|Peter: No separate tree to query|
Peter: The country code must be carefully selected:
|Rui: We can just take one prefix anyway… If this gets just “too big to fail”, there will be no way to take it back and ITU-T and others will just have to play along with the “de facto” configuration.||Peter: Basic design principle #2 (see above) must be revised!!!|
Simon: I suggest NRENUM pick a number like "+10" which is in complete political deadlock "Is it in US +1? No because the US is actually +1[1-9]. IMHO +10 is never ever going to be assigned. +83 or something else might get assigned.
IMHO I would NOT even attempt to get it through the ITU until there is a massive install base using the number plan to give it some credence.
Misi: I think it is bad idea to centralize and give the power to govern the worldwide virtual numbering plan to one entity. I prefer country wide distributed model as it is works in the golden E164 tree. IMHO never works to pressuring from a central organization a uniform policy to every country. People (so we) are very different (kind) country by country, never underestimate this.
If we delegate the real country code inside this +999 country code then we need to teach the world(to the "users") what prefix belongs to what country.
So for end user it will be confusing to get a call from a +99936 virtual number range,
Alex: It seams to me that creating a unique, flat global numbering should look like a new skype, msn or google talk service, but using numbers instead of usernames.
If calls can be initiated or terminated in PSTN (yes, it is true) and if we choose for a centralized model, we can assume the risk to bring particular country characteristics (as regulatory issues) to this central office. I am not sure if a centralized model is better than a decentralized one. ENUM (and NRENum.net), as it is today, seams for me to be the best way to deal with this issue. Divide and conquer.
b) If traditional CC plan is maintained: