**North American Numbering Council**

**Meeting Minutes**

**April 17, 2007 (Final)**

**I. Time and Place of Meeting.** The North American Numbering Council
(NANC) held a meeting commencing at 9:00 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\. Thomas M. Koutsky Chairman

2\. Henry Hultquist AT&T

3\. Karen Reidy CompTel

4\. Beth O'Donnell Cox Communications, Inc.

5\. Michael Altschul CTIA -- The Wireless Association

6\. Peter Pescosolido NARUC -- Connecticut

7\. Hon. Curtis Stamp NARUC -- Iowa

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

9\. Rebecca Beaton NARUC -- Washington

10\. Helen Mickiewicz NASUCA -- California

11\. Kathy L. Hagans NASUCA

12\. Jerome Candelaria NCTA

13\. Ray Strassburger Nortel Networks

14\. Mary Retka Qwest

15\. Rosemary Emmer Sprint Nextel

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

17\. Thomas Soroka, Jr. USTA

18\. Philip Harrington Verizon

19\. Martin Hakim Din Vonage Holdings Corp. (Vonage)

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

John Manning NANPA

Jean-Paul Emard ATIS

Amy Putnam PA

Faith Marcotte Welch & Company

[Commission Employees:]{.underline}

Marilyn Jones, Designated Federal Officer (DFO)

Deborah Blue, Assistant to the DFO

Ann Stevens, Associate Chief, Competition Policy Division

**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 -- February 13, 2007

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

(4) National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator Report to the NANC

(5) North American Portability Management (NAPM) LLC Report

(6) Letter to NANC Chairman from Dan A. Sciullo, Berenbaum, Weinshienk &
    Eason, P.C., regarding Telcordia Technologies, Inc. letter dated
    February 7, 2007

(7) Letter dated February 7, 2007 to NANC Chairman from Thomas W.
    Mazzone, Telcordia Technologies, Inc., regarding the new NPAC
    Contract

(8) Letter to NANC Chairman from Michael O'Connor, NeuStar, regarding
    the Telcordia Technologies, Inc. letter dated February 7, 2007

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

(10) pANI IMG Report to the NANC

(11) pANI Administration Guidelines

(12) The Development of pANI Administration Guidelines

(13) Billing and Collection Agent Report

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

(15) Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) Report

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

(17) Future of Numbering (FoN) Working Group Report to the NANC

(18) List of NANC Accomplishments (January 2002 -- April 17, 2007)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
V.  **Summary of the Meeting.**

**NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING COUNCIL**

**MEETING**

**TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007**

**Table of Contents**

1.  Announcements and Recent News 4

2.  Approval of Transcript from February 13, 2007 6

3.  Report of the North American Numbering Plan

> Administrator (NANPA) 7

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

5.  North American Portability Management (NAPM) LLC Report 19

6.  Status of the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) activities 34

7.  Reports from the pANI IMG Issues Management Groups (IMGs) 46

8.  Report from the North American Numbering Plan Billing and

> Collection (NANP B&C) Agent 59

9.  Report of the Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) 61

10. Report of the Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) 65

11. Report of the Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA)

> Working Group 67

12. Report of the Future of Numbering Working Group (FoN WG) 79

13. Special Presentations \--

14. Update List of the NANC Accomplishments \--

15. Summary of Action Items \--

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

17. Other Business \--

(START OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE A)

MR. KOUTSKY: We're going to start at 9:30 a.m. from now on.

(**LAUGHTER)**

No, I apologize. I got caught in traffic, blown down trees, and then one
thing lead to another and it is 9:10 a.m. and we're starting.

**[ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RECENT NEWS]{.underline}**

Just a couple quick announcements I'd like to make, well two frankly.

First of all NANC Co-Chair Commissioner Goldberg is not here today. He
is actually having a confirmation hearing.

He has been appointed by the Governor of Connecticut to I believe be the
Chief Judge of Workers Compensation Court. Is that correct? Judge of the
Workers Compensation Court, so we'll be calling him Judge Goldberg next
time we see him hopefully. That hearing is today.

He wishes he could be here. And so probably if he does get confirmed, he
will obviously not be serving on NANC. He's been on NANC for several
years; I would say at least seven or eight, if not more.

And so I certainly want the record to reflect our appreciation for
Commissioner Goldberg and for all his hard work in terms of being
essentially a co-chair, a good counsel to myself and also to former
Chairman Atkinson. We've all sent him our regards and out best wishes.

The other is also news about a former NANC member and it is
unfortunately not as optimistic or as good a news.

This is Phil McClelland from the NASUCA, who was with the Pennsylvania
Office of Consumer Affairs for several years. He has recently retired
due to illness, so he is no longer serving on the NANC, and his illness
is a very serious one.

I know many of you worked with him for years. I tried to find out how
long he actually served on NANC and it was at least six, probably seven
years because I found meeting minutes in 1999 that he was there and he
only left last year.

And I've known Phil in other contexts for several years, and he is
actually one of the best lawyers \-- he's one of the types of people
that really could have gotten the job in any industry, in any type of
company, for any major law firm, basically for anybody who is sitting
around the table, and he chose actually to take a job as a consumer
advocate in the state of Pennsylvania where he is from. And I think that
this is quite important and it says quite a lot about his character.

I have a letter that I'd like to send around to people in the room. This
is going to be basically just something that we sign. So not an official
motion, but I do want to send it off to him to read it and understand
our appreciation.

Former NANC members who are in the audience \-- I'm going to obviously
try to track down as many people as I can but let me just read the
letter into the record.

It says, "On behalf of the North American Numbering Council, please
accept our gracious and warm appreciation for the many years of service
you have devoted to NANC and to consumers in the United States and
indeed all of North America.

Your many years of success on the NANC have made enormous contributions
to our success. It is a rare combination to find so talented a lawyer,
so dedicated a public servant, and so gracious and knowledgeable an
advocate and problem solver. We and the consumers of North America, are
all the better for your service and hard work.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, "The best way to find yourself is to
lose yourself in the service of others". Your career in public service
has lived up to these words and all the undersigned are proud that you
shared an important part of your service with us."

And I will sign this and send it around and if anybody else has a
suggestion as to who else might be interested or should sign it, please
let me know and we will make sure it gets to them.

I believe those are the only two announcements I have. We have no
particularly new faces around the table that I need to introduce so I
think we'll just move on to the transcript from our last meeting, which
was February 13th, which is the big thick document you have, and I think
we'll enter this as NANC Exhibit 1. Oh, the agenda should be Exhibit 1.
I think I did that last time.

**[APPROVAL OF TRANSCRIPT]{.underline}**

Everyone has a copy of the agenda and a copy of the transcript, Exhibit
2.

I'm going to try to start getting these transcripts out to folks earlier
so we have a chance to read it. Did anybody have an obvious correction
to the transcript? I will also keep the period for making some editorial
changes to the transcript or typographical changes to the transcript
open after the meeting so people may have a chance to look at it.

Does anyone have anything obvious they wanted to correct or fix? Okay,
seeing none we will consider this transcript approved subject to further
review and editorial changes, which I'll kind of close out in two weeks
essentially so if people want to take a little time to read it they can.

Does anybody else have any other announcements that they'd like to make?
If not, we will move on to the report of the North American Numbering
Plan Administrator. John.

**[REPORT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PLAN ADMINISTRATOR
(NANPA)]{.underline}**

MR. MANNING: Good morning, everybody. My name is John Manning. The
document is entitled NANPA Report to The NANC. It's document number
three.

I'm just going to go ahead and jump right into this. First part on the
second page of the report gives you the breakdown of CO code activity
for the month of March and you can see the total assignments, denials,
returns, reclamations for each of the individual states.

On page three, just some brief observations. Looking at the first
quarter '07 activity, the first quarter '07 assignments total a little
over 1,100 assignments. That compares with the just slightly over 1,200
assignments in the first quarter of '06, so we're slightly under when
comparing '07 with '06.

You should note that March '07 was the highest number of monthly
assignments that NANPA has had in the past two years.

And when you look at net assignments, first quarter '07 compared to
first quarter '06, you'll see we're roughly about 30 behind where we
were in the same time period in 2006.

In terms of area code relief planning, two items I wanted to highlight
for you. First the Illinois 630 area code, this particular area code
we're watching very closely.

We have two codes remaining in this NPA and once those codes are
assigned, process will kick off so that the 331 area code will become
effective approximately 90 days after the assignment of those two
remaining codes.

In West Virginia in a letter dated April 4th, NANPA was notified by the
Public Service Commission of West Virginia that we had revised the
exhaust date of area code 304. The new projected exhaust date is 3rd
quarter '08. The previous exhaust projection was third quarter '07.

The new projection reflected new numbering data resulting from the
re-designation of some rate centers from optional pooling to mandatory
pooling.

Other area code relief activities I'll highlight for you. In March we
saw the implementation of the 779 area code, which overlays the 815 area
code in Illinois and other activities in Illinois area code 217. In
March the FCC approved an industry implementation plan and I provided
you the local dialing plan associated with that implementation.

Once the level of remaining codes reaches 50, NANPA will convene an
industry meeting to establish the appropriate implementation timeframes.
And of course once that meeting takes place we will publish the
appropriate planning letter.

Area code 714 in California, we have had a series of activities going on
out there. Most recently early this year there was a series of public
and jurisdictional meetings, and in March, last month, NANPA filed an
updated relief plan with the CPUC and that plan recommended an overlay.

One remaining item on page four dealing with area code relief, in March,
last month again, Louisiana Public Service Commission ordered a rate
center consolidation in area code boundary realignment for the 504 and
985 area codes in Louisiana.

At the request of the Louisiana Public Service Commission staff, NANPA
conducted an industry meeting in February to solicit a plan from AT&T
Louisiana proposal by them.

This proposal recommended a rate center consolidation and a boundary

realignment for the Louisiana 504 and 985 area codes and this was due
primarily to the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina.

Earlier this month NANPA conducted an implementation meeting and NANPA
intends to issue a public planning letter concerning this activity later
this month. In fact that planning letter has just recently become
available.

One final note on the area code issue, the NPA and NANPA exhaust
projections will be available at the end of this month and will be
posted to the NANPA website and appropriate notification will be sent to
the industry as well as NANC. The assumptions used for both the area
codes as well as NANPA exhaust analysis remain the same as in previous
studies.

Any questions on CO code as well as MPA relief planning activities?

Briefly I'll just update you on NANPA change orders. Change order number
eight, it became effective in February.

NANPA checks to see if there are active or pending ports on any central
office code in which the service provider desires to change the
associated rate center.

Change order number nine, which became effective April 9th, service
providers are permitted to submit their part four, that's there in the
service confirmation form, for a non-pool dedicated code, obtain B of
the pooling administrator to the NANPA instead of to the pool
administrator, and then NANPA will send the appropriate receipt of the
part four, known as the part five, to the service provider as well as to
the pooling administrator.

Change order ten, change order ten was a result of a NOWG recommendation
regarding central office codes that are in a status of pooling set
aside, that these codes be included as available on the various reports
provided by NANPA.

The FCC approved this change order at the end of last month, and we are
presently targeting the implementation of this change order in the May
timeframe.

Just to let you know, the 2006 NANPA annual report was available on the
NANPA website at the end of last month, as well as the first quarter
2007 NANPA newsletter published in the first part of April, is also
available on the website.

Starting with page five, I have provided you 2006 NANPA highlights
document. I do not intend to go through this document; rather I provided
it to you as information. This document as well as a detailed
presentation was provided to the NOWG last week during our review
session. It provides you specific information about volumes, activities
in other areas that NANPA was involved with in 2006.

And also beginning on page 12 of the report, it is the status of MPA
exhausting in the 36 months. That's a typical item that is included with
the presentation at each NANC meeting.

That concludes my report. Are there any questions?

MR. KOUTSKY: Just one thing, to speak, we're going to like tent our
things. It's a much more civil way then having your hand up. Jerome.

MR. CANDELARIA: Jerome CANDELARIA. A follow-up to the Louisiana rate
center consolidation, how many rate centers are they consolidating, and
if you could just keep us informed on any dramatic turn of events in
implementing that rate center consolidation I think we'd appreciate it.

MR. MANNING: Okay. I have in front of me the letter that came in from
AT&T Louisiana. Basically what they're planning on doing, there's a rate
center consolidation, there's one, two, three, four rate centers that
are in the 504 area code that are going to be consolidated into the New
Orleans rate center.

And then there are one, two, three other rate centers that will also be
involved in this rate center consolidation.

One of the rate centers is actually \-- I want to make sure the folks
from AT&T keep me straight. One of these rate centers is actually in the
985 area code moving to the 504 area code, as part of this
reconsolidation as well as the boundary change for the 504, 985.

There are going to be industry subcommittees put together. They are
already in that process so that this activity, which will basically take
place in the middle of the summer, at the end of June, early part of
July, will be the first phase of it and we'll complete it some time in
the April 2008 timeframe.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay. Rosemary.

MS. EMMER: Rosemary EMMER for Nextel. John, I have two questions, and
you probably went through this during the operational review and I may
have missed it, but on the NANPA highlights page five, there were 11,209
changes up from 8,961 in 2005, which seems like a pretty significant
increase.

MR. MANNING: Yeah, there certainly was an increase. We do know in 2006,
we did handle on a couple of different occasions for a few service
providers, what we refer to as mass changes, either they were changing
the switch identification, facile code associated with a central office
code, and may have been some associated with some OCN, operating company
number changes as well.

MR. EMMER: Okay, great. And the second question is, two bullets down
from that, 1,326 miles which is significantly under 2,877 from last
year, which I think is really great. Do you think that's because folks
are paying more attention to the process now or is there some reason why
this would be down?

MR. MANNING: I think it can be a combination of items. One of the
primary reasons, we had a significant quantity of denials in the past.
Any time you went to return a central office code, if it had active or
pending ports, we went through the process of finding a new code holder,
that resulted, assuming we did it, resulted in the denial of the initial
return and subsequent transfer of the code to the new code holder.

I think one of the things you're seeing is with a lot of pooling, a lot
of those requests now for any types of code or block transfers are
working their way through the pool administrator. Ultimately when they
make it to us, the few that do, can result in some type of a denial if
indeed somebody does eventually come along and take the code.

I also think quite frankly though, a lot of carriers fully understand
the rules, they understand the processes and mistakes that may have been
made that resulted in denial may not be made these days.

MS. EMMER: Thank you.

MR. KOUTSKY: I just have one quick question, John. You had mentioned the
first quarter or March of '07, was the highest assignment in two years.
There are two observations I would like to make about that and to
question it.

It does appear that January and February might have been behind then
before, so in terms of the first quarter overall it was reasonably in
line, is that correct?

MR. MANNING: Right.

MALE SPEAKER: And the second one is there any geographic trend with
regard to the new assignments that jump out at you as being a
continuation? We had noticed some patterns in the last couple meetings
and I wanted to know if those trends have continued or not for the
record.

MR. MANNING: I don't have the specific data in front of me where we
continue to see some fairly large requests being handled in Iowa, which
we've talked about in the past, and we've also had some requests that
were eventually processed in the California area codes that contributed
to some of the totals in March.

You know, you have to understand when you look at the month of March,
February being a shortened month; sometimes it also has that holiday
that is recognized in there, we typically have seen March to be a very
active month in terms of code assignments.

So even though this may have been the highest month, it's not
necessarily different from previous years where we've seen March to be a
fairly active month.

MR. KOUTSKY: All right. Are there any other questions for John? If not,
we thank you for your report.

And we'll move on to the report of the pooling administrator. Amy.

And one other kind of housekeeping note, again for the transcript,
please make sure you state your name before your speak. Also give the
microphone like a little half a second to go on, that way we won't have
gaps in the transcript.

So I think putting this little thing up instead of raising your hand
will help signal to the AV booth as well, but please do state your name
and your affiliation so we can ID you later. Amy.

**[REPORT OF THE NATIONAL THOUSANDS BLOCK POOLING ADMINISTRATOR
(PA)]{.underline}**

MS. PUTNAM: Amy Putnam, National Pooling Administrator. Pooling is fine.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, thank you.

MS. PUTNAM: If you'll look at the presentation from the pooling
administrator, slide two is our activity summary data by month over the
past 12 months. March 2007, we had a little uptake across the board, at
least with respect to the part three, the red light rule and the
donations.

The third page, page three, is our aggregated summary data that we
proved as requested by the FCC.

Page four, CO codes opened, again it's aggregated data from April 2006
through March 2007.

Page five, status of change orders, we have no new change orders.

One change order was approved, 51. We have one pending and that is the
pANI administration, and I am continuing to discuss that with Mr.
Wimbush who is the contracting officer, recently as last week.

We implemented a number of change orders on March 19th, if you look at
the reasons for them, primarily to address actions of service providers
that affect other service providers.

So these change orders which were implemented to the system will prevent
the system for example, from accepting a part one A disconnect.

If the service provider has not completed the new remarks field with the
contamination status, it will reject part four submitted for blocks that
are assigned when we haven't gotten the confirmation notice that that
code is open in the PSTN. And an added a footnote, all of those were INC
driven.

On page six it shows that we again had no unscheduled unavailability
with the pooling administration system. We like seeing all the zeros in
that right hand column.

We were down for 14 minutes on March 16th for previously approved
scheduled down time. We had requested three hours of down time from the
FCC to complete the build but we took only 14 minutes. There was more
time around that but we were down for only 14 minutes.

Some of our other activities, we are now operating on our third contract
extension. The first one was June 15th to November 14th. The second one
was November 15 to April 14th, and we have received a third extension
from the FCC for three months through July 14^th^, with two additional
one month options exercisable by the FCC at its discretion.

We completed our NOWG performance evaluation in Concord, California,
March 26th to 27th. We did a system demo for the NOWG and as always a
review of all of our operations, and we responded to questions at the
review and subsequently the NOWG provided us with some additional
questions and we gave them the answers to those questions on April 12th.

With respect to our website updates, we added a glossary of acronyms and
definitions to assist people who are using our website. We gathered the
definitions of the acronyms from a variety of sources and indicated
right on them that they are not to be used as primary source material,
but the definitions were provided just to help people out.

We also added some other links to the website including the new one page
all inclusive list of the states for the pooling administrators, and
senior pooling administrators, and also one for the pooling
implementation managers.

The pooling administrators list changes periodically as we review their
workload, as the workload changes in states. So we try to keep their
workloads. Even so that will change on occasion.

We completed our N rough submissions. Now the first sentence there under
the N rough says we completed our N rough submission for all states
except West Virginia prior to the February 22nd deadline.

We did file an N rough for West Virginia in a timely manner but because
of the affect of the implementation of pooling under a state delegated
authority in West Virginia, they asked us to file an amended N rough,
which we did, and that was 474 worksheets.

Pages eight and nine, we have an update on the delegated authority
petitions. I'm not going to read all of those but if any of those states
are of interest to you, that's the status of where things are with the
delegated authorities from the FCC.

With respect to the inter-routing number authority administration, pANI
administration, we don't have any changes. We've had six registrations
or requests for registrations. Four were approved, two were denied, one
request for ESQK's.

And the INC I assume will be providing detailed information on the pANI
guidelines that went into final closure. We worked closely with the INC
on those.

And we have delivered and posted our pooling annual report. It has lots
of stats and exciting information in it. I advise you not to read it
late at night because you won't be able to put it down. It's a page
turner.

And then as NANPA did, we provided a highlight of our activity in 2006,
pages ten to 14 of our report. Most of the activities were up from 2005.
I'm not going to go through them. The information is there for your
reading pleasure. We reported on all of these as the events occurred
during the year and this is just sort of a nutshell of what happened.

And that concludes the report. Are there questions?

MR. HAKIM DIN: Martin HAKIM DIN with Vonage. You mentioned a couple of
ESQK requests that were rejected. Do you have the reasons for those or
are they the same as last time?

MS. PUTMAN: I know that one was rejected because of a lack of an OCN and
one was rejected because I believe a registration was rejected because
of a lack of an OCN.

The application for an ESQK that was rejected was because of a
certification issue and I believe that there is a petition pending
before the FCC at this time relating to that, stating that \--

MR. HAKIM DIN: So it was an un-certificated entity.

MS. PUTMAN: Because it's part of the public record, because the petition
was filed before the FCC, I can say that it was rejected because the
entity used, one's a certification in one state to apply for resources
in another state.

MR. HAKIM DIN: It was the same as last time. Thank you.

MS. PUTMAN: Yeah.

MS. EMMER: Rosemary EMMER, Sprint Nextel. I attended the pooling
administrator operational review in person and I wanted to highlight one
thing that Amy already said, but I wanted to make sure I highlight it
with everyone.

I'm so impressed with the dedication of the IT team. As I understand it,
there was an instance or a couple instances where either during a
holiday and/or when they were PA stopped in the hospital, they were
still able to keep that running at 100 percent. I'm extremely impressed
by that and I wanted to make sure to highlight that with everyone. Thank
you.

MS. PUTMAN: I would like to say that we actually had to call Brandon on
his honeymoon because we had an issue. He's our database administrator
and he responded.

MR. KOUTSKY: Any questions?

MS. MICKIEWICZ: Helen MICKIEWICZ, NASUCA, California. Amy, on page 13,
what's an ESQK?

MS. PUTMAN: Emergency Service Query Key.

MS. MICKIEWICZ: Thanks.

MR. KOUTSKY: Other questions? This report will be marked Exhibit 4,
which is \-- we're part of the National Thousand Block Pooling
Administrator. Thank you, Amy.

This is now the report of the North American Numbering Portability
Management, and Mel Clay and also Tim Decker are up. And I'll take your
summary reports and we'll mark that Exhibit 5.

There are actually a few documents but there's also a letter that was
also circulated from Berenbaum, Weinshienk, and Eason, P.C. dated April
11, 2007. We'll just preemptively mark that Exhibit 6. Go ahead.

**[REPORT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PORTABILITY MANAGEMENT (NAPM)
LLC]{.underline}**

MR. CLAY: Good morning. My name is Mel Clay. I'm the co-chair of the
North American Portability Management LLC, and sitting with me is Tim
Decker. He's the other co-chair.

We have two subjects that we would like to spend some time discussing
this morning. The first subject is the NAPM new member subcommittee.

At the beginning of the year Tim and I as co-chairs had to decide what
would be high priority issues that we would work at the NAPM LLC, and
because of merger and acquisitions that have taken place in the industry
over the last couple of years, our membership seems to have moved from
about 12 members down to now I believe seven.

And Tim and I thought that it would be important for the LLC to look at
recruiting new members even though the mergers and acquisitions did not
move members out of the LLC, it just basically consolidated members. But
we have lost in my tenure two members, one being ICG and the other being
recently Cox Communications.

So Tim and I decided that we would look at efforts to recruit new
members. So we formed a subcommittee to look at the process that we
would use for recruitment of new members.

The subcommittee is made up of members from AT&T, Embark, Quest, Sprint
Nextel, and Verizon. The goals for the team were to review the
qualifications to become a member of the LLC and recommend changes to
the LLC if we see a need to.

Develop a communications package that we would use to communicate to
perspective new members, develop a website that perspective new members
could access to learn more about the LLC, and our goal is to add three
to five members to the NAPM LLC in 2007. It's a pretty aggressive goal.

Results today, we've qualified or determined what the qualifications are
to be a new member and we saw no changes to the existing qualifications.

We have a draft of a communications package and it will be presented to
the full body of the LLC at our meeting that's coming up in May, and we
will review that communication package with our members and hopefully
reach consensus on implementing that communication package.

We are in discussions on how we will develop that website, and we're in
early discussion on that.

And to date there are two companies that have contacted us that have
shown interest in becoming a member. Those companies represent the
industry segment of cable and Select.

I'll stop here and see if there are any questions about this effort.

MR. CANDELARIA: Jerome Candelaria, NCTA. Would you please just briefly
highlight the qualifications for membership? You mentioned you reviewed
membership qualifications.

MR. CLAY: Yes, and without having that in front of me it would certainly
be a very high level highlight.

One of the things you have to be is a service provider to be a member. I
don't believe it has to be a facility based service provider. I would
need the operating agreement, I'm sorry, to give you the details on it.

MR. CANDELARIA: No problem. One other question, you described the
subcommittee formed for new members and I see six listed there and you
said there are seven members. Who is the seventh member who is not on
the subcommittee?

MR. CLAY: It would be Frontier Citizens and at the time when we formed
the committee, Cox Communications was a member also.

MR. CANDELARIA: Thanks.

MR. CLAY: Oh, and T-Mobile is not on there either, I'm sorry.

MR. KOUTSKY: I think it's an outstanding question. If one of you could
maybe put an excerpt or send me a memo of the qualifications and then we
can enter that into the record because I had written down the exact same
question.

MR. CLAY: Okay.

MR. KOUTSKY: I also think that's useful for an outreach purpose as well
as to get that in the record.

MR. CLAY: I'd be glad to do that.

MR. KOUTSKY: Sure, thank you. Any questions? Martin.

MR. HAKIM DIN: Martin HAKIM DIN with Vonage. Who have you outreached to
also might be helpful.

MR. CLAY: Okay, that's fine. We'll do that.

MR. KOUTSKY: And I know I speak for all of NANC that I think that the
membership of the LLC is actually an important one and to the extent
there's anything we can do to help recruit members, you know, certainly
let me know.

MR. CLAY: Okay, I'd be glad to, and just being able to be at this table
and let all of you know that we are looking to recruit new members, that
that is a step in the right direction.

MR. KOUTSKY: I could offer the honor of a working group co-chairmanship
or IMG something, you know, if they want to, if they feel they need to
have influence or something, that would be added.

(**LAUGHTER)**

But certainly everyone around the table understands the important of
that.

MR. CLAY: Okay, if there are no other questions on that subject, the
second subject is a response to Telecordia's letter and comments made at
the February 11th NANC meeting.

What I'm going to go over here is a summary of our response. What we've
passed out to you is a letter from our outside legal counsel that is a
detailed response to the assertions made at the last NANC meeting, along
with supporting documents that are exhibits to that letter. So each of
you have that, and for those in the audience that would like to have it,
there are copies of it at the table over here.

MR. KOUTSKY: And before you begin, I've also sent with the meeting
package, a copy of the Telecordia letter and also I had asked NeuStar to
make a response as well.

Due to my oversight, there are not photocopies on the table right now
but they are being done now and we're going to enter those into the
exhibit and part of the public record as well. So if you're unaware of
what we're talking about, maybe sit tight for a second and the copies
will be here any moment. So go on, Mel.

MR. CLAY: Okay. The Telecordia letter and the meeting comments made
assertions. One was that the amendment number 57, and that's the
contract that was negotiated and signed in September of last year with
NeuStar and took effect this January 1^,^ 2007, was that amendment
number 57 contains terms and provisions that are anti-competitive.

Telecordia stated that the extension clause of amendment number 57 will
trigger price increases by customer and subscribing customer issuing an
RFI, RFQ and RFP, and that price increase trigger is anti-competitive.

Telecordia completely misread amendment 57 and/or misunderstood the
master agreement. Customer and subscribing customer refers to the
contracting entity, which is the NAPM LLC and not the impact users.

The conduct of the impact users will have no effect on triggering this
clause. The customer of number 57 is the NAPM LLC.

When we talk about subscribing customer in that document, we're
describing the seven entities that were the original customers of the
contract and those \-- I believe it was in 1999, those subscribing
entities combined into one and the contract is describing both the
single LLC that exists today and the seven entities that were the
original.

And the impact user has no way of triggering the upward events or the
upward clause for going for an RFI or RFP.

The actions of the customer and subscribing customer in each of the
service areas is limited only to specified official customer action so
that the flexibility is retained to seek competition and to consider
various alternative solutions as they arise.

Anyone that wanted to meet with the LLC as the customer and subscribing
customer, and talk to us about alternatives have the right to do so and
these triggering events will only be triggered if the LLC takes official
action. So the user cannot trigger the upward events.

The amendment number 57 provides for an extension from 2011 to June 30,
2015, however section 8.3 expressively states that no price adjustments
for triggering events if they were to occur will apply after January 1,
2012.

Essentially amendment number 57 retains the existing functional terms
but delivers current and future price reductions. In essence if there
were official actions that were to trigger price adjustments, those
price adjustments first of all will never be any higher then the
contract that was replaced and they will never go past January 1, 2012,
which was about the end of the old contract that we replaced.

So in essence if we were to trigger any upward price adjustments, we
would only be going back to the existing contract as it was before
number 57.

It was stated that amendment number 57 is a deterrent to competition.
Amendment number 57 retains the non-exclusive clause of the contractual
relationship with the current vendor without any required transaction
minimums so that experimentation and potential migration to another
vendor or technology is preserved.

So if the NAPM LLC were to take official action and want to use an
alternative vendor or we still retain the right to do so until the
current vendor, which is NeuStar, does not have an exclusive contract.

Amendment number 57 will potentially push the entire industry into a
numbering solution using Legacy technology. Amendment number 57 is not
in any way anti-competitive nor does it alter the contractual
flexibility of the master agreement to consider other vendors, new
solutions, or improving technologies. Any vendor can and will continue
to be able to bring new ideas to the LLC.

Billable transactions associated with NANC 400 were also mentioned. It
was not in the written letter that was submitted to the NANC at the last
meeting but it was mentioned verbally at the meeting last February.

Amendment number 57 in no way addresses approval of NANC 400. The LNPA
working group had reviewed the proposed SOW that has not been approved
and considered the transactions it modifies.

Amendment number 57 only states that if the elements of NANC 400 were
ever approved by the FCC, the LNPA working group and members of the NAPM
LLC, the population of the data fields will be billed as billable
transactions or modifies.

As a user of the impact, Telecordia never received notifications
regarding amendment number 57. Telecordia as an impact user received
notifications of amendment number 57 in the same manner as all other
users.

The LLC and not individual users is empowered by the FCC under the
second reporting order to administer contracts with the third party
vendor and to supervise those vendors with connections of the provisions
of telephone number portability in the United States service area.

Telecordia as an impact user has no contractual right nor did any other
user, to consent to or otherwise veto any administration or amendment to
the master agreement.

The NAPM LLC carefully and diligently followed all its processes under
its operating agreement and the FCC rulings including consideration of
presentation by potential vendors.

The impact \-- LLC did not deviate from any of these procedures in
negotiating, ultimately agreeing to the amendment number 57.

So that is a summary of our response to the Telecordia letter and
comments made at the last meeting, and again as I said, the details are
at the desk and each of the members at the table have a copy of it.

I'll now be quiet and open it up for questions.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, thanks, Mel. A couple of housekeeping things before
we move on. Just so we have the exhibits straight, the summary
presentation is Exhibit 5. The April 11th letter Berenbaum, Weinshienk
and Eason, P.C. is Exhibit 6.

The Telecordia letter dated February 7th we'll label Exhibit 7, and the
NeuStar letter dated April 13th we'll label Exhibit 8. And all these
will be part of the public record.

I'll use a prerogative and ask two very quick questions to Mel and then
we'll move on.

Just as a statement for the record, would you agree Mel that the limited
liability companies are charged by the FCC with managing and overseeing
number portability administration subject to review by the NANC?

MR. CLAY: Yes, I do agree. NANC has oversight of the NAPM LLC.

MR. KOUTSKY: And a factual questions, the time that the LLC were
thinking about extending the contract, was NANC informed of that?

MR. CLAY: Yes, they were. The previous chair of the NANC was informed.

MR. KOUTSKY: And approximately when was that?

MR. CLAY: It was probably March of 2006. It was right at the beginning
of \--

(Interruption of tape while changing sides)

**(END OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE A)**

\* \* \* \* \*

**(START OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE B)**

MR. CLAY: \-- Negotiations with NeuStar.

MR. KOUTSKY: All right, thank you. Those were two facts that I wanted to
clarify.

MS. O'DONNELL: (Off microphone). I want to follow-up on that question.
The chair was informed but none of the NANC members in addition to the
chair were. I knew because I was at the time an alternate, but I'm not
sure who at NANC knew other then the chair, who was not a member of
NAPM.

MR. CLAY: But Beth, we had followed the procedures that were done in the
previous contract negotiations and \--

MS. O'DONNELL: I'm not challenging that. I was just curious because I
don't know that the question was answered.

MR. CLAY: The contact was made with the chair.

MS. O'DONNELL: Okay. At an abundance of caution, Cox hasn't and doesn't
intend to say much on this topic. The reason for our caution was because
we thought that NAPM members acting in their official capacity as NAPM
members could trigger that price increase, not just official action by
the NAPM.

I'm not going to change my mind about not saying much, but that's what I
thought.

**(LAUGHTER)**

So that's not true?

MR. CLAY: If the contract states that it would take an official action
of the LLC to trigger the events.

MS. O'DONNELL: And then another thing I was confused about was that
merely listening to a vendor presentation \-- you said vendors are free
to bring proposals in.

MR. CLAY: Yes.

MS. O'DONNELL: the process as I understand it was that you agreed to
hear it from the VPAC perspective and then the VPAC analyses it. At what
point does that trigger anything, at the request for you to listen to
them, the actual listening, the VPAC analysis, what?

MR. CLAY: The trigger would be triggered if the LLC, the NAPM LLC were
to take official action and approve or implement one of the proposals
that were being presented to us.

MS. DONNELL: And the difference between that and asking NeuStar to
renegotiate, can you just make that clear to me, why the one is \-- if
you go to NeuStar and say we want to negotiate, it triggers the price
increase. Am I correct in that?

MR. CLAY: Yes, one of the triggers would be if the LLC were to take
official action to renegotiate price with NeuStar.

MS. O'DONNELL: Okay, so it's taking official action, it's not approving
something because you would be approving consideration of an RFP or
consideration of another \--

MR. CLAY: I'm not following you.

MS. O'DONNELL: I'm trying to figure out what constitutes official
action. Is referring it to the VPAC an official action?

MR. CLAY: No, it's not.

MS. O'DONNELL: So you actually have to say we approve this proposal from
some other vendor?

MR. CLAY: Correct.

MS. O'DONNELL: To (unintelligible). Okay, thank you.

MR. HARRINGTON: Phil Harrington, Verizon Communications.

Mine is more of a statement. From Verizon's perspective we want to
congratulate the NAPM LLC. We think this is a good contract. It saves
Verizon significant dollars and as importantly, our network operations
team is very happy with what NeuStar has provided as far as the service.

MS. EMMER: Rosemary EMMER, Sprint Nextel. I just wanted to add one
comment at this point. It's my opinion that in a collective view of the
membership, the industry would have realized more savings through 2011
if NeuStar were willing to negotiate a lower price then would be case if
the industry had chosen a longer term RFP route. Just want everyone to
keep in mind that this is not an insignificant price cut.

If the industry did not reach a satisfactory agreement, the membership
was fully prepared to issue an RFP and as Mel indicated, the industry
has reviewed alternatives non-solicited proposals from vendors in the
past. Thank you.

MR. KOUTSKY: Anna.

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller with T-Mobile. I would like to reiterate and
support what Rosemary just said on behalf of Sprint Nextel.

First of all as part of the LLC responsibilities, we closely monitor the
performance of the NAPM and they have done an excellent job with regard
to performance and yet on behalf of the industry, the LLC was able to
negotiate price reductions really predicated on volume.

And I think it was a little misleading, the Cox statement about price
increase. There are triggers in there that could kind of rollback some
of the price reductions. So there are triggers in that like if we
accepted another proposal, but I don't want to mislead by saying price
increases because overall the amount that's being paid this year will
always be less then what has been paid in the past.

And so I think as Rosemary iterated, it's a benefit to the entire
industry and significant reduction, and yet we did not give up any \--
it still remains non-exclusive so we always have the options as an LLC
\-- the VPAC is really kind of a screening committee when proposals come
in to consider them and present information for the consideration of the
NAPM LLC, whether or not they want to pursue it.

We're always open to proposals. We're always open to new membership, and
I think at present there have been some presentations and we've asked
for additional information from those vendors, especially about their
qualifications for neutrality.

So I think this has been a very open process and what was negotiated
here was non-exclusive and will benefit the entire industry.

MR. KOUTSKY: Further questions? Hank.

HANK HULTQUIST: I actually don't have a question. I just want to
elaborate further that AT&T also views amendment 57 as providing both
AT&T and the industry with significant savings without in any way
operationally limiting the flexibility of the LLC to go out and deliver
more savings if opportunities arrive to do so, and that we're also then
quite satisfied with the performance of NeuStar.

MR. KOUTSKY: Jerome.

MR. CANDELARIA: Do you intend to review other documents attached like
the NeuStar letter and the BWE letter, or you'll just go there as their
referenced?

The reason why is we're hearing comments on references to industry and
that brought to mind a comment I had on one of the letters, so I'm
trying to figure out when the appropriate time to make that comment is.

MR. CLAY: Now would be an appropriate time to comment on the letter if
you have a particular something \--

MR. CANDELARIA: Well I do. The term industry is being used and in the
NeuStar letter on page three from Michael O'Donnell, the first full
paragraph talks about how NANC overruling amendment 57 is unwarranted in
that it's \-- it goes on to say amendment number 57 was approved by a
super majority vote and executed by NAPM on behalf of the industry. It
represents a consensus view of the industry.

I would take issue that a vote of NAPM represents a consensus view of
the industry. It represents perhaps a super majority view of those on
NAPM.

I'm attempting to underscore that members of NAPM does not fully reflect
the industry as we heard this morning and we've also heard that NAPM is
attempting to remedy that but in the meantime I would disagree with the
characterization that this represents consensus of an industry.

MR. KOUTSKY: A couple of points I'd like to make in terms of this
matter.

The one point I would like to stress is that we are charged, NANC is
charged with overseeing the Number Portability Administration in the
United States.

The NAPM is given immediate oversight over that. Commission rule 52.26B
I think is fairly clear as to what the structures are, which is NAPM is
for the lower, NANC is in the middle, and all of this is subject to
actually C review.

I do want to stress that I don't view these as private contracts between
private parties. I believe this is a contract that does the public's
business, basically done at the authorization of the FCC to put in place
a procedure of which will not just benefit the industry but it will also
benefit consumers and businesses in the United States.

So I do want to make that clear that this is the public's business and
that what I've tried to do here is try to bring this issue out into the
open.

If somebody sends me a letter on this type of issue, any party has that
right, and I'm going to make sure that that be discussed and debated
fully, and commission rules do provide for specific dispute resolution
and process, which I don't believe has been invoked in this setting at
this point in time.

So I'm not sure there's a need for further work on this but I do want to
stress that process is available, and it's not just available to one
particular company, it's particular to any party and I think it's really
important that we keep the information flow on this very open.

You'll know from my standpoint, if I'm informed of something that
relates to the management of a particular contract that I believe the
full NANC should be informed, I will do that, and to make sure that the
entire group and the entire body since it's the body that
(unintelligible) with the authority to do the oversight. So I did want
to kind of clarify that.

I wanted this information in the public. I wanted to give people a
chance to respond in writing to allegations and statements that were
made in writing, and if anybody wants to \-- like an example is what
Jerome had said, you know, feel free to send your own responses.

I know a lot of paper got thrown at you on Friday about this so people
do have the right to look at that and make further statements if they
will, but I do wish to note for the record that I don't regard this an
open dispute, that's subject to commission rule 52.26B3 at this point in
time.

And I also do appreciate the efforts of NeuStar and NAPM to respond to
the letter and to do so in a comprehensive fashion. I think that also
shows that they agree with me that this is the public's business and
that this is not just a matter of private contracts between entities
that don't have to answer to anyone.

So I appreciate that time. Are there any other questions? Yes, from the
gallery.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Tom. My name is Scott Harris. I'm from the law
firm of Harris, Wilshire, and Granite, and I represent Telecordia.

I'd like to begin by thanking Tom for allowing us to review these
documents yesterday and for the open way in which he has handled this
issue. I'd also like to thank Mr. Clay.

I found your analysis of your understanding of the contract language
very helpful. I have to also say having reviewed all of these documents,
while we do find some points of agreement with both the LLC counsel and
with NeuStar, we continue to believe perhaps more strongly than ever,
that amendment 57 is in fact anti-competitive.

We believe that is anti-consumer and perhaps more to the point, we
consider it a violation of sound public policy and we believe it to be
illegal.

Now I also agree with Tom, this is not a matter currently pending before
the NANC. Having said that, we will be happy to provide a detailed
written response if anyone on the NANC or the chairman would like us to
do so.

But we believe it's our obligation to do more then that and we are going
to consider what other avenues are available for the public, for
Telecordia and for others to address what we believe are the fatal
problems of amendment 57. Thank you so much.

MR. KOUTSKY: Thank you, Scott. Seeing no other further questions on this
topic, I appreciate your time.

MR. CLAY: Thank you.

MR. KOUTSKY: And I would like to note that we're actually ahead of
schedule despite starting late so I appreciate that in regard to time.
We might have to refigure some of the schedule a little bit beginning in
about an hour or so.

If INC is ready to make a presentation now, I would appreciate that, and
then we'll take a break. We will come back and look at pANI, and then at
that time I think we will probably have a presentation, maybe for some
VERO staff. I'll have to rearrange things but I think we'll take INC
right. Thanks.

**[INDUSTRY NUMBERING COMMITTEE (INC) REPORT TO THE NANC]{.underline}**

MR. NEWMAN: Good morning. Adam Newman, Telecordia Technologies Industry
Numbering Committee vice-chair. Ken is lucky enough to be in a trout
stream this week. A little cold for me.

You should have before you the industry Numbering committee's report to
the NANC. The first slide lists the last INC meeting, which was
January/February and the upcoming INC meeting on April 30, 2007 in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The INC subcommittee, particularly the pANI, the CONXX subcommittee
working with pANI guidelines has met considerably more frequently
getting the guidelines done.

Slide three is the CONXX subcommittee slide for issue 534, development
of the pANI guidelines. As the NANC may remember INC had an action item
to develop permanent pANI administration guidelines. We agreed to do so
by March 30th and we met that deadline just barely, transmitting the
guidelines on March 30th to the chairman.

INC and its CONXX subcommittee, as well as the ESIF, the emergency
services interconnection forum subcommittee H group spent more then
1,300 person hours developing the pANI guidelines. Those really just
count the hours officially spent as part of the committee, not anybody's
individual time developing contributions et cetera.

In particular in that regard, the CONXX subcommittee co-chairs, Robin
Smith who is in audience, and Dana Crandall formerly known as Dana
Smith, are CONXX subcommittee co-chairs, spent enormous amounts of their
personal time developing these guidelines and I just wanted to give them
some credit for that.

So we did place this issue into initial closure on March 9th, forwarded
it to the NANC pANI IMG chairs. The pANI IMG had a meeting which Natalie
will report on later I suspect, and provided some feedback to INC on the
guidelines which we had the initial closure.

We had a virtual meeting, incorporated the input from the IMG into the
guidelines and placed the issue on to final closure on March 30^,^ 2007
as I said, and then essentially immediately placed the issue into
initial pending which is our status for an issue that the ADIS INC has
agreed to but it needs some further activity in order to implement it.

So that's pending FCC direction on essentially the following three
items, drafting or the need to draft a technical requirements document
for a permanent pANI administrator, selection of the routing number
administrator, the RNA, and if applicable or necessary, any
corresponding order which may require some changes to the guidelines,
and then determination of a phrase we use in the guidelines, the
appropriate regulatory authority.

In certain cases it's clear that for example for reclamation, it refers
to the appropriate regulatory authority directing the RNA to reclaim an
assigned pANI and there may need to be some determination of what that
appropriate regulatory authority is.

MR. KOUTSKY: And I'd just like to before you move on, first of all INC
did a tremendous job in a very short period of time working on the pANI
guidelines and I appreciate that, and I know the other members in the
NANC agree with me as well.

These three things you're talking about that are kind of pending
direction. I mean in one sense the FCC could make a specific decision on
these points that would essentially answer these questions but you're
just noting them for the record.

MR. NEWMAN: Yes, I'm noting them for the record and in essence right,
the interim pANI Amy and her team who did work closely with us are
working under the interim guidelines today so there needs to be some
direction for us to publish officially, take this issue back into final
closure and work on the pANI guidelines with the designated permanent
pANI administrator. And that's what these three bullets refer to.

MR. KOUTSKY: And also the question on the appropriate regulatory
authority, I mean that is essentially a question of law that certainly
the FCC could spell out. There's no prejudgment at all.

MR. NEWMAN: Yes, and that's actually in part why we had some significant
discussions and ended up choosing the term appropriate regulatory
authority so that we wouldn't necessarily have to make changes once the
determination was made as to who that appropriate regulatory authority
is.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, thank you.

MS. RETKA: Thank you, Mary Retka from Qwest. In order to get to the
position of these next three bullets, is the next step for INC to take
some action to get this in front of the FCC, or is it for the chairman
to write a letter with the recommendation from INC to get it to the FCC
so they understand the next requirements, the next three things that
need to be done?

MR. NEWMAN: There's actually agenda item seven. We will be approving the
guidelines received from INC sometime last month \-- well I'm assuming
we will take action on the guidelines.

We will then send them to the FCC and then anxiously wait to see
approval, or modifications, or changes, and as I said these were drafted
in a way so the FCC if they would seek to make determinations about \--
I think the big question is on reclamation for the regulatory authority.
I mean they may choose a (unintelligible) themselves. That's up to them
effectively. But hopefully we will pass that along to the commission and
they will act on it quickly.

MS. BEATON: Rebecca BEATON, NARUC, Washington. I have not been closely
involved in this piece but is this the \-- when you talk about
appropriate regulatory authority, is this where the codes and blocks
would be allocated or decided by either the 911 body or by the state
commission, is that correct?

MR. NEWMAN: To some extent, and it's not necessarily decisions on
application, that primarily lies with the administrator, but it's a
question of the authority for the appropriate regulatory authority to
reclaim assigned blocks typically and then in addition, for authority to
be able to receive blocks in a certain area.

MS. BEATON: That approval then would be, or request would come from
either the 911 PSAP or from the state?

MR. NEWMAN: It's actually fairly complicated but yes. And maybe if I
could short circuit this a little bit, different states do it
differently and so the guidelines could not say PSAP in all instances
for that particular issue.

MS. BEATON: So that the drafting of the technical requirements and the
determination, those two have not been made yet, correct?

MR. NEWMAN: That's correct.

MR. KOUTSKY: And we can probably get into some more of this in the ING
discussion.

MS. BEATON: Okay, thank you.

MR. NEWMAN: I'm trying not to mix discussions today since I sat on both.

MR. KOUTSKY: and we do have the detailed IMG document which we'll be
picking up after the break, which Natalie can now think about.

MR. NEWMAN: the guidelines themselves were under the IMG agenda items.
Any other questions for now?

The next slide is from INC VOIP subcommittee. It's an update on the NANC
action item to INC regarding the VRS or Internet best based relay
service and inoperability. To date more then 30 contributions toward our
report have been received and are under review.

We spent a significant number of hours working on this report, learning
about VRS, getting up to speed, working with the VRS providers who are
participating, and beginning to develop the report which has made
significant progress.

In addition, the NANC chair contacted us and we participated in an
informal meeting with the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau of
the FCC to address sort of our progress with the VRS issue and
understand a little more what they wanted from us.

We will determine a schedule at our upcoming full INC meeting for
finalizing and finishing the report, and we will determine as needed
whether we need to go outside of the INC for some added expertise to
other forums and committees in order to produce that report.

The less we have to do that the quicker we can be, but it's already
looking like we at least need to bring the emergency services
interconnection forum, the ESIF into the process a little based on the
meeting with the Consumer Governmental Affairs Bureau.

Later this morning I think we will be having a short presentation from
folks from the Consumer bureau, in about an hour or so, and I think they
will go a little bit more over the VRS issue and essentially a statement
of the concern or of the timeline that they're intending to work on.

NANC works for the Wilding Competition Bureau so this will be kind of
new branch out for us.

And quite frankly, now that we've wrapped up the pANI report we'll be
able to spend some significant cycles on the VRS report, not that we
weren't spending cycles on it.

Next slide is the issues remaining in initial pending, pending some
further activity usually from the FCC. Issue 407 which we've discussed
before, treatment of dedicated codes for single customers in a pooling
environment, looking to allow applicants to go directly to NANPA rather
than having to put a pass through application into the PA for a
dedicated code.

Issue 506 which is the updated E appendix two, per the Allen PA working
groups request to try making sure that service providers complete the
activities needed with regard to contaminated numbers when donating
blocks to the pool.

I actually saw in the report today that it looked like the change order
associated with this had been closed so hopefully we'll be able to take
this off of initial pending and move it to final.

And then the development of the pANI guidelines, which I talked about
earlier.

Finally the issues and final closures since our last report. 486, 516,
523 and 527 were all put in final closure recently due to the approval
of PA change orders that Amy talked about earlier.

I don't know if you want me to discuss again any particular issues. We
talked about them whenever they were in initial pending.

And 522 revision to the procedures for submitting the part four went to
final closure as the result of approval of a NANPA change order that
John talked about earlier. Rebecca.

MS. BEATON: (Off microphone) Rebecca BEATON, (unintelligible). Issue
522, again I have not been closely involved in this but is there any
safety valve process for 522?

MR. NEWMAN: Well I mean the safety valves generally associated with
regard to or denied application because they did not otherwise qualify
for an application.

The part four, this issue really just allows for a part four for a code
to be submitted directly to NANPA and that's just showing that the code
is in service, so it's not really related to safety valves per se.

MS. BEATON: And the company would then identify the dedicated customer,
is that correct?

MR. NEWMAN: Well I mean they did that when \-- if there's a part one,
that's where you have to potentially show a safety valve application for
approval of the request in the first place.

MS. BEATON: Yes.

MR. NEWMAN: And then the request is approved and the company has up to
six months past the effective date to put the NXX in service. The part
four is saying to the NANPA, we did put this NXX in service.

MS. BEATON: Thank you.

MR. NEWMAN: If I get something wrong John or Beth, come get me.

MR. CLAYTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Robert Clayton from the Missouri
Commission.

I wanted to ask a question about issue 486 in the issues in final
closure, and I've missed a few NANC meetings and frankly I'm a little
out of sync with the process but I wanted to see if you could touch base
on issue 486, the contaminated or pristine assigned block returns and
address exactly what that is.

MR. NEWMAN: Sure. Issue 486 makes changes to the guidelines that adds a
field on the part one A form or remarks field, and when a service
provider is returning a block to the pool, they must now indicate
whether that returned block is contaminated, has assigned TN's that
should be inter-service provider ported out, or is pristine, has no
assigned TN's in the block, just similar to when they donate a block in
the first place.

And they're supposed to identify whether it's contaminated or not so
that it allows the pooling administrator on a returned block to have the
same information they have in the originally donated block, whether that
block's contaminated or not in the pool.

MR. CLAYTON: Well I guess my confusion is that I wasn't aware that a
contaminated block could be returned.

MR. NEWMAN: It's always been the case, or there's been nothing in the
guidelines to say that a contaminated block that is not over
contaminated, that has a 100 or less assigned TN's could not be returned
to a pool. You can donate a contaminated block and you can return a
contaminated block to the pool.

MR. CLAYTON: Okay, as long as it's not overly contaminated and that
comes down to what, 100 \--

MR. NEWMAN: 101 or more. Ten percent contamination was the agreed to
contamination level that was then put in the order as I recall.

MR. CLAYTON: Thank you.

MS. MICKIEWICZ: Helen MICKIEWICZ, NASUCA, California. Adam, issue 522
again, it's my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, that this is
an issue about which the states have raised some objections, and what
has been the response to the states objections? Is it going forward
notwithstanding their objections?

MR. NEWMAN: I don't recall any objections to issue 522, Helen. Are you
thinking maybe issue 322?

MS. MICKIEWICZ: I'm not sure what I'm thinking. Rebecca says this is the
issue.

**(LAUGHTER)**

Mr. Newman: There have been long standing objections with regard to
issue 322, removal of that switch clli from the part one.

MS. MICKIEWICZ: Oh, that's it, you're right. I stand corrected. See the
name clli just confused me.

MR. NEWMAN: I keep saying silly, C-L-L-I. But just as an update because
we did report at the last NANC meeting that I with my Telecordia hat on,
was going to do a presentation for the state coordinating group with
regards to the special data product and the (unintelligible) on line
that Telecordia makes available with the NXX and the NXX-X and switch
information. That did occur as scheduled.

MS. MICKIEWICZ: Right, I remember it. Thank you, I'm sorry I got the two
confused. Thanks, Adam

MR. NEWMAN: No worries.

MR. KOUTSKY: Anything further.

MS. O'DONNELL: Beth O'Donnell of Cox Communications. The VRS report May
2nd, good luck.

MR. NEWMAN: No, that's one we're going to develop. A timeline is May
2nd.

MS. O'DONNELL: Oh, foolish me.

MR. NEWMAN: Even I'm not that silly.

MS. O'DONNELL: I guess that kind of changes the question now because
I've read what you would come out with and the question doesn't make
sense, but knowing what you came out with, I was wondering if you are
actually going to come up with one solution by May 2nd (unintelligible).

MR. NEWMAN: I don't even know if we'll come up with one solution
recommendation by the time we deliver the report. A consensus has yet to
gel so far with the subcommittee on a single recommended solution.
Doesn't mean it won't happen but there's a ways to go there.

MS. O'DONNELL: I don't know obviously if you would present to and NANC
would decide. Is that what it would come down to?

MR. NEWMAN: And that's a possibility. We could achieve consensus on a
report that outlines the available technical solutions in our view. Now
I don't want to pre-judge a consensus but I do see that as a
possibility.

MS. O'DONNELL: Okay, thank you.

MR. KOUTSKY: Anything further? I'm sorry, Rebecca again.

MS. BEATON: Rebecca BEATON, NARUC, Washington. Since you brought up
issue 322, will there be a status on that?

MR. NEWMAN: Well I mean the status remains and has remained for about
three years now, give or take a year, that the issue is in final
closure.

There's industry agreement to remove it but the change order associated
with it was rejected so we are going to discuss it at the Industry
Numbering Committee in May, the results of the demonstration and see if
INC can decide on any further path forward at its May meeting.

MS. BEATON: I have a question related to that. In Senate Bill 1063 there
was a requirement to the FCC to identify switches and have that publicly
available. Has there been any action on that?

MR. NEWMAN: First I heard of it. 1063 she said.

MS. BEATON: Senate bill 1063. And I do know that there are four or five
states that do object to having the clli code removed at this time.
Thank you.

MR. NEWMAN: Yes, ma'am, okay.

MR. KOUTSKY: Is that it? Thank you, Adam. I think we're going to take a
very quick break for about 15 minutes or so. Let's not try to stretch
this into a half hour break. I'd like to reconvene here about quarter
till or ten till. We'll discuss the pANI guidelines at that point in
time. Thank you.

(Short Break)

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, folks, we're going to try to move on again. If we
could all migrate back to our seats, and that includes everyone.

I neglected to mark the last exhibit so I'll do that now. The INC
Industry Numbering Committee report to the NANC presented by Adam Newman
will be marked as Exhibit 9 and we are going to do a little bit of
flexible scheduling right now.

We're expecting folks from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
to come down anytime in the next hour to talk a little bit more about
VRS and their priorities.

So right now we have scheduled the pANI working group. We are going to
possibly move some of the BNC people, one or both of those presentations
to right after lunch. It should all work out hopefully.

But in the meantime the pANI IMG, Natalie McNamer is here to present the
final recommendation. Natalie.

**[pANI ISSUES MANAGEMENT GROUP (pANI IMG)]{.underline}**

MS. MCNAMER: Hi, I'm Natalie McNamer with T-Mobile, one of the co-chairs
for the pANI IMG, along with Don Gray from Nebraska who can't be here
today, Martin Hakim Din with Vonage, and Bill Schaunessy from AT&T.

This is a short and sweet presentation, one pager. The INC had done
their work on the guidelines and forwarded them back to the pANI IMG.

We reviewed them and held a conference call on March 22nd to review any
concerns that any of the members had. Those concerns were forwarded back
to the INC and the INC subsequently made changes to the guidelines for
those.

The INC did outline the items that will need to be determined by the
FCC, which is who will draft the technical requirements document and if
there is one needed, the selection of the RNA if applicable, a
corresponding order, and for the FCC to determine the appropriate
regulatory authority to oversee these numbering resources.

Other than that the pANI IMG recommends that the NANC approve the INC
pANI guidelines and forward them to the FCC.

MR. KOUTSKY: And first of all I want to thank the INC for doing a
tremendous amount of work in a short period of time, and also the
co-chairs of the IMG, Natalie, Bill Schaunessy, Bell South, now AT&T,
Martin HAKIM DIN with Vonage, and Don Gray of Nebraska, who put a lot of
time into this and who unfortunately could not be here due to personal
reasons, and I just want the record to reflect that this frankly would
not have happened without the work of the co-chairs and in particular
Don Gray, and that he's in our thoughts.

Rebecca, do you have a question or are you just pretending to have a
question? Okay.

The one page report is Exhibit 10 and the operative document, which you
should all have received, which I hope you all got a copy of, the
administration guidelines.

Natalie we had some questions about the authority earlier, the
regulatory authority decision and maybe if you could just encapsulate a
little bit what that means.

MS. MCNAMER: The INC just put in there and the IMG agrees that it should
just be written in there right now as the appropriate regulatory
authority because that is not the pANI IMG or the INC to determine that.
That's something that's considered by law that the FCC has the authority
today and if they want to \-- you know, whatever they do with it, it is
up to them so I don't know if \--

MR. KOUTSKY: So if there are instances of delegated authority \--

MS. MCNAMER: Right, such as reclamation and safety valve today, they
could do the same sort of thing if they so choose.

MR. KOUTSKY: And there would be then no need to change the guidelines as
a result?

MS. MCNAMER: Correct.

MR. KOUTSKY: And I think the other point and this was related in essence
to \-- actually could you just talk a little bit about some of the
questions that rose up from the INC report that IMG considered?

MS. MCNAMER: I think Rebecca, you had brought up about reclamation.
Currently today the FCC had delegated reclamation authority to some
states. Some states don't participate in it so for the pANI IMG or for
the INC to write in there to the states, that wouldn't be valid today I
mean for these, because as of right now there is nothing written in law
of who is responsible for it.

So reclamation was one thing that could be the FCC or the states. It
will be the states to go to the FCC and request if they want to be
involved in handling that.

Also with like the safety valves we have today, for regular numbering
resources you would want to go back to your states and make sure that
you guys talk to the FCC of what you are looking at wanting, if that
makes sense.

MS. BEATON: NARUC, Washington, yes, thank you, we do have delegated
authority in our state.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, so that was the purpose of that kind of open
question. Are there any other thoughts or questions about this before we
take action? Yes, Jean-Paul.

MR. EMARD: Mr. Chairman, Jean-Paul Emard from ATIS. I wanted to make the
group aware that again while the document has been approved in final
version, it is not implemental at this time until as the pANI IMG has
already pointed out and as our co-chairman as already pointed out for
INC that the whole thing is done, however the document is available for
people to access with the caveat that it is not implemental at this
time.

On the ATIS INC documents page \-- so anyone who's seeking to get the
document, it's available and there's no charge for it.

MR. KOUTSKY: Thank you, Jean-Paul, and once again thanks to INC for
putting together a lot in a very short period of time.

We were first asked by the FCC to look at this in September of last year
and I think it says a lot to basically have that done within basically
six months, and on a very important issue which is emergency services.
And I think when the call went out to ask the industry to jump, I think
the industry definitely did jump, as well as public interest and state
interest as well. So that's much appreciated.

If there are no objections I will consider the final recommendation for
pANI administration guidelines to be approved. Hearing none it's
considered approved. I will be transmitting it to the FCC with all
dispatch and then we will wait for the guidance from them on this point.
But once again thank you, Natalie.

MS. MCNAMER: Thank you.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, we had spoken a little bit at the INC presentation
about the Internet relay based services and the VRS services. We have
with us Jay Keithley from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
at the FCC.

As Adam pointed out in his presentation, they requested that we meet
with them and speak to them about the service and about what their
priorities are and what their needs are.

And I think I'll just turn it over to Jay. Jay is a long time industry
veteran who has been at the commission for a few years but worked
extensively in the industry for a long time before that. So I will turn
it over to him, and take as much time as you need.

MR. KEITHLEY: Thank you, Tom. It's a pleasure to be here and it
especially a pleasure to see so many familiar faces. Ray, I haven't seen
you since mass at Thomas O'Beckett. It's great to see you again. Mike, I
have never seen you at Thomas O'Beckett but there are reasons for that I
understand.

Again, I wanted to particularly thank the council for the work that you
have been doing thus far on the VRS numbering issue. I am here to put
the issue into some context and to tell you how important it is to my
bureau, to the commission, and to the deaf and hard of hearing
community.

I also realize that I'm all that stands between you and lunch so I will
try to be brief.

As Tom noted, I am Deputy Bureau Chief for policy in the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau. CGB houses the Disability Rights Office.

The Disability Rights Office among other matters is responsible for the
oversight of telecommunications relay services including establishing
service standards for providers and setting TRS reimbursement and
compensation rates.

While precise up to date numbers are hard to come by, a recent PBS
special on deaf history put the number of deaf and profoundly hard of
hearing Americans at approximately 350,000. The number of Americans who
suffer some amount of hearing loss including increasingly many baby
boomers is significantly larger then that, numbering by most estimates
over 20 million.

Many of these individuals use TRS to make calls to and receive calls on
the public switch telephone network.

The commission recognizes and reimburses several forms of TRS, including
traditional TRS, which involves use of TD-TTY and conversion of text
messages to voice and vice versa.

All aspects of a TRS call, traditional TRS call, a TTY call occur on the
public switch telephone network. The commission also recognizes speech
to speech in which communications assistance of CAs specially trained in
dealing with speech disorders translates conversations. That's where the
TTY call \-- all aspects of a speech to speech call take place on the
public switch telephone network.

The commission also recognizes captioned telephone services, which
displays text along with spoken conversations and permits the hearing
disabled party to voice communications.

Captioned telephone services can be provided only over the PSTM where
the captions can be provided over the Internet on P relay, a text based
form of TRS that uses a computer or other Internet enabled device rather
then a TTY to connect the CA or Communications Assistant to the deaf or
hard of hearing person. The leg of the call between the deaf and hard of
hearing person and the CA is made over the Internet at dial up speeds.

And finally VRS, video relay services which uses a broadband connection
to permit an American sign language speaking deaf person to communicate
in ASL with a translator who translates the ASL into spoken language and
vice versa.

The link between the deaf consumer and the CA in a VRS call must be
broadband. VRS and IP relay are by far the most utilized and fastest
growing forms of TRS. Last year VRS reimbursements made up roughly \$340
million of the \$460 million interstate TRS fund.

(Tape interrupted when changing tapes)

**(END OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE B)**

\* \* \* \* \*

**(START OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE A)**

MR. KEITHLEY: \-- Between \$8 and \$9 million a month for IP relay calls
and monthly VRS calls of late have topped four and a half million
minutes.

At the same time traditional TRS continues to decline, and I didn't make
copies of this diagram but just to give you some idea I'm just going to
show you, this is NECA\'s assessment of actual historical growth and
projected growth for VRS. It's up, significantly up.

Contrast that with traditional TRS from a historical perspective, down
precipitously.

So the bottom line is that the deaf and hard of hearing community is
moving rapidly from an analog world to a digital world and we need to
take that into account as we provision services for these individuals.

Because VRS and IP relay involve calls that are either initiated from or
received over the Internet, individuals using these forms of TRS do not
enjoy all the benefits of calling over the PSTN. For example, because
Internet facilities used in connection with a VRS or IP relay more often
then not also involve the use of a dynamic IP address.

It is very difficult to call in the traditional sense a VRS or IP relay
user. VRS and IP relay users also do not currently have 911
capabilities. The obligation of TRS providers to provide 911
functionality is currently waived for VRS and IP relay. These waivers
are to expire at the end of this year.

The commission currently has three proceedings that could be impacted by
the assignment of any NP based ten digits numbers to VRS and IP relay
users. All are in CG docket 031123.

The first proceeding is a further notice on the inoperability issue.
It's the proceeding in which CSD asked NANC to look into the number
assignment issue.

Assignment of such numbers would be a way to greatly facilitate
communications for VRS and IP relay users permitting listings of NP
based numbers in directories and directory assistance for the first time
for deaf and hard of hearing consumers, and permitting for the first
time traditionally dialed calls to VRS and IP relay users.

The second deals with the alleged misuse of VRS and IP relay. In the
case of IP relay, as has been widely reported in the general press, some
people, people who are not deaf or hard of hearing send text messages to
IP relay providers asking the provider to place calls to merchants and
then attempt to make purchases using false or stolen credit cards.

Providing NANP based phone numbers to VRS and IP relay users would be a
way to remove the anonymity that facilities misuse of these services.

The third proceeding deals with making 911 and E911 functionality
available to VRS and IP relay users. As I noted previously, at present
VRS and IP relay providers are not required to provide 911
functionality. VRS and IP relay users are encouraged to make 911 calls
through traditional TRS calls to public safety answering points.

We hope that the lessons learned from provisioning 911 functionality to
interconnected VOIP users can be applied in the case of VRS and IP
relay.

We understand and very much appreciate that NANC\'s efforts in dealing
with the VRS number assignment issue are premised on the condition that
nothing will be done that will interfere with the provision of 911 or
E911 functionality.

All of these issues are as I'm sure you've recognized, very important.
Indeed ultimately resolution of these issues will help prevent fraud and
even save lives. All could be addressed at least in part by the
assignment of any NP based ten digit numbers to VRS and IP relay users,
and all of us involved in these issues are anxiously awaiting your
recommendations on the number assignment issues.

Thank you again for all of your work in this regard. I will be happy to
answer any questions either now or when you break for lunch. Thanks,
Tom.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, thank you, Jay. I appreciate him coming and asking
for our assistance on this and in particular I guess as an
administrative note, I think we are awaiting a request or a directive
from the three bureaus involved, that you had mentioned before.

MR. KEITHLEY: That's correct. We and CGB are currently working with our
colleagues in the wire line competition bureau, and the Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau to prepare a letter asking this body to
expand its current analysis of number assignments to include analysis of
provision of 911 functionality.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, thank you. Yes, Helen.

MS. MICKIEWICZ: Thank you. Helen MICKIEWICZ, NASUCA, California. I have
two main assignments in my work at the California POC and one of them is
numbering and the other one is work with the deaf and hearing impaired.
Who would ever have thought the two would come together at one NANC
meeting.

I just wanted to say that in my work with the deaf and hearing impaired
in California, through our agency, the 911 and E911 issue is of grave
concern to that community and they are in fact as we just heard, the
community is moving very, very heavily into new technologies IP related,
VRS, captioned relay service. These are extremely popular.

We are getting pushed very hard to include them and pay for them. That's
not a topic for the NANC but always, always, always the topic that does
come up in connection with this is what about 911, what about 911, this
community needs 911.

So I just wanted to underscore your comments that this is something that
NANC really needs to look at.

MR. KEITHLEY: Thank you, and please say hi to Sherry Forino when you get
home.

MS. MCCOVOSH: Oh, absolutely. I certainly will.

MR. KOUTSKY: Other thoughts or questions? One thing I would like to toss
out to the floor is I'm contemplating when we receive the request from
the three bureaus, which may be unprecedented because it used to only be
four (unintelligible) bureaus, so it would be hard to get three on the
same page.

I'm contemplating creating an IMG to look at this issue. I actually do
want to toss it out to members as to whether they think that's a good
idea or not.

I mean as we heard from Adam, INC has been working on this issue for I
won't say a long time but for several months, and I think that there is
certainly a press of time here at the commission given that the waivers
are expiring at the end of the year, which means in commission time that
they expire early fall, because in order for Jay and his bureau to get
something done they've really got to be ready to go.

So I want to toss that open as I'm thinking about possibly a way to take
what we may or may not receive from INC and to turn that around into an
overall recommendation or plan for going forward about doing that.
Rosemary.

MS. EMMER: Rosemary EMMER, Sprint Nextel. Mr. Chairman, Sprint Nextel
would very much like to see the IMG be formed for this particular
subject and we would be more then happy to help lead the effort or
provide any kind of administrative assistance that the team needs. Thank
you.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, I appreciate it. Beth?

MS. O'DONNELL: I think Cox would also volunteer to lead the effort.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay. Anna.

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller, T-Mobile. I support creating an IMG to address
this issue and I don't know if it's premature but I guess one area that
may help for clarification is there was a question earlier about the
recommendation, would there be one recommendation, and I guess in my
mind it may be helpful to understand if multiple options is acceptable
or a good idea.

I know that in some of the work, industry work, GSM association, on the
topic of VNOM that at least the conclusion from the North American
interest group side was that maybe one size doesn't fit all and options
are good.

So I just want to throw that out, the possibility that maybe more then
one solution or option isn't necessarily a negative thing, but maybe to
the extent that there are opinions about that, that some direction might
be helpful.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay. Martin.

MR. HAKIM DIN: Martin HAKIM DIN with Vonage. Actually I'd like to echo
the point that was just made. I'm not sure how familiar the commission
is with the different relay service providers.

We had a group of them come in here and I think it was all of them, or
seven or eight of them. This is about a year ago during one of the
meetings and it was clear not only was there a wide variety of needs
that they had or that were perceived, but there was this problem of
perception as to what actually was necessary for providing 901 service.

And since this is such a timely issue, we've just gone through a number
of 901 deployments, I think it's probably very helpful to get some of
the folks that have been involved in those other deployments to maybe
help the VRS groups to identify either a consensus need or a set of
options whether it's with the industry, or public safety, or with other
regulatory bodies that have been very, very, very helpful and interested
in getting these things done.

MR. LEATHLEY: First not only do we know the VRS and IP relay providers,
we know them on a first name basis, and we know their children and we
know where they go to school.

Beyond that we also \-- one our responsibilities is to set service
standards that apply to these companies and we are intimately involved
with oversight of services provided by the various service providers and
probably uniquely within the commission.

We pay for all the services that these companies provide and we are
interested not only in getting the a services out there to the community
but we are interested in getting them out there in the most cost
effective way that we can.

MR. KOUTSKY: I guess just to summarize, I would see one key role of an
IMG would be to consider options, make an assessment of them, provide
the commission whatever information they request and need about those
options.

I mean they are probably aware of them in one sense but they are not
aware of them from our perspective, and I think that we don't want to
prejudge a consensus or lack of consensus or anything like that, but I
do see that's the key filtering role that we can serve and hopefully
make Jay's job easier come this late summer or fall.

MR. HAKIM DIN: Martin HAKIM DIN. Again just a quick follow-up on what
you said the last time that they came in. I remember the discussion went
on and there wasn't a specific ask, other then we need numbers and it's
a little more complicated then that.

MR. KOUTSKY: There are other legal issues involved in accessing among
resources, INC issues as well, and there are other hurdles that I'm sure
Jay is well aware of. Anna.\
MS. MILLER: Anna Miller, T-Mobile. Also do we have any indication what
timeframe we're looking at? This year?

MR. KEITHLEY: Again, CGB is working with our other bureaus in
determining the appropriate timing. As Tom mentioned, the current waiver
for the provision of 911 functionality by VRS and IP relay providers,
actually there are two, there's one for each of the different services,
expires at the end of the year.

We would love to be able to have a 911 capability in place at the end of
the year. I honestly don't know that that can be done. We're going to
look to you for advice in that regard.

MR. KOUTSKY: Yeah, and I think that's an important question for us to
answer and I certainly intend to move quickly in at least trying to sift
through the options and then we can probably get back \-- we may treat
this very similar to pANI where our first task may be to come up with a
timeline for a decision so they have a better indication.

Other questions, requests? I do appreciate Jay coming and giving us this
information. We look forward to receiving the three bureaus requests.

MR. KEITHLEY: Again, I really appreciate all you are doing and really
need your input.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, thank you. We've managed to stay on schedule so we
will proceed with the report of the Billing and Collection agent.

This is the part of my job I fall down on all the time. The pANI IMG
report, presentation is Exhibit 10. It's two pages. It goes there. The
pANI administration guidelines, nice little cover, is Exhibit 11, and
then there's a March 30th memo from Ken Havens to myself, which is a
transmittal memo which we'll call Exhibit 12.

And now that the transcript is away, we have Faith Marcotte from Welch
and Company and she has a presentation, which we will call 13. Thank
you, Faith.

**[REPORT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PLAN BILLING AND COLLECTION
(NANP B&C) AGENT]{.underline}**

FAITH MARCOTTE: Good morning. On page one of the report we show the
status of the fund, the pronounced position of the fund at March 31st.
There is \$3.3 million in the fund right now, mostly made up of cash
less the accrued liabilities of \$1.3 million, which show a makeup of
those below.

If you turn to page two of the report you'll see a projection of the
fund up to June 30th. That's in the shaded area with a comparison to the
budget.

Right now we're anticipating that the fund will be at \$2 million and
\$50,000. We were projecting it to be at a million, which is the
contingency amount.

Mainly the difference, if you look in the far right of the shaded area,
is the million is mostly made up of pooling, with not as much money was
spent on it as was allowed under the contract.

There are some other numbers that offset but generally that's where the
major difference is, and then there's a further projection of the fund
out to March of '08.

And the third page shows the accrued liabilities over the next six
months, what we anticipate we will be spending once we get approval from
the FCC.

So that's our regular monthly report. I don't know if there are any
questions.

So the next part of the report is just an update on the contribution
factor. We worked with the working group to update the budget with as
much up to date information as we could and we amended a couple of
numbers since our last meeting.

The one thousand block pooling number, what we had been using in that
before was the budgeted amount based on the previous contract plus the
change orders which put us at about \$4.1 million. It has now been
amended down to \$3.2 million. Based on dealings with the working group
we amended it.

We took the change order out because it had to do with pANI, and then
the major change order was pANI and the other adjustment. We made it
closer to what the actual expenditures have been for pooling in the past
instead of basing it on the maximum allowed under the previous contract.

So now it's at \$3.2 million for pooling and the pANI is at \$225,000,
and that figure comes from the change order, which I don't know the
number. It was 48? I'm not sure what change order it is.

MR. KOUTSKY: I'm sorry, this is for the interim pANI administration
change order?

MS. MARCOTTE: Yes. So the next page shows the funding options. So the
first option was bringing the fund surplus to zero, and the next one was
using a factor of 00002, and then the next one was leaving it at the
factor of this year which was 00021. And the working group wants the
fund to come to zero and that's the option we're looking at now.

That factor of 193 takes into account a revenue number, and we don't
have that revenue number yet so that is likely to change once we do have
the revenue number later this month, but our goal is to bring the fund
to zero, surplus zero.

Are there any questions about the report?

MR. KOUTSKY: Has the surplus been at zero before, I mean in the history
that you remember?

FEMALE SPEAKER: No, I think the working group is going to be reporting
on the history, what the balance is, but, no, I don't believe it has
every made zero.

And we also have the million dollar contingency so it's very unlikely
that it ever will hit zero.

No other questions?

MR. KOUTSKY: Any questions? Okay, thank you, Faith. Now we'll pass on to
the second half.

**[BILLING AND COLLECTION WORKING GROUP REPORT]{.underline}**

MS. EMMER: Rosemary EMMER, Sprint Nextel, to deliver the billing and
collection working group report. I chair this group along with Tim
Decker with Verizon.

The B&C working group has met several times in the past few months. We
have been discussing the budget and contribution factor as Faith just
mentioned.

If you'll go to page six on the Power Point presentation, we list again
the contribution factor options that Faith just went over, and we as she
said reached consensus on option one, which was designed to exhaust the
entire anticipated fund surplus but it leaves the one million dollar
contingency provision intact.

And we included the historical data on page seven, and I'd like to thank
Welch & Company for putting this together for Tim and I and for all of
us.

You will notice in column July 2004 to June 2005, we had a \$4 million
surplus, the last line. We dropped the contribution factor significantly
so that we could try to exhaust all of the surplus and we've been
continuing trying to do that for the last couple of years.

As you can see on the columns following the \$4 million column, we've
budgeted to completely exhaust the surplus and like I said, keeping in
the \$1 million contingency.

I do believe that each year we end up with a little bit of a surplus
even though we're trying to get to zero.

I think by decreasing the budget as Faith was mentioning earlier this
year with respect to the PA numbers, maybe we'll come a little closer to
achieving our goal of zero surplus this year.

The other thing that this group is going to be working on is the
performance review for Welch. I have mentioned in at the last NANC
meeting that our goal is to contact the NOWG to discuss their
performance rating scale or schematic if you will, to insure that all of
the groups chartered by the NANC who are responsible for putting
together performance reviews for the FCC have a consistent rating
scheme, schematic scale.

And so we have done some work already this year on the B&C working group
performance evaluation for last year but we wanted to wait until we
could get with the NOWG, until we could meet with them on their current
rating scale so that we have one consistent one going forward.

And seeing as though the NOWG is in the middle of writing performance
evaluations for NANPA and the PA, we're going to wait until the June
timeframe to meet with them regarding the actual rating schematic, just
make sure that we have one consistent rating under the NANC umbrella.

And on the last page of the Power Point you will notice our future
meeting schedule. We have three meetings so far between now and the end
of July. Please feel free to contact myself or Tim Decker if you have
any questions or would like to join any of our calls. Does anyone have
any questions?

MR. KOUTSKY: What's the timeline for the final recommendation on the
contribution factor?

MS. EMMER: Well I guess that would be whenever we have to have this
filed. Just a second. Faith what's the date there? Sorry, May 1st.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, so that will be transmitted \-- so you're
anticipating it being 19 -1 is that correct, pending the revenue? Okay.

So now would be the time for people to discuss if they think that that
strategy is the proper one. Alan.

MALE SPEAKER: I have a housekeeping question.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, sure. Anyone? Then I'm in receipt of that. We'll
transmit that recommendation. It does seem to be a reasonable solution.

MALE SPEAKER: Thank you, a housekeeping question. The billing and
collection agent report was 12 and the billing and collection working
group was 13, is that right?

MR. KOUTSKY: No.

MALE SPEAKER: Okay, good, then what are the numbers.

MR. KOUTSKY: That's a good question.

MALE SPEAKER: 13 and 14, okay.

MR. KOUTSKY: Yeah, the working group was 14, the Welch & Company was 13,
and the pANI transmittal letter, March 30th, it's a one page thing,
that's 12.

MALE SPEAKER: Okay, that's the one I'm missing.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, I suggest we break for lunch and we come back
promptly at 1:00 p.m. and we'll stick back on schedule since we have
other people. And it always takes us longer then an hour for lunch
anyway, it's best to do this now. And we will start right at 1:00 p.m.,
not five after, ten after, we'll start right at one o'clock and see if
we can get people out of here before the wind. Thank you.

(Lunch Break)

MR. KOUTSKY: All right, we're about to start up here so if people could
wander back to their chairs. It's 1:02. p.m., I gave you two minutes.
Okay folks, can we wander back here and start up again? We'll just start
talking. All right, we'll come back to order here or a reasonable
approximation thereof.

We'll do our best. We'll probably get done a little bit early today.
Despite throwing things in we've kind of stayed on time.

A couple of things, just to remind people to try to make sure the mic is
on before you say your name and affiliations for the record. It just
makes it a little bit easier for when we do the transcript.

The other point is, those of you, and I'm saying this to the audience
too, I just didn't mean to leave it to the table, but the letter for
Phil McClellan of the Pennsylvania Consumer Advocates Office, if anybody
wants to come up and sign it, I'm just actually going to put it right
over here on the corner and you can just walk up at your leisure and
sign it. And I'll try to get that to him somehow after I have Bob
Atkinson sign and some other people that are like NANC alumni. And in
fact that will be much appreciated. He put a lot of years into NANC.

Now we will have the NOWG report with Karen.

**[REPORT OF THE NUMBERING OVERSIGHT WORKING GROUP]{.underline}**

MS. RIEPENKROGER: Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Karen
Riepenkroger and I co-chair the NOWG along with Natalie McNamer of
T-Mobile and Paula Hustead of Windstream.

Today we're going to talk about the NANPA and PA 2006 performance survey
update, the performance evaluation timeline, NANPA change order, and the
NOWG meeting schedule.

On slide three, the NANPA and the PA 2006 performance evaluation survey
update. The NOWG extended the due date for the surveys to March 14, 2007
and reminder e-mails were sent out by the NANPA and the PA.

And on the next slide we will discuss the survey responses. Are they any
questions?

On the NANPA and the PA 2006 performance evaluation surveys received,
for the NANPA surveys received to date we show 13 service providers,
however I had one additional one come in so there are 14 service
providers. And I had an additional regulatory so there's 19 regulatory
agencies that have responded on the NANPA.

For the PA surveys received, we received 59 surveys from service
providers and 23 surveys from regulatory agencies.

Are there any questions?

On the next slide is the 2006 performance evaluation schedule. On
February 28^th^, the original surveys were due and as noted previously
we did extend that to March 14, 2007.

On March 26th and 27th, the NOWG met with the PA at their facilities in
Concord, California for the annual operational review. April 11th and
12th we met in Sterling, Virginia with the NANPA for their annual
operational review and we have had some changes to the timeline for the
remaining schedule.

We are no longer going to meet in May in Denver, and the June 6th date
of the NOWG to share their preliminary results with the FCC, the NANPA
and the PA has been moved up to May 10th. And then in June 2007, the
NOWG will be prepared to present their final performance reports on the
NANPA and the PA at the NANC meeting.

Any questions?

NANPA change order 10 recommendation; change order 10 was a result of a
NOWG recommendation regarding the codes that are in the status of
pooling set aside to be included in the available status on various
reports such as the central office code assignment activity record
instead of their current placement in the unavailable code status.

The NOWG reviewed and recommended that this change order be approved and
the recommendation was provided to the FCC on March 19, 2007.

And the last slide reflects the future NOWG meeting schedule. We have
our monthly calls with the PA and the NANPA scheduled for April and May
and then we did cancel the face-to-face meeting in Denver and we
modified the date that the NOWG will share their performance evaluation
with the FCC. The NANPA and PA to May 10th from June 6th.

Are there any questions?

Thank you very much.

MR. KOUTSKY: Thank you, Karen. That presentation is Exhibit 15. You all
don't know how proud that makes me that I got that, the one time.

**(LAUGHTER)**

First of many. I might be right again next year.

Okay, LNPA, working group. I'm not sure who's presenting this. Gary?

**[REPORT OF THE LOCAL NUMBERING PORTABILITY ADMINISTRATION (LNPA)
WORKING GROUP]{.underline}**

MR. SACRA: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Gary Sacra, co-chair of the
LNPA working group and hopefully everybody has a copy of the rather
voluminous report this month.

MR. KOUTSKY: It's 16. Is it one document or two?

MR. SACRA: Well, I guess it's actually three documents attached to \--

MR. KOUTSKY: All stapled together?

MR. SACRA: Yes sir.

MR. KOTASKY: Let's just call it one document and then if we approve
things, I'll split it up so they're labeled draft and we'll just call it
one.

MR. SACRA: Okay, the working group has three items to report at on this
month. The first item, the LNPA working group issues matrix. This was an
action item that was assigned to the working group at the February NANC
meeting.

The working group was directed to develop a matrix of issues and their
status for all issues that have been submitted since May 2004, that
being considered a key date. That's when the inter-module porting
interval IMG issued its report.

So the working group was asked to put together a matrix of all issues
that remain open and that have either been submitted and/or resolved
since May 2004, and to highlight any issues that impact inter-module
porting.

So on the April 10th, LNPA working group conference call, the working
group finalized the matrix. It details 122 submitted issues.

The working group believes this matrix is an accurate reflection of the
volume of issues that the LNPA working group and the NANC has addressed
since May of 2004, and it by no means is meant to mitigate the current
open issues, some of which are related to petitions that are currently
before the FCC, issues that we're familiar with. The validation data
fields and the local service requests, the porting interval, those are
issues that are also detailed in this matrix.

Just some of the relevant statistics. As I said there were 122 issues
submitted during that timeframe, 96 of which have been resolved, 14
issues remain pending and they've been pending longer then two years.
And just to break that down, 11 of those 14 issues are actually NANC
change orders. Those were requests to make changes to the ENPAC and down
stream service provider systems.

So 11 of those 14 that are pending are actually in the pipeline as NANC
change orders awaiting prioritization for a possible future ENPAC
software release. So the working group has actually addressed most of
those, just that they're waiting prioritization and possible inclusion
in the next software release.

Two of those 14 issues have actually been liaised also to other industry
groups such as the INC or the OBF. Two of the 122 remain pending between
one and two years and the remaining ten open issues have been pending
for less then one year.

So the percentage of issues resolved out of these 122 is roughly 79
percent of the issues that have been submitted or resolved since May of
2004.

The good news is I'm not going to go through each one of these issues in
the matrix, but I did want to point out that all of these issues have
the tag on them inter-module issue and I just wanted to explain that
briefly.

Our charge was to identify all of the issues since May of 2004, and to
highlight any that impact inter-module porting.

The fact that it has a tag as an inter-module issue doesn't mean that
it's exclusive to inter-module porting, but the resolution or the lack
of a resolution for a particular issue that's tagged inter-module means
that the resolution or the lack of a resolution does impact inter-module
porting in some way. It could also impact intra-module, either wireless
to wireless or wire line to wire line.

In fact, in going through these issues, the vast majority of the issues
are not exclusive to inter-module porting or they actually impact all
types of porting, the majority of these issues, whether they've been
resolved or remain open, but our charge was to at least tag those issues
that do have an impact on inter-module porting which you'll see when you
go through the matrix.

If the issue has been resolved, the date resolved is over in the right
hand column, the month and the year. If it's not yet resolved the status
of that issue and where it stands currently today is listed in the next
to the last column. It also has the submission date and the description
of each of the issues.

Although my plans are not to go through this matrix in great detail
today, if you have any specific questions on a particular issue today,
I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have, or in follow-up as
well if you have any questions on any of the issues or the matrix in
general, I'll be happy to answer your questions.

I guess the working group would like to submit this matrix in response
to the action item that was assigned to us in February.

MR. KOUTSKY: Yeah, and just a quick few words. First of all, you guys
did a lot of work in a reasonably short period of time to put this
together.

To remind folks why we were doing this, Tom Navin came in and mentioned
that the bureau was going to be looking at inter-module porting petition
and also wipe number portability with reasonable dispatch, and he asked
in essence for whatever input that NANC would be able to have on a lot
of these issues.

And frankly from my standpoint I wanted to get my arms around what had
already been considered by NANC since the last time NANC formally spoke
on this issue which was back in May of 2004, and also to show that by
and large this confirms my suspicion which was that the vast majority of
issues that were brought to the ONPA and to NANC have been resolved in
some way. And I do think that that does show a lot of dedication about
this group and about the working group in particular to resolve a lot of
these things that they've gone through.

And at the same time there are issues that remain unresolved and we
don't want to diminish the importance of those but I do think it's also
important to let the heavy FCC record reflect what NANC has done on
these questions and issues, and I think this will help possibly put a
lot of what may still remain open in a little bit of context and
understand it a little bit fuller.

So I appreciate the working group putting this together.

Do you people have any particular questions about this? My intent is to
transmit this to the bureau, so was that your question Mary? My intent
is to transmit to the bureau with a short cover letter essentially
saying what the purpose of the project was, and then issue an open
invitation to them and if they have an specific questions about any of
the issues in the attached and how it was resolved, even for the
resolved ones, they're welcome to come back to us and ask us that
question. Anna.

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller with T-Mobile. First of all I concur with your
comments and think it should be recognized the great amount of work the
LNPA working group has done and I think these statistics prove that out.

They've addressed a lot of industry issues and come to resolutions on
those issues, and it's really helped I think the industry with improving
the porting process and making it easier for consumers to port their
numbers.

With that said I wanted to make two additional comments and to point out
that with regard to the T-Mobile Sprint Nextel petition, for
clarification on what's required to validate a port request, it really
kind of focuses on the issues that were brought out in item 15PM42 and
item 17PM44.

And those were initiated in July of 2004, and they have been referred to
the OBF, but again those are the issues of what's required for port
requests versus information that now is really necessary to submit a
local service request and there are free local service requests so that
I guess have an error free port request and process the consumers desire
to change service providers.

And the second point along those lines I'd like to note is that even
though OBF has also worked on a lot of issues and made progress and
improvements, I think one of the issues is that their guidelines and
carriers can choose to follow guidelines or choose not to follow
guidelines.

And so that is another reason why we asked for clarification of what the
rules meant because I guess it's a little more difficult to complain
about compliance when there are guidelines and not really
interpretations of orders or rules.

MR. KOUTSKY: As kind of a follow-up on that, I mean in the transmittal
letter to the FCC wouldn't it be fair, and you can certainly get back to
me, but would it be fair to characterize the issues, to kind of point
the FCC to page five of it and say okay, the context of the T-Mobile
Sprint petition is issues 15 and 17?

Feel free to take a look and tell me but I would do that. I think that
would make sense because \--

MS. MILLER: I think the focus of the petition is around those issues, I
think around those issues in terms of making it an easier porting, a
more convenient porting process, but also around the issue of guidelines
versus clarification of the order and the rule.

MR. KOUTSKY: And in my letter I don't want to characterize your
petition. What I want to do is kind of describe this document, so its
purpose was to place that petition in context and so by doing that I can
point to at least two issues. If there's another one in here that \--
feel free to let me know, but I think that might be a good idea to kind
of help guide them through this process.

MS. MILLER: To focus on.

MR. KOUTSKY: Yeah, or just understand the other issues that have been
brought forward and resolved. Rosemary.

MS. EMMER: Rosemary EMMER, Sprint Nextel. We've talked about how awesome
the groups are working together to get all of these issues, well as many
as can be resolved, but I also wanted to point out that Gary Sacra
actually put this document together as a draft for the LNPA working
group, I believe alone, and I know it took a long time, at least in the
beginning to put all this together and it's a tremendous amount of work
and I just wanted to thank Gary for co-chairing that and putting the
initial draft for the LNPA working group together. I'm sure it took a
long time.

MR. SACRA: Thank you, Rosemary. Actually I did have some help too from
Paula Jordan, my co-chair as well.

(**LAUGHTER)**

MR. KOUTSKY: And honestly, had somebody said it was a 29 page 9. font
document I might have thought twice.

**(LAUGHTER)**

But I do appreciate the effort put into it and I do think it's a very
useful document. Hopefully it will have some use to the commission but
also to the working group in going for a basis, at least a historical
record of what's been done.

MR. SACRA: Okay, thank you everyone.

MR. KOUTSKY: Are there thoughts on this before we \-- okay.

MR. SACRA: The next item is related to another action item that was
directed to the LNPA working group from the November 2005 meeting. This
is related to a PIM, which stands for Problem Identification and
Management, but it's one of the main vehicles for introducing issues
into the working group.

So this was related to PIM 32, which was submitted by a number of
wireless carriers. You'll see it's also included in the matrix as well
but this issue relates to difficulties in obtaining a customer service
record in order to obtain the necessary data in order to complete a
valid local service request for submitting to a network provider to port
in a reseller number.

And we brought this issue to the attention of NANC in November 2006.
NANC directed the working group to go back and continue to try to reach
consensus on a resolution. The working group did form a subcommittee to
continue to work PIM 32. The report is actually at the end of the issues
matrix.

It's entitled the LNPA Working Group report to NANC PIM 32, but to
briefly summarize the report, the subcommittee and then with the working
groups concurrence, came to the conclusion that a major contributing
factor to this issue is instructions on the part of some resellers to
their underlying network provider, their wholesale network provider, to
reject requests for customer service records on their customers claiming
that its proprietary information that the wholesale network providers
customer is the reseller and not the end user, and the end user
relationship is with the reseller.

So some underlying network providers were being prohibited from
providing customer service records on their customers, so this is a
major contributing factor to the issue. The working groups feel that,
and I'll paraphrase the other report here, that direction \--

(Tape interrupted while changing sides)

**(END OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE A)**

\* \* \* \* \*

**(START OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE B)**

MR. SACRA: \-- Providers to provide the specific customer information
where possible would greatly reduce the unsuccessful ports. The LNPA
working group also believes that resellers should not be allowed to
withhold end user specific customer information necessary for the
porting process.

An example of the information that's on the customer service record
that's needed by the new provider to complete the LSR would be like the
billing telephone number, the account number, that type of information
is on the customer service record but not readily available to the new
service provider that's attempting to port in a reseller number. So in
some instances they're required or it's necessary to obtain a CSR in
order to complete the LSR.

There's a footnote in that report that the working group using the term
reseller includes for example traditional resellers but also
interconnected voice over IP providers as well.

And this particular issue I guess is not exclusive again to inter-module
porting even though it was introduced by a number of wireless providers
to the LNPA working group. This also has obviously resellers numbers are
porting wire line to wire line for example as they are ported wireless
to wireless as well.

So the working group believes that it has reached consensus on what
would be a viable pass forward. We haven't closed the issue out as yet
or the PIM. We are going to discuss this further at our May meeting.
There is a very good possibility that we will be including language
that's in the report in our best practices document as well.

Questions?

MR. KOUTSKY: So question I have is, so you're expecting in May to come
back with best practice language?\
MR. SACRA: Yes, and assuming that this is going to go into the best
practices, and at this point in time I have no reason to believe that it
won't, the language is probably going to pretty much mirror the language
that's in the conclusion of this report.

MR. KOUTSKY: My question is, is there a reason for us to not send this
to the FCC at this point in time?

MR. SACRA: I see no reason as one working group co-chair and I'll let my
fellow co-chair \-- I see no reason why the final report could not go to
the FCC.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay. Phil.

MR. HARRINGTON: Phil Harrington, Verizon. I would think we would want to
send this to the FCC.

MR. KOUTSKY: Yeah, given definitely some sense of urgency on this. Again
my intent is to transmit this with a very short cover letter on this
one.

I would like to point out that even though in this document there are
some numbers that talk about wire line to wireless porting, and bringing
up this issue, and I think I expressed this to Gary, but this is not an
exclusive problem to those inter-module ports. I think this can exist on
wire line to wire line and it's just that those happen to be the numbers
I think that were available to the working groups, is that correct?

MR. SACRA: That's correct and the fact that the original issue was
introduced by wireless carriers so the original focus was on their
inter-module piece \-- but you're absolutely correct.

MR. KOUTSKY: But the stress is this is an issue that could potentially
affect any port, okay.

MR. SACRA: For (unintelligible).

MR. KOUTSKY: Yeah. Is there anything further on this? So we have a lot
of letters to write to the FCC this month.

MR. SACRA: The final issue that the working group would like to report
out on is an issue that was brought to the attention of the working
group related to the firm order confirmation.

A number of providers have not been complying with the requirement to
either return a firm order confirmation to a valid local service request
within 24 hours excluding weekends and holidays, or return a response to
an error message or to an aired local service request.

So the working group has put together a position paper. We researched a
number of industry sites, not only documentation developed by the
working group and other industry groups, but also FCC order sites that
the working group feels confident that there is a requirement to either
return the FOC within 24 hours or respond in some fashion with the
appropriate error messages if an invalid local request has been
submitted.

The position paper is actually the very last page in the report. It
details the issue, provides some background, and then the LNPA working
group's position is in the last couple of paragraphs.

But just to reflect on the sites that are in this position paper, one is
the North American Numbering Council, LNPA working groups third report
on wireless wire line integration dated September 30, 2000, which
states, an LSR is submitted by the new service provider to the old
service provider.

When an LSR is submitted to the old service provider, the old service
provider will return either an air message, or a local service
confirmation, or a firm order confirmation. Service providers are
required to provide firm order confirmation within 24 hours of receiving
LSR.

In addition, the second site in the position paper is paragraph 49 of
the FCC's memorandum opinion and order and further notice of proposed
rule making, FCC03-284A1, which was adopted November 7, 2003. The FCC
stated the wire line NANC LNPA process flows established at the firm
order confirmation must be finalized within 24 hours of receiving the
port request.

So the working group in developing its position firmly believes that
return of either the firm order confirmation in response to a valid LSR
or an appropriate error message in response to an invalid LSR by the old
service provider for a simple port request, shall not exceed 24 hours
excluding weekends and holidays.

So the goal of the working group in submitting this position paper is
simply to bring it to the attention of NANC and the FCC and just to let
NANC and the FCC know that we will be putting this position paper again
in our number portability best practices document with the goal of using
that best practice for providers to have use of that best practice when
discussing with providers their failure to comply with the 24 hour
requirement in responding to a valid local service request.

At this point we're not asking for any action on the part of NANC. We're
just bringing this to the attention of the NANC in order to let you know
we are putting this is our best practices document.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay. Martin.

MR. HAKIM DIN: Martin HAKIM DIN with Vonage. So the position is that we
agree with the rules because the follow-up to that, that's a setup for
\-- I guess aside from working it out amongst peer parties, the next
resource is going and filing a complaint with the enforcement bureau.

MR. SACRA: Right.

MR. HAKIM DIN: And so this is in lieu of maybe heading off complaints?

MR. SACRA: Right, and I guess to hopefully provide some means of
convincing \-- a lot of providers and it wasn't just the provider that
brought this issue into the working group.

A number of other providers then spoke up on this issue as being
discussed, that they were having the same issue and some of the
responses they were getting from the other providers that were failing
to comply were those are just guidelines, those aren't requirements.

So one of the goals of putting together this position paper was to cite
what we believe clearly shows that these are not only FCC requirements
but industry standards and industry requirements, and those sites and
the position of the working group in the best practices document, and
just as you said Martin, hopefully to assist the provider in convincing
another provider that they do need to comply and perhaps head off a
formal complaint process.

MR. KOUTSKY: Any questions about this? So will you essentially inform us
or inform me via e-mail when the best practice guide has been updated?

MR. SACRA: I will do that on both items in this report that we intend on
putting in the best practices document.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay. Is there anything further on this topic? A lot of
work for two months, I appreciate it.

MR. SACRA: Thank you all very much.

MR. KOUTSKY: Future numbering, Sonya, who gets more then ten minutes
this time. It's not a snowstorm, there's no reason to cut you off so go,
go, go, talk.

**[REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF NUMBERING WORKING GROUP]{.underline}**

MR. CASTAGNA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim CASTAGNA from
Verizon. I apologize for the staple being in the wrong side of this
report. I was finishing up my tax return at the same time and I think it
might be possible that someone has a copy of my return in their report
so please take a look and pass it up. Thank you.

**(LAUGHTER)**

The Future of Numbering working group is happy to report that we did
receive several inquires regarding the opening and I'll cover that in
the report.

If we flip to the first page with our right hands we have an update on
the tri-chair nomination and we request your endorsement today.

We have an update on the AIM AID process. Just to recap so people are
familiar with the process, it's running very well.

We have an overview of the AID submissions to give you an idea of what
the future of numbering working group has been considering and we also
have the AIM tracking matrix which represents the projects and
activities that the future of numbering working group has agreed to
pursue, a meeting schedule and a summary.

So if we go to slide three, there was a call for nominations. It was
distributed on April 2nd. Many individuals were consulted. Most had
conflicts in terms of time constraints as well as other matters that
would keep them from participating as a co-chair.

There was one nomination and that individual was uncontested for lack of
a better word, because there were no other nominations.

However that doesn't mean that this individual is not qualified. His
name is Adam Newman and since there was only one nomination and Adam was
on vacation the subsequent week I didn't have a chance to speak to him
to confirm his interest until last week and therefore did not have an
opportunity to submit an e-mail to the future of numbering working
group.

However, since he was uncontested and he has been a consistent
participant and is a recognized leader at the Industry Numbering
Committee, I didn't think it was any wrongdoing by bringing up his name
as the nomination for that position as tri-chair. So we would like to
have the NANC\'s endorsement by the end of my presentation and we'll
cover that in a summary slide.

So the nominations were due by close of business April 5th. That came.
Adam was nominated tri-chair, and we will request the endorsement of
Adam Newman. He is with Telecordia Technologies on the summary slide.
Any questions?

Okay, on the AID AIN process, we have the activity project
identification forum. We have received over seven AID submissions. Three
were reviewed and one was accepted.

The AID submission matrix is employed to manage and track submissions,
and the activity project identification matrix or AIM matrix is the
primary vehicle to track and report activity project progress to the FoN
stakeholders and the NANC.

We go to slide five, we have an overview of the AID submissions. The one
that was approved was the New and Future Services Report Brief. There
were two presented and they are in various stages of development. The
first is on telematix, and the second is on geographic issues impacting
numbering policy decisions. We expect subsequent contributions in terms
of AID submission drafts for review by the FoN.

The AID submission forum serves as a document by which the FoN could
flesh out the issue and actually identify the focus and area of interest
that the FoN could agree to adopt as an activity and project, so it's an
inter-process.

The pending presentations include the international use of NANP
resources, common versus property rights of telephone numbers, network
topology and numbering system impacts, addressing inner-operability and
ENUM. And the last is mobile nematic society demands in changing
numbering requirements.

As you can see, now that we have the AID AIM process in place, we have a
vehicle for processing activities and project proposals and so the Q is
pretty full and we'll be addressing these probably \-- every three weeks
is what we decided to set up as a schedule.

So tomorrow we have a meeting from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and we expect
contributions and presentations regarding the AID submissions on
telematix. I'm not sure about the geographic issues impacting numbering
policy decisions but after that we would go to internationally use of
NANP resources and comment versus property rights.

If any of those four subjects interest you, of course you are welcome to
join.

We'll go to slide six. We can see on this AIM tracking matrixes where we
keep those issues that the FoN has agreed to address, who have been
asked to be addressed by the NANC. As you can see, FTN1 is new and
future services brief. That was accepted March 27th as I explained on
the prior slide.

FTN2 was a request as per discussion at the NANC, and Don Gray and I are
preparing an AID form submission for this, and item three is Telematix,
and that was brought up some time ago at a prior NANC meeting and Carrie
Norcross is engaged as is the FoN in discussing and flushing out that
AID form submission.

So I feel that Telematix is probably going to be accepted in the near
future unless any unforeseen circumstances arise.

Any questions so far?

How am I doing on time, Tom?

MR. KOUTSKY: Very well. You're done.

**(LAUGHTER)**

The question I had about these, now that you have the tracking matrix in
place, what type of end goal are you looking at for each of these
products? Are you looking at separate reports potentially when an issue
is accepted? If we come back in six months we would start to see a
developed written report about Telematix for example? Maybe if you could
outline what you anticipate the next steps are.

MR. CASTAGNA: That's a good question. We have the answer to that
thankfully. We've decided instead of trying to prepare a very large
report on the future of numbering, we have looked at reports that have
been done in Europe and they're voluminous and they take a lot of time
and dedication, not something you could do when meeting once every three
weeks.

So we decided to break off pieces of areas of the future of numbering
that are of interest to the NANC, as in items two and three are of
interest to the future of numbering working group participants which is
representative of the AID form submissions and the Q.

So in that respect and using that approach, we intend to develop reports
on these individual items so that we don't have to wait for everything
to be ready and all the issues to be addressed and ready for report, but
we could address them individually.

There are going to be separate contributions to each of these items on
the AID tracking matrix and those contributions will lead to a brief or
a report that will be cycled up to the NANC for review.

Whether there needs to be an endorsement by the NANC depends upon the
issue, it depends upon what the FoN believes the NANC should consider
doing in terms of further analysis as well as making any further
recommendations regarding the issue, but they are all going to be
addressed on an individual basis.

MR. KOUTSKY: And what is not FoN issue, to international use? You said
it's pending AID form submission. Are you expecting that from anyone in
particular?

MR. CASTAGNA: Yes, that's expected from Don Gray and myself. We've just
being trying to manage a lot of activity and there is enough activity at
the FoN right now, and Don and I are working up the AID submission
because some of the other activities cross into this area of interest,
especially like geographic issues surrounding numbering.

So what we're trying to do is we want to wait until those develop a
little bit better before we put some flesh around the AID form
submission so we don't interfere with the other issues.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay, understood.

MR. CASTAGNA: Any other questions? Okay, I put the meeting schedule
before the summary slides so on page seven we show the next three
meetings, the next one being tomorrow from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

If you're not on the FoN distribution list, the exploder list, you can
send me an e-mail, it's james.t.CASTAGNA at verizon.com. I'd be happy to
have you added.

On the summary slide on page eight, what we're doing is basically
describing the NANC action I requested which is to endorse the tri-chair
nomination, which is Adam Newman from Telecordia Technologies. So could
we consider Adam at this time?

MR. KOUTSKY: Does anyone want to comment on that at this point in time?
Rosemary.

MS. EMMER: Rosemary EMMER, Sprint Nextel. Sprint Nextel doesn't believe
as a general rule that it's good policy for vendors to co-chair in
industry forums, and for those of you who that have worked with me for a
long time, I'm on a soapbox with this. I've said this many, many, many
times over the years. I just truly don't think it's good policy.

That said, this in no way speaks to the job Adam Newman would do or has
done in the industry. He has been an instrumental industry expert under
many numbering forums for many years and he certainly has been a key
subject matter expert and leader.

Further we wouldn't and we don't object to his actually being endorsed
in his role but as a matter of policy I just want to say we prefer that
vendors not co-chair, and roles underneath the NANC.

It's also not clear to me at all that the vendor community under the
NANC realizes that they could submit a nomination for co-chairs,
especially at the Future of Numbering. That might just be me but I have
a good feeling that not all vendors realize they could have submitted a
nomination. So that's it, thank you.

MR. KOUTSKY: Okay. And I'll just observe, I mean I don't know how the
nomination process went and I'm sure it was open and fair, but as a
federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
NANC is charged with having a broad base. We're actually required to
represent the entire community which includes public interests, state
commissions, consumers, industry members, vendors.

So as a federal advisory committee with a special charter I think we
have in essence an obligation to keep our doors as open as possible and
the times I have worked with Adam, he has been excellent in terms of
organizing things so I don't think this is a question.

But I think from my own standpoint, I don't think we could have such a
bright line rule but I could understand why some people wish they could
have such a rule for other industry forums. But I believe for this one
we do have to be open. Anna.

MS. MILLER: Anna Miller, T-Mobile. So I just want clarification because
in the past I think it's been our policy not to allow vendors to chair
or co-chair NANC working groups, especially those working groups that
have FCC oversight responsibility of other vendors.

And so I just want to \-- what I'm hearing you say today \-- I don't
know if it's just specific to the FoN or if we're going to continue our
kind of historical caution that working groups that have oversight
responsibility like for NANPA, the PA and number portability, are open
to chairmanship even though at the working group level, the subcommittee
level was always open.

But I think that in the past at least if not written, at least I think
it's been our practice that vendors were not eligible for that, and I
agree with the comments that Rosemary made with regard to Adam's
expertise and really I think from a FoN perspective it's good to have
contributions from different vendors to understand different
perspectives and where telecommunications is going.

But at the same time based on what we've done historically, I'm a little
bit cautious about the possibility that if a vendor is chairing an NANC
working group that there would be issues with bias or anti-competitive
behavior. We heard earlier today and I'm a little bit concerned about
that.

Mr. KOUTSKY: Well let me just restate. To the extent that we are charged
with specific oversight roles by commission rule, which we are with the
NANPA and the PA and the numbering administration in general, we are
charged under rules, an oversight role and to carry out that
effectively. Obviously we have to be an impartial oversight overseer.

And so I believe that in one sense the rule dictates the manner in which
we would proceed there and I do think there is a legitimate commercial
issue on that level to the extent that we're talking about oversight,
especially if you were talking about one vendor overseeing a competitor,
et cetera.

But when we're talking about an issue such as this or maybe it might be
that this principle is only applicable for the FoN just by the way we've
organized ourselves, but I think for us to have a bright line rule to
say vendors can't be co-chairs or vendors are preferred not to be
co-chairs, I don't believe we can do that.

I think we have to reconcile our mandate under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act with the common rules that we're charged with implementing
and come up with the best way of doing that.

In essence I understand the caution that you would have, particularly on
the oversight area and I think there it would certainly counsel us to
not do it this way, but I think for an area such as the FoN I think it's
absolutely critical that we know what is capable and what is possible by
equipment providers on a going forward basis.

Yeah, this may be the only working group where this is possible but I do
think that to the extent that he has volunteered, my own personal view
on working group chairs is that \-- I actually consider all of this a
volunteer organization so if anybody wants to help I'm loath to say no
thank you.

So is there anything further on this point?

MR. CASTAGNA: Okay and one final section of the slide \-- thank you, Mr.
Chairman. One final section of the slide just to reassure the NANC of
our focus, we've listed three items there which of course is to review
the AID submissions and to continue to review them, work on accepted AIM
activity projects, and address NANC items of Telematix and
internationally use of NANP resources.

And that's the end of the FoN report. If there are any questions I can
take them at this time as well.

MR. KOUTSKY: Do we have any? I don't think so. That concludes our
written agenda.

MR. CASTAGNA: Am I excused?

MR. KOUTSKY: You're excused.

MR. CASTAGNA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KOUTSKY: I just want to kind of summarize what in essence are the
action items coming form this meeting, just to recap and in case I miss
something, somebody please interrupt me and let me know.

Transmittal of the pANI final recommendation to the FCC is something
that the chair will take.

We will be expecting to hear by the end of May I think on the billing
and collection. Is it the end of May on the billing and collection
factor or is it the end of April. May 1st, okay. So expect to see some
kind of a report on that and we anticipate it being .019.

We have the transmittal of the two LNPA working group documents, the
matrix and the reseller for lack of a better term, working paper.

And also Adam Newman has been appointed as the FoN co-chair.

So now I'm going to open it up to either new issues that any member of
NANC wants to raise first, and if there are none, open it up to the
public if people in the public gallery wish to have an issue that they'd
like to see us address.

I understand we are an open forum so if anybody has any ideas or
thoughts or things that we should be looking at that we haven't looked
at, please feel free to say something.

Seeing none, we are breaking before two o'clock, folks without cutting
Sonya off.

So in terms of the next meeting, I anticipate that we will get some kind
of charge from the FCC on the relay service question and so I think that
might actually dictate when we meet next, depending on what their time
demands are because I do believe they have a short fuse on it. So I will
be getting back to you all on future schedule.

So thank you all for coming out, appreciate it. We stand adjourned.

**(END OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE B)**

\* \* \* \* \*

[CERTIFICATE OF AGENCY]{.underline}

I, Carol J. Schwartz, President of Carol J. Thomas Stenotype Reporting
Services, Inc., do hereby certify we were authorized to transcribe the
submitted cassette tapes, and that thereafter these proceedings were
transcribed under our supervision, and I further certify that the
forgoing transcription contains a full, true and correct transcription
of the cassettes furnished, to the best of our ability.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

CAROL J. SCHWARTZ

PRESIDENT

ON THIS DATE OF:

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_