**North American Numbering Council**

**Meeting Minutes**

**June 18-19, 2001 (Final)**

**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 12th Street, S.W., TW-C305, Washington, D. C.

**II. List of Attendees.**

[Voting Council Members:]{.underline}

1\. Robert Atkinson Columbia University

2\. Ed Gould AT&T

3\. Wendy Potts Bell Canada

4\. Randy Sanders BellSouth

5\. Michael Altschul CTIA

6\. Lori Messing CTIA

7\. Maureen Flood CompTel

8\. Switzon Wigfall NARUC

9\. Gregory Pattenaude NARUC

10\. Peter Pescosolido NARUC

11\. Nancy Brockway NARUC

12\. Dan Kearney NARUC

13\. Hon. Robert B. Nelson NARUC

14\. Natalie Billingsley NASUCA

15\. Philip McClelland NASUCA

16\. Beth O\'Donnell NCTA

17\. James Goldstein Nextel

18\. David Bench Nortel Networks

19\. Trent Boaldin OPASTCO

20\. C. Courtney Jackson OUR, Jamaica

21\. Harold Salters PCIA

22\. Deborah Bell SBC Communications, Inc.

23\. Ron Havens Sprint

24\. Gerry Rosenblatt TIA

25\. Paul Hart USTA

26\. Chuck Eppert Verizon

27\. Anna Miller VoiceStream

28\. Peter Guggina WorldCom

[Special Members (Non-voting):]{.underline}

John Manning NANPA

Jean-Paul Emard ATIS

[Commission Employees:]{.underline}

Cheryl Callahan, Designated Federal Officer (DFO)

Sanford Williams, Alternate DFO

Diane Harmon, Acting Chief, Network Services Division

Patrick Forster, Policy Division (PD), Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau

Jennifer Salhus, Policy Division (PD), Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau

**III. Estimate of Public Attendance.** Approximately 42 members of the
public attended the meeting as observers.

**IV. Documents Introduced.**

\(1\) Agenda

(2) February 20-21, 2001 Meeting Minutes

(3) March 20-21, 2001 Meeting Minutes

(4) April 17-18, 2001 Meeting Minutes

(5) NANPA Report to the NANC

(6) 2001 NRUF and NPA Exhaust Analysis

(7) Status of Area Code Relief Exhausting within 36 Months

(8) NANPA Annual Performance Evaluation

(9) Overview of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions
    (ATIS) and the Industry Numbering Committee (INC)

(10) ATIS Flow Chart

(11) NANC Federal Advisory Committee Directory

(12) NRO Working Group Report

(13) NANP Expansion/Numbering Optimization (NENO) IMG

(14) INC Report to the NANC

(15) NANPA Fund Performance Status Report & Funds Projection

(16) LNPA Working Group Status Report to NANC

(17) Wireless Number Portability Operations Status Report to NANC

(18) Report of the North American Portability Management (NAPM), LLC to
     the NANC

(19) NANC Guidelines and Operating Principles

(20) North American Numbering Council Charter

(21) Report and Order in the Matter of Administration of the North
     American Numbering Plan -- CC Docket No. 92-237, FCC 95-283,
     Released July 13, 1995

**V. Summary of the Meeting.**

**A. Opening Remarks.** Cheryl Callahan, DFO, welcomed Robert Atkinson,
the new NANC Chair. Ms. Callahan announced that the Bureau is pleased
and grateful to have Bob Atkinson serve as the new NANC Chair. She noted
that he has 25 plus years experience in the telecommunications industry
and was formerly a Deputy Bureau Chief in the FCC's Common Carrier
Bureau from January 1999 to June 2000. Chairman Atkinson expressed that
he is pleased to serve as the NANC Chair. He advised that he followed
the developments of the NANC when he was Deputy Bureau Chief and knows
that it is a very important subject. Chairman Atkinson noted that he
brings both an industry and a regulatory perspective to the position.
Prior to joining the FCC Chairman Atkinson was in the telecommunications
industry.

Sanford Williams, Alternate DFO, advised that the Commission selected
NeuStar, Inc. as the National Thousands-Block Pooling Administrator. Mr.
Williams advised that national rollout for thousands-block pooling is
scheduled to begin in March 2002.

Chairman Atkinson advised that on June 13, 2001, the Common Carrier
Bureau's Industry Analysis Division issued a report entitled, "FCC
Releases Numbering Resource Utilization Report." Chairman Atkinson noted
that the report provides very useful background information and
statistics on number utilization.

Chairman Atkinson noted Yog Varma's resignation from the FCC, effective
Friday, June 22, 2001. Chairman Atkinson volunteered to write a
Resolution of Appreciation for Yog and advised that he is open to
suggestions and ideas from council members who want to note specific
items in the Resolution.

B.  **Review of February 20-21, March 20-21, and April 17-18, 2001
    Meeting**

**Minutes.** Minor modifications were made to the February, March, and
April NANC meeting minutes. There was no NANC meeting in May. The
minutes were approved as modified.

**C. North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) Report to the
NANC.** John Manning, NANPA, provided the report to the Council.

[NPA Exhaust Projections (from NRUF)]{.underline}. Mr. Manning reported
that the NPA exhaust projections were published on the NANPA web site at
the end of May. He reported on the methodology that NANPA used to
project area code exhaust. Due to the implementation of number pooling,
the methodology used is slightly different from previous years. Mr.
Manning explained how the area codes were arranged in three categories:
(1) NPAs that are presently without pooling; (2) NPAs where pooling was
implemented pooling prior to December 31, 2000; and (3) NPAs where
pooling will be implemented after January 1, 2001. Mr. Manning explained
that with the February 1, 2001 NRUF submission cycle, service providers
were directed to provide their forecast (e.g., by 1K blocks or CO codes)
based upon the status of the NPA on December 31, 2000.

Mr. Manning advised that NANPA used all NRUF forecasts received as of
April 13, 2001. The pooling administrators that had pooling in place as
of December 31, 2000 were able to provide NANPA with information about
that status of the pool, which included the number or quantity of blocks
that were in that pool as of a certain date. This enabled NANPA to
examine the 1K blocks that were available for assignment in the pools
and also the forecast associated with those particular pools. The
average NPA response rate was approximately 85%. The overall utilization
was used as an indication of what the general effect of the new
utilization threshold requirement in the Second NRO Order may have on
the assignment of CO codes. Mr. Manning noted that the utilization data
was of value to NANPA in developing the exhaust projections.

