INC Report to the NANC Status Report - Number Pooling and 500/900 Number Portability

Report Overview yNumber Pooling Status y Issues going to Final Closure y Results of Interim LNPA Workshop Meeting yQuestions/concerns regarding NANC/NRO directive regarding forecast/utilization data regarding Type 1 SPs/Resellers yStatus of INC 500/900 Number Portability Effort yMeeting Schedules and Logistics

Issues Going to Final Closure 7/12/ Criteria and Guidelines for the Donation of Blocks in a Number Pooling Environment Modifications to Months to Exhaust Worksheet PA Guidelines Changes to Clarify Responsibility for Changes to LERG Block Information and Denote Correct Reference to BCD Screen Term “Raw Data” Defined for Thousand Block Pooling Requirements Block Pooling Guidelines Change Request to Remove Switch ID Requirement from the LERG

Issues in Initial Closure z157 - PA Guidelines Changes on Utilization/Forecast Reports and PA Reclamation Responsibilities z173 - Changes to Multiple Sections of the Block Pooling Assignment Guidelines z174 - Change to Section of the Block Pooling Assignment Guidelines Re. Forecasting z175 - Change to Section of the Block Pooling Assignment Guidelines Re. New Entrants

RESULTS OF LNPA WORKSHOP zRemove “Ported Out Number” definition from Thousand Block (NXX-X) Pooling Administration Guidelines Glossary and any associated forms/appendices. zINC prefers to modify 1B Form of Thousand Block (NXX-X) Pooling Administration Guidelines so as to use it for both block activation and block change process at NPAC.

NOVEMBER 1998 NANC DECISION x At its November 1998 meeting, the NANC made the decision to address all issues of reporting of forecast and utilization information by resellers and Type 1 carriers through “business arrangements” made with the code holder. The LNPA Workshop needs further clarification of this decision from the NANC as a result of its analysis and seeks NANC’s input.

NOVEMBER 1998 NANC DECISION zNANC November 1998 Meeting Minutes: “Chairman Hasselwander noted NANC’s consensus that the obligation to report forecast information should flow from the reseller to the code holder to the NANPA.” zNRO Report on COCUS (6/16/99): “The code holder/block holder is responsible to provide timely and accurate forecast and utilization data to the NANPA. The code holder is responsible for providing the same information for its resellers and Type 1 interconnecting carriers, subject to existing business arrangements between the entities.”

INC LNPA Questions zDoes “business arrangement” imply changes to new/existing interconnection agreements? zShould this requirement become a mandatory condition of interconnection agreements? zIs it reasonable to expect resellers/Type 1 SPs to provide forecast/utilization data to potential competitors? zHow can code/block holders compel resellers/Type 1 SPs to provide such information?

INC LNPA Concerns zConcern was expressed that the NANC decision is inconsistent with the principle of neutral third party number administration and appears to be a step backward. zThe NANC decision does not support the objective of obtaining complete and reliable forecasts from all carriers. zLegal issues may surface. For example, can an SP withhold numbering resources from a potential competitor? zJurisdictional issues may surface. Interconnection agreements are under state jurisdiction.

Status of INC 500/900 Number Portability Effort Issue and 900 Portability was withdrawn by the Issue Originator and the Workshop disbanded effective 5/28/99.

Meeting Schedules and Logistics LNPA Workshop Meeting Schedule  July 13, 1999 (INC44 in Toronto, Canada)  September 14, 1999 (INC45, tentatively in Dallas, Texas)