I just realised that I responded directly to Antoin and missed cc to the group, so here was my response, apologies for the confusion. On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:25 AM, B C <brettlists@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Antoin Verschuren <Antoin.Verschuren@sidn.nl> wrote:

...

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM

While I strongly support the proposal for more than 1 anycast assignment per TLD/ENUM tier1 operator, I do have some problems with the definition of the ENUM tier1 operators.

Where it says:

"ENUM operators as defined by the ITU"

I think it should say:

"ENUM tier0/1 operators as defined by RIPE NCC"

I wouldn't want the ITU to determine who should get address space, and the counterpart for IANA in the ENUM space is RIPE NCC. I see the ITU more in the role ICANN has with regards to TLD's, or perhaps even the US DOC.

However the reason this was put there is that as I undertstand this area, it's not the RIPE NCC's responsibility who gets an ENUM Country Code, those are I believe approved by the ITU and then administred by the RIPE NCC. So I think "ENUM tier0/1 operators as defined by RIPE NCC" would be factually incorrect. Regards Brett