**North American Numbering Council**

**Meeting Minutes**

**March 14, 2006 (Final)**

**I. Time and Place of Meeting.** The North American Numbering Council
(NANC) held a meeting commencing at 9:30 a.m., at the Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., TW-C305, Washington,
D. C.

**II. List of Attendees.**

[Voting Council Members:]{.underline}

1\. Robert Atkinson Chairman

2\. John Jefferson AT&T

3\. Debra Jordan BellSouth

4\. Michael Altschul CTIA

5\. Jason Oxman CompTel

6\. Dena Hunter Level 3 Communications, LLC

7\. Aram Shumavon NARUC - California

8\. Hon. Jack Goldberg NARUC -- Connecticut

9\. Hon. Curtis Stamp NARUC -- Iowa

10\. Hon. Robert M. Clayton, III NARUC - Missouri

11\. Don Gray NARUC -- Nebraska

12\. Christine Sealock Kelly NARUC -- New York

13\. Philip McClelland NASUCA - Pennsylvania

14\. Jerome Candelaria NCTA

15\. Ray Strassburger Nortel Networks

16\. John McHugh OPASTCO

17\. Mary Retka Qwest

18\. Rosemary Emmer Sprint Nextel

19\. Anna Miller T-Mobile USA, Inc.

20\. Joseph Jackson Verizon

21\. Martin Hakim Din Vonage Holdings Corp.

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

John Manning NANPA

Jean-Paul Emard ATIS

Amy Putnam PA

Faith Marcotte Welch & Company

[Commission Employees:]{.underline}

Marilyn Jones, Alternate DFO

Deborah Blue, Assistant to the DFO

Narda Jones, Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division

Cheryl Callahan, Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
Division

Sanford Williams, Attorney, Telecommunications Access Policy Division

James Bachtell, Attorney, Telecommunications Access Policy Division

Renee Crittendon, Chief, Competition Policy Division

Ann Stevens, Associate Chief, Competition Policy Division

Heather Hendrickson, Attorney, Competition Policy Division

Mary McManus, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau

Amy Bender, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau

**III. Estimate of Public Attendance.** Approximately 30 members of the
public attended the meeting as observers.

**IV. Documents Introduced.**

(1) Agenda

(2) NANC Meeting Minutes -- November 30, 2005

(3) NANC Meeting Minutes -- January 24, 2006

(4) North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) Report to the
    NANC

(5) FCC 06-14 Thousands Block Number Pooling Authority

(6) National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator (PA) Report

(7) North American Portability Management (NAPM) LLC Report to the NANC

(8) Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report to the NANC

(9) Billing and Collection Agent Report to the NANC

(10) Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) Report to the NANC

(11) NANC Operating Manual - Final

(12) Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group Status
     Report to the NANC

(13) Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) Report

(14) List of NANC Accomplishments (January 2002 -- March 14, 2006)

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING )

COUNCIL MEETING )

Tuesday,

March 14, 2006

**[Live Tape]{.underline}**

(The following transcript was transcribed from an

audiocassette tape provided by the Federal Communications

Commission to Heritage Reporting Corporation on April 7,

2006\.

[P]{.underline} [R]{.underline} [O]{.underline} [C]{.underline}
[E]{.underline} [E]{.underline} [D]{.underline} [I]{.underline}
[N]{.underline} [G]{.underline} [S]{.underline}

MR. ATKINSON: Good morning. I\'d like to call the meeting to order, and
we have an agenda, so the first item on the agenda would be to see if
there are any additions or changes to the agenda. And I have one which
under Agenda Item 12 there is the

sub-bullet including report of pANI IMG. We\'re going to drop that item
from discussion today. We\'ll have a telephone conference call when that
subject is ripe, so stay tuned for the conference call.

Are there any other changes, additions, corrections to the agenda?
Seeing none, we\'ll adopt the agenda, and that becomes Document No. 1.

For a substantive item, announcements and recent news I\'ve got a few,
so let me go through those real quickly. First, Jack Goldberg has
graciously agreed to become the co-chair of NANC, and I think that\'s
great because it\'s important to have someone, when my train is late or
we need some help, and Jack\'s got a great background in all this stuff,
and I know that if I\'m certainly not able to attend a meeting, the
meeting will be in great hands, so I appreciate Jack\'s willingness to
serve. Thank you very much.

Item No. 2, Phil McClelland, as you probably saw from one of his
messages, this is his last meeting. Phil is a real part of the
institutional memory of NANC, and he will be very much missed in terms
of both his substantive input and I\'d say the institutional memory, so
Phil thank you very much and best wishes in future endeavors, et cetera.

(Applause.)

Item 3 on my list there\'s going to be some changes in the FCC
relationship slightly between NANC. Historically, NANC has been under
the umbrella of the Telecommunications Access Policy Division. That\'s
going to be shifted over to the Policy Division.

I guess NANC is starting to get into some policy matters, maybe VoIP and
such things like that always seem to be popping up on our agenda, but in
any case, that transition is in a sense underway. There are a number of
folks from the Policy Division over here. I see Ann Stevens who I\'ve
known from my previous time here, and, Ann, you are going to be involved
with this motley group, right?

MS. STEVENS: Yes, and Renee Crittendon.

MR. ATKINSON: Renee Crittendon is the Chief of the Competition Policy
Division.

MS. STEVENS: Mary McManus.

MR. ATKINSON: Mary McManus. Right.

MS. STEVENS: And Heather Hendrickson.

MR. ATKINSON: Heather. Okay. We\'ll get all the names and faces
straight, so we\'ll be working with this group and we\'ve got the old
group still here, Cheryl and Marilyn, and we\'ll figure it all out. But
in fact what we\'ll try to do is put out a little piece of paper that
explains who the players are et cetera, et cetera, but I don\'t
anticipate any substantive change obviously in the way we do our work
and this, that and the other, so that\'s just a change.

But I would like to express our appreciation on behalf of NANC to our
colleagues in the TAPD for all these many years of great support and
help, so, Cheryl and Marilyn, et cetera, thank you.

News item. There was a commission order that was put out February 24 on
the waivers that some of the states had sought for a thousand block
number pooling I guess it is, and we\'ll have some discussion on that.
One thing I wanted to bring to your attention is that there is a fifth
further notice of proposed rulemaking in that document starting at
paragraph 16, so some of you might want to be \-- if you weren\'t aware
of that, should be, and I believe that\'s all of my \--

FEMALE VOICE: Okay.

MR. ATKINSON: Then we shall. Okay. We have a guest. Commissioner Deborah
Tate who is just the newest FCC Commissioner and who had previously been
with the Tennessee Public Service Commission just wanted to come down
and visit NANC. Commissioner Tate, it\'s good to see you.

MS. TATE: Thank you. Thank you all for having me. I know most of you,
but for those that I haven\'t had the opportunity to meet, I\'m Debbie
Tate, and I\'m so thrilled to be here, and I really just stopped by to
thank you all.

I think that I\'ve kind of worked on the state end regarding number
conservation, and I think that Tennessee probably is a state that\'s
done a fairly good job with that. But I just wanted to thank you all
because I think it\'s so important for those of you all who take the
time and effort to participate no matter whether you\'re from industry
or from the state side or from government in advising the commission.

And of course I\'m fortunate because I came from this state, so I\'ve
had an opportunity to work on some of these issues before. I\'m leaving
some of my cards. Obviously, you all know where to find me, but anyway I
did just want to again say thank you. Curt, you\'re here so much, you
might have to just get an office upstairs, but thank you for your
service. I know how much time and effort it takes.

As my husband said, when are you ever going to get a job that I don\'t
have to keep paying for you to fly back and forth to places. But anyway
it\'s great to be with you all, and I will just look forward to seeing
you all when you\'re here, and when you are here, please come up. I\'d
like to have you all come up to the office and just hear what\'s going
on in your states and kind of keep in touch with you all.

I made the mistake at the TRA of saying my door was open, and the first
Friday night I was there until 9:30 listening to marital problems. So
I\'ve given up my therapist role, but I do want you all to know that I
welcome you\'re input, and again thanks so much for doing this.

(Applause.)

MR. ATKINSON: Thank you for coming by. It\'s great seeing you.

MS. TATE: Sure.

MR. ATKINSON: That was an announcement, so we\'re perfect timing on the
agenda. I\'ve finished my announcements. Anybody else have anything?
Great, so we can now move to Agenda Item 2 which is approval of the
minutes. We have two sets of minutes, and so, let\'s see, the minutes of
November 30. That will be Document No. 2, and the minutes of January 24
will be Document No. 3, and do we have any additions, corrections,
changes, et cetera? Did everybody read them? No. Come on.

MR. GOLDBERG: I did.

MR. ATKINSON: I did, too. Jack and I. I see some nodding heads. Well,
subject to any objections by the end of the meeting, I propose that we
adopt the minutes as drafted, and unless we hear some major objections,
we won\'t reopen that, but I\'ll leave it for the potential reopening.
Any objections? Consider these adopted, but let me know if you have any
issues. Of course, then you\'d have to admit that you hadn\'t read them
before.

First report of today\'s session will be the report of the North
American Numbering Plan Administrator, John Manning, and I sent out an
email indicating that Don Gray from Nebraska would also have an item to
discuss during this agenda item, so let\'s see. John\'s report will be
Document No. 4, and Don Gray\'s will be Document No. 5. John.

MR. MANNING: Good morning, everybody. My report is the typical report
you\'re used to seeing, however I have added a couple of items that
I\'ll report on every other meeting or so. I\'ve got a report looking at
statistics with regard to some of the other numbering resources that
NANPA administers, carrier identification codes, 500, 900 NXXs. My
report provides a brief summary on the status of those particular
resources.

I\'ve also included a document that I\'m not going to go over, but it\'s
entitled 2005 NANPA highlights. This is a document that summarizes NANPA
activities for 2005. It\'s a document that gives you the
accomplishments, highlights, et cetera, that NANPA experienced during
the year. It will be provided to the Numbering Oversight Working Group
tomorrow, and it serves as an outline of the presentation material that
we\'ll be covering with them over the next day and a half.

Again, I won\'t go through that in detail, but if you have any questions
on that particular document, either ask them now or come up and see me
in a little bit. I\'ll be happy to answer them for you.

Turning to this page 2 central office code assignment report. I give you
February \'06 where you see 304 codes assigned and 67 returns. And on
page 4 I give you a summary of where we are the first two months of this
year.

There were seven hundred and forty-two assignments in January and
February of this year. That compares to 639 assignments in the same
timeframe in 2005, so you can see we\'re slightly up from where we
started from in 2005. The quantity of returns we\'ve experienced in the
first two months of this year are similar to what we had in 2005 for the
same time period.

A couple items I want to make note of with regard to central office
codes. There was an announcement made back in December 2005 in which the
Industry Numbering Committee made some changes to the application form
used for requesting central office codes. What we are doing is trying to
get the industry to start using the up-to-date form.

As such, we\'ve sent notice to the industry, we\'ve sent out a couple of
notices already that beginning April 1, 2006, any paper application that
is submitted either directly to NANPA or most likely through the pooling
administrator for a central office code, you have to use the December 9,
2005, version of that form. If you do not use that form after that date,
your application will be denied.

Also, another item I wanted to make note of. In February, due to some
actions and discussions at the Industry Numbering Committee, NANPA made
a change to the NANP Administration System relative to how we deal with
rate center consolidations and splits.

Previously, when there was a rate center consolidation, all those
carriers impacted, that is those carriers that had central office codes
in those rate centers had to submit to NANPA Part 1 changing the rate
center from the old rate center to whatever the new consolidated or
split-rate centers would be. This process unfortunately didn\'t work as
well we would like. NANPA simply didn\'t receive the Part 1s or there
were other issues that got in the way of keeping the code assignment
records up to date.

Beginning in February NANPA modified the NANP Administration System such
that when there is a rate center consolidation, or when there is a rate
center split, NANPA will initiate the appropriate changes within the
system so that the NPA NXXs associated with either the old rate centers
or the old rate centers become associated with the new rate centers. So
carriers no longer have to submit a Part 1 to NANPA to effect that
change.

What we do is we provide notice to the industry there\'s a rate center
change, and on the effective date of that change, NANPA will make the
appropriate changes in the CO code assignment records. So I wanted to
make sure that NANC was aware of how that process was changing and how
NANPA was assuming the responsibility to make sure those records remain
up to date. Any questions on central office code assignments?

Turning to NPA relief planning, attached to my report is the report that
shows area codes that are exhausting in the next 36 months. You\'ll
notice that report has expanded a little bit. As we turn into the new
year, we have a few more area codes that have been now coming up on the
radar screen that are within the next three-year NPA relief timeframe.

Of course, this is all subject to change as we go through the next NRUF
cycle and come up with new NPA exhaust projections. I wanted to make
note that we have seen a number of area codes now come up on the radar
as it relates to the exhaust within 36 months.

For those that we\'re looking at in the 12 months, this list really
hasn\'t changed. We\'ve got area code 310 which I think we\'re all very
familiar with. Efforts are underway now in that particular area code,
and we are now assigning central office codes out of the new 424 overlay
NPA of 310. The effective date of those codes is not until late August
of this year.

With regard to Georgia 706, that plan is underway. The overlay will be
coming into existence later on this year, and we have two area codes in
Illinois, 630 and 815, that we\'re watching very closely. In particular,
area code 815 which has a trigger in place that when it reaches a set
quantity of available central office codes, we will begin the process of
implementing the overlay NPA. We\'re getting very close to that trigger
now, and the industry is already addressing that very issue.

We have two new relief projects that we\'ve started this quarter, both
of them here in the month of March. New Mexico 505 which we\'ve just
recently had a meeting on where we\'re looking at relief for that
particular NPA, and we\'ve already initiated some work in Indiana 812.
Later this month we will have a relief planning meeting where we\'ll
look at various split and overlay options and see what the industry
wants to recommend.

So all of last year we had very few relief projects that we started.
Beginning in 2006 we\'ve already got two on our plate. The NPA and NANP
exhaust projections, which I mentioned earlier, we\'re putting together
as we speak. They will be available at the end of April.

As done previously, the NANC will be sent a notice when those
projections are available on our website, and you can certainly \-- the
states in fact will be given some type of heads up before they\'re
posted so they have an idea where things are standing.

One final note on this page, we\'re currently working on the 2005 NANPA
Annual Report, which will be available at the end of this month. We will
post that to the NANPA website. It will be available in PDF copy only.
Again, a notice will go out to the NANC as well as to the industry when
that document is available and posted on the website. Any questions
concerning area code relief planning?

Let me briefly cover some of the other resources that NANPA is
responsible for. First, we\'ll talk carrier identification codes, and
specifically FGB carrier identification codes. If you want to make this
simple, just simply refer to the charts on each of these pages, and it
gives you a history year over year of the number of assignments, number
of reclaimed codes and net yearly assignment information.

When you\'re looking at Feature Group B codes, you can see in 2005 we
assigned just two codes, yet we reclaimed over 280 of those codes, so
certainly that particular resource is well in hand. In fact, we\'re
seeing that particular resource die off. It\'s obvious by the
assignments and the reclamation process.

For Feature Group D codes, the chart is on page 6. You can see we have
signed 157 in 2005 and how that compares to 2004 and 2003 roughly in the
same quantity of assignments. We continue to reclaim a large of quantity
of Feature Goup D CICs so therefore we have a net negative yearly
assignment rate over the past two years, but that resource continues to
be used.

For 500 NXXs in 2005, we did assign 34 of these codes, and got seven
back. Over the past three years that\'s our largest quantity on a per
year basis that we assigned of this particular resource. If we maintain
this assignment rate, we will roughly be in the neighborhood of seven to
eight years before the 500 resource exhausts.

Of course, that doesn\'t factor in the quantity of reclamations that
could potentially be made, but exhaust of this particular resource is on
the horizon. Although not immediately, it\'s something we need to
continue to monitor. For the 900 area code, five NXXs were assigned in
2005. We had 12 NXXs returned. This particular area code and its use is
not anything that is growing real rapidly, and therefore we don\'t
anticipate this resource to exhaust any time soon.

And, finally on page 7, the 555 line numbers. We only assigned one of
these numbers in 2005, and that\'s one over the past two years. Right
now there is no reclamation under way with regard to the 555 resource.
There\'s plenty of this resource available, but we\'re certainly not
making a lot of assignments of 555 lines. Any questions on the other
resources part of my report?

Before we get into the issue that Don wanted to raise, again page 8, 9
and 10 and so forth are our highlights document. I encourage you to at
least glance through that and a get a sense of what went on during the
year. The remaining pages are the matrix of area codes exhausting in 36
months. That matrix typically appends the NANPA report. Jerome,
question?

MR. CANDELARIA: On page 8.

MR. MANNING: I\'m sorry, Jerome. What page?

MR. CANDELARIA: Page 8. Can you elaborate just a bit under response to
regulatory activities implemented the FCC SBCIS waiver, and my question
is what did this involve for you generally?

MR. MANNING: Well, if you recall the SBCIS waiver allowed SBCIS to get
resources directly from the NANPA and the pool administrator. The
process that was established however was since there was no
certification provided by the state in lieu of that, the primary process
put in place was a 30-day window in which an application that was made
to the administrator whether it\'s to NANPA or to the PA, SBCIS had to
provide at least 30 days\' notice to the state.

And I believe it\'s also to the FCC, and in that process when we got
that application, we had to ensure that those particular items were put
into place before such an assignment was made. Now, from our
perspective, we had some initial activity with regard to this matter,
but primarily they\'ve had to deal with it really on the pooling side
because I think the majority of resources had been in the pooling rate
centers.

MR. CANDELARIA: This didn\'t involve any extraordinary costs?

MR. MANNING: No. We were able to handle this particular instance because
we were only dealing with one company. We were able to work through the
process to make that happen. Certainly, if that type of mechanism was
put in place for a large number of carriers, then that would be a
significant change in our process.

MR. CANDELARIA: But didn\'t the FCC say that similarly situated
organizations could follow the same process?

MR. MANNING: No. No. At this time, it\'s only SBCIS that has this waiver
in place.

MALE VOICE: Well, my understanding was the FCC did extend the
opportunity to other providers to take advantage of the same proposal,
although I don\'t believe the FCC is active on this (inaudible).

FEMALE VOICE: Yes. That would be if they petition it as SBCIS did, then
we would respond to their petitioners, but there has to be a petition on
file and a response.

MALE VOICE: No petitioner. I guess I heard something.

FEMALE VOICE: Right. No FCC response yet. Those are pending petitions.
Yes.

MR. MANNING: My point is that there is no other carrier that I am aware
of.

FEMALE VOICE: Right.

MR. ATKINSON: And he\'s confirming for me that he currently has this
process in place.

FEMALE VOICE: That\'s correct.

MR. ATKINSON: Any other questions or clarifications? All right.

MR. MANNING: Don wanted to raise his item now while I was here.

MR. ATKINSON: Yes. Don, go ahead.

MR. GRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Don Gray, Nebraska. First, thank you
very much for allowing us this opportunity to bring this up for
discussion here, and I would also on behalf of my commission thank the
FCC for the grant of the petition that we received two weeks ago.

My commission believes that\'s a very important tool for us to be able
to extend the life of the 402 area code, and I hope in a couple of hours
I can give you an official announcement of what we are doing and will be
doing in the future. As with many tools you get, the devil is in the
details and the implementation.

And as we begin to look at how are we going to use this new tool and
look at how it would most likely be implemented, it seems that the TBPAG
provided the necessary guidance for how carriers would report at the
thousands-block level going into the establishment of pooling in a rate
center, but then once you had pooling, then the question came how are
they going to report since many of our carriers are rural carriers, and
we found two conflicting areas.

One was in the INC guidelines for the NRUF, and the other was in the
Form 502, the actual NRUF reporting, and in talking both with members of
INC and John Manning and his folks, it seems that the intent is fairly
clear, and that for the process to properly work any carrier, regardless
of their status that\'s in a pooling environment, needs to report at the
thousands-block level, but if you start reading each line, each section
of the INC and the 502 guidelines, you find some places where there\'s
an oops.

And so that\'s what I wanted to bring to floor here so that perhaps we
can have a discussion or at least get some input and guidance from you
folks as to should the intent be that all carriers participating in
thousands-block number pooling regardless of their status report at the
thousands-block level.

MR. ATKINSON: Let\'s have some discussion. Rosemary?.

MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer with Sprint Nextel. Were you looking to put
this revised language like in the INC, or were you looking to start a
best practice matrix of sorts, or I guess other than the discussion,
what is the end result that you are looking for?

MR. GRAY: The end result is not necessarily am I going to suggest here
today that we ought to do this or that, but that it appears that it
should be reporting at the thousands-block in a pooling rate center for
everybody. Now, I think I would be comfortable with if this group says
yes, that should be the intent, and INC, NANP, whoever, go forth and
look very closely at the wording and clean any up that needs to be
cleaned up. That would be sufficient for me coming out of here today,
Rosemary.

Because I think the other thing is you start looking at some of these,
and it was interesting. A couple of folks referenced me back to the 2000
FCC order that originally starting the thousands-block pooling, and in
there it very, very clearly drew a bright line and said if you don\'t
have to port numbers, you don\'t have to participate in this even in
reporting which is obviously much different than six years later.

And the most recent order where there was a distinction made that it\'s
not the capability that\'s the distinction, it\'s whether you will have
to offer porting or not, so I think maybe that\'s where some of our
language differences have come up.

MS. EMMER: Okay. Thank you. Sprint Nextel wholeheartedly supports the
effort.

MR. GRAY: Thank you. John?

MR. MCHUGH: We agree, OPASTCO agrees. We\'ll support on the suggestion
that rural companies participating in pooling have to report at the
thousands-block level.

MR. GRAY: And have you advised your members of this, or will you?

MR. MCHUGH: Absolutely.

MR. GRAY: Thank you.

MR. ATKINSON: I think what I\'m hearing is we have a consensus. I mean,
is there anybody who thinks that that\'s not a good idea? It seems kind
of natural, and just kind of goes along with the intent is my thought,
and certainly if OPASTCO has no problems \-- they\'re the ones who are
burdened particularly or would be participating, so my view would be
there\'s a clear NANC unanimity if not consensus.

Certainly, consensus that Don\'s proposal is reasonable, and I see
someone from INC taking the public microphone because INC will probably
need to just make any clarifications.

MR. HAVENS: Ken Havens. I just wanted to offer on behalf of the INC to
bring in an issue to the INC, and the INC can initiate an issue and
address this particular request. In fact, we can do that next week which
is when we meet.

MR. ATKINSON: Okay. So let me just make that an action assignment that
you\'ll just look at that and report back at the next session
presumably, or you\'ll keep us advised of any language correction in the
guidelines, and I\'ll assume that that will satisfy everybody.

MR. HAVENS: Thank you.

MR. GRAY: Thank you.

MR. ATKINSON: Are there any other questions either for John Manning or
for Don? Then that agenda item is done. Thank you, John.

MR. MANNING: Thank you.

MR. ATKINSON: Next item on our agenda report of national thousands-block
pooling administrator, Amy Putnam. Amy\'s report will be Document No. 6.
Pooling is fine, right, Amy?

MS. PUTNAM: Pooling is fine. Busy, but fine. Okay. If you look at the
first slide, page 2 of the report, the PA activity summary data. You see
that our last two months have been extremely busy and have been our
first and second highest months ever. The third was March 2005 which
will be falling off the rolling 12-month report next time. We normally
file our FCC reports on the 15th for the previous month, but we filed
early this month so that we could do the February reporting.

With respect to the next slide, the summary activity, there again is
March 2005 through February 2006. Page 4, CO codes opened, again a
rolling 12-month inventory, and the rate centers changed from M to M,
that\'s 150 in the last 12 months. Those are where new service providers
moved into rate centers that previously had a single-service provider in
them, and when that happens, we contact the carrier that is operating in
that rate center and let it know. Yes, Rosemary?

MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer with Sprint Nextel (inaudible).

MS. PUTNAM: Okay. I\'m sorry.

MS. EMMER: No. That\'s okay. For the blocks assigned in the PAS manual
Part 3 with January with the increase being so dramatic or drastic.

MS. PUTNAM: Yes.

MS. EMMER: Was there any particular reason that you guys are aware of
that it was \-- that\'s significantly higher.

MS. PUTNAM: Yes, it was significant, and there is a carrier, and the
information is in the public sector because there have been press
releases, but there is a carrier that\'s going out across the country
establishing footprint and is getting blocks across the country.

MS. EMMER: Thank you.

MR. ATKINSON: I had related thoughts, so I\'ll just interject it now. I
mean, in a sense we would see any sort of stresses, incipient stresses
and strains on numbering resources first in your pooling before we see
\--

MS. PUTNAM: We are the gatekeeper.

MR. ATKINSON: Before we see them at the NANPA, right? So I just think
this 12-month forecast it might be useful actually at some point
periodically even to put this into a graph stretching somewhat even back
the past four months just to give sort of a early warning because
there\'s a lot of assumptions that go into the NANPA forecast, and right
now we\'re pretty relaxed about it.

It\'s like 2030 something, but if we start seeing a dramatic up-tick
like this, and it persists, that might start rippling through up to the
area code level and things like that, so it\'s a useful early warning
sign, this chart is.

MS. PUTNAM: Yes, and the information about pooling activity over the
past year and over the past five years, and since pooling began with the
state trials, that graph is in our annual report which is posted on our
website from last year and will be posted again this year.

MR. ATKINSON: I will go to your website.

MS. PUTNAM: And if you like once we post this year\'s annual report, we
can simply put that graph in the next NANC report.

MR. ATKINSON: Yes, that will be helpful. Thank you.

MS. PUTNAM: Okay.

MS. EMMER: I have one more question. On the same slide under denials
with the red light rule, 61 in December. That seems pretty high compared
to the other months. Was there anything you can share with us about
that?

MS. PUTNAM: Honestly, Rosemary, I brought that information to the
January meeting, and I don\'t remember.

MS. EMMER: Okay. Thanks.

MS. PUTNAM: But I can check on it and let you know.

MS. EMMER: No. That\'s okay.

MS. PUTNAM: Okay. I believe if nobody has any other questions we were
moving on to page 5 which is the status of the change orders. We still
have four pending change orders. The NPAC, the one-time scrub is in its
third iteration. If you recall that particular one goes back to May of
2005, but earlier ones went back well into 2004.

We initially requested a report either daily, weekly or monthly then
that change order was disapproved, and it was proposed that we do a
one-time scrub of one NPA per impact region to see if a scrub would be
valuable, and that information that we gleaned from that scrub was
deemed to be valuable to carriers, and the NOWG recommended that we
submit a change order requesting a one-time scrub, and that\'s the one
that\'s out there.

Change Orders 43 and 44 relate to changes in the guidelines, and Change
Order 45 as indicated related to user suggestions from the 2004 NOWG
survey which we received last summer. Next slide shows our instances of
unscheduled unavailability from March of \'05 to the end of February of
\'06, and we had 19 minutes.

Next slide, other PA activities. Continue to participate in meetings on
the pANI ESQK administration. With respect to the NOWG, we are now
undertaking the regular monthly review meeting with the NOWG and had our
first two meetings January 27 and February 3, and have worked out a
schedule for the rest of the year.

With respect to the NOWG survey, we are trying to drum up business in
the response category, so we have sent a number of notices regarding the
survey that the timeline for responding was extended, and we\'re looking
forward to our operational review in Concord, California, at our office
out there on April 4 and 5.

With respect to the delegated authority petitions as was previously
mentioned, there were approvals for five states and eight NPAs and
immediately following the issuance of that order we\'ve held conference
calls with regulatory staff of all the states that were involved. And we
are anticipating that there will be state orders issues and that we will
schedule supplemental implementation meetings based on the content of
those state orders.

Obviously, our conduct will be governed by the content of the state
orders to the extent that they do not in any way conflict with existing
FCC orders, and our annual report. A draft has been provided to the NOWG
for review, and we are on target for filing that on March 31 with the
FCC and subsequent to that it will be posted to the website, and we will
provide a copy of the graph of pooling activities to the NANC at the
next meeting.

We also have a highlight section of our annual report which we will
review in some detail with the NOWG during our review, April 4 and 5,
but for today I wanted to just kind of highlight some of the things that
we look at that we did during the year. We processed 102,304
applications which is an increase of 47.8 percent over 2004. In 2004 we
processed 69,193. We also assigned 55,990 blocks which is a 49.6 percent
increase over 2004.

Our total approved blocks is 45.4 percent increase over 2004. In 2004,
we approved 60,206 blocks, and in 2005 we approved 87,571. For 2005, we
had an increase of 10.7 percent in central office codes that were open.
We went up from 2,153 to 2,385, and we reclaimed 78 blocks in 2005 which
is a 136-percent increase over 2004, so our pooling administrative
services center was mighty busy this year.

We also as you can see worked on our website. We improved our website
this year, and we got lots of positive comments on the new website. We
submitted eight change orders and implemented nine that were approved.

We successfully conducted our disaster recovery business continuity plan
testing, and we upgraded the system and database and applications on
August 21. If you went back to the system instances of unavailability,
there was one that was an asterisk there where the system was
unavailable during August, but that was scheduled for the upgrade, so
that did not count against our unavailability requirement.

And the pooling implementation management continues. The quality control
and maintenance of the rate center files. That means whenever a rate
center goes from M to M contacting the carriers, making sure that it\'s
reflected on the website whenever OMB issues a bulletin that affects
anything having to do with MSAs.

We review the website and make sure that any changes needed to rate
centers are made. If states request changes for example from excluded to
optional, or service providers request changes from excluded to
optional, all of those things are part of the maintenance of the rate
center files.

We produced 2,572 reports this year for the FCC, for state regulators,
for the NANC, the NANPA and service providers, and we worked with states
in a variety of ways. We did a refresher for state commission staff for
PAS use. We had an informational conference call.

We went to states that requested in-person pooling education meetings
and responded to a variety of inquiries on issues related to pooling
from states, from service providers, and from the FCC. We were busy.
We\'re not sitting around eating bonbons. Thank you. Questions?

MR. ATKINSON: John first, then Rosemary.

MR. CANDELARIA: John Candelaria, NPTA. Does pooling administration
separately track rate centers where there\'s no blocks available for
assignment?

MS. PUTNAM: We don\'t track that. We can review that information. We can
query the database and find out whether or not a rate center has numbers
available. Most frequently if you look at that information, you find
that it\'s situations where carriers have forecast for numbers, but when
we go and try to replenish the pool, nobody meets months to exhaust or
utilization, and we can\'t find a carrier that will come in and enable
us to open a code for pool replenishment.

MR. CANDELARIA: I\'m just trying to get a sense of why red this is. Let
me cut to the chase \--

MS. PUTNAM: I think it\'s because carriers forecast with a sense of
optimism.

MR. CANDELARIA: Okay. The basis for my question is our favorite area
code 310 where we have rate centers where there are not blocks
available. My concern is new entrants cannot enter a market when there
are no blocks available. At least entry is highly problematic, so I\'m
just trying to get a sense whether this is an isolated 310 issue, or
whether there are other rate centers out there where competitor should
kind of look elsewhere?

MS. PUTNAM: There are two situations where there are rate centers where
it looks as if there are not numbers available. One is 310, the other is
where we cannot replenish the pool because we can\'t find somebody to do
it. In 310 there are only 100 blocks left. I pulled out my little 310
piece of paper as soon as you raised your hand. I thought he\'s going to
say \-- I wanted to beat Anna who probably was on the website this
morning checking it out.

In 310 there are only 100 blocks left, and we do have rate centers that
we have no resources left. We can only do what regulators permit us to
do, and if there aren\'t any blocks left because of delayed area relief,
there we are.

MR. ATKINSON: Anna?

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller at T-Mobile. Yes, 310 is the exception, and
there\'s no more NXXs available to replenish the rate centers in 310
right now that do not have blocks available for assignment, but just to
elaborate on what Amy was saying, there are situations where there\'s
rate centers with zero blocks available for assignment, but if nobody is
applying for any numbers in that rate center, then there\'s not an
opportunity to assign an NXX I guess to that rate center and identify
LERG assignee.

So I guess a couple of things need to happen to replenish a pool. There
needs to be demand, and then if there is no NXX, if there are no blocks
available, and you have to open up a new NXX, you have to have LERG
assignee to take responsibility as the CO holder for that block, so just
to clarify on that.

MS. PUTNAM: That\'s correct.

MS. MILLER: And then I think the other comment I\'d like to make with
regard to forecasting optimism, and that is I think that that is a
possibility. One of the challenges that we face with our current system
is that in your forecast you need to have the forecast in the right
month.

So if for example T-Mobile said that we needed four blocks in March, and
two blocks in April, and we only qualify and applied for three blocks in
March, and then we needed three blocks in April, and we could only get
two because we said we\'d only have two.

We\'d have to update our forecast, so I think it\'s challenging to get
it exactly right in the right month, and I think to accommodate that,
you try to spread it out so that you don\'t run drawing up short in one
month if demand is a week later than you thought it was, so that\'s a
challenge I think in the forecasting.

MS. PUTNAM: Yes. We look ahead, and we attempt to replenish when the
forecasts reflect a need to replenish. Another challenge that we have is
carriers that forecast zero and come in and suddenly need resources and
change their forecast in order to get resources, and they drain the pool
at that point, and of course then we can go out and we can again attempt
to replenish.

But for us to replenish a pool, we need somebody who meets months to
exhaust in utilization who can perform the functions of the LERG
assignee. We do two things. We not only canvas carriers to become a LERG
assignee, but we also contact carriers that are operating in any rate
center and ask them if they have blocks to donate if we need resources
in a rate center so that we don\'t have to open codes if carriers do in
fact have blocks to donate.

MR. ATKINSON: Rosemary?

MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel. Two things. The first thing is
I didn\'t see in the notes from January about 61, so I want to get with
you on that.

MS. PUTNAM: Okay.

MS. EMMER: Ten miles for the red light rule, and regarding the
forecasting optimism comments, it\'s my understanding that the PA is
subjectively determining based on what the carriers\' forecasts are as
to how many numbers are going to be in the pool also. So I mean we might
forecast high, but if we only use let\'s say 25 percent of actuals,
there is somewhat of a subjective decision made somewhere along the
line.

And while I think generally speaking the pools are plentiful, there have
been several times where Spring, or at least Legacy Nextel has needed a
number whether it be something we\'ve forecasted for or whether it be
whether we didn\'t forecast, but we needed an initial code somewhere
where we have had to wait, and so you\'re right.

At times, we might not be able to meet utilization and need 100,000
numbers, but that is in fact something that happens that really, truly
across the board isn\'t very fair, especially when we might have
forecasted for those numbers, but because there\'s this subjective
nature in some way to this whole process that we might not be able to
get those codes.

MS. PUTNAM: Rosemary, I\'d really appreciate it if you would bring those
to our attention because we have not had a complaint in years about
carriers not being able to get numbers except in California.

MS. EMMER: Right. This came out during our internal Legacy Nextel survey
process, so when we finish that \--

MS. PUTNAM: Then it\'s something that someone is not advising us about.

MS. EMMER: And we brought the concept of forecasting up on the last NOWG
call so that we can make sure to start figuring this out for the long
term as to how we can best do this maybe a little more objectively going
forward.

MS. PUTNAM: Because our system is set up to just generate information
about pool replenishment. You need to replenish this rate center as the
forecasts reflect, so if that is a problem, it\'s a problem that has not
been brought to our attention, and it would be great if you could give
me some examples.

MS. EMMER: Right. We are actually on our caravan in this morning from
Sterling, this was one of our topics of conversation that we had with
several carriers, and definitely as we move forward having our
communications or calls every month, we\'ll definitely work though this
so that it works out best for everyone. And like I said before, as a
general rule or typically if you will there\'s been plenty of numbers in
the pool, but we\'re noticing now that \--

MS. PUTNAM: Yes. Since every carrier is supposed to keeps its own
six-month inventory, you would think that that would not be a problem
with its six-month inventory and our attempt to keep a six-month
inventory, you would think that that would never occur except in
California.

MS. EMMER: Well, you\'re right. You would think that wouldn\'t occur,
but with big marketing programs and things, sometimes it is impossible
to keep that number. The same with you guys. It\'s a situation that
we\'re hoping to work through this year. Thank you.

MR. ATKINSON: Just from what I gathered from this discussion there\'s a
problem in 310. There is managing issues elsewhere, so there\'s no other
customer visible concerns, but I\'m also hearing there\'s some strange
incentives built into the system to overforecast, to not want to take
responsibility for a new code and things like that.

The NOWG in its work kind of listening to these things in terms of if
there is a real problem, the NOWG would take the initiative to propose
any changes in process, procedures, et cetera along with the PA, right?

MS. EMMER: That\'s correct, and how we\'ve begun that process now from
the NOWG perspective is during our monthly call with the PA, we brought
this up as an information topic, and we had a discussion as to what they
could possibly provide to us so that we can start understanding a little
better I think really each other in this regard.

But specifically what we could understand from the PA, so they\'re going
to report back to us at the next month a snapshot in a day if you will
of the rate center, so we\'ve begun that just recently.

MR. ATKINSON: Right. How long have we been doing pooling? Two years?

MS. PUTNAM: Well, we\'ve been doing national pooling \-- the contract
was awarded in June 2001, but we rolled out in March of 2002.

MR. ATKINSON: So the rules, the regulations, the process is always being
looked at for fine-tuning? Good. Christine?

MS. KELLY: Chris Kelly, New York. I just wanted to offer a contrasting
view of that subjectivity. New York filed comments on the PA
requirements document, an advocate for that subjectivity so to speak. I
don\'t know if that\'s the right word which is used by the PA as it
mitigates the optimism. We really do think the PA\'s expertise in
looking at the actual use in a rate center is a very useful tool in not
stranding resources, so I just wanted to offer a contrasting view.

MR. ATKINSON: Any other comments? Thank you very much.

MS. PUTNAM: Thank you.

MR. ATKINSON: Agenda Item No. 5, the report of the North American
Numbering Portability Management LLC.

FEMALE VOICE: Document 7?

MALE VOICE: You\'re off by two.

MR. ATKINSON: We\'re doing Agenda Item 5, right?

FEMALE VOICE: I\'m sorry.

MR. ATKINSON: Agenda Item 5, and the NANPM report will be Document No.
7.

MR. CLAY: Good morning, NANC. I have two items to report this morning.
The first item deals with the completion of Statement of Work 51. NANC
Change Order 393 which is a part of software Release 3.3 required
changes be made to the NPAC\'s performance requirements based on porting
and pooling volume forecasting.

SOW or Statement of Work 51 was prepared by NeuStar and presented to the
NANPM for approval, and as of the last meeting that we had, we approved
the Statement of Work 51, and Statement of Work 51 will document those
changes to our master agreement. As of this morning, I understand that
there may be some issues that came out with this statement of work, and
we will be addressing that over the next couple of days.

The second item that I\'d like to report would be that the INC made a
request to the NANPM to authorize an ad hoc report for the purpose of
identifying service providers with ported telephone numbers within an
NXX code when the code holder is to change the rate center.

The code would cause problems if there are ported numbers within the
NXX, and this ad hoc report would allow NANPA to eliminate those
problems for our customers. The NANPM LLC approved that at a previous
meeting, and hopefully that will solve their issues.

That\'s all I have today. Are there any questions?

MR. ATKINSON: No questions?

MR. CLAY: Thank you, chairman.

MR. ATKINSON: Yes? We do.

(Away from microphone.)

MALE VOICE: (Inaudible) California. I have a question (inaudible).

MR. ATKINSON: Could you just raise your hand so the guys back there can
see where you are?

MALE VOICE: (Inaudible) exact appropriate time for it, but we have had a
situation where ex parte has come in on everybody\'s favorite 310 issue
and asked some questions about specifically local number portability
applications or use of LNPs specifically from ILECs to their wireless
affiliate for transfer of specific numbers in areas where
thousands-block pools are not available. And this is the first I\'d
heard of anything of this nature, and unique to California I\'m sure in
our 310.

But I have no idea if anybody else is aware of this, or if anybody could
speak to this issue. We haven\'t done any data requests or anything
along that line, but we do have some concerns if we do find information
about portability being used effectively in a potentially discriminatory
manner for the affiliates of carriers with large number resources and
contaminated blocks.

MR. CLAY: This is the first that I\'ve heard of this also. There are
several members here from the LNPA working group and from the NANPM LLC,
so that\'s something that we will have to discuss outside of this
meeting, but right now this is the first I\'ve heard of that issue.

MALE VOICE: Okay. Are you aware of mechanisms by which a number could be
ported without a customer being assigned to it on one end or the other?

MR. CLAY: No.

MALE VOICE: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CLAY: Okay.

MR. ATKINSON: Anything else? Thank you, Mel.

MR. CLAY: Thank you.

MR. ATKINSON: All right. We\'re scheduled for break at 10:45. I suggest
we continue on until 10:45. I\'m sure we can get the INC report and
maybe one other in, so the INC report from Ken Havens, Agenda Item 6,
Document No. 8.

MR. HAVENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Turning to Slide 2, you\'ll see a
slide that provides information on when the INC last met as well as
indicating that we will be meeting next week at the ATIS annual meeting.

On Slide 3 it gives you an idea of some of the work that\'s been going
on in the LNPA subcommittee within INC, and indicates that we had
received correspondence from the LNPA working group regarding unusable
blocks that sought modification to the thousands-block donation form to
help ensure that donating service providers performed their intraservice
provider ports to avoid service disruption when blocks are subsequently
assigned.

The INC created Issue 506 to address this concern, and the changes would
have SPs complete an updated Appendix 2 form as part of the donation
process, and this form would step service providers through a series of
questions regarding the status of blocks being donated.

And this form in its updated form are to ask questions of a service
provider such as is the block contaminated, and if yes, how many numbers
are not available for assignment, have all your ISPs been completed, has
the block been protected from further assignment.

Further, the form or the changes goes on to explain the benefits of
performing intraservice provider ports and protecting the block from
further assignment. And so the INC and the LNPA working group believe
that these changes will help to educate service providers on the
activities that must occur, and why those activities occur, and
subsequently will serve to avoid service disruptions when those blocks
are subsequently donated.

On Slide 4, you\'ll recall that we had a presentation here at the last
NANC from a video relay service providers. I think it was Mark Ersky
from CSD that presented that information to the NANC. He also came at
the INC and made a similar presentation to the INC, so what has
occurred, there was a general exchange of information from Mark and a
dialogue that ensued between Mark and the INC,.

As well as I might point out that there were other members from the VRS
providers. I believe Mike Maddox and Joe Romriel from Sorrensen
Communications were there to provide their input and prospectives, and
so as I indicated, the INC created an issue to address this, and we will
be working this issue next week to further along that process. Any
questions thus far?

Okay. Turning to Slide 5, this slide identifies issues that remain in
initial pending at the INC. Issue 407 which most of us are familiar
with, the treatment of dedicated codes for single customers in a pooling
environment.

Very briefly this is a process improvement issue whereby if I\'m a
service provide that\'s requesting a dedicated code for a customer in a
pooled environment, the process change essentially wants to allow that
service provider to go directly to the NANPA to acquire that code. In
today\'s process they have to go first through the PA and then to NANPA
to get that code. Mr. Chairman, I believe you were going to take a look
a the letter that NANC sent to the FCC last February.

MR. ATKINSON: I believe I did.

MR. HAVENS: Okay.

MR. ATKINSON: I did. 407.

MR. HAVENS: Yes, sir.

MR. ATKINSON: I have a recollection of writing such a letter, but I will
double-check that it went out.

MR. HAVENS: Okay.

MR. ATKINSON: I will double check. I always should do my own action
assignments first, and I looked through the list this morning and said
yes I did that, but I\'ll check right now. Thank you.

MR. HAVENS: Thank you. Issue 475 and 486 are two other items that remain
in initial pending that were briefly touched on by the PA as having
change orders associated with those, the first being the thousands-block
forecast report directions. In this issue we essentially made changes to
the T-bag Appendix 1 document.

(Electronic interference.)

Essentially, we\'ve modified the guidelines to take out of reference to
a field on the Appendix 1 form that wasn\'t really there, so we wanted
to make sure that the guidelines were copacetic with the actual form
itself. And secondly on Issue 486 contaminated or pristine assigned
block returns,

the changes here would require block holders to notate on the Part 1(a)
form in a new field, a new field is the remarks field whether or not the
thousands-block being donated is pristine or contaminated thus providing
the PA some additional information about the block when they receive it
back from the service provider. Questions?

Slide 6 shows those issues that are in final closure. We have six issues
here. Issue 463, LERG assignees for pool replenishment or LRN requests.
This issue received attention at the INC over the course of several
meetings, and its intent was to give service providers in need of an LRN
the ability to be assigned an LRN and essentially protect the numbers
associated with that assignment from being used.

It was a forward-thinking type of issue with regard to number
conservation, and the INC as I indicated talked about it over the course
of a few weeks. And ultimately they decided that the current process
whereby if a service provider needs a code for LRN purposes but doesn\'t
meet the MTE or utilization criteria to go to the state regulator via
the safety belt process.

That\'s the current process for dealing with situations like that and
the INC came to conclude that that was still the best process for this
particular type of concern and thus the issue was closed without making
any changes.

Issue 503, clarification on LERG assignment block holder Part 4
submissions. Changes were made here to the TBPAG to clarify which part
form should be used by a block holder who is also a LERG assignee of an
NXX. Essentially, we created within the guideline changes a series of if
statements. If this, then please use the following process, and so that
essentially is what we did with that issue.

Issue 500, returning a nonpool dedicated customer code. This was
essentially an administrative change. We had language in both the TBPAG
and the COCAG that provided instructions for a service provider on how
to return a nonpooled dedicated code. The INC concluded that that same
information needed to be in another part of the COCAG guidelines, and
that would be COCAG Appendix C, and so we added that to the document.

501, becoming a new LERG assignee due to ported TNs. We made changes to
the COCAG Appendix C to address when a service provider becomes a new
LERG assignee for a pooled NXX as a result of having ported TNs but
doesn\'t have a block assigned from that NXX.

Issue 502, pooled NXX codes returned in error. The COCAG was modified in
this particular instance to address the process that service providers
should follow when a pooled NXX is returned in error. We identified
essentially five scenarios that could occur, and then we notated within
the guideline changes which particular process should be followed in
those particular circumstances.

And finally, issue 505, expedite request clarification to the COCAG.
There was some confusion apparently with regard to the process that
needed to be followed when a service provider wanted to expedite the
request for a code, and so the INC clarified that process, and we put
that in the document. Any questions thus far?

Moving on to the last page, this essentially identifies the relevant
pages for information that can be found with respect to INC guidelines,
issues, things of that nature. One note that we\'d like to note for
those NANC members that are new and frankly for all NANC members for
that matter the new NANC operating manual that recently came out refers
to the process for NANC members to be able to acquire a password for all
INC documentation.

And if you needed information or wanted information about INC, you could
contact the INC administrator who is now Jackie English. Charles Piot is
leaving the INC to move on to newer, greener pastures, and so Jackie
English would be the individual that you would contact. Any questions?
Thank you for your time.

MR. ATKINSON: Just to report, I did prepare the letter requested on
4-07, but I sent it into a different pathway than normal to the FCC
since it deals with a long outstanding issue, and I don\'t know that
there\'s anybody from the commission here today that was going to be
able to respond to that, but I will take an action assignment to
followup on my previous correspondent.

MR. HAVENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ATKINSON: I would propose that we take a 15-minute break. We\'re
going to come back and discuss money, the next two agenda items, and so
in fact why don\'t we reconvene at 11:00 promptly. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

MR. ATKINSON: The next report will be Document No. 9.

MS. MARCOTTE: Good morning. I\'d like to start with going over the
fund\'s financial position at the end of February. At the end of
February the fund has \$4.1 million mainly made up of cash that\'s left
from accrued liabilities of \$1.8 million, and the makeup of the accrued
liabilities is below there, and during February, the fund that was
invested earned 3.95 percent.

The next page, page 2, is the projection of the fund, forecast of the
fund for the next year. Of particular note is the balance of the fund at
the end of June which is the funding year end. The \$2.2 million is what
we project the fund will be at. We wanted it to be at \$1 million which
was the contingency balance, but there is extra money going to be left.

The makeup of that money can be seen on the far right-hand bottom
corner, the discrepancy or the variance, and it\'s mainly made up to
carrier audits that were not done that we had anticipated being done.
The bulk of it is that number, \$560,000, is \$490,000. If we go to the
next page, page 3, it\'s a makeup of the next six months what we expect
to spend assuming we get the bills and the approvals to spend the money.
That\'s what\'s anticipated.

That\'s the first part of the report. Are there any questions on that?

MR. ATKINSON: Could NANC have a field trip to Jamaica? Yes. We could
visit with Courtney and have a meeting down there and use up some of
these surplus funds. What do you think? Any other constructive comments?

MS. MARCOTTE: Okay. The next part of the report is the budget and the
contribution factor. Page 4 and 5 are the commentary on the budget, so
if we turn right to page 6 that is the budget, and I\'ll go over that
with you. The first part if the NANPA administration, and that is a
contract in place for that amount for the \$1.4 million. We\'ve taken
out the amount for the international participant, so that brings it down
to NANPA administration costs of \$1,338,000.

The one thousands-block pooling there is no contract. The current
contract expires in June of this year, so what we have done is without
any other information we have used the same amount of \$3.5 million as
last for this year because we have no information to suggest it would be
any different.

We\'ve also put in an amount for pANI administration, and again that is
just an estimate since we don\'t have any information as to what that
might be. We\'re hoping it\'s a good estimate. For the carrier audits,
we\'ve estimated another \$700,000 based on discussions with the FCC.
The billing collection agent is a contract number. The data collection
agent is an estimate from the data collection agent.

Again, the operations audit is an estimate of \$30,000, and the interest
income is an estimate. We expect to have more money because we\'ll be
collecting more money this year, so we expect a higher interest. So that
leaves us with projected disbursements of \$5,843,000, plus we\'re
assuming you want to leave the \$1 million contingency provision, so
that means we need to fund \$6,843,370 this year. Are there any
questions about the budget?

Okay. The next page discusses the options, the funding options,
basically whether we use the surplus or some of the surplus or none of
the surplus to fund these expenditures we expect. The first option uses
the full amount of the surplus that we expect to be in place at June
\'06. That\'s \$2,200,000. That will leave us with a contribution factor
of .00020.

And if we go to Option 2 which we had projected a factor of 25 instead
of 20. That would leave not using the full surplus, leaving us \$1.1
million. That\'s option 2. Option 2 would be not using the surplus at
all. This would leave us with a factor of 30, so those are the options.
The billing and collection agent working group is going to present their
recommendation based on these options. Are there any questions?

MR. ATKINSON: Thank you. So now we get to decide. Jim Castagna, with the
North American Numbering Council Billing and Collection Working Group,
and that report will be Document No. 10. Jim.

MR. CASTAGNA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim Castagna with
Verizon. Today, the billing collection working group is going to
recommend a particular contribution factor. Just a quick summary on the
numbers, we\'re expecting that \$6.8 million will be required in the
next fiscal year which was the same which was required in the current
fiscal year.

The difference is that last year we had a \$5.6 million surplus which
was used to reduced the contribution factor. This year we\'ll have a
\$2.2 million surplus which will of course require a higher contribution
factor, so with that let\'s go behind the cover page to the first page.
Of course the billing collection working group consulted with Welch and
Company. We considered pANI Administration carrier audits and PA
contract RFP, among other items that are on the budget that were
described to you by Faith.

We discussed three different options which are also shown on the billing
collection agent\'s report as Options 1, 2 and 3. We recognize that the
carrier obligations would be \$6.8 million for the next fiscal year, and
that the \$83,000 remaining dollars required from NANP funding is to
come from international participants, and also that the anticipated
surplus is \$2.2 million.

And the reason why we list that as anticipated because until we get to
the end of June, we really won\'t know what the exact surplus is. If we
could turn the page, please? The billing collection working group
recommends that the council endorse Option 1 which is calling for a
contribution factor of 0.000020.

We would keep the contingency amount at \$1 million. We would consume
the entire projected surplus of \$2.2 million, and the net U.S. carrier
contributions would be \$4.6 million to meet the U.S. funding
requirement of \$6.8 million.

The rationale for that approach is that by consuming the surplus each
year, we provide a contribution factor of long-term stability as
compared to letting the surplus accumulate. Of course, if we let the
surplus accumulate, eventually we\'d have to reconcile that surplus, and
we would of course experience a large swing in the contribution factor,
so by consuming this surplus each year, it seems that we will have more
of a consistent contribution factor each year as well.

The \$1 million contingency provides a sufficient buffer as we\'ve
experienced last year, and last year the factor was 0.0000052, and
stakeholder were informed to anticipate that the factor will return to
approximately 0.000025 in fiscal year \'06/\'07, so what we\'re
proposing in Option 1 is 0.000020 which is approximately what we
believed to be a reasonable factor for this year based upon information
we had last year at the time of making that forecast. Any questions so
far?

Okay. What we did on the next slide is we put together a little history
of the contribution factor. There were some changes in some of the
fiscal years, so there\'s two columns there. One is the originally
proposed factor, and the second column is the final number so you could
see where the contribution factors stood in the prior years.

And at the bottom we have proposed Option 1 which shows a contribution
factor of 0.020, so it looks as though that we will be returning to
nominal contribution factor range of 0.020 next fiscal year, and
certainly if we continue to consume surplus if surplus remains below \$2
million and everything else remains the same, we could probably expect a
contribution factor in the 0.025 range going forward.

Okay. On the next slide, the recommendation is like an action item list.
Here we\'re asking the NANC to spend \$6.8 million. Well, actually we
all expected that, but we\'re asking NANC to ask Welch and Company to
employ the approach described in Option 1 when preparing its FCC filing.

We\'re asking NANC to ask Welch and Company to share the draft filing
with the billing collection working group prior to the filing due date,
and that\'s just a step that is used to review the filing before they
submit it so that a second set of eyes could take a look at it, and this
way all the NANC members need not be concerned that they know the
billing collection working group is managing and monitoring the process
appropriately.

What we\'d like NANC to ask Welch and Company to do is to obtain the
contribution base from NECA in April to calculate the exact contribution
factor. Recognizing that the contribution base is used in calculating
the contribution factor, when they get the final numbers from NECA, the
anticipated contribution factor may change, but it would take a lot,
probably a large change in the base for the contribution factor to
change.

So there might be differences in numbers that you\'re seeing today on
this presentation as well as some of the numbers that were shown on
Welch and Company\'s presentation, just a heads up on that. And also we
asked NANC to ask Welch and Company to prepare an FCC filing reflecting
the contribution factor and budgeted amounts corresponding to Option 1.

And of course the last item is there for informational purposes. We
don\'t try to direct the FCC to do anything, but we\'re asking people to
recognize that the next step is for the FCC to direct the agent to
implement Option 1 for fiscal year \'06/\'07. Any questions?

MR. ATKINSON: I\'ve got a couple just for clarification. In sense by
consuming the surplus, you consume the million dollar contingency, but
then you budget a million dollar contingency, and I think that\'s how I
understand it mechanically. The specific question I have though is there
any possibility of in a sense the cashflow such that the million dollars
isn\'t in fact available at any time in terms of the outflow and the
inflow

MR. CASTAGNA: Well, in my understanding of the process, and I\'ll ask
Faith to correct me if I\'m wrong, the million dollar contingency is
going to be available on the first month of the fiscal year, so you\'ll
always have a million dollars there. It\'s not like we need to accrue
excess monies during the fiscal year to accrue the million dollars.

MR. ATKINSON: Yes. I mean, I think if you\'re going to have a
contingency, it needs to be case.

MR. CASTAGNA: To be there from the start.

MR. ATKINSON: There needs to be cash available at all times. Okay. My
other questions go to the timing here. Just working backwards, the FCC
issues an order with the contribution rate. Is the XTANT order, does
that terminate at any time, or does the current rate of 0.52 continue
until the FCC issues an order? You know, I\'m looking at a June date,
and that\'s kind of close.

MR. CASTAGNA: Well, my understanding of the process is that when the
billing collection agent files for a contribution factor and budget,
it\'s for a particular fiscal year. And the process established today is
similar to that use last year in which would involve Welch and Company
submitting a filing which if endorsed by the NANC today probably
wouldn\'t cause any concern in terms of the FCC\'s response.

Although I believe if there is no response from the FCC that Welch and
Company probably would not be able to begin issuing bills for the new
fiscal year, and I would have to defer to Faith from Welch and Company
regarding the process if she didn\'t get a response from the FCC.

MR. ATKINSON: Where is Faith? Do you have any views on that, or do you
recall what your limits are in terms of direction?

(Away from microphone.)

MS. MARCOTTE: I don\'t (inaudible).

MR. ATKINSON: And you bill quarterly or monthly?

MS. MARCOTTE: No. Most of them pay annually.

MR. ATKINSON: Annually? Okay.

MS. MARCOTTE: They are not to pay until we do in May. They (inaudible)
do June or June 12, so we need to get a response I guess (inaudible)
early (inaudible).

MR. ATKINSON: So you actually need to send a bill out in May with the
new contribution rate?

MS. MARCOTTE: That\'s right.

MR. ATKINSON: I\'m sort of going through this for the benefit of our new
friends from the FCC just so they understand some of the timeframes
we\'re working here.

MR. CASTAGNA: Well, theoretically though the FCC authorizes payments, so
even if a new contribution factor wasn\'t approved, we have a \$2.2
million surplus and the million dollar contingency that would probably
hold Welch and Company and the industry through several months as FCC
authorized payments but did not approve any new collections.

MR. ATKINSON: Yes. I mean, hopefully we can avoid all that and keep it
smooth, but it\'s important to think of that.

MS. RETKA: Mary Retka from Qwest. Historically, this is the way it
generally has gone is that the agent sends in their filing to the FCC in
May, and during that timeframe the FCC responds in time for them to do
the billing.

Now, I know that, and, Michael, if you remember differently, help me
with this, that it sometimes was right up to the wire to get the FCC
order, but they always made it in time for the billing to be done, so
historically when NBANC did and now last year I don\'t think we should
see a problem with it.

MR. ATKINSON: But there is a tight window here.

MS. RETKA: Yes.

MR. ATKINSON: Okay. That\'s really what I want to emphasize as much of
anything to the FCC staff, otherwise when people don\'t get paid, things
get ugly, so that\'s my questions at this stage. Any other questions?
Anna?

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller, T-Mobile. Jim, I think you just eased my mind a
little bit because there is an existing \$2.2 million surplus that will
be depleted over time as this new contribution factor comes in, and you
said that the million will always be there. But I guess the one unknown
is the renewal of the pooling administrator contract, and I just
wondered what type of discussion did you have about that.

The assumption here is that it\'s at the same rate, yet I heard in the
pooling report that the pool assignments were up over 47 percent in 2005
over 2004, so was there discussion then about that unknown, and do you
feel comfortable given the surpluses that exist that that can be
accommodated?

MR. CASTAGNA: I\'d have to say that although I did miss a meeting, and I
asked Rosemary to make up for any discussion I wasn\'t aware of, the
volume of blocks was not to my knowledge discussed as much as the
context of the contract in terms of what we sensed would be a
competitive price given that there is an expectation that other
companies will be bidding.

The competitive environment will keep the price at or below, however,
with the million dollar contingency and provisions we put in for the
function of the pANI administration we felt that and everyone including
Welch and Company who had discussed, you know, the budget felt
comfortable with the budget considering the million dollar contingency
was there. Rosemary, do you have something to add, please?

MS. EMMER: Yes, and just that in fact this did come up, Welch and
Company brought this up when they initially provided the budget and the
options to us, and it was definitely a discussion item, and again
everything that Jim said is absolutely true that we ended up to deciding
to keep it exactly the way it was from last year, and we also did add
the pANI.

If you noticed in the budget we added something \-- 150. Yes. For pANI
without knowing what that would be. We went ahead and put something in
there. Welch and Company went ahead and put something in there for us.
Thank you.

MR. CASTAGNA: And just one other point. There is a box describing
accrued liabilities, and sometimes when you can\'t pay the heating bill,
they don\'t turn it off right away, so if we come up short on funds, you
know, we just pay when we have the money. I mean, you can\'t pay if you
don\'t have the money.

FEMALE VOICE: Well, I don\'t think that that\'s the management plan.

MR. ATKINSON: No. No, it isn\'t the management plan, but I just wanted
to point out that there is such an entry as accrued liabilities. John?

MR. JEFFERSON: Yes. John Jefferson, AT&T. We went through this exercise
last year as well. We had a surplus, right? Or is this the first?

MR. CASTAGNA: Last year we had a significant surplus. It was over \$5
million.

MR. JEFFERSON: Right. Okay. So I was just curious. Had some thought gone
into the year after a surplus year would be a good year to start paying
into this, and entities that have been paying into this fund in prior
years now that have created the surplus lower the contribution rate for
everyone in this succeeding year, and I was just wondering if some
thought had gone into how that works?

I\'m not informed enough to know if there are new entrants coming in
paying this year into this, but I just looked at the numbers and thought
I\'d ask that question.

MR. CASTAGNA: We considered a similar issue of character when it comes
to paying, who pays, who paid, who should be paying last year, when we
had the significant surplus, and at the time there was a discussion
regarding how difficult or almost impossible and inaccurate it would be
to try to go back to see who contributed and who should be entitled to a
refund.

The cost and the effort and considering the complexity of that process
and the risk of not being accurate was too great to consider pursuing
that approach. However, we did not consider that type of analysis this
year because this is a forward-looking budget in terms of what we intend
to spend next year, and there is no annual reconciliation, what was paid
and what should have been paid because the contribution factor is
established for each fiscal year.

So if you\'re a telecommunications provider, and you need to participate
and contribute your fair share, it\'s based on the contribution factor
related to the year that you\'re in service and using NANPs or NANP
numbers, so with that type of philosophy it\'s not something where we
always go back to see, you know, was there anything that should have or
could have been done when there is a surplus.

MR. JEFFERSON: And just a quick follow-up to that, and I might be
missing the boat here, and this might have already been explained, but
is there any thought to using the contingency or some monies, and it
might be the purpose of the contingency so that you can cut it a little
closer so then instead of getting a surplus you might run a deficit, but
you have a way to account for that if anything? Kind of like doing your
taxes. Your goal is to get to zero at the end of the year.

MR. CASTAGNA: Well, we don\'t have anything that we are aware of that
may use contingency month.

MR. ATKINSON: Well, no. We do. We have two unknowns which is the new PA
rate and the pANI rate. I mean, those are just plug numbers at this
stage, and you just don\'t know what they\'re going to be.

MR. CASTAGNA: Yes. Maybe I should have rephrased that. If we have an
anticipated expenditure, we would put that as a budget item, but we
don\'t have any specificity or details that would warrant a specific
individual budget item, and therefore what I\'m trying to say is that
unless we have details or specific information that we could use to
adjust the budgeted item or create a new budget item, we can\'t do that,
and therefore the contingency is there in case we need money.

But there\'s nothing that we know, you know, we\'ll consume a
contingency. We know that any of the budgeted line items may be
insufficient and require the use of contingency, but there are no plans
to use the contingency unless something unexpected happens.

MR. ATKINSON: For example, I mean the FCC could decide to do a whole
bunch more audits, right?

MR. CASTAGNA: That\'s correct.

MR. ATKINSON: Mary?

MS. RETKA: Mary Retka from Qwest. What you have to remember though is
you have to go based on the historic experience and can\'t run in the
black, so you have to have a contingency, and that was one of the
requirements that came out is that you can\'t run in the black when
you\'re doing this effort, and then you have to remember that when
we\'ve previously seen the second round of a contract, they\'ve come in
lower. In fact, much lower, that\'s why we had such a big surplus the
last time that had to be dealt with. Do you want to add anything
Michael?

(Away from microphone.)

MR. WHALEY: Just to (inaudible) not being able to (inaudible) pass the
torch to each generation. Perhaps the issues of having a surplus which
is a pleasant problem to have are in part due to the legal reality that
this fund can\'t borrow. So it really does have to fund on a
going-forward basis, and to the question about trying to somehow track
benefits to prior payors, we\'re really dealing in one sense with an
accrual issue.

The budgets are put together each year knowing what the contract terms
are going to be, and sometimes to the vendors\' disappointment, the FCC
doesn\'t necessarily approve the payments in time, and it becomes an
accrual matter, to much of the money that was collected last year was
for the services rendered last year, but may not have been paid and is
carried over. Every year there\'s a slightly different mix of accrual
issues. That timing also complicates the budget presentation.

MR. ATKINSON: John?

MR. JEFFERSON: John Jefferson, AT&T. Yes. It\'s indeed a cruel world. I
had to get that one in. Accounting 101 joke. Okay. So if we talk surplus
though, now I\'m starting to understand this contingency as a million
dollar surplus in a sense already. Is that the wrong way to look at it?
Because if it is, then maybe we could work toward getting it so that if
we have any cushion at all, it\'s just going to be to contingency.

But going over, and obviously it\'s a goal of the working group, too,
but I just wanted to make it clear that that\'s how I\'m thinking about
it now that we\'ve got two years in a row of surplus that maybe we\'re
overcorrecting based on the accruals and other things that we anticipate
might impact any given budget year.

MR. CASTAGNA: The contingency is the only monies that are there in case
we need them. It really can\'t be considered surplus if we keep it there
year over year. The contingency is set to \$1 million. Even with that
million dollars we have an additional anticipated surplus of \$2.2
million. So by keeping the million dollar cushion and consuming the
surplus as recommended in Option 1, we believe we have a viable budget,
and something that\'s going to keep us, you know, in the black until
next fiscal year.

As far as trying to tweak, you know, the budget for the pooling
administration, I think it would probably send the wrong signal to the
industry who\'s competing for that contract to up the number and give
them the impression that we want to spend more money or maybe even to
lower the number because then that might, you know, force us into a
situation where we needed to consume more money than anticipated.

So by leaving it where it is, we send no signal at all, so there is
other reasons also for doing that, but I think the best reason was is
because we believe that that number would be the most appropriate number
given what we anticipate happening next year including the re-bid and
pANI administration and audits and all that other stuff that goes into
the budget.

MR. ATKINSON: Any other questions? If not, we\'ve got a couple of items
on the table here, so we\'ve been asked for two decisions at the NANC
level. First is to ask Welch and Co. to employ the approach described in
Option 1 when preparing the FCC filing. Any objections? So Welch we\'re
on board with

Option 1.

And then the second one is to ask Welch and Co. to share the draft
filing with the billing collection working group prior to the filing due
date, and implicit in that is essentially that NANC is giving the
billing collection working group authority just to sort of oversee the
preparation of that document. Any objections? So, Welch, we in fact
share that, and then of course there\'s these other items to Welch.

Now, I guess the only point I would make is the sooner the better in
terms of the filing. What is the date in April that you would be getting
the input from NECA? Any idea?

(Away from microphone.)

FEMALE VOICE: (Inaudible) use that.

MR. ATKINSON: Use that?

FEMALE VOICE: And it\'s at the end \--

MR. ATKINSON: End of April.

FEMALE VOICE: Here are some of the reports (inaudible).

MR. ATKINSON: I\'ll leave it up to maybe the billing collection working
group and Welch together. I don\'t know if there\'s any way even to send
in a filing to the FCC and then amend it if necessarily just to try to
speed things along, or maybe that will confuse things at the FCC. I
don\'t know. I mean, to have two filings. Rosemary?

MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer with Sprint Nextel, and we are working with
Welch on that. We did develop sort of a draft timeline, and we have
conference calls scheduled, so as soon as we can get to that. We\'re
definitely tracking it in other words. I\'d also like to take this
opportunity to thank Welch and Company for an outstanding job in
preparing and delivering the proposed budget as well as the options for
the contribution factor.

They made our lives as B&C working group co-chairs and the members
extremely easy this year by going over those line by line and having all
of the right people on the phone. That includes Faith, Heather and
Garth, and they just did an excellent job. Thank you very much.

MR. ATKINSON: Duly noted. So the only other item then \-- I mean, the
only thing I see out of all this is we do have a potential timing
problem. We need to get a filing to the FCC as soon as possible, and
then we need the FCC to act on that promptly so that the bills can go
out.

I\'m thinking if they\'re not going to get this USAC data until the end
of April, a couple of days, even if you could get the filing to the FCC
by the 1st of May, the chances of getting a decision \-- when do you
send out the bills, Faith?

MS. MARCOTTE: Around the 20th of May.

MR. ATKINSON: What happens if you don\'t get an FCC approval by the 20th
of May? What do you do?

MS. MARCOTTE: Send them out later.

MR. ATKINSON: Send them out later. Okay. And at what point does that
become a cashflow problem? A few months because we\'ve got a million
dollars sitting in the bank?

FEMALE VOICE: We\'ve got 2.2.

MALE VOICE: We\'ve got \$3 million.

MR. ATKINSON: Yes. Okay. Well, I mean everyone understands the
realities, so let\'s hope that the scheduling works out. Anything else
for Jim?

MR. CASTAGNA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ATKINSON: Thank you. The next item on our agenda is reports from the
issues management group. The only one that I am aware of will be the
operating manual, and I would suggest to our folks from the policy
division everything you in theory need to know about NANC, how it works,
is in here.

In fact, this operating manual was developed for new members, but I
think it would equally go well for people at the FCC who are jumping
into the middle of NANC, so, Rosemary, do you have anything to add,
otherwise this is my end.

MS. EMMER: Yes. It now belongs to you, Mr. Chairman, for update.

MR. ATKINSON: I am now the custodian of the operating manual Version 1.
I did note a couple of things. I\'ll even want to just update myself,
and eventually I\'ll issue a Rev. 1.1, but unless anyone has any other
comments, I\'d like to thank the IMG for a great piece of work. And I
think I would actually ask the FCC staff if you look through this, and
if there are other things in here that you need to know, or if it
doesn\'t answer your questions about how NANC is working, let us know,
and we\'ll expand it because any new NANC member, and we will have new
members periodically. I just hope we will help them figure out what goes
on here, so thank you, Rosemary, and the IMG, and the final document,
their report would be Document No. 11.

That gets us to Agenda Item 10, report of the Local Number Portability
Administration, and whose giving that report? That would be Gary Sacra.
Gary\'s report is Document 12.

MR. SACRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The first
item on the report relates to NPAC Software Release 3.3. Some good news
there. Release 3.3 was successfully loaded in the West Coast regional
impact this past February 26. It\'s running smoothly. No issues
identified to date, and the remaining production load dates are
continuing to be on schedule.

After about a one-month SOA period for the first region, Release 3.3.
will be loaded in the southeast and western regions on March 26, the
northeast and midwest regions on April 2, and then we\'ll finish up in
the mid-Atlantic and the southwest and the impact test there on April 9.

An update on the disaster preparation subteam of the LNPA working group
and the final report on out of LATA porting and pooling for disaster
relief in response to Hurricane Katrina. We have moved up our scheduled
completion date for the final report in response to their \-- to meet
the needs of the FCC\'s Katrina panel who had requested that the final
report if possible be completed by May 1.

We\'ve moved up our date to mid-April in order to be able to present it
or submit it to the NANC and the NANPM LLC and give the council a couple
of weeks to be able to read through the report in order to then submit
it to the Katrina panel.

MR. ATKINSON: Let me suggest just so the Katrina panel gets it as soon
as possible that we could probably adopt that even by some sort of
electronic means from NANC. I mean, giving it NANC approval.

MR. SACRA: Right. Because there won\'t be another NANC meeting prior to
\--

MR. ATKINSON: Yes. Our next NANC meeting is middle of May.

MR. SACRA: Right.

MR. ATKINSON: So as soon as it\'s ready, launch it, send it around to
NANC and if necessary we can have a quick conference call or something
like that, and there may be another reason to have a conference call
between now and May anyway.

MR. SACRA: Okay. That will work fine.

MR. ATKINSON: Thanks.

MR. SACRA: And I believe it was the November 30 meeting. There was some
discussion surrounding how many numbers were actually ported or pooled
across LATA boundaries, and again this is not the official number since
the report has not been completely finalized yet, but unofficially and
subject to change upon final review.

Based on input from service providers that did port or pool numbers
across LATA boundaries in response to Hurricane Katrina, it appears that
somewhere in the vicinity of a quarter million numbers were moved across
LATA boundaries, and these are working numbers, customer-assigned
numbers. Approximately, a quarter of a million were either ported or
pooled across LATA boundaries to provide some portion of service to
those impacted customers.

Again, that number will be further reviewed and finalized per the
completed report. Any questions on that? We\'re shooting for around
April 15 to not only get our taxes in, but also get the report to the
NANC, so no particular priority order there.

The next item is the NANC change order requirements update. Again, the
LNP working group is blowing the dust off literally on the accepted
change orders that remain in the pool of change orders. We\'re going
through those change orders. The service provider is the first step,
developed a level of interest for each of the change orders. Some were
eliminated. Some we decided to continue to move forward and develop the
technical requirements, so that\'s where we\'re at right now.

We\'re in the process of continuing to either review the existing
requirements \-- some of the change orders we had already developed
requirements for months ago. Some still require the development of the
technical requirements, so we\'re in the process now of going through
those accepted change orders and make sure that the requirements are
developed.

And then at some point in time there will be a decision point in our
process to determine whether or not there\'s enough interest in the
change orders to perhaps start to develop a software release package,
but again that process or that point in the process is down the road a
ways.

Okay. The final portion of the report is the PIMs. I just wanted to
highlight that we have closed a number of PIMs as a result of the
successful Release 3.3 load in the West Coast region. Those are PIM 22,
PIM 36 and PIM 38. Those PIMs were addressed by change orders that were
in Release 3.3, so we had been tracking those PIMs until Release 3.3 was
loaded.

Now, that it has been successfully loaded in the West Coast, and testing
has proved that those change orders do address those issues, we decided
to close those PIMs. PIM 28 was also closed. Again, this was a PIM that
was addressed by a software change in the wireless carrier interface
specification guidelines of what\'s known as the WCUS guidelines.

Those are guidelines for the intercarrier communication processes
between wireless carriers and also it involves wireline to wireless and
wireless to wireline porting as well, so that particular PIM was
successfully addressed with this Release 3.3 which has now been
implemented, and just to finish up the PIM report, there was a new PIM
accepted at last week\'s LNPA working group meeting. It was a PIM
submitted by Verizon Wireless.

Again, it has been accepted by the group for working within the LNPA.
The PIM seeks to address instances of providers who have in some cases
have been taking numbers back that it ported out from them because they
had no evidence that they had submitted a firm order confirmation to the
provider that had that ported in number.

In one instance that was discussed during last week\'s meeting was
actually two years after the number had ported, a provider took that
number back, ported it back because they did not have evidence in their
systems that they had ever issued a firm order confirmation. And
obviously when that happens, the customer is taken out of service. So
that PIM was just submitted at least week\'s meeting, we\'ve accepted
it, we\'ll be working on that in the upcoming meetings.

Right now it looks like we will be at the very least including something
in the LNP working group\'s number portability best practices document
to address this particular issue. Questions on the PIMs?

I heard the discussion, the gentleman from California asked the question
about I guess unassigned number porting. I don\'t have any personal
knowledge of anything in MPA 310, but just my recollection there was an
initiative a number of years back to determine the feasibility of
unassigned number porting to move unassigned numbers from carrier to
carrier to populate their inventory, and my recollection was that the
project was I guess \-- the decision was not to move forward with that.

I know there were some issues. Some providers had problems with porting
unassigned numbers that weren\'t associated with specific customers
because at least in their systems the only way to guarantee that a
particular number was not assigned either to another customer or as a
working telephone number or as a billing number, the only way to
guarantee that was to run it completely through their service order
system. And in order to do that, they had to have a customer associated
with that number.

That was the input from a number of providers, so what was called the
unassigned number porting project I believe as an industry was put on
hold, but I don\'t know any of the specifics about anything that\'s
taken place in 310.

MR. ATKINSON: Jerome?

MR. CANDELARIA: Jerome Candelaria, NCTA. Thank you very much for that
background, and because many industry segments had pressed for UNP and
the FCC had considered this issue as well as NANC, I\'d appreciate that
if this matter does come up again before your working group, you know,
that we\'ll hear about it here.

MR. SACRA: You certainly will if it does come up.

MR. CANDELARIA: Great.

MR. ATKINSON: Any other questions? Thank you, Gary.

MR. SACRA: Thank you very much, everybody.

MR. ATKINSON: Just housekeeping. My assumption is that we can get
everything concluded here by about 12:30, so unless anybody really wants
to take the lunch break at 12:00 and come back, I think we should plow
ahead and try to get finished by, let\'s say, 12:30. So, folks, is that
okay for you back there in the sound booth? Okay. So let\'s plow ahead.
Next report will be from the Numbering Oversight Working Group, the
NOWG, and this would be Karen.

MS. RIEPENKROGER: I\'m Karen Riepenkroger. I\'m one of the chairs of the
NOWG along with Rosemary Emmer and Natalie McNamer, and Rosemary is with
Sprint Nextel, and Natalie is with T-Mobile.

MR. ATKINSON: Thank you, and is this your first time presenting here?

MS. RIEPENKROGER: I did this one other time.

MR. ATKINSON: One other time. Okay.

MS. RIEPENKROGER: So if I seem a little nervous, I might be.

MR. ATKINSON: No. We\'re a friendly group. Karen\'s report will be
Document No. 13.

MS. RIEPENKROGER: Today we\'re going to cover NeuStar. We had a NeuStar
5-percent or greater shareholder certification and NOWG\'s response.
We\'ll review the status of the NANPA and the PA 2005 performance
evaluation survey status. We\'ll also review the NANPA/PA 2005 survey
proposed timeline, and we\'ll show you our March 2006 meeting schedule.

Go to Slide 3. On February 22, NeuStar notified the Wireline Competition
Bureau FCC via letter regarding a shareholder, Alliance Capital
Management, of owning 5 percent or more NeuStar equity, and the
Commission requires any entity owning five percent or more of NeuStar
equity to certify to NeuStar that it is not a telecommunications service
provider or affiliate, and the certification was attached to the letter.

Chairman Atkinson directed the NOWG to consider this notification on
behalf of the NANC, and the NOWG was tasked with providing feedback to
the NANC during the March 2006 meeting of any issues or concerns
regarding the contents of this notification.

The NOWG met and discussed this notice and has no known issues or
concerns regarding the neutrality of the shareholder change. This
decision is premised on the assumption that the other investments held
in Alliance Capital\'s portfolios are in keeping with FCC neutrality
policies. Are there any questions?

Next slide. Slide 4, status of the NANPA and the PA 2005 performance
evaluation surveys. The survey process was initiated on schedule.
January 3, 2006, and the surveys have been sent to the NANC distro
(phonetic). The PA and the NANPA have sent exploder emails,
notifications, and the surveys have been posted to the NANPA and the PA
website as well as the NANC chair website, and the survey due date
response was February 28, and the date has been extended to March 17.

And I do want to note that throughout the course since January, the
NANPA and the PA have sent out several notifications, and each time that
they have sent out a notification, we have received responses, so it
seems to trigger people\'s minds that hey I really do need to respond,
and so we found that the notifications, the interim notifications that
the PA and the NANPA did for us were extremely beneficial. Any
questions?

MR. ATKINSON: When we extended the date, that was what? February 27, or
at least we decided to do that, and the numbers were looking kind of
mediocre two and a half weeks ago, and is there any update on the
responses?

MS. RIEPENKROGER: Yes, I can. For the NANPA to date we have \-- I\'ll
just kind of break it down for you. Twenty-two state commissions have
responded with a NANPA survey, 31 service providers have responded, and
we had one individual other than a service provider commission respond,
and for the PA to date we have 63 service providers have responded, 26
state commissions have responded, and we had one other individual
response for the PA.

MR. ATKINSON: That\'s a reasonable update in two and a half weeks. I
guess so we got three more days?

MS. RIEPENKROGER: Right. And I compared it to 2004. It just maybe a
little more information than you want, but compared to 2005 I guess the
survey \-- we\'re just pretty much on target. For the NANPA we had 68
surveys total combined, and the for the PA we had 97, so today we\'re
standing at 90 for the PA and 54 for the NANPA.

MR. ATKINSON: Okay. Well, if anybody hasn\'t sent their survey in,
please do. I would expect everybody around this table. If any NANC
member hasn\'t sent in their survey, instead of going from positive
reinforcement, we\'ll go to negative reinforcement.

MS. RIEPENKROGER: I will note that there\'s been some surveys that we
have received that they just send a blank survey. So the chairs have
sent them back out to the people to ask them to say you send us the
wrong form, so we\'re endeavoring to try to get as many responses as we
can get for the surveys.

MR. ATKINSON: All right.

MS. RIEPENKROGER: Is there any other questions on the surveys? The next
slide is our performance evaluation proposed schedule. We\'re meeting
with week with \-- no. Let me take a step back. The NANPA and the PA
surveys are due on Friday, March 17. That\'s St. Patrick\'s Day, so
everybody please be sure to get them in on time. We are meeting this
week with the NANPA for our annual operational review, and that\'s on
March 15 and 16.

We\'ll be going out to the PA\'s offices in Concord, California, to do
the operational review on April 4 and 5. We will be meeting in Denver
April 18 to the 20 to prepare the NANPA and the PA performance reports,
and on May 3 we will be meeting with the FCC, the NANPA and the PA here
in Washington, D.C. to share the preliminary results. Are there any
questions? Yes, Rosemary?

MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer with Sprint Nextel, and I should have changed
the slide. The date for May 3 is no longer tentative with the FCC. We
were able to get that date in stone, and we\'re working with the PA and
NANPA on the times now.

MS. RIEPENKROGER: Thank you. And I should have mentioned that. Any other
questions? The last slide is just our activity for March, and it\'s
pretty much we\'re going to do the NANPA operational review on the 15th
and 16th. Our standing monthly call with NANPA will be moved to March
28, and the PA standing agenda with the NOWG is on March 30.

MR. ATKINSON: Anything else? That wasn\'t so bad.

MS. RIEPENKROGER: Thank you very much. I was fine.

MR. ATKINSON: The last of our working group reports, future of
numbering, Karen Mulberry, and we do not have any documents for
discussion on this agenda item, but hopefully the FoN can get going on
some new projects.

MS. MULBERRY: I seem to say good morning for the last five minutes of
the morning. I\'m Karen Mulberry. I\'m with Verizon, and I am one of the
co-chairs of the pANI IMGs, so I\'ll address that first. I wanted to let
you know that the pANI IMG has completed its work.

It has prepared a report and recommendations for the NANC on permanent
pANI administration, and I will let Bob address the process that\'s
going to go forward with that report. And then secondly for the future
of numbering working group, we\'ve been on hiatus since we\'ve been
focusing most of our energies on the pANI work. Some time between now
and the end of the month, Hoke and I will send out an announcement for a
conference call. The FoN is going to start meeting again.

One, we need to elect a new co-chair because Hoke is going to be
transitioning off into other items, so we\'ll have an agenda out and let
everyone know to think about whether they want to take on the mantle of
co-chair, the FoN or not, and that\'s all I have to report.

MR. ATKINSON: Good. And remember, the FoN was established it seems like
probably even close to a year ago for the purpose of trying to get ahead
of new developments and has been consumed in putting out fires.

If you remember the Navy RFP, this pANI issue, a couple of other things.
So hopefully now they finished the firefighting and can actually sit
back and think about the future of numbering and issues that are a
little further but that need some thoughtful advance work. So I look
forward to the future of numbering working group actually getting down
to contemplating the real future of this and look forward to that.

MS. MULBERRY: We had started to prepare a draft report, and it kept
track of the numerous items that have come up since last year that you
have kicked our way that we haven\'t addressed yet. So we have a list of
things that need to be addressed once the FoN starts to even begin.

MR. ATKINSON: All right. Thank you very much.

MS. MULBERRY: Okay.

MR. ATKINSON: And we\'ll probably have a conference call and maybe, you
know, sometime between now and the next meeting we can do this LNPA
working group things, maybe the pANI thing and a couple of other things,
so we\'ll let you know on that. Let me ask just from a housekeeping
point of view. I don\'t think we had any special presentations.
Rosemary?

MS. EMMER: I\'m sorry, Chairman. Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel. I was
waiting for the pANI report, and I don\'t understand what happened to
the pANI report. You might have just said it, and I was zoning out.

MR. ATKINSON: Right at the beginning of the meeting I said we wouldn\'t
be discussing that today. It\'s not yet ripe for discussion in terms of
some other issues going on, so we put that off, and my expectation
we\'ll do a conference call or something like that. I don\'t know
exactly when.

MS. EMMER: So we\'re not planning on waiting for the next meeting?

MR. ATKINSON: I\'d like to push ahead with that as soon as we can, and
I\'ll let you know when we can.

MS. EMMER: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I reiterate to everyone
on the team that this is extremely important from Sprint Nextel\'s
position as well as I\'m sure many other companies, and we were really
looking forward to hearing the pANI report this afternoon and maybe
coming to consensus on that. So anything you could do to speed that up
before the next meeting, we\'d be greatly appreciative. Thank you.

MR. ATKINSON: Thank you for that comment. I will do my best. Thank you.
I don\'t think we had any special presentations scheduled, at least none
that I was aware of, correct? Good. So that takes care of 13. We have an
updated list of NANC accomplishments. Thank you, Debbie, for doing that.
Debbie\'s list here will be Document No. 14, and if anyone notes any
additional items that are not on this list, let us know.

Summary of action assignments, Item No. 15. I have two. First, is for
INC to address the guidelines or review the guideline\'s language to
resolve Don Gray\'s concerns. There was NANC consensus on that in terms
of the substance, and as an action assignment for the chair to follow up
on the INC 407 resolution. I don\'t have any others. Did anybody else
take any action assignments or anybody volunteer for one that I didn\'t
get? Members of the public? Anybody from the public? Microphone is up
here. No public comments. Is there any other business? Mr. Gray?

MR. GRAY: Don Gray, Nebraska. I just wanted to give you an update to an
earlier comment. I can now officially tell you that the Nebraska Public
Service Commission has issued an order for mandatory pooling in those
rate centers in which the incumbent carrier is currently Altel, Qwest or
Frontier who have been working very closely with us in voluntary
pooling, and working with us to conserve that life.

We have also issued the orders that all carriers in those 155 rate
centers in the next 45 days will review their inventories, and donate
those blocks that meets the criteria for pooling, and the third part is
that we will have a hearing on the 9th of May to address the 95
remaining rate centers that have rural carriers involved to determine an
appropriate timeline, steps and progression to take in taking those rate
centers to mandatory pooling.

MR. ATKINSON: Nebraska leads the country. Anna?

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller with T-Mobile. Just on your action item list,
just a couple of follow-ups. There was the issue of the Katrina report
that we were going to review.

MR. ATKINSON: Yes.

MS. MILLER: So is it going to be a conference call to address the \--
are you going to do that electronically?

MR. ATKINSON: Well, I think documents will be distributed
electronically, and then we\'ll have I think a conference call
definitely as soon as I think in a sense \-- well I can imagine two
things that we might be discussing. Hopefully, the schedules will come
together so we only have to have one call between LNPA \--

MS. MILLER: Okay. So potentially we can have a conference call to talk
about the pANI report and also the Katrina report?

MR. ATKINSON: Right. Ideally, it will be one, but it could be two.
Anything else? All right. So our next meeting will be on Tuesday, May
16. My co-chair may in fact be running that meeting. I have to catch a
plane to Italy that afternoon.

Depending on the weather forecast, I may be here or may not be here
because leaving here and getting back to New York and getting to the
airport could strain my marriage, probably. And if I miss that plane \--
anyway, so if I don\'t see you in May, I\'ll see you in July, and maybe
I\'ll be here in May, and maybe I\'ll sneak out early. Would that be
okay?

MR. GOLDBERG: That would be fine with me.

MR. ATKINSON: All right. So until then we are adjourned. Thanks very
much.

> (Whereupon, the meeting in the above-entitled matter was
> concluded.)**North American Numbering Council**

**Meeting of**

**March 14, 2006**

**ACTION ITEMS**

1.  **CHAIR:**

> Determine status of follow-up letter sent to FCC re: Status of INC 407
> issue (sent to the FCC in
>
> February 2005)

2.  **INC:**

> Review and if necessary amend NRUF Guidelines to resolve NANC concerns
> regarding reporting by rural carriers in light of the FCC decision
> delegating authority to States (ref: submission by Don Gray of the
> Nebraska PSC)