nanc report numbering oversight working group (nowg) september 25, 2003 co-chairs: karen mulberry,...

NANC Report

Numbering Oversight Working Group(NOWG)

September 25, 2003Co-Chairs:

Karen Mulberry, MCI

Jim Castagna, Verizon

09/25/2003 NOWG NANC Report 2

Contents• PA Change Order #24 Recommendation

• PA Annual Performance Review Proposal

• NANPA/NOWG Performance Metrics Review

• Status NANPA 2003 Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)

• 2003 Meeting Schedule

• Attachments - Tracking Documents - PA #24 Change Order Recommendation- PA Change Order Tracking Summary- NOWG Project Status Table


PA Change Order #24 Recommendation

• Change Order #24 submitted on 08-26-03• This change order is associated with modifications to procedures for

Code Holder/LERG Assignee Exit and associated service disruptions with PA block assignments that contain unknown contamination

• There was three cost options identified (A $456,000; B $228,000; and C $91,200)

• The NOWG worked with the PA to identify a modified solution, and recommends this alternative be accepted

• Recommendation: PA select one NPA from each US NPAC region and perform an audit of embedded block inventory. The results will assist in determining if there is value in proceeding with a one time scrub of the entire PAS embedded base.


NOWG PA Performance ReviewProposal Overview

The survey and corresponding NOWG report will focus on the adequacy and appropriateness of the tasks performed by the PA when discharging its duties in accordance with regulatory requirements, numbering resource assignment procedures, and industry guidelines.

1. Review applicable requirements, regulatory orders and guidelines.2. Draft annual PA performance assessment survey questions with input by State Commissions and the PA.3. Present final draft of the annual survey to the NANC/FCC.4. PA to post the survey to the PA web site and notify State Commissions and telecommunication industry participants.5. Meet with PA to perform PA Operational Review. 6. Draft report identifying process improvement opportunities and recommendations.7. Present a draft report to the FCC and the PA.8. Present the final report to NANC for forwarding to the FCC.9. Prepare a work plan to track and coordinate the implementation of the performance improvement opportunities and recommendations endorsed by the NANC.


Proposal - PA Performance Review Timeline

NOWG

Estimated Date

NANPA Annual

Performance Review Events

PA Annual

Performance Review Events

September 2003

Present draft PA Survey to NANC for approval September 25, 2003

October 2003

Pooling Survey distributed October 1, 2003

November 2003

Present draft NANPA Survey to NANC for approval November 5, 2003

Pooling survey due back to Co-Chairs by November 3, 2003

December 2003

Operational Review of pooling in Concord, CA December 3 and 4, 2003

January 2004

NANPA Survey distributed January 12, 2004

NOWG meets to compile Pooling report in Denver in January 2004

February 2004

NANPA Survey due back to Co-Chairs by February 16, 2004

March 2004

Operational Review in March 2004

NOWG report on Pooling Administrator to NANC on March 16, 2004

April 2004

NOWG meets to compile NANPA report in April in Kansas City

May 2004

NOWG report on NANPA to NANC on May 18, 2004


PA Annual PerformanceSurvey Contents

• PA survey based on NANPA survey format• NANPA rating scale used• Questions focused on pooling administration

activities and functions• Proposed survey attached.


NANPA Performance MetricsJuly & August 2003

• CO Code Administration– July - One code assignment in error/rejection

• NRUF– 100% Compliance (busy season)

• NPA Relief Planning– 100% Compliance

• Other NANP Resources– July - One CIC not processed within 10 days


Status NANPA 2003Process Improvement Plan (PIP)

• CAS (Code Administration System) Improvements to be embedded in the new NANP Administration System (NAS) – Allow negative numbers to be added to the MTE form.– Expand the NPA field to specify more than one NPA in the case of an

overlay.– Compatibility of CAS with local SP systems to auto-populate internally

generated Part 1’s and Part 4’s.

• NAS Features Still Under Review/Consideration – Ability to insert or connect supporting documentation rather than having to

send them to the NANPA separately.– Ability to change or delete a Part 1 and save a Part 1 for later submission.– Use of a “Back” button so you may go back to previous screens.


Status NANPA 2003Process Improvement Plan (PIP) (con’t)

• CAS/LERG/NRUF Discrepancies- August 2002 Versus September 2003

- 7496 Total Discrepancies reduced 66% to 2512- 3754 OCN Discrepancies reduced 93% to 264- 1222 Rate Center Discrepancies reduced 46% to 663- 2520 Code State Discrepancies reduced 37% to 1585

- Third Discrepancy Code lists to be posted on 9/25 for SP analysis- NANPA announced they are considering a contribution to propose a hard

edit for OCN changes in the LERG

• NANPA Submitted INC Issue 420: Data Integrity of Number Assignment Records to clarify SP requirement to send Part 1 to NANPA when making information changes

• NANPA preparing Written Process for Reserving NPAs


PIP - NANPA CAS/LERG Comparison

Date of Comparison(note 5)

Code State(note 2)

OCN(note 3)

Rate Center(note 4)

Total Discrepancies(note 1)

August 2002 2520 3754 1222 7496

March 26, 2003 1935 2875 968 5778 22.92%

May 9, 2003 1745 3015 718 5478 26.92%

June 12, 2003 1763 2727 675 5165 31.10%

July 8, 2002 1824 2771 670 5265 29.76%

August 8, 2003 1651 1712 668 4031 46.22%

September 1, 2003 1585 264 663 2512 66.49%

Note: September run used the 9/1/03 archived copy of CAS

Discrepancies Percent Reduction in Total

Discrepancies

Note Comments1 This number represents the total number of discrepancies between the NANPA Code Assignment System (CAS)

data base and the Telcordiatm LERGtm Routing Guide and includes discrepancies in the fields for Code State, Rate Center, and Operating Company Number (

2 This number represents the number of discrepancies between the NANPA CAS data base and the LERG Routing Guide in the field for Code State. Code State is the indicator if the code is assigned or not. Example: a code shown as assigned in CAS but has NO re

3 This number represents the number of discrepancies between the NANPA CAS data base and the LERG Routing Guide in the field for Operating Company Number (OCN). OCN is the indication of the company to which the code has been assigned. Discrepancies occur

4 This number represents the number of discrepancies between the NANPA CAS data base and the LERG Routing Guide in the field for the assigned Rate Center. The reason for these discrepancies are, primarily, misspellings (before spell checking was instituted

5 This column shows the date the comparison was made.


2003 Meeting Schedule

Contact either of the Co-Chairs for complete meeting or conference call details

[email protected] or [email protected]

(Other meetings for the NOWG may be scheduled as needed beyond what has been identified in this list)

WG meeting records and documents posted on the NANC Chair web site

Date Time Topic

Sept 23

1 pm EDT 2 hrs

NANPA Annual Performance Survey Draft Review

Sept 25 NANC Meeting

Oct 2

1 pm EDT 2 hrs

NOWG/NANPA Standing Agenda Call

Oct 7

1 pm EDT 2 hrs

NANPA Annual Performance Survey Draft Review

Oct 21

1 pm EDT 2 hrs

tbd

Nov 5 NANC Meeting

Nov 18 1 pm EDT 2 hrs

NOWG/NANPA Standing Agenda Call