LNPA-WG LSR Team

Tuesday, June 8, 2009, 10 AM (Eastern)

Team:

Name	Company	Attended
Tracey Guidotti	AT&T
Renee Dillon	AT&T Mobility	X
Greg Council	Evolving Systems
Steve Addicks	Neustar	X
David Garner	Neustar	X
Paul LaGattuta	Neustar
John Nakamura	Neustar
William Reidway	Neustar	X
Jim Rooks	Neustar
Mubeen Saifullah	Neustar	X
Linda Peterman	One Communications	X
Carolyn Brown	Qwest	X
Jan Doell	Qwest	X
Carol Frike	Sprint	X
Sue Tiffany	Sprint-Nextel	X
John Malyar	Telcordia
Adam Newman	Telcordia	X
Matt Timmermann	Telcordia
Pat White	Telcordia
Paula Jordan	T-Mobile
Crystal Hanus	GVNW Consulting	X
Bridget Alexander	JSI	X
Lee Gomez	Qwest	X

Agenda:

Review additional questions provided regarding assumption set

Review multiple Wireline NPAC Timer suggested process from Steve Addicks

Mission Statement:

Explore pros/cons, Service Provider and NPAC impacts relative to an LSR 1-business day process solution to address FCC 09-41 requirements, inclusive of development of the process to be utilized.

Discussion Topics:

Do we agree our task is limited to utilization of the LSR to address Wireline-to-Wireline and Intermodal porting only (FCC09-41) rather than universal use of the LSR inclusive of Wireless-to-Wireless?

Wireline-to-Wireline & Intermodal only

Consensus reached

Is a standard set of attributes (Wireline & Wireless) required for bilateral use if the current wireless processes, inclusive of service bureaus remain in place post implementation

A standard set of validation & provisioning Wireline and Intermodal fields is critical to the process being able to support the 1 business day interval

Consensus reached

Since a significant portion of porting from both Wireline and Wireless providers involves manual submission (if not processing), are additional “manual submission specific” assumptions necessary and if so, what are those assumptions?

Potential for longer FOC timer and/or being on the outside of a universal Simple Port timer, dependent upon 1 Business Day Team discussions

Don’t see need for other assumptions at this time.

Consensus reached

Is a standard Local Response indicating “Not a Simple Port, additional data required” necessary?

Do not want to lose ability to have FOC provide new Complex Port Due Date if sufficient data provided to support Complex Porting

Consensus on need for 855 if Simple Port data elements provided and request is not a Simple Port

Not Simple Port, additional data required

Not Simple Port, multiple TNs on account (etc.)

No Consensus on 855 content

Multiple Wireline Timers

Steve Addicks to run through concept at next meeting

Telcordia review indicates further review required.

Action Items:

ALL Participants -

LSR 09-0601: Come to 6/8/09 meeting prepared to discuss any additional assumptions and feasibility of LSR approach.

Logistics:

SCHEDULED MEETINGS::

06/10/09

Friday, 10AM Eastern (9AM Central, 8AM Mountain, 7AM Pacific)

Bridge 800-553-9340, Conf ID 6169887139

06/24/09

Wednesday, 10AM Eastern (9AM Central, 8AM Mountain, 7AM Pacific)

Bridge: 866-222-8883, Passcode 247404

07/01/09

Wednesday, 10AM Eastern (9AM Central, 8AM Mountain, 7AM Pacific)

Bridge 800-553-9340, Conf ID 6169887139

07/08/09

Wednesday, 10AM Eastern (9AM Central, 8AM Mountain, 7AM Pacific)

Bridge 800-553-9340, Conf ID 6169887139

Disclaimer:

These minutes are not intended to be all-inclusive or to contain every statement made, but rather to provide a high level understanding of topics covered, action items, cites of interest and/or information obtained from other teams. Agreement/consensus will be tracked via the LSR Issues & Progress Tracking spreadsheet, which will be distributed with the minutes. Providers are encouraged to contact Linda Peterman to identify any additions or corrections to the minutes or the spreadsheet as soon as possible following distribution.