1 / 28

U.S. ENUM Implementation

U.S. ENUM Implementation. Tier 1 Contracting Entity and Architectural Alternatives ENUM Forum. Scope. Tier 1 Contracting Entity Options Tier 1 Structure Alternatives. Introduction. Feb 2003 – Baseline Specification released Meetings through 2003 Dec 2003 – Release of 6001_1.

komala
Download Presentation

U.S. ENUM Implementation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U.S. ENUM Implementation Tier 1 Contracting Entity and Architectural Alternatives ENUM Forum

  2. Scope • Tier 1 Contracting Entity Options • Tier 1 Structure Alternatives

  3. Introduction • Feb 2003 – Baseline Specification released • Meetings through 2003 • Dec 2003 – Release of 6001_1

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Tier 1 Contracting Entity – Alternatives Considered • Government Procurement • Industry Limited Liability Company

  8. Option 1 – Government Procurement • Government Procurement through Simplified FAR • Accepted and understood • Precedent - .us • Does it provide the desired attributes? • Short timeframe - Unclear • Light government oversight - Unclear • Low cost - Unclear, but at least similar to .us • Competition encouraged - Unclear • Intellectual property - Easily retained by USG • Open standards & best practices - Possible

  9. Option 1 – Government Procurement - Advantages • Little or no industry cost • Anti-trust protection • Contract liability protection • Well defined and understood process

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. Tier 1 Architecture • Two issues • Scope of Tier 1 • Tier 0 Delegation Alternatives

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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 Tier 1 Tier 2

  20. 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 Tier 1 Tier 2

  21. Tier 0 Delegation by NPA US Tier 1 Tier 2 Single Tier 1 for US • Requires either delegation from Tier 0 by NPA or Skinny Tier 1 Tier 0 Delegation of country code 1 Skinny Tier 1 Delegation by NPA US Tier 1 Tier 2

  22. Single Tier 1 for US – Delegation of US NPAs from Tier 0 • 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 Tier 0 Delegation by NPA US Tier 1 Tier 2

  23. Single Tier 1 for US – Delegation from within a skinny tier 1 • 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 Tier 0 Skinny Tier 1 Delegation by NPA US Tier 1 Tier 2

  24. Multiple Tier 1 Operators in the US • Assumes: • US 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 Tier 0 Delegation of country code 1 Skinny Tier 1 Delegation by NPA Delegation by NPA US Tier 1s US Tier 1s Tier 2 Tier 2

  25. 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 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 • NPAs need to be distributed among Tier 1 providers • 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 Delegation by NPA US Tier 1s Tier 2

  26. 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

  27. 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 NPAs in the US?

  28. Contacts • Gary Richenaker

More Related