North American Numbering CouncilMeeting TranscriptMay 21, 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. Henry Hultquist AT&T Inc.3. Jeffrey S. Lanning CenturyLink4. Cindy Sheehan Comcast Corporation5. Karen Reidy CompTel6. José Jimenez Cox Communications, Inc.7. Matthew Gerst CTIA – The Wireless Association8. David Greenhaus 800 Response Information Services9. Hon. Geoffrey G. Why NARUC - Massachusetts10. Hon. Robert M. Clayton, III NARUC – Missouri11. Don Gray NARUC – Nebraska12. Kathy Hagans NASUCA13. Jerome Candelaria NCTA14. Mary Retka Qwest15. Susan Tiffany Sprint Nextel16. Anna Miller T-Mobile USA, Inc.17. Thomas Soroka, Jr. USTA18. Kevin Green Verizon19. Brendan Kasper Vonage20. 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 DivisionSanford Williams, Competition Policy DivisionHeather Hendrickson, Competition Policy DivisionMelissa Kirkel, 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 – February 18, 2010(3) Billing and Collection Agent Report(4) Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) Report to the NANC(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) Update on Telcordia Technologies, Inc. Request for Dispute Resolution(10a) Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) Report(10b) 2009 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report(10c) 2009 PA Performance Evaluation Report(11) Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report to the NANC(12a) Future of Numbering (FoN) Working Group Report to the NANC(12b) White Paper – Toll Free Resources

2

V. Table of Contents.

1. Announcements and Recent News 4

2. Approval of Meeting Transcript from October 15, 2009 5

3. Report from the North American Numbering Plan Billing and Collection (NANP B&C) Agent 5

4. Report of the Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) 7

5. Report of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) 9

6. Report of the National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator (PA) 14

7. Report of the Local Number Portability Administration Working Group (LNPA WG) 19

8. North American Portability Management (NAPM) LLC Report 29

9. Telcordia Dispute Resolution Team: Telcordia Appeal 37

10. Report of the Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) 49

11. Status of the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) activities 56

12. Report of the Future of Numbering Working Group (FoN WG) 64

13. Summary of Action Items --

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

15. Other Business --

IV. Summary of the Meeting.

CHAIRMAN KANE: We will call to order the meeting of the North

American Numbering Council. For the record it is Friday, May 21, 2010. It is 9:39

a.m., and we are in the hearing room of the Federal Communications Commission at

3

445 12th Street S.W. in Washington D.C.

We are sending around a sign in sheet so that we have the official tally of

who is here. Thank you all for coming. I’m pleased to present you with a little

better weather than we had at our last meeting in February.

We have a full agenda, but I think we will be able to move through it fairly

quickly, and hopefully, we will not have to be here until five o’clock, being Friday in

particular.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RECENT NEWS

Announcements and recent news is the first item on the agenda, and I think

there are two things that we are probably all aware of. One is that yesterday at the

agenda meeting the Commission did approve our recommendations on the Number

Portability issue, and they’ve issued a Report and Order in Wireless

Communications 07-244. It’s double captioned in Cellular Communications 95-116

showing you how long this issue has been around, back in 1995. But, they did

approve all of our recommendations, and I want to thank you all again for all your

work on that, and now we move forward with the rest of the implementation.

The other recent development and issue that we have been concerned about

was that the FCC did issue approval of the four states that had asked for delegated

authority, that is Alaska, Indiana, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania.

Actually the Pennsylvania Public Council had asked to come to the meeting

today and address us on trying to move that forward, but since the issue was already

resolved by the FCC, we don’t have to worry about that anymore. So we thank the

4

Commission for moving on that.

In addition to sending the sign in sheet around for those who are physically

present, we do have a bridge open. A number of our state members and perhaps

others are participating and listening in and can participate by telephone.

So if there is anyone on the bridge who’s listening in, if you would now

identify yourselves so we have that for the record. Okay, we didn’t bring that up yet.

All right, very good.

APPROVAL OF MEETING TRANSCRIPT

The next item on the agenda is the approval of the transcript from the

February 18, 2010 meeting. That transcript was sent out. Are there any additions or

corrections to the transcript? Okay, I’d entertain a motion for approval of the

transcript. Qwest moves to approve. And a second? A second from Verizon. All in

favor say aye.

COUNCIL MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Any objection? It’s unanimously approved. Thank

you.

REPORT FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PLAN BILLING

AND COLLECTION AGENT (NANP B&C AGENT)

Moving right along, our next item, agenda number three, a report from the

North American Numbering Plan Billing and Collection Agent.

MS. MARCOTTE: Good morning. This is the Billing and Collection

Agent Report, the statement of the financial position of the Fund.

5

At the end of April, we had about $2.3 million in the bank, about $100,000 of

receivables, and the suppliers are owed about $700,000 at the end of that month so

that left us with a balance of $1.8 million. During the month the bank account

earned about a staggering rate of .426 percent.

We just negotiated an interim contract with the FCC for our services until the

end of July.

For the contribution factor at the last meeting we got approval from the

Council for a contribution factor of 0.0000171. We ended up having to amend that

due to a lower revenue figure than we had anticipated for 2009. So an

email was sent around to the Council to get a factor of 0.0000181 instead of 171 and

we did receive approval for that and have since sent our submission to the FCC for

approval of that new factor.

And we will be sending out bills at the end of May for a June payment based

on the new factor.

The next page is a forecast of the Fund to the end of June. So you can see in

the total column versus the budget we anticipate a $500,000 surplus. We’re now

anticipating $1.3 million, about $850,000 extra.

In the bottom right hand corner you can see where the differences are and the

last two items make up the bulk of it, that’s $900,000. Most of it was audits that did

not happen that was $700,000, and permanent p-ANI that we had provided for but

that has not been determined yet and that was $200,000. And the other $50,000 is

other items that offset.

6

The next page is a projection of the funds for out for a year from now, up to

April 2011 based on our budget. Page four is our estimated liabilities for the next six

months. And page five is just our deliverables, what we have been working on, just

sending out the invoices as normal, processing payments, red light notices.

The contract, you know, I mentioned, and we’re still working on clearing out

all the old receivables, but we are making headway in that. Are there any questions?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. And let me go back and identify for the

record, document number one will be the agenda. Document number two was the

transcript, and document number three is the Billing and Collection Report which we

just received.

REPORT OF THE BILLING AND COLLECTION WORKING GROUP

And now we will move on to item four and this will be document four, a

report from the Billing and Collection Working Group. And again, for the transcript

if you would identify yourself for the record when you are speaking. Thank you.

MR. DECKER: I’m Tim Decker with Verizon, and I Chair the Billing

and Collection Working Group along with Rosemary Emmer, and she’s on vacation

today.

And thank you Faith, for going through and addressing the budget and

contribution factor.

Going to page two, as most of you know, the Committee is responsible for

oversight of the Billing and Collection Agent, currently Welch & Company, and we

rolled out their 2009 performance evaluation at the last NANC meeting, and they

7

received a Met for 2009.

Page three we meet with Welch once a month to discuss monthly billing and

collections. We also perform monthly evaluation of the deliverables which assist us

with the performance report at the end of the year.

Page four outlines what Faith has just gone over, the budget and the amounts

that are received from the U.S. and the remaining amounts that come from the

international participants.

Page six, we have documented the revised contribution scenario record, and

on page seven we have documented the revised graph showing the factor history as

far as next steps.

The FCC filed or is planning to file a public notice so that we can begin

billing as Faith outlined, I believe at the end of May.

And then page eight, it lists our current members, and if you’d like your

company name to be listed, please reach out to Rosemary or myself for the monthly

meeting details. We welcome new membership.

The next meeting dates are listed on the back page as well as our contact

information. And that concludes this. Are there any questions?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you very much, Tim. It says on our agenda

that at this point we should be at 10:30 a.m. and take a break, but we don’t need to

do that quite yet, although if you need to take a break anytime, obviously, you’re free

to get up. I’m sorry, after the next item we would be taking a break.

8

REPORT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PLAN

ADMINISTRATOR (NANPA)

The next item is item number five on the agenda and document number five

which is the report of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator.

MR. MANNING: Good morning, this is John Manning, Director of the

North American Numbering Plan Administration.

My report has been handed around to everybody. Similar to previous reports,

we’ll talk a little bit about CO code activity for the first four months of 2010. I’ll

also talk about area code assignment activity and some events that have taken place

so far this year as well as upcoming items for the remainder of this year.

I will also address area codes, to include NPAs exhausting in the next 36

months, and some other items of information are included in the report.

Page two provides a brief summary of central office code assignment activity

for the first four months of 2010. The chart at the top of the page on the far right

gives data for January through April of 2010. I also provided the same information

for the timeframe of 2007, 2008, and 2009.

You can see for the first four months of 2010, assignments were about 1,100

codes. You can compare that to the same time period over the last three years. We

have actually increased when compared to the same time period in 2009.

Denials are slightly higher than the previous three years. Of interest are the

returns and reclamations. Previous years we’ve been averaging a little over 200

codes returned in the first four months of the year. We only had 97 in the first four

9

months of 2010, so we saw a significant decrease in the number of returns.

Net assignments are a little over 1,000 codes for 2010, which is up quite a bit

compared to especially 2008 and 2009.

In the observations below, you’ll note that in January and February we had a

little over 250 assignments. In March, we saw over 350 assignments, so the first

three months of this year were very busy. April, however, was less than 140 codes

and up through just yesterday for the month of May, we’re under 100 codes.

So it seems like we jumped out of the gate real quick in the first three months

and then, over the next two months, things have significantly slowed down.

If you take the figures that we’ve had over the first four months and you

annualize them, we’re looking at around 3,000 assignments for 2010, which would

be consistent with what we experienced in 2008 and 2007 as well as in 2006. We’ll

keep an eye on that in terms of how things follow out for the rest of the year.

With regard to NPA assignment activity, so far this year NANPA has

assigned four area codes. We assigned the 539 NPA in relief of the Oklahoma 918

NPA. The 929 area code was assigned in relief of the New York 347/718 NPA

overlay complex, and we’ve assigned two area codes for Canada; NPA 873 for relief

of the Quebec 819 area code, and NPA 365 in relief of the Ontario, Canada 289/905

NPA complex.

Three area codes have gone into service in 2010. NPA 458 in Oregon went

into service in February, relieving the 541 area code. Georgia 470 NPA went into

service also in February in relief of the 404/770/678 NPA overlay complex. And just

10

a few weeks ago, NPA 343 in Canada went into service in relief of the 613 area code

in Canada.

Finally we have three area codes that have in service dates for 2010. NPA

938 in Alabama will overlay the 256 area code. Ten digit dialing will start in June.

NPA 534 in Wisconsin will overlay the 715 area code in August; mandatory ten-digit

dialing will begin in July. In Canada, NPA 579 in Quebec will overlay the 450

NPA, with an in service date of August 21, 2010.

On page three, summary of the NPA relief planning activity, most if not all of

these items, were included in the February report by NANPA. Three area codes in

Pennsylvania, NPAs 570, 717 and 814, have been very active. In February, March,

and April, the Commission has been holding public hearings and getting input on

various relief alternatives.

For your information, the 570 area code is the area code that is expected to

exhaust first in the third quarter of 2011.

For next four items here, Nebraska’s 402, I mention because it starts

permissive seven and ten digit dialing in June with mandatory dialing in February of

2011. Oklahoma 814 NPA will start permissive seven and ten digit dialing in

August with an implementation date of ten digit dialing in March of 2011.

In New York’s 718/347 NPA complex, with the new 929 area code, they do

not have to have a permissive dialing period since it’s already is in ten digit dialing

due to the overlay complex. Network preparations and customer education will start

in July of this year and the implementation should be completed in March of next

11

year.

In Arkansas, they are out there a ways but they do have a plan to implement

an overlay with permissive seven and ten digit dialing starting in October of 2012.

I mention Sint Martin 721 NPA. Right after the last NANC meeting, we

received word from the regulatory authority there and the government of Sint Martin

that they requested that the implementation of the 721 NPA be delayed. A new

schedule has not been announced yet. We did put out a planning letter to let the

industry know.

The original introduction of the 721 NPA was scheduled for May, this month,

and of course that has been slid out, and when we have a new timeframe from the

regulatory authority, we will publish a new planning letter with that information.

On page four, the one outstanding change order for NANPA is change order

18. This change order was approved in February by the FCC.

This is a change order where NANPA will now be checking not only on

codes to insure that service providers provide utilization on all assigned codes but

also will be checking to make sure service providers provide utilization on all

assigned blocks and especially those block holders who are not the code holder as

well. Implementation for this change order is scheduled for the fall of this year.

Some other items I make note of include the 2009 NANPA Annual Report,

which was posted to the NANPA website on March 30th. We also came out with

our first quarter 2010 newsletter in early April.

The April 2010 NPA and NANPA exhaust projections were posted to the

12

NANPA website at the end of April.

And over the past couple of weeks NANPA has been conducting public

website training. We’ve conducted three training sessions so far with approximately

80 individuals participating. This particular training is a direct result of feedback we

obtained via the operational review that took place with the NOWG.

One of the areas that we identified was that public website training would be

a benefit so we moved forward with implementation of that training. And associated

with that training we are also surveying the participants to make sure we are meeting

their needs and receiving feedback on that training as well. So far it’s been going

very well.

That concludes my portion of the presentation. The last few pages are the

area code relief activity taking place over the next 36 months.

And with that I’ll entertain any questions.

CHAIRMAN KANE: I have a question. Going back, for example in New

York, the 929 is going to be a relief code for two area codes. Does that mean you’re

going to have three codes, a triple overlay?

MR. MANNING: Yes, that’s the way it is.

CHAIRMAN KANE: And I guess I saw one that’s going to be a

quadruple, the Georgia quadruple overlay also.

MR. MANNING: Right, yes. In reality we should make note that

718/347/929 also includes the 917 area code as well. NPA 917 covers multiple area

codes in the New York area so officially you can call it a quadruple one if you want

13

to. New York doesn’t want to be outdone by other states I’m sure.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Any other questions on the report? And

then I guess you’ve also added the 36 month projection here at the end. Okay, any

other questions? Okay, thank you for your report.

MR. MANNING: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Agenda item number six, and this will be for the

record document number six, is the report of the National Thousands-Block

Administrator. Amy.

MS. PUTNAM: Before I begin, Rebecca Beetan from Washington

State has just e-mailed us to say there are four people on the bridge.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Oh, good. If the four people on the bridge would

please identify themselves.

MS. DOYLE: Jan Doyle, Qwest Communications.

MS. BEATON: Rebecca Beaton, Washington Commission staff.

MS. HAGANS: Kathy Hagans, NASUCA.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Is there a fourth person? Okay, three people,

NASUCA, Washington State staff, and Qwest. Very good. Thank you Amy.

REPORT OF THE NATIONAL THOUSANDS-BLOCK POOLING

ADMINISTRATOR (PA)

MS. PUTNAM: Amy Putnam, Director of Thousands-Block Pooling

Administration. Yes, Don, pooling is fine.

(LAUGHTER)

14

If you look at the report of the Pooling Administrator, the first chart, the PA

activity summary data has the rolling totals for applications processed for the last

twelve months. I’m not going to read it but I will say that, if you annualize the first

four months of applications processed, we will be processing approximately 90,000

blocks this year which is about 3000 blocks more than last year, but that’s a forecast.

The second chart is the part three summary data for the last twelve months,

the number of applications approved, denied, suspended, or withdrawn.

And then we have the part three summary data sorted by type, the number of

central office codes opened in the last 12 months for LRNs, for dedicated customers,

and for pool replenishment, 2156.

And then we have the summary of the rate center file changes for the last 12

months. Those rate centers would be changes from M* which are single service

provider to mandatory, a second service provider comes in, or from excluded to

optional, either a state or a service provider can ask for that change.

We’ve had situations where states have requested that all of their excluded

rate centers in a state be opened in PAS as optional and we will do that at the request

of state staff because that doesn’t require anybody to pool at that point.

And then we have the reclamation summary for the last 12 months. You’ll

see that in May of 2009, we had 945 blocks with overdue part fours and by April we

had 436.

We attribute that in great part to our very old overdue part four reclamation

project where we have asked the FCC for approval, and they have granted it for us to

15

go in and get carriers to file certificates in lieu of part fours for very old blocks that

are in service.

And in fact just yesterday we asked once again to extend that project up to

January 1st of 2009 so that we can get all of those cleaned up.

That’s a win/win for everybody. It’s less work for the state commissions

who get the overdue part four lists and call carriers. They don’t have to call as many

carriers. Carriers don’t get the calls, and we don’t have as much manual activity to

do, so that has been a very successful project.

The next is the pooling administration system performance. It’s a

delightfully boring chart, shows 100 percent availability for the last 12 months and

that’s how we like it.

Other pooling related activities, we show the contract reporting requirements,

all of the reports that we have to file and when they were filed.

In the regulatory section I’m afraid Chairman Kane stole my thunder, but

when we sent this report in there in fact had been no change in the status.

Now it should say there has been a big change in the status of the four

pending petitions since the FCC has in fact granted most of what was requested. The

order dealt with the four states, Indiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Alaska, and a

state close to home for me, Pennsylvania. Most of the requested relief was granted.

Pennsylvania had asked for relief for the entire state. The Commission felt

that the 412/724/878 overlay did not justify extraordinary relief at this time because

that is not expected to exhaust for about 15 years.

16

At the request of the Pennsylvania Commission staff we actually met with

them on Tuesday the 18th, and we have set up conference calls with the staff from

the other three states for next week to go over the implementation process.

First thing we will need is an order from each state commission. Then we’ll

send out the meeting notice, the list of the affected rate centers, and their status

designation change information and the timeline steps. We will hold the

supplemental implementation meetings and proceed as we have in the past.

With respect to the Interim Routing Number Authority Administration, we

have indicated in our presentation the number of requests and registrations received.

We participated in the operational review of our 2009 performance in

Concord, California in March, and the NOWG has given us a More Then Met rating

for our 2009 performance. I won’t say anymore than that because I don’t want to

steal Natalie’s thunder.

We have received two contracts mods on February 19th from the FCC with

respect to pending change orders, and we submitted two new change orders, change

order 15 on March 17th and change order 16 on March 11th, and we have a list there

of the change orders and their status.

With respect to special projects, I mentioned the very old overdue part four

reconciliation process, which we have extended or requested the authority to extend.

And the last page shows the background information and current information

on the NPAC scrub where we compared the data in PAS on contaminated blocks to

the data in the NPAC on contaminated blocks.

17

We presently still have 539 over contaminated blocks that need a new block

holder. We have been discussing that with the NOWG, and we’ll ultimately be

providing the FCC with various options of what to do with those blocks to give

authority to do something with them.

And that’s it. Any questions?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Any questions? Question?

MALE SPEAKER: (Off microphone, unintelligible) -- change order nine

and PA change order 10 where we put the date as 6/11. I presume that means

6/11/2010 as opposed to June 2011?

MS. PUTNAM: Yes.

MALE SPEAKER: Just double checking because all the others were three

digits.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Right, let’s correct that on the docket so that those

two items, number nine and ten, and this is on page eight of the report in the far right

column, should be scheduled for 6/11/10 and 6/11/10, just a couple weeks from now.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else? Thank you, Amy. I didn’t mean to steal your thunder and

you provided a lot more details on that. Very good.

18

REPORT OF THE LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY (LNPA) WORKING

GROUP

Now we are up to agenda item number seven which is the report of the Local

Number Portability Administration Working Group.

MR. SACRA: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good morning, everybody.

I’m Gary Sacra, co-chair of the LNPA working group. One of our other co-chairs

Paula Jordan is in the room. We do have a third. I’ll get to that momentarily.

Everybody should have the report. Since the last NANC meeting back in

February, the working group has approved two best practices and as is our practice

as we approved these best practices in the working group, we have committed to

bring them to the NANC, to report out on those, discuss those, answer any questions

you may have, and seek endorsement of them.

The first best practice is best practice 65. That was approved at the March

2010 face-to-face meeting. This simply says that it’s the working group’s position

that the current OBF guidelines for issuing supplemental local service requests

should be maintained --

(Tape Interrupted When Changing Sides)

(END OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE A)

* * * * *

(START OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE B)

MR. SACRA: Next day porting on August 2nd, the supplemental LSR

process. It’s the position of the working group that that process continues. The

19

supplemental LSRs are issued to either cancel an order, change the due date, for

example, change data values on a previous LSR that had already been submitted.

The key to this best practice, however, is that we’re aligning the response

time that the old provider is required to respond to a supplemental LSR. That’s

being aligned with the response time requirements for the new simple porting rules.

For example, if it’s a simple port request, one or two date due date requests

and a supplemental LSR comes in, the response time would be four hours, similar to

the four hour response time required to respond to a simple port LSR and the caveat

there is that the supplemental LSR must be received by 1:00 p.m. local time similar

to the LSR process that we discussed earlier as part of the implementation plan.

If it’s a non-simple request meaning three or four day due date or more, then

the response to the supplement would be due in 24 hours.

So it’s our position that the OBF process for issuing simple port services for

the same reasons that they’ve always been issued, that be maintained and that the

response time be consistent with the response time requirements for the original

LSR, be it a simple one or two day or non-simple three or plus days.

Are there any questions on that best practice?

Okay, the next best practice was approved at the May 2010, face-to-face

meeting, that’s best practice 66. It’s come to light that some providers, network

providers who have interconnected VoIP providers class two or class three, class two

meaning the VOIP provider is connected to a traditional PSTN network provider for

connectivity to the public switch telephone network and also for numbering

20

resources, and a class three VOIP provider, the working group has identified those as

a reseller of interconnected VOIP service.

It’s come to the working group’s attention that some providers, network

providers have for their wholesale interconnected VOIP customers, have a master

billing account for all of the end users that are served by that interconnected VOIP

provider so those end users are not necessarily aware that they have been grouped

under this umbrella master billing account.

And it’s the working group’s position that we want to guard against the fact

that these individual end users in this master billing account are not considered to be

a port of a single TN out of a multi TN account which by FCC definition is a non-

simple port.

It’s the working group’s position that these individual end users should be

able to take advantage of the next day porting rules for simple ports starting August

2nd, and just because they’re accustomed to this master billing account that should

not be an impediment to next day porting should they choose to port their number on

a next day basis.

Questions?

As the last bullet on the first page indicates, the working group respectfully

does request that the NANC endorse these two best practices. We would like to

include these two in our best practice document with a statement in each of these two

best practices that should the NANC endorse these, that they have been endorsed by

the NANC on this particular date at this particular meeting.

21

CHAIRMAN KANE: I think that’s up for discussion. Don Gray.

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

I think once again we’ve got a good indication here that the industry as a

whole is trying to move the process forward here, put reasonable guidelines in place

and give some good timing and good consideration to the end user customer. And

it’s going to be a case of the states being sure that our consumers are aware of what

the rules and regulations are and policing the outliers that may give a bad name or be

some of those carriers that say we don’t have to port.

So I applaud the LNPA group for once again bringing us a good document

and bringing us forward here, and am looking forward to what’s going to happen

next.

MR. SACRA: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Yes.

MR. GREEN: Kevin Green, Verizon. Gary, were there any objections in

the working group to item number 66?

MR. SACRA: No, there were not.

CHAIRMAN KANE: To clarify for the record, when it’s a best practice

it’s not a requirement but it’s very highly recommended.

MR. SACRA: That’s it.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay. For the record, even though the NANC is

endorsing it does not in and of itself make it a requirement.

MR. SACRA: Right.

22

CHAIRMAN KANE: In contrast to the ones that we have recommended to

the FCC.

MR SACRA: That’s very true. It’s the working group’s hope, and we

recognize that these don’t have enforcement capability, but it’s our hope that with

the NANC’s endorsement and the weight of the NANC that service providers can

point to these and, hopefully, get a positive reaction.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Any other discussion on the request from the LNPA

working group that the NANC endorse these two new best practices? Is there any

objection? There’s no objection, then I will say this is unanimous consensus if there

is such a thing, that the NANC endorses these.

Before we move on though, when Don Gray was speaking about the need for

the states to educate the consumers, and I know we do have someone from the

NASUCA, one of the NASUCA reps members is on the phone. Are there any plans

either from your working group Gary, or from the FCC, or anyone else to really send

out some very simple, clear consumer information about what has now been

approved about one day porting so that our consumer services people at the state

commissions and other people know what the new requirements are going to be?

MR. SACRA: We haven’t had that discussion yet in the working group. I

for one think that’s a pretty good idea and certainly we have a conference call

coming up on June 8th I believe, and that’s something we can put on the agenda to

talk about and perhaps kind of distill the requirements down to some as you said

consumer friendly type --

23

CHAIRMAN KANE: Yes, not only obviously for the consumers, the

advocates and the consumer services folks, most of our state commissions have it,

but probably just for the general public also and all the folks in those retail stores to

know starting in August in most cases, what the new requirements are.

MR. SACRA: We’ll be sure to have that on the agenda for the June call.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, thank you. Does that conclude your report?

You had another page.

MR. SACRA: Just a few more brief items here. On page two, NANC 437

as I’ve reported on previously, that’s the peered NPAC proposal by Telcordia.

The working group is in the process of completing its technical and

operations feasibility analysis. Again for the peering model proposal, is to have two

or more peered NPACS in a region, then service providers would choose which

NPAC platform that they would connect to in a particular region.

The working group’s architecture planning team as I said is completing the

analysis, the feasibility analysis for both technical and operational items. We are

looking to make the determination at an upcoming face-to-face meeting, and then the

working group, the architecture planning team, is going to produce a report

summarizing the analysis and the findings of the group once that determination has

been made. Questions?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Questions on that item?

MR. ZAMLONG: My name is Joel Zamlong from Telcordia. I just

wanted to take this opportunity just to recognize the great job that the LNPA

24

working group did on looking at this NANC change order on peering. This was

done in parallel with all the work that they were doing on one day porting. They

actually went through almost 200 items to look at the different areas that would have

to be addressed from a technical and operational feasibility.

I just wanted to use this opportunity to just recognize the work that the team

did amidst all the other work that they had to do and that I thought it was a very

positive and good session that was participated in by the industry as well as the

vendors. I just wanted to go on record to say that.

MR. SACRA: Thank you, Joel. On behalf of the working group we thank

you for that. Are there any other questions on 437?

The next item is the status of the FCC 09-41 implementation plan. As you

heard this morning there was a report order issued yesterday adopting the

implementation plan.

In terms of testing now, the service rider testing with the NPAC has begun

for the two main change orders that were developed in conjunction with FCC 0941.

Those change orders are NANC’s 440 and 441.

These add a new set of timers for the shorter porting interval, NPAC timers,

and there’s also a new indicator to indicate to the NPAC which set of timers to use

on any given port.

So testing now with the service providers and the NPAC has begun and it’s

going now on schedule. The anticipation is that the testing will be completed well

before the August 2nd deadline.

25

Also there’s some inter-service provider system testing going on. There was

a subcommittee of the working group chaired by Teresa Patton of AT&T and

Mohamed Samater of T-Mobile.

The subcommittee put together a very detailed test plan for providers to test

together their systems for next day porting. That testing is ongoing. There have

been no major issues identified to date so the anticipation again is that that testing

will be completed successfully prior to the August 2nd deadline.

And again just as a reminder, based on the November 2, 2009 submission of

the implementation plan, it’s the assumption of the working group, and I believe this

is consistent with what was stated yesterday at the open meeting, that the two key

dates for implementation are August 2nd of this year for the larger service providers

and February 2nd of next year for the smaller service providers, meaning those with

fewer than two percent of the nation’s subscriber lines.

We are in the process in the working group of having providers self-identify

which of the two deadlines dates they will implement by.

We have a growing document. It’s placed up on the NPAC secured website

so that providers can go there and view, so they know come August 2nd and then

come February 2nd of next year when they submit an LSR to a particular provider,

can they expect to get a confirmation back for a simple port request or do they have

to wait until February 2nd before they can start issuing simple port requests for one

and two day due dates.

So that document is growing. As I said providers are continuing to feed that

26

to the co-chairs so that we can continually update that website.

Questions on implementation?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Gary, is there a deadline for the providers to kind of

self-identify which category they’re in and then a default if they don’t?

MR. SACRA: Originally we had a March 31st deadline.

(LAUGHTER)

That has been pushed out. I believe we now have a deadline at the end of this

month but certainly any provider that doesn’t meet that deadline can always identify.

We will still put their company up in the document if they identify after the deadline

date.

CHAIRMAN KANE: I think I saw a question. Yes.

MALE SPEAKER: (Off microphone, unintelligible).

MR. SACRA: In fact we have those. That’s a very good question. We do

have some examples of providers that don’t have to implement until February 2nd of

next year, but we do have some that are actually choosing to implement by August

2nd of this year so that certainly is a possibility and it has happened so there are such

providers in that document on the website.

CHAIRMAN KANE: But just to clarify, if they are large and have to meet

the August 2nd, they don’t have a choice to delay?

MR. SACRA: That’s correct.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Don, you have a question here.

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

27

Gary, do you have any suggestions or advice for the states to take back to

their small rural carriers that quite frankly usually don’t participate in some of the

larger industry meetings, forums, working groups? How do we get them engaged or

who should they contact?

MR. SACRA: In fact there are probably a few hundred small rural carriers

that are in that document because the association perhaps that they belong to has

responded on their behalf.

I know that there are two associations that are regular participants of the

working group and they have responded. I know in fact I think some of the

providers are in Nebraska, other states as well. So we do have a few hundred now of

the smaller carriers in that document.

We have been sending out an action item over the working group’s distro list

so any provider that’s on the NPAC distribution list or the working group’s

distribution list should be aware of that action item.

So that’s kind of what we’ve been relying on to get that word out to the

smaller carriers that don’t always participate in the working group.

MR. GRAY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much.

We’ll look forward to a report in September on how August 2nd went.

And just for clarification, we talked a lot about getting information out to the

states, and to NASUCA, and to consumers but the enforcement of this is with the

Federal Communications Commission.

28

MR. SACRA: Final item, we have a newly appointed working group co-

chair. This is an additional co-chair, not a replacement of the current co-chairs.

For quite a while now, in fact a number of years, we’ve had an open working

group co-chair position. There are three positions. One, I guess, the RBOC/ILEC

position. There’s a wireless co-chair position, and there’s always been a CLEC co-

chair position.

So for several years we’ve had the CLEC co-chair position unfilled and this

was recently filled at the March 2010 meeting by Linda Peterman of One

Communications so now we’re back to tri-chairs once again. So congratulations to

Linda and, we look forward to continuing to work with her.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Very good. Thank you, Gary.

MR. SACRA: Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN KANE: It is now 10:30 a.m. and, we’re at the point where

we would have taken a break so, I think we’ll take a quick break here for just about

ten minutes.

(Short Break)

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, we’ll go back on the record having had our

BlackBerry break.

REPORT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN PORTABILITY MANAGEMENT

LLC (NAPM LLC)

It is 10:45 a.m. We are now up to item number eight on our agenda and

document number eight. This is the report of the North American Portability

29

Management, the NAPM LLC.

MR. CLAY: Good morning, NANC. My name is Mel Clay. I am co-chair

of the NAPM LLC. The other co-chair is Tim Decker from Verizon

Communications.

The report that we have, you should all have in front of you. The first thing

on the report is to talk about the new member. We have been very active trying to

recruit new members to the NAPM LLC, and I am happy to report that Time Warner

Cable has joined us as a member as of April 2010.

As previously reported, the NAPM LLC formed a standing subcommittee

back in March of 2009. That committee is charged with determining the

requirements of the NPAC of the future and the associated timeframes to go along

with the development of an RFP for the future NPAC and the future contract. The

subcommittee meets every month and reports its progress to the full body of the

NAPM LLC each month.

A timeline has been developed. It’s the second page of the report. It’s

attached to the report. And that timeline has an RFP issue date of about November

of 2011, vendor selection to be made in September 2012, and the vendor to be tested,

certified, and operational by July of 2015, which coincides with the current contract

expiration date.

The NAPM LLC has also been responding to the petition that Telcordia has

filed, and we met with the FCC back in March of 2010, and we also put a follow-up

ex parte out in April of 2010. And yesterday we had a follow-up meeting with the

30

FCC to provide them the information on the timeline that’s attached to this report.

That’s my report. I’m open for any questions.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Any questions? Yes, Commissioner

Why.

COMMISSIONER WHY: Is the timeline proposed or is it set?

MR. CLAY: The major milestones that are in the timeline are set. There is

a lot of development work that’s going on and that development work will of course

enhance the timeline as we go forward. Thank you for bringing that up.

There’s one thing that’s not on the timeline that I’d like to let you know, the

FONPAC yesterday came up with the idea of issuing a RFI to the world so that we

could request information to come into us, and that is not shown on this timeline and

it will be on the timeline in the near future.

COMMISSIONER WHY: I have a second question.

MR. CLAY: Sure.

COMMISSIONER WHY: Second question is will we have input on the

RFP?

MR. CLAY: Will you have input on the RFP here at the NANC?

COMMISSIONER WHY: Yes.

MR. CLAY: We will be bringing information into the NANC and any

questions or concerns with that will be here also, yes.

COMMISSIONER WHY: When would you expect for us to see the RFP?

MR. CLAY: The RFP is not to be completely ready until I believe

31

November of next year, so as we progress, we report to the NANC. Every time

there’s a NANC meeting, as progress goes, the NANC will know.

COMMISSIONER WHY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. I guess your question was

Commissioner Why is there going to be some formal request for input into the RFP,

will there be a draft RFP, etc.?

MR. CLAY: I think that’s something that the FoNPAC needs to take and

consider and figure out how we will do that.

COMMISSIONER WHY: Thank you, Chairman Kane. Yes, I am looking

to see if we would see a draft RFP at some point so we could then obviously make

suggestions or comments.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Obviously this is a very lengthy

timeline. We are all going to have to stay around until the end of May 2015, to see if

we can get this done.

(LAUGHTER)

Thank you very much. Yes.

MR. ZAMLONG: My name is Joel Zamlong from Telcordia. I just

wanted to ask a couple of questions.

First I just wanted to just note that I view that the schedule and plan that Mel

presented today as a good step forward in moving to a competitive selection of

NPAC administrators that would bring benefits to the subscribers in the United

States based on benefits that would be received by the carriers by going through a

32

competitive process.

But a key point that wasn’t clear to me, and when I was looking over the

timeline I realized it was a timeline, is whether the NPAC, the NAPM’s vision is that

this would be a procurement for multiple administrators or would it be for a single

administrator?

And a related question would also be does the NAPM LLC view that the

choice of multiple administrators or a single administrator procurement is a decision

that NAPM would make or would it be made by the NANC and the FCC?

MR. CLAY: Joel, your questions have been noted and those will be

discussed at future FONPAC meetings and that’s something that we will have to

discuss and determine and will be reported to you at a later time.

MR. ZAMLONG: Okay, yeah because of part of it related to the question

of also presenting in front of NANC as to what some of those decisions are so, you

know, the whole industry and community is aware of what the plans are and, you

know, I’m interested in it in the context of just understanding how it’s going to play

out obviously, but I’m also interested in the context of, you know, just from a

subscriber point of view, the type of solution.

And what we’ve been talking about through some of the unsolicited proposal

discussions that we’ve had is having multi-vendors. The benefits that multiple

vendors could offer in a solution of this size, you know, would be very significant

and beneficial to the industry so I think it would be worth further discussion and

vetting through a group like NANC.

33

MR. CLAY: One of the reasons that we’re putting out the RFI is to get

information so we’re going to consider all types of platforms and all types of

information so as this is further developed, the NANC and you at Telcordia will get

the information.

MR. ZAMLONG: Okay, thank you.

MR. CLAY: You’re welcome.

CHAIRMAN KANE: And did you have a date for the RFI? You said it

wasn’t on the --

MR. CLAY: No, the RFI decision was made yesterday Chairman Kane so

that is still under development.

CHAIRMAN KANE: That would obviously be before you do the RFP.

MR. CLAY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay. Gary.

MR. SACRA: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just wanted to add that the

timeline that Mel is presenting right now doesn’t preclude any of the possibilities

that have been mentioned.

This is what I would consider personally an aggressive timeline, it’s high

level, but you’ll notice the major milestones in here now doesn’t preclude any

possibility that the FONPAC and the NAPM LLC determines through discussion

with the NANPA.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Right. And also note that the first page of the report

refers to vendor selections, plural, and vendor/vendors so that that’s an open question

34

still.

Any other questions on this? Yes, identify yourself for the record, please.

FEMALE SPEAKER:(Off microphone). Mary Retka (Unintelligible) from

Qwest.

Just a comment to insure that everybody does understand that point that you

made about the RFI. That was discussed yesterday and RFI does give you the

opportunity not only to see various platforms but also to understand other players

that may not have already participated in some of the work of the LNPA working

group and may have solutions that could be very beneficial to the industry so that

was one of the reasons that was talked about, but doing the RFI does also add to the

aggressive timeframe that we’ve got in front of us.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Any other comments, discussion? Yes,

go ahead.

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller. Along with Gary’s comments in terms of

FONPAC activity, I would assume that part of that consideration and part of that

input also would take into consideration the report on NANC 437 on the piering

model so I’m assuming that that will be part of the input in terms of the benefits

versus the challenges of a single versus multiple piering NPAC model.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Yes, Jose.

MR. JIMENEZ: Jose Jimenez, is this on?

CHAIRMAN KANE: When you start to talk there is someone who turns it

on as I understand remotely, so don’t start to talk real fast right away. It takes a

35

couple of seconds for it to come up.

(LAUGHTER)

MR. JIMENEZ: You’re asking me not to speak real fast?

CHAIRMAN KANE: It’s a general suggestion for everybody.

(LAUGHTER)

MR. JIMENEZ: That is a physical impossibility but I’ll do my best.

I had a question about the other item on the report. I am sorry to say I missed

the ex parte exchange and, I just wanted to know if you could share more about what

was the nature of the meeting with the Commission around the Telcordia petition,

what were the issues discussed? I’m curious about that. Thank you.

MR. CLAY: The first meeting that we had with the FCC was basically to

inform the FCC in response to the Telcordia ex parte that the NAPM LLC was going

to venture into this RFP process.

At that meeting it was asked of us when things were going to happen, what

the timeline was and at that point in time we did not have one. We had a follow-up

meeting yesterday with the FCC, and we presented the same timeline that we just

presented here today to the FCC.

So basically our meetings with them was just to let them know that we were

in the RFP process and that the petition that Telcordia had presented to the FCC

asked that open bidding take place and, we were already in the process of putting out

an open bid, it just hadn’t been published yet.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, thank

36

you very much.

MR. CLAY: You’re welcome.

TELCORDIA DISPUTE RESOLUTION TEAM: TELCORDIA APPEAL

CHAIRMAN KANE: And speaking of Telcordia, item number nine is a

report from myself and Don Gray who constitute the remnants of the Telcordia

dispute resolution team.

I apologize. It was not sent out ahead of time and, I’m not asking for any

action on it. It is just an update on where we are on this. I also will send it out

electronically.

As you know, first of all this matter goes back quite a few years but it was

referred to the NANC on May 26, 2009, just about a year ago, in their formal request

for a resolution of a dispute concerning the decision by the North American

Portability Management LLC to adopt and execute Amendment 72 to the extent that

it included change orders 429, 430, and 435.

And as you recall, former Chairman Koutsky appointed himself, myself, and

NANC member Don Gray from Nebraska to review that request, the request being

that the NANC resolve the dispute, and to make any appropriate recommendations

for addressing it.

After Chairman Koutsky left in August, Don and I have been trying to work

through this and, I just wanted to give you an update and a status report.

We reviewed the request. We looked at the comments that were submitted

by the various parties, the ex parte comments filed with the FCC and the NANC

37

public records on the issue, and we do believe sufficient information is provided to

establish at least a pass/forward.

And it’s a little complicated because we know there is still an open

proceeding at the FCC. We are only looking here at the issues that were brought to

us at the NANC for a potential resolution.

As initial matters we’ve concluded that the FCC has clearly placed this

portion of the matter before the NANC to address and actually that there is a real

question as to whether 47CFR 52.25 allows the UR elements to be included in

NPAC database. Now that is we’re saying there is a question.

I’m not going to go through all of the background. Don in particular I want

to thank him for his work on this. Don’s memory, and knowledge, and experience

particularly with the Future Numbering Committee, goes back much further than

mine and he was very helpful in going back in some of the history.

But I do want to address your attention to page four I guess, since the pages

are not numbered. It’s Item number 3.4.

(Tape Interrupted When Changing Sides)

(END OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE B)

* * * * *

(START OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE A)

CHAIRMAN KANE: -- Future of Numbering but we think it’s relevant.

There were four policy issues that needed to be considered when making a

determination whether these change orders should be included in the NPAC and

38

there was resolution needed on whether services involving only IP to IP versus

PSTN should be in the NPAC.

Number two, if adding this information will impose costs upon those who do

not use the features, and who should be paying for it if it does impose costs.

And, also included that the two change orders, be separated for policy

consideration and analysis that change order 399 does not appear to have the same

impact and issues as change order 400. And finally do the change orders make sense

relative to the long term needs of the industry.

We are going to be now over the next month or two, looking at these four

policy issues. We welcome input from anyone on them and we will continue to put

all the input on the public record.

There is a Telcordia dispute resolution section on the NANC website. I’m

not sure that everything that has come in is on there. We want to make sure that if

there is anything missing that it is on there.

But I won’t speak for Don. He might want to add something.

But I think we’ve come to at least the conclusion that instead of getting into a

procedural he said, she said, and was the procedure proper, that there are some

underlying policy issues that need to be addressed and that they are put before the

NANC.

Don, did you want to add anything?

MR. GRAY: I think you’ve summed it up well, thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay. So that’s where we are. We had wanted to

39

be able to bring you something I think fuller by this point but we have not, and again

to separate this from the issues that are -- there’s an open issue before the FCC to

which we will not get into. A couple of comments?

MS. TIFFANY: Sue Tiffany with Sprint Nextel. You said you would

welcome input.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Yes.

MS. TIFFANY: What format, how do you want the input given to you?

CHAIRMAN KANE: I would like it in writing. You can email it to me,

and I will post it on the website section, on the Telcordia section of the NANC

website.

MS. TIFFANY: And do you have any timeline for that?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Yes, I’d like it by the end of July so that we can

have something -- our next meeting is in mid September so say the end of July.

MS. TIFFANY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: And as soon as we get anything we will put it up

right away so people can also respond to that and it will be more of a back and forth.

Yes.

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller with T-Mobile. In reading through the issues,

and the questions, and comments like the need for the right technical representation,

T-Mobile is one of those that did already submit written comments to the dispute

resolution team.

I’m just wondering if it would better maybe to form an IMG or have an

40

opportunity for discussion and more technical input and debate in looking at these

issues, maybe to help resolve them as opposed to just being independent written

comments. So I just throw that out for the NANC consideration.

I mean even with the policy, in the context of policy as well as technical

issues, I think there could be a better outcome perhaps if there was more open

discussion as opposed to just written comments.

You know, some of us that wrote a lot about this in 2004, 2005, it might be a

good time maybe to refresh those discussions and those debates, and I think it would

lead to more consensus and a better outcome.

So maybe an IMG would be a better forum to get the kind of feedback that

we’re looking for.

CHAIRMAN KANE: And an IMG being?

MS. MILLER: An Issues Management Group. It’s really a group

that’s focused on one issue to try to come to a more expeditious resolution than

maybe years and years of debate. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KANE: And I was not suggesting people should repeat

things that have already been -- this is my notebook on what has been filed just since

a year ago. Don.

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

I think it’s a good suggestion, and it’s something that we certainly should

take under advice and see what would make for the pass/forward because I’m not

going to sit here and say I know all there is to know about this topic and be able to

41

divide the baby. Being King Solomon is the last thing I want to be doing in this

exercise.

So maybe it’s a combination of setting a timeline for people to refresh their

comments or submit new comments and then upon gathering that body of evidence

we could form an IMG and have them use that body of information then with some

clear direction of what the expectations would be and the results would be and go

forward from there. That’s certainly a possible path.

MR. NAKAHATA: Madam Chairman, John Nakahata, Wiltshire Grannis,

counsel to Telcordia, I wanted to raise a process point of concern here really which is

that further deliberation on the policy technical issues, that’s certainly raised by issue

six of our dispute, in some ways what’s resulting here is the process is turned

backwards from what it should be under the rule.

This is a discussion that should have happened before these fields were

placed in the contract. So now what is currently in place is we are operating within

our view an unlawful contract with fields that shouldn’t be there, and they’re being

allowed to continue to be there for as long as this dispute goes on. And the process

issue is important because discussion should have taken place before the fields were

implemented.

At this point I think the proper procedural thing to do would be to cease use

of these fields until the NANC makes the finding that it is required to make that

these are necessary and then you can go on to the technical discussion of whether

they are in fact necessary.

42

But I think that the process issue does need to be addressed because

otherwise the procedure becomes backwards and the requirement of NANC finding

of necessity becomes only a NANC veto, it’s not a necessity.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Jose.

MR. JIMENEZ: Jose Jimenez from Cox. I actually wanted to support

Mr. Gray’s suggestion of a timeline. For me, you know, with a very busy summer at

the FCC and a bunch of issues coming at us in the national (unintelligible) it would

be helpful to kind of know how to plan because that binder scares me and I figure as

a member of NANC I’ll probably have to look at it.

So I just wanted to suggest that idea, whether the suggestion of an IMG or

something like that, if that would help move things along, great. I just wanted to just

kind of throw out there a timeline with a goal as to when we as a body will come

together for a decision.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. And I hope we will have a decision

ready for the September meeting on the dispute. What we were trying to highlight is

looking at the dispute itself, that there are policy issues underlying that, and we may

very well recommend that because the policy issues have not been addressed, that

may feel shouldn’t be used, we may not prejudge that, but I think that the issue

would be decided that there are policy issues to be addressed, then an Issue

Management Group is a good way to address those policy issues. I don’t think it’s

the way to solve the dispute.

But anyway I’m asking for any final comments anyone has no later than the

43

end of July and the earlier the better because we do intend to get something to

resolve the dispute part of it for the September meeting.

Any questions? Yes.

MS. RETKA: This is Mary Retka from Qwest, and I think that the

important thing -- I agree with what you’re saying about an IMG to look at some of

the items that you’ve raised as the policy issues, but also I thoroughly respect all of

Don’s memory and everything but I think given the work that has been done in the

past, there may be some others that would like to participate in the IMG to bring

forward just some of the thoughts that have come out on what is needed for the

industry to move forward.

And if the IMG were to be open so that all the members could participate

who would like to participate, I think that would get a lot of the information out.

In your timeline if you’re looking at comments to come in by the end of July,

you might want that IMG to start working then through the month of August so you

have something ready for the September timeframe.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, that’s a good suggestion. We’ll look at that.

Obviously I want it to be as open and as transparent as possible, that anyone who

wants to participate can.

Any further comments on this? Yes.

MS. TIFFANY: Sue Tiffany with Sprint Nextel.

There is disagreement on how thoroughly the process has been followed, and

we have gone through a lot of history where the issues have been debated here

44

several years ago, debated in the LNPA, then here, then it was sent to the FON where

it was debated.

It went to the FCC. It was sent back from the FCC to here, went back to the

LNPA where it was debated, went to the NAPM where it was debated, and then it

came back here to NANC. So there’s disagreement on whether policies were all

followed.

So in the comments that we send to you do you want to hear comments on

the policy issues?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Yes.

MS> TIFFANY: Okay, thank you.

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller, T-Mobile. I’ll just add to Sprint’s comments

because maybe Don has a better memory than mine now, but in terms of process,

there was a lot of due process as Sprint has noted. It went back and forth between

committees. There was a lot of discussion.

And I do remember that as a result of that, to allow that discussion due

process, the FCC actually put some NANC change orders in abeyance for awhile and

then removed them from abeyance, and I don’t remember which -- I think one was

one wasn’t. I can’t remember which is which but there has been a lot of due process

with regard to these issues. Thank you.

MR. JIMENEZ: Jose Jimenez from Cox. Then just to understand the

process, are we deciding today to institute the IMG, one question? I don’t know if

that’s giving a timeline, (unintelligible) that may make some sense, and then if it is

45

open to all members of NANC who is going to state -- their responsibility is

supposed to provide notice -- I recommend that we put all those wheels in

motion now or as soon as practical so that we can get the process going.

CHAIRMAN KANE: I’m trying to separate out two things. One is I don’t

think that the Issues Management Group is the right process for resolving the

dispute. It is the right process for addressing some of the policy issues that the

dispute has identified so I think with the Issues Management Group we have a little

longer timeline.

I’m not looking for anything definitive from any kind of Issues Management

Group in September, and I actually would prefer I think to focus on getting the

information we need to make a recommendation on the dispute and then put into

process the Issue Management Group for the policy issues. But if you want to start

thinking about those policy issues (unintelligible) the time to do it.

MALE SPEAKER: John (Unintelligible) Telcordia.

And while I think we have questions about the process, whether the process

was due or not, the important part of the dispute is not that but it was a required

finding made by the NANC. That is not a process -- you can have all of the debate

you want beforehand but if that finding is not made the rule is not satisfied. That’s

the process question.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Yes, we have that opinion in the record here. We

have a full record. Okay, yes.

FEMALE SPEAKER: Can I just ask a clarifying question? You said that

46

you didn’t think the IMG needed to be formed yet because the policy considerations

don’t need to be decided until after resolution. Is that -- because I thought initially

you said you wanted these to be determined before?

CHAIRMAN KANE: No, I said I think there are two different issues here.

One is the dispute which really comes down to perhaps a legal matter, not so much a

process matter or due process procedure, but yes, a procedural matter.

And the other is that the policy issues that the dispute has identified, and that

a lot of the comments have identified, and that our review have identified, and the

problem with having to start thinking about some Issues Management Group to look

at some of those issues, those policy issues -- and I want people to think about if

they’d like to be involved in that.

But I don’t want to, particularly with the summer, put an additional burden on

people to form an Issues Management Group in August and start working on that

with any idea of having anything definitive coming out of that process for the

September meeting.

FEMALE SPEAKER: So are those policy issues separate from the four

that you’ve identified?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Those are the four that we’ve identified as policy

issues.

FEMALE SPEAKER: So will these be determined before the resolution

of the dispute?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Not necessarily, no. These are much broader policy

47

issues.

Any other questions on that?

All right, number ten, the Numbering Oversight Working Group. This is

document number nine.

MS. REIDY: I did have just one question.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Sure, and your name?

MS. REIDY: Karen Reidy from CompTel. Again, I just wanted to ask, if

we don’t do the vote until after the recommendation as to whether they legally

should be in the database, what if the vote goes against the recommendation?

