**North American Numbering Council**

**Meeting Minutes**

**April 17-18, 2001 (Final)**

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

**II. List of Attendees.**

[Voting Council Members:]{.underline}

1\. John Hoffman Sprint PCS

2\. Beth Kistner ALTS

3\. Ed Gould AT&T

4\. Wendy Potts Bell Canada

5\. Randy Sanders BellSouth

6\. Michael Altschul CTIA

7\. Maureen Flood CompTel

8\. Hon. Thomas Dunleavy NARUC

9\. Hon. Jack Goldberg NARUC

10\. Helen Mickiewicz NARUC

11\. Dan Kearney NARUC

12\. Philip McClelland NASUCA

13\. Barbara Meisenheimer NASUCA

14\. Beth O\'Donnell NCTA

15\. James Goldstein Nextel

16\. David Bench Nortel Networks

17\. Trent Boaldin OPASTCO

18\. C. Courtney Jackson OUR, Jamaica

19\. Harold Salters PCIA

20\. Bill Adair SBC Communications, Inc.

21\. Ron Havens Sprint

22\. Gerry Rosenblatt TIA

23\. Paul Hart USTA

24\. Chuck Eppert Verizon

25\. Anna Miller VoiceStream

26\. Peter Guggina WorldCom

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

John Manning NANPA

[Commission Employees:]{.underline}

Cheryl Callahan, Designated Federal Officer (DFO)

Sanford Williams, Alternate DFO

Diane Harmon, Acting Chief, Network Services Division

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

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

**III. Estimate of Public Attendance.** Approximately 50 members of the
public attended the meeting as observers.

**IV. Documents Introduced. **

\(1\) Agenda

\(2\) NANC Federal Advisory Committee Directory

\(3\) February 20-21, 2001 Meeting Minutes (Draft)

\(4\) NANPA Report to the NANC

\(5\) NANPA Oversight Working Group Status Report

\(6\) NRO Working Group Report

\(7\) California Pooling Summary for 1st Quarter 2001

\(8\) NANPA Expansion/Numbering Optimization IMG

\(9\) LNPA Working Group Status Report

\(10\) Wireless Number Portability Operations Status Report

\(11\) NANPA Fund Performance Status Report & Funds Projection

\(12\) CIC IMG Report

\(13\) NANC Guidelines and Operating Principles

\(14\) Table of NANC Projects/activities to be addressed in the next six
to twelve months

**V. Summary of the Meeting.**

**A. Opening Remarks.** Chairman Hoffman noted the six new appointments
that were confirmed by the FCC this past week: Michael Altschul, CTIA;
Maureen Flood, alternate, Comptel; Anna Miller, VoiceStream; Cathie
Capita, alternate, VoiceStream; Deborah Bell, alternate, SBC; James
Goldstein, alternate, Nextel.

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

[Update on NRUF.]{.underline} Mr. Manning reported that plans are still
underway to implement data reporting for both utilization and forecast
reporting for 500/900 NXX resources. NANPA is working with the Common
Carrier Bureau to address issues associated with the form and format
that will be used to collect that information. NANPA will provide a
report to the NANC when those plans are finalized. NANPA will introduce
some issues at the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) meeting next week
to update some guidelines that reference the NRUF, specifically, the PCS
N00 Guidelines, the 900 NXX Code Assignment Guidelines, and the NRUF
Guidelines.

Paul Hart, USTA, noted that the Agenda refers to Form 502B. He
questioned whether there is going to be another form. Mr. Manning
explained that the issue is still under examination. Mr. Hart inquired
as to the timing for the first reporting cycle for 500/900 data. Mr.
Manning reported that the first reporting cycle will be the August 1,
2001 submission. Mr. Hart suggested that discussion on the method to
accomplish this task take place at the May NANC meeting. Peter Guggina,
WorldCom, stated that the carriers need time to study the report and
examine the feasibility of getting the data into the report. Mr. Guggina
questioned whether an August 1 submission is realistic if the Commission
has to go through a government approval process. He further questioned
whether the carriers should be prepared to move forward if it is not
going to happen in that fashion. Chairman Hoffman suggested that the
August submission date will not be met if the FCC decides to proceed
with a new form since it requires OMB approval. He advised that a
refinement to the current form be done rather than a new form. Mr.
Guggina questioned whether the current form is adaptable to refinement.
Chairman Hoffman advised that it is currently being discussed. Chairman
Hoffman explained that the basic problem is that Form 502 is designed
around geographic-based NPAs and not 500/900 numbers. He explained that
Form 502B in parenthesis on the Agenda was meant to show that the form
had a minor revision not that it was a new form. Bill Adair, SBC,
expressed concern about meeting the August date and suggested that
guidelines be provided so that the form can be submitted correctly.
Michael Altschul, CTIA, noted that the Paperwork Reduction Act is
triggered by creating a new form requiring OMB approval, and also by new
data collection.

[Unavailable Codes Project Status]{.underline}. Mr. Manning reported
that the during the week of March 26, 2001, NANPA distributed a number
of letters to the former Central Office Code Administrators requesting
their assistance in helping to determine the status of some codes that
were listed as unavailable. Copies of those letters were also sent to
those companies that have NANC members. The letter solicited their
assistance in examining those codes, and noted that the objective of
this effort was to reclaim as many codes as possible to make them
available for reassignment. A response was requested within 30 days. Mr.
Manning stated that over the past 30 days, NANPA has gone through the
NRUF data and looked at the unavailable codes that are listed to
determine if any carrier had provided utilization information. As the
status of an unavailable code becomes available for assignment, NANPA
will update its records, and the results will appear in the weekly CO
code reports available on the NANPA web page.

Chuck Eppert, Verizon, advised that 30 days may not be met in some cases
due to current workloads and the analysis that needs to be done. Barbara
Meisenheimer, NASUCA, requested a copy of the letter and clarification
on what is meant by unavailable codes on the NRUF form. She also
requested an explanation of the process used for reclaiming codes once a
company goes out of business. Mr. Manning explained the process that
NANPA uses to identify unavailable codes and for reclaiming those codes
that become available. Still unclear on the process, Ms. Meisenheimer,
questioned whether there is a process to compare the NRUF utilization
data and assignment data to determine if a particular code is being
used.

Mr. Manning advised that comparing NRUF utilization data and assignment
data is not part of the effort of the unavailable codes project status.
Ms. Meisenheimer stated that she appreciates the effort to identify the
unavailable codes, and that she thinks it is a very good step. She
questioned whether comparing utilization data against code assignments
would be a valuable effort in attempting to conserve codes. Chairman
Hoffman stated that if a CLEC that is licensed by the state commission
returns or forfeits its license and goes out of business, the burden to
report to the state commission what codes it has should be on the CLEC
not on NANPA. Chairman Hoffman suggested that further discussion on this
be done off-line. Mr. Guggina, agreed that the issue should be discussed
off-line. He suggested that more NANC members be included in the
discussion. He also suggested that the issue should be included as an
agenda item at another meeting because it is an important point to
discuss. Randy Sanders, Bell South, questioned NANPA's criteria for
denying a code before an analysis is done to determine the validity of
the current assignment. Beth Kistner, ALTS, requested the status of NRUF
utilization data. Mr. Manning advised that the NPA exhaust projects will
be available at the May NANC meeting. Bill Adair, SBC, inquired as to
when the NANP exhaust projects based on NPA exhaust will be available.
Mr. Manning advised that they expect to have the projections in
June/July based on NRO developed assumptions.

[Standardized Reports.]{.underline} Mr. Manning reported that the
standard reports are available and being updated. He advised that NANPA
will be confer with the states later this week to get more input from
them.

**C. NANPA Oversight Working Group (NOWG) Report. ** Pat Caldwell,
Chair,

presented the report to the Council. Mr. Caldwell gave an update on the
2000 Performance Review. For the 2000 Performance Review, 42 surveys
have been received, sixteen from states and seventeen from companies.
Some companies have sent more than one survey response. The results will
be available for the NANC in May. Mr. Caldwell reported on the status of
the NANPA Technical Requirements Schedule. He reported that the NOWG has
finished the first draft phase. They have a new schedule of key items so
that they may be able to deliver the report to the NANC in September.

**D. Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report. **Norman Epstein, INC
Moderator, presented the report to the Council. No written report was
provided since no formal INC meeting had been held since the last NANC
meeting. Mr. Epstein reported that INC is scheduled to meet next week in
Reno. He encouraged participation and noted that details are available
on the ATIS website. Helen Mickiewicz, NARUC, questioned the status of
INC's review of imminent exhaust. Mr. Epstein reported that nothing has
changed since the report that was presented at the March NANC meeting.
Ms. Mickiewicz questioned statements in the letter that INC sent to Yog
Varma, Common Carrier Bureau, Deputy Chief, regarding facilities
readiness. She wanted clarification on INC's statement that a carrier
only has to show facilities readiness on an NPA basis. Mr. Epstein
explained that that if you show facilities readiness in an NPA, you
would not have to show the same documents for every rate center in the
NPA since the NPA covered all of the rate centers.

Chairman Hoffman suggested that on an annual basis, ATIS should give a
brief, and concise presentation to the NANC regarding what ATIS is,
describing the committees under it (specifically INC's assignments,
responsibilities, and limitations), and having a few minutes for
questions and answers. Chairman Hoffman, asked Jean-Paul Emard, ATIS, if
he would be the responsible party for giving that report or getting
someone to do it.

Ms. Mickiewicz questioned whether any INC guidelines changes would be
provided to the NANC before they go into effect. Mr. Epstein reported
that after INC reaches a consensus, the guidelines are released. Ms.
Mickiewicz stated that given the interaction between guidelines and the
states' delegated authority under the first NRO Order to establish
facilities readiness criteria, it would be a good idea if the states saw
the guidelines before they are formally adopted. Mr. Epstein stated that
INC is an ATIS industry committee different from the NANC working
groups.

Trent Boaldin, OPASTCO, stated that having ATIS come in and explaining
what INC's role is and what they can do is a good idea. He noted that
NANC's role is to make recommendations to the FCC. Dave Bench, Nortel
Networks, stated that before an issue is accepted, it has to be
determined whether it is totally within the scope of the total areas
served by the North American Plan. The issue has to be nationwide or
NANP wide to be accepted within the INC. INC goes to great lengths to
make certain that due process is given. Mr. Guggina suggested that when
ATIS makes its presentation to the NANC on INC's role, that the NANC
Charter and also the specific language within the Order that pertains to
the NANC's scope of activities be reviewed.

**E. Numbering Resource Optimization (NRO) Working Group Report. **
Eleanor Willis-Camara, Co-Chair presented the report to the Council.

[NANP Exhaust Projections.]{.underline} Ms. Willis-Camara reported that
the NRO-WG reviewed and discussed the September 2000 exhaust assumptions
with NANPA. ** **The group expects to make some modifications with a
focus on how they can be measured for accuracy, relevance and
refinements to the assumptions. The NRO-WG hopes to have a final set of
refined assumptions in May.

[Pooling Monioring.]{.underline} Ms. Willis-Camara reported that the
NRO-WG monitoring of pooling trials is under discussion. She advised
that the existing form should be modified to reflect that pooling is in
place.

[Working Group Leadership.]{.underline} Ms. Willis-Camara reported that
Beth O'Donnell has resigned as co-chair, effective immediately. She also
reported that she will be resigning as well, and will remain until a
replacement has been named. The NRO-WG is urgently soliciting volunteers
to fill these vacancies. Ms. Willis-Camara reported that the NANP
exhaust assumptions are posted on the NANC Chair web page under NRO
documents. Minor modifications were made to the existing assumptions.
The biggest modification is a new assumption. NANPA agreed to highlight
the changes. Mr. Adair expressed appreciation and commended the work,
time, and effort of Ms. Willis-Camara and Ms. O'Donnell.

**F. California Pooling Summary for 1^st^ Quarter 2001.** Helen
Mickiewicz, NARUC, provided the report to the Council. Ms. Mickiewicz
reported that there are five pools and five different NPAs in
California. She noted that 909 is the most recent NPA. An additional 82
blocks have been donated. Ed Gould, AT&T, stated that the summary is a
good format and very useful as a template. Chairman Hoffman stated that
the NRO-WG should have the responsibility of monitoring state pooling
trials and developing a common format.

**G. NANP Expansion/Numbering Optimization IMG. ** Rose Travers, USTA,
presented the report to the Council. Ms. Travers noted that she, Ed
Gould, Penn Pfautz**,** and Peter Pescosolido, are working as co-chairs.
She reported that their first major conference call was held on April
12, 2001. An agreement was reached on naming the group NANP
Expansion/Numbering Optimization IMG (NENO). NENO drafted a mission
statement, a contribution template to follow each of the items on the
matrix, and a workplan with a timeline. The group expects to reach
agreement on these items on April 26, 2001. The group will assemble
materials from previous efforts and post them to the web site to provide
background. The NANC had an extensive discussion of tasks facing NENO.

**H. Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group
Report.** Brian Egbert, Co-Chair provided an update to the Council. Mr.
Egbert reported that the LNPA is continuing to develop requirements for
future change orders. He reviewed the PIM Report.

PIM 1 -- Multi-Service Provider (Reseller) Flows. This PIM is currently
being worked by OBF and NNPO. OBF has requested, by letter to NANC, an
LNPA liaison to work on the reseller flows. Jim Grasser, WOT- Co-Chair
will act as liaison on the next OBF meeting. WorldCom will try to
provide a wireline liaison to work with this group in the future.

PIM 5 -- Inadvertent Porting. NeuStar has presented a new SOW for PIM 5
to the NAPM LLC. It will be discussed in the April NAPM meeting. The
NIIF will be discussing changes to NIIF 134 in their April 30 meeting.

PIM 9 -- USLEC has explained that carriers will not accept third party
trouble tickets, or do not understand the LNP aspect of the report when
a trouble ticket was accepted. The NIIF will address this PIM in their
April 30 meeting.

PIM 10 -- End-User Billing based on LRN rather than called telephone
number -- SPs are still awaiting specific examples from submitter,
USLEC.

PIM 11 -- A process for moving 1K blocks between switches, within the
same company and rate center using EDR functionality is needed to
satisfy the FCC's requirement to manage telephone number inventory by
rate center rather than wire center -- Lengthy discussions between SPs
and NeuStar as to how this can be accomplished. Currently looking at
options provided by NeuStar.

Question regarding update of LERG 13 has been referred to NRIC (Network
Reliability and Interoperability Council). Once a ruling has been
received from NRIC, LNPA will decide which NeuStar option works best.
Mr. Egbert reported that there have been no nominations for co-chair
from the ILEC, CLEC, or wireless segments. The LNPA has the following
proposal for NANC. Charles Ryburn will remain as ILEC co-chair. He will
continue to moderate meetings, disseminate documentation, set agendas
and produce minutes. Gary Sacra, Verizon has volunteered to represent
the LNPA at NANC. This will result in two co-chairs from the ILEC
segment. The LNPA is looking for NANC approval on this matter. A
consensus was reached by the Council to approve the recommendation on a
monthly basis until such time that a replacement has been found.

[Wireless Number Portability Operations (WNPO) Working Group
Report.]{.underline}** **Mr. Egbert advised that the WNPO met on April 9
and April 10, 2001 in Portland, Maine. Mr. Egbert reported on the
following issues that were discussed at the April meeting: the impact of
wireless number portability on directory services and directory listing;
the impact of wireless number portability on operator services; the
guidelines regarding assignment of Location Routing Numbers; and Sunday
porting for wireless service providers. He advised that NeuStar reported
that they have received communications from about 50 service providers
regarding signing non-disclosure agreements. Of those 50 service
providers, only 9 expressed an interest in new entrant testing with the
NPAC. NeuStar will have the test plan for wireless new entrant testing
completed by the first week in May. Mr. Egbert advised that according to
the industry timeline for Wireless Number Portability, a "soft Launch"
will occur between September 2002 and November 24, 2002. It was agreed
that this represents a "soft date, i.e., the "soft launch" will begin
about the first of September 2002, but not on a specific date. Mr.
Egbert reported on the concept of a clearing house for routing wireless
port requests and NPAC communications, as presented by Verizon last
month. This issue may be able to be worked within an existing CTIA
sub-committee. The Wireless Testing Sub-Committee discussed their
Mission and Scope Statements.

**I. Cost Recovery Working Group (CR WG) Report. **Chairman Hoffman
reported that the B & C Technical Requirements for NBANC have been
finalized, and the paperwork will be hand-delivered April 17, 2001.

**J. NBANC Report.** John Ricker, presented the report to the Council.
Mr. Ricker reported on the status of numbering funds for year three
operations, March 2000 -- June 2001. The current fund balance as of
April 11 is \$5.89 million. Additional projected receivables for year
three is \$1.4 million. Mr. Ricker reported that all of the items that
he mentioned last month have not been resolved, and that NBANC is two
weeks away from making its annual filing for the fourth funding year.

**K. Carrier Identification Code (CIC) IMG Report. **Bill Adair, Chair,
provided the report to the Council. The report was approved with minor
modifications. Chairman Hoffman requested that the IMG write a
transmittal letter. Chairman Hoffman commented on Mr. Adair retiring in
six weeks and congratulated him on completing the report four months
before the due date and for his good work on the NANC.

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

[Inadvertent Porting.]{.underline} Mr. O'Connor advised that the
Inadvertent Porting Statement of Work was received from NeuStar and will
be reviewed at the next NAPM LLC meeting next week in San Francisco.

[Release 3.0]{.underline}. Mr. O'Connor reported that the NAPM LLC and
NeuStar reconfigured the hardware. The reconfigured hardware resulted in
enhanced NPAC speed and has created a secondary issue. The enhanced
speed overwhelms with messages the SOA interface of the ILEC. Porting
and pooling are working well but is work office intensive. The industry
and SOA vendors are working together to resolve the problem. The SOAs
are operating at 2.5 x specifications and are still unable to keep up.
Mr. O'Connor reported on the impact of the schedule. The Western region
has chosen to use 1.4 Release initially before it migrates to 3.0. The
West Coast is up and running on 1.4. The LLC has chosen to keep the
April 30 date for now, and a firm date will be determined at the LLC
meeting next week. Also, a future scheduled rollout impact will also be
determined at that time. Helen Mickiewicz, NARUC, reminded the Council
that some states have deferred 1k pooling until 3.0 is deployed.

**M. NANC Guidelines and Operating Principles. ** The Council reviewed
modifications and adopted the revised guidelines for posting to the web.

**N. Table of NANC Projects. **Rose Travers, USTA, reviewed updates to
the Table of NANC Projects.

**Other Business.** None.

**Next Meeting: **June 18-19, 2001

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

1\. [North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA)
Report]{.underline}. At the May NANC meeting, NANPA will report on
whether and to what extent it can compare information from the code
assignment database with NRUF filings to help determine if numbering
resources assigned by NANPA are being reported and are being used.

NANPA will provide to the NARUC/NASUCA contact (Natalie Billingsley),
and post on the NANC Chair website a copy of the letter sent to former
central office code

administrators requesting information on unavailable codes.

[2. Industry Numbering Committee (INC)]{.underline}. A request was made
to ATIS to provide a tutorial at the May NANC meeting on the roles of
ATIS and INC and their relationships to FCC and NANC activities in
regard to numbering issues.

Peter Guggina was also asked to lead a discussion on the NANC charter,
using as a reference the 1995 FCC Order which formed the NANC.

[3. NANP Expansion/Optimization IMG (NENO)]{.underline}

NENO was tasked to make recommendations concerning NRO leadership, and a
possible blending of the current NRO activities into the NENO at the May
NANC meeting.

[4. Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working
Group]{.underline}

Since no nominations from among CLEC or Wireless carriers have been
forthcoming to fill the vacant leadership positions, the LNPA
recommended that Charles Ryburn (SBC) will continue to be the chair of
the group, and Gary Sacra (Verizon) serve as co-chair. This
recommendation was accepted pending a volunteer from another interest
group to serve as co-chair.

[5. Reseller CIC IMG]{.underline}

The report was approved with edits to the Conclusions section. The chart
on page 7 will be modified as information is available to fill in the
N/A data elements. Verizon volunteered to provide the missing data that
is available. The CIC IMG Chair will prepare a transmittal letter, and
it will be posted on the Chair website for approval by NANC.

[6. Operating Principles]{.underline}

Revisions made to the version accepted at the March meeting will be
compiled by Peter Guggina and posted on the Chair website for approval
by NANC members.