NANC Report
Numbering Oversight Working Group
(NOWG)
June 7, 2012
Tri-Chairs:
Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications
Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile USA
Gwen Zahn, Verizon Wireless
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2011 PA Performance Report
2011 NANPA Performance Report
Tri-Chair Election
Outstanding PA Change Orders
Outstanding NANPA Change Orders
NANPA and PA Contract Consolidation
NOWG Participating Companies
Meeting Schedule
2
Summary
2011 PA Survey Respondents
The number of respondents to the 2011 PA Survey was slightly down
from 2010 for both service providers and state regulators. The following
chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA
performance survey:
80
71
68
65
60
40
55
50
40
32
32
25
20
56
53
19
26
31
30
25
23
17
Industry & Other
Regulators
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
06/07/2012
3
Summary
2011 PA Performance Report
The PA’s annual performance assessment is based
upon:
–
–
–
–
2011 Performance Feedback Survey
Written comments and reports
Annual Operational Review
NOWG observations and interactions with the PA
06/07/2012
4
Summary
2011 PA Performance Report
The PA’s rating for the 2011 performance year was
determined by consensus of the NOWG to be More than
Met. This rating is defined below:
Satisfaction Rating
MORE THAN
MET
06/07/2012
Used when the PA...
Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s)
Provided more than what was required to be successful
Performance was more than competent and reliable
Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded requirements and
expectations
5
Summary
2011 PA Performance Report
Pooling Administrator (Section A)
• There were four questions in this section to which respondents
provided the following aggregated response ratings:
–
–
–
–
92 as Exceeded
71 as More than Met
20 as Met
3 as Sometimes Met
Implementation Management (Section B)
• There were two questions in this section to which respondents
provided the following aggregated response ratings:
–
–
–
–
16 as Exceeded
23 as More than Met
15 as Met
2 as Sometimes Met
06/07/2012
6
Summary
2011 PA Performance Report
Pooling Administration System (PAS) (Section C)
• There were three questions in this section to which respondents
provided the following aggregated response ratings:
– 68 as Exceeded
– 76 as More than Met
– 25 as Met
– 1 as Sometimes Met
PA Website (Section D)
• There was one question in this section to which respondents provided
the following aggregated response ratings:
– 29 as Exceeded
– 31 as More than Met
– 8 as Met
06/07/2012
7
Summary
2011 PA Performance Report
Miscellaneous Pooling Administration (PA) Functions (Section E)
• There were four questions in this section to which respondents
provided the following aggregated response ratings:
– 79 as Exceeded
– 102 as More than Met
– 35 as Met
Overall Assessment of Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section F)
• There was one question in this section to which respondents provided
the following aggregated response ratings:
– 34 as Exceeded
– 32 as More than Met
– 3 as Met
06/07/2012
8
Summary
2011 PA Performance Report
Following is a summary of written comments that were provided
by survey respondents:
• Outstanding praise for the PA staff was a consistent theme
throughout the survey:
– Provides a high level of support, assistance, and guidance
– Always professional, informed, and courteous
– Responsive, helpful, and thorough
– Goes above and beyond to satisfy their customers
.
06/07/2012
9
Summary
2011 PA Performance Report
Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated.
Comments pertained to:
• Some inconsistencies among PA representatives in
accuracy and timeliness of information provided
• PAS limitations and suggestions for system augmentations
06/07/2012
10
Summary – NOWG Observations
2011 PA Performance Report
The NOWG concluded that the written comments were not
indicative of any consistent performance issues, and in many
cases provided significant praise for individual PA staffers.
06/07/2012
11
Summary - Suggestions
2011 PA Performance Report
The NOWG makes the following recommendations for the PA’s
consideration:
• Continue to review internal training processes to ensure that
consistency in understanding the processes and responding to service
providers is communicated to the PA personnel
• Ongoing review of the website to ensure accuracy and timeliness of
data
• Work with the NOWG on determining the feasibility of automating
Telcordia BIRRDS entries of BCD screen data elements (new entries,
disconnects, modifications, etc…)
The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the
NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.
