Tony,
Prior to your current employment with Verisign,
how many years were you paid by Network Solutions and/or Verisign
to participate in the domain name debates, without people being told
you were being paid ?
Do you think it is ethical for people to not disclose who is paying them
and what their real agenda is ?
It all boils down to fairness.
Which list do you think is more fair ?
The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?
Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Rutkowski
To: Richard Shockey ; HSilbiger(_at_)aol(_dot_)com ; enum(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: hsilbiger(_at_)ieee(_dot_)org
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject)
At 05:54 PM 24-10-01, Richard Shockey wrote:
I would politely beg to disagree.. technical issues surrounding the needs
for "privacy, security, validation, authentication and provisioning" seem
perfectly in scope. We have already seen some
Let's see. NeuStar's CEO per today's Interactive Week
Newsletter article ("NeuStar Wants to Administer ENUM")
appears at VON "laying out a game plan for ENUM regulation,"
indicating "'we are working very quickly with other
service providers and government agencies to get selected
as a Tier 1 ENUM operator.'"
A NeuStar Strategic Manager introduces and argues for
an IETF based activity that just happens to support NeuStar's
announced strategic business plan.
Competitive ENUM services provider NetNumber's
representative in the same IETF group, notes that it
is rather unusual for a Working Group to be engaging
in such activity, and suggests it is inappropriate
under the circumstances.
Who gets to decide what's appropriate, and on what
basis?
Considering that the core of these issues touches the DNS it is IMHO it is
perfectly reasonable for the IETF and this WG to continue to monitor events.
The hope was that proposals from any source could be considered for open peer
review by the general IETF community in this WG.
Since when did it become the IETF's business to "monitor"
national regulatory events?
That said the proposed charter did state that such documents were to be
made informational and not standards track. The IETF quite often publishes
document developed outside normal working groups.
Again, when did it become IETF's business to develop
"informational" schema for national regulatory implementations?
Is the Working Group going to participate in the potential
FCC public policy proceedings over the next 2-3 years (FCC
estimate) that were discussed at the VON ENUM Policy Summit
last week?
--tony
ps. While the IETF is dealing with all this regulatory
baggage, it's worth noting that real technical developments
are being now being done in the ENUM Alliance. There were
four great papers presented last week at VON at the Alliance
session by Williams Communications, Webly, Voxeo, and Denwa.
Pending building of the Alliance website, some of them are
available at
http://www.ngi.org/enum/alliance/index.htm