OK, I'll bite.
(i) Have all of the folks commenting actually read these proposals all the way through (plus RFCs
2916 and 2806, along with the drafts RFC2806bis, and RFC2916bis that will replace them)?
Some of the earlier examples in this thread make me wonder.
Note that by proposals, I mean .tel-Pulver *and* .tel-Telnic (they're wildly different),
as well as the .mobi proposal. AFAICT, Pulver/NetNumber seem to be proposing a competitor
to .e164.arpa, whilst Telnic are suggesting a name-based (i.e. phone numbers banned) registry
to hold telecomms contact data. (I leave it as an exercise for the *Advanced* student to work
out exactly what mobi-JV are proposing :)
(ii) After the painful/protracted discussions that led to ENUM using .e164.arpa., the idea
that we throw all of that away and start again with .tel (or any other TLD) is a BAD idea, IMHO.
(iii) The ITU is a UN organisation, and already has .int, so I'm not sure that there's an obvious
justification for making yet another TLD available to them (quite apart from the organisational
issues they have with actually registering any domains under the existing .int TLD).
(iv) Regarding what mnemonics are used, and the ITU liaison to ICANN, it's illuminating to consider
what was going on when the statement was sent to ICANN in 2000; the ITU had not at that point
made any decision on how it was going to handle Internet use of telephone numbers, so this was
a request for a block on anything that might interfere with that process. It's now 2004, and
this process seems to be completing - we pretty much know what interferes and what doesn't.
This, however, is a point for the IAB and the ITU.
all the best, Lawrence
On 23 Apr 2004, at 11:33 am, jfcm wrote:
At 23:49 22/04/04, Dean Anderson wrote:Is it sensible to think of tel and mobi as business functions?
Absolutely yes. As I noted it, there are at least two possiblities:
- .tel is accepted as the TLD of the ITU-T Sector's members. The same as for .aero. And .mobi is for all the companies, services, designers interested in mobile product, services etc.
- .tel is reserved to a class of users froming an "externet", ie. a class of users with special relations/access terms. This can be an economical model (rates), this can be a way of behaving (accepting or not VoSpam), etc. This however calls for a large number of new architectural concepts and naming semantic to be discussed and agreed upon.
But in both cases, it is likely it would then be premature to give away such mnemonics as "tel" and "mobi" before a wide debate. ITU expressed that in their letter of 2000 to ICANN. ICANN was wise to agree. I think not much has changed.
<snip>
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf