U.S. ENUM Implementation ENUM Forum

Scope  Specifications Document  Tier 1 Contracting Entity Options  Tier 1 Structure Alternatives

ENUM Forum Specifications  Reference Architecture  Tier 1 Registry Operations, Security, & Admin  Tier 1 Performance Specifications  Privacy Considerations  Provisioning  Registrar Requirements  Authentication & Authorization  Tier 2 Guidelines  Conflict Resolution  Issues Out of Scope

Reference Architecture Reference Architecture Tier 1 Registry Tier 0 Root Tier 2 Provider Registrant Registrar

Reference Architecture  Registrar  Registrant  Registry  Tier 1 Registry  Tier 2 Service Provider  Interfaces  Tier 2 contains the NAPTR records or delegations  Does not address non geographic numbers  Issue:  One or More Tier 1 Providers  Delegation at Tier 0 by NPA

Tier 1 Operations  Shared Registration System (SRS)  Registry Database  Zone Information (aka zone files)  ContactInfo (aka WhoIs)  Reporting, backup, escrow & performance requirements  Security

Tier 1 Security  DNS  TSIG, DNSSec  Protocol  Physical  Network  Backup  Auditing and Reporting

Tier 1 Administrative Aspects  Registry  Contracting Entity  Registrar  Tier 0 Interaction  US Government  Dispute Resolution  Data Collection and Privacy

Tier 1 Performance Aspects  DNS Performance  Availability  Update  Performance  EPP Interfaces

Privacy Considerations  Registrant Choice  Privacy Analysis  Open Disclosure of Registrant Information in DNS  Information Handling During Registration and Provisioning  ContactInfo  Fair Information Practices

Provisioning Tier 2 Nameserver Registrar Tier 1 Registry Registrant Application Service Provider Authentication & Validation Entities

Registrar Requirements  Registrant Validation & Authentication  Dispute Resolution  Registrar Infrastructure Requirements  Interactions of the parties  Parties Requiring A & A  Recommended Practices & Requirements  Information Flows Requiring A&A  Various Scenarios

Authorization and Authentication  Parties Requiring A & A  Recommended Practices & Requirements  Information Flows Requiring A&A  Various Scenarios

Tier 2  Guidelines – NOT Requirements  Tier 2 may be self provided or from a commercial 3 rd party  Interfaces & Interactions  Performance Recommendations

Conflict Resolution Process  General Principals  Process  Initiation  Identification  Timeframe  Transfers  Remedies  Fees

Timeline  Feb 2003 – Baseline Specification released  Meetings through 2003  Dec 2003 – Release of ‘Tier 1 Contracting Entity and Architectural Alternatives’ a.k.a. 6001_1

Tier 1 Contracting Entity  Desired Attributes:  Short implementation timeframe  Light Government Oversight  Encourage Competition  Open Standards  Intellectual Property is owned by the contracting entity  Minimize procurement and operation cost

Tier 1 Contracting Entity  Concerns:  Preserve National Sovereignty  Support Competition  Promote Innovation  Protect User’s Security and Privacy  Minimize Regulation  Preserve Opportunity for Alternative Deployments  Allow Interoperability  Preserve Stability and Security

Tier 1 Contracting Entity  Contracting Considerations:  US Government interaction with Tier 0  Actual procurement process  Ownership of the intellectual property  Compliance oversight  Operational integrity  Policy development for procurement and ongoing operations

Tier 1 Contracting Entity – Alternatives Considered  Government Procurement  Industry Limited Liability Company

Option 1 – Government Procurement  Government Procurement through Simplified FAR  Accepted and understood  Precedent -.us  Can it provide the desired attributes?  Short timeframe- Unclear  Light government oversight- Unclear  Low cost- Unclear, but at least similar to.us  Competition encouraged- Yes  Intellectual property- Easily retained by USG  Open standards & best practices- Yes

Option 1 – Government Procurement - Advantages   Little or no industry cost   Anti-trust protection   Contract liability protection   Well defined and understood process

