The FRS review was led by John Nakamura. Revisions and discussion were recorded in that document.

Linda Godfrey Airtouch

John Malyar indicated that the portion of the meeting dealing with his deliverables needs to be revised. A draft version of that section of the minutes was distributed. The minutes will be revised and re-distributed.

The NANC Participation Certification form was discussed again. It was again stated that each company should review internally and sign and return based on that internal review.

• Subcommittee Reports (Brief status reports.)

• Number Pooling (Donna Navickas)

• no Moratorium periods required (schedule not impacted)
• Soak(post production) period will not shake out production problems with pooling and porting

2.) Entire test strategy and rollout is predicated that Neustar provides "certification" that supplemental –like functionality has been successfully tested. SPs minimized required testing i.e. supplemental test plan, due to this Neustar commitment.

3.) Total 38 SPs (LSMS/SOA) national

4.) 3.0 Testing will be managed via "2 region" strategy i.e. Region 1 and all others will be in "Super Region". Neustar has committed to provide appropriate testing support.

5.) Rollout dates only covered Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s. No other holidays were taken into consideration for this proposal.

• Slow Horse

The Slow horse meeting was held during the LNPA WG meeting. Steve presented a brief recap of the last meeting regarding the 3x5 timer change. He also discussed his request for input on the information that is being requested from Neustar by the NAPM LLC on behalf of the Slow Horse Subcommittee in regards to peaking of NPAC activity. No responses to the request for input had been received prior to this meeting. The request for information became the first topic of discussion during the Slow Horse section of the meeting. Concern was raised regarding the intent of the request for information and the methodology that Neustar would utilize in providing that information to Slow Horse.

The following is the excerpt from the SOW that was discussed:

1. What is the TN per second rate during the test period, i.e., the "advertised" NPAC rate?

The current NPAC advertised rate, based on the standard performance test mix is 4.8 TNs/sec.

2. What is the TN per second rate for broadcast to a single LSMS during the interval that the LSMS broadcasts occur? This will be a deliverable performed under this SOW. The result will be the TN per second rate from the NPAC to a single LSMS based on the Exhibit N TN

activate scenario.

3. What is the TN per second rate (or notifications/second) for broadcast to a single SOA during the interval that the SOA notifications occur? This is a deliverable performed under this SOW. The result will be the time TN per second rate from the NPAC to a single SOA as a result of the Exhibit N TN activate scenario.
4. What would be the impact on the results described in questions 1 through 3 of a test involving far larger quantities of numbers, in multiples of the "standard" 336 TN test group?

This will be a deliverable performed under this SOW. The measurements will be the same as in items 1, 2 and 3 but using 2016 activates instead of the 336 in the Exhibit N TN activate scenario. The same size activate requests will be used however, they will be done twenty times.

5. What would be the impact on the results described in questions 1 through 3 if, instead of the mix described in question 4, substantially larger ranges were used which more closely match current porting patterns? For official NPAC timing purposes, Exhibit N defines the porting pattern. For purposes of this SOW and for determining the load envelope of the LSMS an alternate porting mix (single + range) will be used. Each test scenario defined in items 1-3 above will be run using range sizes of 1000 TNs from seven providers, each sending 2 requests. This equates to an activate scenario of 14,000 TNs.

Due to the discussion that these questions created, Steve again requested that changes and additions be submitted and distributed to the entire Slow horse sub-team by Monday 2/21/00. Beth and Ron will provide verbiage for the proposed question 6. There was considerable concern relating to the focus of the Slow Horse group as to researching only LSMS or also SOA issues. Due to past discussions, the group limited the Slow Horse focus to the LSMS/NPAC interaction. It appeared that the past consensus may be changing. The SOA data will be requested even though it might not be utilized immediately by the Slow Horse under its current focus on the LSMS. It may be used in the future as needed.

There was discussion of the change in the timers and when Neustar would be able to provide information regarding the effectiveness of the change in the 3x5 timer to a 1x15 timer.

• PIM (Fixed Start 2:00pm)

0001

The OpWest team has committed to having the proposed flows and narratives distributed to the WG prior to the WG’s March meeting.

0002

After discussion and minor textual changes the Maintenance window document was approved. This will be distributed to the WG and through the NPAC to the Cross Regional distribution list. Any changes to this document will require a new PIM issue to be opened.

