NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) June 17, 2014 Co-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint ``

Contents 2013 NANPA Performance Report 2013 PA Performance Report NANPA and PA Change Orders NOWG Participating Companies Meeting Schedule 206/17/2014

3 Summary 2013 NANPA Performance Report The NANPA’s annual performance assessment is based upon: 2013 Performance Feedback Survey Written comments and reports Annual Operational Review NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA

Summary 2013 NANPA Survey Respondents 06/17/20144 The total number of respondents to the 2013 NANPA Survey increased from The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the NANPA performance survey:

06/17/20145 Summary 2013 NANPA Survey Results * CO (NXX) Administration (Section A) –There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 56 as Exceeded 56 as More than Met 24 as Met 6 as Sometimes Met 0 as Not Met NPA Relief Planning (Section B) –There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 66 as Exceeded 43 as More than Met 35 as Met 1 as Sometimes Met 0 as Not Met

06/17/20146 Summary 2013 NANPA Survey Results * NRUF (Section C) –There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 51 as Exceeded 52 as More than Met 43 as Met 1 as Sometimes Met 0 as Not Met Other NANP Resources (Section D) –There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 9 as Exceeded 6 as More than Met 8 as Met 1 as Sometimes Met 0 as Not Met

06/17/20147 Summary 2013 NANPA Survey Results * NANP Administration System (NAS) (Section E) –There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 31 as Exceeded 45 as More than Met 29 as Met 1 as Sometimes Met 0 as Not 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: 50 as Exceeded 55 as More than Met 45 as Met 3 as Sometimes Met 0 as Not Met

06/17/20148 Summary 2013 NANPA Survey Results * Overall Assessment of the NANPA (Section G) –There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 23 as Exceeded 25 as More than Met 11 as Met 0 as Sometimes Met 0 as Not Met * The aggregated results do not include “N/A” responses.

06/17/20149 Summary 2013 NANPA Survey Results The following is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey respondents: Significant praise for the NANPA staff was a consistent theme throughout the survey. In many cases, the comments provided praise for individual staff members. The following adjectives and phrases were used by multiple respondents to describe their experiences in working with the NANPA staff: –Helpful, efficient, experienced –Timely, professional, accurate –Provides excellent, invaluable assistance

06/17/ Summary 2013 NANPA Performance Report VoIP Trial NANPA worked directly with the five trial participants to assist them in applying for CO codes. All the trial participants requested and received at least one CO code for assignment, and a total of 16 code assignments were made. NANPA’s ongoing interaction with the participants throughout the trial included providing support in the following areas: –Educated participants on their responsibilities as code holders, including the requirements to populate the industry routing databases –Reviewed requirements for facilities readiness –Assisted with understanding NRUF responsibilities NANPA also provided information to state regulators and the FCC on the process and implementation of the VoIP trial. The trial participants provided positive feedback about NANPA in their responses to the NANPA Survey.

06/17/ Summary 2013 NANPA Performance Report NOWG Observations After thoroughly reviewing the NANPA survey responses, the NOWG concluded that the quantitative results and written comments indicated a high level of satisfaction experienced by those who interacted with the NANPA. As in previous years, the NANPA continued to consistently and effectively demonstrate their expertise as the custodian of numbering resources in all areas in which they were involved.

06/17/ Summary 2013 NANPA Performance Report NANPA’s rating for the 2013 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be More than Met. This rating is defined below: Satisfaction RatingUsed when the NANPA... MORE THAN MET 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

06/17/ Summary 2013 NANPA Performance Report NOWG Suggestions The NOWG makes the following recommendations for NANPA’s consideration: Create a NAS trouble ticket log to accompany the monthly reports provided to the NOWG. Continue to proactively search for ways to improve processes, educate customers, and enhance system functionality. Continue to develop and produce instructional and training videos as needed. Continue ongoing Code Administrator training to ensure all Code Administrators understand and implement the processes consistently. The NOWG requests NANC approval of the NANPA Performance Report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.

06/17/ Summary 2013 PA Performance Report The PA’s annual performance assessment is based upon : –2013 Performance Feedback Surveys for the PA and RNA –Written comments and reports –Annual Operational Review –NOWG observations and interactions with the PA

Summary 2013 PA Survey Respondents 06/17/ The total number of respondents to the 2013 PA Survey slightly increased from The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:

06/17/ Summary 2013 PA Survey Results * Pooling Administrator (Section A) There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –126 as Exceeded –99 as More than Met –34 as Met –1 as Sometimes Met –3 as Not Met Pooling Administration System (Section B) There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –120 as Exceeded –101 as More than Met –48 as Met –1 as Sometimes Met –0 as Not Met

06/17/ Summary 2013 PA Survey Results * PA Website (Section C) There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –70 as Exceeded –72 as More than Met –43 as Met –6 as Sometimes Met –0 as Not Met Miscellaneous Pooling Administration (PA) Functions (Section D) There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –117 as Exceeded –111 as More than Met –61 as Met –3 as Sometimes Met –2 as Not Met

06/17/ Summary 2013 PA Survey Results * Overall Assessment of Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section E) There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –46 as Exceeded –44 as More than Met –6 as Met –1 as Sometimes Met –0 as Not Met * The aggregated results do not include “N/A” responses.

