*Pages 1--95 from Microsoft Word - 59871.doc* 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 North American Numbering Council Meeting Minutes March 14, 2006 (Final) I. Time and Place of Meeting. The North American Numbering Council (NANC) held a meeting commencing at 9: 30 a. m., at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S. W., TW- C305, Washington, D. C. II. List of Attendees. Voting Council Members: 1. Robert Atkinson Chairman 2. John Jefferson AT& T 3. Debra Jordan BellSouth 4. Michael Altschul CTIA 5. Jason Oxman CompTel 6. Dena Hunter Level 3 Communications, LLC 7. Aram Shumavon NARUC - California 8. Hon. Jack Goldberg NARUC – Connecticut 9. Hon. Curtis Stamp NARUC – Iowa 10. Hon. Robert M. Clayton, III NARUC - Missouri 11. Don Gray NARUC – Nebraska 12. Christine Sealock Kelly NARUC – New York 13. Philip McClelland NASUCA - Pennsylvania 14. Jerome Candelaria NCTA 15. Ray Strassburger Nortel Networks 16. John McHugh OPASTCO 17. Mary Retka Qwest 18. Rosemary Emmer Sprint Nextel 19. Anna Miller T- Mobile USA, Inc. 20. Joseph Jackson Verizon 21. Martin Hakim Din Vonage Holdings Corp. Special Members (Non- voting): John Manning NANPA Jean- Paul Emard ATIS Amy Putnam PA Faith Marcotte Welch & Company Commission Employees: 1 2 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 Marilyn Jones, Alternate DFO Deborah Blue, Assistant to the DFO Narda Jones, Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Cheryl Callahan, Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Sanford Williams, Attorney, Telecommunications Access Policy Division James Bachtell, Attorney, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Renee Crittendon, Chief, Competition Policy Division Ann Stevens, Associate Chief, Competition Policy Division Heather Hendrickson, Attorney, Competition Policy Division Mary McManus, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau Amy Bender, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau III. Estimate of Public Attendance. Approximately 30 members of the public attended the meeting as observers. IV. Documents Introduced. (1) Agenda (2) NANC Meeting Minutes – November 30, 2005 (3) NANC Meeting Minutes – January 24, 2006 (4) North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) Report to the NANC (5) FCC 06- 14 Thousands Block Number Pooling Authority (6) National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator (PA) Report (7) North American Portability Management (NAPM) LLC Report to the NANC (8) Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report to the NANC (9) Billing and Collection Agent Report to the NANC (10) Billing and Collection Working Group (B& C WG) Report to the NANC (11) NANC Operating Manual - Final (12) Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group Status Report to the NANC (13) Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) Report (14) List of NANC Accomplishments (January 2002 – March 14, 2006) 2 3 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING ) COUNCIL MEETING ) Tuesday, March 14, 2006 Live Tape (The following transcript was transcribed from an audiocassette tape provided by the Federal Communications Commission to Heritage Reporting Corporation on April 7, 2006. 3 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 MR. ATKINSON: Good morning. I'd like to 2 call the meeting to order, and we have an agenda, so 3 the first item on the agenda would be to see if there 4 are any additions or changes to the agenda. And I 5 have one which under Agenda Item 12 there is the 6 sub- bullet including report of pANI IMG. We're going 7 to drop that item from discussion today. We'll have a 8 telephone conference call when that subject is ripe, 9 so stay tuned for the conference call. 10 Are there any other changes, additions, 11 corrections to the agenda? Seeing none, we'll adopt 12 the agenda, and that becomes Document No. 1. 13 For a substantive item, announcements and 14 recent news I've got a few, so let me go through those 15 real quickly. First, Jack Goldberg has graciously 16 agreed to become the co- chair of NANC, and I think 17 that's great because it's important to have someone, 18 when my train is late or we need some help, and Jack's 19 got a great background in all this stuff, and I know 20 that if I'm certainly not able to attend a meeting, 21 the meeting will be in great hands, so I appreciate 22 Jack's willingness to serve. Thank you very much. 23 Item No. 2, Phil McClelland, as you probably 24 saw from one of his messages, this is his last 25 4 5 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 meeting. Phil is a real part of the institutional 1 memory of NANC, and he will be very much missed in 2 terms of both his substantive input and I'd say the 3 institutional memory, so Phil thank you very much and 4 best wishes in future endeavors, et cetera. 5 (Applause.) 6 Item 3 on my list there's going to be some 7 changes in the FCC relationship slightly between NANC. 8 Historically, NANC has been under the umbrella of the 9 Telecommunications Access Policy Division. That's 10 going to be shifted over to the Policy Division. 11 I guess NANC is starting to get into some 12 policy matters, maybe VoIP and such things like that 13 always seem to be popping up on our agenda, but in any 14 case, that transition is in a sense underway. There 15 are a number of folks from the Policy Division over 16 here. I see Ann Stevens who I've known from my 17 previous time here, and, Ann, you are going to be 18 involved with this motley group, right? 19 MS. STEVENS: Yes, and Renee Crittendon. 20 MR. ATKINSON: Renee Crittendon is the Chief 21 of the Competition Policy Division. 22 MS. STEVENS: Mary McManus. 23 MR. ATKINSON: Mary McManus. Right. 24 MS. STEVENS: And Heather Hendrickson. 25 5 6 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 MR. ATKINSON: Heather. Okay. We'll get 1 all the names and faces straight, so we'll be working 2 with this group and we've got the old group still 3 here, Cheryl and Marilyn, and we'll figure it all out. 4 But in fact what we'll try to do is put out a little 5 piece of paper that explains who the players are et 6 cetera, et cetera, but I don't anticipate any 7 substantive change obviously in the way we do our work 8 and this, that and the other, so that's just a change. 9 But I would like to express our appreciation 10 on behalf of NANC to our colleagues in the TAPD for 11 all these many years of great support and help, so, 12 Cheryl and Marilyn, et cetera, thank you. 13 News item. There was a commission order 14 that was put out February 24 on the waivers that some 15 of the states had sought for a thousand block number 16 pooling I guess it is, and we'll have some discussion 17 on that. One thing I wanted to bring to your 18 attention is that there is a fifth further notice of 19 proposed rulemaking in that document starting at 20 paragraph 16, so some of you might want to be -- if 21 you weren't aware of that, should be, and I believe 22 that's all of my -- 23 FEMALE VOICE: Okay. 24 MR. ATKINSON: Then we shall. Okay. We 25 6 7 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 have a guest. Commissioner Deborah Tate who is just 1 the newest FCC Commissioner and who had previously 2 been with the Tennessee Public Service Commission just 3 wanted to come down and visit NANC. Commissioner 4 Tate, it's good to see you. 5 MS. TATE: Thank you. Thank you all for 6 having me. I know most of you, but for those that I 7 haven't had the opportunity to meet, I'm Debbie Tate, 8 and I'm so thrilled to be here, and I really just 9 stopped by to thank you all. 10 I think that I've kind of worked on the 11 state end regarding number conservation, and I think 12 that Tennessee probably is a state that's done a 13 fairly good job with that. But I just wanted to thank 14 you all because I think it's so important for those of 15 you all who take the time and effort to participate no 16 matter whether you're from industry or from the state 17 side or from government in advising the commission. 18 And of course I'm fortunate because I came 19 from this state, so I've had an opportunity to work on 20 some of these issues before. I'm leaving some of my 21 cards. Obviously, you all know where to find me, but 22 anyway I did just want to again say thank you. Curt, 23 you're here so much, you might have to just get an 24 office upstairs, but thank you for your service. I 25 7 8 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 know how much time and effort it takes. 1 As my husband said, when are you ever going 2 to get a job that I don't have to keep paying for you 3 to fly back and forth to places. But anyway it's 4 great to be with you all, and I will just look forward 5 to seeing you all when you're here, and when you are 6 here, please come up. I'd like to have you all come 7 up to the office and just hear what's going on in your 8 states and kind of keep in touch with you all. 9 I made the mistake at the TRA of saying my 10 door was open, and the first Friday night I was there 11 until 9: 30 listening to marital problems. So I've 12 given up my therapist role, but I do want you all to 13 know that I welcome you're input, and again thanks so 14 much for doing this. 15 (Applause.) 16 MR. ATKINSON: Thank you for coming by. 17 It's great seeing you. 18 MS. TATE: Sure. 19 MR. ATKINSON: That was an announcement, so 20 we're perfect timing on the agenda. I've finished my 21 announcements. Anybody else have anything? Great, so 22 we can now move to Agenda Item 2 which is approval of 23 the minutes. We have two sets of minutes, and so, 24 let's see, the minutes of November 30. That will be 25 8 9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 Document No. 2, and the minutes of January 24 will be 1 Document No. 3, and do we have any additions, 2 corrections, changes, et cetera? Did everybody read 3 them? No. Come on. 4 MR. GOLDBERG: I did. 5 MR. ATKINSON: I did, too. Jack and I. I 6 see some nodding heads. Well, subject to any 7 objections by the end of the meeting, I propose that 8 we adopt the minutes as drafted, and unless we hear 9 some major objections, we won't reopen that, but I'll 10 leave it for the potential reopening. Any objections? 11 Consider these adopted, but let me know if you have 12 any issues. Of course, then you'd have to admit that 13 you hadn't read them before. 14 First report of today's session will be the 15 report of the North American Numbering Plan 16 Administrator, John Manning, and I sent out an email 17 indicating that Don Gray from Nebraska would also have 18 an item to discuss during this agenda item, so let's 19 see. John's report will be Document No. 4, and Don 20 Gray's will be Document No. 5. John. 21 MR. MANNING: Good morning, everybody. My 22 report is the typical report you're used to seeing, 23 however I have added a couple of items that I'll 24 report on every other meeting or so. I've got a 25 9 10 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 report looking at statistics with regard to some of 1 the other numbering resources that NANPA administers, 2 carrier identification codes, 500, 900 NXXs. My 3 report provides a brief summary on the status of those 4 particular resources. 5 I've also included a document that I'm not 6 going to go over, but it's entitled 2005 NANPA 7 highlights. This is a document that summarizes NANPA 8 activities for 2005. It's a document that gives you 9 the accomplishments, highlights, et cetera, that NANPA 10 experienced during the year. It will be provided to 11 the Numbering Oversight Working Group tomorrow, and it 12 serves as an outline of the presentation material that 13 we'll be covering with them over the next day and a 14 half. 15 Again, I won't go through that in detail, 16 but if you have any questions on that particular 17 document, either ask them now or come up and see me in 18 a little bit. I'll be happy to answer them for you. 19 Turning to this page 2 central office code 20 assignment report. I give you February '06 where you 21 see 304 codes assigned and 67 returns. And on page 4 22 I give you a summary of where we are the first two 23 months of this year. 24 There were seven hundred and forty- two 25 10 11 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 assignments in January and February of this year. 1 That compares to 639 assignments in the same timeframe 2 in 2005, so you can see we're slightly up from where 3 we started from in 2005. The quantity of returns 4 we've experienced in the first two months of this year 5 are similar to what we had in 2005 for the same time 6 period. 7 A couple items I want to make note of with 8 regard to central office codes. There was an 9 announcement made back in December 2005 in which the 10 Industry Numbering Committee made some changes to the 11 application form used for requesting central office 12 codes. What we are doing is trying to get the 13 industry to start using the up- to- date form. 14 As such, we've sent notice to the industry, 15 we've sent out a couple of notices already that 16 beginning April 1, 2006, any paper application that is 17 submitted either directly to NANPA or most likely 18 through the pooling administrator for a central office 19 code, you have to use the December 9, 2005, version of 20 that form. If you do not use that form after that 21 date, your application will be denied. 22 Also, another item I wanted to make note of. 23 In February, due to some actions and discussions at 24 the Industry Numbering Committee, NANPA made a change 25 11 12 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 to the NANP Administration System relative to how we 1 deal with rate center consolidations and splits. 2 Previously, when there was a rate center 3 consolidation, all those carriers impacted, that is 4 those carriers that had central office codes in those 5 rate centers had to submit to NANPA Part 1 changing 6 the rate center from the old rate center to whatever 7 the new consolidated or split- rate centers would be. 8 This process unfortunately didn't work as well we 9 would like. NANPA simply didn't receive the Part 1s 10 or there were other issues that got in the way of 11 keeping the code assignment records up to date. 12 Beginning in February NANPA modified the 13 NANP Administration System such that when there is a 14 rate center consolidation, or when there is a rate 15 center split, NANPA will initiate the appropriate 16 changes within the system so that the NPA NXXs 17 associated with either the old rate centers or the old 18 rate centers become associated with the new rate 19 centers. So carriers no longer have to submit a Part 20 1 to NANPA to effect that change. 21 What we do is we provide notice to the 22 industry there's a rate center change, and on the 23 effective date of that change, NANPA will make the 24 appropriate changes in the CO code assignment records. 25 12 13 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 So I wanted to make sure that NANC was aware of how 1 that process was changing and how NANPA was assuming 2 the responsibility to make sure those records remain 3 up to date. Any questions on central office code 4 assignments? 5 Turning to NPA relief planning, attached to 6 my report is the report that shows area codes that are 7 exhausting in the next 36 months. You'll notice that 8 report has expanded a little bit. As we turn into the 9 new year, we have a few more area codes that have been 10 now coming up on the radar screen that are within the 11 next three- year NPA relief timeframe. 12 Of course, this is all subject to change as 13 we go through the next NRUF cycle and come up with new 14 NPA exhaust projections. I wanted to make note that 15 we have seen a number of area codes now come up on the 16 radar as it relates to the exhaust within 36 months. 17 For those that we're looking at in the 12 18 months, this list really hasn't changed. We've got 19 area code 310 which I think we're all very familiar 20 with. Efforts are underway now in that particular 21 area code, and we are now assigning central office 22 codes out of the new 424 overlay NPA of 310. The 23 effective date of those codes is not until late August 24 of this year. 25 13 14 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 With regard to Georgia 706, that plan is 1 underway. The overlay will be coming into existence 2 later on this year, and we have two area codes in 3 Illinois, 630 and 815, that we're watching very 4 closely. In particular, area code 815 which has a 5 trigger in place that when it reaches a set quantity 6 of available central office codes, we will begin the 7 process of implementing the overlay NPA. We're 8 getting very close to that trigger now, and the 9 industry is already addressing that very issue. 10 We have two new relief projects that we've 11 started this quarter, both of them here in the month 12 of March. New Mexico 505 which we've just recently 13 had a meeting on where we're looking at relief for 14 that particular NPA, and we've already initiated some 15 work in Indiana 812. Later this month we will have a 16 relief planning meeting where we'll look at various 17 split and overlay options and see what the industry 18 wants to recommend. 19 So all of last year we had very few relief 20 projects that we started. Beginning in 2006 we've 21 already got two on our plate. The NPA and NANP 22 exhaust projections, which I mentioned earlier, we're 23 putting together as we speak. They will be available 24 at the end of April. 25 14 15 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 As done previously, the NANC will be sent a 1 notice when those projections are available on our 2 website, and you can certainly -- the states in fact 3 will be given some type of heads up before they're 4 posted so they have an idea where things are standing. 5 One final note on this page, we're currently 6 working on the 2005 NANPA Annual Report, which will be 7 available at the end of this month. We will post that 8 to the NANPA website. It will be available in PDF 9 copy only. Again, a notice will go out to the NANC as 10 well as to the industry when that document is 11 available and posted on the website. Any questions 12 concerning area code relief planning? 13 Let me briefly cover some of the other 14 resources that NANPA is responsible for. First, we'll 15 talk carrier identification codes, and specifically 16 FGB carrier identification codes. If you want to make 17 this simple, just simply refer to the charts on each 18 of these pages, and it gives you a history year over 19 year of the number of assignments, number of reclaimed 20 codes and net yearly assignment information. 21 When you're looking at Feature Group B 22 codes, you can see in 2005 we assigned just two codes, 23 yet we reclaimed over 280 of those codes, so certainly 24 that particular resource is well in hand. In fact, 25 15 16 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 we're seeing that particular resource die off. It's 1 obvious by the assignments and the reclamation 2 process. 3 For Feature Group D codes, the chart is on 4 page 6. You can see we have signed 157 in 2005 and 5 how that compares to 2004 and 2003 roughly in the same 6 quantity of assignments. We continue to reclaim a 7 large of quantity of Feature Goup D CICs so therefore 8 we have a net negative yearly assignment rate over the 9 past two years, but that resource continues to be 10 used. 11 For 500 NXXs in 2005, we did assign 34 of 12 these codes, and got seven back. Over the past three 13 years that's our largest quantity on a per year basis 14 that we assigned of this particular resource. If we 15 maintain this assignment rate, we will roughly be in 16 the neighborhood of seven to eight years before the 17 500 resource exhausts. 18 Of course, that doesn't factor in the 19 quantity of reclamations that could potentially be 20 made, but exhaust of this particular resource is on 21 the horizon. Although not immediately, it's something 22 we need to continue to monitor. For the 900 area 23 code, five NXXs were assigned in 2005. We had 12 NXXs 24 returned. This particular area code and its use is 25 16 17 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 not anything that is growing real rapidly, and 1 therefore we don't anticipate this resource to exhaust 2 any time soon. 3 And, finally on page 7, the 555 line 4 numbers. We only assigned one of these numbers in 5 2005, and that's one over the past two years. Right 6 now there is no reclamation under way with regard to 7 the 555 resource. There's plenty of this resource 8 available, but we're certainly not making a lot of 9 assignments of 555 lines. Any questions on the other 10 resources part of my report? 11 Before we get into the issue that Don wanted 12 to raise, again page 8, 9 and 10 and so forth are our 13 highlights document. I encourage you to at least 14 glance through that and a get a sense of what went on 15 during the year. The remaining pages are the matrix 16 of area codes exhausting in 36 months. That matrix 17 typically appends the NANPA report. Jerome, question? 18 MR. CANDELARIA: On page 8. 19 MR. MANNING: I'm sorry, Jerome. What page? 20 MR. CANDELARIA: Page 8. Can you elaborate 21 just a bit under response to regulatory activities 22 implemented the FCC SBCIS waiver, and my question is 23 what did this involve for you generally? 24 MR. MANNING: Well, if you recall the SBCIS 25 17 18 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 waiver allowed SBCIS to get resources directly from 1 the NANPA and the pool administrator. The process 2 that was established however was since there was no 3 certification provided by the state in lieu of that, 4 the primary process put in place was a 30- day window 5 in which an application that was made to the 6 administrator whether it's to NANPA or to the PA, 7 SBCIS had to provide at least 30 days' notice to the 8 state. 9 And I believe it's also to the FCC, and in 10 that process when we got that application, we had to 11 ensure that those particular items were put into place 12 before such an assignment was made. Now, from our 13 perspective, we had some initial activity with regard 14 to this matter, but primarily they've had to deal with 15 it really on the pooling side because I think the 16 majority of resources had been in the pooling rate 17 centers. 18 MR. CANDELARIA: This didn't involve any 19 extraordinary costs? 20 MR. MANNING: No. We were able to handle 21 this particular instance because we were only dealing 22 with one company. We were able to work through the 23 process to make that happen. Certainly, if that type 24 of mechanism was put in place for a large number of 25 18 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 carriers, then that would be a significant change in 1 our process. 2 MR. CANDELARIA: But didn't the FCC say that 3 similarly situated organizations could follow the same 4 process? 5 MR. MANNING: No. No. At this time, it's 6 only SBCIS that has this waiver in place. 7 MALE VOICE: Well, my understanding was the 8 FCC did extend the opportunity to other providers to 9 take advantage of the same proposal, although I don't 10 believe the FCC is active on this (inaudible). 11 FEMALE VOICE: Yes. That would be if they 12 petition it as SBCIS did, then we would respond to 13 their petitioners, but there has to be a petition on 14 file and a response. 15 MALE VOICE: No petitioner. I guess I heard 16 something. 17 FEMALE VOICE: Right. No FCC response yet. 18 Those are pending petitions. Yes. 19 MR. MANNING: My point is that there is no 20 other carrier that I am aware of. 21 FEMALE VOICE: Right. 22 MR. ATKINSON: And he's confirming for me 23 that he currently has this process in place. 24 FEMALE VOICE: That's correct. 25 19 20 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 MR. ATKINSON: Any other questions or 1 clarifications? All right. 2 MR. MANNING: Don wanted to raise his item 3 now while I was here. 4 MR. ATKINSON: Yes. Don, go ahead. 5 MR. GRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Don 6 Gray, Nebraska. First, thank you very much for 7 allowing us this opportunity to bring this up for 8 discussion here, and I would also on behalf of my 9 commission thank the FCC for the grant of the petition 10 that we received two weeks ago. 11 My commission believes that's a very 12 important tool for us to be able to extend the life of 13 the 402 area code, and I hope in a couple of hours I 14 can give you an official announcement of what we are 15 doing and will be doing in the future. As with many 16 tools you get, the devil is in the details and the 17 implementation. 18 And as we begin to look at how are we going 19 to use this new tool and look at how it would most 20 likely be implemented, it seems that the TBPAG 21 provided the necessary guidance for how carriers would 22 report at the thousands- block level going into the 23 establishment of pooling in a rate center, but then 24 once you had pooling, then the question came how are 25 20 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 they going to report since many of our carriers are 1 rural carriers, and we found two conflicting areas. 2 One was in the INC guidelines for the NRUF, 3 and the other was in the Form 502, the actual NRUF 4 reporting, and in talking both with members of INC and 5 John Manning and his folks, it seems that the intent 6 is fairly clear, and that for the process to properly 7 work any carrier, regardless of their status that's in 8 a pooling environment, needs to report at the 9 thousands- block level, but if you start reading each 10 line, each section of the INC and the 502 guidelines, 11 you find some places where there's an oops. 12 And so that's what I wanted to bring to 13 floor here so that perhaps we can have a discussion or 14 at least get some input and guidance from you folks as 15 to should the intent be that all carriers 16 participating in thousands- block number pooling 17 regardless of their status report at the thousands- 18 block level. 19 MR. ATKINSON: Let's have some discussion. 20 Rosemary?. 21 MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer with Sprint 22 Nextel. Were you looking to put this revised language 23 like in the INC, or were you looking to start a best 24 practice matrix of sorts, or I guess other than the 25 21 22 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 discussion, what is the end result that you are 1 looking for? 2 MR. GRAY: The end result is not necessarily 3 am I going to suggest here today that we ought to do 4 this or that, but that it appears that it should be 5 reporting at the thousands- block in a pooling rate 6 center for everybody. Now, I think I would be 7 comfortable with if this group says yes, that should 8 be the intent, and INC, NANP, whoever, go forth and 9 look very closely at the wording and clean any up that 10 needs to be cleaned up. That would be sufficient for 11 me coming out of here today, Rosemary. 12 Because I think the other thing is you start 13 looking at some of these, and it was interesting. A 14 couple of folks referenced me back to the 2000 FCC 15 order that originally starting the thousands- block 16 pooling, and in there it very, very clearly drew a 17 bright line and said if you don't have to port 18 numbers, you don't have to participate in this even in 19 reporting which is obviously much different than six 20 years later. 21 And the most recent order where there was a 22 distinction made that it's not the capability that's 23 the distinction, it's whether you will have to offer 24 porting or not, so I think maybe that's where some of 25 22 23 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 our language differences have come up. 1 MS. EMMER: Okay. Thank you. Sprint Nextel 2 wholeheartedly supports the effort. 3 MR. GRAY: Thank you. John? 4 MR. MCHUGH: We agree, OPASTCO agrees. 5 We'll support on the suggestion that rural companies 6 participating in pooling have to report at the 7 thousands- block level. 8 MR. GRAY: And have you advised your members 9 of this, or will you? 10 MR. MCHUGH: Absolutely. 11 MR. GRAY: Thank you. 12 MR. ATKINSON: I think what I'm hearing is 13 we have a consensus. I mean, is there anybody who 14 thinks that that's not a good idea? It seems kind of 15 natural, and just kind of goes along with the intent 16 is my thought, and certainly if OPASTCO has no 17 problems -- they're the ones who are burdened 18 particularly or would be participating, so my view 19 would be there's a clear NANC unanimity if not 20 consensus. 21 Certainly, consensus that Don's proposal is 22 reasonable, and I see someone from INC taking the 23 public microphone because INC will probably need to 24 just make any clarifications. 25 23 24 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 MR. HAVENS: Ken Havens. I just wanted to 1 offer on behalf of the INC to bring in an issue to the 2 INC, and the INC can initiate an issue and address 3 this particular request. In fact, we can do that next 4 week which is when we meet. 5 MR. ATKINSON: Okay. So let me just make 6 that an action assignment that you'll just look at 7 that and report back at the next session presumably, 8 or you'll keep us advised of any language correction 9 in the guidelines, and I'll assume that that will 10 satisfy everybody. 11 MR. HAVENS: Thank you. 12 MR. GRAY: Thank you. 13 MR. ATKINSON: Are there any other questions 14 either for John Manning or for Don? Then that agenda 15 item is done. Thank you, John. 16 MR. MANNING: Thank you. 17 MR. ATKINSON: Next item on our agenda 18 report of national thousands- block pooling 19 administrator, Amy Putnam. Amy's report will be 20 Document No. 6. Pooling is fine, right, Amy? 21 MS. PUTNAM: Pooling is fine. Busy, but 22 fine. Okay. If you look at the first slide, page 2 23 of the report, the PA activity summary data. You see 24 that our last two months have been extremely busy and 25 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 have been our first and second highest months ever. 1 The third was March 2005 which will be falling off the 2 rolling 12- month report next time. We normally file 3 our FCC reports on the 15th for the previous month, 4 but we filed early this month so that we could do the 5 February reporting. 6 With respect to the next slide, the summary 7 activity, there again is March 2005 through February 8 2006. Page 4, CO codes opened, again a rolling 12- 9 month inventory, and the rate centers changed from M 10 to M, that's 150 in the last 12 months. Those are 11 where new service providers moved into rate centers 12 that previously had a single- service provider in them, 13 and when that happens, we contact the carrier that is 14 operating in that rate center and let it know. Yes, 15 Rosemary? 16 MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer with Sprint 17 Nextel (inaudible). 18 MS. PUTNAM: Okay. I'm sorry. 19 MS. EMMER: No. That's okay. For the 20 blocks assigned in the PAS manual Part 3 with January 21 with the increase being so dramatic or drastic. 22 MS. PUTNAM: Yes. 23 MS. EMMER: Was there any particular reason 24 that you guys are aware of that it was -- that's 25 25 26 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 significantly higher. 1 MS. PUTNAM: Yes, it was significant, and 2 there is a carrier, and the information is in the 3 public sector because there have been press releases, 4 but there is a carrier that's going out across the 5 country establishing footprint and is getting blocks 6 across the country. 7 MS. EMMER: Thank you. 8 MR. ATKINSON: I had related thoughts, so 9 I'll just interject it now. I mean, in a sense we 10 would see any sort of stresses, incipient stresses and 11 strains on numbering resources first in your pooling 12 before we see -- 13 MS. PUTNAM: We are the gatekeeper. 14 MR. ATKINSON: Before we see them at the 15 NANPA, right? So I just think this 12- month forecast 16 it might be useful actually at some point periodically 17 even to put this into a graph stretching somewhat even 18 back the past four months just to give sort of a early 19 warning because there's a lot of assumptions that go 20 into the NANPA forecast, and right now we're pretty 21 relaxed about it. 22 It's like 2030 something, but if we start 23 seeing a dramatic up- tick like this, and it persists, 24 that might start rippling through up to the area code 25 26 27 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 level and things like that, so it's a useful early 1 warning sign, this chart is. 2 MS. PUTNAM: Yes, and the information about 3 pooling activity over the past year and over the past 4 five years, and since pooling began with the state 5 trials, that graph is in our annual report which is 6 posted on our website from last year and will be 7 posted again this year. 8 MR. ATKINSON: I will go to your website. 9 MS. PUTNAM: And if you like once we post 10 this year's annual report, we can simply put that 11 graph in the next NANC report. 12 MR. ATKINSON: Yes, that will be helpful. 13 Thank you. 14 MS. PUTNAM: Okay. 15 MS. EMMER: I have one more question. On 16 the same slide under denials with the red light rule, 17 61 in December. That seems pretty high compared to 18 the other months. Was there anything you can share 19 with us about that? 20 MS. PUTNAM: Honestly, Rosemary, I brought 21 that information to the January meeting, and I don't 22 remember. 23 MS. EMMER: Okay. Thanks. 24 MS. PUTNAM: But I can check on it and let 25 27 28 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 you know. 1 MS. EMMER: No. That's okay. 2 MS. PUTNAM: Okay. I believe if nobody has 3 any other questions we were moving on to page 5 which 4 is the status of the change orders. We still have 5 four pending change orders. The NPAC, the one- time 6 scrub is in its third iteration. If you recall that 7 particular one goes back to May of 2005, but earlier 8 ones went back well into 2004. 9 We initially requested a report either 10 daily, weekly or monthly then that change order was 11 disapproved, and it was proposed that we do a one- time 12 scrub of one NPA per impact region to see if a scrub 13 would be valuable, and that information that we 14 gleaned from that scrub was deemed to be valuable to 15 carriers, and the NOWG recommended that we submit a 16 change order requesting a one- time scrub, and that's 17 the one that's out there. 18 Change Orders 43 and 44 relate to changes in 19 the guidelines, and Change Order 45 as indicated 20 related to user suggestions from the 2004 NOWG survey 21 which we received last summer. Next slide shows our 22 instances of unscheduled unavailability from March of 23 '05 to the end of February of '06, and we had 19 24 minutes. 25 28 29 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 Next slide, other PA activities. Continue 1 to participate in meetings on the pANI ESQK 2 administration. With respect to the NOWG, we are now 3 undertaking the regular monthly review meeting with 4 the NOWG and had our first two meetings January 27 and 5 February 3, and have worked out a schedule for the 6 rest of the year. 7 With respect to the NOWG survey, we are 8 trying to drum up business in the response category, 9 so we have sent a number of notices regarding the 10 survey that the timeline for responding was extended, 11 and we're looking forward to our operational review in 12 Concord, California, at our office out there on April 13 4 and 5. 14 With respect to the delegated authority 15 petitions as was previously mentioned, there were 16 approvals for five states and eight NPAs and 17 immediately following the issuance of that order we've 18 held conference calls with regulatory staff of all the 19 states that were involved. And we are anticipating 20 that there will be state orders issues and that we 21 will schedule supplemental implementation meetings 22 based on the content of those state orders. 23 Obviously, our conduct will be governed by 24 the content of the state orders to the extent that 25 29 30 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 they do not in any way conflict with existing FCC 1 orders, and our annual report. A draft has been 2 provided to the NOWG for review, and we are on target 3 for filing that on March 31 with the FCC and 4 subsequent to that it will be posted to the website, 5 and we will provide a copy of the graph of pooling 6 activities to the NANC at the next meeting. 7 We also have a highlight section of our 8 annual report which we will review in some detail with 9 the NOWG during our review, April 4 and 5, but for 10 today I wanted to just kind of highlight some of the 11 things that we look at that we did during the year. 12 We processed 102,304 applications which is an increase 13 of 47.8 percent over 2004. In 2004 we processed 14 69,193. We also assigned 55,990 blocks which is a 15 49.6 percent increase over 2004. 16 Our total approved blocks is 45.4 percent 17 increase over 2004. In 2004, we approved 60,206 18 blocks, and in 2005 we approved 87,571. For 2005, we 19 had an increase of 10.7 percent in central office 20 codes that were open. We went up from 2,153 to 2,385, 21 and we reclaimed 78 blocks in 2005 which is a 136- 22 percent increase over 2004, so our pooling 23 administrative services center was mighty busy this 24 year. 25 30 31 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 We also as you can see worked on our 1 website. We improved our website this year, and we 2 got lots of positive comments on the new website. We 3 submitted eight change orders and implemented nine 4 that were approved. 5 We successfully conducted our disaster 6 recovery business continuity plan testing, and we 7 upgraded the system and database and applications on 8 August 21. If you went back to the system instances 9 of unavailability, there was one that was an asterisk 10 there where the system was unavailable during August, 11 but that was scheduled for the upgrade, so that did 12 not count against our unavailability requirement. 13 And the pooling implementation management 14 continues. The quality control and maintenance of the 15 rate center files. That means whenever a rate center 16 goes from M to M contacting the carriers, making sure 17 that it's reflected on the website whenever OMB issues 18 a bulletin that affects anything having to do with 19 MSAs. 20 We review the website and make sure that any 21 changes needed to rate centers are made. If states 22 request changes for example from excluded to optional, 23 or service providers request changes from excluded to 24 optional, all of those things are part of the 25 31 32 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 maintenance of the rate center files. 1 We produced 2,572 reports this year for the 2 FCC, for state regulators, for the NANC, the NANPA and 3 service providers, and we worked with states in a 4 variety of ways. We did a refresher for state 5 commission staff for PAS use. We had an informational 6 conference call. 7 We went to states that requested in- person 8 pooling education meetings and responded to a variety 9 of inquiries on issues related to pooling from states, 10 from service providers, and from the FCC. We were 11 busy. We're not sitting around eating bonbons. Thank 12 you. Questions? 13 MR. ATKINSON: John first, then Rosemary. 14 MR. CANDELARIA: John Candelaria, NPTA. 15 Does pooling administration separately track rate 16 centers where there's no blocks available for 17 assignment? 18 MS. PUTNAM: We don't track that. We can 19 review that information. We can query the database 20 and find out whether or not a rate center has numbers 21 available. Most frequently if you look at that 22 information, you find that it's situations where 23 carriers have forecast for numbers, but when we go and 24 try to replenish the pool, nobody meets months to 25 32 33 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 exhaust or utilization, and we can't find a carrier 1 that will come in and enable us to open a code for 2 pool replenishment. 3 MR. CANDELARIA: I'm just trying to get a 4 sense of why red this is. Let me cut to the chase -- 5 MS. PUTNAM: I think it's because carriers 6 forecast with a sense of optimism. 7 MR. CANDELARIA: Okay. The basis for my 8 question is our favorite area code 310 where we have 9 rate centers where there are not blocks available. My 10 concern is new entrants cannot enter a market when 11 there are no blocks available. At least entry is 12 highly problematic, so I'm just trying to get a sense 13 whether this is an isolated 310 issue, or whether 14 there are other rate centers out there where 15 competitor should kind of look elsewhere? 16 MS. PUTNAM: There are two situations where 17 there are rate centers where it looks as if there are 18 not numbers available. One is 310, the other is where 19 we cannot replenish the pool because we can't find 20 somebody to do it. In 310 there are only 100 blocks 21 left. I pulled out my little 310 piece of paper as 22 soon as you raised your hand. I thought he's going to 23 say -- I wanted to beat Anna who probably was on the 24 website this morning checking it out. 25 33 34 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 In 310 there are only 100 blocks left, and 1 we do have rate centers that we have no resources 2 left. We can only do what regulators permit us to do, 3 and if there aren't any blocks left because of delayed 4 area relief, there we are. 5 MR. ATKINSON: Anna? 6 MS. MILLER: Anna Miller at T- Mobile. Yes, 7 310 is the exception, and there's no more NXXs 8 available to replenish the rate centers in 310 right 9 now that do not have blocks available for assignment, 10 but just to elaborate on what Amy was saying, there 11 are situations where there's rate centers with zero 12 blocks available for assignment, but if nobody is 13 applying for any numbers in that rate center, then 14 there's not an opportunity to assign an NXX I guess to 15 that rate center and identify LERG assignee. 16 So I guess a couple of things need to happen 17 to replenish a pool. There needs to be demand, and 18 then if there is no NXX, if there are no blocks 19 available, and you have to open up a new NXX, you have 20 to have LERG assignee to take responsibility as the CO 21 holder for that block, so just to clarify on that. 22 MS. PUTNAM: That's correct. 23 MS. MILLER: And then I think the other 24 comment I'd like to make with regard to forecasting 25 34 35 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 optimism, and that is I think that that is a 1 possibility. One of the challenges that we face with 2 our current system is that in your forecast you need 3 to have the forecast in the right month. 4 So if for example T- Mobile said that we 5 needed four blocks in March, and two blocks in April, 6 and we only qualify and applied for three blocks in 7 March, and then we needed three blocks in April, and 8 we could only get two because we said we'd only have 9 two. 10 We'd have to update our forecast, so I think 11 it's challenging to get it exactly right in the right 12 month, and I think to accommodate that, you try to 13 spread it out so that you don't run drawing up short 14 in one month if demand is a week later than you 15 thought it was, so that's a challenge I think in the 16 forecasting. 17 MS. PUTNAM: Yes. We look ahead, and we 18 attempt to replenish when the forecasts reflect a need 19 to replenish. Another challenge that we have is 20 carriers that forecast zero and come in and suddenly 21 need resources and change their forecast in order to 22 get resources, and they drain the pool at that point, 23 and of course then we can go out and we can again 24 attempt to replenish. 25 35 36 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 But for us to replenish a pool, we need 1 somebody who meets months to exhaust in utilization 2 who can perform the functions of the LERG assignee. 3 We do two things. We not only canvas carriers to 4 become a LERG assignee, but we also contact carriers 5 that are operating in any rate center and ask them if 6 they have blocks to donate if we need resources in a 7 rate center so that we don't have to open codes if 8 carriers do in fact have blocks to donate. 9 MR. ATKINSON: Rosemary? 10 MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel. 11 Two things. The first thing is I didn't see in the 12 notes from January about 61, so I want to get with you 13 on that. 14 MS. PUTNAM: Okay. 15 MS. EMMER: Ten miles for the red light 16 rule, and regarding the forecasting optimism comments, 17 it's my understanding that the PA is subjectively 18 determining based on what the carriers' forecasts are 19 as to how many numbers are going to be in the pool 20 also. So I mean we might forecast high, but if we 21 only use let's say 25 percent of actuals, there is 22 somewhat of a subjective decision made somewhere along 23 the line. 24 And while I think generally speaking the 25 36 37 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 pools are plentiful, there have been several times 1 where Spring, or at least Legacy Nextel has needed a 2 number whether it be something we've forecasted for or 3 whether it be whether we didn't forecast, but we 4 needed an initial code somewhere where we have had to 5 wait, and so you're right. 6 At times, we might not be able to meet 7 utilization and need 100,000 numbers, but that is in 8 fact something that happens that really, truly across 9 the board isn't very fair, especially when we might 10 have forecasted for those numbers, but because there's 11 this subjective nature in some way to this whole 12 process that we might not be able to get those codes. 13 MS. PUTNAM: Rosemary, I'd really appreciate 14 it if you would bring those to our attention because 15 we have not had a complaint in years about carriers 16 not being able to get numbers except in California. 17 MS. EMMER: Right. This came out during our 18 internal Legacy Nextel survey process, so when we 19 finish that -- 20 MS. PUTNAM: Then it's something that 21 someone is not advising us about. 22 MS. EMMER: And we brought the concept of 23 forecasting up on the last NOWG call so that we can 24 make sure to start figuring this out for the long term 25 37 38 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 as to how we can best do this maybe a little more 1 objectively going forward. 2 MS. PUTNAM: Because our system is set up to 3 just generate information about pool replenishment. 4 You need to replenish this rate center as the 5 forecasts reflect, so if that is a problem, it's a 6 problem that has not been brought to our attention, 7 and it would be great if you could give me some 8 examples. 9 MS. EMMER: Right. We are actually on our 10 caravan in this morning from Sterling, this was one of 11 our topics of conversation that we had with several 12 carriers, and definitely as we move forward having our 13 communications or calls every month, we'll definitely 14 work though this so that it works out best for 15 everyone. And like I said before, as a general rule 16 or typically if you will there's been plenty of 17 numbers in the pool, but we're noticing now that -- 18 MS. PUTNAM: Yes. Since every carrier is 19 supposed to keeps its own six- month inventory, you 20 would think that that would not be a problem with its 21 six- month inventory and our attempt to keep a six- 22 month inventory, you would think that that would never 23 occur except in California. 24 MS. EMMER: Well, you're right. You would 25 38 39 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 think that wouldn't occur, but with big marketing 1 programs and things, sometimes it is impossible to 2 keep that number. The same with you guys. It's a 3 situation that we're hoping to work through this year. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. ATKINSON: Just from what I gathered 6 from this discussion there's a problem in 310. There 7 is managing issues elsewhere, so there's no other 8 customer visible concerns, but I'm also hearing 9 there's some strange incentives built into the system 10 to overforecast, to not want to take responsibility 11 for a new code and things like that. 12 The NOWG in its work kind of listening to 13 these things in terms of if there is a real problem, 14 the NOWG would take the initiative to propose any 15 changes in process, procedures, et cetera along with 16 the PA, right? 17 MS. EMMER: That's correct, and how we've 18 begun that process now from the NOWG perspective is 19 during our monthly call with the PA, we brought this 20 up as an information topic, and we had a discussion as 21 to what they could possibly provide to us so that we 22 can start understanding a little better I think really 23 each other in this regard. 24 But specifically what we could understand 25 39 40 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 from the PA, so they're going to report back to us at 1 the next month a snapshot in a day if you will of the 2 rate center, so we've begun that just recently. 3 MR. ATKINSON: Right. How long have we been 4 doing pooling? Two years? 5 MS. PUTNAM: Well, we've been doing national 6 pooling -- the contract was awarded in June 2001, but 7 we rolled out in March of 2002. 8 MR. ATKINSON: So the rules, the 9 regulations, the process is always being looked at for 10 fine- tuning? Good. Christine? 11 MS. KELLY: Chris Kelly, New York. I just 12 wanted to offer a contrasting view of that 13 subjectivity. New York filed comments on the PA 14 requirements document, an advocate for that 15 subjectivity so to speak. I don't know if that's the 16 right word which is used by the PA as it mitigates the 17 optimism. We really do think the PA's expertise in 18 looking at the actual use in a rate center is a very 19 useful tool in not stranding resources, so I just 20 wanted to offer a contrasting view. 21 MR. ATKINSON: Any other comments? Thank 22 you very much. 23 MS. PUTNAM: Thank you. 24 MR. ATKINSON: Agenda Item No. 5, the report 25 40 41 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 of the North American Numbering Portability Management 1 LLC. 2 FEMALE VOICE: Document 7? 3 MALE VOICE: You're off by two. 4 MR. ATKINSON: We're doing Agenda Item 5, 5 right? 6 FEMALE VOICE: I'm sorry. 7 MR. ATKINSON: Agenda Item 5, and the NANPM 8 report will be Document No. 7. 9 MR. CLAY: Good morning, NANC. I have two 10 items to report this morning. The first item deals 11 with the completion of Statement of Work 51. NANC 12 Change Order 393 which is a part of software Release 13 3.3 required changes be made to the NPAC's performance 14 requirements based on porting and pooling volume 15 forecasting. 16 SOW or Statement of Work 51 was prepared by 17 NeuStar and presented to the NANPM for approval, and 18 as of the last meeting that we had, we approved the 19 Statement of Work 51, and Statement of Work 51 will 20 document those changes to our master agreement. As of 21 this morning, I understand that there may be some 22 issues that came out with this statement of work, and 23 we will be addressing that over the next couple of 24 days. 25 41 42 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 The second item that I'd like to report 1 would be that the INC made a request to the NANPM to 2 authorize an ad hoc report for the purpose of 3 identifying service providers with ported telephone 4 numbers within an NXX code when the code holder is to 5 change the rate center. 6 The code would cause problems if there are 7 ported numbers within the NXX, and this ad hoc report 8 would allow NANPA to eliminate those problems for our 9 customers. The NANPM LLC approved that at a previous 10 meeting, and hopefully that will solve their issues. 11 That's all I have today. Are there any questions? 12 MR. ATKINSON: No questions? 13 MR. CLAY: Thank you, chairman. 14 MR. ATKINSON: Yes? We do. 15 (Away from microphone.) 16 MALE VOICE: (Inaudible) California. I have 17 a question (inaudible). 18 MR. ATKINSON: Could you just raise your 19 hand so the guys back there can see where you are? 20 MALE VOICE: (Inaudible) exact appropriate 21 time for it, but we have had a situation where ex 22 parte has come in on everybody's favorite 310 issue 23 and asked some questions about specifically local 24 number portability applications or use of LNPs 25 42 43 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 specifically from ILECs to their wireless affiliate 1 for transfer of specific numbers in areas where 2 thousands- block pools are not available. And this is 3 the first I'd heard of anything of this nature, and 4 unique to California I'm sure in our 310. 5 But I have no idea if anybody else is aware 6 of this, or if anybody could speak to this issue. We 7 haven't done any data requests or anything along that 8 line, but we do have some concerns if we do find 9 information about portability being used effectively 10 in a potentially discriminatory manner for the 11 affiliates of carriers with large number resources and 12 contaminated blocks. 13 MR. CLAY: This is the first that I've heard 14 of this also. There are several members here from the 15 LNPA working group and from the NANPM LLC, so that's 16 something that we will have to discuss outside of this 17 meeting, but right now this is the first I've heard of 18 that issue. 19 MALE VOICE: Okay. Are you aware of 20 mechanisms by which a number could be ported without a 21 customer being assigned to it on one end or the other? 22 MR. CLAY: No. 23 MALE VOICE: Okay. Thank you. 24 MR. CLAY: Okay. 25 43 44 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 MR. ATKINSON: Anything else? Thank you, 1 Mel. 2 MR. CLAY: Thank you. 3 MR. ATKINSON: All right. We're scheduled 4 for break at 10: 45. I suggest we continue on until 5 10: 45. I'm sure we can get the INC report and maybe 6 one other in, so the INC report from Ken Havens, 7 Agenda Item 6, Document No. 8. 8 MR. HAVENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9 Turning to Slide 2, you'll see a slide that provides 10 information on when the INC last met as well as 11 indicating that we will be meeting next week at the 12 ATIS annual meeting. 13 On Slide 3 it gives you an idea of some of 14 the work that's been going on in the LNPA subcommittee 15 within INC, and indicates that we had received 16 correspondence from the LNPA working group regarding 17 unusable blocks that sought modification to the 18 thousands- block donation form to help ensure that 19 donating service providers performed their 20 intraservice provider ports to avoid service 21 disruption when blocks are subsequently assigned. 22 The INC created Issue 506 to address this 23 concern, and the changes would have SPs complete an 24 updated Appendix 2 form as part of the donation 25 44 45 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 process, and this form would step service providers 1 through a series of questions regarding the status of 2 blocks being donated. 3 And this form in its updated form are to ask 4 questions of a service provider such as is the block 5 contaminated, and if yes, how many numbers are not 6 available for assignment, have all your ISPs been 7 completed, has the block been protected from further 8 assignment. 9 Further, the form or the changes goes on to 10 explain the benefits of performing intraservice 11 provider ports and protecting the block from further 12 assignment. And so the INC and the LNPA working group 13 believe that these changes will help to educate 14 service providers on the activities that must occur, 15 and why those activities occur, and subsequently will 16 serve to avoid service disruptions when those blocks 17 are subsequently donated. 18 On Slide 4, you'll recall that we had a 19 presentation here at the last NANC from a video relay 20 service providers. I think it was Mark Ersky from CSD 21 that presented that information to the NANC. He also 22 came at the INC and made a similar presentation to the 23 INC, so what has occurred, there was a general 24 exchange of information from Mark and a dialogue that 25 45 46 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 ensued between Mark and the INC,. 1 As well as I might point out that there were 2 other members from the VRS providers. I believe Mike 3 Maddox and Joe Romriel from Sorrensen Communications 4 were there to provide their input and prospectives, 5 and so as I indicated, the INC created an issue to 6 address this, and we will be working this issue next 7 week to further along that process. Any questions 8 thus far? 9 Okay. Turning to Slide 5, this slide 10 identifies issues that remain in initial pending at 11 the INC. Issue 407 which most of us are familiar 12 with, the treatment of dedicated codes for single 13 customers in a pooling environment. 14 Very briefly this is a process improvement 15 issue whereby if I'm a service provide that's 16 requesting a dedicated code for a customer in a pooled 17 environment, the process change essentially wants to 18 allow that service provider to go directly to the 19 NANPA to acquire that code. In today's process they 20 have to go first through the PA and then to NANPA to 21 get that code. Mr. Chairman, I believe you were going 22 to take a look a the letter that NANC sent to the FCC 23 last February. 24 MR. ATKINSON: I believe I did. 25 46 47 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 MR. HAVENS: Okay. 1 MR. ATKINSON: I did. 407. 2 MR. HAVENS: Yes, sir. 3 MR. ATKINSON: I have a recollection of 4 writing such a letter, but I will double- check that it 5 went out. 6 MR. HAVENS: Okay. 7 MR. ATKINSON: I will double check. I 8 always should do my own action assignments first, and 9 I looked through the list this morning and said yes I 10 did that, but I'll check right now. Thank you. 11 MR. HAVENS: Thank you. Issue 475 and 486 12 are two other items that remain in initial pending 13 that were briefly touched on by the PA as having 14 change orders associated with those, the first being 15 the thousands- block forecast report directions. In 16 this issue we essentially made changes to the T- bag 17 Appendix 1 document. 18 (Electronic interference.) 19 Essentially, we've modified the guidelines 20 to take out of reference to a field on the Appendix 1 21 form that wasn't really there, so we wanted to make 22 sure that the guidelines were copacetic with the 23 actual form itself. And secondly on Issue 486 24 contaminated or pristine assigned block returns, 25 47 48 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 the changes here would require block holders to notate 1 on the Part 1( a) form in a new field, a new field is 2 the remarks field whether or not the thousands- block 3 being donated is pristine or contaminated thus 4 providing the PA some additional information about the 5 block when they receive it back from the service 6 provider. Questions? 7 Slide 6 shows those issues that are in final 8 closure. We have six issues here. Issue 463, LERG 9 assignees for pool replenishment or LRN requests. 10 This issue received attention at the INC over the 11 course of several meetings, and its intent was to give 12 service providers in need of an LRN the ability to be 13 assigned an LRN and essentially protect the numbers 14 associated with that assignment from being used. 15 It was a forward- thinking type of issue with 16 regard to number conservation, and the INC as I 17 indicated talked about it over the course of a few 18 weeks. And ultimately they decided that the current 19 process whereby if a service provider needs a code for 20 LRN purposes but doesn't meet the MTE or utilization 21 criteria to go to the state regulator via the safety 22 belt process. 23 That's the current process for dealing with 24 situations like that and the INC came to conclude that 25 48 49 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 that was still the best process for this particular 1 type of concern and thus the issue was closed without 2 making any changes. 3 Issue 503, clarification on LERG assignment 4 block holder Part 4 submissions. Changes were made 5 here to the TBPAG to clarify which part form should be 6 used by a block holder who is also a LERG assignee of 7 an NXX. Essentially, we created within the guideline 8 changes a series of if statements. If this, then 9 please use the following process, and so that 10 essentially is what we did with that issue. 11 Issue 500, returning a nonpool dedicated 12 customer code. This was essentially an administrative 13 change. We had language in both the TBPAG and the 14 COCAG that provided instructions for a service 15 provider on how to return a nonpooled dedicated code. 16 The INC concluded that that same information needed 17 to be in another part of the COCAG guidelines, and 18 that would be COCAG Appendix C, and so we added that 19 to the document. 20 501, becoming a new LERG assignee due to 21 ported TNs. We made changes to the COCAG Appendix C 22 to address when a service provider becomes a new LERG 23 assignee for a pooled NXX as a result of having ported 24 TNs but doesn't have a block assigned from that NXX. 25 49 50 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 Issue 502, pooled NXX codes returned in 1 error. The COCAG was modified in this particular 2 instance to address the process that service providers 3 should follow when a pooled NXX is returned in error. 4 We identified essentially five scenarios that could 5 occur, and then we notated within the guideline 6 changes which particular process should be followed in 7 those particular circumstances. 8 And finally, issue 505, expedite request 9 clarification to the COCAG. There was some confusion 10 apparently with regard to the process that needed to 11 be followed when a service provider wanted to expedite 12 the request for a code, and so the INC clarified that 13 process, and we put that in the document. Any 14 questions thus far? 15 Moving on to the last page, this essentially 16 identifies the relevant pages for information that can 17 be found with respect to INC guidelines, issues, 18 things of that nature. One note that we'd like to 19 note for those NANC members that are new and frankly 20 for all NANC members for that matter the new NANC 21 operating manual that recently came out refers to the 22 process for NANC members to be able to acquire a 23 password for all INC documentation. 24 And if you needed information or wanted 25 50 51 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 information about INC, you could contact the INC 1 administrator who is now Jackie English. Charles Piot 2 is leaving the INC to move on to newer, greener 3 pastures, and so Jackie English would be the 4 individual that you would contact. Any questions? 5 Thank you for your time. 6 MR. ATKINSON: Just to report, I did prepare 7 the letter requested on 4- 07, but I sent it into a 8 different pathway than normal to the FCC since it 9 deals with a long outstanding issue, and I don't know 10 that there's anybody from the commission here today 11 that was going to be able to respond to that, but I 12 will take an action assignment to followup on my 13 previous correspondent. 14 MR. HAVENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 15 MR. ATKINSON: I would propose that we take 16 a 15- minute break. We're going to come back and 17 discuss money, the next two agenda items, and so in 18 fact why don't we reconvene at 11: 00 promptly. Thank 19 you. 20 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) 21 MR. ATKINSON: The next report will be 22 Document No. 9. 23 MS. MARCOTTE: Good morning. I'd like to 24 start with going over the fund's financial position at 25 51 52 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 the end of February. At the end of February the fund 1 has $4.1 million mainly made up of cash that's left 2 from accrued liabilities of $1.8 million, and the 3 makeup of the accrued liabilities is below there, and 4 during February, the fund that was invested earned 5 3.95 percent. 6 The next page, page 2, is the projection of 7 the fund, forecast of the fund for the next year. Of 8 particular note is the balance of the fund at the end 9 of June which is the funding year end. The $2.2 10 million is what we project the fund will be at. We 11 wanted it to be at $1 million which was the 12 contingency balance, but there is extra money going to 13 be left. 14 The makeup of that money can be seen on the 15 far right- hand bottom corner, the discrepancy or the 16 variance, and it's mainly made up to carrier audits 17 that were not done that we had anticipated being done. 18 The bulk of it is that number, $560,000, is $490,000. 19 If we go to the next page, page 3, it's a makeup of 20 the next six months what we expect to spend assuming 21 we get the bills and the approvals to spend the money. 22 That's what's anticipated. 23 That's the first part of the report. Are 24 there any questions on that? 25 52 53 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 MR. ATKINSON: Could NANC have a field trip 1 to Jamaica? Yes. We could visit with Courtney and 2 have a meeting down there and use up some of these 3 surplus funds. What do you think? Any other 4 constructive comments? 5 MS. MARCOTTE: Okay. The next part of the 6 report is the budget and the contribution factor. 7 Page 4 and 5 are the commentary on the budget, so if 8 we turn right to page 6 that is the budget, and I'll 9 go over that with you. The first part if the NANPA 10 administration, and that is a contract in place for 11 that amount for the $1.4 million. We've taken out the 12 amount for the international participant, so that 13 brings it down to NANPA administration costs of 14 $1,338,000. 15 The one thousands- block pooling there is no 16 contract. The current contract expires in June of 17 this year, so what we have done is without any other 18 information we have used the same amount of $3.5 19 million as last for this year because we have no 20 information to suggest it would be any different. 21 We've also put in an amount for pANI 22 administration, and again that is just an estimate 23 since we don't have any information as to what that 24 might be. We're hoping it's a good estimate. For the 25 53 54 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 carrier audits, we've estimated another $700,000 based 1 on discussions with the FCC. The billing collection 2 agent is a contract number. The data collection agent 3 is an estimate from the data collection agent. 4 Again, the operations audit is an estimate 5 of $30,000, and the interest income is an estimate. 6 We expect to have more money because we'll be 7 collecting more money this year, so we expect a higher 8 interest. So that leaves us with projected 9 disbursements of $5,843,000, plus we're assuming you 10 want to leave the $1 million contingency provision, so 11 that means we need to fund $6,843,370 this year. Are 12 there any questions about the budget? 13 Okay. The next page discusses the options, 14 the funding options, basically whether we use the 15 surplus or some of the surplus or none of the surplus 16 to fund these expenditures we expect. The first 17 option uses the full amount of the surplus that we 18 expect to be in place at June '06. That's $2,200,000. 19 That will leave us with a contribution factor of 20 .00020. 21 And if we go to Option 2 which we had 22 projected a factor of 25 instead of 20. That would 23 leave not using the full surplus, leaving us $1.1 24 million. That's option 2. Option 2 would be not 25 54 55 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 using the surplus at all. This would leave us with a 1 factor of 30, so those are the options. The billing 2 and collection agent working group is going to present 3 their recommendation based on these options. Are 4 there any questions? 5 MR. ATKINSON: Thank you. So now we get to 6 decide. Jim Castagna, with the North American 7 Numbering Council Billing and Collection Working 8 Group, and that report will be Document No. 10. Jim. 9 MR. CASTAGNA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My 10 name is Jim Castagna with Verizon. Today, the billing 11 collection working group is going to recommend a 12 particular contribution factor. Just a quick summary 13 on the numbers, we're expecting that $6.8 million will 14 be required in the next fiscal year which was the same 15 which was required in the current fiscal year. 16 The difference is that last year we had a 17 $5.6 million surplus which was used to reduced the 18 contribution factor. This year we'll have a $2.2 19 million surplus which will of course require a higher 20 contribution factor, so with that let's go behind the 21 cover page to the first page. Of course the billing 22 collection working group consulted with Welch and 23 Company. We considered pANI Administration carrier 24 audits and PA contract RFP, among other items that are 25 55 56 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 on the budget that were described to you by Faith. 1 We discussed three different options which 2 are also shown on the billing collection agent's 3 report as Options 1, 2 and 3. We recognize that the 4 carrier obligations would be $6.8 million for the next 5 fiscal year, and that the $83,000 remaining dollars 6 required from NANP funding is to come from 7 international participants, and also that the 8 anticipated surplus is $2.2 million. 9 And the reason why we list that as 10 anticipated because until we get to the end of June, 11 we really won't know what the exact surplus is. If we 12 could turn the page, please? The billing collection 13 working group recommends that the council endorse 14 Option 1 which is calling for a contribution factor of 15 0.000020. 16 We would keep the contingency amount at $1 17 million. We would consume the entire projected 18 surplus of $2.2 million, and the net U. S. carrier 19 contributions would be $4.6 million to meet the U. S. 20 funding requirement of $6.8 million. 21 The rationale for that approach is that by 22 consuming the surplus each year, we provide a 23 contribution factor of long- term stability as compared 24 to letting the surplus accumulate. Of course, if we 25 56 57 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 let the surplus accumulate, eventually we'd have to 1 reconcile that surplus, and we would of course 2 experience a large swing in the contribution factor, 3 so by consuming this surplus each year, it seems that 4 we will have more of a consistent contribution factor 5 each year as well. 6 The $1 million contingency provides a 7 sufficient buffer as we've experienced last year, and 8 last year the factor was 0.0000052, and stakeholder 9 were informed to anticipate that the factor will 10 return to approximately 0.000025 in fiscal year 11 '06/ '07, so what we're proposing in Option 1 is 12 0.000020 which is approximately what we believed to be 13 a reasonable factor for this year based upon 14 information we had last year at the time of making 15 that forecast. Any questions so far? 16 Okay. What we did on the next slide is we 17 put together a little history of the contribution 18 factor. There were some changes in some of the fiscal 19 years, so there's two columns there. One is the 20 originally proposed factor, and the second column is 21 the final number so you could see where the 22 contribution factors stood in the prior years. 23 And at the bottom we have proposed Option 1 24 which shows a contribution factor of 0.020, so it 25 57 58 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 looks as though that we will be returning to nominal 1 contribution factor range of 0.020 next fiscal year, 2 and certainly if we continue to consume surplus if 3 surplus remains below $2 million and everything else 4 remains the same, we could probably expect a 5 contribution factor in the 0.025 range going forward. 6 Okay. On the next slide, the recommendation 7 is like an action item list. Here we're asking the 8 NANC to spend $6.8 million. Well, actually we all 9 expected that, but we're asking NANC to ask Welch and 10 Company to employ the approach described in Option 1 11 when preparing its FCC filing. 12 We're asking NANC to ask Welch and Company 13 to share the draft filing with the billing collection 14 working group prior to the filing due date, and that's 15 just a step that is used to review the filing before 16 they submit it so that a second set of eyes could take 17 a look at it, and this way all the NANC members need 18 not be concerned that they know the billing collection 19 working group is managing and monitoring the process 20 appropriately. 21 What we'd like NANC to ask Welch and Company 22 to do is to obtain the contribution base from NECA in 23 April to calculate the exact contribution factor. 24 Recognizing that the contribution base is used in 25 58 59 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 calculating the contribution factor, when they get the 1 final numbers from NECA, the anticipated contribution 2 factor may change, but it would take a lot, probably a 3 large change in the base for the contribution factor 4 to change. 5 So there might be differences in numbers 6 that you're seeing today on this presentation as well 7 as some of the numbers that were shown on Welch and 8 Company's presentation, just a heads up on that. And 9 also we asked NANC to ask Welch and Company to prepare 10 an FCC filing reflecting the contribution factor and 11 budgeted amounts corresponding to Option 1. 12 And of course the last item is there for 13 informational purposes. We don't try to direct the 14 FCC to do anything, but we're asking people to 15 recognize that the next step is for the FCC to direct 16 the agent to implement Option 1 for fiscal year 17 '06/ '07. Any questions? 18 MR. ATKINSON: I've got a couple just for 19 clarification. In sense by consuming the surplus, you 20 consume the million dollar contingency, but then you 21 budget a million dollar contingency, and I think 22 that's how I understand it mechanically. The specific 23 question I have though is there any possibility of in 24 a sense the cashflow such that the million dollars 25 59 60 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 isn't in fact available at any time in terms of the 1 outflow and the inflow 2 MR. CASTAGNA: Well, in my understanding of 3 the process, and I'll ask Faith to correct me if I'm 4 wrong, the million dollar contingency is going to be 5 available on the first month of the fiscal year, so 6 you'll always have a million dollars there. It's not 7 like we need to accrue excess monies during the fiscal 8 year to accrue the million dollars. 9 MR. ATKINSON: Yes. I mean, I think if 10 you're going to have a contingency, it needs to be 11 case. 12 MR. CASTAGNA: To be there from the start. 13 MR. ATKINSON: There needs to be cash 14 available at all times. Okay. My other questions go 15 to the timing here. Just working backwards, the FCC 16 issues an order with the contribution rate. Is the 17 XTANT order, does that terminate at any time, or does 18 the current rate of 0.52 continue until the FCC issues 19 an order? You know, I'm looking at a June date, and 20 that's kind of close. 21 MR. CASTAGNA: Well, my understanding of the 22 process is that when the billing collection agent 23 files for a contribution factor and budget, it's for a 24 particular fiscal year. And the process established 25 60 61 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 today is similar to that use last year in which would 1 involve Welch and Company submitting a filing which if 2 endorsed by the NANC today probably wouldn't cause any 3 concern in terms of the FCC's response. 4 Although I believe if there is no response 5 from the FCC that Welch and Company probably would not 6 be able to begin issuing bills for the new fiscal 7 year, and I would have to defer to Faith from Welch 8 and Company regarding the process if she didn't get a 9 response from the FCC. 10 MR. ATKINSON: Where is Faith? Do you have 11 any views on that, or do you recall what your limits 12 are in terms of direction? 13 (Away from microphone.) 14 MS. MARCOTTE: I don't (inaudible). 15 MR. ATKINSON: And you bill quarterly or 16 monthly? 17 MS. MARCOTTE: No. Most of them pay 18 annually. 19 MR. ATKINSON: Annually? Okay. 20 MS. MARCOTTE: They are not to pay until we 21 do in May. They (inaudible) do June or June 12, so we 22 need to get a response I guess (inaudible) early 23 (inaudible). 24 MR. ATKINSON: So you actually need to send 25 61 62 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 a bill out in May with the new contribution rate? 1 MS. MARCOTTE: That's right. 2 MR. ATKINSON: I'm sort of going through 3 this for the benefit of our new friends from the FCC 4 just so they understand some of the timeframes we're 5 working here. 6 MR. CASTAGNA: Well, theoretically though 7 the FCC authorizes payments, so even if a new 8 contribution factor wasn't approved, we have a $2.2 9 million surplus and the million dollar contingency 10 that would probably hold Welch and Company and the 11 industry through several months as FCC authorized 12 payments but did not approve any new collections. 13 MR. ATKINSON: Yes. I mean, hopefully we 14 can avoid all that and keep it smooth, but it's 15 important to think of that. 16 MS. RETKA: Mary Retka from Qwest. 17 Historically, this is the way it generally has gone is 18 that the agent sends in their filing to the FCC in 19 May, and during that timeframe the FCC responds in 20 time for them to do the billing. 21 Now, I know that, and, Michael, if you 22 remember differently, help me with this, that it 23 sometimes was right up to the wire to get the FCC 24 order, but they always made it in time for the billing 25 62 63 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 to be done, so historically when NBANC did and now 1 last year I don't think we should see a problem with 2 it. 3 MR. ATKINSON: But there is a tight window 4 here. 5 MS. RETKA: Yes. 6 MR. ATKINSON: Okay. That's really what I 7 want to emphasize as much of anything to the FCC 8 staff, otherwise when people don't get paid, things 9 get ugly, so that's my questions at this stage. Any 10 other questions? Anna? 11 MS. MILLER: Anna Miller, T- Mobile. Jim, I 12 think you just eased my mind a little bit because 13 there is an existing $2.2 million surplus that will be 14 depleted over time as this new contribution factor 15 comes in, and you said that the million will always be 16 there. But I guess the one unknown is the renewal of 17 the pooling administrator contract, and I just 18 wondered what type of discussion did you have about 19 that. 20 The assumption here is that it's at the same 21 rate, yet I heard in the pooling report that the pool 22 assignments were up over 47 percent in 2005 over 2004, 23 so was there discussion then about that unknown, and 24 do you feel comfortable given the surpluses that exist 25 63 64 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 that that can be accommodated? 1 MR. CASTAGNA: I'd have to say that although 2 I did miss a meeting, and I asked Rosemary to make up 3 for any discussion I wasn't aware of, the volume of 4 blocks was not to my knowledge discussed as much as 5 the context of the contract in terms of what we sensed 6 would be a competitive price given that there is an 7 expectation that other companies will be bidding. 8 The competitive environment will keep the 9 price at or below, however, with the million dollar 10 contingency and provisions we put in for the function 11 of the pANI administration we felt that and everyone 12 including Welch and Company who had discussed, you 13 know, the budget felt comfortable with the budget 14 considering the million dollar contingency was there. 15 Rosemary, do you have something to add, please? 16 MS. EMMER: Yes, and just that in fact this 17 did come up, Welch and Company brought this up when 18 they initially provided the budget and the options to 19 us, and it was definitely a discussion item, and again 20 everything that Jim said is absolutely true that we 21 ended up to deciding to keep it exactly the way it was 22 from last year, and we also did add the pANI. 23 If you noticed in the budget we added 24 something -- 150. Yes. For pANI without knowing what 25 64 65 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 that would be. We went ahead and put something in 1 there. Welch and Company went ahead and put something 2 in there for us. Thank you. 3 MR. CASTAGNA: And just one other point. 4 There is a box describing accrued liabilities, and 5 sometimes when you can't pay the heating bill, they 6 don't turn it off right away, so if we come up short 7 on funds, you know, we just pay when we have the 8 money. I mean, you can't pay if you don't have the 9 money. 10 FEMALE VOICE: Well, I don't think that 11 that's the management plan. 12 MR. ATKINSON: No. No, it isn't the 13 management plan, but I just wanted to point out that 14 there is such an entry as accrued liabilities. John? 15 MR. JEFFERSON: Yes. John Jefferson, AT& T. 16 We went through this exercise last year as well. We 17 had a surplus, right? Or is this the first? 18 MR. CASTAGNA: Last year we had a 19 significant surplus. It was over $5 million. 20 MR. JEFFERSON: Right. Okay. So I was just 21 curious. Had some thought gone into the year after a 22 surplus year would be a good year to start paying into 23 this, and entities that have been paying into this 24 fund in prior years now that have created the surplus 25 65 66 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 lower the contribution rate for everyone in this 1 succeeding year, and I was just wondering if some 2 thought had gone into how that works? 3 I'm not informed enough to know if there are 4 new entrants coming in paying this year into this, but 5 I just looked at the numbers and thought I'd ask that 6 question. 7 MR. CASTAGNA: We considered a similar issue 8 of character when it comes to paying, who pays, who 9 paid, who should be paying last year, when we had the 10 significant surplus, and at the time there was a 11 discussion regarding how difficult or almost 12 impossible and inaccurate it would be to try to go 13 back to see who contributed and who should be entitled 14 to a refund. 15 The cost and the effort and considering the 16 complexity of that process and the risk of not being 17 accurate was too great to consider pursuing that 18 approach. However, we did not consider that type of 19 analysis this year because this is a forward- looking 20 budget in terms of what we intend to spend next year, 21 and there is no annual reconciliation, what was paid 22 and what should have been paid because the 23 contribution factor is established for each fiscal 24 year. 25 66 67 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 So if you're a telecommunications provider, 1 and you need to participate and contribute your fair 2 share, it's based on the contribution factor related 3 to the year that you're in service and using NANPs or 4 NANP numbers, so with that type of philosophy it's not 5 something where we always go back to see, you know, 6 was there anything that should have or could have been 7 done when there is a surplus. 8 MR. JEFFERSON: And just a quick follow- up 9 to that, and I might be missing the boat here, and 10 this might have already been explained, but is there 11 any thought to using the contingency or some monies, 12 and it might be the purpose of the contingency so that 13 you can cut it a little closer so then instead of 14 getting a surplus you might run a deficit, but you 15 have a way to account for that if anything? Kind of 16 like doing your taxes. Your goal is to get to zero at 17 the end of the year. 18 MR. CASTAGNA: Well, we don't have anything 19 that we are aware of that may use contingency month. 20 MR. ATKINSON: Well, no. We do. We have 21 two unknowns which is the new PA rate and the pANI 22 rate. I mean, those are just plug numbers at this 23 stage, and you just don't know what they're going to 24 be. 25 67 68 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 MR. CASTAGNA: Yes. Maybe I should have 1 rephrased that. If we have an anticipated 2 expenditure, we would put that as a budget item, but 3 we don't have any specificity or details that would 4 warrant a specific individual budget item, and 5 therefore what I'm trying to say is that unless we 6 have details or specific information that we could use 7 to adjust the budgeted item or create a new budget 8 item, we can't do that, and therefore the contingency 9 is there in case we need money. 10 But there's nothing that we know, you know, 11 we'll consume a contingency. We know that any of the 12 budgeted line items may be insufficient and require 13 the use of contingency, but there are no plans to use 14 the contingency unless something unexpected happens. 15 MR. ATKINSON: For example, I mean the FCC 16 could decide to do a whole bunch more audits, right? 17 MR. CASTAGNA: That's correct. 18 MR. ATKINSON: Mary? 19 MS. RETKA: Mary Retka from Qwest. What you 20 have to remember though is you have to go based on the 21 historic experience and can't run in the black, so you 22 have to have a contingency, and that was one of the 23 requirements that came out is that you can't run in 24 the black when you're doing this effort, and then you 25 68 69 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 have to remember that when we've previously seen the 1 second round of a contract, they've come in lower. 2 In fact, much lower, that's why we had such 3 a big surplus the last time that had to be dealt with. 4 Do you want to add anything Michael? 5 (Away from microphone.) 6 MR. WHALEY: Just to (inaudible) not being 7 able to (inaudible) pass the torch to each generation. 8 Perhaps the issues of having a surplus which is a 9 pleasant problem to have are in part due to the legal 10 reality that this fund can't borrow. So it really 11 does have to fund on a going- forward basis, and to the 12 question about trying to somehow track benefits to 13 prior payors, we're really dealing in one sense with 14 an accrual issue. 15 The budgets are put together each year 16 knowing what the contract terms are going to be, and 17 sometimes to the vendors' disappointment, the FCC 18 doesn't necessarily approve the payments in time, and 19 it becomes an accrual matter, to much of the money 20 that was collected last year was for the services 21 rendered last year, but may not have been paid and is 22 carried over. Every year there's a slightly different 23 mix of accrual issues. That timing also complicates 24 the budget presentation. 25 69 70 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 MR. ATKINSON: John? 1 MR. JEFFERSON: John Jefferson, AT& T. Yes. 2 It's indeed a cruel world. I had to get that one in. 3 Accounting 101 joke. Okay. So if we talk surplus 4 though, now I'm starting to understand this 5 contingency as a million dollar surplus in a sense 6 already. Is that the wrong way to look at it? 7 Because if it is, then maybe we could work toward 8 getting it so that if we have any cushion at all, it's 9 just going to be to contingency. 10 But going over, and obviously it's a goal of 11 the working group, too, but I just wanted to make it 12 clear that that's how I'm thinking about it now that 13 we've got two years in a row of surplus that maybe 14 we're overcorrecting based on the accruals and other 15 things that we anticipate might impact any given 16 budget year. 17 MR. CASTAGNA: The contingency is the only 18 monies that are there in case we need them. It really 19 can't be considered surplus if we keep it there year 20 over year. The contingency is set to $1 million. 21 Even with that million dollars we have an additional 22 anticipated surplus of $2.2 million. So by keeping 23 the million dollar cushion and consuming the surplus 24 as recommended in Option 1, we believe we have a 25 70 71 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 viable budget, and something that's going to keep us, 1 you know, in the black until next fiscal year. 2 As far as trying to tweak, you know, the 3 budget for the pooling administration, I think it 4 would probably send the wrong signal to the industry 5 who's competing for that contract to up the number and 6 give them the impression that we want to spend more 7 money or maybe even to lower the number because then 8 that might, you know, force us into a situation where 9 we needed to consume more money than anticipated. 10 So by leaving it where it is, we send no 11 signal at all, so there is other reasons also for 12 doing that, but I think the best reason was is because 13 we believe that that number would be the most 14 appropriate number given what we anticipate happening 15 next year including the re- bid and pANI administration 16 and audits and all that other stuff that goes into the 17 budget. 18 MR. ATKINSON: Any other questions? If not, 19 we've got a couple of items on the table here, so 20 we've been asked for two decisions at the NANC level. 21 First is to ask Welch and Co. to employ the approach 22 described in Option 1 when preparing the FCC filing. 23 Any objections? So Welch we're on board with 24 Option 1. 25 71 72 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 And then the second one is to ask Welch and 1 Co. to share the draft filing with the billing 2 collection working group prior to the filing due date, 3 and implicit in that is essentially that NANC is 4 giving the billing collection working group authority 5 just to sort of oversee the preparation of that 6 document. Any objections? So, Welch, we in fact 7 share that, and then of course there's these other 8 items to Welch. 9 Now, I guess the only point I would make is 10 the sooner the better in terms of the filing. What is 11 the date in April that you would be getting the input 12 from NECA? Any idea? 13 (Away from microphone.) 14 FEMALE VOICE: (Inaudible) use that. 15 MR. ATKINSON: Use that? 16 FEMALE VOICE: And it's at the end -- 17 MR. ATKINSON: End of April. 18 FEMALE VOICE: Here are some of the reports 19 (inaudible). 20 MR. ATKINSON: I'll leave it up to maybe the 21 billing collection working group and Welch together. 22 I don't know if there's any way even to send in a 23 filing to the FCC and then amend it if necessarily 24 just to try to speed things along, or maybe that will 25 72 73 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 confuse things at the FCC. I don't know. I mean, to 1 have two filings. Rosemary? 2 MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer with Sprint 3 Nextel, and we are working with Welch on that. We did 4 develop sort of a draft timeline, and we have 5 conference calls scheduled, so as soon as we can get 6 to that. We're definitely tracking it in other words. 7 I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank Welch 8 and Company for an outstanding job in preparing and 9 delivering the proposed budget as well as the options 10 for the contribution factor. 11 They made our lives as B& C working group co- 12 chairs and the members extremely easy this year by 13 going over those line by line and having all of the 14 right people on the phone. That includes Faith, 15 Heather and Garth, and they just did an excellent job. 16 Thank you very much. 17 MR. ATKINSON: Duly noted. So the only 18 other item then -- I mean, the only thing I see out of 19 all this is we do have a potential timing problem. We 20 need to get a filing to the FCC as soon as possible, 21 and then we need the FCC to act on that promptly so 22 that the bills can go out. 23 I'm thinking if they're not going to get 24 this USAC data until the end of April, a couple of 25 73 74 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 days, even if you could get the filing to the FCC by 1 the 1st of May, the chances of getting a decision -- 2 when do you send out the bills, Faith? 3 MS. MARCOTTE: Around the 20th of May. 4 MR. ATKINSON: What happens if you don't get 5 an FCC approval by the 20th of May? What do you do? 6 MS. MARCOTTE: Send them out later. 7 MR. ATKINSON: Send them out later. Okay. 8 And at what point does that become a cashflow problem? 9 A few months because we've got a million dollars 10 sitting in the bank? 11 FEMALE VOICE: We've got 2.2. 12 MALE VOICE: We've got $3 million. 13 MR. ATKINSON: Yes. Okay. Well, I mean 14 everyone understands the realities, so let's hope that 15 the scheduling works out. Anything else for Jim? 16 MR. CASTAGNA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 17 MR. ATKINSON: Thank you. The next item on 18 our agenda is reports from the issues management 19 group. The only one that I am aware of will be the 20 operating manual, and I would suggest to our folks 21 from the policy division everything you in theory need 22 to know about NANC, how it works, is in here. 23 In fact, this operating manual was developed 24 for new members, but I think it would equally go well 25 74 75 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 for people at the FCC who are jumping into the middle 1 of NANC, so, Rosemary, do you have anything to add, 2 otherwise this is my end. 3 MS. EMMER: Yes. It now belongs to you, Mr. 4 Chairman, for update. 5 MR. ATKINSON: I am now the custodian of the 6 operating manual Version 1. I did note a couple of 7 things. I'll even want to just update myself, and 8 eventually I'll issue a Rev. 1.1, but unless anyone 9 has any other comments, I'd like to thank the IMG for 10 a great piece of work. And I think I would actually 11 ask the FCC staff if you look through this, and if 12 there are other things in here that you need to know, 13 or if it doesn't answer your questions about how NANC 14 is working, let us know, and we'll expand it because 15 any new NANC member, and we will have new members 16 periodically. I just hope we will help them figure 17 out what goes on here, so thank you, Rosemary, and the 18 IMG, and the final document, their report would be 19 Document No. 11. 20 That gets us to Agenda Item 10, report of 21 the Local Number Portability Administration, and whose 22 giving that report? That would be Gary Sacra. Gary's 23 report is Document 12. 24 MR. SACRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good 25 75 76 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 morning, everyone. The first item on the report 1 relates to NPAC Software Release 3.3. Some good news 2 there. Release 3.3 was successfully loaded in the 3 West Coast regional impact this past February 26. 4 It's running smoothly. No issues identified to date, 5 and the remaining production load dates are continuing 6 to be on schedule. 7 After about a one- month SOA period for the 8 first region, Release 3.3. will be loaded in the 9 southeast and western regions on March 26, the 10 northeast and midwest regions on April 2, and then 11 we'll finish up in the mid- Atlantic and the southwest 12 and the impact test there on April 9. 13 An update on the disaster preparation 14 subteam of the LNPA working group and the final report 15 on out of LATA porting and pooling for disaster relief 16 in response to Hurricane Katrina. We have moved up 17 our scheduled completion date for the final report in 18 response to their -- to meet the needs of the FCC's 19 Katrina panel who had requested that the final report 20 if possible be completed by May 1. 21 We've moved up our date to mid- April in 22 order to be able to present it or submit it to the 23 NANC and the NANPM LLC and give the council a couple 24 of weeks to be able to read through the report in 25 76 77 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 order to then submit it to the Katrina panel. 1 MR. ATKINSON: Let me suggest just so the 2 Katrina panel gets it as soon as possible that we 3 could probably adopt that even by some sort of 4 electronic means from NANC. I mean, giving it NANC 5 approval. 6 MR. SACRA: Right. Because there won't be 7 another NANC meeting prior to -- 8 MR. ATKINSON: Yes. Our next NANC meeting 9 is middle of May. 10 MR. SACRA: Right. 11 MR. ATKINSON: So as soon as it's ready, 12 launch it, send it around to NANC and if necessary we 13 can have a quick conference call or something like 14 that, and there may be another reason to have a 15 conference call between now and May anyway. 16 MR. SACRA: Okay. That will work fine. 17 MR. ATKINSON: Thanks. 18 MR. SACRA: And I believe it was the 19 November 30 meeting. There was some discussion 20 surrounding how many numbers were actually ported or 21 pooled across LATA boundaries, and again this is not 22 the official number since the report has not been 23 completely finalized yet, but unofficially and subject 24 to change upon final review. 25 77 78 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 Based on input from service providers that 1 did port or pool numbers across LATA boundaries in 2 response to Hurricane Katrina, it appears that 3 somewhere in the vicinity of a quarter million numbers 4 were moved across LATA boundaries, and these are 5 working numbers, customer- assigned numbers. 6 Approximately, a quarter of a million were either 7 ported or pooled across LATA boundaries to provide 8 some portion of service to those impacted customers. 9 Again, that number will be further reviewed 10 and finalized per the completed report. Any questions 11 on that? We're shooting for around April 15 to not 12 only get our taxes in, but also get the report to the 13 NANC, so no particular priority order there. 14 The next item is the NANC change order 15 requirements update. Again, the LNP working group is 16 blowing the dust off literally on the accepted change 17 orders that remain in the pool of change orders. 18 We're going through those change orders. The service 19 provider is the first step, developed a level of 20 interest for each of the change orders. Some were 21 eliminated. Some we decided to continue to move 22 forward and develop the technical requirements, so 23 that's where we're at right now. 24 We're in the process of continuing to either 25 78 79 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 review the existing requirements -- some of the change 1 orders we had already developed requirements for 2 months ago. Some still require the development of the 3 technical requirements, so we're in the process now of 4 going through those accepted change orders and make 5 sure that the requirements are developed. 6 And then at some point in time there will be 7 a decision point in our process to determine whether 8 or not there's enough interest in the change orders to 9 perhaps start to develop a software release package, 10 but again that process or that point in the process is 11 down the road a ways. 12 Okay. The final portion of the report is 13 the PIMs. I just wanted to highlight that we have 14 closed a number of PIMs as a result of the successful 15 Release 3.3 load in the West Coast region. Those are 16 PIM 22, PIM 36 and PIM 38. Those PIMs were addressed 17 by change orders that were in Release 3.3, so we had 18 been tracking those PIMs until Release 3.3 was loaded. 19 Now, that it has been successfully loaded in 20 the West Coast, and testing has proved that those 21 change orders do address those issues, we decided to 22 close those PIMs. PIM 28 was also closed. Again, 23 this was a PIM that was addressed by a software change 24 in the wireless carrier interface specification 25 79 80 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 guidelines of what's known as the WCUS guidelines. 1 Those are guidelines for the intercarrier 2 communication processes between wireless carriers and 3 also it involves wireline to wireless and wireless to 4 wireline porting as well, so that particular PIM was 5 successfully addressed with this Release 3.3 which has 6 now been implemented, and just to finish up the PIM 7 report, there was a new PIM accepted at last week's 8 LNPA working group meeting. It was a PIM submitted by 9 Verizon Wireless. 10 Again, it has been accepted by the group for 11 working within the LNPA. The PIM seeks to address 12 instances of providers who have in some cases have 13 been taking numbers back that it ported out from them 14 because they had no evidence that they had submitted a 15 firm order confirmation to the provider that had that 16 ported in number. 17 In one instance that was discussed during 18 last week's meeting was actually two years after the 19 number had ported, a provider took that number back, 20 ported it back because they did not have evidence in 21 their systems that they had ever issued a firm order 22 confirmation. And obviously when that happens, the 23 customer is taken out of service. So that PIM was 24 just submitted at least week's meeting, we've accepted 25 80 81 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 it, we'll be working on that in the upcoming meetings. 1 Right now it looks like we will be at the 2 very least including something in the LNP working 3 group's number portability best practices document to 4 address this particular issue. Questions on the PIMs? 5 I heard the discussion, the gentleman from 6 California asked the question about I guess unassigned 7 number porting. I don't have any personal knowledge 8 of anything in MPA 310, but just my recollection there 9 was an initiative a number of years back to determine 10 the feasibility of unassigned number porting to move 11 unassigned numbers from carrier to carrier to populate 12 their inventory, and my recollection was that the 13 project was I guess -- the decision was not to move 14 forward with that. 15 I know there were some issues. Some 16 providers had problems with porting unassigned numbers 17 that weren't associated with specific customers 18 because at least in their systems the only way to 19 guarantee that a particular number was not assigned 20 either to another customer or as a working telephone 21 number or as a billing number, the only way to 22 guarantee that was to run it completely through their 23 service order system. And in order to do that, they 24 had to have a customer associated with that number. 25 81 82 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 That was the input from a number of 1 providers, so what was called the unassigned number 2 porting project I believe as an industry was put on 3 hold, but I don't know any of the specifics about 4 anything that's taken place in 310. 5 MR. ATKINSON: Jerome? 6 MR. CANDELARIA: Jerome Candelaria, NCTA. 7 Thank you very much for that background, and because 8 many industry segments had pressed for UNP and the FCC 9 had considered this issue as well as NANC, I'd 10 appreciate that if this matter does come up again 11 before your working group, you know, that we'll hear 12 about it here. 13 MR. SACRA: You certainly will if it does 14 come up. 15 MR. CANDELARIA: Great. 16 MR. ATKINSON: Any other questions? Thank 17 you, Gary. 18 MR. SACRA: Thank you very much, everybody. 19 MR. ATKINSON: Just housekeeping. My 20 assumption is that we can get everything concluded 21 here by about 12: 30, so unless anybody really wants to 22 take the lunch break at 12: 00 and come back, I think 23 we should plow ahead and try to get finished by, let's 24 say, 12: 30. So, folks, is that okay for you back 25 82 83 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 there in the sound booth? Okay. So let's plow ahead. 1 Next report will be from the Numbering Oversight 2 Working Group, the NOWG, and this would be Karen. 3 MS. RIEPENKROGER: I'm Karen Riepenkroger. 4 I'm one of the chairs of the NOWG along with Rosemary 5 Emmer and Natalie McNamer, and Rosemary is with Sprint 6 Nextel, and Natalie is with T- Mobile. 7 MR. ATKINSON: Thank you, and is this your 8 first time presenting here? 9 MS. RIEPENKROGER: I did this one other 10 time. 11 MR. ATKINSON: One other time. Okay. 12 MS. RIEPENKROGER: So if I seem a little 13 nervous, I might be. 14 MR. ATKINSON: No. We're a friendly group. 15 Karen's report will be Document No. 13. 16 MS. RIEPENKROGER: Today we're going to 17 cover NeuStar. We had a NeuStar 5- percent or greater 18 shareholder certification and NOWG's response. We'll 19 review the status of the NANPA and the PA 2005 20 performance evaluation survey status. We'll also 21 review the NANPA/ PA 2005 survey proposed timeline, and 22 we'll show you our March 2006 meeting schedule. 23 Go to Slide 3. On February 22, NeuStar 24 notified the Wireline Competition Bureau FCC via 25 83 84 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 letter regarding a shareholder, Alliance Capital 1 Management, of owning 5 percent or more NeuStar 2 equity, and the Commission requires any entity owning 3 five percent or more of NeuStar equity to certify to 4 NeuStar that it is not a telecommunications service 5 provider or affiliate, and the certification was 6 attached to the letter. 7 Chairman Atkinson directed the NOWG to 8 consider this notification on behalf of the NANC, and 9 the NOWG was tasked with providing feedback to the 10 NANC during the March 2006 meeting of any issues or 11 concerns regarding the contents of this notification. 12 The NOWG met and discussed this notice and 13 has no known issues or concerns regarding the 14 neutrality of the shareholder change. This decision 15 is premised on the assumption that the other 16 investments held in Alliance Capital's portfolios are 17 in keeping with FCC neutrality policies. Are there 18 any questions? 19 Next slide. Slide 4, status of the NANPA 20 and the PA 2005 performance evaluation surveys. The 21 survey process was initiated on schedule. January 3, 22 2006, and the surveys have been sent to the NANC 23 distro (phonetic). The PA and the NANPA have sent 24 exploder emails, notifications, and the surveys have 25 84 85 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 been posted to the NANPA and the PA website as well as 1 the NANC chair website, and the survey due date 2 response was February 28, and the date has been 3 extended to March 17. 4 And I do want to note that throughout the 5 course since January, the NANPA and the PA have sent 6 out several notifications, and each time that they 7 have sent out a notification, we have received 8 responses, so it seems to trigger people's minds that 9 hey I really do need to respond, and so we found that 10 the notifications, the interim notifications that the 11 PA and the NANPA did for us were extremely beneficial. 12 Any questions? 13 MR. ATKINSON: When we extended the date, 14 that was what? February 27, or at least we decided to 15 do that, and the numbers were looking kind of mediocre 16 two and a half weeks ago, and is there any update on 17 the responses? 18 MS. RIEPENKROGER: Yes, I can. For the 19 NANPA to date we have -- I'll just kind of break it 20 down for you. Twenty- two state commissions have 21 responded with a NANPA survey, 31 service providers 22 have responded, and we had one individual other than a 23 service provider commission respond, and for the PA to 24 date we have 63 service providers have responded, 26 25 85 86 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 state commissions have responded, and we had one other 1 individual response for the PA. 2 MR. ATKINSON: That's a reasonable update in 3 two and a half weeks. I guess so we got three more 4 days? 5 MS. RIEPENKROGER: Right. And I compared it 6 to 2004. It just maybe a little more information than 7 you want, but compared to 2005 I guess the survey -- 8 we're just pretty much on target. For the NANPA we 9 had 68 surveys total combined, and the for the PA we 10 had 97, so today we're standing at 90 for the PA and 11 54 for the NANPA. 12 MR. ATKINSON: Okay. Well, if anybody 13 hasn't sent their survey in, please do. I would 14 expect everybody around this table. If any NANC 15 member hasn't sent in their survey, instead of going 16 from positive reinforcement, we'll go to negative 17 reinforcement. 18 MS. RIEPENKROGER: I will note that there's 19 been some surveys that we have received that they just 20 send a blank survey. So the chairs have sent them 21 back out to the people to ask them to say you send us 22 the wrong form, so we're endeavoring to try to get as 23 many responses as we can get for the surveys. 24 MR. ATKINSON: All right. 25 86 87 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 MS. RIEPENKROGER: Is there any other 1 questions on the surveys? The next slide is our 2 performance evaluation proposed schedule. We're 3 meeting with week with -- no. Let me take a step 4 back. The NANPA and the PA surveys are due on Friday, 5 March 17. That's St. Patrick's Day, so everybody 6 please be sure to get them in on time. We are meeting 7 this week with the NANPA for our annual operational 8 review, and that's on March 15 and 16. 9 We'll be going out to the PA's offices in 10 Concord, California, to do the operational review on 11 April 4 and 5. We will be meeting in Denver April 18 12 to the 20 to prepare the NANPA and the PA performance 13 reports, and on May 3 we will be meeting with the FCC, 14 the NANPA and the PA here in Washington, D. C. to share 15 the preliminary results. Are there any questions? 16 Yes, Rosemary? 17 MS. EMMER: Rosemary Emmer with Sprint 18 Nextel, and I should have changed the slide. The date 19 for May 3 is no longer tentative with the FCC. We 20 were able to get that date in stone, and we're working 21 with the PA and NANPA on the times now. 22 MS. RIEPENKROGER: Thank you. And I should 23 have mentioned that. Any other questions? The last 24 slide is just our activity for March, and it's pretty 25 87 88 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 much we're going to do the NANPA operational review on 1 the 15th and 16th. Our standing monthly call with 2 NANPA will be moved to March 28, and the PA standing 3 agenda with the NOWG is on March 30. 4 MR. ATKINSON: Anything else? That wasn't 5 so bad. 6 MS. RIEPENKROGER: Thank you very much. I 7 was fine. 8 MR. ATKINSON: The last of our working group 9 reports, future of numbering, Karen Mulberry, and we 10 do not have any documents for discussion on this 11 agenda item, but hopefully the FoN can get going on 12 some new projects. 13 MS. MULBERRY: I seem to say good morning 14 for the last five minutes of the morning. I'm Karen 15 Mulberry. I'm with Verizon, and I am one of the co- 16 chairs of the pANI IMGs, so I'll address that first. 17 I wanted to let you know that the pANI IMG has 18 completed its work. 19 It has prepared a report and recommendations 20 for the NANC on permanent pANI administration, and I 21 will let Bob address the process that's going to go 22 forward with that report. And then secondly for the 23 future of numbering working group, we've been on 24 hiatus since we've been focusing most of our energies 25 88 89 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 on the pANI work. Some time between now and the end 1 of the month, Hoke and I will send out an announcement 2 for a conference call. The FoN is going to start 3 meeting again. 4 One, we need to elect a new co- chair because 5 Hoke is going to be transitioning off into other 6 items, so we'll have an agenda out and let everyone 7 know to think about whether they want to take on the 8 mantle of co- chair, the FoN or not, and that's all I 9 have to report. 10 MR. ATKINSON: Good. And remember, the FoN 11 was established it seems like probably even close to a 12 year ago for the purpose of trying to get ahead of new 13 developments and has been consumed in putting out 14 fires. 15 If you remember the Navy RFP, this pANI 16 issue, a couple of other things. So hopefully now 17 they finished the firefighting and can actually sit 18 back and think about the future of numbering and 19 issues that are a little further but that need some 20 thoughtful advance work. So I look forward to the 21 future of numbering working group actually getting 22 down to contemplating the real future of this and look 23 forward to that. 24 MS. MULBERRY: We had started to prepare a 25 89 90 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 draft report, and it kept track of the numerous items 1 that have come up since last year that you have kicked 2 our way that we haven't addressed yet. So we have a 3 list of things that need to be addressed once the FoN 4 starts to even begin. 5 MR. ATKINSON: All right. Thank you very 6 much. 7 MS. MULBERRY: Okay. 8 MR. ATKINSON: And we'll probably have a 9 conference call and maybe, you know, sometime between 10 now and the next meeting we can do this LNPA working 11 group things, maybe the pANI thing and a couple of 12 other things, so we'll let you know on that. Let me 13 ask just from a housekeeping point of view. I don't 14 think we had any special presentations. Rosemary? 15 MS. EMMER: I'm sorry, Chairman. Rosemary 16 Emmer, Sprint Nextel. I was waiting for the pANI 17 report, and I don't understand what happened to the 18 pANI report. You might have just said it, and I was 19 zoning out. 20 MR. ATKINSON: Right at the beginning of the 21 meeting I said we wouldn't be discussing that today. 22 It's not yet ripe for discussion in terms of some 23 other issues going on, so we put that off, and my 24 expectation we'll do a conference call or something 25 90 91 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 like that. I don't know exactly when. 1 MS. EMMER: So we're not planning on waiting 2 for the next meeting? 3 MR. ATKINSON: I'd like to push ahead with 4 that as soon as we can, and I'll let you know when we 5 can. 6 MS. EMMER: Okay. I just wanted to make 7 sure that I reiterate to everyone on the team that 8 this is extremely important from Sprint Nextel's 9 position as well as I'm sure many other companies, and 10 we were really looking forward to hearing the pANI 11 report this afternoon and maybe coming to consensus on 12 that. So anything you could do to speed that up 13 before the next meeting, we'd be greatly appreciative. 14 Thank you. 15 MR. ATKINSON: Thank you for that comment. 16 I will do my best. Thank you. I don't think we had 17 any special presentations scheduled, at least none 18 that I was aware of, correct? Good. So that takes 19 care of 13. We have an updated list of NANC 20 accomplishments. Thank you, Debbie, for doing that. 21 Debbie's list here will be Document No. 14, and if 22 anyone notes any additional items that are not on this 23 list, let us know. 24 Summary of action assignments, Item No. 15. 25 91 92 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 I have two. First, is for INC to address the 1 guidelines or review the guideline's language to 2 resolve Don Gray's concerns. There was NANC consensus 3 on that in terms of the substance, and as an action 4 assignment for the chair to follow up on the INC 407 5 resolution. I don't have any others. Did anybody 6 else take any action assignments or anybody volunteer 7 for one that I didn't get? Members of the 8 public? Anybody from the public? Microphone is up 9 here. No public comments. Is there any other 10 business? Mr. Gray? 11 MR. GRAY: Don Gray, Nebraska. I just 12 wanted to give you an update to an earlier comment. I 13 can now officially tell you that the Nebraska Public 14 Service Commission has issued an order for mandatory 15 pooling in those rate centers in which the incumbent 16 carrier is currently Altel, Qwest or Frontier who have 17 been working very closely with us in voluntary 18 pooling, and working with us to conserve that life. 19 We have also issued the orders that all 20 carriers in those 155 rate centers in the next 45 days 21 will review their inventories, and donate those blocks 22 that meets the criteria for pooling, and the third 23 part is that we will have a hearing on the 9th of May 24 to address the 95 remaining rate centers that have 25 92 93 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 rural carriers involved to determine an appropriate 1 timeline, steps and progression to take in taking 2 those rate centers to mandatory pooling. 3 MR. ATKINSON: Nebraska leads the country. 4 Anna? 5 MS. MILLER: Anna Miller with T- Mobile. 6 Just on your action item list, just a couple of 7 follow- ups. There was the issue of the Katrina report 8 that we were going to review. 9 MR. ATKINSON: Yes. 10 MS. MILLER: So is it going to be a 11 conference call to address the -- are you going to do 12 that electronically? 13 MR. ATKINSON: Well, I think documents will 14 be distributed electronically, and then we'll have I 15 think a conference call definitely as soon as I think 16 in a sense -- well I can imagine two things that we 17 might be discussing. Hopefully, the schedules will 18 come together so we only have to have one call between 19 LNPA -- 20 MS. MILLER: Okay. So potentially we can 21 have a conference call to talk about the pANI report 22 and also the Katrina report? 23 MR. ATKINSON: Right. Ideally, it will be 24 one, but it could be two. Anything else? All right. 25 93 94 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 So our next meeting will be on Tuesday, May 16. My 1 co- chair may in fact be running that meeting. I have 2 to catch a plane to Italy that afternoon. 3 Depending on the weather forecast, I may be 4 here or may not be here because leaving here and 5 getting back to New York and getting to the airport 6 could strain my marriage, probably. And if I miss 7 that plane -- anyway, so if I don't see you in May, 8 I'll see you in July, and maybe I'll be here in May, 9 and maybe I'll sneak out early. Would that be okay? 10 MR. GOLDBERG: That would be fine with me. 11 MR. ATKINSON: All right. So until then we 12 are adjourned. Thanks very much. 13 (Whereupon, the meeting in the 14 above- entitled matter was concluded.) North 15 American Numbering Council 16 Meeting of 17 March 14, 2006 18 ACTION ITEMS 19 20 1. CHAIR: 21 Determine status of follow- up letter sent to FCC 22 re: Status of INC 407 issue (sent to the FCC in 23 February 2005) 24 25 94 95 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 2. INC: 1 Review and if necessary amend NRUF Guidelines to 2 resolve NANC concerns regarding reporting by 3 rural carriers in light of the FCC decision 4 delegating authority to States (ref: submission 5 by Don Gray of the Nebraska PSC) 6 7 95