Mr. Manning reported that the method used in forecasting these NPAs is
the same methodology that NANPA has been using since April 1999. This
methodology included the forecast data submitted by the service
providers, as well as historical CO code demand, the CLEC demand, the
number of CLECs in a NPA, and the expansion of carriers' footprint. Mr.
Manning advised that mandatory reporting and the withholding of
resources from carriers that failed to file an NRUF have contributed to
improved reporting by carriers. He noted that the quantity of codes that
are being returned is an indication that the demand is not as high as
originally thought. Mr. Manning also noted the economic situation and
its effect on the telecommunications industry as a consideration in
determining the size of growth pools. In the last twelve months, there
has been a decrease in the size and frequency in the number of CO code
demand spikes. As a result, NANPA slightly reduced the size of the
growth pools.

Mr. Manning reported that a number of states have set aside area codes
for pooling and non-pooling carriers. The states have identified the
quantity of area codes that have been set aside. If the quantity of area
codes for pooling carriers and the quantity of area codes for
non-pooling carriers becomes unbalanced, the area code would not go into
exhaust. Codes would be moved from one pool to feed the other. As a
result, both pooling and non-pooling resources would automatically
exhaust at the same time.

Mr. Manning reported that NANPA included the Growth Pool methodology in
the area codes with pooling. The Growth Pool is designed to account for
sudden peaks in demand that are usually caused by new service providers
getting an initial code in each of the rate centers they intend to
provide service.

The methodology used for NPAs where pooling has been ordered to start
after December 31, 2000 was similar to the methodology used for NPAs
where pooling was implemented before December 31, 2000. NANPA used the
30/40/50 rule to account for the impact on area code exhaust to forecast
the impact of wireline pooling being implemented in the area codes in
which there was no forecast. Mr. Manning reported that NANPA performed
the forecast with non-rationed demand where there was rationing in
place. The demand was greater than the rationing amount. When pooling
was factored in, the demand was less. In those instances, NANPA went
with the lesser of the two.

Natalie Billingsley, NASUCA, questioned whether NANPA is still using
some form of footprint assumption. Mr. Manning responded yes. He advised
that NANPA had done a slight downward adjustment to account for CLECs
returning codes and the current economic decline in the industry. Mr.
Manning explained that NANPA also had to adjust them in other instances.
Ed Gould, AT&T, expressed concern regarding balancing of the pooling
administrators' inventory and NANPA's inventory for wireline carriers.
He questioned whether the pooling administrators had blocks that did not
relate to full codes that could be moved to do the balance. Mr. Manning
explained that he was accounting for situations where actual CO codes
had been identified and set aside for pooling. Randy Sanders, BellSouth,
questioned how intermediate numbers were accounted for in the
utilization. Mr. Manning explained that NANPA used the calculation as
provided by the FCC, which is assigned numbers over the total quantity
held by the service provider. Mr. Sanders questioned how many trials
have been in existence long enough for NANPA to determine the 30/40/50
percent rule with regard to wireline adjustment. Mr. Manning advised
that NANPA's determination was based on experiences with pooling trials
and the data that NANPA had. Mr. Sanders also questioned whether the
forecast was conservative or liberal in NPA exhaust. Mr. Manning advised
that NANPA does not cast its results either way. Mr. Manning reported
that the methodology that NANPA used will be the basis for the exhaust
analysis of the entire NANP.

Anna Miller, VoiceStream, questioned how the service provider forecast
versus the historical growth data was reconciled to produce the NPA
exhaust. Mr. Manning reported that in a number of instances, NANPA found
that the historical rate and forecast rate were similar. In instances
where the historical rate and forecast rate are exceptionally divergent,
NANPA will then examine the NPA-specific information. Mr. Manning noted
that NANPA's CO Code Administrators and NPA Relief Planners are very
experienced. Ms. Miller questioned whether NANPA looked at the different
stages of pooling implementation. Mr. Manning explained that NANPA used
information that was available on web sites as to where pooling had been
ordered.

[2001 NANP Exhaust Assumptions]{.underline}. Mr. Manning reported that
over the past couple of months, NANPA and the NRO Working Group have
been working on the assumptions to be used in the NANP exhaust
projection. Mr. Manning provided to the NANC assumptions as of May 31,
2001. He explained that these assumptions are similar to those done in
September 2000. Mr. Manning reported that previously on assumption #5,
NANPA used a 50% reduction in total CO code demand as a result of
pooling for area codes that had 25 or more rate centers. A 30% reduction
was based upon whether an area code had 24 or less rate centers. Mr.
Manning advised that NANPA will run the impact of pooling by reducing
demand 50% to 80% and from 30% to 60%. NANPA will reduce only the
wireline demand. Mr. Manning reported that assumption #6 is still
outstanding. NANPA has received some input from some of the wireless
industry as to what the percent reduction should be in wireless CO code
demand as a result of wireless pooling. NANPA expects to share the
results of this analysis at the next NRO working group meeting or
whatever group that is directed by the NANC. Mr. Manning reported that
assumption #3 is not a change.

Phil McClelland, NASUCA, stated that he understood assumption #3 to mean
that if an MSA is less than 50% of the land area in the NPA, it will not
be assumed that there will be thousands-block pooling in that NPA. Mr.
Manning advised that Mr. McClelland's understanding is correct. Mr.
McClelland inquired as to when NANPA expects to have the results of the
current NANP exhaust study. Mr. Manning responded that NANPA expects to
have the results by September but assumption #6 still needs to be
finalized. Harold Salters, PCIA, requested clarification on assumption
#3 as to whether 50% or more of the NPA's rate areas located in the top
100 MSAs was referring to the geographic area or the number of rate
centers. Mr. Manning responded that it refers to whether that rate
center is within the geographic boundary of one of the MSAs. Natalie
Billingsley, NASUCA, questioned where NANPA came up with an extra 8 NXXs
in assumption #8. Mr. Manning responded that it includes the N11 codes.
Beth O'Donnell, NCTA, questioned whether there is a methodology in
determining NANP exhaust. Mr. Manning responded that NANPA will present
the results with an explanation as to how it was done. Chairman Atkinson
questioned whether NANPA will be using these assumptions. Mr. Manning
responded that assumption #6 is still outstanding, and the NRO Working
Group would like one more opportunity to revisit that assumption. The
NANPA and NRO Working Group expect to have a finalized set of
assumptions at the July NANC meeting.

