1
North American Numbering Council
Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2007 (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.     Thomas M. Koutsky Chairman
2.     Henry Hultquist  AT&T
3.     Karen Reidy CompTel
4.     Dena Hunter Level 3 Communications, LLC
5.     Hon. Jack Goldberg NARUC – Connecticut
6.     Michael Balch NARUC – Iowa
7.  Don Gray NARUC – Nebraska
8.  Hon. Philip B. Jones NARUC – Washington
9.    Jerome Candelaria NCTA
10.   Ray Strassburger Nortel Networks
11.   John McHugh OPASTCO
12.   Michael Whaley Qwest
13.   Rosemary Emmer Sprint Nextel
14.   Anna Miller T-Mobile USA, Inc.
15.   Thomas Soroka, Jr. USTA
16.   Philip Harrington Verizon
17. Martin Hakim Din Vonage Holdings Corp. (Vonage)
Special Members (Non-voting):
John Manning NANPA
Jean-Paul Emard ATIS 
Amy Putnam PA
Faith Marcotte Welch & Company
Commission Employees:
Marilyn Jones, Designated Federal Officer (DFO)
Deborah Blue, Assistant to the DFO
Thomas Navin, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau
Renee Crittendon, Chief, Competition Policy Division
Christi Shewman, Deputy Chief, Competition Policy Division
Ann Stevens, Associate Chief, Competition Policy Division
2
Heather Hendrickson, Attorney, Competition Policy Division
III. Estimate of Public Attendance. Approximately 20 members of the public 
attended the meeting as observers.
IV.  Documents Introduced.
(1) Agenda
(2) NANC Meeting Minutes – November 30, 2006
(3) North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) Report to the NANC
(4) NANPA Newsletter
(5) National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator Report to the NANC
(6) Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report to the NANC
(7) Billing and Collection Agent Report to the NANC
(8) NANP Fund Budget and Contribution Factor for July 2007 to June 2008
(9) Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) Report to the NANC
(10) Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) Report
(11) pANI IMG Report to the NANC
(12) Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group Status Report 
to the NANC
(13) Future of Numbering (FoN) Working Group Report to the NANC
(14) List of NANC Accomplishments (January 2002 – February 13, 2007)
V. Summary of the Meeting.
NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING COUNCIL
MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007
Table of Contents
1. Announcements and Recent News 4
2. Approval of Transcript from November 30, 2006 11
3. Report of the North American Numbering Plan 
Administrator (NANPA) 14
4. Report of the National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator (PA) 24
5. Status of the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) activities 29
6. Report from the North American Numbering Plan Billing and
3
Collection (NANP B&C) Agent 40
7. Report of the Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) 45
8. Report of the Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) 48
9. Reports from the pANI IMG Issues Management Groups (IMGs) 54
10. Report of the Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) 
Working Group 59
11. Report of the Future of Numbering Working Group (FoN WG) 75
12. Special Presentations  --
13. Update List of the NANC Accomplishments --
14. Summary of Action Items --
15. Public Comments and Participation (five minutes per speaker) 78
16. Other Business --
4
NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
(START OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE A)
CHAIRMAN:  We’re going to try to get started here.  Debbie is passing around a 
sign-in sheet.  Debbie is it okay if we start while you’re doing that?
DEBBIE:  Sure.
Announcements and Recent News
CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Well, it is -- I think the last time that NANC got it, it 
was 70 degrees outside.  And that was only about two and a half months ago, so welcome 
back to reality.
Welcome, everyone.  I’m glad everyone made it in safely, those that we have, and 
hopefully we will do our best to stay on time.  I know some people might have some 
early flights.  I understand the Metro is shut down or not very well today.  So we’re 
probably going to have some people straggling in a little bit late.  But we’ll do our best to 
stay on time to get people out of here before the ice portion of your storm today begins.
Let’s see.  I actually wanted to start off with a couple administrative things, about 
meeting times and meetings.  And I guess we might as well open it up to discussion.
It was actually brought to my attention that the meetings had started at 9:00 a.m. 
and that they were adjusted to 9:30 due to travel schedules for Bob Atkinson, our chair, 
for taking the train.  You know, I live a half hour away from here so I don’t have to take 
the train to get in here.  So I would be more than willing to start these meetings at 9:00 
a.m. on a going-forward basis.  I know some of the working group co-chairs had 
indicated that that was fine with them, but obviously, you know, we need to make sure 
that this doesn’t create a significant problem for anyone.  So before, I just don’t want to 
5
change the meeting time willy-nilly without getting an indication of how many people fly 
in the morning of, and whether that would be a problem.  And I would say if it’s a 
problem for a couple members to get here then, you know, we’ll just keep it to 9:30.  So 
when do people think?  Let me just toss it out.
Oh, the other thing I wanted to make clear before we start talking is, to make sure 
we have an accurate transcript, again we’ll use this lift-your-little-nametag-up-before-
you-when-you-speak.   That will give the mic guy the clue to have your mic ready to go.  
So we’ll actually begin the first part, we’ll get the first part of what you say.  And also, if 
everybody could be very careful about saying their name, at least their name and their 
affiliation, at least one of those two things before they speak, so we have an accurate 
transcript that reflects it.  And part of that is involved in making sure the mic is on at the 
time.  So, before I open up the meeting time discussion for at least a couple of minutes, I 
just wanted to remind people of that.
So what do people think about starting at 9:00 a.m.?  I spoke with the 
Commission, and they said it was fine with them. Is there any significant objection to 
starting at 9:00?  I see heads shaking around the table.  No?  Enough people get here the 
night before?  I know Commissioner Jones flies in.  Does that work?
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  (Indiscernible.)
CHAIRMAN:  9:00 a.m. works fine for you guys from Washington?  I think you 
have the hardest commute of anyone, except for California.
COMMISSIONER JONES:  (Indiscernible.)
CHAIRMAN:  You’re fine?  Okay?  All right.  Then I think from now on when 
we have meetings we’ll start them at 9:00.  And I think having that extra half hour will be 
a good idea.
6
The other thing I also want to talk about was the meeting schedule and the process 
that we’re going to be using in terms of setting up meetings.  And this again, I’ve spoken 
with I think several of you about, but I can’t assume that all of you know about what I’m 
really -- we’re going to try to do meeting scheduling a little differently than it’s been 
done in the past.  Instead of creating essentially a year’s worth of meeting dates, we’re 
essentially going to try to look a couple meetings in the future and get an indication of 
about what’s going to be talked about at the meetings.  And this is actually an idea that I 
think makes a lot of sense.  I want to make sure that our meetings are what we call high 
value and productive in terms of actually affirmatively addressing particular topics in 
detail, and to work more closely with the working groups to kind of say, all right, I think 
I can have X-Y-Z project ready for a meeting in April or a meeting in July.  And then 
rather than spending 15 minutes talking about it and having the potential to cut off the 
date because we’re running out of time because we’re trying to get to everyone else, I’d 
like to have the flexibility to maybe schedule 45 minutes or an hour to a particular topic 
that I think might warrant it.  That of course depends on whether or not we have, the idea 
that, okay, at this particular meeting this working group intends to have this project 
completed.
So that is going to be a little bit more flexible.  I think we are going to try and 
target particular timeframes for meetings, such as we discussed last time to essentially 
have a, I don’t want to say an expectation, but at least an understanding that, you know, 
our next meeting might be in the late spring, probably in the April timeframe, and then 
the meeting some time in the June/July timeframe, and then something else later, in the 
second half of the year.  But it’s to have more ideas of targets as to time windows.  And a 
lot of this has to do with scheduling of this room as well, and just the fact that, you know, 
7
picking a date in November for a meeting at this point in time, I think, you know, it’s 
going to be so much subject to change anyway, depending on whether or not it’s on our 
agenda.  But I’m not sure how much value that gives.
Now, I know I’ve heard from some people saying that that actually has some 
important values, so I do want to kind of open it up as to what my people might think 
about how we would do that, whether, how we can best manage that process, how much -
- particularly I’m trying to figure out how much lead time do members need to make sure 
that they can make their travel arrangements specifically.  I think that’s perhaps the most 
important piece of fact.  I know 30 days is probably pushing it too short, but we have to 
provide notice of 20 days, 25 days anyway.
So what do people think about that?  Anna?
MS. MILLER: Anna Miller with T-Mobile.  If we can plan on at least two 
months ahead that will be helpful.  I participate in a lot of industry forums.  And they 
have schedules, you know.  Most of them have scheduled their meetings for the year.  So 
as those dates get locked in, it gets more and more difficult for me, you know.  I may be 
consumed at that time. I can’t manage my responsibilities here.  If the dates are 
overlapping that makes it very difficult.  So I think the further out, the better.  But at least 
I think two months would be helpful.
CHAIRMAN:  I will point out that we do look at the meeting dates of the Industry 
Numbering Committee and NARUC, actually for the NARUC Commissioners, to at least 
make sure we’re not conflicting with those, and also to the extent that, like if the LLC has 
a meeting or something like that.  If people want to provide me lists on industry-like 
activity dates and calendars that we should be mindful of when setting a particular date, 
everyone is more than welcome to do that.  Yes, Rosemary?
8
MS. EMMER:  Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  To add to what Anna said, from 
a budgeting perspective it makes it very difficult not to know whether you’re going to 
have one, two, three, or zero meetings.  And so again, if you could have at least a two-
month timeframe or window of opportunity, if you schedule for one and you end up 
having three it would give you time to allow for internal processes to work itself though 
so that you might have more than just an (indiscernible) at the meeting.
MS. MILLER:  That would be another reason why it would be important to give 
us as much notice as possible.
CHAIRMAN:  Sure.  And I do anticipate there being at least some indication of 
timeframes, because again part of this idea I have is that the working groups will be 
working more on particular ideas to say, we think we can have this done by a June 
meeting or so.  So obviously to do that, they need to know whether there’s at least some 
kind of expectation of a June meeting, etc.  So I do think that that type of stuff will have 
some target time windows I think in terms of meetings.  And then ultimately I think we’ll 
have the decision as to whether we have a critical mass of issues put together to go 
forward and also an indication as to importance in timing.  If it turns out there’s only one 
critical issue that needs to be addressed in the October meeting, we may decide how 
quick we want to make a judgment as to how critical that is, etc.  The heaviest things will 
be driven by the agenda, rather than be driven by just kind of a schedule that we happen 
to have.  Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  (Indiscernible.)  I would also agree with Anna 
and Rosemary about the two months.  But also when setting up the schedule, if we do 
have a need for a discussion that’s going to last quite a while, two to three hours, to know 
of that at least a month or two in advance as well so that those of us who fly in, will know 
9
we have to stay over an extra night.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  So just to keep that also in mind.
CHAIRMAN:  I don’t think we’ll ever have two-day meetings unless --
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Oh, no.  I’m not saying that.  It’s just like for 
me flying to Colorado, I have one flight a night and that’s it.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  So, I just know I have to plan to stay another 
night.  That’s all.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  And I think to a certain extent, I mean, if a working group is 
thinking about presenting something possibly a month or two out, obviously it’s kind of 
hard to guarantee that they’ll achieve (indiscernible) by then.  Or it may just, maybe 
something that we thought might have been controversial turns out not to be, or vice 
versa.  So, yes, and I think that’s kind of part of it, that there would be open 
communication to say that we’re going to be looking at, these -- well, we’re probably 
going to be looking at these topics at that upcoming meeting.
All right.  Actually at the last meeting I felt bad about cutting some people off and 
cutting off some discussion of some things just in order to kind of stick to a schedule.  
And I’d actually, in my perfect vision of the world, would almost like a working group to 
say, you know, I don’t really have anything this meeting, but next meeting I’m going to 
have a lot.  So I’d like an hour next time and only 15 minutes now.  That’s kind of the 
dynamic I want to have if at all possible.  Yes?
MS. MILLER:  Anna Miller, T-Mobile.   I guess one thing I was wondering about 
and if like you said there was just one action item or one working group that needed a 
10
major action item, then would it be possible to address that via a conference call, a 
(indiscernible) conference call versus a face-to-face?  I think we should try to limit that 
because to me the benefit of having face-to-face meetings is to have more communication 
and input from the NANC members and the stakeholders that they represent, because this 
is one of the few forums, I think, where so many affected parties, so many interest groups 
in the industry come together and have an opportunity to discuss issues.  But if there is an 
issue like something came up and -- what the NOWG and they had one action item, or the 
LNP working group had one action item.  Maybe we could just, instead of having a face-
to-face, consider having a conference call to focus on that.
CHAIRMAN:  That’s possible.  I’m personally not a big fan of conference call 
meetings.
MS. MILLER:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN:  Because honestly we have to go through the same -- to me at 
NANC we have to go through the same administrative -- under the Federal 
(indiscernible) Committee Act, we have to go through the same administrative notice 
issues anyway.  So I can’t just say, let’s have a conference call next week about topic X.  
I still have to provide public notice, public participation.  How do you get public 
participation on a conference call?  You know, it means you’ve got to like -- with the 
public notice with a dial-in number.  Yes.
MS. MILLER:  So it’s not worth the effort for just --
CHAIRMAN:  Well, I’m not saying the candle’s not worth the game, but I’m just 
thinking that we might have to make a judgment call as to how, if at the same time we’re 
faced with something that’s really important to get done and needs to get done, then we 
will address it in that manner.  But I agree with you.  I think there is a value to doing 
11
face-to-face meetings.  And actually given the alternative, I’d rather have less face-to-
face meetings than more conference calls, if that makes sense.  Rosemary?
MS. EMMER:  Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  I know that we’ve already had 
a conference call with the co-chairs and you to discuss this, and some of us have already 
tried to argue our position regarding not having scheduled dates.  So I won’t rehash that.  
But I did want to say at least for the record that when you’re chairing committees 
underneath the NANC umbrella or that are specifically chartered by the NANC, it makes 
it very difficult trying to be the cheerleader, if you will, with these groups to help with the 
motivation of the group in order to work through these very tough issues that we have to 
work through, without knowing that there is a place to put your stake in the ground at 
least at some point in the future to be able to say in public or know for sure that folks are 
going to be reading the materials that you’re putting forth and working so hard on, 
without actually knowing if we would meet again, let alone knowing what the date is just 
makes it that much more difficult for the committees that are under this particular 
advisory group.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:  That’s noted.  And there’s a good movie line in there.  We shall 
meet again.  I forgot what movie that’s from.  But it is noted and I do understand that a 
lot of the work of the working groups is volunteer group that people fit into their regular 
jobs.  And I do think that is an important consideration and it is, people up here do know 
that and understand.
Approval of Transcript
So, okay, if there are no other thoughts on that, I think we’ll go to the transcript, 
or the approval of the meeting transcript.  This is actually, some of you may not know, 
12
but we’re actually going to be doing meeting transcripts which I prefer over minutes 
because they tend to be more accurate.  They involve a lot less work as well, and it results 
in a, you have the issue of the minutes being incomplete and the transcript, you know, not 
conflicting with the minutes.  So I’d like us to do the -- we’re going to be doing meeting 
transcripts.  We’re going to send those out as soon as we basically can for people to edit 
and have their suggestions on.  So do we have any suggestions on the meeting transcript 
of November 30th?  Yes?
