*Pages 1--95 from  Microsoft Word - 59871.doc*
 1 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 North  American  Numbering  Council  Meeting  Minutes 
 March  14,  2006  (Final) 
 I.  Time  and  Place  of  Meeting.  The  North  American  Numbering  Council  (NANC)  held  a  meeting  commencing  at  9:  30  a.  m.,  at  the  Federal  Communications  Commission,  445 
 12th  Street,  S.  W.,  TW-  C305,  Washington,  D.  C. 
 II.  List  of  Attendees. 
 Voting  Council  Members: 
 1.  Robert  Atkinson  Chairman  2.  John  Jefferson  AT&  T 
 3.  Debra  Jordan  BellSouth  4.  Michael  Altschul  CTIA 
 5.  Jason  Oxman  CompTel  6.  Dena  Hunter  Level  3  Communications,  LLC 
 7.  Aram  Shumavon  NARUC  -  California  8.  Hon.  Jack  Goldberg  NARUC    Connecticut 
 9.  Hon.  Curtis  Stamp  NARUC    Iowa  10.  Hon.  Robert  M.  Clayton,  III  NARUC  -  Missouri 
 11.  Don  Gray  NARUC    Nebraska  12.  Christine  Sealock  Kelly  NARUC    New  York 
 13.  Philip  McClelland  NASUCA  -  Pennsylvania  14.  Jerome  Candelaria  NCTA 
 15.  Ray  Strassburger  Nortel  Networks  16.  John  McHugh  OPASTCO 
 17.  Mary  Retka  Qwest  18.  Rosemary  Emmer  Sprint  Nextel 
 19.  Anna  Miller  T-  Mobile  USA,  Inc.  20.  Joseph  Jackson  Verizon 
 21.  Martin  Hakim  Din  Vonage  Holdings  Corp. 
 Special  Members  (Non-  voting): 
 John  Manning  NANPA  Jean-  Paul  Emard  ATIS 
 Amy  Putnam  PA  Faith  Marcotte  Welch  &  Company 

 Commission  Employees: 
1
 2 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 Marilyn  Jones,  Alternate  DFO  Deborah  Blue,  Assistant  to  the  DFO 
 Narda  Jones,  Chief,  Telecommunications  Access  Policy  Division  Cheryl  Callahan,  Assistant  Chief,  Telecommunications  Access  Policy  Division 
 Sanford  Williams,  Attorney,  Telecommunications  Access  Policy  Division  James  Bachtell,  Attorney,  Telecommunications  Access  Policy  Division 
 Renee  Crittendon,  Chief,  Competition  Policy  Division  Ann  Stevens,  Associate  Chief,  Competition  Policy  Division 
 Heather  Hendrickson,  Attorney,  Competition  Policy  Division  Mary  McManus,  Attorney,  Wireline  Competition  Bureau 
 Amy  Bender,  Attorney,  Wireline  Competition  Bureau 
 III.  Estimate  of  Public  Attendance.  Approximately  30  members  of  the  public  attended  the  meeting  as  observers. 

 IV.  Documents  Introduced. 
 (1)  Agenda  (2)  NANC  Meeting  Minutes    November  30,  2005 
 (3)  NANC  Meeting  Minutes    January  24,  2006  (4)  North  American  Numbering  Plan  Administration  (NANPA)  Report  to  the  NANC 
 (5)  FCC  06-  14  Thousands  Block  Number  Pooling  Authority  (6)  National  Thousands  Block  Pooling  Administrator  (PA)  Report 
 (7)  North  American  Portability  Management  (NAPM)  LLC  Report  to  the  NANC  (8)  Industry  Numbering  Committee  (INC)  Report  to  the  NANC 
 (9)  Billing  and  Collection  Agent  Report  to  the  NANC  (10)  Billing  and  Collection  Working  Group  (B&  C  WG)  Report  to  the  NANC 
 (11)  NANC  Operating  Manual  -  Final  (12)  Local  Number  Portability  Administration  (LNPA)  Working  Group  Status  Report 
 to  the  NANC  (13)  Numbering  Oversight  Working  Group  (NOWG)  Report 
 (14)  List  of  NANC  Accomplishments  (January  2002    March  14,  2006) 
2
 3 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 NORTH  AMERICAN  NUMBERING  )  COUNCIL  MEETING  ) 

 Tuesday,  March  14,  2006 

 Live  Tape 
 (The  following  transcript  was  transcribed  from  an 
 audiocassette  tape  provided  by  the  Federal  Communications 
 Commission  to  Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  on  April  7, 
 2006. 
3
 4 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 P  R  O  C  E  E  D  I  N  G  S  1 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Good  morning.  I'd  like  to  2 
 call  the  meeting  to  order,  and  we  have  an  agenda,  so  3 
 the  first  item  on  the  agenda  would  be  to  see  if  there  4 
 are  any  additions  or  changes  to  the  agenda.  And  I  5 
 have  one  which  under  Agenda  Item  12  there  is  the  6 
 sub-  bullet  including  report  of  pANI  IMG.  We're  going  7 
 to  drop  that  item  from  discussion  today.  We'll  have  a  8 
 telephone  conference  call  when  that  subject  is  ripe,  9 
 so  stay  tuned  for  the  conference  call.  10 
 Are  there  any  other  changes,  additions,  11 
 corrections  to  the  agenda?  Seeing  none,  we'll  adopt  12 
 the  agenda,  and  that  becomes  Document  No.  1.  13 
 For  a  substantive  item,  announcements  and  14 
 recent  news  I've  got  a  few,  so  let  me  go  through  those  15 
 real  quickly.  First,  Jack  Goldberg  has  graciously  16 
 agreed  to  become  the  co-  chair  of  NANC,  and  I  think  17 
 that's  great  because  it's  important  to  have  someone,  18 
 when  my  train  is  late  or  we  need  some  help,  and  Jack's  19 
 got  a  great  background  in  all  this  stuff,  and  I  know  20 
 that  if  I'm  certainly  not  able  to  attend  a  meeting,  21 
 the  meeting  will  be  in  great  hands,  so  I  appreciate  22 
 Jack's  willingness  to  serve.  Thank  you  very  much.  23 
 Item  No.  2,  Phil  McClelland,  as  you  probably  24 
 saw  from  one  of  his  messages,  this  is  his  last  25 
4
 5 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 meeting.  Phil  is  a  real  part  of  the  institutional  1 
 memory  of  NANC,  and  he  will  be  very  much  missed  in  2 
 terms  of  both  his  substantive  input  and  I'd  say  the  3 
 institutional  memory,  so  Phil  thank  you  very  much  and  4 
 best  wishes  in  future  endeavors,  et  cetera.  5 
 (Applause.)  6 
 Item  3  on  my  list  there's  going  to  be  some  7 
 changes  in  the  FCC  relationship  slightly  between  NANC.  8 
 Historically,  NANC  has  been  under  the  umbrella  of  the  9 
 Telecommunications  Access  Policy  Division.  That's  10 
 going  to  be  shifted  over  to  the  Policy  Division.  11 
 I  guess  NANC  is  starting  to  get  into  some  12 
 policy  matters,  maybe  VoIP  and  such  things  like  that  13 
 always  seem  to  be  popping  up  on  our  agenda,  but  in  any  14 
 case,  that  transition  is  in  a  sense  underway.  There  15 
 are  a  number  of  folks  from  the  Policy  Division  over  16 
 here.  I  see  Ann  Stevens  who  I've  known  from  my  17 
 previous  time  here,  and,  Ann,  you  are  going  to  be  18 
 involved  with  this  motley  group,  right?  19 
 MS.  STEVENS:  Yes,  and  Renee  Crittendon.  20 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Renee  Crittendon  is  the  Chief  21 
 of  the  Competition  Policy  Division.  22 
 MS.  STEVENS:  Mary  McManus.  23 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Mary  McManus.  Right.  24 
 MS.  STEVENS:  And  Heather  Hendrickson.  25 
5
 6 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Heather.  Okay.  We'll  get  1 
 all  the  names  and  faces  straight,  so  we'll  be  working  2 
 with  this  group  and  we've  got  the  old  group  still  3 
 here,  Cheryl  and  Marilyn,  and  we'll  figure  it  all  out.  4 
 But  in  fact  what  we'll  try  to  do  is  put  out  a  little  5 
 piece  of  paper  that  explains  who  the  players  are  et  6 
 cetera,  et  cetera,  but  I  don't  anticipate  any  7 
 substantive  change  obviously  in  the  way  we  do  our  work  8 
 and  this,  that  and  the  other,  so  that's  just  a  change.  9 
 But  I  would  like  to  express  our  appreciation  10 
 on  behalf  of  NANC  to  our  colleagues  in  the  TAPD  for  11 
 all  these  many  years  of  great  support  and  help,  so,  12 
 Cheryl  and  Marilyn,  et  cetera,  thank  you.  13 
 News  item.  There  was  a  commission  order  14 
 that  was  put  out  February  24  on  the  waivers  that  some  15 
 of  the  states  had  sought  for  a  thousand  block  number  16 
 pooling  I  guess  it  is,  and  we'll  have  some  discussion  17 
 on  that.  One  thing  I  wanted  to  bring  to  your  18 
 attention  is  that  there  is  a  fifth  further  notice  of  19 
 proposed  rulemaking  in  that  document  starting  at  20 
 paragraph  16,  so  some  of  you  might  want  to  be  --  if  21 
 you  weren't  aware  of  that,  should  be,  and  I  believe  22 
 that's  all  of  my  --  23 
 FEMALE  VOICE:  Okay.  24 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Then  we  shall.  Okay.  We  25 
6
 7 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 have  a  guest.  Commissioner  Deborah  Tate  who  is  just  1 
 the  newest  FCC  Commissioner  and  who  had  previously  2 
 been  with  the  Tennessee  Public  Service  Commission  just  3 
 wanted  to  come  down  and  visit  NANC.  Commissioner  4 
 Tate,  it's  good  to  see  you.  5 
 MS.  TATE:  Thank  you.  Thank  you  all  for  6 
 having  me.  I  know  most  of  you,  but  for  those  that  I  7 
 haven't  had  the  opportunity  to  meet,  I'm  Debbie  Tate,  8 
 and  I'm  so  thrilled  to  be  here,  and  I  really  just  9 
 stopped  by  to  thank  you  all.  10 
 I  think  that  I've  kind  of  worked  on  the  11 
 state  end  regarding  number  conservation,  and  I  think  12 
 that  Tennessee  probably  is  a  state  that's  done  a  13 
 fairly  good  job  with  that.  But  I  just  wanted  to  thank  14 
 you  all  because  I  think  it's  so  important  for  those  of  15 
 you  all  who  take  the  time  and  effort  to  participate  no  16 
 matter  whether  you're  from  industry  or  from  the  state  17 
 side  or  from  government  in  advising  the  commission.  18 
 And  of  course  I'm  fortunate  because  I  came  19 
 from  this  state,  so  I've  had  an  opportunity  to  work  on  20 
 some  of  these  issues  before.  I'm  leaving  some  of  my  21 
 cards.  Obviously,  you  all  know  where  to  find  me,  but  22 
 anyway  I  did  just  want  to  again  say  thank  you.  Curt,  23 
 you're  here  so  much,  you  might  have  to  just  get  an  24 
 office  upstairs,  but  thank  you  for  your  service.  I  25 
7
 8 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 know  how  much  time  and  effort  it  takes.  1 
 As  my  husband  said,  when  are  you  ever  going  2 
 to  get  a  job  that  I  don't  have  to  keep  paying  for  you  3 
 to  fly  back  and  forth  to  places.  But  anyway  it's  4 
 great  to  be  with  you  all,  and  I  will  just  look  forward  5 
 to  seeing  you  all  when  you're  here,  and  when  you  are  6 
 here,  please  come  up.  I'd  like  to  have  you  all  come  7 
 up  to  the  office  and  just  hear  what's  going  on  in  your  8 
 states  and  kind  of  keep  in  touch  with  you  all.  9 
 I  made  the  mistake  at  the  TRA  of  saying  my  10 
 door  was  open,  and  the  first  Friday  night  I  was  there  11 
 until  9:  30  listening  to  marital  problems.  So  I've  12 
 given  up  my  therapist  role,  but  I  do  want  you  all  to  13 
 know  that  I  welcome  you're  input,  and  again  thanks  so  14 
 much  for  doing  this.  15 
 (Applause.)  16 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Thank  you  for  coming  by.  17 
 It's  great  seeing  you.  18 
 MS.  TATE:  Sure.  19 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  That  was  an  announcement,  so  20 
 we're  perfect  timing  on  the  agenda.  I've  finished  my  21 
 announcements.  Anybody  else  have  anything?  Great,  so  22 
 we  can  now  move  to  Agenda  Item  2  which  is  approval  of  23 
 the  minutes.  We  have  two  sets  of  minutes,  and  so,  24 
 let's  see,  the  minutes  of  November  30.  That  will  be  25 
8
 9 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 Document  No.  2,  and  the  minutes  of  January  24  will  be  1 
 Document  No.  3,  and  do  we  have  any  additions,  2 
 corrections,  changes,  et  cetera?  Did  everybody  read  3 
 them?  No.  Come  on.  4 
 MR.  GOLDBERG:  I  did.  5 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I  did,  too.  Jack  and  I.  I  6 
 see  some  nodding  heads.  Well,  subject  to  any  7 
 objections  by  the  end  of  the  meeting,  I  propose  that  8 
 we  adopt  the  minutes  as  drafted,  and  unless  we  hear  9 
 some  major  objections,  we  won't  reopen  that,  but  I'll  10 
 leave  it  for  the  potential  reopening.  Any  objections?  11 
 Consider  these  adopted,  but  let  me  know  if  you  have  12 
 any  issues.  Of  course,  then  you'd  have  to  admit  that  13 
 you  hadn't  read  them  before.  14 
 First  report  of  today's  session  will  be  the  15 
 report  of  the  North  American  Numbering  Plan  16 
 Administrator,  John  Manning,  and  I  sent  out  an  email  17 
 indicating  that  Don  Gray  from  Nebraska  would  also  have  18 
 an  item  to  discuss  during  this  agenda  item,  so  let's  19 
 see.  John's  report  will  be  Document  No.  4,  and  Don  20 
 Gray's  will  be  Document  No.  5.  John.  21 
 MR.  MANNING:  Good  morning,  everybody.  My  22 
 report  is  the  typical  report  you're  used  to  seeing,  23 
 however  I  have  added  a  couple  of  items  that  I'll  24 
 report  on  every  other  meeting  or  so.  I've  got  a  25 
9
 10 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 report  looking  at  statistics  with  regard  to  some  of  1 
 the  other  numbering  resources  that  NANPA  administers,  2 
 carrier  identification  codes,  500,  900  NXXs.  My  3 
 report  provides  a  brief  summary  on  the  status  of  those  4 
 particular  resources.  5 
 I've  also  included  a  document  that  I'm  not  6 
 going  to  go  over,  but  it's  entitled  2005  NANPA  7 
 highlights.  This  is  a  document  that  summarizes  NANPA  8 
 activities  for  2005.  It's  a  document  that  gives  you  9 
 the  accomplishments,  highlights,  et  cetera,  that  NANPA  10 
 experienced  during  the  year.  It  will  be  provided  to  11 
 the  Numbering  Oversight  Working  Group  tomorrow,  and  it  12 
 serves  as  an  outline  of  the  presentation  material  that  13 
 we'll  be  covering  with  them  over  the  next  day  and  a  14 
 half.  15 
 Again,  I  won't  go  through  that  in  detail,  16 
 but  if  you  have  any  questions  on  that  particular  17 
 document,  either  ask  them  now  or  come  up  and  see  me  in  18 
 a  little  bit.  I'll  be  happy  to  answer  them  for  you.  19 
 Turning  to  this  page  2  central  office  code  20 
 assignment  report.  I  give  you  February  '06  where  you  21 
 see  304  codes  assigned  and  67  returns.  And  on  page  4  22 
 I  give  you  a  summary  of  where  we  are  the  first  two  23 
 months  of  this  year.  24 
 There  were  seven  hundred  and  forty-  two  25 
10
 11 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 assignments  in  January  and  February  of  this  year.  1 
 That  compares  to  639  assignments  in  the  same  timeframe  2 
 in  2005,  so  you  can  see  we're  slightly  up  from  where  3 
 we  started  from  in  2005.  The  quantity  of  returns  4 
 we've  experienced  in  the  first  two  months  of  this  year  5 
 are  similar  to  what  we  had  in  2005  for  the  same  time  6 
 period.  7 
 A  couple  items  I  want  to  make  note  of  with  8 
 regard  to  central  office  codes.  There  was  an  9 
 announcement  made  back  in  December  2005  in  which  the  10 
 Industry  Numbering  Committee  made  some  changes  to  the  11 
 application  form  used  for  requesting  central  office  12 
 codes.  What  we  are  doing  is  trying  to  get  the  13 
 industry  to  start  using  the  up-  to-  date  form.  14 
 As  such,  we've  sent  notice  to  the  industry,  15 
 we've  sent  out  a  couple  of  notices  already  that  16 
 beginning  April  1,  2006,  any  paper  application  that  is  17 
 submitted  either  directly  to  NANPA  or  most  likely  18 
 through  the  pooling  administrator  for  a  central  office  19 
 code,  you  have  to  use  the  December  9,  2005,  version  of  20 
 that  form.  If  you  do  not  use  that  form  after  that  21 
 date,  your  application  will  be  denied.  22 
 Also,  another  item  I  wanted  to  make  note  of.  23 
 In  February,  due  to  some  actions  and  discussions  at  24 
 the  Industry  Numbering  Committee,  NANPA  made  a  change  25 
11
 12 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 to  the  NANP  Administration  System  relative  to  how  we  1 
 deal  with  rate  center  consolidations  and  splits.  2 
 Previously,  when  there  was  a  rate  center  3 
 consolidation,  all  those  carriers  impacted,  that  is  4 
 those  carriers  that  had  central  office  codes  in  those  5 
 rate  centers  had  to  submit  to  NANPA  Part  1  changing  6 
 the  rate  center  from  the  old  rate  center  to  whatever  7 
 the  new  consolidated  or  split-  rate  centers  would  be.  8 
 This  process  unfortunately  didn't  work  as  well  we  9 
 would  like.  NANPA  simply  didn't  receive  the  Part  1s  10 
 or  there  were  other  issues  that  got  in  the  way  of  11 
 keeping  the  code  assignment  records  up  to  date.  12 
 Beginning  in  February  NANPA  modified  the  13 
 NANP  Administration  System  such  that  when  there  is  a  14 
 rate  center  consolidation,  or  when  there  is  a  rate  15 
 center  split,  NANPA  will  initiate  the  appropriate  16 
 changes  within  the  system  so  that  the  NPA  NXXs  17 
 associated  with  either  the  old  rate  centers  or  the  old  18 
 rate  centers  become  associated  with  the  new  rate  19 
 centers.  So  carriers  no  longer  have  to  submit  a  Part  20 
 1  to  NANPA  to  effect  that  change.  21 
 What  we  do  is  we  provide  notice  to  the  22 
 industry  there's  a  rate  center  change,  and  on  the  23 
 effective  date  of  that  change,  NANPA  will  make  the  24 
 appropriate  changes  in  the  CO  code  assignment  records.  25 
12
 13 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 So  I  wanted  to  make  sure  that  NANC  was  aware  of  how  1 
 that  process  was  changing  and  how  NANPA  was  assuming  2 
 the  responsibility  to  make  sure  those  records  remain  3 
 up  to  date.  Any  questions  on  central  office  code  4 
 assignments?  5 
 Turning  to  NPA  relief  planning,  attached  to  6 
 my  report  is  the  report  that  shows  area  codes  that  are  7 
 exhausting  in  the  next  36  months.  You'll  notice  that  8 
 report  has  expanded  a  little  bit.  As  we  turn  into  the  9 
 new  year,  we  have  a  few  more  area  codes  that  have  been  10 
 now  coming  up  on  the  radar  screen  that  are  within  the  11 
 next  three-  year  NPA  relief  timeframe.  12 
 Of  course,  this  is  all  subject  to  change  as  13 
 we  go  through  the  next  NRUF  cycle  and  come  up  with  new  14 
 NPA  exhaust  projections.  I  wanted  to  make  note  that  15 
 we  have  seen  a  number  of  area  codes  now  come  up  on  the  16 
 radar  as  it  relates  to  the  exhaust  within  36  months.  17 
 For  those  that  we're  looking  at  in  the  12  18 
 months,  this  list  really  hasn't  changed.  We've  got  19 
 area  code  310  which  I  think  we're  all  very  familiar  20 
 with.  Efforts  are  underway  now  in  that  particular  21 
 area  code,  and  we  are  now  assigning  central  office  22 
 codes  out  of  the  new  424  overlay  NPA  of  310.  The  23 
 effective  date  of  those  codes  is  not  until  late  August  24 
 of  this  year.  25 
13
 14 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 With  regard  to  Georgia  706,  that  plan  is  1 
 underway.  The  overlay  will  be  coming  into  existence  2 
 later  on  this  year,  and  we  have  two  area  codes  in  3 
 Illinois,  630  and  815,  that  we're  watching  very  4 
 closely.  In  particular,  area  code  815  which  has  a  5 
 trigger  in  place  that  when  it  reaches  a  set  quantity  6 
 of  available  central  office  codes,  we  will  begin  the  7 
 process  of  implementing  the  overlay  NPA.  We're  8 
 getting  very  close  to  that  trigger  now,  and  the  9 
 industry  is  already  addressing  that  very  issue.  10 
 We  have  two  new  relief  projects  that  we've  11 
 started  this  quarter,  both  of  them  here  in  the  month  12 
 of  March.  New  Mexico  505  which  we've  just  recently  13 
 had  a  meeting  on  where  we're  looking  at  relief  for  14 
 that  particular  NPA,  and  we've  already  initiated  some  15 
 work  in  Indiana  812.  Later  this  month  we  will  have  a  16 
 relief  planning  meeting  where  we'll  look  at  various  17 
 split  and  overlay  options  and  see  what  the  industry  18 
 wants  to  recommend.  19 
 So  all  of  last  year  we  had  very  few  relief  20 
 projects  that  we  started.  Beginning  in  2006  we've  21 
 already  got  two  on  our  plate.  The  NPA  and  NANP  22 
 exhaust  projections,  which  I  mentioned  earlier,  we're  23 
 putting  together  as  we  speak.  They  will  be  available  24 
 at  the  end  of  April.  25 
14
 15 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 As  done  previously,  the  NANC  will  be  sent  a  1 
 notice  when  those  projections  are  available  on  our  2 
 website,  and  you  can  certainly  --  the  states  in  fact  3 
 will  be  given  some  type  of  heads  up  before  they're  4 
 posted  so  they  have  an  idea  where  things  are  standing.  5 
 One  final  note  on  this  page,  we're  currently  6 
 working  on  the  2005  NANPA  Annual  Report,  which  will  be  7 
 available  at  the  end  of  this  month.  We  will  post  that  8 
 to  the  NANPA  website.  It  will  be  available  in  PDF  9 
 copy  only.  Again,  a  notice  will  go  out  to  the  NANC  as  10 
 well  as  to  the  industry  when  that  document  is  11 
 available  and  posted  on  the  website.  Any  questions  12 
 concerning  area  code  relief  planning?  13 
 Let  me  briefly  cover  some  of  the  other  14 
 resources  that  NANPA  is  responsible  for.  First,  we'll  15 
 talk  carrier  identification  codes,  and  specifically  16 
 FGB  carrier  identification  codes.  If  you  want  to  make  17 
 this  simple,  just  simply  refer  to  the  charts  on  each  18 
 of  these  pages,  and  it  gives  you  a  history  year  over  19 
 year  of  the  number  of  assignments,  number  of  reclaimed  20 
 codes  and  net  yearly  assignment  information.  21 
 When  you're  looking  at  Feature  Group  B  22 
 codes,  you  can  see  in  2005  we  assigned  just  two  codes,  23 
 yet  we  reclaimed  over  280  of  those  codes,  so  certainly  24 
 that  particular  resource  is  well  in  hand.  In  fact,  25 
15
 16 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 we're  seeing  that  particular  resource  die  off.  It's  1 
 obvious  by  the  assignments  and  the  reclamation  2 
 process.  3 
 For  Feature  Group  D  codes,  the  chart  is  on  4 
 page  6.  You  can  see  we  have  signed  157  in  2005  and  5 
 how  that  compares  to  2004  and  2003  roughly  in  the  same  6 
 quantity  of  assignments.  We  continue  to  reclaim  a  7 
 large  of  quantity  of  Feature  Goup  D  CICs  so  therefore  8 
 we  have  a  net  negative  yearly  assignment  rate  over  the  9 
 past  two  years,  but  that  resource  continues  to  be  10 
 used.  11 
 For  500  NXXs  in  2005,  we  did  assign  34  of  12 
 these  codes,  and  got  seven  back.  Over  the  past  three  13 
 years  that's  our  largest  quantity  on  a  per  year  basis  14 
 that  we  assigned  of  this  particular  resource.  If  we  15 
 maintain  this  assignment  rate,  we  will  roughly  be  in  16 
 the  neighborhood  of  seven  to  eight  years  before  the  17 
 500  resource  exhausts.  18 
 Of  course,  that  doesn't  factor  in  the  19 
 quantity  of  reclamations  that  could  potentially  be  20 
 made,  but  exhaust  of  this  particular  resource  is  on  21 
 the  horizon.  Although  not  immediately,  it's  something  22 
 we  need  to  continue  to  monitor.  For  the  900  area  23 
 code,  five  NXXs  were  assigned  in  2005.  We  had  12  NXXs  24 
 returned.  This  particular  area  code  and  its  use  is  25 
16
 17 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 not  anything  that  is  growing  real  rapidly,  and  1 
 therefore  we  don't  anticipate  this  resource  to  exhaust  2 
 any  time  soon.  3 
 And,  finally  on  page  7,  the  555  line  4 
 numbers.  We  only  assigned  one  of  these  numbers  in  5 
 2005,  and  that's  one  over  the  past  two  years.  Right  6 
 now  there  is  no  reclamation  under  way  with  regard  to  7 
 the  555  resource.  There's  plenty  of  this  resource  8 
 available,  but  we're  certainly  not  making  a  lot  of  9 
 assignments  of  555  lines.  Any  questions  on  the  other  10 
 resources  part  of  my  report?  11 
 Before  we  get  into  the  issue  that  Don  wanted  12 
 to  raise,  again  page  8,  9  and  10  and  so  forth  are  our  13 
 highlights  document.  I  encourage  you  to  at  least  14 
 glance  through  that  and  a  get  a  sense  of  what  went  on  15 
 during  the  year.  The  remaining  pages  are  the  matrix  16 
 of  area  codes  exhausting  in  36  months.  That  matrix  17 
 typically  appends  the  NANPA  report.  Jerome,  question?  18 
 MR.  CANDELARIA:  On  page  8.  19 
 MR.  MANNING:  I'm  sorry,  Jerome.  What  page?  20 
 MR.  CANDELARIA:  Page  8.  Can  you  elaborate  21 
 just  a  bit  under  response  to  regulatory  activities  22 
 implemented  the  FCC  SBCIS  waiver,  and  my  question  is  23 
 what  did  this  involve  for  you  generally?  24 
 MR.  MANNING:  Well,  if  you  recall  the  SBCIS  25 
17
 18 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 waiver  allowed  SBCIS  to  get  resources  directly  from  1 
 the  NANPA  and  the  pool  administrator.  The  process  2 
 that  was  established  however  was  since  there  was  no  3 
 certification  provided  by  the  state  in  lieu  of  that,  4 
 the  primary  process  put  in  place  was  a  30-  day  window  5 
 in  which  an  application  that  was  made  to  the  6 
 administrator  whether  it's  to  NANPA  or  to  the  PA,  7 
 SBCIS  had  to  provide  at  least  30  days'  notice  to  the  8 
 state.  9 
 And  I  believe  it's  also  to  the  FCC,  and  in  10 
 that  process  when  we  got  that  application,  we  had  to  11 
 ensure  that  those  particular  items  were  put  into  place  12 
 before  such  an  assignment  was  made.  Now,  from  our  13 
 perspective,  we  had  some  initial  activity  with  regard  14 
 to  this  matter,  but  primarily  they've  had  to  deal  with  15 
 it  really  on  the  pooling  side  because  I  think  the  16 
 majority  of  resources  had  been  in  the  pooling  rate  17 
 centers.  18 
 MR.  CANDELARIA:  This  didn't  involve  any  19 
 extraordinary  costs?  20 
 MR.  MANNING:  No.  We  were  able  to  handle  21 
 this  particular  instance  because  we  were  only  dealing  22 
 with  one  company.  We  were  able  to  work  through  the  23 
 process  to  make  that  happen.  Certainly,  if  that  type  24 
 of  mechanism  was  put  in  place  for  a  large  number  of  25 
18
 19 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 carriers,  then  that  would  be  a  significant  change  in  1 
 our  process.  2 
 MR.  CANDELARIA:  But  didn't  the  FCC  say  that  3 
 similarly  situated  organizations  could  follow  the  same  4 
 process?  5 
 MR.  MANNING:  No.  No.  At  this  time,  it's  6 
 only  SBCIS  that  has  this  waiver  in  place.  7 
 MALE  VOICE:  Well,  my  understanding  was  the  8 
 FCC  did  extend  the  opportunity  to  other  providers  to  9 
 take  advantage  of  the  same  proposal,  although  I  don't  10 
 believe  the  FCC  is  active  on  this  (inaudible).  11 
 FEMALE  VOICE:  Yes.  That  would  be  if  they  12 
 petition  it  as  SBCIS  did,  then  we  would  respond  to  13 
 their  petitioners,  but  there  has  to  be  a  petition  on  14 
 file  and  a  response.  15 
 MALE  VOICE:  No  petitioner.  I  guess  I  heard  16 
 something.  17 
 FEMALE  VOICE:  Right.  No  FCC  response  yet.  18 
 Those  are  pending  petitions.  Yes.  19 
 MR.  MANNING:  My  point  is  that  there  is  no  20 
 other  carrier  that  I  am  aware  of.  21 
 FEMALE  VOICE:  Right.  22 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  And  he's  confirming  for  me  23 
 that  he  currently  has  this  process  in  place.  24 
 FEMALE  VOICE:  That's  correct.  25 
19
 20 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Any  other  questions  or  1 
 clarifications?  All  right.  2 
 MR.  MANNING:  Don  wanted  to  raise  his  item  3 
 now  while  I  was  here.  4 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Yes.  Don,  go  ahead.  5 
 MR.  GRAY:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Don  6 
 Gray,  Nebraska.  First,  thank  you  very  much  for  7 
 allowing  us  this  opportunity  to  bring  this  up  for  8 
 discussion  here,  and  I  would  also  on  behalf  of  my  9 
 commission  thank  the  FCC  for  the  grant  of  the  petition  10 
 that  we  received  two  weeks  ago.  11 
 My  commission  believes  that's  a  very  12 
 important  tool  for  us  to  be  able  to  extend  the  life  of  13 
 the  402  area  code,  and  I  hope  in  a  couple  of  hours  I  14 
 can  give  you  an  official  announcement  of  what  we  are  15 
 doing  and  will  be  doing  in  the  future.  As  with  many  16 
 tools  you  get,  the  devil  is  in  the  details  and  the  17 
 implementation.  18 
 And  as  we  begin  to  look  at  how  are  we  going  19 
 to  use  this  new  tool  and  look  at  how  it  would  most  20 
 likely  be  implemented,  it  seems  that  the  TBPAG  21 
 provided  the  necessary  guidance  for  how  carriers  would  22 
 report  at  the  thousands-  block  level  going  into  the  23 
 establishment  of  pooling  in  a  rate  center,  but  then  24 
 once  you  had  pooling,  then  the  question  came  how  are  25 
20
 21 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 they  going  to  report  since  many  of  our  carriers  are  1 
 rural  carriers,  and  we  found  two  conflicting  areas.  2 
 One  was  in  the  INC  guidelines  for  the  NRUF,  3 
 and  the  other  was  in  the  Form  502,  the  actual  NRUF  4 
 reporting,  and  in  talking  both  with  members  of  INC  and  5 
 John  Manning  and  his  folks,  it  seems  that  the  intent  6 
 is  fairly  clear,  and  that  for  the  process  to  properly  7 
 work  any  carrier,  regardless  of  their  status  that's  in  8 
 a  pooling  environment,  needs  to  report  at  the  9 
 thousands-  block  level,  but  if  you  start  reading  each  10 
 line,  each  section  of  the  INC  and  the  502  guidelines,  11 
 you  find  some  places  where  there's  an  oops.  12 
 And  so  that's  what  I  wanted  to  bring  to  13 
 floor  here  so  that  perhaps  we  can  have  a  discussion  or  14 
 at  least  get  some  input  and  guidance  from  you  folks  as  15 
 to  should  the  intent  be  that  all  carriers  16 
 participating  in  thousands-  block  number  pooling  17 
 regardless  of  their  status  report  at  the  thousands-  18 
 block  level.  19 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Let's  have  some  discussion.  20 
 Rosemary?.  21 
 MS.  EMMER:  Rosemary  Emmer  with  Sprint  22 
 Nextel.  Were  you  looking  to  put  this  revised  language  23 
 like  in  the  INC,  or  were  you  looking  to  start  a  best  24 
 practice  matrix  of  sorts,  or  I  guess  other  than  the  25 
21
 22 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 discussion,  what  is  the  end  result  that  you  are  1 
 looking  for?  2 
 MR.  GRAY:  The  end  result  is  not  necessarily  3 
 am  I  going  to  suggest  here  today  that  we  ought  to  do  4 
 this  or  that,  but  that  it  appears  that  it  should  be  5 
 reporting  at  the  thousands-  block  in  a  pooling  rate  6 
 center  for  everybody.  Now,  I  think  I  would  be  7 
 comfortable  with  if  this  group  says  yes,  that  should  8 
 be  the  intent,  and  INC,  NANP,  whoever,  go  forth  and  9 
 look  very  closely  at  the  wording  and  clean  any  up  that  10 
 needs  to  be  cleaned  up.  That  would  be  sufficient  for  11 
 me  coming  out  of  here  today,  Rosemary.  12 
 Because  I  think  the  other  thing  is  you  start  13 
 looking  at  some  of  these,  and  it  was  interesting.  A  14 
 couple  of  folks  referenced  me  back  to  the  2000  FCC  15 
 order  that  originally  starting  the  thousands-  block  16 
 pooling,  and  in  there  it  very,  very  clearly  drew  a  17 
 bright  line  and  said  if  you  don't  have  to  port  18 
 numbers,  you  don't  have  to  participate  in  this  even  in  19 
 reporting  which  is  obviously  much  different  than  six  20 
 years  later.  21 
 And  the  most  recent  order  where  there  was  a  22 
 distinction  made  that  it's  not  the  capability  that's  23 
 the  distinction,  it's  whether  you  will  have  to  offer  24 
 porting  or  not,  so  I  think  maybe  that's  where  some  of  25 
22
 23 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 our  language  differences  have  come  up.  1 
 MS.  EMMER:  Okay.  Thank  you.  Sprint  Nextel  2 
 wholeheartedly  supports  the  effort.  3 
 MR.  GRAY:  Thank  you.  John?  4 
 MR.  MCHUGH:  We  agree,  OPASTCO  agrees.  5 
 We'll  support  on  the  suggestion  that  rural  companies  6 
 participating  in  pooling  have  to  report  at  the  7 
 thousands-  block  level.  8 
 MR.  GRAY:  And  have  you  advised  your  members  9 
 of  this,  or  will  you?  10 
 MR.  MCHUGH:  Absolutely.  11 
 MR.  GRAY:  Thank  you.  12 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I  think  what  I'm  hearing  is  13 
 we  have  a  consensus.  I  mean,  is  there  anybody  who  14 
 thinks  that  that's  not  a  good  idea?  It  seems  kind  of  15 
 natural,  and  just  kind  of  goes  along  with  the  intent  16 
 is  my  thought,  and  certainly  if  OPASTCO  has  no  17 
 problems  --  they're  the  ones  who  are  burdened  18 
 particularly  or  would  be  participating,  so  my  view  19 
 would  be  there's  a  clear  NANC  unanimity  if  not  20 
 consensus.  21 
 Certainly,  consensus  that  Don's  proposal  is  22 
 reasonable,  and  I  see  someone  from  INC  taking  the  23 
 public  microphone  because  INC  will  probably  need  to  24 
 just  make  any  clarifications.  25 
23
 24 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 MR.  HAVENS:  Ken  Havens.  I  just  wanted  to  1 
 offer  on  behalf  of  the  INC  to  bring  in  an  issue  to  the  2 
 INC,  and  the  INC  can  initiate  an  issue  and  address  3 
 this  particular  request.  In  fact,  we  can  do  that  next  4 
 week  which  is  when  we  meet.  5 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Okay.  So  let  me  just  make  6 
 that  an  action  assignment  that  you'll  just  look  at  7 
 that  and  report  back  at  the  next  session  presumably,  8 
 or  you'll  keep  us  advised  of  any  language  correction  9 
 in  the  guidelines,  and  I'll  assume  that  that  will  10 
 satisfy  everybody.  11 
 MR.  HAVENS:  Thank  you.  12 
 MR.  GRAY:  Thank  you.  13 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Are  there  any  other  questions  14 
 either  for  John  Manning  or  for  Don?  Then  that  agenda  15 
 item  is  done.  Thank  you,  John.  16 
 MR.  MANNING:  Thank  you.  17 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Next  item  on  our  agenda  18 
 report  of  national  thousands-  block  pooling  19 
 administrator,  Amy  Putnam.  Amy's  report  will  be  20 
 Document  No.  6.  Pooling  is  fine,  right,  Amy?  21 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Pooling  is  fine.  Busy,  but  22 
 fine.  Okay.  If  you  look  at  the  first  slide,  page  2  23 
 of  the  report,  the  PA  activity  summary  data.  You  see  24 
 that  our  last  two  months  have  been  extremely  busy  and  25 
24
 25 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 have  been  our  first  and  second  highest  months  ever.  1 
 The  third  was  March  2005  which  will  be  falling  off  the  2 
