Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) June 20, 2013 Co-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) June 20, 2013 Co-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel."— Presentation transcript:

1 NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) June 20, 2013 Co-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel

2 Contents 2012 NANPA Performance Report 2012 PA Performance Report NOWG Leadership Outstanding PA Change Orders Outstanding NANPA Change Orders NOWG Participating Companies Meeting Schedule 06/20/20132

3 06/20/20133 Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report The NANPAs annual performance assessment is based upon: 2012 Performance Feedback Survey Written comments and reports Annual Operational Review NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA

4 06/20/20134 Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report NANPAs rating for the 2012 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be Exceeded. This rating is defined below: Satisfaction RatingUsed when the NANPA... EXCEEDED Exceeded performance requirement(s) Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectations Performance was well above requirements Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations

5 Summary 2012 NANPA Survey Respondents 06/20/20135 The total number of respondents to the 2012 NANPA Survey was down from The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the NOWG performance survey:

6 06/20/20136 Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report CO (NXX) Administration (Section A) –There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 65 as Exceeded 53 as More than Met 14 as Met 2 as Sometimes Met NPA Relief Planning (Section B) –There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 57 as Exceeded 39 as More than Met 21 as Met

7 06/20/20137 Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report NRUF (Section C) –There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 62 as Exceeded 57 as More than Met 22 as Met 1 as Not Met Other NANP Resources (Section D) –There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 13 as Exceeded 9 as More than Met 8 as Met

8 06/20/20138 Summary 2012 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: 45 as Exceeded 34 as More than Met 19 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: 61 as Exceeded 53 as More than Met 31 as Met 1 as Sometimes Met 2 as Not Met

9 06/20/20139 Summary 2012 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: 28 as Exceeded 18 as More than Met 8 as Met 1 as Sometimes Met

10 06/20/ Summary 2012 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: –Timely, responsive, and professional –Courteous, helpful, and knowledgeable –Excellent, accurate, and dedicated

11 06/20/ Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report NOWG Observations All comments received from the annual survey 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.

12 06/20/ Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report NOWG Observations As in previous years, the 2012 survey results continued to reveal 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.

13 06/20/ Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report Suggestions The NOWG makes the following recommendations for NANPAs consideration: Continue to proactively search for ways to improve processes, educate customers, and enhance system functionality. Continue to develop and produce instructional and training videos, such as How to Request a Growth Code on the NANPA website. On semi-annual CIC report filing, send out a reminder notice similar to the NRUF reminder notice. The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.

14 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report The PAs annual performance assessment is based upon : –2012 Performance Feedback Surveys for the PA and RNA –Written comments and reports –Annual Operational Review –NOWG observations and interactions with the PA

15 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report The PAs rating for the 2012 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be Exceeded. This rating is defined below: Satisfaction RatingUsed when the PA... EXCEEDED Exceeded performance requirement(s) Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectations Performance was well above requirements Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations

16 Summary 2012 PA Survey Respondents 06/20/ The number of respondents to the 2012 PA Survey was up from 2011 with an increase in industry & other and the regulator respondents remained the same as in The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:

17 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report PA Survey Pooling Administrator (Section A) There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –103 as Exceeded –108 as More than Met –35 as Met –2 as Sometimes Met Pooling Administration System (Section B) There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –103 as Exceeded –88 as More than Met –63 as Met –1 as Sometimes Met

18 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report PA Survey PA Website (Section C) There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –60 as Exceeded –76 as More than Met –50 as Met –4 as Sometimes Met Miscellaneous Pooling Administration (PA) Functions (Section D) There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –87 as Exceeded –107 as More than Met –90 as Met –4 as Sometimes Met

19 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report PA Survey Overall Assessment of Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section E) There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –37 as Exceeded –43 as More than Met –16 as Met

20 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report PA Survey 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 excellent support, assistance, and technical expertise –Always prompt, helpful, and courteous –Professional, friendly, and responsive –Willing to go the extra mile to provide top notch service to their customers.

21 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report PA Survey Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated. Comments pertained to: Process clarification questions Suggestions for PAS and website enhancements

22 Summary 2012 RNA Survey Respondents 06/20/ is the first year for the RNA Survey and the following chart represents the number of Industry & Other and Regulators that participated in this years survey. In subsequent years, the chart will reflect the trend of respondents with previous years.

23 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report RNA Survey Routing Number Administrator (Section A) There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –18 as Exceeded –1 as More than Met –2 as Met –2 as Not Met Routing Number Administration System (RNAS) (Section B) There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –17 as Exceeded –3 as More than Met –6 as Met –3 as Not Met

24 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report RNA Survey RNA Website (Section C) There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –8 as Exceeded –7 as More than Met –4 as Met –1 as Not Met Miscellaneous RNA Functions (Section D) There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –14 as Exceeded –2 as More than Met –3 as Met –3 as Not Met

25 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report RNA Survey Overall Assessment of the RNA (Section E) There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –7 as Exceeded –2 as Met –1 as Not Met

26 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report RNA Survey Following is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey respondents: Outstanding praise for the RNA staff was a consistent theme throughout the survey: –Efficient, organized, and helpful –Polite and responsive.

27 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report RNA Survey Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated. Comments pertained to: Suggestions for RNAS and website enhancements Ability to upload or attach documents rather than sending an .

28 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report NOWG Observations The NOWG concluded that the written comments were not indicative of any consistent performance issues for the PA and RNA, and in many cases provided significant praise for individual PA and RNA staffers.

29 06/20/ Summary 2012 PA Performance Report NOWG Suggestions The NOWG makes the following recommendations for the PAs 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 and RNA personnel. Ongoing review of the PA and RNA websites to ensure accuracy and timeliness of data. Continue to consider process or systems enhancements suggested by regulators and service providers. The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.

30 NOWG Leadership The NOWG Tri-Chair position formerly held by Natalie McNamer is now vacant. The current and future workload was reviewed by the two other tri-chairs. On an interim basis, the vacant tri-chair position will not be filled. 3006/20/2013

31 31 Outstanding NANPA Change Orders Change Order Number Date FiledSummaryNOWG StatusFCC ActionScheduled Implementation Date 19/24/2012INC Issue 692: Update the 5YY Requirements for Resources and INC Issue 702: Update Service Description for Use of 5YY Resources NOWG Recommendation to Approve sent to FCC on 10/15/2012 Approved 12/5/2012 Estimated Implementation 3Q13 06/20/2013

32 Outstanding PA Change Orders Change Order Number Date FiledSummaryNOWG StatusFCC ActionScheduled Implementation Date 24 11/6/2012Enhancement of the FTP Interface with the Pooling Administration System NOWG Recommendation to Approve sent to FCC on 11/16/ /5/12End of June /1/2012 INC Issue #715 - Update TBPAG for Retrieving a Block Donated/Returned in Error NOWG Recommendation to Approve sent to FCC on 6/12/2012 FCC Approved on 8/14/2012 Implemented on 4/5/ /20/2013

33 NOWG Participating Companies AT&T CenturyLink Cox Communications EarthLink Business Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission Sprint Nextel Verizon Communications / Verizon Wireless Windstream Communications XO Communications 3306/20/2013

34 NOWG Upcoming Meeting Schedule – 2013 MonthActivity June 25PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hr NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr * July 16PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hr NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr * August 27PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hr NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr * *NOWG-Only Monthly Call following Calls with the Administrators 3406/20/2013

35 NOWG Meetings Contact the Co-Chairs for complete meeting or conference call details: 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 06/20/201335


Download ppt "NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) June 20, 2013 Co-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google