On Bridge:
Jean Anthony TSE
Marilyn Murdock WC LLC
Andy Van Slyke Sprint WC LLC
Pamela Connell ATT SE LLC
Dennis Davis Bell South
Paul LaGattuta NE LLC
Mindy Patterson TSE
Jim Jeorger MCIWorldcom
Lori Hughes Sprint PCS
Dennis Robbins ELI

John Nakamura led the discussion of the business needs and prioritized change orders. He gave a summary of the table of the potential change orders for Release 4.0. The process that was used by the WG to prioritize the change orders and the weighted average was explained to the LLC representatives. Dennis Davis (Bell South) requested additional discussion of the level of importance of the change orders to explore the necessity of the lower ranked change orders. It was clarified that these were not all of the change orders that were before the WG, but that these were considered by the WG to be high priority. Out of the high priority change orders, the WG further prioritized and produced the table of change orders. These will be reviewed again to determine what will be placed in the package after the meeting with the LLCs and the development of requirements.

The timeline for release 4.0 was reviewed in regards to the development of the SOW and the relationship of those time frames to actual deliverable dates. It was decided to resend the 4.0 timeline to the LLC’s to provide clarification for the dates involved with individual activity.

There were no additional comments on this change order.

Questions arose regarding the level of effort needed by LM to implement the M&P portion of the monitoring of associations. The potential lessening of partial failures may offset any increase in effort. That would have to be determined at a later date. It was determined that there would be an operational impact but that it could not be estimated at this time.

GTE has concerns with the removal of the cancellation message at the expiration of the t2 timer of the Old SP. They have issues relating to the utilization of the cancel message within internal provisioning systems. They feel that there is a need to evaluate the process flows and the impact of the removal of the cancel message on those flows. There was additional concern regarding the length of time that the subscription will remain in a pending status. It was determined that the discussion was leading to requirements development. All concerns were noted and will be taken into consideration during the requirements development.

There were no additional comments on this change order.

There were no additional comments on this change order.

There was concern expressed regarding the accuracy of the LERG and the ability of this change order to adapt to rapidly changing information involved in splits. It was requested that a discussion be held without the presence of CIS to discuss this. Since the WG is an open meeting this could not be accommodated.

This change order and its relationship between NANC 219 caused some confusion. John clarified the differences between the two and the results of each change order. This change order will allow for development of reporting data on the duration of outages for the slow horse sub committee.

There were questions regarding the application of this change order to pooling of contaminated blocks which arose during the discussion. It was determined that this would not have an impact on pooling.

There was a request for further information regarding the customer impact of this change order. Clarification of the situations that necessitate the modification of a disconnect were presented providing scenarios that illustrated the problem and solution.

During the discussion about the requirements development of this change order there were opposing views of implementation. It was expressed that while consensus was reached regarding the priority of this change order, there was at least one service provider with a dissenting opinion.

There was concern about the notification of LTI users and the method used to provide them with notification.

There were no additional comments on this change order.

There was discussion to provide clarification of this change order.

There were no additional comments on this change order.

This is currently supported on the LTI.

There was discussion regarding whether or not this would apply to both pooled and ported numbers. This would apply to both types of TNs.

How is this different from EDR for pooling? This is not pooling specific. This would allow the same type of functionality as EDR for pooling for sequential ranges of porting numbers for which all data is the same. There was discussion regarding the number of messages that would be sent in a scenario where portions of a range fail.

NANC 323

There were no additional comments on this change order.

Removed from R4 consideration.

There was discussion regarding the functionality and the necessity of the change of the field from optional to mandatory.

There were no additional comments on this change order.

Removed from R4 Consideration

There was clarification to the definition of SOA/LSMS effort from N/A to low.

The next step of the process is the final selection of change orders for the package and the development of requirements for the change orders. There will be feedback from LM as to how much can be contained in the package. There was a preliminary discussion stating that a release could contain up to and including ILL 130. Additional discussion revolved on development of requirements and which change orders would have requirements developed. All of the change orders will have requirements developed. There was discussion regarding what the PE’s and the LLCs should do with the information that was presented today.

The LNPA WG will now begin work on the FRS for the change orders that were discussed today. This development will include vendor involvement to determine the appropriate level for a release. The release package will be delivered to the LLCs per the timeline.

On Bridge:
Gene Perez Intermedia
Collene Collard Tekelec
Lori Hughes Sprint
Jim Grasser Ameritech Cellular
Dave Cowgill GST

· Approve minutes of previous meeting

Minutes were accepted without changes

• Feedback from previous NANC Meeting (Anna, Charles, Shelly)

Anna Miller gave the update from the NANC meeting in regards to the WNP report. There were comments from NANC regarding delay in implementation due to billing concerns. She received an action item from NANC to provide a report on any potential issues relating to billing and implementation. Charles gave the update for the WG. The contribution by Beth O’Donnell at the last NANC meeting was discussed. She presented to NANC a proposed work plan for NRO to provide oversight of state number pooling trials. The work plan contained items that appeared to overlap with LNPA WG and LLC responsibilities. There was correspondence between NRO and the WG that further clarified the intention of the NRO oversight of pooling. Beth had been tasked with reporting back to NANC on the revised work plan based on the communication between the NRO and the LNPAWG. NANC also requested that the WG present an overview of 1.4 and the Illinois trial and 3.0 in regards to pooling. The development of this report was added as an agenda item for today.

• Subcommittee Reports (Brief status reports.)

• Wireless Number Portability (Anna Miller)

• Slow Horse (Steve Addicks)

• Number Pooling (Donna Navickas)

• PIM (Fixed Start 2:00pm)

• Pooling Report

Donna Navickas will work with the co-chairs to develop a report to be presented to NANC. This report will be distributed to the WG by COB on Friday 11/12/99. Donna will present this report to NANC at the November meeting.

• 3^rd Report on Wireline/Wireless Integration

There was an explanation of the delay in the delivery of the second report to the chairman of the Common Carrier Board by NANC. The LNP WG presented the report at the July meeting, but NANC did not accept the report for forwarding to the FCC until the August meeting. See the July NANC meeting minutes --- A contribution by GTE required consideration and delayed acceptance of the report at that meeting.

NANC is responsible for developing its reports and correspondence to be transmitted to the FCC. During the transition from Alan Hasselwander to John Hoffman this was an item that was simply overlooked in the transition of action items and decisions reached list. See page 4, Aug. NANC Meeting Minutes which states: the report is to be forwarded to CCB, noting the open issues (2); the WG was to report back to NANC on an objective date for the 3rd Report which will address those open issues of slamming and E911. A description of NPAC release 3.0 and the PIM tool were to be included in the report as well.

The WG has given NANC a commitment that a Third report will be delivered by the end of second quarter 2000. Due to scheduling and resource issues, work will begin on this report in January.

• NANC 294 Due Date Edit Discussion

Discussion postponed until tomorrow.

• Release 3.0 Assumptions

1. Block status: once the block status is set to active, it can only migrate to old (because of a de-pool). Other "POOL" SV activities do NOT affect the status of the block.(SV133)
2. Pool SV Status: When a ported pooled SV is disconnected, the new ""POOL" SV for default routing restoration is set to active, based on successful responses from both non-EDR and EDR LSMSs (SV-422.3 only says on responses from non-EDR).
3. Disconnect notification s to code holder: In order to retain backwards compatibility with NPAC Release 1.4 Number Pooling, the vendor assumes the disconnect date notifications sent to the code holder upon a delete of an SV of LNP Type POOL (upon a de-pool) will be retained. This is functionality currently in release 1.3 number pooling and notifies the code holder of its responsibility to provide vacant number treatment upon a de-pool of the 1k block.
4. The fourth assumption will be provided in an email to be added to the minutes.

Pooling sub committee conference call was scheduled on Tuesday November 16^th 9:00 central. Donna will send out an email with a bridge number. John will send out a revised assumption list and proposed changes on Monday the 15^th for discussion on that call.

On Bridge:
Jean Anthony TSE
Kayla Sharbough TSE
Collene Collard Tekelec
Bryan Egbert Sprint PCS
Dave Cocran Bell South

• Change Order Review (Fixed Start 8:30 am - John Nakamura)

John Nakamura led this discussion and documented changes in his document.

• NANC 294 Due Date Edit Discussion

John Nakamura led this discussion. He provided the following information to facilitate the discussion

Following are notes for the discussion of NANC 294 (LNPA Working Group mtg, Tue afternoon, 11/9), surrounding any implications of "the wireless time portion" of the due date. As we discussed in KC, wireline providers have a gentleman's agreement in place to send up all zeros (00:00:00) in the time

portion of the due date timestamp field relating to the port of an SV. In the wireless world, porting will occur on a more granular level (i.e., at a specific time on the due date), because wireless providers want the ability to port numbers within a two-hour interval.

