NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG)

NANC Report

Numbering Oversight Working Group(NOWG)

October 10, 2007

Co-Chairs:

Paula Hustead, Windstream

Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile USA

Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel

10/10/2007 NOWG NANC Report 2

Contents

• Summary - PA 2006 Performance Report and Survey Results • Summary - NANPA 2006 Performance Report and Survey

Results

• Attachments - Tracking Documents - NANPA 2006 Preliminary Performance Evaluation Report- PA 2006 Preliminary Performance Evaluation Report

• 2007 Survey Drafts • NANPA Change Orders• NOWG Co-Chair Position• Meeting Schedule


Summary 2006 PA Survey Respondents

The number of respondents to the 2006 PA Survey was down slightly from 2005 for the industry and there was a very small decrease in responses from regulators. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:

PA Annual Performance Review Volume of Responses 2006

32

71 68

55

1925 26 23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2003 2004 2005 2006

Industry

Regulators


Summary 2006 PA Performance Report

The PA’s annual performance assessment is based upon:– 2006 Performance Feedback Survey

– Written comments and reports

– Annual Operational Review

– NOWG observations and interactions with the PA



The PA’s rating for the 2006 performance year was determined by the NOWG to be More than Met.

This rating is defined below:

MORE THAN MET

Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s) Provided more than what was required to be

successful. Performance was more than competent and reliable. Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded

requirements and expectations.



Survey ResultsPooling Administrator (Section A)

• There were seven (7) questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings that were weighted in the Met and More than Met ranges. There were 87 cumulative responses rating PA’s performance as Exceeded, 115 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 143 cumulative responses as Met.

Implementation Management (Section B)

• There were five (5) questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings that were weighted in the Met and Exceeded ranges. There were 25 cumulative responses rating PA’s performance as Exceeded, 11 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 65 cumulative responses as Met.



Survey Results Pooling Administration System (PAS) (Section C) • There were five (5) questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings that

were weighted in the Met and More than Met ranges. There were 70 cumulative responses rating PA’s performance as Exceeded, 95 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 135 cumulative responses as Met.

Miscellaneous Pooling Administration (PA) functions (Section D)

• There were nine (9) questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings that were weighted in the Met and More than Met ranges. There were 129 cumulative responses rating PA’s performance as Exceeded, 204 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 235 cumulative responses as Met.



Survey ResultsOverall Assessment of Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section E)

• There was one (1) question in this section to which respondents provided ratings that were weighted in the Met and More than Met ranges. There were 18 responses rating PA’s performance as Exceeded, 30 responses as More than Met, and 23 cumulative responses as Met.



Following is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey respondents.

• Significant praise for PA staff was a consistent theme throughout the survey:- Provides exceptional help and support- Very responsive, knowledgeable, and professional - Staff is doing and excellent job – a pleasure to work with

.


Summary – NOWG Observations2006 PA Performance Report

• The 2006 survey results revealed a high level of client satisfaction that commenters attributed to the PA's professionalism, customer service/focus and expertise exhibited by the PA personnel throughout 2006.

• Delegated authority for supplemental pooling has been sought by various state commissions and granted by the FCC. The PA has demonstrated that they can handle the increase of service providers that are now participating in pooling.

.


Summary - Suggestions2006 PA Performance Report

The NOWG recommends that the following improvements beconsidered:

• Proactively manage rate center inventories to ensure resources are available when needed

• Continue to explore ideas and processes for keeping pools replenished

• Continue customer focus • Pass Through Capability from PAS to NAS • Process improvement suggestions provided by service

providers and/or regulators in the survey comments


Summary 2006 NANPA Survey Respondents

The number of respondents to the 2006 NANPA Survey was down significantly from 2005 for the industry and there was no increase in responses from regulators. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the NOWG performance survey:

NANPA Annual Performance Review Volume of Responses 2006

5068

26

140150

69

4736

1517 14 1626 30

22 20 21 21

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Industry

Regulators


Summary 2006 NANPA Performance Report

The NANPA’s annual performance assessment is based upon:– 2006 Performance Feedback Survey

– Written comments and reports

– Annual Operational Review

– NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA



NANPA’s rating for the 2006 performance year was determined by the NOWG to be Exceeded. This rating is defined below:

Exceeded

Exceeded performance requirement(s) Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded

expectations. Performance was well above requirements. Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and

expectations.



Survey ResultsCO (NXX) Administration (Section A)

There were 6 questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings that were weighted in the More than Met and Exceeded ranges. There were 39 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance as Exceeded, 41 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 34 cumulative responses as Met.

NPA Relief Planning (Section B)

There were 7 questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings that were weighted in the More than Met and Exceeded ranges. There were 41 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance in this section as Exceeded, 44 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 32 cumulative responses as Met.

Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) (Section C)

There were 6 questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings that were weighted in the More than Met and Exceeded ranges. There were 59 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance in this section as Exceeded, 35 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 30 cumulative responses as Met.



