC currently supports over 2700 Local Internet Registries (LIRs) who collectively form the RIPE NCC membership. Membership is open to anyone using the RIPE NCC services, primarily made up of Internet Services Providers (ISPs).

30 Goals of ETSI Project TIPHON 31 KPN contribution to ETSI TIPHON: Evaluation of models for national implementations of ENUM, Pieter Nooren and Piter Veenstra (..), 27 April 2001

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 17/35 4.3 Government In the US no fewer than four executive agencies and one nongovernmental group (ICANN) have been studying whether they should assert their power over the telephone-Internet database: the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees the telephone system; the Commerce Department, which has taken charge of the Internet's addressing system; the State Department, which has the responsibility for cross-border issues; and the Federal Trade Commission, which is charged with protecting consumers, is studying the privacy issues the scheme raises.

Additionally, ICANN, a non-profit organization operating since 1998 by contract with the government, has some jurisdiction over the Internet's addressing system. It has so far declined to get involved, turning down proposals from private companies to set up their own systems under the ".tel" or ".num" domains.

Given that the plan sits at the intersection of the telephone and the Internet realms, it presents a tricky policy issue for governments. The telephone world is mixed with the computer world. The telephone world comes from a history of being controlled by national governments. In the Internet space, it's been laissez-faire.

There is a competition that pits the heavily regulated telephone industry against Internet upstarts and their aversion to government rules. Some nations have injected themselves into the debate out of concern that a merged network could undermine state-run telephone networks. Privacy advocates, meanwhile, fret about how the unified contact information would be protected.

One of the most important questions the government could decide is who will take charge of the address book that will map the telephone numbers to Internet addresses. Under Falstrom's plan, the responsibility for managing the address book for this telephone-Internet would fall on individual nations32.

Falstrom and his supporters argue that a government-sanctioned standard for a centralized system is needed to avoid the consumer confusion brought on by the growing number of devices people use to communicate with one another 33. Also important is the fact that ENUM only work when people can be interconnected, as currently via telecommunication networks. Although the technical issues are simple, the politics around it can bungle ENUM as a standard.

4.4 End Users What benefits does ENUM give to users?34 Users could be corporations, individuals, government agencies, military, and hosts of other non-individual users.

32 That is, the United States would oversee all numbers in country code 1, The Netherlands would take 31, Bolivia would manage 591, China 86 and so forth. Several countries, including Pakistan, have been so concerned about the possibility that telephone calls may one day be routed through the Internet that they have made it illegal to do so -- for fear they could lose long-distance revenue. 33 http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/164787.html 34 http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/draft-shockey-enum-faq-01.txt

Called B@domain Internet telephony Internet based on SIP terminal

Called B@domain

Multi- Mobile E.164 service Mobile telephony Mobile terminal terminal

Mobile E.164 Geographic E.164 Service Caller Called selection Public telephone service Telephone B A ENUM (may be implemented on switched circuits or IP)

Geographic E.164 E.164 number For Called B List of services, associated names and preferences Note: Query to DNS may be sent from caller’s terminal or from access network ENUM Information on services used by Called B Service in DNS

Figure 1: Example of ENUM service.35

ENUM should be an interesting function for end users who wish to be able to be reached via various means of communication where various kinds of communications identities are called. The main (intended) benefits are:

• ENUM enables calling users or entities to make a selection from the range of services that are available, especially over the Internet, for communicating with a particular person or entity when the calling user knows only their telephone number. - IP telephony, - Store and forward or real-time Internet Fax, - VPIM voice messaging, - Internet paging, - Geographic phone location, and many others. • Each service is to be separately defined and identified using a unique, registered service identifier. • ENUM enables users to access Internet based services and resources from Internet aware telephones, ordinary telephones connected to Internet gateways or proxy services and other Internet connected devices that are limited to numeric keypad data entry, where input is limited to numeric digits36. • ENUM enables users to specify their preferences for receiving incoming communications (e.g. specifying a preference for voicemail messages over live calls or indicating a destination for call forwarding). ENUM will give much improved user control over communications.

35 From presentation of John Horrocks, December 2000 36 Users find it difficult and slow to enter a conventional URL on a numeric keypad. According to Forrester Research, for every key press required to access a mobile service, the potential users drop by half.

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 19/35 Numbers, especially phone numbers, are already widely used and understood as a way of addressing information and services. Numbers are easily printed on promotional materials, billboards, mailers, and membership cards. They are much easier to enter into a phone keypad, TV remote, by speech, or by handwriting than text or words.

Services

Internet telephony Internet based on SIP terminal

Called B@domain Called B@domain Analogue telephone PSTN

Geographic E.164

Called Caller Telephone A Public telephone service B

Geographic E.164

E.164 number List of services, associated names and preferences For Called B

ENUM Information on services used by Called B Service in DNS

Figure 2: Example of ENUM when a normal (analogue) phone is used. The look-up in the ENUM Service DNS must be done real-time.

This chapter will look at the current ENUM models and their strengths and weaknesses. Also the risks and issues of concern with ENUM are discussed in detail. To circumvent some of the risks with the proposed models for ENUM implementation, we will describe a rough draft of a new model (EP-537).

5.1 Implementation models of ENUM Apart from the discussion if ENUM should be endorsed by government, there is also a discussion about the actual implementation of ENUM. The key issues are the T138 and T239 responsibility, the security and the safeguard of the End User (EU) interests. At this moment four different models are presented. The models are discussed at TIPHON and will also be put forward at ETNO, NANI and SG2 ITU-T. For a detailed description of the four models, see40.

• Model I / AT&T / Neustar. To a certain extent does this model build in the US implementation of number portability for E.164 numbers • Model II: AT & T / Neustar: this model is a special case of model I, in which the TSP and the T2 roles are integrated. This reduces the number of interfaces. • Model I * by AT&T and Neustar as described in their March 2001 Internet Draft. This model is a generalized version of model I. The main extensions are: - A separate Telephone Number Assignment Authority (TNAA) holds the information on the relation between a TN and the end user of (or: subscriber to) the T service. - The porting of TNs between TSPs occurs through a central Portability Administrator (PA). • Model III :this model builds on European implementations of number portability for E.164 numbers. In particular, the model reuses the rationale behind the architecture for information exchange between TSPs in European number portability implementations.

Key element in all these models is the verification of the Telephone Number (TN) of the End user (EU). A major concern is that the verification information is owned by the Telecom Service Providers (TSP) and therefore play an important role. It also makes the entry of an ENUM-number very complicated, as multiple queries must be done to check the TN-entry.

Table 1 gives an overview of advantages and disadvantages of administrative models I* and III. Most of the points for model I* are the same as those for its predecessor, model I, that were identified during the ITU ENUM workshop in January 200141.

37 Model no 5, thought up by Electronic paper, 27-4-2001 38 Registry 39 Registrar 40 Administrative Models for ENUM, KPN, 27-4-2001 41 From D. Evaluation and comparison of two administrative models for national implementations of ENUM, KPN, 27-4- 2001

Advantages Disadvantages model I* • EU has choice of T2 • Complicated because of many • EU can be his own T2 interfaces. • Any party can become T2 • Complicated validation because of isolated position TSP • Little incentive for TSP to become involved? • Many continuous transactions because of centralized architecture model III • EU has choice of T2 • Parties need to be willing to • EU can be his own T2 share responsibility for • Any party can become T2 correctness of information. • Simple because of few • Little incentive for TSP to interfaces become involved? • Simple, TSP-internal validation. • Minimal amount of continuous transactions because of decentralized architecture

5.2 EP5-model An alternative model would be to use E164 numbers, which are not yet allocated. We propose to change the number plan and open an ENUM-number range (i.e. +31 99xxxxx) or use the UTP number range (+878) The reason to propose this new model comes from the fact that the four proposed models have some major shortcomings.

