NANC Report

Numbering Oversight Working Group

(NOWG)

May 21, 2010

Tri-Chairs:
Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications
Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile USA
Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel
 Contents
• NANPA and PA 2009 Ratings Chart
• PA 2009 Performance Report
• NANPA 2009 Performance Report
• PA Change Orders
• NANPA Change Orders
• NOWG Participating Companies
• Meeting Schedule

05/21/2010 2
 2009 Ratings Chart
for
NANPA and PA Performance
Satisfaction Rating Used when the NANPA and PA...
Exceeded performance requirement(s)
EXCEEDED Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectations
Performance was well above requirements
Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations

Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s)

Provided more than what was required to be successful
MORE THAN
Performance was more than competent and reliable
MET
Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded requirements and expectations

Met performance requirement(s)

Met requirements in order to be considered successful
MET
Performance was competent and reliable
Decisions and recommendations were within requirements and expectations

Sometimes met performance requirement (s)

Was inconsistent in meeting performance requirements
SOMETIMES MET
Performance was sometimes competent and reliable
Decisions and recommendations were sometimes within requirements

Did not meet performance requirement(s).

Administrative tasks and objectives were not within requirements in order to be
NOT MET considered successful
Performance was unreliable and commitments were not met
Decisions and recommendations were inconsistent with requirements

N/A Did not observe activity or does not apply to service provider/regulator

05/21/2010 3
 Summary
2009 PA Performance Report
The PA’s annual performance assessment is based
upon:
• 2009 Performance Feedback Survey
• Written comments and reports
• Annual Operational Review
• NOWG observations and interactions with the PA

05/21/2010 4
 Summary
2009 PA Performance Report
The PA’s rating for the 2009 performance year was
determined by the NOWG to be More than Met. This
rating is defined below:

Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s)

 Provided more than what was required to be successful
MORE THAN  Performance was more than competent and reliable
MET  Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded
requirements and expectations

05/21/2010 5
 Summary
2009 PA Survey Respondents
The number of respondents to the 2009 PA Survey increased from 2008
for the industry and regulators. The following chart reflects the trend of
respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:

PA Annual Performance Review

Volume of Responses 2009

80
71 68
70 65
60 55 53 50
50
Industry &
40 32 32 Other
30 25 26 23 25
19 Regulators
20 17
10
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

05/21/2010 6
 Summary
2009 PA Performance Report
Pooling Administrator (Section A)
There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the
following aggregated response ratings:
• 103 as Exceeded
• 102 as More than Met
• 41 as Met
• 2 as Sometimes Met

Implementation Management (Section B)

There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the
following aggregated response ratings:
• 13 as Exceeded
• 10 as More than Met
• 21 as Met

05/21/2010 7
 Summary
2009 PA Performance Report
Pooling Administration System (PAS) (Section C)
There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following
aggregated response ratings:
• 90 as Exceeded
• 82 as More than Met
• 80 as Met
• 2 as Sometimes Met

PA Website (Section D)
There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following
aggregated response ratings:
• 32 as Exceeded
• 31 as More than Met
• 27 as Met
• 5 as Sometimes Met
05/21/2010 8
 Summary
2009 PA Performance Report
Miscellaneous Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section E)
There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the
following aggregated response ratings:
• 85 as Exceeded
• 92 as More than Met
• 77 as Met
• 6 as Sometimes Met
• 1 as Not Met
 
Overall Assessment of Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section F)
There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the
following aggregated response ratings:
• 34 as Exceeded
• 46 as More than Met
• 16 as Met
• 1 as Sometimes Met
05/21/2010 9
 Summary
2009 PA Performance Report
Following is a summary of written comments that were provided by
survey respondents:
• Outstanding praise for the PA staff was a consistent theme throughout the
survey:
• Provides prompt, courteous, and accurate responses to inquiries
• Knowledgeable and supportive in providing expertise
• Readily available and go out of their way to ensure issues are resolved
• Always more than willing to help and provide documentation for
different situations
• Demonstrates professionalism and customer focus
 
.

05/21/2010 10
 Summary
2009 PA Performance Report

Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated.

Notable comments pertained to:
• Pool replenishment
• Training new Pooling Administrators
• Communication to end-users regarding implementation of
Change Orders
• Suggested PAS enhancements
.

05/21/2010 11
 Summary – NOWG Observations
2009 PA Performance Report

The NOWG concluded that the written comments were not

indicative of any consistent performance issues, and in many
cases provided significant praise for individual PA staffers.

05/21/2010 12
 Summary - Suggestions
2009 PA Performance Report
The NOWG recommends that the PA focus on the following
improvements:
• Continue to proactively manage rate center inventories to ensure
resources are available when needed.
• Continue to consider process improvement suggestions provided by
service providers and/or regulators in the survey comments.
• Continue the proactive NPAC Scrub project to clean-up the over
contaminated blocks in the PA inventory.
• Continue customer focus.

05/21/2010 13
 Summary
2009 NANPA Performance Report
The NANPA’s annual performance assessment is
based upon:

• 2009 Performance Feedback Survey

• Written comments and reports
• Annual Operational Review
• NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA

05/21/2010 14
 Summary
2009 NANPA Performance Report
NANPA’s rating for the 2009 performance year was
determined by consensus of the NOWG to be More than
Met. This rating is defined below:

Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s)

 Provided more than what was required to be successful
MORE THAN  Performance was more than competent and reliable
MET  Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded
requirements and expectations

05/21/2010 15
 Summary
2009 NANPA Survey Respondents
The number of respondents to the 2009 NANPA Survey was the same as
2008 for regulators, but was down from 2008 for service providers and
others. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the
inception of the NOWG performance survey:
NANPA Annual Performance Review
Volume of Responses 2009

160 150
140
140
120
100
Industry
80 68 69
Regulators
60 47
30 36 34
40 26 26 27 27
14 16 22 20 21 1521 20 26 19
20
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

05/21/2010 16
 Summary
2009 NANPA Performance Report
CO (NXX) Administration (Section A)
There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following
aggregated response ratings:
•42 as Exceeded
•47 as More than Met
•9 as Met
•2 as Sometimes Met

NPA Relief Planning (Section B)

There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following
aggregated response ratings:
•51 as Exceeded
•27 as More than Met
•14 as Met

05/21/2010 17
 Summary
2009 NANPA Performance Report
Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) (Section C)
There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following
aggregated response ratings:
•48 as Exceeded
•32 as More than Met
•15 as Met
• 1 as Sometimes Met

Other NANP Resources (Section D)

There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following
aggregated response ratings:
•3 as Exceeded
•2 as More than Met
•2 as Met
•2 as Sometimes Met

05/21/2010 18
 Summary
2009 NANPA Performance Report
NANP Administration System (NAS) (Section E)
There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the
following aggregated response ratings:
• 29 as Exceeded
• 35 as More than Met
• 11 as Met

NANPA Website (Section F)

There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the
following aggregated response ratings:
• 15 as Exceeded
• 23 as More than Met
• 6 as Met
• 2 as Sometimes Met

05/21/2010 19
 Summary
2009 NANPA Performance Report
Overall Assessment of the NANPA (Section G)
There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the
following aggregated response ratings:
• 17 as Exceeded
• 24 as More than Met
• 5 as Met.

05/21/2010 20
 Summary
2009 NANPA Performance Report
The following is a summary of written comments that were
provided by survey respondents.

Significant praise for NANPA staff was a consistent theme throughout

the survey. In many cases, the comments provided praise for
individual staff members. The following recurring adjectives were
used by multiple respondents to describe their experiences in working
with the NANPA staff:
 
• Very helpful, knowledgeable, and experienced
• Proactive, prompt, and efficient
• Courteous, professional, and diligent

05/21/2010 21
 Summary - NOWG Observations
2009 NANPA Performance Report
Due to the vast majority of positive comments received, the
NOWG concluded that the written comments indicated a high
level of satisfaction experienced by those who interacted with
the NANPA.

05/21/2010 22
 Summary - NOWG Observations
2009 NANPA Performance Report

• The NANPA continued to effectively manage all aspects

of NPA relief activity in 2009.

• Throughout 2009, the NANPA personnel continued to

consistently exhibit their professionalism and expertise
while performing NANPA duties.

05/21/2010 23
 Summary - Suggestions
2009 NANPA Performance Report
The NOWG recommends the following suggestions be
implemented for continued improvement:

• Continue ongoing enhancements as necessary to NAS and the NANPA

website
• Conduct training via on-line web conferencing regarding website
navigation, search functions and content
• Offer refresher training for NAS users as necessary
• Utilize the PIP for identifying and tracking performance
improvements, and develop an additional document for tracking and
reporting performance activities at the monthly status meetings

05/21/2010 24
 PA Change Orders
Change Scheduled
Order Date NOWG Implementation
Number Filed Summary Status FCC Action Date

Currently under
Proposed Enhancements to review by the
16 5/11/2010 PAS NOWG

INC Issue #670– Remove NOWG

Attaching Part 2 forms from recommendation
CO Code to APPROVE to
15 3/17/2010 request (Part 1 FCC 4/5/2010

INC Issue #656 - Update NOWG

TBPAG Expedite Process for recommendation   Tentative
Thousands-Blocks (Section to APPROVE to FCC approved implementation date
14 1/15/2010 8.6) FCC 1/28/2010 on 2/19/2010 of 10/1/2010 

05/21/2010 25
 PA Change Orders
(Continued)
Change Scheduled
Order Date NOWG Implementation
Number Filed Summary Status FCC Action Date

NOWG
recommendation FCC approved  Tentative
INC Issue #604 - Code to APPROVE to on 2/19/2010  implementation date
13 1/14/2010 Holder vs. LERG Assignee FCC 1/28/2010   of 10/1/2010

NOWG  No implementation

recommendation FCC approved date since no
Changes to Trouble Ticket to APPROVE to on 2/19/2010  changes are being
12 1/7/2010 Reporting FCC 1/17/2010   made to PAS

NOWG
NOWG and Regulator- recommendation FCC approved Tentative
Proposed Enhancement to to APPROVE to on 2/19/2010  implementation date
11 1/27/2010 PAS FCC 2/3/2010 of 10/1/2010

05/21/2010 26
 NANPA Change Orders
Change Scheduled
Order Date NOWG Implementation
Number Filed Summary Status FCC Action Date
Implementation is
scheduled for Fall
NOWG 2010 and will use
INC Issue 611: Augmenting recommendation FCC approved two NRUF cycles to
the NRUF Verification to APPROVE to on 2/19/2010  ensure data is
18 3/13/2009 Procedures FCC 3/26/2009 correct

05/21/2010 27
 NOWG Meeting Schedule

Month Activity
May 17 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1:30pm Eastern, 2 hrs

May 25 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2pm Eastern, 2 hrs

June 10 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1pm Eastern, 2 hr

June 18 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2pm Eastern, 2 hrs

Contact any of the Co-Chairs for complete meeting or conference call details
Karen.S.Riepenkroger@sprint.com or Laura.R.Dalton@Verizon.com or
Natalie.McNamer@t-Mobile.com (Other meetings for the NOWG may be scheduled as needed beyond
what has been identified in this list)
NOWG meeting notes and documents are posted at nanc-chair.org

05/21/2010 28