[Central Office Code Assignment Activity Report]{.underline}. Mr.
Manning provided a summary of the CO code activity for the period
January 2000 through May 2001. The summary shows a comparison of January
2001 through May 2001 dates with January 2000 through May 2000 dates.
The net average assignment rate over the last five months is 500 codes.
Over a similar time period in 2000, the net average rate was over 1100
codes. Mr. Manning noted that the net assignment rate is the number of
assignments made, less any returns that were actually received. Mr.
Manning reported that on May 8, 2001, the utilization threshold as
described in the FCC NRO Order went into effect. In May, there were 1358
assignments. Lori Messing, CTIA, questioned the reason for a 60% spike
in CO code denials from April 2001 through May 2001. Mr. Manning stated
that a number of the denials are the result of the utilization threshold
going into place. Ms. Messing stated that it would be useful to know
whether it is based on the new utilization requirement or if carriers
are experiencing problems in filling out the forms correctly. She
suggested that in the future, if there is more than a 50% spike from
month-to-month, that an analysis be done to show the reasons for the
spike.

Mr. Manning reported that for the states that requested that carriers
provide them a copy of their Part 1, NANPA was required in the 2^nd^
Report and Order to notify those states that they had received a Part 1.
Whenever NANPA receives an application for an assignment, an e-mail
notification will be sent on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis to the
states that want to have a notification sent to them. Mr. Manning
reported that a CO code data base can be found under the CO code portion
of the NANPA web site where you can track which codes have been assigned
and to whom they have been assigned. A monthly report which reflects the
quantity of CO codes assigned, and the quantity actually returned for
that month, as well as year-to-date, is also available on that web site.
Beth O'Donnell, NCTA, questioned whether the disconnects are the
returned codes. Mr. Manning responded yes. She further questioned
whether all of the categories other than the disconnects should add up
to the request number. Mr. Manning responded yes.

[Update of NRUF]{.underline}. Mr. Manning reported that NANPA is in the
process of concluding the January 1 through June 30, 2001 cycle. On
August 1, 2001 NANPA will be collecting service provider NRUFs.
Notification has been sent to the service providers informing them that
the information is due on or before August 1, 2001. The NRUF form is
available on the NANPA web site. Associated job aids and other items
that lend assistance in completing the forms are also available on the
NANPA website. Mr. Manning advised that service providers are strongly
encouraged to read the job aid before completing the NRUF form.

[NRUF for the 500 and 900 NPAs]{.underline}. Mr. Manning reported that
as of August 1, 2001, carriers must submit utilization and forecast
information for the NXX assignments and codes in the 500 and 900 NPAs.
This information is available on the NANPA web site. To assist service
providers in completing the Form 502 for non-geographic area codes,
NANPA has developed special instructions called "helpful hints". Mr.
Manning advised that even though a carrier does not presently have any
500/900 codes, an NRUF Form must still be filed if the carrier plans to
get a 500/900 NXX code in the future. All 500 and 900 code holders have
been notified via certified letter. Peter Guggina, questioned whether
NANPA has utilization data on how many 500 and 900 codes have been
assigned. Mr. Manning responded yes and stated that he would provide
that information at the next NANC meeting. Anna Miller, VoiceStream,
requested confirmation that the only changes to the NRUF reports were
for 500 and 900 reporting. Mr. Manning stated that the Excel spreadsheet
itself has not changed. Trent Boaldin, OPATSCO, questioned whether an
NRUF has to be submitted within the August 1 submission cycle if a
carrier wanted to offer a 500/900 service. Mr. Manning stated that if
the August 1 submission cycle has passed, and a carrier wanted to get an
NXX assignment out of the 900, they can file an NRUF at that time and
follow up with an application.

[NRUF Training for States]{.underline}. On May 23 and 24, 2001 NANPA
held a series of conference calls with state public service commissions
to provide additional training on the use of the NRUF data. Twenty-two
states were represented on these calls. The primary objective of these
calls was to educate state commissions on the data contained in the
individual state databases provided to them by NANPA. NANPA reviewed the
different tables, queries and reports provided with the database. Mr.
Manning reported that the discussions went very well. Nancy Brockway,
NARUC, acknowledged that the training session was excellent and very
informative.

[NRUF Comparison with CO Code Adminstration Database]{.underline}. Mr.
Manning reported that NANPA is trying to identify codes where an NRUF
has not been received. Mr. Manning stated that some service providers
have received e-mails from NANPA informing them that an NRUF has not
been reported for a particular NPA/NXX. NANPA requested those carriers
to report an NRUF or explain why it has not been reported. Mr. Manning
provided some of the comments that NANPA has received and advised that a
number of them are administrative errors. In some instances, service
providers quickly updated their submissions. In other instances, NANPA
was told that the carrier no longer had that particular code which means
that NANPA's database is incorrect. Some carriers reported that they had
been assigned the code, but the effective date was after December 31. As
a result, they did not show that code in their NRUF. Mr. Manning
reported that NANPA followed up with the Commission on that particular
item to seek clarification in terms of what information carriers should
be reporting. Mr. Manning shared with the council members the contents
of an email that NANPA sent to a couple of carriers with regard to
reporting on codes with an effective date after the reporting time frame
for utilization

data.

[Unavailable Code Project Update]{.underline}. Mr. Manning reported that
NANPA is still working with service providers that served as code
administrators, to identify and understand the unique nature of
unavailable codes. He noted that NANPA has been in contact with a number
of these carriers. Mr. Manning reported that once all of the comments
have been received, NANPA will publish a list of currently unavailable
codes on its web site that have been identified as candidates to become
immediately available for assignment. For those NXXs that remain
unavailable, NANPA will update its Code Administration database with the
reason why the code is unavailable. This information will then be posted
to the NANPA web site. Ed Gould, AT&T, questioned whether this was a
large number of codes and percentages. Mr. Manning advised that the
quantity of unavailable codes is not significant because many have been
made available during the area code relief process.

[Returned Codes with Ported Telephone Numbers]{.underline}. Mr. Manning
reported that NANPA continues to receive a large quantity of NXX codes
being returned by code holders. In many instances, these codes are
marked as portable codes, meaning that numbers could potentially be
ported from the code holder to another carrier. NANPA does not know if a
returned code has ported telephone numbers (TNs) and, if so, to whom the
numbers have been ported. Secondly, the INC procedures were developed
prior to the FCC NRO Orders, which specifically define the criteria for
a service provider receiving a code. NANPA has addressed both of these
issues. NANPA received direction from the FCC Common Carrier Bureau to
proceed with reassigning a block/code with ported TNs to the entity that
has the most ported TNs. The CCB also requested that in those areas
where pooling is implemented, that the pooling carrier being given the
code donate those blocks with 10% or less contamination to the pool. Mr.
Manning reported that NANPA has requested from the NAPM LLC the
capability to receive ad hoc reports from the NPAC. NANPA can then go to
the NPAC with a list of NPA NXXs and ask whether there are any ported
TNs out of these particular codes. This information will assist NANPA in
reassigning a code.

Beth O'Donnell, NCTA, questioned whether the vast number of codes that
are being returned are the result of carriers going out of business or
carriers voluntarily returning codes. Mr. Manning advised that NANPA
does not question the reason for a code being returned. Ms. O'Donnell
questioned why the onus is not on the carrier returning the codes to
report whether or not these are reported TNs. Mr. Manning reported that

NANPA introduced an issue in the INC to change the form so that carriers
would be required to report that information. Ms. O'Donnell questioned
how often NANPA expects to get reports. Mr. Manning advised that it will
be based on the number of codes returned. Ms. O'Donnell questioned how
the NPAC will be paid. Mr. Manning stated that per the NAPM LLC
agreement for ad hoc reports, NANPA will pay for each separate report.
Norman Epstein, INC Moderator, reported that INC is putting together a
prioritized list of potential candidates who could take over as LERG
assignee based on voluntary and involuntary redemption of the numbers.
Mr. Epstein noted that resolution of this issue is being given high
priority at INC. Chairman Atkinson questioned how the August 1
submission cycle will fit into INC's timeframe. Mr. Epstein stated that
discussions will be taking place during upcoming interim INC meetings.
He could not, however, commit to INC addressing the issue before the
August time frame.

Peter Guggina, WorldCom, noted that in the event that none of the
candidates takes the codes, a customer could potentially lose service or
be forced to take an involuntary number change. He suggested that the
NANC, INC, and the FCC take that under consideration. Chuck Eppert,
Verizon, stated that one possible reason that people are reluctant to
accept these codes, is that it could have an impact on their rate center
level administration utilization that is not too desirable because of
the number that they receive. He suggested that a possible temporary
solution would be to exempt such numbers from that rate center
calculation. Paul Hart, USTA, questioned how it is determined who is
responsible for finding a new service provider so that the amount of
down time that a customer would have could be minimized. Nancy Brockway,
NARUC, reported that there has been active discussion among state
regulators about the question of default service for a customer for
local exchange service.

Chairman Atkinson questioned the role/responsibility of the NANC in this
situation. Chuck Eppert stated that the NANC's role is strictly dealing
with what happens to the numbering resource. Chairman Atkinson inquired
as to who has the authority to force a code on someone. Natalie
Billingsley, NASUCA, agrees with Mr. Eppert that the NANC's role is
dealing with the numbering resource. She advised that the different
states are going to have different rules. Mr. Manning stated that, to
date, NANPA has not had a situation where someone has refused a code. He
further stated that it is a potential problem, and he does not have a
solution at the present time. Chairman Atkinson questioned if there is
anything that the NANC should be doing. Ed Gould, AT&T stated that he
thinks that there is a policy question here. Phil McClelland, NASUCA,
cautioned against always reassigning orphan codes because the FCC has
rules about when codes can be assigned and when they can not. Mr.
McClelland stated that the carrier that may be receiving the code that
they do not want may not be eligible for code assignment under the
utilization rules.

Chairman Atkinson questioned whether this problem is being handled on an
ad hoc basis. He stated that that might be the best way to continue to
handle it for some period of time until INC and some of the states look
into the situation. Mr. Manning stated that NANPA, INC, and the LNPA
Working Group are all involved in this issue. He suggested that they
continue to report on this matter as to progress being made within the
groups. Chairman Atkinson suggested that the discussion on this issue
ends at this point. Paul Hart suggested the NANC make a decision as to
whether or not they will take action on this issue. Chairman Atkinson
stated that the problem is something that could evolve into a national
problem. He suggested that the NANC should learn a little more about it
and see what progress can be made at INC and elsewhere. He further
suggested that the NANC should keep it as an item that they closely
monitor.

**D. NANPA Oversight Working Group (NOWG) Report.** Paul LaGattuta,
AT&T, presented to the report to the Council. Mr. LaGattuta reviewed the
2000 NANPA Performance Review. He reported that the changes to NANPA's
functions and responsibilities for the year 2000 was taken into account
in the NOWG's overall evaluation. The NOWG gathered analysis and
feedback from both service providers and regulators through surveys. In
addition, the NOWG conducted two operational reviews. One was conducted
in the Concord location, and the other operational review was conducted
in the new Washington, D. C. office. The NOWG analyzed the information
that was gathered and developed conclusions and recommendations. A
preview of the results was discussed with the FCC and with the NANPA.

Mr. LaGattuta reported that sixteen survey responses were received from
state commissions and twenty six from industry. Two Caribbean countries
acknowledged receipt of the surveys. The total number of respondents
from the industry has dropped since the previous two years. Mr.
LaGattuta reported that the NOWG contacted the originator for
clarification if survey responses seemed contradictory or unclear. The
NOWG aggregated the analysis of the survey ratings into a quantitative
report and aggregated the analysis of the survey comments into a
qualitative report. The NOWG observations and concerns as well as
recommended steps for improvements are contained in the report. Mr.
LaGattuta reported that the NOWG developed a table with satisfactory
rating scales to ensure analytical consistency of survey ratings. He
reviewed

the criteria that was used for assessing the comments. Mr. LaGattuta
reported that the NANPA 2000 Annual Performance Review resulted in a
"Met" rating. He advised that the reader should be aware that the NOWG's
performance evaluation of "Met" should not be used as a comparison to
the 1999 performance review conclusion of "Above Average". The NOWG
changed the rating scale, and any comparison of scales may give the
reader an incorrect interpretation of NANPA's performance. In addition,
it should be noted that the NANPA's "Met" rating was achieved during
substantial changes in 2000. He reviewed with the Council the means by
which the NOWG determined the "Met" rating.

Nancy Brockway, NARUC, commented that in principle, it is difficult to
ask NANPA to do an accurate forecast. She opined that it puts NANPA in a
very difficult position when they are asked to do an accurate forecast
and then forced to defend it. Ms. Brockway offered a few suggestions but
commented that she does not have a solution. Chairman Atkinson
questioned whether the NANC should be debating each of the points in the
report at this time. He stated that the report speaks for itself. He
suggested that the NANC should decide what should be done in terms of
responding at a later time.

Chairman Atkinson advised that NANPA will respond to the Performance
Review at the September NANC meeting.

Peter Guggina questioned whether NANPA's performance has improved since
last year. Mr. LaGattuta stated that there is no improvement. He advised
that NANPA's performance is about the same as last year. Mr. LaGattuta
noted that NANPA is adhering to contract terms and conditions. Chairman
Atkinson commented that there is a tendency to respond to surveys only
if there is a problem. Paul Hart, USTA, proposed that the NANC, at a
future meeting, consider how the process of this evaluation can be
simplified and address the issue of what the benefits are and process by
which the evaluation is done. Mr. Hart suggested that the results should
be targeted in a way that will be more efficient with regard to the time
involved for everybody and more helpful to NANPA.

**E. Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) Tutorial
on INC Structure.** Megan Campbell, General Counsel, ATIS and Jean-Paul
Emard, Director, Industry Forums, ATIS, provided the tutorial. Ms.
Campbell explained that this tutorial is pursuant to an action item that
was assigned during the April NANC meeting. The purpose is to provide an
overview of ATIS and its sponsored forums and committees as well as to
provide information regarding the INC mission, scope, and operations.
Ms. Campbell advised that ATIS is a member organization of global
telecommunications companies with a U.S. and/or North American presence.
The current membership is 116 companies. ATIS' members and participants
represent every segment of the telecommunications industry. Ms. Campbell
reported that a few new companies have recently become board members.
She reviewed the ATIS mission with the council members. Ms. Campbell
advised that ATIS is very good at technical and operational issues. She
stated that ATIS does not get involved with policy issues. ATIS Forums
and Committees address critical industry issues. Ms. Campbell noted that
there are 116 companies at the ATIS level. Overall, there are
approximately 500 companies involved with over 3000 participants. She
reviewed the flow chart of ATIS Committees and Forums. She noted that
ATIS is not a trade association. They do not lobby. Ms. Campbell
reviewed ATIS' future, how ATIS' relationships facilitate the work of
its forums and committees, ATIS' relationship with the FCC and INC's
relationship with the NANC.

Jean-Paul Emard reported on ATIS' mission statement and scope as it is
applicable to INC. Mr. Emard advised that INC provides an open forum to
address and resolve industry issues associated with a number of areas
dealing with the telecommunications, applications and services areas.
Those areas are in planning, administration, allocations, assignment,
use, and related dialing considerations for public telecommunications
within the area covered by the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). Mr.
Emard reviewed INC operations and INC leadership. He noted that meeting
notices, agendas, minutes, working drafts and final documents are
available via the ATIS web site and the INC pages.

Ron Havens, Sprint, advised that INC started in 1993 and the first
meetings were in 1994.

Peter Guggina inquired as to how INC differentiates between a technical
and operational issue versus a policy issue. Ms. Campbell, advised that
the INC is addressing the technical and operational issues. She stated
that INC is actively reporting to the NANC as well as, in some cases, ex
partes with the Commission identifying where there may be policy issues
that would impact some of their technical and operational decisions. She
advised that the technical industry experts in the INC sometimes need
policy direction from the NANC and the Commission. Mr. Epstein explained
that sometimes it is difficult to determine whether it is technical or
policy until INC actually discusses the issue.

Chairman Atkinson inquired as to whether the ATIS presentation was
purely for information or whether there was an underlying problem. Chuck
Eppert, Verizon, stated that to some extent there has been tension
between INC and the NANC. The ATIS presentation was to help establish a
better level of understanding. Peter Guggina advised that out of that
discussion, it was decided that NANC's role needed to be reviewed. Ron
Havens, Sprint, stated that there has been some concern regarding the
guidelines that INC produces and what weight they carry. Chairman
Atkinson questioned whether regulatory bodies have the capability to
technically challenge a guideline from a technical basis. Mr. Eppert,
stated that states have rights to do different things. He further stated
that the real goal of INC is to come up with a uniform technical
approach of doing things. Ms. Brockway advised that the NANC is a forum
where communication can be made between the states and the INC. Ms.
Campbell advised that the INC would be delighted to have more state
input at INC meetings. She stated that it would help to get the
technical and operational issues deliberated. She also stated that the
policy issues can be handled at the NANC meetings. Mr. Emard advised
that the INC is trying to work with the NARUC staff to possibly have a
permanent representative on the INC. Chairman Atkinson advised that this
discussion has been helpful to him in understanding the relationship
between the NANC and the INC.

E.  **Steering Group Report.** Peter Pescosolido, NARUC, reported that
    at the request of

Chairman Atkinson, the Steering Group discussed the purpose of the
Steering Group and its membership makeup. The Group also discussed the
Table of NANC Projects. Mr. Hart suggested that the Table of NANC
Projects be deferred until later on in the meeting.

**G. Numbering Resource Optimization (NRO) Working Group Report.**
Eleanor Willis-Camara, Co-Chair, presented the report to the Council.
Ms. Willis-Camara reported that the NRO-WG open task is to finalize the
assumptions that NANPA will use to project NANP exhaust. The NRO-WG
still has work to do on assumption 6 which addresses the impact of the
inclusion of CMRS carriers in pooling. Ms. Willis-Camara reported that
NANPA and the wireless carriers each have a set of data that they are
examining. Once they complete their analyses, the NRO-WG will reconvene,
finalize assumption 6, and present the set of assumptions to the NANC in
July. Ms. Camara-Willis reported that the NRO-WG has no other active
tasks. She noted that pooling monitoring is inactive. Ms. Camara-Willis
stated that it is the recommendation of the NRO-WG that NENO should
assume any new work on exhaust assumptions and that the NRO-WG remain
dormant unless or until it receives a new assignment from the NANC.
Chairman Atkinson inquired as to whether there was any objection from
the council to the NRO-WG's recommendation. There were no objections
raised.

**H.** **Report of NANP Expansion/Numbering Optimization (NENO) IMG.**
Ed Gould, Co-Chair, presented the report to the Council. Mr. Gould
reported that the NENO IMG is currently working on descriptions of
optimization alternatives and procedures for quantifying their impact on
NANP exhaust. They are approximately one month behind the original
schedule. He advised that some delay is expected in the INC NANP
Expansion report, thus delaying the start of work on NANP expansion. Mr.
Gould reported that there have been 5 conference calls. All have been
very well attended: 11-20 industry participants and 4-7 regulatory
participants. To date, there are 15 optimization proposals.
Contributions for 10 have been received. A face-to-face meeting is
scheduled for June 20, 2001 from 8:30 AM-11:30 AM at USTA. NANPA will
discuss exhaust projection methodology as the basis for optimization
benefits quantification. The next monthly conference call is scheduled
for July 5, 2001, 12:00--2:00 PM.

Harold Salters, PCIA, questioned whether there is any documentation on
the web site as to why the extended local calling areas number
conservation technique was withdrawn. Mr. Gould stated that he did not
recall any specifics in regards to it. Trent Boaldin, OPATSCO, expressed
concern that NENO is concentrating too heavily on number conservation.
Mr. Boaldin stated that one of NANC's jobs is to make sure that
numbering resources are available. Mr. Gould advised that it is not
NENO's intent to do rationing plans to restrict number availability. He
stated that NENO is covering both sides. Anna Miller, VoiceStream,
wanted clarification on how NENO is addressing the NPA exhaust issue and
the demand side in terms of adequate number of resources between now and
when the conservation measures are implemented. She also questioned the
benefits. Mr. Gould, advised that NENO is not attempting to address
immediate demand but is exploring long-term solutions. Peter Guggina
stated that it would be useful for the NANC to review NENO's mission
statement. Mr. Gould agreed to present the NENO mission for NANC review
at the July meeting.

**I. INC Report to the NANC.** Norman Epstein, INC Moderator, presented
the report to the Council. Mr. Epstein reported on upcoming INC
meetings. He encouraged participation and noted that details are
available on the ATIS web site. Mr. Epstein advised that INC does not
want to be the body to direct NANPA to reclaim 555 line number
assignments because it could be viewed in some context as a competitive
issue. Mr. Epstein reported that in order to document the process, INC
seeks information from the NANC as to who is the appropriate authority
to direct the NANPA to reclaim 555 line number assignments. He advised
that in certain circumstances, according to the INC guidelines, some of
the number assignments should be reclaimed. Mr. Epstein noted that this
is more of a policy issue rather than a technical guidelines issue.

Randy Sanders, BellSouth, questioned whether it is the industry's belief
that two years is long enough to have a number if it is not going to be
used. Mr. Epstein stated that the INC has had consensus on that point in
the guidelines. Mr. Guggina noted that in the 555 resource there have
been difficulties obtaining access arrangements. Mr. Epstein explained
that his mission today is not to discuss changing the guidelines. He
further explained that the main focus of INC right now is to be taken
out as being the body that makes the decision per the guidelines. Mr.
Hart explained that the guidelines and the language in the guidelines
are from another era. He stated that it is not appropriate for INC to be
in that situation anymore. He advised that the INC is coming to the NANC
for some advice as to how to proceed. Mr. Gould suggested that the NANC
recommend that the FCC has to be the final authority on what the rules
are for reclaiming numbers. Chairman Atkinson opined that the FCC would
be able to make that kind of decision. Mr. Hart suggested that the NANC
should get more information before making the recommendation. Mr.
Guggina suggested taking this step-by-step. He stated that the first
step is to agree with INC's proposal that they should not be the body to
direct the NANPA to reclaim 555 numbers. NANC could inform the FCC that
it has reviewed this issue and that it agrees with INC. The NANC should
recommend that the FCC review this with the NANPA and make the decision
on how to proceed like they do in other matters.

Deborah Bell, SBC, indicated that she understands that 555 is actually a
designer service. She advised that in some cases it is actually the
state's jurisdiction as far as what that customer has requested for
their 555 service. She stated that when you talk about 7,000 on a scheme
of 10,000 you think that you are getting close to depletion. She
questioned how many of those are actually working and how many would be
up for reclamation. Mr. Epstein responded that he does not know exactly
how many are working. Mr. Hart stated that it is not just 10,000
numbers, it depends on how the customers ask for it to be assigned and
what limitations are on it. Mr. Guggina suggested that the access issue
be addressed.

After extensive discussion, a consensus was reached that INC should not
be the appropriate body to direct NANPA to reclaim 555 line number
assignments. The NANC supports the proposal to have INC present the
modified 555 guidelines at the July NANC meeting to reflect this
decision. Chairman Atkinson, with the assistance of Norman Epstein, will
draft a letter to the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, advising of this
decision.

Mr. Epstein reported on the NANP Expansion Workshop. INC is addressing
an additional expansion concept suggested by the FCC/CCB that expands
the CO code to four digits. The final report on NANP Expansion will be
completed by the end of year 2001.

**J. NBANC Report.** John Ricker, CEO, presented the report. Mr. Ricker
reported that NBANC met with their Board of Directors following the
April NANC meeting. A decision was made at the Board meeting to file a
contribution factor for the 2001/2002 funding year at the current
contribution factor of \$0.000043. The filing was made on May 4, 2001
with the Commission. Included in the filing was a request for the
Commission to clarify what NBANC is authorized to bill and collect
funding for and to pay out. Mr. Ricker explained that this specifically
relates to payments to MITRE Corp., which is the consultant that the FCC
has been using for the Pooling Administration and the NANPA functions.
Mr. Ricker reported that the only set of comments that was filed by the
industry in relation to the filing that NBANC made was by WorldCom
supporting their request to have the FCC make that clarification. He
advised that NBANC is currently awaiting the FCC decision on the
contribution factor for the 2001/2002 funding year. NBANC received two
additional letters from the FCC requesting NBANC to pay MITRE Corp. for
work done in April 2001 and May 2001. The payment was sent on June 14,
2001. Mr. Ricker reported that the current fund balance is \$6.03
Million. Projected receivables are coming in for the month of June --
approximately \$630,000; \$23,000 is still outstanding from the
Caribbean. Payment from the Dominican Republic is expected sometime this
week. This will take away approximately one third of uncollected money
for the 2000/2001 funding year. Mr. Ricker advised that NBANC
anticipates making the final payment for the funding year to NANPA on
June 22, 2001. He stated that NBANC anticipates having a balance of
\$5.99 million. Mr. Sanders, inquired as to whether NBANC has received
any information regarding whether the contribution factor is sufficient
to handle costs now that the new Pooling Administrator has been named.
Mr. Ricker stated that NBANC expects the FCC to adjust the contribution
factor accordingly.

K.  **Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group
    Report.**

Charles Ryburn, Co-Chair, presented the report to the Council. Mr.
Ryburn reported that Release 3.0 was operational in the Northeast Region
in March 2001. He stated that due to some problems with the SOA-NPAC
interface experienced by Verizon (the ILEC in that region) the other
ILECs have elected not to cut over any other regions until the situation
is resolved. Mr. Ryburn reported that another reason for the delay is
the large volume of notifications required. The LNPA-WG agreed with
NeuStar to prioritize the notifications. The LNPA-WG is looking at
short-term and long-term solutions to these problems. In order to
facilitate a resolution to the problems on the SOA-NPAC interface, the
LNPA-WG will commit all of its meetings to this effort. Mr. Ryburn
reported on several NANC change orders: NANC 240 Elimination of SV
cancel at expiration of the T2 timer; NANC 329 Prioritization of
Notifications; and NANC 179 TN Range Notification. Mr. Ryburn reported
that the Slowhorse subcommittee of the LNPA-WG has been looking into the
SOA throughput analysis issue for several months. It will now be
addressed by the LNPA-WG as a whole for resolution to the SOA-NPAC
interface problems apparent with Release 3.0. Mr. Gould, stated that the
performance requirements of SOAs need to be specified. Mr. Ryburn
advised that it is being taken into consideration.

Chairman Atkinson questioned whether the slowness is a customer user
visible phenomenon. Mr. Ryburn announced that this will be his last NANC
meeting and introduced Gary Sacra, Verizon, who will be the co-chair of
the LNPA Working Group. Mr. Sacra is experienced in what has been going
on in Verizon with Release 3.0. Mr. Sacra stated that he is looking
forward to working with the Council, and he stated that he does not
think that the Release 3.0 problems are customer affecting at this time
because the LSMS activations are taking place. Mr. Sacra reported that
the operational impact to the various work groups seems to be causing
the biggest problem at this time. Mr. Sacra explained that the initial
charge of the Slowhorse subcommittee was to work on both performance
requirements and availability requirements for the LSMS because that is
customer affecting. Subsequent to working on the LSMS performance and
availability requirements, the Slowhorse group started discussing SOA
requirements but nothing ever developed.

Mr. Ryburn reviewed the PIM Report.

PIM 1 -- Multi-Service Provider (Reseller) Flows. A subteam consisting
of NNPO and OBF reached a consensus on OBF issue 2189 that option B
(network to network) flows should be used as guidelines for the
multi-service provider (reseller) process. Option A (reseller to
reseller) flows will be mentioned as an alternative. A description of
both flows is on the OBF web site. A final decision is due from OBF in
August. These flows address wireline to wireline porting only.

PIM 5 -- Inadvertent Porting. No change from last month. A revised SOW
19 was requested by NAPM, LLC of NeuStar. The SOW will be presented to
NAPM soon.

PIM 6 -- NENA request for a standard on unlock/migrate transactions
during porting. NENA is still working the issue. Rick Jones reported
that they would require an additional two months.

PIM 9 -- USLEC has explained that carriers will not accept third party
trouble tickets, or do not understand LNP aspects of the report when
trouble tickets were accepted. No change since last month. The PIM will
be discussed in the NIIF meeting in July.

PIM10 -- End-User Billing based on LRN rather than called telephone
number. No examples are available from US LEC. The LNPA agreed to ask US
LEC to close the PIM based on a low incidence of occurrence.

PIM 11 -- A process for moving 1K blocks between switches, within the
same company and rate center using EDR functionality is needed to
satisfy the FCC's requirement to manage TN inventory by rate center
rather than wire center.

PIM 12 -- Operator Service Functionality (Wireless Number Portability).
Jim Grasser presented a contribution to the LNPA regarding the issue.
Service Providers are to discuss the contribution internally and report
in the July meeting how this affects their Operator Services
organizations.

PIM 13 -- Premature Disconnect -- Old Service Provider is removing
switch translations on or near due date, and the number has not been
ported to New Service Provider. This issue is currently being worked by
the NNPO. This issue will continue to be discussed in LNPA based on
updates from NNPO.

Mr. McClelland inquired as to whether the 24 hour accessibility issue
with regard to PIM 5 has been resolved and how it was resolved. Mr.
Ryburn explained that the LNPA-WG sent a letter to NIIF suggesting that
additional language be added to the guidelines that would further
promote the necessity of 24 x 7 coverage. NIIF has not made a final
decision.

Mr. Ryburn advised that he will continue as ILEC co-chair of LNPA for
the remainder of 2001. He will facilitate meetings, distribute minutes
and set meeting agendas. Gary Sacra, Verizon, will act as ILEC co-chair
in making monthly presentations to NANC. Paul Lagattuta, AT&T,
volunteered for the position of CLEC co-chair. If no other nominations
are received by the next meeting, he will be confirmed as CLEC co-chair.

Chairman Atkinson thanked Mr. Ryburn for his great service to the
LNPA-WG and the NANC.

[Wireless Number Portability Operations (WNPO) Working Group
Report]{.underline}. Charles Ryburn presented the report to the Council.
Mr. Ryburn reported that the Wireless Number Portability Operations Team
met on Monday, June 11, 2001 and Tuesday, June 12, 2001 in Overland
Park, Kansas. Mr. Ryburn announced that Brigitte Brown was elected
co-chair of the Wireless Number Portability Operations Team. He reported
that NeuStar provided an update on New Entrant testing. NeuStar also
provided samples of existing reports for tracking testing progress. The
WNPO requested that both forms be used since they each provide unique
information. Two draft letters were reviewed and discussed. The purpose
of these letters is to request information regarding vendor preparedness
for WNP. Mr. Ryburn advised that the letters will be sent out to vendors
this week. The draft outline of a Risk Assessment Document was presented
and discussed. Initial written contributions will be presented and
discussed at the July WNPO meeting. Mr. Ryburn reported that review of
the Wireless Inter-Carrier Test Plan continued and is expected to be
completed by the next face-to-face meeting in August. Test coordination
between service providers will begin at that time. He advised that the
next meeting of the WNPO will be held on July 9 and 10, 2001 in Ottawa,
Ontario.

Beth O'Donnell inquired as to whether all new entrants that want to
participate have to test. Anna Miller responded that all new entrants
that want to port have to do testing. She stated that the extent of that
testing depends on whether or not the entrant has their own LSMS or SOA
or they use a service bureau. Mr. Gould suggested that the future WNPO
reports include information on the wireless number portability
milestones schedule.

**L. NAPM LLC Report.** Michael O'Connor, Co-Chair, presented the
report.

[Release 3.0]{.underline}. Mr. O'Connor reported that Release 3.0 is up
and working in the Northeast Region only. The 3.0 rollout schedule is
currently suspended for all other regions. He reported that carriers in
the other regions opted for the continued use of Release 1.4 until the
SOA issues could be resolved. Mr. O'Connor advised that pooling software
is now available throughout the United States. He stated that the 3.0
rollout schedule may be resumed in the other regions in the 4^th^
quarter 2001.

[Inadvertent Porting]{.underline}. Mr. O'Connor reported that the
Inadvertent Porting Statement of Work (SOW) was presented at the May
NAPM, LLC meeting. Several technical questions were raised by LLC
project executives. Mr. O'Connor advised that NeuStar is working out the
answers, and the Inadvertent Porting SOW is expected to be available for
the NAPM, LLC to review next week in Kansas City.

**M. NANC Guidelines IMG Report.** Peter Guggina, Chair, presented the
report to the Council. Mr. Guggina reported that the NANC Guidelines and
Operating Principles document was finalized at the April NANC meeting.
Changes were made, and shortly thereafter, copies were distributed to
the Council members. Those copies included (as Attachment 1) the old
operating principles that applied to the NANC working groups. The old
operating principles were not discussed at the April NANC meeting. Mr.
Guggina advised that he included them as a matter of convenience since
they were referenced in the document.

Ms. Billingsley advised that as the NARUC/NASUCA point of contact, she
would like to receive reports from the Work Groups, IMGs, etc., a little
sooner than the Friday before each NANC meeting. Chairman Atkinson
requested that the reports be provided to him as well.

**N. Review of NANC Charter.** Peter Guggina reviewed the North American
Numbering Council Charter. He noted that the current Charter expires on
October 2, 2001. Mr. Guggina recommended that some guidance be given on
how to distinguish policy issues from technical issues. The members
agreed that it is not always easy to separate the issues. An extensive
discussion ensued on the relationship of NANC to other entities that
deal with numbering issues (e.g., INC, NANPA, NIIF).

**Other Business.** NANC discussed the length of future NANC meetings
and the possibility of having fewer meetings. Ms. Callahan advised that
the Bureau is considering this matter in the Charter renewal.

**Next Meeting:** July 17-18, 2001

***Action Items and Decisions Reached:***

1.  [North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA)
    Report]{.underline}. NANPA will provide final NANP exhaust
    assumptions in its July report.

> NANPA will provide an update of the status of 500/900 NXX code
> assignments in the July report.
>
> NANPA will provide an explanation of significant changes in central
> office code denials (+-50%).
>
> NANC agreed to continue to monitor the progress that the NANPA, LNPA
> WG, and INC are making to address the issues related to the
> reassignment of returned central office codes with ported telephone
> numbers.

2.  [Report of the NANPA Oversight Working Group]{.underline}. NANPA
    will respond to the 2000 NANPA Performance Review in the September
    NANC meeting.

> In the September meeting, the NANC, members of the NOWG, and NANPA
> will discuss how the NANPA evaluation process can be simplified and
> more effectively accomplished.

3.  [Steering Group Report]{.underline}.

> NANC anticipates that it will be asked by the Commission to provide
> technical requirements to the FCC in support of the next NANPA
> contract selection. NANC wishes to know the date by which any
> information must be provided in order to support the Commission's
> activities. The NANC Chairman will make the necessary inquiries.
>
> The FCC has selected the National Pooling Administrator. NANC provides
> oversight of the NANPA and wishes to know if the FCC intends it to
> provide oversight of the Pooling Administrator as well. A letter
> composed in the affirmative will be sent by the NANC Chair to the CCB
> requesting confirmation.

4.  [Report of the Numbering Resource Optimization (NRO) Working
    Group]{.underline}

> NRO will refine NANP exhaust assumption 6, relating to the impact of
> including CMRS carriers in pooling, and present the result at the July
> NANC meeting.
>
> After providing its recommendation on NANP exhaust assumption 6, NRO
> will become inactive, absent further assignments.

5.  [Industry Numbering Committee Report]{.underline}

> NANC agreed with INC's determination that INC should not be
> responsible for directing NANPA to reclaim 555 numbers, and agreed
> that INC should modify its 555 guidelines to reflect this conclusion.
>
> NANC requested that INC present the revised 555 guidelines by the July
> NANC meeting. If INC is unable to provide the revised guidelines by
> the July meeting, NANC requested INC to present them by the September
> NANC meeting. NANC will forward the guidelines to the Commission and
> advise the Commission that it agrees that INC should not be
> responsible for directing NANPA to reclaim 555 numbers. A letter will
> be sent in July advising the CCB of NANC's conclusion. Norm Epstein
> will assist the NANC Chair in drafting the letter.