I guess I’m still wondering how that gets resolved because obviously we got

to a recommendation without having had the vote as to what the full NANC thinks is

the right answer.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Any recommendation from the NANC, the

September meeting, would be on the dispute.

MS. REIDY: Right, but the full NANC would need to vote on that so I

guess I’m asking what if the vote turns out against what the recommendation has.

CHAIRMAN KANE: That’s the prerogative of the group to accept the

recommendation so any particular report --

MS. REIDY: All right. Then we still have to then draft the

recommendation and submit it to the FCC that’s based on the vote or no?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Yes.

MS. REIDY: Then the process would then go back to redrafting the

48

recommendation, is that how it would work?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Well, I would hope we would have the

recommendation out in plenty of time that folks who did not agree with the

recommendation would have time to craft an alternative recommendation that they

could bring, okay?

MS. REIDY: Okay, thank you.

REPORT OF THE NUMBERING OVERSIGHT WORKING GROUP

(NOWG)

MS. MCNAMER: Good morning. I’m Natalie McNamer with T-Mobile,

one of the tri-chairs of the NOWG Working Group. It’s the Numbering Oversight

Working Group. I have three documents to submit, our presentation, and then the

draft NANPA and the draft PA performance reports.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, we’ll call them 10-A, 10-B, and 10-C.

MS. MCNAMER: I will not review in its entirety today the actual

performance reports, just the NOWG working group’s presentation.

I am a tri-chair of the NOWG with Laura Dalton of Verizon Communications

and Karen Riepenkroger of Sprint Nextel.

Page two of our presentation shows what we will be reviewing today, and it

is the NANPA and PA ratings charts on both of their performance reports. We’ll be

asking for approval of these draft performance reports to place them into final

closure and submit to the FCC as final.

I’ll just review the NANP and PA change orders and in our presentation

49

present participating companies and our upcoming meeting schedule.

Page three of the presentation shows the rating charts for NANPA and the PA

for the 2009 performance reports. We’ll begin review with the summary of the 2009

PA performance report.

The performance assessment is based on the feedback surveys that we send to

the service providers and regulators and any other interested parties, written

comments and reports, the annual operational review that we had in California this

year, and NOWG observations and interactions with the PA.

The NOWG is pleased to report that the PA’s rating for 2009 is a More Than

Met. More Than Met is defined as that they more then often went beyond the

performance requirements. They provided more than what was required to be

successful, performance was more than competent and reliable, decisions and

recommendation usually exceeded requirements and expectations.

Slide six, we show the survey respondents. This year we received 65 service

provider surveys back and 32 from the regulators.

In discussions with the PA on this, they feel and the NOWG feels that this is

a good number of responses for the entities that actually did business with them.

We always talk about getting more and more surveys and, you know, more

and more makes the statistics higher and everything, and then we took at step back

and actually asked the PA to confirm especially on the state level, of the 32 states, is

that about what you guys work with or is it that we need to just keep trying to beat

the streets to get more?

50

And they thought that that was a very accurate amount of states and service

providers that they worked with consistently throughout the year.

They have a lot more individual service providers that do send in one

application a year, but they had actually looked for us and saw that, you know, how

many over 50 applications a year, less than 50, and these numbers seem really good

so we’re happy with that.

On page seven of the presentation, actually pages seven, eight, and nine, we

just identify each section of the reports and how many tallied up as Exceeded and all

that. We won’t have to review all that with you.

Page ten in the report is a summary of the written comments that were

provided by survey respondents. Outstanding praise for the PA staff was a

consistent theme throughout the survey that they provide prompt, courteous, and

accurate responses to inquires. They’re very knowledgeable and supportive in

providing expertise and they are readily available to go out of their way to insure

issues are resolved.

And they are also always more than willing to help and provide

documentation for different situations and will demonstrate professionalism and

customer focus.

Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated. Some notable

comments pertain to pool replenishment, training of new pooling administrators,

communication to end users regarding implementation of change orders, and

suggested past enhancements.

51

So the NOWG has concluded that the written comments were not indicative

of any consistent performance issues and in many cases provided significant praise

for NOWG PA staffers.

On page 13, the NOWG is recommending that the PA focus on the following

improvements; to continue proactively manage the rate center inventories to insure

resources are available when needed, to continue to consider process improvement

suggestions provided by service providers and regulators in their survey comments,

to continue the proactive NPAC scrub project to clean up the over-contaminated

blocks in the PA inventory, and to continue their customer focus.

Do you want to do them separately?

CHAIRMAN KANE: We have two reports for approval, one for the

NANPA performance evaluation.

MS. MCNAMER: The one I just reviewed was the PA.

CHAIRMAN KANE: The PA, okay. So before we move on to the

NANPA one, is there any objection to approval of the PA evaluation report? Don?

MR. GRAY: So moved.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Second?

MR. JIMENEZ: Second.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Seconded by Cox. Any objections? Okay, we’ll

consider it unanimously approved.

Okay and your second report.

MS. MCNAMER: Yes, on page 14 of our presentation we start with the

52

NANPAs performance report for 2009. This assessment was based on the

performance feedback surveys, the written comments and reports, their annual

performance review, and other observations and interactions with the NANPA.

On page 15 we indicate that the NANPA also received a More Than Met

rating for 2009. Summary of the survey respondents is on page 16.

The NANPA each year seems to be going down on the surveys especially

under service providers. This year there were 19 service provider surveys in 27

states. Again, we did discuss this with the NANPA and they thought that the 27

states was a good amount of what they work with on a consistent basis.

We all have concerns that the number of the NANPA surveys keep going

down and in discussion, we feel that since we now have the NAS/PAS interface, and

service providers rarely go into the NAS system, everything is processed in PAS and

transferred into NAS so a lot of service providers don’t realize that they work with

the NANPA until you point out all the different aspects of what NANPA does with

the relief planning, the other resources.

And every service provider should have an NRUF so we know that they do,

do both (unintelligible) with it so one of our goals for the coming year is to figure out

how to get more NANPA surveys in.

On page 17 of the presentation, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are all just the individual

sections of the survey and the tally marks, how much they tallied, as many for each

of the different choices.

Some of the written comments that were provided by survey respondents

53

were that significant praise of NANPA staff was a significant theme throughout the

surveys. 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, that they’re very helpful and

knowledgeable, experienced, proactive, prompt, and efficient, courteous,

professional and diligent.

On page 22, 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.

Page 23, as the NANPA continued to effectively manage all aspects of NPA

relief in 2009, and throughout 2009 NANPA personnel continued to consistently

exhibit their professionalism and expertise while performing the NANPA duties.

The NOWG is recommending the following suggestions be implemented for

continued improvement; that they continue ongoing enhancements as necessary to

NAS and the NANPA website, they conduct the training via online web

conferencing regarding website navigation search functions and content which John

Manning had presented earlier that they have already had three of these trainings.

They are going to offer some refresher training for NAS users as necessary.

This is a change. Instead of utilizing the PIP, the PIP is a Performance

Improvement Plan for identifying and tracking performance improvements, develop

an additional document for tracking and reporting performance activities at the

monthly status meetings.

54

So currently anything they review with the NOWG at our monthly meetings,

they’ve been putting on a report called the PIP, a Performance Improvement Plan,

but since most of these items are not really performance improvement items it’s just

the document that they use to present stuff to us.

They’ve now created a separate report called the MOR, Monthly Operational

Review so that will be presented on NAS.

When people think of PIP they think there’s, you know, a problem and you

have a PIP in place but these are just the items that are truly just informational items

to keep the NOWG aware of what they’re doing. We thought that there weren’t

enough acronyms in this world and we needed to add another one.

(LAUGHTER)

And that is it for the NANPA report.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, so we have document 10-C which is the

NANPA performance evaluation report. Is there any objection to approving this

report? Seeing none, it’s been unanimously approved. Thank you very much.

MS. MCNAMER: The next couple of slides just have the PA change

orders which were reviewed with you already by Amy, and the NANPA change

orders which were reviewed by John.

The last page is our NOWG meeting schedule and we wanted to make sure

everybody on NANC is aware that the NOWG is open to all interested parties so if

anybody is interested in joining any of our calls or participating in the NOWG, just

contact one of the three tri-chairs and we’ll make sure you get all the invites and all

55

the information you might want.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Any questions on the report? Thank

you very much.

STATUS OF THE INDUSTRY NUMBERING COMMITTEE (INC)

ACTIVITIES

Agenda item number 11 is the Industry Numbering Committee report.

Adam.

MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, Adam Newman, Telcordia

Technologies, Industry Numbering Committee Chairman.

Our first slide talks about the reports on our last meeting in April which was

our last face-to-face since our last report to the NANC, and our next meeting in June

in Overland Park, Kansas hosted by Sprint.

Page three, the NPA subcommittee, relief NPAs for Personal Communication

Service, PCS. Currently the 500 NPA and the 533 NPA are used for personal

communication services.

We were requested by NANPA to officially designate the next set of easily

recognizable codes, ERCs as relief NPAs to be opened by NANPA and we do so in

the following order, 544, 566, 577, and 588.

In accordance with the current PCS 5YY guidelines, no NXXs from the new

relief NPA, and the next one is 544, shall be assigned until all of the NXXs and the

current NPAs, 500 and 533 are assigned. Any questions?

Seeing none, issue 534, development of the pANI guidelines, every once in

56

awhile since this issue has been in initial pending for quite some time now, we like to

take an opportunity to sort of refresh the NANC on issue 534.

In March 2007, INC finalized the permanent pANI guidelines for routing

number administrator per a NANC action item. In April NANC reviewed, approved,

and transmitted the guidelines to the FCC and that transmittal requested a

clarification of a few items so that the --

(Tape Interrupted When Changing Sides)

(END OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE A)

* * * * *

(START OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE B)

MR. NEWMAN: -- Their change order for permanent

pANI administration. In June 2007, the FCC sent a letter to the NANC Chair

agreeing to incorporate the pANI guidelines into the new PA contract with certain

clarifications and gave an example of one such clarification.

In August the FCC awarded that contract stating that the PA shall serve as the

interim RNA until such time as a permanent pANI solution is in place.

It is INC’s understanding that the pooling administrator is awaiting further

clarification from the FCC on certain issues and assumptions and the permanent

RNA function cannot be implemented until those are resolved.

Until the FCC provides those needed clarifications and the FCC approves PA

change order has been implemented, INC cannot resolve issue 534 and publish its

permanent pANI guidelines to the industry.

57

Okay, why is it important? Until then wireless service providers will

continue to use their geographic telephone numbers for E911 pANI purposes rather

than assigning such TNs to end user customers so they’ll continue to be using them

as administrative numbers to provide for pANIs for those handsets that have roamed

onto their networks.

In addition, ongoing multiple pANI administrators continue to assign pANIs

which may lead to E911 service impacting duplicate pANI assignments and

complicate transition to a permanent RNA.

What it comes down to is, the longer we have multiple interim

administrators, it will be potentially harder for the PA as the permanent pANI

administrator to then integrate the data and avoid all potential consequences. Not

impossible, just more difficult. Don.

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

Adam, have you received any feedback or have you via the grapevine, any

information on what the impediments may be and the FCC issuing some clear

guidance?

MR. NEWMAN: So all that we have been informed is that the PA does

continue to meet with Commission staff on a relatively regular basis looking to get

an update on this. We’re not aware of essentially the timeline for resolving those

clarifications and what it will take to get them done. It doesn’t quite answer your

question but it’s the best I can do.

MR. GRAY: No, no, I appreciate that. And Chairman Kane, I guess I

58

would urge that somehow we as NANC see what we may be able to do to facilitate

this because if my memory is correct, there was pretty unanimous consent by the

working groups as to how the pANIs should go forward. Everything was in place

and it was simply a case of the FCC providing the specific direction to go forth,

implement.

So if there are issues that we did not properly address or give sufficient

information to, I would hope that we could get that identified and provide it.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Very good point. We talk about 911 and we talk

about all the issues that the providers have to deal with, that the states and the

PSAPS have to deal with too. Where is this at the FCC, what bureau is it with?

MR. NEWMAN: Amy is probably better to answer that but I will answer

that, I presume WCB though.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Okay, it’s not a public safety wireless competition. I

will follow-up on that and if we dislodge the four state delegations we may get

something moving on this. Thank you very much.

MR. NEWMAN: I think it’s my last three slides actually, are the issues

that remain in initial pending for various reasons. The first one we just talked about,

issue 534.

Issue 604 is subject to PA change order 13 as discussed by the pooling

administrator and I think there’s a tentative implementation schedule coming up for

this fall on that one.

Issue 611, augmenting the NRUF verification procedures, John Manning

59

reported on this. This is change order 18 and I think the plan there is to implement

that this fall in time for the February NRUF filing, February 20, 2011.

Issue 632, updates the dedicated code section. That’s PA change order 9 as

reported by Amy and that’s scheduled for implementation next month.

Issue 656, update the TBPAG, expedite process for Thousands-Block, that’s

PA change order 14, and issue 670, remove attaching the part two for the CO code

request is pending a new change order.

Slide seven is issues that are in initial closure, they should go final I think

today, so I don’t think we received any objections of our process so these should go

to final closure today.

The only one that may be of interest to some members sitting around the

table is issue 681, COCAG Appendix C in the Thousands-Block pooling assignment

guidelines clarification of block contamination.

We updated the language of the guidelines to make it clear that the

contamination level that was permitted was up to and including ten percent. The

guidelines essentially said up to ten percent as I recall and so it implied that you

could only have 99 as opposed to 100 contaminating telephone numbers. Everybody

was implementing it correctly but we wanted the wording of the guidelines to match

the actual FCC order.

And slide eight is the issues that went final between our last report to the

NANC and this report. All of them have been previously reported on as an initial

closure.

60

And if there are no further questions --

CHAIRMAN KANE: Is there anything in here for action by the NANC?

MR. NEWMAN: Other than 534 which we discussed, not that I’m aware

of Madam Chairman, but I do think Don has his card up.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Yes, Don.

MR. GRAY: Thank you. Don Gray, Nebraska Public Service

Commission.

Just a heads up, as a state representative I’m also involved with a group of

states that are called State Coordinating Group, SCG, and we have telephonic

communication about once a month on various issues, topics that come up.

And a number of states have identified that they have some concerns and

questions on specific numbering resource related topics and they cover the gamut

from the allocation process, activation, utilization reporting, and the reclamation

process for codes.

And what we’ve talked about doing and to give Adam a heads up, is that it

looks like there will probably be two or three states that will be attending INC 112 in

Overland Park so that we can have a dialogue with INC about these items that we’ve

identified and for us to better understand how it’s intended that the guidelines be put

in place.

And also for INC to perhaps hear from us where these guidelines, especially

some of the issues in initial pending may have been having some, shall I call them

unattended consequences on states in our processing of the resource methodology.

61

So heads up, we’re coming to visit.

MR. NEWMAN: I appreciate it Don, and we welcome that participation

and as Don is aware, that we actually permit, not only permit but encourage

regulatory participation, and we don’t require regulators to be members of the

Industry Numbering Committee to come and participate in the meetings. That’s all I

have.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you. Jose.

MR. JIMENEZ: Jose Jimenez from Cox. I wanted to follow-up briefly.

Don, is it a concern that the state regulators are saying that there is not enough

guidance for the states or the providers on how -- I’m trying to understand more

about what the concern is, and then eventually are these issues going to come up to

NANC? I’m just curious about what is it that we’re looking at in terms of

(unintelligible) what the process is. Thank you.

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

We’re trying to use the process that’s in place. INC being the body that

develops all the guidelines and reports to NANC, that’s why we’re going to INC, and

because regulators on a regular basis do not attend INC meetings or the telephonic

conference calls, there may be things that we didn’t understand or our concerns may

not have even risen to a level of being noticed by those that are developing the

guidelines, so that’s why we’re going to talk to them.

What are some of the issues? They range from things such as the process

period for allocation of resources in both blocks and codes has been reduced, and it

62

was reduced from business days to calendar days and that in combination with

increased efficiency sometimes states don’t have an opportunity to review and

adequately assess a request for resources, and by the time a state may even know that

the resource has been requested, before they can even make calls to the carrier, it’s

been issued.

And, you know, a lot of times it’s valid, it’s good. There’s nothing wrong

with it but there have been enough situations that states have said wait a minute, I

didn’t even get to see this.

Another issue, and we prefer not to go through all of them here, but another

issue would be something along the lines of there are some carriers that do not

properly report their resources, either they don’t report NRUF at all or their reports

are not as accurate as they may be and so, they come for resources and they may or

may not be told you can’t have any because you did not provide an NRUF, or if they

are told they put in an updated NRUF this afternoon and tomorrow they’re going to

get their resources, and so it’s kind of like, wait a minute here.

You know, you’re asking for a large number of resources that you didn’t

forecast and again with the fast process time, it’s often difficult for a state, especially

a state that has relief planning in progress or they’re on the cusp of looking at that,

it’s difficult for them to properly manage their resources on these short timeframes.

So those are some of the kind of issues that we just want to talk about and get

a better understanding and go from there.

MR. NEWMAN: And so just from INC perspective, we welcome the

63

discussion and quite honestly look forward to it, and I think it’s clear that because

this was raised here we’d end up reporting on the outcome of these discussions and

depending on what they are, the discussions may lead to INC opening an issue to

make changes to the guidelines.

The discussion may lead to the state participants deciding there’s no real

issue here in which case we could just report on that result as well at the next NANC

meeting in September, but I would expect that INC by consensus would agree to

report on it. I don’t see any problems with that.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Anyone else? Okay, thank you very much for your

report.

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF NUMBERING WORKING GROUP (FoN

WG)

And our final report, item number 12, the Future of Numbering Working

Group. Don.

MR. GRAY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Don Gray, co-chair of the

Future of Numbering Working Group.

Let me focus most of the time on the paper that’s attached but start off here

by just a summary of our activities.

We did have our usual conference calls. We initiated review of the working

items and achieved consensus on a White Paper that we’ve been working on for what

seems like an inordinate amount of time, but when we look back at the complexity of

the issue and the things that we needed to understand and consider, it went probably

64

about as quickly as it could have, and that is the toll free resources, the allocation,

assignment, and management.

That’s provided in a separate paper which we present for your consideration

and obviously, we’ll be looking for feedback and probably a discussion at the next

NANC as to what we should do with the paper.

There could be probably two possible alternatives, one would be thank you

very much for your good work and we’ll put that on file. The other one could be

thank you and let’s form a consensus recommendation to the FCC, you know, with

different pieces of it.

To summarize what the issue is that we have been working with, some

members of the industry and also members of the FON brought before the working

group the fact that toll free numbering resources while they’re considered and

currently by statute are a part of the National Numbering Resources and, therefore,

cannot be sold, bartered, traded or in other ways moved around, are unique and as

more and more people make use of toll free numbering resources they in some cases

acquire larger and larger value.

We have all seen advertisements whether it’s print media, TV, websites,

where toll free numbers have been memorialized or a mnemonic has been made out

of the digits and created a word. I’ll not plug any specific ones but just this morning

I saw a couple, three in the newspapers.

We can all think of several products that if somebody said they wanted to

order something off the website, a name would immediately come to mind as a toll

65

free number you would dial.

There are several facets that we’ve identified in our group. The first is, and I

need to have this upfront so everybody understands, part of the problem that we’ve

been able to identify is that the Resp Orgs, the responsibility organizations that

allocate a number to a particular entity, they draw their numbers down from the pool

at large and they can assign any of the available numbers.

That entity may not be the same entity that in fact becomes the carrier which

transports the traffic of that number and the two databases that are used not only for

the routing of numbers but for who has that number assigned to them and what

specifics belong with that are not publicly available to the general public. They’re

only available within the 800 community itself.

As a result there are times in which an entity obtains use of a number without

the proper authorization. To put it into typical plain old telephone network parlance,

somebody gets slammed.

Now the difference is you’re not going to another carrier, you don’t even

have service to your business anymore, you’re out of order. So the number you

thought you were getting your business on, the calls aren’t coming to you anymore,

they’re going someplace else and it could be as benign as instead of going to an

automotive shop it’s now going to a mortuary and so, you know, it’s totally

disconnected.

It could be that the person that now has it is in the same business and so now

they’re siphoning business off of that responsible holder.

66

So some of the things we identified was there probably needs to be some

effort by the toll free community to go back and take a look at their databases, how

their databases are put together, and give some serious consideration to having a

unified database that can be accessed at different levels.

