I would suggest that NZNOG community read InternetNZ's ENUM archive there are two major ENUM related reports as well as an Open Source Software that InternetNZ released. I enclose some links to downloads and documents I refer to (see below). ENUM should be activated for New Zealand as it is an enabler which permits systems and network developers to utilize ENUM in a transparent way to the end user but which enhances the phone address lookup and uses the DNS which is already globally implemented. Note The ENUM system also enables PSTN numbers to be entered and used (subject to the rules of the Registry). Here's some points: 1. While an InternetNZ Councilor from 2003 - July 2007* and as Chair of the ENUM Task force I advocated for ENUM to be fast tracked and activated with a Personal User Agent software (UCI PUA service). ENUM has however been frozen since 2006 by agreements between MED, TCF and InternetNZ to delay ENUM which IMHO does not support our interest's of choice through ENUM operation and access. 2. In my opinion the MED should be required by Government to request delegation of 4.6.e164.arpa (ENUM) unto itself. MED should host ENUM on trial servers on their own ip address space which should be used for boot-strap testing and which can then be transitioned with technical delegation, operation and policy being determined on a fast track basis. The Government should include in the MED's key performance indicators measurements to incentivise their role in the implementation of ENUM for New Zealand. 3. There were discussions resulting in the current situation but there has been no ENUM Trial between InternetNZ, the TCF, NAD and MED. 4. In 2005 InternetNZ as part of the then ENUM initiative and research - INZ funded a UCI, PUA, ENUM (ETSI EG 284 004) software prototype which was developed by CatalystIT (extreme programming - shouts to AndrewR) which used the ENUM directory system, but the trial did not activate the 4.6.e164.arpa delegation, which it would in practice, or trial an ENUM authorization and registration process. In connection with this work: The final version ETSI EG 284 004 in September 2007 recommendations stated that UCI & PUA will use the public ENUM e164.arpa as a global directory. The work of InternetNZ and CatalystIT in New Zealand was recognized in reports on this matter to the European Commission and was used during the development of the final ETSI Guide/Standard which was approved in Europe by vote in 2007. The APEC Business Advisory Council's Report to the APEC Leaders in Bussan also included direct reference to this work. Note PUA is a Personal User Agent routing firewall system for client of isp telco services and UCI is an opt-in Universal Communications Identifier. Recently an Italian company undertaking a research and development contract for communication services for blind people (was contracted by the Italian Ministry of Science to implement a system using UCI PUA ENUM) communicated and requested access to InternetNZ's reports and the open source program code that InternetNZ released. 5. InternetNZ has $20,000 allocated for ENUM in the current place holder budget. 6. The ITU will not approve the ENUM delegation application of James Jones as the MED will not send a letter of endorsement to the ITU in support of this application - or will they. Regards Michael Sutton http://www.awacs.co.nz http://www.internetnz.net.nz/proceedings/tf/archive/enum http://www.internetnz.net.nz/proceedings/tf/archive/enum/pua-uci-feasibility -1-1-4-smaller.pdf http://www.internetnz.net.nz/proceedings/tf/archive/enum/Complete%20Enum%20T rial%20Report%20040705.pdf http://www.internetnz.net.nz/proceedings/tf/archive/enum/enumback.html * resigned.
Michael Sutton wrote: [stuff I agree with, as I was also a councilor at the time and on the ENUM workforce] but:
6. The ITU will not approve the ENUM delegation application of James Jones as the MED will not send a letter of endorsement to the ITU in support of this application - or will they.
It's more accurate to say that it is extremely unlikely that this application would be approved (you never know with MED) but, as previously stated, MED would consult with the TCF and they are most likely to say no. James, it's not really fair to say that "InternetNZ has been sitting on this for two years, and this looks like they have not moved forward on the schedule for the task force. If they have not why haven't they applied for the allocation". We (and I mainly mean Michael but also Keith and Jordan and others) worked hard to persuade the telcos that it was a Good Thing(tm) but the TCF is where the process got bogged down. They kept saying 'yes, we must do a test' but never when or how. There's little point in applying for the delegation if you know it's not going to be accepted. We did indeed discuss setting up an independent server and "just doing it" but, without the formal delegation, it's a little hard for people to find you. Personally, I'd like to see the decision made by the Telecommunications Commissioner, rather than the people at MED, but that's government for you. James, I hope you're not basing your business plan on getting the delegation, because I can't see it happening. Regards Mark Harris (former Councilor, InternetNZ) http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/
I never went into to this expecting for it make through. I know there
a various hoops that need to jumped through. When I applied I thought
two things would happen.
1. It would go through - Very unlikely
2. It would get rejected and it would get everyone talking about it.
I have received some response from ITU. So thing is no dead yet. I
will be talking to the MED in Jan. I just hope out of all this it is
not another two years before this gets traction in New Zealand and all
us can work together on some sort of VoIP peering in New Zealand. I
really like the suggestion of e164.org they are a great group of
people.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Mark Harris
Michael Sutton wrote: [stuff I agree with, as I was also a councilor at the time and on the ENUM workforce] but:
6. The ITU will not approve the ENUM delegation application of James Jones as the MED will not send a letter of endorsement to the ITU in support of this application - or will they.
It's more accurate to say that it is extremely unlikely that this application would be approved (you never know with MED) but, as previously stated, MED would consult with the TCF and they are most likely to say no.
James, it's not really fair to say that "InternetNZ has been sitting on this for two years, and this looks like they have not moved forward on the schedule for the task force. If they have not why haven't they applied for the allocation".
We (and I mainly mean Michael but also Keith and Jordan and others) worked hard to persuade the telcos that it was a Good Thing(tm) but the TCF is where the process got bogged down. They kept saying 'yes, we must do a test' but never when or how.
There's little point in applying for the delegation if you know it's not going to be accepted. We did indeed discuss setting up an independent server and "just doing it" but, without the formal delegation, it's a little hard for people to find you. Personally, I'd like to see the decision made by the Telecommunications Commissioner, rather than the people at MED, but that's government for you.
James, I hope you're not basing your business plan on getting the delegation, because I can't see it happening.
Regards
Mark Harris (former Councilor, InternetNZ) http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- James Jones Managing Director Freedom Networks +64 6 3678300 +1 413 771 1402 james(a)freedomnet.co.nz
The point about this "ENUM" e164.arpa is that it is 'official'. Unfortunately E164.org is not however it represents users who can not or do not want to use the ITU sanctioned ENUM system. Also here's a couple of links: The ITU ENUM page which details their role in the process: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/ A PDF listing the current active countries and the Delegee ( mainly Governments ) http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/02/08/T02080000010002PDFE.pdf Best regards Michael Sutton I wish: 0.0.5.5.0.3.1.2.4.6.e164.arpa http://www.awacs.co.nz James Jones wrote:
1. It would go through - Very unlikely 2. It would get rejected and it would get everyone talking about it.
I have received some response from ITU. So thing is no dead yet. I will be talking to the MED in Jan. I just hope out of all this it is not another two years before this gets traction in New Zealand and all us can work together on some sort of VoIP peering in New Zealand. I really like the suggestion of e164.org they are a great group of people.
participants (3)
-
James Jones
-
Mark Harris
-
Michael Sutton