Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
PublishMarc Blackler Modified over 10 years ago
1
U.S. ENUM Implementation ENUM Forum
2
Scope Specifications Document Tier 1 Contracting Entity Options Tier 1 Structure Alternatives
3
ENUM Forum Specifications Reference Architecture Tier 1 Registry Operations, Security, & Admin Tier 1 Performance Specifications Privacy Considerations Provisioning Registrar Requirements Authentication & Authorization Tier 2 Guidelines Conflict Resolution Issues Out of Scope
4
Reference Architecture Reference Architecture Tier 1 Registry Tier 0 Root Tier 2 Provider Registrant Registrar
5
Reference Architecture Registrar Registrant Registry Tier 1 Registry Tier 2 Service Provider Interfaces Tier 2 contains the NAPTR records or delegations Does not address non geographic numbers Issue: One or More Tier 1 Providers Delegation at Tier 0 by NPA
6
Tier 1 Operations Shared Registration System (SRS) Registry Database Zone Information (aka zone files) ContactInfo (aka WhoIs) Reporting, backup, escrow & performance requirements Security
7
Tier 1 Security DNS TSIG, DNSSec Protocol Physical Network Backup Auditing and Reporting
8
Tier 1 Administrative Aspects Registry Contracting Entity Registrar Tier 0 Interaction US Government Dispute Resolution Data Collection and Privacy
9
Tier 1 Performance Aspects DNS Performance Availability Update Performance EPP Interfaces
10
Privacy Considerations Registrant Choice Privacy Analysis Open Disclosure of Registrant Information in DNS Information Handling During Registration and Provisioning ContactInfo Fair Information Practices
11
Provisioning Tier 2 Nameserver Registrar Tier 1 Registry Registrant Application Service Provider Authentication & Validation Entities
12
Registrar Requirements Registrant Validation & Authentication Dispute Resolution Registrar Infrastructure Requirements Interactions of the parties Parties Requiring A & A Recommended Practices & Requirements Information Flows Requiring A&A Various Scenarios
13
Authorization and Authentication Parties Requiring A & A Recommended Practices & Requirements Information Flows Requiring A&A Various Scenarios
14
Tier 2 Guidelines – NOT Requirements Tier 2 may be self provided or from a commercial 3 rd party Interfaces & Interactions Performance Recommendations
15
Conflict Resolution Process General Principals Process Initiation Identification Timeframe Transfers Remedies Fees
16
Timeline Feb 2003 – Baseline Specification released Meetings through 2003 Dec 2003 – Release of ‘Tier 1 Contracting Entity and Architectural Alternatives’ a.k.a. 6001_1
17
Tier 1 Contracting Entity Desired Attributes: Short implementation timeframe Light Government Oversight Encourage Competition Open Standards Intellectual Property is owned by the contracting entity Minimize procurement and operation cost
18
Tier 1 Contracting Entity Concerns: Preserve National Sovereignty Support Competition Promote Innovation Protect User’s Security and Privacy Minimize Regulation Preserve Opportunity for Alternative Deployments Allow Interoperability Preserve Stability and Security
19
Tier 1 Contracting Entity Contracting Considerations: US Government interaction with Tier 0 Actual procurement process Ownership of the intellectual property Compliance oversight Operational integrity Policy development for procurement and ongoing operations
20
Tier 1 Contracting Entity – Alternatives Considered Government Procurement Industry Limited Liability Company
21
Option 1 – Government Procurement Government Procurement through Simplified FAR Accepted and understood Precedent -.us Can it provide the desired attributes? Short timeframe- Unclear Light government oversight- Unclear Low cost- Unclear, but at least similar to.us Competition encouraged- Yes Intellectual property- Easily retained by USG Open standards & best practices- Yes
22
Option 1 – Government Procurement - Advantages Little or no industry cost Anti-trust protection Contract liability protection Well defined and understood process
23
