NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) July 16, 2009 Co-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile USA Karen.

NANC Report

Numbering Oversight Working Group(NOWG)

July 16, 2009

Co-Chairs:

Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications

Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile USA

Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel

07/16/2009 NOWG NANC Report 2

Contents

• Performance Rating Categories• NANPA and PA 2007 Performance Reports• NANPA and PA 2008 Performance Reports• NANPA Change Orders• PA Change Orders• 2009 Meeting Schedule


Performance Report Rating Categories

Satisfaction Rating

Used when the NANPA and PA...

EXCEEDED

Exceeded performance requirement(s) Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectationsPerformance was well above requirements Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations

MORE THAN MET

Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s)Provided more than what was required to be successfulPerformance was more than competent and reliable Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded requirements and expectations

MET

Met performance requirement(s)Met requirements in order to be considered successfulPerformance was competent and reliableDecisions and recommendations were within requirements and expectations

SOMETIMES MET

Sometimes met performance requirement (s)Was inconsistent in meeting performance requirementsPerformance was sometimes competent and reliableDecisions and recommendations were sometimes within requirements

NOT MET

Did not meet performance requirement(s). Administrative tasks and objectives were not within requirements in order to be considered successfulPerformance was unreliable and commitments were not metDecisions and recommendations were inconsistent with requirements

N/A Did not observe activity or does not apply to service provider/regulator


2007 NANPA and PA Performance Reports

• 2007 NANPA and PA Performance Reports were approved by the NANC via email process in 2008

• 2007 Performance Rating for the NANPA was “More than Met”

• 2007 Performance Rating for the PA was “More than Met”


Summary 2008 PA Performance Report

The PA’s annual performance assessment is based upon:

• 2008 Performance Feedback Survey

• Written comments and reports

• Annual Operational Review

• NOWG observations and interactions with the PA



The PA’s rating for the 2008 performance year was determined by the NOWG to be More than Met. This rating is defined below:

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.


Summary 2008 PA Survey Respondents

The number of respondents to the 2008 PA Survey was up from 2007 for the regulators and down slightly from 2007 for the service providers. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:

PA Annual Performance Review Volume of Responses 2008

32

71 68

55 53 50

1925 26 23

1725

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Industry

Regulators



Pooling Administrator (Section A)

• There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 80 cumulative responses rating PA’s performance as Exceeded, 60 cumulative responses as More than Met, 29 cumulative responses as Met, and one response as Sometimes Met.

Implementation Management (Section B)

• There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 14 cumulative responses rating PA’s performance as Exceeded, 16 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 13 cumulative responses as Met.



Pooling Administration System (PAS) (Section C) • There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided

ratings. There were 63 cumulative responses rating PA’s performance as Exceeded, 72 cumulative responses as More than Met, 48 cumulative responses as Met, and three cumulative responses as Sometimes Met.

PA Website (Section D)

• There was one question in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 18 cumulative responses rating PA’s performance as Exceeded, 27 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 24 cumulative responses as Met.



Miscellaneous Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section E)

• There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 70 cumulative responses rating PA’s performance as Exceeded, 70 cumulative responses as More than Met, 57 cumulative responses as Met, and two cumulative responses as Sometimes Met.

Overall Assessment of Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section F)

• There was one question in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 22 responses rating PA’s performance as Exceeded, 30 responses as More than Met, and 18 cumulative responses as Met.



Following is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey respondents:

Outstanding praise for the PA staff was a consistent theme throughout thesurvey:

• Supportive, responsive, prompt, and courteous• Extremely helpful, knowledgeable, and professional• Always a pleasure to work with• Provides exceptional service• Possesses a clear understanding of the process• Takes extra steps to assist and provide immediate answers to questions

.



Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated. Notable comments related to difficulties associated with:

• PA website data and navigation• Reclamation process and Part 4 submissions • PAS functionality when transitioning to the new enhanced PAS

system

.


Summary – NOWG Observations2008 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.


Summary - Suggestions2008 PA Performance Report

The NOWG recommends that the PA focus on the following improvements:

• Continue to proactively manage rate center inventories to ensure resources are available when needed.

• Continue to consider process improvement suggestions provided by service providers and/or regulators in the survey comments.

• Continue customer focus.• In addition to the cumulative method of reporting block

reclamation, the NOWG recommends the PA provide a incremental block reclamation report.

