North American Numbering Council
Meeting Transcript
October 10, 2007 (Final)
I.  Time and Place of Meeting. The North American Numbering Council (NANC) 
held a meeting commencing at 9:00 a.m., at the Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., TW-C305, Washington, D. C.
II.  List of Attendees.
Voting Council Members:
1.     Thomas M. Koutsky Chairman
2.     Henry Hultquist  AT&T
3.     Beth O’Donnell Cox Communications, Inc.
4.     Lori McGarry CTIA – The Wireless Association
5.     Hon. Robert M. Clayton, III NARUC – Missouri
6.     Don Gray NARUC - Nebraska
7.     Rebecca Beaton NARUC – Washington
8.     Kathy L. Hagans NASUCA
9.     Jerome Candelaria NCTA
10.   Ray Strassburger Nortel Networks
11.   John McHugh OPASTCO
12.   C. Courtney Jackson OUR
13.   Mary Retka Qwest
14.   Rosemary Emmer Sprint Nextel
15.   Anna Miller T-Mobile USA, Inc.
16.   Philip Harrington Verizon
17.   Martin Hakim Din Vonage Holdings Corp. (Vonage)
Special Members (Non-voting):
John Manning NANPA
Amy Putnam PA
Faith Marcotte Welch & Company
Commission Employees:
Marilyn Jones, Designated Federal Officer (DFO)
Deborah Blue, Special Assistant to the DFO
2
Dana Shaffer, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau
Marcus Maher, Associate Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau
Ann Stevens, Deputy Chief, Competition Policy Division
III.   Estimate of Public Attendance. Approximately 20 members of the public 
attended the meeting as observers.
IV.   Documents Introduced.
(1) Agenda
(2) NANC Meeting Transcript  – April 17, 2007
(3) North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) Report to the 
NANC
(4) Public Notice Announcing the Renewal of the NANC Charter Through 
September 27, 2009
(5) National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator Report to the NANC
(6) North American Portability Management (NAPM) LLC Report
(7) NAPM LLC Membership Introduction
(8) Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report to the NANC
(9) Billing and Collection Agent Report
(10) Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) Report to the NANC
(11) NANP Billing and Collection Agent Deliverable Evaluation Matrix
(12) Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) Report
(13) Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group Status 
Report to the NANC
(14) Future of Numbering (FoN) Working Group Report to the NANC
(15) List of NANC Accomplishments (January 2002 – October 10, 2007)
V.   TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.       Announcements and Recent News   4 
 
2.       Approval of Meeting Transcript from April 17, 2007 5  
 
3.       Report of the North American Numbering Plan 
Administrator (NANPA) 7
4. Dana Shaffer, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau   14
5.       Report of the National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator (PA)         26
3
6.       North American Portability Management (NAPM) LLC Report 33
7.       Status of the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) activities                       40
8.       Report from the North American Numbering Plan Billing and 54
Collection (NANP B&C) Agent  
9.       Report of the Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) 56
10.     Report of the Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG)  60
11.     Report of the Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) 
Working Group 71
12.     Report of the Future of Numbering Working Group (FoN WG) 102
13.     Special Presentations    --
14.     Update List of the NANC Accomplishments 110
15.     Summary of Action Items  --
16.     Public Comments and Participation (five minutes per speaker)  --
17.     Other Business  --
VI.   Summary of the Meeting.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay, if people could start gathering.  Only 
fifteen minutes late.  That’s not terrible.
If everybody could find their seats I’ll call the meeting to order in 
about thirty seconds.  A few documents are still being distributed.
4
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RECENT NEWS
Good morning everybody.  It’s October 10, 2007 and this is the 
meeting of the North American Numbering Council.  I would like to welcome you 
all here this morning on actually a very nice day in Washington, D.C., all things 
considered.
I’m glad everybody was able to navigate getting here and not being 
involved in too many cab accidents.  
By way of introduction for those of you who I haven’t met, I’m Tom 
Koutsky.  I’m the Chairman of NANC with the Phoenix Center.  Just a few points of 
order before moving along. 
For members of the public, we have a public microphone over there.  
There will be time in the end of the meeting for public statements or public requests 
or inquiries, etc., but also during the course of discussion here, the fact that people 
are sitting at the table doesn’t give them a better voice than you.  People are welcome 
to stand up and make points as they see fit.  I will do my best to recognize them.  If I 
don’t, it’s purely my fault, and I will endeavor to take requests from the audience in 
the order that they are made.
For people at the tables, if they want to make a point, I think I pretty 
much speak for all the co-chairs.  I don’t think anybody really minds getting 
interrupted with a question during their presentation.  Don’t be shy.  Feel free to –
the only thing I request is rather than act like third graders, we use our little name 
5
tags to kind of put them on the end and to use that as a signal instead of raising your 
hand and holding it there for hours on end.
APPROVAL OF MEETING TRANSCRIPT
With that I would just like to welcome you all once again to 
Washington, D.C.  We have previously circulated the transcript of the last meeting, 
April 17, 2007.  I think that went out in June or July.  We have been using this in lieu 
of official minutes. 
I would like to request that if folks have any suggestions or additions 
or changes to the transcript from the last meeting this is your opportunity to make 
those and get those on the record.  Rosemary?
ROSEMARY EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  On 
my copy there was a blank page between 29 and 30 but I noticed on a couple of the 
copies on the table that I looked at there was no blank page so I don’t know if –
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  Did we lose any content?
ROSEMARY EMMER: No.  There was just a blank page.  The 
other thing was — maybe that was just in the Word document, I don’t know.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay, that can happen.
ROSEMARY EMMER: I had two other questions.  One, on page 
85, the third paragraph, the ninth word in, it should be “his” and not “this.”
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.
ROSEMARY EMMER: I had a question about –
6
TOM KOUTSKY: I guess there’s no objection to that, to make it 
grammatically correct.
ROSEMARY EMMER: With the audiotape, when the audiotape 
changed, I don’t think this is something that would be a big deal to me, but I was 
reading the California, the VRS stuff, and the tape changed and there’s stuff that’s 
missing I think because I don’t understand between the first sentence and the next 
one.  It looks like when the tape —
TOM KOUTSKY: What page are you on?
ROSEMARY EMMER: I’m sorry, page 51.
TOM KOUTSKY: This is in the middle of Jay Keithley’s 
presentation?
ROSEMARY EMMER: Yes.  
TOM KOUTSKY: I’ll note that. I actually make a – during the 
break I’ll ask AV guys to try and give me a signal when they are going to change 
tapes so I can cut off the speaker.  I think we are lucky in this case that it was done 
during Mr. Keithley’s presentation because he left a Power Point behind of what he 
said.  I don’t think we actually missed any substance or debates or decisions as a 
result of that, but I will speak to them about that.  That’s a good note.  I had picked 
that up but I did not think there was a loss of substance.  I thought there was some 
overlap.  I will double check that with them.
Are there any others?  Okay, so I will consider these minutes adopted, 
or this transcript adopted and placed into the record.
7
From exhibit standpoint I think the agenda is the first exhibit, correct?  
Okay, so the agenda is Exhibit 1 and the transcript is Exhibit 2.
In the normal course we will try to get the transcript out to NANC 
members, usually about eight weeks after the meeting or so.  This is about the time 
for this and I think that’s the best way of handling that process.
With that we will have the reports of the North American Numbering 
Plan Administrator.
This report to NANC will be Exhibit 3.  The floor is yours.
REPORT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PLAN 
ADMINISTRATOR (NANPA)
JOHN MANNING: Good morning everyone.  My name is John 
Manning.  Before I get started in the presentation this morning I did post to the 
NANPA website back after the end of the first half of ‘07, some information and 
report that you are very familiar with because I wanted you to have the opportunity 
for NANC members and others to get a look see as to where things were with all of 
the resources at the end of the first half of ‘07.  What I’ve done in this report is I’ve 
carried it on a little bit further to bring us up to at least August and cover a lot of the 
same material I covered in that report that was posted to the web site.
I will also be talking about some area code relief activities, some 
change order activities that we’ve been through, a few items on the NRUF and then 
covering a couple of other items one of which is our newsletter.
8
On page two I’m going to begin with area codes, talk about where we 
are with area codes.  To date we have assigned three new area codes.  One has been 
in Kentucky, the area code 364 in relief of the Kentucky NPA 270.  We have also 
assigned two area codes up in Canada, 587 was assigned to relieve NPA 780 and 581 
was assigned to relieve Canadian NPA 418.
Since the beginning of this year we have had three area codes go into 
service.  Illinois 779 was implemented earlier this year, an overlay of the 815 area 
code.  NPA 331 just went into service this past weekend.  That’s an overlay of the 
630.  That’s also in Illinois.
Finally, over this past weekend as well NPA 575 in New Mexico, 
which is a split of the 505 area code in that state.  So we have 372 assigned area 
codes to date, 335 are in service, 325 are geographic area codes, and 10 are the non-
geographic codes.
Moving on to central office codes, January 1 through August 31, 
we’ve assigned almost 2,400 central office codes and a total of 480 have been 
returned.  In the chart in the middle of the page I have taken the data from 2004, ‘05 
and ‘06 and compared it to what we will potentially be looking like for the end of 
this year.  
You will notice roughly around 3,500 - 3,600 central office codes 
projected for the end of this year, which is higher than ‘04 and ‘05, but lower than 
‘06. So, you can see that we had an upward trend there and it appears as if in ‘07 we 
will see a slight downturn in the number C.O. code assignments.
9
Denials are roughly about the same as in ‘06 and disconnects are 
slightly higher, expected slightly higher in ‘07 compared to ‘06.
Moving along to Feature Group B-Carrier Identification Codes 
(CICs).  We have not assigned any new Feature Group B CICs in 2007 and we have 
reclaimed 27 of those codes.  In Feature Group D CICs we have assigned 60 since 
the beginning of this year, 13 of those were for switchless resellers and we have also, 
over the same time period reclaimed 95 Feature Group D CICs.
Looking at the area code 500, since the beginning of this year we 
have assigned 120 new 500 NXX codes.  That’s roughly an assignment rate of 
around 15 codes a month.  We’ve reclaimed 3.
As I had previously reported to the NANC we are looking at exhaust 
of this area code sometime within the next year.  The new area code that will 
supplement the 500 NPA is the 533 NPA.  We are looking over the next 10 to 12 
months to see the 533 area code come into service.
On the 900 side on page 3, we have assigned four 900 NXX codes.  
None have been reclaimed this year and you can see the total numbers that are 
assigned to that resource.
We have assigned two new 555 numbers this year.  For the remaining 
NANP resources, ANI Information Digit Pairs, N11, 456 area code, Vertical Service 
Codes In the 800-855 there has been no new assignments this year.
Any questions on that update on NANP resources?  Good.  Moving 
along to area code relief planning.
10
Beginning on page 6 of my report is a detail of each of the area codes 
projected to exhaust over the next 36 months.  I wanted to highlight a few of them 
here.
There are four area codes expected to exhaust in 12 months.  
California NPA 714.  Back in September, last month, the CPUC approved an all 
services overlay of 714 with the new 657 area code, with permissive dialing 
beginning in February of next year and mandatory dialing in August of next year.
Area code 304 in West Virginia, we are still waiting for some type of 
decision from the Commission on that with regard to whether this is going to be a 
split or an overlay.  We are in communication with the Commission there.  They 
understand the situation.  We are pending their final decision on what they would 
like to do.
In Oregon 503, the Public Utilities Commission in Oregon approved 
an industries overlay expansion plan.  We are going to expand the 971 to include the 
14 coastal areas currently covered under the 503 area code.  There is a small portion 
of the 503 that is not overlaid by 971.  In this relief alternative we are simply going 
to expand the 971 over top of those remaining areas that are only covered by the area 
code 503.   Permissive dialing starts later this month and mandatory dialing in April 
of next year.
Finally in Kentucky.  Kentucky has decided to implement an area 
code split for 270.  NPA 364 will be the new area code, permissive dialing to start in 
July of next year.  There are some activities going on with regard to supplemental 
11
pooling and it won’t be determined when the mandatory dialing of the new area code 
will come into play until they have those meetings within the state and they see the 
impact of what number pooling will be doing once its been implemented.  So, a 
mandatory dialing date for the new area code won’t be determined until they have 
had those meetings and they get an idea of what pooling is going do with regard the 
exhaust of that NPA.
I’m just going to touch briefly on some other area code relief 
activities.  I will remark that we have a number of items going on, a number of area 
codes that we are looking at.  It used to be a couple of years ago this portion of the 
report was fairly short but there’s a lot of activity now underway.  Some of the items 
I’m pointing out to you here.  
California 818.  We conducted an industry meeting in June to update 
the relief plans.  There are some meetings going on later this month to get local 
jurisdictional input.  We filed a relief application of 818 NPA overlay once the 
public meetings are concluded.
NPA 505, I’ve already mentioned.  Utah 801.  This is a situation 
where they had planned to implement an area code split.  The Utah Public Service 
Commission vacated that order and decided to implement an overlay of 801 with the 
new 385 area code - permissive dialing starting in June of next year, mandatory 
dialing in March of ‘09.
In Wisconsin we’ve got two area codes, 715 and 920 that are 
projected to exhaust in similar time frames.  The Public Service Commission has 
12
been conducting public service public meetings.  In September they did the 715 area 
code and starting next week we will be conducting the same meetings for 920 area 
code.
Any questions on the relief planning activities?  Okay.
Area code and NANP exhaust projects.  As we are required to do per 
our contract, we publish those twice a year.  We intend to publish them by the end of 
this month both the area code and NANP exhaust projections and as soon as they are 
published, we will be notifying the NANC and sending out a notice to the industry 
via NANP notification system.
Finally, I want to briefly touch upon an area code request that was 
brought forward to the NANC back in November 2006.  NANP had received a 
request for assignment of a “charity NPA” from an organization called Kinsale 
Mobile.  According to the applicant the NPA was to be used to promote some use of 
charitable telecommunications services to the public.  The request for that area code 
was forwarded to the Industry Numbering Committee and became issue 532.  At the 
most recent INC meeting, INC meeting 95, which was last month, the INC reached 
consensus that NANPA should deny the application for this request.  It was based 
upon INC’s examination of the application and whether or not the application met 
the criteria per the guidelines for the assignment of an easily recognizable code or 
ERC.  NANPA has since notified the applicant that their application has been denied.
On page 5, I just want to touch on some NRUF activities.  NANPA 
conducted NRUF refresher training for state regulatory representatives on September 
13
25 and 26.  We had 26 state representatives representing 17 different states 
participate in that training.
Also in mid-September NANPA distributed the state NRUF data 
bases to the states.  Contained in the data base is also information available on the 
NANP administration system.
To bring you up-to-date on some change order activity.  Change 
Order 11, that was a change order where we wanted to eliminate the use of an 
external server and associated software that generate reports that are sent out to the 
states on a daily, weekly and monthly basis.  That change order was approved by the 
FCC in June and the implementation of that change order is complete.
Change Order 12 was the replacement of four servers currently used 
in NANC.  Two of those servers were located in Sterling and two located in the 
Charlotte, North Carolina site.  The FCC approved that change order in July and the 
implementation of the change order is complete.
Change Order 13 was INC issue 545, the removal of switch CLLI 
information from the NANPA website.  This is a report that we have had on the web 
site.  It contains a number of pieces of information about NPA NXX assignments.  
One of the data shown is the CLLI code associated with the NPA NXX assignment.  
This change order had NANPA remove that information from the public web site 
and place that same report, including the CLLI code information, on the NANC 
secure site.  The FCC approved that change order in August and that change order 
has been implemented.
14
Finally, Change Order 14, a change order due to an INC issue 526. 
This change order requires NANPA to schedule the effective date of each approved 
return code or disconnect in Telcordia’s BIRRDS, the Business Integrated Routing 
and Rating Data Base System.  The FCC approved that change order in September 
and implementation is scheduled on or about November 1.
Finally, just a quick notification.  Just last week we published the 
third quarter NANPA newsletter.  It’s available on our web site.  A number of the 
pieces of information that I’ve discussed here this morning are also included in that 
newsletter.
That concludes my presentation.  Are there any questions?
TOM KOUTSKY: Do you have any questions for John?  No.  
Thanks for the comprehensive report.  You said there will be more information 
available at the end of October with regard to the exhaust projections?
JOHN MANNING: Yes.  That will be placed on the web site, 
downloadable PDF form and we will send a notice to the FCC via Debbie that that 
information is posted as well as a notification to the industry.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  I’ll also circulate that to everyone.  
Good.  Okay.  Thank you John.
DANA SHAFFER, CHIEF, WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU
I’m going to adjust the schedule a little bit on the fly because we have 
Dana Schaffer who is the new Wireline Carrier Bureau Chief as of – the 30th, so, not 
15
quite.  Anyway, as you know that NANC under our charter reports to her.  So, meet 
the boss.
Dana actually goes back in the industry a number of years, since I left 
Tennessee and we both share a common select lineage, she worked at Excel for years 
when I worked at COVAD.  She was mostly at the state level and has been in 
Washington for two and a half years, almost two years coming over pretty much at 
the same time with the new appointments in the new administration.  So, I will turn 
the floor over to her for a quick few minutes, just to introduce herself, and feel free 
to ask her questions.
DANA SHAFFER: Thanks Tom.  We do go way back.  I was in the 
C-link industry back when it was NEX-link.  Does anybody remember the old NEX-
link? Not the new NEX-link but the old NEX-link.  It worked with the old AT&T, 
not the new AT&T but the old AT&T.
I come from a land of splits and people always ask me why 
Tennessee, Kentucky, why do you guys like splits so much.  I say because we are old 
enough to remember picking up the phone and dialing four or five digits.  I 
remember when we went from four digits dialing to five digit dialing and Mamaw 
thought the world was caving in.  So, to go from seven to ten sometimes, as you guys 
know, in some of our states it’s a painful process.  That’s why you see so many splits 
in Tennessee and Kentucky and maybe even Arkansas.  In Georgia I understand that 
they’ve got the big metropolitan area of Atlanta and those people know how to dial 
ten digits.  We are getting there.
16
All kidding aside I think sometimes you guys don’t get thanked 
enough and as I walked in the meeting and heard, you know, area code 504, da-da-
da, I think it’s like being at a cocktail party and starting to talk regulatory law.  
