Re: New I-D:draft-kaplan-enum-source-uri-00.txt

On 2007/12/12 16:12, Tony Rutkowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> >That doesn't really hold true for non licensed/corporate communications
> >in most instances (as much as some people would like that to be the
> >case). Taken into a public ENUM context (country sanctioned or not) the
> >concerns seem valid to me.
> 
> Article 1 of the Directive establishes the obligations of all
> "...providers of publicly available electronic communications
> services or of public communications networks."
> 
> Public availability rather than licensing is the operative
> delimitation.  E.164 numbers by definition apply to public
> telecommunication networks.  I suppose you could escape
> the requirements by using your own numbering scheme
> within networks not available to the public.

That's not the interpretation that is operational in Austria. (at least
for similar laws; Austria has not yet implemented that directive, and
hopefully never will.)

Here, all these regulations apply only to services which are offered to
the public, in the sense of "anyone can buy service from that provider
or network". They are not seen as applicable to PBXs (and mail-servers)
run by corporations (or private persons) for the own use.

This has nothing to do with E.164 numbers (for calls) and RFC822
addresses (for mail).

/ol
-- 
// Otmar Lendl <[email protected]>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933
// nic.at Internet Verwaltungs- und Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H
// http://www.nic.at/  LG Salzburg, FN 172568b, Sitz: Salzburg