NANPA / NOWG MEETING MINUTES
March 25, 2011
Contents
Attendees 1
Process Improvement Plan (PIP) Review 1
Monthly Operational Report (MOR) 1
NANPAComplaints 2
NANP Administration System (NAS) 2
CO Code Administration 3
Other NANPA Resource Administration 4
Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecasting (NRUF) 4
NPA Relief Planning 5
INC Activities 5
Number Administration Activities/Events/Projects 5
Action Item Review 6
Open Discussion 6
Next Meeting 6
Attendees
NOWG / NANPAJan Doell - Qwest
Paula Hustead – Windstream
Natalie McNamer – T-Mobile
Karen Riepenkroger - Sprint
Rita Schmitz – CenturyLink
Laura Dalton – Verizon
Gwen Zahn – Verizon Wireless / Al Cipparone
Joe Cocke
Nancy Fears
Tom Foley
John Manning
Wayne Milby
Beth Sprague
Process Improvement Plan (PIP) Review
· Review Existing PIP Status Report – The NANPA noted they have not added any new information since the last time the NANPA met with the NOWG.
· Areas Under Consideration for PIP Treatment - none
Monthly Operational Report (MOR)
· Highlights of monthly activities – Items in red and bolded are new as of the last MOR document. Items in red and not bolded have previously been reviewed with the NOWG.
Summary of new items:
NANPA Code Administrator education/training –
o 2/11 – Code administration staff attended BIRRDS AOCN training conducted by Telcordia.
Interaction with state commissions concerning NPA relief planning process and/or ongoing relief projects. –
o 2/11 – Assisted PA PUC staff by calculating lives for ‘what if’ modifications to NPA split boundary ordered for PA 814 NPA relief.
o 2/11 – Delta NRUF published revising the exhaust projection for the PA 814 NPA from 1Q2013 to 1Q2015 due to a decrease in central office code demand.
o 2/11 - Provided the MO PSC copy of FAQs on NPA Relief Planning
o 2/11 – Held discussions with WUTC staff on various NPA relief scenarios for suspended 360 NPA overlay.
o 3/11 – Provided the MO PSC copy of the INC Relief Planning GLs.
o 3/11 – Discussed with the WUTC staff potential impacts of splits and overlays in WA, provided copies of industry’s Pros and Cons on splits and overlays and industry’s technical milestones spreadsheet for implementation of overlays.
o 3/11 – Participated in the CA 408 NPA local jurisdiction and public meetings in cities of San Jose, Los Gatos and Morgan Hill.
· NRUF education/training and other NRUF activities
o 3/11 – Missing Utilization notifications sent to SPs who filed for some, but not all, of the CO codes in their inventories.
· NANPA feedback and initiatives
o NANPA responded to 34 NANPA feedback emails from 2/1/11 through 2/28/11.
· INC activities
o Issue 707 - Need to remove all abandoned code records from NPAC prior to transfer was accepted at INC 116.
o Issue 708 - Inclusion of a definition of Trunk Access in the Carrier Identification Code (CIC) Assignment Guidelines was accepted at INC 116.
Details:
NANPAComplaints
· New Complaints Received- no complaints to report
· Status of Existing Complaints – no existing complaints on which to report
NANP Administration System (NAS)
· Metrics/Benchmarks – Please see the “NANP Administration System (NAS)” section of the MOR document embedded above for metrics information.
· Change Order Status – no open change orders on which to report
· New/Ongoing Development Activities- Please see the “NANP Administration System (NAS)” section of the MOR document embedded above for information.
