Subject: [dispatch] draft-lawrence-sipforum-provider-alias-00

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:18:48 -0400

Scott accurately described what I believe is the business case for the SIP
Forum to sponsor such a registry, though that decision has not been made
yet. The SIP Forum would NEVER actually operate the registry. There are lots
of companies that can do that.

The PAN registry IMHO needs the kind of strong contractual agreements common
to operators of ICANN TLD's for instance or public / private ENUM
registries.

... the key words here being 'a fixed suffix (for the purposes of this

initial draft'...  The actual value chosen can be anything, but it

seemed clearer to use a real example.  No one (most emphatically

including the SIP Forum itself) believes that the Forum is the

appropriate organization to actually operate the resolution

infrastructure regardless of the domain name chosen as the fixed suffix.

Personally, I think that the most important reason not to use ITADs or

freenum.org was the first one I listed:

   * The administrative and legal infrastructure of using the existing

     first-come first-served ITAD registry at IANA is not sufficient

     for the needs of commercial service providers.

If I were a service provider and was going to count on this to provide

me with that vital first connection service, I'd want to know that the

rules on how registrations were added to and modified in the registry

were subject to carefully spelled out contractual terms with enforceable

agreements as to service levels.  I'd want to know that that asset could

be transferred under well specified terms.  RFC 3219 has no such

infrastructure.  

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
< <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>
skype: rshockey101
LinkedIn :  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/rshockey101>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/rshockey101
http//www.sipforum.org