NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) June 20, 2013 Co-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel

NANC Report

Numbering Oversight Working Group(NOWG)

June 20, 2013

Co-Chairs:

Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications

Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel

Contents

• 2012 NANPA Performance Report• 2012 PA Performance Report• NOWG Leadership• Outstanding PA Change Orders• Outstanding NANPA Change Orders• NOWG Participating Companies• Meeting Schedule

06/20/2013 2

06/20/2013 3

Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report

The NANPA’s annual performance assessment is based upon:

• 2012 Performance Feedback Survey

• Written comments and reports

• Annual Operational Review

• NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA

06/20/2013 4


NANPA’s rating for the 2012 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be Exceeded. This rating is defined below:

Satisfaction Rating Used when the NANPA...

EXCEEDEDExceeded performance requirement(s) Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectations Performance was well above requirements Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations

Summary 2012 NANPA Survey Respondents

5068

26

140150

69

4736

1534

26 19

4537 38

17 14 1626 30

22 20 21 21 20 27 27 29 2517

0

50

100

150

200

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

IndustryRegulators

06/20/2013 5

The total number of respondents to the 2012 NANPA Survey was down from 2011. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the NOWG performance survey:

06/20/2013 6


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

provided the following aggregated response ratings:• 65 as Exceeded• 53 as More than Met• 14 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:

• 57 as Exceeded• 39 as More than Met • 21 as Met

06/20/2013 7


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

provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 62 as Exceeded • 57 as More than Met• 22 as Met• 1 as Not Met

• Other NANP Resources (Section D)

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

• 13 as Exceeded• 9 as More than Met• 8 as Met

06/20/2013 8


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

the following aggregated response ratings: • 45 as Exceeded• 34 as More than Met • 19 as Met

• NANPA Website, Reports, and Industry Activities (Section F) – There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided

the following aggregated response ratings: • 61 as Exceeded • 53 as More than Met • 31 as Met• 1 as Sometimes Met• 2 as Not Met

06/20/2013 9


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

following aggregated response ratings: • 28 as Exceeded • 18 as More than Met • 8 as Met• 1 as Sometimes Met

06/20/2013 10


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:

– Timely, responsive, and professional

– Courteous, helpful, and knowledgeable

– Excellent, accurate, and dedicated

06/20/2013 11

Summary2012 NANPA Performance Report

NOWG Observations

All comments received from the annual survey were positive, and none suggested any areas needing improvement.

After thoroughly reviewing the comments received, the NOWG concluded that the written comments indicated a very high level of satisfaction experienced by those who interacted with the NANPA.

06/20/2013 12

Summary2012 NANPA Performance Report

NOWG Observations

As in previous years, the 2012 survey results continued to reveal 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.

06/20/2013 13


Suggestions

The NOWG makes the following recommendations for NANPA’s consideration:

• Continue to proactively search for ways to improve processes, educate customers, and enhance system functionality.

• Continue to develop and produce instructional and training videos, such as “How to Request a Growth Code” on the NANPA website.

• On semi-annual CIC report filing, send out a reminder notice similar to the NRUF reminder notice.

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

06/20/2013 14

Summary 2012 PA Performance Report

The PA’s annual performance assessment is based upon:– 2012 Performance Feedback Surveys for the PA and

RNA

– Written comments and reports

– Annual Operational Review

– NOWG observations and interactions with the PA

06/20/2013 15


The PA’s rating for the 2012 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be Exceeded. This rating is defined below:

Satisfaction Rating Used when the PA...

EXCEEDEDExceeded performance requirement(s) Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectations Performance was well above requirements Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations

Summary2012 PA Survey Respondents

32

71 68

55 53 50

65

56

40

68

1925 26 23

1725

32 31 30 30

0

20

40

60

80

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Industry & Other

Regulators

06/20/2013 16

The number of respondents to the 2012 PA Survey was up from 2011 with an increase in industry & other and the regulator respondents remained the same as in 2011. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:

06/20/2013 17


PA Survey

Pooling Administrator (Section A)• There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the

following aggregated response ratings: – 103 as Exceeded– 108 as More than Met– 35 as Met– 2 as Sometimes Met

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

following aggregated response ratings: – 103 as Exceeded– 88 as More than Met– 63 as Met – 1 as Sometimes Met

06/20/2013 18


PA Survey

PA Website (Section C)• There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the

following aggregated response ratings: – 60 as Exceeded– 76 as More than Met– 50 as Met– 4 as Sometimes Met

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

following aggregated response ratings: – 87 as Exceeded– 107 as More than Met– 90 as Met – 4 as Sometimes Met

06/20/2013 19


PA Survey

Overall Assessment of Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section E)

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

– 37 as Exceeded

– 43 as More than Met

– 16 as Met

06/20/2013 20


PA Survey

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:

– Provides excellent support, assistance, and technical expertise

– Always prompt, helpful, and courteous– Professional, friendly, and responsive– Willing to go the extra mile to provide top notch service to

their customers .

