*North American Numbering Council*

Meeting Minutes

May 23-24, 2000 (Final
7.21.00)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

*I. Time and Place of Meeting.* The North American Numbering Council
held a meeting commencing at 8:30 a.m., at the Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC.

II. *List of Attendees.*

Voting Council Members:

1\. Beth Kistner ALTS

2\. Ed Gould AT&T

3\. Dan Hochvert/Jim Castagna Bell Atlantic

4\. Teresa Muir Bell Canada

5\. Ron Binz CPI

6\. Lori Messing CTIA

7\. Norm Epstein GTE

8\. JoAnne Sanford/Erin Duffy NARUC

9\. Peter Pescosolido NARUC

10\. Greg Pattenaude NARUC

11\. Philip McClelland NASUCA

12\. Barbara Meisenheimer NASUCA

13\. James Goldstein Nextel

14\. Dawn Lawrence Nextlink

15\. David Bench Nortel Networks

16\. Trent Boaldin OPASTCO

17\. Harold Salters PCIA

18\. Bill Adair SBC

19\. Hoke Knox Sprint

20\. John Hoffman Sprint PCS

21\. David Thompson TIA

22\. Paul Hart USTA

23\. Cathie Capita VoiceStream

24\. Peter Guggina WorldCom

Special Members (non-voting):

Jean-Paul Emard ATIS

John Manning NANPA

Commission Employees:

Cheryl Callahan, Designated Federal Officer (DFO)

Jeannie Grimes, Alternate DFO

Diane Griffin Harmon, Deputy Chief, Network Services Division, CCB

Aaron Goldberger, NSD, CCB

Barry Payne, NSD, CCB

III. *Estimate of Public Attendance.* Approximately 39 members of the
     public attended the meeting as observers.

IV. *Documents Introduced*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) Agenda

(2) NANC Directory

(3) NANPA Report to the NANC

(4) 2000 COCUS and NPA Exhaust Analysis

(5) Rationed and Non-Rationed NPA Exhaust Analysis

(6) NANPA Oversight Working Group, NANPA Annual

> Performance Evaluation

(7) Number Resource Optimization Working Group Report

(8) NRO WG NANP Exhaust Projection Assumptions, draft 5/18/00

(9) Status of Inconsistent Submission Criteria: COCUS Tests

(10) Fees for Extensions of Reserved Number Issues

(11) NANC Meeting Minutes, April 25-25, 2000 (5/22/00 draft)

(12) Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report

(13) LNPA Working Group Report

(14) Wireless Number Portability Subcommittee Report

(15) NANC Assumptions IMG Report, draft 5/18/00

(16) Transmittal letter to Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Re: Assumptions

> Report

(17) North American Numbering Plan Billing and Collection Agent (NBANC)

(18) NBANC Accounts Receivable by Industry Type

(19) Table of NANC Projects

(20) Cost Recovery Working Group Report

*V. Summary of the Meeting.*

# ***A. Opening Remarks***. Chairman Hoffman provided opening remarks, and welcomed Bell Canada representative, Teresa Muir to the Council. The April 25-26, 2000 NANC meeting minutes were distributed by hard copy for review by Council members for approval at the Wednesday, May 24, 2000 session. 

B.  ***North American Numbering Plan Administration Report.*** John
    Manning provided the report to the Council which included an
    overview of the April 2000 COCUS results and NPA exhaust analysis; a
    review of the proposed NANP exhaust projection assumptions, and
    update on state specific CO code administration processes and
    procedures.

Mr. Manning stated that the NPA by NPA exhaust projections are sorted by
NPA and by state and described the methodology used to develop the
projections. NANPA is responsible for providing NPA by NPA exhaust
projections as well as to predict NANP exhaust, which will be available
at the June 20-21, meeting. The April 2000 COCUS form was distributed to
carriers in January with a March 1, 2000 due date. The data requested
includes company name, service provider type, operating company number
(OCN), point of contact information, yearly forecasted CO codes for 2000
through 2004, and telephone number utilization. Service provider data
received by April 20, in addition to historical data from the past three
years were used to create the NPA exhaust projection. The NPA exhaust
analysis also used historical CO code assignment data by industry
segment for the past three years and the total number of service
providers, service providers' expansion into rate centers within an NPA
over the same time period, and NPA relief activity. This analysis
includes area code assignments for January through March 2000.

Mr. Manning explained that the growth pool for each NPA is the quantity
of CO codes identified to absorb anticipated and non-forecasted demand.
The non-forecasted demand along with the linear regression analysis for
monthly demand was combined to come up with the projected demand in an
NPA and the projected exhaust date for that area code.

In response to a question on how NANPA deals with an area code that is
in rationing, Mr. Manning stated this was determined by taking the
rationed amount divided into the total number of available codes to come
up with the exhaust date. There is no "growth pool" because there is an
artificial limit on the number of codes that can be assigned.

