• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Full Meeting, Toronto, February 8, 2005
 

Full Meeting, Toronto, February 8, 2005

on

  • 707 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
707
Views on SlideShare
707
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Full Meeting, Toronto, February 8, 2005 Full Meeting, Toronto, February 8, 2005 Document Transcript

    • -1- *** DRAFT *** February 8, 2005 CSCN Meeting Telephone Number Mapping (tElephone NUmber Mapping (ENUM)) Participants: Doug Birdwise – Bell Canada Laurie Storm – Bell Canada Doug Kwong – Bell Canada Frank Norman – TELUS Tim Denton – Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) Bernard Turcotte – CIRA Tom Mazzone – Telcordia Technologies (morning only) Peter Lang – Call-Net Enterprises Gerry Thompson – Rogers Wireless Jose Garza – Rogers Wireless Deirdre Massiah-Gomes – TELUS Mobility Bill Barsley – TELUS Mobility Greg Roberts - Neustar Adrienne Tai – Bell Canada Parke Davis – TELUS (afternoon only) Sam Yung – TELUS Thierry Husson – Industry Canada Gary Richenaker – Telcordia Technologies (morning only) Michael Studniberg – Bell Mobility Terrence Wong – TELUS Mobility Suresh Khare – SAIC Canada (CNA) Fiona Clegg – SAIC Canada (CNA) Glenn Pilley – SAIC Canada (CNA) Conference Bridge: Jean-Marc D'Aoust – Cogeco Jackie Bahan – SaskTel (morning only) Andy Gallant – AG Design, LLC Darrell Forrest – Allstream-MTS Jeanne Lacombe – CRTC Michelle Beck – CCTA James Chin – Call-Net Enterprises Judy Kachuik – SaskTel Barry Bishop – NeuStar Jean Sebastien – Union des Consommateurs (afternoon only) Phillipe Mercorio – Union des Consommateurs (afternoon only) Welcome: The Chair of the CSCN welcomed the attendees and the participants introduced themselves.
    • -2- Agenda: 1) Telcordia® Presentation of VoIP LERG® Routing Guide 2) Review of January 18, 2005 Minutes 3) Review of January 18, 2005 Action Items 4) CIRA - ENUM LLC Trial Agreement 5) Basic CIRA Questions 6) Bell Canada Contribution 7) Next Meeting & Agenda It was suggested that the review of meeting minutes and action items be moved to later in the morning until after to permit the representatives from Telcordia Technologies had departed.to give their presentation earlier and enable them to travel to the airport to catch their flights home. Telcordia® Presentation of VoIP LERG Tom Mazzone presented "Telcordia® Routing Administration (TRA) Review - Value of TRA Deliverables to Canadian Carriers". It was noted that Telcordia® is soliciting input from all North American Telecommunications Service Providers (TSPs) with respect to changes that are being made to the products that are generated by TRA. It was also noted that TRA is anticipating customer requirements by breaking down various components of their products so that TSPs can pick and choose which information they require. It was also noted that if any Canadian TSPs have concerns with the LERG® Routing Guide, these can be voiced at the quarterly CIGRR meetings. The next CIGRR meeting will be held April 19-21, 2005, probably in New York City. Gary Richenaker presented "LERG® Routing Guide Support for VoIP Routing & Rating". It was noted that Telcordia® is seeking participants for a trial of the proposed product, and that a Canadian participant would be welcome. A copy of both presentations is being distributed with these minutes. ENUM LLC Trial Agreement It was noted that a copy of the ENUM LLC trial agreement with CIRA has been circulated to the CSCN ENUM distribution list. It is also available from http://www.enumorg.ca. Bernard Turcotte provided a status report and indicated that if there are no problems or comments concerning the agreement, then CIRA representatives will be going to Washington D.C. on February 9, 2005 to sign the agreement. No adverse comments were forthcoming from CSCN participants. Delegation of Country Code 1 ENUM Top Level Domain
    • -3- Bernard Turcotte indicated that there are no concerns right now relative to the ENUM test environment, but that Canadian entities should be aware that there are concerns in a production environment as to how North American Numbering Plan area nations and entities other than the U.S. may participate in the governance and management of the ENUM system for Country Code 1. A question was raised as to whether the delegation for test purposes for Country Code 1 is a problem in Canada. One of the concerns voiced is that the LLC is a U.S. corporation operating under USA laws which may create legal or regulatoryadministrative difficulties for the internationalnon USA nations government component of in Country Code 1. It was noted suggested that a sovereign country would probably not want to sign an agreement with on as part of a U.S. corporation with respect to the re-delegation of the CC1 ENUM top level domain and the funding method for the Country Code 1 ENUM system that may be established after the ENUM trial is concluded. It was suggestednoted that the concern about sovereignty is probably not a difficulty during the trial period, but may create problems when ENUM goes into the production environment in Country Code 1 since other NANP nations would consider Country Code 1 to beas a shared numbering resource of all nations participating in the NANPsovereign resource and would not want to be put in the position of complying with the influence requirements of a U.S. corporation. It was noted that it is anticipated that the ENUM LLC may seek the delegation of the Country Code 1 ENUM top level domain for the purpose of conducting an ENUM trial in the U.S. for a period of one year, commencing some time in 2005. In response to questions with respect to the costs of being a member of the shared NANP, it was noted that there is a Telcordia "fair share plan" for allocating costs of the industry notification system into which Canadian carriers participatea contributes. It was also noted that these costs are not paid by the Canadian government but, rather, by the telecommunications industry. It was also noted that the Canadian Numbering Administration Consortium (CNAC), which is funded by Canadian telecommunications service providers, pays a share of the costs of the NANP Administration (NANPA). It was asked whether the Canadian federal government requires any other information from the CSCN with respect to the ENUM trial. In response, it was indicated that Industry Canada does not require anything else at this time. Review of January 18, 2005 Minutes: Agreement was reached to accept the January 18, 2005 minutes with minor modifications made during today's meeting. The CSCN Secretary will finalize the January 18, 2005 minutes, re-distribute them to the CSCN, and send them to Procedure for posting to the CRTC CISC website. Summary of Action Items:
    • -4- 1) On January 28, 2005 the CSCN Chair requested advice and assistance from the CLNPC and the BPWG regarding what mechanisms currently exist with respect to resolving questions 2c), 2d) and 2e). In an e-mail dated February 2, 2005 Marian Hearn (CLNPC) indicated that she had distributed the questions to the NPAC Operations Team and will solicit their input during their February 22, 2005 meeting. In an e-mail dated February 4, 2005 Peter Lang (Chair Business Process Working Group (BPWG)) indicated that the request from the CSCN Chair will be tabled at the next meeting of the BPWG, scheduled for February 10, 2005. CIRA Questions It was asked whether there are any contributions anticipated with respect to the CIRA questions in their October 2004 submission. No participants indicated that a contribution would be forthcoming, other than the Bell Canada contribution to be discussed later today. The following section of the minutes is based on the CIRA contribution, and a continued discussion of the questions posed in the contribution (for previous discussion, see the January 18, 2005 minutes). Section 5: Who pays and who has control? Who would pay to create the registry, and who would pay to maintain it? It was noted that if an ENUM registry is created, then a Tier 1A and Tiere 1B registryries would need to be established and maintained. It was also noted suggested that these costs of the Tier 1A and 1B Registries would be covered by those that utilize the service. It was suggested that the answer to the above question is that those end-users who choose to opt in and register their telephone numbers in the ENUM system would be required to fund the registryries by paying fees to one or more of the Registries, Registrars, Tier 2 Registry Service Providers or Application Service Providers.. With respect to the issue of governance of the Canadian Tier 1B functionality, it appears that the government policy framework is currently open and the federal government is looking to the industry for advice and recommendations. It was suggested that the CSCN should seek contributions related to the governance of the Tier 1A and Tier 1B registries. In this context, "gGovernance" refers to both the government policy, business policy level and for operations (i.e., an implementation model). It was suggested that one option is to utilize the ENUM LLC to provide and govern the Canadian Tier 1B registry. A second suggested option would be to establish a Canadian consortium to identify, preside over and govern a Canadian ENUM Tier 1B registry.
