Effective August 1, 2017 the role of Change Management Administrator (CMA) of the Local Number Portability Administration Working Group (LNPAWG) for all US Regions was transferred to Telcordia Technologies, Inc., d/b/a iconectiv.

To contact the iconectiv CMA or to be added/removed from the LNPAWG distribution list please email cma@iconectiv.numberportability.com.

Please note that on or about September 30, 2017 the collection and history of industry documents will be transferred to https://numberportability.com/. Stay tuned for further updates at upcoming LNPAWG meetings and conference calls.


Problems and Issues Management

In late 1999, the LNPA WG established a "problem identification and management process" (PIM) for LNP issues.  The LNPA WG is not responsible for resolving all LNP problems.  The LNPA WG does an initial evaluation of each LNP problem submitted, then either develops a resolution for the issue or refers the issue to the appropriate forum for resolution.  The status of each LNP issue submitted is reported to the NANC on a regular basis.

The LNPA WG has developed issue submittal guidelines, an issue submittal form, process flows, and a tracking mechanism.  Issues should be submitted to the LNPA WG, using the issue submittal form, at least two weeks before the LNPA WG meeting at which LNP issue's discussion is desired.

  • PIM 82

    Due to the automated processing of large quantities of ports, there are occasions (rare, but can happen) that an Old Provider may have auto-issued a FOC and then their downstream systems may discover a legitimate reason the port should stop.  The Old Provider then is allowed by ATIS LSOG order processes, to send a Reject and/or JEP to the New Provider.  It has been determined that some New Providers are not reacting to these subsequent JEP/Reject’s, even though it can be proven those messages did indeed reach the New Provider.  When a New Provider ignores those subsequent messages, this in-effect means the new provider has “taken” a number without a valid LSR still in play.

    Download the document PIM 82

  • PIM 81

    It has come to the attention of Providers that a New Provider is using an NPAC modify message to unilaterally move up the port due date once the T1/T2 timers have been stopped due to both matching SV Creates arriving at NPAC.  This unilateral acceleration of the Due Date (DD) by the New Provider, when not agreed to via a concurred LSR Supplement, is service affecting to the end user and goes against industry practice and the intent of the FCC mandated NANC’s LNP Process Flows, Figure 9, Flow A, Step 3 and Figure 10, Flow AA Step 4, which both state, “No NPAC SV may activate before the SV due date/time.”

    Download the document PIM 81

  • PIM 80

    A significant quantity of ported/pooled NPAC database records currently contain LRNs that are in a different LATA than their associated ported/pooled telephone numbers (TNs).  This is resulting in customer complaints that they are not receiving all of their telephone calls.

    Download the document PIM 80

  • PIM 79

    Item 1.) Url link inside BP36 which says,

            ““NANC Inter-Service Provider LNP Operational Flows” is broken.

    Item 2.) Change title of BP to be “VoIP Porting Obligations.

    Item 3.) Add some helpful VoIP cites to the BP.

    Download the document PIM 79

  • PIM 78

    Per LNPA WG Recommendations, carriers will use the “standardized” LSR as developed by OBF for simple wireline-to-wireline and intermodal ports to support 1DP.  Small carriers have until Feb. 2, 2011 to adopt 1DP.  However, until all ONSP carriers are supporting 1DP and using the OBF standard LSOG for intermodal or wireline ports an NNSP will need to send some carriers the "old" type of LSRs and other carriers the "new standard" LSR.  The "standardized" LSR will have only 8 to 14 mandatory fields (pending FCC ruling) and the current mixture of non-standardized LSRs may have many more mandatory and ONSP proprietary fields.  Therefore, NNSP carriers supporting 1DP will have to support two types of LSRs during the transition period until Feb. 2, 2011 and track which carrier uses which.  Otherwise, they will have to deal with more fallout caused by sending an incompatible LSR to the ONSP.

    This will also affect wireless to wireline ports since wireless carriers use WICIS 4.0 currently and will use WICIS 5.0 (the sunrise date for WICIS 5.0 is June 6 but each carrier may adopt WICIS 5.0 as they deem fit until Feb. 13, 2011 when WICIS 4.0 sunsets and all carriers must be on WICIS 5.0).  WICIS 5.0 was adopted for supporting 1DP but until all wireless carriers support 1DP some will still require certain fields to be in an LSR so they can be mapped to a WPR.

    However, until the FCC rules on the 8 vs. 14 mandatory fields, and all carriers aresupporting 1DP (and have had time to modify their systems), there may be carriers that support medium timers but utilize a prior version of port request (e.g., WICIS 4.0 or prior version of LSOG).

    Download the document PIM 78

  • PIM 77

    Porting delay problems, caused by a lack of communication/interaction between the ONSP and their OLSP (Reseller) during the data validation stage of the port, have been increasing in frequency.  The result is causing delays in the end users ability to port their number.

    Download the document PIM 77

  • PIM 76

    Inadequate notification by service providers when they make changes to their systems or processes that other service providers must use to request a customer service record or to initiate a request to port a telephone number.

    Download the document PIM 76

  • PIM 75

    The LNPA-WG reached consensus on a best practice related to pass code/PIN verification (Best Practice 60). The best practice states that a provider cannot use a provider assigned pass code/PIN as validation or require the pass code/PIN to obtain a CSR. The new best practice will help in preventing unnecessary delays of porting, whether the delay is intentional or not.

    Download the document PIM 75

  • PIM 74

    Definition of the word sends in the LNP Provisioning Flows Narratives in the context of a response.

    Download the document PIM 74

  • PIM 73

    The disconnection of the telephone number the customer would like ported creates significant delays/the inability of the NSP to port the number from the OSP.

    Download the document PIM 73