Recommendation for National Pooling Administration Change Order Proposal
Prepared by the Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG)
DATE: April 24, 2003
PA Change Order Identification
Change Order Proposal:# 18
Proposal Name: LNPA Issue #385 – “Removal of the AOCN field from the Part 1A Form”
PA Proposal Dated:April 3, 2003
Analysis Checklist (If underlined “NO”, see Analysis and Comments Section)
Yes / No - The change order proposal meets the desired outcome, e.g., INC resolution.
Yes / No - The change order sufficiently describes the impact upon service.
Yes / No - The NOWG agrees that no known industry activities could impact change order.
Yes / No - The NOWG has enough information in order to make a recommendation.
Yes / No- The NOWG can recommend approval of this change order without reservation.
Recommendation
The NOWG recommends that this change order should ____ be approved __X__ not be approved as written.
Page 1
Recommendation for National Pooling Administration Change Order Proposal
Prepared by the Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG)
DATE: April 24, 2003
Analysis and Comments
As a result of a Telcordia BIRRDS release in November 2002, BIRRDS no longer requires the PA to input the block applicant's AOCN into the BIRRDS BCR/BCD screen. However, SPs must still populate the AOCN field when submitting a Part 1A request via PAS because unless PAS is changed, PAS rejects the application if the AOCN field is blank. The solution proposed by NeuStar removes the AOCN field from PAS. Today, the PA successfully processes block applications because NeuStar personnel simply disregard the AOCN field when populating the required data into the BCR/BCD screen in BIRRDS for that block.
It should be noted that NeuStar PA initiated INC Issue 385. It should also be noted that the industry and the PA are effectively processing block applications with the AOCN field still on the Part 1A form. The ideal is for all forms and systems (BIRRDS, INC forms, PAS) to match, but is Change Order #18 really necessary?
The NOWG observes that the proposal does not specify the amount of programmer time or hourly cost of programmer service to effect the change. Therefore, the NOWG does not know if the $4,563.12 cost is reasonable or not. In addition, no mention is made of whether NeuStar PA intends to implement this change in conjunction with other pending change orders.
Therefore, with the reservations noted above, the NOWG does not recommend approval of Change Order Proposal # 18.
Page 1