    • -5- It was noted that if CIRA provided the Tier 1B registry, the structure of CIRA could be used towould allow registrants to participate in the management of the registry. Section 5: What rights should those that pay have relative to the registry? It was noted suggested that the source product is eventually the responsibility of the Canadian government, and the registrants are the holders of the resource (i.e., the telephone number) and would consequently have voting rights. Questions were raised about the structure of CIRA, and how it was funded. In response, it was noted that CIRA is governed by twelve man Board, of whom nine are elected, and three of whom represent consumers, registrars, and the Internet industry, respectively. a Board with representation from registrars and registrants. CIRA was provided with a loan from CANARIE that members paid back over a period of one year. This money was used to make investments that now make CIRA self-sustaining. Section 5: Who should control the registry (carriers, registrars, registrants, government) which then implies – what type of corporation should thebe registry be? It was noted that the federal government would probably have to make this decision, but that the Canadian Local Number Portability, Canadian Numbering Administrator or Central Funds Consortiums could be used as a model. The structure of these Consortia was explained to the CSCN. It was noted that it is not required that the only members of such a consortium would have to comprise TSPs. Registrars and registrants could also be members of such a consortium, without providing telecommunications services. Questions were raised with respect to how funding would be handled among a mixture of different entities, since levels of interest and the consequent degree of participation could vary. It was suggested that a public consultation process should be followed. As a follow-up to this suggestion, it was noted that the Commission could become involved and issue a Public Notice, as was done for the three consortiums formed as a result of local competition (i.e., Canadian Local Number Portability, Canadian Numbering Administrationor or Central Funds Consortiums). It was further suggested, that the CSCN could provide such a suggestion to the Commission. Section 6: A Thick Registry? Should the Registry maintain information on the registrant in a public ENUM registry? It was noted that the "Thick Registry" concept could be considered in the light of information requirements.a question of access. A thick registry has the effect of lightening the regulatory burden on each registrar, insofar as the registry takes on responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of the registrant’s personal information. In the thin registry model, of which dot com is nearly the only remaining example, the registrar has to satisfy higher standards of entry, since the responsibility imposed on it is higher than it is in a thick registry model. These higher standards include financial
    • -6- guarantees, which have the effect of limiting market entry. Accordingly, placing responsibility for the registrant’s information in the thick registry reduces legal liabilities for registrars and eases entry into the registrar market. It also facilitates transfers, which are gains and losses of market share, among registrars. The consumer benefits are significant when transfers are facilitated. In addition, it was noted that as the bar is lowered with respect to access to information, the more consumers may experience a negative impact. THIS PARAGRAPH REQUIRES CLARIFICATION. In response to a question, it was noted that a thick registry model Cshould provide more consumer protection. It was noted that, under a thick registry model, a registrar service could be rebuilt if the registrar disappearedceased operating as more registrant information would be contained in the registry, thus providing a built-in safeguard for consumers. It was noted that the structure of the registry/registrar/registrant relationships should be based on contractual arrangements. Bell Canada Contribution: Doug Kwong presented the Bell Canada contribution. It was noted that this document was only distributed on February 3, 2005 and thereforehad did not meet the CISC requirements for being distributed 5 working days in advance of this e meeting. where it will be discussed. The CSCN agreed to have it presented at this meteing. While the CSCN reviewed this document, no agreements were reached with respect to the contribution. A suggestion was made to use the Bell Canada contribution as a straw model document for use as a TIF Report that cshould be submitted to the CISC and CRTC. It was noted that the CSCN has agreed, in principle, to a number of the issues raised by the Bell Canada contribution. It was further noted that if it is decided a Public Notice is required with respect to ENUM delegation, the registry structure, etc., the CSCN should act sooner rather than later, so that when ENUM goes into production in the U.S., Canada has a formalized position on the issue and Canadian industry can participate in the “public” ENUM system. A suggestion was made that the three TIF 53 Co-chairs meet and combine the CIRA Basic Questions document, the Bell Canada contribution and the minutes from today’s meeting to develop a straw model document that can be reviewed by the CSCN. Agreement was reached that the CSCN request the three Co-chairs of TIF 53 to develop a first draft document incorporating the Bell Contribution, the CIRA Basic Questions Contribution, and pertinent information from the minutes of this meeting, for distribution to the CSCN ENUM participants’ list by about March 1, 2005. Next Meeting The CSCN will meet again to address TIF 53 on March 21, 2005 9:00 – 17:00 Eastern in Ottawa, hosted by Bell Canada. Meeting logistics will be provided in the near future.
    • -7- Summary of Agreements Reached: 1) Agreement was reached to accept the January 18, 2005 minutes with minor modifications made during today's meeting. 2) Agreement was reached that the CSCN request the three Co-chairs of TIF 53 to develop a first draft document incorporating the Bell Contribution, the CIRA Basic Questions Contribution, and pertinent information from the minutes of this meeting, for distribution to the CSCN ENUM participants’ list by about March 1, 2005. Summary of Action Items: 1) The CSCN Secretary will finalize the January 18, 2005 minutes, re-distribute them to the CSCN, and send them to Procedure for posting to the CRTC CISC website. 2) The three Co-chairs of TIF 53 will develop a first draft document incorporating the Bell Canada Contribution, the CIRA Basic Questions Contribution, and pertinent information from the minutes of this meeting, for distribution to the CSCN ENUM participants’ list by about March 1, 2005.
    • Attachment Bell Canada Contribution to CSCN WORKING GROUP: Canadian Steering Committee on Numbering TASK: ENUM CNTF053 FILE NAME: CN053COXXX.doc DATE: 3 February 2005 TITLE: Bell Canada Comments on Basic Questions for the Creation of an ENUM Registry in Canada ISSUES ADDRESSED: This contribution provides Bell Canada’s comments related to the ENUM work activities. SOURCE: Doug Kwong Doug Birdwise Bell Canada Distribution: CSCN ENUM Distribution List NOTICE: This contribution is being submitted as a basis for discussion and should not be construed as a binding proposal on the part of the contributors, who reserve the right to add to, amend, or withdraw the contents of this contribution at any time.
    • Attachment Bell Canada’s Contribution re: Basic Questions for the Creation of an ENUM Registry in Canada This contribution addresses the following major issues that were raised at the CSCN during discussion of the CIRA contribution: 1) “Carrier” and “Public” ENUM. 2) Who can be a “Public” ENUM Registrant? 3) Which NANP telephone numbers can be registered in the ENUM system? 4) Is it possible to allocate NANP numbers for VoIP only applications in Canada? 5) How would the ENUM Tier 1 Registries and Registrars validate Registrants’ identities for the registration of specific ENUM entries? 6) How would the registry be advised of changes in a NANP registrant’s status that would affect his ENUM registration? 7) What action, if any, should the registry and registrars undertake if a registrant no longer has the right to use a given NANP entry but has paid for registering the NANP number in the ENUM System? 8) Is it necessary or desirable to have a Canadian Tier 1B ENUM Registry? 9) What should be the funding mechanism of the Canadian ENUM System? 10) What organization structure should be created to provide industry governance to implement and manage the Canadian ENUM System? 11) Should the Registry maintain information on the Registrant in a public ENUM registry? 1. Carrier and Public ENUM In the ITU and ENUM Forum documents, ENUM is described as a system where an individual customer of a telecommunication service provider (TSP) will make the decision to opt in and register its NANP telephone number in the “Public” ENUM Registry under the top level domain name of “.e164.arpa”. Recently, another type of ENUM, called “Carrier” ENUM has been proposed. “Carrier” ENUM is not currently defined in the ITU or ENUM Forum specifications. Some parties have defined it as a type of “private” ENUM in which the Telecommunications Service Provider (TSP) who serves the customer makes the determination to register the customer’s numbers in the “private” or “Carrier” ENUM Registry that may be provided by a single TSP or group of TSPs. The TSP provides NAPTR records and other information as necessary for the provision of services to the customers over the TSP’s network and possibly other TSPs’ networks via business agreements. Recently AT&T submitted a contribution to the ENUM Forum proposing the consideration and implementation of “Carrier” ENUM as part of a single ENUM public tree that would accommodate the needs of telecommunication service providers. AT&T has indicated that other communities have been exploring the need for separate trees to support service provider needs. AT&T has proposed a method of consolidating the two
    • Attachment forms of ENUM together in a way that will speed the implementation of both types by encouraging carrier economic support of a common infrastructure supporting both “Carrier” and “Public” ENUM. AT&T has proposed that the specification for the ENUM Tier 0 and Tier 1 Registries be modified to support “Carrier” ENUM by creating two classes of service in the Tier 1 Registry. Under the current “Public” ENUM architecture, a query to a Tier 1 Registry returns an NS record pointing to a Tier 2 Registry Service Provider that returns a NATPR record. AT&T has proposed that a query to a Tier 1 Registry could return two NAPTR records, each with appropriate coding, one pointing to the “Public” Tier 2 Registry Service Provider (i.e., “E2U” class of service) and the other pointing to the “Carrier” Tier 2 Registry Service Provider (i.e., “E2C” class of service). The Application Service Provider’s application could then determine which NAPTR records to utilize to set up a communication. An Internet Draft proposing how this might be achieved has been posted to the IETF. Currently there is no ITU or ENUM Forum agreement to consolidate “Public” and “Carrier” ENUM into a single Registry. Until the concept of carrier ENUM is fully defined and agreed, it is premature to address the potential implementation of “Carrier” ENUM at the CSCN. In Bell Canada’s view, “Carrier” ENUM is private ENUM as it is implemented and used within a carrier’s network to offer services to its end users. In fact, a similar capability exists today in some carriers’ networks in that carriers are using databases to determine the types of services to which an end user subscribes and to provision such services. A carrier can implement ENUM-like services today within its network without impacting other interconnecting carriers. 2. Who can be a “Public” ENUM Registrant? Based on the ENUM Forum Specification for the “Public” ENUM system, the end customer, who is a subscriber to a service which has a NANP geographic telephone number provided by a LEC or WSP, is the only entity that can become an ENUM Registrant by registering its NANP telephone number in the ENUM system. The ENUM Forum Specification indicates that it is this subscriber who has control over whether the NANP number is registered in the “Public” ENUM system. As geographic PSTN numbers are assigned for the use of a single customer, it is Bell Canada’s view that there can only be a single valid subscriber for each NANP telephone number, and hence only a single valid registrant for that number registered in the “Public” ENUM system. 3. Which NANP telephone numbers can be registered in the ENUM system? It is Bell Canada’s view that only geographic NANP numbers that have been assigned to customers and placed in-service in the PSTN may be registered in the ENUM system at this time.
    • Attachment At the present time, CC1 NANP Central Office (CO) Codes (NXXs) in Canadian geographic NPAs can only be assigned to Canadian Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) or Wireless Service Providers (WSPs) by the Canadian Numbering Administrator (CNA). Consequently, NANP telephone numbers in geographic NPAs assigned for use in Canada may only be assigned to subscribers by a Canadian LEC or WSP. This procedure for number assignment is reflected in the Canadian Central Office (CO) Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines (COCA GL) which has been approved by the CRTC. In situations where entities provide VoIP services to end customers via the Internet, NANP telephone numbers may be allocated by LECs to such VoIP service providers who will assign them to their end customers. It is anticipated that end customers of VoIP service providers will be able to register their telephone numbers in the ENUM system. The registration of Non-Geographic NANP numbering resources in the ENUM system requires further consideration as there are special numbering assignment practices and uses which may necessitate special registration practices for ENUM purposes. At indicated, the Canadian Central Office (CO) Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines, at the present time, only permit the CNA to assign CO codes to LECs and WSPs. Bell Canada submits that changes to the guidelines to permit other entities to obtain CO Code assignments is a policy issue that would have to be addressed by the CRTC. 4. Is it possible to allocate NANP numbers for VoIP only applications in Canada? In the past, the allocation of NANP numbering resources based on technological differences has not been viewed as desirable (e.g., separate NPAs for wireless and wireline service). Therefore specific NPAs have not been allocated to the wireless or wireline sectors of the industry. Regarding assignment of specific NANP numbers for VoIP only applications in Canada, CRTC or Government of Canada regulatory review and approval would be required as the jurisdiction over NANP telephone number resources allocated to Canada resides with them per the Canadian Telecommunications Act. 5. How would the ENUM Tier 1 Registries and Registrars validate Registrants’ identities and rights to register the NANP telephone in the ENUM System? A process would have to be established for validating both the “person” requesting the registration as well as that person’s “right” to register the NANP telephone number. An industry agreement is required to establish this process to ensure that it will be affordable, efficient and effective, and applicable to all entities registering NANP telephone numbers in the ENUM Registry. In addition, a dispute resolution process would have to be established for addressing any disputes that may arise regarding registration of NANP numbers in the ENUM Registry. When any disputes arise regarding a registered NANP telephone number, a more rigorous and diligent approach may be required. One possible approach would be to require the Registrar or Registry to validate the
    • Attachment number assignment to the subscriber by contacting the TSP who assigned the number to that subscriber. TSPs may request to be compensated for the costs they would incur to validate the number assignment to a specific subscriber. The CISC Business Process Working Group (BPWG) would be the appropriate forum to address this matter, as BPWG has the expertise and experience in developing similar processes, such as those used for Local Interconnection and Local Number Portability (LNP). 6. How would the registry be advised of changes in a NANP registrant’s status that would affect his ENUM registration? For the purpose of this contribution, Bell Canada interprets the phrase “NANP registrant’s status” to refer to the registration of the subscriber’s telephone number into the ENUM Tier 1 Registry, and not the input of NAPTR record into the ENUM Tier 2 Service Provider’s Registry. The NANP registrant’s status which would affect his ENUM registration would depend upon several factors, including but not limited to: 1. Whether the subscriber chooses to register his NANP telephone number in the ENUM system; 2. Status of NANP registrant’s/subscriber’s telephone service (e.g., in-service, disconnected, temporary suspension for non-payment, seasonal suspension); 3. Status of the NANP registrant’s/subscriber’s telephone number (e.g., assigned, reserved or held, aging, disconnected); 4. Status of the NANP registrant’s/subscriber’s ENUM registration (e.g., payments