Survey ResultsOther NANP Resources (Section D)

There were 8 questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings that were weighted in the Met range. There were 2 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance in this section as Exceeded, 2 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 10 cumulative responses as Met.

NANP Administration System (NAS) (Section E)

There were 8 questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 50 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance in this section as Exceeded, 43 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 65 cumulative responses as Met.

Miscellaneous NANPA Functions (Section F)

There were 6 questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings that were weighted in the More than Met and Exceeded ranges There were 58 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance in this section as Exceeded, 69 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 51 cumulative responses as Met.



Survey ResultsOverall Assessment of the NANPA (Section G)

There was 1 question in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 12 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance in this section as Exceeded, 15 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 7 cumulative responses as Met.



The following is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey respondents.

• Significant praise for NANPA staff was a consistent theme throughout the survey:

– Helpful, cooperative, and supportive

– Professional, prompt, and courteous

– Responsive, knowledgeable, and demonstrates expertise

– Willing to go the extra mile to provide excellent customer service

• The only consistent comments for improvements pertained to the NANPA website navigation.

The written comments submitted as part of the survey did not reveal any consistent theme or concern about NANPA's performance


Summary - NOWG Observations 2006 NANPA Performance Report

High level of satisfaction revealed: • NANPA focuses on Customer Satisfaction• Significant praise for NANPA staff was a consistent theme throughout the

survey results• Cooperation with the NANC, NOWG, the FCC and State Regulators has

been exceptional• Displayed leadership, initiative, outstanding professionalism and expertise

• Proactively introduced new INC issues and contributions.

.


Summary - NOWG Observations 2006 NANPA Performance Report

• The NANPA seamlessly addressed the code administration personnel changes necessitated by the departure of two of its three administrators and their work product remained at its high level of performance.

• The NANPA effectively managed all aspects in NPA relief activity in 2006, providing excellent service above and beyond performance requirements.

• Throughout 2006, the NANPA personnel continued to consistently exhibit their professionalism and expertise while performing NANPA duties.


Summary - Suggestions2006 NANPA Performance Report

The NOWG recommends that the following suggestions be implemented for continued improvement :

• Pass Through Capability from NAS to PAS

• Continue efforts to improve website search engine

• Enhancement to the NAS NRUF Missing Utilization Report search capabilities


NOWG Time Estimate

To complete the various NANPA and PA 2006 performance report activities, the NOWG collectively and individually spent approximately 400 hours. These activities included operational reviews with the NANPA and PA, review and aggregation of the survey data, preparation of the performance report and review of the performance report with the FCC, NANPA and PA.


2007 NANPA and PA Surveys

• The NOWG is working on revising the surveys.

• Drafts have been forwarded to the vendors and the FCC for input.

• The NOWG will be convening additional meetings to discuss.


NANPA Change Order #11 Recommendation

• Change Order #11 proposed to eliminate the use of the external server and associated software that currently generates the Part 1/Part 3 reports for authorized state regulators and incorporate this functionality into NAS.

• NOWG reviewed and recommended that this change order be approved.

• Recommendation was provided to the FCC on May 25, 2007.



• Change Order #12 proposed to replace all four (4) of the servers currently in use for the NANP Administration System (NAS). Two (2) of the servers are located in Sterling VA and the other two (2) are located in Charlotte NC and act as back-up to the entire system.


• Recommendation was provided to the FCC on July 20, 2007.



• Change Order #13 proposed to remove from the public NANPA website the Switch ID field from the Central Office Code Utilized Report and the Central Office Code Assignment Records. NANPA proposes to make these reports – complete with the Switch ID field – available via the password-protected NANP Administration System (NAS) to those (both service providers and state regulators) who have access to NAS. If a regulatory body does not have access to NAS, then the reports would be available upon request.


• Recommendation was provided to the FCC on July 20, 2007.



• Change Order #14 proposes that NANPA personnel enter a disconnect date of a central office code to the ACD screen in Telcordia’s BIRRDS database prior to the SP (or their agent/AOCN) entering the disconnect date on the NXD screen. This will ensure that an NXX with ported TNs is not disconnected without a thorough investigation and attempt to find a new LERG Assignee.


• Recommendation was provided to the FCC on September 20, 2007.


2008 NOWG Co-Chair Position

• The two year term co-chair position currently held by Natalie McNamer was up for re-election.

• Nominations were accepted. Natalie McNamer (T-Mobile) was nominated to continue her current role for 2008 and 2009.

• No other nominations were presented, Natalie was named to her role by acclamation on October 1, 2007.


NOWG Meeting Schedule

Contact any of the Co-Chairs for complete meeting or conference call details [email protected] or [email protected] or

[email protected] (Other meetings for the NOWG may be scheduled as needed beyond what has been identified in this list)

NOWG meeting notes and documents are posted at nanc-chair.org

Month Activity

October 23 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2pm Eastern, 2 hrs

October 25 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1pm Eastern, 2 hrs

November 13 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2pm Eastern, 2 hrs

November 15 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1pm Eastern, 2 hr

December 13 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1pm Eastern, 2 hr

December 18 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2pm Eastern, 2 hrs