1North American Numbering Council Meeting Transcript December 1, 2016 (Final) I. Time and Place of Meeting. The North American Numbering Council (NANC) held a meeting commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW-C305, Washington, D. C. 20554. II. List of Attendees. Voting Council Members: 1. Hon. Chairman Kane NANC Chairman (NARUC – DC) 2. Mark Lancaster AT&T Inc. 3. Greg Rogers Bandwidth 4. Mary Retka CenturyLink 5. Betty Sanders Charter Communications 6. Beth Choroser Comcast Corporation 7. Courtney Neville Competitive Carriers Association 8. Beth Carnes/Sandra Jones Cox Communications 9. Matthew Gerst CTIA 10. David K. Greenhaus 800 Response Information services, LLC 11. Christopher Shipley INCOMPAS 12. Scott Seab Level 3 13. Cary Hinton NARUC, DC 14. Carolee Hall NARUC, Idaho 15. Hon. Lynn Slaby NARUC, Ohio 16. Hon. Karen C. Peterson NARUC, Massachusetts 17. Hon. Crystal Rhoades/Cullen Robbins NARUC, Nebraska 18. Jerome Candelaria NCTA 19. Brian Ford NTCA 20. Rosemary Leist Sprint 21. Michelle Thomas T-Mobile 22. Thomas Soroka, Jr. USTA 23. Robert Morse Verizon 24. Brendan Kasper Vonage 25. Dawn Lawrence XO Communications Special Members (Non-voting): John Manning NANPA Amy Putnam PA Jackie Voss ATIS 2Commission Employees: Marilyn Jones, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Kris Monteith, Wireline Competition Bureau Ann Stevens, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau Sanford Williams, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau Michelle Sclater, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau Carmell Weathers, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau 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 – December 1, 2016 (3) North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) Report to the NANC (4) National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator (PA) Report to the NANC (5) Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) Report (6) Report of the Toll Free Number Administrator (TFNA) (7) North American Numbering Plan Billing and Collection (NANP B&C) Agent Report (8) Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) Report to the NANC (9) North American Portability Management (NAPM LLC) Report to the NANC (10) LNPA Transition Oversight Manager (TOM) (11) Local Number Portability Administration Working Group (LNPA WG) (12) Future of Numbering (FoN) Working Group Report to the NANC (13) Status of the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) activities V. Table of Contents. 1. Announcements and Recent News 4 2. Approval of Transcript 10 3. Report of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator 10 (NANPA) 4. Report of the National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator (PA) 16 5. Report of the Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) 20 6. Report of the Toll Free Number Administrator (TFNA) 25 37. Report of the North American Numbering Plan Billing and Collection Agent Report (NANP B&C) 28 8. Report of the Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) 30 9. Report of the North American Portability Management (NAPM) LLC 33 10. Report of the Local Number Portability Administration Transition Oversight Manager (TOM) 35 11. Report of the Local Number Portability Administration 41 Working Group (LNPA WG) 12. Report of the Future of Numbering Working Group (FoN WG) 49 13. Status of the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Activities 50 14. Summary of Action Items 52 15. Public Comments and Participation 52 VI. Summary of the Meeting Cary Hinton: Okay, we’ll get started now. As I indicated before, I’m Cary Hinton. I’m policy advisor to Chairman Betty Ann Kane with the D.C. Public Service Commission. I’m also her alternate to the NANC. Agenda As I mentioned, Chairman Kane is having travel difficulties this morning and will be arriving shortly. Rather than waiting until she’s able to arrive, we’re going to go ahead and get started with the agenda. We don’t want to delay folks that have other 4plans for this afternoon or travel plans, et cetera. As I indicated, welcome. Announcements and Recent News At this point, I don’t believe we have any announcements. But I would like to at least go around the table and let everybody introduce themselves. We have at least one or two new faces that are here that some of you probably don’t recognize. Mark, why don’t you go ahead and start? Mark Lancaster: I’m Mark Lancaster, AT&T. Greg Rogers: Greg Rogers with Bandwidth. Mary Retka: This is Mary Retka from CenturyLink. I wanted to also announce that this will be my last NANC meeting. I’m going to be retiring. Phillip Lindsay [phonetic] — if you want to stand up — who is sitting over there, is who we’re going to send in to Marilyn and OGC for the replacement for me at the NANC. Thanks, everybody, for everything. Beth Choroser: Hi, I’m Beth Choroser. I’m the alternate for Comcast. Courtney Neville: Courtney Neville, Competitive Carriers Association. Matthew Gerst: Matt Gerst with CTIA. Christopher Shipley: Christopher Shipley with INCOMPAS. Karen Charles Peterson: Karen Charles Peterson, Massachusetts. 5Crystal Rhoades: Crystal Rhoades, Nebraska. Brian Ford: Brian Ford, NTCA. Rosemary Leist: Rosemary Leist with Sprint. Just real quick, I wanted to just thank Mary Retka for her service. I’m sure you guys are going to be saying a few words about Mary. I’ve been working with Mary for — I don’t know — well over a decade or more. She’s just been an invaluable asset to the NANC, to the industry as a whole, not just from a co-chairing perspective but for always volunteering for even the hardest of tasks. Usually, it’s like 10 percent of the people do 90 percent of the work or something like that. She’s definitely part of the top echelon there. I just can’t imagine what it’s going to be like in the numbering world without Mary at the NANC table. So thank you. Robert Morse: Rob Morse, alternate for Verizon. Brendan Kasper: Brendan Kasper, Vonage. Dawn Lawrence: Dawn Lawrence, XO. Marilyn Jones: Marilyn Jones, FCC. Cary Hinton: What are we pointing at? Marilyn Jones: Carmell is trying to get the bridge fixed. Cary Hinton: Okay. Once we get that going, we’ll see who’s on the line at that point. In order to kill some time, I just wanted to personally say thank you very much, Mary, for the work that you’ve done. On behalf of Chairman Kane, we really 6appreciate all the work and leadership that you’ve provided with the working group. I can say personally that I’ve done several conference calls with Mary. I certainly have appreciated her experience and her wisdom and advice in helping us through many of the, shall we say, difficult issues that we’ve had in the past few years. I think frankly, we all owe Mary a round of applause for all of her work. Thank you. Personally, also I wish you an enjoyable retirement, wherever that may be. Mary Retka: Thank you. Cary Hinton: Do we have a conference link yet? Marilyn Jones: Cary, I want to say something. Cary Hinton: I’m sorry, go ahead. Marilyn Jones: Thank you. Hi, Mary. On behalf of the FCC and the Wireline Competition Bureau I would like to thank you for your service to the NANC and echo Cary’s sentiments and Rosemary’s sentiments also. On a personal note, I want to thank you for your leadership and your mentorship. Thank you. Mary Retka: You’re welcome. Cary Hinton: Do we have anybody on the bridge? Can anybody hear us? No. They hear music. All right. Perhaps, we’ll get a signal when it’s working. Is it working? No? I’m looking at the man in the booth. I’m not getting anything positive. All right. Well, let’s move on then to announcements while the technical difficulties are being worked out. What we 7wanted to announce is the dates for next year’s NANC meetings so that everybody can put them on their calendar and hopefully avoid conflicting business meetings, vacations, or other such events. First off, they’ll once again all be on Thursdays next year. The first meeting will be on March 16th. The second meeting will be on June 29th. The third quarterly meeting will be on September 21st. The final meeting of 2017 will be on December 7th. [Indiscernible] [Indiscernible] Jerome Candelaria: Jerome Candelaria, NCTA. Sandra Jones: Sandy Jones and Beth Carnes, Cox Communications. Jennifer Penn: Jennifer Penn, T-Mobile. Female Voice: This is Jill Freeman [phonetic] telus.com [phonetic]. Laura Dalton: Laura Dalton, Verizon, NOWG co-chair. Male Voice: Glen Clepard [phonetic], Charter Communications. Suzanne Addington: Suzanne Addington, FoN Working Group tri-chair. Cary Hinton: Okay. Is there anybody else on the call? 8Female Voice: Annie Johnson [phonetic], Minnesota Department of Commerce. Rebecca Beaton: Rebecca Beaton, Washington State Commission staff. Cullen Robbins: Cullen Robbins, Nebraska PSC. Michelle Sclater: Michelle Sclater, FCC. Mary Ann Thompson: Mary Ann Thompson [phonetic], Ohio Public Utilities Commission staff. Carolee Hall: Carolee Hall, Idaho Public Utilities Commission staff. Thomas Soroka, Jr.: Thomas Soroka, US Telecom [phonetic]. Robyn Russell: Robyn Russell [phonetic], Public Utilities Commission [audio glitch] staff. Christopher Hepburn: Christopher Hepburn, Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission. Cary Hinton: Anybody else? Michelle Thomas: Good morning. Michelle Thomas on behalf of T-Mobile, voting member. Cary Hinton: Did that take care of it? Everybody announced themselves? All right, very good. Betty Sanders: I’m not sure that you’d catch Betty Sanders for Charter Communications, tri-chair RMG. Cary Hinton: Very good. Thank you, Betty. 