status to ENUM Tier 1 Registry, ENUM Registrar and ENUM Tier 2 Service Provider Registry) 5. Reclamation of NANP telephone number due to numbering changes such as NPA splits, NPA boundary changes, and special numbering resource reclamation; and 6. NANP registrant moves from one Exchange Area to another. Bell Canada submits that a consistent industry standard is needed to address factors that affect the NANP Registrant’s status. An industry agreed process is required to address each of the above factors which may arise, including identifying conditions for removing information from the ENUM Tier 1 Registry. Depending upon the factors above, different entities such as the ENUM Tier 1 Registry, ENUM Tier 2 Registry Service Provider, Registrar and the PSTN Telecommunications Service Provider may initiate changes to the NANP Registrant’s registration. A communication process would have to be established to advise the ENUM Registry and Registrar of changes to telephone number status. Bell Canada notes that at this time, there is no regulatory requirement for TSPs to provide any information related to the ENUM Registrant’s/subscriber’s PSTN services and number assignment status. The TSPs may request to be compensated for the costs they would incur to provide any information regarding ENUM Registrant’s/subscriber’s PSTN number assignment status. The process must address the situation where the Registrant does not initiate the removal of the telephone number registration, and for identifying when a Registrant ceases to have any rights to the NANP telephone number (e.g., disconnection of service, NPA split). Bell Canada notes that the BPWG is the
    • Attachment appropriate group to address the processes required to advise the ENUM Registries and/or Registrars of changes in a Registrant’s number assignment status that would affect his ENUM registration. 7. What action, if any, should the registry and registrars undertake if a registrant no longer has the right to use a given NANP entry but has paid for registering the NANP number in the ENUM System? First, if a Registrant no longer has the right to use a given CC1 NANP telephone number, the Registry should immediately remove the ENUM number from the ENUM Registry. As indicated in the previous section, an industry agreed process is required to remove information from the ENUM Tier 1 Registry. The above question assumes the Registrant/Subscriber may obtain registration of his NANP number in the ENUM Tier 1 Registry for a registration fee coving a specified period of time, presumably one year. This is inconsistent with the current telephone number assignment practices used by TSPs. When a subscriber terminates its service with a TSP, the subscriber ceases to have any number assignment rights and privileges to the number, and the number is placed into “aging” for a time period that varies depending upon whether it is a business or resident number. After the Aging Period ends, the number is made available for assignment to another subscriber. Therefore, the ENUM Tier 1 Registry and ENUM Tier 2 Registry Service Provider should remove the NANP number from the ENUM systems when the subscriber ceases to have any rights to the NANP number. 8. Is it necessary or desirable to have a Canadian Tier 1B ENUM Registry? The Tier 1B Registry concept was developed as a means to permit individual CC1 NANP area nations to establish their own national Tier 1 B Registries, should they deem such a structure necessary or desirable. Having a choice of potential Tier 1B vendors may be beneficial to the industry by providing a competitive market situation for vendor services which could provide cost efficiencies and potentially additional functional benefits. Bell Canada submits that the final determination as to whether there should be separate Tier 1B Registries or a shared Tier 1B Registry for all or some CC1 nations should be based on an assessment of the costs, benefits and other factors. There is insufficient information available at this time to make a decision as to whether Canada should establish a separate Tier 1B Registry for Canadian numbering resources or share the services of a single vendor that provides both Tier 1A and 1B services to all or some CC1 NANP area nations. Bell Canada is of the view that, when appropriate, the Canadian industry should develop a Request for Proposals for the provision of an ENUM Tier 1B Registry and solicit proposals from potential vendors, including any vendors that may be selected to provide the Tier 1A functionality and Tier 1 B functionality for other CC1 nations.
    • Attachment 9. What should be the funding mechanism for the Canadian ENUM System? Bell Canada submits that the current CC1 ENUM LLC and any Canadian ENUM Consortium or organization that may be established, which are expected to create the Tier 1A and 1B Registries, should recover the costs of providing the Tier 1A and 1B Registry functionality from those who use, benefit from, and/or provide ENUM services. A funding formula will be required to allocate the Tier 1A Registry costs among the CC1 nations and their participating ENUM entities. The allocation must be equitable in terms of usage, and proportional to the quantity of registered ENUM numbers from each nation and its individual participating ENUM entities. Governance and cost allocation must also be addressed for any future enhancements which may be required by one or a group of nations. A funding formula will also be required to allocate the Canadian ENUM Tier 1B Registry’s costs amongst the entities that opt to participate in the Canadian ENUM system. One approach is to allocate the costs to Registrars and Tier 2 Registry Service Providers based on their relative use of Tier 1A and 1B Registry services. Under this approach, the Registrar that registers the ENUM number could be responsible for paying the cost to register the ENUM number, and the Tier 2 Registry Service Providers that provide Tier 2 Registry services could be responsible for paying the cost to maintain the ENUM number in the Tier 1 Registry on an ongoing basis. The vendor(s) that may be selected to perform the role(s) of ENUM Tier 1A and Tier 1 B Registry should be required to provide the capital and ongoing operating funds for the Tier 1 Registries. It is assumed that fee payments could be required from the Registrars, Registrants, and/or Tier 2 Registry Service Providers to the ENUM Tier 1 Registry vendors. The Tier 2 Registry Service Providers could charge fees to the Registrars, Registrants, and possibly also to the Application Service Providers who may have NAPTR records in those Registries. The Application Service Providers could charge fees to the Registrars and Registrants. Such a system of cost recovery would avoid charging subscribers who elect not to register their NANP telephone numbers, and thus not use ENUM Registry services. 10. What organisation structure should be created to provide industry governance to implement and manage the Canadian ENUM System? In Canada, the Tier 1B Registry functionality could be provided via a “Canadian ENUM Consortium” or similar entity (consortium). The Canadian ENUM Consortium could be formed, owned, operated, and funded under a Shareholder Agreement (SA), similar to the way other industry consortiums are operated. Under this structure, the Canadian Tier 1B Registry functionality could be performed by a neutral third party vendor selected, administered and funded by the above referenced Canadian ENUM Consortium. Vendors would “compete” or submit bids to perform the
    • Attachment Tier 1B Registry function for Canada under a contract for a defined term such as 5 years to the Canadian ENUM Consortium. The shareholders of the Canadian ENUM Consortium would be those entities that provide ENUM Registrar and Tier 2 Registry Service Provider services in Canada. Any entity which intends to provide ENUM Registrar and Tier 2 Service Provider Registry services in Canada would be required to become a shareholder of the Canadian ENUM Consortium. The criteria for membership of the consortium, its mandate and governance, would be a subject for further discussion. The ENUM Forum Specification for US Implementation of ENUM (Document # 6000_1_0) would provide a convenient starting point for establishing the ENUM industry structure in Canada and for implementing ENUM in Canada. As previously proposed by Bell Canada, the CSCN should, at some point in the future, conduct an assessment of the ENUM Forum Specification to determine whether it would be appropriate to adopt or modify it for application in Canada. To implement ENUM in Canada, Bell Canada proposes that the CSCN or other CISC Working Groups open a new TIF to create a Shareholder Agreement for the “Canadian ENUM Consortium”. The CSCN or CISC Working Group would submit the Shareholder Agreement via the CISC to the CRTC for approval. Upon CRTC approval, interested parties would form the Canadian ENUM Consortium to issue the Canadian ENUM RFP to prospective vendors, manage the RFP process, evaluate vendor responses to the RFP, select a vendor, conduct contract negotiations with the vendor, execute a contract with the vendor, provide ongoing administration of the contract with the vendor, and implement the funding mechanism to pay for the costs of operating the Tier 1A and 1B ENUM Registries. All of this should be done within the agreed and approved Canadian ENUM industry structure. 11. Should the Registry maintain information on the registrant in a public ENUM registry? Bell Canada submits that this question is pre-mature and cannot be answered until such time as the issues below are addressed and agreed to in a Canadian ENUM Operations Specification: • The functions to be performed by Tier 1A/B registries, Tier 2 Registry Service Provider, Registrar; • The interface requirements between the above entities • The processes to be used for various administration scenarios (e.g., registration, disputes, NANP number changes, funding mechanism)