06/20/2013 21


PA Survey

Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated.

Comments pertained to:

•Process clarification questions

•Suggestions for PAS and website enhancements

Summary 2012 RNA Survey Respondents

8

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

2012

Industry & Other

Regulators

06/20/2013 22

2012 is the first year for the RNA Survey and the following chart represents the number of Industry & Other and Regulators that participated in this year’s survey. In subsequent years, the chart will reflect the trend of respondents with previous years.

06/20/2013 23


RNA Survey

Routing Number Administrator (Section A)•There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:

– 18 as Exceeded– 1 as More than Met– 2 as Met – 2 as Not Met

Routing Number Administration System (RNAS) (Section B) •There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:

– 17 as Exceeded– 3 as More than Met– 6 as Met – 3 as Not Met

06/20/2013 24


RNA Survey

RNA Website (Section C)• There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the

following aggregated response ratings: – 8 as Exceeded– 7 as More than Met– 4 as Met– 1 as Not Met

Miscellaneous RNA Functions (Section D) • There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the

following aggregated response ratings: – 14 as Exceeded– 2 as More than Met– 3 as Met – 3 as Not Met

06/20/2013 25


RNA Survey

Overall Assessment of the RNA (Section E)

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

– 7 as Exceeded

– 2 as Met

– 1 as Not Met

06/20/2013 26


RNA Survey

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

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

– Efficient, organized, and helpful

– Polite and responsive

.

06/20/2013 27


RNA Survey

Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated.

Comments pertained to:

•Suggestions for RNAS and website enhancements

•Ability to upload or attach documents rather than sending an email.

06/20/2013 28


NOWG Observations

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

06/20/2013 29


NOWG SuggestionsThe NOWG makes the following recommendations for the PA’s consideration:

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

• Ongoing review of the PA and RNA websites to ensure accuracy and timeliness of data.

• Continue to consider process or systems enhancements suggested by regulators and service providers.

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

NOWG Leadership

• The NOWG Tri-Chair position formerly held by Natalie McNamer is now vacant.

• The current and future workload was reviewed by the two other tri-chairs.

• On an interim basis, the vacant tri-chair position will not be filled.

3006/20/2013

31

Outstanding NANPA Change Orders

Change Order Number

Date Filed Summary NOWG Status FCC Action Scheduled Implementation

Date

1 9/24/2012 INC Issue 692: Update the 5YY Requirements for Resources and INC Issue 702: Update Service Description for

Use of 5YY Resources

NOWG Recommendation to

Approve sent to FCC on 10/15/2012

Approved 12/5/2012

Estimated Implementation

3Q13

06/20/2013

Outstanding PA Change Orders

Change Order Number

Date Filed Summary NOWG Status FCC Action Scheduled Implementation

Date

24 11/6/2012 Enhancement of the FTP Interface with

the Pooling Administration

System



12/5/12 End of June 2013

23 6/1/2012 INC Issue #715 - Update TBPAG for Retrieving a Block

Donated/Returned in Error



FCC Approved on 8/14/2012

Implemented on 4/5/13

3206/20/2013

NOWG Participating Companies

• AT&T

• CenturyLink

• Cox Communications

• EarthLink Business

• Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

• Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission

• Sprint Nextel

• Verizon Communications / Verizon Wireless

• Windstream Communications

• XO Communications

3306/20/2013

NOWG Upcoming Meeting Schedule – 2013

Month Activity

June 25 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hrNANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr *

July 16 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hrNANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr *

August 27 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hrNANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr *

* NOWG-Only Monthly Call following Calls with the Administrators

3406/20/2013

NOWG Meetings

• Contact the Co-Chairs for complete meeting or conference call details: – [email protected]

– [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 www.nanc-chair.org

06/20/2013 35

Documents

NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) June 20, 2013 Co-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel