Re: Monday VoIP peering wrap-up stew

[Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>]

> > just to reaffirm isc's capabilities in this area, it's my strong
> > belief that an isc-branded "e164 root" would have high perceived
> > trust... which is one of the reasons it's important that we only
> > launch it if doing so is a non-controversial act.
> 
> I would feel comfortable with such a root service.  In fact, ISC's
> name has been brought up before in over-the-pizza discussions on this
> very topic.

wow!  that's nice to hear.  (both things, really.)

> The controversy would erupt due to the introduction of 1.e164.arpa
> Real Soon Now.  What is the migration strategy?  What is the life
> cycle of the ISC root?

when the people who asked us to add stuff tell us to take it out, we would.
(unless it's on a term agreement like three years or whatever, in which case
it would die if not renewed, unless it's taken out sooner by request.)

> In the event that the ISC root is for all nations (and not just the
> industry-sluggish American zone) then how does ISC propose to ward off
> international lawsuits by nations who are displeased with VoIP calls
> circumventing their "e.164 tax" that they apply to all phone numbers?

by pointing to our mission statement at the top of <http://www.isc.org/>.

--------

since i tried to get woody and wessorh to do this and they passed on it,
and since e164.org has apparently failed to take the voip world by storm,
it's time to make the offer-- if you have numbers to register and you'd
like to see e164.isc.org created for you to share SRV/NAPTR information
with your competitors and others, send me mail privately.

--
To unsubscribe send a message to voip-peering-request@psg.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
An archive is at <http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.