North American Numbering CouncilMeeting TranscriptFebruary 18, 2010 (Final)

I. Time and Place of Meeting. The North American Numbering Council (NANC) held a meeting commencing at 9:30 a.m., at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., TW-C305, Washington, D. C.

II. List of Attendees.

Voting Council Members:

1. Hon. Betty Ann Kane Chairman2. Jeffrey S. Lanning CenturyLink3. Cindy Sheehan Comcast Corporation4. Karen Reidy CompTel5. Beth O’Donnell Cox Communications, Inc.6. Michael Altschul CTIA – The Wireless Association7. David Greenhaus 800 Response Information Services8. Gregory L. Rogers Level 3 Communications, LLC9. Hon. Geoffrey G. Why NARUC - Massachusetts10. Sara Buyak NARUC – Missouri11. Don Gray NARUC – Nebraska12. Jerome Candelaria NCTA13. Mary Retka Qwest14. Rosemary Emmer Sprint Nextel15. Anna Miller T-Mobile USA, Inc.16. Thomas Soroka, Jr. USTA17. Kevin Green Verizon18. Brendan Kasper Vonage19. Tiki Gaugler XO Communications

Special Members (Non-voting):

John Manning NANPAAmy Putnam PAFaith Marcotte Welch & CompanyJean-Paul Emard ATIS

Commission Employees:

Marilyn Jones, Designated Federal Officer (DFO)Deborah Blue, Special Assistant to the DFOAnn Stevens, Deputy Chief, Competition Policy DivisionMichelle Sclater, Alternate DFO, Competition Policy DivisionHeather Hendrickson, Competition Policy DivisionGary Remondino, Competition Policy Division

III. Estimate of Public Attendance. Approximately 20 members of the public attended the meeting as observers.

IV. Documents Introduced.

(1) Agenda(2) NANC Meeting Transcript – October 15, 2009(3) Billing and Collection Agent Report(4) Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) Report to the NANC(4a) NANP Billing and Collection Agent Evaluation Results(5) North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) Report to the

NANC(6) National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator Report to the NANC(7) Local Number Portability Administration Working Group (LNPA WG)

Status Report to the NANC (8) North American Portability Management (NAPM) LLC Report to the NANC(9) Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) Report(10) Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report to the NANC(11) Future of Numbering (FoN) Working Group Report to the NANC

V. Table of Contents.

1. Announcements and Recent News 6

2. Approval of Meeting Transcript from October 15, 2009 7

3. Report from the North American Numbering Plan Billing and Collection (NANP B&C) Agent 8

4. Report of the Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) 10

2

5. Report of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) 15

6. Report of the Local Number Portability Administration Working Group (LNPA WG) 25

7. Report of the National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator (PA) 44 8. North American Portability Management (NAPM) LLC Report 52

9. Telcordia Dispute Resolution Team: Telcordia Appeal 55

10. Report of the Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) 59

11. Status of the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) activities 62

12. Report of the Future of Numbering Working Group (FoN WG) 71

13. Summary of Action Items --

14. Public Comments and Participation (five minutes per speaker) --

15. Other Business --

IV. Summary of the Meeting.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Good morning. We’ll officially call to order the

meeting of the North American Numbering Council.

For the record, it is Thursday, February 18, 2010. Welcome to 2010. It is

9:34 a.m., and we are meeting at the Federal Communications Commission hearing

room at 445 12th Street, S.W. in Washington, D.C.

The notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on January

20, 2010, and then circulated to the members of the Council, I believe on Monday or

Tuesday, was notice of an abbreviated agenda.

3

Those of you who have been in Washington know what we’ve been through

the last 30 days with the snow, with the federal government being closed, and

actually the D.C. government being closed also.

The FCC itself moved its meeting from last week, its open meeting, to today.

They are meeting at 3:00 p.m. and, therefore, we need to vacate this room by 1:00

p.m. today in order for them to set up for the FCC open meeting.

And, therefore, we do have an abbreviated agenda with compressed times on

many of the reports and a couple of things that probably would have taken more

discussion we’ll just do an update on and defer those things that take more

discussion to the next meeting.

I appreciate all of the committees, and groups, and working groups that got

all their written materials in. We have those reports before us.

We’re going to try to stick to the time schedule and the time limits that are on

your agenda and so, therefore, we will not be taking a break for lunch. Obviously if

you need to get up and take a break or get some coffee feel free to do that, but we

will try to keep going straight through without an official break until 1:00 p.m.

I want to thank all of you who made it here. Some of our local folks are

probably still out there dodging snowdrifts trying to get here.

We are sending around the sign in sheet so we have a record of who is here.

And I believe we do have some people who are here on the bridge also.

4

I am going to go around just briefly, particularly for the interest of those of us

whose eyes aren’t real good to read the name tags, as well as those who are on the

bridge and just say who you are and where you’re from.

I should have said it in the beginning. I’m Betty Ann Kane, Chairman of the

Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia and Chairman of the North

American Numbering Council. Marilyn.

MS. JONES: Marilyn Jones, I’m with the Federal Communications

Commission.

MR. KASPER: Brendan Kasper with Vonage.

MR. GREEN: Kevin Green, Verizon.

MR. SOROKA: Tom Soroka with the U.S. Telecom Association.

MS. MCNAMER: Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile.

MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.

MS. RETKA: Mary Retka, Qwest.

MR. CANDELARIA: Jerome Candelaria, NCTA.

MR. GRAY: Don Gray, Nebraska Public Service Commission staff.

MR. ROGERS: Greg Rogers from Level 3.

MR. GREENHAUS: David Greenhaus, Response Information Services.

MR. ALTSCHUL: Michael Altschul, CTIA.

MS. REIDY: Karen Reidy from CompTel.

MS. SHEEHAN: Cindy Sheehan, Comcast.

MR. LANNING: Jeffrey Lanning, CenturyLink.

5

MS. BLUE: Debbie Blue, Federal Communications Commission.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Do we have anybody on the bridge on

the phone?

MS. BUYAK: Yes, Sara Buyak with the Missouri Public Service

Commission staff.

CHAIRMAN KANE: And you’re an alternate for Commissioner

Clayton?

MS. BUYAK: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you.

MS. HENDRICKSON: Heather Hendrickson from the FCC.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Anyone else?

MS. REGAL: Yvonne Regal, ATIS.

MS. MEDLEY: Alissa Medley, ATIS as well.

MS. PETERMAN: Linda Peterman, One Communications.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Very good. Thank you.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RECENT NEWS

In terms of membership on the NANC we’ve had two changes in the state

members, Commissioner Phil Jones has gone on to the Executive Committee of

NARUC so he has resigned from NANC, and Commissioner Lorinzo Joyner of

North Carolina has gone on to the Gas Committee for NARUC, so she is shifting her

focus from Telecom to Gas and so she has left the NANC.

6

Two new commissioners, and I welcome Commissioner Why from

Massachusetts Telecommunications Commission and Commissioner Elia Germani,

Chairman of the Rhode Island Public Utility Commission is the other new state

appointee.

MS. O’DONNELL: Chairman Kane, Beth O’Donnell from Cox

Communications is also on the phone.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Very good, thank you. And as people join we’ll hear

a beep and we’ll introduce them.

APPROVAL OF MEETING TRANSCRIPT

Alright, the first order of business is the approval of the transcript of our last

meeting of October 15, 2009. That was sent out and then there were corrections that

were made. There was a new version that was sent out that incorporated all those

corrections and additions that were sent to the FCC staff.

First of all, are there any additional corrections or additions to the transcript

from the October 15th meeting?

Then I’ll entertain a motion to approve the transcript.

MR. GRAY: Moved by Don Gray.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Second?

MS. RETKA: Qwest will second.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Second. All in favor, aye.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Any objections? The transcript is approved

unanimously. Thank you.

7

REPORT FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PLAN BILLING

AND COLLECTION AGENT (NANP B&C AGENT)

Our first report and we are exactly on time, report of the North American

Numbering Plan Billing and Collection, the NANP B&C Agent. That will be

presented by Faith Marcotte. Thank you, Faith.

MS. MARCOTTE: There’s going to be two parts to the report. There’s a

part on the financial position of the Fund at the end of January and then the second

part is the budget and the contribution factor for the next funding year.

So if you start on page one of our report, it talks about our financial position

of the Fund at the end of January. We have $2.7 million in the bank, $118,000 of

accounts receivable, and about $345,000 of liabilities which are listed just below

there to the various lenders.

There is nothing really much more of note other than we’re working on the

budget right now.

The next page, page two, shows the forecast of the Fund until the end of June

of the funding year. You can see under the total column there’s a $1.3 million dollar

projected surplus.

We had been expecting to just have the contingency of five hundred. The

box at the bottom right hand corner of the page shows where the difference is made

8

up of and it’s really the last two items which comprise the bulk of the difference.

There was the carrier audits for $700,000 which did not occur and then there

was permanent pANI, $200,000 had been allowed for that so that’s $900,000 of the

basically $840,000 that we are different than what we expected.

If you go to the next page, that’s just a further projection of the Fund to a full

year from now.

And then the following page is what the liabilities over the next six months

are expected to be.

As far as the deliverables go, there is nothing unusual happening. Everything

is proceeding on course.

And then we come forward to the budget. The actual budget is on page eight

and I’ll just run down the numbers quickly.

NANPA administration is expected to be $1.67 million and that’s based on a

contract. Some of that had to be projected because their contract expires January

2011, but we used the same numbers carried forward. So that puts us at $1.67

million, $96,000 of that is going to be covered by international participants so the

U.S. carriers have to cover $1.570 million.

Thousands-Block Pooling is $2.2 million and that’s based on contract.

We’ve left in two numbers, the next two numbers, pANI administration for

$200,000 and the carrier audits for $700,000. The FCC has suggested we leave those

numbers as is.

Billing and collection agent, actually our contract has expired, but we are

9

using the same numbers as a projected number.

The data collection agent, that’s based on prior experience, same thing with

the operations audit and the 499 late fees.

So it leaves that we have projected disbursements of $4.9 million. We want

to leave the $500,000 contingency so we need to cover expenses of $5.4 million.

So we presented to the working group the funding options on page nine. The

first option is to use up the full surplus. Second option was to use up half the

surplus, and the third option was not to use the surplus. And those are the factors,

the contribution factors underneath the various options that would result.

These numbers are based on projection of revenue dropping by about a

billion as it did in the previous year. We will get more firm numbers at the end of

April to determine if that is a reasonable projection of the revenue but as of right

now those are the three options, and I believe the working group is going to tell us

which option they recommend. Any questions?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. If you would again identify yourself for

transcript –

REPORT OF THE BILLING AND COLLECTION WORKING GROUP

MS. EMMER: Certainly, Rosemary Emmer with Sprint Nextel, Co-chair of

the Billing and Collection Working Group. I chair this committee along with Tim

Decker, Verizon.

This is our busy time of year. If you go to page two, we are responsible for

the oversight of the Billing and Collection Agent. This includes the budget, the

10

contribution factor, and Welch’s overall performance.

And if you turn to page four this is what the Billing and Collection Working

Group needs the NANC to consider today.

We need the NANC to approve the Billing and Collection Agent 2009

performance evaluation that I will go over in just a moment as submitted by us last

week.

The 2010-2011 budget and the contribution factor that the B&C working

group came to consensus on that Faith just went over.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, there are three things, the evaluation --

MS. EMMER: Yes, the July 2010 to June 2011 budget.

CHAIRMAN KANE: July 2010 to June 2011, and the third thing is?

MS. EMMER: The contribution factor.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Contribution factor, okay, so three decisions. Okay,

thank you.

MS. EMMER:You’re welcome. Now I won’t repeat all of the budget details

that Faith just went over, but the Billing and Collection Working Group are

comfortable with the proposed budget that she went over.

Page six, the contribution factor. The Billing and Collection Working Group

proposes using option one as the contribution factor. As in years past we would like

to use up all of the entire anticipated fund surplus, and we would be leaving a half

million in the account for the contingency provision, which was the same as last

year. We carried half a million last year too, seven million from years past, and it

11

worked just fine.

So that’s what the B&C Working Group has come to consensus on for the

first scenario option one, and that’s what we would like the NANC to approve.

CHAIRMAN KANE: You’re making that as a motion?

MS. EMMER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KANE: The motion before us is to approve option one in the

contribution factor recommendation. Is there any discussion on that

recommendation? Is there any objection to that recommendation? We will

determine by unanimous consent that that recommendation is approved.

MS. EMMER: And we need to do the same thing for the budget that Faith

already went over.

CHAIRMAN KANE: So the recommendation is to approve the budget for

July 2010 through June 30, 2011 as recommended by the working group. Is there

any discussion on that recommendation? Is there any objection to that

recommendation? I will rule that by unanimous consent that budget has also been

approved.

And the third is the evaluation?

MS. EMMER: Yes, I’ll go over that now but I do want to point out on page

seven, this is the slide that we show every year that has the Fund size and the

contribution factor for many, many years so you can kind of see where we’ve been.

If you have any questions on that feel free to email Tim Decker or myself.

So we are now on to the Welch performance. The rating schematic that the

12

Billing and Collection Working Group used was the same as what we used last year

which was Met or Not Met.

Go to page nine. This is how the Billing and Collection Working Group

reviewed, considered, and analyzed and how we got to the overall evaluation through

these mechanisms like for instance our monthly meetings. I’m Co-chair of the

observations, the reports that the Billing and Collection Agent gives to the NANC

and the FCC.

Go to page 10, I’m pleased to report that the Billing and Collection Working

Group has a rating of Met for Welch. That’s the highest rating that they could

achieve under our current rating scheme. They met the requirements to be

considered successful. Their performance was competent and reliable. Discussions

and recommendations were within the requirements and expectations.

Please see a stand alone copy of the evaluation results.

CHAIRMAN KANE: That was submitted as a separate document. Thank

you. Reminds me, I have to put document numbers here.

So we are now on document number four which is the Billing and Collection

Working Group report, and just to keep within the agenda numbers, the NANPA

Billing and Collection Agent evaluation results, which is a two page document we’ll

do 4-A. Okay, thank you, Rosemary.

MS. EMMER: Okay, go to page 11 for some of the highlights from Welch

this year. Their budget actuals came within $15,000 of the original forecast. I sure

wish my company and others could get that close.

13

(LAUGHTER)

Very, very impressive work from Welch there. Thank you.

Their persistence working with the FCC for write off package for delinquent

accounts with timely resolutions has been very impressive this year.

They prepared a detailed operational review in 2009, as they have done in

prior years without being prompted and without having been given the criteria and

they’ve done an absolute fantastic job with that each year.

So the Billing and Collection Working Group is very happy with the level of

service that we’ve received from Welch, provided by Welch.

Are there any questions about the evaluation?

So we would need the NANC to approve the evaluation.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, so the motion before us is to approve the

evaluation as contained in document 4-A of the Welch performance. Yes, sir.

Identify yourself, please.

MR. WELCH: Mike Welch. I was just happy to (unintelligible) getting a bit

ahead of you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Any discussion? We have unanimous consent to

approve the evaluation. Thank you.

Rosemary, could you clarify. They had indicated their contract had expired.

What is the process for renewing that contract?

MS. EMMER: I believe we’re waiting for the Wireline Competition Bureau

to --

14

CHAIRMAN KANE: So based on this recommendation then in the

evaluation the Bureau will take care of that.

MS. EMMER: Absolutely, I’m sure they will, yes.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.

MS. EMMER: Sure. The last page has our meeting schedule. Please feel

free to contact Tim and myself if you would like to join. We’d be happy to give you

the bridge number. Our calls last less than an hour. We don’t have that many going

forward but we absolutely welcome new participants. And thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you, Rosemary and thank you the whole group.

We are now up to agenda item number five which is the report of the North

American Numbering Plan Administrator. We are getting ahead of schedule which

is very good. And that will be document number five also. It is agenda item number

five and document number five.

REPORT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBER PLAN

ADMINISTRATOR (NANPA)

MR. MANNING: Good morning, everybody. My name is John

Manning, Director of North American Numbering Plan Administration.

A few items I’m going to cover with you this morning is to give you a look at

2009, and the various resources that NANPA administers from CO codes, to area

codes, as well as some of the other resources that we are responsible for, updating

you on the status of those resources, and a few other items dealing with NANPA

change orders and other information on items that I wanted to pass along.

15

On page two of the report, you can see a chart detailing specific information

concerning central office code activity. We give you the numbers for 2009

compared with similar numbers for 2004 through 2008. You can see the quantity of

codes request processed for each of those years, approximately 12,000 in 2009

compared to over 15,000 in 2008 and so forth.

Total assignments in 2009 were a little over 2,100 central office codes. It’s

down approximately 800 codes from 2008. Net assignments were 1,600 compared

to 2,100 in 2008. That’s down approximately 550 codes year over year.

You also see the quantity of changes, denials, returns, reclamations, etc. that

we had for 2009 compared to previous years.

It’s interesting to note here although not spelled out in the chart, in looking at

the quantity of applications submitted to NANPA for central office codes, 75 percent

of all initial code applications, that’s the first resource for a particular carrier in a rate

center, all came via the Pooling Administrator. In other words service providers

were applying via the Pooling Administrator for a block or a code and they came

through the PA and eventually came to NANPA to be assigned a central office code.

Ninety-five percent of all central office growth requests, this is for the second

or additional resource in a particular rate center, came through the Pooling

Administrator. So what you’re seeing here is that applications for growth resources

are going primarily to the Pooling Administrator and when there is a need for pool

replenishment, they are eventually making their way to NANPA.

With regard to the 736 denials, it should be noted that the majority of these

16

denials deal with codes that are being returned by a service provider but that service

provider has ports on that particular code.

What NANPA does in this situation is it searches with those carriers that

have those ports to see if another carrier will become the new code holder. When

that occurs, the initial application to return the code is denied. In actuality, the code

is transferred. So the vast majority of those denials is that process at work.

You see the total number of returns and reclamations, 534 codes. I should

note that what that number doesn’t show is approximately 170 abandoned codes that

NANPA coordinated the recovery. Abandoned means the carrier is no longer in

service, or thought to no longer be in service. We work directly with service

providers operating in that area and often they are the ones that inform us of this

information.

We work with the state public service commission to make sure that we

understand that that carrier is no longer in service and ultimately we got back

approximately 170 codes during 2009, which involved 13 different states.

And one final item, beginning in November of 2008, there was a new

requirement for processing applications. That requirement changed the number of

days that NANPA had to process an application from 14 calendar days or ten

business days to seven calendar days. This change was implemented in November

2008. A hundred percent of all applications in 2009 were processed within the seven

calendar day requirement.

Turning to page three, the chart at the top of the page provides the top ten

17

area codes in terms of net CO code assignments. What jumps out is that

Pennsylvania claimed four of the top ten spots.

This is due primarily to a single service provider requesting resources in three

of the four area codes in Pennsylvania. It should be noted that they were asking for

those resources in pooling rate centers.

And when you compare 2009 with 2008, those area codes that appear on the

2009 that also on the 2008 list were New York 347, Illinois 773, and Pennsylvania

570 NPAs.

This is the first year in quite some time that the New York 347 NPA has not

been the number one leader in terms of central office code assignments.

On the second half of this page, I list a variety of central office code reports

that are available on the website. If you ever want to understand how this

information can be gathered you can do it yourself by simply visiting these reports,

downloading them, sorting them, and you can get this very same information that

I’ve provided you this morning.

Any questions about central office code assignment?

MR. CANDELARIA: Jerome Candelaria, NCTA. A quick question on

page two. You described how the majority of denials are related to the returning of

codes with ported TNS and the need to find a new code holder.

What kind of timeline are we talking about from that initial rejection to

finding a new code holder? Do you have a rule of thumb of just how long that

applicant needs to wait before this process works?

18

MR. MANNING: Well, in terms of what we want to do is once we get

the applications we have the NPAC run a report to see if they are reported TNs.

Once we identified those service providers, either service provider or providers, we

contact them about the return of the code to see if they want to become the code

holder.

The first one to submit the application in terms of transferring the code to

them will become the new code holder, and we follow the normal procedure in terms

of timeframes to make that type of change. There is a standard interval of

approximately 60 days in order to do that so the proper notification can go out to the

carriers.

We’ve been fairly successful of finding new code holders. A lot of the

applications these days concerning returning codes are working their way through

the Pooling Administrator as well because you’ve got a lot of block holders out there

and they’ll give the block holders an opportunity to become the code holder before

they eventually made their way to us.

But the intervals are basically the same as if you were getting a code assigned

to you in terms of the amount of time it takes to get the code activated from one

service provider to the other.

All right, page four, the NPA inventory. In 2009, we assigned seven new

area codes. A listing of those area codes is in the first paragraph underneath the

chart.

In 2009, we had eight area codes go into service and that’s what’s in the

19

second paragraph on this chart. Seven of those area codes were geographic. The

non-geographic area code was the 533 NPA, which was assigned and used to relieve

the exhausting 500 area code.

Under currently unassigned, you can see the numbers come down by seven.

You see under general purpose codes reserved and available. Under the available we

did not have a code reserved for the Dominican Republic which used the 849 area

code so that came out of the category of just general purpose codes.

Also when we assigned the 721 area code to Sint Maarten, that was also an

area code that we had not reserved for them so that came out of the general category

of general purpose codes. So that’s where we stand with regard to area codes.

Page five gives you a rundown of where we are with relief planning activity.

I’ve listed several items out here. Most recently in Oregon, 541, an overlay was

implemented with using the 458 area code. This overlay was just effective earlier

this month.

You’ll see in Pennsylvania 814 and 570 NPAs, activity is underway with

regard to public hearings and getting input on the various relief options available to

relieve those two area codes.

In Alabama 256, Wisconsin 715, Nebraska 402, and Arkansas 870, all of

those will be area code overlays. All have established permissive 7/10 digit dialing

periods, a mandatory ten digit dialing date and effective dates for the new area code.

In 2010 thus far, we have assigned two area codes. The 539 NPA was

assigned as an overlay code to relieve the 918 NPA in Oklahoma, and we recently

20

assigned a 929 area code as a relief code for the 347/718 overlay in New York.

Any questions on area codes and relief activity?

I’ll just remind you at the end of this presentation there is a chart giving you a

synopsis of all of the area codes projected to exhaust in the next 36 months and

where NPA relief activity stands with those area codes.

CHAIRMAN KANE: And John I do note, there are none that are going to

exhaust within the 12 months.

MR. MANNING: That’s correct.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Good.

MR. MANNING: Okay, with regard to the beginning of page six, I give

you a summary of other numbering resources that NANPA administers.

First of all is Feature Group B Carrier Identification Codes (CICs). Looking

at the chart tells the picture fairly quickly. There were no new Feature Group B

assignments in 2009 and we reclaimed 14 codes.

For Feature Group D (as in Delta) CICs, we assigned 74 CICs and 80 were

reclaimed during the year.

I think it’s important to note and this actually appears on page seven, that if

you take the figures for Feature Group D CICs and look at the total assignments less

the total returns over the ten year timeframe, it equals a minus two. Essentially over

the past ten years, the total quantity of available CICs has remained the same.

With regard to 5YY NXX codes, which includes both the 500 and 533 area

codes, we assigned 260 of these NXXs and reclaimed 23. In September 2009, we

21

initiated the assignment of NXX codes out of the 533 area code.

At this point in time I do not have a confirmed date of exhaust of the 5YY

resource. However this particular resource has been growing significantly in 2009.

We’re expecting that it will continue to grow in 2010 and future years. We could be

looking at an exhaust of these two area codes within the next two to three years.

With that however it should be noted that the Industry Numbering Committee

has already set aside a group of area codes for personal communication services so if

and when we do reach that point, we’re already in line for the next NPA to relieve

these two exhausting area codes. I believe subject to check, it would be NPA 522 --

it would be 544. Whatever they want us to use we’ll use.

(LAUGHTER)

With regard to the 900 area code, there was not a lot of activity, with zero

codes assigned and zero codes reclaimed.

And on page eight, the 555 line number resource, we assigned 42 555 line

numbers and reclaimed 57 in 2009.

Any questions on those resources?

Page nine, NANPA has one outstanding Change Order. It is Change Order

18. This is a change order that would require NANPA to compare Thousands-Block

Pooling assignment data obtained via the Pooling Administrator with the utilization

data collected from service providers via the semi-annual NRUF reporting process.

Through this comparison, NANPA would identify assigned blocks for which no

utilization data was provided by the service provider and contact that service

22

provider to which the block is assigned and request that they submit the information.

We’re waiting on that change order to be approved by the FCC.

Finally on page nine, just a couple of other items here. In December we

conducted NRUF service provider training. We like to do this right before the

NRUF submission cycle, giving an opportunity for service providers to review the

process before submitting their NRUF information. We had 70 individuals

participate from over 60 companies.

We will be conducting our 2009 operational review session with the NOWG

next week. The NANPA performance survey and cover letter have been posted on

the NANPA website. We have sent out a notice to the industry about the survey, as

well as some reminder notices, to complete that survey by the 15th of this month.

We also are planning to publish the 2009 NANPA annual report by the end of

March and when posted to the website, notification will be sent to the NANC.

On page ten and the next several pages are highlights, 2009 NANPA

highlights. I do not intend to go through this document but it is an excellent source

to get a review of the entire year. This is the information, or at least a synopsis of the

information, will be covered in detail with the NOWG next week. It gives you a lot

of information about what’s going on during the year, not only about NANP

resources in general but about NANPA operations. I strongly encourage you to take

a look at these highlights, and if you have any questions about this information, feel

free to stop me today, or call me, or email me. I’m happy to discuss that with you.

And as noted earlier, the final few pages are the NPA relief planning activity

23

for the next 36 months.

So with that, that concludes my presentation. Are there any questions?

MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel. I just have a comment and

I say this every single year but I think that for those who haven’t attended the

NANPA or the PA operational reviews before, for anyone who hasn’t, for a day or a

day and a half, you get every single piece of information that’s happened in an entire

year and it’s an excellent learning process.

You learn so much during those and NeuStar does a fantastic job. I can’t say

enough positive things about these operational reviews. And I say this every year in

case one person or two people from this crowd actually can make some time to

attend, it would definitely be worth your while. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Can you tell us Rosemary or John when and where

that is.

MR. MANNING: Certainly. The operational review presentation will

take place on Tuesday, the 23rd, starting at 9:00 a.m. The meeting is taking place at

NeuStar’s location in Sterling, Virginia.

There is also a bridge. I’ll turn to the NOWG members, the Co-Chairs, for

the bridge information and they can listen in on the presentation. If you’re going to

do that though I strongly encourage you to let the Co-Chairs know so you can get a

copy of the presentation.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you, and thank you Rosemary. Are there any

questions for John on the report? Thank you very much for a comprehensive report

24

here and for the diligence in preserving our resources.

Our next presenter is out there in our infamous traffic and snowplows, which

would have been the Thousands-Block Pooling Administrator.

We have concluded now with item number five and again we’re a little bit

ahead of schedule which is very good. We will skip over item six for the moment

until the presenter arrives and move on to item number seven on the agenda which is

the report of the Local Number Portability Administration, the LNPA Working

Group and call up Gary Sacra.

And this report will be document, I am going to keep them in the order that

they are, even though we’re going out of order, document numbers on the agenda

because it’s easier to coordinate that. This will document number seven.

REPORT OF THE LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY (LNPA) WORKING

GROUP

MR. SACRA: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I’ve been instructed to tell

everyone that the state of pooling is fine.

(LAUGHTER)

I’m Gary Sacra, Co-chair of the LNPA Working Group. I’m with Verizon as

well. My other Co-chair Paula Jordan with T-Mobile is also in attendance. Good

morning, everyone.

I refer to the report, the first section relates to newly approved number

portability best practices. These have been approved by the working group since our

last NANC meeting.

25

The first one is a revision to best practice 60. This best practice 60 is actually

a best practice that was included in the FCC 0941 order implementation plan.

This was just a clarification to that best practice to make it clear that it’s the

position of the working group that the only types of pins or pass codes that the

working group believes are appropriate for end user validation fields on the LSR are

those that are requested and assigned by the end user for the purposes of limiting or

preventing activity on that end user’s account.

It also clarifies that it’s the position of the working group that this best

practice not only applies to simple ports but all other types of ports, non-simple as

well.

You’ll see when I get to the last bullet in this particular section, Madam

Chairman, that the working group is respectively requesting that the NANC endorse

these best practices, so folks please keep that in mind as I go through these. I don’t

know if you want to handle them one at a time or have that discussion -

CHAIRMAN KANE: Do keep in mind that there will be an action item on

this so if you have questions, notes, et cetera on it.

MR. SACRA: Okay, thank you very much. The next item is a new best

practice 61 and again all these best practices are the consensus position of the

working group.

In this particular one the new service provider, if that provider does not

comply with the firm order confirmation specifically the due date on the firm order

confirmation that is sent to them by the old provider, the old provider can place that

26

port into conflict until the due date discrepancy is worked out with the new provider.

So that’s best practice 61.

New best practice 62, this relates to when the four hour firm order

confirmation clock starts for a simple port. If you recall when I gave the limitation

plan at our last meeting, for simple ports the response is due back to the new

provider within four hours, either the FOC or a reject, whichever is appropriate.

This particular best practice clarifies that that four hour clock starts either

when the old provider receives the valid LSR, local service request, or in the case if

that old provider utilizes a clearinghouse or a service bureau to process the incoming

local service request, the four hour clock starts when their agent, that clearinghouse

or service bureau receives the valid LSR.

And then on our conference call last week, on February 9th, the working

group approved two additional new best practices, new best practice 63, clarifies the

definition of the word send in the NANC LNP provisioning flows. This is in the

context of delivering the firm order confirmation to the new service provider.

In this case the definition of the word send is either the old provider

physically delivers the firm order confirmation to the new service provider, or as an

alternative sends a notification that that firm order confirmation is now available up

on that old provider’s website.

A number of providers expressed concerns and issues with the practice of

some providers that place their firm order confirmation up on their website or up on

their graphical user interface without any notification to the new provider that it’s

27

available.

So what that means is the new provider has to continuously go back up on the

website to see if the firm order confirmation is available. If it’s not then they have to

go back later.

There are also cases where the old provider has confirmed, has placed a firm

order confirmation up on their website. The new provider has retrieved it but then

the old provider then if the port runs into trouble has placed that port into jeopardy

and there’s no notification, no reason for the new provider to go back up on the

website to see that the port is now in jeopardy and the due date may not be met.

So this particular best practice states that the word send either means that the

old provider must physically send the FOC to the new provider whether its by email,

or electronic interface, or as an alternative that would be acceptable to send a

notification that it’s now available up on their website.

The working group has also stated that this best practice should be complied

to no later than February 2, 2011, which is the implementation date for the smaller

providers for FCC 0941.

The last new best practice that has been approved by the working group is

best practice 64. This states that for those providers that make changes to the

recommended portability systems that other providers use to interface with them for

porting, if they make changes to those systems that affect how the other providers

interface with them in the porting process that they must give a minimum of 60

calendar days notification of that change in order to give the other providers in the

28

industry enough time to make changes to their systems in order to continue to be able

to interface with the provider making the change to their system.

And as you can see the last bullet, we are requesting that NANC endorse

these five best practices. Questions?

CHAIRMAN KANE: We spent a lot of time at our last meeting approving

the provisioning and the process for the simple ports and for the expedited process

there. These best practices are ways of implementing, carrying out, refining those

things.

So we do have enough time here. Don’t feel rushed on this one. We’re even

a little ahead of schedule. These are important and so we want a full discussion if

you do have questions.

But I’m going to start even before that though to put it into context. Gary,

these are best practices. Explain to us for the record and in particular for some of the

new members, sort of what the status of a best practice is as opposed to a rule, a

requirement, et cetera.

MR. SACRA: That’s a very good question. We’ve had a number of times

we’ve discussed that exact question within the working group.

A best practice literally is a consensus opinion of the working group that if

the industry providers complied with these particular best practices that it would be

an improvement to the porting process.

Because they’re not FCC rules or regulations, they are I guess for the most

part, voluntary providers who understand that it is the consensus opinion of the

29

working group that these are practices that should be adhered but there is certainly

no penalty for non-compliance to these best practices. They are voluntary at this

point.

Our hope is that with NANC endorsement of these best practices it does add

weight certainly to those best practices.

I know a number of cases where providers do point to these best practices

when they set up for example interconnected agreements with other providers, they

will point to adherence to these best practices. I know in the regulatory arena these

best practices are pointed to.

But again they are voluntary, but our hopes are that with NANC’s

endorsement it will add some teeth or some weight to the best practices.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you, I think that helps.

Perhaps we should take these up one by one. The first one, the revision to

best practice 60, which states its position of the working group that only pass codes

and pins requested and assigned by the end user for the purposes of limiting or

preventing activity and changes to the account and not for example --

(Tape interrupted when Changing Sides)

(END OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE A)

* * * * *

(START OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE B)

CHAIRMAN KANE: -- Pin the end user uses to access their account

information on line. CPNI may be utilized as an end user validation field on an

30

incoming port requested by the old network service provider or old local service

provider.

I recall we had quite a discussion about pass codes, et cetera at our last

meeting. And this would apply to all ports, not just simple ports. Is there any

question, discussion on this best practice?

MALE SPEAKER: Obviously this is one that was discussed heavily and

obviously CenturyLink has a position different from many other members.

My objection actually, I’m going to ask that the NANC not endorse this one

and not because we oppose it, that’s been discussed, but as a process matter.

NANC is supposed to be a consensus body. This is actually before the FCC.

The FCC sought comment on this so we are actually having a dispute. The FCC is

hopefully going to resolve it one way or the other.

So, you know, at various times all of us are going to have disputes and we’re

going to get them to the FCC, and I think just as a process matter it would be helpful

for the NANC and its continued operation as a consensus body if it didn’t make

endorsements of things that are currently in an open dispute, instead waited.

I think all of us would prefer that who are in our position. I know most of

you aren’t in our position right now but all of us are going to be there from time to

time so as a process matter we would ask that that not be endorsed.

CHAIRMAN KANE: The pass code issue is before the FCC in appeal. Your

request is that we defer --

MALE SPEAKER: We filed comments on it this week actually.

31

CHAIRMAN KANE: What is the schedule on that, do you know?

MALE SPEAKER: I don’t know where it goes from here, but we filed

comments this week.

MALE SPEAKER: One reply comment. This best practice again was in

the implementation plan so in essence I guess by virtue of the fact that the NANC

has forwarded the implementation plan with its endorsement to the FCC, is it fair to

assume that the NANC has endorsed this best practice already?

CHAIRMAN KANE: So it may be moot.

MALE SPEAKER: (Off microphone, unintelligible).

CHAIRMAN KANE: Further comment?

MR. GREEN: Kevin Green, Verizon. I don’t think that this issue is really

in dispute in front of the FCC as Gary mentioned since the NANC has already

reached consensus on that particular issue. What was filed yesterday by

CenturyLink and others I don’t think was really responsive to what the FCC was

asking in the public notice.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Well, this isn’t the place to discuss the filling to the

FCC.

MR. GREEN: Okay. But the other point I wanted to make was that this is a

consensus process, it’s not a unanimous type situation so there are going to be issues

where we’re going to disagree but I think we have to respect the process.

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller with T-Mobile. Just to reiterate, I think the

comment cycle that’s out today, it’s out -- currently that we filed comments on the

32

16th and replies the 22nd, was focused on the standardized fields.

So as previously mentioned I think that was the focus of the request for

comments from the FCC and there was a consensus NANC recommendation that

supported this concept of pass codes. And I think the second point here is that we’re

asking for endorsement of this as a best practice, as a guide with some endorsement

from the industry so if there are problems at least there’s a basis for dispute

resolution. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Rosemary.

MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel. The LNPA Working

Group folks can correct me if I’m wrong but I didn’t think that CenturyLink opposed

this at all during the LNPA working group proceedings, and if they did, I wasn’t

aware of it.

You have excellent representation at the LNPA Working Group, and it would

just be really helpful going forward if it was going to get to the point where we got to

the NANC if we could kind of maybe discuss it so that we would be all on the same

page. That would be very nice and helpful. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Further discussion? Yes.

MS. SHEEHAN: Cindy Sheehan with Comcast. So just a clarification, I

guess, you know, maybe to understand the process, and Gary I hear you saying that

you want to have these best practices adopted or endorsed by NANC?

MR. SACRA: I would say the working group does.

MS. SHEEHAN: Yes, I agree. So I guess just as a process, since really

33

NANC is not an enforcement body, right, and I’m truly asking, what does this really

add to the best practice in giving them more weight? And maybe that’s a question

for Chairman Kane, I don’t know. I’m just checking.

MR. SACRA: Well, I can take a crack at it. It is a very good question.

What our intent would be in the working group and let’s just say assume that the

NANC does endorse one, or more or all of these best practices, we would put as

we’ve done in the past with other best practices that have been brought before the

NANC and have been endorsed by the NANC, we’ll put a statement in that best

practice that this particular practice has been reviewed and endorsed by North

American Numbering Council.

In terms of the question about what do I feel, the working group does report

to the Council. Obviously the Council is one step closer to the FCC as their advisory

board for numbering issues.

I certainly think that it does add more weight to the best practice when the

industry members stand -- that the FCC’s technical advisory council for numbering

issues has endorsed a particular practice. I think that adds more weight than just the

working group itself consensus opinion on a particular best practice.

MR. LANNING: If I may, Jeff Lanning, CenturyLink. I want to respond

first to Rosemary. I understand Rosemary’s admonishment. I would ask that people

understand the time the LNPA Working Group was taking this matter up we were

recently merged and in the process of discovering where we were as a new company.

I think Rosemary has been through that process at various times.

34

I hope that as a collegial body we will understand that sometimes positions

change, and you know we become much more aware of the challenges in being a

small rural carrier now that we’re in 33 states instead of the much smaller number

that we used to be in.

With respect to whether the dispute is properly before the FCC or not, we

obviously disagree. We think that what we did was proper. We will find out. Once

again that’s something that we all do. We respond to public notices the way we

think. I don’t think it’s for the NANC to decide whether or not our response was

appropriate.

So I still would hope that we wouldn’t endorse this one at least not until the

FCC rules.

CHAIRMAN KANE: And just a clarification, for the record we do have the

February 1st Federal Register Notice on the issues that are before the FCC which is

that the NANC recommended the 14 standard fields and the issue is what fields are

necessary and then the nine months, and the pleading cycle is February 16th for

comments and replies on February 22nd.

Gary, you had indicated though that this particular best practice was already

included in the implementation plan that the NANC submitted to the FCC.

MR. SACRA: That’s correct, Madam Chairman. This is just a revision to

clarify that the password/pin that’s requested by the end user is the one that is used to

limit activity on their account.

CHAIRMAN KANE: And that is an issue I realize that is now before the

35

FCC but in terms of where the NANC is we did make that recommendation, we did

include it.

MALE SPEAKER: (Off microphone, unintelligible). I’m not sure it’s the

same exact endorsement.

MS. RETKA: Mary Retka from Qwest. I just want to address the question

about the LNPA Working Group best practices that was raised by Comcast.

I think the important thing to think about when you’re looking at our best

practices is they’re like your porting hygiene. We all know personally fewer people

get sick when we wash our hands when we go out in public so I think it’s important

for us to think about the best practices that way.

Again, it’s not a requirement that is a unanimous requirement of everyone but

is a consensus requirement, and I think if we all follow those best practices then we

will all have a better porting process as an eco system of porting.

CHAIRMAN KANE: I’m going to rule on this one that since it is already

included in the implementation plan and it’s consistent with the implementation plan,

essentially we have endorsed it by virtue of including it so we don’t need a separate

action here.

All right, number two, best practice 61, position of the LNPA Working

Group -- I’m sorry, I didn’t see you, go ahead.

MALE SPEAKER: I just wanted to clarify my understanding of the type of

best practices the LNPA Working Group has.

Are there two types, one you bring to the NANC and one that is not brought

36

to the NANC or do you bring all proposed or consensus best practices to the NANC?

MR. SACRA: In recent history we’ve been bringing them all to the NANC. I

think there was a time early on when we first started developing best practices that

that may not have been the case but in recent history we’ve been bringing them to

the NANC. I believe it’s my intent and Paula’s intent on behalf of the working

group to bring any new best practice to the NANC for complete vetting and

discussion.

CHAIRMAN KANE: And obviously in my previous statement should the

FCC rule differently on the appeal then the situation would change.

All right, number 61, the old service provider may place support in conflict

with a cause value of 51 in instances where the new service provider has not

complied with the firm order confirmation return by the old service provider. Is

there any discussion on that best practice? We have consensus to endorse that? All

right, that’s done.

Number 62, which is a new one, a best practice, that the four hour firm order

confirmation response starts when a complete and accurate LSR is received by the

old network service provider or is received by the agent service bureau clearinghouse

of the old network service provider. Gary, is this any different, or how does this

amplify or supplement what we approved already?

MR. SACRA: This statement was not in the implementation plan so there

was no I guess clarification that the clock actually starts, if the provider is using an

agent, when that LSR actually hits the agent.

37

CHAIRMAN KANE: So this part is about the agent?

MR. SACRA: That’s correct.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Is there any discussion on this clarification?

MR. ROGERS: Greg Rogers of Level 3. I’m just curious why the

complete and accurate LSR description isn’t in the part about the agent or

clearinghouse. So I assume that complete and accurate LSR is also a requirement

when it’s received by the agent, is that right?

MR. SCARA: Yes. I guess that can be read in a couple of different ways but

that complete and accurate phrase carries through from when it’s received by the old

provider or is received by the agent.

MR. ROGERS: Okay, so it’s not how that’s intended to be read.

CHAIRMAN KANE: It’s intended to be Gary that or when a complete and

accurate LSR is received by the agent.

MR. SACRA: That’s absolutely correct.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, good to clarify that. Any discussion on that one,

disagreement? Okay, consider that one also endorsed.

And the next one, 63, that the word sends means a valid response to the LSR

delivered to the old network service provider to the new network service provider,

that it does not mean to just post or transmit the response on the GUI, and for the

reasons that were detailed here. Is there any discussion on this recommended best

practice? Yes.

MR. SHEEHAN: Cindy Sheehan, Comcast. Comcast was involved and

38

opposed this in the LNPA and we would also continue to oppose it at this time. I

think the “Sends” the way that the FOCs have been received to date has not

presented problems.

I think it does with certain providers and I think it has more of an impact on

some of the wireless but I think this actually is adding a lot of extra work to actually

-- and not only is it adding work on the port ins but also on the port outs and just

getting a lot in some ways unnecessary emails. So Comcast would oppose this one.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Other discussion? Gary, how is this consistent with

the implementation plan?

MR. SACRA: Well, I believe this is not specifically in the implementation

plan. This discussion actually arose in the working group after the plan was

submitted. Overwhelming in the working group, this particular best practice was

endorsed.

The problem occurs, especially when we’re talking about a next day porting

interval, if providers are not aware that their FOC is available so that they can

schedule the next day port with their customer and they have to continually go back

up on the other provider’s website to search for the FOC.

And in some cases they have to search among perhaps thousands of other

firm order confirmations to find the one that pertains to their order, that the concern

expressed by the providers that endorsed this best practice was that actually it adds a

lot of work to their process because they have to continually go back and search.

There’s also the issue of jeopardy after the order has been confirmed. If the

39

provider goes up and retrieves their firm order confirmation up on the old provider’s

website, they have no reason to continually go back after that fact.

The old provider may place that port into jeopardy because they’ve run into a

problem. The new provider actually has no idea that the port is not going to occur

the next day because it has been placed into jeopardy and has scheduled with their

customer when in fact it may not happen at all or the customer could be taken out of

service because the old provider is not ready for the port.

Cindy is absolutely correct. Comcast did oppose this in the working group.

The vast majority of providers did endorse this however.

CHAIRMAN KANE: And this does have a direct consumer impact then?

MR. SACRA: Yes, it does.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Further discussion on this? Is there any other objection

in addition to what Comcast has raised? T-Mobile.

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller, T-Mobile. Yes, T-Mobile does support this. I

just wanted to point out that if there’s going to be instances where for some providers

we have to go in and look up, try to find our port request on a website, then that is a

manual intervention.

It really makes automation difficult and also probably will make it very

difficult to insure the one day porting interval so I think it makes the one day porting

interval achievement more difficult and the whole purpose is to make it easier for

consumers.

So to have us do something different makes it difficult. Again, it would be a

40

manual intervention. It would almost take it from a simple to a complex port

because it would be difficult to do the one day porting.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Yes.

MS. SHEEHAN: Cindy Sheehan. So just to add to that, I think we’re

saying that there is manual work on both sides.

I think there is manual work to send the e-mail which is now an added task,

and keeping in mind that not everyone is automated so each time you process, let’s

say you use a GUI, if it posts to the GUI and you can go and pull it up like we do

today you can find it.

Just like you send the LSR, you can go find your FOC and that is true with all

providers that we deal with. That’s how we get it. So now we’re going to add the

manual step, is going to be now also send an LSR so there is manual work that’s

being added.

MR. SACRA: That is not necessarily the case. It can be automated because I

know for a fact that’s happening within one company that I’m very familiar with.

MS. SHEEHAN: And I think that’s true for some providers. I’m just

saying it’s not true for all if you’re not automated.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Well, hearing just the one objection and keeping in

mind that these are best practices and they are voluntary I’ve determined that there is

consensus to endorse this best practice number 63.

And now best practice number 64, service providers planning to implement

changes to their local number portability interface systems give as much lead time as

41

possible suggesting 60 days notice to others in the industry about changes.

Any discussion on this recommendation as a best practice? Hearing none I

agree that there is consensus to endorse that. Thank you very much, Gary.

MR. SACRA: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: You had a couple more items here?

MR. SACRA: Yes, and I can go through these very quickly. The next item,

NANC 437, that’s the (unintelligible) NPAC proposal that Telcordia brought into the

LNPA working group for a technical and operational feasibility analysis.

The first phase of the analysis was going through the proposed requirements

changes that Telcordia brought in. We captured issues and questions on what’s a

called a parking lot matrix.

We made our first pass through those issues. Some of them have been

closed. Some of them are in a pending state waiting for documentation changes.

Others are open. We are now in the process of doing a deeper dive analysis on those

open items and we’re continuing to do that in the working group. Any questions

there?

Okay, the last item is the status of the 09-41 implementation plan. There

were two change orders, NPAC change orders, NANC 440 and 441. One adds a new

shorter set of timers for the next day porting, the other is an indicator to identify to

the Endpact which timer is set to use on a given port.

Those two change orders are under development. They’re progressing on

time. All expectations are they will be available in time for testing for

42

implementation on August 2nd of this year for the larger providers.

Just so everybody, the Council members understand, based on the November

2, 2009, submission of the working group implementation plan to the FCC, the

implementation dates of the working group, the working assumption is that it’s

August 2, 2010, for the larger providers and February 2, 2011, for the smaller

providers which would be those with fewer than 2 percent of the nation’s subscriber

lines.

So we believe those to be hard implementation dates.

And the last bullet as you can see is something that the working group

members asked me to bring to the Council, just a request if there’s any status that’s

available that could be shared with Paula and myself so we can share it with the

working group, on the status of the implementation plan that was forwarded to the

FCC, understand that there is an open question on the LSR data fields.

We understand that’s ongoing but in terms of the rest of the implementation

plan that was submitted, if there’s any status that we can take back and share we

certainly would be appreciative.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, that’s your request to FCC staff for any

implementation. As we said, we’re ready to put in the record the cycle for comments

and reply comments which is short and which we do appreciate the FCC moving on

that, giving obviously due process to those who wanted to appeal that, but knowing

the timeframe within which there needs to be if possible an FCC decision so that this

schedule does not get off.

43

We will submit that request to the Bureau at the FCC and ask that they keep

us between now and the next meeting up-to-date on any actions that are taken that

could continue to implement on time or that could cause a delay in the schedule.

MR. SACRA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you very much. Thank you for your work.

All right, let us now go back to agenda item number six which is the report of

the National Thousands-Block Pooling Administrator and this will be document

number six and will be the report from Amy Putnam. This was e-mailed out but we

do have hard copies.

REPORT OF THE NATIONAL THOUSANDS-BLOCK POOLING

ADMINISTRATOR (PA)

MS. PUTNAM: My apologies. As I walked in the room I heard Gary

Sacra preempt me and say that pooling was fine.

(LAUGHTER)

CHAIRMAN KANE: And your name for the record.

MS. PUTNAM: My name is Amy Putnam. I’m the Director of the

National Thousands-Block Pooling Administration and the report that we provided

today is a combination of the report that we would normally provide for a NANC

meeting and also behind that the 2009 highlights of pooling administration.

The initial report on page two shows the pooling activity summary data for

the months of February 2009 through January of 2010 broken out.

The second chart is the part three summary data for the 88,062 part threes,

44

and the third chart is the part three summary data sorted by type so we have the

number of block mods, block disconnects, the request to cancel block disconnects, et

cetera.

Page three, the middle chart shows the number of NXX codes opened and

actually shows that number of blocks assigned from those codes for LRNs for

dedicated customers and for pool replenishment.

Through January 2010, we were administering 14,586 rate area pools and we

had at the end of January 399 rate areas with less then a six month supply based on

forecasts.

The next chart shows the summary of rate file changes from February 2009 to

2010. These would be situations where the rate center goes from excluded to

optional perhaps at the request of the state.

There are situations where the state will ask us to change all of the rate

centers in the state from excluded to optional which states generally do to encourage

carriers to participate in pooling.

Obviously if they are optional they are still not obligated, or situations where

a second carrier comes into a rate center that would be mandatory but for the fact

that it has a single service provider in it and so it moves to mandatory and it changes

from M* to M.

The reclamation summary on page four shows not only the total number of

blocks with overdue part fours on the reclamation list each month but also a breakout

for each month of the number of new blocks that month with overdue part fours.

45

We provide this information to the NOWG monthly and it shows the number

of blocks that the states or the FCC have authorized us to reclaim from the list.

The chart on page five, and that long series of zeros shows that the pooling

administration system was available 100 percent of the time in 2009.

Page six, other pooling related activities. Page six shows our contract

reporting and the reports that are part of our CDRLS that are due monthly, quarterly,

semi-annually, and annually.

Additionally we held refresher training for service providers and for

regulators for PAS and the website during the timeframe that we’re covering here in

December and January.

I noticed the agenda specifically referred to the delegated authority petitions

and that is on page seven. There are four pending petitions for delegated authority

before the FCC, Indiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Alaska.

The Alaska petition was filed in October and was put out for comment in

December. Comments were due January 4th. The other petitions remain before the

FCC and have not yet been released for comment. The chart also shows the NPAs

that are covered by the petitions.

With respect to the Interim Routing Number Authority Administration, we

received 557 requests for ESQKs, approved 546 of them, received 11 requests for

registrations, approved six of them. We continue to participate in ESIF and the

ECDR, our subcommittee.

With respect to permanent pANI, we have not yet submitted the change

46

order. We are waiting for input from the FCC and to the extent that the INC changes

guidelines because of issues that are brought to INC, we continue to modify the

requirements to the system and the project plan.

Change orders, the FCC issued a contract modification, mod number nine on

January 4th, approving change orders nine and ten. All the change orders are listed

on the next page so there’s a little more detail.

Nine and ten were submitted last fall and we recently submitted change

orders 11, 12, 13, and 14. Those were all submitted in January. Twelve is actually a

no charge change order. It relates to modification of the trouble ticket reporting

language in the contract and was something that we worked through with the

NOWG.

Change order 11 was submitted and then withdrawn and then resubmitted at

the request of the NOWG. It all took place during January and all of the change

orders are posted on the website after FCC approval.

We continued with the very old overdue part four reconciliation process.

That is slowly coming to its logical end.

(LAUGHTER)

But it has cleaned up the reclamation list.

We continue to work on the one time NPAC scrub following the

implementation of change order number five. We’ve been working on this all

through the fall and winter.

We sent out the first set of emails in September, the second set of emails in

47

early October. We sent out a third set of emails actually in November relating only

to over contaminated blocks and as of February 3rd with respect to the over

contaminated blocks, we’ve cleaned and placed 404 of them back in the pool.

We’ve assigned 358 of them to a new block holder and we still have 598 that

need a new block holder and we are exploring options for what we can do about that.

We will be presenting the options to the FCC in the near future to resolve those

issues.

We sent out our performance survey in October and we have a little bit of

detail on page ten there about what happened. There were 160 surveys returned.

The overall average score for the 21 questions was a 4.6 out of a possible 5, which

was the same as last year. And we contacted all respondents who made suggestions

or comments.

And that brings us to the 2009 highlights and I don’t know where I stand with

respect to my time, Madam Chairman. Okay.

The highlights make exciting reading and you can do this anytime.

(LAUGHTER)

But I would draw your attention to page 15, the special projects. One of our

special projects was to look once again at service providers not participating in

mandatory pooling areas, the non-participating service provider report we call it

affectionately.

We have periodically submitted this report to the FCC in the past. It is not a

requirement of the contract although the initial reports were requested by the FCC in

48

response to state questions about it and so we have continued this process.

We did it a little bit differently this time and contacted providers to see if they

could give back blocks or codes that they appeared not to be using. We received

responses from 36 OCN, returning 19 codes and 653 Thousands-Blocks.

We still have other blocks that we are continuing to work as kind of back

burner project and working with the NANPA with respect to reclamation of blocks

that remain on the list but appear to not be connected to any viable going concern.

On April 6th we completed a major project transitioning over 14,000 old

pooling implementation meeting materials and minutes to a new format and location

on the website.

We received a lot of positive response from the people who do go and look at

those historic documents. We categorized them, renamed them, and reduced them to

approximately 1400 files. It was a lot of work but I think since it was well received

it was worth it.

And again as part of our special projects we did the very old overdue part

four reconciliation process and the NPAC scrub.

Are there questions?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Amy, I have one. You may not be able to answer it.

Going back to page seven and the delegated authority petitions from the states and I

had asked that this be on the agenda, as you noted there are four, and this is where

the states ask for a delegated authority to administer the Thousands-Block Number

Pooling.

49

The one from Indiana is almost two years old and has not yet been put out for

comment. The Mississippi one is a year and a half old, and Pennsylvania going on a

year old whereas Alaska, I don’t know what kind of influence they had, no, in fact

theirs went out in two months.

FEMALE SPEAKER:They’re very large.

CHAIRMAN KANE: They’re very large.

(LAUGHTER)

Do you have any information from the Bureau as to why these petitions have

not been put out for comment?

MS. PUTNAM: I do not have any information from the Bureau.

MS. JONES: Marilyn Jones from FCC. Madam Chair, I may have some

insight into that.

I think mostly it was just a procedural administration decision. The first three

petitions were filed during another administration and that administration didn’t

routinely put out petitions on public notice.

The new Alaska petition was filed during the current administration and that

administration does put PNs out for notice. So I think it was just a time around the

petitions when they were filed.

CHAIRMAN KANE: So will it be, do you know, the practice now of the new

administration which has been there almost a year now, to go back and put these old

ones out?

MS. JONES: I don’t think they’re going to go back and redo what the old

50

administration has done.

CHAIRMAN KANE: So how is the decision going to be made on these if

they’re not put out for comment?

MS. JONES: I think just based on what was submitted in the petitions, the

Bureau can probably resolve those based --

CHAIRMAN KANE: Without putting them out for comment?

MS. JONES: Yes, ma’am.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay. Well, I will follow-up on this to see if that’s

going to be the process, get a decision one way or the other, for these states that have

been waiting for a decision on their petition. Okay, thank you, Amy.

MS. PUTNAM: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: We also now have in here a report from NeuStar.

That’s just part of your report, this is the contract, this separate document?

MS. PUTNAM: I did not receive that nor did I send it.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, it’s got your name on it.

(LAUGHTER)

MS. PUTNAM: Excuse me, yes, I’m sorry. That was actually

submitted in -- well, it was submitted but it was sent to the NANC in error, you

know, that’s our monthly --

CHAIRMAN KANE: This is a January report.

MS. PUTNAM: Excuse me. That is the monthly report that we submit

to the NANC, that the NOWG requested that we submit. We submit that every

51

month and it’s not related to the NANC meeting.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Very good. This is the one that was sent out this

morning so these do not need to go into the record then. These are the monthly

reports. We have the December and the January reports. Okay, thank you very

much.

We’ve done number seven. Agenda item number eight, North American

Portability Management LLC report.

MS. EMMER:Rosemary Emmer, with Sprint Nextel. I just wanted to be

consistent. We had put the dates for the NAPM Ops review on our calendar so we

could join next week in Sterling.

And the Pooling Administrator Ops review is March 22nd and 23rd in

Concord, California so perhaps there are some folks that would like to attend here.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Very good. And maybe as a follow-up to this meeting

I’ll send out a notice to everybody on all those meetings and things that are coming

up for people to keep the calendar, who do want to join in. All right.

REPORT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN PORTABILITY MANAGEMENT

LLC (NAPM LLC)

MR. CLAY: Good morning, NANC. My name is Mel Clay. I’m Co-chair

of the North American Portability Management LLC. I’m from AT&T. The other

Co-chair is Tim Decker from Verizon.

52

The report that we have here is made to bring you up to date on

accomplishments and activities that have taken place at the NAPM LLC since the

last NANC meeting.

Item number one is new member recruitment. The new member recruitment

continues to a very high priority at the NAPM LLC and as of November 2009, Level

3 is now a member of the NAPM LLC and Greg Rogers is the primary

representative. And welcome Level 3.

Item number two, approval of SOW-76 which was a recommendation from

the LNPA Working Group to the NAPM and it was for change order 438. We

approved SOW-76 by the required super majority vote in November.

This amendment provides a change that enhanced the functionality of the

NPAC to provide the ability to separately identify two alternative SPID values that

are needed when the subtending service provider has a wholesale business

relationship with the network service provider and also when the subtending service

provider has a retail business relationship with the end user.

This allows the industry to determine the multi-layered business relationships

for subpoena directions and for other business activities.

Item number three, approval of SOW-77, also an LNPA Working Group

recommendation for change orders 416, 440, and 441. We approved this SOW in

November and the amendment enhances the NPAC to provide for needed

functionality to support the FCC order 09-41 for one day business porting.

53

Approval of SOW 78 which is a single port profile report, we approved this

SOW in January of this year. NeuStar will provide a report that identifies to users

the service providers that have implemented the medium timers necessary to

facilitate the one day porting interval.

The report will be available. It’s a daily report. It will be available July 1,

2010 through August 1, 2011. On your paper report you have there it states June 1st.

The activities that are necessary to create this report were more than

anticipated, so we were requested to extend that date until July 1st and it was

approved at our last meeting, which was last week, which came after we had already

submitted this report to the NANC.

And the last item, item five, is the future of NPAC subcommittee. At the last

meeting I reported that the NAPM LLC had formed a standing subcommittee in

March of 2009, that is charged with determining requirements for the NPAC

platform of the future and associated timeframes for developing an RFP. That

subcommittee is continuing to meet monthly and provides updates to the full

membership at our monthly meetings.

That’s all I have Chairman Kane, and I’m open for questions.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you very much and we will mark your report

document number eight. Are there questions on this report? Comments? Okay, I

accept your report. Thank you very much.

MR. CLAY: Okay.

54

TELCORDIA DISPUTE RESOLUTION TEAM: TELCORDIA APPEAL

CHAIRMAN KANE: Our next item is number nine, an update from the

Telcordia dispute resolution team on the Telcordia appeal. That resolution team with

the departure of the former Chairman of NANC consists of myself and Don Gray

from Alaska, excuse me Nebraska. I have Alaska in my mind since our last

discussion, sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

And to refresh everyone’s memory on this, in May of 2009 Telcordia did

exercise the opportunity under the NANC process to file a request that the NANC

resolve a dispute concerning the necessity of adding certain URI codes for the

completion of telephone calls and, specifically, regarding portions of change orders

429, 430, and 435 claiming that portions of those are procedurally defective in that

neither the NANC nor the Commission has determined that the specific information

that those change orders would require is necessary to route telephone calls to the

appropriate telecommunications carrier within the PTSN.

Separately Telcordia has asked the Wireline Competition Bureau to issue a

standstill order and has also filed on a number of other issues related to the same

subject matter with the FCC.

The former chairman did put together an ad hoc group consisting as I said

himself, Don Gray, and myself, then as a member of the NANC, to look at this and

55

to see if we could bring a recommendation to the NANC on first of all how to handle

the dispute and then to perhaps make a decision on it.

Where we are now and I apologize with the departure -- and so we did set up

a process this summer in which meetings were held with the interested parties and

briefs, documents were filed, and were put on to the NANC website.

Our original intention before the departure of the former chairman was to

have something for the fall meeting of the NANC. That slipped.

Don and I have been working on it, been reviewing the documents. We had

intended to have a written report to you for today but both with the storm, and I

unfortunately ended up in the hospital for about a week in early February. I’m okay

but let me warn you all about when they say are you allergic to a drug and you start

to have symptoms, pay attention because drug reactions can be very, very significant.

So we lost some time frankly in doing that.

Where we are now and I’m going to ask Don to say something too, I think we

really have narrowed it down to an issue of has the NANC made a determination that

the --

(Tape Interrupted When Changing Tapes)

(END OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE B)

* * * * *

(START OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE A)

CHAIRMAN KANE: -- To complete a telephone routing to the appropriate

carrier to complete a telephone call within the PTSN and the NANC has not yet

56

made that determination, then the NANC needs to under the rules make that

determination and that’s really the focus of the issue that is before us.

Our intention is to have something to you so that we can make that

determination at the May meeting.

Don, do you want to say anything else?

MR. GRAY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Don Gray, Nebraska Public

Service Commission staff.

I guess A, I wholeheartedly endorse what Commissioner Kane has said. Also

I would just like to let folks know that A, we’re going to get the report out, B, I think

you’re going to find that we’re going to make a suggestion that’s going to have some

follow-on activity to it.

My boss in the Nebraska Public Service Commission uses a phrase we can’t

be driving down the road looking out the rear window. We’ve got to be looking out

the front window.

Unfortunately sometimes when you have federal regulations that were written

13 years ago and the industry has had such a dynamic change, it’s hard to look out

the front window and follow the rules and the procedures that are in place.

So I think that’s going to be part of the recommendation that we’re going to

bring to you as where are we at, how do we move forward, and what should the

process be.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Questions? Rosemary.

MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel, I was wondering if you’re

57

planning on doing carrier interviews prior to releasing the paper because I know they

had talked about that, it’s been some time ago, but I’m just trying to think about

scheduling and preparing and letting people know that they could potentially be on

call.

CHAIRMAN KANE: I don’t know that we’ve made that decision. I think we

have had a lot of talks. As you see, the recommendation is that we’re going to get

into the issue of deciding whether or not these are necessary, obviously the views of

carriers are going to be very important because that’s not something that we can

determine on our own whether they’re necessary. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. If you

would come up and pick up the mic, John.

MALE SPEAKER: One observation. Thank you very much. We

appreciate all the work you’re doing and know that you had a lot of twists and turns

over the last year.

CHAIRMAN KANE: This is my Telcordia --

(LAUGHTER)

MALE SPEAKER: And regardless, the process is moving along so thank

you very much.

One observation, this is very much compliance of the narrow issue that you

highlighted, we would concur with that.