06/17/ Summary 2013 PA Survey Results 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: –Prompt, courteous, knowledgeable –Willing to help, friendly, professional –Provides excellent guidance and assistance –Patient with answering questions.

06/17/ Summary 2013 PA Survey Results Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated, and were not indicative of any consistent performance issues of the PA. Comments pertained to: Administrative and managerial suggestions Technical/system and process issues

Summary 2013 RNA Survey Respondents 06/17/ The total number of respondents to the 2013 RNA Survey decreased from 2012, which was the first year the survey was conducted. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the RNA survey.

06/17/ Summary 2013 RNA Survey Results * Routing Number Administrator (Section A) There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –15 as Exceeded –1 as More than Met –6 as Met –0 as Sometimes 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: –10 as Exceeded –8 as More than Met –5 as Met –0 as Sometimes Met –3 as Not Met

06/17/ Summary 2013 RNA Survey Results * RNA Website (Section C) There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –8 as Exceeded –4 as More than Met –5 as Met –0 as Sometimes Met –1 as Not Met Miscellaneous RNA Functions (Section D) There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –3 as Exceeded –7 as More than Met –5 as Met –0 as Sometimes Met –2 as Not Met

06/17/ Summary 2013 RNA Survey Results * Overall Assessment of the RNA (Section E) There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –5 as Exceeded –1 as More Than Met –2 as Met –0 as Sometimes Met –1 as Not Met * The aggregated results do not include “N/A” responses.

06/17/ Summary 2013 RNA Survey Results 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: –Amazing to work with –Quick to respond –Professional, courteous, knowledgeable.

06/17/ Summary 2013 RNA Survey Results Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated pertaining to: Suggestion for RNAS enhancement for querying p-ANI ranges Tools available in the website for data sorting and validation The NOWG concluded that the written comments were not indicative of any consistent performance issues for the RNA.

06/17/ Summary 2013 PA Performance Report VoIP Trial Throughout the VoIP trial, the PA provided ongoing support to the five trial participants, including the following activities: –Assisted the participants with registering in PAS, NAS, and NPAC. –Provided guidance on the process for acquiring an OCN and selecting an AOCN. –Walked the participants through tools available in PAS, which included training videos and the new service provider checklist. The PA also provided information to state regulators and the FCC on the process and implementation of the VoIP trial. There were 67 Part 3’s issued associated with the trial, and 17 LRNs and 5 individual blocks assigned. The trial participants provided positive feedback about the PA in their responses to the PA Survey.

06/17/ Summary 2013 PA Performance Report NOWG Observations After thoroughly reviewing the PA and RNA survey responses, the NOWG concluded that the survey results revealed a high level of client satisfaction with the continued professionalism and expertise exhibited by the PA personnel when performing their PA and RNA duties. In 2013, the PA continued to demonstrate their ability to handle the large volume of block applications while simultaneously completing special projects.

06/17/ Summary 2013 PA Performance Report The PA’s rating for the 2013 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be More Than Met. This rating is defined below: Satisfaction RatingUsed when the PA... MORE THAN MET 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

06/17/ Summary 2013 PA Performance Report NOWG Suggestions The NOWG makes the following recommendations for the PA’s consideration: Ongoing review of internal training processes with the PA and RNA personnel to ensure consistency in understanding the processes when responding to service providers and regulators. Consider adding an RNAS enhancement to make it easier to query ranges of p- ANIs. Modify the p-ANI Annual Report form to make the fields un-modifiable so as to reduce the input formatting re-work performed currently by the RNA. Provide a proposed list and associated feature explanation of the upcoming 2015 PAS enhancements that resulted from service provider and regulator suggestions. Create a PAS trouble ticket log to accompany the monthly reports provided to the NOWG. The NOWG requests NANC approval of the PA Performance Report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.

NANPA Change Orders There are currently no outstanding NANPA Change Orders. 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 11/16/2012 FCC Approved on 12/5/2012 Partially Implemented 7/19/2013 Remainder Scheduled to be Implemented 01/ /17/2014

NOWG Participating Companies AT&T CenturyLink Charter Communications Cox Communications EarthLink Business Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission Sprint T-Mobile USA Verizon Communications / Verizon Wireless Windstream Communications XO Communications 3206/17/2014

NOWG Upcoming Meeting Schedule 2014 MonthActivity June 24PA 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 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 * August 19PA 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 3306/17/2014

NOWG Meetings Other meetings for the NOWG may be scheduled as needed beyond what has been identified in this list. Contact the Co-Chairs for complete meeting or conference call details: NOWG meeting notes and documents are posted at 06/17/201434