Peoples eyes glass over and they go to the bar really quickly.  I think that you guys 
suffer from kind of that same affliction, if you will, that what we work on unless you 
really know what we are doing doesn’t sound all that exciting.  
You have probably never been accused of doing really sexy work on 
the NANC, but those of us who have been in industry, those of us who now work for 
the public regulating industry, deregulating industry, which ever way you want to 
look at it, and certainly although they don’t realize it, the average consumer is 
impacted every day by what you do.  
I want to thank you.  I know that it’s really thankless work so I want 
to say thank you at least ten times while I’m here this morning.  So, thank you, thank 
you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, 
thank you because I know it’s a lot of work and I know its sometimes thankless.
Tom is too kind.  I really don’t consider myself the boss of anything 
except maybe my husband and that’s only on certain nights when he comes home in 
the mood to be bossed around.  I work for a really incredible team. 
I’ve got Marcus Maher here with me.  Marcus is the person I was 
able to grab this morning, everybody is so busy.  I work for an incredible team that 
Tom Navin put together in the Wireless Competition Bureau, and I consider myself 
very fortunate to work for them and they let me kind of be the coach a little bit.
17
The same thing with the NANC.  I look forward to working with you 
and for you.  Tom and I will work closely together.  I made a mistake on Tom’s last 
name.  Since there are only ten Koutsy’s in the whole United States.  He’s going to 
punish me forever for getting his last name wrong.  Its not like its --.  That’s okay.  
I’ll let you put a “C” in my name for a while. You can do that at the next thing I 
speak at.
I’m glad to just chat this morning, to answer any questions.  One of 
the things that I believe in strongly, having come from rural Arkansas and then lived 
in – I know there is no metropolitan Arkansas before anybody does that joke.  I know 
there’s not, but, I like to say rural Arkansas because in Arkansas that means really 
rural, out where the road stops, the gravel stops, the dirt stops and then you get to my 
parents’ house.
Having been in Tennessee for a number of years we just believe in 
open dialogue and I want to always be as open as I can.  My door is always open.  I 
may be hard to reach during the day but I promise that between the hours of 11:00 
and 12:00 p.m. I’m pretty easy to catch and talk to.  If not, I’m up till all hours.  I’m 
on call twenty-four hours.  Any time you ever need anything, any time you want to 
talk, any time Tom wants to bring anything to us, we’re here and we are ready to 
work with you.  
I guess with that said one thing, I don’t know if Tom mentioned, but 
we have re-chartered NANC.  That has taken place and those of you with any 
individual reappointment issues, I promise we are working on that.  So, bear with us.  
18
We will be getting those letters out.  Anybody have anything you want to talk about, 
ask about, complain about? 
Come on girls, I see you all over there.  I see you over there talking, 
what’s going on?
ANNA MILLER: Good morning.  I’m Anna Miller and I 
represent T-Mobile on the NANC.  I have been accused of sitting on this Committee 
for way too long.  I appreciate your thanks and do share those sentiments.  We do do 
a lot of work and because it is complicated, like you say I think that people’s 
attentions quickly fade.  
We did a lot of hard work this weekend on the 505 New Mexico split 
and the 630 overlay in Illinois went well so we are all happy this week.
Along those lines with the re-charter of the NANC I think it’s a good 
opportunity and I discussed this briefly.  One of the, I guess, the leftovers from 
previous NANC’s is a concept called a steering committee or steering group. What I 
would like to do is maybe reactivate that group and maybe redefine it a little bit 
based upon the efforts that on in the NANC working groups which really get most of 
the work done with oversight of the NANPA and the Pooling Administrator and 
oversight of number portability on behalf of the industry which has been an area of 
continuous improvement over the years and kind of refocus on the steering 
committee where we can have dialogue with the FCC and the leadership of the 
NANC and the chairman to kind of set our scope for 2008 in terms of goals and 
19
objectives.  What is it that the FCC would like the NANC to focus on?  That would 
help the efforts of the working groups.
DANA SHAFFER: Is that, and forgive me, I feel like I had a dream 
once and I woke up and – have you ever had a dream where you show up for the 
final.  You’ve missed the whole class but you show up for the final and you’re in 
your pajamas.
At least I don’t have my pajamas on this morning, but you all forgive 
me, I feel like I’m showing up for the final.  I’ve got a lot more studying to do.  How 
long has it been since we, is that something, you say reactivate the steering group.  
Give me a little, when was the last time we had a steering group?
ANNA MILLER: Actually I found out that I’m listed there and I 
don’t remember when the last time was, but I just think with the re-charter its an 
opportunity to, as you say, I would really like to open the dialogue with the FCC and 
with the leadership of the NANC because I think doing that improves the work that 
we do and the focus on the group of, you know, we are the advisory committee.  We 
would like to focus on what the FCC goals are and I think it will make us more 
effective and productive.
DANA SHAFFER: I appreciate that.  I think it would be helpful if 
maybe you guys talked today and see if there is a general consensus on the steering 
group and who might constitute that steering group.  It is always easier to take an 
idea if its at least half baked or fully baked than to say, well, we are interested in 
doing this.  Someone would say, well, who will be on it?  Is there a consensus among 
20
the NANC?  That might be something that you guys can talk about today and I 
certainly welcome those conversations.
Tom, honey, I’ll meet any time you want to meet.  We’ve got honey 
on the record.  Okay, I’m just – my spouse -as Elizabeth Taylor said in Giant - knew 
what a horrible creature I was when he married me.  So, I did not deceive him.  I’m 
glad we could get that on the record and your wife will love me now.  Anybody else?
TOM KOUTSKY: Any questions?  
DANA SHAFFER: Well, you know, I should know all the answers 
but that’s why I’ve got Marcus.  Marcus knows all the answers.
TOM KOUTSKY: Jerome.
JEROME CANDELARIA – National Cable and Telecommunications 
Association.  Thank you for meeting with us today.  I also traveled from California 
and my fellow NANC members who are from California asked me to convey what is 
a general feeling there that it would be very helpful if there was regularly scheduled 
NANC meetings going forward.  
Notice was very short for this particular meeting making it 
problematic for some of us to attend.  Moreover, as an association representative, it 
becomes problematic reaching out to the association members to fully inform them 
on matters that appear before NANC without sufficient time to prepare.
So to the extent we could go back to some sort of regular meetings, it 
would certainly help in my industry’s regard.  Even if you cancel a meeting, even if 
21
you schedule them and cancel, that is more workable than announcing them with 
very, very short notice.
DANA SHAFFER: I appreciate that.  One thing that Tom and I 
have already talked about is having an on-going dialogue between the two of us to 
address logistical issues, and I would consider that a logistical issue, making sure 
that everyone feels and has an opportunity to be fully prepared for a meeting.  I know 
you all had more notice than I did but I just had to walk from upstairs.  We’ll talk 
about that and see what we can do.
ROSEMARY EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  
Again, thank you for coming and joining us today and for the kind words.
I just wanted to quickly say that possibly scheduling of the meetings 
in terms of the other industry groups and what they have already put together for a 
schedule of next year and that kind of thing could possibly be done under the 
steering committee that Anna was talking about earlier as a suggestion for one thing 
that could be on that agenda.  Thank you.
DANA SHAFFER: Thank you and again, I mean, I’m not going to 
come in here and tell you I’ve got all the answers and everything is going to be 
perfect because I can’t seem to pull that off even at home.  We will talk about these 
things and be open about them.  I’m not going to hide the ball from you.  
It would help though to have, to see that you guys have those 
conversations within this group so that we have some sense of what you have 
consensus on and some sense of, I’m open to hear even if there is a small group of 
22
people who have a concern.  Certainly I’m not saying you have to have a consensus 
to bring it forward, but it helps me understand the level of the problem if you guys 
have had conversations and it’s a consensus or if its just a concern shared by the 
folks who had to travel the farthest or, I mean, this is very helpful.
REBECCA BEATON: Hi, Rebecca Beaton, Washington State.  
I have two quick notes.  One is that we do have some openings here at NANC and it 
would be very helpful if the FCC announced those and perhaps solicited from 
NARUC or the appropriate bodies that would fill those positions because they are 
often left open for quite a lengthy period.  I think because we have new players and 
new entities and new commissioners coming in, they are not fully formed of the 
process to be named to this advisory committee.
DANA SHAFFER: To that point I think you said you had two.  I’ll 
come back to you.  Don’t assume that just because someone hasn’t been named that, 
for example, NARUC hasn’t been solicited.  Don’t make that assumption at all, but I 
hear you.  I don’t have any update for you. 
At least do me the favor of, I won’t make assumptions if you all don’t 
make assumptions and don’t assume that just because, for example, the NARUC 
representative hasn’t been named that we haven’t asked NARUC who they might 
like to have for that position.
That said, you had number two?
23
REBECCA BEATON: Yes.  Tom, we’ve had some dialogue 
from our state with Tom Navin.  I assume we will just move that dialogue to you, is 
that correct?
DANA SHAFFER: Absolutely.  I came to the Commission 
working for Tom Navin.  My only regret coming back to be bureau chief is that I 
don’t get to work again for Tom Navin because I’m one of his biggest fans.  I can 
say with confidence and like I told the team I work for, that everything Tom had 
going, conversations, hopefully we have continuity in terms of not only keeping that 
going with me the same you had with Tom, but the team doesn’t change, everyone is 
still there.  
No one walked out when I got announced.  I was very grateful.  It 
would have been scary had they, because they had worked with me before, and if 
they’d said, “okay I’m out of here.”  That would have probably been a little deflating 
to my ego.  Yes, we should, if you do not see total continuity, then let me know.  All 
of those things should still hopefully keep going without any hiccup at all.
REBECCA BEATON: Thank you.
DANA SHAFFER: You are welcome.
COURTNEY JACKSON: Again, I share the welcome and the 
appreciation for the opportunity to meet you and the kind words that you had to say.  
I am from Jamaica.  We have tried to participate in the work of the NANC from the 
perspective of the wider Caribbean and I thought it would be a good thing to make a 
gentle reminder of the interest of the wider Caribbean within the North American 
24
Numbering Plan area and to say that we do have some issues that we think that 
should be brought to the NANC and you will be hearing from us in the future.  
Thank you.
DANA SHAFFER: I look forward to that and let me say that if I 
need to make a field trip, I understand those issues completely.  You just let me 
know.
COURTNEY JACKSON: Thank you.  You’re welcome.
DANA SHAFFER: Thank you for letting me, I’m sorry to interrupt 
but thanks for letting me just pop in.  Its only been official since the 30th so my 
schedule is still a little hectic.  I don’t see that changing anytime soon, but I‘ll try to 
do better next time to be here at the beginning of the meeting.  
Maybe we can make dialogue at these meetings.  Its also something 
that’s ongoing, you know, semi-regular.  If you guys can stand me, I’ll be back.  
Thank you so much and thank you for the work you do.  
I just cannot say that enough and I cannot tout your praises enough.  I 
mean it. I’m not just saying that because I know it’s a lot of work.  It’s a lot of 
thankless work.  It’s a lot of sometimes, not boring work, but sometimes I know 
reading through it, you know, okay, I’m back.  
I look forward to the October information.  I absolutely want to see 
that.  I understand there should be some interesting data from some of the states.  We 
will charge forward together.  I know there are a number of issues.  I know some of 
25
you are probably sitting there thinking, well, we’re not talking about this today.  
We’re not talking about that today.  
There are a couple of things you are talking about that even if I’m not 
sitting down here, I’ll either have someone down here or just know that we are aware 
of your issues.  I hope to have people in and out of the meeting today to listen to the 
presentations on those issues and Tom has already briefed me on a couple of the 
issues you are going to be discussing in detail today. 
So, please, please also don’t assume if I’m not here personally, that 
I’m not interested in the issue and keeping up with the issue and having a dialogue 
with Tom because he was one of the first people to say, I need to get on your 
calendar.  You guys have a great chairman here.  
We all look forward to working with you and thank you for letting me 
interrupt this morning.
TOM KOUTSKY: You can interrupt anytime Ms. Schaeffer.
DANA SHAFFER: Schaeffer?  So that’s one.
TOM KOUTSKY: Yeah, we’re done.  We’re even.
DANA SHAFFER: You are not going to tell them what 
(undecipherable) I made on your last name are you?
TOM KOUTSKY: No, not at all.  Okay.  Thanks Dana.  I do 
appreciate Dana coming by and she really is a very – as open and gregarious as she 
just appeared in real life.
26
Amy, I think is next.  The report of the Pooling Administrator.  Is 
Amy –
Two things while she walks up here.  First of all I want to enter the 
new charter, the public notice in as Exhibit 4 because Dana just referenced that.
I forgot to mention this earlier, because we are operating on a 
transcript here, when people speak they should state, in the first sentence they should 
state their name.  That just makes it easier for the transcriber.  State your affiliation 
as well, but your name is sufficient.  
We should really try to make sure that we get a clean transcript so 
kind of make sure that the microphone appears to work when you make a statement 
so the transcript is as clean as possible.  This last transcript was much cleaner than 
the one prior.  So it’s learning by doing.
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL THOUSANDS-BLOCK POOLING 
ADMINISTRATOR (PA)
Amy Putnam the Pooling Administrator.
AMY PUTNAM: I am very pleased to announce that pooling is 
fine and will continue to be fine for five or six years.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  Thank you.
AMY PUTMAN: If you look at slide 2, slide 2 is the rolling 
twelve month Part III workload data that we provide to the NANC by month for the 
last twelve months.  We were down a little in September but can’t call it a trend until 
it goes on for a while.
27
Page 3, you will recognize as well, the Part III summary data.  I 
apologize for the lack of a page break there where it clearly is supposed to be.  I’m 
going to blame Damian, my laptop is named Damian.  Damian is very old and 
now that we have the new contract I’ll be getting something that I hope won’t be 
called Damian.
Rosemary did you –
ROSEMARY EMMER: Yes.  This is Rosemary Emmer with 
Sprint Nextel.  I just had a quick question on page 2.  The denials for the red light 
rules.  It looks like there was 74 in May.  I don’t know if I caught that at the last 
NANC meeting.
AMY PUTNAM: I believe there was a reporting period then and 
we find that either a reporting period or a payment period and we find that for a few 
days we have issues with the red light rule and that happens until people get caught 
up.
ROSEMARY EMMER: Okay. Thanks.
AMY PUTNAM: Page 4 has some information on it that, for 
example, the quantity of the rate area pool replenishment information.  We provide 
this type of information monthly to the NOWG and thought we would just include 
this forecasting data in our report.
The number of rate center file changes, that 1,041, that’s rate centers 
that have changed from excluded to optional or from optional to mandatory to state 
28
mandatory or single service provider to mandatory.  Those are the kinds of things 
that generate the rate center file changes.
Slide 5 I like to look at that.  That is our system performance for the 
year.  I love the long line of zeros on the right column.
Slide 6 is new but, slide 6 in particular, the other pooling related items 
of interest are not new but we thought we would give you a matrix on the delegated 
authority petitions and I have a hot off the press Alabama 216 Order.  It apparently 
came out this morning.  I haven’t read it yet.  I was actually trying to figure it out on 
the Blackberry when you called me up here.
TOM KOUTSKY: I actually I would like to say that I think this 
chart is really useful, and I would encourage you to keep it.  I think to have in one 
spot – honestly, I think it also helps the FCC a little bit too to kind of keep track of 
these things.  Now they should expect that, you know, there is a state order from 
Alabama.  I think that’s a good idea.
AMY PUTNAM: Okay.  The Alabama pooling to begin no later 
than four months after the date of the Order which is no later than four months after 
today.  We will be setting up a supplemental implementation meeting for Alabama 
256 post haste with alacrity.  
Page 7.  I’m going to skip the first section on page 7 for the time 
being and move on to the quick and easy ones.  The semi-annual report, we 
completed our NRUF submission prior to the August 22 deadline.  There has been no 
change in the information with regard to the interim routing number authority, the 
29
interim pANI (sic).  I believe that there is still a petition pending before the FCC 
that’s related to that denial, but that denial has been on the records for a long time.  
We are pretty much in a holding pattern there.
Change Order.  All the change orders from the first contract have 
been completed and as of this date there have been no new change orders in the new 
contract.
Change Order 41, if you recall, was the third or fourth change order in 
a series regarding our attempts to clean up the data in PAS on contamination levels 
of blocks using the NPAC data.  
Finally through Change Order 47, we did a one time clean up of the 
data.  In that change order approval it was directed that one year after that snapshot 
was completed, that we would work with the NOWG and seek input from industry as 
to how things are going now.  Are things better than they were before the snapshot 
clean up, or are things the same with an expectation of using whatever information 
we get from industry to make a determination about whether or not the data base 
needs to be cleaned up more regularly.
We are working with the NOWG right now.  The letter has been 
drafted.  We’ve gotten comments and are going to be getting back to them within a 
day or so about that.  That letter should go out very shortly.
TOM KOUTSKY: Is this something you expect to become an 
additional order to modify maybe the NPAC contract?  I’m just trying to figure it 
out.
30
AMY PUTNAM: Well, if the information from industry is that 
we are till getting a lot of blocks that are contaminated more than they should be or 
we are still getting blocks that are designated in your system as pristine, but in fact 
they are contaminated, then we will sit down with the NOWG and talk about what 
needs to be done about that. 
Maybe we do need the regular report that we talked about initially.  
Doing it as a once a year snapshot clean up is very labor intensive.  It would be much 
easier for us to be able to maintain the data base on a regular basis.  If industry 
comes back and says everything is fine now and we are not having any problem, 
well, then we can just continue the way we are.  That will depend.
All right.  Now, one other thing.  Today we will be sending out the 
Pooling Administrator’s Internal Survey to Industry.  We had done this once a year 
until the contract extension and we decided to reinvigorate that. People should be 
getting that today.
And, finally, NeuStar was re-selected as the National Pooling 
Administrator.  The new contract became effective in mid-August.  It has a base 
period of two years with an annual renewal for the next three years for a total of five 
years.  We will continue to meet monthly with the NOWG as we did under the old 
contract.  We will continue to provide excellent service as we did under the old 
contract.
The old contract emphasized the National Rollout.  That was really 
the focus of the old contract and that has been completed.  This one emphasizes data 
31
quality more than anything else and reporting issues.  So, we reorganized the staff to 
make sure that we had people where we need them.  Some people stayed the same.  
Some people got moved around. 
Gary Zahn is still going to be the Regional Director for the Pooling 
Administration Service Center.  Shannon will still be Regional Director for External 
Relations.  Florence will still be doing pANI work as well as other pooling work.  
Linda Hymans will still be doing regulatory and compliance.  Bruce Armstrong 
however, who used to be our Senior Data Analyst is now the Regional Director for 
Quality Assurance.  Cecilia Louie who was one of the Pooling Implementation 
Managers, will be working for Bruce doing data quality and implementation.  So 
Cecilia will be the point of contact for the supplemental implementation meetings.  
Those of you who are involved in those will be working with Cecilia.  Jan Connally 
who is our Q.A. manager will also be working with Bruce.  Kevin Gatchell is now 
our Senior Pooling Specialist.  
Other than that you will be working with the same folks that have 
been helping you all along and I hope that they continue to do a job that pleases you 
and if not, please let me know.
TOM KOUTSKY: Rosemary.
ROSEMARY EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  A 
couple of things.  First of all, congratulations on the contract rebid.
32
I continue to be impressed with your system availability.  You just 
can’t do better than 100% - usually that is a number to shoot for, rarely is it reached 
and achieved, especially year after year.  Congratulations.                                                                                                                                            
AMY PUTNAM: I just don’t know how we are going to do that 
110.
ROSEMARY EMMER: I don’t know either but this is 
something that has been impressing me for a long time now.  So, thanks for putting 
this slide in here.  It just kind of reminds us that there are departments and folks or 
there is hope for – there is hope.  So, very good.
I do have a question on page 3.  There might be an obvious answer to 
this and I can always get with you off-line if I’m not going to be able to figure this 
out.  On the first table under Suspended.  When you look at the manual column of 
1,326, and then you look at the PAS column of 3,076.  It just seems to me like there 
is a whole lot more manuals expended than pass expended and like I said there’s 
probably a good reason, an obvious reason for that but --.  We can definitely talk 
about this later if we need to.  There may be no, it may be me.  There may not even 
be a correlation that matters there, but –
AMY PUTNAM: Yeah, why don’t we get off-line and get a 
better feel for that.  The 3,076 is the combination of pool replenishment dedicated in 
LRN blocks.  I’m pretty sure that’s what it adds up to.  So, I’m not sure where the 
question is.
33
ROSEMARY EMMER: Okay, I’ll send you an e-mail on that.  
Thank you.
TOM KOUTSKY: I have a quick question.  Amy, I cribbed.  I saw 
you were reading off an Order Chart for that list of people.  I was wondering, given 
the reorganization of the new contract I was wondering if that might be the type of 
thing you would consider posting?
AMY PUTNAM: The information is posted on the website.
TOM KOUTSKY: I just want to make sure you get it in the 
appropriate section of the minutes.  We’ll take care of that.
AMY PUTNAM: Okay, I can send it.
TOM KOUTSKY: Yeah, send it.  I think its useful just to – given 
that there were – I don’t want to say substantial changes but enough changes to 
warrant probably keeping –
AMY PUTNAM: Well, I’m sure Bruce thinks they are 
substantial.
TOM KOUTSKY: Anything else?  Any other questions from the 
old and new Pooling Administrator?  Okay, thanks a lot Amy.
We had a break scheduled here.  I’m just going to cruise right through 
it because you all seem chipper.
We will bring Mel Clay in from the LLC to give his presentation.
REPORT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN PORTABILITY MANAGEMENT 
LLC (NAPM LLC)
34
MEL CLAY: Good morning.  My name is Mel Clay.  I’m the co-
chair of the NAPM LLC.  The other co-chair is Tim Decker and Tim is somewhere 
in the audience.  We have two documents that we brought with us to report today.
One is the report to the NANC.  It’s a two page Word document and 
also a Power Point deck that’s titled the NAPM LLC Membership Introduction.  So, 
those are the two items that you should have.
On the report the first thing that we are going to report is the results of 
the NAPM new member subcommittee.  Earlier this year we formed a subcommittee 
and that subcommittee was established to develop ways to improve the process used 
for the recruitment of new members to the LLC. 
The goals for the team are to review the qualifications to become a 
member if needed.  Develop a communications package.  Develop a web site for 
potential candidates to access and add three to five new members to the LLC during 
2007-2008.
The results to date.  We have looked at the qualifications and felt that 
there were no changes needed there.  A communications package which is the Power 
Point deck that I handed out also has been developed.  The communications package 
is being shared with industry groups such as the LNPA Working Group, the NPAC 
Cross Regional, CTIA, USTA and others. 
We are sharing that package with you as kind of like, here’s our 
advertisement and if you know of companies that would be interested in becoming a 
member, we would like for you to pass that on to them.
35
Development of the web site is in process and we anticipate that we 
will have that web site launched during the fourth quarter of this year.  We have 
reserved the URL domains.  It’s the www.napmllc.com, as well as .biz, .net, .org, 
and .us.  We are trying to make sure that if you put in napmllc. something, you are 
going to get to us.
Sprint Nextel, a member from Sprint Nextel is working to develop 
that web site, and we think we will have that launched within the next month or two.
There have been several companies that have contacted the LLC with 
an interest in membership, and everybody that has contacted either me or Tim 
Decker or our attorney has received a communications package detailing what it 
takes to become a member and all of the associated documents that go along with 
that.  
To date there has been one company that has had repeated 
communications with us and I understand they are in the process of getting internal 
approval to become a member.  Rumor has it that they have been approved, and they 
should be a member, I guess before the end of this year.
The industry segments that have shown interest are Cable and CLEC.  
Are any questions on that particular topic?
JEROME CANDELARIA: I have a question on page 2 of your 
promotional piece.  It says that NAPM membership is currently made up of 
companies and then it listed wireless, wire line cable and I wanted to ask who the 
cable member was.
36
MEL CLAY: This document was made up before the cable company 
that was a member left and you are right, at this point in time there are no cable 
companies that are members.
TOM KOUTSKY: Rosemary and then –
ROSEMARY EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  I do 
want to qualify that comment however with the fact that there are members 
underneath the LLC members companies that are carriers that have a strong interest 
in the cable partnership.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  Beth.
BETH O’DONNELL: Beth O’Donnell for Cox 
Communications.  I was going to say something like that that Rosemary just said.  
You don’t have to answer this question if you feel it is inappropriate Mel, but I was 
wondering if you thought that the Telcordia petition is having a chilling effect on 
new members.
MEL CLAY: Beth, I really don’t know how to answer that 
question so I prefer not to.
BETH O’CONNELL: Okay.
JEROME CANDELARIA: I wanted to pursue your 
comment that there are other members who may be, have the cable industry interest 
in mind – can you specify which member that would be?  Who is not in fact a cable 
member itself?
37
ROSEMARY EMMER: Rosemary Emmer with Sprint Nextel.  I 
just want to clarify the fact that even though there wasn’t necessarily a company that 
falls under the cable category anymore under the LLC, there are carriers who, at this 
point in time, are partnering with cable companies.  
So, there are carriers in other words, who are thinking about the cable 
industry in terms of coming up with company position as a result.  I’m not saying 
there’s a cable interest underneath the LLC specifically right now because there’s 
not, but there are carriers that certainly have that interest in mind.  I just wanted to 
mention that.
TOM KOUTSKY: Just one thing.  I guess I’m just thinking about 
the record.  Maybe Mel if you could just state the companies that are in the LLC 
today.  Could I at least have a list?
MEL CLAY: All right.  There are seven companies today.  The 
companies are AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, Embark, and 
Frontier Citizens.  At this point in time, there is not a cable membership however we 
do anticipate that there will be one very shortly.
Any other questions?  All right.  The number two topic on here is just 
kind of an FYI.  The LNPA working group has recommended to the NAPM LLC 
that a separate statement of work document be developed by NeuStar for PIM51 and 
61.  The SOW requests have been provided to NeuStar from the LLC and details on 
PIM 51 and 61 will be provided today by the LNPA working group.  If I tried to 
38
answer the questions of 51 and 61 it would probably not be as detailed as you would 
get from the LNPA working group.
The number three item, again, it’s an FYI item.  Back in July the FCC 
Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing and Policy Division, requested an informal 
meeting with the LLC to discuss LNP cost causer petition.  The petition number 
RM11299 which is better known as the Bell South Cost Causer Petition.  That is 
before the FCC.   It is still evidently an item at the FCC.
Attending that were the co-chairs Tim and myself, one of the PE’s
from the LLC, and a member from Sprint Nextel. The FCC staff questioned us on 
how ports are identified and if there are any alternative ways of handling SV 
modifications.
An action item was assigned to the LNPA working group through the 
NANC chairman and that action item, again, not to try to deflect any questions, but 
the action item will be discussed as a part of the LNPA working group report today.
The last thing on here is that there was a data request from the Iowa 
Utilities Board.  NeuStar informed us, the LLC, that the data request was received 
from the Iowa Utilities Board and that they had provided the NPAC data to the Iowa 
Utilities Board and what the Iowa Board plans to do with that data was to assist them 
in their third biennial telecommunications competition survey.  So, just to let you 
know that NeuStar, as they provide data to anyone that’s outside of the users, they 
have to inform the LLC and the LLC does review that.  That’s all I’ve got.  I’m open 
for questions.
39
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  Jerome.
JEROME CANDELLARIA: Jerome Candelaria, NCTA.  A question 
about the FCC meeting on cost causer and I’ll have the same question for the LNPA 
working group.  This matter is a subject of FCC rule making, 11-2-99, I’m 
wondering if this will be put into the FCC record, into that rule making record.
MEL CLAY: What I was told at the meeting was this was an 
informal meeting just to gather data.  It was not an ex parte or anything that would be 
put into the record and I would ask Marilyn if there is anything other than that.
MARILYN (JONES): Marilyn Jones, FCC.  That is correct.  It 
was not an ex parte.  It will not be put into the record.
TOM KOUTSKY: I will just say preemptively, we have 
considered yet, but the work product of the LNPA working group put together, I will 
put that into the record of that rule making proceeding.  Just as a matter of course I 
think it’s important to get that information in provided we adopt it.  So from that 
standpoint, that information will go in.
The other point is that this was a request from the Bureau that 
originally went to the LLC.  The LLC essentially said it’s probably better done 
through the LNPA working group and that was essentially how the process worked.  
I think the process worked, you know, probably as effectively as it could, given the 
specific nature of the request.
Yes.
40
BETH O’DONNELL: Beth O’Donnell, Cox Communications.  
You are going to put, if we approve it, the LNPA working group report in the record 
of what?
TOM KOUTSKY: Oh, the rule making.  RM11299.
BETH O’DONNELL:Okay.  Thanks.
TOM KOUTSKY: Yes.  So it’s a public file.
MEL CLAY: Okay.  If there are no more questions Chairman 
Koutsky, that’s all I have.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  Thank you Mel.  I’m like way behind on 
labeling the exhibits so, Amy Putnam’s, the Pooling Report is Exhibit 5 and then 
we’ll make the two page presentation that Mel gave Exhibit 6 and then the 
membership packet Exhibit 7.
Now we are on to the Industry Numbering Committee.  Mr. Ken 
Havens.  He has, this is from ATIS.  It’s a document that looks like this.  It’s rather 
lengthy, if we have enough time to get through it.  This will be Exhibit 8.
INDUSTRY NUMBERING COMMITTEE (INC) REPORT FOR THE NANC
KEN HAVENS: Thank you Mr. Chairman.  My name is Ken 
Havens.  I’m the INC chair.  The presentation that you have before you represents 
INC issues that INC thought that the NANC might have an interest in knowing more 
about, in particular the VRS issue and then we also have noted the particular issues 
that are in initial pending and issues have gone to final closure and issues that are 
also in initial closure.
41
On page 2, this represents the meeting that have taken place since the 
last NANC meeting, in particular the INC met last week which is in large part why 
you didn’t get the deck until just yesterday.  We met last week.  
Also of interest you might note that we have taken or had eighteen 
interim meetings for the VRS or the VOIP subcommittee which is working the VRS 
issue and have a number of interim meetings scheduled in the coming months.
Slide 3, an issue that was worked in our CO/NXX Subcommittee, 
Issue 545, Removal of the Switch CLLI information from the NANPA web site.  
John Manning talked at length about that.  I guess the one point that I would like to 
reemphasize is that that switch CLLI information will be available on the NANPA 
secured web site to authorize service providers and regulators that have a desire or a 
need to know that information.  Any questions?
Slide 4, Issue 519 Pool Replenishment.  At the request of the PA and 
the NOWG, the INC explored options to insure that the PA is able to maintain a 
sufficient quantity of blocks available for assignment to satisfy the anticipated 
demand while maintaining no more than a six month inventory. 
This issue was brought to the INC by the Pooling Administrator 
because they were experiencing difficulty in having service providers opening codes 
in rate centers whose demand was below the recommended six month inventory.  
They were looking to find ways whereby they could encourage service providers to 
open codes to keep that pool replenished.  Obviously there is a lot of effort that goes 
into opening a new code, the costs and the time associated with doing that.  Its much 
42
easier for a service provider to request blocks from an existing pool, so we are 
looking for ways to keep that replenished.
The INC explored a number of options.  We discussed this issue for a 
number of INCs.  We talked about possibly forcing service providers to open new 
codes but in the course of discussion we found that those were undesirable, trying to 
force SP’s to do that.  Ultimately what we decided was that we would agree that the 
PA’s would ask service providers via a pop-up box to take a portion of requested 
blocks from existing resources and the remaining blocks from a code open for pool 
replenishment.  This is intended to encourage service providers to share the burden 
of pool replacement, rather replenishment, and discourage a single SP from taking 
remaining blocks in a pool.
The point that I would like to emphasize here is that, again, we are not 
requiring service providers to open a code but we are encouraging them to do so.  If, 
for example, they don’t want to do that then they can take blocks from that pool.  
This issue will result in a change order.  Any questions about this issue?
Slide 5 and a few subsequent pages after that talk about the INC’s 
progress with regard to Issue 510 which is internet based relay services and inner 
operability or the VRS issue.
Slide 5 basically describes the genesis of the issue.  The issue was 
brought to the NANC and these are taken from the transcripts from the January 2006 
NANC meeting talking about the NANC action item and the desire to have 
functional equivalency with the hearing community.
43
This INC report will focus on both the number assignment paradigm 
and the number and routing data base which will be required to support this 
functionality.
On slide 6 this slide is intended to provide you an example both visual 
and in paragraph form of VRS services.  Any questions at this point?
Slide 7.  The INC’s working proposal is to maintain interoperability 
and help achieve functional equivalency for VRS.  The INC likely will propose that 
NANPA numbers be assigned to deaf and hard of hearing relay users.  That a neutral 
third party administered central data base to support interoperability among relay 
providers by linking the relay user’s NANP number to the necessary internet address 
and that the same approach be applied to internet based services.  Question?
ANNA MILLER: Anna Miller with T-Mobile.  Just a clarification 
for me.  When you say third party neutral administered central data base, is that, I’m 
trying to understand it.  Is that kind of like a registry, a registrar to support the 
routing for the VRS?
KEN HAVENS: Right.  That would be where you translate the 
user’s assigned number to a URL
ANNA MILLER: Okay.
KEN HAVENS: And subsequent IP address.
TOM KOUTSKY: I have a couple of questions.  First of all I 
appreciate, you know the INC has done a tremendous amount of work on this.  
Meeting twice a week and things like that.  So, want to note the appreciation that I 
44
think everyone shares and also the FCC for the hard work they’ve been putting into 
this.  It’s a lot of work.
A couple of questions on this.  First of all I want to kind of clarify at 
least my understanding that what INC is working on is a report that will then be 
referred to us the NANC essentially.  We will then review that and pass on to the 
FCC essentially pursuant to their request.  That’s my understanding of the process.  
Is that correct?
KEN HAVENS: That is correct.
TOM KOUTSKY: And so this is a status update as to where they 
are, just so everyone knows this is what they are continuing to work on and we will 
get our bite of the apple.
Point four.  I have a question when you say other internet based relay 
services.  Two questions, related questions.  What kind of internet based relay 
services are we thinking about?  Well, maybe I’ll just ask that question.  What other 
examples are the subject of that?
KEN HAVENS: VRS’s, IM.  Mr. Chairman.  In the event there 
are questions which I am unable to clarify, I’ve got my subcommittee chairman for 
the VOIP that may be –
TOM KOUTSKY: Certainly and you can, you know, if he wants to 
stand over there. 
KEN HAVENS: This is Joe Hurlbert.  He’s the co-chair of the 
VOIP subcommittee at INC.
45
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  Thanks Joe.
JOE HURLBERT: To address your question as to other types, 
we’ve learned through this process that there are other types of relay services that the 
deaf make use of besides the video relay service.  Some are much more portable in a 
handheld and are text based relay service.  We are trying to determine whether some 
of those fall in scope and will work under our proposal for VRS also and whether 
some will not.  In some of them I guess already have some number assignment and 
basically it’s a text based, kind of like a cell phone, I understand.
TOM KOUTSKY: So when you mean relay service you are 
specifically talking about the hearing impaired community.
JOE HURLBERT: It’s all based on the hearing impaired 
community and when we are saying relay there’s an interpreter in the middle that is 
doing the relay.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  That’s answered the question.  I want to 
make sure everyone understood what that point four was driving at.  Continue.
KEN HAVENS: Okay.  On slide 8, it describes number 
assignment options, assignment to VRS deaf or hard of hearing relay users.  This 
essentially just describes the following options for number assignments.  
The VRS service provider can obtain numbers from an existing voice 
service provider and in turn would assign those to VRS users.  The VRS service 
provider could obtain numbers from a neutral third party and in turn assign to VRS 
users.  VRS users could actually obtain numbers directly from the voice service 
46
provider and arrange for the routing to chosen VRS provider for incoming calls.  We 
have identified a number of options in which these numbers could be assigned to an 
end user.  Question?
BETH O’DONNELL:Beth O’Donnell, Cox Communications.  These 
three options play into your working, INC is likely to propose slide?  Like, one of the 
options on page 8 is part of the proposal on page 7.  Is that NANP numbers be 
assigned to deaf and hard of hearing relay users?  The language isn’t the same so I’m 
having a hard time figuring it out.
