* - via conference call

• Approve Minutes

Wireless

Beth Watkins AT&T
H.L. Gowda AT&T
Gary Sacra Bell Atlantic
Ron Steen Bell South
Michael Panis ESI
Jim Rooks ESI
Ron Stutheit ESI Local
Bob Angevine GTE
Richard Bell GTE
Maggie Lee Illuminet
Cliff Spencer Lucent
Dianna Black Neustar
Marcel Champagne Neustar
Gustavo Hannecke Neustar
Gene Johnston Neustar
Donna Navickas SBC
Charles Ryburn SBC
Jim Alton SBC
Colleen Collard Tekelec
John Malyar Telcordia
Jean Anthony TSE
John Nakamura TSE
Dave Garner US West
Alex Blackmore WorldCom
Tommy Thompson US West

The Number Pooling Subcommittee met with outgoing chair Donna Navickas prior to the June LNPA Working Group meeting. Following are the minutes of that meeting.

Donna started by covering break up of NPSC and rollover into LNPAWG. Beth raised the question as to how the NPSC work for release testing would continue. Could NPSC testing work become a part of the Thursday testing call? Neustar will address this request.

3.0 Migration Strategy

Donna covered 3.0 Migration Strategy. Bell Atlantic (Gary) raised the question that in conversion from 1.4 to 3.0, how would port-on-demand scenario of numbers pooled outside 1.4 affect migration to 3.0. These blocks were not created in 1.4. The numbers do not have a pooled status. Beth recommends these blocks should be made 1.4 like by creating them ahead of time and migrate that pooled data to 3.0. Marcel will discuss this issue with Barry Bishop and refer Gary to whomever at Neustar that has been assigned to Northeast Region.

Several members expressed that this sounds like an individual service provider problem. The current block holder should be responsible for numbers prior to migration.

Action Item: There will need to be more discussion on this issue. Marcel will try to get something set up by Neustar to continue discussions.

Action Item: (Step 2) Beth asked if Barry is aware of the moratorium. Marcel will confirm with Barry.

Action Item: Maggie: Comment to section "Cindy Brown" 3.0 conversion M&P should include the NPAC personnel validate that there are no failed SPs in the existing pooled blocks. Neustar will add conversion cleanup activities to project plan for database integrity. These can be found in the requirements. This should take place the Friday of cutover weekend. Dianne will show this on all regions.

Bob Angevine GTE expressed concern that the current process will continue to be able to meet one week rollout schedules.

Step 3) Dianne will change project plan to show production and make available BDL file to SPs Friday before cut. This file will be put on the NPAC website.

Step 4) Bob Angevine said this step needs to show alternatives: Donna made changes accordingly.

Beth asked will there be a Friday/Saturday status check? IVR or bridge. If IVR is used, the group stressed the importance that it be updated as needed providing information as to where conversion is with status plus a message as to when IVR will be updated next. The group feels a bridge would be better for go/no go decision which is scheduled for noon on Sunday. IVR will be updated every 6 hours.

Donna was asked to break step 4 into several individual steps.

The clarification was made that go/no go does not depend on "complete installation".

What if go/no go isn’t made by noon on Sunday? Decision of how to proceed will take place at that time. It was suggested that LLCs/PEs be present on this Sunday noon call. 6:00 PM was suggested as "drop dead" time.

Action Item: Still need M&P for moratorium for deletions/modifications of pooling activity the week following conversion for NPAC personnel. Adds can still be done. Neustar will handle this.

Action Item: Selective delete would need to be all or none. Everyone that is EDR would have to delete these SVs. Who will notify SPs? Would this be NPAC or Barry Bishop? Marcel will get with Barry on this.

Action Item : How are SPs supposed to know procedures for moratorium and emergency updates? NPAC will need M&P. This should be an agenda item for the next cross regional.

Concern expressed if SP scheduled to go EDR has to go non-EDR, will they have tested non-EDR test cases? Neustar suggests there should be some minimal regression test of non-EDR functionality.

Step 5) Adds will be removed.

H.L. asked that for regions with no pooling, how are they affected by this migration? Does anything different need to be done? Beth said it should all be the same except for the moratorium. Donna will update the migration document accordingly.

Post NPAC installation EDR conversion

Colleen – Could other opportunities to convert to EDR be defined? SPs can discuss with vendors for further recommendation to LNPAWG.