To reveal the practical shortcomings of the four proposed models, let’s look at the issuing of a ENUM-number. This example is regardless of the implementation of the T1 and T2 responsibility.

• EU selects an ENUM service provider (ESP) and registers it TN. • The ESP needs to check the TN with the TSP which ‘operate’ the TN. In order to check with TSP information is needed on42: NAW / Contract • After the ESP receives a positive feedback, the EU can proceed with filling the information details ENUM.

The following problems arise:

• Mobile Prepaid numbers cannot be checked. So the only thing the TSP can return is OKE, when also the PUK-code is provided, which makes the application for an ENUM rather cumbersome. More than 50% over all mobile numbers are prepaid. • Fixed Line subscribers need to ‘split’ the number. So if one EU already registered the number, which number can the other occupants use? If they do not have a mobile number, they need a non-subscribed E164 number.

42 The same principle is used with Number portability, were the recipient operator needs to provide EU-information to the donor operator to get permission to port the number. If the provided information is not correct, porting is not allowed. With ENUM, the rules could be less strict, but nonetheless information needs to be passed on from ESP to TSP.

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 22/35 • A relative of the EU is planning to use an ENUM number to call. First he has to decide which number is to be used for calling? Fixed, Mobile or any another telephone number? • What happens when an EU changes his ENUM number? o Moving to another location in his country, without being able to keep it’s fixed line number? o Ceases his subscription with TSP A and subscribes with different TSP B, without keeping his numbers. • What happens when the TSP suspense service due to bad debt? Will ENUM still work, or is the ENUM entry also suspended even when the EU has no bad debt with the other services. • What happens with number portability? Depending on the model the ENUM information needs to be transferred, or ESP need to updated on the change op TSP. • Is ENUM-portability supported?

Altogether there is a need to have additional ‘fake’ E164 number and ENUM-users need to tell there friends their ENUM number anyhow. So the reasons to map existing E164-number are not very solid. It introduces expensive synchronization issues. One could even drop the E164-numbering altogether. But the already chosen direction to give each country the responsibility for T1 is still workable. It also provides a method to keep competition alive.

• RIPE NCC delegates the responsibility for the DNS zone c.c.E164.arpa to the T1 in the country with the E164 country code cc. • The T1 delegates the DNS zone responsibility for each individual ENUM- number to the ESP (T2) that stores the ENUM records for this particular ENUM-number (in the central database). • A central administrative database keeps track which ENUM-numbers are already in use. • The central database is run by the T1-registry, or run by all T2 ESP.

Central administrative database DNS zone delegation of available ENUM-number (+31 for given CC 99xxxxxx)

cc.E164.arpa T1 Registry

Chec k ENUM Set up DNS zone available delegation for individual numbers

1.2....cc.E164.arpa T2 registrar(s)

ENUM s er v ic e request

E- mail VoIP/ISP TSP subscription subscription subscription

Figure 3: EP5-model A new model where the relation with TSP is not important, as a separate, dedicated ENUM number range is used.

5.3 Risks and issues of concern with ENUM Regardless of the ENUM model, there are several issues that needs attention, especially when a endorsement of ENUM is considered.

5.3.1 Telephone numbers What sort of telephone number, fixed, mobile, free phone, premium rate, personal, etc. should be used as an ENUM number? One fixed number can be used/owned by multiple users. Certain numbers (12-series, 13-series and 014-series) are distributed to multiple users. These numbers should be excluded in case ENUM will go live. It might also be considered to amended the existing number plan and introduce a ENUM-number range43. In this sense it might be wishful to have a relation between the TLD server and the OPTA.

43 Besides the proposed +31 99, also the personal number range can be used: +31 87 or the global number range +878. The current ENUM specification look like a extended personal number service.

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 24/35 5.3.2 Content of the ENUM database How can it be safeguarded that the contents of the ENUM databases is consistent and up-to-date? The bottom line here is that the ENUM proposal needs to be viewed with a certain degree of concern about making sure that the domain databases are populated with valid information.

