## [North American Numbering Council]{.underline}

# [Meeting Minutes]{.underline}

# [January 18-19, 2000]{.underline}*[\_\[draft 2.24.00\]\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}*

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

***II.** **[ List of Attendees:]{.underline}***

[Voting Council Members:]{.underline}

[1. Beth Kistner ALTS]{.underline}

[2. Ed Gould AT&T]{.underline}

[3. Dan Hochvert/Jim Castagna Bell Atlantic]{.underline}

[4. Terry Monroe CompTel]{.underline}

[5. Ron Binz CPI]{.underline}

[6. Lolita Smith CTIA]{.underline}

[7. Norm Epstein GTE]{.underline}

[8. Peter Guggina/Karen Mulberry MCI WorldCom]{.underline}

[9. Erin Duffy NARUC]{.underline}

[10. Vincent Majkowski NARUC]{.underline}

[11. Joel Cheskis NASUCA]{.underline}

[12. Natalie Billingsley NASUCA]{.underline}

[13. Beth O'Donnell NCTA]{.underline}

[14. Elizabeth Lynch Nextlink]{.underline}

[15. Seth Jones Nextel Communications]{.underline}

[16. Ray Strassburger Nortel Networks]{.underline}

[17. Karen Westrick Omnipoint]{.underline}

[18. Trent Boaldin OPASTCO]{.underline}

[19. Harold Salters PCIA]{.underline}

[20. Bill Adair SBC]{.underline}

[21. Ron Havens Sprint]{.underline}

[22. John Hoffman Sprint PCS]{.underline}

[23. Roberta Breden TIA]{.underline}

[24. Tony Pupek USTA]{.underline}

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

[John Manning NANPA]{.underline}

# [Maria Estefania     ATIS]{.underline}

[Commission Employees]{.underline}:

Diane Griffin Harmon, Designated Federal Officer (DFO)

Jeannie Grimes, Alternate DFO

Charles Keller, Chief, Network Services Division (NSD), Common Carrier
Bureau

Les Selzer, NSD, CCB

Craig Stroup, Industry Analysis Division, CCB

John Spencer, Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB)

***III.** **[Estimate of Public Attendance.
]{.underline}***[Approximately 42 members of the public attended the
meeting as observers.]{.underline}

***IV.** **[Documents Introduced.]{.underline}***

\(1\) [ Agenda]{.underline}

\(2\) [ November 16-17, 1999, NANC Meeting Minutes (draft)]{.underline}

\(3\) [ December 22, 1999, Conference Call Meeting Minutes]{.underline}

\(4\) [ Chief, Network Services Division letter to Commissioner
Majkowski]{.underline}

\(5\) [ North American Numbering Plan Administration Report]{.underline}

\(6\) [ 1999 COCUS and NPA Exhaust Analysis -- Update]{.underline}

\(7\) [ NeuStar January 12, 2000 ltr re: 2000 COCUS ]{.underline}

\(8\) [ NANPA Oversight Working Group Report]{.underline}

\(9\) [ NRO Working Group Pooling Monitoring Project]{.underline}

\(10\) [NRO Working Group Report, re: COCUS]{.underline}

\(11\) [LNPA Working Group Report]{.underline}

\(12\) [Wireless Number Portability Subcommittee Report
(WNPSC)]{.underline}

\(13\) [WNPSC Report, Key Issues & Action Items]{.underline}

\(14\) [LNPA WG Slow Horse Subcommittee Status Report]{.underline}

\(15\) [Cost Recovery Working Group Update]{.underline}

\(16\) [Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report]{.underline}

\(17\) [Draft NANC letter to INC, re: Reporting of Resellers' Code
Usage]{.underline}

\(18\) [INC NANC Expansion Workshop Status Report]{.underline}

\(19\) [Letter to NANP regulators, Re: INC Interim NANP Expansion
Report, ]{.underline}

[INC 99-1210-025 (rev. Dec. 10, 1999)]{.underline}

\(20\) [Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee letter to NANC,
]{.underline}

[January 14, 2000]{.underline}

\(21\) [NBANC NANPA Fund Performance Status Report & Funds
Projection]{.underline}

\(22\) [NBANC True-Up Process for 16-Month Year 3 Period]{.underline}

\(23\) [Telcordia tutorial re: Code Opening, NPA Relief, and Traffic
Routing]{.underline}

[Administration]{.underline}

\(24\) [Table of NANC Projects/Activities]{.underline}

***V.** **[Summary of the Meeting. ]{.underline}***

***A.** **[Opening Remarks. ]{.underline}***[ Chairman John Hoffman
provided opening remarks. American Mobile Satellite Corporation has
resigned its seat effective January 1, 2000. NANC members were reminded
to forwarded their signed NANC contracting integrity certification to
Diane Harmon or Jeannie Grimes. The certification was e-mailed to NANC
members on December 29]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[. ]{.underline}

[Chairman Hoffman announced that Vince Majkowski will be leaving the
Colorado Commission at the end of January and will therefore no longer
participate on the Council. Charles Keller, Chief, Network Services
Division presented Commissioner Majkowski with a letter of thanks on
behalf of the Common Carrier Bureau for his service and contributions to
the Council. The letter was read into the record. ]{.underline}

***B.** **[Approval of meeting minutes]{.underline}***[. The November
16-17, 1999 meeting minutes were adopted without modification. The
December 22, 1999 meeting minutes were adopted as amended by minor
typographical edits provided by Ed Gould, AT&T. ]{.underline}

***[C.]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[North American Numbering Plan
Administration (NANPA) Report. ]{.underline}***[John Manning, NANPA,
presented the report to the Council addressing the New York 914 NPA
relief plan; the NPA Exhaust Analysis; COCUS 2000; the California
Lottery; and details of the NeuStar NANC support provided to date. The
handouts provided are also available on the NANPA.com web
site.]{.underline}

[New York 914 NPA Relief Plan. On November 9, 1999, NANPA received the
request from New York for a code, but did not assign the code because
the relief plan proposed a two-way geographic split along county
boundaries resulting in the splitting of certain rate centers in
violation of industry guidelines. Additionally, this request was
inconsistent with the NANC position stated in the August 26, 1999 letter
to the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau (CCB) regarding area code splits
that split rate centers. The NANPA sought direction from the NANC on
November 16, 1999. The NANC directed the NANPA not to release a new area
code for implementation of a two-way geographic split in the existing
914 NPA in New York. The NANC advised the Chief, CCB, of its actions by
memorandum. By letter of November 18, 1999, the New York PSC requested
that the FCC direct NANPA to release a new code to provide relief for
the 914 NPA. In response, on December 3, 1999, the Chief, CCB advised
Lawrence G. Malone, General Counsel, NYDPS Commission, that the
requested code would be released and directed the NANPA to so.
Accordingly, NANPA assigned the 845 NPA pursuant to the implementation
plan and schedule. ]{.underline}

[Chairman Hoffman commented that he is scheduled to meet with Larry
Strickling, Chief, CCB, regarding the Bureau's decision to reverse the
NANC on this matter, and to seek guidance on the NANC's role going
forward with respect to providing instructions to the NANPA on such
matters. Chairman Hoffman will report back to the Council at the next
meeting. ]{.underline}

[1999 COCUS and NPA Exhaust Analysis. Updates to the 1999 COCUS and NPA
exhaust analysis results were presented to the Council at its May 26,
1999 meeting; the survey included data through April 1999. NANPA made a
commitment to continue to provide regular updates on CO code assignments
and the impact on area code relief, rather than waiting another year for
the next COCUS survey. Since April, monitoring each individual NPA based
upon the actual number of CO codes assigned versus the forecasted amount
assigned. Many discrepancies between the NANPA data
(]{.underline}*[i.e.]{.underline}*[, what is shown in the LERG) and data
received from the former code administrators have been found. There are
also a number of NXXs that were under investigation or needed further
clarification as to whether they were assigned. There was a follow-up on
numerous instances where a Part 4 was not on file; this process is still
ongoing. These efforts with the cooperation of a number of service
providers have resulted in the recovery of CO codes. Some codes
previously identified as unavailable for assignment have been put back
into the inventory for assignment to service providers. ]{.underline}

[The handout covers the historical assignments from April 1, 1999
through November 30, 1999 and the chart is sorted by NPA, state and
exhaust date. It compares the April 1999 COCUS results with the December
1999 (cumulative) actual data collected through the CO code application
and assignment process. NANPA looked at the average code demand per
month, for "spikes" in assignments, and whether there were indications
of new entrants coming into the market. Other items considered are the
number of service providers, rate centers in the area code, whether CO
code rationing was in place, and whether there was any recent NPA relief
activities planned or underway. All these items were factored into the
update. ]{.underline}

[The last three pages of the report contain a list of NPAs where the
forecasted exhaust date is based on a rationing level. This is provided
to show the number of area codes NANPA forecasted, based on the CO code
rationing number, in that particular area code. Additionally, there is a
list of area codes that are either new NPA exhaust projections, new
codes that did not exist in the April 1999 report, or NPAs that were
impacted by relief, that is, those area codes that had the introduction
of a new NPA and therefore the exhaust date were moved outward.
]{.underline}

[With respect to the +/- symbols, in this case the (+) symbol is bad and
a (-) minus is good. Positive means the exhaust date is moving closer
and the negative means it is moving out. This is based on number of
years. Where the delta is plus or minus 4 years, NANPA provides an
explanation as to why. For example, a 2.5x increase in a code growth
rate means that the actual code growth rate over the over the last 8
months was 2.5 times what was forecasted. If an NPA has been "capped" in
an overlay situation where there are no codes left, the code is not
having normal CO code assignments made out of it. However, there are
instances where codes are returned and become available. ]{.underline}

[Where overlays are indicated, the chart shows what NPA codes correspond
to the same geographic area. There are three unique situations in the
U.S. where "concentrated" overlays exist; two in Florida and one in
Oregon. In Florida, the 305 and 786 NPAs cover all in the Florida 305
area, 786 covers all of 305 with the exception of the Florida Keys; that
portion is identified as 305A in the report. The chart indicates the
introduction of relief in an NPA as a new area code which was not in the
April 1999 COCUS that is up and working or will be shortly.]{.underline}

[Tony Pupek, USTA, asked, where there is a --1 or --2 in the "notes"
column, what is the reason for the change? John Manning explained that
they looked at codes unavailable and that the numbers reflect some true
up of records from service providers. Also, some are a result of a
slight decrease in the CO code demand rate that resulted in a year or
two change. In a few instances, rationing may have been implemented
where in the past there was no rationing. ]{.underline}

[Norm Epstein, GTE, asked what NANPA has done as a result of the
adjustments to the data, and what does this mean in terms of lessons
learned. Mr. Manning stated that NANPA thought it had a very good plan
to anticipate unforecasted exhaust. In some instances, it worked very
well where jeopardy did not have to be declared, but it allowed NANPA to
begin the NPA relief planning process. However, a service provider can
request, ]{.underline}*[e.g.]{.underline}*[, 60 initial codes at once
and as a result an area code would most likely have to go into
rationing. Absent setting aside a large amount of codes, NANPA will
still have to respond to new service providers who obtain codes to
establish their footprint. ]{.underline}

[Chairman Hoffman observed that in the case of Missouri, an area code
proceeding was commenced and a relief plan developed based on the April
1999 COCUS data. Mr. Manning explained that the projected exhaust date
was predicated on projected new service provider demand, and in some
instances, the dates were moved out when the new entrant projection did
not materialize. NANPA will continue to look at data in three-month
windows, which will aid in getting closer to identifying an area code
that requires relief to avoid starting the planning process too
soon.]{.underline}

[Chairman Hoffman commented that big swings with the projected exhaust
dates create a credibility issue; some projections are pushed out 13
years from a forecast of eight months ago. Forecasting exhaust dates is
not an exact science, but there are a whole lot people that are relying
on the numbers that get published. Missouri,
]{.underline}*[e.g.]{.underline}*[, started a proceeding because of
NANPA's projected 2]{.underline}^[nd]{.underline}^[ quarter 2001 exhaust
date; that date has been pushed out to 2004. Chairman Hoffman suggested
that a disclaimer should be added to the reported data to caution state
commissions that the numbers (and results) are the best available at
this time, but are subject to change. Mr. Manning stated that the
assignment rates in some codes that have been in rationing for a long
time are unknown and that they could only guess as to when those codes
would exhaust; he added, that the disclaimer, therefore, it is a good
idea. Vincent Majkowski pointed out that other variables, such as rate
center consolidations, implementation of thousand block pooling, etc.,
can extend and cause change to the projections. ]{.underline}

[The Council agreed to work on drafting a disclaimer for the report
off-line, stating the importance of getting the revised COCUS
information up on the web site with the disclaimer attached.
]{.underline}

[COCUS 2000. On January 12, 2000, NANPA released a letter soliciting the
participation in the 2000 COCUS of all central office code holders. All
responses to the survey are due by March 1, 2000. Industry Numbering
Committee (INC) resolution states that if a COCUS is not on file with
NANPA by March 15]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[, the assignment of
resources will be suspended until such time as the service provider
complies. This should improve forecasting. The INC is trying to get
service providers to provide data. Information is available at the
[www.nanpa.com](http://www.nanpa.com) web site and service providers may
submit COCUS input via the web site. In response to a question regarding
what happens if an unreliable forecast is filed, Mr. Manning explained
that in the past, NANPA has contacted the service providers to verify
the information. However, NANPA is not in the position to judge whether
they are right or wrong. Mr. Manning was requested to verify whether the
2000 COCUS was collecting utilization data, as suggested in paragraph
two of the cover letter which states that the total number of active
telephone numbers within the central office codes assigned to an entity
are to be reported. Mr. Manning will verify and report back to the
Council. ]{.underline}

[California Lottery. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
has requested that NeuStar submit a bid to conduct the California
lottery, which is now performed by the CPUC's Telecommunications
Division. NANPA developed a bid response and has held discussions with
the CPUC. California is examining how it may more closely model its
lottery after other state lotteries. NANPA currently performs lottery
processes for some other states. CPUC is looking for a method of
funding. Under the NANPA requirements document, work performed beyond
the scope of the requirements document as an enterprise function must be
approved by the NANC, as well as the cost associated with the proposed
service, before NANPA may proceed. At this point, NANPA is not seeking a
decision from NANC, but will in the near future as the scope and
requirements are finalized with California. This service may result in a
charge to California service providers; however, the method of funding
and collection is still under discussion.]{.underline}

[Chairman Hoffman commented that he had conferred with the Diane Harmon
and others at the FCC and agreed that if California would like NeuStar,
as the NANPA, to act as its lottery administrator, the service would be
classified as an enterprise service. It is clear that California may not
impose costs on other service providers in other jurisdictions, and
therefore recovery under the NBANC formula would be inappropriate.
Chairman Hoffman further noted that at this time, the matter of
approving an enterprise service is not ripe for further discussion and
decision by the NANC ]{.underline}

[Helen Mickiewicz, CPUC, clarified that the perception that the CPUC was
suggesting that service providers outside of California pay for their
lottery is incorrect. California is simply trying to figure the best way
to fund the lottery. The NeuStar bid response proposal suggested the
CPUC do the billing, which will involve adding commission staff. The
CPUC is interested in finding another way to do the billing. Vince
Majkowski indicated that collection for California under the NBANC
formula would be outside the scope of NBANC's services.]{.underline}

[NeuStar NANC Support. The NARUC funding account has been established at
NeuStar. Chairman Hoffman sent invoices to companies who requested
billing in December for end of the year budget purposes. Members should
contact Chairman Hoffman if they require an invoice to facilitate their
voluntary contribution payment to NARUC fund. Additionally, a calendar
of working group meetings is posted on the NANC Chair web site
([www.NANC-Chair.org)](http://www.NANC-Chair.org)). ]{.underline}

***[D.]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[
]{.underline}**[NANPA Oversight Working Group Report.]{.underline}***[
Pat Caldwell, Co-Chair, provided the report to the Council. Under the
NANPA performance improvement plan there are a few items that require
ongoing review: the mandatory enterprise services audit, internal
quality measurements, and improvement of administration tools,
]{.underline}*[e.g.,]{.underline}*[ an Oracle-based assignment system is
in place and improvements to the workflow management is ongoing. All
other elements of the 1998 evaluation are closed; however, the
intellectual property rights matter remains open. The WG is working
closely with NANPA to identify IPR items and reach agreement on the
differing views of what should be included in the inventory property
list. ]{.underline}

[The NANPA 1999 performance review survey was distributed on January 3,
2000 through several industry association channels as well as NARUC.
Analysis will take place during first week of April. Surveys are due
back by March 10]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[. Input from the survey
will be included in the final report to be presented at the May 23-24,
2000 NANC meeting. ]{.underline}

[The first draft of the Auditor Requirements Document has been completed
and the WG has created a timeline with the specific steps to complete
the requirements and bidding process. The WG will continue to refine
this first draft during its January meeting.]{.underline}

[Updated NANPA Requirements Document. The WG is on track to begin work
at the end of 2Q00 on the new NANPA Requirements Document. The current
NANPA contract expires November 2002. Chairman Hoffman noted it was
reasonable to allow the WG 3-4 months to come up with timeline and
project work plan. There was no objection. The WG is holding its
February 15-17 meeting in Concord, California and will visit the NANPA
central office code administration offices as part of the 1999
evaluation process.]{.underline}

***[E.]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[Number Resource Optimization
Working Group Report. ]{.underline}***[Beth O'Donnell, Co-Chair,
provided the report to the Council on the pooling monitoring project.
The NRO provided a matrix containing the NPAs in which pooling is
planned or is already in place. Currently, there are eleven states that
have been granted authority for pooling trials, but only 4 states have
identified a specific NPA(s) to begin work on development of a trial, to
date. Individual NRO WG participants have been assigned to track and
monitor state activities, and at this time only four states responded
with matrices. There are 12 other states with pending petitions for
additional authority. ]{.underline}

[The matrix is broken into 4 sections -- the NPA profile; trial
specifics; results to date and a miscellaneous section. The 847 NPA is
the only one with which there is "results to date" at this time. The
miscellaneous section contains a question as to whether there were any
deviations from the INC pooling guidelines. In the FCC delegated
authority orders, states where given the right to deviate as necessary
as long as they sought input from the industry. The biggest deviation
thus far is the use of the Illinois guidelines instead of the INC
guidelines. ]{.underline}

[The NRO is discussing what to report to the Council on a monthly basis.
There is very little data on results at this time. Ms. O'Donnell asked
for suggestions from the Council as to what it would like to see
highlighted in the matrix. Chairman Hoffman praised the NRO WG for its
detailed matrix and stated that reporting on the trials will be very
helpful. Chairman Hoffman also encouraged the NRO to continue to work on
the miscellaneous section, particularly the "problems and successes
encountered." Beth Kistner, ALTS, added that the monitoring tool
exceeded her expectations and complimented the NRO on its work product.
As more trials commence, it will require more effort to keep up, but
having the matrix will be beneficial. Ms. O'Donnell stated that the most
difficult part to fill out has been the NPA profile data. Trina Bragdon,
Maine Public Utilities Commission, who coordinates the State Group that
meets weekly, has been very helpful in answering questions on the NPA
profile. The other information has been extracted from the
numberpool.com web site and inserted in the NRO matrix. ]{.underline}

[In response to Chairman Hoffman's question whether the NRO is
coordinating with the NANPA, Ms. O'Donnell stated the NANPA participates
in the conference calls. Additionally, several state commissions have
been queried and if a state has ordered pooling, NRO has completed its
initial assessment. ]{.underline}

[Helen Mickiewicz, CPUC, suggested that the narrative description under
California in the matrix was incorrect and offered an edit to more
accurately reflect the language in paragraph 19 of the FCC order
delegating pooling authority to the CPUC. California is conducting
pooling in one NPA (310) in the Los Angeles MSA. The Los Angeles MSA
contains more than one NPA, but at this time the CPUC has only ordered a
trial in the 310 NPA. Chairman Hoffman suggested the NRO edit out
"apparently" and insert "initially" and it was agreed that the phrase
"...in spite of that Order" be deleted. Ms. O'Donnell agreed, and added
that the matrix will be edited as suggested, and that sections B&C will
change on a monthly basis. ]{.underline}

[There was discussion concerning how to measure "success" and several
members voiced opinions. Does it mean adding 6 months to the life of an
NPA? Collection of quantitative data over time will assist, but Chairman
Hoffman pointed out that this will be a moving target. ]{.underline}

[Joel Cheskis, NASUCA, asked the NANC to apply the success question to
the matrix as a tool. The NRO is looking for guidance \-- does NANC
think there is something that should be tracked from the beginning that
is not on this list now? At this time, no additional data elements were
suggested. ]{.underline}

[Jim Castagna, Bell Atlantic, noted that one definition of success with
respect to the pooling trials will be whether or not the industry is
ready when it comes time for the national roll out. Another measure of
success in the future is how or whether pooling extended the life of the
NANP. The Matrix is posted on the NANC--Chair.org web page.
]{.underline}

[Tony Pupek asked how far should NANC and the NRO go with monitoring the
trials before getting to a national roll out. If 40 states obtain
authority for trials, will NRO track it? This could become enormous.
Chairman Hoffman stated that this is a good question, but this early in
the process and at this time, we need all the information that can be
gathered. Diane Harmon, Designated Federal Officer, stated that the
delegation orders made it clear, when a national pooling scheme is in
place the state "trials" will be eliminated. The Optimization
]{.underline}*[Report and Order]{.underline}*[ will address the pooling
issue. ]{.underline}

[COCUS Work to Date. Mike Whaley, NRO Co-Chair, presented the update on
the COCUS Hybrid requirements development. The NRO has begun its initial
evaluation at a high level, accepted contributions, and discussed a few
key points and assumptions. A few of the basic assumptions are as
follows: (1) Carrier forecasts should be the primary driver for NPA and
NANP exhaust projects; (2) an average growth factor should be developed
to use as an initial reasonableness test of a carrier's forecast; (3)
the historical growth factor developed will be used as a secondary
reasonableness test of the forecast, and (4) new entrant footprint and
expansion forecasts should be automatically accepted with limited review
by the NANPA. ]{.underline}

[The NRO is also recommending a comparison of utilization data to
another set of correlative date that shows growth over a period of time,
"time series analysis," which uses external variables to help evaluate
what the growth is when the model is developed. Additionally, the new
tool should also include some kind of impact on pent up demand after an
NPA has been in jeopardy prior to the relief process taking place and
exhaust calculations being made. These are some of the basic discussions
that are still taking place at the NRO. ]{.underline}

[As next steps, the NRO will develop a work plan with dates and
objectives of the requirements document. The WG has been meeting via
conference call and has scheduled calls through June 2000. Mr. Whaley
stated that the conference call meetings address a mix of issues, not
just the COCUS requirements document development. ]{.underline}

***[F.]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[Local Number Portability
Administration (LNPA) Working Group Report.]{.underline}***[ Shelly
Shaw, Co-Chair, provided the report to the Council. Anna Miller provided
the Wireless Number Portability Subcommittee (WNPSC) status report with
an update on three key issues. The WNPSC discussed the need to support
the jurisdictional information parameter (JIP) to identify the
originating switch for certain types of billing
(]{.underline}*[see]{.underline}*[ matrix item 3H) and agreed that a
liaison will be sent to T1S1.6, TR45.2 and T1P1.5 requesting that JIP be
made a wireless requirement to support billing. The CTIA Number Advisory
Group has approved the wireless inter-carrier communications report for
distribution (]{.underline}*[see]{.underline}*[ matrix item 2H). A draft
test plan template has been completed for turn up and wireless to
wireless inter-carrier testing. Conference calls are scheduled through
February to complete the test scripts. Ms. Miller also reported that Jim
Grasser has resigned as Co-chair and the WNPSC is now accepting
nominations for his replacement. With regard to the Wireless Number
Portability Report, the section assignments and are to be submitted to
Anne Cummins, who is the report editor, by February 21,
2000.]{.underline}

## [LNP Problem Identification and Management (PIM). Ms. Shaw reported that PIM has now closed 2 issues, has 2 open issues and just accepted a new issue. All PIM issues are tracked on the open PIM issues list which is located on the LNPA WG web page. The next LNP WG meeting will be held in San Francisco, from February 14-18, 2000.]{.underline}

## [NPAC/SMS Release Status. The Requirements development for Release 4.0 are in the final stages and the final package of change orders should be presented to the LLCs on February 24]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[. The Number Pooling Subcommittee will review the test case and development of a testing strategy for Release 3.0. Currently, Release 3.0 is on track for testing and implementation. ]{.underline}

## [Slow Horse Update. Steve Addicks, MCIWorldcom, provided the status report and background regarding the recommendation to change the broadcast timer cycle in the NPAC. When the NPAC broadcast attempts to send to a service provider information about a ported number, it sends a message and waits up to 5 minutes for an acknowledgement. If it is not received, the NPAC broadcasts again, waits another 5 minutes, and if it still has not received an acknowledgement, it broadcasts a third time; if there is still no acknowledgement, it drops the association of the service provider's system of the LSMS. This timer is called a 3x5. ]{.underline}

## [The WG has recommended a change to the NPAC timer from 3x5 change to a 1x15. It would reduce the loads on the service providers' systems, and should improve system availability. After 3 attempts and a drop, the service provider's system is effectively offline until the service provider realizes that it has been dropped and attempts to re-associate. This is a resynchronization process. A partial failure list is maintained by the NPAC. Changing the timer to a more tolerable level will reduce the load on service providers and reduce the times that service providers might be disassociated from the NPAC. The current system is not affording adequate response time and the LSMSs are not getting the data on ported numbers. The LNPA WG sent a message to LLCs regarding this problem and recommended the 1x15 timer solution. The acknowledgement of the broadcast is the problem. The message is received but the networks are not able to respond in time, therefore LSMS subsequent broadcast will also fail. ]{.underline}

# [With regard to the LSMS availability requirement, the Slow Horse Committee has made some progress on writing that requirement. There is still an open question on the LSMS performance requirement of what the peak broadcast value is. Some vendors question whether "peaking value" is an important issue, and suggest that there may be some different ways to write the requirement. This will be discussed at the next subcommittee meeting. ]{.underline}

***[G.]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[Cost Recovery Working Group
Report. ]{.underline}***[Elsa Morris, Co-Chair, provided the report to
the Council. The CRWG was charged at the November meeting with
developing a dollar estimate for the NBANC to use to develop a carrier
contribution factor for billing and collection for fiscal year July 1,
2000 to June 30, 2001 (FY 2001). This was for the COCUS replacement. The
dollar estimate would be for the first year's payment. The NBANC plans
to submit the filing for FCC approval by the first week of May 2000. The
CRWG calculates that it needs to provide dollar estimates to the NANC
for approval no later than the April 25-26 meeting, in order to
subsequently provide the figure to the NBANC prior to its filing
deadline with the FCC. The CRWG has sent a memo to the NRO WG seeking
cost elements of the planned COCUS replacement tool. ]{.underline}

[Ed Gould, AT&T, questioned whether there would be additional carrier
cost on an ongoing basis, beyond the initial development costs assessed,
as a result of the new COCUS because of more work by the NANPA to
analyze the data. Anne La Lena, Co-Chair, responded that the question
may be premature, but increased carrier cost is a distinct possibility.
The CRWG has come up with several cost categories, but at this point it
is unknown. ]{.underline}

***[H.]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[Industry Numbering Committee
(INC) Report to the NANC. ]{.underline}***[ Shawn Murphy, INC Moderator,
provided the report to the Council. Mr. Murphy reviewed the list of INC
workshops and meetings held since the last NANC meeting. The INC 47 was
held January 10-17]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[. During the LNPA
workshop, the Thousand Block Pooling Administration Guidelines were
reissued, dated January 10, 2000. There are still 5 open issues on the
pooling guidelines that need to be resolved. The goal is to close the
issues and release an updated version of the guidelines by April 1,
2000. The current document is available on the ATIS web site at
http://www.atis.org/atis/clc/inc/incdocs.htm. ]{.underline}

[Also, during the LNPA Workshop, Issue 177 Unassigned Number Porting
(UNP), was addressed. There are nine contributions that will be
addressed during the February interim meeting.
]{.underline}*[See]{.underline}*[ handout #16 for a complete list of
meetings. ]{.underline}

[Mr. Murphy stated that no contributions have been received on Issue
164, Individual Telephone Number (ITN) pooling.]{.underline}

[With respect to the scope of development for UNP, questions were raised
as to what the INC going to do with it -- there needs to be an agreed
upon architecture in order to develop guidelines and administrative
practices. However, right now the INC is focused on the 1K pooling
guidelines. ]{.underline}

[Beth Kistner, ALTS, stated that there are substantial policy issues to
be dealt with regarding UNP and questioned whether the INC has decided
to go down a path for a narrow architecture. Norm Epstein stated that
GTE would like to see this issue worked, and for the Council to come up
with an agreed upon definition of what the concept really means. Peter
Guggina stated that with regard to UNP, there is a need for a policy
decision at the national level which allows for the porting of
unassigned numbers. ]{.underline}

[It was noted that INC does not have a target date to return to NANC
with a UNP definition and that the NPRM does not address UNP beyond
listing it one of the many optimization tools contained in the NANC NRO
Report. Tony Pupek stated that the INC will report back to NANC at the
March meeting, and added that the FCC has already provided guidance in
the NPRM. Chairman Hoffman stated that the concept needs to be fleshed
out a little more. Beth O'Donnell clarified that during the development
of the NANC NRO Report, the Working Group simply ran out of time and was
not able to fully explore UNP and its potential uses. Therefore, the FCC
did not have much of a record on the matter. Ms. O'Donnell opined that
UNP is an optimization method that gets at the embedded resource.
]{.underline}

[Diane Harmon, DFO, stated that there was a lack of information on UNP
-- beyond understanding that it was another way to break down the blocks
of numbers. In selecting optimization methods to focus on, the Bureau
considered how soon we could implement UNP. More information would be
desirable on this matter. ]{.underline}

[Audit Workshop Update]{.underline}. Mr. Murphy stated that the INC has
drafted a new section for the CO Code Guidelines on audits. The goal is
to incorporate Audit Framework into the CO Code Guidelines by the end of
the 2Q2000.

INC has requested clarification from the NANC on its recommendation
regarding the collection of utilization data from resellers;
specifically, whether data should be collected from resellers with 1000
sequential TNs, or a total of 1000 TNs. Chairman Hoffman suggested
inserting "sequential" in the NANC recommendation. Vincent Majkowski and
Gilbert Orozco agreed that it should be sequential based on their
earlier work on this issue as an IMG. There was no objection to the
change from the full Council.

[NANP Expansion Workshop Update]{.underline}. Norm Epstein provided the
review of the status report on the Interim INC NANP Expansion Report,
which was released on December 10, 1999 to regulators in the North
American Numbering Plan. A larger document, referred to as the reference
document in the context of the report, is available. The INC is
continuing to accept contributions and has received a recent
contribution from U S West. The objective is to select a single option,
but an agreement is needed from all the NANP member countries. The
expansion plan will need a transition plan. Confirmation of the INC
assumptions is needed and if no feed back is received, then it will be
assumed that there is agreement with the INC assumptions.

The INC has made the following key assumptions. Prior to NANP expansion
the INC Uniform Dialing Plan will be approved and implemented throughout
the NANP. This is 10 digit dialing and the elimination of the current
use of the prefix "1". Next, the release of the "D" digit will not occur
prior to the NANP expansion. The two proposed network changes are
[not]{.underline} independent of one another. When the "D" digit is
released, Central Office codes beginning with either 0 or 1 will be
introduced and the network will no longer be able to support seven digit
dialing.

There was discussion concerning the assumptions and the policy issues
that they raise. Karen Mulberry stated that the NANC should come up with
a clear decision. As an aside, Ms. Mulberry noted that in the United
Kingdom, the dialing plan has undergone several expansions. Chairman
Hoffman noted that the FCC is an addressee on the ATIS letter and
recommended forming a special IMG to come up with a suggestion for the
FCC. Vince Majkowski emphasized that this is an *interim* report, which
has generated a number of concerns, but it is not the gospel. Mr.
Epstein added that the expansion study has been going on for 4 years and
he will go back to the INC to obtain an end date.

The Council agreed to form an IMG for the purpose of developing a
response that can be recommended to the full NANC and if approved,
forward to the FCC to consider in its response to the ATIS letter.
Chairman Hoffman appointed Trent Boaldin and Beth Kistner as co-chairs.
The following volunteered to be participants on the IMG: Adam Newman,
Telcordia; Ron Havens, Sprint; Julie Petersen, SBC; Eleanor Willis,
WinStar; Lori Messing, CTIA; Rose Bredenbaugh, WinStar; Mike Whaley, U S
West; Norm Epstein, GTE; Karen Mulberry, MCIWorldCom; Ed Gould, AT&T;
Jim Castagna, BellAtlantic, and Ron Binz, CPI.

The Expansion Assumptions IMG will report at the next NANC meeting with
a work plan and deadline to prepare a draft recommended response to the
December 10, 1999 ATIS letter to the 19 NANP member country regulators.
The purpose of this IMG is to assist the FCC with developing a response
to the ATIS letter.

Chairman Hoffman noted that the NARUC Winter meeting is coming up in
March. JoAnne Sanford will be here next month. INC has attached a 1994
NARUC resolution, which still stands, to the INC Interim NANP Expansion
Report. Natalie Billingsley pointed out that the area code issues today
are very different from what they were in 1994.

Chairman Hoffman stated that the AdHoc Telecommunications Users
Committee letter of January 14, 2000, to NANC deserves a response. The
AdHoc letter expresses its concern that the INC document "...appears to
accept NANP exhaust as a given, and the need to introduce additional
digits into NANP telephone numbers as inevitable." A NANC response to
AdHoc should emphasize that the INC expansion study is being worked in
parallel with, and not instead of, numbering resource optimization
measures. Norm Epstein volunteered to prepare a first draft for the
Chairman's review.

***I.** **[Number Pooling IMG Report and
Recommendation]{.underline}***[. Peter Guggina, IMG Chair, provided the
report to the Council. The IMG has reached acceptance of the NeuStar
proposal and has determined that it is consistent with the Requirements
Document, finalized on the December 22]{.underline}^[nd]{.underline}^[
NANC conference call. Mr. Guggina stated that this is the final analysis
and suggested closure and discussed next steps. Copies of the proposal
were delivered to Chairman Hoffman and Diane Harmon, FCC, during the
meeting. ]{.underline}

[Chairman Hoffman complimented the IMG and stated he was very impressed
with their work. Chairman Hoffman stated he is not ready to ask NANC to
approve the IMG's recommendation and the NeuStar proposal until the
issue of the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) requirement is resolved. The
response must go public for all the NANC members and suggested that the
Legal Expertise WG should review the proposal and provide a top down
summary. Chairman Hoffman further opined that if the NANC is going to
approve this deal, it should make the price public, but first it must
resolve the non-disclosure issue by eliminating the need for the NDA.
Joe Franlin, NeuStar responded that he would like to take the matter
back to their Counsel. Greg Roberts, NeuStar stated that a redacted
version of the proposal would be provided. ]{.underline}

[Peter Guggina stated that the IMG will follow up with a memorandum to
the NANC summarizing the work and recommendation. Lolita Smith, CTIA
stated that it would be necessary to at least review the redacted
version of the response to the requirements document before the full
Council could complete its recommendation to the FCC in addition to
reviewing the IMG report and recommendation. Mr. Guggina responded,
speaking as the MCIWorldCom NANC representative, that this is complex
document, which the IMG introduced to the Steering Group in slices. At
any time, any NANC member who signed a non-disclosure agreement could
have reviewed it -- but keep in mind that the FCC is working on an early
spring order for number pooling. Ed Gould echoed Mr. Guggina's concerns,
adding that review of the documents was expected by all Council members
and available for review if members signed a non-disclosure agreement.
]{.underline}

[Chairman Hoffman commented that the NANC assigned this to the IMG and
they have done a remarkable job. Their recommendation is to accept the
proposal. The NANC will not renegotiate provisions of the contract. The
NANC needs to see a summary describing what the IMG has done and what
the recommendation provides, in an outline, so everyone understands and
can reach a level of comfort. It would be helpful to resolve
non-disclosure agreement matter and to give the Legal Expertise WG a few
days to go through the bid response. Peter Guggina suggested that the
IMG report key points in the document, including confidential
information, in anticipation that the confidentiality issue is resolved.
]{.underline}

[Next Steps. Resolve non-disclosure agreement issue with NeuStar by the
end of the week. Allow the reconstituted Legal Expertise WG an
opportunity to review the response and identify any legal jeopardy that
that has not been recognized by the end of the next week. The IMG will
provide everyone with a report summary by early next week. NANC members
will have an opportunity to ask questions and possibly vote on the
recommendation between now and the next meeting. Diane Harmon suggested
that the NANC act before the February 22-23, 2000 meeting. ]{.underline}

***[J. ]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[Oversight of Limited Liability
Corporations (LLCs) Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC)
Activities]{.underline}***[. Pamela Connell, AT&T, was present to answer
questions. There were no questions. Going forward, Chairman Hoffman
requested an LLC activities update at each NANC meeting.]{.underline}

### [January 19, 2000]{.underline}

***K.** **North American Billing and Collection Update.*** John Ricker,
Chief Executive Officer, NBANC, provided the report to the Council. Mr.
Ricker reviewed the NANPA Fund Year 3 factor development for the period
March 2000 through June 2001, which resulted in a new factor filed on
November 22, 1999 with the FCC for approval. The factor was approved on
December 30, 1999; a copy of the *Order* approving the factor is
attached to the handout provided. The new factor is 0.0000577 and
supports the net domestic funding requirement of \$15.6M, based on a
6-month revenue data collection on FCC Form 499S. The new reporting
form, 499A (effective April 1, 1999) provides more extensive industry
information and revenue data. With the use of Form 499A, reported
revenues are expected to be higher and more accurate than the September
1999 data collection. All carriers must file the FCC Form 499A.

[NBANC will go through a "true-up" process in April 2000 to test the new
revenue data to determine if a change in the revenue base necessitates a
modification of the 0.0000577 contribution factor. It is assumed that a
new factor will be needed. By May a revised factor will be filed with
the FCC with approval expected by the end of June. The payments due July
12 will reflect the revised factor. The new factor will be applied to
the newly reported revenues of every carrier billed in February for Year
3 funding. The difference in what was paid based on the 0.000057 factor
and what is owed based on the revised factor will be calculated. As a
result, carriers who made a one time annual payment on March 12 will be
billed for the balance owed if the revised factor results in a larger
contribution requirement. Refunds will be issued in the opposite case.
Carriers which pay monthly will see adjustments up or down depending on
the impact of the new factor. In the case of ]{.underline}*[de minimus
]{.underline}*[carriers who previously owed only the minimum
contribution requirement of \$25, a larger revised factor will result in
bills issued for a balance owed. The handout provided included examples
of various payment adjustment scenarios. The disbursement schedule for
the payments to NANP Administration is included in the handout.
]{.underline}

[In January 2000 the NBANC staff will write to the Caribbean nations and
telephone companies and the Canadian regulatory authorities to explain
the Year 3 funding process and explain their contribution amount for the
16-month period. ]{.underline}

[Mr. Ricker provided the NANPA Fund Performance Status Report to the
Council in a handout. The current fund balance is \$918K; projected
receivables are \$306K; payments to Lockheed/NeuStar to date total
\$3.57 million with \$713K remaining. Payments to NECA to date total
\$234K with \$43K remaining. Board expenses to date total \$12,475 with
\$12.5K remaining. Payments to the external auditor,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, in year one total \$19,250, with year 2 payments
estimated at \$22K. ]{.underline}

[Mr. Ricker extended his thanks and appreciation for the service
Commissioner Majkowski provided as Chairman of the NBANC Board, and
stated that Vince's hard work on the Board resulted in a very smooth
NBANC process.]{.underline}

***[L.]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[LERG Tutorial.]{.underline}***[
Adam Newman, Telcordia Technologies, provided a comprehensive handout
and detailed presentation to the Council in response to an action item
from the November NANC meeting. An electronic copy of the handout is
available by request from . The NANC invited Telcordia to give a
presentation on how the local exchange and routing guide (LERG)
operates, the traffic routing procedures, and how data is kept up to
date. ]{.underline}

[Mr. Newman reviewed the code opening, NPA relief and traffic routing
administration (TRA) topics as they relate to Telcordia and its
interface responsibilities with NANPA. With respect to NPA relief
planning, pursuant to the INC guidelines, the NPA relief coordinator
makes arrangements with Telcordia's TRA to update the Routing Database
System (RDBS) and other systems. TRA provides basic routing and rating
data covering the public switched network. It serves as the focal point
for inter-company exchange of pertinent routing and rating data. The
RDBS and the LERG reflect the current status of central office codes.
Timely reporting of data by code holders is essential. An output of RDBS
is the LERG, which contains all the RDBS data. For further information
and detailed explanation of these processes, see handout #23.
]{.underline}

***[M. ]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[Steering Group Report.
]{.underline}***[Vince Majkowski, Co-Chair, SG, provided the report to
the Council. Tony Pupek reviewed the revised NANC projects/activities
matrix. Item 4 on the matrix, NANP expansion policy issue decisions, was
assigned to the "Assumptions" IMG. Item 11, development of pooling
guidelines, was updated to reflect the next INC update in April 2000.
Item 17, development of audit guidelines, added CO Code guidelines to be
incorporated by 2Q2000. This matrix will be on the SG's agenda going
forward as a tool to keep everyone informed of the NANC's activities.
]{.underline}

[Mr. Majkowski continued with the report. With respect to working group
or IMG meeting minutes, Chairs should keep the NANC Chair's web site
updated with dates and meeting minutes -- either quick summaries or
complete minutes. Peter Guggina suggested development of instructions on
how to do this and that submissions should be sent directly to John
Manning at NANPA for posting to the NANC-Chair.org web page. Dan
Hochvert suggested that there should also be a process for removal of
materials to avoid cluttering the web page. Chairman Hoffman stated that
the NANC Chair web site is intended as a convenience for this group. A
calendar and summarized meeting records are posted there to keep people
informed. One master calendar with all the related meetings will assist
in avoiding meeting conflicts. Working Group Chairs are to assume
responsibility to post items to the web page. ]{.underline}

[Legal Expertise WG Status. Five participants have been identified to be
on the reconstituted working group: Megan Campbell, ATIS; Mike Slomin,
Telcordia; John Goodman, Bell Atlantic; Terry Romine, ALTS; and Hank
Hultquist, MCIWorldCom. Chairman Hoffman will send an e-mail to the
group to confirm. Their first assignment is the analysis and legal
review of the NeuStar response to the requirements document. This action
item will be included in the NANC matrix. The Legal WG is open to more
nominations. ]{.underline}

[The issue of unified messaging service issues was tabled for this
meeting in Phil McClelland's absence. ]{.underline}

[NARUC Travel Expense Funding. The SG discussed the funding of the state
commission members. Current funding is for three commissioners and three
staffers. There was discussion on whether funding should be extended to
the NASUCA members and to the Cook County, IL State's Attorney office, a
nominee for a NANC seat. There was also discussion on whether the NANC
should seek input formally on what entities should be offered NANC
membership. The SG decided not to suggest going to the FCC to request a
formal proceeding for NANC membership.]{.underline}

[With respect to the cost of doing business, there was a suggestion to
reduce the number of face to face meetings from10 to 6 per year, with
conference calls to be added as needed. There was discussion concerning
the voluntary industry funding of the state commission seats, and the
effect of adding the additional NARUC and NASUCA seats to the Council.
With respect to membership in general, any entity has the ability to
petition directly to the Chief, CCB for membership. Representation on
the NANC is determined by the Common Carrier Bureau. ]{.underline}

[Funding of a Consultant -- Bonnie Baca. The SG discussed the proposed
scope of the activity, the functions to be done and the job description.
Chairman Hoffman was asked what are the requirements of the Chair.
Chairman Hoffman gave the results of a poll taken on continued funding
at the current level (13 in favor and 1 opposed); additional funding for
"non-profits" (4 in favor and 9 opposed); and funding for a consultant
(5 in favor and 8 opposed). ]{.underline}

[Chairman Hoffman stated that invoices were sent to 20 companies that
were prior contributors. If any company wishes to contribute less than
1K and needs an invoice for processing, send an e-mail to the Chair and
an invoice for a specific amount will be sent. This is funding for the
three NARUC seats. ]{.underline}

As background information as to how the NARUC funding began, Vincent
Majkowski stated that in June 1997, the NARUC Board of Directors was
approached concerning funding of his active participation on the
Council. The NARUC Board determined that state participants on the NANC
could accept travel fund reimbursement from the industry members, who
contributed on a voluntary basis to a travel fund for that purpose. Brad
Ramsay, NARUC, stated that two pending nominations for replacement NARUC
members are conditioned on the availability of travel funds. Diane
Harmon added that there is a desire to increase state participation, but
so far the Bureau has not received the NARUC nominations. Ms. Harmon
also clarified that there is no statutory or federal mechanism to fund
the NANC membership.

Chairman Hoffman remarked that the expense reports and travel vouchers
are submitted through the Chairman for review before payment. The
funding of the NARUC members is totally voluntary.

Dan Hochvert stated that Bell Atlantic believes it is advantageous to
have early input from all significant parties; there have been times
when the NARUC and NASUCA positions have not been represented early
enough -- which results in the industry spending more time and money.
Therefore, Bell Atlantic supports adequate funding to be available for
NARUC and NASUCA participation.

Diane Harmon stated that the Bureau is prepared to replace the NARUC
seats, but is interested in specific feedback from the NANC with regard
to the Cook County Illinois nomination, Robert Ruiz, which would require
travel reimbursement. Currently, the NASUCA members do not get
reimbursed for travel expenses from the travel fund. The Bureau does not
want to unilaterally impose a burden on the industry to fund another
seat.

Harold Salters, PCIA, noted that voluntary contributions may not work
going forward, and that the NANC may have to consider using another
funding mechanism. Karen Westrick, Omnipoint, added that funding should
be for the three NARUC seats only. Peter Guggina stated that originally,
NANC did not agree to fund all non-profits; the fund was established for
three NARUC members. Chairman Hoffman stated that the travel cost
amounts to approximately \$1K per state (1 commissioner and 1 staff
member) per month.

Chairman Hoffman addressed the consultant issue, explaining that this
would increase the need for industry funding contributions. The Chair
was asked whether he needed assistance; the Chair, in turn, asked the
Council whether it thinks he needs assistance; *i.e.* whether he is
doing an adequate job without the additional support. No decision was
reached on this issue and it was carried forward to the next meeting.

Concluding the SG report, Vince Majkowski gave his parting remarks,
thanking the Council for the experience of working together on many
issues and adding how much he appreciated the association.

Chairman Hoffman stated he will keep the NANC informed as it goes
through the 1K pooling process, i.e., resolution of the non-disclosure
matter and whether there will be a NANC conference call scheduled before
the next regularly scheduled meeting.

[Disclaimer Statement for NANPA COCUS Update]{.underline}. Pat Caldwell
read the proposed disclaimer. *NANPA exhaust projections contained
herein may change based on demand for numbering resources and are
subject to modification or revision by the NANPA as new data becomes
available and is reported*.

Chairman Hoffman asked if the disclaimer is a reasonable heads up for
the state regulators, and whether it is clear that you "can't go to the
bank" with these numbers. Exhaust projection is not an exact science.
Erin Duffy approved of the disclaimer, adding that regulatory staff who
work in this area have an understanding of the process and that the
numbers are subject to change. As staff and commissioners, the best they
can do is to make decisions based on the information that they have, and
revisit when new data becomes available. It is understood that the
numbers may change. Vince Majkowski added that NARUC members on the
Council are more attuned to the volatility of such data. The disclaimer
will assist colleagues who are not as familiar with this issue. Natalie
Billingsley stated that a fairly clear disclaimer is needed -- estimates
and data will and do change over time.

It was recommended that the proposed statement be modified to read as
follows: *NANPA exhaust projections contained herein may change, subject
to numbering resource demand, and are subject to modification or
revision by the NANPA as new data is available and analyzed.*

***[N. ]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[Other Business.]{.underline}***[
Diane Harmon, DFO, made the following announcements. Several months ago,
the NANC Alternate DFO, Jared Carlson was promoted to legal council to
the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau. Jeannie Grimes has been selected as
the Alternate DFO. Blaise Scinto, Deputy Chief, Network Services
Division, has transferred to the Policy Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB). Diane Harmon will step down as DFO to
assume the duties of the Deputy Chief, NSD. Although not named as yet,
Ms. Harmon stated she would assist the new DFO at the February NANC
meeting. Ms. Harmon thanked Chairman Hoffman and the Council for the
opportunity and experience working with them. ]{.underline}

NANPA received a request from Guyana, South America to become part of
the NANP and forwarded the letter to Chief, Common Carrier Bureau for
advice in preparation for its response. In the letter dated January 5,
2000 to the NANPA, citing a strain on already scarce numbering
resources, the CCB opined that the request should be denied. A copy of
the letter will be circulated to the full Council.

***O. ** **Next Meeting:*** February 22-23, 2000.

***VI.** **[Action Items and Decisions Reached. ]{.underline}***

[1. NANC Chair to meet with CCB leadership and report back to NANC about
the meaning and impact of its decision regarding the New York Public
Service Commission 914 NPA split.]{.underline}

2\. NANPA Oversight Working Group. The NANPA Oversight WG will work with
NANPA to develop and publish a disclaimer for the December 1999 NPA
exhaust analysis.

[3. NANPA Oversight Working Group. The working group will provide NANC
with: (a) 1999 performance evaluation status in May 2000; (b) NANPA
requirement document time line and project plan by
mid-2000.]{.underline}

[4. NANPA will clarify if utilization reporting is requested for the
2000 COCUS.]{.underline}

[5. INC Report. NANC reached agreement that the reporting requirements
relating to Reseller/Type 1 wireless carriers shall be for "sequential"
TNs in quantities of at least 1000.]{.underline}

6\. [NANC agreed to form an IMG to address the two assumptions presented
by INC's NANP Expansion Workshop (a) approve and implement the INC
uniform dialing plan and (b) release of the D digit will not occur prior
to NANP expansion. The IMG Co-Chairs are Trent Boaldin, OPASTCO and Beth
Kistner, ALTS. The IMG will report back at the February 22-23 NANC
meeting with its initial assessment of the work effort. IMG is
ultimately to prepare a recommendation for NANC approval and forwarding
to the FCC. ]{.underline}

7\. [Norm Epstein (GTE) will prepared a response to the Ad Hoc letter
(NANC #20) for NANC Chair and NANC review prior to sending out.
]{.underline}

8\. [Number Pooling IMG will provide the NANC with a memo that describes
the details associated with its recommendation to the NANC of the latest
proposal for the PA function. ]{.underline}

9\. [NeuStar and NANC Chair to resolve existing non-disclosure issue by
January 21]{.underline}^[st]{.underline}^[.]{.underline}

10\. [The Legal Expertise Working Group has been reconstituted. Its
first assignment is to review the NeuStar response to the PA
Requirements Document. Participants include Hank Hultquist, MCIWorldCom
(Chair); Terry Romine, ALTS, James H. Bolin, Jr., AT&T; John Goodman,
Bell Atlantic, and Mike Slomin, Telcordia. The review should be
completed by January 28]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[.]{.underline}

11\. [The NANC decision on the PA recommendation will be addressed via
conference call or at the next NANC meeting based on IMG input.
]{.underline}