The second thing I would observe is that the process issues and the sort of

technical issue are to some degree severable, if the process wasn’t followed then

argue the change orders need to be rescinded just as a matter of rule if there is no

58

consensus on the technical issue. That’s one point I wanted to make. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Any questions? Very good. Number ten,

the Port of the Numbering Oversight Working Group. And we have a document

which is document number ten.

REPORT OF THE NUMBERING OVERSIGHT WORKING GROUP

(NOWG)

MS. MCNAMER: Hi, I’m Natalie McNamer with T-Mobile. I am one of

the Tri-Chairs for the Numbering Oversight Working Group along with Laura Dalton

from Verizon Communications and Karen Riepenkroger with Sprint Nextel.

You guys have our report and I’ll make it quick as I know we’re looking to

probably regaining some time.

On page three of the report we just wanted to let you all know that the

NANPA and PA 2009 performance evaluation surveys have been sent out.

The due date for service provider and regulator survey submittal was on

February 15th. Both the administrators had sent out two reminder notices for us and

those reminder notices did get us increased surveys.

At this time as of this morning, from the NANPA we have 26 regulator

surveys submitted and 18 service providers. For the Pooling Administrator we do

have more. We have 57 submitted by service providers and 32 submitted by the

regulators.

Even though the due date has passed, the NOWG will still accept surveys up

until the last second of us preparing the performance reports. If your company has

59

not submitted, please fill free to complete the report, best surveys and submit them to

Karen Riepenkroger of Sprint.

CHAIRMAN KANE: You can let me know which states you have not heard

from, and I can help you follow-up with them.

MS. MCNAMER: Great, I’ll get that for you tomorrow.

The next page of the report is the evaluation schedule and this is just the

abbreviated schedule that the surveys have been due next week, and the 23rd and

24th we’ll be meeting with NANPA at the Neustar facility in Sterling.

I have the conference bridge information or I can send it out if anybody

would like to join that or come in person. Then on March 22nd and 23rd we’ll be in

Concord, California for the PAs operations review. We will also have a conference

bridge if anybody is interested.

CHAIRMAN KANE: The report says that’s in Sterling. Is that --

MS. MCNAMER: Next week is in Sterling.

CHAIRMAN KANE: March 22nd, 23rd, PA operation, it’s in Concord,

California.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, correct that.

MS. MCNAMER: Oh, it’s on mine.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Well, maybe I have an earlier one. Mine says Sterling,

Virginia.

MS. MCNAMER: Oh, I’m sorry. And then in the beginning of May

we’re hoping to meet with the FCC, we’re still working on scheduling that, to review

60

the preliminary results for the NANPA and the PA. As soon as that’s complete we’ll

send the reports out for NANC review and then hopefully at the May NANC meeting

we will be requesting approval on the report.

Also as the PA has already reviewed, there have been four change orders

submitted recently by the Pooling Administrator. The NOWG reviews the change

orders. In all four them we have approved their recommended approval.

There was one that we did ask for a little bit of an augmentation for some

additional options for the service providers and the PA did work with us and went

back and modified their change order to allow some more wiggle room for who we

wanted to be contacted within their systems for the state reports.

So for reclamation of part four, overdue notices, they are going to have the

contact information but some service providers may want one person contacted for

the whole country if there’s an overdue and some want the actual people that order

them.

So the way we’ve asked them to modify it, it will do either way by service

provider preference on who we tell the states to contact so the states can do a one call

resolution and not contact three different people to get the right answer within a

company. So we thought that was great.

Page six just shows the NOWG participating companies, and the last page

shows our upcoming meetings that we have. The first two are tomorrow. We are

having a regular monthly standing agenda calls with both the NANPA and the PA.

We’re going to have it in one afternoon so we’ll be busy.

61

If there’s ever any questions, anyone can feel free to contact either myself, or

Karen Riepenkroger, or Laura Dalton. Are there any questions? Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: It was just on page seven where you had the March

22nd, 23rd meeting in Sterling. It was Concord on the other page. Thank you.

Are there any questions on this report? We accept your report. Thank you

very much for all your work.

Item number 11 is the ATIS, Industry Numbering Committee report to the

NANC. I’ll mark this as document number 11.

STATUS OF THE INDUSTRY NUMBERING COMMITTEE (INC)

ACTIVITIES

MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, Adam Newman with Telcordia

Technologies. I am the Chairman of the Industry Numbering Committee and Natalie

McNamer who you just heard from is the Vice Chair person of the Industry

Numbering Committee.

Actually we both were just reelected to new terms in our December meeting.

I was reelected to my second and likely final term and Natalie was elected to her first

full term. Congrats, Natalie. You could have just stayed up here, you know.

(LAUGHTER)

So the Industry Numbering Committee has held two face-to-face meetings

since our last NANC report. Our next INC meeting, the 111th meeting of INC is

April 20th to the 22nd. Details on where the meetings are can be found at the

website that’s contained in the report.

62

In addition, I did want to mention that INC has relatively recently revised its

practice with regard to conference bridges so INC now has at its face-to-face

meetings, conference bridges available to members and to any state regulatory

participants that would like to participate as guests.

For any new state regulatory members of the NANC I just want to let you

know that you can be provided with access to the secure portions of the Industry

Numbering Committee website. Your best bet is actually to contact the INC

administrator. I think the email is in here. If not feel free to see me on a break or

after the meeting and we can make sure you get that set up.

So I’m going to report on a few issues today, and then we’ll have summary

slides at the end of all the issues that we have either put in initial closure or final

closure since our last report to the North American Numbering Council.

The first issue I’m going to report on is INC issue 549. This is the COCAG

Part 1 analysis to determine if some fields could be made optional.

This relates actually to an order issue that the Industry Numbering Committee

had to remove the CLLI information from the Part 1 when that change order was

rejected by the FCC a number of years ago. This issue was brought in to determine

if we can make some of the fields optional.

With regard to 549 which is now in closure, as I said in lieu of removing the

information we looked to see if some of it could be made optional but a couple of

things happened in the interim.

A mass modification process to update the numbering administration system

63

of NANPA for Part 1 and the Pooling Administration system of the PA for Part 1

submitted via the PA towards NANPA occurred, and the available of those mass

modifications which can be used to change the CLLI on the part one made the need

for making the fields optional that’s compelling to the industry.

In addition, the INC members determined that due to the relative volume of

the Part 1 requests mods to the Part 1A overall volume, and the fact that the CLLI

would still be needed in at least some cases again we determined that a change to

make the data optional was now of limited value to the industry.

We did have some discussion and input with a number of state regulatory

representatives, a thank you in particular to Mr. Gray from the Nebraska staff and

Ms. Norcross from the Michigan staff.

We ended up agreeing that we would not make any changes to the Industry

Numbering Committee Part 1 form or the guidelines in this regard, and the CLLI and

the part one would stay as it is today since in particular we can now submit the mass

modifications via the PA through the NANPA.

Any questions on this issue? Okay.

Issue 669, the number resource utilization and forecast, NRUF service

provider name must match the service provider OCN name.

There have been in some instances as reported to us by NANPA where the

reporting carrier doesn’t populate the service provider name with the same name that

is associated with the service provider company code/OCN. This can cause some

confusion for analysis of the NRUF reports especially in cases where the companies

64

have gone through ownership or name changes.

As a result with this issue’s resolution, the INC has added clarifying language

that requires reporting carriers to populate the SP name field of the NRUF with the

exact name that corresponds to the service provider OCN as indicated in NECA

records and the lower routing guide.

Just as an FYI, the lower routing guide and the NECA company code

database are kept in sync with the process between Telcordia and NECA.

So any questions on that issue?

INC issue 604, code holder versus (unintelligible) assignee, this issue noted

that today many industry participants tended to use the terms code holder and

(unintelligible) assignee interchangeably when referencing the service provider that

was assigned the central office or NXX code, and the issue argued that and

determined that it was no longer necessary to maintain separate terms and

definitions.

When we first started writing guidelines for Thousands-Block Pooling, going

on ten, 11 years ago now, there were distinctions made between an NXX service

provider associated with an NXX before it went in the pooling and after it went in

pooling.

So originally we made distinctions between the terms code holder which was

prior to pooling and (unintelligible) assignee of an NXX which was post pooling.

Those distinctions have become essentially overcome over the last ten years

so INC agreed to modify the definition of code holder, combining the code holder

65

and (unintelligible) assignee terms because there were some differences into a single

definition that recognizes the responsibilities of an NXX assignee in both pooled and

non-pooled areas.

In addition, INC worked with other ATIS forums and other industry forums

to develop the revised definition recognizing that other forums did use the terms

code holder and/or (unintelligible) assignee as based on INC definitions in their own

documentation.

We have provided the actual definition in the report. I’m not going to read it

to you verbatim. It’s there and if there are any questions I’m delighted to answer

them.

We did edit the guidelines and documents as appropriate to accommodate the

change in terms. There may be still some changes to be made as issues continue to

come in on the guidelines where these terms are used because as both Natalie and

Amy reported, this issue is subject to a PA change order that is pending approval and

implementation.

Any questions with regard to 604?

INC issue 654, remove the requirement to list the tandem CLLI in the

remarks field. Previously when a service provider requested a pooled central office

code NXX assignment for LRN purposes because the service provider’s point of

interconnection subtended multiple tandems own by different SPs in a single LATA,

the service provider was required to document the situation by including the tandem

CLLIs for the two tandems on the pooling part 1A forms remarks field.

66

However the PA because there’s now a pass through of the Part 1 between

the PAS and NAS, now obtains the tandem (unintelligible) information from the

central office code part one form itself.

Therefore it’s no longer necessary for the service provider to write into the

remarks fields what that CLLI on the part 1 form is because the PA is getting the

information from the part one form directly submitted into its system. So the

guidelines were updated to remove the requirement, to write this into the remarks

field of the Part 1A.

We also note that this does not change the service provider requirements for a

Thousands-Block assignment or NXX assignment in these cases and they still need

to document the reason for the exemption on its Part 1A form.

So we’re not changing any of the requirements with regard to the exemption

for this NXX assignment for LRN purposes. It’s merely a documentation change

that they don’t have to include the CLLI in the remarks field because they’re now

getting the Part 1 as the pass through.

We’re really sort of being particular about this because there was a lot of

state interest in this exemption in the first place, and I’m trying to make sure that

everybody understands that we didn’t change the requirements or the exemption

itself. Any questions?

CHAIRMAN KANE: And let me remind the people who are on the phone, if

you have any questions please speak up. Okay, go ahead.

MR. NEWMAN: Issue 660, NPA assignment after regulatory approval.

67

This issue was brought in to update the guidelines to reflect NANPAs current

practices, what they actually do in this area so that it would be included in the

guidelines on a going forward basis.

