Re: [Enum] (no subject)
"Jim Fleming" <jimfleming@prodigy.net> Thu, 25 October 2001 13:24 UTC
Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id JAA18627 for ietf-outbound.10@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:24:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id IAA17427 for ietf-mainout; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:59:05 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to owner-ietf@ietf.org using -f
Received: from pimout2-int.prodigy.net (pimout2-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17422; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:59:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pc (dialup-65.56.132.13.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net [65.56.132.13]) by pimout2-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9PCwxP171400; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:59:00 -0400
Message-ID: <002301c15d56$3895da40$0d843841@pc>
From: Jim Fleming <jimfleming@prodigy.net>
To: Richard Shockey <rich.shockey@NeuStar.com>, HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org, Tony Rutkowski <trutkowski@verisign.com>
Cc: hsilbiger@IEEE.ORG, "ietf@ietf. org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <bd.15f27e59.2908858f@aol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011024184925.00b19350@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com>
Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:09:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01C15D2C.4E9ADA40"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org
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@aol.com ; enum@ietf.org Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.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
- (no subject) Tiziana Cascioli
- (no subject) Peter Dawson
- (no subject) Sidney Antommarchi
- (no subject) RK
- (no subject) Manuel La Rosa
- (no subject) wkuo
- (no subject) Rami Zolberg
- Mochamad Iwan Zainuri
- Re: (no subject) space
- (no subject) Manuel La Rosa
- (no subject) Dorian1474
- (no subject) Helen Williams
- (no subject) Neelima Kalidindi
- (no subject) Thomas Chen
- (no subject) Benny Liang
- (no subject) lrzhang
- (no subject) DQuade2502
- (no subject) Ali Boudani
- (no subject) DonNiall
- (no subject) DESKTOPFRiENDS143
- (no subject) FreeOnlineStripr
- Re: [Enum] (no subject) Jim Fleming
- Re: [Enum] (no subject) Jim Fleming
- Re: [Enum] (no subject) Jim Fleming
- (no subject) Sob
- [¯f¬rĵ§i](no subject) clamav
- Re: [¯f¬rĵ§i](no subject) Valdis.Kletnieks
- (no subject) Anjan Biswas
- (no subject) deva
- (no subject) Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: DKIM Keith Moore
- (no subject) rawad Melhem
- Re: (no subject) Dave Aronson
- (no subject) Kevin Comer (on boxes)
- (no subject) D. JEULAND
- (no subject) Carlos De Sousa
- Re: (no subject) Andre Correa
- (no subject) David J. Hite
- (no subject) rena mcleod
- (no subject) David J. Hite
- (no subject) Stephen32