 rolling  12-  month  report  next  time.  We  normally  file  3 
 our  FCC  reports  on  the  15th  for  the  previous  month,  4 
 but  we  filed  early  this  month  so  that  we  could  do  the  5 
 February  reporting.  6 
 With  respect  to  the  next  slide,  the  summary  7 
 activity,  there  again  is  March  2005  through  February  8 
 2006.  Page  4,  CO  codes  opened,  again  a  rolling  12-  9 
 month  inventory,  and  the  rate  centers  changed  from  M  10 
 to  M,  that's  150  in  the  last  12  months.  Those  are  11 
 where  new  service  providers  moved  into  rate  centers  12 
 that  previously  had  a  single-  service  provider  in  them,  13 
 and  when  that  happens,  we  contact  the  carrier  that  is  14 
 operating  in  that  rate  center  and  let  it  know.  Yes,  15 
 Rosemary?  16 
 MS.  EMMER:  Rosemary  Emmer  with  Sprint  17 
 Nextel  (inaudible).  18 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Okay.  I'm  sorry.  19 
 MS.  EMMER:  No.  That's  okay.  For  the  20 
 blocks  assigned  in  the  PAS  manual  Part  3  with  January  21 
 with  the  increase  being  so  dramatic  or  drastic.  22 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Yes.  23 
 MS.  EMMER:  Was  there  any  particular  reason  24 
 that  you  guys  are  aware  of  that  it  was  --  that's  25 
25
 26 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 significantly  higher.  1 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Yes,  it  was  significant,  and  2 
 there  is  a  carrier,  and  the  information  is  in  the  3 
 public  sector  because  there  have  been  press  releases,  4 
 but  there  is  a  carrier  that's  going  out  across  the  5 
 country  establishing  footprint  and  is  getting  blocks  6 
 across  the  country.  7 
 MS.  EMMER:  Thank  you.  8 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I  had  related  thoughts,  so  9 
 I'll  just  interject  it  now.  I  mean,  in  a  sense  we  10 
 would  see  any  sort  of  stresses,  incipient  stresses  and  11 
 strains  on  numbering  resources  first  in  your  pooling  12 
 before  we  see  --  13 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  We  are  the  gatekeeper.  14 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Before  we  see  them  at  the  15 
 NANPA,  right?  So  I  just  think  this  12-  month  forecast  16 
 it  might  be  useful  actually  at  some  point  periodically  17 
 even  to  put  this  into  a  graph  stretching  somewhat  even  18 
 back  the  past  four  months  just  to  give  sort  of  a  early  19 
 warning  because  there's  a  lot  of  assumptions  that  go  20 
 into  the  NANPA  forecast,  and  right  now  we're  pretty  21 
 relaxed  about  it.  22 
 It's  like  2030  something,  but  if  we  start  23 
 seeing  a  dramatic  up-  tick  like  this,  and  it  persists,  24 
 that  might  start  rippling  through  up  to  the  area  code  25 
26
 27 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 level  and  things  like  that,  so  it's  a  useful  early  1 
 warning  sign,  this  chart  is.  2 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Yes,  and  the  information  about  3 
 pooling  activity  over  the  past  year  and  over  the  past  4 
 five  years,  and  since  pooling  began  with  the  state  5 
 trials,  that  graph  is  in  our  annual  report  which  is  6 
 posted  on  our  website  from  last  year  and  will  be  7 
 posted  again  this  year.  8 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I  will  go  to  your  website.  9 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  And  if  you  like  once  we  post  10 
 this  year's  annual  report,  we  can  simply  put  that  11 
 graph  in  the  next  NANC  report.  12 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Yes,  that  will  be  helpful.  13 
 Thank  you.  14 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Okay.  15 
 MS.  EMMER:  I  have  one  more  question.  On  16 
 the  same  slide  under  denials  with  the  red  light  rule,  17 
 61  in  December.  That  seems  pretty  high  compared  to  18 
 the  other  months.  Was  there  anything  you  can  share  19 
 with  us  about  that?  20 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Honestly,  Rosemary,  I  brought  21 
 that  information  to  the  January  meeting,  and  I  don't  22 
 remember.  23 
 MS.  EMMER:  Okay.  Thanks.  24 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  But  I  can  check  on  it  and  let  25 
27
 28 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 you  know.  1 
 MS.  EMMER:  No.  That's  okay.  2 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Okay.  I  believe  if  nobody  has  3 
 any  other  questions  we  were  moving  on  to  page  5  which  4 
 is  the  status  of  the  change  orders.  We  still  have  5 
 four  pending  change  orders.  The  NPAC,  the  one-  time  6 
 scrub  is  in  its  third  iteration.  If  you  recall  that  7 
 particular  one  goes  back  to  May  of  2005,  but  earlier  8 
 ones  went  back  well  into  2004.  9 
 We  initially  requested  a  report  either  10 
 daily,  weekly  or  monthly  then  that  change  order  was  11 
 disapproved,  and  it  was  proposed  that  we  do  a  one-  time  12 
 scrub  of  one  NPA  per  impact  region  to  see  if  a  scrub  13 
 would  be  valuable,  and  that  information  that  we  14 
 gleaned  from  that  scrub  was  deemed  to  be  valuable  to  15 
 carriers,  and  the  NOWG  recommended  that  we  submit  a  16 
 change  order  requesting  a  one-  time  scrub,  and  that's  17 
 the  one  that's  out  there.  18 
 Change  Orders  43  and  44  relate  to  changes  in  19 
 the  guidelines,  and  Change  Order  45  as  indicated  20 
 related  to  user  suggestions  from  the  2004  NOWG  survey  21 
 which  we  received  last  summer.  Next  slide  shows  our  22 
 instances  of  unscheduled  unavailability  from  March  of  23 
 '05  to  the  end  of  February  of  '06,  and  we  had  19  24 
 minutes.  25 
28
 29 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 Next  slide,  other  PA  activities.  Continue  1 
 to  participate  in  meetings  on  the  pANI  ESQK  2 
 administration.  With  respect  to  the  NOWG,  we  are  now  3 
 undertaking  the  regular  monthly  review  meeting  with  4 
 the  NOWG  and  had  our  first  two  meetings  January  27  and  5 
 February  3,  and  have  worked  out  a  schedule  for  the  6 
 rest  of  the  year.  7 
 With  respect  to  the  NOWG  survey,  we  are  8 
 trying  to  drum  up  business  in  the  response  category,  9 
 so  we  have  sent  a  number  of  notices  regarding  the  10 
 survey  that  the  timeline  for  responding  was  extended,  11 
 and  we're  looking  forward  to  our  operational  review  in  12 
 Concord,  California,  at  our  office  out  there  on  April  13 
 4  and  5.  14 
 With  respect  to  the  delegated  authority  15 
 petitions  as  was  previously  mentioned,  there  were  16 
 approvals  for  five  states  and  eight  NPAs  and  17 
 immediately  following  the  issuance  of  that  order  we've  18 
 held  conference  calls  with  regulatory  staff  of  all  the  19 
 states  that  were  involved.  And  we  are  anticipating  20 
 that  there  will  be  state  orders  issues  and  that  we  21 
 will  schedule  supplemental  implementation  meetings  22 
 based  on  the  content  of  those  state  orders.  23 
 Obviously,  our  conduct  will  be  governed  by  24 
 the  content  of  the  state  orders  to  the  extent  that  25 
29
 30 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 they  do  not  in  any  way  conflict  with  existing  FCC  1 
 orders,  and  our  annual  report.  A  draft  has  been  2 
 provided  to  the  NOWG  for  review,  and  we  are  on  target  3 
 for  filing  that  on  March  31  with  the  FCC  and  4 
 subsequent  to  that  it  will  be  posted  to  the  website,  5 
 and  we  will  provide  a  copy  of  the  graph  of  pooling  6 
 activities  to  the  NANC  at  the  next  meeting.  7 
 We  also  have  a  highlight  section  of  our  8 
 annual  report  which  we  will  review  in  some  detail  with  9 
 the  NOWG  during  our  review,  April  4  and  5,  but  for  10 
 today  I  wanted  to  just  kind  of  highlight  some  of  the  11 
 things  that  we  look  at  that  we  did  during  the  year.  12 
 We  processed  102,304  applications  which  is  an  increase  13 
 of  47.8  percent  over  2004.  In  2004  we  processed  14 
 69,193.  We  also  assigned  55,990  blocks  which  is  a  15 
 49.6  percent  increase  over  2004.  16 
 Our  total  approved  blocks  is  45.4  percent  17 
 increase  over  2004.  In  2004,  we  approved  60,206  18 
 blocks,  and  in  2005  we  approved  87,571.  For  2005,  we  19 
 had  an  increase  of  10.7  percent  in  central  office  20 
 codes  that  were  open.  We  went  up  from  2,153  to  2,385,  21 
 and  we  reclaimed  78  blocks  in  2005  which  is  a  136-  22 
 percent  increase  over  2004,  so  our  pooling  23 
 administrative  services  center  was  mighty  busy  this  24 
 year.  25 
30
 31 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 We  also  as  you  can  see  worked  on  our  1 
 website.  We  improved  our  website  this  year,  and  we  2 
 got  lots  of  positive  comments  on  the  new  website.  We  3 
 submitted  eight  change  orders  and  implemented  nine  4 
 that  were  approved.  5 
 We  successfully  conducted  our  disaster  6 
 recovery  business  continuity  plan  testing,  and  we  7 
 upgraded  the  system  and  database  and  applications  on  8 
 August  21.  If  you  went  back  to  the  system  instances  9 
 of  unavailability,  there  was  one  that  was  an  asterisk  10 
 there  where  the  system  was  unavailable  during  August,  11 
 but  that  was  scheduled  for  the  upgrade,  so  that  did  12 
 not  count  against  our  unavailability  requirement.  13 
 And  the  pooling  implementation  management  14 
 continues.  The  quality  control  and  maintenance  of  the  15 
 rate  center  files.  That  means  whenever  a  rate  center  16 
 goes  from  M  to  M  contacting  the  carriers,  making  sure  17 
 that  it's  reflected  on  the  website  whenever  OMB  issues  18 
 a  bulletin  that  affects  anything  having  to  do  with  19 
 MSAs.  20 
 We  review  the  website  and  make  sure  that  any  21 
 changes  needed  to  rate  centers  are  made.  If  states  22 
 request  changes  for  example  from  excluded  to  optional,  23 
 or  service  providers  request  changes  from  excluded  to  24 
 optional,  all  of  those  things  are  part  of  the  25 
31
 32 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 maintenance  of  the  rate  center  files.  1 
 We  produced  2,572  reports  this  year  for  the  2 
 FCC,  for  state  regulators,  for  the  NANC,  the  NANPA  and  3 
 service  providers,  and  we  worked  with  states  in  a  4 
 variety  of  ways.  We  did  a  refresher  for  state  5 
 commission  staff  for  PAS  use.  We  had  an  informational  6 
 conference  call.  7 
 We  went  to  states  that  requested  in-  person  8 
 pooling  education  meetings  and  responded  to  a  variety  9 
 of  inquiries  on  issues  related  to  pooling  from  states,  10 
 from  service  providers,  and  from  the  FCC.  We  were  11 
 busy.  We're  not  sitting  around  eating  bonbons.  Thank  12 
 you.  Questions?  13 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  John  first,  then  Rosemary.  14 
 MR.  CANDELARIA:  John  Candelaria,  NPTA.  15 
 Does  pooling  administration  separately  track  rate  16 
 centers  where  there's  no  blocks  available  for  17 
 assignment?  18 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  We  don't  track  that.  We  can  19 
 review  that  information.  We  can  query  the  database  20 
 and  find  out  whether  or  not  a  rate  center  has  numbers  21 
 available.  Most  frequently  if  you  look  at  that  22 
 information,  you  find  that  it's  situations  where  23 
 carriers  have  forecast  for  numbers,  but  when  we  go  and  24 
 try  to  replenish  the  pool,  nobody  meets  months  to  25 
32
 33 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 exhaust  or  utilization,  and  we  can't  find  a  carrier  1 
 that  will  come  in  and  enable  us  to  open  a  code  for  2 
 pool  replenishment.  3 
 MR.  CANDELARIA:  I'm  just  trying  to  get  a  4 
 sense  of  why  red  this  is.  Let  me  cut  to  the  chase  --  5 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  I  think  it's  because  carriers  6 
 forecast  with  a  sense  of  optimism.  7 
 MR.  CANDELARIA:  Okay.  The  basis  for  my  8 
 question  is  our  favorite  area  code  310  where  we  have  9 
 rate  centers  where  there  are  not  blocks  available.  My  10 
 concern  is  new  entrants  cannot  enter  a  market  when  11 
 there  are  no  blocks  available.  At  least  entry  is  12 
 highly  problematic,  so  I'm  just  trying  to  get  a  sense  13 
 whether  this  is  an  isolated  310  issue,  or  whether  14 
 there  are  other  rate  centers  out  there  where  15 
 competitor  should  kind  of  look  elsewhere?  16 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  There  are  two  situations  where  17 
 there  are  rate  centers  where  it  looks  as  if  there  are  18 
 not  numbers  available.  One  is  310,  the  other  is  where  19 
 we  cannot  replenish  the  pool  because  we  can't  find  20 
 somebody  to  do  it.  In  310  there  are  only  100  blocks  21 
 left.  I  pulled  out  my  little  310  piece  of  paper  as  22 
 soon  as  you  raised  your  hand.  I  thought  he's  going  to  23 
 say  --  I  wanted  to  beat  Anna  who  probably  was  on  the  24 
 website  this  morning  checking  it  out.  25 
33
 34 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 In  310  there  are  only  100  blocks  left,  and  1 
 we  do  have  rate  centers  that  we  have  no  resources  2 
 left.  We  can  only  do  what  regulators  permit  us  to  do,  3 
 and  if  there  aren't  any  blocks  left  because  of  delayed  4 
 area  relief,  there  we  are.  5 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Anna?  6 
 MS.  MILLER:  Anna  Miller  at  T-  Mobile.  Yes,  7 
 310  is  the  exception,  and  there's  no  more  NXXs  8 
 available  to  replenish  the  rate  centers  in  310  right  9 
 now  that  do  not  have  blocks  available  for  assignment,  10 
 but  just  to  elaborate  on  what  Amy  was  saying,  there  11 
 are  situations  where  there's  rate  centers  with  zero  12 
 blocks  available  for  assignment,  but  if  nobody  is  13 
 applying  for  any  numbers  in  that  rate  center,  then  14 
 there's  not  an  opportunity  to  assign  an  NXX  I  guess  to  15 
 that  rate  center  and  identify  LERG  assignee.  16 
 So  I  guess  a  couple  of  things  need  to  happen  17 
 to  replenish  a  pool.  There  needs  to  be  demand,  and  18 
 then  if  there  is  no  NXX,  if  there  are  no  blocks  19 
 available,  and  you  have  to  open  up  a  new  NXX,  you  have  20 
 to  have  LERG  assignee  to  take  responsibility  as  the  CO  21 
 holder  for  that  block,  so  just  to  clarify  on  that.  22 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  That's  correct.  23 
 MS.  MILLER:  And  then  I  think  the  other  24 
 comment  I'd  like  to  make  with  regard  to  forecasting  25 
34
 35 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 optimism,  and  that  is  I  think  that  that  is  a  1 
 possibility.  One  of  the  challenges  that  we  face  with  2 
 our  current  system  is  that  in  your  forecast  you  need  3 
 to  have  the  forecast  in  the  right  month.  4 
 So  if  for  example  T-  Mobile  said  that  we  5 
 needed  four  blocks  in  March,  and  two  blocks  in  April,  6 
 and  we  only  qualify  and  applied  for  three  blocks  in  7 
 March,  and  then  we  needed  three  blocks  in  April,  and  8 
 we  could  only  get  two  because  we  said  we'd  only  have  9 
 two.  10 
 We'd  have  to  update  our  forecast,  so  I  think  11 
 it's  challenging  to  get  it  exactly  right  in  the  right  12 
 month,  and  I  think  to  accommodate  that,  you  try  to  13 
 spread  it  out  so  that  you  don't  run  drawing  up  short  14 
 in  one  month  if  demand  is  a  week  later  than  you  15 
 thought  it  was,  so  that's  a  challenge  I  think  in  the  16 
 forecasting.  17 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Yes.  We  look  ahead,  and  we  18 
 attempt  to  replenish  when  the  forecasts  reflect  a  need  19 
 to  replenish.  Another  challenge  that  we  have  is  20 
 carriers  that  forecast  zero  and  come  in  and  suddenly  21 
 need  resources  and  change  their  forecast  in  order  to  22 
 get  resources,  and  they  drain  the  pool  at  that  point,  23 
 and  of  course  then  we  can  go  out  and  we  can  again  24 
 attempt  to  replenish.  25 
35
 36 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 But  for  us  to  replenish  a  pool,  we  need  1 
 somebody  who  meets  months  to  exhaust  in  utilization  2 
 who  can  perform  the  functions  of  the  LERG  assignee.  3 
 We  do  two  things.  We  not  only  canvas  carriers  to  4 
 become  a  LERG  assignee,  but  we  also  contact  carriers  5 
 that  are  operating  in  any  rate  center  and  ask  them  if  6 
 they  have  blocks  to  donate  if  we  need  resources  in  a  7 
 rate  center  so  that  we  don't  have  to  open  codes  if  8 
 carriers  do  in  fact  have  blocks  to  donate.  9 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Rosemary?  10 
 MS.  EMMER:  Rosemary  Emmer,  Sprint  Nextel.  11 
 Two  things.  The  first  thing  is  I  didn't  see  in  the  12 
 notes  from  January  about  61,  so  I  want  to  get  with  you  13 
 on  that.  14 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Okay.  15 
 MS.  EMMER:  Ten  miles  for  the  red  light  16 
 rule,  and  regarding  the  forecasting  optimism  comments,  17 
 it's  my  understanding  that  the  PA  is  subjectively  18 
 determining  based  on  what  the  carriers'  forecasts  are  19 