Option 1 – Government Procurement – Disadvantages   Unclear Statutory Authority   Agency Lead Unclear   Not Currently Funded   High Complexity and / or cost   Difficult to Coordinate with Industry   USG Prefers light touch with new / emerging technologies   Multinational coordination with other NANP countries is required if single or skinny Tier 1 selected

Option 2 – Industry LLC  Industry LLC  Separate and distinct legal entity  Responsible for  RFP creation, issuance, and evaluation  Contract negotiation & execution  Vendor oversight and change management  Systems and data changes  Emerging issues management

Option 2 – Industry LLC  Industry LLC  Attributes  Liability protection for members  Designated and recognized contracting entity  Level forum for joint venture for competitors  Unregulated yet authorized to conform to regulatory directives  Easy Access for new entrants  Not For Profit  Government may choose oversight role  Active  Tacit  Allows involvement of other NANP countries

Option 2 – Industry LLC  Advantages  Expect good reception from USG  Quick implementation possible  Limits industry liability  Good precedent (LNP)  Ability to insure fairness and unbiased oversight  Contractual authority with all qualified vendors  Can issue RFP, award a contract  Can designate equal terms for participants who use services from selected vendor  Operates in an open environment  Non Aligned with any market segment  May represent any of the NANP countries  Government coordination may be through the LLC or industry consortium

Option 2 – Industry LLC  Disadvantages  Members responsible for initial funding and operational costs  Fewer members, larger individual burden  Requires independent legal assistance  Initial membership operating agreements  Ongoing advice  May have issues establishing industry payment / cost recovery mechanisms

Option 2 – Industry LLC  Can an industry LLC provide the desired attributes?  Short Timeframe- Yes  Light Government Oversight- Yes  Low Cost- Yes  Competition Encouraged- Yes  Intellectual Property- Yes  Open Standards & Best Practices- Yes

Tier 1 Architecture  Two issues  Scope of Tier 1  Tier 0 Delegation Alternatives

Tier 1 Architecture  Scope of Tier 1  US Numbers registered in single Tier 1 for all of NANP  US numbers registered in single Tier 1 for US  US numbers registered in multiple Tier 1s for sets of NPAs  Tier 0 Delegation Alternatives  Delegation of 1+NPA  Delegation of all of country code 1

Tier 1 Architecture  Five Possible Solutions:  Single Tier 1 for all NANP countries  Single Tier 1 in US  With delegation from Tier 0 by 1+NPA  With delegation from Skinny Tier 1  Multiple Tier 1 operators in US  With delegation from Tier 0 by 1+NPA  With delegation from Skinny Tier 1

Single Tier 1 for NANP Countries  Assumes:  All of country code 1 is delegated to a single Tier 1  All participating NANP countries can/will form a single contracting entity Tier 0 NANP Tier 1 Tier 2

Single Tier 1 for NANP Countries  Advantages  Only country code 1 need be added to Tier 0  Only one representative for NANP countries needs to deal with tier 0  Registrars that do business in more than one NANP country only need to be certified once  Registrar interfaces with single Tier 1 for many NANP countries  May simplify non geographic number inclusion  Disadvantages  All 19 NANP countries need to agree/acquiesce on Tier 1 entity operation  All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce to selection of Tier 1 entity  Restricts business opportunity to single entity at tier 1 level  Creates risk of relying on single business entity Tier 0 Country Code 1 Tier 1 Tier 2

Single Tier 1 for US  Requires either delegation from Tier 0 by 1+NPA or Skinny Tier 1 Tier 0 US Tier 1 Tier 2 Delegation by 1+NPA Tier 0 US Tier 1 Tier 2 Delegation of country code 1 Skinny Tier 1 Delegation by NPA