Another issue is the way the database is going to be filled with ENUM numbers. Which incentive will end user have to actively start using ENUM numbers? What is the cost of building critical mass of registrations?

5.3.3 Public need Is there any need for ENUM or ENUM-a-like services? According to PTS Sweden, it is not yet possible to assess the consequences of an introduction of ENUM or whether the use would be a marketable success44. The main driver for success are the perceived benefits for the end-users.

5.3.4 Competition Given the huge impact a successful ENUM can have, one should not create new incumbents or monopolies. The way ENUM is implemented can set the basis to prevent this from happening. Perhaps a independent body needs to develop a set of rules to secure the interest of the end user, but also to safeguard an open market for the provisioning of ENUM data.

Everybody, consumers, ISP’s, TSPP’s and new players, should have equal access to the new opportunity.

KPN is the only Dutch Telecom-operator who is really active in the ENUM-process. There could be a risk that KPN can use it’s strength to implement an ENUM-structure which is far from ideal.

The authentication of the existing TN creates issues related to who owns the number and who has control over it. The interface between parties to check the authentication can give rise to problems, where arbitrage is needed. If the ENUM issues is decoupled from the authentication, by creating a new number range, a large part of competition issues are eliminated.

5.3.5 Price control on registration and usage of ENUM This would probably be of less importance, as the price will be a big enabler to make ENUM a success. If the price is too high, no end-user will ever register. If ENUM becomes a success, it may however become a potential concern, if end user are depended on the service.

5.3.6 Consumer protection (Slamming and hijacking) ENUM could prove to be the ultimate marketing database, a vein of information that people might prefer to keep private. ENUM could be used to track and trace people around the world and build dossiers about them.

Consumer protection45 (e.g. anti-slamming) and public interest (e.g. emergency services) have their implications:

44 Post & Telestyrelsen, 30 March 20001, Reference no. 01-9734 45 http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 25/35 • Service provider customer information is very sensitive, especially in this time of local phone competition. Service providers require the maximum flexibility to protect this data. • Registration of a domain name for the telephone numbers delegated to another carrier may result in messages being misdirected to the wrong carrier. As sub- delegations are implemented, the risk that phone numbers delegated to one enterprise may be incorrectly pointed at another will increase. • Service providers operate in a regulated environment where certain information about subscribers must not be disclosed. Telephony services and Voice Messaging are subject to caller-ID blocking restrictions, restrictions normally enforced in the telephony network. No such protection is available on the Internet. The protection of this data is essential, but is up to the individual service providers to not disclose this information outside of their control. • Within telephony the privacy of the end user is safeguarded by legislation for instance, secret numbers, block-blocking, etcetera. Internet doesn’t have that kind of privacy-legislation. The question is if and how these user-rights will be supported within ENUM. • Slamming, or the involuntary transfer of service provider, must be avoided in any ENUM system.

5.3.7 Security Still unclear is how the database would be protected against hackers or other mischief- makers who might try to steal information or change people's contact information.

5.3.8 Implementation of ENUM standard e164.arpa The current proposed ENUM service have a potential weakness, because of the widely distributed nature of the solution. To coordinate and implement ENUM and selection of T1 and T2 across more than 200 ITU member will be a tremendous task. Time to market will probably be slow, which will benefit for commercial ENUM implementations.

ENUM may develop into a function important to society for convergence between circuit switched and packet switched telecommunications network. Links to the E.164 plan will require the collaboration of the Government in the future.

In this chapter we will answer the questions given to us by DGTP. The answers should provide insight in the underlying issues related to ENUM and endorsement. The questions and answers could provide help for the preparation of a public consultation about the subject46. In case the question is not answered, we provide some guidance in answering the questions

6.1 Key questions on official ENUM

6.1.1 Pro’s and con’s of an officially endorsed ENUM Before to endorse ENUM, the final implementation of the standard should be completed. Endorsement without it, will not provide the desired clarity. Even without governmental interference, standard can be shaped. If any standard should give concern on aspects, like fair competition, customer protection, etc, a government should highlight their anxiety.

