1. 1 February 8th, 2002 ITU ENUM Tutorial Stanislas Bourgain Autorité de régulation des télécommunications Unité Internet Service Interconnexion et Nouvelles technologies Cooperative work in France on ENUM implementation

2. 2 Cooperative work in France on ENUM A public consultation was performed in June 2001 –to inform actors, to identify main issues, to draw up possible answers, how could France participate? –contributions from a great diversity of actors: telephone service providers, ISPs, Internet registries and registrars, equipment manufacturers, associations, research bodies, consulting firms –a strong consensus on several requirements for implementation An adhoc working group is pursuing cooperative work on ENUM implementation : –potential applications and uses of ENUM services –work on various implementation models at Tier 2 –test bed, trial The adhoc group has a consultative role for the contributions of France to ITU SG2 or ETSI SPAN 11

3. 3 General considerations An ENUM domain name is strongly linked to a E.164 telephone number as éan ENUM domain name is built on a resource already assigned, used to provide services and strictly regulated for years éan ENUM domain name is just another way of representing a E.164 number to be used as a key identifier in an IP network émore entities are going to be involved in the management of an ENUM domain name than in the management of names in «.com », «.fr »,... Numbering questions are crucial for the competitive situation towards end users and for consumer protection: that’s why numbering is managed by neutral organizations with objective and non discriminatory rules for assignment

4. 4 Recommendations E.164 numbering plan integrity should be maintained –The ENUM subscriber must be the assignee of an E164 number –Delegation of ENUM domains should strictly follow at each level procedures for assignment of E.164 numbers –ITU-T should be designated in a written document, agreed with Internet governance bodies, as the administrative responsible organisation of the Tier 0 domain Implementation procedures must take due account of different format,method of management of E164 numbering plans, obligations imposed to operators by regulation on numbering The same confidence in ENUM domain names should be assured as the confidence in E.164 numbers

5. 5 Recommendations Insertion of E.164 numbers within the ENUM DNS tree should be the result of an ‘Opt-in’ scheme at each level Insertion of numbers in ENUM should occur in manner that is in full compliance with all relevant national regulatory requirements Procedures for delegation at Tier 0 should be rapidly completed in a recognized written document The choice of the TLD is not the main debate: e164.arpa is fine provided ITU-T has the responsibility of its management Tier 0 Registry should be chosen on an open procedure by ITU  No agreement on e164.arpa if ITU-T is not recognized as the domain manager

6. 6 Recommendations A competitive situation between ENUM-based ASP should be maintained and depends on the Tier 2 implementation model as links between a Tier 2 entity and an ASP will occur, the risk has been identified that the first ASP would be the only one able to provide ENUM-based services This question occurs whatever the Tier 2 will be ê Tier 2 implementation need careful study

7. 7 Implementation at Tier 1 et Tier 2 Implementation at Tier 1 and Tier 2 are national matter Efforts to create an harmonised framework for implementation are welcomed and encouraged Basic requirements should be agreed upon But no implementation model should preclude the choice for a Member State to determine the rules for administration issues at Tier 1 and Tier 2, between several proposed options No final decision in France, with regard to the concerns above Testbed may be useful to validate models: France has called for trial projects

8. 8 Tier 2 implementation Two main concerns should be kept in mind : –coherence with the numbering plan and its management rules –competitive situation between ASPs and prevention of customer lock-in To promote competition between Tier 2 registrars doesn’t address enough these concerns –a proper validation mechanism involving the TSP is needed –how to deal with Tier 2 registrars based outside the scope of national/european regulation ? –more urgently, the way to ensure a competitive environment between ASPs should be found –the end user should be able to choose its ASPs independently of its Tier 2 registrar The risk has been identified that the first chosen ASP will be the only one able to provide ENUM services and that the end used will be locked-in in the first Tier 2 registrar

9. 9 Conclusion A lot of issues have still no answer or should be precisely defined Understand the status of RFC 2916 document Reach a written agreement about domain responsibilities and procedures at the international level Study carefully Tier 2 implementation models and the need for their regulation