06/07/2012
12
Summary
2011 NANPA Survey Respondents
The number of respondents to the 2011 NANPA Survey was
slightly down from 2010 for both service providers and state
regulators. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents
since the inception of the NOWG performance survey:
200
150
140
150
100
27
19
37
25
2011
2005
2627
45
29
2010
2004
1521
2009
20
34
20
2008
22
36
21
2003
2000
2002
14
26
2001
17
26
16
1999
47
30
2007
50
1998
50
2006
69
68
Industry
Regulators
0
06/07/2012
13
Summary
2011 NANPA Performance Report
The NANPA’s annual performance assessment is
based upon:
•
•
•
•
2011 Performance Feedback Survey
Written comments and reports
Annual Operational Review
NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA
06/07/2012
14
Summary
2011 NANPA Performance Report
NANPA’s rating for the 2011 performance year was
determined by consensus of the NOWG to be Exceeded.
This rating is defined below:
Satisfaction Rating
EXCEEDED
06/07/2012
Used when the NANPA...
Exceeded performance requirement(s)
Provided excellence above performance requirements
and exceeded expectations
Performance was well above requirements
Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements
and expectations
15
Summary
2011 NANPA Performance Report
• CO Code (NXX) Administration (Section A)
– There were four questions in this section to which respondents
provided the following aggregated response ratings:
• 67 as Exceeded
• 56 as More than Met
• 15 as Met
• NPA Relief Planning (Section B)
– There were four questions in this section to which respondents
provided the following aggregated response ratings:
• 67 as Exceeded
• 60 as More than Met
• 17 as Met
06/07/2012
16
Summary
2011 NANPA Performance Report
• NRUF (Section C)
– There were four questions in this section to which respondents
provided the following aggregated response ratings:
• 74 as Exceeded
• 68 as More than Met
• 19 as Met
• 3 as Not Met
• Other NANP Resources (Section D)
– There was one question in this section to which respondents
provided the following aggregated response ratings:
• 11 as Exceeded
• 7 as More than Met
• 4 as Met
06/07/2012
17
Summary
2011 NANPA Performance Report
•
NANP Administration System (NAS) (Section E)
– There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided
the following aggregated response ratings:
• 40 as Exceeded
• 39 as More than Met
• 21 as Met
•
NANPA Website, Reports, and Industry Activities (Section F)
– There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided
the following aggregated response ratings:
• 58 as Exceeded
• 72 as More than Met
• 33 as Met
• 1 as Sometimes Met
06/07/2012
18
Summary
2011 NANPA Performance Report
• Overall Assessment of the NANPA (Section G)
– There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the
following aggregated response ratings:
• 27 as Exceeded
• 31 as More than Met
• 3 as Met
06/07/2012
19
Summary
2011 NANPA Performance Report
The following is a summary of written comments that
were provided by survey respondents:
Significant praise for NANPA staff was a consistent theme
throughout the survey. In many cases, the comments provided
praise for individual staff members. The following recurring
adjectives were used by multiple respondents to describe their
experiences in working with the NANPA staff:
– Friendly, helpful, and knowledgeable
– Professional, prompt, and courteous
– Competent, diligent, and informative
06/07/2012
20
Summary - NOWG Observations
2011 NANPA Performance Report
All comments received were positive, and none suggested any
areas needing improvement. After thoroughly reviewing the
comments received, the NOWG concluded that the written
comments indicated a very high level of satisfaction
experienced by those who interacted with the NANPA.
06/07/2012
21
Summary - NOWG Observations
2011 NANPA Performance Report
As in previous years, the 2011 survey results revealed a high
level of client satisfaction with the continued perseverance,
professionalism, and expertise exhibited by NANPA
personnel when performing their NANPA duties. The
NANPA continued to consistently and effectively
demonstrate their expertise as the custodian of numbering
resources in all areas in which they were involved.
06/07/2012
22
Summary - Suggestions
2011 NANPA Performance Report
The NOWG makes the following recommendations for NANPA’s
consideration:
• Continue to proactively search for ways to improve processes,
educate customers, and enhance system functionality
• Work with the NOWG on determining the feasibility of automating
Telcordia BIRRDS entries of ACD screen data elements (new entries,
disconnects, modifications, etc…)
• Implement training videos that will be posted to the NANPA website
for NRUF, NAS, Website, and other training, in lieu of live training
The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the
NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.
06/07/2012
23
Tri-Chair Position
• Gwen Zahn (Verizon Wireless) has accepted a
new position within her company and has resigned
from her position as a Tri-Chair of the NOWG.
• Karen Riepenkroger (Sprint/Nextel) was
nominated and elected by acclamation to serve as
Tri-Chair with her term ending at the end of 2013.
• The NOWG respectfully requests the NANC’s
concurrence on the election.
06/07/2012
24
Outstanding PA Change Orders
Change Order
Number
Date Filed
22
8/5/2011
Summary
NOWG Status
FCC Action
Scheduled
Implementation
Date
TBD
INC Issue #698–
NOWG
Auto-Populate Total Recommendation
Numbering
to Approve to FCC
Resources on
on 09/07/11
TBPAG MTE Form
FCC
Approved on
12/14/2011
NOWG
Recommendation
to Approve to FCC
11/30/2011
FCC
Approved on
12/14/2011
TBD
NOWG
Recommendation
to Approve to FCC
on 03/04/11
FCC
Approved on
6/17/2011
Tentatively
scheduled for
6/29/2012
21
Initially filed on
8/5/2011. Re-filed
on 11/11/2011
INC Issue #710–
NANC Action Item
“Multi-OCN” Issue
20
2/18/2011
Proposed
Enhancements to
PAS
06/07/2012
25
Outstanding NANPA Change Orders
Change Order
Number
Date Filed
Summary
NOWG Status
FCC Action
Scheduled
Implementation
Date
22
8/05/2011
INC Issue 698:
Auto-Populate
Total Numbering
Resources on
TBPAG MTE
Form
NOWG
Recommendation
to APPROVE to
FCC on 09/07/11
FCC
Approved on
12/14/2011
TBD
21
Initially filed on
8/5/2011. Re-filed
on 11/11/2011
INC Issue 710:
NANC Action
Item “Multi-OCN”
Issue
NOWG
Recommendation
to APPROVE to
FCC 11/30/2011
FCC
Approved on
12/14/2011
TBD
06/07/2012
26
NANPA and PA Administrator Contract
Consolidation
• The NOWG respectfully requests the NANC’s approval to
proceed with an in-depth evaluation of some of the benefits
or risks of a consolidation of the NANPA and PA
Administrator contracts.
06/07/2012
27
NOWG Participating Companies
•
•
•
•
•
AT&T
CenturyLink
Cox Communications
EarthLink Business
Pennsylvania Public
Utilities Commission
• Sprint Nextel
06/07/2012
• T-Mobile USA
• Verizon
Communications /
Verizon Wireless
• Windstream
Communications
• XO Communications
28
NOWG Upcoming Meeting Schedule 2012
Month
Activity
June 15
PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hr
June 15
NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr *
July 14
PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hr
July 14
NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr *
August 21
PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hr
August 21
NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr *
*
NOWG-Only Monthly Call following Calls with the Administrators
29
NOWG Meetings
• Contact any of the Tri-Chairs for complete meeting or
conference call details:
– Laura.R.Dalton@Verizon.com
– Natalie.McNamer@T-Mobile.com
– Lauren.Zahn@VerizonWireless.com
• Other meetings for the NOWG may be scheduled as
needed beyond what has been identified in this list.
• NOWG meeting notes and documents are posted at
www.nanc-chair.org
06/07/2012
30