*** DRAFT ***
February 8, 2005
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)
The Chair of the CSCN welcomed the attendees and the participants introduced
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
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
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
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:
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
5. Reclamation of NANP telephone number due to numbering changes such as
NPA splits, NPA boundary changes, and special numbering resource
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
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
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
9. What should be the funding mechanism for the Canadian
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
• The functions to be performed by Tier 1A/B registries, Tier 2 Registry Service
• 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)