KEN HAVENS: Slide 7 tries to illustrate that we will use NANP 
numbers.  We will be assigning NANP numbers.
BETH O’DONNELL:Oh, its not, the relay user isn’t the important 
issues, it’s the NAPM number that’s the important issue, on page 7.
KEN HAVENS: Yes.
BETH O’DONNELL:Okay.  Thanks.
KEN HAVENS: Okay.  Slide 9.  The INC is considering three 
major alternatives for implementing a central data base and the thought going into 
details one of them is the impact.  You have the dynamic DNS and DNS with 
delegation to a VRS service provider.  The INC report, the actual INC report will go 
into more depth and discussion of how these are being considered. 
TOM KOUTSKY: With regard to this, to what extent will there be 
discussion about relative costs of each of the options?
47
KEN HAVENS: The INC is not delving into actual cost issues.  
Its out of the purview of INC to discuss actual costs.
TOM KOUTSKY: So, I’ll point out that that will probably be 
something that will be part of our review is to weigh and measure the relative costs 
of these three options.  It’s essentially a cost benefit analysis.  Anna.
ANNA MILLER: Anna Miller, T-Mobile.  I guess in terms of 
evaluation I’m anxious to see what the INC report says and get more detail on these 
three alternatives.  Depending on NANC review then if there is a determination that 
that type of information is important then maybe NANC needs to put together an 
IMG or group to look at that.  I’m not sure.  I guess I wanted to bring that up as 
maybe a possibility.  I’m just waiting to get the INC report first to see if that really 
satisfies the information that’s needed and how to address the concern or if more 
work needs to be done.
TOM KOUTSKY: I’m kind of in a similar situation.  It kind of 
depends on what the report says.  My anticipation today is that we will probably do 
some kind of IMG to – probably do an IMG to pull in the expertise because we have 
experts on both in FON and in the LNPA working group.  This kind of crosses over a 
little bit of both.  I don’t want to pick one.  I think we will probably end up doing it 
that way.  IMGs also work, can work a lot faster because they are single topic.  
What I encourage the INC report to do, I mean, you are a separate 
body but even if you do come up and make a statement about we think this is a 
preferred option I would like there to be in the report sufficient information about the 
48
other options so that we can kind of take another step.  I would even encourage to 
possibly not necessarily to get bogged down in picking one over the other.  Maybe 
information gathering is a lot more useful.
KEN HAVENS: The INC report definitely goes into an analysis 
of the various options.  I think you will find that section particularly useful in helping 
to come to some conclusion.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  I appreciate that.  Beth was first and 
then Rebecca.
BETH O’DONNELL: I don’t have anything.  I just nodded.
TOM KOUTSKY: Oh, you just nodded.  You’ve got your little 
card up.
That’s fine. That’s fine.  Rebecca.
REBECCA BEATON: Rebecca Beaton, NARUC Washington 
(undecipherable).  For clarification then the INC will make a recommendation, give 
the options to NANC, NANC will look at the cost at that point and then –
TOM KOUTSKY: We’ll also review the recommendations.  I’ve 
learned to appreciate that there are two platonic ideals of consensus.  There is an INC 
consensus and there’s a NANC consensus which don’t necessarily have to be the 
same thing, but usually are.  The process will be that they will come up with a 
recommendation and then a NANC group --.  I think the one thing that we will value 
add on that is a type of, a general cost analysis. You will have information as to what 
49
some people might think is the best way to do it, but there is also other 
considerations at play.
KEN HAVENS: I should point out that the INC will come to a 
recommendation provided we can gain consensus on a recommendation.
TOM KOUTSKY: Exactly.
KEN HAVENS: At the very least, we will try to distill it down 
into, you know, perhaps a couple of paths that you can go by and provide enough 
information to facilitate discussion and having a recommendation from the IMG.
TOM KOUTSKY: Exactly because a lot of these do cross over and 
aren’t necessarily solely related to VRS in the end.  That’s the specific charge from 
the Bureau is to help them out on this VRS, actually the Bureaus, there are three 
Bureaus involved in this question.  These do cross over into other areas and other 
subject matters when you start talking about the merits of the dynamic DNS data 
base versus ---.  There are a few other considerations.  If anyone is volunteering to 
chair an IMG, speak to me.  You may want to start setting up on it.
INC has been doing a tremendous amount of work on this.  I just 
think that what they put together is going to be very useful for us.
KEN HAVENS: Thank you Mr. Chairman.  On slide 10, this 
provides the status of the INC report.  You will note that currently we have over fifty 
pages which is comprised of seven sections and four appendices and over one
hundred contributions have been submitted in preparation for this particular report.  
50
We have a number of industries that have consistently participated in 
discussion and providing contributions and so I look forward to being able to present 
that report to you in the near future.
The slide goes on to talk about some of the hours that we have 
invested in that and that we have been and will continue to meet twice a week until 
the report is finalized.
Finally, on slide 11, some additional points of note.  The INC believes 
that the use of the NAPM resource will facilitate the provision of the E911 service to 
relay users.  INC recognizes that E911 is an issue of interest to the FCC and to the 
NANC and so we wanted to make sure that it was understood that our solution 
should dovetail nicely into that.
INC believes that a number and routing data base should be operated 
by a neutral third party with appropriate privacy and security considerations.  
Finally, the INC report does not address how or for which aspects of this service 
service providers will be reimbursed by the TRS fund.  Obviously that is a policy 
issue and that will be decided here.  Any questions?
TOM KOUTSKY: I will note it may not even be decided here.  
That’s ultimately for the FCC.
ROSEMARY EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  I 
would like to personally thank the INC and Joe Hurlbert and the subcommittee 
membership for the unwavering support with this particular issue.  Eighteen interim 
51
meetings since the last report and thirteen interim meetings in October and 
November is more than impressive. 
To follow Ms. Shaffer’s lead, just thank you, thank you, thank you.
KEN HAVENS: That’s the end of the VRS piece.
TOM KOUTSKY: One thing I would just, I’m not sure on the 
timing of the result of this report but I anticipate INC will forward it to me and then I 
will, as soon as I get it, it will circulate that to the full NANC and we’ll probably --.  
Unless I hear anybody else saying, in the event we don’t have a meeting between 
now and then, unless anyone objects, my initial inclination on this is to create an 
IMG.  If anybody objects to that decision now would be a good time to let me know 
if they think its better in a working group.  I personally think its better in an IMG 
because we can pull in people from both of the related working groups.  Saying that, 
I will then act to try to establish that as soon as practicable.
KEN HAVENS: On that note the INC is again meeting, nose to 
the grindstone for as long as it takes.  We discussed last week, you know, based upon 
that when we thought we might have this report and we anticipate, cannot of course 
guarantee, but we anticipate we would have something by the year end.   That’s the 
goal that we are driving toward.
These last three or four slides, slide 12 represents issues are in initial 
pending at the INC and what that really means is we have issue that have gone to 
final closure but we had received information which caused us to bring the issue 
back into a pending status or that we are waiting on information or action items from 
52
another body.  Normally I go through a number of these issues and tell you a little bit 
about those but there’s a whole bunch of them and I’m not sure – if you have any 
particular questions, I’d be more than happy to answer them, but my suggestion 
would be that if you have questions about them you could get with me or this 
information is available on the ATIS website to provide more information.
There is probably one issue that I would like to perhaps note.  That 
would be on page 14, just to follow up on something that Mr. Manning noted during 
the NANPA presentation.  
Issue 532 the Kinsale Mobile application for an ERC.  The only thing 
that I wanted to add to that was that the INC in hearing David Traynor who is the 
gentleman from Kinsale that made the presentation to the INC.  He provided us some 
questions, rather information to questions that we had about his application, and we 
continually sought additional information to try to get more information.  Ultimately 
it became apparent that he wasn’t interested in it because he didn’t answer our 
questions.  So the point I wanted to make is that we exercised due diligence in 
hearing his request and waiting an appropriate length of time to ensure that we had 
provided all the information that he needed.  That’s the one point that I wanted to 
make on that.
Finally, that’s pretty much the end of my presentation.  Are there any 
questions or any issues that people would like me to talk about that I glossed over?
53
If not, then I would – this is my last NANC meeting as INC chair.  A 
new INC chair will be elected at the December meeting.  I just wanted to thank 
NANC and its members for allowing me to be up here for the last four years.
TOM KOUTSKY: Thank you Ken.  You’ve done a tremendous 
job in putting a lot of things together for us especially in short order.  That’s much 
appreciated.  The work is always done professionally and comprehensively. You’ve 
done well.
KEN HAVENS: Thank you.
TOM KOUTSKY: Don.
DON GRAY: Nebraska NARUC.  I just wanted to personally and for 
Nebraska thank Ken also for his hard work and the diligence of INC.  They have 
been a tremendous help over the last two to three years for Nebraska and some of the 
issues that we discovered in exploring into the world of thousands-block number 
pooling.  You were a great help to us in implementing that and making necessary 
changes to guidelines to help facilitate that for states that were looking into that. 
Thank you very much Ken, we appreciated that help and look 
forward to working with you in some other capacity down the road.
KEN HAVENS: I’m not going away.  I’m just not chair 
anymore.  Both the INC and I thank you, Don.  
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  The Report of the Billing and Collection 
Agent.
This report will be Exhibit 9.  It’s the one with all the numbers on it.
54
REPORT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PLAN BILLING 
AND COLLECTION (NANP B&C) AGENT
FAITH MARCOTTE: Good morning, I’m Faith Marcotte from 
Welch and Company, and we are the Billing and Collection Agent.
If you turn to the first page of the report it gives the statement of the 
financial position of the fund.  Right now as of August 31st we had $5,000,000.00 in 
the bank, $300,000.00 of accounts receivable and about $900,000.00 in accrued 
liabilities.  There’s a little bit of a make up of those accrued liabilities below.  In the 
cash account we earned a rate of return of 4.79% in annual rate of return.
If you turn to page 2, there is a forecast of where we expect the fund 
to be by the end of the funding year, which is June 2008.  If you look across the page 
there is a total column and a budget column.  You can see there what we expect the 
fund to be at now versus what the budget was.  Of course, our budget was for 
$1,000,000.00 surplus and we are now projecting $2,500,000.00 surplus.
The bottom right hand corner gives you a breakdown of the difference 
between the two, mainly it due to pooling.  One of the bigger differences is for 
pANI.  There was a Change Order 48 which originally was an amount of 
$517,000.00 and it came in at $87,000.00. There was a difference of $400,000.00 
there that we hadn’t anticipated.  
We had also projected that the pANI costs of $225,000.00 for the 
coming year. That is now included in the pooling contract so its not a separate 
number on its own.
55
The major difference was the difference between what we had 
budgeted for pooling for the year versus what the new contract amounted to.  We 
were budgeting based on an average of what the pooling costs were for the previous 
two years which amounted to $3.2 Million which amounts to about $256,000.00 a 
month and the new contract is $189,000.00 a month.  That’s a difference of 
$772,000.00.
There were two other amounts based on the difference between 
estimates and what the actual invoices turned out to be for pooling.
So we are about $1.5 Million over what we had anticipated, again, 
mainly due because we didn’t have the pooling contract in place at the time we were 
doing the budgeting.
Just to let you know, when we did the September report which we 
didn’t have time to get approved by the working group and to this meeting in time, a 
couple of more invoices came through from NeuStar for previous year for merit 
bonus and a fixed fee which reduces the surplus by another $300,000.00.  So we are 
down to about $2.2 Million in what we are anticipating as of now, as of September 
30th.  Are there any questions about the forecast and the budget?
FAITH MARCOTTE: (undecipherable) liabilities for the next six 
months, just so you can see what we are looking at over the next six months.  Are
there any questions?
TOM KOUTSKY: Seeing no questions.  Nice job on this.  I know 
last year was kind of difficult because we threw pANI into the mix and you had to 
56
make some guesses.  I appreciate the work that you did and I’m glad it turned out 
better than expected.  Thank you.
Now the B&C working group.  Rosemary is doing this.  Her 
presentation will be Exhibit 10.
BILLING AND COLLECTION WORKING GROUP REPORT (B&C 
WORKING GROUP)
ROSEMARY EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  Good 
morning.  Tim Decker with Verizon and I co-chair this working group.
The B&C working group is responsible for overseeing the 
performance of the Functional Requirements provided by the NANP Billing and 
Collection Agent, Welch and Company as you guys well know.
We review the performance of the NANP B&C Agent and submit 
reports to each NANC meeting informing the NANC of the performance with 
respect to the Functional Requirements.  We have spent several months preparing 
Welch & Company’s very first performance evaluation.  
You will remember that the FCC contracted with Welch & Company 
for the B&C Agent responsibility in July of 2005 and our first evaluation reflects the 
period of time between July 2005 through December 2006.
We developed a rating schematic very similar to the NOWG’s for 
consistency under the NANC.  We developed an evaluation consistent with the 
monthly deliverables matrix that the B&C working group works on to evaluate the 
57
vendor and we scheduled conference calls to gain consensus on the rating and the 
evaluation.
We used eight criteria in considering and analyzing Welch & 
Company, the monthly deliverables matrix score, the 2004 and 2005 team meeting 
materials, the FCC and NANC reports, the monthly reports that they generate, 
overall customer service, the cleanup of receivables, our own observations, co-chair 
interactions with Welch and, of course, the most important contribution factor in the 
budge related to communication and the printed material that we received from them 
regarding that subject.
Turn to the Deliverable Evaluation Matrix.  It’s in color.
TOM KOUTSKY: That’s a separate document.  It will be called 
Exhibit 11.
ROSEMARY EMMER: On page 2 you will see the rating 
legend, and it should be familiar to you as it is similar if not exactly like the 
NOWG’s.  
The next page reflects the high level of the deliverable document and 
the evaluation results are based on the deliverable matrix that the B&C working 
group keeps.  You can kind of look down through there and see those scores.
The next couple of pages we outlined the comments that were 
included in the evaluation.  I will highlight a few from the evaluation period from 
July through September of 2005, specifically regarding the reporting to the B&C 
working group and the NANC comment was “vendor was available and responsive 
58
to the new billing and collections working group.”  Also regarding the FCC red light 
notice during the same time frame they received a more than met very responsive 
within a very short time frame for the red light rule process.
The evaluation period between January and March regarding the 
contribution factor they rated a more than met and the comment was “preliminary 
options were provided timely and in an understandable manner.”
So, you can read through those comments.  On the very last page is a 
matrix of the scoring.  Do you have any questions on this document?  After the 
meeting feel free to contact Tim or myself.
Now I am going back to the deck for the B&C working group on page 
6.  Welch & Company’s rating for the July 2005 through December 2006 
performance year was a met.  They met the requirements in order to be considered 
successful.  The performance was competent and reliable.  Decisions and 
recommendations were within requirements and expectations.
I do want to point out that no performance improvement plan was 
identified.  We didn’t identify a single issue to put inside of a performance 
improvement plan.  
The other thing that I wanted to mention to you all was we did not 
have an operational review since this is new.  We are rating a new vendor.  We just 
didn’t have an opportunity to receive that yet and so we did contact Welch & 
Company, and they agreed to work with the B&C working group at least on figuring 
out what maybe some of the criteria would be.  They did agree to provide a yearly 
59
operational review to the B&C working group for the 2007 time frame.  I’m thinking 
that we would expect to have the 2007 evaluation to be finalized sometime maybe in 
the late Spring or early Summer.
We kept in the deck the NANP fund size and the contribution factor 
data.  Initially we put some talking points in here regarding the budget details and 
why we have or are expecting to have more money that we originally indicated, but 
Faith has done a terrific job of going through all that so I won’t repeat it.  
We strongly encourage participation at the B&C working group.  I 
know you are used to me saying this, but we aren’t going to have a formal 
membership drive like the LLC has.  I would just ask that if you are even remotely 
interested in learning more about the B&C working group and overseeing Welch & 
Company, we would be just thrilled to have more participation.
The last page of the deck has our future meetings and if you would 
like to have the bridge number for those meetings please feel free to e-mail Tim or
myself or give us a call.  Thank you.
TOM KOUTSKY: Thanks Rosemary.  I do appreciate the work 
that you and Tim do on this.  All these services do need to be paid for somehow so 
B&C is actually the core to both collect and remit the payments.  I would encourage 
folks to participate in that and in essence do their time in terms of making sure that 
that process is continuing to go relatively smoothly or very smoothly frankly.
With that I think its probably best that we break for lunch early right 
now.  Since we skipped through the break.  We do have a couple – NOWG I don’t 
60
want to rush that one unnecessarily on empty stomachs.  We will try to meet here.  
Everyone try to gather a little bit before one so we can start promptly at right at 1:00.  
For those not familiar, there are a couple of different cafeterias in the 
courtyard of the FCC which is on the courtyard level which you have to go up one 
floor from here and there is elevators across, just down the hallway.
So, I will see everyone a little bit before 1:00.  Thank you.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay, Let’s all settle into our chairs and get our 
pencils and scorecards ready for the NOWG report.  Karen, co-chair of NOWG will 
make the presentation.  It’s all yours.
REPORT OF THE NUMBERING OVERSIGHT WORKING GROUP 
(NOWG)
KAREN RIEPENKROGER: This will be the NOWG report.  My 
name is Karen Riepenkroger.  I co-chair the NOWG along with Natalie NcNamer of 
T-Mobile and Paula Hustead of Windstream.  
Today we will be reviewing the summary of the Pooling 
Administrator 2006 Performance Report and Survey results, the Summary of the 
NANPA 2006 Performance Report and Survey results.  We have also provided 
attachments of the tracking document which is the NANPA 2006 Preliminary 
Performance Evaluation Report and the PA 2006 Preliminary Performance 
Evaluation Report.  We will also touch base on the 2007 Survey Draft, the NANPA 
Change Orders, the NOWG Co-chair position and the meeting schedule.
61
On page 3, slide 3, for the PA for 2006 the number of respondents to 
the 2006 PA survey was down slightly from 2005 for the industry and there was a 
very small decrease in responses from regulators.
The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the 
inception of the PA Performance Survey.  As you can see for 2006 we had 55 
industry and 23 regulators.  Are there any questions?
The next slide is the PA Annual Performance Assessment is based 
upon four pieces of criteria.  The 2006 Performance Feedback Survey, written 
comments and reports, the Annual Operational Review and NOWG Observations 
and Interactions with the PA.
For the 2006 PA Performance Report the PA’s rating for the 2006 
performance year was determined by the NOWG to be more than met.  As you can 
see the rating is defined as to provides more than what was required to be successful,
performance was more than competent and reliable, and decisions and 
recommendations usually exceeded requirements and expectations.
On the next three slides, I’m not going to go into a lot of detail on 
them.  I will let you review them.  It just goes by section and how many respondents 
and the cumulative results for each of those sections.  If you have any questions, 
please feel free to get with me after the presentation.  We can answer any questions 
that you may have.
If you can go to slide 9, a summary of the written comments that were 
provided by survey respondents.  Significant praise for PA staff was a consistent 
62
theme throughout the survey.  Provides exceptional help and support, very 
responsive, knowledgeable and professional and staff is doing an excellent job, a 
pleasure to work with.  That can echo from the NOWG members as well, they have 
been very responsive to everything that we have asked of them in 2006.
NOWG observations on the 2006 PA Performance Report on slide 10.  
The 2006 survey results reveal the high level of client satisfaction that commenters 
attributed to the PA’s professionalism, customer service focus and expertise 
exhibited by the PA personnel throughout 2006.  
Delegated authority for supplemental pooling has been sought by 
various state commissions and granted by the FCC and the PA has demonstrated that 
they can handle the increase of service providers that are now participating in 
pooling.  They have done this without an increase in their staff.
On suggestions the NOWG recommends that the following 
improvements be considered for pro actively managed rate center inventories to 
ensure resources are available when needed, continue to explore ideas and processes 
for keeping pools replenished, continue customer focus, pass through capability from 
PAS to NAS and process improvement suggestions provided by service providers 
and our regulators in the survey comments.  Are there any questions on the 2006 PA 
Performance Report?
TOM KOUTSKY: I have a question on the suggested 
improvements.
KAREN RIEPENKROGER: Yes.
63
TOM KOUTSKY: They seem like good ideas to me but how 
would they actually be implemented?  What do you think would be the next step to 
getting those in place?
KAREN RIEPENKROGER: Well I know that under the new contract 
they will be implementing the interface between PAS and NAS and I know that the 
PA actually goes through the comments from the survey and they’ll go through them 
and review them and analyze to see if they need to implement a change order to 
implement them into the PAS system and I know that they have done that in the PAS 
on previous surveys.  They are actively working with the INC to identify ways to 
keep the pools replenished.
TOM KOUTSKY: Yes, Ken.
KEN HAVENS: You may recall that we talked about issue 519, 
pool replenishment and that the INC in conjunction with the PA explored a number 
of opportunities to try to get service providers to open NXXs in those rate centers 
where you didn’t have enough inventory and basically all we decided that we could 
do was to encourage this PAS drop down screen that we talked about where it would 
suggest that a service provider open up a code.  
Again, it’s just purely encouragement because we concluded that we 
really couldn’t require anyone to open up a code.  It’s purely voluntary, that half and 
half proposal where you might take half of the blocks in the pool and then perhaps 
you would agree to take the remaining blocks from the code that you would in turn 
try to open up or would open up.
64
TOM KOUTSKY: And that’s been finalized, correct.  That’s being 
implemented right now.
KEN HAVENS: Its part of PAS or will be, same change order.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  So that change order will go through the 
process and then its approved and implemented and after several months we might 
be able to see if that’s having an effect.
KEN HAVENS: Its certainly not a fail safe measure.
TOM KOUTSKY: Yeah, okay, all right.
KAREN RIEPENKROGER: One of the other things I do want to 
comment about is that the PA pro actively each month sends out e-mails to service 
providers that pools need to be replenished.  So they are consistently each month 
sending out e-mails that say, you know, the pool needs to be replenished.  Can you 
submit a part 1?  So they are actively doing that each month.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  Thanks.
KAREN RIEPEN KROGER: Any other questions?  Okay.  I will 
move on to slide 12.  2006 NANPA Survey respondents.  The number of respondents 
to the 2006 NANPA Survey was down significantly from 2005 for the industry and 
there was no increase in responses from regulators.
The following chart reflects that trend and as you can see we only had 
15 from the industry and twenty-one from the regulators and as we discussed this at 
the NOWG we attribute that to, a lot of the companies go directly to the Pooling 
Administrator because to get their NPA and NXXs or their blocks also and so, they 
65
don’t even probably look at the NANPA to do the survey.  In fact, I have had 
conversations that say, no I don’t even deal with the NANPA and I said but you do 
in different aspects but they still look at it from just getting their numbering 
resources and not for the NRUF and for NPA relief.  They are not looking at all of 
that.  We attribute that to why the decrease in service provider participation.
NANPA’s annual performance is based upon four pieces of criteria.  
It’s the 2006 Performance Feedback Survey, written comments and reports, annual 
operational review, NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA.
The NANPA’s rating for the 2006 performance year was determined 
by the NOWG to be exceeded.  The definitions for exceeded are: provided excellent 
above performance requirements and exceeded expectations, performance was well 
above requirements, decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and 
expectations.
On the next three slides, again, I’m not going to review each of those 
because those are the cumulative results.  If you do have any questions, please feel 
free to get with me after the meeting and I’ll be glad to answer any questions you 
may have.
The following is a summary of written comments that were provided 
by survey respondents for the NANPA.  Significant praise for NANPA’s staff was a 
consistent theme throughout the survey.  Helpful, cooperative and supportive, 
professional, prompt and courtesy, responsive, knowledgeable and demonstrates 
expertise, willing to go the extra mile to provide excellent customer service.  
66
The only consistent comments for improvements pertain to the 
NANPA web site navigation.  The written comments submitted at part of the survey 
did not reveal any consistent theme or concern about NANPA’s performance.
NOWG observations.  High level of satisfaction revealed NANPA 
focuses on customer satisfaction, significant praise for NANPA’s staff was a 
consistent theme throughout the survey results, cooperation with the NANC, 
NOWG, the FCC and state regulators has been exceptional and displayed leadership 
initiative, outstanding professionalism and expertise.  Pro-actively introduced new 
INC issues and contributions.
From the NOWG we truly enjoyed working with the NANPA 
throughout 2006 through this performance report and they responded to every 
question or need that we asked of them.
On slide 20, NOWG observations.  NANPA seamlessly addressed the 
Code Administration personnel changes necessitated by the department of two of its 
three administrators and their work product remained at a high level of performance.  
The NANPA effectively managed all aspects and NPA relief activity in 2006 
providing excellent service above and beyond performance requirements.
Throughout 2006 the NANPA personnel continued to consistently 
exhibit their professionalism and expertise while performing NANPA duties.  
For suggestions, recommendations.  The NOWG recommends that the 
following suggestions be implemented for continued improvement.  Pass through 
capability from NAS to PAS.  Continued efforts to improve NANPA web site search 
67
engine.  Enhancement to the NAS NRUF missing utilization report search capability.  
Are there any questions on the NANPA report?
TOM KOUTSKY: Rebecca has one.
REBECCA BEATON: Rebecca Beaton, Washington.  On the 
performance report recommendations, with the pass through capability from NAS to 
PAS, do you know if that’s going to be in effect this year or next year?
KAREN RIPEN KROGER: I would probably defer that to John 
Manning for his response since I believe it will have to be a change order that will be 
issued.  I think they are working in conjunction with the PA on this.
JOHN MANNING:         John Manning, NANPA.  Karen is correct.  
We are working right now with the PA to put together the requirements that are 
necessary for the interface.  The plan is to submit a change order for NANPA this 
month with the idea that at the conclusion of the six month interval that the PA has 
for the system it will be able to introduce the interface between PAS and NAS at that 
time.  So that would probably roughly be January, February of next year.
REBECCA BEATON: So, January, February of 2008.
JOHN MANNING: Yes. 
REBECCA BEATON: Thank you very much.
KAREN RIEPENKROGER: Thank you John.
On slide 22.  The NOWG, this is our time estimate for the 2006 
Performance Report.  To complete the various NANPA and PA 2006 Performance 
Report activities, the NOWG collectively and individually spent approximately 400 
68
hours.  These activities included operational reviews with the NANPA and PA 
review and aggregation of the survey data.  Preparation of the performance report 
and review of the performance report with the FCC, NANPA and PA.   Are there any 
questions?
On slide 23.  2007 NANPA and PA surveys.  The NOWG is working 
on revising the surveys.  Drafts have been forwarded to the vendors and the FCC for 
input, and the NOWG will be convening additional meetings to discuss these 
surveys.
On slide 24.  NANPA changes order.  I believe these have probably 
been reviewed so we will just do highlights.  NANPA Change Order 11 proposed to 
eliminate the use of external server and associated software.  The NOWG reviewed 
and recommended this Change Order be approved and the recommendation was 
provided to the FCC on May 25, 2007.
On slide 25, NANPA Change Order 12 proposed to replace all four of 
the servers currently in use for the NANPA administration system NAS.  NOWG 
again reviewed and recommended that this Change Order be approved.  This was 
submitted to the FCC on July 20, 2007.
On Change Order 13, which proposed to remove from the public 
NANPA web site the switch I.D. field from the Central Office Code utilized report 
and Central Office Code Assignment records, the NOWG again reviewed and 
recommended that this Change Order be approved and this recommendation was 
provided to the FCC on July 20, 2007.
69
NANPA Change Order 14 recommendation.  Change Order 14 
proposed that NANPA personnel enter a disconnect date of its Central Office Code 
on the ACD screen until Telcordia’s BIRRDS data base prior to the SP or their 
agent/AOCN entering the disconnect date on the NXD.  This will ensure that an 
NXX reported TNS is not disconnected without a thorough investigation and attempt 
to find a new LERG assignee.  Again, the NOWG reviewed and recommended that 
this Change Order be approved and this was submitted to the FCC on September 20, 
2007.  Are there any questions on the Change Orders?
2008 NOWG Co-Chair Position.  The two year term for co-chair 
position currently held by Natalie McNamer was up for re-election.  Nominations 
were accepted.  Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile was nominated to continue her current 
role for 2008 and 2009.  No other nominations were presented.  Natalie was named 
to her role by acclamation on October 1, 2007.
The last slide is the meeting schedule for the remainder of 2007.  Are 
there any questions?
TOM KOUTSKY: I’d like to go back actually to the survey slides.  
This is just on timing for the next few months.  You said you have listed input from 
the vendors and the FCC on the survey?
KAREN RIEPENKROGER: That is correct.
TOM KOUTSKY: I do plan on doing a circulated note to the 
NANC to try to get their input for a few weeks.  Could you give me a sense of a time 
line on ….
70
KAREN RIEPENKROGER: Probably in the next thirty days.  I 
would say thirty days.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  So sometime between now and early 
November the surveys will be circulated to NANC and then we’ll probably take 
three weeks or so.  When do you want to send those out for next year?
Okay.  So we will try to have NANC input done by essentially 
Christmas. Okay.
KAREN RIEPENKROGER: That would be great. Thank you.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  So, everyone’s aware of that, that time 
frame.  I think the key is to get, to make sure that we at least, that we maintain the 
participation level in the industry.  The regulators seem to have done a good job on 
this thing, but we could increase that to get the clarities (sic).
KAREN RIEPENKROGER: One of the things that we did notice is 
that every time the PA or the NANPA sent out a reminder we got significant 
numbers of surveys.  It seems like every time that they sent out the reminder it 
jogged somebody’s memory to send in the survey.  So, I think maybe what we might 
want to do in looking at 2008 is to maybe have them increase the number of 
notifications that they send out.  Its something we will discuss with the NANPA and 
the PA.
TOM KOUTSKY: Monthly for the first couple of months or 
something like that.
KAREN RIEPENKROGER: That’s correct.  Any other questions?
71
TOM KOUTSKY: I sent the performance reports out to everyone a 
few weeks ago, I guess.  I hope everyone has had a chance to review them.  Do 
anybody have any questions relating to those documents or these documents here?  If 
not, we will consider them approved without objection.  That’s for both the NANPA 
and PA Performance Reports.  Those will be posted on the web site at the end of the 
meeting or when we finalize this stuff next week.  Anna has a question?
Also congratulations to Natalie.  The new co-chair for another two 
years.  Its important work and she does a great job on it.  That I think –
KAREN RIEPENKROGER: Is that it?  No more questions?  Thank 
you very much.
TOM KOUTSKY: I think this is the major big presentation.  We 
are going to call it number 12, Exhibit 12.  Is that right?
Now the LNPA working group report.  That’s Gary, I believe.
REPORT OF THE LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY ADMINISTRATION 
WORKING GROUP (LNPA)
GARY SACRA: Thank you Mr. Chairman.  Good afternoon 
everyone.  I’m Gary Sacra, co-chair of the LNPA working group.  My other co-chair 
is Paula Jordan of T-Mobile.
I believe everybody has a copy of the report.
TOM KOUTSKY: I think so, yes.  I know I do.  Its Exhibit 13.
GARY SACRA: Thank you Mr. Chairman.  There are two 
components of the LNPA working group’s report today.  The first component is a 
72
readout of the action items assigned to the NANC by the Pricing Policy Division 
staff of the Wireline Competition Bureau.  Those action items relate to the former 
Bell South Petition RM-11299 and the subsequent Verizon ex parte related to 
proposals to shift the provider who pays the fee for certain impact billable 
transactions to the initiator of that transaction.
The second component of the report is the usual PIM summary that 
reflects the current remaining open PIMs and those that have been opened and closed 
since the last NANC meeting in April.
So to tee up the action item report.  It is attached.  Before I walk 
through that I just wanted to tee up as Chairman Koutsky and Mr. Clay stated earlier.  
Members of the NAPM LLC met with the Pricing Policy Division staff on July 26 to 
discuss the former Bell South petition and the Verizon ex parte.  That was an 
informal meeting.  
Chairman Koutsky was subsequently contacted by the Pricing Policy 
Division staff to assign or to request assignment of a number of action items to the 
LNPA working group related to a very specific focus of the July 26 meeting.  That 
was to discuss modifications of existing NPAC ported and pooling records that occur 
as a result of being initiated by certain providers.
One of the components that’s common to both the former Bell South 
petition and the Verizon ex parte is a proposal that modifies of existing ported and 
pooled records be paid for by the initiator of the transaction. Providers modify their 
existing ported and pooled records for a number of legitimate reasons, but the focus 
73
of the July 26 meeting and the subsequent action items was the very specific type of 
modify.  That is modification of what’s called destination point codes in the NPAC 
ported and pooled subscription version records.
Destination point codes or DPCs as they are commonly referred to are 
nine digit Signaling System 7 (SS7) network addresses that are assigned to SS7 
network elements such as switches, data bases such as LNP routing data bases, 
calling name data bases, Line Information Database (LIDB) data bases and also they 
are assigned to signal transfer points or STPs.  STPs act as the traffic cops in the SS7 
network for the routing of SS7 messages.
There are five services currently that potentially could contain DPC 
data in a ported or pooled number record.  Those five services are: LIDB for 
alternate billing services; CNAM for calling name delivery service; Class features 
such as auto recall and auto call back or *68, *69.  There is also DPC data for inter 
switch voice messaging for the messaging waiting indicator.  The DPC data routes 
the necessary message in order to light up your light on your phone that indicates 
that you have a message waiting or to put stutter dial tone on your line also 
indicating that you have a message waiting.  The fifth service is wireless short 
message service, text messaging.  Some providers use the DPC data fields in the 
ported and pooled number records for the routing of the wireless short message text 
service. 
I have a slide that I’ll walk through a little bit just to kind of walk 
through using CNAM as an example to show how these messages are routed using 
74
the DPC data fields.  These messages are commonly referred to as TCAP messages 
or transaction capabilities messages.  Those are the type of SS7 messages that these 
five services utilize in order to route these messages in support of the services, route 
them to their proper destination whether that be a switch, a data base such as LIDB 
or CNAM.
Typically the DPC data that in a ported or pooled number record and 
that DPC data is placed in their by the provider that either ports in the number or 
pools in the thousands block.  Those DPC fields typically indicate or are assigned to 
what’s called a gateway STP in that provider’s network or the data base provider’s 
network.  
That DPC data is what the rest of the world uses in order to route 
these TCAP messages to the target SS7 network.  Once it hits that gateway STP, then 
it’s the recipient provider in their network, its their responsibility then to route that 
TCAP message according, whether to the appropriate switch for class services or the 
appropriate data base for LIDB.  
What I would like to do is walk through the first three action items 
because those action items relate to the quantity of numbers assigned to various 
industry segments and how many of those numbers are either ported or pooled in the 
NPAC data bases.  I would like to kind of walk through those three action items first, 
then I would like to shift everyone’s attention to the Power Point slide to walk 
through the CNAM example.  Then I will go back to action item four which relates 
75
to whether or not there is any viable alternatives to doing the modified transactions 
on these DPC data fields.
JEROME CANDELARIA: I just have a question about the 
sequence of events.   You described NAPM met with FCC staff initially, then they 
reached out to the chairman.  Did the NAPM direct the FCC staff to Chairman 
Koutsky or can you give me –
GARY SACRA: Yes.  In fact I was in attendance at the July 26 
meeting.  One of my responsibilities, I’m one of the LLC project executives.  At the 
July 26 meeting –
JEROME CANDELARIA: So you were at both the NAPM meeting 
and you are the chair of the LNPA working group.
GARY SACRA: Co-chair of the working group.  That’s correct.  
I wear a number of hats.  That’s okay.
At the July 26 meeting there was discussion of the possibility of 
assigning to the working group a number of action items related to some of the 
questions that the Pricing Policy Division had on modified and use of the NPAC for 
modifies.  We felt, the LLC felt that it was appropriate for any request to the LNPA 
working group in terms of action items and data requests should go through
Chairman Koutsky in order to have that action assigned.
JEROME CANDELARIA: Were the same questions outlines in the 
LNPA working group handouts, the same questions that were presented to the 
NAPM?
76
GARY SACRA: Those questions actually weren’t.  Well, they 
were discussed in general.  They were actually made specific and finalized on the 
August 29 conference call that Chairman Koutsky convened between the LNP 
working group co-chairs and the Pricing Policy Division staff members.
BETH O’DONNELL:Beth O’Donnell from Cox Communications.  
