Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

Inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Modern [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Henning
> Schulzrinne
> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 23:14
> To: Richard Shockey; Paul Kyzivat; 'Modern List'
> Subject: Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case
> Draft
> 
SNIP
> 
> I'm not sure why you consider the effort "US centric". 

As far as I can tell, all of the discussion on this list has related to
issues that are, at least at present, specific to the US.

>I suspect almost
> all countries will be faced with the IP transition 

Probably, but the timing is different, and the specific ways in which the
transition will occur may also be different.  For example, the transition is
currently taking place in Switzerland but, as far as I know, the issues
raised on this list have not been raised in Switzlerland.

>and, in particular,
> with upgrading the existing number portability system, 

That may or may not be necessary.

>if they have
> one, or creating one. The current number portability (whether or not
> it's geographic) leaves much to be desired, as recent events
> (https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-plans-296-million-fine-slamming-
> cramming-and-obstruction-0 makes a good read) illustrate.

Have similar issues arisen elsewhere?

>Thus, maybe you can help point out the
> specific features that would need to be supported to implement a
> version of today's policies, possibly with more formal down-delegation
> to facilitate tracking, and possibly multiple "registrars", as exists
> today in the 800# space. (As you know, today we often don't have a good
> idea of who is actually using a number, given informal "delegation" and
> reselling-that-doesn't-dare-call-itself-that.)

I agree with that. And, as far as I know, that is an issue that occurs
elsewhere around the world.