Bill Adair, SBC, questioned whether the assumptions used for competitive
local exchange carriers (CLEC) footprint expansion were the same as
those used last year. Mr. Manning pointed out that the growth
assumptions in the current NPA exhaust analysis are different from the
assumptions used last year, but the matrix is the same.

Hoke Knox, Sprint, asked whether number pooling was factored in the
matrix, and if not when would the NANPA reflect the impact of pooling on
NPA exhaust. Mr. Manning stated that when an NPA goes into pooling, then
the impact of pooling will be considered in the demand. NANPA will not
use the Illinois trial as the model to gauge the impact of pooling
because it is the opinion of NANPA that pooling impacts each NPA
differently.

Chairman Hoffman observed that doing a NANP exhaust projection (based on
the exhaust study) without analyzing the impact of pooling is probably a
good baseline; however, there is a need to take the second step and
study the impact of pooling. Chairman Hoffman further stated that if a
report is published with an exhaust date that does not consider pooling,
after the FCC has ordered mandatory nation-wide pooling, then it tells
only half the story.

Mr. Manning stated that the assumptions in the NANP exhaust study do not
take into account the impact of the *NRO Order*. NANPA ran a sensitivity
analysis by increasing or decreasing total demand over the NANP to see
exactly what would happen. For example, the NANPA planned to run an
analysis where demand is decreased by 10, 20, 30 percent, then look at
the impact on the NANP exhaust timeframe. Mr. Manning suggested that
this analysis would account for some impact of the *NRO Order*. He noted
that, trying to identify which NPAs will be pooled at this point would
be a difficult process with a lot of differing assumptions that perhaps
would not be agreed upon. Mr. Manning stated that the NANP exhaust
projection based on the information today without pooling, then going
forward, would provide a benchmark by which to compare the impact of
pooling and utilization thresholds. In order to gauge the impact of
pooling now would require knowing when pooling will be implemented, the
donation rates and the demand after donation, etc., on each NPA. These
determinations will be subject to a lot of assumptions.

Chairman Hoffman acknowledged the difficulty with reflecting the impact
of pooling on NANP exhaust, but suggested there is a need to run an
analysis based on pooling as outlined in the *NRO Order.*

Paul Hart commented that pooling will change the rate of NXX consumption
and agreed that a forecast of NANP exhaust with pooling should be done
as soon as possible. Norm Epstein added that we definitely need to look
at the effect of pooling and develop a model that represents the real
world and recommended upgrading the current model to incorporate the
*NRO Order* based on reality. He further suggested that the NANPA and
the Council should discuss how to reflect the pooling impact. Mr.
Manning added that NeuStar is just now gathering the information from
the 310 NPA interim pooling trial.

With regard to the code reclamation process in the *NRO Order*, Mr.
Manning stated that the NANPA did not take reclamation into
consideration when it generated the current NPA exhaust report; and that
NANPA would need about six months to understand the effect of pooling
and reclamation.

Barbara Meisenheimer noted that the Missouri Commission used the
Lockheed Martin (LM) pooling model to gauge the effect of pooling. She
suggested it would be a useful tool to estimate change in demand.
Chairman Hoffman added that several parties have used the LM model to
determine the effect of pooling and have found the model to be a very
effective tool. In response to whether the FCC would like to see an
exhaust projection with pooling factored in, Cheryl Callahan, Designated
Federal Officer (DFO) agreed that it would be helpful to the FCC to have
such information.

Helen Mickiewicz, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), stated
that California has seen a significant decline in NXX requests since the
implementation of pooling. She noted that carriers are requesting
one-fourth of their original projections. Mr. Manning stated that
pooling administration donation rates are not used to put NPA exhaust
projections together, but rather CO code administration assignment
history. Barry Bishop, NeuStar, stated that with the interim pooling
trials there are separate entries and that NeuStar is willing to work
with trial data and provide the spreadsheet used to collect data. He
pointed out that it takes about six months to see data once pooling is
implemented because service providers are allowed a six-month inventory.
Mr. Adair recommended doing a NANP exhaust analysis reflecting the
impact of pooling and again in six months when we have more complete
data. Phil McClelland, NASUCA, added that the *NRO Order* has a
projected schedule, which is fairly gradual, and that it should be
reflected in whatever NeuStar is doing.

Peter Guggina cautioned that NANC should be careful with what it is
asking of NeuStar because at this time there is not enough data on the
table. He recommended NANPA look at NANP exhaust without pooling,
provide empirical forecasts of impact of pooling, and then the results.
Mr. Guggina further stated that there is a need to come up with an
agreement and this should be built into the PA requirements as well, and
suggested the NRO Working Group work this issue.

Brian Baldwin, NRO WG Co-Chair stated that the NRO WG provided input on
the assumptions to be used for the NANP exhaust projection. Mr. Manning
stated that NANPA would provide the NANP exhaust forecast at the June
NANC meeting with data as of April 1, 2000 without pooling. To further
analyze the impact of pooling on NANP exhaust on an NPA by NPA basis,
NANPA would need to identify which NPAs would be involved. This
projection may not be available by the June NANC. It was suggested that
the NRO WG work with NANPA on developing the assumptions by June to
produce the NANP exhaust analysis, which considers the effect of number
pooling. It was agreed that the NANPA would provide a NANP exhaust
projection, which considers the effects of pooling. Chairman Hoffman
suggested delivery for the exhaust report using the pooling factor and
assumptions by the July NANC meeting.

[Rationed and Non-Rationed NPA Exhaust Analysis]{.underline}. Mr.
Manning explained that the exhaust date for NPAs in rationing was based
upon the established monthly rationed amount. Council members inquired
as to what each NPA's forecasted exhaust date would be if rationing were
not in place. NANPA used historical demand data and COCUS submissions to
develop the non-rationed demand.

Helen Mickiewicz, stated that based on lottery information received from
California service providers, the COCUS projections may not be an
appropriate basis for determining projected demand with or without
rationing.

Trent Boaldin, OPASTCO observed that NPA codes in rationing should be
decreasing.

Mr. Manning remarked that there had been a slight decrease in rationing.
Mr. Boaldin stated that in the interest of competition, numbers need to
be made available -- if rationing increases, then you are limiting the
number of TNs available. Chairman Hoffman opined that what drives
rationing is an increase use of numbers as a result of new services and
new competitors -- mathematically it pushes an NPA into rationing.

[Proposed NANP Exhaust Projection Assumptions]{.underline}. Mr. Manning
provided a list of eleven assumptions to be used to calculate NANP
exhaust. With regard to item10 of the assumptions, the total quantity of
NPAs is 705, however it was suggested that NANPA factor in additional
resources by adding back into the total the maximum amount available.
Mr. Manning noted that would mean taking the total of 800 NPAs, and
subtracting only the NPAs set aside for N11, ERCs and toll free, etc.,
which would increase the total to 792 available NPAs, and prepare an
exhaust analysis based on the adjusted total. That would mean adding
back into the pool NPAs that have been set aside for NANP expansion
purposes. Dan Hochvert, Bell Atlantic, also pointed out this total would
include those NPAs reserved for relief planning; and noted that there is
a need to know what is the actual number of reserved NPAs that are
currently set aside for this purpose. It was agreed that NANPA should
provide a list of geographic NPAs with one or more reserved codes set
aside for relief planning at the June meeting.

[Data Collection Forms.]{.underline} Mr. Manning stated that NANPA is
continuing to work with the FCC staff on modifications to the data
forms. Chairman Hoffman noted that

submission of the forms to OMB is holding up publication of the *NRO
Order* in the *Federal Register*. Cheryl Callahan, DFO, stated that the
staff is working on the instructions to the forms to ensure that they
are clear, and every effort is being made to expedite their completion.
Several concerns were noted regarding the delay in obtaining access to
the proposed forms and the ability of entities to be prepared to comply
with the first mandatory data submission on August 1, 2000. Paul Hart
inquired as to the process by which interested parties would be able to
file comments on the data collection. Jeannie Grimes, Alternate DFO,
stated that parties will be given an opportunity to file comments
directly with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and information
on how to file comments would be provided in the Federal Register
summary which is expected to be published soon.

***C. NANPA Oversight Working Group Report.*** Pat Caldwell, Co-Chair
provided the report to the Council. A summary of the NANPA performance
evaluation was distributed to the Council members in advance of the
meeting. Mr. Caldwell stated that the purpose of the performance
evaluation is to assess whether baseline requirements are being met; to
assess the quality of NANPA's performance and to make recommendations
for improvement where needed. The WG distributed a performance feedback
survey to service providers and state commissions, reviewed the survey
responses, and conducted an operational review. Also, the analysis
includes observations by NANPA OS WG participants of the NANPA and its
contributions in various industry meetings.

Mr. Caldwell stated that during the analysis of the survey responses,
originators were contacted for clarification if survey responses seemed
contradictory or unclear. Overall, the NANPA's performance improved in
1999 as a result of efforts to comply with the 1998 performance
improvement plan. There were improvements to the document distribution
system, web site, staffing and internal performance measures. The WG
identified areas that need improvement. The NANPA Annual Report does not
comply with the specific requirements for content as outlined in the
Requirements Document.

With respect to communications, the WG recommends that NANPA provide
more timely distribution of notices and meeting records, and also
suggested keeping the industry informed about communications with
regulatory bodies as well as service providers. The WG recommended
requiring NANPA to be more consistent in interpreting the guidelines,
and update the NANPA.com web site more frequently.

Other recommendations include continue training of staff; increase
knowledge of local area situations with respect to CO code assignment
and relief planning. The WG further opined that NANPA should diligently
guard its position as an unbiased administrator in the industry, and
that NeuStar should clarify when it is acting as the NANPA, or when it
is not in the role of NANPA but selling a product or service. The WG
suggested the use of an *ex parte*-type process for both state and
federal commission contacts and service provider meetings. In response
to this suggestion, several NANC members raised concerns that
competitive sensitive information may be disclosed with such a process.

Peter Guggina questioned how such a system would operate \-- as a
separate subsidiary which would be a very expensive proposition. Bill
Adair added that this is not a case of non-neutrality, but one of
perception of NeuStar and NANPA activity. Ron Binz, Competition Policy
Institute, noted that is this not a neutrality issue, and cautioned that
this is an issue of style and credibility of the organization, and its
future success. Dan Hochvert commented that this issue is a concern to
NeuStar and not a NANC concern \-- this may become a concern in the
NANPA rebid process. However, the real issue may have been whether there
is a bias on the forecast of the exhaust of the NANP in order to improve
the company's business position with respect to pooling -- but steps
were taken to alleviate that.

Mr. Caldwell stated that NeuStar is developing a new numbering
assignment system which has web based processes, but the timing of the
delivery has not been determined. Chairman Hoffman noted his concern
about the systems -- anxious to see where NANPA is at on delivery of the
system, and with respect to neutrality there should be a response to
these concerns provided at the June NANC meeting. Chairman Hoffman
further noted that with the upcoming pooling administration (PA)
proposal Neustar will be a bidder and at the same time is acting as the
interim PA in some states.

Jo Anne Sanford, NARUC, remarked that establishing an *ex parte*
procedure with a state describing the nature and extent of the contact
seems unnecessary. Ron Binz added that in the alternative, perhaps NANPA
could generally list with whom they have communicated. Dan Hochvert
questioned what NANC would do with such a voluminous amount of
information and suggested that if there are real issues, the WG should
narrow it to specific instances, then maybe NANC could reach closure on
the matter.

Pat Caldwell responded that several recent events prompted the WG to
suggest that the industry be notified of the NANPA contacts with
regulators and service providers. For example, representatives from Dade
County spent three days with NANPA at its Concord offices; NANPA also
created a process for large code requests. The concern is that NANPA is
doing work outside its normal duties. Chairman Hoffman suggested that
perhaps a listing of all contacts is more than what is necessary.
Several Council members suggested dropping the notion of imposing an *ex
parte* requirement on NANPA.

Chairman Hoffman reviewed the next steps \-- NANPA will respond to the
NANPA OS WG by June 20, and by the July NANC meeting the NANPA OS will
bring its final recommendations for submission to Council, which, if
accepted will be forwarded to the FCC.

C.  ***Numbering Resource Optimization (NRO) Working Group Report.***
    Co-Chairs Eleanor Willis-Camara and Brian Baldwin provided the
    report to the Council on the NANP exhaust assumptions, uniform
    secondary number definitions; COCUS requirements document update;
    fees for reserved number extensions, unassigned number porting
    (UNP), and individual telephone number pooling (ITN).

[NANP Exhaust Assumptions]{.underline}. The WG reviewed the exhaust
assumptions, as prepared by NANPA, and determined that the assumptions
were reasonable.

[Uniform Secondary Number Definitions]{.underline}. In response to
paragraphs 14 and 36 of the *NRO Order,* the WG using the INC
thousand-block pooling definitions as a baseline, provided a set of
draft definitions for the following: Employee/official number, location
routing number, test number, temporary local directory (TLDN), wireless
E911 ESRD/ESRK number; dealer numbering pools, ported out number, and
soft dial tone number. Council members suggested edits to the
employee/official number definition and modified it to read as follows:
"A number assigned by a service provider *out of its inventory* for its
own internal business purposes." It was agreed that a revised document
would be circulated to the NARUC members for their input prior to the
June NANC meeting. NANC will complete this assignment at the June NANC
meeting.

[COCUS Requirement Document - Status]{.underline}. The WG reported that
it has reached consensus on the "reasonableness test" formulas, which
will be added to the draft document. An outline of the COCUS
requirements document will be presented at the June NANC meeting.

[Fees for extensions of number reservations]{.underline}. Brian Baldwin
reviewed the following baseline assumptions: (1) Carriers would collect
the fee; (2) the fee should be greater than a carriers'administrative
costs in maintaining the reservation; (3) the fee must be large enough
to provide a disincentive to reservation extensions, and (4) revenue
from fees charged for reservation extensions should not be a windfall
for carriers. Additionally, the WG identified several issues during
their development of the assumptions.

