April 2026 - cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Proposed Digital Networks Act (DNA) perspectives
by Desiree Miloshevic 02 Apr '26

02 Apr '26

Dear members and colleagues, I would like to share a couple of recent blog posts on the proposed Digital Networks Act (DNA) that you may find of interest: Internet Society: “Fair Share and the Digital Networks Act (DNA): Three Concerns” https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2026/01/fair-share-and-the-digital-net… <> Konstantinos Komaitis: “The Draft Digital Networks Act (DNA): A Critique” https://www.komaitis.org/write-share-ignite/the-draft-digital-networks-act-… <> Thoughts, reactions or additional perspectives are very welcome. best Desiree — RIPE Coop WG Co-Chair

6 5

ENUM (e164.arpa): background, scope, and coordination steps
by Hisham Ibrahim 01 Apr '26

01 Apr '26

Dear colleagues, This message summarises recent discussion regarding ENUM (e164.arpa) and clarifies the scope and next steps. The RIPE NCC has operated the e164.arpa registry for many years under instructions and coordination arrangements established with the ITU-T and IAB. These arrangements, and the operational context for how the registry is run, are described here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/dns/enum/iab-instructions/ Recently, a request was raised in the RIPE Database Working Group to support ENUM (e164.arpa) in RDAP for querying the RIPE Database. We noted that RDAP support for ENUM is not currently implemented, but could be added if there is clear interest. We also checked current query patterns and found a few hundred ENUM-related queries per day in DNS and in Database; so low usage, but not zero. Following discussion on the Database WG mailing list, including replies in support, we proposed implementing RDAP support for ENUM. While this is a limited operational change, it was recognised that anything touching E.164 and e164.arpa can raise political questions that go beyond the purely technical. As e164.arpa is directly linked to the ITU E.164 numbering system, the relevant points of contact are typically national administrations and the entities they designate. This led us to consult ITU-T Study Group 2 to clarify the status of ENUM and its usage and needs for ongoing support. ITU-T will ask member states for their feedback and share this with us. ITU-T provides an established and coordinated channel to reach those administrations, and importantly confirm whether any delegating authorities still rely on the service, so our technical decisions are informed by real-world use and help us avoid unnecessary operational risk, confusion, or compliance headaches (including in the context of regulatory frameworks such as NIS2). We are also reaching out to the IAB regarding these operations, which the RIPE NCC performs under its instruction on behalf of the global DNS and Internet community. I am sharing this message with the DNS, Database, Cooperation and RIPE NCC Services Working Group mailing lists to ensure all relevant working groups are informed. If you wish to share thoughts in response, please reply to the thread on the RIPE NCC Services WG mailing list. Best regards, Hisham Ibrahim Chief Community Officer, RIPE NCC

4 4

Re: ENUM (e164.arpa): background, scope, and coordination steps
by Hisham Ibrahim 01 Apr '26

01 Apr '26

Thank you Richard, this is very helpful context. The pointers to the FCC, ATIS/SIP Forum and BT material are a valuable contribution to the broader community input we are gathering on the current role and relevance of e164.arpa. If there are other particular filings, standards documents or implementation examples that you think are relevant, I would be keen to receive them. Many thanks again for sharing this. Best regards, Hisham On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 at 23:35, Richard Shockey <richard(a)shockey.us> wrote: > > > Patrik .. thank you so much for cc me here. I’m very aware of that the > status is of TN to FQDN resolution is. This is under active discussion at > the FCC as it is planning on sunsetting the existing TDM / SS7 networks in > the United States. I literally had a call with US national carriers about > this today. The SIP Forum and ATIS are working this issue as a standards > profile issue. > > > > > https://access.atis.org/higherlogic/ws/groups/8ba10810-ca63-4d03-8155-018d2… > > > > The British have their own process. > > > > > https://business.bt.com/content/dam/bt-business/pdfs/insights/All-IP%20whit… > > > > There are endless Federal Communications Commission’s filings on this. You > can easily go the FCC website and through ECFS find the dockets. 25-304 > 25-208 17-97 its all public. > > > > Canada is right behind us. > > > > Once upon a time maybe decade ago RFC 6116 might have been useful, but the > carriers and their national regulators have chosen a different path. > Numbering is a very very special thing national regulators hold closely. I > imagine Sweden is no different. In the US this is governed by national law. > UK and European law are similar. > > > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/251 > > > > e164.arpa will IMHO have no real role it what the modern all SIP IP > network will look like. > > > > BTW the USG could care squat about ITU T thinks about anyting. > > > > Happy to take questions or provide other guidance… > > > > > > > > > > Richard Shockey > > Shockey Consulting LLC > > Chairman of the Board SIP Forum > > www.shockey.us > > www.sipforum.org > > richard<at>shockey.us > > Skype-Linkedin-Facebook –Twitter rshockey101 > > PSTN +1 703-593-2683 > > >

3 2