# Presentation: 281708

## ENUM Services and their Provisioning

- Submitted by
- VeriSign, Inc and Telcordia Technologies, Inc
- Available at _[http://www.enumworld.com/policy/](http://www.enumworld.com/policy/)_
- Contacts: _[mailto:pconley@verisign.com](mailto:pconley@verisign.com)_, _[mailto:grichena@telcordia.com](mailto:grichena@telcordia.com)_ , _[mailto:](mailto:trutkowski@netsol.com)__[trutkowski](mailto:trutkowski@netsol.com)__[@](mailto:trutkowski@netsol.com)__[netsol](mailto:trutkowski@netsol.com)__[.com](mailto:trutkowski@netsol.com)_

- ENUM Round Table
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Washington DC USA
- 18 December 2000

## Potential ENUM Services

- Flexibility of the ENUM NAPTR approach
- a repository for all identifiers with rules for use and interworking
- includes diverse network identities and object attributes, including presence
- Initial services likely to focus on Internet Telephony and simple interworking, e.g., voicemail to email
- Long range services - a rich, constantly evolving array of capabilities across all networks, devices, applications
- Potential ubiquitous operational infrastructure platform
- complexity needs to be hidden from end user
- compelling, innovative applications needed developers
- Market novelty, uncertainty, and value proposition make an open, unfettered provisioning environment essential
- Substantial uncertainty re:DNS/ENUM performance metrics and relationship to provisioning architectures

## ENUM Provisioning Issues

- "ENUM light" has existed in an open, unfettered competitive environment for  8 years under domain - *tpc.int* – only for messaging
- Consensus exists on synchronizing end user ENUM Names & E164 numbers
- with PSTN
- during provider transitions and deletions
- authentication interfaces, access to carrier information critical for authentication
- How should E.164 numbers be used
- ENUM names are _based on_ E.164 numbers
- some assert numbers are intellectual or sovereign property with extended rights
- number portability considerations
- consensus exists on avoiding multiple ENUM instantiations for same end user
- consumer protection considerations (slamming, privacy, etc)
- concern in North America exists about availability independent from PSTN use
- ENUM provisioning denomination as *private*, *enhanced service *is important
- Provisioning architecture – multiple IETF “informational” views
- A multi-tier model promotes competitive opportunities
- Competitive tier 1 provisioning - regulated monopoly or competition? (next slide)
- Competitive tier 2 provisioning - registry-registrar architectures and self-certification
- Any rules of the road for provisioning architectures?  By whom?  By what authority?

## Key ENUM Tier 1 Provisioning Issue

- Is ENUM Tier 1 “authoritative” provisioning infrastructure designed as
- a new regulated national monopoly (E164.ARPA) or
- an open level playing field in competitive marketplace of multiple providers (e.g., E164.COM, E164.[whatever])
- Arguments for a regulated national monopoly administrative structure
- perceived engineering and administrative efficiencies
- matches legacy telephony provisioning models
- competition at ENUM Tier 2 viewed as sufficient competition
- attractiveness of a unified global administrative model facilitated by ITU
- Arguments for an open level competitive administrative structure
- a level marketplace provides a good sorting of complexities,    uncertainties, and efficiencies
- a new regulated monopoly in every country facilitated by an intergovernmental organization is not a desirable model
- engineering concerns can be met through industry cooperation

## Role of bodies

- Industry collaborative
- ENUM Forum (possible new organization like SIP Forum), ITAB,...
- Industry ENUM collaborative organizations offer potentially effective model
- Domestic government agencies, corporations & advisory committees
- FCC, NTIA, DOS-EB CIP, FTC, DOJ,...ITAC SG-A AdHoc, ICANN, GAC
- SG-A AdHoc can help with governmental and intergovernmental issues
- Local governmental bodies
- Probably jurisdictionally precluded, but remain interested parties
- Intergovernmental orgs
- ITU,WTO,CEC,...
- No automatic ENUM jurisdiction; provisioning agreements/MoUs are inappropriate
- Standards bodies
- IETF/IAB, ETSI, ITU-T,TSAG...
- Can deal with protocols, bakeoffs, and interworking interfaces
- Developer bodies
- [They don't exist yet]
**What will be the mechanism for the US industry to resolve U.S. implementation and deployment issues?**