· Client Usage/Difficulties Reported/Observed - John reviewed the following tickets:
o On January 17, 2011, a user contacted NANPA and indicated that she had tried for two weeks to access NAS and submit an on-line NRUF Form 502. With each attempt, during the process of submitting NRUF information, the system stopped responding. The user indicated that she had tried different computers in her office and each experienced the same issue. The user noted she could browse other websites and not experience this issue. A ticket was open on January 17, 2011 at 10:09pm ET. The NAS user provided an update on January 24, 2011 at 1:45 pm ET stating "I hadn’t had to use the site this week. I did have my I.T. guys look into this and they asked me to use your site on a different browser and they extended the time out setting in hopes that it would quit timing out. They think the site might be taking an abnormally amount of time to open or search and the browser itself was timing out? I’ll let you know when I use it again.” NANPA contacted the user on 3/21/11 to see if the problem was still occurring. The user responded that it was not. The ticket was closed on 3/21/11 at 1:00pm ET.
o On March 9, 2011, two external users contacted NANPA concerning a Part 4 reminder notice each had received for a code in which the user had previously submitted a Part 4. An investigation revealed the Part 4s in question had been received on January 3, 2011, a time frame in which the NAS/PAS interface was experiencing a technical problem. This problem was corrected on January 3, 2011 but those Part 4s submitted from December 29, 2010 to January 3, 2011 were not pushed to NAS. As such, NAS had no record of the submitted Part 4 and thus sent the reminder notices. On March 9, the submitted Part 4s from this time interval were pushed to NAS. The ticket was open on March 9, 2011 at 4:00pm ET and closed at 4:36pm ET.
· Areas Under Consideration for System Improvement – nothing reported
· NANPA website updates/modifications/enhancements - Please see the “NANP Administration System (NAS)” section of the MOR document embedded above for website information.
CO Code Administration
· Metrics/Benchmarks –
Summary:
Central Office Code Administration Monthly Performance Metrics - Volume: February 2011
Measure / MetricAssignments / 244
Changes / 813
Denials / 61
Cancelled / 54
Cancelled Disconnects / 0
Disconnects / 23
Reservations / 0
Total Processed / 1,141
Pooling PassThrus / 718
Central Office Code Administration Monthly Performance Metrics - Volume: February 2011
Percentage of central office code applications processed in 7 cal. days / 100.0%Number of applications exceeding 7 days (Note 4) / 0
Average days late for applications exceeding 7 days (Note 4) / 0.0
Percent of central office codes assigned without code reject or conflict / 100.0%
A. CO code rejects (Note 1) (Note 5) / 0
B. Code conflicts (Note 1) (Note 5) / 0
Percent of administrator phone calls returned by end of next business day / 100.0%
Total number of administrator calls / 50
Average days late for phone calls returned late / na
Percentage of AOCN inputs completed in 5 days / 100.0%
Number of inputs exceeding 5 days / 0
Average days late for inputs exceeding 5 days / 0.0
Percentage of AOCN phone calls returned on time / 100.0%
Total number of AOCN calls / 40
Percentage of applicable codes on which reclamation was started / 100.0%
Number of codes for which a Part 4 was not rec'd 180 days after NANPA eff date (Note 2) / 67
Number of codes on which reclamation started late. / 0
Codes recovered (Note 3) / 2
Number of Reclamation Discrepancies Reported by State Commission(s) Regarding Monthly Reclamation List / 0
Details:
· New Developments/Activities/Issues – none reported
· Rate Center Changes/Consolidations – none reported
· Training/Education Activities – Please see the “Code Administration” section of the MOR for more information.
Other NANPA Resource Administration
· Metrics/Benchmarks
o All metrics were met for February 2011.
· Status of Resources
· Other NANP Resources Developments/Activities/Issues – none reported
Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecasting (NRUF)
Metrics/Benchmarks -
Note – For the “Error Notifications Sent” metric from the January report, there was a correction: 570 to 583. It is highlighted in yellow in the attached spreadsheet. Also, under “Confirmation Notifications”, additional notifications were identified and the metric has been modified to read 2710. It is also highlighted in yellow in the attached spreadsheet.
Please see the “NRUF” section of the MOR document for additional NRUF information.
· New Developments/Activities/Issues
· Utilization Missing Report and Donation Discrepancy Report – nothing reported
· Client Usage/Difficulties Reported/Observed – none reported
· Areas Under Consideration for Improvement – See the “New Developments/Activities/Issues” section above for more information.
NPA Relief Planning
· Metrics/Benchmarks
· Status of Current NPA Relief Projects/Activities
INC Activities
· Summary of INC Issues/Contributions –
o Issue 707: Need to remove all abandoned code records from NPAC prior to transfer was accepted at INC116. A code cannot be returned unless all records have been first removed from NPAC. In the case of an abandoned or reclaimed code, that removal has not always been accomplished, so this type of transfer activity must occur in the case when the code is being migrated to a new codeholder due to active blocks and or/ported TNs, if the code has been abandoned or reclaimed. The language no longer exists in the COCAG Appendix C to ensure transfer activity occurs in the case the code is not being returned but is being transferred. The suggested resolution is to add the following statement to Sections 6.3 and 7.3 of the COCAG Appendix C, Procedures for Code Holder Exit: “In order for NPAC to remove all records in its database related to the LRN and NXX code, including intra-service provider ported TNs, NANPA shall provide the NPAC written notice from the regulatory authority that the SP has terminated service.”
o Issue 708: Inclusion of a definition of Trunk Access in the Carrier Identification Code (CIC) Assignment Guidelines was accepted at INC116. The INC should consider the inclusion of a definition of “trunk access” in the Carrier Identification Code (CIC) Assignment Guidelines. The terminology is used throughout the document and recently there has been a question about whether trunk access refers specifically to dedicated access or whether multiple service providers sharing the same trunk to carry traffic meets the criteria for trunk access. Further, the outcome of this issue will impact semi-annual Entity and Access Provider reporting procedures.
o Issue 710:Issue NANC Action Item “multi-OCN Issue”: The INC did come up with a potential resolution to have NANPA and PA include the Parent Company OCN on the Part 1/Part 1A and Part 3 reports (would generate change orders), that we both send out to help explain the relationship of each application, which seems that it would be beneficial, and will require NANPA Change Order, but there appear to be more concerns that the proposed resolution is not adequate and there is another INC meeting scheduled for April 21, 2011, 10am – 1pm (virtual).
o Issue 698: Auto-Populate Total Numbering Resources on TBPAG MTE Form: INC is still working on this issue. The latest idea is a report that states could pull out of PAS to show the total numbering resources for each growth request, and there is also an action item to investigate whether grandfathered codes can be included in the total numbering resources. The latest idea also will require NANPA to indicate on our public website pooled vs. non pooled codes.
· NANPA Areas of Concern – Guidelines/Requirements – none reported
Number Administration Activities/Events/Projects
NANPA is in the process of working on the area code exhaust projections. NANPA anticipates the data may be available at the end of April and will be working with the FCC to get their approval to release the metrics.
The NANPA Annual Report will be available next week (week of 3/28). The NANPA will send out NNS notice once it is available.
The following week (week of 4/4), the NANPA Q1 Newsletter will be distributed.
John noted that on 3/24, the Neustar (Brent Struthers) hosted the bi-monthly state calls. NANPA participated on these call and no significant issues were raised.
NANPA has been in contact with the PA regarding updating the snapshot they use to create the Donation Discrepancy Report and Utilization Missing Report. NANPA expects to get updated information in approximately a week that will show any corrections that have been made to the data in PAS as a result of the utilization missing report notifications and the SP review of donation discrepancy report. The NANPA had been planning on doing a 4/1 update and things are progressing on schedule.
Action Item Review
· No action items on which to report
Open Discussion
· For the NANPA Operational Review beginning on 4/5, the meeting will start a 9 AM and will run through approximately 5 PM.
· For the May 10 meeting with the NANPA and PA after the FCC for the readout - John has coordinated with the PA and the date and time work for them both: 1 PM for the PA and 2 PM for the NANPA. The co-chairs will send an updated invitation out in Outlook.
Next Meeting
· April 19 @ 2PM ET
· Due to a potential scheduling conflict with the next NANC meeting, there are currently two “placeholder” meetings on the calendar for the May NANPA/NOWG call:
o May 17 @ 2:00pm ET
o May 19 @ 2:00pm ET
Once the date of the next NANC meeting is finalized, the date for the next NANPA/NOWG call will be determined.