9Paula Campagnoli: I don’t know if you heard me. Paula Campagnoli, tri-chair LNPA Working Group. Cary Hinton: No. Missed you, Paula, thank you. Just to repeat myself for the benefit of those that are on the conference link, this is Cary Hinton. I’m temporarily substituting as the chair for the committee to keep the meeting running. Chairman Kane is caught in traffic at this time and is on her way here. She will soon be taking the seat and substituting for me. In order to keep things going, here we are. We have one additional announcement. Just also for the information of those that are on the conference link that did not hear my announcement previously, I did announce the meeting dates for next year’s NANC meetings. If you want to take note of these, they will once again be on Thursdays here at the FCC. The dates are March 16, June 29, September 21, and December 7th. We’ll be sending out an email to all the NANC members and those on our listserve with those dates in case you missed them. I believe that Marilyn has one more announcement. Marilyn Jones: Thank you, Cary. In addition to Mary’s upcoming retirement, we also had a couple of retirements since the last NANC meeting. Mary McManus from Comcast, she retired. She’s been replaced by Beth, who’s at the table now. Thank you, Mary, for your service and welcome, Beth. We also have Ann 10 Berkowitz from Verizon retire. Rob Morse, her alternate, has taken her place as the primary. Welcome to the table, Rob. Thank you, Ann, for all your service. We appreciate it. Cary Hinton: [Indiscernible] they’re sneaking up on us, aren’t they? Do we have any recent news to report? Anybody else have anything they want to raise for edification? We do have a couple of updates that will be coming from FCC staff on some issues. We’ll take those up as we go through the different reports. Approval of Transcript Let’s go on to the first action item, that being the transcript, which was distributed by email to all the NANC members. Does anybody have any edits, revisions, issues, problems? I’m looking around the room. I see no tent cards going up. Anybody on the conference link? Very good. I’m going to take that as no problems. Therefore, we have consensus that that is approved and then, of course, be Exhibit number 1 to be posted to our website and filed in perpetuity somewhere in the FCC labyrinth. Report of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) Moving on to the next item report of the North American Numbering Plan administrator, John. We’ll go ahead and label 11 John’s report as Exhibit number 2. You’ve got three attachments to that. Is that fair to say? John Manning: No, it’s only five pages long. Cary Hinton: So only yours, okay. John Manning: Yeah. Cary Hinton: These must be coming for another workgroup. Okay, very good. John Manning: Good morning, everybody. My name is John Manning, director with the North American Numbering Plan Administration. My report this morning is similar to previous reports: a quick review of CO code assignment activity, update on relief planning activities going on across the country, an update on the outstanding change orders, and then some other NANP and NANPA-related news. On page 2, summary of the CO code assignment activity. A pause here just to remind folks that the corrected NANPA report was sent out yesterday afternoon. There was a number or two that was incorrect in the chart that you’re looking at. Looking at assignments for the first ten months here of 2016, we assigned nearly 3,000 codes to date through October 31st. Annualizing that figure, we’re looking on an assignment of approximately 3,560 or so numbers or codes in 2016, returns/reclamations around 194 to 200 returns. These numbers are slightly less than 2015, a little bit higher than 2014. It 12 appears as if 2016 is going to fall in between the past two years in terms of quantities of assignments as well as codes that had been returned. On the relief planning side, I’m going to run through this fairly briefly and touch on the new items here. The items appearing on page 2 for New York 315, 212; California 213; and Washington 360 are all projects that I’ve reviewed before. All of these new area codes will go into service in 2017 starting with the New York 315, 680 in February of next year. On page 3, the Idaho 208 is a project that we’ve also reviewed in the past. The in-service date for that particular relief activity is at September 2017. Now, since our last meeting, which occurred back on September 15th also on that date, the New York State Public Service Commission approved an overlay for the 518 area code. The 838 area code was assigned. Permissive dialing will start in March of 2017, mandatory in August with the new in-service date of the 838 area code in September of next year. The Texas 210 is a project that’s been on the report in the past. That will go into service in October. The two new items here I’ll point out are in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania 717 area code on the 27th of October. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission approved an all-services overlay of the 717. The 223 area code was assigned. We’ll have an initial NPA relief 13 planning meeting scheduled for December 8th. Also, again in Pennsylvania, the 215/267 area code complex on November 9th, the Utility Commission again approved the addition of a new area code for this complex to 445, which had been previously assigned many years ago and then taken back and reserved for this particular complex. It has been assigned again. The initial NPA reimplementation meeting is now scheduled for December 7th. Now, below this line here are projects that are underway. They do not have established implementation timeframes. The first two, California 805 and California 916 – just last month, November 17th, we filed applications in both of those relief projects. Both of them recommended an overlay. For California 619, we have completed the industry work. The local and public jurisdiction meetings were held in October. The expectation is that we will file an application for relief with the CPUC sometime in the next several weeks. Also, in California 510, public and local jurisdiction meetings are next scheduled for January and February of next year. Turning to page 4, again, in California 909. On October 7th, we conducted a relief planning meeting for the 909 area code, consensus again for an overlay. Public and jurisdiction meetings are scheduled for early April. Update on NANPA change orders. NANPA Change Order 3 has been out there for quite some time. This is a change order 14 implementing several changes associated with the NRUF Form 502. There’s a new June 2016 version of that form. Change Order 3 was implemented on October 21st and that we are now accepting only the new updated June 2016 version of that form. Since our last meeting, NANPA Change Order 5 was approved by the FCC on September 30th. This change order dealt with the sunset of the 555 NXX Assignment Guidelines. Modifications were made to the NANP Administration System to effect that sunset of those guidelines. This activity is now complete. Finally, also on September 30th, the FCC approved NANPA Change Order 6, which proposed moving the NANP Administration System to the Amazon Web Services Cloud platform. Work has already commenced on this with the targeted implementation timeframe of April 2017. Finally, under other NANP and NANPA-related news, we published our newsletter in early October. Also in October, we published the NPA, NANP, and 5XX NPA exhaust projections. Just as an information item, if you’re interested in all of the approved NANPA change orders, they are now posted on the NANPA website. You can view those change orders and rate through them if you like. The final page is just a summary of area codes exhausted in the next 36 months and just a brief snapshot of all of the activities that are going to be taking place over the next three 15 years. That concludes my presentation. Any questions? Thank you. Betty Ann Kane: Thank you, John. [Off-topic comments] We finished the report of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator. I was going to recall on Sanford Williams at this point to give us an update. Is he here? Female Voice: So sorry, but we cannot hear on the bridge. Betty Ann Kane: I’m sorry. I said on my notes here, I was going to call on Sanford Williams to give us an update on the FCC order regarding the NANPA and the PA contracts as a follow on to that. Sanford Williams: Nice to be at this table. Good morning, everybody. As you know, we had a proposal from the NANC to combine the NANPA and PA contracts. We took that proposal very seriously. Currently, what we can say publicly is that there is an order on circulation on the eighth floor. Given the transition, we have no idea what’s going to happen with it. But there’s an order on the eighth floor. As soon as we get something in the eighth floor we can let you all know what we’re going to do going forward. But right now, we’re just in a holding pattern. Betty Ann Kane: Okay. Do you have any idea on timing? 16 Sanford Williams: Again, with the transition, we have no idea, unfortunately. We’re kind of like you are just waiting to hear what happens next. Betty Ann Kane: I think that’s probably something we in Washington would be hearing a lot in the next couple of months depending on the transition. All right, thank you, Sanford, for that update. Report of the National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator (PA) Now, Amy, give us the report of the National Thousands- Block Pooling Administrator. This will be document number three. Amy Putnam: This is Amy Putnam, the National Thousands- Block Pooling Administrator. I’m here to say pooling is fine. We’ve been having a slower year this year than the last couple of years. As you’ll see from our numbers, the last couple of months have been consistent with most of the months during the year. Our figures are just down this year. We get what you give us. With respect to the p-ANI summary data, the month of September was a spike. There was a network cleanup. Other than that, p-ANI is pretty consistent. As usual, I give you lots of charts for you to study when you have insomnia some night. 17 I’m going to move to the Pooling Administration System performance. I’m looking now on page 7. We did have one unscheduled PAS outage since our last meeting on October 24th. We realized it. We were not notified by any customers that they could not access the system. But we timed the outage for eight minutes. We had a couple of server issues within five minutes of each other. We got the situation fixed within eight minutes. We had one unscheduled RNAS outage, September 7th. That one lasted for about 15 minutes. Again, we were not notified by any customers that they couldn’t access the system. We realized it. All right. Other pooling-related activities, the part where I actually talk a little. All of our reports were filed on time. With respect to p-ANI administration, there is one other thing. We noted that we continued working on reconciling data discrepancies, which is going to be an ongoing project for probably many years. We attended the ESIF meeting. Also, since the last meeting, we posted nine instructional videos showing how-to’s about applications, modifications, returns, forecasting, and reports similar to what we have for PAS, we now have on the website for p-ANI as well. We participated in NOWG regularly monthly meetings in September, October, and November. We submitted Change Order 3B to the FCC and the NOWG on October 19th. It addresses the development of and support for implementation of the PAS/NPAC API. 18 On November 4th, the NOWG advised the FCC that the NOWG is not recommending approval. That change order is with the FCC at this time. I just realized this happened after the last meeting. We also did deliver to the FCC and iconectiv on September 30th the API spec that was the deliverable for Change Order 3A. We have a list here of all the applications for national authorizations that VoIP service providers have filed so far with the FCC. As the list grows and grows, I think we’ll be getting these in chart forms starting in March. All but the last four have authority granted. We continue to educate the VoIP providers in the states on application processing requirements, proper supporting documentation, and the information contained in the 30-day notification letters. We’ve received inquiries from several state commissions about VoIP providers not responding to requirements established by the respective states, either general requirements or 30-day notification process. When that happens, we do discuss it with the FCC. We are an FCC contractor. We want to do what we’re supposed to be doing. We’re not making decisions in a vacuum. We are guided by the FCC and keep them in the loop. We’ve been sending regular updates to the state commissions whenever new applications or filings are made. 19 We’ve had an overdue Part 4 project floating around for a while. We suspended it as a formal project because it had just pretty much died down. We’ll be following up with two of the states with the most overdue Part 4s. Finally, on November 29th, we met with the FCC regarding Neustar’s contribution to the ATIS Test Beds Focus Group Issue 5.1.2. It’s called Numbering Use Case number 1JITITN using existing systems. That is my report. Questions? Betty Ann Kane: On the issue of the change order that you’ve recommended to the FCC and the NOWG is not recommending approval of that, you said the current status is in process. Will the NOWG be speaking to that when they give their report as to the reasons just so everybody -- for recommending that it not be approved? Will that come up when you do the report? Yeah? Okay, thank you. Then the only other kind of really point of information on the issue of some of the VoIP providers not notifying the states and following the 30-day requirements in some of the states, et cetera, probably most of you know you follow the NARUC. But the NARUC Telecommunications Committee did approve a resolution, which was then approved by the full board, pointing out this problem and urging the FCC to make sure working with you all that the VoIP providers do both follow the state requirements whether –- I know these requirements. And that pointed out one 20 of the other problems at the states so it was that some of these applications are being filed on a nationwide basis and being filed confidential, which has the effect if not the intent of running around the state process. I’ll send out a copy of that resolution to everybody, if the state representatives want to say anything on that. That was unanimous. Thank you, Amy. Amy Putnam: Thank you. Betty Ann Kane: Now, we will hear from the NOWG. Report of the Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) Karen Riepenkroger: Hi, my name is Karen Riepenkroger. I co-chair the NOWG along with Laura Dalton at Verizon. I have slides on the NANPA and the PA technical requirements documents, the 2016 performance surveys, the NANPA change orders, PA change orders. Then we have a slide on our upcoming meeting schedule through February of 2017, and then the participating entities on the NOWG. On Slide 3, the NOWG has been meeting regularly as they continue their review and update of the NANPA TRD. Once we have completed the update of the NANPA TRD, then we will move and start work on the PA TRD. We’re trying to add in to the TRDs, adding in the change orders that have been implemented since the last contract was led or the last time the TRD was updated. We’re methodically moving through there making sure we’ve not missed anything. Any questions on the TRDs? 21 Okay. On Slide 4, the performance surveys. The NOWG has completed their review and updates to the survey, cover letter, and the actual survey questions for the NANPA, the PA, and the RNA surveys. The 2016 draft surveys and cover letters have been sent to the NANC for their review. They were transmitted with our report. At this time, the NOWG is requesting the NANC’s approval of these surveys and cover letters. In case, you have not had time to look through them yet, we did not make any changes other than the date to the PA and RNA surveys. We just changed a couple of pieces of wording on the overall question. Then on the NANPA survey, we did just add some clarification in to a couple of the questions. Then we updated the cover letter. We removed the comment about the survey being streamlined. Since that’s been three years ago, we felt it was appropriate to remove that information. Again, we do need the NANC’s approval before we can move forward to have these ready for distribution in January. Betty Ann Kane: Thank you, Karen. On that issue, are there any questions about the survey and the cover letter? Entertain a motion to approve? No one? CenturyLink moves approve and Sprint seconds, all in favor of approving these survey and letter. Is there any opposition, any abstentions? Anyone on the phone? Okay, they’re approved. 22 Karen Riepenkroger: Thank you. Moving to Slide 5, the NANPA Change Orders. John pretty much covered everything. For number six, we did submit our recommendation to the FCC for Change Order 6 on September 13th, approved by the FCC on 9/30. Again, as John mentioned, the scheduled implementation date is April of 2017. I’m just trying not to be redundant. He’s covered everything already on that. On the next slide — and I think this is where the questions will come in on the change orders — as Amy had mentioned, 3A was delivered on time on September 30th. They’ve submitted 3B. The NOWG reviewed this and the recommendation was not to approve and this was sent to the FCC on November the fourth. And as we review this, and I know that there’s questions on this, as we review this, we sent a series of followup questions back to the PA and then we reviewed the PA’s questions. Based on the questions and the PA’s responses, which we attached for the FCC’s reference when we submitted our recommendation, we recommended that we could not approve the change order as written because the NOWG has not received enough detailed information to determine if the change order effort is commensurate with the proposed cost. The cost associated seemed excessive for the work effort being performed and in good conscience the NOWG could not recommend imposing these significant costs on the industry as it consider some monthly 23 costs of the PA’s operations and the cost of passed change orders and the overall cost of the PA’s contract. So that was one of the main reason why we did not recommend that it be approved. We also looked at, part of this was the understanding that -- one of the things was whenever a new product is introduced, modifications are developed and tested prior to implementation. But this particular change order, as we read it, did not have the testing happening until after. It was not the first part of it, it was the second part of the change order, and we felt it should be included in the first cost of the testing. So that was another reason why we recommended that it not be approved. Are there any questions on the recommendation of the NOWG to the FCC to not approve this change order? Betty Ann Kane: Any questions? Discussion? Anyone? Okay. What would the change order do? What was it changing? Karen Riepenkroger: What were they changing? It was to -- Betty Ann Kane: Yeah. Just for the record so we don’t spill a lot of numbers and acronyms in here, et cetera. Karen Riepenkroger: It was development of the Pooling Administration PAS API interface to allow iconectiv secure access to PAS over the Internet. And it was going to enhance the PAS gooey to enable both NPAC vendors and to access PAS during the transition by region, integration and performance 24 testing, regional cutover testing and/or regional fallback testing with iconectiv, and also to support through the NPAC regional migrations. Betty Ann Kane: So this would be in place during the transition? Karen Riepenkroger: That is correct. Part of it would be, yes. Betty Ann Kane: Part of it would be. Karen Riepenkroger: They had the initial setup and then they had an ongoing monthly cost through the transition. Betty Ann Kane: And again, the concern was primarily the cost? Karen Riepenkroger: That is correct. And again, all of this information was forwarded, all of the questions that we submitted to the PA and all of the NOWG’s analysis at the PA’s questions and our responses were sent to the FCC along with our recommendation. Betty Ann Kane: Are there any questions on this or any discussion? Any concern? Okay. What impact will this have on the timing? Karen Riepenkroger: I cannot answer that question. Betty Ann Kane: Thank you, Karen. Karen Riepenkroger: Okay. Moving on. Let’s see. The next slide is slide 7 and that just lists our upcoming meeting 25 schedules from December through the end of February. Then the last two slides are, again, about the meetings we -- a lot of times we have inter-meetings and we are having a significant number of inter-meetings right now working on the TRDs. And then, the last slide is a list of the participating entities. Are there any other questions? Betty Ann Kane: Thank you. Thank you for your work. Karen Riepenkroger: Thank you. Report of the Toll Free Number Administrator (TFNA) Betty Ann Kane: And your report will be item number four for the transcript for the minutes. The report of the Toll-Free Numbering Administrator. Gina Perini: Good morning, Chairman Kane and the NANC. Good to see you all. So we have a rather short presentation but I did want to give you a sense of where we are on toll-free numbers as we round out the end of the year. Our first chart, you’ll be familiar with all of these charts, we’re trying to show you the same images. You can get a sense of what’s changing quarter to quarter. The last few months, this one’s is in October of 2016, those numbers at the end of that month, we are hovering in the 26.5 percentage exhaust on toll-free numbers across all NPAs. We’ve been hovering there for a couple of months. We tend to have quite an active last quarter, as you can imagine, with the 26 holidays, the retail season, and lots of toll-free numbers and marketing and ad tracking going on so we’ll be continuing to watch that. You’ll see in March where that came out at the end of the quarter, but we have been hovering around 86.5 percent. The next graphic on the next slide shows you sort of overall. I’d like to sort of give you a sense of the picture of the growth of toll free and where we are over time. This graph starts in 1998 and brings us all the way until now at the end of the graph. And you can see, there’s been obviously quite an increase over the last few years but in the last quarter, we have been a bit flat. Continuing to monitor that. And then, slide 4 gives you a sense across our NPAs. Where is our exhaust? Not surprising, as we always say, 800 is pretty exhausted out at all times. Anytime an 800 number goes into our spare pool, it gets picked up pretty fast. And then the rest we see, obviously, the newer codes have more space. They have more availability in those codes, the 844 and the 855 codes. We are still on track to open 833 in April of next year and we’re working with the FCC on that. We’ll obviously be talking more about that in March because it will be eminent at that time. The next graphic is just another way to show where the NPAs are over time. It’s just very interesting, I think, to see sort of the activity and vibrancy of the numbers as they continue to move toward exhaust. 27 And then, on slide 6, one of the things that we’ve been really trying to do and focus on is the engagement of toll free with the Toll-Free Neutral Administrator. And so we’ve started last year with an annual summit where we invited all of our responsible organizations, which we call Resp Orgs, who are the folks that actually are the agents of the subscribers to activate toll-free numbers. And this year, we did our second annual summit, it was in early November. We had over 150 attendees from across our Resp Org community, large and small. The theme was Collaborate and Evolve. We had multiple sessions on not only the SMS 800 system but also breakout sessions, panel discussions on the current trends and activities within toll free. We’ll have another one next year actually. So if anybody’s interested, on our website, we’re going to be posting videos and content from the summit and also we’ll have information about the next summit which will be in September in Chicago. Betty Ann Kane: Where was the one this year? Gina Perini: Fort Lauderdale. We tried to move regionally each year to different regions so it’s easier for some folks to come. And that is my report for today. Does anyone have any questions about toll-free numbers? I’m sure you’re bursting with questions about toll-free numbers. Okay. Great. 28 Betty Ann Kane: What happens after we get to 833, and 822, and 811? I guess 811 is already taken, isn’t it? It’s for Miss Utility or Call Before You Dig. Gina Perini: Right, right. There are a couple of codes there that we can use. At this stage of growth, I think we’re probably pretty -- each code has about seven million numbers so I think considering the slow growth, you know, I think we’re far away from having to worry too much about that but we are monitoring it. Betty Ann Kane: Thank you. And we’ll mark your report as exhibit number five. Gina Perini: Great. Thank you very much. Report of the North American Numbering Plan Billing and Collection Agent Report (NANP B&C) Betty Ann Kane: And now the Billing and Collection Agent. Garth Steele: Good morning. My name is Garth Steele, I’m a partner with Welch LLP and we act as the billing and collection agent for the North American Numbering Plan Fund and we’ve got our financial update for you here to the end of October. It takes the usual format. The first page is the statement of financial position. It summarizes the assets for the fund, which at the end of October, included just over $5 million in the bank; $262,000 worth of receivables; and just over $600,000 in accrued liabilities for expenditures incurred 29 to the end of October that remained unpaid. So that leaves us at the end of October with a fund balance of $4.6 million. On the next page, page two of the report, you’ll see the budget broken down on a month by month basis. The expenditures are fairly consistent from one month to the next with respect to the financial statement audits and carrier audits. So each month looks fairly similar to the preceding month. You’ll see that the first column has the actual figures for the month of October and the remainder of this projection is based on our original budget for the remaining 11 months. So we’re early into the year. Of course, the fiscal year runs from October 1st to September the 30th so we only have one month of actuals and 11 months of projections here. If we look at the three last columns, we’ll see the third last column is the total projected revenues and expenditures for the year, the second last column is the budget that was approved a few months ago, and the final column is the variance report that compares our projections to the budget. And at this point, it looks like we may be over budget on expenses by about $89,000. But it’s really too early in the year to really figure out where we’re going to end up. We do expect to end up the year with a surplus of about $410,000 which is primarily made up of the contingency reserve of $500,000. 30 The next page, page three of the report shows the anticipated expenditures based on contracts in place today over the next six months. As I’ve mentioned, those expenditures are fairly consistent from month to month with the exception of any audits that need to be done. The final page of the report, page four, just summarizes some of the deliverables noting some of the highlights from the past month with nothing really alarming there to report on. So that’s the report from the Billing and Collection Agent basically suggesting that things are as they should be. Report of the Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) Betty Ann Kane: Thank you. This will be marked as Exhibit number six. Any questions? Questions on the phone? Thank you. All right. Moving right along. We have the Billing and Collection Working Group. Mary Retka: Good morning. I am Mary Retka from CenturyLink and along with Rosemary Leist from Sprint. We co- chair the Billing and Collection Working Group. This is, you know, my last report in this capacity. We did hold an election as the Billing and Collection Working Group in our meeting that was just yesterday and have elected Phillip Lindsay to be sent in to the FCC for approval for being our next co-chair. So we’ve got that taken care of. 31 Betty Ann Kane: Okay. Thank you. Well, we want to thank you very much for all of your work for such a long time with this particular working group as well as, obviously, with the whole NANC and we will welcome Phillip. I hope he is speedily approved. Mary Retka: Thank you. The Billing and Collection Working Group is the group that sets the annual factor and also monitors the work of the Billing and Collection Agent. Our mission is on page two of the report. I’ve gone through that before in other meetings so we can skip past that. Our current activities, our monthly oversight of the billing and collection work, and then the evaluation of the deliverables of the agent, and we also monitor the billing and collection contract. So that on page four of the report, you’ll see the same item that we had on last time’s report. And in chatting with Marilyn a little bit before the meeting I know she has some update for us or Sanford does. Betty Ann Kane: Marilyn? Marilyn Jones: Yes, this is Marilyn, FCC. I spoke with the contracting officer, Kadian Ferguson. As you know, we work in conjunction with OGC and the Wireline Competition Bureau to get this contract renewed. I was told by Kadian that RFP is completed and it’s being reviewed internally and she hopes to get it solicited by the end of the year. 32 Betty Ann Kane: The RFP? Marilyn Jones: Yes. Betty Ann Kane: Have been put out? Okay. Thank you. All right. That’s progress. Mary Retka: Thank you, Marilyn. It’s good news. Okay. On page five, you just heard Garth walk through everything related to the budget so I won’t dwell here but do note that for the new fiscal year, the billing was processed to all of those contributors in September. Payment processing and helpdesk queries are proceeding and under way as appropriate, and was called out in his report. Collections and red light actions are under way as well. On page six, we have the history of all of the contribution factors, which you’ll all note. And as I’ve said before, we try to keep the contribution factor fairly similar year over year to avoid causing issues for carriers’ budgets, which we know are set on their run rates so that there’s not a big spike or dip in that amount. And then, on page seven, you have the membership of the Billing and Collection Working Group. We’re always open to new members. So please, if you’re interested, get in touch with Rosemary and myself and we’ll be glad to have you join us as members. 33 And then, on page eight, we have our next meeting scheduled for December 13th. That will be our last meeting this year and we’ve already scheduled our meetings for the following year and provided those to all of our members. Any questions on the Billing and Collection Working Group? Betty Ann Kane: Questions? Anyone on the phone? Female Voice: Thank you. Thank you very much. Mary Retka: Thank you. Report of the North American Portability Management (NAPM) LLC Betty Ann Kane: And this will be document number seven. Now the report of the North American Portability Management, the NAPM. There we go. Teresa Patton: Good morning. Our report this morning is going to be a little short. My name is Teresa Patton. I was recently elected new co-chair for the NAPM. I’m replacing Tim Decker who is retiring at the end of this year. As far as since our last report, we’ve had two SOWs approved, no cost SOWs for iconectiv. One is to disallow the use of a SPID when decommissioned by a service provider. The other one removes unused messaging from the NPAC. We do have one pending that is still under review by the North American Number Portability Management Center. The NAPM remains open to new members and new 34 membership outreach was made to ATL Communications since our last report. In November, we did hold officer elections. I was elected as co-chair. I’m from AT&T. We reelected Suzanne Addington from Sprint as treasurer, Rosemary Leist from Sprint was elected as recording secretary, and Paula Campagnoli from T-Mobile was reelected as our secretary. Tim Decker, as I mentioned, and Jan Doell from CenturyLink are both retiring at the end of this year and they will be greatly missed by our committee. In regards to the LNPA transition, the TOM had two webcasts, one in September, and one in October. And iconectiv held one onboarding webcast in September and officially kicked off the onboarding on October 7th. The NAPM continues to file monthly LNPA transition reports with the FCC and we also continue to meet with the FCC and the TOM to discuss transition status and any issues or concerns regarding the transition. Any questions? Betty Ann Kane: Thank you. Congratulations on your new position. Teresa Patton: Thank you. Report of the Local Number Portability Administration Transition Oversight Manager (TOM) 35 Betty Ann Kane: And again, we wish Tim and Jan well in their retirement. This will be document number eight. And the TOM. Greg Chiasson: Good morning. Good morning Chairman Kane, distinguished members of the NANC. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. My name is Greg Chiasson; I am a partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers or PwC. I’m here representing the LNPA Transition Oversight Manager or the TOM. I’d like to give you a brief update on the status of the transition, our accomplishments to date, and planned next steps. So broadly speaking, the scope of the TOM’s responsibilities covers overseeing the transition in accordance with the Transition Oversight Plan or the TOP, conducting the program management of the transition, monitoring, assessing, and reporting on the progress of the transition, and implementing a communications plan to inform all of the transition stakeholders. Since our last update in September, we’ve been working with the NAPM, with Neustar and iconectiv, and other stakeholders to prepare for the LNPA transition. There are a number of areas I’ll highlight for you today. First, iconectiv software and hardware development remain on track. The initial tranche of code labeled Release A and which is slated to begin industry testing in May, is approximately 67 percent complete. And the 36 hardware installation for iconectiv’s test data center was completed approximately one week earlier than its planned completion date of October 28th. Onboarding also continues to proceed well. Both the TOM through our outreach, and iconectiv through its own sessions are making sure the industry is aware of this key activity. As Teresa said, iconectiv launched an onboarding website in September and has been steadily processing agreements. We provided some statistics in our report and I’ll share the most current information with you today. So as of last Friday, November 25th, 629 companies representing approximately 28 percent of the total number of service provider IDs or SPIDs have started the onboarding process. Also, nine of twelve service bureaus have started to onboard, and four of six LSMS and SOA vendors have executed the vendor confidentiality and testing agreements, which is the first step in their onboarding process. Additionally, 46 NPAC users have fully completed the onboarding process. This is up from the 31 completions detailed in our report which included users that had completed onboarding as of the prior week, that is to say for November 18th. So good progress overall in onboarding. In the area of testing, most of the progress has been in developing, reviewing, and approving the Acceptance Test Plans 37 for the new NPAC. As of the date of our report, the first ATP was approved by the NAPM in coordination with the FCC. We’d also reported we’d be submitting three additional ATPs before the end of this year. As of today, we’ve submitted two of those three ATPs, data migration and wireless do-not-call, for review and approval. The third ATP covering IVR will be submitted shortly, and we expect all of these to be approved by the end of this year. In addition, the TOM has continued to work on various other aspects of the transition including the development and definition of how operational activities will be divided between Neustar and iconectiv while Neustar is operating certain regions and iconectiv is operating others. It’s what we call parallel operations. To date, seven of eleven parallel operations documents have been baselined, and we’re continuing to work to complete the others and to detail the requirements associated with the approach outlined in each document. The TOM has continued to conduct working sessions with the NAPM, iconectiv, and Neustar to collect inputs and evaluate various contingency rollback approaches. The objective is to identify the appropriate approach to rollback that balances the risk management benefits against the cost and complexity of implementation. Agreement on rollback approach and commitment to implement as well as the broader issue of whether parallel 38 operations processes fall within the scope of the transition services under NAPM’s SOW 97 with Neustar - are two of the risks that TOM has been highlighting in our monthly reports to the FCC. The TOM has also been calling out the lack of a confidentiality agreement that has impeded joint vendor interaction and has stymied the use of the transition management portal that the TOM established to foster a free flow of transition information. The NAPM with support from the FCC and the TOM are working to mitigate these risks. One change resulting from the LNPA transition will be the way the thousands-block pooling operates. Currently, Neustar occupies both the role of the LNPA and the pooling administrator. Following the transition, Neustar will retain the role of pooling administrator, but iconectiv will be the LNPA. As a result, the information exchange between the NPAC and the PAS will need to operate over an external interface between the two companies. Since we last updated you, the specification for the Application Programming Interface or API between the two systems has been provided to iconectiv. The specification was the focus of Change Order 3A. The TOM’s continuing to track the status of Change Order 3B, which would fund the work to implement and test the API. 39 Additionally, the TOM has updated the Transition Oversight Plan or the TOP to reflect the various changes to the LNPA transition project plan from the events that occurred in the last year. We understand, as of this morning, the TOP has been approved, and we’ll have that posted to the napmllc.org website under the LNPA transition tab where we’re producing as a repository for all the transition materials. So finally, in the area of outreach and education, we continue our efforts to keep stakeholders informed about the LNPA transition through multiple channels. We conducted webcasts on September 21st and October 27th, and they continued to be well attended. We have averaged 349 participants per webcast throughout the TOEP series. Additionally, we conducted two in-person industry events to provide attendees an opportunity to meet directly with the TOM and ask questions or express concerns. On September 26th, we supported the Rural Broadband Association’s fall NTCA conference in Indianapolis. And on November 13th, we supported the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners or NARUC’s meeting in La Quinta, California. In addition, we released our first LNPA transition survey on November 15th. Today, nearly 150 stakeholders have completed the survey, almost two thirds of which are service providers. The survey is still open so if you haven’t responded, we 40 encourage you to do so by 5:00 PM tomorrow so we can gather your input and perspectives on the transition. We’ll take these results, and we’ll share them on our next TOEP webcast, which is on December 13th. As I’ve mentioned previously, we maintain a compilation of transition materials on the napmllc.org website including a list of frequently asked questions and recordings of all the TOEP webcasts. You can also submit questions or comments directly to the TOM through the comments feature that’s listed on the left hand side of the NAPM LNPA transition page. Now I’d encourage you to use this feature if you wish to reach the TOM between NANC meetings. That concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you for your time and attention today. Betty Ann Kane: Okay. Thank you, Greg. Any questions? Discussion? Greg, I was trying to take notes. Because you said a lot more than is on your slides, some risks that you were saying. When was the lack of the confidentiality agreement? I didn’t get what are the other risks that you were reporting. Greg Chiasson: Yeah. These are some of the risk we’ve highlighted in the monthly reports to the FCC. It really comes down to some agreement on key transition requirements, how we would do rollback, and would implement rollback, and some debate on the scope of the transition services that are covered under 41 the current agreements between the parties. So we’re working through those with the NAPM. Betty Ann Kane: So your report is that there’s a process in place to address those risks and keep things on schedule? Greg Chiasson: We’re continuing to work to address those risks, yes. Betty Ann Kane: Okay. Any questions? Anyone on the phone? Okay. Thank you very much. Greg Chiasson: Thanks. Betty Ann Kane: And your report and your slides will be numbered on, of course, your full presentation will be on the transcript. The next is the report of the LNPA Working Group. Report of the Local Number Portability Administration Working Group (LNPA WG) Deborah Tucker: Good morning, everybody. I’m Deb Tucker, one of the three tri-chairs for the LNPA Working Group and I am with Verizon. The report today is fairly brief. I want to give an update on the Best Practice 4 Clarification and ask for NANC approval, talk about the transition from PSTN to IP and just give a brief update on our status on LNPA transition. In response to the NANC’s request for the LNPA Working Group to review Best Practice 4 to assure that Voice over IP and IP provider systems are included, the working group provided revised language for handling Extended Area Service, EAS, call 42 scenarios during the September 2016 NANC meeting. This revised language has been incorporated into the attached working group N-1 Interpretation Version 6 document that is published on the LNPA Working Group’s page of the npac.com website under Best Practice 4, N-1 Carrier Methodology Clarification. Now, back in September, we had just approved the report and hadn’t asked for NANC’s approval of the report at that time. The document has been distributed and I would like to request that the NANC approve the document and then forward the document to the FCC for further approval. Betty Ann Kane: That report was sent to everybody. Is there any discussion on the request that the NANC approve that report and forward it to the FCC? Any objection? I will say, by unanimous consent, that will be done. Deborah Tucker: Thank you. Next up, the transition from PSTN to IP, we’ve relied up heavily on Mary Retka to provide us with our updates. This is a good way for the group to hear about the work effort there. So Mary has continued to provide updates from the ATIS Test Bed Landscape Team. It’s focusing on service providers testing together during the IP transition. They met last on November 1st. The test plan subgroups have continued to be encouraged to meet in between the main group meetings to focus on moving forward with the individual test plan completion of the 43 documentation. That work has progressed resulting in some test plan updates being provided. Several test plans still need the documentation worked through and provided for the test bed focus group to review. Some preliminary testing is underway on some test cases. The tracking sheet is updated on each call for each test case. The FCC/AT&T industry RoboCalling Strike Force reports and handoff were reviewed on the November 1st call and it’s understood that there is a linkage to this group’s testing efforts for the Provider-to-Provider Use Case 1, Secure Telephony Identity Protocols for End-to-End SIP calls. Many companies have signed the ATIS NDA for participating in the testing with full access to the testing documentation and others may still come forward to sign the NDA as well. Some companies have recently determined to be involved in the testing and there’s still an opportunity for others to come forward to be included. The next full team meeting is scheduled for November 29th and I’d like to ask Mary if there’s a replacement for you yet to keep us updated. Betty Ann Kane: She is irreplaceable. Can we get her microphone on? Mary Retka: This is Mary Retka from CenturyLink. We just had an updated meeting yesterday or Tuesday on the test bed group and I announced to that group that I will be retiring. 44 Our next meeting is December 13th and we asked for the parties to provide their indication of interest in taking my co-chair seat. I will be leaving CenturyLink on March 3rd, so we will have a meeting in January in which we will do our election for the co-chair position. Deborah Tucker: Okay. Thank you. You will truly be missed, Mary. For the LNPA transition, pursuant to the NANC chair’s request, the working group continues to discuss possible areas where the working group could be involved in the LNPA transition. The Working Group Architecture Planning Team continues to review current test cases and develop any new test cases that may be needed for the LNPA transition. John Malyar with iconectiv and Teresa Patton of AT&T chair the APT. The APT will continue to report their progress at our LNPA Working Group meetings. That’s the end of my report. Are there any questions? Betty Ann Kane: Questions? Let me note that I did receive yesterday a letter from David Malfara, Sr., who’s the LNP Alliance representative to the LNPA Working Group. I believe it was CC’d to the co-chairs of the LNPA Working Group and then filed in the dockets with the FCC yesterday evening in Docket 7 149 9 109 and CC dockets as wireless competition dockets and CC 95 116, I think raising some questions about the role of the LNPA Working Group in the LNPA transition. 45 It was just filed last night. It was not circulated to all of the members of the working group or to all the members of the NANC. But it will be available. I’ll make it available. I might ask Sanford just process-wise or Marilyn, since this was just filed, what is the normal process at what the FCC would -- since it was filed now in the docket, it’s different than just a letter to me. Marilyn Jones: Right. So now that it’s in the docket, we have internal discussions and we will probably get back to you since it’s addressed to you in particular and discuss it further. Betty Ann Kane: I will only still look at the third paragraph of it. I don’t want to get into it since you all do have a copy of it. But it says that the LNPA Working Group co- chairs have indicated, based on their good faith understanding of their mandate, that the NANC has limited the role of the LNPA Working Group to developing test cases. And I know I just heard in your report that there’s a continued look at other roles for the LNPA Working Group. Is that correct? Deborah Tucker: We do take suggestions at the meetings. Betty Ann Kane: Yeah. I don’t have a recollection of our limiting the LNPA Working Group to that particular function. I’m sure of that, but I will circulate this. Rosemary? 46 Rosemary Leist: This is Rosemary Leist with Sprint. And this is a Sprint comment. This just came out yesterday, as you pointed out, and I haven’t had a chance to talk to any of my colleagues about this yet. However, in the last several NANC meeting or in LNPA Working Group meetings previously, there have been questions that have been raised about what can be talked about under the testing environment. As recently -- and I was only on the bridge in the last meeting so I’m not sure exactly, you know, I wasn’t actually in the room. But there have been questions surrounding what we can talk about even in the test environment or in the testing environment. Like, I think in the last meeting, there was a question raised where we can only talk about certification testing versus other kinds or other forms of testing. So I’ve gone back and looked at some of the previous emails and such that have gone out about this. It doesn’t look like it precludes you to just talking about certification testing. But there are a lot of questions or there have been a lot questions and I think people err on the side of not wanting to talk about things because they don’t want to break any kind of rules. I didn’t know if perhaps the NANC would be in a situation -- I mean, I’m not sure if it does specifically comes from the FCC or if the NANC maybe should have a couple of people that maybe provide some advice to the NANC to the next meeting to 47 say, hey, there’s different types of testing that should be talked about under the NANC umbrella. You know, whether it’d be anything outside of certification testing, performance testing. I’m just not sure if there -- I guess my point is I think there is a place, that I think that there is ambiguity right now. It would be nice if we can have a little bit more clear direction at the LNPA Working Group so that people wouldn’t be shying away from conversations on testing, but versus feeling like they could or should be talking about, you know, certain other forms of testing. Thank you. Betty Ann Kane: Thank you for that. I just didn’t want to open this up a little bit for discussion, and when you see the letter, that’s when you want the process, too, but I think this is helpful. Yes? Robert Morse: This is Rob Morse from Verizon, people [sounds like] from the bridge. I think, just one thought to the extent that there are concerns that are FACA related. I think there’s value in having staff, take Marilyn and her folks, taking that back and providing some guidance. I think there’s some concern generally that the working group, because its role is important in terms of the transition moving forward, that their portfolio not be sort of expanded on a kind of an ad hoc basis. That’s my only thought. Thank you. Betty Ann Kane: Mary? 48 Mary Retka: Mary Retka from CenturyLink. I just wanted to point out that the TOM has been represented at the LNPA Working Group and does plan to do aggregated testing information to the industry as a part of their role in the LNPA transition. Betty Ann Kane: Okay. Thank you. We’ll get this letter out so everyone can see it. I would appreciate any feedback or additional questions that it raises not only for the members of the LNPA Working Group but for the whole NANC. The LNPA Working Group is one of our committees, if you will, a very important working group. The transition is very important. I don’t want questions about the breadth or the narrowness of a working group’s role to be an impediment to getting the work done, and getting the input, and getting all of the appropriate stakeholders doing what they need to do and contributing as they can to really help this move forward and move forward in a proper way. I’ll be working with the staff to send other guidance that is needed. Very good. Thank you and your report will be number ten. Thank you. All right. Moving right along to the Future of Numbering. Yeah. You can stay right there. Go ahead. Report of the Future of Numbering Working Group (FoN WG) Dawn Lawrence: Good morning. I’m Dawn Lawrence with XO Communications, one of the tri-chairs of the Future of Numbering Working Group. I have a short report today. The working group 49 continues to receive updates from other industry forums to keep our members informed of all things numbering, including the numbering test bed, ATIS/INC, LNPA Working Group, and the ATIS/SIP Forum. And again, Mary gives us updates for some of those. You will be missed. We look forward to whoever replaces you with the updates. I assume this could be whoever is elected for the co-chair. We keep on our agenda the FCC Wire Center Trial updates for any new updates. In addition, we also keep on the agenda the nationwide ten-digit dialing just in case that comes to us again at some point. And that’s it. Betty Ann Kane: Thank you. Any questions? You say on the issue of ten-digit dialing. Again, The Telecommunications Committee at NARUC and then the full NARUC board and membership did approve a resolution noting that while ten-digit dialing remains an option for states, and although the NANC recommended it as a best practice, it was not adopted by the FCC as a best practice. But the resolution did urge states to take into consideration that eventually, with nationwide number portability, we’re going to be getting the ten-digit dialing and so states should be aware of that as they make decisions in helping consumers get used to ten-digit dialing. Mary? 50 Mary Retka: Mary Retka from CenturyLink. I was wondering if perhaps that resolution could also be shared with everybody [cross-talking] -- thank you. Betty Ann Kane: Absolutely. I will do that. I apologize. I think I should have gotten that out before the meeting. There were two resolutions. I believe there was one on robocalling, too, which I don’t think directly impacts the NANC, but it certainly is of importance to the telecommunications industry. We will ensure that that one gets out too. Thank you. So your report will be document number 11. And the INC. Who’s doing the INC report? Marilyn Jones: Dyan. Dyan Adams: I am. Hi. Betty Ann Kane: Oh, you’re right there. I’m sorry. Go ahead, Dyan. Status of the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Activities Dyan Adams: Good morning. Dyan Adams from Verizon, I am co-chair of the ATIS INC along with Connie Hartman of iconectiv. We have a pretty brief readout today as well. On our overview slide, we list what we’re going to talk about. I’ll give you a little information about INC, our meetings. I’m going to give a summary of Issue 788. We provide a list of issues in initial closure, initial pending, and tabled status as well as final 51 closure. And then, our relevant INC webpages as we always provide. Slide 3 is our normal slide that provides information about INC. The ATIS Industry Numbering Committee provides an open forum to address and resolve industry-wide issues associated with planning, administration, allocation, assignment, and use of North American Numbering Plan numbering resources within the NANP area. We also provide some URLs for our membership information. On slide 4, we list our INC meetings. Since the September NANC meeting, INC held one face-to-face meeting and one virtual meeting in November and our next meeting is January 25th and January 26th in San Francisco, California. On slide 5, we have Issue 788 which we’ve reported on several times now. As John mentioned, NANPA Change Order 5 was approved by the FCC on September 30th and was implemented on October 16th. The change order proposed updates to the NANP Administration System and as a result, Issue 788 was moved to final closure. The 555 NXX Line Number Reference Document has been posted on the ATIS website under INC reference documents. Planning Letter 498 was published on October 31st and ATIS updated the document center to note that the 555 NXX Assignment Guidelines 52 have been sunset and are superseded by the 555 NXX Line Number Reference Document that is now available on the document center. Slide 6 shows we have Issue 748 in tabled status. Slide 7 lists our issues in final closure. And slide 8 provides INC- relevant webpages. That’s it for me. Any questions? Betty Ann Kane: Any questions? Any other folks? Thank you very much. Dyan Adams: Thank you. Betty Ann Kane: We’ll mark that as document number 12. That concludes the items on the agenda. Summary of Action Items As a summary of action items, we had two. We approved the survey and the letter for the billing and collection agent and the LNPA Working Group report was approved and will be submitted to the FCC. Public Comments and Participation Are there any public comments or participants? Anybody? All right. And other business, any new business from anyone? We will have an update on robocalling at the next meeting. I doubt we will do that this time, but it will be at the next meeting. Chucky [phonetic] wasn’t available. In terms of a schedule for meetings, we’d like to set the schedule for 2017. The FCC has sent me some tentative dates. Carmell, one of the dates wasn’t available. It wasn’t good for 53 me. Would you be able to find a new date for March? Okay. So we don’t have a date yet for the March meeting but the proposed dates for the other quarterly meetings will be June 29th, September 21st, and December 7th. And we will send this out to everyone. That won’t work, the 16th. March 16th was a tentative date but that doesn’t work. So we will send that out. I believe the other dates, just let us know and we will make that final, so you’ll have it on your calendar. Mark your calendar for 2017. I think we’ve come to the conclusion of a very successful year for NANC who got a lot of work done. Things seem to be moving forward. I want to wish everyone happy holidays and a happy new year. We will see you all in the new year, sometime in the middle of March. Marilyn? Marilyn Jones: Oh, yes. I wanted to announce that we have cake to celebrate Mary’s retirement. Rosemary was generous enough to buy a cake and some water. It’s in the corner. Betty Ann Kane: How lovely. All right. We’ll give her a big round of applause and thank you for everything. Let there be cake. We wish you the best in your retirement. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned. [End of file] [End of transcript]