You may have said this and I missed it.  I apologize for that.  I was reading the 
paper.  Can you tell me the genesis of the July 26 meeting?  It is confusing.  The 
paper says that Tom Koutsky was contacted by the Pricing Division but then you are 
talking about a NAPM meeting with the Pricing Division on July 26.  Can you tell 
me what the genesis of the July 26 meeting was?
GARY SACRA: The NAPM LLC representatives which were 
both the co-chairs, myself as project executive and the Sprint Nextel representative 
of the LLC they attended the meeting at the request of the Pricing Policy Division 
staff in order to discuss some of the questions that they had that pertained to the Bell 
South petition and the Verizon ex parte.
BETH O’DONNELL:So the Pricing Policy Division initiated this 
meeting?
GARY SACRA: Yes.
BETH O’DONNELL:Okay.  Thanks.
GARY SACRA: If I can shift your attention to actually the third 
page in the report, the LNPA working group report which is actually the second page 
of the action item report.  It has a “2" down at the bottom right of the page.
77
Action Item 1 was a request for the assigned numbering resources by 
industry segment. Those segments being wire line ILEC, wire lien CLEC and 
wireless providers.  The staff requested the working group to identify the total 
quantity of numbers currently assigned to each of these segments.
There was a request initially to see if we could break out cable 
providers as a separate industry segment. Quite frankly every source, data source,
that Paula Jordan, my fellow co-chair and myself identified, includes providers in 
with the CLEC quantities. 
We talked with a number of the cable providers that participate on the 
working group we weren’t able to identify a source that broke out those quantities 
separately.  You will see there is a note here in Action Item 1 that states that cable 
provider numbering resources that are assigned to that segment are actually included 
in the wire line CLEC counts.
TOM KOUTSKY: I think Jerome was first.
JEROME CANDELARIA: We can ask the same thing.  
Cable obviously gets our attention here.  I am wondering did staff as you to 
breakdown, make any other breakdowns?  For example, cable provides service 
through both third parties and as a CLEC.  Did they ask you to breakdown cable 
among those who are CLEC and those who are not? 
GARY SACRA: No, they did not.
78
JEROME CANDELARIA: Did they ask you to breakdown among 
the top providers, for example, Vonage or any other provider of phone services who 
utilize the North American Numbering Plan?
GARY SACRA: No, they did not.  The three segments that I 
have listed here, in addition to the cable providers were the four industry segments 
that were discussed.
TOM KOUTSKY: I was at the meeting.  A quick observation.  
You know frankly the nature of the request was, if its practicable to have it, you 
know, that would be interesting data.  I don’t think it was specifically directed at the 
cable industry to say that we want to know exactly how many numbers they have.  
That would be an unfair interpretation.  It was more or less what kind of data is there 
out there in terms of the users of the data base at a general, broad aggregate level.  
That was the question.
In essence, we were the ones that really broke it down, tried to break 
it down into crystalline specific questions.  So, I don’t want to run the risk of making 
too much about the specifics of the data request because I do think the information in 
the end is useful information.
BETH O’DONNELL:     Beth O’Donnell, Cox Communications.  
You in essence just answered my question because cable companies per se aren’t 
CLECs.  Cable companies have affiliates who are CLECs so why it was singled out 
was an interesting –
TOM KOUTSKY: I wouldn’t –
79
BETH O’DONNELL:It kind of caught our attention because it wasn’t 
voice providers, it was cable providers.  Cable CLEC affiliates also provide CLEC 
service in a variety of ways.  We were wondering why we got singled out frankly.
TOM KOUTSKY: I don’t think the phrase singled out is an 
appropriate phrase.  That’s all.
It was more of an informal, you know, who uses the data base and at 
what levels.  If it’s known, it’s known and if it’s not, it’s not.  That’s all.
JEROME CANDELARIA: Although I must say Action Item 
1, 2, and 3 in each case the FCC staff apparently specified they wanted cable specific 
information if possible.
TOM KOUTSKY: No.  This is what I’m trying to correct you on.  
I don’t mean to be short, but the articulation of the action items was what we did 
subsequent to the meeting in terms of trying to crystallize it so we could actually put 
some numbers to those things.  I think using the term singling out or, even in this 
particular format, is unfair and inaccurate.  That’s all.  These were requests as to who 
are users of the database and in what quantities basically.  That’s all.
JEROME CANDELARIA: Did you consider this an 
informal request by FCC staff?  I ask the question because NAPM described the 
request from the FCC staff as informal and I’m wondering if the same –
GARY SACRA: The July 26 meeting I believe Mr. Clay was 
referring to the July 26 meeting when he said it was an informal meeting.  I guess 
and I certainly can’t speak for Chairman Koutsky, but speaking from the perspective 
80
of the LNPA working group, we feel that the request for this data and the action 
items assigned to us, was an official request.
JEROME CANDELARIA: Was there any discussion 
whether this was an ex parte?  We heard that.  We had this discussion with NAPM 
and I’m wondering if there was any –
GARY SACRA: That meeting?
JEROME CANDELARIA: Actually the entire process of 
having the LNPA working group pursue this issue.  Any discussion of this.
GARY SACRA: None that I had.
TOM KOUTSKY: Under the ex parte rules the FCC is able to ask, 
it only applies to presentations made with regard to the merits of an open rule 
making proceeding.  This wasn’t a presentation made.  This was us receiving a 
request from them.  We didn’t actually make any presentation. 
By definition the ex parte rule, presentation rules, don’t apply.  They 
will, in my opinion, and I don’t, it really the only one that matters to a certain extent, 
because in essence ex parte is in the eye of the beholder.  With regard to this 
submission, sending this in since it does go to the merits of rule making, this 
document will be an ex parte and will be in the public record as we discussed this 
morning, if we approve it.
I think you will find that’s consistent with any legal interpretation.  
The FCC ex parte rule is that requests from the Commission are not presentations.  
From our standpoint I will refer everyone to the NANC charter which says that 
81
NANC reports to the Wireline Competition Bureau and if the Wireline Bureau 
makes a data request to us, gosh darn it we are going to provide them that 
information.
GARY SACRA: I will add if there is any assurance to our 
friends in the cable industry, this report, in developing this report, there was quite a 
bit of participation.  The working group members are made up of a number of the 
major cable companies.  They fully participated in the development of the report.  
I share Chairman Koutsky’s opinion as well.  Singling out I don’t 
think really – I think the reason why cable, cable providers or the cable industry was 
at least initially discussed as a segment is just because they are a very important 
segment to our industry. 
It wasn’t anything other than just, perhaps an innocent discussion on 
if at all possible providing the quantities of numbers in the data base and the quantity 
of numbers that are assigned to cable providers if at all possible.  Again, it wasn’t 
possible for us to find that information.
TOM KOUTSKY: I also remember specifically saying that I’m not 
sure that will be possible given that they have different ways of providing phone 
services.  So, that’s all.  Rosemary.
ROSEMARY EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  
TOM KOUTSKY: I’m sorry.  I think Mary was first.
MARY RETKA, QWEST: Just a clarification because I thought 
that earlier when you said you were going to file the response to the FCC publically I 
82
didn’t anticipate it would be filed in that Cost  Docket, but I think you just said you 
would file it as an ex parte response versus just the NANC’s normal report back to 
the FCC.  Right?
TOM KOUTSKY: Yes.
MARY RETKA: And you are doing that voluntarily on our part?
TOM KOUTSKY: Doing if voluntarily, yes.
ROSEMARY EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint/Nextel.  Just a 
quick point of clarification.  When the FCC asked the LLC to attend the meeting to 
discuss some of these issues the charge from the LLC to the folks who attended the 
meeting was to ensure that they were representatives of the NAPM LLC and not a 
single carrier.  So the folks that attended that meeting had a NAPM LLC hat on and 
not a specific carrier hat on and I just wanted to make that clear.
JEROME CANDELARIA: Appreciate it.  One of the 
reasons I mentioned it.  This, at least in my short memory, was somewhat of a typical 
process we follow to be presented first of all to the NAPM and then brought directly 
to a subcommittee without coming to NANC.  It creates a situation where some of us 
are taken unawares.
TOM KOUTSKY: Your point on that is noted and I understand the 
view that you are articulating on this.
GARY SACRA: Again, just to walk through Action Item 1, the 
data source in this case was the NRUF data filed with NeuStar as of December 31, 
83
2006 as reported in the August 2007 FCC Industry Analysis and Technology 
Division Report on Numbering Resource Utilization in the US.  
As you can see wireline ILEC, roughly 600,000,000 numbers 
assigned.  I might add that there is a table in that report.  I referred to it in here.  It’s 
table 1 on page 14 for those that have access to that report.
The quantities used in this Action Item readout is the total column.  
The total categories is a summation of the assigned, intermediate, reserved, aging, 
administrative, and available categories.  
So, for wireline ILECs in the total category there is roughly 
600,000,000 numbers.  Wireline CLECs, 312,000,000, and wireless carriers have 
assigned roughly 374,000,000.
Moving to Action Item 2 which gets into now the quantity of these 
numbers that are resident in the 7 NPAC regional data bases.  Action Item 2 pertains 
to the quantity of ported numbers currently in the U.S.  NPAC data bases as assigned 
to these three industry segments.
The source of this data is an August 2007 NPAC report that provided 
the quantity of numbers by services provider I.D. or operating company number.  
The NPAC actually, for the numbers that are stored, whether they are pooled or 
ported in the NPAC, they are associated as either a wireline number or a wireless 
number. 
84
There was an additional step required for us to break down the wire-
line number into either ILEC or CLEC.  That breakdown was provided in the 
Telcordia Local Exchange Routing Guide.  
In the LERG there is an identification or categorization of operating 
company number as either an ILEC or as a CLEC or as a wireless.  ILEC is not just 
the former regional Bell operating companies, there are many, many, many ILECs 
around the country.  
So, the ILEC category is all inclusive in terms of incumbent local 
exchange carriers, which does also include the former regional Bell operating 
companies.
It was kind of a two step process in order to get to these numbers.  
The first process being the wireline wireless categorization in the NPAC of either 
ported or pooled number.  The second stage was looking in the LERG to see how 
that particular SPID was classified.
In all seven regional NPAC data bases there is approximately 7.8 
Million numbers that are associated with wireline ILECs, 71.2 Million wireline 
CLEC numbers ported in the seven regional data bases and, keep in mind this does 
not include pooled numbers yet.
For wireless around 93.5 Million numbers in the seven regional 
NPAC data bases.  Again, these ported number include both inter provider ports and 
intra service provider ports as well.
85
Action Item 3 is the same process.  In order to come up with these 
numbers, but this is the quantity of pooled numbers currently in the seven regional 
NPAC data bases. Wireline ILECs have roughly 4,000,000 pooled numbers in the 
seven data bases.  
Wireline CLECs have approximately 67.7 Million pooled numbers in 
the data bases and wireless carriers have a little over 59 Million pooled numbers in 
the seven data bases for a total of about 130.8 Million numbers in all seven regional 
data bases.  
Any questions?   Again, that gives you a feel for the quantity of 
numbers assigned to these three particular industry segments, what portion of those 
numbers are resident in the NPAC data bases as of August of this year.
Before I go to Action Item 4 if I could just move you all just a little 
bit ahead in the report to the Power Point slide.  I would like to very quickly walk 
through this just to get a level set on the use of Destination Point Codes and the 
routing of these SS7 TCAP messages in support of one particular service, in this case 
CNAM.
CNAM is Calling Name Delivery.  For those end users that have 
subscribed to CNAM on the calling line I.D. box if an incoming call would typically 
display the calling party number as well as the calling party name.  That utilizes SS7 
of these routing TCAP messages and destination point code data in particular.
In step number 1 in the lower left, we have call party “A” and they 
have a ported number - 410-555-1234, a fictitious number.  They go off hook and 
86
they dial call Ed party “B” and for simplicity’s sake, because its not relevant to this 
particular call set up, call Ed party B does not have a ported number.  Their 
telephone number is 410-555-6789.  That’s the phone number the calling party dials.  
Call Ed party B does have CNAM service with their local service provider.  After 
calling party A dials the number, the originating switch will.
 To the originating carrier’s LNP data base to see if the number is 
ported or pooled.  If it is ported or pooled, then we have to route on the location 
routing number rather than the dialed digits.  
In step two in this case since the call party number is not ported, the 
dialed digits are returned from LNP data base one and step three, the call set up 
message is then routed in the SS7 signaling network over to the terminating 
providers signaling network or STP2.  That signaling message, initial address 
message is now being routed on the dialed digits.  There is not need to route on an 
LRN because the number is not ported or pooled.
STP2 receives that incoming call set up message and routes that to the 
terminating switch B that serves this called party B.  That’s the continuation of step 
three.
Terminating switch B sees that called party B is a CNAM subscriber 
so terminating switch B has to launch a CNAM TCAP query in order to obtain the 
calling party name from the appropriate CNAM data base.  
Step four you see the CNAM TCAP query being launched by 
terminating switch B.  That message is being launched and routed based on the 
87
calling party number or calling party A’s number that is a ported number and that 
number is 410-555-1234.  So, step four, that TCAP query hits STP2 which is the 
terminating provider’s STP in their network. 
This is where things have changed since LNP.  Before LNP was 
implemented, these TCAP queries could be routed based on NPA and NX because 
an entire block of 10,000 numbers and an NX code was assigned to a specific carrier, 
assigned to a specific carrier’s switch or a specific carrier’s data base or a CNAM 
provider’s data base.  Prior to LNP, steps four and five weren’t required, this lookup 
at the LNP data base two.  
What would have happened prior to LNP is in step four, when that 
TCAP query hit STP2, that STP would have done a translation based on calling party 
A’s NPA NXX and translated that to the appropriate DPC value of the CNAM data 
base provider’s SS7 signaling network.
With the advent of LNP and subsequently in 2002 telephone number 
pooling, we now have to do a lookup based on ten digits.  We can’t route these 
message based solely on NPA NXX because NPA NXX’s numbers within that code 
are spread out among multiple providers.  They are spread out among multiple 
switches and they are spread out among multiple data bases such as LIDB and 
CNAM.
So, step four this TCAP query, STP2 recognizes calling party A’s 
NPA NXX as a portable NXX code.  In step four the continuation of that step it now 
88
routes that TCAP query up to the terminating provider B’s LNP data base in order to 
see if that calling party A’s number is ported or pooled.
In step four that query now hits the LNP data base 2 and because 
calling party A’s number is ported there is going to be a ten digit match in that data 
base.  Associated with that ten digit ported number now is a DPC value for CNAM 
that was put in there by calling party A’s provider when they ported in calling party 
A.  There is a ten digit match found.
Step five returns the DPC value of calling party A’s provider’s 
CNAM data base.  Step five is now going to route on the DPC value associated with 
STP3 which is the ingress or the incoming gateway STP associated with the CNAM 
data base provider that has calling party A’s number and name in it.
That CNAM query now hits the appropriate data base and in step six 
the calling name is delivered back to STP2 in order for it to be routed over to 
terminating switch B for subsequent routing to the call ED party’s calling line I.D. 
box.
The last step is the voice path is established between originating 
switch A and the call ED party served by terminating switch B.  One of the reasons 
for modifying in this particular example of CNAM.  
Let’s say, if the originating switch A’s, the service provider that had 
calling party A, if they elect to change their CNAM data base provider, they would 
then go in and do a modify of the CNAM DPC value in calling party A’s ported 
record via the NPAC and change the DPC value for that particular service from the 
89
old CNAM data base provider’s gateway STP to whatever new CNAM data base 
provider they have elected to go with.  They would put in that DPC value of the new 
provider’s gateway STP and that would be broadcast down to all subtending 
providers in order for them to have in real time the actual DPC routing value that 
CNAM needs to rely on.  
Any questions?  Everybody’s eyes are glazed over.  I think my eyes 
are glazed over.  Seriously, I wanted this to be as clear as possible because it is kind 
of important for Action Item 4 and the reason why Action Item 4 and the results and 
analysis that took place for Action Item 4.
TOM KOUTSKY: Its as clear as mud to me.
GARY SACRA: Okay.  Action Item 4 was a request for the 
working group to determine whether or not there are any viable alternatives to doing 
the modified transactions of the DPC data for these five services that are currently in 
the NPAC ported and pooled number records.  Again, those five services being 
CLASS, LIDB, CNAM, ISVN inter switch voice messaging, message waiting 
indicator and wireless short message service.
The only potential viable alternative that was offered up and 
discussed in the working group analysis was the possibility of doing a redirect of the 
TCAP message for these five services.   I guess analogous to say like a call 
forwarding scenario in the SS7 network where there would not be a modify in the 
NPAC of any of the DPC data but in the SS7 network there would be sort of a call 
90
forwarding, if you will, or a redirection of the TCAP message to the appropriate 
target SS7 network.
So, we looked at the five services kind of in blocks.  The first block of 
services that we looked at was LIDB and CNAM.  We blocked them together 
because the target DPC or the final destination for the TCAP message in support of 
both LIDB and CNAM is a data base, its not a switch, its not a wireless short 
message service center.  We looked at LIDB and CNAM sort of together and we 
kind of walked through a redirecting scenario.  
Using CNAM as an example what would have to take place for this 
redirection to work of CNAM would be in lieu of changing the DPC value when the 
provider elected to change their CM data base provider, in lieu of changing that DPC 
value, that would require the old CNAM data base provider to receive the incoming 
TCAP message, recognize that its not one of their customers, that number is no 
longer in the data base and then redirect that CNAM TCAP query to one of their 
competitors so that the lookup can take place in the appropriate data base.
Even though one CNAM data base provider said that that is technical 
feasible, the working group collectively did not view that as a viable alternative 
because certainly there is questionable incentive for a data base provider to reroute 
an incoming TCAP message for CNAM for example or LIDB to one of their 
competitors so that that lookup could take place for a number that’s not in their data 
base.
91
Also, that rerouting scenario keeps the former data base provider’s 
SS7 network in the routing path of the TCAP query.  That has possible impacts then 
on the quality of service for affected customers.  If there should be congestion in the 
former data base provider’s SS7 network, that could have an impact on the new data 
base provider’s ability to provide a service for a customer.
Provider systems and networks do rely on the real time update of 
these TCAP messages, the destination point code data, that forwarded by the NPAC 
and the LNP infrastructure.  As numbers are ported and pooled, in real time 
immediately that DPC data is made available to all subtending providers and their 
systems.  As these modifies take place, if data base providers are changed, those 
changes to the DPC value happen in real time and are broadcast to all subtending 
services providers simultaneously.
There is a real time need to have this data modified in NPAC and the 
LNP architecture does afford that.  There is an administrative effort ongoing to 
maintain this rerouting infrastructure as the need takes place.
The conclusion for both LIDB and CNAM was that redirection of the 
incoming TCAP query was not deemed a viable alternative to going in and 
modifying the DPC values in the NPAC for both LIDB and CNAM.  Questions?
PHIL HARRINGTON: Phil Harrington, Verizon.  This may not 
be the appropriate question to ask you Gary but what would be the motivation for a 
service provider to change out of LIDB or CNAM data bases, for example?
92
I mean, could it be just that they get a better deal from another data 
base provider?
GARY SACRA: It could be a service thing.
PHIL HARRINGTON: But its pretty much the service 
provider’s idea and they are doing it for something within that service provider’s 
(undecipherable).
GARY SACRA: Right.  Okay.  The next one we looked at, kind 
of separately was wireless short message service.  The reason we looked at that kind 
of separately is because its not, well, besides being a wireless service, not a wireline 
service, the DPC value identifies a short message service center, not like a LIDB 
data base or a CNAM data base or a wire line switch or a wireless switch like in the 
case of CLASS or inner voice message.  
So, we looked at this particular service a little bit separately but, 
again, came up with the same conclusions for a number of the same reasons with 
LIDB and CNAM.
Again, questionable incentive to receive an incoming message for 
wireless short message text message and then realizing that its not an incoming 
message for one of your customers, then rerouting that out to another wireless short 
message center for completion of the delivery of the text message. 
Again, keeping former networks in the routing path of these message 
could be a service affecting condition.  For the same reasons we didn’t feel that 
rerouting of these particular SS7 signaling messages for WSMSC was an appropriate 
93
or viable alternative to actually going in if those providers choose to use those DPC 
values.  It wasn’t a viable alternative to actually going in the NPAC and changing 
those values.
The last two that we looked at kind of in conjunction with each other 
were CLASS and inner switch voice messaging, message waiting indicator, mainly 
because these two particular services, the final destination of the TCAP message in 
support of these services is a service provider’s switch.  
Again CLASS, the two main CLASS services that utilize these TCAP 
messages and the DPC values in the ported record are *68, *69.  The TCAP message 
actually is launched towards the target switch and it checks the off hook, on hook 
status of the target number.  If somebody has hit *69, that TCAP message is 
launched from the originating switch, routed through the SS7 network to the target 
switch.  If that line is idle then there is a signal sent back to the calling party that its 
okay to now initiate a call to that calling party.
I think the way the service works then is the calling party gets like a 
brief ring.  They pick up the phone and then it immediately redials the number that 
they *69ed.
Again ISVM message waiting indicator, the final destination for the 
TCAP message for that service is a switch so that the appropriate line can have 
stutter dial tone placed on it or the message waiting light can be lit on a phone.
Typically what a provider would put into the DPC value for these two 
services when they poured in a number or they pool in a number, is the ingress 
94
gateway STP, the DPC value of their incoming gateway STP.  That’s what the 
advertise to the rest of the world saying that if you are going to send me a TCAP 
message for *69, or for ISVM, I want you to route that message to this incoming 
STP.  I’ll take it from there. 
They broadcast the DPC value of their ingress STP gateway to the 
rest of the world.  Now, if that provider chooses at some point, for whatever reason 
to change the incoming gateway STP that they want the rest of the world to route 
these messages to, then typically that provider would go in and modify the DPC 
value for these two features via the NPAC and all of their ported and pooled in 
number records.
Again, the very same reasons that we walked through for CNAM and 
LIDB, we didn’t feel that because of the real time need to have these records 
modified and these DPC values modified, we didn’t feel that rerouting of the 
incoming TCAP message in the SS7 network was a viable alternative in lieu of 
actually going in and doing the modify of the DPC values via the NPAC.
As you can see at the bottom of page 8, the overall conclusion for the 
entire Action Item 4 is, after analyzing and walking through the routing of these 
messages for all five services that utilize DPC values and the NPAC, the working 
group does not feel that rerouting the messages is a viable alternative to modifying 
the DPC value.  We found no other viable alternative in addition to the one that we 
did walk through and look through and that was the rerouting.  I open it up for 
questions.
95
TOM KOUTSKY: First of all, take a break for your voice.  It is a 
very thorough job in a very short period of time and I do appreciate it.  
PHIL HARRINGTON: Phil Harrington, Verizon.  Is there any 
other drivers for modifies, for example?
GARY SACRA: Well, in addition to the DPC values, there are 
other, in addition to the one that we focused on in the meetings and in this action 
item report, providers do modifies, they can modify the LRN, location renumber.  
That is one of the fields that’s available for modification.  If a provider wants to 
move one of their ported numbers, their currently existing ported numbers or pooled 
numbers from one of their switches to another switch, they can do that because the 
record already exists.  
Its not like an initial port where the record doesn’t already exist.  
Because the record does already exist, either via being ported or pooled, in order to 
move it to another switch they can change the LRN and that would immediately 
change the routing to the new switch where the number is now served.
There is corrections too, to DPC values.  That’s another reason why 
providers may do a modify too, if they needed to make any correction to the DPC 
value.
PHIL HARRINGTON: So I guess that switch to switch is 
almost like a grooming activity.  Do we have any idea what percentage of modifies 
might be a switch to switch or LIDB or –
96
GARY SACRA: No, I honestly don’t know.  There may be some 
data we could get from the NPAC but I don’t know.  I don’t even know if we could 
do that in a provider’s local system because of the history.  That would require some 
history retention.  Perhaps its available via the NPAC.
Any more questions?
TOM KOUTSKY: Any more questions, comments on the report?  
Objections to the report?
The only edit I suggest is that –
ADAM NEWMAN: Adam Newman, Telcordia.  I just have a couple 
of minor, picky little edits that I didn’t catch because I was bouncing on the train.
GARY SACRA: Telcordia (undecipherable)?
ADAM NEWMAN: That’s one of them and actually the TCAP spell 
out.  I’m just going to send you an e-mail.  They are just editorial.  I have two minor 
changes.
GARY SACRA: I may have spelled out TCAP somewhere in 
here but if I didn’t –
ADAM NEWMAN: You didn’t have the application part.
GARY SACRA: Oh, okay, application part.  You are absolutely 
right.  Thank you Adam.
TOM KOUTSKY: My nit was to change the date from October 1 
to, I guess today.
GARY SACRA: I was trying to get credit for having it in early.
97
TOM KOUTSKY: I appreciate that.
GARY SACRA: I’ll change it to the 10th.
TOM KOUTSKY: Yeah, I guess so.
GARY SACRA: Since this is not considered filed because I’ll 
talk to Adam and get his edits.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  With that proviso for those minor 
editorial, totally non-substantive edits, upon receipt of that I will send this off to the 
Bureau, in a few days hopefully.  I think it’s a solid piece of work.  
I understand there were questions related to the genesis of the request 
but I do think that in the end the answers to the questions that were raised were done 
very professionally and done as objectively as possible.  
I understand that this is a rule making where people have different 
sides.  I do appreciate that.  This is an example of a working group working.
GARY SACRA: Thank you Mr. Chairman.  I would like to also 
just mention that Paula Jordan, my fellow co-chair who put a tremendous amount of 
work into this report as well as the rest of the LNP working group members 
individually, going back to the own SS7 signaling experts within their own 
companies and then collectively as a working group, there was a lot of participation, 
a lot of involvement in putting this report together.  I want to recognize them as well.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  Thank you.  You are  free to move on.
GARY SACRA: The last part of the report is something I think 
everybody should be familiar with.  That’s the summary of the PIMS.  Again, I don’t 
98
really feel a need unless others disagree to walk through this other than just 
mentioning some of the highlights.
Since the last NANC meeting in April we’ve closed eight PIMS, 
opened six new ones and some of the eight that have been closed have been placed in 
the LNP working group’s number portability best practices document.  
I will mention PIM 32 which has been discussed quite a bit here in the 
council.  That related to difficulties in porting reseller numbers.  We did come to a 
consensus that I believe I reported out on in either the February meeting or the April 
meeting that basically said  it was the consensus of the working group that resellers 
should not instruct their underlying network providers to withhold customer service 
requests from requesting providers that wish to port in those numbers. 
That is now in our best practices document.  That best practices 
document is up on the LNP working group’s web site www.npac.com so there is a 
lot of good information in there for those that wish to go to it.
I will also mention, because Mr. Clay, during the NAPM LLC report 
mentioned PIMS 51 and 61 and the fact that the LNP working group requested the 
LLC to submit a request for a statement of work to NeuStar.  As Mr. Clay read out, 
that request was approved by the LLC.  The statement of work request have gone to 
NeuStar. 
PIM 51 is a request for a statement of work for a manual clean up of 
all seven regional NPAC data bases for NXX codes that have been opened by the 
99
wrong provider.  Currently there is no mechanized way to prevent the wrong 
provider from opening up a code to portability in the NPAC. 
What happens in some cases subsequently numbers have actually 
ported in that code.  It makes it difficult then, we have to basically do a SPID 
migration or delete, temporarily delete the ported numbers in order to get the code 
ownership to the proper service provider in the NPAC and deleting the ported 
records temporarily still is a service affecting condition while those numbers are 
ported.
We know there are still existing codes in the regional NPAC data 
bases that have been opened up by the wrong provider so this statement of work is a 
request for NeuStar to put a project together to do a manual clean up.  Identify those 
codes that have been opened up inappropriately by a provider, identify the 
appropriate provider and get those codes reestablished to the rightful owner, if you 
will.
Again, this is just a request for a price to do that.  The actual work has 
not been approved by the NANP LLC.
TOM KOUTSKY: I’m sorry.  Do we have any indication as to 
when that – that sounds expensive to me.  Do we have any indication as to when that 
might come back?
GARY SACRA: No, what’s the typical turn around for requests?  
Within ninety days or –
TIM DECKER: Tim Decker, Verizon.
100
TOM KOUTSKY: Yes.  Step closer to the mike.
TIM DECKER: Oh, I’m sorry.  Typically we send the request to 
NeuStar for the statement of work.  It depends on the turn around time for that.  As 
soon as we get the statement of work back usually we will send it out to the members 
and vote on it probably the next scheduled meeting.
GARY SACRA: Was you question the turn around for receiving 
the statement of work?
TOM KOUTSKY: For receiving yes.
TIM DECKER: Turn around from Neustar?
TOM KOUTSKY: Well, I think its more specific to when the 
request was made to get them to put this together and when a response is expected, I 
guess.
TIM DECKER: Well, the request was made right after the 
September LLC meeting which was mid-September.
TOM KOUTSKY: Right.  So last month, okay.  I guess its up to 
them to –
TIM DECKER: I would have to defer that to NeuStar as far as 
when they are going to turn it around.
TOM KOUTSKY: All right.  That’s fine.
GARY SACRA: Just finally, PIM 61 which is a request for a 
statement of work to establish a virtual private network or VPN interface to the 
NPAC for what’s called Low Tech Interface Users.  There are a number of providers 
101
that don’t have mechanized systems and interfaces to the NPAC.  What they use is 
what’s called a low tech interface which is a dial up interface in order to interface 
with the NPAC to facilitate porting.
Quite some time ago the NPAC in Canada implemented an internet 
based VPN functionality for the low tech interface users.  This was a request –
PIM61 was a request by several low tech interface users in the U.S. to implement a 
VPN access for their use to the NPAC.  So, PIM 61 is resulted now, again, a second 
statement of work request for NeuStar to develop pricing for establishing a VPN 
access to the NPAC in the U.S. as well.
That request went to NeuStar the same time that the other request 
went.  That was mid-September.
I believe that’s all I had for the PIM report unless there was any other 
questions or any other questions in general on the working group report.
TOM KOUTSKY: Any other questions, comments, thoughts?
GARY SACRA: I will make the changes to the Action Item 
Report and probably get that report to you before the end of the week.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  That sounds great.  Thanks, Gary.  
Thanks to Paula as well.
Now the Future Numbering with Don Gray.  We are all very happy to 
see Don Gray here.
102
REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF NUMBERING WORKING GROUP (FoN 
WG)
DON GRAY: Not as happy as I am to be here.  Thank you.  
Good afternoon, Nebraska Public Service Commission, one of the tri-chairs for the 
future of numbering working group.  Before I start I would just like to make a point 
of personal privilege if you will.  I think that’s the right term.  
I just want to thank everybody in NANC and the various committees 
and the people in the industry for the overwhelming expressions of prayers and 
thoughts and cards and messages I’ve gotten.  It has been truly humbling, I want to 
tell you.  
My status.  We can’t say I’m cancer free because it hasn’t been long 
enough, but the lobe that I had cancer in is gone.  We nuked it with radiation and 
then removed it.  So, that’s out of the way.  
A couple of lymph nodes were giving us an issue.  We think its just 
irritation is why they are showing up now and right now the 27th of September I 
started a final chemotherapy regime to go in and get any of those little bad boys that 
are in the blood stream, the lymph system or in the bone marrow that we just can’t 
see yet.  So, I’ve got about four to six treatments of those, once very three weeks and 
then we watch and wait.  So, its great being a survivor.  
As I said on behalf of the other tri-chairs, Jim Castagna and Adam 
Newman and myself, we would like to bring you up to speed on the future of 
numbering working group.  To give you a summary of what we’ve done since the 
103
last report, an overview of our submissions, explain our tracking matrix and then 
what our future meeting schedules have been laid out as.
Future of Numbering group has met eleven times since our last report.  
We’ve accepted three new projects to review and we have been reviewing and 
working a significant number of contributions on the already accepted projects.  I 
think the thing, especially for me, about the future of numbering that’s so exciting is 
basically we’ve got carte blanche to look at just about anything we want to as long as 
it can somehow be tied to the numbering field and its in the future.  That’s gives us a 
pretty wide gamut to work with.  We do see some things that at first glance, um, um, 
this is interesting.  
Some of those that we have been seeing, the first three that we’ve 
accepted, one is the issue of telematics and the use of NANP numbering resources.  
When that was first brought to us it was a little more specific, pointed at On Star and 
their application, but in not too long a time frame, telematics as grown to encompass 
a lot more than a car calling for help or somebody saying, hey, you got an air bag 
deployment.  Do you need help?
There are medical devices out there now that are in real time 
monitoring people’s condition and automatically transmitting that information in to 
their physicians, making automatic adjustments to implanted defibrillators and other 
things like that.  It all comes under the issue of telematics. 
The primary concern, I think, that we are arriving at here is not that 
they are using numbering resources, but do those providers understand their 
104
responsibilities as users of the numbering resources in terms of assignment, in terms 
of appropriate retirement, recycling of numbers and issues like that.  I think that’s 
probably where we will end up driving that particular issue to is ensuring there is 
proper notification and communication between the industry and those specific 
providers.
A very interesting one that we are looking at right now is looking at a 
property rights model for numbering resources.  Whether it should be a commons 
based which is the term that we’ve kind of accepted in our discussion, which is what 
we have today.  They are there for everybody to use as long as you meet certain 
requirements, or a market based approach in which case you would still have some 
requirements to have access to the numbers, but perhaps there are fees associated 
with those numbers that you would acquire.
We’ve had some very interesting discussions on that topic and several 
different ideas submitted on it.  We’ve had a couple of recent discussions to perhaps 
narrow that focus a little more from the total numbering plan to perhaps looking 
initially at the toll free number environment.  I think that may be where we are going 
to go.  We’ll know in our next couple of phone calls if we focus that a little more 
toward that instead of saying any number, anywhere, used by anybody.  I think that’s 
probably a pretty big elephant for all of us to take a bit out of and to be able to 
comprehend it right off the bat.  We are going to try and focus that one on something 
that we can all grasp.
105
Geographic issues impacting numbering policy decisions.  That one 
originally started out – I’m sorry that Courtney had to leave, but in his concern that 
he raised with us where there were providers primarily voice over IP providers that 
were obtaining resources from the Caribbean, using them outside of that geographic
area and then using IP transport methods to deliver the traffic back to one of the 
original switches without indication that it was coming from outside the area and 
therefore sidestepping the access requirements and other regulatory fees that might 
have been appropriate.
As we looked at that and then looked at another geographic issue that 
was brought to us, which is as more and more people utilize a wireless device, 
outside of their, shall we say native area, or they are using a voice over IP enabled 
device which is not physically located to where the number assignment would 
typically be registered.  The 800 number service providers as part of their services 
call redirection based upon the geographic location of the originating call, is causing 
an issue.
So as we started to look at that combined with Courtney’s we realized 
that really the whole issue was the importance of geographic identifiable location for 
a phone number and what’s that causing?  We are going to have that under one issue, 
the geographic numbering and then break it down into at least these two sub-issues 
underneath for more analysis there.
Misuse of resources outside the NANP.  That the one that Courtney 
recently brought to us.  Some pending ones are network’s apology and numbering 
106
system impacts.  What happens as you start to move the traffic around in different 
ways and when you see a particular number on your caller ID, it may not be from 
where or who from you thought it was originally, obviously issues that can impact a 
lot of different things and I think even down to the consumer level. 
As my boss would say, Gene Hand, the little old grandma in white 
tennis shoes, when she gets to her caller ID and sees a number that she thinks is local 
and picks up and find out that she’s got a telemarketer from someplace else that she 
would never have picked the phone up had she known that.
Interoperability and ENUM are issues that are on our radar screen that 
we are going to start to look at and do some research into.  The Mobile Nomadic 
Society demands and the changing of numbering requirements.  I think that’s 
probably going to be one of the biggest ones that we will be looking into in the future 
from several issues.
The most basic being the fact that many people in today’s society, 
they got their first wireless phone when mom and dad decided it was time they 
wanted them to have one before they went off to college and got one.  They’ve still 
got that same number but they are living nowhere near where that number was 
assigned out of.
If I remember correctly, I could read the fine print in my contract.  It 
said, X percentage of your calls must originate in your billing service area, yada, 
yada, yada.  I don’t know that that’s really being enforced that much anymore.  So, 
the whole nomadic issue of the wireless environment is one that, is it an issue, is it a 
107
problem, it is something for the future? That we need to look at and we will 
investigation.
The other one is just probably the whole impact of geographic 
portability and how that could help or could hinder in the effective utilization of our 
numbering resources.  Rate center consolidation sure frees up a lot of things and I 
know at least in Nebraska, if you look at our numbering situation, the 402 area code, 
you know, we’ve got 7 million and change numbers available in 402 but we’ve only 
got a 1.5 million people total with number, why do we have a problem?  It goes back 
to the old rate center and 10,000 block code assignment originally and the fact that 
we can’t move the numbers where we need them to be used.  I think that will be 
another area that we will probably look into.
The committee came up with a couple of different tools that we used.  
This one here on page 5 is our activity project identification matrix or our AIM 
matrix which is what we use to track our numbers with.  
Number one is new and future services.  That’s kind of an open 
bookmark that the tri-chairs are using to add information to look to see what else we 
want to go out there and examine.
Number two is the telematics and use of the NANP number and that 
was brought to us by Karen Norcross from the Michigan Public Service 
Commission.  As I said, it originally started as On Star specific but now is focused at 
the total telematics implementation that technology is giving folks availability to.
108
Number three, J. Carpenter from 1-800-AFTA brought us the 
commons property rights model and that one has brought a lot of discussion, a lot of 
questions and a lot of knowledge being exchanged by everybody as we understand 
that.
Number four is geographic issues and numbering policies.  We are 
keeping the one that David Greenhouse brought to us which is, how can a service 
provider direct his 800 call to the right physical location in an umbrella group or a 
corporate environment when they may not be able to accurately identify the physical 
location of that caller.
The last one without a number there, was the one from Courtney that 
the tri-chairs drafted and put into the system on his behalf.  We’ve combined those 
together from that aspect.
Any question on the things that we have been looking at, how we 
have been looking at them or where we are headed?
TOM KOUTSKY: I would just like to make a statement.  I 
encourage you guys to continue to look at this stuff.  I think the questions on the 
geographic issues raised by Courtney originally, I think are actually going to become 
something that we are going to have to pay a lot more attention to perhaps over the 
next year or two, particularly in the Caribbean.  
I know it’s a rather significant issue that’s growing as we speak.  
There are certain other applications in the United States so I would encourage you 
guys to continue to look at that one and place some focus on it.
109
DON GRAY: As far as meetings go, we have four meetings 
scheduled between now and December 5 and the schedule is there.  If any of you 
would like to participate or just listen in, don’t hesitate to send an e-mail to one of 
the tri-chairs.  We will get you on the distribution list so that you know what’s 
happening, when its happening.  
We’ve been pretty good about sticking within our time frames and 
getting done with the calls on time.  I thank everybody that participates in it.  Again, 
we’ve got a great group of people, a great cross-section.  A lot of great ideas get 
brought to the table.  
Like all of the NANC IMGs and working groups, I’m continued to be 
impressed by how people put aside the particular hat they wear for their day-to-day 
job and look at these issues from a total perspective of how do we best address our 
numbering resources and make the best use of them.  It a fun group to be with and 
I’m really happy to be here.
TOM KOUTSKY: Don, I know I speak for more than one to say 
that we are also more than impressed with you, as well.  The measure of a man is 
where he stands in times of challenge and you’ve given us a great model.  Its great to 
have you back and to have you here.
TOM GRAY: Thank you.
TOM KOUTSKY: Don’s presentation is Exhibit 14.
TOM GRAY: Do I get credit for being early?
110
TOM KOUTSKY: You get extra credit for being early. I think we 
will move on to Update List of the NANC Accomplishments, Action Items.
UPDATE LIST OF NANC ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Basically the only action item I have from this one is to forward along the LNPA 
working group report.  We will do that with dispatch, really just that portion of the 
report to the Bureau.
I’m going to kind of merge items number fifteen and sixteen, I guess.  
Public Participation and Comments.  Anyone from the public is always free to talk 
whenever they want to anyway, but if people have other issues that they want to raise 
now is the time to raise it or questions that they might have.  I’ll also open it up to 
the floor of the rectangular table as well.  Anna.
ANNA MILLER: Anna Miller with T-Mobile.  I wanted to follow 
up on my earlier comment about giving our new, the renewal of the NANC charter 
revisiting the steering group concept activity.  I was noticing on our new 
membership list that in addition to the NANC chair that there’s only two of us that 
are still around from the original steering group and I can’t remember the last time, 
the last activity associated with that.  
I guess what I would like to do is consider reactivating the steering 
group with the intent of open communication between the FCC and the NANC.  I 
think it would be beneficial for the NANC to focus on 2008 to meet with the FCC 
and identify what their goals are.  What their expectations are.  Given that we are 
111
their advisory group, get their input on what kind of advice they want, what topics 
they are interested in.
A possible example of that is, we just completed the Pooling 
Administrator Contract and we have an upcoming NANPA contract and so, one 
thing that might be considered is does the FCC want NANC input on the technical 
requirements for NANPA similar to the information that was provided to them for 
the Pooling Administrator Contract.
One approach in terms of next steps might be to identify, first of all if 
the NANC things that this is a good concept that we should do given our charter and 
given an opportunity to have more communication with the FCC and FCC 
stakeholders, that we could identify volunteers to the steering group, maybe have 
those volunteers establish a mission and a meeting with the FCC stakeholders and 
develop some goals for 2008.
TOM KOUTSKY: I think that’s a good idea.  I think its definitely, 
I think the example you give of the NANPA technical requirements is clearly one 
that we could, in my opinion, should be trying to provide.
BETH O’DONNELL:Beth O’Donnell, Cox Communications.  The 
NOWG has taken on the role of providing input to the Technical Requirements in the 
past.  Does anybody see any reason why we wouldn’t do that again?
TOM KOUTSKY: Oh, I would assume, the way I would interpret 
this is that this is really more to clarify, to have a path of communications with the 
FCC to get an indication as to perhaps when they might want to have these technical 
112
requirements completed by.  Also to really let then know that we are doing it.  I think 
there is a genuine openness on the new bureau chief’s part, Ms. Shaffer, to 
understand our process flows in these types of things to know when – to understand 
the process and I think that might be facilitated.
I don’t propose that somebody else would do the technical 
requirements.  I would assume that would still be done at the working group level.
NATALIE McNAMER: Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile, NOWG 
co-chair.  Usually in the past from what I understand, is the FCC or the NANC 
would give the NOWG the charge to work on those documents and we are willing to 
work on them but we don’t have any charge from anybody to do so.  So we are in a 
holding pattern until we get that.
BETH O’DONNELL: It just sounded like the steering 
committee would do it and seems like it was down in the weeds for a steering 
committee.
I don’t disagree in concept with the steering committee because I too 
was a member of the early one.  I think earlier today in our discussion about the 
LNPA working group report, there is a level of discomfort on people getting 
information that other people aren’t getting and by having a higher committee than 
the full body, that could lead to more discomfort.  
As I recall, what ended up happening with the steering committee 
meetings is that everybody attended them anyway.  Certain people sat at the table but 
everybody was in the room. 
113
I just offer that as a perspective.  I’m not saying do it or don’t do it.  I 
just, I think that excluding people from a flow of information with the FCC is not a 
good idea.  This was a perfect example of that.  Thank you.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.
ANNA MILLER: Anna Miller, T-Mobile.  I just want to clarify 
that it would be my expectation if the FCC requested input on the NANPA TRD 
documents that the NOWG would do that again and I consider them a working group 
of the NANC.  I wasn’t trying to exclude them. 
With regard to your comments of open communication with the 
NANC again, I think the role of the steering committee is to establish goals.  
Everything the steering group did was communicated and discussed at the NANC.  
It’s just a way to help focus.  Absent, I guess, having forty people in the room doing 
that.  It’s really kind of more of a goal setting, focus thing that can be discussed here.  
It’s two-way communication.  I would be, I guess, an interim process.
BETH O’DONNELL:I’m not saying don’t do it.  I’m just saying that 
people were talking to the FCC and things happened and we didn’t know about it, 
the rest of the council didn’t know about it.  I think that’s a real risk.  That’s all. 
I’m not saying don’t do it.  I’m saying there’s a real risk if there is a 
group of five people who are talking with the FCC and nobody else is.  There’s a risk 
that if I’m not on the steering committee, I’m just using this as an example, that I’m 
going to be asking you well, who said that and why?  What did they mean by that?  
Why are they singling out cable?
114
TOM KOUTSKY: I see your point on that and actually see that the 
role of a steering committee would not be to have regular discussion.  I mean it 
would not be a weekly or monthly.  I’d see it at max semi-annually.  I don’t see it as 
an on-going or as something that happens all the time.  
I think Rebecca was first.  Then Don and then Martin.  So, Rebecca.
REBECCA BEATON: I would echo some of Cox 
Communications’ concerns based on dialogue with the FCC that the entire council 
did not have.  Is an option rather than a steering committee, it appears there is a 
concern that we set an agenda meeting dates, priorities with the Commission, is there 
some way in which we can incorporate that in these meetings with the FCC, as an 
option?  I would throw that on the table as a consideration.
TOM KOUTSKY: I guess if you are talking about just with 
logistics, possibly but I don’t think that – I mean its going to be likely to have us sit 
at a meeting and come up with a meeting schedule for, you know, 2008-2009 in one 
of these contexts.
That’s just my – that’s potentially possible, I guess, but I’m not sure 
we would ever really get into the position of saying, okay, these are the four or five 
things that I think are perhaps a priority as opposed to something else.  I’m not sure 
that that could possibly happen here. 
That’s an interesting point.  I haven’t really thought that much about 
it.  Maybe I should think a little more before I keep speaking.  Don.
115
DON GRAY: Don Gray, Nebraska Public Service 
Commission.  I hear the concerns but I’m having trouble putting them in context 
with what I thought a steering committee would be and would do.  Not having been 
around when there was an active one, I’m making some assumptions here.  
I’m assuming it would be a group of people that would represent the 
broad membership so that each of the elements would have some representation.  
That would be the group that would have discussions with the FCC and staff, not on 
thumbs up, thumbs down on issue, but on meeting schedules.  Yes, we’ll have one 
once every quarter, specific date to be decided by such and such.  Yes, these are the 
reoccurring tasks that the FCC expects NANC to do every year on this schedule.  
These reviews, you know, so on.
As issues of the day come to light that would be an entity they could 
come to.  We need information on such and such.  Think about it.  Come back and let 
us know if there is an existing working group, an IMG that is currently in session 
that could work on it.  If a new IMG is needed, that recommendation would be made 
and through the chairman that activity would be passed down to that group and the 
communication would go as it should.
I guess that’s what I thought I heard and would seem to me how one 
might work it.
TOM KOUTSKY: I think Martin was first.
MARTIN HAKIM DIN: I want to pick up on something Don 
said.  I think we are making a lot of assumptions as to what this steering committee 
116
would be and not having had any experience either when there was a steering 
committee, I’m not really quite sure.
My basic question is, what are we trying to steer?  If it’s the question 
of scheduling, communicating with the Commission about issues and things like that, 
well if they really want us to look into something, you know, they can send us an e-
mail.  They can send you an e-mail, right?  That’s not really that complicated.  Do 
we really need a group to sit down with the Commission to figure out a meeting 
schedule?
If those are the two things that are, that we would be chartering the 
steering committee with, I don’t see the reason for it because it think what you do 
ultimately is introduce some of the issues like you brought up.  Just concerns that 
maybe there is not quite the information distribution that people would like.   Not 
that that’s what’s going on, it just could be perceived that way.
TOM KOUTSKY: Yes, Rosemary.
ROSEMARY EMMER: Rosemary Emmer, Sprint Nextel.  I 
think we are all speculating on a concept that we haven’t seen anything in writing on 
yet.  My proposal would be that those folks who think that a steering committee 
might possibly improve communication somehow, or I don’t even know what the 
right term is, if the steering committee would help the NANC in some way, shape or 
form, for whatever reason, maybe we’ll put something in writing like a mission and a 
scope or some kind of just general one page – this is what the intent is.  This is what 
it would look like and then maybe we would have something to talk about at the next 
117
meeting.  At least it would open up discussions on something we would have in 
writing that we could look at and we could argue.  Thank you.
TOM KOUTSKY: Yes, that’s a fair point.  My initial thinking here 
is, I’d never actually even thought the steering committee would act as a screen or a 
filter in any way.  That was never, you know, when the issue was first brought, the 
thought was first brought to me.  I had never been thinking of it as a filter of 
information.  That’s not something I would like to see in a written proposal for such 
a committee.
I think Rosemary has a good idea.  Maybe, Anna, if you want to write 
up a paragraph as to what you think a – who was here when they had a steering 
committee?
All right.  You are all on it.  That would be a question as to why it 
stopped operating.
MARY RETKA, QWEST:     I think a lot of the reason that you don’t 
see a steering committee at this point is just kind of at the discretion of whoever is 
the chair.  The process seems to evolve differently from different chairs.  I think 
that’s mainly how it came to no longer be.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay and just from my standpoint.  When I do 
get inquiries from the Bureau, I kind of deal with them as I think appropriate.  So, 
with regard to the LNPA thing I felt it was appropriate to send it to the LNPA 
working group where membership is open.  That was my judgment.  Perhaps I could 
have done that differently, certainly.  
118
I don’t think it was necessarily inappropriate to do it the way that I 
did, but I do understand what people are saying in terms of when you receive –
especially in that situation because an unsolicited request from different staff than we 
normally deal with.  I understand the point here.
So, Anna, if you want to pick up, I’m thinking four sentences 
maximum.  If we can’t say it in four sentences what its purpose is, then its hard.  If 
you want to send that around.  We could probably circulate that to other folks too 
and maybe receive input from the full NANC on the e-mail as to that thought, after 
you and I talk about it for a few times.  
Maybe that’s one way of kind of moving this ball further rather than 
just, creating a written document that we’ll discuss at the next meeting which means 
we won’t write it until a week before the next meeting.
ANNA MILLER: Anna Miller, T-Mobile.  A couple of 
comments.  First of all, the last item that Don described is the type of item that I 
think, once identified by the steering committee would, it would come here for 
discussion. 
The second thing is, the whole idea is to open up communication 
between the NANC and the FCC so we have better direction from what the FCC Is 
thinking and I sometimes think its better to sit down with your stakeholders and have 
a real time discussion, responses back and forth, as opposed to sending out e-mails.  
It would certainly not be some kind of closed club or to make 
decisions on what the NANC works on or does not work on.  It would be just exactly 
119
the opposite.  These are the things the FCC thinks is important and would like input 
on and bring that to NANC for discussion in terms of how to proceed.
TOM KOUTSKY: Okay.  Other thoughts.  Rebecca.  That’s the 
last thing you can say today.
REBECCA BEATON: Again, I was not here when there was a 
steering committee and a scoping document would be very helpful on whether we 
would participate or defer that. 
I do have a question.  We have a representative of the FCC here, the 
DFO and is it appropriate for that, for her to bring FCC issues to us for discussion as 
part of this?
TOM KOUTSKY: In the context of this meeting?
REBECCA BEATON: Yes.
TOM KOUTSKY: I would probably need to look again at the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act and that is the one reason I had a hesitation in my 
answer to your last question was because since we are chartered as an official 
Federal Advisory Committee, there are certain procedures that we need to follow in 
the context of sitting at this table here and actually making these recommendations.  
I’m not entirely sure to what extent the Federal Government or the 
FCC is supposed to participate in that level.  I just don’t know the answer.  So I 
would hesitate to say, unless Marilyn knows the answer herself.
MARILYN JONES, FCC: Well, it depends on, sometimes the 
Bureau (undecipherable) with other resources.  (Undecipherable) I probably could 
120
deal with them but I was not really involved in that aspect of the rule making so, its 
kind of hard to (undecipherable).  I’m really not in a position to commit the 
Bureau.(VERY POOR TAPE QUALITY THROUGHOUT THIS SECTION).
TOM KOUTSKY: Yes, that’s the question.
MARILYN RETKA: I think the whole Commission –
TOM KOUTSKY: Yes, so there is a filtering operation that 
happens over at the Commission as well and that’s why I think it becomes hard to 
say can we resolve these at open NANC meetings.  I’m not sure.  
I think an open NANC meeting, is it going to be about NANC 
membership, us saying something collectively as a body, as opposed to us interacting 
with another body.  Does that make sense kind of in a strange way?  
In essence this body acts on certain things and sends it to the 
Commission.  That is the role of this meeting.
Any other thoughts or questions on this point?  I do pick up on some 
of the trepidation that some folks might have with regard to this and I think we will 
just try to work it through and try to figure out a best way to come up with a way of 
dealing with these, as Don said, these logistical and priority type questions.
Anything from the public?  Anybody else has anything.  Yes, Mary.
MARY RETKA, QWEST: When you were going through the 
action items, I caught another one I just thought you might want to document.  That 
was, that when the NOWG has the new survey questions, you were going to send 
them out to the NANC members and you said you would want to have our responses 
121
back by about Christmas.  If we don’t have another meeting between now and then, 
obviously you will want that on your action item list.
TOM KOUTSKY: Yes, okay. Thanks.
MARY RETKA: A second on that I’m not sure is really ripe at 
this time.  When the INC was talking about their VRS efforts you indicated that you 
would want to set up an IMG.  That was completed and since they think they are 
going to have it done by the end of the year, and I’m not sure when we are going to 
have another meeting, maybe that’s another one to track with our action items as 
well.
TOM KOUTSKY: Thanks for reminding me of those.  That’s 
absolutely correct both of those things are action items that we’ll probably be seeing 
in the next two months.  Thank you.
With that, I think I will close this meeting.  I appreciate everybody’s 
attendance and their input and especially on the work that was done on a lot of the 
items that we talked about today.  Thank you.
(END OF AUDIOTAPE 4, SIDE A)
* * * * *
 
 
 CERTIFICATE OF AGENCY
I, Carol J. Schwartz, President of Carol J. Thomas Stenotype 
Reporting Services, Inc., do hereby certify we were authorized to transcribe the submitted 
cassette tapes, and that thereafter these proceedings were transcribed under our 
supervision, and I further certify that the forgoing transcription contains a full, true and 
correct transcription of the cassettes furnished, to the best of our ability.
_____________________________
CAROL J. SCHWARTZ
PRESIDENT
ON THIS DATE OF:
_____________________________