1. ENUM Round Table National Telecommunications and Information Administration Washington DC USA 18 December 2000 ENUM Services and their Provisioning Submitted by VeriSign, Inc and Telcordia Technologies, Inc Available at http://www.enumworld.com/policy/ Contacts: mailto:pconley@verisign.com, mailto:grichena@telcordia.com , mailto:trutkowski@netsol.com

2. 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

3. 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?

4. 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

5. 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?