0005

Donna Navickas presented the WG with further details regarding PIM 5. That information will be distributed prior to March meeting. After discussion, Donna was requested to revise her proposal for review at the next meeting.

• Cross Regional Agenda: Neustar report on invalid departure time

Marcel is requesting that Neustar be able to present this at the next cross regional call and the LNPA WG March meeting. He is stating that they are not prepared at this time to give a complete and conclusive report and are requesting additional time to refine the information that they have compiled. Ameritech and most other service providers requested that the minutes reflect that Neustar is failing to meet an agreed upon action item and their concern with Neustar’s failure to meet industry needs.

• Wireless/Wireline Integration 3^rd Report

Prepaid/slamming - Not an integration issue. GTE’s scenario would be wireless only. Refer to WNPSC for review as an integration issue.

There was considerable discussion on the premise of the need for the shortened porting interval. It was based on this need that the three alternatives were developed. It was determined that the group needed additional guidance from NANC to determine the scope of the 3^rd report and the necessity of the shortened porting interval. Charles and Shelly were tasked with taking the issues to NANC and requesting clarification

• Documentation only re-release of GDMO Discussion for entire group

Previously the WG had stated that a documentation only change for the GDMO would not require a re -release of the GDMO. Through discussion of the FRS during yesterday’s meeting, a documentation only change was discovered that would impact a service provider who implemented the GDMO without the documentation change. A document will be published that will contain the behavior changes to the GDMO that normally would be published only when a new point release for 3.0 would be issued. This will convey the information to all providers without a 3.2 version of the GDMO.

Discussion opened with the prioritization of change orders.

There was extensive discussion of change order 301 and the proposal to have it implemented prior to Release 4.0. The final determination was that 301 should be included in the proposed package for Release 4.0 but should be presented separately by the PEs to the LLCs for implementation prior to the release. It was proposed that the change be sent to the LLCs and then submitted to Neustar where they can either respond that it is a no charge change, or with a SOW. The WG feels that this is a patch and should have a no or low cost.

The NPAC SMS supports Service Provider Flags for the purpose of:

1. Support of optional functionality

2. Support of release backward compatibility flags for the purpose of not

requiring flash cuts across the Industry

The release backward compatibility flags will be defined with a specific life

span known as sunset value. The sunset value will be minimally one major release

(e.g., defined in 2.0 and removed in 3.0). The sunset value will be defined in

the initial release FRS with an end release value. Ongoing language: All FRS

updates for subsequent updates will warn that the flag is pending removal and

the N-1 FRS must indicate that the Flag will removed in the next Release.

• Meetings

It was determined that the July meeting would be in Boston hosted by Bell Atlantic.

On Bridge:

Dennis Robbins – ELI

Beth Watkins – ATT

• Change Order Selection/Test Case Review

M&P review was led by Jean Anthony of TSE. Please refer to that document for discussion and changes.

• Review of Project Plan for Release 4.0 (Marcel Champagne)

The WG appears to be in a position to submit the release package on the 24^th provided the conference call on 22 goes well. The notice should go out on the 24^th to the LLCs. Marcel wanted to know when the LLCs would submit the SOW request to Neustar. The WG could not determine that since it is the LLCs responsibility to submit the SOW request to Neustar. Neustar is looking at a 6 week turnaround on the SOW after they receive the package request. That would provide a release GA on September 6^th, 2001. Testing on April 20^th 2001, ITP in March. Rollout (Production) would be July 13 through September 6^th. It was determined that during the June Meeting the WG would need to start working on Release 5.

Discussion arose about adding 179 to the proposed package. Since the changes made to 130 and 192 will be distributed on Monday for the discussion on Tuesday, it was decided to add the changes made to 179 for discussion as well. On Tuesday, the package content will be decided. The final determination of the package content will be made and Charles and Shelly will distribute the proposed package to the LLCs on the 22^nd. This will enable the LLCs to have the package two days early and potentially discuss during their February meeting. John Nakamura will update the document with all of the changes and distribute.

• Review key points to report to NANC (Charles, Shelly)

Release Status

3.0

4.0

Slow Horse

3^rd Report to NANC Clarification

Premise of Customer expectation

Slamming/Prepay