A government should endorse a standard only if it feels that without doing it, (severe) problems will arise. If however parts of the standard uses existing regulated standards (like E164), interference could also be needed. A ENUM standard could generate indistinctness about the E164 numbers.

Companies ranging from anonymous upstarts to AOL Time Warner Inc., Microsoft Corp. and AT&T Corp. are betting their companies on anywhere, anytime systems that will let users get their calls, e-mails, instant messages, music, videos and other services through a wide variety of devices. The problem so far has been that consumers with AOL gadgets often can't get Microsoft Hotmail messages, and vice versa for Microsoft contraptions.

One of the most important questions the government could decide is who will take charge of the address book that will map the telephone numbers to Internet addresses.

46 As proposed in ECTRA/PTN – source DGTP

Pro Con Market stimulation clear support of ENUM-standard, could be seen as interference Consumer willingness which could ensure it is to use the ENUM implemented the same way, standard regardless country, TSP, ISP, etc. Numbering Usage of E164 numbers, imply a kind of endorsement of DGTP. When a new number range is created existing legislation from Telecom Law apply to ENUM numbers Competition endorsement could ensure fair could be seen as interference competition and a level playing field and could ‘block’ other initiatives ENUM registration and normal legislation on normal legislation on usage of the end users consumer protection consumer protection registration information Authorization of data / enforcement of co-operation is anti-competitive behavior Authentication / possible, like Number portability could prevent some (small) Validation player to develop their service, although competition law could provide relief Future development could be restricted, if regulation or will develop normally endorsement is too narrow and not future proof User Interest -- Connectivity (any-to- As ENUM is a translation service, connectivity is safe guarded by any) simply by-passing ENUM Arbitration The level of arbitrage depend on the implementation model of ENUM

6.1.2 Are the pro’s hard enough to justify an official ENUM? We think that given the usage of E164 for any standard with impact like ENUM, the government should endorse the ENUM standard. The endorsement could be implied by a change in the Number plan. Also the endorsement gives insurances on the T1 and T2 issues.

The current rules on consumer issues and open competition are enough safeguard in the Netherlands. Additional regulation on ENUM is not needed.

6.1.3 Match ENUM-policy with self-regulated Internet? Given that the plan sits at the intersection of the telephone and the Internet realms, it presents a tricky policy issue.

6.1.4 Could an official ENUM be seen as intervention? We don’t think so. Commercial companies state that they do not at present have any plans to launch commercial “ENUM-like” functions, but they have mostly used the domains for various information and testing purposes.

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 28/35 PTS in Sweden has consulted 15 interested parties in the course of the investigation relating to ENUM. Responses were received from Telia, II-stiftelsen, Tele2, Netnod, NIC-SE, Stokab and Ericsson. Generally, there is an interest for ENUM in accordance with the replies received. The instances consulted consider that the Government should cooperate with the introduction and the country code zone .6.4.e164.arpa being delegated to PTS. DNS corresponding to this level should be run by a neutral instance.

Furthermore, it is considered unfortunate if there are several competing “ENUM-like” functions under various domain name branches. This is so, primarily due to the difficulties of the domain name system with searches over several parallel top-level domains.

6.1.5 Can both official and private ENUM systems co-exist? Yes, the ENUM protocol can be used in private numbering plans the same way it can be used in the public E.164 number plan.

The Internet Telephony gateway or proxy needs some intelligence to "decode" a particular dialing string and then decide how to look up resources for that particular number. Instead of looking for resources in e164.arpa the gateway or proxy would look for SRV or NAPTR records for private numbers under some other structure, such as e164.bigcompany.com

There is a general feeling that there will be only a limited number of TIER-1 ENUM providers.47 People need to register with an ENUM provider, and it is not expected they will do this with various systems.

PTS considers that one domain name branch should be supported for ENUM and that it is most appropriate to follow that which will be determined through ITU. As mentioned previously, this has not been finally determined within the ITU work. However the IETF already consider this decided and that .arpa should be used for ENUM. PTS considers that if several domain name branches for ENUM are supported, this will probably only create uncertainty about which ENUM is the one with the most reliable final customer data concerning stored E.164 numbers.

6.1.6 Can regulators prevent alternative private ENUM systems? We don’t think this is possible. VeriSign has already today a special status in the domain name market as the sole registry for the popular top-level domains .com, .net and .org, and surely views its involvement with its own “ENUM” function as a possibility to acquire for itself market advantages before ITU’s 189 Member States have decided on ENUM under the second-level domain .e164.arpa. Several other companies run field trail will ‘private’ ENUM systems.

6.1.7 What happens if ENUM is publicly endorsed and official? In our view, it is not yet possible to assess the consequences of an introduction of ENUM or whether the use would be a marketable success. It al depends on the willingness of the end-user to use is, and also if relevant services become available. If the ‘message’ is hard to sell, it probably won’t become a big success. Current interest comes from the fact that most communication user-devices only allow numeric input.

47 ‘Is E164.ARPA the only answer for TIER-1 ENU registry services?, http://www.ibctollfree.com/Article.cfm@ArticleId=5049

6.1.8 What happens if we do nothing? If the commercial forces are convinced about the necessarily for ENUM alike services, they will probable spend considerable effort to come up with a standard. The impact of ENUM is large enough to have industry wide consensus on the implementation48.

6.1.9 How will an endorsement change the market environment? An endorsement will probable create assurance to players to develop according the standard. It could stimulate the development of new services and products, and will probable also indicate to the end-users the ENUM is a ‘serious’ application.

6.1.10 Are there other beneficiaries? ……

6.1.11 Will it frustrate private ENUM implementations? If a standard is endorsed by a government it will of course have impact on existing initiatives. The provider of such an initiative will probably think twice to proceed with it. It will depend on the market reaction and existing success.

6.1.12 The right ENUM-structure? We can’t answer this and given the current fuss on the implementation of the model it will take some time before ‘a’ final structure is agreed on. The segmentation over the countries provide a simple method to prevent a specific party to become to dominant (world-wide).

Provided ENUM is supported under the .arpa branch, or under another domain name branch that is recommended by ITU, such a delegation will entail a choice of organization that is responsible for the country code zone. As ENUM, among other things, is aimed at ensuring the correctness of address information stored in DNS of an E.164 number, some procedures must be laid down.

6.1.13 Can we still change it in e.g. 5 years? It would be un-wise to change any decision on ENUM.

6.2 ENUM specific questions

6.2.1 Single root versus multiple competing roots? Single root will make the usage of ENUM-enable services easier. If, however the number of different ENUM-root is limited, smart agents can probable cope with multiple roots.

48 DVD, UMTS are examples

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 30/35 6.2.2 Service level alternative ENUM-like solutions? The question if users, particularly the corporate users, are better served by alternative ENUM and ENUM-like solutions is hard to answer at this moment. If the ENUM is standardized and equally implemented in every country, registration of ENUM numbers will be no problem. If however each country has his own idiosyncratic way of implementation the registration could become a cumbersome exercise.

6.2.3 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR’s) within ENUM How are IPR’s dealt with and safeguarded within the different concepts? Or more plain: “do I "own" my phone number?49 The ITU provides guidelines for the structure of phone numbers. They allocate part of the structure of the phone number, the country code, to countries. Each country's national regulatory agency (NRA) determines the remaining structure of the phone numbers within their country. The NRA also designates a national number administrator (NNA), in many countries the NRA is the NNA. The NNA allocates blocks of numbers to communications service providers. Communications service providers allocate numbers to their users. When a user disconnects their service, after an appropriate aging interval, the number becomes an available resource to the service provider for the purposes of reassignment to a new or different user.

It is generally accepted that there are no property rights associated with numbers. That means you cannot sell your telephone number to someone else, unlike the fact that you could sell an Internet domain name under your control.

It is becoming more common for users to have more control over their phone numbers. In many countries with rules and regulations about telephone number portability, you can take your telephone number from carrier to carrier or from service type to service type (e.g., land-line to mobile) as you wish. Regulations vary from country to country.

Within the ENUM community it is the general view that the telephone subscriber or their authorized representatives (ISP's, carriers, etc), would be allowed to determine what resources are associated with that telephone number within the ENUM service.

6.2.4 How would ITU IPR policy serve? See: http://www.netnumber.com/intellectual.jsp

49 http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/draft-shockey-enum-faq-01.txt

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 31/35 6.3 ENUM and related technologies/services Since ENUM provides a generic way to perform telephone number-based resource discovery, there are lots of examples of ENUM-enabled applications, but several have come to the forefront. The voice messaging industry has been hard at work developing a comprehensive mechanism by which voice mail systems could exchange messages over IP networks. This work is called VPIM, or Voice Profile for Internet Messaging. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/vpim-charter.html. The industry has been looking for a way to discover the host name and domain for Internet based voice mail servers. The problem has been that a typical voice mail user only has a telephone number and a telephone keypad to work with. ENUM permits these VPIM servers to locate each other and exchange messages. There is an effort under way in conjunction with the Telemessaging Industry Association to trial this concept among carrier based voice mail systems.

Clearly the most active interest in ENUM service has been in Internet Telephony. It has been a long standing goal of the Voice over IP (VoIP) industry to make a phone call over the Internet as simple to make as a regular PSTN call.

ENUM links a telephone number to a host or resources on the Internet that can connect the call, either end to end over IP networks or through a designated gateway to the PSTN. This would be very useful for connecting SIP or H.323-capable endpoints that exist across domain boundaries.

ENUM is general enough that multiple discrete services (applications) may all be associated with the same telephone number at the same time, each application associated with their own unique endpoint resources as provisioned in ENUM, assuming the subscriber has the appropriate clients supporting those services. ENUM does not require that all such telephone number-based services be provided by the same service provider (telco, ISP, whatever).

6.3.1 Other developed or implemented initiatives/concepts? There are various initiatives/concepts are developed or implemented in which a resolution technique is used, specifically between telephone numbers and domain names and IP-addresses: 3GPP, VisioninG, Tiphon TTT and the trials of the commercial players involved in ENUM..

The commercially created parallel second-level domains for “ENUM-like” functions will undermine the thought behind ENUM according to IETF’s intentions. It is primarily the two American companies, VeriSign and NetNumber, which intend to offer “ENUM-like” functions under their own second-level domains (.enumworld.com for VeriSign and .e164.com for NetNumber).

VeriSign has already today a special status in the domain name market as the sole registry for the popular top-level domains .com, .net and .org, and surely views its involvement with its own “ENUM” function as a possibility to acquire for itself market advantages before ITU’s 189 Member States have decided on ENUM under the second-level domain .e164.arpa.

© Electronic Paper / 201.009 32/35 Knowledge that there are now several second-level domains intended for ENUM creates some problems. First and foremost, the question arises for the national regulatory authorities, which administer the E.164 plan, of in which domain name branch the support of ENUM shall occur. Shall IETF’s intentions with ENUM under the .e164.arpa branch be supported, or should other second-level domains also be possible for ENUM?

Recently Bango.net50 launches a new service in cooperation with KPN's M-info. Bango.net offers companies to buy one or more numbers that correspond with the url of their wap-site(s). The purpose of the service is mainly to combine offline media with mobile internet. Bango.net is committed to an Open business model, and partnering with content providers of all types51.

6.3.2 Relation between ENUM and these initiatives and are they competing? ENUM has in potential the ability to combine some / all of these initiatives. If all perform the same function, it is obvious that these are competing. It is not expected that end user will register will more than one ENUM-alike service, so focus will be one getting as many end user as possible. The number of registration will eventually determine the which inititiave becomes a ‘de-facto’ standard.

