This is my third email on the subject of ENUM. (on a diet) Firstly; I would appreciate and hope that experts including members of NZNOG do not argue to justify why USER ENUM should NOT be implemented in New Zealand. It is not up to individuals to quantify how it will be used or the value of it to end users and application developers in the fullness of time. It is instead up to our community to actively promote and facilitate the use of any reasonable protocol on the Internet. The truly unique fact about 4.6.e164.arpa is that it is an officially sanctioned/moderated top level domain using the stable DNS ENUM services. ENUM (the protocol) is operational around the world and also in New Zealand via DNS client USER ENUM enquiries made both to countries already actively using e164.arpa as well as other registries such as e164.org TLD's. For myself I see this as a real issue of my personal Internet usage rights in New Zealand. Imagine if we were still considering whether New Zealand should have its own CC TLD. That is the situation we are in with respect to USER ENUM 4.6.e164.arpa. I cannot opt-in to register my New Zealand telephone number and all my associated communication services while ~50 countries can. Imagine if each internet protocol had to be approved by local entities such as the MED, TCF and InternetNZ. Eg. email or http/https web or skype or h323 - such a scenario is impossible to countenance. Yet User ENUM 4.6.e164.arpa delegation has been "frozen" for years by agreements between the MED (TCF and InternetNZ). 4.6.e164.arpa delegation must be approved by the MED and as such I recommend that the MED delegate it to themselves and fast track operation and policy implementation. New Zealand Telco companies who are members of the TCF already use PROVIDER ENUM as a backroom routing protocol. There is nothing they need from USER ENUM 4.6.e164.arpa but they do need to co-operate with the authentication process for establishing USER ENUM registrations. The political issue here of USER ENUM is why New Zealanders are being 'prevented' from using this service. We need a least cost, least capture USER ENUM Registry to be established which puts ENUM client users as well as application developers interests as the prime consideration. Issues concerning +1 delegation: Previous emails suggested that the United States +1 delegation was lapsed as there was no demand - This is not the situation. It is useful to appreciate that +1 represents a number of Caribbean countries as well as Canada and the United States and the complications that this fact originally had. +1 had been registered delegated for trial to "CC1 ENUM LLC" (a private company Country Code 1 ENUM Limited Liability Company). This Company's shareholders include AT&T, Sprint-Nextel, and Verizon etc - Board Papers show the stake-holder were/are not in themselves interested in supporting USER ENUM instead their primary goal was PROVIDER ENUM with delegation of 1.e164.arpa to the Company. The US State Department however "refused" to renew the +1 registration to CC1 ENUM LLC in February 2008 as the Company does not need the delegation to operate PROVIDER ENUM. Indeed the Company is proceeding with PROVIDER ENUM using 1.e164.us. (which is not a sanctioned ITU ENUM). Then in May of 2008, positively supported by United States Representatives, the ITU SG adopted "new" guidelines to cover delegation of numbers such as +1 which represent multiple countries. Therefore Canada and the other Caribbean countries are also supporting this guideline. What appears to have happened is that because CC1 ENUM LLC was only really interested in routing optimization, the US Government has pulled the plug on it because it was making no plan for USER ENUM and rather than letting the LLC remain as the Delegee the U.S.G. decided to prevent capture by this entity. This situation closely mirrors that in New Zealand - the networks want PROVIDER ENUM but eschew USER ENUM. The actions of the US Government in May 2008 (Geneva) show that they are very keen for USER ENUM to be enabled for the 1.e164.arpa countries. My advice to the Minister: On the 19th December 2008 I wrote to Ministers of the NZ Government requesting (in one part) that implementation of USER ENUM be expedited and set as a KPI of the relevant Ministry. I was completely unaware at the time of the application that was to be made on the 23rd of December by Mr. Jones for delegation of 4.6.e164.arpra. Unless the ITU receives a letter from the MED within 60 days of Mr. Jones' application the ITU will refuse the application. This notice of refusal will then be communicated by the email list to every international subscriber to the list (private/corporate/government) and will show New Zealand, I suggest, in a disorganized and poor light. (No criticism of Mr. Jones) Should this ENUM 4.6.e164.arpa registration situation then be repeated again and again and again then Kiwis will look like Thanksgiving turkeys. Best regards Michael Sutton ( Previously InternetNZ's ENUM Task Force Chairperson.) http://www.awacs.co.nz (NZNOG conference timing provides conflicts with my current schedule :( ) I suggest Andrew Ruthven and Don Christie from Catalyst be invited to attend any panel session NZNOG has)