NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) May 17, 2011 Tri-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile USA Gwen Zahn, Verizon Wireless

Contents 2010 PA Performance Report 2010 NANPA Performance Report Outstanding PA Change Orders NOWG Participating Companies Meeting Schedule 2

Summary 2010 PA Survey Respondents 05/10/20113 The number of respondents to the 2010 PA Survey was slightly down for both service providers and state regulators. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:

05/10/20114 Summary 2010 PA Performance Report The PA’s annual performance assessment is based upon: –2010 Performance Feedback Survey –Written comments and reports –Annual Operational Review –NOWG observations and interactions with the PA

05/10/20115 Summary 2010 PA Performance Report The PA’s rating for the 2010 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

05/10/20116 Summary 2010 PA Performance Report Pooling Administrator (Section A) There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –110 as Exceeded –71 as More than Met –37 as Met –1 as Sometimes Met Implementation Management (Section B) There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –27 as Exceeded –26 as More than Met –14 as Met

05/10/20117 Summary 2010 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: –87 as Exceeded –89 as More than Met –56 as Met –2 as Sometimes Met PA Website (Section D) There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: –28 as Exceeded –39 as More than Met –18 as Met –1 as Sometimes Met

05/10/20118 Summary 2010 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: –99 as Exceeded –100 as More than Met –48 as Met –3 as Sometimes 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: –33 as Exceeded –44 as More than Met –9 as Met

05/10/20119 Summary 2010 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: Responds to questions quickly and courteously. Always very pleasant to work with and extremely helpful. Provides a high level of expertise and professionalism. Informative and eager to assist..

05/10/ Summary 2010 PA Performance Report Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated. Notable comments pertained to: PA Help Desk backup support Training of the PAs to improve the accuracy of responses and to increase their understanding of the pooling administration process

05/10/ Summary – NOWG Observations 2010 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.

05/10/ Summary - Suggestions 2010 PA Performance Report The NOWG recommends that the PA focus on the following improvements: Review internal training processes to ensure that consistency in understanding the processes and responding to service providers is communicated to the PA personnel. Continue the proactive NPAC Scrub project to clean-up the over contaminated blocks in the PA inventory. Ongoing review of the website to ensure accuracy and timeliness of data. Work with the NOWG on review and evaluation of current reports submitted to the NOWG for monthly standing agenda calls. The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.

Summary 2010 NANPA Survey Respondents 05/10/ The number of respondents to the 2010 NANPA Survey was up for both service providers and state regulators. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the NOWG performance survey:

05/10/ Summary 2010 NANPA Performance Report The NANPA’s annual performance assessment is based upon: 2010 Performance Feedback Survey Written comments and reports Annual Operational Review NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA

05/10/ Summary 2010 NANPA Performance Report NANPA’s rating for the 2010 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

05/10/ Summary 2010 NANPA Performance Report CO (NXX) Administration (Section A) –There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 74 as Exceeded 57 as More than Met 15 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: 64 as Exceeded 60 as More than Met 29 as Met

05/10/ Summary 2010 NANPA Performance Report NRUF (Section C) –There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 71 as Exceeded 49 as More than Met 38 as Met Other NANP Resources (Section D) –There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 15 as Exceeded 4 as More than Met 4 as Met 1 as Sometimes Met

05/10/ Summary 2010 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: 44 as Exceeded 39 as More than Met 27 as Met NANPA Website (Section F) –There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: 48 as Exceeded 40 as More than Met 25 as Met 3 as Sometimes Met 2 as Not Met

05/10/ Summary 2010 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: 32 as Exceeded 26 as More than Met 12 as Met

05/10/ Summary 2010 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: Competent, courteous, and customer-focused Accurate, efficient, and helpful Personable, professional, and conscientious

05/10/ Summary - NOWG Observations 2010 NANPA Performance Report Due to the vast majority of positive comments received, the NOWG concluded that the written comments indicated a high level of satisfaction experienced by those who interacted with the NANPA.

05/10/ Summary - NOWG Observations 2010 NANPA Performance Report As in previous years, the 2010 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.

05/10/ Summary - Suggestions 2010 NANPA Performance Report The NOWG recommends the following suggestions be implemented for continued improvement: Continue monitoring Change Order 18 issues relating to DDR and UMR. Continue review of the NANPA website for improvements. Consider implementing training videos, posted to the NANPA website, for NRUF, NAS, website and other training in lieu of live training. Consider using live meeting for area code relief planning meetings. The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.

Outstanding PA Change Orders Change Order Number Date FiledSummaryNOWG StatusFCC ActionScheduled Implementation Date 202/18/2011Proposed Enhancements to PAS NOWG recommendation to APPROVE to FCC on 03/04/11 191/27/2011Permanent Routing Number Administrator (p-ANI) NOWG recommendation to APPROVE to FCC on 02/25/11 24

NOWG Participating Companies AT&T CenturyLink Cox Communications EarthLink Business Sprint Nextel T-Mobile USA Verizon Communications / Verizon Wireless Windstream Communications XO Communications 25

NOWG Upcoming Meeting Schedule MonthActivity May 19PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 12 pm Eastern, 1 hr May 19NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hr * June 13PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hr June 13NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr * July 14PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hr July 14NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr * * NOWG-Only Monthly Call following Calls with the Administrators 26