6.3.3 What is the relation between ENUM and 3GPP52? …the Partners have agreed to co-operate in the production of globally applicable Technical Specifications and Technical Reports for a 3rd Generation Mobile System based on evolved GSM core networks and the radio access technologies that they support (i.e., Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (UTRA) both Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) and Time Division Duplex (TDD) modes).

The Partners have further agreed to co-operate in the maintenance and development of the Global System for Mobile communication (GSM) Technical Specifications and Technical Reports including evolved radio access technologies (e.g. General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) and Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE)). The Project is called the "Third Generation Partnership Project" and may be known by the acronym "3GPP".

Individual Members are by definition members of the Organizational Partners of 3GPP. This means that members of standardization bodies such as ETSI, ARIB, TTA, TTC, T1 and CWTS have a right to take part in 3GPP. There are no fees payable directly to 3GPP. However, the funds required for the running of 3GPP are collected from the Organizational Partners and one could be asked to contribute in some way through that route.

6.3.4 How will private DNS environment affect ENUM?

6.3.5 Relation ENUM and telco’s The relation between ENUM and Telco’s depend on the model of implementation. Regardless of the model, the information from ENUM can provide the data to apply intelligent routing for each call.

50 http://www.bango.net 51 Bango is supported by several companies, including: Winwap, Fonedata, Openwave, Ericsson, KPN, Orange, Adhoce, diAx, Telefonica. 52 http://www.3gpp.org

6.4.1 Authorization and authentication problems The authorization and authentication problems related to ENUM data associated with telephone numbers depends on the model. A good example on how a process for authentication should work, is used with the Dutch NP-processes. The recipient operator is informed by the EU. With the provide information the recipient operator places a porting request at the donor operator. On basis of the information the donor operator is able to verify the authentication of the request.

How is the user of a number authenticated?

Users could be corporations, individuals, government agencies, military, and hosts of other non-individual users. Service providers typically assign large blocks of numbers to these entities. The telecom manager within these entities then assigns numbers to users. So even the service providers cannot identify the users for a very large portion of the allocated numbers.

6.4.2 Interest IETF/IAB to ask ITU to delegate the ENUM data? …

6.4.3 What is the ‘legal standing’ of IETF papers? Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or made obsolete by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

6.4.4 Management of the DNS server running the TLD and could there be a more distributed management between USA and ROW? ……

ENUM telephone numbering working group (IETF) T1 Registry T2 Registrar ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency ENUM tElephone NUmber Mapping , Electronic NUMbering, Electronic NUMber, tElephone Number URI Mapping 3GPP 3rd Generation Partnership Project AD Area Director DGTP Directoraat-Generaal Telecommunicatie en Post DNS Domain Name System EP Electronic Paper ESP ENUM Service ProviderETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute (TIPHON) FCC Federal Communications Commission GSM Global System for Mobile communications IAB Internet Architecture Board IESG Internet Engineering Steering Group (IETF Area Directors) IETF Internet Engineering Task Force IMTC International Multimedia Teleconferencing Consortium IP Internet Protocol IPR’s Intellectual Property Rights ISDN Integrated Services Digital Network ISOC Internet Society IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ISP Internet Services Providers ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization Bureau LIR Local Internet Registries NAPTR Naming Authority Pointer OPTA Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit PSTN Public Switched Telephone Network PTS Post & Telestyrelsen QoS Quality of Service RFC Request for Comments RIPE NCC Reseaux IP Europeens Network Coordination Centre RIR Regional Internet Registries SCN Switched Circuit Networks SIP URL Session Initiation Protocol Uniform Resource Locators TIPHON Telecommunications and Internet Protocol Harmonization Over Networks TLD Top Level Domain TSGs Technical Specification Groups URI Uniform Resource Identifier VoIP Voice over Internet Protocol VPIM Voice Profile for Internet Messaging