JEROME CANDELARIA:  -- on page 92 I wanted to identify myself as the male 
speaker halfway down.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  And knowing that, if, I mean -- you’re the male speaker?  
Okay.  Every time it says male speaker?  Is that --
MR. CANDELARIA:  Yes.  No, just on 92.
CHAIRMAN:  You disavow every other male speaker. And I realize this is 
different, and frankly if people still have other -- you know, if they want to take another 
shot at looking at these and saying, trying to identify themselves or whatever.  I’m sorry, 
Rosemary.  Oh, you’re still up.
MS. MILLER:  (Indiscernible.)
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  I’m going to kind of, without objection I’m going to have 
deemed these approved.  But if people really want to go over it again, we can look at 
them next time.  Yes (indiscernible)?
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  (Indiscernible) well I guess I’m just a little 
vague on what it means to approve a transcript.
CHAIRMAN:  Well, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  I mean, are saying that it’s generally accurate?
13
CHAIRMAN:  Sufficient for posting to the public, that you’re comfortable that 
somebody didn’t say something that, you know, or that you don’t feel that you were, that 
it was inaccurate in some sense.  So we’re approving the accuracy of the transcript.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  And does that mean we won’t have meeting 
minutes?
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  The public record will be the transcript.  We’re required to, 
as a federal advisory committee, make proceedings public and post it essentially.  And I 
personally would rather post the transcript, because that is complete and 100 percent 
accurate.  Yes, Rosemary?
MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer with Sprint Nextel.  I just wanted to make sure 
that it’s clear that the transcripts we’re approving are basically what people said.  And it’s 
not necessarily true in every case that someone said something right, because there could 
be something in the transcript that someone on this panel said that may in fact not be 
completely 100 percent true if they were maybe referring to numbers of some sort.  I just 
wanted to state that in my opinion for the record, if we’re approving the transcripts, it’s 
basically transcripts of what people said and not the validity of what people said.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
MS. EMMER:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:  It’s an approval of the accuracy of the words that are contained in 
the document, not -- and that can happen in meeting minutes, too.  Okay?  And, like I 
said, because, you know, if people want to come to me and say, hey, that was, you know, 
I’m the male speaker on page 98, you know, I think we can realize that, too.  Eventually 
we’re going to close the book on them, but right now I know it’s a different way of doing 
it.  But I think it’s actually more complete and more comprehensive to do it this way, and 
14
I think it’s actually going to have ultimately more value as we go back and look at 
transcripts three or four years from now, and try and figure out exactly why we did what 
we did.
Okay.  Excuse me?  Oh, Commissioner Jones.  I’m sorry.
COMMISSIONER JONES:  Is a motion in order to approve the transcripts?
CHAIRMAN:  Yes, if somebody would like to make it.
COMMISSIONER JONES:  I move that we adopt the transcripts.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Is there a second?  Don?  Don Gray seconded.  Okay.  
Anybody objecting?  Okay.  Then the transcripts approved subject to the caveat that 
Rosemary stated.
All right.  Now we’ll move on to the actual business of the meeting.  The NANPA 
Administrator is first, John.
Report of the North American Plan Administrator (NANPA)
MR. MANNING:  Good morning, everybody.  I am John Manning with NANPA.  
Would you like to number this document?
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  It’s -- well, this document, do you mean the NANPA report?
MR. MANNING:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN:  That’s Number 1.  Agenda Number 1.
DEBBIE BLUE:  The Agenda is number 1.
CHAIRMAN:  Oh, the Agenda is number 1, the NANPA is number 2.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.
MS. BLUE:  The Agenda is number 1, the Transcript is number 2, and the 
NANPA Report is number 3.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Just so we get that on the transcript, the meeting agenda is 
15
Exhibit Number 1, the transcript from the last meeting is Exhibit Number 2, and the 
NANPA Report is Exhibit Number 3.
MR. MANNING:  Good morning again.  What I’ll cover with you this morning is 
an update on the CO code activity in the month of January, as well as review with you 
some numbers from 2006.  I will also talk about the area code inventory and relief 
planning activities that are underway.  I also want to cover with you an update on some of 
the other NANP resources that we administer, looking at their activity over 2006, quickly 
address some change orders that have been recently approved by the FCC, and some final 
notes on the NANPA newsletter and the NANPA annual report.
Page 2 of my presentation gives you an overview of CO code assignment, denial, 
reclamation activities in the month of January 2007.  You’ll see we assigned 340 codes 
and we had 34 returned.
On page 3 I provide a comparison of 2006 with 2005 and 2004.  In 2006 we have 
4,079 codes assigned, and compared with 2005 and 2004 you can see the total quantity 
assigned in those years.  2006 assignments increased approximately 760 codes over 2005.  
Maybe of interest as well is that net assignments in 2006 were approximately 3,400 
codes, were up over 1,000 codes as compared to 2004 and 2005.  And you can see in the 
third bullet item on my report that the quantity of returned codes in 2006 dropped 
approximately 30% as compared to the previous two years.  So the quantity of codes that 
were returned in 2006 was somewhat less than what we’ve experienced in the past two 
years.  And I made note on the report that the increase in the number of changes in 2006 
compared to the previous two years was due primarily to some mass operating company 
number, or OCN changes submitted by just a few service providers.  So when you look at 
2006 compared to 2005 and 2004, you can see a general upturn in the quantity of CO 
16
code assignments.
In terms of CO code information, I wanted to remind the NANC of several reports 
that are available on the NANPA public website.  I’ve listed them here in the middle of 
page 3 of the report.  Of interest is a particular report if you want to get some historical 
information about what is going on in individual area codes.  It is the fourth bulleted 
report called “Central Office Code Assignment Activity Records”.  And that particular 
report gives you the assignment activity on a month-by-month basis for each area code in 
which NANPA administers the CO codes.  It also tells you the quantity of codes that 
have been returned in a particular month as well as year to date.
I pointed out this particular report because I used that information to come up 
with the chart on page 4.  At the top of page 4 I give you the top ten NPAs in terms of 
code assignments for 2006.  The chart shows you the quantity of net assignments.  That is 
of course the total of assignments made minus those codes that were returned.  The top 
NPA was New York’s 347.  Iowa came in second and third with area code 515 and 641.  
And rounding out the top five, Minnesota, 507 and Kentucky, 270.  You’ll notice 
California is the sixth one.  That’s 424.  That is the area code that relieved area code 310.  
And then you have North Carolina, 704 which, for those of your that are not familiar with 
North Carolina, is the Charlotte area.  Alabama and then Texas round out the last two 
NPAs in the top ten.
I found that interesting because four of the top five area codes were in states that 
you wouldn’t necessarily point to as being the top CO code assignments that one would 
typically expect.  But indeed that is the case.  And I’m referring to Iowa, Minnesota, and 
Kentucky.
Any questions with regard to CO code assignment information?  Jerome?
17
JEROME:  Jerome Candelaria.  You referenced the reports.  Do the reports break 
down CO code assignments to paging companies who aren’t required to participate in 
pooling?
MR. MANNING:  No, they do not.
JEROME:  Well, I’m wondering if that’s, in some future report you will give us 
just a snapshot of utilization or assignment of CO codes to paging.
MR. MANNING: That’s not really possible because in that regard we would have 
to be generally going off the name of the company, because on the part one they don’t 
indicate specifically to us -- they don’t have to indicate specifically to us what type of 
service that they’re offering.  And we don’t make that information public.  So I don’t 
have in my possession specific information to definitively identify a particular entity as 
using a code for paging versus wireless, for example.
JEROME:  Are you at least able to track even in a very general sense the 
utilization level of those NXX codes by paging companies?
MR. MANNING: Well, certainly we would have the utilization levels via the 
NRUF process.  Again though, from that perspective NRUF is submitted on an operating 
company number perspective.  So we would have to attempt to try to define a particular 
OCN as specifically dedicated for paging.  And that is not necessarily the easiest thing to 
do in terms of the data that we have.  I do know some of the reports that are provided by 
the FCC, one recently done by the FCC using December of 2005 data -- I haven’t gone 
through in detail on that report, but I believe they attempt to try to break that out in terms 
of the wireless versus paging.  But I’d have to check that specifically, Jerome.
KEN:  Ken (indiscernible) with AT&T.  John, since you brought up the point of 
the apparent counter-intuitiveness of the fastest, the largest number of CO code 
18
assignments, I have to ask if you have any hypothesis as to what’s going on there.
MR. MANNING:  No, I don’t have anything specifically I can say definitively.  I 
did go back and take a look at who got the codes in those particular instances.  And the 
majority of the codes, for example in Kentucky, 270, as well as in Minnesota, 507, the 
majority of the codes, nearly all of the codes were initial applications.
KEN:  In Iowa?
MR. MANNING:  Not in Iowa.  Iowa’s quite the different -- those were growth 
codes.  In the two NPAs we were looking at, we had four entities generally get nearly all 
of those code assignments.
KEN:  Thanks.
MR. MANNING:  If you recall from our November meeting, a representative 
from Iowa Commission remarked about what was going on in those particular area codes.  
Minnesota was generally the same thing as well.  They were initial applications.  My 
understanding is that there is some activity with certain companies working with the 
cable industry and helping them gain their footprint into the telecommunications market 
as well as they may be working with some mobile virtual network operators as well, and 
getting resources that they in turn can provide to those entities.
KEN:  Thanks, John.
MR. MANNING:  Sure.  By the way, just so you know, New York was all over 
the board, general and initial growth.
KEN:  I just have one -- you had said I guess in Iowa four entities received -- was 
it the majority of the codes --
MR. MANNING:  Yes.
KEN:  -- or was it --
19
MR. MANNING:  The majority of the codes, yes.
KEN:  Okay. 
MR. MANNING:  Over the two NPAs, four entities were the primary recipients 
of the CO codes.  Just one little factoid.  If you ever are interested, the top five states, 
Texas is number one, California is number two, New York, number three, Florida, 
number four, and there’s Iowa at number five, in terms of CO code assignments in 2006.
On page four I give you an inventory of area codes.  It would be comparing 
January 1, 2006 with January 1, 2007.  In 2006 we assigned two area codes.  One was for 
relief, the Illinois 217, the other one was in relief of the NPA 505 in New Mexico.  In 
2006 we had four area codes go into service:  one in Georgia, 761, California’s 424, and
we had two area codes go into service in Canada.
With regard to area code relief planning activities, I wanted to highlight a couple 
of area codes.  Number one, on page five, top of page, Illinois NPA 630, we are in a hold 
mode on that.  I am expecting that we will have the implementation of the new 331 area 
code overlay the 630 area code sometime in 2007.  We only have a handful, somewhere 
in the neighborhood of five CO codes available for assignment in 630.  West Virginia 
304, I have mentioned in our November meeting that they had issued an order requiring 
more pooling in 304.  Just recently the Commission has requested additional information 
from the services providers operating in 304 about the impacts of doing an area code split 
in that area code.
Other relief activities, we are on the verge of seeing a new area code come into 
services.  That’s for relief in the Illinois area code 815.  The 779 will become effective 
with codes becoming effective out of the 779 in March.  Kentucky has some activity 
underway there where they have requested additional authority to do some more pooling.  
20
California’s 714 and California 760 are kind of moving on the same track.  They just 
recently conducted some public meetings in California for 714, and they’re underway 
with similar-type meetings for 760.  And in Oregon, there is now a plan in place to 
extend the 971 overlay over the remaining portion of 503 that presently does not have 
that overlay in place.  Dates, permissive dialing will begin on October 21, 2007.  That 
being permissive dialing of ten digits in the non-overlay portion of 503.  And mandatory 
dialing starts in April of 2008 so that the 971 central office codes will become available 
in all of the area code 503.  Any questions on area codes or relief planning?
On page six I give an overview of some of the other resources that NANPA 
administers.  Year-end totals for 2006 -- I’ll briefly run through these focusing primarily 
on the tables.  The first table outlines carrier identification code CIC assignments for 
future group B (as in bravo).  You’ll see there were no assignments for future group B 
kicks (phonetic sp.) in 2006, yet we got 72 back.  You can see it’s fairly, that the use of 
this particular resources has declined.
For feature group D CICs, on page seven you can see the chart.  We assigned 99 
codes.  We reclaimed 128, and you can see over the past seven years the quantity that 
we’ve assigned and the quantity that we’ve reclaimed.  Basically we have -- with the 
reclamations in place we have 81 net assignments over the last seven years.
For the 500 area code we assigned 62 NXXs and reclaimed 34, with a net quantity 
assignment of 28.  This is the area code that I mentioned at our November meeting that 
we’re looking to exhaust as soon as in the next two years. Assignments do continue in 
this particular area code.  And the issue with regard to relief of the 500 area code is 
presently in the Industry Numbering Committee.
The 900 area code on page eight, no assignments in 2006 and we recovered 11 
21
codes.  And you can see the activity on that particular NPA over the last seven years.  
And finally, for 555 line numbers we had two assignments in 2006.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  John, if you don’t mind, I’d like to go back to 
the 500 codes.  First I do kind of want to highlight that.  It was, according to this 
document at the last meeting, the projected exhaust was 3.8 years, and now it’s less than 
two.  Is that -- I just wanted to really almost restate that.
MR. MANNING:  Yes.  We had originally, using information, had thought we 
were going to be exhausted anywhere from three to five years.  But with the information 
that we got in November, primarily the forecast that we had recently received, that was 
driving the exhaust of the remaining approximately 200 codes that we thought we were 
going to be seeing exhausted in the next two years.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Okay.  So that’s based on more recent --
MR. MANNING:  Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Okay, the forecast that’s come in the last 
month or two?
MR. MANNING:  Within the last month or two.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  I guess almost kind of similar to what Hank 
was asking, is there a particular, is there a way to try and get a sense of the source for 
these new requests or this uptake in demand?
MR. MANNING:  Well, we will continue to see initial assignments, but we are 
seeing continual assignments to entities that are using these resources.  It’s my 
understanding they use them for a number of different wireless type of services that are 
not necessarily services that you call, but they are services that are used -- an example 
would be delivery services where you need to call into a central location or be reached by 
22
a central location to track packages and stuff, assignment to those types of devices, as 
well as, you know, I know these numbers have been used for things used in automobiles 
and things like that, although I don’t know if that’s really continuing or not.  There may 
be a push to go to more geographic numbering on that.  But that is what we’re 
experiencing, and it’s those types of services where we’re seeing forecasts from services 
providers that indicate we’re going to need some more of these in the next two years.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  And maybe this is the type of thing that we can 
think about for next time, just to kind of -- I think giving a breakdown as to new requests 
or requests from existing providers for additional resources as opposed to new resources, 
I think, particularly on this area code.
MR. MANNING:  We can give you a breakdown of initial versus code 
assignments in 500.  I don’t know how far back we can go, but at least we can certainly 
go through the last couple of years and (indiscernible).
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Yes.  I think that’s the timeframe.  I think that 
would be useful so we can possibly get an understanding of this geographic code.
MR. MANNING:  Any other questions on the other resources?  Okay.  Moving 
on to page 9, NANPA had two outstanding change orders the last time we got together.  
Both of these change orders were approved by the Commission on January 25th.
Change Order Number 8 is a change order that requires NANPA to check to see if 
there are any active or pending ports on a code in which the service provider desires to 
change the associated rate center.  If there are active or pending ports, then the 
application will be denied.  If there are none, then the application must meet all the other 
criteria for it to be approved.
Change Order Number 9 is a change order again responding to an INC issue.  
23
This permits a service provider who to submit a Part 4 -- that’s a confirmation of in-
service for a non-pool dedicated code attained via the pooling administrator, to submit 
that Part 4 directly to NANPA, and that NANPA is required to send a confirmation of 
receipt of the Part 4, known as a Part 5, to the service provider as well as well as to the 
Pooling Administrator.  Timeframe for implementation of these are going to either be in 
late March or early April.
The final two items I just want to make note of, the NANPA newsletter was 
posted to the NANPA website in early January.  I make reference to this newsletter a lot, 
but I don’t know how many of you actually go in and take a look at the newsletter.  So I 
have provided the NANC members a copy of the latest version of that newsletter just so 
you know what’s there and get and idea of what it’s all about.
CHAIRMAN:  Would you like to make that an exhibit, or --
MR. MANNING:  It’s up to you.
CHAIRMAN:  We’ve talked about it.  We might as well.
MR. MANNING:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  We’ll make it Exhibit 4.
MR. MANNING:  Okay.  Again, we try to provide updated information about CO 
code assignments, relief activity, and any other information of current events that are 
taking place in the industry that might be of interest to the service provider community as 
well as to any of the regulators, and any other entities that are interested in the numbering 
world.
We are currently in the process of putting together our 2006 NANPA Annual 
Report.  That report is scheduled to be posted to the website at the end of March, and of 
course appropriate notification will be sent out to the industry as well as to the NANC 
24
when it is available.
And finally, I wanted to make note of, just that the NANPA 2006 Annual 
Performance Survey has been posted to the NANPA website.  A notification was sent out 
in early January and a reminder sent out just a few weeks ago about that survey, and 
trying to encourage folks to complete it and submit it to the NOWG.
That concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you, John.  Does anybody have any questions for 
John, who’s given us a very complete report?  I appreciate it.
I think Amy is next, the Pooling Administrator.  Go ahead.
Report of the National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator (PA)
MS. PUTNAM:  I just want to start out by saying pooling is so fine it’s blowing 
in the wind.  
CHAIRMAN:  Amy has a presentation which we’ll mark as Exhibit 5.  It’s a 
report of the National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator.
MS. PUTNAM:  Thank you.  If you look at slide 2 of the presentation it indicates 
the Pooling Administration activity summary data for the past 12 months, showing that in 
December and January we were between 7,000 and 8,000 Part 3s.
Slide 3 is the summary data as requested by the FCC a couple of years ago for the 
12-months preceding.
Slide 4 is CO codes open during the past 12 months showing in particular that our 
pool replenishments continue to grow as we lose the cushion that we had in some rate 
centers from the initial donations.  Over time, more and more rate centers run out of those 
initial donations and we have to open more codes for pool replenishment.  So that number 
is tending upwards.  The number of rate centers changed from M* to M, which is rate 
25
centers with a single service provider moving to rate centers with multiple service 
providers.  It tends to be slowing down.
Slide 5 shows the status of our change orders.  We had three change orders 
submitted since the last NANC meeting, and of those two of them were approved as you 
see in the list there.  Change Order 44, going through them very briefly, modified the Part 
1-A form to include a remarks section relating to whether a block was contaminated.  
Change Order 47 again addressed an INC issue.  The relevant changes in the INC 
guidelines revised the Part 4 Form.  And those modifications required, as many of these 
do, the modifications in INC guidelines required modifications to the Pooling 
Administration System. Change Order 49 addresses INC issue 523 and relates to a 
problem that we had with LERG assignees sometimes submitting a Part 4 without having 
sent in a notification that the code was opened in the PSTN.  And so the TBPAG was 
revised to require that the LERG assignee notify us, the Pooling Administrator, of code 
activation status prior to submitting the Part 4.  And if we don’t get that notification, we 
will not accept the Part 4.  That encourages carriers to open it in the PSTN, making those 
blocks available to other carriers for assignments.
Rosemary, did you have a question?  I’m sorry.
CHAIRMAN:  That’s okay.  I had missed it.
MS. PUTNAM:  Oh.
MS. EMMER:  Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  I have a question on the change 
orders.  It looks like Change Order 48 was submitted in October, but it looks like you’ve 
received a number of approved change orders recently, December and January.  I was 
wondering if you had any indication or if you received any feedback regarding Change 
Order 48.
26
MS. PUTNAM:  Yes.  We are gathering information for the FCC at the request of 
the FCC to get a better analysis of Change Order 48 now that we have some history.  And 
that’s why that change order has not yet been approved.  We will be negotiating that 
change order further with them.
MS. EMMER:  Thank you.
MS. PUTNAM:  And Change Order 45, we withdrew that change order because 
of the issues in Change Order 45 were discussed in the technical requirements document.  
And so we simply withdrew Change Order 45 totally in order to try to have a clean slate 
across the board with respect to the technical requirements document in the pending 
re-bid.
Any other questions on change orders?
Slide 6 shows that our system was up 100% of the time again, 100% of the time 
during 2006.
Slide 7 shows our other activities with respect to the status of the existing 
contract.  As you recall, the base contract ended in June.  We received an extension, and 
then subsequently received a second extension.  The second extension, like the first one, 
was three months with two, one-month additional options.  The FCC just the other day 
exercised its first one-month option extending the contract to March 14th, 2007.  And 
there is a second option still on the table to extend it to April 14th, 2007.
With respect to the performance evaluation, we posted the Annual Performance 
Survey to our website January 2nd, and we have sent an e-mail with documents and an 
e-mail reminder out to carriers.
I’m not going to go through the details of the delegated authority petition update.  
It’s broken out by state just giving a little status report on what’s going on in the different 
27
states.
With respect to the Interim Routing Number Authority Administration, the IRNA, 
as of January 31st there had been five registrations received.  Four were approved, one 
was denied for lack of an OCN.  As of January 31st there had been no requests for
ESQKs, but we actually since January 31st have had a request and have denied it.  And 
we have been working with the INC on develop --
(END OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE 1)
* * * * *
(START OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE 2)
MS. PUTNAM:  -- yesterday.  In fact our subgroup had a couple of hour meeting 
and we have a couple more scheduled, going through the guidelines making proposed 
suggestions or additions, to make the guidelines relevant to pANI but similar to existing 
guidelines.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Amy, if I could ask, you had mentioned you 
had one request for resources that was denied.  Are you free to discuss the basis of the 
denial?
MS. PUTNAM:  The basis of the denial was that the applicant was using a 
certification from a different state.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Okay.  A state different than the one they were 
requesting resources?
MS. PUTNAM:  A state different from the one in which they were requesting 
resources.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Okay.  Thank you.
MS. PUTNAM:  And slide 10, we monitor the Office of Management and Budget 
28
website for any changes to MSAs that could affect us in any way, either changing 
something having to do with the top 100 MSAs -- sometimes in the past ONB has 
changed the definition of what an MSA is, has moved counties in and out of MSAs, has 
consolidated MSAs, or has broken them up.  So we monitor that website to be assured 
that we are consistent with whatever information is on that website.  They did issue 
another bulletin, 0701, and it was a very minimal affect on us.  It changed the names of 
four MSAs.  It did not change any of the MSAs in the top 100 MSAs, and we modified 
the website to reflect the name changes.  And that is shown on the slide.
Our annual report is on target for a March 31st submission to the FCC.  And of 
course after that it will be posted on the website.  We are to get the draft report to the 
NOWG February 21st.  They will have between a week and two weeks to review it, and 
then there is a call scheduled with us to review it with them.  I’m sure that will be 
covered in the NOWG report.
One other thing that we did recently, actually this week, the INC had requested 
that we poll service providers for suggestions for pool replenishment.  We asked them 
delicately basically why service providers don’t want to open codes, and if there’s 
anything that can be done about it.  That was at the behest of the INC.  I’m not holding 
my breath expecting a whole lot of answers, but nevertheless the request is out there.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you, Amy.  Further questions?  Rosemary?  No?
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  (Indiscernible.)
CHAIRMAN:  When you put yours down, that’s when I know you have a 
question.
You know, I had actually scheduled a break here, but I think if INC wants to go 
now and provide their presentation -- are you ready, Kim?  I mean, we might as well 
29
since we’re all fresh still.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  (Indiscernible.)
CHAIRMAN:  Sure.  This is the Industry Numbering Committee Report to 
NANC by Ken Havens, the Industry Numbering Committee Chair. It’s a Powerpoint 
document, the prettiest we have today I think.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  We tried.
CHAIRMAN:  No, no.  I’m sorry.  John’s newsletter.  This will be Exhibit 6.
Status of the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Activities
MR. HAVENS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ken Havens, INC Chair.  If you 
refer to slide 2, you’ll note that INC had two meetings since the last NANC meeting, and 
that we have our next meeting scheduled in April, about two and half months out.
Going to the third slide, the permanent pANI guidelines issue is being worked in 
our CO/NXX subcommittee.  The first slide merely makes reference to the fact that the 
INC got down to work right after it was assigned the interim guidelines at the last NANC 
meeting, and that the INC is working very closely with ESIF-H subcommittee which does 
include NENA members.  And we have been meeting on a continuous basis to develop 
draft guidelines.  We have over 30 contributions submitted thus far against the pANI 
guidelines.  We have approximately 12 future meetings scheduled to drive out the final 
guidelines.  We have identified a shell of a document, if you will, outlined what the 
document should look like, basically taking the pANI, the interim guidelines, comparing 
those against what we have for our Thousands Block assignment guidelines, and coddling 
together a format which we think suits the pANI guidelines.  The INC believes at this 
point that it is on schedule to meet the goal of completing the guidelines by its March 9th 
deadline, and that should any issues arise regarding policy the INC and ESIF will contact 
30
either NANC or the pANI IMG with those questions.
Mr. Chairman, with regards to that last bullet, would you prefer that we go 
directly to the IMG, or come to you directly?
CHAIRMAN:  It’s probably best to come to both simultaneously I think.  I’ll just 
end up passing it to the IMG, but given that, and I know you guys are doing a lot of work 
in a very short time period.  So it’s just to make sure it -- and which I greatly appreciate, 
but I think it’s probably best just to, I would just contact, you know, the co-chairs and 
myself through an e-mail simultaneously is probably the easiest.
MR. HAVENS:  Okay.  Are there any questions?  Don, go ahead.
MR. GRAY:  Don Gray, Nebraska Public Service Commission.  Ken do you have 
the running number of hours that the group has spent on this so far?
MR. HAVENS:  We don’t.  Certainly we could compile that information if 
necessary.
MR. GRAY:  I was just curious because I think people would be very surprised 
and impressed the amount of effort that is being put in on this guideline.  And I think it’s 
important that all of the stakeholders recognize how much effort is going forth on this.
MR. HAVENS:  Well, I think frankly we’ve had about six meetings thus far not 
including face-to-face meetings.  We’ve got, I think, 12 scheduled meetings to go, and 
they last about three hours a piece.  So you do the math.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  (Indiscernible.)
MR. HAVENS:  Yes.  It is a significant contribution by the industry to getting the 
guidelines for the permanent pANI administration put together on a timely basis, you 
know, based on the statement by the FCC Bureau that they believed the national solution 
was in the public interest.  And I think that the industry is really stepping up on this.  I 
31
appreciate it.
MS. EMMER:  Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  That was an excellent 
suggestion.  NANC has asked the NOWG every year to compile how many man hours 
they spend specifically on the PA and then the alpha reviews.  And so I think that it 
would be an excellent idea going forward to keep track of that number.  So thank you.
MR. HAVENS:  We’d be happy to do that.  Any other questions?
Slide 5 talks about an issue, Issue 322, removal of the switch information from the 
Part 1 form.  We have two slides that comprise t his issue.  The first slide attempts to give 
a little history behind the issue, and then the second slide, some more history and sort of 
where we are, some of the things that have gone on.  So if you’ll bear with me for just a 
moment, we brought this issue or closed this issue back in 2002.
The intent of the issue that was brought in was to remove switch information from 
Part 1 forms.  And the reason that we wanted that to occur was it was noted that 
switching information, which is included on Part 1 forms and then subsequently included 
in the NANPA database, the INC believes is no longer relevant information.  And that is 
because today codes are assigned no longer at a switch level, but rather at a rate-center 
level.  Also today numbers are ported in between switches which, when that occurs the 
switch information loses relevance.
And then switching information as noted in bullet 3 is required on these various 
Part 1 forms and it causes the industry to maintain synchronous data in more than one 
database, which leads to inefficiencies, database discrepancies and added costs for all 
involved.  So this information is being included on the Part 1 forms, it’s included in 
NANPA.  However, switch information is also input into the Telcordia LERG database, 
which is the database of record for switch information.  It’s probably worthy to note that 
32
information when entered under the Part 1 forms into the NAS system is not validated for 
accuracy.
On slide 2, another reason that the INC felt that this information should be 
removed from the forms is that there are issues of national security relative to that 
information being made available on public websites, and that the FCC NRIC VI Best 
Practices along with the NIIF NRRIC issue raised those particular concerns.
So up to this point, I’ve sort of outlined you some of the reasons for wanting to 
have that switch information removed from those forms.  And back in February of ’04, 
the INC closed the issue.  A change order was requested.  It was sent to the FCC approval 
in 2000 -- excuse me, in February of ’04 the FCC rejected the change order for the 
reasons that there were some particular states that wanted that information available from 
the NANPA and received reports from NANPA with switch information.  And so the 
INC sought to find out really what were the reasons behind some states wanting to 
maintain that information or have availability to that information, because that same 
information is available on Telcordia BIRRDS products.  And so there was an 
opportunity for, we believe, states to have that information via the BIRRDS products.  So 
Don Gray assisted the INC by inquiring through the various regulatory groups to find out 
what states wanted to maintain that information, wanted availability to that information, 
and the reasons for wanting that information.  And he did that for approximately the last 
couple of years.  And at this point the reasons for that are still unclear.  And we 
understand that there’s just a few states that want to maintain that information, who want 
availability to that information.