Single Tier 1 for US – Delegation of US 1+NPAs from Tier 0 Tier 0 US Tier 1 Tier 2 Delegation by 1+NPA  Advantages  No distribution of US NPAs required between multiple US Tier 1 entities  US can participate in global ENUM without agreement or coordination of other NANP countries  No negotiation required on loading US NPAs into Tier 0  Disadvantages  All NPAs from the US must be entered into tier 0  Restricts business opportunity to single entity at tier 1 level  Does not resolve non geographic number inclusion  Creates risk of relying on single business entity

Single Tier 1 for US – Delegation from within a skinny tier 1 Tier 0 US Tier 1 Tier 2 Skinny Tier 1 Delegation by NPA  Advantages  No distribution of US NPAs required between multiple US Tier 1 entities  Only Country code 1 must be loaded into Tier 0  Only one representative for NANP countries needs to deal with tier 0  Individual NANP countries deal with a single tier 1 provider  MAY simplify inclusion of non geographic numbers by placing them directly in skinny tier 1  Disadvantages  Restricts business opportunity to single entity at skinny tier 1 level and at the US tier 1 level  Creates risk of relying on single business entity at skinny tier 1 and US Tier 1 levels  Does not resolve non geographic number inclusion in ENUM  All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce on using a skinny tier 1 operator  All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce on selection of skinny tier1 entity

Multiple Tier 1 Operators in the US  Assumes:  US 1+NPAs are delegated to multiple tier 1 entities from Tier 0  OR  All of country code 1 is delegated to a single skinny Tier 1 Tier 0 US Tier 1s Tier 2 Delegation by 1+NPA Tier 0 Delegation of country code 1 Skinny Tier 1 US Tier 1s Tier 2 Delegation by NPA

Multiple Tier-1 Operators in the US Direct delegation from Tier 0  Advantages  Promotes multiple business opportunities in the tier 1 registry  US can participate in global ENUM without agreement from other NANP countries  No negotiation needed to load US 1+NPAs into Tier 0.  Only one representative for NANP countries needs to deal with tier 0  Reduces risk of relying on single business entity for Tier 1  Disadvantages  1+NPAs need to be distributed among Tier 1 providers  1+NPAs for US would need to be entered into Tier 0  Introduces additional operational and administrative interfaces for Registrars and Tier 2 operators  Does not resolve non geographic number inclusion in ENUM Tier 0 US Tier 1s Tier 2 Delegation by 1+NPA

Multiple Tier-1 Operators in the US Direct delegation from skinny Tier 1  Advantages  Only Country code 1 must be loaded into Tier 0  Only one representative from NANP countries needs to deal with Tier 0  Individual NANP countries deal with a single skinny Tier 1 provider  MAY simplify inclusion of non geographic numbers by placing them directly in skinny tier 1  Promotes multiple business opportunities in Tier 1 Registry  Disadvantages  NPAs need to be distributed among Tier 1 providers  Restricts business opportunity to single entity at skinny tier 1 level  Creates risk of relying on single business entity at skinny tier 1  Does not resolve issues regarding non geographic number inclusion in ENUM  All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce on using a skinny tier 1 operator  All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce on selection of skinny tier1 entity  Introduces additional operational and administrative interfaces for Registrars and Tier 2 operators

Summary  Endorsement of support for LLC  No consensus on architectural alternatives  Any solution which involves the delegation of country code 1 from Tier 0 will require agreement from all 19 NANP countries  Delegation of US NPAs from Tier 0 may require negotiation with Tier 0  How many registries should operate for those 1+NPAs in the US?

Status  The ENUM Forum met with NTIA and the FCC on Jan 21  Supports the development of and industry LLC  Did not express a preference for either a single or multiple Tier 1 approach  Believes that decisions are best left to industry as long as the conditions and principals stated in the February 2003 letter are upheld  US Government in the process of contacting other countries in the NANP to determine if a consensus opinion can be reached  US Industry is in the process of establishing an LLC to initiative the Tier 1 procurement process

Contacts  ENUM Forum Chair Gary Richenaker Telcordia Technologies Tel:  ENUM Forum Vice Chair Steve Lind AT&T Tel:  ENUM External Communications Group Chair Bob Bownes Seiri Tel: