I am trying as much info as posibble. I would like to see open enum system, in which anyone can register their numbers. I would like to see it back by providers as well. I really don't want anything in return, execcpt to able to have cheaper call routing for everyone. Steve I can understand your dubiousness in regards to the application. I am not trying to hide anything. Also to clarify, I am a contractor for ALU, but I am not tied Telecom. -----Original Message----- From: "Steve Phillips" To: "nznog" Sent: 1/5/09 1:45 AM Subject: Re: [nznog] enum Don Gould wrote:

I'm sorry but I really feel a call to order is required here!

Certainly.

I've read over half the posts in this thread and see no reason for false accusations.

False accusations ? the thing I'm finding is that people are asking for more information and we are getting 'yes yes, we will give you the information if you ask for it !' which isn't actually giving anyone anything about the intentions behind the application. This is very typical of commercial entities (and infact, anyone trying to divert attention away from something) when they are about to do something that will not necessarily be in the publics best interest. This has been an exceedingly common tactic in the NZ Internet industry since it started. The lack of any positive from JONES JAMES F and the ability to silently sidestep any real questions on his companies intentions for the enum allocation raise warning bells in my mind. I guess you've got a different outlook. Good for you, at least you're still smiling as you get shafted.

How about outlining how you'd like to see the system used in NZ?

I really don't think it will ever get used, which is probably for the best. I also think allocating/activating it with no set plan as to how this is going to be implemented is dangerous. All it would take is a reasonably large carrier (verizon ? etc..) to perform a lookup, get a response and incorrectly route a call and you'd end up with chaos (keeping in mind that this is _supposed_ to be an official way route PSTN allocated numbers via IP). How are number allocations going to be handled ? how about coping with number portability ? do we sub delegate based on the NAD ? if the NAD has control then why is a private/commercial entity looking after the allocation ? is this entity going to charge to gain access to this system (even tho its open ! yay for word games) and if so, how much and will any charges slow adoption ? oh, and answering Craigs questions would also be nice.

How about putting a shout out for support for your ideas?

I dont have any ideas other than 'it should be allocated to the MED/DNC/Peter Mott in order to stop this sort of thing from happening.

Seems to me that there are people here who are just jealous that someone's trying to do something with this enum stuff.

Yup, what a wonderful conclusion you've come to. I'd just like to make sure that a system such as enum, that is seen as a standard (with a low uptake, granted) does not fall in to the hands of some crowd that will in all likely-hood exploit it to make $$, prove to me that this is NOT the case and i'll happily shut up. (and yeah, I know there are checks around the allocations and I would _hope_ that they all work swimmingly, but call be a skeptic - especially when there are names such as Alcatel-Lucent and Telecom NZ behind the application based on the original e-mail sent to the list)

How about getting this thread moving back in a positive direction rather than a pointless flame?!

I find anything questioning why a public standard falls under the control of an unknown commercial entity, in order to line someones pockets, to have a reasonably valid point. If you see this as being pointless, then feel free to use your delete button or ignore the thread. I know, doom and gloom - but I have yet to meet anyone that can predict the future and looking back after the fact and saying 'oops, we maybe shouldn't have done that' doesn't really help things move forward. The NZ Internet industry has done that too often in the past, why are we doing it again now ? -- Steve.