 as  to  how  many  numbers  are  going  to  be  in  the  pool  20 
 also.  So  I  mean  we  might  forecast  high,  but  if  we  21 
 only  use  let's  say  25  percent  of  actuals,  there  is  22 
 somewhat  of  a  subjective  decision  made  somewhere  along  23 
 the  line.  24 
 And  while  I  think  generally  speaking  the  25 
36
 37 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 pools  are  plentiful,  there  have  been  several  times  1 
 where  Spring,  or  at  least  Legacy  Nextel  has  needed  a  2 
 number  whether  it  be  something  we've  forecasted  for  or  3 
 whether  it  be  whether  we  didn't  forecast,  but  we  4 
 needed  an  initial  code  somewhere  where  we  have  had  to  5 
 wait,  and  so  you're  right.  6 
 At  times,  we  might  not  be  able  to  meet  7 
 utilization  and  need  100,000  numbers,  but  that  is  in  8 
 fact  something  that  happens  that  really,  truly  across  9 
 the  board  isn't  very  fair,  especially  when  we  might  10 
 have  forecasted  for  those  numbers,  but  because  there's  11 
 this  subjective  nature  in  some  way  to  this  whole  12 
 process  that  we  might  not  be  able  to  get  those  codes.  13 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Rosemary,  I'd  really  appreciate  14 
 it  if  you  would  bring  those  to  our  attention  because  15 
 we  have  not  had  a  complaint  in  years  about  carriers  16 
 not  being  able  to  get  numbers  except  in  California.  17 
 MS.  EMMER:  Right.  This  came  out  during  our  18 
 internal  Legacy  Nextel  survey  process,  so  when  we  19 
 finish  that  --  20 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Then  it's  something  that  21 
 someone  is  not  advising  us  about.  22 
 MS.  EMMER:  And  we  brought  the  concept  of  23 
 forecasting  up  on  the  last  NOWG  call  so  that  we  can  24 
 make  sure  to  start  figuring  this  out  for  the  long  term  25 
37
 38 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 as  to  how  we  can  best  do  this  maybe  a  little  more  1 
 objectively  going  forward.  2 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Because  our  system  is  set  up  to  3 
 just  generate  information  about  pool  replenishment.  4 
 You  need  to  replenish  this  rate  center  as  the  5 
 forecasts  reflect,  so  if  that  is  a  problem,  it's  a  6 
 problem  that  has  not  been  brought  to  our  attention,  7 
 and  it  would  be  great  if  you  could  give  me  some  8 
 examples.  9 
 MS.  EMMER:  Right.  We  are  actually  on  our  10 
 caravan  in  this  morning  from  Sterling,  this  was  one  of  11 
 our  topics  of  conversation  that  we  had  with  several  12 
 carriers,  and  definitely  as  we  move  forward  having  our  13 
 communications  or  calls  every  month,  we'll  definitely  14 
 work  though  this  so  that  it  works  out  best  for  15 
 everyone.  And  like  I  said  before,  as  a  general  rule  16 
 or  typically  if  you  will  there's  been  plenty  of  17 
 numbers  in  the  pool,  but  we're  noticing  now  that  --  18 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Yes.  Since  every  carrier  is  19 
 supposed  to  keeps  its  own  six-  month  inventory,  you  20 
 would  think  that  that  would  not  be  a  problem  with  its  21 
 six-  month  inventory  and  our  attempt  to  keep  a  six-  22 
 month  inventory,  you  would  think  that  that  would  never  23 
 occur  except  in  California.  24 
 MS.  EMMER:  Well,  you're  right.  You  would  25 
38
 39 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 think  that  wouldn't  occur,  but  with  big  marketing  1 
 programs  and  things,  sometimes  it  is  impossible  to  2 
 keep  that  number.  The  same  with  you  guys.  It's  a  3 
 situation  that  we're  hoping  to  work  through  this  year.  4 
 Thank  you.  5 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Just  from  what  I  gathered  6 
 from  this  discussion  there's  a  problem  in  310.  There  7 
 is  managing  issues  elsewhere,  so  there's  no  other  8 
 customer  visible  concerns,  but  I'm  also  hearing  9 
 there's  some  strange  incentives  built  into  the  system  10 
 to  overforecast,  to  not  want  to  take  responsibility  11 
 for  a  new  code  and  things  like  that.  12 
 The  NOWG  in  its  work  kind  of  listening  to  13 
 these  things  in  terms  of  if  there  is  a  real  problem,  14 
 the  NOWG  would  take  the  initiative  to  propose  any  15 
 changes  in  process,  procedures,  et  cetera  along  with  16 
 the  PA,  right?  17 
 MS.  EMMER:  That's  correct,  and  how  we've  18 
 begun  that  process  now  from  the  NOWG  perspective  is  19 
 during  our  monthly  call  with  the  PA,  we  brought  this  20 
 up  as  an  information  topic,  and  we  had  a  discussion  as  21 
 to  what  they  could  possibly  provide  to  us  so  that  we  22 
 can  start  understanding  a  little  better  I  think  really  23 
 each  other  in  this  regard.  24 
 But  specifically  what  we  could  understand  25 
39
 40 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 from  the  PA,  so  they're  going  to  report  back  to  us  at  1 
 the  next  month  a  snapshot  in  a  day  if  you  will  of  the  2 
 rate  center,  so  we've  begun  that  just  recently.  3 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Right.  How  long  have  we  been  4 
 doing  pooling?  Two  years?  5 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Well,  we've  been  doing  national  6 
 pooling  --  the  contract  was  awarded  in  June  2001,  but  7 
 we  rolled  out  in  March  of  2002.  8 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  So  the  rules,  the  9 
 regulations,  the  process  is  always  being  looked  at  for  10 
 fine-  tuning?  Good.  Christine?  11 
 MS.  KELLY:  Chris  Kelly,  New  York.  I  just  12 
 wanted  to  offer  a  contrasting  view  of  that  13 
 subjectivity.  New  York  filed  comments  on  the  PA  14 
 requirements  document,  an  advocate  for  that  15 
 subjectivity  so  to  speak.  I  don't  know  if  that's  the  16 
 right  word  which  is  used  by  the  PA  as  it  mitigates  the  17 
 optimism.  We  really  do  think  the  PA's  expertise  in  18 
 looking  at  the  actual  use  in  a  rate  center  is  a  very  19 
 useful  tool  in  not  stranding  resources,  so  I  just  20 
 wanted  to  offer  a  contrasting  view.  21 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Any  other  comments?  Thank  22 
 you  very  much.  23 
 MS.  PUTNAM:  Thank  you.  24 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Agenda  Item  No.  5,  the  report  25 
40
 41 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 of  the  North  American  Numbering  Portability  Management  1 
 LLC.  2 
 FEMALE  VOICE:  Document  7?  3 
 MALE  VOICE:  You're  off  by  two.  4 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  We're  doing  Agenda  Item  5,  5 
 right?  6 
 FEMALE  VOICE:  I'm  sorry.  7 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Agenda  Item  5,  and  the  NANPM  8 
 report  will  be  Document  No.  7.  9 
 MR.  CLAY:  Good  morning,  NANC.  I  have  two  10 
 items  to  report  this  morning.  The  first  item  deals  11 
 with  the  completion  of  Statement  of  Work  51.  NANC  12 
 Change  Order  393  which  is  a  part  of  software  Release  13 
 3.3  required  changes  be  made  to  the  NPAC's  performance  14 
 requirements  based  on  porting  and  pooling  volume  15 
 forecasting.  16 
 SOW  or  Statement  of  Work  51  was  prepared  by  17 
 NeuStar  and  presented  to  the  NANPM  for  approval,  and  18 
 as  of  the  last  meeting  that  we  had,  we  approved  the  19 
 Statement  of  Work  51,  and  Statement  of  Work  51  will  20 
 document  those  changes  to  our  master  agreement.  As  of  21 
 this  morning,  I  understand  that  there  may  be  some  22 
 issues  that  came  out  with  this  statement  of  work,  and  23 
 we  will  be  addressing  that  over  the  next  couple  of  24 
 days.  25 
41
 42 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 The  second  item  that  I'd  like  to  report  1 
 would  be  that  the  INC  made  a  request  to  the  NANPM  to  2 
 authorize  an  ad  hoc  report  for  the  purpose  of  3 
 identifying  service  providers  with  ported  telephone  4 
 numbers  within  an  NXX  code  when  the  code  holder  is  to  5 
 change  the  rate  center.  6 
 The  code  would  cause  problems  if  there  are  7 
 ported  numbers  within  the  NXX,  and  this  ad  hoc  report  8 
 would  allow  NANPA  to  eliminate  those  problems  for  our  9 
 customers.  The  NANPM  LLC  approved  that  at  a  previous  10 
 meeting,  and  hopefully  that  will  solve  their  issues.  11 
 That's  all  I  have  today.  Are  there  any  questions?  12 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  No  questions?  13 
 MR.  CLAY:  Thank  you,  chairman.  14 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Yes?  We  do.  15 
 (Away  from  microphone.)  16 
 MALE  VOICE:  (Inaudible)  California.  I  have  17 
 a  question  (inaudible).  18 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Could  you  just  raise  your  19 
 hand  so  the  guys  back  there  can  see  where  you  are?  20 
 MALE  VOICE:  (Inaudible)  exact  appropriate  21 
 time  for  it,  but  we  have  had  a  situation  where  ex  22 
 parte  has  come  in  on  everybody's  favorite  310  issue  23 
 and  asked  some  questions  about  specifically  local  24 
 number  portability  applications  or  use  of  LNPs  25 
42
 43 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 specifically  from  ILECs  to  their  wireless  affiliate  1 
 for  transfer  of  specific  numbers  in  areas  where  2 
 thousands-  block  pools  are  not  available.  And  this  is  3 
 the  first  I'd  heard  of  anything  of  this  nature,  and  4 
 unique  to  California  I'm  sure  in  our  310.  5 
 But  I  have  no  idea  if  anybody  else  is  aware  6 
 of  this,  or  if  anybody  could  speak  to  this  issue.  We  7 
 haven't  done  any  data  requests  or  anything  along  that  8 
 line,  but  we  do  have  some  concerns  if  we  do  find  9 
 information  about  portability  being  used  effectively  10 
 in  a  potentially  discriminatory  manner  for  the  11 
 affiliates  of  carriers  with  large  number  resources  and  12 
 contaminated  blocks.  13 
 MR.  CLAY:  This  is  the  first  that  I've  heard  14 
 of  this  also.  There  are  several  members  here  from  the  15 
 LNPA  working  group  and  from  the  NANPM  LLC,  so  that's  16 
 something  that  we  will  have  to  discuss  outside  of  this  17 
 meeting,  but  right  now  this  is  the  first  I've  heard  of  18 
 that  issue.  19 
 MALE  VOICE:  Okay.  Are  you  aware  of  20 
 mechanisms  by  which  a  number  could  be  ported  without  a  21 
 customer  being  assigned  to  it  on  one  end  or  the  other?  22 
 MR.  CLAY:  No.  23 
 MALE  VOICE:  Okay.  Thank  you.  24 
 MR.  CLAY:  Okay.  25 
43
 44 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Anything  else?  Thank  you,  1 
 Mel.  2 
 MR.  CLAY:  Thank  you.  3 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  All  right.  We're  scheduled  4 
 for  break  at  10:  45.  I  suggest  we  continue  on  until  5 
 10:  45.  I'm  sure  we  can  get  the  INC  report  and  maybe  6 
 one  other  in,  so  the  INC  report  from  Ken  Havens,  7 
 Agenda  Item  6,  Document  No.  8.  8 
 MR.  HAVENS:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  9 
 Turning  to  Slide  2,  you'll  see  a  slide  that  provides  10 
 information  on  when  the  INC  last  met  as  well  as  11 
 indicating  that  we  will  be  meeting  next  week  at  the  12 
 ATIS  annual  meeting.  13 
 On  Slide  3  it  gives  you  an  idea  of  some  of  14 
 the  work  that's  been  going  on  in  the  LNPA  subcommittee  15 
 within  INC,  and  indicates  that  we  had  received  16 
 correspondence  from  the  LNPA  working  group  regarding  17 
 unusable  blocks  that  sought  modification  to  the  18 
 thousands-  block  donation  form  to  help  ensure  that  19 
 donating  service  providers  performed  their  20 
 intraservice  provider  ports  to  avoid  service  21 
 disruption  when  blocks  are  subsequently  assigned.  22 
 The  INC  created  Issue  506  to  address  this  23 
 concern,  and  the  changes  would  have  SPs  complete  an  24 
 updated  Appendix  2  form  as  part  of  the  donation  25 
44
 45 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 process,  and  this  form  would  step  service  providers  1 
 through  a  series  of  questions  regarding  the  status  of  2 
 blocks  being  donated.  3 
 And  this  form  in  its  updated  form  are  to  ask  4 
 questions  of  a  service  provider  such  as  is  the  block  5 
 contaminated,  and  if  yes,  how  many  numbers  are  not  6 
 available  for  assignment,  have  all  your  ISPs  been  7 
 completed,  has  the  block  been  protected  from  further  8 
 assignment.  9 
 Further,  the  form  or  the  changes  goes  on  to  10 
 explain  the  benefits  of  performing  intraservice  11 
 provider  ports  and  protecting  the  block  from  further  12 
 assignment.  And  so  the  INC  and  the  LNPA  working  group  13 
 believe  that  these  changes  will  help  to  educate  14 
 service  providers  on  the  activities  that  must  occur,  15 
 and  why  those  activities  occur,  and  subsequently  will  16 
 serve  to  avoid  service  disruptions  when  those  blocks  17 
 are  subsequently  donated.  18 
 On  Slide  4,  you'll  recall  that  we  had  a  19 
 presentation  here  at  the  last  NANC  from  a  video  relay  20 
 service  providers.  I  think  it  was  Mark  Ersky  from  CSD  21 
 that  presented  that  information  to  the  NANC.  He  also  22 
 came  at  the  INC  and  made  a  similar  presentation  to  the  23 
 INC,  so  what  has  occurred,  there  was  a  general  24 
 exchange  of  information  from  Mark  and  a  dialogue  that  25 
45
 46 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 ensued  between  Mark  and  the  INC,.  1 
 As  well  as  I  might  point  out  that  there  were  2 
 other  members  from  the  VRS  providers.  I  believe  Mike  3 
 Maddox  and  Joe  Romriel  from  Sorrensen  Communications  4 
 were  there  to  provide  their  input  and  prospectives,  5 
 and  so  as  I  indicated,  the  INC  created  an  issue  to  6 
 address  this,  and  we  will  be  working  this  issue  next  7 
 week  to  further  along  that  process.  Any  questions  8 
 thus  far?  9 
 Okay.  Turning  to  Slide  5,  this  slide  10 
 identifies  issues  that  remain  in  initial  pending  at  11 
 the  INC.  Issue  407  which  most  of  us  are  familiar  12 
 with,  the  treatment  of  dedicated  codes  for  single  13 
 customers  in  a  pooling  environment.  14 
 Very  briefly  this  is  a  process  improvement  15 
 issue  whereby  if  I'm  a  service  provide  that's  16 
 requesting  a  dedicated  code  for  a  customer  in  a  pooled  17 
 environment,  the  process  change  essentially  wants  to  18 
 allow  that  service  provider  to  go  directly  to  the  19 
 NANPA  to  acquire  that  code.  In  today's  process  they  20 
 have  to  go  first  through  the  PA  and  then  to  NANPA  to  21 
 get  that  code.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  you  were  going  22 
 to  take  a  look  a  the  letter  that  NANC  sent  to  the  FCC  23 
 last  February.  24 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I  believe  I  did.  25 
46
 47 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 MR.  HAVENS:  Okay.  1 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I  did.  407.  2 
 MR.  HAVENS:  Yes,  sir.  3 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I  have  a  recollection  of  4 
 writing  such  a  letter,  but  I  will  double-  check  that  it  5 
 went  out.  6 
 MR.  HAVENS:  Okay.  7 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I  will  double  check.  I  8 
 always  should  do  my  own  action  assignments  first,  and  9 
 I  looked  through  the  list  this  morning  and  said  yes  I  10 
 did  that,  but  I'll  check  right  now.  Thank  you.  11 
 MR.  HAVENS:  Thank  you.  Issue  475  and  486  12 
 are  two  other  items  that  remain  in  initial  pending  13 
 that  were  briefly  touched  on  by  the  PA  as  having  14 
 change  orders  associated  with  those,  the  first  being  15 
 the  thousands-  block  forecast  report  directions.  In  16 
 this  issue  we  essentially  made  changes  to  the  T-  bag  17 
 Appendix  1  document.  18 
 (Electronic  interference.)  19 
 Essentially,  we've  modified  the  guidelines  20 
 to  take  out  of  reference  to  a  field  on  the  Appendix  1  21 
 form  that  wasn't  really  there,  so  we  wanted  to  make  22 
 sure  that  the  guidelines  were  copacetic  with  the  23 
 actual  form  itself.  And  secondly  on  Issue  486  24 
 contaminated  or  pristine  assigned  block  returns,  25 
47
 48 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 the  changes  here  would  require  block  holders  to  notate  1 
 on  the  Part  1(  a)  form  in  a  new  field,  a  new  field  is  2 
 the  remarks  field  whether  or  not  the  thousands-  block  3 
 being  donated  is  pristine  or  contaminated  thus  4 
 providing  the  PA  some  additional  information  about  the  5 
 block  when  they  receive  it  back  from  the  service  6 
 provider.  Questions?  7 
 Slide  6  shows  those  issues  that  are  in  final  8 
 closure.  We  have  six  issues  here.  Issue  463,  LERG  9 
 assignees  for  pool  replenishment  or  LRN  requests.  10 
 This  issue  received  attention  at  the  INC  over  the  11 
 course  of  several  meetings,  and  its  intent  was  to  give  12 
 service  providers  in  need  of  an  LRN  the  ability  to  be  13 
 assigned  an  LRN  and  essentially  protect  the  numbers  14 
 associated  with  that  assignment  from  being  used.  15 
 It  was  a  forward-  thinking  type  of  issue  with  16 
 regard  to  number  conservation,  and  the  INC  as  I  17 
 indicated  talked  about  it  over  the  course  of  a  few  18 
 weeks.  And  ultimately  they  decided  that  the  current  19 
 process  whereby  if  a  service  provider  needs  a  code  for  20 
 LRN  purposes  but  doesn't  meet  the  MTE  or  utilization  21 
 criteria  to  go  to  the  state  regulator  via  the  safety  22 
 belt  process.  23 
 That's  the  current  process  for  dealing  with  24 
 situations  like  that  and  the  INC  came  to  conclude  that  25 
48
 49 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 that  was  still  the  best  process  for  this  particular  1 
 type  of  concern  and  thus  the  issue  was  closed  without  2 
 making  any  changes.  3 
 Issue  503,  clarification  on  LERG  assignment  4 
 block  holder  Part  4  submissions.  Changes  were  made  5 
 here  to  the  TBPAG  to  clarify  which  part  form  should  be  6 
 used  by  a  block  holder  who  is  also  a  LERG  assignee  of  7 
 an  NXX.  Essentially,  we  created  within  the  guideline  8 
 changes  a  series  of  if  statements.  If  this,  then  9 
 please  use  the  following  process,  and  so  that  10 
 essentially  is  what  we  did  with  that  issue.  11 
 Issue  500,  returning  a  nonpool  dedicated  12 
 customer  code.  This  was  essentially  an  administrative  13 
 change.  We  had  language  in  both  the  TBPAG  and  the  14 
 COCAG  that  provided  instructions  for  a  service  15 
 provider  on  how  to  return  a  nonpooled  dedicated  code.  16 
 The  INC  concluded  that  that  same  information  needed  17 
 to  be  in  another  part  of  the  COCAG  guidelines,  and  18 
 that  would  be  COCAG  Appendix  C,  and  so  we  added  that  19 
 to  the  document.  20 
 501,  becoming  a  new  LERG  assignee  due  to  21 
 ported  TNs.  We  made  changes  to  the  COCAG  Appendix  C  22 
 to  address  when  a  service  provider  becomes  a  new  LERG  23 
 assignee  for  a  pooled  NXX  as  a  result  of  having  ported  24 
 TNs  but  doesn't  have  a  block  assigned  from  that  NXX.  25 
49
 50 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 Issue  502,  pooled  NXX  codes  returned  in  1 
 error.  The  COCAG  was  modified  in  this  particular  2 
 instance  to  address  the  process  that  service  providers  3 
 should  follow  when  a  pooled  NXX  is  returned  in  error.  4 
 We  identified  essentially  five  scenarios  that  could  5 
 occur,  and  then  we  notated  within  the  guideline  6 
 changes  which  particular  process  should  be  followed  in  7 
 those  particular  circumstances.  8 
 And  finally,  issue  505,  expedite  request  9 
 clarification  to  the  COCAG.  There  was  some  confusion  10 
 apparently  with  regard  to  the  process  that  needed  to  11 
 be  followed  when  a  service  provider  wanted  to  expedite  12 
 the  request  for  a  code,  and  so  the  INC  clarified  that  13 
 process,  and  we  put  that  in  the  document.  Any  14 
 questions  thus  far?  15 
 Moving  on  to  the  last  page,  this  essentially  16 
 identifies  the  relevant  pages  for  information  that  can  17 
 be  found  with  respect  to  INC  guidelines,  issues,  18 
 things  of  that  nature.  One  note  that  we'd  like  to  19 
 note  for  those  NANC  members  that  are  new  and  frankly  20 
 for  all  NANC  members  for  that  matter  the  new  NANC  21 
 operating  manual  that  recently  came  out  refers  to  the  22 
 process  for  NANC  members  to  be  able  to  acquire  a  23 
 password  for  all  INC  documentation.  24 
 And  if  you  needed  information  or  wanted  25 
50
 51 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 information  about  INC,  you  could  contact  the  INC  1 
 administrator  who  is  now  Jackie  English.  Charles  Piot  2 
 is  leaving  the  INC  to  move  on  to  newer,  greener  3 
 pastures,  and  so  Jackie  English  would  be  the  4 
 individual  that  you  would  contact.  Any  questions?  5 
 Thank  you  for  your  time.  6 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Just  to  report,  I  did  prepare  7 
 the  letter  requested  on  4-  07,  but  I  sent  it  into  a  8 
 different  pathway  than  normal  to  the  FCC  since  it  9 
 deals  with  a  long  outstanding  issue,  and  I  don't  know  10 
 that  there's  anybody  from  the  commission  here  today  11 
 that  was  going  to  be  able  to  respond  to  that,  but  I  12 
 will  take  an  action  assignment  to  followup  on  my  13 
 previous  correspondent.  14 
 MR.  HAVENS:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  15 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I  would  propose  that  we  take  16 
 a  15-  minute  break.  We're  going  to  come  back  and  17 
 discuss  money,  the  next  two  agenda  items,  and  so  in  18 
 fact  why  don't  we  reconvene  at  11:  00  promptly.  Thank  19 
 you.  20 
 (Whereupon,  a  short  recess  was  taken.)  21 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  The  next  report  will  be  22 
 Document  No.  9.  23 
 MS.  MARCOTTE:  Good  morning.  I'd  like  to  24 
 start  with  going  over  the  fund's  financial  position  at  25 
51
 52 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 the  end  of  February.  At  the  end  of  February  the  fund  1 
 has  $4.1  million  mainly  made  up  of  cash  that's  left  2 
 from  accrued  liabilities  of  $1.8  million,  and  the  3 
 makeup  of  the  accrued  liabilities  is  below  there,  and  4 
 during  February,  the  fund  that  was  invested  earned  5 
 3.95  percent.  6 
 The  next  page,  page  2,  is  the  projection  of  7 
 the  fund,  forecast  of  the  fund  for  the  next  year.  Of  8 
 particular  note  is  the  balance  of  the  fund  at  the  end  9 
 of  June  which  is  the  funding  year  end.  The  $2.2  10 
 million  is  what  we  project  the  fund  will  be  at.  We  11 
 wanted  it  to  be  at  $1  million  which  was  the  12 
 contingency  balance,  but  there  is  extra  money  going  to  13 
 be  left.  14 
 The  makeup  of  that  money  can  be  seen  on  the  15 
 far  right-  hand  bottom  corner,  the  discrepancy  or  the  16 
 variance,  and  it's  mainly  made  up  to  carrier  audits  17 
 that  were  not  done  that  we  had  anticipated  being  done.  18 
 The  bulk  of  it  is  that  number,  $560,000,  is  $490,000.  19 
 If  we  go  to  the  next  page,  page  3,  it's  a  makeup  of  20 
 the  next  six  months  what  we  expect  to  spend  assuming  21 
 we  get  the  bills  and  the  approvals  to  spend  the  money.  22 
 That's  what's  anticipated.  23 
 That's  the  first  part  of  the  report.  Are  24 
 there  any  questions  on  that?  25 
52
 53 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Could  NANC  have  a  field  trip  1 
 to  Jamaica?  Yes.  We  could  visit  with  Courtney  and  2 
 have  a  meeting  down  there  and  use  up  some  of  these  3 
 surplus  funds.  What  do  you  think?  Any  other  4 
 constructive  comments?  5 
 MS.  MARCOTTE:  Okay.  The  next  part  of  the  6 
 report  is  the  budget  and  the  contribution  factor.  7 
 Page  4  and  5  are  the  commentary  on  the  budget,  so  if  8 
 we  turn  right  to  page  6  that  is  the  budget,  and  I'll  9 
 go  over  that  with  you.  The  first  part  if  the  NANPA  10 
 administration,  and  that  is  a  contract  in  place  for  11 
 that  amount  for  the  $1.4  million.  We've  taken  out  the  12 
 amount  for  the  international  participant,  so  that  13 
 brings  it  down  to  NANPA  administration  costs  of  14 
 $1,338,000.  15 
 The  one  thousands-  block  pooling  there  is  no  16 
 contract.  The  current  contract  expires  in  June  of  17 
 this  year,  so  what  we  have  done  is  without  any  other  18 
 information  we  have  used  the  same  amount  of  $3.5  19 
 million  as  last  for  this  year  because  we  have  no  20 
 information  to  suggest  it  would  be  any  different.  21 
 We've  also  put  in  an  amount  for  pANI  22 
 administration,  and  again  that  is  just  an  estimate  23 
 since  we  don't  have  any  information  as  to  what  that  24 
 might  be.  We're  hoping  it's  a  good  estimate.  For  the  25 
53
 54 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 carrier  audits,  we've  estimated  another  $700,000  based  1 
 on  discussions  with  the  FCC.  The  billing  collection  2 
 agent  is  a  contract  number.  The  data  collection  agent  3 
 is  an  estimate  from  the  data  collection  agent.  4 
 Again,  the  operations  audit  is  an  estimate  5 
 of  $30,000,  and  the  interest  income  is  an  estimate.  6 
 We  expect  to  have  more  money  because  we'll  be  7 
 collecting  more  money  this  year,  so  we  expect  a  higher  8 
 interest.  So  that  leaves  us  with  projected  9 
 disbursements  of  $5,843,000,  plus  we're  assuming  you  10 
 want  to  leave  the  $1  million  contingency  provision,  so  11 
 that  means  we  need  to  fund  $6,843,370  this  year.  Are  12 
 there  any  questions  about  the  budget?  13 
 Okay.  The  next  page  discusses  the  options,  14 
 the  funding  options,  basically  whether  we  use  the  15 
 surplus  or  some  of  the  surplus  or  none  of  the  surplus  16 
 to  fund  these  expenditures  we  expect.  The  first  17 
 option  uses  the  full  amount  of  the  surplus  that  we  18 
 expect  to  be  in  place  at  June  '06.  That's  $2,200,000.  19 
 That  will  leave  us  with  a  contribution  factor  of  20 
 .00020.  21 
 And  if  we  go  to  Option  2  which  we  had  22 
 projected  a  factor  of  25  instead  of  20.  That  would  23 
 leave  not  using  the  full  surplus,  leaving  us  $1.1  24 
 million.  That's  option  2.  Option  2  would  be  not  25 
54
 55 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 using  the  surplus  at  all.  This  would  leave  us  with  a  1 
 factor  of  30,  so  those  are  the  options.  The  billing  2 
 and  collection  agent  working  group  is  going  to  present  3 
 their  recommendation  based  on  these  options.  Are  4 
 there  any  questions?  5 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Thank  you.  So  now  we  get  to  6 
 decide.  Jim  Castagna,  with  the  North  American  7 
 Numbering  Council  Billing  and  Collection  Working  8 
 Group,  and  that  report  will  be  Document  No.  10.  Jim.  9 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  My  10 
 name  is  Jim  Castagna  with  Verizon.  Today,  the  billing  11 
 collection  working  group  is  going  to  recommend  a  12 
 particular  contribution  factor.  Just  a  quick  summary  13 
 on  the  numbers,  we're  expecting  that  $6.8  million  will  14 
 be  required  in  the  next  fiscal  year  which  was  the  same  15 
 which  was  required  in  the  current  fiscal  year.  16 
 The  difference  is  that  last  year  we  had  a  17 
 $5.6  million  surplus  which  was  used  to  reduced  the  18 
 contribution  factor.  This  year  we'll  have  a  $2.2  19 
 million  surplus  which  will  of  course  require  a  higher  20 
 contribution  factor,  so  with  that  let's  go  behind  the  21 
 cover  page  to  the  first  page.  Of  course  the  billing  22 
 collection  working  group  consulted  with  Welch  and  23 
 Company.  We  considered  pANI  Administration  carrier  24 
 audits  and  PA  contract  RFP,  among  other  items  that  are  25 
55
 56 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 on  the  budget  that  were  described  to  you  by  Faith.  1 
 We  discussed  three  different  options  which  2 
 are  also  shown  on  the  billing  collection  agent's  3 
 report  as  Options  1,  2  and  3.  We  recognize  that  the  4 
 carrier  obligations  would  be  $6.8  million  for  the  next  5 
 fiscal  year,  and  that  the  $83,000  remaining  dollars  6 
 required  from  NANP  funding  is  to  come  from  7 
 international  participants,  and  also  that  the  8 
 anticipated  surplus  is  $2.2  million.  9 
 And  the  reason  why  we  list  that  as  10 
 anticipated  because  until  we  get  to  the  end  of  June,  11 
 we  really  won't  know  what  the  exact  surplus  is.  If  we  12 
 could  turn  the  page,  please?  The  billing  collection  13 
 working  group  recommends  that  the  council  endorse  14 
 Option  1  which  is  calling  for  a  contribution  factor  of  15 
 0.000020.  16 
 We  would  keep  the  contingency  amount  at  $1  17 
 million.  We  would  consume  the  entire  projected  18 
 surplus  of  $2.2  million,  and  the  net  U.  S.  carrier  19 
 contributions  would  be  $4.6  million  to  meet  the  U.  S.  20 
 funding  requirement  of  $6.8  million.  21 
 The  rationale  for  that  approach  is  that  by  22 
 consuming  the  surplus  each  year,  we  provide  a  23 
 contribution  factor  of  long-  term  stability  as  compared  24 
 to  letting  the  surplus  accumulate.  Of  course,  if  we  25 
56
 57 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 let  the  surplus  accumulate,  eventually  we'd  have  to  1 
 reconcile  that  surplus,  and  we  would  of  course  2 
 experience  a  large  swing  in  the  contribution  factor,  3 
 so  by  consuming  this  surplus  each  year,  it  seems  that  4 
 we  will  have  more  of  a  consistent  contribution  factor  5 
 each  year  as  well.  6 
 The  $1  million  contingency  provides  a  7 
 sufficient  buffer  as  we've  experienced  last  year,  and  8 
 last  year  the  factor  was  0.0000052,  and  stakeholder  9 
 were  informed  to  anticipate  that  the  factor  will  10 
 return  to  approximately  0.000025  in  fiscal  year  11 
 '06/  '07,  so  what  we're  proposing  in  Option  1  is  12 
 0.000020  which  is  approximately  what  we  believed  to  be  13 
 a  reasonable  factor  for  this  year  based  upon  14 
 information  we  had  last  year  at  the  time  of  making  15 
 that  forecast.  Any  questions  so  far?  16 
 Okay.  What  we  did  on  the  next  slide  is  we  17 
 put  together  a  little  history  of  the  contribution  18 
 factor.  There  were  some  changes  in  some  of  the  fiscal  19 
 years,  so  there's  two  columns  there.  One  is  the  20 
 originally  proposed  factor,  and  the  second  column  is  21 
 the  final  number  so  you  could  see  where  the  22 
 contribution  factors  stood  in  the  prior  years.  23 
 And  at  the  bottom  we  have  proposed  Option  1  24 
 which  shows  a  contribution  factor  of  0.020,  so  it  25 
57
 58 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 looks  as  though  that  we  will  be  returning  to  nominal  1 
 contribution  factor  range  of  0.020  next  fiscal  year,  2 
 and  certainly  if  we  continue  to  consume  surplus  if  3 
 surplus  remains  below  $2  million  and  everything  else  4 
 remains  the  same,  we  could  probably  expect  a  5 
 contribution  factor  in  the  0.025  range  going  forward.  6 
 Okay.  On  the  next  slide,  the  recommendation  7 
 is  like  an  action  item  list.  Here  we're  asking  the  8 
 NANC  to  spend  $6.8  million.  Well,  actually  we  all  9 
 expected  that,  but  we're  asking  NANC  to  ask  Welch  and  10 
 Company  to  employ  the  approach  described  in  Option  1  11 
 when  preparing  its  FCC  filing.  12 
 We're  asking  NANC  to  ask  Welch  and  Company  13 
 to  share  the  draft  filing  with  the  billing  collection  14 
 working  group  prior  to  the  filing  due  date,  and  that's  15 
 just  a  step  that  is  used  to  review  the  filing  before  16 
 they  submit  it  so  that  a  second  set  of  eyes  could  take  17 
 a  look  at  it,  and  this  way  all  the  NANC  members  need  18 
 not  be  concerned  that  they  know  the  billing  collection  19 
 working  group  is  managing  and  monitoring  the  process  20 
 appropriately.  21 
 What  we'd  like  NANC  to  ask  Welch  and  Company  22 
 to  do  is  to  obtain  the  contribution  base  from  NECA  in  23 
 April  to  calculate  the  exact  contribution  factor.  24 
 Recognizing  that  the  contribution  base  is  used  in  25 
58
 59 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 calculating  the  contribution  factor,  when  they  get  the  1 
 final  numbers  from  NECA,  the  anticipated  contribution  2 
 factor  may  change,  but  it  would  take  a  lot,  probably  a  3 
 large  change  in  the  base  for  the  contribution  factor  4 
 to  change.  5 
 So  there  might  be  differences  in  numbers  6 
 that  you're  seeing  today  on  this  presentation  as  well  7 
 as  some  of  the  numbers  that  were  shown  on  Welch  and  8 
 Company's  presentation,  just  a  heads  up  on  that.  And  9 
 also  we  asked  NANC  to  ask  Welch  and  Company  to  prepare  10 
 an  FCC  filing  reflecting  the  contribution  factor  and  11 
 budgeted  amounts  corresponding  to  Option  1.  12 
 And  of  course  the  last  item  is  there  for  13 
 informational  purposes.  We  don't  try  to  direct  the  14 
 FCC  to  do  anything,  but  we're  asking  people  to  15 
 recognize  that  the  next  step  is  for  the  FCC  to  direct  16 
 the  agent  to  implement  Option  1  for  fiscal  year  17 
 '06/  '07.  Any  questions?  18 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I've  got  a  couple  just  for  19 
 clarification.  In  sense  by  consuming  the  surplus,  you  20 
 consume  the  million  dollar  contingency,  but  then  you  21 
 budget  a  million  dollar  contingency,  and  I  think  22 
 that's  how  I  understand  it  mechanically.  The  specific  23 
 question  I  have  though  is  there  any  possibility  of  in  24 
 a  sense  the  cashflow  such  that  the  million  dollars  25 
59
 60 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 isn't  in  fact  available  at  any  time  in  terms  of  the  1 
 outflow  and  the  inflow  2 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  Well,  in  my  understanding  of  3 
 the  process,  and  I'll  ask  Faith  to  correct  me  if  I'm  4 
 wrong,  the  million  dollar  contingency  is  going  to  be  5 
