Re: [stir] current draft charter

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

I've been trying diligently to avoid any ownership terminology - if they have any similarity to IP-related things, it's probably much more like IP addresses: you have to show need and you can't always take them with you. (For landline, it's *local* number portability. If you obtained a 212 number, you can't get a landline in LA with that number, at least at the moment. You can't request a specific number, even if it is available, etc.)

On Jun 17, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> 
> You may know more about number portability than me, but I don't agree with
> your assessment of it here. At best, I'd say that number portability in
> America allows consumers to choose which carrier "owns" a number. This is
> also a reason I keep putting scare quotes around "owns," because the
> assumptions of the DNS don't apply to users of telephone numbers, at least
> not in our current regulatory environment. If you are a registrant, you
> have the authority to configure your zone - that sounds close enough to be
> ownership to me (even though the UDRP or ICE can end your ownership under
> extreme conditions). If you have a telephone number assigned to you, a
> carrier still decides what number it rings.