[Status of Inconsistent Submission Criteria]{.underline}. Eleanor
Willis-Camera reported that the WG worked with the NANPA to develop two
tests, which are designed to identify inconsistencies and anomalies, as
identified in paragraph 54 of the *NRO Order.* The reasonableness test
is intended to aid in evaluating the accuracy of carrier forecasts, and
the "non-forecasted demand additive" is intended to predict footprint
and new-entrant demand. Both tests are performed on an NPA by NPA basis
and compare like periods, *e.g.,* May 2005 data compared to May 2004
data. The reasonableness test formulas are applied to forecasts for
growth codes/blocks (forecast for initial codes/new entrant are exempt
from the tests). The first step compares the forecasted growth factor of
each carrier with the actual growth factor of aggregated data of all
carriers in the NPA; if there is a deviation of +/- 5% then a second
test is performed. This test compares the carrier's forecasted growth
factor to its own actual growth factor and uses utilization data from
the individual carrier from over a minimum of three reporting periods.

The non-forecasted demand additive was created by the NANPA staff to
predict new-entrant and expanded footprint growth (growth pool).

It was reported that the NRO WG has not yet begun work on developing its
report on individual telephone number pooling (ITN) and unassigned
number porting (UNP), which is due to NANC by the November 28-29
meeting.

***D. Industry Numbering Committee Report.*** Shawn Murphy, INC
Moderator provided the report to the Council. The INC will complete the
related updates to the Thousand Block Pooling Administration and Central
Office Code guidelines as a result of the FCC's *NRO Order*. Mr. Murphy
stated that some updates cannot be made at this time until a response to
the list of clarification questions forwarded by the ATIS General
Counsel to the FCC on May 5, 2000. A copy of the questions is included
in the handout provided. Tony Pupek, USTA, added that INC would be
willing to set up a conference bridge during the last hour of its
meeting in Dallas (INC-50) if FCC staff could be available to
participate in a dialogue on some of the clarification questions. Cheryl
Callahan, DFO, stated that the FCC has limited staff available to
participate in this activity, and that the Commission intends to respond
in writing to the questions (to the extent possible) presented by ATIS
and from other sources as well.

[NANP Expansion Report]{.underline}. INC has set June 2001 for selection
of the NANP expansion option. INC has not yet received a response from
any of the 19 national regulators on the two main assumptions. Norm
Epstein noted that the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC) has set the issue for public comment.

Teresa Muir, Bell Canada, stated that the process is two phased -- June
9 for an initial set of comments, with the second phase to be completed
in August, after which the CRTC will take a few months to prepare its
final report/decision. Mr. Murphy noted that ATIS intends to follow-up
by telephone and registered mail with each of the NANP regulators.

Phil McClelland, NASUCA, questioned the status of INC Issue 216,
regarding the non-geographic use of numbering resources, noting that the
New Hampshire Commission issued an order in May 2000 regarding unified
messaging. Mr. McClelland added that there are some policy issues which
NANC should consider, and would encourage the INC to develop guidelines
for NPAs for non-geographic use. Mr. Murphy stated that Issue 216 was a
contribution presented by WinStar for non-geographic applications. Rose
Breidenbaugh,WinStar noted that its contribution is similar to what the
New Hampshire Commission has proposed and noted that an e-fax provider
has been invited to explain how it works, but has not responded to the
invitation. Ms. Breidenbaugh further added that currently there is no
network application available to make this non-geo use function.

Beth Kistner commented that there is a need for an in-depth look at
unified messaging services and to explore the alternatives, adding that
NANC should take charge to ensure that these issues are examined. One of
the problems is that the term unified messaging services is not defined.
Chairman Hoffman agreed that there is a need to study and understand
this issue. There is a powerful argument that the market place is at
work here. Business plans are based on getting numbers for free. Could
there be a better or more efficient way to provide these services?
Chairman Hoffman further added there is a definite need for information
on this issue to fully understand the ultimate impact on the numbering
resource, and suggested communicating with e-fax providers.

Peter Guggina commented that with e-fax service can you use a
non-geographic on a portable or non-portable basis. Do not need an
extensive analysis on this. Cost of turning up a non-portable NXX is
huge -- noting that toll free was an incredibly expensive process due to
the cost to load data in every switch in the United States. Beth Kistner
added that while there are some technical issues, which may be
understood by many, a group headed by NANC should look at the policy
issues. This issue is coming up too often and NANC needs a specific,
directed effort. Chairman Hoffman suggested not assigning this issue to
INC so as to allow the INC to complete the PA guidelines. Helen
Mickiewicz stated that this is a matter of great concern to the state
commissions because turning-up NPAs nation-wide continues to create
societal costs.

Chairman Hoffman volunteered to draft an assignment for an IMG with
specific direction, terms and instructions for NANC consideration at the
June meeting and let NANC determine whether to establish an IMG.

Peter Guggina questioned with regard to the INC NANP expansion activity
and INC's communication with foreign countries on the assumptions, what,
as a policy issue, is the next step. How do you formulate this policy
with the other NANP countries and how does the industry's activity play
into the policy making?

Continuing with the report, Mr. Murphy stated that regarding the INC UNP
activity, INC has developed a working document from the contributions
received from SBC, WorldCom, GTE and AT&T. With respect to the INC audit
activity, revisions to CO code guidelines to address audits have bee
completed and the revised guidelines will be issued following the
closing of INC 50.

Mr. Murphy announced that the May INC report is his last as INC
Moderator and stated that Norm Epstein will be the new moderator
effective in June.

***E. Ad Hoc Voluntary UNP Study Group Report.*** Peter Guggina,
WorldCom, provided a brief update to the Council. The Ad Hoc group has
rescheduled a conference call for June 7^th^ to discuss potential
business rules in a local number portability (LNP) environment.

***F. Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group
Report.*** Co-Chairs Charles Ryburn and Brian Egbert provided the report
to the Council. Mr. Egbert provided an update on the Wireless Number
Portability Subcommittee (WNP SC) activities, *e.g.,* the wireless
number portability report, NPAC 2001 testing notification, and reseller
procedures. The WNP SC has established a schedule to complete the WNP
report. A draft copy will be posted to the NPAC LNPA WG web site during
the week of May 22. The WNP SC working with NeuStar has agreed to a
notification process and deadline of February 16, 2001, for wireless
industry NPAC certification. The WNP SC has agreed to a
wireless-to-wireless reseller process and developed a proposal for
wireline-to-wireless and wireless-to-wireline process for discussion
with the LNPA Working Group. With regard to the inter-carrier test plan,
approval of the inter-carrier communications process is scheduled to be
addressed at the June CTIA Board meeting.

Mr. Ryburn provided an update on the 3^rd^ Report on Wireless Wireline
Integration, NPAC release status, the Problem Identification Management
(PIM) report, and the Slow Horse issue. The WG is reviewing the cost and
the timeframe for the reduction of the current wireline/wireline porting
interval -- several areas of concerns are being examined. *See* handout
for details. At this time there are no changes in the NPAC release
status.

With regard to PIM, the issue of multi-service provider process flows
(PIM-0001), a final update of the flows was presented by the OPS team to
the WG for review and possible submission to the OBF. Resolution of the
inadvertent porting issue (PIM-0005) is under development by the WG and
NeuStar. With regard to the NENA request (for a NANC standard for unlock
and migrate within 24 hours of activation) the WG has delayed submission
to NENA in order to investigate some service provider internal issues.

[Slow Horse]{.underline}. The final report on the LSMS availability
requirement will be circulated to NANC prior to the June meeting, and
Steve Addicks, Slowhorse Subcommittee Chair will present the report at
the June meeting for discussion.

The next LNPA WG meeting will be held June 12-15 in Chicago.

***G. NANC Assumptions Issue Management Group (IMG).*** Beth Kistner,
Co-Chair reviewed the final report with the Council. The IMG reviewed
the two INC assumptions in developing its report to the NANC. The INC
assumptions assessed in the development of the report are: (1) the INC
Uniform Dialing Plan (UDP) will be approved and implemented prior to
NANP expansion; and (2) release of the D-digit will not occur prior to
NANP expansion.

The recommendations are at sections 3.4. and 4.4 with the conclusion at
section 5.0. With regard to UDP, the IMG report states that the NANC
recommends that the FCC inform the INC that it supports the uniform
dialing plan (UDP) assumption as a means of implementing the designated
expansion alternatives*.* This recommendation considered only the need
to implement UDP as part of a transitional plan for NANP expansion. NANC
is not making any recommendation regarding 10-digit dialing or
elimination of the 1+toll indicator as part of NANP expansion.

With regard to the D-digit assumption recommendation at 4.4, the IMG
concluded that the assumption, that the D digit will not be released
prior to NANP expansion, should be retained. The IMG rationale for this
position is that the D-digit requires changes in the customer dialing
patterns that at least some regulators find undesirable and wish to
defer as long as possible. It is not clear, according to the IMG,
whether the necessary NANP-wide consensus to release the D-digit can be
established prior to NANP expansion. Additionally, release of the
D-digit requires clearing of all present uses of the D digit, which will
require considerable expense and potential service disruption. The
Council agreed with this recommendation as presented.

Peter Guggina noted that the INC is progressing on the expansion
options, but questioned whether INC needs a policy directive before it
go any further. With regard to next steps, Chairman Hoffman suggested
forwarding the report to the FCC, and the Council supported the
recommendation. Council members suggested that the FCC should issue a
public notice for comment on the NANC recommendation on the expansion
assumptions.

Dan Hochvert commented that 10-digit dialing already exists in many
areas of the country (wireline and wireless) (cellular dialing is on a
10 digit basis) and questioned in what time frame, and under what
circumstances would be prevalent before we need to do something to
expand the capacity of the NANP. Mr. Hochvert further commented why
force a decision that angers and frustrates people.

Chairman Hoffman complimented the IMG for its work effort stating that
it approached the task in a very disciplined and logical manner. The
Council adopted the IMG report, subject to inclusion of NANC edits to
page 7. There were no changes to the proposed transmittal letter.

***I. North American Numbering Plan Billing and Collection (NBANC)
Report.*** John Ricker, CEO provided the report to the Council. Mr.
Ricker stated that the monthly status report is prepared by the 10^th^
and since then there have been a few updates to the report, as result
the current fund balance is \$6.4 million. This takes into account an
additional \$300K in receivables; payment as of 5/23/00 to NeuStar, and
the clearing of delinquencies totaling \$320K of the total funding
amount. Mr. Ricker provided a separate list of NBANC accounts receivable
by industry type. The total accounts receivable as of May 22, total
\$289,665, plus approximately \$30K outstanding from the Caribbean
countries. These industry categories used were created by the FCC for
tracking purposes.

[Adjustments to the 2000 Funding Year Contribution Factor]{.underline}.
Mr. Ricker provided a copy of Exhibit 3 from the May 5, 2000 NBANC
filing to the FCC proposing a reduction to the fund size and approval of
a revised contribution factor .000043. The next step is to place this on
public notice for comment for possibly a short comment cycle. NBANC
expects to have an approved factor by early July, with revised
projections available by the July NANC meeting.

The next NBANC Board meeting will be held June 22, from 10:00 a.m. until
2 p.m., at the International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, DC.

## May 24, 2000

***J. NANC Meeting Minutes.*** The April 25-26, 2000 draft meeting
minutes were approved subject to revisions provided by Council members.

***K. Steering Group.*** Peter Pescosolido, NARUC, provided the report
to the Council. The SG meeting began with a discussion of the lottery
and rationing practices of the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) and was joined by Loretta Lynch, President of the CPUC. The
discussion was in response to an industry petition filed with the FCC,
which was highly critical of those practices, and sought relief from the
FCC in form of a Commission order directing the introduction of a new
area code in California. Chairman Hoffman brought this issue to the SG
although the FCC had not requested a formal opinion from the NANC, and
questioned whether NANC should provide comment now or wait for an
official request from the FCC.

The CPUC staff advised that it was meeting FCC staff on the industry
petition and was reluctant to provide any detail until after it
concluded its meetings. Chairman Hoffman requested that following those
meetings, if the CPUC filed a comprehensive *ex parte* that a copy be
provided to NANC.

[Table of NANC Projects]{.underline}. Norm Epstein reviewed the
revisions to the table. Six completed items were moved to a new table on
the reverse side of the document. The major changes to the table are
highlighted, and item number 15, secondary category definitions was
modified to include NARUC along with NRO as the responsible group
assigned to complete the task. Item 17, was modified to include language
"provide report on 'fee structure' for Reservation extensions . . .." A
new item was added, item 18 is "Develop assumptions for impact of
pooling on exhaust by NPA." This item was assigned to the NRO WG and
NANPA for delivery at the June NANC meeting.

***L. Pooling Administrator Issue Management Group (IMG).*** Peter
Guggina provided an update to the Council. The IMG is on track for
completion of the technical requirement section, to be provided to the
Office of the Managing Director as part of the RFP process. At this
time, there are no NARUC or NASUCA members on the core team. Chairman
Hoffman noted that before release of the *NRO Order*, the IMG's process
was under non-disclosure and conference calls were limited, but that is
no longer the case. Mr. Guggina advised that a face-to-face meeting for
integration of the piece parts of the individual work effort will be
held on June 5 and 6. The central theme of this is that the pooling
system must be a stand-alone system according to the direction provided
by the FCC. That is the NANPA and PA are to be separate functions.

Beth Kistner questioned whether there is a legal requirement for the
system separation and whether NeuStar would respond with a separate
system if it were to bid the project. Mr. Guggina stated that NeuStar
would have to design and build a stand-alone system like other bidders.
If this is integrated, it makes it more difficult to transfer to a
successor.

At this time, no suppliers are part of the core IMG group. The IMG is
working to establish the initial high level requirements; later there
will be a bidder's conference. An update on this process will be
provided at the June NANC meeting. In response to a question about the
openness of the meetings, Mr. Guggina stated that participation is not
limited, however, conference bridge information has not been widely
disseminated in order to maintain the integrity of the procurement
process. The IMG needs to know who is on the call and it must follow
procurement rules.

***M. Cost Recovery Working Group***. Anne La Lena, Co-Chair provided
the report to the Council. The CRWG has elected new Co-Chairs, Anne La
Lena and Elsa Morris (formerly of the Ohio Public Service Commission).
Ms. La Lena reported that Ms. Morris is now a consultant. The Council
approved the selection of Ms. La Lena for another term as Co-Chair, and
questioned the industry segment affiliation of Ms. Morris. Ms. La Lena
stated that the CRWG has tried to maintain balance within the working
group and has not limited participation by any specific industry
segment.

Chairman Hoffman stated he was not aware of an intent to balance the
representation of working group co-chairs. The Council agreed to
postpone confirmation of Ms. Morris until more information is provided
regarding her current industry affiliation.

***N. Charging for Numbers -- Discussion Group.*** Phil McClelland
provided a brief update on the group's effort to develop a
recommendation of a market-based approach to allocation of numbering
resources. Mr. McClelland stated that the group would develop a process
to review the comments and will get together after the comments are
filed and e-mail the group. Chairman Hoffman questioned what, if any,
initial reactions filed to date to the FCC proposals. Mr. McClelland
stated that carriers were on the call were not persuaded to charge for
numbers. Chairman Hoffman asked whether there should be some kind of
economic analysis that supports that conclusion, and questioned whether
there is anything in the comments that should be addressed by NANC. Mr.
McClelland added that the group may pull some larger issues from the
comments, and will consider what NANC's role is in providing
recommendations to the Commission, and what, if anything, is missing in
the comments on which the NANC would add value to Commission's process.

***O. Other Business.*** Peter Guggina suggested floating the issue of
reviewing the establishment of NANC agenda and operating procedures for
discussion at the next Steering Group meeting. Mr. Guggina also
suggested reaffirming the NANC working group principles at the next
meeting. Dan Hochvert noted that the Steering Group review of this
process allows for informal discussion, which in the past was very
valuable and a good use of its time. Chairman Hoffman suggested
broadening the scope of the discussion to include addressing whether to
reduce the number of NANC meetings per year from 10.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 a.m.

***P. Next Meeting Date:*** June 20-21, 2000.

# 

VI. ***Action Items and Decisions Reached.***

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  [North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA)
    Report]{.underline}. The NANP exhaust projection in the June report
    will be based upon assumptions NANPA presented at the May NANC
    meeting, *see* pages 5 and 6 of handout #3. The NRO will work with
    NANPA to develop a list of assumptions to be used to evaluate the
    effects of pooling under the *NRO* *Order* by the June NANC meeting.
    NANPA will target its report on the effects of pooling under the FCC
    *NRO Order* for the July NANC, but no later than the September NANC
    meeting.

> NANPA will provide a list of geographic NPAs that have one and more
> than one reserved code(s) set aside for NPA relief planning purposes
> at the June NANC meeting.

2.  [Numbering Resource Optimization Working Group]{.underline}. NANC
    will address adopting the secondary category definitions provided by
    NRO WG, as modified, for forwarding to FCC; NRO WG will assemble
    text of modified definitions and provide to NARUC for their input
    before the next NANC meeting. NARUC will advise of changes desired
    and the NANC will conclude this matter at the June NANC meeting.

Dan Hochvert, Bell Atlantic, will discover method of assignment and form
of

ESRD/ESRK numbers and present at June NANC meeting.

3.  Chairman Hoffman will fashion an assignment for a group, with very
    specific instructions, whether a specific approach should be
    explored to utilize geographic number resources for non-geographic
    uses. Chairman Hoffman will present his proposal to NANC at the June
    meeting.

4.  [NANPA Oversight Working Group]{.underline}. NANPA was requested to
    make a presentation at the June 20 NANC to detail actions to reduce
    the perceived NANPA credibility problem as described in the NANPA
    Performance Evaluation. NANC to determine details of its response in
    June after review of the NeuStar/NANPA presentation. NOWG will
    present final NANPA performance evaluation at July NANC meeting. The
    NOWG will work with NANPA to develop acceptable conditions of the
    Performance Evaluation's recommendations.

5.  [Assumptions IMG]{.underline}. NANC reached consensus on adoption of
    the IMG report as modified (with changes noted) to be forwarded to
    the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau. The proposed cover letter was
    unchanged. The IMG was disbanded.

6.  [Cost Recovery Working Group]{.underline}. The WG nominated Anne La
    Lena (WorldCom) and Elsa Morris (Consultant) as Co-chairs. The NANC
    affirmed the selection of Anne La Lena as Co-Chair, and requested
    more information on Elsa Morris' current affiliation (Elsa was
    formerly with the Ohio Commission) at the next NANC meeting.