 available  on  the  first  month  of  the  fiscal  year,  so  6 
 you'll  always  have  a  million  dollars  there.  It's  not  7 
 like  we  need  to  accrue  excess  monies  during  the  fiscal  8 
 year  to  accrue  the  million  dollars.  9 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Yes.  I  mean,  I  think  if  10 
 you're  going  to  have  a  contingency,  it  needs  to  be  11 
 case.  12 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  To  be  there  from  the  start.  13 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  There  needs  to  be  cash  14 
 available  at  all  times.  Okay.  My  other  questions  go  15 
 to  the  timing  here.  Just  working  backwards,  the  FCC  16 
 issues  an  order  with  the  contribution  rate.  Is  the  17 
 XTANT  order,  does  that  terminate  at  any  time,  or  does  18 
 the  current  rate  of  0.52  continue  until  the  FCC  issues  19 
 an  order?  You  know,  I'm  looking  at  a  June  date,  and  20 
 that's  kind  of  close.  21 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  Well,  my  understanding  of  the  22 
 process  is  that  when  the  billing  collection  agent  23 
 files  for  a  contribution  factor  and  budget,  it's  for  a  24 
 particular  fiscal  year.  And  the  process  established  25 
60
 61 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 today  is  similar  to  that  use  last  year  in  which  would  1 
 involve  Welch  and  Company  submitting  a  filing  which  if  2 
 endorsed  by  the  NANC  today  probably  wouldn't  cause  any  3 
 concern  in  terms  of  the  FCC's  response.  4 
 Although  I  believe  if  there  is  no  response  5 
 from  the  FCC  that  Welch  and  Company  probably  would  not  6 
 be  able  to  begin  issuing  bills  for  the  new  fiscal  7 
 year,  and  I  would  have  to  defer  to  Faith  from  Welch  8 
 and  Company  regarding  the  process  if  she  didn't  get  a  9 
 response  from  the  FCC.  10 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Where  is  Faith?  Do  you  have  11 
 any  views  on  that,  or  do  you  recall  what  your  limits  12 
 are  in  terms  of  direction?  13 
 (Away  from  microphone.)  14 
 MS.  MARCOTTE:  I  don't  (inaudible).  15 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  And  you  bill  quarterly  or  16 
 monthly?  17 
 MS.  MARCOTTE:  No.  Most  of  them  pay  18 
 annually.  19 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Annually?  Okay.  20 
 MS.  MARCOTTE:  They  are  not  to  pay  until  we  21 
 do  in  May.  They  (inaudible)  do  June  or  June  12,  so  we  22 
 need  to  get  a  response  I  guess  (inaudible)  early  23 
 (inaudible).  24 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  So  you  actually  need  to  send  25 
61
 62 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 a  bill  out  in  May  with  the  new  contribution  rate?  1 
 MS.  MARCOTTE:  That's  right.  2 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I'm  sort  of  going  through  3 
 this  for  the  benefit  of  our  new  friends  from  the  FCC  4 
 just  so  they  understand  some  of  the  timeframes  we're  5 
 working  here.  6 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  Well,  theoretically  though  7 
 the  FCC  authorizes  payments,  so  even  if  a  new  8 
 contribution  factor  wasn't  approved,  we  have  a  $2.2  9 
 million  surplus  and  the  million  dollar  contingency  10 
 that  would  probably  hold  Welch  and  Company  and  the  11 
 industry  through  several  months  as  FCC  authorized  12 
 payments  but  did  not  approve  any  new  collections.  13 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Yes.  I  mean,  hopefully  we  14 
 can  avoid  all  that  and  keep  it  smooth,  but  it's  15 
 important  to  think  of  that.  16 
 MS.  RETKA:  Mary  Retka  from  Qwest.  17 
 Historically,  this  is  the  way  it  generally  has  gone  is  18 
 that  the  agent  sends  in  their  filing  to  the  FCC  in  19 
 May,  and  during  that  timeframe  the  FCC  responds  in  20 
 time  for  them  to  do  the  billing.  21 
 Now,  I  know  that,  and,  Michael,  if  you  22 
 remember  differently,  help  me  with  this,  that  it  23 
 sometimes  was  right  up  to  the  wire  to  get  the  FCC  24 
 order,  but  they  always  made  it  in  time  for  the  billing  25 
62
 63 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 to  be  done,  so  historically  when  NBANC  did  and  now  1 
 last  year  I  don't  think  we  should  see  a  problem  with  2 
 it.  3 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  But  there  is  a  tight  window  4 
 here.  5 
 MS.  RETKA:  Yes.  6 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Okay.  That's  really  what  I  7 
 want  to  emphasize  as  much  of  anything  to  the  FCC  8 
 staff,  otherwise  when  people  don't  get  paid,  things  9 
 get  ugly,  so  that's  my  questions  at  this  stage.  Any  10 
 other  questions?  Anna?  11 
 MS.  MILLER:  Anna  Miller,  T-  Mobile.  Jim,  I  12 
 think  you  just  eased  my  mind  a  little  bit  because  13 
 there  is  an  existing  $2.2  million  surplus  that  will  be  14 
 depleted  over  time  as  this  new  contribution  factor  15 
 comes  in,  and  you  said  that  the  million  will  always  be  16 
 there.  But  I  guess  the  one  unknown  is  the  renewal  of  17 
 the  pooling  administrator  contract,  and  I  just  18 
 wondered  what  type  of  discussion  did  you  have  about  19 
 that.  20 
 The  assumption  here  is  that  it's  at  the  same  21 
 rate,  yet  I  heard  in  the  pooling  report  that  the  pool  22 
 assignments  were  up  over  47  percent  in  2005  over  2004,  23 
 so  was  there  discussion  then  about  that  unknown,  and  24 
 do  you  feel  comfortable  given  the  surpluses  that  exist  25 
63
 64 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 that  that  can  be  accommodated?  1 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  I'd  have  to  say  that  although  2 
 I  did  miss  a  meeting,  and  I  asked  Rosemary  to  make  up  3 
 for  any  discussion  I  wasn't  aware  of,  the  volume  of  4 
 blocks  was  not  to  my  knowledge  discussed  as  much  as  5 
 the  context  of  the  contract  in  terms  of  what  we  sensed  6 
 would  be  a  competitive  price  given  that  there  is  an  7 
 expectation  that  other  companies  will  be  bidding.  8 
 The  competitive  environment  will  keep  the  9 
 price  at  or  below,  however,  with  the  million  dollar  10 
 contingency  and  provisions  we  put  in  for  the  function  11 
 of  the  pANI  administration  we  felt  that  and  everyone  12 
 including  Welch  and  Company  who  had  discussed,  you  13 
 know,  the  budget  felt  comfortable  with  the  budget  14 
 considering  the  million  dollar  contingency  was  there.  15 
 Rosemary,  do  you  have  something  to  add,  please?  16 
 MS.  EMMER:  Yes,  and  just  that  in  fact  this  17 
 did  come  up,  Welch  and  Company  brought  this  up  when  18 
 they  initially  provided  the  budget  and  the  options  to  19 
 us,  and  it  was  definitely  a  discussion  item,  and  again  20 
 everything  that  Jim  said  is  absolutely  true  that  we  21 
 ended  up  to  deciding  to  keep  it  exactly  the  way  it  was  22 
 from  last  year,  and  we  also  did  add  the  pANI.  23 
 If  you  noticed  in  the  budget  we  added  24 
 something  --  150.  Yes.  For  pANI  without  knowing  what  25 
64
 65 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 that  would  be.  We  went  ahead  and  put  something  in  1 
 there.  Welch  and  Company  went  ahead  and  put  something  2 
 in  there  for  us.  Thank  you.  3 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  And  just  one  other  point.  4 
 There  is  a  box  describing  accrued  liabilities,  and  5 
 sometimes  when  you  can't  pay  the  heating  bill,  they  6 
 don't  turn  it  off  right  away,  so  if  we  come  up  short  7 
 on  funds,  you  know,  we  just  pay  when  we  have  the  8 
 money.  I  mean,  you  can't  pay  if  you  don't  have  the  9 
 money.  10 
 FEMALE  VOICE:  Well,  I  don't  think  that  11 
 that's  the  management  plan.  12 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  No.  No,  it  isn't  the  13 
 management  plan,  but  I  just  wanted  to  point  out  that  14 
 there  is  such  an  entry  as  accrued  liabilities.  John?  15 
 MR.  JEFFERSON:  Yes.  John  Jefferson,  AT&  T.  16 
 We  went  through  this  exercise  last  year  as  well.  We  17 
 had  a  surplus,  right?  Or  is  this  the  first?  18 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  Last  year  we  had  a  19 
 significant  surplus.  It  was  over  $5  million.  20 
 MR.  JEFFERSON:  Right.  Okay.  So  I  was  just  21 
 curious.  Had  some  thought  gone  into  the  year  after  a  22 
 surplus  year  would  be  a  good  year  to  start  paying  into  23 
 this,  and  entities  that  have  been  paying  into  this  24 
 fund  in  prior  years  now  that  have  created  the  surplus  25 
65
 66 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 lower  the  contribution  rate  for  everyone  in  this  1 
 succeeding  year,  and  I  was  just  wondering  if  some  2 
 thought  had  gone  into  how  that  works?  3 
 I'm  not  informed  enough  to  know  if  there  are  4 
 new  entrants  coming  in  paying  this  year  into  this,  but  5 
 I  just  looked  at  the  numbers  and  thought  I'd  ask  that  6 
 question.  7 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  We  considered  a  similar  issue  8 
 of  character  when  it  comes  to  paying,  who  pays,  who  9 
 paid,  who  should  be  paying  last  year,  when  we  had  the  10 
 significant  surplus,  and  at  the  time  there  was  a  11 
 discussion  regarding  how  difficult  or  almost  12 
 impossible  and  inaccurate  it  would  be  to  try  to  go  13 
 back  to  see  who  contributed  and  who  should  be  entitled  14 
 to  a  refund.  15 
 The  cost  and  the  effort  and  considering  the  16 
 complexity  of  that  process  and  the  risk  of  not  being  17 
 accurate  was  too  great  to  consider  pursuing  that  18 
 approach.  However,  we  did  not  consider  that  type  of  19 
 analysis  this  year  because  this  is  a  forward-  looking  20 
 budget  in  terms  of  what  we  intend  to  spend  next  year,  21 
 and  there  is  no  annual  reconciliation,  what  was  paid  22 
 and  what  should  have  been  paid  because  the  23 
 contribution  factor  is  established  for  each  fiscal  24 
 year.  25 
66
 67 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 So  if  you're  a  telecommunications  provider,  1 
 and  you  need  to  participate  and  contribute  your  fair  2 
 share,  it's  based  on  the  contribution  factor  related  3 
 to  the  year  that  you're  in  service  and  using  NANPs  or  4 
 NANP  numbers,  so  with  that  type  of  philosophy  it's  not  5 
 something  where  we  always  go  back  to  see,  you  know,  6 
 was  there  anything  that  should  have  or  could  have  been  7 
 done  when  there  is  a  surplus.  8 
 MR.  JEFFERSON:  And  just  a  quick  follow-  up  9 
 to  that,  and  I  might  be  missing  the  boat  here,  and  10 
 this  might  have  already  been  explained,  but  is  there  11 
 any  thought  to  using  the  contingency  or  some  monies,  12 
 and  it  might  be  the  purpose  of  the  contingency  so  that  13 
 you  can  cut  it  a  little  closer  so  then  instead  of  14 
 getting  a  surplus  you  might  run  a  deficit,  but  you  15 
 have  a  way  to  account  for  that  if  anything?  Kind  of  16 
 like  doing  your  taxes.  Your  goal  is  to  get  to  zero  at  17 
 the  end  of  the  year.  18 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  Well,  we  don't  have  anything  19 
 that  we  are  aware  of  that  may  use  contingency  month.  20 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Well,  no.  We  do.  We  have  21 
 two  unknowns  which  is  the  new  PA  rate  and  the  pANI  22 
 rate.  I  mean,  those  are  just  plug  numbers  at  this  23 
 stage,  and  you  just  don't  know  what  they're  going  to  24 
 be.  25 
67
 68 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  Yes.  Maybe  I  should  have  1 
 rephrased  that.  If  we  have  an  anticipated  2 
 expenditure,  we  would  put  that  as  a  budget  item,  but  3 
 we  don't  have  any  specificity  or  details  that  would  4 
 warrant  a  specific  individual  budget  item,  and  5 
 therefore  what  I'm  trying  to  say  is  that  unless  we  6 
 have  details  or  specific  information  that  we  could  use  7 
 to  adjust  the  budgeted  item  or  create  a  new  budget  8 
 item,  we  can't  do  that,  and  therefore  the  contingency  9 
 is  there  in  case  we  need  money.  10 
 But  there's  nothing  that  we  know,  you  know,  11 
 we'll  consume  a  contingency.  We  know  that  any  of  the  12 
 budgeted  line  items  may  be  insufficient  and  require  13 
 the  use  of  contingency,  but  there  are  no  plans  to  use  14 
 the  contingency  unless  something  unexpected  happens.  15 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  For  example,  I  mean  the  FCC  16 
 could  decide  to  do  a  whole  bunch  more  audits,  right?  17 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  That's  correct.  18 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Mary?  19 
 MS.  RETKA:  Mary  Retka  from  Qwest.  What  you  20 
 have  to  remember  though  is  you  have  to  go  based  on  the  21 
 historic  experience  and  can't  run  in  the  black,  so  you  22 
 have  to  have  a  contingency,  and  that  was  one  of  the  23 
 requirements  that  came  out  is  that  you  can't  run  in  24 
 the  black  when  you're  doing  this  effort,  and  then  you  25 
68
 69 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 have  to  remember  that  when  we've  previously  seen  the  1 
 second  round  of  a  contract,  they've  come  in  lower.  2 
 In  fact,  much  lower,  that's  why  we  had  such  3 
 a  big  surplus  the  last  time  that  had  to  be  dealt  with.  4 
 Do  you  want  to  add  anything  Michael?  5 
 (Away  from  microphone.)  6 
 MR.  WHALEY:  Just  to  (inaudible)  not  being  7 
 able  to  (inaudible)  pass  the  torch  to  each  generation.  8 
 Perhaps  the  issues  of  having  a  surplus  which  is  a  9 
 pleasant  problem  to  have  are  in  part  due  to  the  legal  10 
 reality  that  this  fund  can't  borrow.  So  it  really  11 
 does  have  to  fund  on  a  going-  forward  basis,  and  to  the  12 
 question  about  trying  to  somehow  track  benefits  to  13 
 prior  payors,  we're  really  dealing  in  one  sense  with  14 
 an  accrual  issue.  15 
 The  budgets  are  put  together  each  year  16 
 knowing  what  the  contract  terms  are  going  to  be,  and  17 
 sometimes  to  the  vendors'  disappointment,  the  FCC  18 
 doesn't  necessarily  approve  the  payments  in  time,  and  19 
 it  becomes  an  accrual  matter,  to  much  of  the  money  20 
 that  was  collected  last  year  was  for  the  services  21 
 rendered  last  year,  but  may  not  have  been  paid  and  is  22 
 carried  over.  Every  year  there's  a  slightly  different  23 
 mix  of  accrual  issues.  That  timing  also  complicates  24 
 the  budget  presentation.  25 
69
 70 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  John?  1 
 MR.  JEFFERSON:  John  Jefferson,  AT&  T.  Yes.  2 
 It's  indeed  a  cruel  world.  I  had  to  get  that  one  in.  3 
 Accounting  101  joke.  Okay.  So  if  we  talk  surplus  4 
 though,  now  I'm  starting  to  understand  this  5 
 contingency  as  a  million  dollar  surplus  in  a  sense  6 
 already.  Is  that  the  wrong  way  to  look  at  it?  7 
 Because  if  it  is,  then  maybe  we  could  work  toward  8 
 getting  it  so  that  if  we  have  any  cushion  at  all,  it's  9 
 just  going  to  be  to  contingency.  10 
 But  going  over,  and  obviously  it's  a  goal  of  11 
 the  working  group,  too,  but  I  just  wanted  to  make  it  12 
 clear  that  that's  how  I'm  thinking  about  it  now  that  13 
 we've  got  two  years  in  a  row  of  surplus  that  maybe  14 
 we're  overcorrecting  based  on  the  accruals  and  other  15 
 things  that  we  anticipate  might  impact  any  given  16 
 budget  year.  17 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  The  contingency  is  the  only  18 
 monies  that  are  there  in  case  we  need  them.  It  really  19 
 can't  be  considered  surplus  if  we  keep  it  there  year  20 
 over  year.  The  contingency  is  set  to  $1  million.  21 
 Even  with  that  million  dollars  we  have  an  additional  22 
 anticipated  surplus  of  $2.2  million.  So  by  keeping  23 
 the  million  dollar  cushion  and  consuming  the  surplus  24 
 as  recommended  in  Option  1,  we  believe  we  have  a  25 
70
 71 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 viable  budget,  and  something  that's  going  to  keep  us,  1 
 you  know,  in  the  black  until  next  fiscal  year.  2 
 As  far  as  trying  to  tweak,  you  know,  the  3 
 budget  for  the  pooling  administration,  I  think  it  4 
 would  probably  send  the  wrong  signal  to  the  industry  5 
 who's  competing  for  that  contract  to  up  the  number  and  6 
 give  them  the  impression  that  we  want  to  spend  more  7 
 money  or  maybe  even  to  lower  the  number  because  then  8 
 that  might,  you  know,  force  us  into  a  situation  where  9 
 we  needed  to  consume  more  money  than  anticipated.  10 
 So  by  leaving  it  where  it  is,  we  send  no  11 
 signal  at  all,  so  there  is  other  reasons  also  for  12 
 doing  that,  but  I  think  the  best  reason  was  is  because  13 
 we  believe  that  that  number  would  be  the  most  14 
 appropriate  number  given  what  we  anticipate  happening  15 
 next  year  including  the  re-  bid  and  pANI  administration  16 
 and  audits  and  all  that  other  stuff  that  goes  into  the  17 
 budget.  18 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Any  other  questions?  If  not,  19 
 we've  got  a  couple  of  items  on  the  table  here,  so  20 
 we've  been  asked  for  two  decisions  at  the  NANC  level.  21 
 First  is  to  ask  Welch  and  Co.  to  employ  the  approach  22 
 described  in  Option  1  when  preparing  the  FCC  filing.  23 
 Any  objections?  So  Welch  we're  on  board  with  24 
 Option  1.  25 
71
 72 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 And  then  the  second  one  is  to  ask  Welch  and  1 
 Co.  to  share  the  draft  filing  with  the  billing  2 
 collection  working  group  prior  to  the  filing  due  date,  3 
 and  implicit  in  that  is  essentially  that  NANC  is  4 
 giving  the  billing  collection  working  group  authority  5 
 just  to  sort  of  oversee  the  preparation  of  that  6 
 document.  Any  objections?  So,  Welch,  we  in  fact  7 
 share  that,  and  then  of  course  there's  these  other  8 
 items  to  Welch.  9 
 Now,  I  guess  the  only  point  I  would  make  is  10 
 the  sooner  the  better  in  terms  of  the  filing.  What  is  11 
 the  date  in  April  that  you  would  be  getting  the  input  12 
 from  NECA?  Any  idea?  13 
 (Away  from  microphone.)  14 
 FEMALE  VOICE:  (Inaudible)  use  that.  15 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Use  that?  16 
 FEMALE  VOICE:  And  it's  at  the  end  --  17 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  End  of  April.  18 
 FEMALE  VOICE:  Here  are  some  of  the  reports  19 
 (inaudible).  20 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I'll  leave  it  up  to  maybe  the  21 
 billing  collection  working  group  and  Welch  together.  22 
 I  don't  know  if  there's  any  way  even  to  send  in  a  23 
 filing  to  the  FCC  and  then  amend  it  if  necessarily  24 
 just  to  try  to  speed  things  along,  or  maybe  that  will  25 
72
 73 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 confuse  things  at  the  FCC.  I  don't  know.  I  mean,  to  1 
 have  two  filings.  Rosemary?  2 
 MS.  EMMER:  Rosemary  Emmer  with  Sprint  3 
 Nextel,  and  we  are  working  with  Welch  on  that.  We  did  4 
 develop  sort  of  a  draft  timeline,  and  we  have  5 
 conference  calls  scheduled,  so  as  soon  as  we  can  get  6 
 to  that.  We're  definitely  tracking  it  in  other  words.  7 
 I'd  also  like  to  take  this  opportunity  to  thank  Welch  8 
 and  Company  for  an  outstanding  job  in  preparing  and  9 
 delivering  the  proposed  budget  as  well  as  the  options  10 
 for  the  contribution  factor.  11 
 They  made  our  lives  as  B&  C  working  group  co-  12 
 chairs  and  the  members  extremely  easy  this  year  by  13 
 going  over  those  line  by  line  and  having  all  of  the  14 
 right  people  on  the  phone.  That  includes  Faith,  15 
 Heather  and  Garth,  and  they  just  did  an  excellent  job.  16 
 Thank  you  very  much.  17 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Duly  noted.  So  the  only  18 
 other  item  then  --  I  mean,  the  only  thing  I  see  out  of  19 
 all  this  is  we  do  have  a  potential  timing  problem.  We  20 
 need  to  get  a  filing  to  the  FCC  as  soon  as  possible,  21 
 and  then  we  need  the  FCC  to  act  on  that  promptly  so  22 
 that  the  bills  can  go  out.  23 
 I'm  thinking  if  they're  not  going  to  get  24 
 this  USAC  data  until  the  end  of  April,  a  couple  of  25 
73
 74 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 days,  even  if  you  could  get  the  filing  to  the  FCC  by  1 
 the  1st  of  May,  the  chances  of  getting  a  decision  --  2 
 when  do  you  send  out  the  bills,  Faith?  3 
 MS.  MARCOTTE:  Around  the  20th  of  May.  4 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  What  happens  if  you  don't  get  5 
 an  FCC  approval  by  the  20th  of  May?  What  do  you  do?  6 
 MS.  MARCOTTE:  Send  them  out  later.  7 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Send  them  out  later.  Okay.  8 
 And  at  what  point  does  that  become  a  cashflow  problem?  9 
 A  few  months  because  we've  got  a  million  dollars  10 
 sitting  in  the  bank?  11 
 FEMALE  VOICE:  We've  got  2.2.  12 
 MALE  VOICE:  We've  got  $3  million.  13 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Yes.  Okay.  Well,  I  mean  14 
 everyone  understands  the  realities,  so  let's  hope  that  15 
 the  scheduling  works  out.  Anything  else  for  Jim?  16 
 MR.  CASTAGNA:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  17 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Thank  you.  The  next  item  on  18 
 our  agenda  is  reports  from  the  issues  management  19 
 group.  The  only  one  that  I  am  aware  of  will  be  the  20 
 operating  manual,  and  I  would  suggest  to  our  folks  21 
 from  the  policy  division  everything  you  in  theory  need  22 
 to  know  about  NANC,  how  it  works,  is  in  here.  23 
 In  fact,  this  operating  manual  was  developed  24 
 for  new  members,  but  I  think  it  would  equally  go  well  25 
74
 75 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 for  people  at  the  FCC  who  are  jumping  into  the  middle  1 
 of  NANC,  so,  Rosemary,  do  you  have  anything  to  add,  2 
 otherwise  this  is  my  end.  3 
 MS.  EMMER:  Yes.  It  now  belongs  to  you,  Mr.  4 
 Chairman,  for  update.  5 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I  am  now  the  custodian  of  the  6 
 operating  manual  Version  1.  I  did  note  a  couple  of  7 
 things.  I'll  even  want  to  just  update  myself,  and  8 
 eventually  I'll  issue  a  Rev.  1.1,  but  unless  anyone  9 
 has  any  other  comments,  I'd  like  to  thank  the  IMG  for  10 
 a  great  piece  of  work.  And  I  think  I  would  actually  11 
 ask  the  FCC  staff  if  you  look  through  this,  and  if  12 
 there  are  other  things  in  here  that  you  need  to  know,  13 
 or  if  it  doesn't  answer  your  questions  about  how  NANC  14 
 is  working,  let  us  know,  and  we'll  expand  it  because  15 
 any  new  NANC  member,  and  we  will  have  new  members  16 
 periodically.  I  just  hope  we  will  help  them  figure  17 
 out  what  goes  on  here,  so  thank  you,  Rosemary,  and  the  18 
 IMG,  and  the  final  document,  their  report  would  be  19 
 Document  No.  11.  20 
 That  gets  us  to  Agenda  Item  10,  report  of  21 
 the  Local  Number  Portability  Administration,  and  whose  22 
 giving  that  report?  That  would  be  Gary  Sacra.  Gary's  23 
 report  is  Document  12.  24 
 MR.  SACRA:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Good  25 
75
 76 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 morning,  everyone.  The  first  item  on  the  report  1 
 relates  to  NPAC  Software  Release  3.3.  Some  good  news  2 
 there.  Release  3.3  was  successfully  loaded  in  the  3 
 West  Coast  regional  impact  this  past  February  26.  4 
 It's  running  smoothly.  No  issues  identified  to  date,  5 
 and  the  remaining  production  load  dates  are  continuing  6 
 to  be  on  schedule.  7 
 After  about  a  one-  month  SOA  period  for  the  8 
 first  region,  Release  3.3.  will  be  loaded  in  the  9 
 southeast  and  western  regions  on  March  26,  the  10 
 northeast  and  midwest  regions  on  April  2,  and  then  11 
 we'll  finish  up  in  the  mid-  Atlantic  and  the  southwest  12 
 and  the  impact  test  there  on  April  9.  13 
 An  update  on  the  disaster  preparation  14 
 subteam  of  the  LNPA  working  group  and  the  final  report  15 
 on  out  of  LATA  porting  and  pooling  for  disaster  relief  16 
 in  response  to  Hurricane  Katrina.  We  have  moved  up  17 
 our  scheduled  completion  date  for  the  final  report  in  18 
 response  to  their  --  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  FCC's  19 
 Katrina  panel  who  had  requested  that  the  final  report  20 
 if  possible  be  completed  by  May  1.  21 
 We've  moved  up  our  date  to  mid-  April  in  22 
 order  to  be  able  to  present  it  or  submit  it  to  the  23 
 NANC  and  the  NANPM  LLC  and  give  the  council  a  couple  24 
 of  weeks  to  be  able  to  read  through  the  report  in  25 
76
 77 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 order  to  then  submit  it  to  the  Katrina  panel.  1 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Let  me  suggest  just  so  the  2 
 Katrina  panel  gets  it  as  soon  as  possible  that  we  3 
 could  probably  adopt  that  even  by  some  sort  of  4 
 electronic  means  from  NANC.  I  mean,  giving  it  NANC  5 
 approval.  6 
 MR.  SACRA:  Right.  Because  there  won't  be  7 
 another  NANC  meeting  prior  to  --  8 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Yes.  Our  next  NANC  meeting  9 
 is  middle  of  May.  10 
 MR.  SACRA:  Right.  11 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  So  as  soon  as  it's  ready,  12 
 launch  it,  send  it  around  to  NANC  and  if  necessary  we  13 
 can  have  a  quick  conference  call  or  something  like  14 
 that,  and  there  may  be  another  reason  to  have  a  15 
 conference  call  between  now  and  May  anyway.  16 
 MR.  SACRA:  Okay.  That  will  work  fine.  17 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Thanks.  18 
 MR.  SACRA:  And  I  believe  it  was  the  19 
 November  30  meeting.  There  was  some  discussion  20 
 surrounding  how  many  numbers  were  actually  ported  or  21 
 pooled  across  LATA  boundaries,  and  again  this  is  not  22 
 the  official  number  since  the  report  has  not  been  23 
 completely  finalized  yet,  but  unofficially  and  subject  24 
 to  change  upon  final  review.  25 
77
 78 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 Based  on  input  from  service  providers  that  1 
 did  port  or  pool  numbers  across  LATA  boundaries  in  2 
 response  to  Hurricane  Katrina,  it  appears  that  3 
 somewhere  in  the  vicinity  of  a  quarter  million  numbers  4 
 were  moved  across  LATA  boundaries,  and  these  are  5 
 working  numbers,  customer-  assigned  numbers.  6 
 Approximately,  a  quarter  of  a  million  were  either  7 
 ported  or  pooled  across  LATA  boundaries  to  provide  8 
 some  portion  of  service  to  those  impacted  customers.  9 
 Again,  that  number  will  be  further  reviewed  10 
 and  finalized  per  the  completed  report.  Any  questions  11 
 on  that?  We're  shooting  for  around  April  15  to  not  12 
 only  get  our  taxes  in,  but  also  get  the  report  to  the  13 
 NANC,  so  no  particular  priority  order  there.  14 
 The  next  item  is  the  NANC  change  order  15 
 requirements  update.  Again,  the  LNP  working  group  is  16 
 blowing  the  dust  off  literally  on  the  accepted  change  17 
 orders  that  remain  in  the  pool  of  change  orders.  18 
 We're  going  through  those  change  orders.  The  service  19 
 provider  is  the  first  step,  developed  a  level  of  20 
 interest  for  each  of  the  change  orders.  Some  were  21 
 eliminated.  Some  we  decided  to  continue  to  move  22 
 forward  and  develop  the  technical  requirements,  so  23 
 that's  where  we're  at  right  now.  24 
 We're  in  the  process  of  continuing  to  either  25 
78
 79 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 review  the  existing  requirements  --  some  of  the  change  1 
 orders  we  had  already  developed  requirements  for  2 
 months  ago.  Some  still  require  the  development  of  the  3 
 technical  requirements,  so  we're  in  the  process  now  of  4 
 going  through  those  accepted  change  orders  and  make  5 
 sure  that  the  requirements  are  developed.  6 
 And  then  at  some  point  in  time  there  will  be  7 
 a  decision  point  in  our  process  to  determine  whether  8 
 or  not  there's  enough  interest  in  the  change  orders  to  9 
 perhaps  start  to  develop  a  software  release  package,  10 
 but  again  that  process  or  that  point  in  the  process  is  11 
 down  the  road  a  ways.  12 
 Okay.  The  final  portion  of  the  report  is  13 
 the  PIMs.  I  just  wanted  to  highlight  that  we  have  14 
 closed  a  number  of  PIMs  as  a  result  of  the  successful  15 
 Release  3.3  load  in  the  West  Coast  region.  Those  are  16 
 PIM  22,  PIM  36  and  PIM  38.  Those  PIMs  were  addressed  17 
 by  change  orders  that  were  in  Release  3.3,  so  we  had  18 
 been  tracking  those  PIMs  until  Release  3.3  was  loaded.  19 
 Now,  that  it  has  been  successfully  loaded  in  20 
 the  West  Coast,  and  testing  has  proved  that  those  21 
 change  orders  do  address  those  issues,  we  decided  to  22 
 close  those  PIMs.  PIM  28  was  also  closed.  Again,  23 
 this  was  a  PIM  that  was  addressed  by  a  software  change  24 
 in  the  wireless  carrier  interface  specification  25 
79
 80 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 guidelines  of  what's  known  as  the  WCUS  guidelines.  1 
 Those  are  guidelines  for  the  intercarrier  2 
 communication  processes  between  wireless  carriers  and  3 
 also  it  involves  wireline  to  wireless  and  wireless  to  4 
 wireline  porting  as  well,  so  that  particular  PIM  was  5 
 successfully  addressed  with  this  Release  3.3  which  has  6 
 now  been  implemented,  and  just  to  finish  up  the  PIM  7 
 report,  there  was  a  new  PIM  accepted  at  last  week's  8 
 LNPA  working  group  meeting.  It  was  a  PIM  submitted  by  9 
 Verizon  Wireless.  10 
 Again,  it  has  been  accepted  by  the  group  for  11 
 working  within  the  LNPA.  The  PIM  seeks  to  address  12 
 instances  of  providers  who  have  in  some  cases  have  13 
 been  taking  numbers  back  that  it  ported  out  from  them  14 
 because  they  had  no  evidence  that  they  had  submitted  a  15 
 firm  order  confirmation  to  the  provider  that  had  that  16 
 ported  in  number.  17 
 In  one  instance  that  was  discussed  during  18 
 last  week's  meeting  was  actually  two  years  after  the  19 
 number  had  ported,  a  provider  took  that  number  back,  20 
 ported  it  back  because  they  did  not  have  evidence  in  21 
 their  systems  that  they  had  ever  issued  a  firm  order  22 
 confirmation.  And  obviously  when  that  happens,  the  23 
 customer  is  taken  out  of  service.  So  that  PIM  was  24 
 just  submitted  at  least  week's  meeting,  we've  accepted  25 
80
 81 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 it,  we'll  be  working  on  that  in  the  upcoming  meetings.  1 
 Right  now  it  looks  like  we  will  be  at  the  2 
 very  least  including  something  in  the  LNP  working  3 
 group's  number  portability  best  practices  document  to  4 
 address  this  particular  issue.  Questions  on  the  PIMs?  5 
 I  heard  the  discussion,  the  gentleman  from  6 
 California  asked  the  question  about  I  guess  unassigned  7 
 number  porting.  I  don't  have  any  personal  knowledge  8 
 of  anything  in  MPA  310,  but  just  my  recollection  there  9 
 was  an  initiative  a  number  of  years  back  to  determine  10 
 the  feasibility  of  unassigned  number  porting  to  move  11 
 unassigned  numbers  from  carrier  to  carrier  to  populate  12 
 their  inventory,  and  my  recollection  was  that  the  13 
 project  was  I  guess  --  the  decision  was  not  to  move  14 
 forward  with  that.  15 
 I  know  there  were  some  issues.  Some  16 
 providers  had  problems  with  porting  unassigned  numbers  17 
 that  weren't  associated  with  specific  customers  18 
 because  at  least  in  their  systems  the  only  way  to  19 
 guarantee  that  a  particular  number  was  not  assigned  20 
 either  to  another  customer  or  as  a  working  telephone  21 
 number  or  as  a  billing  number,  the  only  way  to  22 
 guarantee  that  was  to  run  it  completely  through  their  23 
 service  order  system.  And  in  order  to  do  that,  they  24 
 had  to  have  a  customer  associated  with  that  number.  25 
81
 82 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 That  was  the  input  from  a  number  of  1 
 providers,  so  what  was  called  the  unassigned  number  2 
 porting  project  I  believe  as  an  industry  was  put  on  3 
 hold,  but  I  don't  know  any  of  the  specifics  about  4 
 anything  that's  taken  place  in  310.  5 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Jerome?  6 
 MR.  CANDELARIA:  Jerome  Candelaria,  NCTA.  7 
 Thank  you  very  much  for  that  background,  and  because  8 
 many  industry  segments  had  pressed  for  UNP  and  the  FCC  9 
 had  considered  this  issue  as  well  as  NANC,  I'd  10 
 appreciate  that  if  this  matter  does  come  up  again  11 
 before  your  working  group,  you  know,  that  we'll  hear  12 
 about  it  here.  13 
 MR.  SACRA:  You  certainly  will  if  it  does  14 
 come  up.  15 
 MR.  CANDELARIA:  Great.  16 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Any  other  questions?  Thank  17 
 you,  Gary.  18 
 MR.  SACRA:  Thank  you  very  much,  everybody.  19 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Just  housekeeping.  My  20 
 assumption  is  that  we  can  get  everything  concluded  21 
 here  by  about  12:  30,  so  unless  anybody  really  wants  to  22 
 take  the  lunch  break  at  12:  00  and  come  back,  I  think  23 
 we  should  plow  ahead  and  try  to  get  finished  by,  let's  24 
 say,  12:  30.  So,  folks,  is  that  okay  for  you  back  25 
82
 83 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 there  in  the  sound  booth?  Okay.  So  let's  plow  ahead.  1 
 Next  report  will  be  from  the  Numbering  Oversight  2 
 Working  Group,  the  NOWG,  and  this  would  be  Karen.  3 
 MS.  RIEPENKROGER:  I'm  Karen  Riepenkroger.  4 
 I'm  one  of  the  chairs  of  the  NOWG  along  with  Rosemary  5 
 Emmer  and  Natalie  McNamer,  and  Rosemary  is  with  Sprint  6 
 Nextel,  and  Natalie  is  with  T-  Mobile.  7 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Thank  you,  and  is  this  your  8 
 first  time  presenting  here?  9 
 MS.  RIEPENKROGER:  I  did  this  one  other  10 
 time.  11 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  One  other  time.  Okay.  12 
 MS.  RIEPENKROGER:  So  if  I  seem  a  little  13 
 nervous,  I  might  be.  14 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  No.  We're  a  friendly  group.  15 
 Karen's  report  will  be  Document  No.  13.  16 
 MS.  RIEPENKROGER:  Today  we're  going  to  17 
 cover  NeuStar.  We  had  a  NeuStar  5-  percent  or  greater  18 
 shareholder  certification  and  NOWG's  response.  We'll  19 
 review  the  status  of  the  NANPA  and  the  PA  2005  20 
 performance  evaluation  survey  status.  We'll  also  21 
 review  the  NANPA/  PA  2005  survey  proposed  timeline,  and  22 
 we'll  show  you  our  March  2006  meeting  schedule.  23 
 Go  to  Slide  3.  On  February  22,  NeuStar  24 
 notified  the  Wireline  Competition  Bureau  FCC  via  25 
83
 84 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 letter  regarding  a  shareholder,  Alliance  Capital  1 
 Management,  of  owning  5  percent  or  more  NeuStar  2 
 equity,  and  the  Commission  requires  any  entity  owning  3 
 five  percent  or  more  of  NeuStar  equity  to  certify  to  4 
 NeuStar  that  it  is  not  a  telecommunications  service  5 
 provider  or  affiliate,  and  the  certification  was  6 
 attached  to  the  letter.  7 
 Chairman  Atkinson  directed  the  NOWG  to  8 
 consider  this  notification  on  behalf  of  the  NANC,  and  9 
 the  NOWG  was  tasked  with  providing  feedback  to  the  10 
 NANC  during  the  March  2006  meeting  of  any  issues  or  11 
 concerns  regarding  the  contents  of  this  notification.  12 
 The  NOWG  met  and  discussed  this  notice  and  13 
 has  no  known  issues  or  concerns  regarding  the  14 
 neutrality  of  the  shareholder  change.  This  decision  15 
 is  premised  on  the  assumption  that  the  other  16 
 investments  held  in  Alliance  Capital's  portfolios  are  17 
 in  keeping  with  FCC  neutrality  policies.  Are  there  18 
 any  questions?  19 
 Next  slide.  Slide  4,  status  of  the  NANPA  20 
 and  the  PA  2005  performance  evaluation  surveys.  The  21 
 survey  process  was  initiated  on  schedule.  January  3,  22 
 2006,  and  the  surveys  have  been  sent  to  the  NANC  23 
 distro  (phonetic).  The  PA  and  the  NANPA  have  sent  24 
 exploder  emails,  notifications,  and  the  surveys  have  25 
84
 85 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 been  posted  to  the  NANPA  and  the  PA  website  as  well  as  1 
 the  NANC  chair  website,  and  the  survey  due  date  2 
 response  was  February  28,  and  the  date  has  been  3 
 extended  to  March  17.  4 
 And  I  do  want  to  note  that  throughout  the  5 
 course  since  January,  the  NANPA  and  the  PA  have  sent  6 
 out  several  notifications,  and  each  time  that  they  7 
 have  sent  out  a  notification,  we  have  received  8 
 responses,  so  it  seems  to  trigger  people's  minds  that  9 
 hey  I  really  do  need  to  respond,  and  so  we  found  that  10 
 the  notifications,  the  interim  notifications  that  the  11 
 PA  and  the  NANPA  did  for  us  were  extremely  beneficial.  12 
 Any  questions?  13 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  When  we  extended  the  date,  14 
 that  was  what?  February  27,  or  at  least  we  decided  to  15 
 do  that,  and  the  numbers  were  looking  kind  of  mediocre  16 
 two  and  a  half  weeks  ago,  and  is  there  any  update  on  17 
 the  responses?  18 
 MS.  RIEPENKROGER:  Yes,  I  can.  For  the  19 
 NANPA  to  date  we  have  --  I'll  just  kind  of  break  it  20 
 down  for  you.  Twenty-  two  state  commissions  have  21 
 responded  with  a  NANPA  survey,  31  service  providers  22 
 have  responded,  and  we  had  one  individual  other  than  a  23 
 service  provider  commission  respond,  and  for  the  PA  to  24 
 date  we  have  63  service  providers  have  responded,  26  25 
85
 86 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 state  commissions  have  responded,  and  we  had  one  other  1 
 individual  response  for  the  PA.  2 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  That's  a  reasonable  update  in  3 
 two  and  a  half  weeks.  I  guess  so  we  got  three  more  4 
 days?  5 
 MS.  RIEPENKROGER:  Right.  And  I  compared  it  6 
 to  2004.  It  just  maybe  a  little  more  information  than  7 
 you  want,  but  compared  to  2005  I  guess  the  survey  --  8 
 we're  just  pretty  much  on  target.  For  the  NANPA  we  9 
 had  68  surveys  total  combined,  and  the  for  the  PA  we  10 
 had  97,  so  today  we're  standing  at  90  for  the  PA  and  11 
 54  for  the  NANPA.  12 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Okay.  Well,  if  anybody  13 
 hasn't  sent  their  survey  in,  please  do.  I  would  14 
 expect  everybody  around  this  table.  If  any  NANC  15 
 member  hasn't  sent  in  their  survey,  instead  of  going  16 
 from  positive  reinforcement,  we'll  go  to  negative  17 
 reinforcement.  18 
 MS.  RIEPENKROGER:  I  will  note  that  there's  19 
 been  some  surveys  that  we  have  received  that  they  just  20 
 send  a  blank  survey.  So  the  chairs  have  sent  them  21 
 back  out  to  the  people  to  ask  them  to  say  you  send  us  22 
 the  wrong  form,  so  we're  endeavoring  to  try  to  get  as  23 
 many  responses  as  we  can  get  for  the  surveys.  24 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  All  right.  25 
86
 87 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 MS.  RIEPENKROGER:  Is  there  any  other  1 
 questions  on  the  surveys?  The  next  slide  is  our  2 
 performance  evaluation  proposed  schedule.  We're  3 
 meeting  with  week  with  --  no.  Let  me  take  a  step  4 
 back.  The  NANPA  and  the  PA  surveys  are  due  on  Friday,  5 
 March  17.  That's  St.  Patrick's  Day,  so  everybody  6 
 please  be  sure  to  get  them  in  on  time.  We  are  meeting  7 
 this  week  with  the  NANPA  for  our  annual  operational  8 
 review,  and  that's  on  March  15  and  16.  9 
 We'll  be  going  out  to  the  PA's  offices  in  10 
 Concord,  California,  to  do  the  operational  review  on  11 
 April  4  and  5.  We  will  be  meeting  in  Denver  April  18  12 
 to  the  20  to  prepare  the  NANPA  and  the  PA  performance  13 
 reports,  and  on  May  3  we  will  be  meeting  with  the  FCC,  14 
 the  NANPA  and  the  PA  here  in  Washington,  D.  C.  to  share  15 
 the  preliminary  results.  Are  there  any  questions?  16 
 Yes,  Rosemary?  17 
 MS.  EMMER:  Rosemary  Emmer  with  Sprint  18 
 Nextel,  and  I  should  have  changed  the  slide.  The  date  19 
 for  May  3  is  no  longer  tentative  with  the  FCC.  We  20 
 were  able  to  get  that  date  in  stone,  and  we're  working  21 
 with  the  PA  and  NANPA  on  the  times  now.  22 
 MS.  RIEPENKROGER:  Thank  you.  And  I  should  23 
 have  mentioned  that.  Any  other  questions?  The  last  24 
 slide  is  just  our  activity  for  March,  and  it's  pretty  25 
87
 88 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 much  we're  going  to  do  the  NANPA  operational  review  on  1 
 the  15th  and  16th.  Our  standing  monthly  call  with  2 
 NANPA  will  be  moved  to  March  28,  and  the  PA  standing  3 
 agenda  with  the  NOWG  is  on  March  30.  4 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Anything  else?  That  wasn't  5 
 so  bad.  6 
 MS.  RIEPENKROGER:  Thank  you  very  much.  I  7 
 was  fine.  8 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  The  last  of  our  working  group  9 
 reports,  future  of  numbering,  Karen  Mulberry,  and  we  10 
 do  not  have  any  documents  for  discussion  on  this  11 
 agenda  item,  but  hopefully  the  FoN  can  get  going  on  12 
 some  new  projects.  13 
 MS.  MULBERRY:  I  seem  to  say  good  morning  14 
 for  the  last  five  minutes  of  the  morning.  I'm  Karen  15 
 Mulberry.  I'm  with  Verizon,  and  I  am  one  of  the  co-  16 
 chairs  of  the  pANI  IMGs,  so  I'll  address  that  first.  17 
 I  wanted  to  let  you  know  that  the  pANI  IMG  has  18 
 completed  its  work.  19 
 It  has  prepared  a  report  and  recommendations  20 
 for  the  NANC  on  permanent  pANI  administration,  and  I  21 
 will  let  Bob  address  the  process  that's  going  to  go  22 
 forward  with  that  report.  And  then  secondly  for  the  23 
 future  of  numbering  working  group,  we've  been  on  24 
 hiatus  since  we've  been  focusing  most  of  our  energies  25 
88
 89 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 on  the  pANI  work.  Some  time  between  now  and  the  end  1 
 of  the  month,  Hoke  and  I  will  send  out  an  announcement  2 
 for  a  conference  call.  The  FoN  is  going  to  start  3 
 meeting  again.  4 
 One,  we  need  to  elect  a  new  co-  chair  because  5 
 Hoke  is  going  to  be  transitioning  off  into  other  6 
 items,  so  we'll  have  an  agenda  out  and  let  everyone  7 
 know  to  think  about  whether  they  want  to  take  on  the  8 
 mantle  of  co-  chair,  the  FoN  or  not,  and  that's  all  I  9 
 have  to  report.  10 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Good.  And  remember,  the  FoN  11 
 was  established  it  seems  like  probably  even  close  to  a  12 
 year  ago  for  the  purpose  of  trying  to  get  ahead  of  new  13 
 developments  and  has  been  consumed  in  putting  out  14 
 fires.  15 
 If  you  remember  the  Navy  RFP,  this  pANI  16 
 issue,  a  couple  of  other  things.  So  hopefully  now  17 
 they  finished  the  firefighting  and  can  actually  sit  18 
 back  and  think  about  the  future  of  numbering  and  19 
 issues  that  are  a  little  further  but  that  need  some  20 
 thoughtful  advance  work.  So  I  look  forward  to  the  21 
 future  of  numbering  working  group  actually  getting  22 
 down  to  contemplating  the  real  future  of  this  and  look  23 
 forward  to  that.  24 
 MS.  MULBERRY:  We  had  started  to  prepare  a  25 
89
 90 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 draft  report,  and  it  kept  track  of  the  numerous  items  1 
 that  have  come  up  since  last  year  that  you  have  kicked  2 
 our  way  that  we  haven't  addressed  yet.  So  we  have  a  3 
 list  of  things  that  need  to  be  addressed  once  the  FoN  4 
 starts  to  even  begin.  5 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  All  right.  Thank  you  very  6 
 much.  7 
 MS.  MULBERRY:  Okay.  8 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  And  we'll  probably  have  a  9 
 conference  call  and  maybe,  you  know,  sometime  between  10 
 now  and  the  next  meeting  we  can  do  this  LNPA  working  11 
 group  things,  maybe  the  pANI  thing  and  a  couple  of  12 
 other  things,  so  we'll  let  you  know  on  that.  Let  me  13 
 ask  just  from  a  housekeeping  point  of  view.  I  don't  14 
 think  we  had  any  special  presentations.  Rosemary?  15 
 MS.  EMMER:  I'm  sorry,  Chairman.  Rosemary  16 
 Emmer,  Sprint  Nextel.  I  was  waiting  for  the  pANI  17 
 report,  and  I  don't  understand  what  happened  to  the  18 
 pANI  report.  You  might  have  just  said  it,  and  I  was  19 
 zoning  out.  20 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Right  at  the  beginning  of  the  21 
 meeting  I  said  we  wouldn't  be  discussing  that  today.  22 
 It's  not  yet  ripe  for  discussion  in  terms  of  some  23 
 other  issues  going  on,  so  we  put  that  off,  and  my  24 
 expectation  we'll  do  a  conference  call  or  something  25 
90
 91 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 like  that.  I  don't  know  exactly  when.  1 
 MS.  EMMER:  So  we're  not  planning  on  waiting  2 
 for  the  next  meeting?  3 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  I'd  like  to  push  ahead  with  4 
 that  as  soon  as  we  can,  and  I'll  let  you  know  when  we  5 
 can.  6 
 MS.  EMMER:  Okay.  I  just  wanted  to  make  7 
 sure  that  I  reiterate  to  everyone  on  the  team  that  8 
 this  is  extremely  important  from  Sprint  Nextel's  9 
 position  as  well  as  I'm  sure  many  other  companies,  and  10 
 we  were  really  looking  forward  to  hearing  the  pANI  11 
 report  this  afternoon  and  maybe  coming  to  consensus  on  12 
 that.  So  anything  you  could  do  to  speed  that  up  13 
 before  the  next  meeting,  we'd  be  greatly  appreciative.  14 
 Thank  you.  15 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Thank  you  for  that  comment.  16 
 I  will  do  my  best.  Thank  you.  I  don't  think  we  had  17 
 any  special  presentations  scheduled,  at  least  none  18 
 that  I  was  aware  of,  correct?  Good.  So  that  takes  19 
 care  of  13.  We  have  an  updated  list  of  NANC  20 
 accomplishments.  Thank  you,  Debbie,  for  doing  that.  21 
 Debbie's  list  here  will  be  Document  No.  14,  and  if  22 
 anyone  notes  any  additional  items  that  are  not  on  this  23 
 list,  let  us  know.  24 
 Summary  of  action  assignments,  Item  No.  15.  25 
91
 92 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 I  have  two.  First,  is  for  INC  to  address  the  1 
 guidelines  or  review  the  guideline's  language  to  2 
 resolve  Don  Gray's  concerns.  There  was  NANC  consensus  3 
 on  that  in  terms  of  the  substance,  and  as  an  action  4 
 assignment  for  the  chair  to  follow  up  on  the  INC  407  5 
 resolution.  I  don't  have  any  others.  Did  anybody  6 
 else  take  any  action  assignments  or  anybody  volunteer  7 
 for  one  that  I  didn't  get?  Members  of  the  8 
 public?  Anybody  from  the  public?  Microphone  is  up  9 
 here.  No  public  comments.  Is  there  any  other  10 
 business?  Mr.  Gray?  11 
 MR.  GRAY:  Don  Gray,  Nebraska.  I  just  12 
 wanted  to  give  you  an  update  to  an  earlier  comment.  I  13 
 can  now  officially  tell  you  that  the  Nebraska  Public  14 
 Service  Commission  has  issued  an  order  for  mandatory  15 
 pooling  in  those  rate  centers  in  which  the  incumbent  16 
 carrier  is  currently  Altel,  Qwest  or  Frontier  who  have  17 
 been  working  very  closely  with  us  in  voluntary  18 
 pooling,  and  working  with  us  to  conserve  that  life.  19 
 We  have  also  issued  the  orders  that  all  20 
 carriers  in  those  155  rate  centers  in  the  next  45  days  21 
 will  review  their  inventories,  and  donate  those  blocks  22 
 that  meets  the  criteria  for  pooling,  and  the  third  23 
 part  is  that  we  will  have  a  hearing  on  the  9th  of  May  24 
 to  address  the  95  remaining  rate  centers  that  have  25 
92
 93 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 rural  carriers  involved  to  determine  an  appropriate  1 
 timeline,  steps  and  progression  to  take  in  taking  2 
 those  rate  centers  to  mandatory  pooling.  3 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Nebraska  leads  the  country.  4 
 Anna?  5 
 MS.  MILLER:  Anna  Miller  with  T-  Mobile.  6 
 Just  on  your  action  item  list,  just  a  couple  of  7 
 follow-  ups.  There  was  the  issue  of  the  Katrina  report  8 
 that  we  were  going  to  review.  9 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Yes.  10 
 MS.  MILLER:  So  is  it  going  to  be  a  11 
 conference  call  to  address  the  --  are  you  going  to  do  12 
 that  electronically?  13 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Well,  I  think  documents  will  14 
 be  distributed  electronically,  and  then  we'll  have  I  15 
 think  a  conference  call  definitely  as  soon  as  I  think  16 
 in  a  sense  --  well  I  can  imagine  two  things  that  we  17 
 might  be  discussing.  Hopefully,  the  schedules  will  18 
 come  together  so  we  only  have  to  have  one  call  between  19 
 LNPA  --  20 
 MS.  MILLER:  Okay.  So  potentially  we  can  21 
 have  a  conference  call  to  talk  about  the  pANI  report  22 
 and  also  the  Katrina  report?  23 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  Right.  Ideally,  it  will  be  24 
 one,  but  it  could  be  two.  Anything  else?  All  right.  25 
93
 94 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 So  our  next  meeting  will  be  on  Tuesday,  May  16.  My  1 
 co-  chair  may  in  fact  be  running  that  meeting.  I  have  2 
 to  catch  a  plane  to  Italy  that  afternoon.  3 
 Depending  on  the  weather  forecast,  I  may  be  4 
 here  or  may  not  be  here  because  leaving  here  and  5 
 getting  back  to  New  York  and  getting  to  the  airport  6 
 could  strain  my  marriage,  probably.  And  if  I  miss  7 
 that  plane  --  anyway,  so  if  I  don't  see  you  in  May,  8 
 I'll  see  you  in  July,  and  maybe  I'll  be  here  in  May,  9 
 and  maybe  I'll  sneak  out  early.  Would  that  be  okay?  10 
 MR.  GOLDBERG:  That  would  be  fine  with  me.  11 
 MR.  ATKINSON:  All  right.  So  until  then  we  12 
 are  adjourned.  Thanks  very  much.  13 
 (Whereupon,  the  meeting  in  the  14 
 above-  entitled  matter  was  concluded.)  North  15 
 American  Numbering  Council  16 
 Meeting  of  17 
 March  14,  2006  18 
 ACTION  ITEMS  19 
 20 
 1.  CHAIR:  21 
 Determine  status  of  follow-  up  letter  sent  to  FCC  22 
 re:  Status  of  INC  407  issue  (sent  to  the  FCC  in  23 
 February  2005)  24 
 25 
94
 95 
 Heritage  Reporting  Corporation  (202)  628-  4888 
 2.  INC:  1 
 Review  and  if  necessary  amend  NRUF  Guidelines  to  2 
 resolve  NANC  concerns  regarding  reporting  by  3 
 rural  carriers  in  light  of  the  FCC  decision  4 
 delegating  authority  to  States  (ref:  submission  5 
 by  Don  Gray  of  the  Nebraska  PSC)  6 
 7 
95