t byfield on 26 Jul 2000 13:48:55 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> roving_reporter Tue Jul 25 00:54:25 EDT 2000 |
babramson@telegeography.com (Wed 07/26/00 at 02:11 AM -0400): > Presumably the ".enum" derives from goings-on involving the IETF's ENUM > (Telephone Number Mapping) working group > (http://www.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/enum.html). Presumably the talk of needing > ENUM-like services to foster VoIP (cf > http://www.netnumber.com/intellectual.htm) is based on the idea that even > when two people are on IP-enabled telephone-like devices, they're getting > in touch via a telephone number, so things aren't going to happen unless > the world's telephone numbers default automatically to a single domain name > scheme which can then be resolved to IP address. yes. > All fine, though why .enum is much more convenient than .e164.int as a TLD > -- when few people are likely to be typing either into tops of browsers -- > escapes me. marketing. and i don't know how many umpteen hundred million phones there are in the world, but do you really think ICANN would blithely hand the *immense* sums of money involved in this delegation to the *one* guy who 'runs' .int? > But there are other parts that are harder to follow: > > - How would that tie ICANN closer together with the ITU, esp given that use > of .e164.int or something similar would bring the number mapping directly > under an existing ITU-administered TLD? for starters, it would give the ITU something to do. the ITU has been prowling around, looking for a way to get its hooks into ICANN's turf, so ICANN is faced with a choice between (a) proceeding with a phone-mapping TLD without the ITU--and i doubt ICANN could survive the resulting fight--or (b) doing it *with* the ITU, but carefully. for example, by adopting the specs developed for .e164.int by the ITU and the IETF but mak- ing it happen under another name: .enum. > - How would that impinge upon the "authority" of ccTLD admins, unless the > assumption was that each telephone country code would otherwise have been > mapped onto each ccTLD, and telephone numbers underneath them? one needn't assume that the ccTLD registrars would map phone domains *under* the ccTLD: the registrars are in the business of registration and, as such, potentially are logical candi- dates for all business of that kind. keeping this business out of the ccTLD registrars' hands means jump-starting alternative registrars. and that will give ICANN a meaningful reason for engaging with governments about questions relating to who is the best or rightrful organization for registrations. > - And is the ITU really such a powerful ally for ICANN? I mean, it's not > exactly a non-controversial organisation among international telcos ... and > of them, the ITU members who continue to support it enthusiastically aren't > necessarily the most influential ones, especially in the Internet world. the question isn't whether the ITU is a powerful ally for ICANN; rather, it's whether the ITU might be a powerful *enemy*--and, if so, how to avoid that. cheers, t # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net