You know, perhaps regulators might have one because I know as a state

regulator one of the difficulties we encounter is that many of the auto dialers are

using toll free numbering resources for call backs or for opt outs or other things and

sometimes they don’t fully comply with the rules and regulations a state may have

for an auto dialer or for a company that’s making calls.

Yet if all I have is the 800 number I have to call in favors to find out who that

is, even to find out who the Resp Org is, and even once we’ve gotten there then the

Resp Org sometimes and quite often says that’s proprietary information, I can’t tell

you who that is, provide me with a warrant and we’ll be glad to give you that

information. And so then I’ve got to go get the AG involved, and you know how

that process goes, it’s not an easy one. But you know, I think there’s some work that

could be done there.

The next piece then that we go through in quite a bit of detail is how the

numbers are currently being used, the fact that the numbers do seem to acquire value

to them simply as a number and that that value can have a monetary value placed on

it.

Now we know from anecdotal information that sometimes numbers go from

one entity, let me put a party to another party by the buying and selling of a business

67

and someone simply -- you know, let’s say that you had a family business that had

done quite well. Your parents had prospered by it and you’re the remaining kids and

you don’t want to do that.

You’ve decided to go in another direction so you choose to sell whatever the

business is, and it has associated with it an 800 number and that number was

considered a part of the business.

Well, does that meet the guidelines, does that meet the rules or not, is that the

buying, selling, or bartering or is that simply a part of this business that entity may or

may not continue on.

So there’s some fine lines here, and we think it’s worthy of the group’s

review of the information we’ve put together, consideration for the different

possibilities that exist, and then to come back and have a discussion and perhaps

from that provide a recommendation to the FCC on stay the same, make some

changes, or whatever.

I would say that once again I think the Future of Numbering Working Group

has done an outstanding job. We seem, and I say that we as the Future of

Numbering, when it’s a contentious issue we do a great job and we do it quickly.

When it’s a long issue man we stay with it and we do a good job there.

So I’ve been really impressed by the way the members continue to work

together and although there’s differences of opinions often times, we come to you

with a document that we all stand behind and while we may not particularly agree

with a specific position on it, we’re all in agreement that we brought to you the facts

68

and asked for your consideration.

We will continue to have meetings, and they will be published on the

website. I guess we do not have more meetings scheduled yet so we will get notice

out on when those next meetings are, and we will probably start to look at some of

the additional issues that we have which are on page 10 and 11, one of which could

be geographic numbering resources and it’s impact.

And what we’re talking about there and it kind of dovetails with the toll free

numbering resources, the toll free industry has developed methods where more than

one company can make use of a particular toll free number, especially those that are

mnemonics or that may be a franchise type of organization such as a sandwich

franchise, a pizza franchise, typically they’re going to be food or convenience type

franchises where you’ve got franchisees all across the United States.

You could have a single toll free number that serves all of them by simply

evaluating that incoming number as to geographically where they are located and

then what time of day is it, and there are several different tools they can use to route

that number to a specific business based on a nationwide number.

Now that works as long as we’re dealing with wireline numbers but what

happens when you start dealing with a voice over IP number whose NPANXX may

have no relationship to where they physically are located or a wireless number in

which probably a good chance they are not physically where their number may

indicate. How do we handle that?

So some good questions that are coming up which kind of start to peek under

69

the cover of national geographic portability. Yes, we do it through rate center

consolidation but is the time starting to become ripe that we should look at that rate

centers don’t mean what they used to mean anymore and looking at portability

beyond a rate center.

So we’ve got a lot of FoN issues coming up for us, and we look forward to

your comments and your feedback on the White Paper.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you, Don. Comments on the White Paper?

I see on page five of your presentation you say the FoN can go no further

unless it obtains input from the broader toll free industry stakeholders on the White

Paper issue.

And so you are recommending that the White Paper or a version acceptable

to NANC be circulated for comment to the broader toll free stakeholders including

the (unintelligible) committee under ATIS, the SMS 800 management team, and

various toll free subscribers for analysis, comment, and input, and that with the

support of the NANC, the FON could then analyze this input, continue its

collaboration and evolve it into further analysis for further consideration.

So I think as you say we have to determine, do we want to distribute this

White Paper more broadly than to this group here? Comments on that, suggestions?

And how do we know who this broader toll free industry is because it could be an

awful lot of stakeholders there. Is that something that you’ve got a handle on? Yes,

AT&T.

MR. HULTQUIST: Hank Hultquist, AT&T. I guess I would like to read it

70

before reaching a conclusion as to whether we should agree to circulate it more

broadly but I do appreciate the work that went into it. Clearly there was a lot of

consideration and I’m sure a lot of research because I’ve had occasion to deal with

these toll free issues in the past and it’s always like stepping into a different world.

MR. GREENHAUS: David Greenhaus with 800 Response. I just want to

reiterate a thank you to all the members of the Future Number Working Group. You

did an excellent job in really sticking with this one and then doing a very thorough

job with it.

I would just like to put in a suggestion that we do continue on with this work,

that we do circulate the paper. I think as the Chairman has suggested, I think it’s

important that we circulate this to some affected subscriber groups because I think

they would have a lot to say about this because to me it gets down to the ability of

businesses who are by far the larger user group of toll free numbers, businesses,

nonprofits, even government.

In small businesses in particular we need to have some sort of access to good

vanity toll free numbers which is very difficult in the current environment.

So I don’t know if we need to agree upon where to circulate this at this point

in time but I think even groups such as the Small Business Administration, you

know, Direct Marketing Association, groups such as that could give us some

valuable input.

CHAIRMAN KANE: I’ve also heard a request for some time to review the

paper so when we finish discussion I’ll look at a timeline on that.

71

MR. JIMENEZ: Jose Jimenez from Cox. Talking about the timeline

again, that’s my theme today I supposed so first of all Don, what would be the best

way and when would you want to see feedback from NANC members on the paper?

MR. GRAY: Well, obviously the best way would be via email. That

seems to be the best way to get it back. As far as timeline I guess I would defer to

the Chairman on that.

The one comment I would make is that the document is published on the

NANC Chair documents website so anybody that wants to look at it, read it, it’s

certainly available to them to go through that process.

I think perhaps what AT&T is suggesting is that we may need to determine

do we want a formal invite process to solicit the comments or whether just the

NANC itself wants to move forward. Is that it?

MR. HULTQUIST: Hank Hultquist, AT&T. I’d like a chance to read it.

There may be some fairly minor changes or additions that could strengthen it and not

having had a chance to read it yet I’d just like to take some time but I think it’s good

to point out, it is available on a public website and people should feel free to

encourage members of interested communities to take a look at it. Their feedback

could be equally or more valuable than ours.

MR. CANDELARIA: Jerome Candelaria, NCTA. Thanks again for the

marathon effort in putting the White Paper together and pursuing this FoN issue.

I did have one observation and question. I read the report, and going forward

as you get feedback on the property rights model, the motor vehicle model, and

72

licensing model, the question comes up of what are your assumptions concerning

numbering supply.

You know, you fleshed out the demand and how price could be a factor there.

Going forward I think it would be helpful to also consider what this means for

supply, you know, the government stepping in and expanding. I mean this is a

resource that can be expanding. What are the assumptions there, static or growing?

It’s something we will need to consider going forward.

MR. GRAY: That’s a very good point and Jerome, we did not in the paper

quantify whether or not any of these possible models were applicable to a static, a

dynamic resource base. It’s just, here’s possible models that we could use.

And I guess I would suggest that at this point the closest you could make

some kind of relationship if that’s what you’re looking for would be the FCC’s

auctioning of air space of radio frequencies.

You know, there’s a finite amount of radio frequency spectrum available and

in some cases it’s already been subdivided into areas that are not going to be

available for cell phone personal communications, other things like that, others that

are specific to government.

And, you know, you could make a similar analogy to toll free resources.

They are finite but as the industry has done in determining how a single number can

serve a franchisee across the entire United States, I’m sure they will make strides in

how do we better use those resources.

So right now it’s totally open. You know, the first idea that we have to get by

73

a hurdle to have more discussion is, should toll free resources be treated differently

than the rest of our numbering resources. Once that gate is past, then it becomes

okay, now what, what model, what method, who, a lot of issues there.

So to me all this is, is a document to facilitate those discussions. It’s the start.

It’s not even close to being the end.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Any other questions, discussion? Okay, we do have

a --

(Tape Interrupted When Changing Sides)

(END OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE B)

* * * * *

(START OF AUDIOTAPE 3, SIDE A)

CHAIRMAN KANE: -- From the FoN that the White Paper or a version

acceptable to the NANC be circulated for comment. It’s already been noted that at

least this version is up on the NANC website, but I will not say that it’s the website

that gets the most hits. It’s out there and so it has to be called to people’s attention.

And I do think it’s a 20 page paper or so, that we need a little time to review

it. This is the 20th. Look at the paper get back to me by June 15th. If you’ve got

any serious objections, anything in it, or any suggestions without having to send it all

the way back through FoN, just let me know, and if you have any serious objection

to circulating it, and then we will ask the FoN to circulate it more widely, to at least

bring it to the attention of other stakeholders and to receive input on it and then

report back to us at the September meeting. Okay, thank you, Don.

74

MR. GRAY: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN KANE: Thank you, Don. I guess the next item is summary

of action items.

If I can summarize what we did today, we approved the transcript, we

endorsed two best practices, approved the evaluations of the NANPA and the PA,

and the Chair agreed to communicate to the FCC about moving the pANI item 534

forward.

We are going to review the White Paper from the FoN by June 15th, and then

we will ask the FoN to identify additional stakeholders and circulate it to them and

receive comments on it. I think that summarizes the action items that we took today.

Yes.

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller of T-Mobile. I may have missed it but was

there an action item to provide written comments to the dispute team?

CHAIRMAN KANE: Yes, thank you very much. To provide any written

comments to the dispute team on the Telcordia dispute by July 31st. Thank you.

Anything else? Jose.

MR. JIMENEZ: I think the dispute team will then have a

recommendation on the dispute before the next NANC meeting?

CHAIRMAN KANE: That is our intention, yes. Okay, any public

comments or participation? Anyone else from the public who has not said something

that they want to say? If they are still on the bridge, anything to input? Okay, any

other business?

75

Okay, there being no further business before us, it says adjourn no later than

5:00 p.m. and we’re going to adjourn at 12:10 p.m. Have a good weekend. Our next

meeting is September 23rd. Thank you.

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:

_____________________________

76