NANC Report

Numbering Oversight Working Group(NOWG)

May 17, 2011

Tri-Chairs:Laura Dalton, Verizon CommunicationsNatalie McNamer, T-Mobile USAGwen Zahn, Verizon Wireless

Contents• 2010 PA Performance Report• 2010 NANPA Performance Report• Outstanding PA Change Orders• NOWG Participating Companies• Meeting Schedule

2

Summary 2010 PA Survey Respondents

05/10/2011 3

The number of respondents to the 2010 PA Survey was slightly down for both service providers and state regulators. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:

05/10/2011 4

Summary 2010 PA Performance Report

The PA’s annual performance assessment is based upon:– 2010 Performance Feedback Survey – Written comments and reports – Annual Operational Review – NOWG observations and interactions with the PA

05/10/2011 5

Summary 2010 PA Performance Report

The PA’s rating for the 2010 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be More than Met. This rating is defined below:

Satisfaction Rating Used when the NANPA...

MORE THANMET

Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s)Provided more than what was required to be successfulPerformance was more than competent and reliable Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded requirements and expectations

05/10/2011 6

Summary 2010 PA Performance Report

Pooling Administrator (Section A)There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:– 110 as Exceeded– 71 as More than Met– 37 as Met – 1 as Sometimes Met

 Implementation Management (Section B) 

There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:

– 27 as Exceeded– 26 as More than Met– 14 as Met

05/10/2011 7

Summary 2010 PA Performance Report

Pooling Administration System (PAS) (Section C)• There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following

aggregated response ratings: – 87 as Exceeded– 89 as More than Met– 56 as Met– 2 as Sometimes Met

 PA Website (Section D) • There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following

aggregated response ratings: – 28 as Exceeded– 39 as More than Met– 18 as Met – 1 as Sometimes Met

05/10/2011 8

Summary 2010 PA Performance Report

Miscellaneous Pooling Administration (PA) Functions (Section E)• There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following

aggregated response ratings: – 99 as Exceeded– 100 as More than Met– 48 as Met – 3 as Sometimes Met

 Overall Assessment of Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section F) • There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following

aggregated response ratings: – 33 as Exceeded– 44 as More than Met– 9 as Met

05/10/2011 9

Summary 2010 PA Performance Report

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

Outstanding praise for the PA staff was a consistent theme throughout the survey:

• Responds to questions quickly and courteously.• Always very pleasant to work with and extremely

helpful.• Provides a high level of expertise and professionalism.• Informative and eager to assist.

.

05/10/2011 10

Summary 2010 PA Performance Report

Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated. Notable comments pertained to:

• PA Help Desk backup support • Training of the PAs to improve the accuracy of

responses and to increase their understanding of the pooling administration process

05/10/2011 11

Summary – NOWG Observations2010 PA Performance Report

The NOWG concluded that the written comments were not indicative of any consistent performance issues, and in many cases provided significant praise for individual PA staffers.

05/10/2011 12

Summary - Suggestions2010 PA Performance Report

The NOWG recommends that the PA focus on the following improvements:

• Review internal training processes to ensure that consistency in understanding the processes and responding to service providers is communicated to the PA personnel.

• Continue the proactive NPAC Scrub project to clean-up the over contaminated blocks in the PA inventory.

• Ongoing review of the website to ensure accuracy and timeliness of data.• Work with the NOWG on review and evaluation of current reports submitted

to the NOWG for monthly standing agenda calls.

The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.

Summary 2010 NANPA Survey Respondents

05/10/2011 13

The number of respondents to the 2010 NANPA Survey was up for both service providers and state regulators. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the NOWG performance survey:

05/10/2011 14

Summary 2010 NANPA Performance Report

The NANPA’s annual performance assessment is based upon:

• 2010 Performance Feedback Survey • Written comments and reports • Annual Operational Review • NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA

05/10/2011 15

Summary 2010 NANPA Performance Report

NANPA’s rating for the 2010 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be More than Met. This rating is defined below:

Satisfaction Rating Used when the NANPA...

MORE THANMET

Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s)Provided more than what was required to be successfulPerformance was more than competent and reliable Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded requirements and expectations

05/10/2011 16

Summary 2010 NANPA Performance Report

• CO (NXX) Administration (Section A)– There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the

following aggregated response ratings: • 74 as Exceeded• 57 as More than Met• 15 as Met• 2 as Sometimes Met

 • NPA Relief Planning (Section B) 

– There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:

• 64 as Exceeded• 60 as More than Met • 29 as Met

 

05/10/2011 17

Summary 2010 NANPA Performance Report

• NRUF (Section C) – There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided

the following aggregated response ratings: • 71 as Exceeded • 49 as More than Met• 38 as Met

 • Other NANP Resources (Section D) 

– There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:

• 15 as Exceeded• 4 as More than Met• 4 as Met• 1 as Sometimes Met

05/10/2011 18

Summary 2010 NANPA Performance Report

• NANP Administration System (NAS) (Section E) – There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following

aggregated response ratings: • 44 as Exceeded• 39 as More than Met • 27 as Met

• NANPA Website (Section F) – There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following

aggregated response ratings: • 48 as Exceeded • 40 as More than Met • 25 as Met• 3 as Sometimes Met• 2 as Not Met

05/10/2011 19

Summary 2010 NANPA Performance Report

• Overall Assessment of the NANPA (Section G) – There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the

following aggregated response ratings: • 32 as Exceeded • 26 as More than Met • 12 as Met

05/10/2011 20

Summary 2010 NANPA Performance Report

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. In many cases, the comments provided praise for individual staff members. The following recurring adjectives were used by multiple respondents to describe their experiences in working with the NANPA staff:

•  Competent, courteous, and customer-focused• Accurate, efficient, and helpful• Personable, professional, and conscientious

05/10/2011 21

Summary - NOWG Observations 2010 NANPA Performance Report

Due to the vast majority of positive comments received, the NOWG concluded that the written comments indicated a high level of satisfaction experienced by those who interacted with the NANPA.

05/10/2011 22

Summary - NOWG Observations 2010 NANPA Performance Report

As in previous years, the 2010 survey results revealed a high level of client satisfaction with the continued perseverance, professionalism, and expertise exhibited by NANPA personnel when performing their NANPA duties. The NANPA continued to consistently and effectively demonstrate their expertise as the custodian of numbering resources in all areas in which they were involved.

05/10/2011 23

Summary - Suggestions2010 NANPA Performance Report

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

• Continue monitoring Change Order 18 issues relating to DDR and UMR.• Continue review of the NANPA website for improvements.• Consider implementing training videos, posted to the NANPA website,

for NRUF, NAS, website and other training in lieu of live training.• Consider using live meeting for area code relief planning meetings.

The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.

Outstanding PA Change Orders

Change Order Number

Date Filed Summary NOWG Status FCC Action Scheduled Implementation

Date20 2/18/2011 Proposed

Enhancements to PAS

NOWG recommendation to APPROVE to FCC on 03/04/11

19 1/27/2011 Permanent Routing Number

Administrator(p-ANI)

NOWG recommendation to APPROVE to FCC on 02/25/11

24

NOWG Participating Companies

• AT&T• CenturyLink• Cox

Communications• EarthLink Business• Sprint Nextel

• T-Mobile USA• Verizon

Communications / Verizon Wireless

• Windstream Communications

• XO Communications

25

NOWG Upcoming Meeting Schedule - 2011

Month Activity

May 19 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 12 pm Eastern, 1 hr

May 19 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hr *

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

June 13 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr *

July 14 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hr

July 14 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr *

* NOWG-Only Monthly Call following Calls with the Administrators

26