Future of Numbering Working Group Meeting Notes

Future of Numbering Working Group Meeting Notes

March 12, 2014

Tri-Chair Contact Information: Mark Lancaster (), Suzanne Addington()and Kathy Bakke ().

FoN Contact List Reminder:Missing contact information should be sent to Kathy Bakke at: .

AT&T’s Contribution: Numbering Testbed Parameters: AT&T submitted this contribution on February 5, 2014, to develop functional parameters that could be used in the numbering testbed trial proposed in FCC 14-5 (para 151-170), under WC Docket No. 13-97.

Since then, the FCC announced that it would be hostingthenumbering testbed workshop on March 25, 2014 (view the announcement at: The workshop objectives include:

Identification of gaps in the existing number assignment and management systems that may arise during or after the transition to an all-IP environment and opportunities for simplification;
Discussion of proposals for a general architecture for the testbed and the numbering-related issues it should address; and
Facilitation, administration and organization (mailing list, conference calls) for those individuals who are interested in doing the prototyping and participating further in the testbed process.

According to the public notice, the numbering testbed will operate under the auspices of the North American Numbering Council (NANC), which will provide a report to the Commission describing the testbed activities and making recommendations. At this time, it is unclear what role (if any) the FoN may have in this process.

The FoN members had a lengthy discussion regarding the upcoming numbering testbed workshop and general issues related to the IP-transition. In light of the upcoming workshop and NANC meeting, the FoN reached consensus to postpone action on AT&T’s proposed contribution until our next meeting on April 2, 2014.

Updates on active FTNs: The FTN issue champions provided brief updates on the subcommittee work that has taken place since the February 5thFoN call.

FTN 4: Geographic Issues: (Mr. David Greenhaus). The FTN 4 subcommittee met on February 21, 2014, and these subcommittee meeting notes were distributed to the FoN on March 12, 2014. David explained that the subcommittee reviewed his contribution: “Geography and Toll Free Routing.” Additionally, Penn Pfautz provided an overview of AT&T’s contribution: “Level of Geographic Information Required for Toll Free Routing.”

The subcommittee discussed several issues including:

Level of location specificity (granularity) needed for toll free routing.
The importance of differentiating the level of privacy between the location of a cell phone and that of a land line.
What is needed for granularity issues related to cost, privacy, regulatory issues (provided on a non-discriminatory basis)?
What is the tradeoff between granularity and latency?Should the FCC set a standard?
Need to be clear but cautious with the level of location specificity needed to avoid raising privacy issues.
Need to understand what is needed for various types of calls.
How long will the migration take? What is the demand?
Preserve current level of service (NPA/NXX).
NPA/NXX will no longer be a reliable indicator of originating geography.
Rate Centers & NPA assignments and the inevitability of their diminishing importance.
Consolidation of rate centers.
Standardization of the size of rate centers.
Need to take a look at different modalities of toll free routing.
Look at what’s currently happening in SMS/800 – how are the functions used, how might they transition to IP?
Understanding SMS/800 and the routing of calls.
Consumer affinity for local numbering assignments; this is something that could be tested in the FCC’s request for tests. There may be a generational shift in numbering affinity.

David indicated that he hopes to have a recommendation prepared for the FoN’s consideration after the next few subcommittee calls. In the meantime, the FTN 4 subcommittee established two action items for the next meeting:

Come back with thoughts on how to move the issue of consumer numbering affinity forward.
Jim Kasterwill provide the group with an outline of the different types of routing provided in the SMS/800 Database.

Anyone interested in working on this subcommittee should contact David at: . The next FTN 4 subcommittee meeting is March 19thfrom 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. EST. The agenda and a new subcommittee contribution from David Greenhaus titled “Considerations for Toll-Free Geographic Routing in the IP Environment” was distributed to the FoN on March 13, 2014. Contact information for the March 19th call follows: Web access: Bridge: 1-650-479-3208, access code:734 648 026.

FTN 7A: Routing Standards in an IP-Based Environment:(Natalie McNamer) Natalie explained that the PTSC-PSTN held a face-to-face meeting on February 10, 2014. Issue S1020 “Routing of E.164 Addressed Communications over IP Network-to-Network Interconnection (NNI)” was discussed and four new contributions were presented offering proposals for data exchange in a transitional environment (TDM and IP):

1.PTSC-PSTN-2014-009 (iconectiv): This contribution is driven by candidate industry requirements for the exchange of data for IP routing and interconnection and proposes using existing industry database systems, architectures and processes for routing of E.164 Addressed Communications over IP Network-to-Network Interconnection (NNI). It describes how these database systems could support this capability relative to such candidate requirements and how existing neutral industry governance can be applied as the IP network evolves.
2. PTSC-PSTN-2014-010 (iconectiv): The contribution describes how an ENUM architecture with a centralized Tier 0/1 Registry can support specific candidate requirements as a basis for discussion. Furthermore, this contribution proposes that an ENUM platform can operate in a competitive environment by adopting a peered database architecture between multiple Tier 1 Registry providers should industry requirements dictate.
3. PTSC-PSTN-2014-011 (iconectiv): This contribution is driven by candidate industry requirements for IP routing and interconnection and proposes using the LERG and related systems and processes as a functional ENUM Tier 1 Registry solution for the exchange of data for routing of E.164 Addressed Communications over IP Network-to-Network Interconnection (NNI). A LERG Tier 1 Registry solution can enable authorized Service Providers of Record (SPRs) to start directly exchanging VoIP calls end-to-end over IP networks.
4. PTSC-PSTN-2014-016 (Edge Communications): Document is intended to open conversation about expanding the use of LRN numbers and utilizing this as a stepping stone to not only IP transition but allow for the possibility to change geographical assignment and routing of numbers with minimum impact to consumers and industry systems.

The PTSC is also working with the SIP forum in a joint task force (IP-NII task force). This task force began to identify evaluation criteria to review the different proposals (along with the proposal submitted by ATT utilizing the NPAC). Participants took action items to submit additional items for consideration. Next Step: A matrix will be created evaluating each proposal to the criteria.

With regard to the status of FTN 7A, Natalie noted that the work currently being done by the PTSC closely parallels the work thaticonectivenvisioned would be done on its FoN contribution. iconectiv is aware ofrecent negative feedback regarding duplicative committee work; therefore, it has withdrawnits FTN 7A contribution. Instead, iconectivwill focus its efforts on itsPTSC contributions and provide monthly status updates to the FoN. The FoN reached consensus to close FTN 7A.

FTN 7B: Less-than-Thousands-Block Pooling Number Assignment: (Bridget Alexander).

On February 27, 2014, both JSI and AT&T notified the FTN 7B subcommittee members that their respective FoN contributions would be withdrawn. These e-mails were forwarded to the FoN for review on March 12, 2014.

JSI noted (in part) that Hundreds-Block Pooling (HBP)was proposed as a change to the number allocation process and it believes that HBP is better discussed at the FCC’s numbering testbedworkshop. JSI is not discarding HBP as a future number allocation process and it is willing to participate in HBP discussions with the FCC, NANC and/or other industry groups.

Similarly, AT&T noted (in part) that from its inception, Just-in-Time (JIT)numbering has principally been about changing the way service providers look at numbering allocation in the future, not next week or even next year. AT&T believes a long-term view of numbering leads to a different assignment and acquisition process. Much of the subcommittee discussions regarding JIT have focused on the potential for disrupting today’s operations, not on the future of numbering. Since the Testbed appears to welcome JIT and other number assignment alternatives, AT&T intends to advance the JIT concept in that forum.

As noted above, AT&T has offered a contribution to discuss Numbering Testbed Parameters. If the FoN accepts this contribution in April, then JIT may fit well with that discussion.

Bridget explained that the subcommittee met on March 10, 2014, to determine who may be interested in assuming the leadership role of the FTN 7B subcommittee in order to continue working on Sprint’s contribution regarding increased block contamination levels. No one at that meeting expressed an interest in this role. Additionally, the subcommittee was in the process of drafting a brief white paper to compare increased block contamination levels with HBP and JIT. The unfinished white paper was distributed to the FoN on March 12, 2014, and will be discussed on the next FoN call in April.

No FoN members expressed a willingness to take the lead on Sprint’s outstanding contribution. Consensus was reached to close FTN 7B. (Note: FTN 7 will remain open as a “placeholder” for future sub-topics related to the PSTN to IP Transition).

Miscellaneous Updates:

INC(Shaunna Forshee): The next INC meeting will be held at ATIS on March 24th and March 26th. The INC recently placed two issues in final closure: Issue 767 (Updates to TBPAG Appendix 5: User Profile Application) and Issue 769 (Direct Petition by NANPA for Overlay NPA Codes – New or Additional and Addition of LNPA WG Best Practice Supporting the utilization of overlays as the preferred form of area code relief).

LNPA WG (Deb Tucker): At its last meeting, the LNPA WG reviewed AT&T’s JIT presentation and decided to wait until after the numbering testbed workshop to determine if additional work is necessary. Additionally, the LNPA WG had high level general discussions about the PSTN-IP transition.
PTSC: (Natalie McNamer): See the detailed update for FTN 7A above.
SCG(Kathy Bakke): There were no SCG meetings since the February FoN call.

New Contributions:

The FoN welcomes any suggestions that members have regarding new contributions. Contribution Forms are available for your convenience online at: can be submitted to the tri-chairs and will be distributed to the group for review.

Documents: The March FoN contact list was distributed to the FoN with the March 12thmeeting notes.

Next Meeting:

Date:April 2, 2014

Start Time: 11:00 ET/10:00 CT/9:00 MT/8:00 PT, Expected Duration: 1.5 to 2 hours

AT&T Connect:

Bridge Information: Call 888-388-6645 or 212-372-3682, passcode: 331915

Participants:

There were approximately 47participants on the March 12thcall, including:

Name / Company
Betty Sanders / Charter Communications
Bridget Alexander / John Staurulakis, Inc. (JSI)
Bruce McLeod / Cox Communications
Carolee Hall / Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Christopher Hepburn / Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Connie Hartman / iconectiv
Dana W Crandall / Verizon Wireless
David Greenhaus / 800 Response Information Services
Dawn Lawrence / XO Communications
Deborah Tucker / Verizon Wireless
Holly Kuester / Charter Communications
Jackie Voss / ATIS
Jason H Lee / Verizon
Jay Carpenter / PHONEWORD
Jean-Paul Emard / ATIS
Jeff Sonnier / Sprint
Jim Castagna / Verizon
Jim Kaster / SMS/800, Inc.
Josh McConkie / Michigan Public Service Commission
Joyce Dingman / Wisconsin Public Service Commission
Karen Hoffman / John Staurulakis, Inc. (JSI)
Karen Riepenkroger / Sprint
Kathleen Bakke / Wisconsin Public Service Commission
Kimberly Isaacs / Integra Telecom
Linda Lloyd / CHR Solutions
Linda Peterman / Earthlink Business
Margie Mersman / TCA, Telecom Consulting Associates
Mark Lancaster / AT&T
Mary Retka / CenturyLink
Matthew Nolan / Brighthouse Networks
Michael Doherty / Vonage
Michele Thomas / T-Mobile
Natalie McNamer / iconectiv
Paul LaGattuta / Neustar
Penn Pfautz / AT&T
Rebecca Beaton / Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
Rich Kania / Maine Public Utilities Commission
Rosemary Emmer / Sprint
Shannon Sevigny / Neustar Pooling
Shaunna Forshee / Sprint
Suzanne Addington / Sprint
Tiki Gaugler / XO Communications
Tim Kagele / Comcast
Tom Foley / Neustar
Heather Welch / 800 Response Information Services
Jan Doell / CenturyLink
Tracy Guidotti / AT&T