Option 1 – Government Procurement – Disadvantages Unclear Statutory Authority Agency Lead Unclear Not Currently Funded High Complexity and / or cost Difficult to Coordinate with Industry USG Prefers light touch with new / emerging technologies Multinational coordination with other NANP countries is required if single or skinny Tier 1 selected
24
Option 2 – Industry LLC Industry LLC Separate and distinct legal entity Responsible for RFP creation, issuance, and evaluation Contract negotiation & execution Vendor oversight and change management Systems and data changes Emerging issues management
25
Option 2 – Industry LLC Industry LLC Attributes Liability protection for members Designated and recognized contracting entity Level forum for joint venture for competitors Unregulated yet authorized to conform to regulatory directives Easy Access for new entrants Not For Profit Government may choose oversight role Active Tacit Allows involvement of other NANP countries
26
Option 2 – Industry LLC Advantages Expect good reception from USG Quick implementation possible Limits industry liability Good precedent (LNP) Ability to insure fairness and unbiased oversight Contractual authority with all qualified vendors Can issue RFP, award a contract Can designate equal terms for participants who use services from selected vendor Operates in an open environment Non Aligned with any market segment May represent any of the NANP countries Government coordination may be through the LLC or industry consortium
27
Option 2 – Industry LLC Disadvantages Members responsible for initial funding and operational costs Fewer members, larger individual burden Requires independent legal assistance Initial membership operating agreements Ongoing advice May have issues establishing industry payment / cost recovery mechanisms
28
Option 2 – Industry LLC Can an industry LLC provide the desired attributes? Short Timeframe- Yes Light Government Oversight- Yes Low Cost- Yes Competition Encouraged- Yes Intellectual Property- Yes Open Standards & Best Practices- Yes
29
Tier 1 Architecture Two issues Scope of Tier 1 Tier 0 Delegation Alternatives
30
Tier 1 Architecture Scope of Tier 1 US Numbers registered in single Tier 1 for all of NANP US numbers registered in single Tier 1 for US US numbers registered in multiple Tier 1s for sets of NPAs Tier 0 Delegation Alternatives Delegation of 1+NPA Delegation of all of country code 1
31
Tier 1 Architecture Five Possible Solutions: Single Tier 1 for all NANP countries Single Tier 1 in US With delegation from Tier 0 by 1+NPA With delegation from Skinny Tier 1 Multiple Tier 1 operators in US With delegation from Tier 0 by 1+NPA With delegation from Skinny Tier 1
32
Single Tier 1 for NANP Countries Assumes: All of country code 1 is delegated to a single Tier 1 All participating NANP countries can/will form a single contracting entity Tier 0 NANP Tier 1 Tier 2
33
Single Tier 1 for NANP Countries Advantages Only country code 1 need be added to Tier 0 Only one representative for NANP countries needs to deal with tier 0 Registrars that do business in more than one NANP country only need to be certified once Registrar interfaces with single Tier 1 for many NANP countries May simplify non geographic number inclusion Disadvantages All 19 NANP countries need to agree/acquiesce on Tier 1 entity operation All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce to selection of Tier 1 entity Restricts business opportunity to single entity at tier 1 level Creates risk of relying on single business entity Tier 0 Country Code 1 Tier 1 Tier 2
34
Single Tier 1 for US Requires either delegation from Tier 0 by 1+NPA or Skinny Tier 1 Tier 0 US Tier 1 Tier 2 Delegation by 1+NPA Tier 0 US Tier 1 Tier 2 Delegation of country code 1 Skinny Tier 1 Delegation by NPA
35
Single Tier 1 for US – Delegation of US 1+NPAs from Tier 0 Tier 0 US Tier 1 Tier 2 Delegation by 1+NPA Advantages No distribution of US NPAs required between multiple US Tier 1 entities US can participate in global ENUM without agreement or coordination of other NANP countries No negotiation required on loading US NPAs into Tier 0 Disadvantages All NPAs from the US must be entered into tier 0 Restricts business opportunity to single entity at tier 1 level Does not resolve non geographic number inclusion Creates risk of relying on single business entity
36
Single Tier 1 for US – Delegation from within a skinny tier 1 Tier 0 US Tier 1 Tier 2 Skinny Tier 1 Delegation by NPA Advantages No distribution of US NPAs required between multiple US Tier 1 entities Only Country code 1 must be loaded into Tier 0 Only one representative for NANP countries needs to deal with tier 0 Individual NANP countries deal with a single tier 1 provider MAY simplify inclusion of non geographic numbers by placing them directly in skinny tier 1 Disadvantages Restricts business opportunity to single entity at skinny tier 1 level and at the US tier 1 level Creates risk of relying on single business entity at skinny tier 1 and US Tier 1 levels Does not resolve non geographic number inclusion in ENUM All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce on using a skinny tier 1 operator All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce on selection of skinny tier1 entity
37
Multiple Tier 1 Operators in the US Assumes: US 1+NPAs are delegated to multiple tier 1 entities from Tier 0 OR All of country code 1 is delegated to a single skinny Tier 1 Tier 0 US Tier 1s Tier 2 Delegation by 1+NPA Tier 0 Delegation of country code 1 Skinny Tier 1 US Tier 1s Tier 2 Delegation by NPA
38
Multiple Tier-1 Operators in the US Direct delegation from Tier 0 Advantages Promotes multiple business opportunities in the tier 1 registry US can participate in global ENUM without agreement from other NANP countries No negotiation needed to load US 1+NPAs into Tier 0. Only one representative for NANP countries needs to deal with tier 0 Reduces risk of relying on single business entity for Tier 1 Disadvantages 1+NPAs need to be distributed among Tier 1 providers 1+NPAs for US would need to be entered into Tier 0 Introduces additional operational and administrative interfaces for Registrars and Tier 2 operators Does not resolve non geographic number inclusion in ENUM Tier 0 US Tier 1s Tier 2 Delegation by 1+NPA
39
Multiple Tier-1 Operators in the US Direct delegation from skinny Tier 1 Advantages Only Country code 1 must be loaded into Tier 0 Only one representative from NANP countries needs to deal with Tier 0 Individual NANP countries deal with a single skinny Tier 1 provider MAY simplify inclusion of non geographic numbers by placing them directly in skinny tier 1 Promotes multiple business opportunities in Tier 1 Registry Disadvantages NPAs need to be distributed among Tier 1 providers Restricts business opportunity to single entity at skinny tier 1 level Creates risk of relying on single business entity at skinny tier 1 Does not resolve issues regarding non geographic number inclusion in ENUM All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce on using a skinny tier 1 operator All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce on selection of skinny tier1 entity Introduces additional operational and administrative interfaces for Registrars and Tier 2 operators
40
Summary Endorsement of support for LLC No consensus on architectural alternatives Any solution which involves the delegation of country code 1 from Tier 0 will require agreement from all 19 NANP countries Delegation of US NPAs from Tier 0 may require negotiation with Tier 0 How many registries should operate for those 1+NPAs in the US?
41
Status The ENUM Forum met with NTIA and the FCC on Jan 21 Supports the development of and industry LLC Did not express a preference for either a single or multiple Tier 1 approach Believes that decisions are best left to industry as long as the conditions and principals stated in the February 2003 letter are upheld US Government in the process of contacting other countries in the NANP to determine if a consensus opinion can be reached US Industry is in the process of establishing an LLC to initiative the Tier 1 procurement process
42
Contacts ENUM Forum Chair Gary Richenaker Telcordia Technologies Tel: 732 699 3264 grichena@telcordia.com ENUM Forum Vice Chair Steve Lind AT&T Tel: 973-236-6787 sdlind@att.com ENUM External Communications Group Chair Bob Bownes Seiri Tel: 518-727-6532 bownes@seiri.com
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.