|
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 ?
Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is
FREE ?
----- Original Message -----
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
|