So the current NANPA practice is to assign a new NPA within one week of

receipt of an approved relief plan from the appropriate regulator. In addition, if the

relief plan is approved but does not meet the criteria for assignment as set forth in the

guidelines, today NANPA suspends the assignment pending FCC direction.

This is what NANPA does, has been doing, and continues to do, and this

process itself wasn’t reflected in the guidelines so NANPA submitted an issue to the

INC to include these practices in the guidelines and a new section 5.7 was added to

the guidelines formalizing these practices that NANPA does today. So if there are

no questions.

The infamous issue 666, and we had fun with this one when it was submitted.

So the issue title is to review and edit Section 13 of the NPA relief guidelines to

reflect current customer education practices.

Section 13 of the guidelines addresses the mandatory dialing period

associated with new NPA implementation. This section had stated that advanced

notice of 30 days should be provided to affected parties in the case where the

mandatory dialing date is either advanced or delayed.

So if there’s a change to the mandatory date the guidelines had previously

said that advanced notice of 30 days was the guideline.

The suggestion in this issue was that 30 days may not be sufficient time for

68

service providers to retract and/or edit all customer education materials of this

mandatory dialing date that was upcoming.

So the revised Section 13 puts in text advising that mandatory dialing

changes should be avoided as much as possible to insure clear and concise

communications, to prevent unnecessary confusion, and to minimize rescheduling or

just additional changes to service provider networks in that area.

The revised text advises that if a change to the mandatory dialing date is

ordered the new mandatory dialing date shall be made known to all parties no later

than 90 days prior to the new date if the date is being advanced or delayed.

So essentially tripling the notice from 30 days to 90 days as being much more

customer and service provider friendly recognizing that these are guidelines that

service providers and the industry follow the orders right.

That was the last issue that we had written a slide on. The next slide is the

issues remaining in initial pending. Issues are put in initial pending after the industry

comes to a resolution on the issue and generally when further action usually in these

cases, regulatory action is required, and all of these involve change orders of one sort

or another.

Issue 534 has been in initial pending for a significant amount of time now.

That’s the development of the permanent pANI guidelines. For those of you who

have not been around the table previously, the NANC gave INC an action item to

develop permanent pANI administration guidelines.

INC did that work, closed on the guidelines, and then as Ms. Putnam, the

69

Pooling Administrator mentioned, there was then a need for the PA to submit a

change order. The PA is waiting for some clarification for that change order to be

submitted and approved.

When that happens we presume that we’ll understand when the

implementation of the permanent pANI administration will be in placed and this

issue will go from initial pending into final closure and the guidelines will be

published.

Issue 604 I already discussed and that is subject as Amy pointed out and

Natalie pointed out, to PA change order 13 which the NOWG Working Group has

suggested for approval and is pending FCC approval.

Issue 611 is the NANPA change order 18 which Mr. Manning reported on

and it’s pending approval and I did discuss this issue as well during my presentation.

Issue 632 as Amy reported was recently approved and we expect to go into

implementation and final closure shortly.

And Issue 656, as Amy and Natalie reported PA change order 14 where the

NOWG has recommended approval and is pending FCC action.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Excuse me, issue 534, the status of that, what is that

waiting on?

MR. NEWMAN: As Amy reported earlier Issue 534 is the permanent

pANI guidelines so it’s essentially waiting submission of a PA change order to the

FCC. Our understanding at INC is that that change order is pending the FCCs

clarification of several questions that the PA asked the FCC for clarification on so

70

that it could submit said change order.

CHAIRMAN KANE: So it’s before the FCC.

MR. NEWMAN: Those questions are before the FCC is INCs

understanding of the matter.

Slide 10, are the issues that are in initial closure. I think those go to final

closure this Friday. And slides 11 and 12 are the issues that INC has placed in final

closure since our report in October to the NANC.

As usual if there are any questions on any of these issues please feel free to

contact myself or Natalie, and we’ll be glad to provide information on them.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Are there any questions on this report?

You’ve got all your relevant web pages and meetings, very good. Thank you.

All right. This is our final issue number 12, the Future of Numbering

Working Group and this will be document number 12.

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF NUMBERING WORKING GROUP (FoN

WG)

MR. GRAY: Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the NANC

on behalf of the other Co-Chairs, Jim Castagna, Adam Newman, and myself I will

try to make this brief. I would like to point out that I made the same offer to Adam

that he made to Ms. McNamer to just stay up here but got the same answer he got.

(LAUGHTER)

On page three, the summary of activity since the last report, we have been

meeting telephonically approximately once a month and we continue to review and

71

work a significant number of contributions on our issue five which is a commons

versus marketplace model for toll free numbers.

This has probably gone on longer then we had originally anticipated, not

because of people not wanting to participate but because of the amount of

information that we’ve been gleaning.

I think the members on the working group probably didn’t know much about

toll free numbers and a lot of the nuances that are behind them when we started.

We certainly have gotten an education and I think we have decided that it’s

important we produce a body of work that moves that education out into the NANC

so that when the issues get brought before you, you have understanding as we do

now of the broader picture there.

So that’s one of the reasons it has taken awhile but we’re moving towards

that and hope to produce a final document for your review prior to the next NANC.

We’ve also been reviewing other issues that are coming before our group and

the active issues are on slide four, and the status is indicated there and the next steps

that we’re going to move, so I won’t go into detail on that.

Other then to say on slide six are three important points that we’ve realized as

we’ve been going along that the network and the numbering system are so dynamic

right now and there are so many things going on that I’m afraid we’re going to have

a real garden of things to choose from as to what to talk about next, where you draw

the line between the public, which telephone network, which numbering has been so

closely tied, and the IP types of network as they come into existence, and how do we

72

merge those together and what impediments might we see because of existing rules

and regulations.

Recommendations that we may want to bring forward to NANC to pass on

the FCC as to how do we smooth the road as we go forward, especially the mobile

nomadic society demands and changes that we’re seeing.

And I guess I’m well aware of that. Coming from Nebraska you would think

big large state, only a few big metropolitan areas, so cell phone coverage is

somewhat limited in some areas yet to the credit of the wireless providers in the last

few years they’ve really improved that and last year in Nebraska 60 percent of our

numbers are wireless, hello. You know, that was surprise as that one came up there

so there’s a lot of changes occurring in the networks and what’s going on.

The last slide is our meeting dates, March 4th, 12:00 to 2:00 p.m. Eastern

time, and then April 1st and May 6th, slight change there, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

And if anyone has any questions you can contact any of the three Co-Chairs and let

us know what your needs are we’ll certainly be glad to address those.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you, Don. Could you just expand a little bit on

your active issue number four, geographic issues impacting numbering policy

decisions? I see that was accepted as an issue in June of ‘07 and the steps are

“pending contribution”. Could you amplify a little bit on that.

MR. GRAY: Well, one of the things that a toll free number environment

does provide for you is the ability for someone to call a toll free number and based

upon the time of day, the day of the week, and the region that they’re placing that

73

call from have the call redirected to multiple in-numbers depending upon the holder

of that toll free number.

And what impact does that have overall on numbering resources and also

how can we leverage that into the rest of the PSTN I think is the area that we wanted

to work on. David, you might have something you want to amplify or add to that.

MR. GREENHAUS: David Greenhaus, Response Information Services.

One of the issues was the ability to route toll free calls according to the geographic

origination of the call and historically that has been something that can be done fairly

easily because telephone numbers could be identified from the geography of where

they originated.

With the IP network and particularly cell phone calls, looking at the area

code and exchange it no longer tells you where the call is from so that is the issue

that we’ve been talking about.

CHAIRMAN KANE: So this goes beyond 800 numbers to the whole issue of

for example, on cell phone area codes, they have no relationship to where the person

is anymore.

MR. NEWMAN: Adam Newman, I’m also one of the Future Numbering

Co-Chairs. So this issue was actually also one of our -- when FON was created we

had a list of sort of seminal issues that we were directed to work on and the breaking

down of geography as it relates to telephone numbers were one of those issues.

In addition we had another separate issue submitted which was the use of

NANP numbers outside of the area for which they were originally assigned.

74

That issue was submitted by a former NANC member of the OUR of Jamaica

and the FON decided to include that study within the overall geographic study that’s

in FTN #4 as opposed to a separate study since it was an indirect relation to the

geographic area and I just didn’t want us -- because I think that may be actually on

the next slide under not accepted where we included in FTN #4. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: So when it says pending contributions, you’re looking

for people to get involved in working with you on these issues.

MR. GRAY: Always, always. And I appreciate Adam adding that

amplification. Jamaica had that issue. There is a state that I’ve been in discussion

with that has a similar issue, that a carrier has requested numbers and the adjacent

state and their certificate is in the other state and so how are they going to make that

work.

So we’re seeing that blur of geographic boundaries continuing to expand all

the time obviously in wireless, most obviously in IP at this time but other areas too

so a lot of challenges for us.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Yes, I think it’s a very interesting area for all of us. I’d

encouraged people to get involved in it.

I got a call the other day from my nephew who is in Rome, who lives in

Rhode Island. He has a Rhode Island 401 cell phone number. It was a 202 number

he was calling me on. He said it was like a local call from Rome that he was calling

me so there you go. It’s a national issue also. Everybody wanted a 202 Washington

D.C. area code.

75

Thank you very much, Don.

That concludes the formal reports from all our committees and I want to

thank again all of the working groups, the committees, the groups, ad hoc groups,

and formal groups that you all participate in.

This is a totally voluntary council, and I appreciate all the work that

everybody puts into all of these efforts. And also I think it really helps our meetings

run when people do that work at the committee level, at the working group level, and

we can bring things here with very good reports.

Summary of action items, as I see the action items coming, just to summarize

what we’ve done today, we accepted the reports from all the working groups, we

endorsed the best practices as recommended.

And I will be following up with inquiry with the Bureau at the FCC about

how they are going to handle those three pending requests from the three states for

delegated pooling authority.

Do we have any public comments from anyone in the public who has not had

an opportunity to say anything, who wants to bring anything else up? Anybody on

the phone who wants to bring anything up, comments, et cetera? Any other business.

No other business.

Just to remind you our next meeting is Thursday, May 20th here at 9:30 a.m.

The two meetings after that are on Thursday, September 16th and Thursday,

December 16th.

There being no further business, I will move to adjourn. Thank you very

76

much.

(END OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE A)

* * * * *

CERTIFICATE OF AGENCY

I, Carol J. Schwartz, President of Carol J. Thomas Stenotype Reporting

Services, Inc., do hereby certify we were authorized to transcribe the submitted

cassette tapes, and that thereafter these proceedings were transcribed under our

supervision, and I further certify that the forgoing transcription contains a full, true

and correct transcription of the cassettes furnished, to the best of our ability.

_____________________________

CAROL J. SCHWARTZ

PRESIDENT

ON THIS DATE OF:

_____________________________

77