Site Map

Please note:

You are viewing archival ICANN material. Links and information may be outdated or incorrect. Visit ICANN's main website for current information.

Conclusion on the ENUM Session and Subsequent Discussions

26 March 2003

Let me once more thank the presenters for their excellent presentation and the demo of the current status of implementation. The information was really interesting and helpful for the understanding of ENUM, the current situation and the value for the operators and end users and I received a lot of positive feedback from the community on this as well as notes of further interest and need for information.

For ICANN the consequences I see are as follows, and this is my personal summary not a formal conclusion.

1. An intense exchange of information should be maintained to ensure, that the ICANN community fully understands the opportunities of this new technology. I also would like to motivate the ICANN community to directly participate in the ENUM activities in IETF, ITU, ETSI, the Fora and the trials.

2. The standards work and policy work are going on and are fully covered by IETF, ITU and ETSI, all of them represented in the TLG, the Technical Liaison Group. Implementation rules and regulations are subject to national sovereignty. GAC could be a mechanism to ensure, that ICANN is well aware of any issues, which are coming up in the various nations and regions, and where ICANN action would possibly be required. Consequently I would like to call on the GAC to consider this role. Currently no concrete requirement for action was identified.

3. We also recognized, that ENUM places some significant requirements or challenges on issues like privacy, stability, WHOIS, where ICANN is active. ICANN should offer support to the ENUM community via its advisory committees, esp. the Stability and Security Advisory Committee and I would like to call on this committee to establish the appropriate contact. The ALAC has already indicated to include ENUM into their work program to understand the issues of the end users. All of these activities are limited to the scope of responsibility of ICANN as laid out in the bylaws.

4. ICANN should fully support the implementation of ENUM and in all discussions on new TLDs avoid duplications or ambiguities.

5. I further propose to have an update on ENUM during the public forum in approx. 1 year from now ( i.e. the early 2004 meeting of ICANN), if significant progress was made until then.

Helmut Schink

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers