***North American Numbering Council***

# [Meeting Minutes]{.underline}

# [October 19-20, 1999 (final ]{.underline}*[11.17.99]{.underline}[)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.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. Dan Hochvert/Chuck Eppert Bell Atlantic]{.underline}

[3. Terry Monroe/ Jonathon Lee CompTel]{.underline}

[4. Lolita Smith CTIA]{.underline}

[5. Norm Epstein GTE]{.underline}

[6. Peter Guggina MCI WorldCom]{.underline}

[7. Gerry Thompson Mobility Canada]{.underline}

[8. Jo Anne Sanford/Erin Duffy NARUC]{.underline}

[9. Vincent Majkowski/Rebecca Quintana NARUC]{.underline}

[10. Philip McClelland NASUCA]{.underline}

[11. Natalie Billingsley NASUCA]{.underline}

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

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

[14. Ray Strassburger/Art Dawe Nortel Networks]{.underline}

[15. Trent Boaldin/Steve Pastorkovich OPASTCO]{.underline}

[16. Harold Salters PCIA]{.underline}

[17. Bill Adair SBC]{.underline}

[18. Ron Havens Sprint]{.underline}

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

[20. Gerry Rosenblatt TIA]{.underline}

[21. Tony Pupek USTA]{.underline}

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

[John Manning NANPA]{.underline}

# [Maria Estefania     ATIS]{.underline}

Leo Mevel CRTC

[Commission Employees]{.underline}:

Diane Griffin Harmon, Designated Federal Officer (DFO)

Jared Carlson, Alternate DFO

Blaise Scinto, Deputy Chief, Network Services Division (NSD), Common
Carrier Bureau

Les Selzer, NSD, CCB

Aaron Goldberger, NSD, CCB

Barry Payne, NSD, CCB

Patrick Forster, NSD, CCB

Tejal Mehta, NSD, CCB

Jeannie Grimes, NSD, CCB

Craig Stroup, Industry Analysis Division, CCB

***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}

[(1a) September 28-29, 1999, NANC Meeting Minutes (draft)]{.underline}

\(2\) [ North American Numbering Plan Administration Report
]{.underline}

\(3\) [ Beth O'Donnell Proposal re: Suggested Activity for the NRO
WG]{.underline}

\(4\) [ LNPA Working Group Report]{.underline}

\(5\) [ Wireless Number Portability Subcommittee Report]{.underline}

\(6\) [ WNPSC Status Report ]{.underline}

\(7\) [ Cost Recovery Working Group Update]{.underline}

\(8\) [ NANC Contributions to the Audit Framework Document]{.underline}

\(9\) [ NANC letter to Limited Liability Corporations
(LLCs)]{.underline}

\(10\) [Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Number Pooling, revised
10/18/99]{.underline}

\(11\) [Table of NANC Projects/Activities, Contribution by Bell
Atlantic, ]{.underline}

[BellSouth, GTE, U S West and USTA]{.underline}

\(12\) [ NBANC letter to NBANC Board of Directors, 10/8/99; NBANC Report
]{.underline}

\(13\) [ NBANC letter to All Telecommunications Service Providers,
10/15/99 ]{.underline}

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

***A.** **[Opening Remarks. ]{.underline}***[ Chairman John Hoffman
provided opening remarks.]{.underline}***[ ]{.underline}***

# ***[B. ]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) Report. ]{.underline}***[John Manning, NANPA, presented the NANPA report. In response to the issue of what entity is responsible for coordinating NPA relief planning meetings, Mr. Manning stated that an analysis of the Requirements Document and Lockheed's response indicated that the NANPA's obligation is limited to coordinating the first planning meeting, and to be available as needed for additional meetings. He stated that the industry could ask the NANPA to handle future meetings. Chairman Hoffman added that NANPA also must attend subsequent meetings but not call and facilitate those meetings, and that he read the Requirements Document to say facilitation of subsequent meetings would be an enterprise service. Peter Guggina, MCI WorldCom, stated that he agreed with the analysis, and recommended that the NANC reach consensus on the issue so that it would be in the record. He also noted his sympathy to SBC, which must coordinate the subsequent meetings.]{.underline}

Bill Adair, SBC, noted that there is general agreement that if a
requirement is not in the Requirements Document, the NANPA is under no
obligation to perform the duty. That being the case, the next
Requirements Document should be written to ensure that the industry gets
what it pays for. Chairman Hoffman noted there was consensus that the
NANPA facilitates the initial NPA relief planning meeting, but not
subsequent meetings.

John Manning returned to the presentation. The NANPA has not updated or
modified the NANP Exhaust Model. Chairman Hoffman stated that the
Exhaust Model is a valuable, maybe indispensable tool for the FCC, and
that the NANC should determine how much more work needs to be done to
the model and how much the extra work would cost. There was further
discussion of whether NANPA's contract requires it to update the model,
and whether and how the NANP Exhaust Model could be improved. Issues
raised included whether more time should be spent on expanding the NANP
instead of improving the model; whether the NANPA looked at how long it
would take to improve upon the pooling model, and whether other models
should be looked at, *e.g.*, examining the effects of rate center
consolidation on exhaust. Peter Guggina stated that a very comprehensive
model that the FCC and the NANC could use is needed. Bill Adair noted
that Lockheed had provided a model to use on an NPA-by-NPA basis to
illustrate the effects of number pooling in a particular NPA, and
questioned why this model was not being used more to determine whether
pooling in smaller areas would help. Mr. Manning stated that the model
is available at for use by the industry. Chairman Hoffman stated that he
would meet with the NANPA before the November NANC meeting to discuss
the issue further and to gain a better understanding of how the model
works.

# ***[C. ]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[Number Resource Optimization (NRO) Working Group \-- Draft Work Plan Discussion. ]{.underline}***[Beth O'Donnell, NCTA, Co-chair, briefly discussed the draft NRO work plan. Ms. O'Donnell stated that there is currently no federal body that is charged with overseeing, monitoring, or coordinating the state pooling trials, and Unassigned Number Porting (UNP) has not yet been fully explored. The NANC is the logical body to this. In the waiver petitions, the FCC gave the states authority to stray from the pooling guidelines if they feel it is appropriate, as long as they get input from the industry and other states. Ms. O'Donnell stated that the NANC should be a clearinghouse for information on the pooling trials to facilitate policy recommendations to state commissions and ultimately to make policy recommendations to the FCC on the status of number pooling. Regarding UNP, Ms. O'Donnell stated that this issue arose in the context of the state waiver petitions; she was uncertain what technical reasons and limitations the FCC cited in rejecting ITN and UNP, and suggested that the NRO WG should complete a full exploration of UNP. ]{.underline}

There was support from the California Commission for the proposed plan.
In response to a question from Chuck Eppert, Bell Atlantic, Vince
Majkowski, NARUC, stated that NARUC has no plans to monitor the state
trials.

[In response to a question concerning fill rates, Ms. O'Donnell
responded that she advocates that fill rates be applicable for all NXXs,
not just those that are being contributed to the pool. Mr. Guggina asked
whether INC was already working on UNP, and what the NRO WG was planning
to do differently with regard to UNP. Ms. O'Donnell replied that the INC
had taken it on as an action item but had not worked the issue. Peter
Guggina stated that he would prefer having UNP dealt with in only one
forum, and suggested changing the draft to allow INC to handle issues
relating to UNP.]{.underline}

Tony Pupek, USTA, confirmed that INC has taken on the issue of UNP and
that INC workshop meeting records reflect this work. Ms. O'Donnell
responded that at the October NANC meeting, two different members of the
workshop stated that work on UNP was not being done. Tony Pupek replied
that the meeting records (available on the ATIS web-site) reflect the
work that INC has done with regard to UNP. Ms. O'Donnell replied that,
because UNP has not been a part of INC reports at the NANC, she did not
know that issue is being worked at INC.

Bill Adair and Trent Boaldin, OPASTCO, agreed that INC should continue
to work the UNP issue. Mr. Boaldin expressed his concern with the
oversight role proposed for pooling, stating that if the FCC wanted the
NANC to take part in oversight functions, it would have delegated
authority in the state orders for the NANC to do so.

Additional concerns were raised regarding overlap with the LNPA WG's
work on the development of Release 3.0 and the Illinois pooling trials.
Ms. O'Donnell responded that there is no reporting to NANC for any of
the state pooling trials, and that there is no real coordination or
attempt at an analysis of the benefits of pooling at the federal level
(NANC level).

Tony Pupek stated that tracking the state pooling trials is not a NANC
function and that NARUC is the likely body to assume such an effort.
Peter Guggina responded that NANC has overall responsibility for LNP
implementation and that the NRO WG is well positioned to handle
oversight as long as efforts are not duplicated. Vince Majkowski stated
that the majority of the states do not fully understand the issues
regarding pooling to be able to track them, and stated his support for
the proposal as being very beneficial to the states.

Chairman Hoffman agreed that the NANC should know how the pooling trials
are going, but expressed concern about the possible overlap of duties
with the LNPA WG. He suggested that the LNPA WG and NRO WG meet to
discuss their respective roles with regard to number pooling, and
recommended that the NRO WG and INC meet to discuss the status of UNP.
He further suggested that INC report to the NANC next month on the
status of UNP. Mr. Pupek agreed, but stated that INC had not reported
back to the NANC for the next two months because of its continued work
on the thousands-block pooling administration guidelines.

Norm Eptstein, GTE, questioned the benefit to be gained from having one
working group monitor the state pooling trials, and opined that it would
be more beneficial to have the states report on their pooling trials.
Several members agreed that monitoring information is needed, but that
overlap of efforts should be worked out.

Terry Monroe, CompTel, stated that the NANC should help NARUC get
information concerning the state pooling trials. Peter Guggina agreed,
and suggested that coordination between the groups would eliminate any
overlap.

Lolita Smith, CTIA, questioned what information the NANC expected to
provide before the FCC issues its pooling order that would be helpful.
Chairman Hoffman reiterated that the NANC has a primary responsibility
to know the status of the state pooling trials.

Beth Kistner echoed her support and suggested that it would be
beneficial for the NRO WG to go through the tasks enumerated in Ms.
O'Donnell's draft because both the NANC and the FCC would benefit from
having a common set of data concerning the state pooling trials.

Vince Majkowski explained that NARUC could not address this issue until
February 2000 with a resolution, and suggested that the FCC could direct
those states that have been delegated authority to report to the NANC
information concerning thousands-block number pooling. Joanne Sanford,
NARUC, stated that information coming out of the state pooling trials
would be beneficial to the NANC, the FCC, and to the states, and that
the NANC should collect the information. Chuck Eppert, Bell Atlantic,
agreed, adding that the NANC should merely pass on any information it
receives from the state pooling trials, and refrain from passing any
judgment regarding the trials.

There was further discussion on what group should do the information
gathering for the pooling trials. Ms. O'Donnell explained that the NRO
WG is the "point group" on numbering resource methodology, and thus
should be delegated overall responsibility. Ms. Kistner also suggested
that the chairs from the NRO WG meet with other chairs and report to the
NANC at the November meeting regarding any overlap of duties.

Elsa Morris, Ohio PUC, indicated that the states, through conference
calls, are sharing information on their individual efforts. Chuck Eppert
suggested that the NANC should be part of the dialogue between the
states taking part in pooling trials. Natalie Billingsley, NASUCA,
concurred that the states are working together, but also stated that the
states are individually focused on rolling out pooling.

Chairman Hoffman requested that Ms. O'Donnell take the following
actions: (1) talk to the LNPA WG to eliminate any possible overlap of
duties; (2) talk to NANPA to determine what information they are
currently getting from the states; and (3) talk to the states to see
what information is being shared. With respect to UNP, Chairman Hoffman
suggested that Ms. O'Donnell work with Tony Pupek to determine what the
INC is doing.

[Several members sought clarification as to whether the Chairman was
giving the work assignment to Ms. O'Donnell or the NRO WG. Ms. O'Donnell
responded that she thought the Chairman was giving her the work
assignment, not the entire NRO WG and reiterated that this was not a NRO
WG proposal. Beth Kistner proposed that the authority be given to the
NRO WG, and that the NRO WG should report back on a proposed work plan.
The Council agreed to allow the NRO WG to develop a work plan and report
back at the November meeting. ]{.underline}

***D.** **[ Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group
Report. ]{.underline}***[Shelly Shaw, Nextlink, Co-Chair, presented the
report to the Council. Anna Miller, BellSouth Cellular, presented the
Wireless Number Portability Subcommittee (WNP SC) report. Ms. Miller
first reviewed the key issues addressed in the October 1999 WNP SC
meeting. Regarding standards, T1S1.6, TR45.2, and T1P1.5 Number
Portability committee representatives presented overviews of their
mission, scope, published standards, and work plans. Wireless standards
to support Phase 2 LNP for Call Completion to a Ported Number (CCPN) for
both cellular and personal communications services (PCS) are complete.
The wireless industry also discussed potential gaps in network,
back-office, and provisioning requirements to support LNP. Specifically,
the wireless industry needs to further analyze potential gaps with
billing and call detail record requirements. The WNP SC also discussed
the GTE NANC contribution on the Wireless Wireline Integration Report.
Ed Gray, GTE, presented GTE's contribution for clarification and
discussion. The WNP SC agreed on a preliminary recommendation to address
slamming of pre-pay customers, which will be discussed at the LNPA
WG.]{.underline}

[Ms. Miller reported on the following action items: (1) The WNP SC
continues to analyze potential wireless LNP gaps, and feels that
wireless service providers should consult with their billing vendors to
ensure that Call Detail Records provide information necessary for LNP.
(2) The co-chairs issued a liaison letter to Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) Committee T1 addressing
Letter Ballots 803 and 804 (LB803 and LB804) on Local Service Provider
Identification (LSPI) and Carrier Service Provider Identification
(CSPI), respectively. The WNP SC will evaluate benefits and limitations
of LSPI and CSPI relative to billing requirements. (3) The WNP SC
continues development of the wireless LNP test plan. A conference call
for the test plan group will be held October 22, 1999. This call will be
used to set the meeting schedule and identify wireline and wireless
subject matter experts to develop the network and provisioning test
scenarios and descriptions. The goal is to have several meetings to
complete the test plan, and wireline participation is
welcomed.]{.underline}

[Chairman Hoffman questioned whether the "gap" included anything
critical. Ms. Miller replied that there is probably not anything
critical, especially on the network side, but wireless service providers
should take care to ensure that all information necessary for billing in
a wireless LNP environment is included in the call detail record.
Anything missing should be identified so appropriate standards can be
proposed. Beth O'Donnell questioned whether there are other wireless LNP
standards that are incomplete. Ms. Miller replied that network standards
for call completion to a ported number are complete. ATIS Committee
TR45, however, is still working on a standard for Short Message Service
in a LNP environment, which is expected to be completed in the near
term. Ms. Miller reiterated that service providers should determine what
information is needed in their billing systems, and should speak with
their billing vendors to ensure the required information is included in
the call detail record and their switches will provision that
information.]{.underline}

[Vince Majkowski questioned whether the billing question was previously
included in the Wireless Number Portability Implementation Timeline,
which already extends to November 2002, and if any of the items
currently in the timeline will be delayed further as a result of these
issues. Ms. Miller replied that the timeline did not include the billing
issues. To remain on schedule, service providers must begin internal
testing by February 2001. For this to occur, functional system
development must be completed by the second half of year 2000. Thus, any
impacts due to billing issues must be identified and addressed now, so
the timeline is not affected. Mr. Majkowski requested that these issues
be included in the next version of the timeline. Harold Salters, PCIA,
stated that the issues of billing and the call detail record were
discussed in the most recent WNP SC meeting.]{.underline}

[Ms. Shaw continued with the LNPA WG report presentation. Ms. Shaw
reviewed the items contained in the LNPA WG report: (1) LNP Problem
Identification and Management (PIM); (2) NPAC/SMS Release Status; and
(3) Slow Horse Update. The next LNPA WG meeting is scheduled for
November 8-11, 1999 in San Antonio, Texas. The PIM is currently working
on two open issues, which are being tracked on the PIM open issues list.
Regarding the status NPAC/SMS Release 4.0, change order prioritization
and business need development have been completed. The LNPA WG will
discuss business need and prioritized change orders with the LLCs at the
next WG meeting. Final selection of change orders for the release has
not been completed, but the requirement's development should begin at
the November meeting. For NPAC/SMS Release 3.0, the number pooling
release, the Mid-Atlantic and Southwest LLCs have accepted the statement
of work. The LNPA WG number pooling subcommittee has developed all of
the NPAC requirements and has worked closely with the number pooling
trial in Chicago to verify that the systems and procedures function
properly, and to determine whether any updates from the LNPA WG are
needed. For Release 2.0, the NPAC identified a defect related to the
time stamp in the NPAC, for which a manual workaround is in place. The
NPAC will implement a "fix" on October 31, 1999.]{.underline}

[Regarding the Slow Horse Update, the Northeast LLC requested peak
performance data from Lockheed Martin on behalf of the Slow Horse
subcommittee, but Lockheed Martin responded that the data could not be
utilized in a public forum. Currently, Lockheed Martin and the Northeast
LLC are negotiating what data can be released to the Slow Horse
subcommittee for use in requirements development. LSMS requirements work
is progressing. The draft performance and availability requirements
should be complete before the NANC's April 2000 meeting.]{.underline}

[Tony Pupek, USTA, asked whether a Release 3.0 statement of work would
be given to the NANC at the next meeting. Ms. Shaw replied that the
number pooling subcommittee would provide the NANC with a "readout" on
both Releases 1.4 and 3.0 at the next meeting. Regarding the PIM's two
open items, Ms. Shaw stated that the first item concerns the proper
process flows in a multiple service provider porting situation with
resellers and network service providers, and the second open item
concerns the establishment of a service provider window for LSMS and SOA
maintenance. ]{.underline}

***[E. ]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[Cost Recovery Working Group
Report]{.underline}***[. Co-Chairs]{.underline}***[
]{.underline}***[Anne La Lena and Elsa Morris, Ohio PUC, provided the
report to the Council. In September, CRWG was asked to estimate the
total dollar amount for NBANC to bill and collect for the Year 2000 NANP
activities. Ms. La Lena clarified that this factor is to be used for 16
months, to accommodate the change the fiscal year from March
1]{.underline}^[st\ ]{.underline}^[through February
28]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[ FY to July
1]{.underline}^[st]{.underline}^[ through June
30]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[.]{.underline}

The CRWG estimates that \$700,000 will be needed for Year 2000 audit
activities. This estimate focuses only on audits of Central Office (CO)
codes because this category includes the majority of numbers that are
assigned. Ms. La Lena stated that this estimate was developed using high
level assumptions based on limited knowledge of auditors' salaries,
estimated time expenditure, and estimated scope. The "universe" of
potential audit subjects, *i.e.*, SPs ranges from 1,500 to 3,000. Future
funding estimates will be more specifically defined with regard to
depth, scope and frequency. The CRWG has not examined the policy issue
of who should pay for "for cause" audits.

The CRWG further recommends that the cost of random audits be assessed
on all carriers. The \$700,000 estimate, once approved by the NANC, will
be sent to the NBANC. In response to a question regarding the number of
audits that would be conducted, Ms. Le Lena responded that the CRWG
estimated that the NANPA would conduct 50 to 100 audits with this
\$700,000 figure. Ms. Le Lena also explained that number of audits
conducted will depend on the depth and scope of the audits.

Peter Guggina opined that the \$700,000 figure is too low, and thought
it should be in the \$1 million range. Mr. Guggina also suggested that
the Audits IMG should investigate this issue further. Beth O'Donnell
opined that the \$700,000 figure was too high because half the year will
have passed by the time the audit program would actually be implemented.
Regarding "for cause" audits, Ms. O'Donnell stated that regulators
should conduct them and the audited entity should pay for them. Chairman
Hoffman asked whether the \$700,000 figure takes into account the fact
that the audited carrier will pay for the for cause audit. Ms. Le Lena
explained that the \$700,000 estimates the cost of random audits only.

There was discussion on whether the \$700,00 figure is appropriate, and
whether the assumptions used to arrive at this figure were appropriate.
Ms. Le Lena stated that there was agreement that the CRWG would not
release the assumptions.

Peter Guggina opined that charging the audited carrier would discourage
the development of a constructive relationship, and suggested that the
issue of who paid for the audit needed to be resolved before the NANC
could decide on a final figure. Chairman Hoffman suggested that the
figure be accepted contingent upon the Audits IMG report recommendation
on who would pay for "for cause" audits, and that the members vote on
the final figure after the Audits IMG resolved this issue in its session
later that day. The Council reached consensus on this plan.

# ***[F. ]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[Audits Issue Management Group (IMG). ]{.underline}***[Karen Mulberry presented the Audits Framework document. Contributions were received from four NANC members, all of which were incorporated verbatim. The NANPA OWG will review the document to reconcile the comments with the rest of the document this month.]{.underline}

There was discussion on whether the Audits IMG should continue to exist.
Ms. Mulberry, co-chair of both the Audits IMG and the NANPA OWG,
identified the items being worked on by the NANPA OWG: follow up on
action items from NANPA's performance review; development of the new
Requirements Document and the Audits Requirements Document; and
resolving the intellectual property issue. Ms. Mulberry indicated that
the NANPA OWG could finalize the Audits Framework document for November.

There was discussion on the issue of who pays for "for cause" audits.
Chairman Hoffman envisions a process where the NANPA would send a letter
to an SP that, *e.g.*, files a monthly exhaust report with numbers that
are out of line. The letter would indicate that the SP will be audited,
and that if it fails the audit, the SP would pay for the audit. The SP
could choose to correct the discrepancy, or take its chances with the
audit.

Harold Salters, PCIA, opined that the audit process should not be
punitive. Beth Kistner added that a punitive result would not be
appropriate if very little bad behavior was found. Ms. O'Donnell
expressed concern about creating an incentive for the auditor to do
audits. Chairman Hoffman and Mr. Epstein pointed out that the auditor
doesn't make the decision to audit, but carries out the audit. Mr.
Epstein added that for cause audits should be a bright-line test to
measure compliance with the guidelines and regulations.

Peter Guggina stated that having failing SPs pay for audits might be a
big burden on small companies. For obvious wrongdoing, the problem
should be brought to the attention of regulators. Mr. Guggina opined
that the better long term strategy is not to penalize those SPs that
fail an audit.

Chairman Hoffman suggested that the entire industry could fund audits
for the first year, and the NANC could revisit the issue after having
had some experience. There was further discussion of funding the audits,
with most NANC members indicating a preference that the entire process,
at least for the first year, be funded by the industry as a whole.

Chairman Hoffman suggested giving direction to the NANPA OWG to look at
resolving the issue by funding costs for both random and for cause
audits in the same manner for the first year. That is, the costs of all
audits would be spread among all SPs using the NANPA funding formula.

The Council reached consensus that: (1) industry as a whole would pay
for random and for cause audits for the first year; (2) the issue would
be reconsidered in one year (*i.e.,* January 2001); and (3) the
estimated cost of the audits for the first year is \$700,000.

## [October 20, 1999]{.underline}

***G.** **Approval of meeting minutes***. The September 28-29, 1999
meeting minutes were approved with minor modifications. Offline
non-substantive edits were received from Dan Hochvert. Additionally,
Gerry Rosenblatt, TIA, requested a change to the attendance roster to
add TIA alternate Ben Walston.

***H.** **Oversight of Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs) /Number
Portability Administration Center (NPAC) Activities***. A draft letter
to be sent to the LLCs and the Canadian LNP Consortium, Inc., was
circulated to the full NANC for approval. The letter requested a status
report on the disposition of Statement of Work (SOW) 15, Release 3.0 and
other future NPAC activities. The letter was approved for distribution.

***I.** **Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Regarding Number Pooling***.
A revised FAQ on number pooling developed by MCI WorldCom, Cox
Communications and Bell Atlantic was presented to the Council for
discussion. The revised FAQ was developed in response to LM CIS's FAQ
provided to the Council during the September 28-29, 1999 NANC meeting.
Vince Majkowski questioned the appropriateness of the NANC changing the
NANPA's FAQ document which is posted on their web site. The questions
presented in the FAQ are those received by the NANPA, to which they have
responded. Chairman Hoffman opined that efforts like this should be
collaborative between NANC and the NANPA, adding that this issue should
have been considered in more detail at the last meeting when it was
first presented to the NANC by LM CIS.

The revised contribution document presents corrected answers, or rather
more complete answers. Chairman Hoffman further stated that the he did
not believe the original FAQs and answers were wrong, but that LM was
providing the responses from a very narrow NANPA perspective. The
revised set of answers provides a broader industry perspective. One of
the points of contention was the time needed to implement 1K block
pooling. NANPA's answer of 60 days does not consider the amount of work
that needs to be done by the industry, with regulators, consumers in the
community, and in their switching offices. It is probably unreasonable
to give the public the perception that pooling that be implemented by
everybody in that short a period of time. That is one example of what
these amended answers reflect.

Chairman Hoffman further stated the process of updating the FAQs should
not take place at monthly NANC meetings, but the industry should be able
to contact NANPA with information or suggested revisions at any time.

Vince Majkowski questioned whether revising the FAQs changes any legal
responsibility for the NANPA. Chairman Hoffman stated he did not believe
so. Mr. Majkowski expressed concern and unease over NANC revising the
FAQs, a LM work product. Chairman Hoffman added that a way for NANPA to
resolve this would be to put some type of disclaimer that the answers
are given from NANPA's perspective only and reflect NANPA's knowledge of
the facts. But this does not satisfy the primary purpose, which is to
educate the public, consumers and others that are interested in these
issues.

Tony Pupek, USTA, raised the issue that CIS provided the FAQs as a
vendor on its Numberpool.com web site, but that the number
administration requirements document requires the NANPA to provide these
answers. The revised contribution was developed to reflect the NANPA
position, not that of a vendor with the possibility of becoming the
national pooling administrator. There was further discussion on whether
CIS the vendor or the NANPA is providing the FAQs, and the need for
consistent information regardless of whom is asking or responding to
questions.

Chairman Hoffman stated that the record should be clear that these FAQs
represent the NANC position on these issues, and that these are the
answers that the NANC agrees the NANPA should give when asked these
questions. It is important whatever entity is giving the answers that
they are giving the same answers.

John Manning stated that LM has purposely over the last several months
tried to separate the NANP administration activities from the interim
pooling activities because the NANPA has not been ordered to provide
pooling administration by the FCC. CIS will try to make sure industry
and state regulators understand that they will get the same message
regardless of to whom they are speaking. The NANC should give the
CIS/NANPA staff an opportunity to review this input, seek clarification
if necessary, and move forward on that basis.

Tony Pupek asked where the revised FAQ document would be posted. John
Manning was not sure, but added that since there is no order concerning
number pooling administration, LM thought it might be presumptuous to
put this on the NANPA web page. Based on the input received today,
however, LM will do so. It was agreed that November 1, 1999, would be
the date certain for redistribution of the revised FAQs, if not sooner,
to allow entities to provide edits and input to LM. Chairman Hoffman
suggested that LM may want to highlight the FAQ information in its
upcoming newsletter(s) and direct readers to the web site for a complete
document.

Phil McClelland, NASUCA, raised some concerns over legal positions taken
with respect the delegated authority and interpreting FCC orders. NASUCA
was not ready to address those matters today, but did not want their
silence to suggest acceptance on those points. Chairman Hoffman agreed
that the Council should review the FAQs, and edits should be sent to
John Manning, copying the FCC staff.

Vince Majkowski stated that he intends to distribute the Number Pooling
FAQs at the November 6-11, NARUC convention in San Antonio to the
Telecommunications Committee, as well as to the Board of Directors, so
that the state commissioners can have the information.

***J.** **Steering Group Report. ***Vince Majkowski, Co-Chair, SG
provided the report to the Council. Regarding the working group and IMG
restructuring proposal, the consensus of the SG is that IMGs can
accomplish results more quickly because they are more focused, and there
will probably be increased use of them in the future. The SG agreed
generally that IMGs should function from two to six months at a time.

The SG decided that the new NANPA requirements document should proceed
under the NANPA OWG, however, no timelines were established. The NRO is
to come back next month with a refined list of its issues. The audits
framework document should proceed and final decisions should be made on
who the auditor will be, the contracting requirements, and development
of the request for proposal (RFP).

A contribution developed by Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, GTE, U S West and
USTA was presented to the SG. The contribution is a table of NANC
projects/activities to be addressed within the next 6 to 12 months. The
table contains three columns -- it lists the ongoing and anticipated
projects, and recommends assignment to a group, and the third column is
left blank for insertion of completion dates. The contributors asked the
SG to identify any projects that were missed, and to e-mail any
additions to . The table will be completed and brought back to the SG
for further discussion.

There was no resolution of the issue of NANC and SG membership. The SG
discussed the upcoming mergers and acquisitions, which will result in
some members losing their seats on the NANC, noting some concern for
maintaining balance and ensuring broad representation. FCC staff members
advised that the Chief, CCB, is the decision-maker on NANC membership.

There was some discussion of the free numbers issue that was addressed
in Chairman Hoffman's memorandum of September 8, 1999. Because of the
concern generated by large requests for NXXs, the SG asked Phil
McClelland to bring the issue back to the SG next month for further
discussion.

Other items discussed included technical and administrative support for
the Council. LM has agreed to develop a NANC Chairman's web page. The
transfer of the accounting function from Frontier Communications to LM
for the collection and distribution of funds for the payment of travel
expenses of NARUC participants will take place within the next month or
two.

Finally, the SG discussed Chairman Hoffman's public relations ideas. The
Chairman reemphasized that the NANC and the industry at large, has a
responsibility to educate its constituents on the exhaust of the NANP
and what is being done to slow it down or change the direction.

***[K.]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[Number Pooling IMG
Report.]{.underline}***[ Peter Guggina provided the update on the 1K bid
process to the Council. Number pooling is a NANP function and should be
recovered under the NANP funding factor. The new budget cycle of 16
months will affect the cost for pooling and appropriation. Therefore, a
new number is needed for the cost of 1K block pooling for NBANC
budgeting through June 2001. In order to do so, we need to anticipate
when pooling will start. The assumption used is that national pooling
will begin in January 2001. In addition, there needs to be an
appropriation and cost recovery for the NPAC transaction costs under the
NANP formula, but the billing and collection process would be handled by
LM. NBANC would handle the billing for 1K pooling administration. It was
agreed that there would be no public disclosure of the cost at this
time; the actual cost amount will be provided to NBANC by letter from
the IMG Chair. ]{.underline}

[The larger figure presented in closed session is for up front systems
development. The other numbers provided in the SG session are usage
sensitive for blocks of numbers with guaranteed contract minimums. The
one time charge will be budgeted in calendar year 2000. It was suggested
that such a revenue requirement may require financing. Chairman Hoffman
expressed concern for the development cost and asked whether it was
possible to spread the cost out over time, questioning whether that was
a decision for NBANC or for NANC to make. This was addressed in the
NBANC report.]{.underline}

***[L.]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[North American Billing and
Collection Update.]{.underline}***[ John Ricker, Chief Executive
Officer, NBANC, provided the report to the Council. Mr. Ricker began by
responding to the development cost question raised above, and stated
that NECA administers several programs and that for each program he must
take the revenue base an calculate separate amounts on separate bills.
The NANPA function is by far the smallest fund; the second largest fund,
TRS, is 10 times larger than the NANPA fund (approximately \$40 million
dollars per year).]{.underline}

[Dan Hochvert pointed out that the costs to which Mr. Guggina referred
are only for number pooling administration costs and not the total cost
to the industry for number pooling implementation. Typically, if there
are milestones, companies "pay as they go." Here, because the vendor is
in the development stage, money will be collected in anticipation of
later billing. ]{.underline}

[Norm Epstein questioned whether other NPAC-related costs will be
budgeted for. Mr. Guggina responded that these costs will be billed by
LM to SPs for the transactional costs of using the NPAC. ]{.underline}

[There was discussion of when the dollar amounts would no longer be
deemed confidential and could be disclosed to the industry, but no
decision was reached. Mr. Ricker continued with the NBANC report.
]{.underline}

[NANPA Fund Performance: The fund status financials were read into the
record. The current fund balance is \$1.3 million; projected receivables
total \$1.02 million, with payments to LM to date totaling \$2.5
million, with remaining payments totaling \$1.78 million. Payments to
NECA total \$150K to date with remaining payments totaling \$107K. Board
expenses are \$9,461; this includes member reimbursement of \$7,071 and
meeting expenses of \$2,390. Payments to an external auditor, Price
Waterhouse Coopers, to date are \$19,250, with a year two projection of
\$22K. The next NBANC Board meeting is scheduled for November 18, 1999,
at the International Trade Center (Reagan Building), 1300 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, beginning at 10:00 a.m. ]{.underline}

[NBANC sent a letter on October 15, 1999 to all carriers announcing the
changes to the calendar funding year from March 1 to February 28 to a
new cycle of March 1 to June 30, 2001 (a 16-month period). The FCC Form
496 was eliminated and replaced by a consolidated telecom reporting
worksheet. This is a significant change to the process and to the
funding base structure. A true up process will take place in May 2000.
The revenue base used to report to USAC is based on 6-month end
user-based revenues. Some carriers with revenues of less than 10K are
not required to contribute to the NANP fund. Once revenues are received,
there will be a true up to the NANP contribution factor, which may
result in a modification after the initial 16-month period. NBANC has no
plans or provisions to do any other sort of mid-year adjustment.
]{.underline}

[In discussing the audit cost estimate of \$700K, Mr. Ricker indicated
that an increase of a million dollars to the budget would result in an
increase of .000004 to the funding factor. The first year factor was
.000022 and was reduced in the second year to .000020; NBANC is
projecting the third funding year at 000025.]{.underline}

[Mr. Ricker stated that many carriers pay their contribution up front in
full and about 50 carriers pay on a monthly basis. Chairman Hoffman
raised a concern that the number pooling administration development
costs almost doubles the budget amount, and questioned whether the
initial payment should be borrowed. Mr. Ricker explained that in the
past, NBANC has not been successful in establishing a line of credit
because NBANC does not have assets. ]{.underline}

# [Peter Guggina suggested that the industry pay the number pooling administration up front costs in full and be done with it. Mr. Majkowski reminded the Council that NBANC cost are fixed and the addition of the audit function and 1K pooling matter must be added to the budget. Chairman Hoffman reiterated that the NANC has a responsibility to inform carriers of the amounts they will have to pay, and so the "confidential" dollar amounts will have to be disclosed. ]{.underline}

[Dan Hochvert stated that the FCC review process ensures fair dealing.
Probably 93% of the industry is represented at this table, and each
should go back to its constituency to explain the costs. The letter to
NBANC should explain the changes in costs relating to pooling.
]{.underline}

[Vince Majkowski, NBANC, stated that any changes to the funding
structure for pooling must be provided to the Board of Directors by the
November 18. If additional cost for COCUS arise in the middle of the
year, then the numbers can be adjusted in the May 2000 true up. If the
FCC orders it sooner, NBANC will recalculate at that time.]{.underline}

Mr. Ricker further explained, in response to a question regarding the
budget surplus, that NBANC experienced a surplus of \$800K in year one
and consequently reduced the contribution factor for year two. NECA
recommended to the NBANC Board of Directors that NBANC retain a surplus
of \$400K.

Chairman Hoffman requested that Anne Le Lena, Co-Chair CRWG, draft a
letter for the chair's signature to NBANC requesting the addition of
\$700K to the amount to be billed and collected for fiscal year 2000.

***M.** **[Other Business.]{.underline}***[ ]{.underline}

[Telephone Number Reservation Policy. Dan Hochvert, Bell Atlantic, asked
what the trigger will be for implementation of the new reservation
policy within our respective companies. Bill Adair added his concern
that if internal procedures are modified now, they may be faced with
changing procedures after the FCC issues its NPRM R&O. ]{.underline}

[Internet Conference Call/Meeting Demonstration. Peter Guggina announced
an Internet conference call demonstration for interested members of the
Council. This Internet meeting platform may be a useful tool for
subgroups and IMGs to make the NANC more productive. Details about the
demonstration will be sent out by e-mail and will include the user pass
codes.]{.underline}

[December NANC Meeting. Chairman Hoffman stated he would like to try to
pack the agenda for November to minimize the December 14-15, 1999,
meeting and possibly reduce it to one day -- or eliminate it all
together. The Council agreed to consider reducing or eliminating the
December meeting, and possibly scheduling the one full day for
Wednesday, December 15]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[. Final discussion
on this matter will take place at the November meeting. Jeannie Grimes,
FCC, will check on the availability of the FCC meeting room for the
entire day (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.).]{.underline}

***[N. ]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**[Next Meeting:
]{.underline}***[November 16-17, 1999. ]{.underline}

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

1\. [NANC agreed to LM's assessment of its responsibilities under the
Requirements Document that NANPA will facilitate the first
implementation meeting after an NPA relief plan has been approved. NANPA
will participate in subsequent meetings, but will facilitate them (as an
enterprise service) only if requested (and compensated) by the involved
industry participants. ]{.underline}

[NANC Chairman will meet with LM in November to assess the existing NANP
Exhaust Model and the Pooling Model and report his findings at the
November NANC meeting. Discussion will include COCUS as part of the
model assessment. ]{.underline}

[LM agreed to provide the NANC with the time requirements necessary to
make design changes to the Pooling Model as detailed in the IMG
paragraph 165 report. ]{.underline}

[2. Number Resource Optimization Working Group. The NRO WG will refine
the ]{.underline}

[work plan introduced by Beth O'Donnell after discussion
with:]{.underline}

· The LNPA WG to determine what their activities are pertaining to the
state pooling trials.

· [NANPA to understand what role they expect to take in the collection
of data and any monitoring activity of the state pooling
trials.]{.underline}

· [States to determine how they expect to proceed in the collecting and
reporting information associated with the pooling trials.]{.underline}

· [INC to determine extent of their work on UNP under Issue 177.
]{.underline}

[3. Local Number Portability Working Group. LNPA WG (WNPSC) should
include the impact of the billing and Call Detail record management in
their timeline toward November 2002.]{.underline}

[The LNPA WG will provide NANC with a read out of Release 1.4 and 3.0
status relating to number pooling at the November meeting. ]{.underline}

[4. Cost Recovery Working Group. NANC agreed to add \$700,000 for NBANC
to bill and collect for performing random audits during the fiscal year
(March 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001). NANC Chair will send a letter to NBANC
notifying it of this decision.]{.underline}

[5. Audits IMG. NANC agreed that the Audits IMG is disbanded and the
Audit Framework Document will be worked by the NANPA Oversight (NOWG)
Working Group. The NOWG is to provide the NANC with a consensus document
at the November NANC meeting.]{.underline}

[NANC agreed to the following relative to for cause audits:]{.underline}

· [They will be funded by the industry through the NBANC for an initial
trial period.]{.underline}

· [The process will be reexamined in January 2001 to assess the funding
decision (above) and make changes as necessary. ]{.underline}

[6. Lockheed Martin CIS Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). NANC agreed to
accept the revised FAQs dated October 18, 1999. NANPA was asked to post
the revised version to its web site by November 1, 1999. NANC members
were requested to provide input as necessary to the full NANC prior to
the 11/1/99 date. NANPA also agreed to redistribute the revised Q&A as
necessary.]{.underline}

[7. Steering Group. The contribution listing NANC activities and
assignments presented at the Steering Group meeting was considered to be
a working document. The contributors will provide further input, namely
"timeframes" at the next SG meeting. NANC members were asked to
supplement the projects/activities list and should provide their input
to the contribution to via e-mail to apupek@usta.org. ]{.underline}

[Pooling IMG Chair (Peter Guggina) will provide NBANC with the budget
amount to be used in its calculations for the next billing period for
the Pooling Administrator function. The amount is still confidential and
shall be provided to NBANC accordingly. ]{.underline}