Sample migration file……Beth reported she hasn’t seen anything on this sample file. Neustar will add sample migration file to project plan. The file will be available to SPs by July 17 on NPAC website. Actual migration file should be on web by 7/30.

Ron Stutheit: What happens if new SP wants to enter after 7/31. They will have to test with 2.0 and can’t enter Northeast region. Different guidelines for overlapping releases. These SPs would need to contact NPAC and work out the details.

Dianne covered action items for incorporation into the project plan. Dianne will have revised project plan out for approval by PEs by end of week.

Gary, title changes of application forms. M&Ps have been updated with these titles. Group had no objections.

Slowhorse

Neustar presented initial draft of NPAC M&P for preparation of reports related to the LSMS availability requirement. Several changes were suggested, most of which were listed below:

• include with monthly availability report a detailed report of data used by NPAC to develop availability percentage for current month
• include with monthly availability report a summary of the detailed report data for current month
• include with monthly availability report a detailed report of the unavailability due to NPAC
• add description of how distribution list is developed and maintained
• explain how data is archived: same period, same manner as other NPAC data (y months on-line; then retained off-line x years)
• include regional report with each individual SP's report (or skip individual SP report and give them their code?)
• display regional reports on NPAC secure web site
• clarify that LLCs may know identities of SPs listed on the regional reports
• SP submits "appeal" data in minutes; NPAC converts to % for report
• leave blank third availability % if SP does not submit "appeal" value
• assume missing "appeal" % value equal to the adjusted % value if a trend calculation is needed
• issue monthly LSMS availability reports in format that provides history (18 months?)
• open: monthly regional reports to LLCs to show actual SPs or left encoded with separate key for LLC members

Neustar presented a non-proprietary summary of NPAC broadcast data it provided to the LLCs in response to the LLCs' request (SOW 17, revision 2). The group appears to agree that the right questions were asked in SOW 17 but is uncertain how to use the summarized data. An action item for the team members is to contemplate its adequacy of the data summary for use in developing an LSMS performance requirement. The peak broadcast value/duration appears to be the issue.

Neustar presented fourth month of Slow Horse data (April 20th-May 19th) as part of ongoing attempt to gauge impact of changing the NPAC's retry timers from 3x5 to 1x15. In response to group's request, Marcel agreed to reissue the 4-month summary with the pre-timer-change month's percentages showing success rates for initial broadcast attempts. This adjustment will show the impact of going from a 5-minute response requirement to a 15-minute response requirement, ignoring other factors that may have cause the pre- and post- change months to vary.

Neustar responded to several action items from our May meeting, presenting a series of IIS flows between NPAC and SOA and describing data available on SOA/NPAC messages and impact of service provider behavior with respect to their SOAs. The material was quickly reviewed to help the team members better understand the material. The presentation will be made again at our July meeting as foundation for our SOA requirements development work. (The Neustar presentation was sent to entire LNPA-WG distribution list a few days ago and is not included again with these minutes.)

June Status Report to NANC

• LSMS Availability Requirement - submitted to NANC in June
• NPAC Methods & Procedures for LSMS Availability Reports - completion expected in July
• LSMS Performance Requirement - Neustar has prepared non-proprietary summary of broadcast data; team evaluating sufficiency
• SOA Requirements - Foundation work begun

This is a new PIM submitted by Rebecca Heimbach, ICG regarding Filter Issues. There needs to be a policy regarding filters. Some companies are refusing to allow a filter to be placed. This causes end users to be out of service until the outage situation is resolved. H.L. Gowda, AT&T provided the following contribution:

**If an SP porting a TN has the customer OUT OF SERVICE (cannot receive calls) due to an error in the information currently in the SV for this TN, and the SV is in PARTIAL FAIL status, and the SP contacts the NPAC for assistance, the USA MUST follow this procedure:

1. IF after the 15 minute retry interval has expired, there is a TN that CANNOT RECEIVE CALLS due to an error in the information currently in the SV, AND the SV is in PARTIAL FAIL status, the New SP porting this TN may contact the NPAC for assistance in resolving this failure.
2. The USA will open a trouble ticket, and will let the caller know that they will contact the SP that is failing for this port.
3. The USA will attempt to contact the SP that is failing for this port. If contact is made, the USA will determine if the SP problem is being resolved in order to correct the status of this SV. The USA will notify the SP that it may be necessary to setup a filter temporarily, if the problem cannot be resolved immediately.
4. If the USA determines that the failing SP cannot resolve the problem now, or if after 2 hours, the failing SP cannot be contacted, the USA will contact the appropriate Director at NPAC to get approval to put up the filter temporarily.
5. The USA will notify the New SP porting this TN and the failing SP, if possible, that a filter will temporarily be placed against the failing SP long enough to achieve a status change for this SV to ACTIVE.
6. The USA will setup the filter and rebroadcast this SV.
7. The USA will monitor this TN for a status of ACTIVE.
8. When the status of this SV is ACTIVE, the USA will immediately contact the New SP porting this TN to notify that the SV is now able to be modified.
9. When the modify SV has downloaded successfully, the USA MUST immediately remove the filter on the failing SP.
10. The USA will continue to attempt to contact the failing SP to notify that the filter was placed and has now been removed. If the SP is not available, a message will be left for the contact name and number that has been provided.
11. The USA will note the trouble ticket with this information in detail, and will close the ticket when the New SP agrees that it is resolved.

M&Ps will be clarified by Neustar, PEs, and LLC. This will be put into action immediately. Final closure of issue is projected for August.

This PIM issue was handed to the WG by the operations team at the last meeting. The flows will need to be reviewed by the group for acceptance as standard process flows. Each SP was encouraged to review the flows and come prepared to discuss changes at the July meeting. US West feels that the Loss Alert box should be returned to the original position as an optional step under box 5.

The final document was sent out on June 9 along with the Emergency Action Form. Action Items : Per Marcel Champagne, based on receipt of finalized process and forms, the PEs will work with Neustar to develop the M&Ps. This will follow the proper process for all changes to the M&Ps and be worked through the LLCs.

There was much discussion as to whether this was a LNP problem or an on-going problem regardless of whether porting was involved. SBC suggested that the issue be sent back to NENA to address the overall problem. Several CLEC representatives, notably Dennis Robbins of ELI took the position that Unlock & Migrate are transactions unique to LNP, and therefore should be dealt with by the LNPA. The working group consensus was that LNPA-WG should address this issue. There was majority support opposing a motion to recommend to NANC that 911 database updates within 24 hrs of NPAC activation be made a national "requirement". Rick Jones expressed frustration that companies’ positions at NENA and LNPA were not consistent and asked the LNPA representatives to coordinate with their company’s NENA reps to develop a consistent position. Each SP was asked to consider how long it would take to change processes to adapt to the proposed NENA standards.

Release 5 change orders and business needs were discussed. The updated document will be sent to the group by June 19. All members are to have the new score cards filled out and ready to turn in to Jean Anthony, the new Change Management Administrator, on the first day of the July meeting. Jean will use this information to compute weighted averages and prioritize the change orders. These will be discussed on Wednesday, July 12 starting at 8:30. The group will decide when to invite the LLCs to participate in an overview of the change orders and business needs.

Wireless/Wireline 3^rd Report/911 Issues with Alternatives

Rick Jones had previously discussed the 911 issues involved in the three alternatives during the PIM 6 discussion yesterday. Rick reported that this is an unacceptable problem in wireless phase I E911 implementation. Dick Kahn, SBC Wireless reported in the last NENA meeting that there is a temporary record that goes into place on the wireless side that interferes with the wireline information. This situation lasts for about 4 hours. Both sets of data can co-exist at the same time. This causes yet another issue with 911 during a mixed service period.

Wireless/Wireline 3^rd Report/Shortening of Porting Interval

The LNPA Working Group unanimously agreed to take the approach that there are significant issues with meeting current porting intervals, and the focus is on meeting the existing guidelines prior to shortening them.

The group stressed the importance of the EDI interface in shortening the LSR FOC exchange. The group also agreed that we should look very closely at the customer demand for shortened interval.

Shelly North, outgoing CLEC co-chair suggested that an outline be prepared for the new report. The outline would be sent out prior to the July meeting, and writing assignments would be made in Boston. This will allow for a draft of the document to be reviewed at the August meeting. A final draft will be prepared and reviewed in September. The document will then be presented to NANC at the September NANC meeting.

Marcel Champagne, Neustar gave a review of Project Plan

The following points were identified for report to NANC:

• Wireless Number Portability Subcommittee (WNP SC) Report (Brian Egbert - Separate Handout)

• LNPA Report

-3^rd Report on Wireless Wireline Integration

-NPAC Release Status

-PIM Report

• Slow Horse Update (Steve Addicks Separate Handout)