[chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming discussion of the WGIG questionnaire

[cdel at firsthand.net]

Fred Baker wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:44 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> assuming that the ITU would be unable to manage a root server is 
>> ingenerous to them
>
> perhaps. But they are not asking to manage a root server. They are 
> asking to control the contents of all of them.
>
> And look at the one they do control, the enum root. In that server, 
> Taiwan can't get access to its own country code (886) because Red 
> China vetoes it. Regardless of your position on the Taiwan Straits 
> issue, it demonstrates that the ITU can't manage a server in a manner 
> that serves all affected parties well.
?

That seems to be in direct contradiction to the ITU-T's own procedures 
for delegating E.164 into ENUM as Taiwan has a different E.164 code +886 
to China mainland +86 and so China has no influence over the delegation 
as the holder of +86 is not authorised for +886 . +886 is not a shared 
number between more than one country and so no other country has a say 
over the delegation. The only question for the ITU-T would be whether 
the applicant from Taiwan had approval from the authorised delegated 
holder of +886 and for RIPE NCC whether the delegation met technical 
requirements.

(Incidentally +86 for China is delegated into e164.arpa)

This very dense and practically unintelligble procedure is quoted from 
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/procedures.html*.*
*
"3 Interim Procedures*

These interim procedures are consistent with the agreed SG2 statement 
that Member States will have the right to choose whether to participate 
in the common designated ENUM domain, or not to participate in it, at 
their discretion, and with the procedures currently under development as 
specified in the future Recommendation(s).

*3.1 Formal Validity of CC*

When the TSB receives a request from RIPE NCC, it will first verify that 
the country code (CC) mentioned in the request meets the formal 
conditions for delegation for ENUM, namely:

   1. That the code is a currently-assigned country code, and


   2. For country codes shared by two or more Member States within an
      integrated numbering plan or in another framework, the request
      corresponds to that portion of the code for which the Member State
      has administrative responsibilities. When a request representing
      the entire country code area is received, all Member States must
      endorse the request.

      In the alternative, when a request representing the entire code is
      received and endorsed by two or more Member States, but not all of
      the Member States, within an integrated numbering plan, this
      request shall also be accepted provided that no Member State
      within the integrated numbering plan objects within 60 days and
      that there is a formal agreement between the TSB and the Tier 1
      Registry that only those portions of the code for which the
      requesting Member States are responsible will be delegated.

      Furthermore, when only a single Member State within an integrated
      numbering plan or in another framework requests that its numbering
      resources be delegated, this request may also be accepted _ if the
      request corresponds to that portion of the code for which the
      Member State has administrative responsibilities and_ the country
      code is delegated to the Tier 0 Registry and there is a formal
      agreement between the Tier 0 Registry and the TSB to the effect
      that only the numbering resources for that specific country will
      be delegated under a separate arrangement between the specific
      country and the Tier 0 Registry.

If these conditions are not met, the TSB will notify RIPE NCC that it 
objects to the delegation. As a consequence, the delegation will not 
take place. "



Christian