At this point, Telcordia has volunteered to do a LERG online demonstration to 
regulatory groups and to particular state regulators to demonstrate the information, the 
33
switch information that states may want access to, to see if they’re, to do a side-by-side 
comparison, if you will.  And so the bottom line is that the INC wanted to bring you up to 
speed on where this is, and to find out hopefully in the next couple of months whether or 
not states would be able to view the information given by Telcordia and find it as a 
suitable substitute.
Are there any questions?
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  I guess the question I have is when was the 
offer made by Telcordia (indiscernible)?
MR. HAVENS:  Well, it has been made --
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  -- if Telcordia wants to speak.
MR. HAVENS:  Adam, would you like to speak to that?
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  (Indiscernible.)
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  I just want the record to reflect my --
MR. NEWMAN:  Adam Newman, Telcordia Technologies.  I sent e-mail to Mr. 
Gray from Nebraska right after the INC meeting, so approximately two weeks ago.  And 
there’s a state coordinating group meeting scheduled for this Thursday, and I will be 
providing the demonstration this Thursday to the state coordinating group of both, what 
we call the NARUC, N-A-R-U-C, Special Data Product, which is available for download 
and the (indiscernible) on line.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Okay.  Thank you.  Thanks for that.
MR. HAVENS:  Don?
MR. GRAY:  Don Gray, Nebraska Public Service Commission.  I’d just like to 
note also that as we’ve worked through this issue, Nebraska originally was one of the 
states that was in opposition to removal of the (indiscernible) because we didn’t make use 
34
of it as other states do when we’re analyzing resource assignments.  But Adam Newman 
from Telcordia provided access to that database.  I think it was late ’05, early ’06 when 
we first had some information available as here’s what we could do.  And since that 
became available, that’s what Nebraska has shifted over and used because it’s no older 
than a month, it’s accurate, it’s what actually routes the codes, as opposed to what got 
filed and may or may not be accurate.  So Thursday afternoon we’re going to have a 
demonstration, a presentation, if you will, for the states coordinating group so that folks 
can see what the tool is, how they can use it, and see if we can break this logjam.
MR. NEWMAN:  Again, Adam Newman, Telcordia Technologies.  And one of 
the reasons that we’re also demonstrating the LERG on-line version is because that’s 
actually updated from the database on a daily basis.  So in case there were any state 
commissions that were really interested in daily updated data, the LERG online provides 
that capability.
MS. HAVENS:  Thank you.  And I again like to note we appreciate Telcordia’s 
cooperation on that because, I mean, this is their own product that they’re making 
available to state commissioners.  And I think that’s laudable and should be recognized.
John?
MR. MANNING:  Yes.  John Manning, NANPA.  I just wanted to make one 
clarification in terms of what NANPA provides today.  There are numerous states today 
that receive daily Part 1 reports, which is a listing of all Part 1s, CO code applications, 
received by NANPA for a particular state and their associated area codes.  That 
information, when submitted into NAS by the service provider or NANPA on behalf of 
the service provider as it comes through the PA, is available to the state at that particular 
moment that it’s entered into the system, so that states that get this daily Part 1 report are 
35
getting the information before NANPA has acted upon it.  I wanted to make sure that was 
clear because in a number of instances, states have come back to NANPA when receiving 
that information, requested additional information, and some additional follow-up before 
a code has actually been assigned or, in some instances, before the code is assigned 
direction provided based upon the information in the Part 1.  So I wanted to make sure it 
was clear in terms of what states are receiving today, those that have opted in to receive 
the daily Part 1 reports.  Thank you.
MR. HAVENS:  Thanks, John.
Slide 6, please?  Slide 6 talks about Issue 506.  506 was an issue where, that was 
brought into the INC on behalf of the LNP working group to make changes to the 
Thousands, the TBPAG and the Appendix 2 Thousands-Block donation form.  This 
change is requested due to carriers donating contaminated blocks prior to completed 
intra-service provider reports on unavailable numbers.  The reason, what we had hoped to 
accomplish by working this issue was to stress to service providers how important it was 
for them to complete their intra-service provider reports.  Basically on this form we ask a 
series of new questions of the service provider, such as: is the block contaminated, how 
many TNs are unavailable for assignment, are your ISPs complete.  In other words, we’re 
trying to, in flashing red lines, make sure that service providers are aware of their 
obligations when it comes to donating blocks, and that they perform all of their duties.  
And so changes were made to that form.
And one last point, by virtue of completing this form the service provider is in 
effect certifying that all the information is complete and accurate, that they’ve done due 
diligence in completing, that type of information.  This issue was assigned to Change 
Order 51, and those changes will not go into effect until after the PA Change Order is 
36
approved by the FCC.  Any questions on that issue?
Slide 7, please. Slide 7 deals with issue 407, which is the treatment of dedicated 
codes for single customers in a pooling environment.  I believe this issue was visited at 
the November 30 NANC meeting last year.  And the INC took an action item away from 
that to come back to the NANC to, if possible, provide some quantitative information 
regarding this information, or regarding this issue more information than had been 
provided previously.
And so this slide talks a little bit about, you know, about the issue itself, why it 
was required.  It actually allows a service provider to request a code for a dedicated 
customer directly from NANPA and the pooling area, significantly increasing the 
efficiency of attaining resources for a large enterprise.  The issue is then in effect a 
process-improvement issue that seeks to remove the PA from the process of the service 
provider getting the code.  They want to be able to go directly to NANPA when 
requesting a dedicated code in a pooling environment for a large single customer.
The quantitative information that we bring to the table today is that we noted 
from, and this was taken from a PA report, that over the past three years an annual 
average of 135 dedicated code requests had been processed in pooling areas.  The INC 
believes this to be a significant number of codes requested for dedicated codes.  And one 
of the points we note here is that with the current process, taking into account the 
safety-valve process that a service provider typically has to go through, because quite 
often they don’t meet utilization or (indiscernible) exhaust, and so they have to go the 
safety-valve route to request this code, basically elongates the timeframe for which they 
have to get numbers to this customer.
The third point is that these are large customers and represent significant revenue 
37
to the customer.  So to the extent that it takes a long time to get numbers for these 
customers, often times the customer will seek out an alternative service provider because 
the one service provider to whom they went to cannot fill the request in what they 
perceive to be a timely manner.
So you may recall that when the INC brought this to the NANC, the NANC 
formed an IMG to also look at this issue.  And they agreed completely with the INC that 
this was a good process improvement opportunity, and (indiscernible) need to take 
another look at this.
So, Mr. Chairman, that’s where we are on this issue.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Does INC have any plans to do direct 
follow-up with the FCC on this issue?
MR. HAVENS:  It’s under consideration.  We haven’t made any decisions at this 
point.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Okay.
MR. HAVENS:  Are there any questions?
Slide 8 represents two issues that the INC has worked and completed that require 
the INC to request from the NAPM LLC permission for the PA to request of the impacts 
and reports for ported information.  This information on ported numbers for blocks that 
have been abandoned or blocks that are being returned allow the PA to review, to look at 
those blocks, to see whether or not they’re over contaminated, more than 10% 
contaminated, and again going back to the ISPP portion essentially to make sure that 
they’re ready to be donated or made available to the pool.  So we issued that letter and 
hope to hear from the NAPM LLC as to whether or not those requests have been 
approved.
38
Any questions?
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Actually on that, when were those letters sent, 
or that letter sent?
MR. HAVENS:  Just this week, maybe --
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Yesterday it went out and we’re expecting 
(indiscernible) back by (indiscernible).
MR. HAVENS:  Through the microphone I’m going to introduce you for the 
record.  
MR. DECKER:  Tim Decker, Verizon for the NAPM LLC.  I was in receipt of 
that letter this morning, and we will try to get it on our agenda at this month’s meeting.
MR. HAVENS:  Thank you very much.  Okay.
Slide 9 represents issue 510 which is the internet-based relay services and 
interoperability. The contributions for the INC VRS report, we received a number of 
those at our December and January INC meeting.  At this time we want to make note that 
the report is in development for the NANC, and that with respect to this report we’ve 
created a shell for that report and have a number of contributions that have been 
submitted against that.  The VRS, we created what we call a contribution development 
subteam for the INC, and they’ve been meeting on nearly a weekly basis trying to 
develop contributions to flesh out this report.  And as of the last INC, it was noted that 
the INC is in hopes of having something completed or something to present to the NANC 
by June.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  By June?  Okay.
MR. HAVENS:  Yes.  That’s the plan at this particular point.  And at the next 
INC meeting we anticipate that we would be sending out for comment our report.  Any 
39
questions, concerns that we have with regard to, for example, 911 (indiscernible) or 
maybe interoperability concerns to (indiscernible), so we anticipate doing that very soon.
Any questions?
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  And I just think this will probably come up, 
but you received from the LNP working group?
MR. HAVENS:  That’s correct, with regard to impact as a possible solution.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Okay.  I know that was one thing that we 
talked about last time, and I’m glad to see that the working group (indiscernible).
MR. HAVENS:  It was reviewed by the INC at the last meeting among other 
possibilities.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Okay.  Thank you.
MR. HAVENS:  Sure.
Slide 10 and 11, I won’t go into those, but for slide 10 these are issues that remain 
in initial pending.  And this represents that INC is either waiting implementation of 
approved change orders, or is awaiting FCC action on a particular change order.  So those 
issues are at this point in what INC calls initial pending.
And on slide 11, this represents the issues that went into final closure since the 
last NANC meeting.  Any questions?  Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Thank you, Ken.
Even though we skipped the break, we’re basically pretty much on schedule.  I’d 
like to actually kind of keep us, given the snow and the weather and everything, I’d kind 
of like to keep us going.  Unless somebody really feels we need to take a break, I’d rather 
just go to lunch and then see how much we can get done just so, you know, we have a 
snowball’s chance of getting out of here.
40
Okay.  So the Billing and Collection agent (indiscernible) I think is the next 
report.
Report from the North American Number Plan
Billing and Collection (NANP B&C) Agent
MS. MARCOTTE:  Good morning.  This is Faith Marcotte with the Billing and 
Collection Agent, Welch and Company.  So there are two reports today.  The first one is 
the regular NANC report that we do for the month of January ’07.  Page 1 shows the 
financial position of the fund which, at this point at the end of January was at 3.5 million.  
That’s comprised of mostly cash of 4.8 million, less accrued liabilities of 1.5 million.  
Those accrued liabilities are listed below, the bulk of it which is to NEUSTAR just not 
getting approved invoices yet to pay.  The fund itself is earning in, the Dreyfus 
Government Cash Management Fund is earning about 4.42% annually.
If you go to the next page it shows where we’re projecting the fund to be at June 
’07 -- well, projected for the next year, but particularly June ’07.  That’s in the shaded 
columns.  We see a total column and a budget column, and then the difference between 
the two, an analysis of the differences.  So if you look in the difference column, you can 
see that they’re not that different other than for pooling, which is about a million off, 
which is lower.  So our pooling is lower than we had anticipated when we did the budget.  
And also our forecast was slightly off if you look at the 478 below.  So overall, we’re 
projecting a surplus of 1.5 million, which is made up of the million in the contingency 
fund that we set aside and then the 576,000 that, the differences between the budget and 
the total that we are expecting at the end of June.  In the square box you’ll see the details 
of that reconciliation if you want to look that over.
And then the next page is a forecast of what we expect we’ll be paying out over 
41
the next six months, up to August ’07.
Does anyone have any questions?  Okay.
So the next report is titled NANP fund budget and contribution factor for July ’07 
to June 2008.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Just to -- the presentation that Faith just gave is Exhibit 7, 
just the one with the Welch and Company letterhead.  The other document, which will be 
Exhibit 8, is the net fund, NANP fund budget and contribution factor.  Go ahead.
MS. MARCOTTE:  All right.  So the first two pages are commentary, but the 
budget itself, the projected disbursements are on the third page of that report, if we can 
turn to that.  So first we start out with NANP admin and that’s based on a fixed contract 
that there is with the admin.  So there’s nothing to be a surprise there.  Of that 1.54 
million, 85,000 will be paid by Canada and the Caribbean countries.  That leaves the cost 
to be covered at 1.365 million for NANP admin.  The next number is pooling.  Right now 
it’s highlighted because that is not a final number yet.  We’re just estimating right now.  
That 4.1 million is based on -- right now pooling can bill 296,000 maximum a month.  So 
that adds up to about 3½ million, and then they have a couple of change orders, 48 and 
51, which might be another 500,000.  So that’s where we get the 4 million 1 hundred.
As Amy mentioned before, their contract can be extended right now until April
14th.  We’re hoping that there will be a contract in place before the end of April.  Then 
we can incorporate this fixed-price contract into the budget, which will give us a more 
accurate number since we are just totally estimating at this point.
The other thing we are looking at when we discussed it with the working group is 
going back to look at what the actual costs for pooling was versus what the maximum 
they are allowed to go, because as you saw from the previous report it was about a 
42
million less last year.  So instead of being overly conservative and basing it on the 
maximum, we’re going to try to maybe get a better, a more accurate picture of what that 
number could be.  But the best scenario would be if we had the contract in place by that 
date.  So that’s what we’re hoping for, but we are still looking at this number and we will 
continue to do that with the working group.  And hopefully by, well, maybe by the next 
NANC meeting we’ll have a better number there.  We’ll let you know.
CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
MS. MARCOTTE:  The next number is a pANI number.  That again is an 
estimate.  We know that this will be combined with the pooling contract when that 
contract is signed, so we’ll move that number out should that contract be awarded in 
time.  The carrier audits number of 700,000, that’s a number that the FCC has suggested 
we use so we are using it.
CHAIRMAN:  Faith, I’ve got a quick question.  Sorry.  I didn’t follow my own 
rule.  The pANI administration (indiscernible), change order 51 is for the interim pANI 
administration, correct?  So this is 150,000 budgeted for permanent administration?  Is 
that --
MS. MARCOTTE:  That was an original number that Amy had put out might be 
the cost before pooling started doing it.  So that’s the number we’re using.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.
MS. MARCOTTE:  But that’s only because we don’t have a better number to use.
CHAIRMAN:  I just wanted to make sure we’re not double counting, because I 
think we have the -- this goes back to the question that we had for Amy about that change 
order hasn’t been completed yet and is currently in negotiation.
MS. MARCOTTE:  Well, we’ll talk to Amy before we finalize this to make sure 
43
we’re not double counting.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thanks.
MS. MARCOTTE:  The Billing Collection Agent, which is us, is a fixed-price 
contract.  The data collection agent of 56,000, that is USAC.  And that’s an estimate but 
it’s what they have estimated the cost will be.  The annual operations audit is an external 
audit of us that has yet to be done, but that’s what we anticipate the cost to be.  The 
interest income is based on previous experience.  The late filing fee, it’s a new number 
because we’ve been tracking that number.  And that’s when the companies file their 
forms late, they get charged $100.  And it adds up to $115,000.  So we’re now 
incorporating that into the budget.
So the projected disbursements are 6.3 million.  We’ve left a million in 
contingency for unforeseen events.  That means we have to fund 7.3 million.
If you look in the comparative column for last year, the contribution factor was 
000021.  And if you look to the next page, we’ve got the funding options for this, the 
next year.  Option 1, we are looking at a factor of 246 versus the 21, or 2-10 of last year.  
That’s using up the full surplus that we anticipate at the end of June, which comes from 
the previous report of 1.5 million.  And that will bring the surplus to zero, other than the 
million contingency.
Option 2 would be a factor of 2-5-0.  That’s a number that had been projected a 
couple of years ago to keep the fund, the contribution factor steady so companies know 
what they’re going to be paying.  So we’ve incorporated that as an option.  That would 
leave a surplus of 95,000 carry forward.
And Option 3 is not to use the surplus, just carry that forward.  And that would 
produce a factor of 3-1-3.  So what we have to decide is which factor we’re going to use, 
44
which approach we’re going to go (indiscernible).
CHAIRMAN:  Anna has a question.
MS. MILLER:  Anna Miller with T-Mobile.  I just have a question for 
clarification.  In the Option 1 that’s listed here, we’re utilizing the $1.15 million surplus 
from the past year, but there still is the $1 million contingency in there.  Is that correct?
MS. MARCOTTE:  That’s right.
MS. MILLER:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:  So it’s in essence taking the additional 576.  That’s how that kind 
of works.
MS. MILLER:  Right, but there’s still a million dollar contingency.
CHAIRMAN:   Yes.  So at the end of next year there’ll be another million 
hopefully.
MS. MARCOTTE:  The revenue numbers, we’re basing these factors on a 1% 
growth in revenue, which is what the contribution factor is multiplied by to get the bills.  
By the end of April we will have the exact or pretty close number from the data 
collection agent.  And that will be incorporated into this report when we have the more 
accurate number.
Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN:  Rosemary?
MS. EMMER:  Rosemary Emmer of Sprint Nextel.  I just wanted to make the 
NANC aware that Tim Decker with Verizon and I co-chair the group that oversees this.  
And when we decided earlier in January to put the timeline together as to what we’re 
looking at for the budget and contribution factor and things for the group, to manage the 
group, we slated based on years previously at the beginning of March to receive the 
45
proposed contribution factor information from Welch.  And I just wanted to make 
everyone aware that they sent the proposed contribution factor information to us at the 
end of January.  So they were way ahead of schedule.  Thank you very much.
MS. MARCOTTE:  Thank you.  No further questions?
CHAIRMAN:  Phil Jones of Washington.
COMMISSIONER JONES:  Commissioner Jones, Washington State.  Could you 
just go back to Exhibit 7 and, just a point of confirmation.  This makeup of accrued 
liabilities where it states the liabilities, how does that correlate to Exhibit 8 budget for 
‘06/’07 and ‘07/’08?  I’m particularly interested in NEUSTAR’s expenses.  There’s 
$957,000 for the Thousands Block Pooling.  And their admin expenses are 237,000.  So 
what’s the basis of those accrued liabilities in relation to the budget that you just went 
over?
MS. MARCOTTE:  They’re incorporated in what our surplus number will be at 
the end of June so that we are including the potential, what we know are going to be 
expenses to the end of June.  And those numbers are in there so that we have an accurate 
fund balance, surplus balance to incorporate into the choice we make for the funding 
factor.
CHAIRMAN:  Any further questions?  And I guess the Working Group is next, 
right, so we can somewhat continue the same discussion.  Thank you, Faith.  Looking 
inside the report of the Billing and Collection Working Group, which is Rosemary 
Emmer and Tim Decker.  They have a presentation which will be Exhibit 9.
Report of the Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG)
MS. EMMER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  
And I’d like to introduce the new co-chair, Tim Decker of Verizon.  I won’t have to 
46
repeat the contribution factor proposal.  Faith did a great job going over it, and I believe 
that all the questions were answered.
Page 2 of our report which is the submission statement and the area of 
responsibility was reviewed with you the last time.  So I won’t go over that again.  But 
our current activities on the next page, we’re putting together at this point, part of 2005 
and all of 2006 performance review.  This is the first time this group has put this together, 
and we are working through right now what the ratings should look like, whether it 
should be, for instance, not met, met, more than met, exceeds similar to how the NOWG 
rates, or whether it should be something different.  And we’ve also put together a draft 
matrix, if you will, based on the deliverable documents or deliverables that we capture 
every other month from Welch and Company.  As far as a timeline when we’ll have this 
performance review completed, we don’t have one at this point.  We aren’t aware that the 
NANC has any deadlines for us, and if you do please let us know.  This is a long process 
when you’re putting a brand new performance review together.  So we will just continue 
to keep you posted.  And if there comes a point in time when the FCC or the NANC 
would like to give us a deadline, we’ll be more than happy to accommodate that.
As Faith has gone over previously, the budget and contribution factor are the 
other two things we’re working on right now.
CHAIRMAN:  And can you give us an indication of just the timeline of the 
schedule on the contribution factor approval process so we can get some understanding 
here?  Because the question I had is that we have a couple open questions on it, 
particularly the PA contract renewal which may change the pricing there.
MS. EMMER:  Sure.
CHAIRMAN:  And I want to make sure that we have, or at least a public record 
47
understanding as to what, you know, how the normal timeline would be and how that 
would possibly change, depending on a final or a different PA contract.
MS. EMMER:  Well, if you look at page 8 of the presentation, that’s our meeting 
schedule that has our proposed agenda.  Clearly we’re going to have to kind of touch and 
feel our way through this.  Anything that we’re working on right now might not be able 
to be in stone as a result of what you were just talking about.  It looks at this point in time 
like we would like to finalize this by April 10th.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So that would be -- and then I guess the PA contract is 
currently under two monthly extensions, so that’s February 14th, March 14th I think was 
the last date for that.  Okay.  Thank you.
MS. EMMER:  Yes.  So if you skip over to page 6, that also lists the current 
proposed three options for the contribution factor that Faith has just gone over.  And I 
just wanted everyone to know that they did provide that information to the industry, that 
the entity working group has had a conference call regarding this. And the carriers at this 
point or the members of that group currently are taking this back internally and trying to 
come up with an industry position.  So if you haven’t heard about this already, you 
probably will hear about this in the next couple of weeks.
The B&C Working Group membership list hasn’t changed.  And we’ve listed the 
carriers that are members for you, as well as our future meeting dates.  I did not provide 
conference bridge information here.  If anyone would like to join our group, we would 
love to have any attendance that we could get.  So please feel free to contact Tim or I if 
you would like to join our cause.
Are there any questions?  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Rosemary.
48
Again, in the interest of trying to move these things, I think we have the NOWG 
and then I think we’ll probably just break after that.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  (Indiscernible.)
CHAIRMAN:  It’s possibly true, yes.  I do have a couple of things in the 
afternoon that I don’t think we can completely go through. This is the Numbering 
Oversight Working Group presentation.
Report of the Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG)
MS.  MCNAMER:  Well, good morning.  I’m Natalie McNamer of T-Mobile.  
I’m one of the co-chairs of the Numbering Oversight Working Group.  What we’re going 
to cover today is the NANPA and PA 2006 performance surveys, the evaluation 
timelines, NANPA and PA change orders, the NEUSTAR acquisition of Followap, Inc., 
and the NOWG meeting schedule.
On page 3 of the presentation we reviewed that we had the administrators send the 
surveys out on January 2nd with reminder notices sent in the beginning of February.  We 
have set the due date for the surveys to be February 28th, but in most years we’ve 
extended that.  So the NOWG is looking to extend that to March 14th.  Surveys received 
as of through yesterday morning was for NANPA, 18 total surveys have been received, 
seven service providers only, and 11 regulators.  On the PA, we’ve received a better 
response. There have been 51 total surveys received, 39 service providers and 12 from 
regulators.  So we’re hoping to get those numbers up, especially for the NANPA a lot 
higher before the end of the survey period.  We will probably have the administrators also 
send the extension with another reminder out in the beginning of March.
The proposed schedule that we’re going off of for the performance evaluations is 
the new date of March 14th.  Then we will be going to Concord to the PA offices on 
49
March 26th through 28th for the operational review.  April 11th and 12, the NANPA 
operations review in Sterling; then in May we meet in Denver for two to three days to 
actually put together all of the performance reports.  Some time in June we’ll be asking to 
meet with the FCC to review the draft report to be presented at the NANC meeting.
(END OF AUDIOTAPE 1, SIDE 2)
* * * * *
(START OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE 1)
MS. MCNAMER:  I think we have about two meetings.
Next, is a couple of change orders we had for NANPA which I believe John has 
already reviewed in detail.  The NOWG did analyze change orders 8 and 9 and 
recommended to the FCC that they be approved.  Subsequently they have been approved 
by the FCC.
The PA had three change orders, two of which -- PA Change Order 49 and 50 --
were analyzed and recommended for approval to the FCC, and subsequently approved 
already.  Change Order 51, the NOWG has reviewed it and will be recommending that 
the FCC approve it. That should be going out sometime this week.
Slide 10 is in respect to the acquisition of Followap, Inc. by NEUSTAR.  This 
was an action item that was given to the NOWG at the last NANC meeting.
So based on our review, the NOWG doesn’t find any issues at this time, but we 
wanted to review with the NANC what exactly the NOWG does to come to that 
conclusion.  Our basis for the evaluation on slide number 11 shows the original neutrality 
requirements that were placed on NEUSTAR at its creation and the safe harbor neutrality 
requirements.  The evaluation process is that select members of the NOWG review quite 
a few different things: the products and services, technologies and platforms, affiliations 
50
with other companies, corporate structure management, competitors’ and customers’ 
target market for the, for Followap is what they did.  Most of this is done via website 
searches.  Then select members also review publicly available information on Followap, 
including their financial statements, reviews, and press.
So the NOWG did complete that process and does not find any issues, but the 
NOWG would like the NANC to consider engaging a legal group or an IMG in any 
future structural changes within NEUSTAR.  Also we wanted to point out that it may be 
possible for these type of neutrality issues to be identified in the neutrality audits, but the 
NOWG does not have enough information on those audits to know if that would be the 
case or not.  So we just wanted to have that pointed out.
The last page of the presentation is just the meeting schedule coming up for the 
NOWG.
CHAIRMAN:  Questions?  Anna?
MS. MILLER:  Anna Miller, T-Mobile.  Just to follow up on the NOWG’s 
request, I guess you’re asking the NANC to consider whether or not you need to have a 
legal working group.  And I guess the question is are the existing neutrality audits 
sufficient, or does there need to be a legal group to consider future structural changes?  
And I think this is really focused with regard to neutrality.  And in the past, I think when 
we were initially trying to define neutrality, and the NANC was addressing that issue, and 
I don’t remember how long ago that was, but --
CHAIRMAN:  Very long.
MS. MILLER:  Very long.  I’m probably the only one that was here at the time.  
Or maybe Ray was here.  But in order to actually come up with a definition of neutrality 
from a legal perspective, we created this legal working group.  And that’s how we 
51
developed the neutrality requirements.  So again, I think maybe it’s something for this 
group to consider whether or not that’s needed, or are the neutrality audits sufficient.  
Because I think a lot of the consideration that goes into that evaluation is more legal than 
technical member administration.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Understood.  And so that the idea is that there is different 
fields of expertise, in essence, involved?  Does that summarize the statements, that there 
may be a different level of knowledge required to engage in that review to the extent one 
is seen necessary?  
MS. MILLER:  Right.
CHAIRMAN:  I’m trying to characterize what you said.
MS. MILLER:  Yes, I guess you know the degree of comfort.  If the NANC 
believes that these neutrality audits are sufficient, that’s fine.  If we believe that there 
needs to be further consideration, then I think it may be beneficial to form a legal group 
to look at that since it was a legal group from the NANC that actually developed those 
neutrality requirements.  Or, I guess what I’m saying is, do we need that legal perspective 
versus having a working group that’s focused really on the technical member 
administration requirements.
CHAIRMAN:  Certainly.  Rosemary?
MS. EMMER:  Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  Along those lines I wanted to 
point out that this is the first time that I can recall any member of the NOWG choosing to 
abstain from conducting census process.  And I believe that happened in this particular 
situation when we went to get consensus on this or when we discussed it.  And the reason 
why that rather large company chose to abstain was because they felt that this was 
outside of their realm of NOWG actually going up that particular person’s chain of 
52
command.  There wasn’t anyone other than going into the regulatory arena that was able 
to provide guidance, so they chose to abstain. And I’m not sure if that would happen in 
the future or not, but certainly if there was a legal group or a legal IMG that was looking 
at this type of request, we might not have folks abstaining from making decisions going 
forward.  Thanks.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Appreciate it.  Are there other -- Hank?
MR. HOLCUST:  Hank Hultquist, AT&T.  I think that these are really good 
points.  I think the thing we have to be careful of ultimately is that NANC’s job is to 
advise the FCC on certain matters.  And the more purely legal matters, you know, a 
particular question is, the less the FCC, an agency which employs hundreds of lawyers, 
needs the advice of the members of the NANC on a purely legal question.  So I think that 
would be the cautionary note I would say, and to the extent there is such a group formed 
in the future that it really be very narrowly focused on more issue spotting than reaching 
a legal resolution.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Okay.  Do you still have something?  This is, I actually tend 
to agree with what Hank was just talking about in terms of just -- first of all, there’s no 
acquisition on the table, so this is a bit of a hypothetical discussion in one sense.  But I 
see a NANC role in this as at most being a fact-finding type role.  And, you know, in the 
rules on this, the ultimate decision maker on neutrality is the Federal Communications 
Commission.  So I’m not sure that even if we did create a specialized group we’d call it a 
legal group.  I mean, I think that it would be perhaps driven more specifically by a 
particular transaction that the particular working group may feel that their members may 
not happen to be involved.  So I’m not sure it’s necessary to create a new standing 
committee or a new standing working group on this.  I think that the points driven by the 
53
members of the NOWG -- and I do understand that their participation in that working 
group is a certain level of expertise in the industry.  So I do understand that there may not 
be a complete coincident.  My original thought on this is that it was the Numbering 
Oversight Working Group, and so I thought the broad word oversight was sufficient.
With regard to the neutrality audits and the sufficiency of those, I would just like 
to point out that I received earlier this week or late last week the latest neutrality audit 
from NEUSTAR.  And that is something that I think we probably should start putting into 
the official documents of NANC to a certain extent, somewhere on the web, just the 
results of those as those are transmitted to me. And so this latest audit didn’t find any 
problems, and it predated the most recent acquisition.
Is there any further discussion on this?  I’m just trying to get -- like I said, I think 
this is more of a fact finding to the extent that we do work on these questions as fact 
finding, not legal conclusions.  If there is appetite to looking at, you know, the content of 
neutrality audits or the neutrality standards, I’m more than open to having somebody 
suggest that.  But I haven’t really had anybody come up to me and say, this neutrality 
standard is incorrect, you know, should be changed based on what we’ve learned in the 
last seven years.  That hasn’t happened to me, so I don’t see any reason to really bring 
that forward at any point in time.
Is there anything further on this?  Okay.  Well, I appreciate the work that was 
done on this by the working group.
Okay.  There are a couple of moving parts in the afternoon in terms of, 
particularly a discussion on Local Number Portability that some other people had told me 
they wanted to participate in.  So I’m trying to move our schedule as fast as possible.  
And I also want to be mindful that we have other people that want to be here for 
54
particular discussions.  So what I’m going to propose we do now, it’s a little bit early, but 
suggest that we break for lunch now and we come back here at 12:30.  If that works, that 
lets people do a little bit of work and phone calls.  And then we’d pick up the agenda 
basically right there.  And I think if we stay on that, we’ll probably be done a half hour 
early, maybe even a little bit earlier than normal.  You know, I’d like to plow through as 
much as possible, but I also do want to make sure that we have sufficient time for people 
that expressed wanting to participate in something.  And I want to make sure that we are 
here at the time that we said.  And I’m going to try and track them down and get them 
here earlier anyway.  So if that makes sense to anybody, we’ll go make snowballs in the 
courtyard and have a lot of fun.  So I’ll see everyone in an hour.
(LUNCH RECESS.)
CHAIRMAN:  All right.  We are largely back.  Okay.  We’re going to plow 
through the afternoon agenda, just going to kind of plow through it without the break 
because flights are getting canceled left and right.  I think we’ll start with the pANI IMG 
report, Don Gray, Nebraska, who has a presentation that we’ll call Exhibit 10.
MS. BLUE:  Eleven.
CHAIRMAN:  Eleven?  Okay.  Thanks.
Reports from the pANI Issues Management Group (IMGs)
MR. GRAY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  This report is in response to a question 
that was raised at our November 30th meeting having to do with the interim pANI.  The 
question was what’s the difference between an Emergency Services Query Key, and 
ESQK, an Emergency Services Routing Key, an ESRK.  On page 2 there you will see a 
test of acronyms.  And I’m not going to attempt to read the whole thing through, but 
bottom line is the ESQK is a routing methodology that is used by voice-over IP service 
55
providers to provide appropriate information for the public service answering point when 
a call has been placed by that voice-over IP customer.  And ESRK is a routing key that is 
used by a wireless carrier to provide appropriate information to the public service 
answering point when a wireless customer places a call to a public service answering 
point. 
So there is a difference between technically what the two keys are, but there is no 
difference in their basic usage, which is to associate a caller with a record of information 
or a PSAP.  And there is no difference in that they both use a ten-digit number.  Can be a 
dialable, can be a non-dialable number.  So unless anyone has any specific questions 
there, that’s the answer to the question that was asked last meeting, what’s the difference 
between the two.
On the next slide, just to recount some of the information that Amy Putnam 
provided to us this morning, five applicants for interim RNA status, one rejected so 
there’s only four approved registrations at this time.  No applications, one received, one 
denied.  So updating that from Amy’s presentation this morning.
The concerns that the pANI IMG have talked, discussed through, and would 
simply like to present to the NANC as points of information for them are that the interim 
RNA is not gaining real-world experience that the IMG had anticipated might be 
available to it when we were first developing the plan, and that without that real-world 
experience there isn’t a good way to validate the process flows they developed or validate 
the mechanisms that they have developed.  They will and they’ll make it work.  We have 
confidence in that.  It’s just, what’s the learning curve going to be when the permanent 
RNA opens shop and now the wireless industry is presenting itself in full force.
The second point is that wireless carriers predominantly in areas where there is 
56
not a volunteer numbering administrator, such as an incumbent carrier that has 
traditionally assigned pANIs out of non-dialable resources, the wireless carrier has to use 
their own dialable resources, or they have to go to an aggregator to use resources.  The 
concern here is that it is a resource that’s being used that most likely from the people we 
have talked to, from the people that have commented in the IMG, that once a carrier 
assigns a group of pANIs to a public service answering point, got them all set up on the 
appropriate selective router and the other things that they have to do, there’s very low 
probability that at a point in the future they’re going to go back and put true pANIs in 
place and reassociate the numbers for two reasons.  There’s a cost involved, and you have 
to test that PSAP database, the routing of it, and that requires for some finite period of 
time that that database may be off line or may not be able to properly process a call.  So 
there’s been the safety issue concern that’s raised.  And I think I’ll leave it at that.
Martin, I see you have a question.
MR. HAKIM DIN:  Yes. Martin Hakim Din with Vonage.  Just to clarify 
something that Don said correctly, the cost associated with re-provisioning an ESRK is 
also on the side of the public safety outfit.  So the PSAP will have to pay typically one of 
their network service providers to retest.  So it’s not a question of the wireless carriers 
complaining about having to pay to retest.  It’s really I think more of a burden on the 
public safety entity, having to go back and spend resources to retest.
MR. GRAY:  Anna?
MS. MILLER:  Anna Miller with T-Mobile.  When we were discussing this, these 
concerns internally at T-Mobile, we were trying to determine kind of how big of an issue 
is this for us.  And if, from our perspective I think the crucial element here is time.  So if, 
you know, if it turns out -- it was very good news today that the INC has been working 
57
very hard and that they’re on schedule for coming up with their guidelines in March.  So, 
that’s very good news.
So to the extent that we have a mechanism for permanent pANI administration in 
the second half of this year, I think that our concerns here on the impact are minimized.  
But if we’re sitting here same time next year with the same concerns, then I think that 
we’ve maybe lost an opportunity to save some telephone numbering resources.  I know 
that it is very difficult for a carrier to go in at any point in time and say, okay, you know, 
these are the dialable resources that we have, these are the 211 resources that we have, 
this is the 501 resources that we have.  That’s a very cumbersome exercise, and of course 
we want to make sure that that information is accurate so we don’t have any call 
interruption risks.
So I just wanted to put that in perspective, and I think the critical issue here is 
timing.  The longer this goes on without access to the (indiscernible), the more, I think, 
the bigger the issue -- you know, it may go from a breadbox to a battleship.  So because 
of kind of a difficulty in the transition and of resources, and even identifying what 
resources you have at any given point in time.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:  I’d just like to recap a little bit about -- for those who may not 
remember from the last meeting why the request was made about ESQKs and ESRKs.  
And this is just related to the interim pANI Numbering Administration or administrator.  
And to the extent that they were essentially charged with processing numbers for 
(indiscernible) providers as a supplemental source of pANIs, it was not intended to 
displace any private provider.  And I think that Anna had it correctly that I think this is --
I view this as a large -- I think it’s a transition issue to a certain extent to how do we 
58
bridge a gap from the current situation today to the permanent pANI Administration 
which, you know, people are very diligently working on to try and get that 
recommendation to the FCC by the spring time.  And I’m really glad that the IMG has 
looked at this issue and tried to explore what the kind of burdens would be in 
transitioning.
It’s understanding that if you have a dialable resource that you’re using as a pANI 
and want to move that to an administered non-dialable resource, that there are costs 
involved like Martin said.  And I think that’s important to understand that, particularly as 
we examine transition rules because I think that’s one thing that we’re going to probably 
be talking about a lot at the next meeting, is okay, to what extent are we going to move 
from the current system to the new system.  You know, to what extent are we going to 
require carriers to stop using dialable resources, how much lead time are we going to give 
them to give those numbers back, what kind of notice is going to be involved.  I think all 
of those are kind of the next-step questions.  The sooner I think we get to work on putting 
in the permanent administration, I hope we can keep this current issue to a breadbasket 
size.  But I think it is useful that we kind of keep our eyes open for it and do understand 
that these resources are being consumed today from dialable resources.
Is there further discussion on that?  I’m glad that they picked this up and have 
provided the information that we asked.  Thanks, Don.
Okay.  The next one is the LNPA Working Group.  And Tom Navin, Chief of the 
Wireline Competition Bureau has joined us.  Thanks, Gary.  This is Exhibit 12, the 
LNPA Working Group Status Report.
59
Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group
MR. SACRA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Gary Sacra, Local Number Portability 
Administration Working Group Co-chair.  Good afternoon, everyone.  The Working 
Group has one item to report on today.  And first, I’d like to apologize on behalf of the 
Working Group for the lateness in getting report out last night.  It just so happened we 
had our February conference call scheduled for yesterday and we didn’t finish up until 
late in the afternoon.  So hopefully in the future we will have these reports out to you in a 
much more timely fashion.  So again, for those that have not had a chance to review this 
report, I will try to go through it in enough detail for you.
The item I will be reporting on today is the position paper that was presented to 
the council members at the November 2006 NANC meeting.  And it addresses porting 
obligations.  The action item that was directed to the working group was to revise the 
position paper.  There was a very understandable concern that the original position paper 
was too focused on one particular type of provider.  So even though the original issue that 
was presented at the Working Group was related to a particular type of provider, the 
action item was to revise the position of the Working Group to refocus it in a more 
general sense, and not so narrowly focused on one particular type of provider.
So the Working Group on our call yesterday agreed upon revised text.  And I’ll 
sort of walk you through the position paper on the second page of the report.  And again, 
this particular issue is related to providers that rely upon an underlying network provider 
or wholesale network provider to obtain numbering resources in order to assign them to 
their customers and provide service to their customers.  The issue that a number of 
providers that the LNPA Working Group articulated was in some cases, and still in cases 
today, it has been difficult, in some cases impossible, to accommodate customers of these 
60
providers who want to put the numbers into these particular providers that were raising 
the issue at the Working Group.  So this position paper is an attempt to not only articulate 
the issue, make the NANC and the FCC aware of the issue, but to also present the 
position of the Working Group that we reached consensus upon, and also to make the 
NANC and the FCC aware that we are ready to revise the NANC flows, however 
appropriate, in order to make them consistent with this position I’m going to walk 
through.
The first paragraph in the position paper is some relevant sights that indicate to 
the Working Group that the FCC does recognize that Local Number Portability is an 
evolving process.  As new technologies are introduced, it’s very likely that the process, 
the NANC LNP flows could likely require updating in order to accommodate the 
evolution that Local Number Portability still continues to occur.  So these are the relevant 
sights that we believe indicated that to the Working Group.
The next paragraph, the second paragraph is a restatement of the original issue.  A 
number of the providers that raised the issue in the Working Group are identified here in 
this paragraph.  And again, even though the original issue was focused on one particular 
type of provider, in general though the difficulty is in the case where some types of 
providers such as resellers, such as type 1 cellular providers, voice-over IP providers, 
those are examples of the types of providers that do partner with wholesale network 
providers in order to obtain their numbering resources for assignment to those customers.  
And the complexity there is it adds another layer of communication onto the porting 
process that in some cases has made it difficult or impossible to accommodate requesting 
customers who want to port their numbers.  So the second paragraph is a restatement of 
that issue.
61
The third paragraph here is just to detail an analogous situation that the Working 
Group went through back in 2003 when we revised the NANC LNP flows to address 
cases such as a I just discussed.  And that’s where providers are partnering with 
underlying network providers to obtain their numbering resources.  What we did back in 
2003 was revise the NANC flows to incorporate the steps necessary to accommodate 
porting numbers when the customer, their local service provider is a reseller or a type 1 
cellular provider.  However, the numbers that are assigned to them have been obtained 
from an underlying network wholesale provider.
So we added additional steps, additional flows to develop the communication 
process that had to take place between all of those providers in order to port customers 
who wish to do so.  And in both of those cases, and why we think it’s analogous to the 
issues that we’re experiencing today, in both of those cases of resellers and type 1 cellular 
providers, the flows were updated to reflect that it’s the underlying network provider 
that’s responsible for accepting and responding to a local service request in order to port 
a customer, whose number has been obtained from that network provider, or if the 
customer has a billing arrangement, or their local service provider happens to be either a 
reseller or a type 1 provider.
So the last section on the second page of the position paper is to express the 
position of the Working Group, that we believe that the FCC has made it clear that local 
exchange carriers and CMRS providers are obligated to port local telephone numbers to 
other carriers at the request of customers, provided they had not been granted a particular 
exemption.  And we believe that it’s the obligation of the underlying network provider in 
the case where providers such as reseller, type 1 cellular providers, Voice-over IP (VoIP)
providers have partnered with the underlying network provider to obtain their number 
62
resources.  We believe consistent with the current state of the NANC flows that addresses 
resellers and type 1 cellular, we believe it is the obligation of the underlying network 
provider within the constraints of FCC requirements and mandates to respond to local 
service requests and to port the telephone number of a customer who requests to do so.
So the final paragraph in submitting the position paper, the Working Group’s goal 
is to make the NANC and the FCC aware that this is still, you know, has been an ongoing 
issue, is an ongoing issue.  And we do believe that the flows can or should be updated to 
reflect the latest technologies, the fact that there are other providers in addition to 
resellers and type 1 cellular providers that partner with underlying network providers to 
obtain the numbering resources.  We believe even with the newer technologies, the same 
process flows are analogous to those.  And we stand ready at the direction of the NANC 
and/or the FCC to update those flows as appropriate to make them consistent with this 
position.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you, Gary.  And we’ve actually been joined by the 
Wireline Competition Bureau Chief Tom Navin who actually expressed that he wanted to 
say a few words on this topic.  So I’ll turn it over to him.
MR. NAVIN:  Thanks, Tom.  First I want to thank everybody here for continuing 
all of your efforts on numbering issues in general.  I know that this work is highly 
technical and it’s very demanding.  And we at the FCC certainly appreciate all of the 
efforts of the NANC.
As it related specifically to the Working Group position, there are many issues 
packed into this statement.  And I just want to address one of those issues so that from a 
timing standpoint, the work of the NANC and the work of the Working Group is 
consistent with the direction that the Commission is moving in.  In particular, I wanted to 
63
address the issue of interconnected VoIP providers providing porting. The Bureau is 
currently working on an order that will either clarify -- or that the underlying carrier has 
that obligation, or alternatively impose the obligation through its ancillary jurisdiction 
under Title 1.  But nevertheless I wanted everyone to be aware that the Bureau is indeed 
working on an order that will impose that porting obligation on VoIP providers.  So that’s 
one issue.
The other issue and, I am sure that you’re aware of it, but I wanted to emphasize 
the speed with which the Bureau will address it.  That is the issue of porting from 
wireline carriers to wireless carriers.  Sprint and T-Mobile recently filed a petition that is 
still out for public comment.  The Bureau has been instructed to deal with that petition 
with all due speed, and we intend to do so.  So I would ask that any information that the 
NANC would like to provide the Commission as it relates to the issues addressed in that 
petition, you do so as soon as possible because we do plan to address it this spring.
That’s all that I’m here to address, and just to say thank you, Tom.  Appreciate 
your efforts for leading the group here.  And we’ll look forward to working with you 
throughout the year and hopefully we’ll be able to come down and spend some time with 
you at the other meetings this year.
MR. NAVIN:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:  Thanks, Tom.  Thanks for that clarification, that elucidation.  I 
appreciate Tom coming down and talking to us directly because I think that’s going to 
give us some things to kind of chew on and to think about as we move forward.
On this position paper, do people want to -- given what Tom said, what other 
thoughts do we have?  Rosemary?
MS. EMMER:  Rosemary Emmer with Sprint Nextel.  I guess as you were saying 
64
earlier, given Mr. Navin’s direction that he gave us, would it be appropriate to go ahead 
and allow the LNP Working Group to work on the flows now, or wait until the order is 
out that will be coming out I guess as some point soon?
CHAIRMAN:  That’s a pretty good question.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  I was going to ask it, too.
CHAIRMAN:  Rethinking about what he said again, what he was talking about, 
the intent, I mean, I believe there’s probably utility to working on the process flows.  I 
think there might (indiscernible) certainly work on the process flows to make it clear on 
the underlying network provider points.  Because I believe he was talking in the 
alternative, that there would essentially be potentially two routes purporting a VoIP
number.  And actually I think that the general direction of this working paper was that 
this is not necessarily a VoIP issue.  This is actually a wholesale provider, a retail 
provider issue.
MS. EMMER:  That’s correct.
CHAIRMAN:  And I think that’s an important distinction.  And so I do think that 
we should continue to maintain that, just with the possibility that the flows may also need 
to have this additional step.  But that might be an issue for a different, you know, separate 
and apart from this standpoint.  I don’t want to take the floor on this.  Do we have other 
thoughts?  Hank?
MR. HULTQUIST:  Hank Hultquist, AT&T.  I think that’s right.  I mean, it 
sounds to me based on what Tom was saying that, you know, there could be this backstop 
in the order saying that there’s an obligation both on the wholesale provider and on the 
interconnected VoIP provider.  But I don’t think that that legal status will really affect the 
optimal design of the process flows, because the best way that gets the process to work is 
65
going to be the best way to get the process to work, regardless of sort of these finer points 
of where certain obligations lie.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  I totally agree with that.  In fact, not having 
had the opportunity with the Working Group to go through the flows, but it does seem to 
be quite an apt analogy with the current state of the flows that, with the reseller situation 
and Type 1 cellular situation to -- at least in some of the discussions we’ve had in the 
Working Group, at this point there’s no reason to believe that adding an interconnected 
Voice-over IP provider would be any different in terms of the steps in that analogy.  But 
again we haven’t had the opportunity to go through the flows yet.  But we might find 
different after we go, you know, and dig a little bit deeper.
I would like to take this opportunity too to please encourage -- I know Martin’s 
participating in the Working Group which we very much appreciate.  We would very 
much like to have continued and additional participation at the Working Group with the 
Voice-over IP providers, especially if we’re going to dig into the flows.
CHAIRMAN:  One thing I would just kind of state in terms of, based on what 
Tom said in terms of the position, I would maybe entertain a motion for somebody to say 
that we do insert something in this position paper which kind of indicates that at this 
time, you know -- I’m looking at the actual position on page 2 where it says, we believe 
the FCC has made it clear about (indiscernible) providers.  Just having an additional few 
words which might say that at this time, that’s what’s going to be required, as a statement 
of fact as of February 13th, 2007.  I think that might make sense.  I’m really more 
thinking from it two years, and if people are looking at this process, this document, and 
then the process flows might have changed slightly differently, based on what the FCC 
(indiscernible).  And I think that probably -- I don’t know. What do people think about 
66
that?  Does that make sense?
MR. HULTQUIST:  Hank Hultquist, AT&T.   I think it does, but unfortunately 
then that makes me think I’m going to want to put a footnote in that statement, because in 
fact when the FCC granted SBCIS’s waiver petition for authority to get numbering 
resources from the administrators, as part of that the FCC did require SBCIS to provide 
Local Number Portability.
MR. CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
MR. HULTQUIST:  So you have one case of a VoIP provider that has an 
obligation to provide LNP.  And it’s perfectly sensible, because that VoIP provider 
happens to be able to get resources direct from the administrator, and it has LRNs and it 
really can provide number portability.  So if we’re going to say as of now, maybe I’ll 
write a footnote and send it to Gary.
CHAIRMAN:  I’m thinking in terms, in general the way I see it is that if we 
achieve consensus basically around this paragraph or this statement, that I’ll be 
encapsulating that into a letter to the FCC to basically inform them that we’ve done this.  
And so I think that would be the appropriate time to put that sentence in.  And I think 
that, to a certain extent, if folks want to tighten that language on this -- that first sentence 
was really kind of written to say, you know, this is what the rules require, which is quite 
different than what would have been done as a condition of the granting of a waiver, or 
something like that.  But I think that’s probably a very useful thing to say and to make it 
clear.  And I think that probably can be done through a written arrangement, unless 
people are objecting to doing it that way.  I mean, through e-mail exchange, people who 
want to tighten this up a little bit.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  I’ll be happy to make those changes.  I’ll work 
67
with you, Hank, and if I can send it to Debbie and then she would get back out to the 
members.  And perhaps we could finalize it via e-mail.
CHAIRMAN:  But I think that what we said, at least take from this is that at a 
minimum we know that an order is in the works to clarify, I think was his word that 
would clarify the obligations.  I believe that what the LNPA working group has been 
working on over the last several months actually -- I think six to nine months -- has been 
to, in essence, search out and almost request that clarification.  So I think that this is 
pretty good news from the Commission at this point.
Were there any further thoughts on this document?  Given that we’re probably 
going to do a little bit of editorial changes, does anybody else have anything else similar 
to what Hank was talking about, or ideas that they wish would get on the record right 
now?  Okay.  And I do want to -- also based on his statement about the wireless to 
wireline petition, I do think that -- and that had been in the LNP Working Group -- he 
essentially invited us to weigh in or make contributions to that proceeding.  What I’d kind 
of like to do is that at least provide the Commission some kind of statement as to what 
NANC had been doing in the last, I guess since the 2004 report.  What was the last time 
we talked about inter-modal porting intervals?  Is that correct?  April of 2004, Anna?
MS. MILLER:  Anna Miller, T-Mobile.  Yes, the NANC Intermodal Porting IMG 
submitted their report in -- was it May of 2004?  Actually I put together some background 
information on the NANC’s activities that started with the wireless/wireline Integration 
Report. That first report came out in ’98.  And there were subsequent -- there is a 
wireless/wireline integration first, second, and third report in ’98, ’99, and 2000 which 
resulted in some feedback in November of 2003 from the FCC on focusing on any 
benefits from shortening the porting interval, which resulted in the Porting Interval IMG. 
68
And then they submitted, I think, their recommendation in May of 2004.  But I can 
provide that background if that would be helpful.
CHAIRMAN:  Well, I was actually more directed towards, since May of 2004, 
because I think that that 2004 report actually is relatively comprehensive on that stuff.  
And I think that’s important, but I think we should, you know, to a certain extent they 
knew that already.  I was thinking in terms of an action item for the -- I don’t want to 
create an IMG on something like this.  An action item for the LNPA Working Group 
would just be to provide the FCC some kind of statement from the NANC or from the 
Working Group as to what NANC’s efforts since May of 2004, since that report, you 
know, on this question.  And I’m not necessarily proposing that -- well, no.  I think that 
that’s probably the first thing.  I think it’s important when the questions as to, you know, 
whether or not NANC has failed to achieve consensus or has achieved consensus.  I think 
it’s important, you know, and that becomes a top  (indiscernible).  And I think it’s 
important for us when requested by the Bureau to provide them that information, to say 
okay, here is what we say we’ve completed and what we haven’t completed.
(Indiscernible) about status report?  Yes, Rosemary?
MS. EMMER:  Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel. I just want to make sure that 
I’m clear, because I’ll make sure to go to the LNPA Working Group meeting, as to 
exactly what the group is looking for.  So are you suggesting that we may go through old 
meeting notes and pull out what we have already on the record for the meeting notes, or 
are you just talking about high level, what the LNPA working group currently provides to 
us, the matrix that has the intermodal issues on it?  So, I’m a little confused as to how 
much detail you were looking for and how to go about getting that information, just so 
that we have clear direction when we get to, I guess it’s Denver next month.
69
CHAIRMAN:  Yes, because I guess that would be your target.  What I want to do 
is provide the Bureau or the FCC the information so that when they are considering this 
issue, they can say okay, this is what the NANC has done since the 2004 report, these are 
the issues they’ve considered, these are the issues that haven’t been necessarily addressed 
if that’s the case.  I guess that’s kind of a, almost a reconstruction effort of old minutes.  
And I think that what I don’t want to have happen is it become a rehash, that the process
of creating that report become a context for debating the questions.  It’s almost as a 
statement to say that we’ve considered this for a period of time, and this is the issue, and 
if people want to say what they want to say about it -- and I just think that when people 
start talking about what was considered at NANC, that NANC had something to say 
about, these are the issues we considered, these are the ones we resolved, these are the 
ones we didn’t resolve.  I don’t really want to have an advocacy or an editorial discussion 
of that.  I just think that writing down a summary of what has been done is interesting, is 
important.
MR. SACRA:  Certainly the issues that we’ve addressed in the context of 
intermodal porting are readily identifiable.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes. You guys do a very good job with issue tracking.
MR. SACRA:  And so we can list the issues that we’ve addressed.  We can 
certainly indicate which ones we’ve reached consensus on, which ones we’ve resolved, 
perhaps a brief statement on what the resolution was.  We can also list the ones that we 
had not reached consensus on .  Would you also, or do you think it would be of value to 
have a brief statement on both sides of the issue?  Because obviously a lot of these issues, 
I mean, there are reasonable positions on both sides of these issues, and they’re being 
debated by reasonable and intelligent people. It may be of value perhaps to have a brief 
70
statement on what the positions are on the --
CHAIRMAN:  If the statement of position is a non-controversial item to generate, 
I would say that that’s okay.  But I would not want this to get hung up with people 
saying, you know, taking and using this as another by -- I don’t really mean anything.  I 
think that it was pretty clear that they wanted to work on this with dispatch and so --
(END OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE 1)
* * * * *
(START OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE 2)
CHAIRMAN:  -- is to get hung up.  And my position in 2005 was this.  It was like 
okay, you know, it’s 2007.  Let’s kind of move on.  So I would get unnecessarily hung up 
on that.  I really think from their standpoint, and I’m thinking of this as a former 
Commission staffer, it’s actually very useful to have a list of things that have been 
resolved and things that haven’t been resolved.  I think that’s a very useful item to have 
as you’re putting an order together.  And the fact is this group has done a lot and has 
accomplished a lot in that area, and I think that since they asked for our input we should 
provide to them.  They are the ultimate decision maker on these things, so we’re just kind 
of serving our purpose there.  Parties are -- this is not a proceeding where people are 
going to be silent as on behalf of their companies as to what they think the correct result 
is.  So I don’t think the absence of a statement of position from the NANC document will 
prevent people from stating their position on it.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Our next face-to-face meeting is March --
Rosemary, it’s the 13th to the 15th, I believe?
MS. EMMER:  Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  Is that the timeline --
71
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  -- if we were to complete it at that meeting?
CHAIRMAN:  Oh, yes.  I think that would be --
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  We would devote as much time as we need.
CHAIRMAN:  Certainly.  And I will let the Commission know that, and if they --
I suspect that’s probably fine.
Commissioner Jones?
COMMISSIONER JONES:  Just like to make a couple of comments.  I think as a 
new Commissioner, new member of this organization, a matrix would be helpful just so 
everybody’s aware I think of the T-Mobile petition.  I think the reply comments are due 
February 23rd, are they not, Anna?
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER JONES:  So I don’t know, Tom, what your -- since Tom 
Navin said asap, if the reply comments close on the 23rd, what does that mean?  That’s 
my first kind of cross (indiscernible) question.  Are you suggesting, Tom, that NANC 
develop some sort of matrix with what has been resolved since the mail-for-order, kind of 
what has been resolved, what hasn’t, and get it to the FCC after the date the reply 
comments close on T-Mobile?
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  I believe so.  I think that’s -- this is an informal rule-making 
proceeding under the FCC rules.  So it is what’s called a permit but disclose meeting, 
which means that you can comment, or submissions outside the comment period are 
accepted, provided they’re public.
COMMISSIONER JONES:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN:  And we are not an advocacy body, so we’re in a federal advisory 
72
committee and, you know, he asked for our advice on this.  And so we can kind of send it 
whenever we want to.  It’s obviously important for us to send it in when it becomes 
timely, so I would say yes, mid-March is probably a good timeframe.  The fact that reply 
comments are due towards the end February, that means that the Commission can issue 
an order as soon as March but I think that, you know, there’s a lot of work that goes into 
creating an order.  And I think what we do will also be possibly part of that consideration.  
So I think that’s pretty good timing.
COMMISSIONER JONES:  So at the March meeting we will create a matrix of 
resolved and unresolved intermodal porting issues and the current status of each.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Excellent.
COMMISSIONER  JONES:  And I think that would be very helpful for at least 
this Commissioner, too, just to let everybody know there is -- and Anna can elaborate on 
this.  Before NARUC meeting next week there is a resolution being circulated I think 
primarily by T-Mobile and some of the wireless carriers on the wireless to wireline issue.  
So this resolution is going to be debated.  I’ve offered some amendments to it.  I think it’s 
going to be discussed.  So I don’t know just -- if people aren’t aware of that already, it is 
going to be discussed within the NARUC context at our winter meeting.  Some of my 
concerns when I initially saw the resolution were that the resolution of these issues, since 
I’m relatively new to the process and I don’t know what’s been resolved since May of 
2004 and what hasn’t, that we’re selectively taking certain issues out of the NANC 
process and taking it into another process.  And that concerns me, but I have been briefed 
by various carriers on the issue.  But it is going to be a fairly contentious issue at least in 
the NARUC forum next week.
CHAIRMAN:  And let me just make clear based on what Commissioner Jones 
73
just said.  In the summary of issues, I do think that it should be a comprehensive 
summary.  It shouldn’t just be of the issues that are related to the T-Mobile petition.  I 
think it’s issues related to intermodal portability, because I believe that request from the 
May 2004 report was on the question generally.  So it would include questions related to 
the position paper we just did.  I mean, even though that’s not specific to wireline and  
wireless, that is specific to intermodal.  Anna?  And then I have an announcement to 
make.
MS. MILLER:  Anna Miller with T-Mobile.  I’d like to make two clarification 
points. And I want you to know that I’m trying to be very conscientious to do it in the 
context of advisory, not advocacy.  And I wanted the NANC to understand that 
T-Mobile’s Sprint Nextel port petition focuses on two things.  It focuses on simple ports 
only, so the context of the clarification is for simple ports, not complex ports.  And the 
second point I want to make is that it also focuses on the port validation process, 
irrespective of whether the port request is an intermodal port request or an intramodal 
wireless or wireline.  So we’re really not focusing just on intermodal porting.  We’re 
focusing on the entire porting process and it’s not just intermodal.  So in that context, 
we’re really trying to focus the petition not on intermodal wireless versus wireline 
porting, but the total porting process from competitive versus incumbent carrier 
perspective.  So I just wanted to make that clarification if that helps.  And so what we 
tried to do is take the NANC’s intermodal porting recommendation, which by the way 
T-Mobile supports, and take it one step further, because it had the caveat of we stay 
within the same parameters in terms of simple ports, but it had the caveat of err free.  So 
what we’ve tried to do is make it more convenient for consumers by addressing the err 
free, how do you achieve err free through the port validation process.  So I just wanted to 
74
clarify the context of the clarification.  It’s not just intermodal, and it is just simple port.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So that actually raises -- because I had just make a 
statement that we should not be limited to the things that are in the T-Mobile petition, and 
we should be limited to intermodal.  But if it’s beyond intermodal, I’m trying to get a 
sense as to whether there’s any limiting factor on the report that we’re talking about 
generating.  I mean, I want it to be comprehensive in terms of what the Working Group 
and what the NANC has worked on.  So I’m kind of open to suggestions.  Rosemary?
MS. EMMER:  Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  I think it’s a perfect place to 
start.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  And if people feel the need to expand later, they’re free to 
contact me and we can figure that out.
COMMISSIONER JONES:  But we will focus on intermodal in general in terms 
of the matrix that we’re putting together.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Very good.  I appreciate it.
I’ve been informed the federal government is closing at 2 o’clock, so it’s a good 
thing we’re skipping our breaks.  So we have a half hour left.  I want to make sure we 
have time for public business and public comment.  So future numbering -- is Jim here?
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  (Indiscernible.)
CHAIRMAN:  Oh, you have it?  Okay.
JEROME:  Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN:  Yes?
JEROME:  Since there is no NAPM LLC presentation, I wonder what’s your 
pleasure in terms of NCTA briefly mentioning a NAPM issue?
CHAIRMAN:  I apologize.  That slipped my mind.  Yes, Jerome actually had one 
75
LNP question or issue he just wanted to state.
JEROME:  Yes, thank you.  Jerome (indiscernible), NCTA.  And as you’re aware, 
Mr. Chairman, on February 8th Cox Communications, a cable company, announced to 
you and to NANC that it has chosen not to renew its membership in NAPM.  Cox was a 
founding member of NAPM and also its regional predecessors.  And NCTA wanted to 
highlight this because the concern raised over the fact that now the representation on 
NAPM contains no cable companies and virtually no CLECs, limiting membership to 
incumbent local exchange carriers and a few wireless providers.  And of course that’s 
particularly relevant in light of the establishment of number portability in the United 
States.  The basis for it was the competition, and it’s important to know just what has 
happened to the NAPM.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  I appreciate you putting that on the record.  Yes, I received 
that notice from Cox yesterday, Monday that they were not going to be part of the LLC.
JEROME:   I might add they of course will continue to be a member of NANC, 
and unfortunately Beth had an emergency to attend to today, otherwise she’d be here.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  And I do recognize and appreciate the contributions that 
they’ve made.  I do believe it’s important that there be broad industry participation in 
both the NANC and the NAPM.  So I’m glad you raised that point, Jerome.
Okay.  Let’s move on.  Yes, Future of Numbering.
Report of the Future of Numbering Working Group (FoN WG)
MR. GRAY:  I believe this is Exhibit 13.  First thing I need to do when I get 
home is call Jim Castagna and find out is his weather threshold lower than most of us, or 
did he know something that we didn’t know.   So very quickly, let me try to summarize 
this instead of going into excruciating detail on every page.
76
The Future of Numbering Working Group, if you’ve not had an opportunity to 
stop by and visit on some of our meetings, you will find out just about everything that’s 
going on out there.  We may not go into detail on it, but at least you’re going to be 
exposed to a lot of the new technologies, the new uses of what used to be a plain old, ten-
digit POTTS number.  People are coming up with new and different ways to use them all 
the time.  And so what we have been trying to do is to whittle through all of these and 
make a determination of which one should we pursue and which one should we not 
pursue.  To do that we’ve started to kind of backtrack a little bit, establish a process and 
some methodology by which we want to do that.
So we’ve come up with a new form that we haven’t had before.  We call it an 
AID form, Activity Project Identification Form.  On slide 5 we have the basic areas of 
information, and we’re asking everybody to standardize what they give us so we have an 
absolute minimum amount of information for each issue.  The co-chairs will review that 
information, and when they deem that everything is present, it will be presented to the 
body as a whole to review.  And through consensus we will accept or reject the item, or 
perhaps send it back for, we don’t have enough detail here.
During presentation if there’s more than one sponsor, at least one of those 
sponsors must be present to answer questions or assist the body in reviewing the topic.  
Once the topic has been assigned as an item that the Future of Numbering is going to 
pursue, the ownership then belongs to the body and not to the presenters any more.  So up 
until that point, all the presenters could agree to withdraw, or all the presenters could
agree to do something different.  But once assigned, it belongs to the body and the body 
will process it from there.
We had a tracking matrix which is on slide 8 that we had quite a bit of detail on.  
77
We’re going to make a combination of the information that will be on the AID forms, and 
come up with a simplified activity identification matrix that basically will be, what’s the 
tracking number, what’s the date we got it, the title, the status, and what’s our next step 
or the date for the next step to try to simplify that.
Some of the new and future services that we’ve been working on or obviously to 
come up with this process and start looking at international uses of the NANP resources 
ranging from ENUM to selective routing of calls to a particular type of technology.  So 
we’re looking into a lot of areas.  The one thing that we would like to ask the NANC to 
do is if they have no other thoughts or ideas, is to basically get the NANC of this AID 
process or this methodology of collecting the data, whittling down the topics, and then 
assigning the topics and moving forward on them.
And our next meeting is going to be March 5th, 2:00 to 4:00 eastern.
CHAIRMAN:  Are there any objections to the process?  I think it’s actually a 
really good idea to get these things clarified.  Yes?
MR.WHALEY:  Yes, Mike Whaley, Qwest.  And I’d like to thank Don and his 
fellow co-chairs.  They’ve been doing a great job of coordinating a group that I think is 
having a difficult time getting their arms around it.  But I think this is a great first step 
and I look forward to continuing to work with them.
CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  And I think my goal for meetings is going to be to 
give the Future of Numbering more than five minutes to talk.  I think they’re going to go 
first next time.  Anna?
MS. MILLER:  Anna Miller with T-Mobile.  I just want to second what Mike 
said, and also it’s always difficult to develop a NANC process.  So actually the FoN did a 
very good job in getting that accomplished in a short amount of time.  And as a FoN 
78
member, even though we spend a lot of time in discussion about the future, it’s been very 
useful I think for me, and I believe the other participants are actively engaged because it’s 
been a very meaningful and interesting discussion in helping us understand what is 
coming down in the future.  And to me, almost more beneficial than other FoNs that I’ve 
worked in, well even though we produced a 473-page report, I think we really kind of 
have a good framework now and background on what is going on and what this forum 
will be able to vent to kind of focus our efforts on topics that need to be addressed in the 
context of member conservation and administration.
CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Is there further discussion?  I don’t see any -- thank 
you, Don.  I’m skipping, fast-forwarding ahead.  You know, as a federal advisory 
committee we are obligated to seek public comment participation.  And I think a couple 
of people actually talked to me.  So I wanted to make sure we had a time to address those 
questions from the public, or issues that someone might raise or choose to raise.  And I’m 
going to try to -- we’ve really got to get out of here at quarter till, because these guys are 
going to shut down.  Okay.
Public Comments and Participation
MR. MAZZONE:  Tom Mazzone, Telecordia Technologies.  Telecordia finds 
several serious problems with the NAPM LLC’s recent renewal of the NPAC amendment 
with NEUSTAR, the current vendor.  We ask that the NANC reinitialize the legal 
expert’s working group, or an ad-hoc issues management group to review the NPAC 
contract amendment for lawfulness, reasonableness, and fairness.  In Telecordia’s view, 
the amendment should be voided.  We ask that the NANC direct the LLC to avoid this 
amendment.  At a minimum, the LLC should be required to move the anti-competitive 
provisions of the amendment immediately.  The LLC should be required to exercise its 
79
non-exclusivity provisions and immediately commence an RFP process for an alternative 
NPAC solution, either as a multiple NPAC per region or as a complete re-bid process.  If 
the entire amendment is not voided, any language that refers to TM-level solutions must 
be voided as beyond the scope of the LLC and NANC.  Any language restraining 
customers or whatever is referred to as subscribing customers advocating for or 
considering alternatives must be removed, and to remove what may be referred to as 
billable transactions from NANC 400 which is beyond the scope of the NPAC.
Telecordia intends to pursue this issue with NANC who has responsibility for 
oversight of the issue and to participate with NANC in any other industry venue that 
might be proper to reach the conclusions needed, to include the FCC or beyond if 
necessary, and to follow appropriate resolution, escalation, and legal processes.  We ask 
that this issue be made a discussion item for the next meeting on the way to forming 
either and IMG or a LEWG.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN.  Okay.  Thank you, Tom.  Are there comments?   Discussion?  
Yes?
MR. HULTQUIST:  Hank Hultquist, AT&T.   I’d just like to reiterate my 
comments that I made earlier in terms of a legal expertise working group having some 
sort of broad charter.  I formally was a member of such a group in this body, and I do 
believe that it’s actually not an appropriate function of the NANC, that this is not an
issue, that any legal issues are not issues that the NANC is particularly expert in.  And 
they are issues on which the AT&T -- the FCC is sufficiently expert, that it doesn’t need 
our advice.
CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Jerome?
JEROME:  Jerome Candelaria, NCTA.  I appreciate what you’re saying about 
80
where the sufficient expertise lies.  The question for me is how this body gets that their 
NANC is charged with some degree of oversight.  At our last NANC meeting, NCTA and 
Cox expressed interest in looking a little deeper into the extension of the contract.  And 
so if not for the legal group, I’d like to see some form of consideration here at NANC.
CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL:  (Indiscernible.)  Yes, I think that’s actually the 
appropriate way to think about this, is to put something on the agenda to talk about, what 
is the appropriate role for a body like NANC that really is expert in numbering matters to 
advise the FCC on questions that may arise in this context.  I think that is a useful debate 
to potentially have.
CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Jones?
COMMISSIONER JONES:  Mr. Chairman -- Phillip Jones from Washington.  I 
would echo Hank’s comments just as a state commissioner.  And I defer to your 
judgment if the NANC did have a legal issues group or any sort of legal advice before I --
I value Hank’s experience in that.  And just looking upon what a state commission does, 
when we have legal advice we go to our state Attorney General for advice.  We don’t try 
to ad-hoc and make it up on the spot.  And I think we should kind of focus on what we do 
best here at NANC, and that is technical work regarding number resources.  So it seems 
to me on its face that rather than setting up a new body, we should stick to what we do.  
That’s not to say we don’t hear from the public and address it in some manner.  But to 
setup a new body, I think Hank makes some good points.
CHAIRMAN:  Rosemary, were you first or did you --: do you want to ask?  And 
Jerome was next.
JEROME:  (Indiscernible) policy group as well, and it’s hard to separate some of 
81
these legal questions from policy.  So at a minimum I think that this group should, as 
mentioned, at least consider where the appropriate place to begin to address this issue is.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  And I do look at Commissioner rule 52-26(b)(3). It does 
charge us with oversight -- it’s actually, I’m going oversight of the Number Portability 
Administration.  And so there’s a question as to what that is, but that is in the 
Commission rules.  And so -- I know Anna has something, but I just wanted to point out 
actually that I had received a letter from Telcordia late last week on many of the things 
that were mentioned, but not all frankly.  And it was in written form and I did actually 
ask.  I’d like the record to reflect that I did ask the LLC and NEUSTAR to provide their 
response in writing on those, that the statements in terms of the characterization of the 
contract.  And we’ll distribute those responses when we have them.  Until we get those 
responses, it’s not entirely clear what we should be doing at this point in time.  So it 
might be right in a few weeks or something like that for us to further consider.  But that 
was at least the step that I’ve taken now, although I did know that the Telcordia 
representative did in his statement just now pose some different questions that I 
remember from the letter.  So frankly I would ask, if you do have something different, 
please try to encapsulate those into maybe a second letter or something rather than just 
relying on an oral statement on a day when we’ve had six inches of snow.
Anna?  And then I really apologize.  I don’t want to cut this debate off.  I don’t 
want to brush it aside, but they are closing the government in a few minutes.
MS. MILLER:  Anna Miller with T-Mobile.  And I agree with your comments 
with regard to the NANC’s responsibilities as an oversight committee for number 
portability.  And as an (indiscernible) LLC member, we always recognize that authority 
and we also recognize the ultimate authority of the FCC.  In that context, another point 
82
I’d like to make is that the NANPA LLC is always open to membership.  We would love 
to have more membership in the NAPM LLC.  There’s even a group that’s actively trying 
to recruit that.  So we’re always looking for new membership.  And the other point that 
I’d like to make is that the NAPM LLC is management for the master contract, does have 
the means, we do have a process for addressing new proposals, we’re always open to new 
proposals and better propositions.  So I just wanted to make those two points clear.
And finally I wanted to point out that this negotiation was a non-exclusive 
contract.  So again, we’re always open to new proposals, always open to better proposals.  
And meanwhile, the industry as a result of this negotiation, we’re saving industry money.  
And the performance requirements are being met, and it’s been very good performance 
from the NPAC.
CHAIRMAN:  Thirty seconds.
MS. EMMER:  Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  Quickly, I think it would be 
most appropriate if whatever questions or comments any vendor has go directly to the 
LLC, copy you, as I understand they did last week.  And let the LLC fully respond to 
every one before this group gets involved in adding this to an agenda item.  I think the 
experts with the contract are at the LLC, and I think that given what I’ve heard today, 
these are issues that need to be resolved in-house at the LLC first before they’re at the 
NANC.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  And 52.26(b)3 says parties shall attempt to resolve between 
themselves, but it does allow the NANC outlet to a certain extent.
Again, I don’t want to cut off discussion on this, but we do have an obligation to 
let the people who are working here leave and clean up before the government closes.  So 
I do appreciate everyone coming out today.  And normally I would go over the action 
83
items and all that, but what I think I’ll probably just do is send an e-mail around saying 
those things.  But I do appreciate everybody coming out.  And I wish everyone safe 
travels home, either in the air or on the ground.  Thank you.
(MEETING CONCLUDED.)
(END OF AUDIOTAPE 2, SIDE B)
* * * * *
 
CERTIFICATE OF AGENCY
I, Carol J. Schwartz, President of Carol J. Thomas Stenotype Reporting Services, 
Inc., do hereby certify we were authorized to transcribe the submitted cassette tapes, and 
that thereafter these proceedings were transcribed under our supervision, and I further 
certify that the forgoing transcription contains a full, true and correct transcription of the
cassettes furnished, to the best of our ability.
_____________________________
CAROL J. SCHWARTZ
PRESIDENT