The current proposal on the table for NANC 294 is to allow an SP to do emergency same day porting in their local time zone, when the NPAC SMS has already rolled over to the next day (because of the 4-10 hour differential in GMT and an SP's local time). A current work-around exists whereby the

two involved SPs agree to make the due date one day in the future, by either sending up a future date (if no previous Create message was sent to the NPAC), or modifying the current SV that contains the current date to a future date (in order for the other SP to concur). Once the SV has been created and concurred with a due date of the next day, the new SP can activate the SV (since the NPAC has already rolled over to the next day, which is then considered the current day, and therefore allows the activate

to take place).

This change order would allow an SP to send up a "back-dated" due date (one day less than the NPAC's current date), within a tunable window period of time. From the SP's perspective this is still the current date, since their local time is behind GMT. The tunable would be based on hours and would be

set to the left-most time zone in that specific region. The NPAC may require two tunables per region to account for both standard and daylight time, however, this is more an implementation detail.

As an example of the functionality with this change order, a SP needs to do an emergency port of a customer in New York (Northeast region) on 11/1/99. The current time in NY is 8:15p. The NPAC has already rolled over to the next day (11/2/99), but the SP is still on the previous day (11/1/99). The

SP would send the Create message with their current date (11/1/99). The NPAC would receive this message, and validate the due date. The tunable for standard time is set to 5 hours. Since it is within the tunable period of time of the next day on the NPAC (current NPAC time is 01:15 on 11/2/99),

the Create message is accepted as valid (even though the due date has been back-dated). In order to accommodate wireline providers, the NPAC will allow a due date of 11/1/99 and a time of 00:00:00 on the Create message.

It should be noted that the NPAC will still validate the time (e.g., 00:00:00) in the two Create messages match, but will not use the time portion of the due date when determining if a "back-dated" due date is within the allowable tunable period of time.

This change order does NOT hinder emergency same day WIRELESS porting. Since the NPAC is only using the tunable to determine if a back-dated due date is acceptable, the time portion of the due date timestamp is unaffected by this change order. In the above example, assuming both SPs were wireless, the Create message being sent to the NPAC would most likely contain 11/1/99 and a time of 22:15:00 (10:15p), since the general porting interval is two hours. Once that time has arrived locally for the SP, an activate can be sent up to the NPAC (and would be accepted). In summary, NANC 294 is outside of the functionality of the time portion of the due date for wireless porting, and therefore the scope of this change order affects both wireline and wireless porting in the same fashion, and does not affect one more than the other.

It was determined that back-dating is an incorrect term that causes confusion in the understanding of the process. The change order is allowing an extended window for concurrence of a SV during the ambiguous time period between Local and GMT midnight date change. This should be referred to as a GMT time conversion tuneable rather than back dating.

Through further discussion of the issue, it was determined that it was felt to be beneficial, if during the ambiguous time period that all SVs sent to the NPAC reflect the local date rather than GMT date. LM brought up the fact that the NPAC has always run on GMT time and in their opinion, this appears to be an issue of forcing the NPAC to correct a local system problem. There are local SOAs that currently perform the date/time conversion. A vote was taken as to determine the direction of the change order, and a majority of the service providers preferred that the NPAC determine the solution rather than a local SOA vendor.

Due to the high level of interest and conflicting opinions regarding implementation, this change order has been left for further discussion at the December meeting. The WG was encouraged to review the implementation issues and return prepared to discuss them.

• Release 4.0 Timeline (Marcel Champagne)

Due to the level of work effort needed to finish requirements, a WG meeting has been scheduled for November 17^th and 18^th in Washington DC dedicated to change order review and requirements development. This meeting will be held at Lockheed Martin, 1120 Vermont Av. NW in Washington.

• Joint LLC Meeting Review

Due to time constraints, this agenda item will be held until the next meeting.

• Change Order Selection/Requirements Development

John Nakamura led this section of the meeting. Changes and discussion are documented in his document.

On Bridge:
Jean Anthony TSE
Barbara Wilson DSET
Kayla Sharbough TSE
HL Gowda ATT
Collene Collard Tekelec

• Change Order Prioritization

John Nakamura led this discussion. Discussion and changes are reflected in his document. Please refer to that document.

There were no un-addressed action items.

• LNPA WG Issue Matrix Update (for NANC) (Integrated matrix)

Updates were made to the matrix.

• New Business