NENO IMG March 18, 2002

Attendees:

Baldwin / Brian
Bench / Dave

Breen

/ Tom
Brockway / Nancy
Manning / John
Mulberry / Karen
Murphy / Shawn
Norcross / Karen
O’Donnell / Beth
Pescosolido / Peter
Petersen / Julie
Pfautz / Penn
Potts / Wendy
Tanna / Pete
Thomas / Michele
Travers / Rose
  1. The IMG first discussed the templates, and the need for volunteers on the remaining sections. Discussed the methodology for Unassigned Number Porting. IMG did not complete the D-Digit release, and have NANPA project how many additional years, if any, it would add to the life of the NANP. NANPA agreed to do an analysis to include D-digit release. Also reduce the 200 CO codes to reflect that we may not get all 200 back in every NPA. Maybe include only 100 NXXs within the calculation to reflect this. This is releasing the 0 and the 1 from the D-Digit; it accounts for the “000” code set aside for E-911, and also accounts for other codes that have been set aside in a similar manner, but for a different purpose.
  1. IMG still needs to establish a methodology for UNP. Question regarding impact of ITN versus UNP; it was pointed out that the FCC regarded UNP as carrier to carrier instead of a central administrator. Reporting mechanism, such as NRUF, would suggest whether carriers have gotten small amount of resources, and if this amount was all they needed, then could gage the rate of utilization. Understand what level of resources were assigned that could have been assigned by UNP. Initial code assignments versus growth code assignments; if carriers have initial requests only, perhaps they are the likely candidates for UNP. In conducting any assessment, the first thing we should make an assumption on is whether this is voluntary or not. If it is mandatory UNP would be the first item utilized. If that is the scenario, the impact on the NANP looks very similar to ITN. UNP as mandatory where an SP cannot reasonably forecast that they need a whole NXX-X bank. It is likely to be used where only a small amount is necessary. The footprint size would be 25 numbers, how many cases within two years a carrier had to use 25 or fewer numbers. That is one kind of estimate of how much in the way of resources might have been saved. To go back and look at the NRUF, and try to find instances where a code has been assigned, or a block has been assigned, in an interval of two years or more, and 25 or less numbers are in the assigned category. Then NANPA would total up the number of blocks or NXX codes that are represented by these instances. First cut would be does this represent a lot of resources that would be stranded, or not that much? John said he could do 25, 50 and 100 as a sensitivity analysis. He said the time interval (2 years) would require two databases in the analysis. Look at both codes as well as 1K blocks depending on when the request was made.

Penn volunteered to write up a contribution on impact assessment of UNP, and send it around for consensus.

3.  The work to fill out the rest of the templates, and ask that folks volunteer for the “other considerations” section. Establish the guidelines for submitting “other considerations” ask that rather than each editor be the collection point for each conservation measure. Co-chairs will send out a current list of editors to be the collection point on “other considerations” section of each template.

4.  Discussion of NENO 2, as revised, was about the division of rate centers, where cases of what should be a local toll turns into a toll call if the rate centers don’t match. In reality ILEC and CLEC rate centers match, often by state requirements, but agreed to changed the “must” to “may” match the rate centers. Where the two types, “not utilized” or “not selected” but where it says estimations say “selected”. Where it says “simpler” it should state “cruder” or be eliminated. Agreed to do that.

5.  Total numbers of NPAs, 169 pooling and 205 instances, some of which are multiple overlays, to get the number of NPAs, probably 130 or so. The other thing we have raised about not extending it outside of pooling areas, partly because these NPAs are different, and also there isn’t match in the way of competition or demand. Look at current exhaust dates for these NPAs. Clearly the resources here are not at issue in terms of life extensions.

6.  Definition of rate center consolidation: the number of NPAs in which RCC occurred. Home and contiguous NPAs in New Hampshire. Is going to home and contiguous within RCC? If so, should this be included? It is different from RCC in that you may need an NXX in each rate center because of the transitivity problem, e.g., A is next to B, B is next to C, but A is not next to C.

7.  Action item for folks to look over the Impact Assessment section of Rate Center Consolidation, and get back to Penn Pfautz on it.

8.  NENO 10 question as to whether we can accept the section as it stands. No objection, so the Impact Assessment section is accepted. Neural will be changed to Neutral.

9.  E-911 impacts to Rate Center Consolidation are considerable, and Tom Breen will provide updates that will discuss these. There may be solutions, however, Privacy protections may be compromised.

10.  Need an update of report draft; Pete Tanna and Nancy Brockway have committed to making a contribution to Section 3 of the draft Report.

Next meeting April 11, 11:30-1:30 Easter, Bridge TBD..

Rose Travers