• The NOWG recommends the PA prepare a monthly NANC report providing the NANC members with the current status of pooling activity.


Summary 2008 NANPA Performance Report

The NANPA’s annual performance assessment is based upon:

• 2008 Performance Feedback Survey

• Written comments and reports

• Annual Operational Review

• NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA



NANPA’s rating for the 2008 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be Exceeded. This rating is defined below:

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


Summary 2008 NANPA Survey Respondents

The number of respondents to the 2008 NANPA Survey was up from 2007 for regulators. The number of respondents from service providers and others was down in 2008 from 2007. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the NOWG performance survey:

NANPA Annual Performance Review Volume of Responses 2008

5068

26

140150

69

4736

15

3426

17 14 1626 30

22 20 21 21 20 27

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Industry

Regulators



CO (NXX) Administration (Section A) There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 67 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance as Exceeded, 28 cumulative responses as More than Met, 17 cumulative responses as Met, and one response as Sometimes Met.

NPA Relief Planning (Section B)

There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 76 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance in this section as Exceeded, 28 cumulative responses as More than Met, 14 cumulative responses as Met, and one response as Not Met.

Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) (Section C)

There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 67 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance in this section as Exceeded, 40 cumulative responses as More than Met, 23 cumulative responses as Met, and one response as Sometimes Met.



Other NANP Resources (Section D)

There was one question in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were six cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance in this section as Exceeded, five cumulative responses as More than Met, four cumulative responses as Met, and one response as Not Met.

NANP Administration System (NAS) (Section E)

There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 48 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance in this section as Exceeded, 26 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 20 cumulative responses as Met.



NANPA Website (Section F)

There was one question in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 26 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance in this section as Exceeded, 13 cumulative responses as More than Met, 12 cumulative responses as Met, two cumulative responses as Sometimes Met, and one response as Not Met.

Overall Assessment of the NANPA (Section G)

There was one question in this section to which respondents provided ratings. There were 23 cumulative responses rating NANPA’s performance in this section as Exceeded, 21 cumulative responses as More than Met, and 10 cumulative responses as Met.



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:

• Very helpful, pleasant, and friendly

• Knowledgeable, courteous, and patient

• Responsive, accurate, and professional

There were no recurring comments for suggested improvements.

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.


Summary - NOWG Observations 2008 NANPA Performance Report

Consistent level of satisfaction revealed: • NANPA focuses on Customer Satisfaction• Significant praise for NANPA staff was a consistent theme throughout

the survey results• Cooperation with the NANC, NOWG, FCC and State Regulators• NANPA continued to display leadership, initiative, professionalism, and

expertise • Proactively introduced new INC issues and contributions

.


Summary - NOWG Observations 2008 NANPA Performance Report

• The NANPA continued to effectively manage all aspects of NPA relief activity in 2008.

• Throughout 2008, the NANPA personnel continued to consistently exhibit their professionalism and expertise while performing NANPA duties.


Performance Reports Approval

• NANC approval of 2008 Performance Reports


NANPA Change Order Recommendations

Change Order Number Date Filed Summary Cost NOWG Status FCC Action

NANPA Implemented

Changes (Date)

16 9/17/2008

INC Issue 591: Change Timeline of

Part 1 / Part 3 Processing for

NANPA $9,504.00

NOWG recommendation to APPROVE to FCC

9/24/2008

FCC approved on 9/27/2008;

NOWG notified on 10/14/2008 11/17/2008

17 3/13/2009

INC Issue 613: Notification of a Service Provider

Missing the Part 4 Due Date $4,361.94


3/26/2009

FCC approved on 4/8/2009; NOWG

notified on 4/28/2009 5/15/2009

18 3/13/2009

INC Issue 611: Augmenting the NRUF

Verfication Procedures $29,806.59


3/26/2009


PA Change Order Recommendations

Change Order

Number Date Filed Summary Cost NOWG Status FCC Action

PA Implemented

Changes (Date)

2 6/13/2008

INC Issue # 578 - Update TBPAG to

Limit Timeframe for Block Reservations 12,096.00


6/30/2008


NOWG informed by PA on 7/2/2008 9/27/2008

3 9/8/2008User-Proposed

Enhancements to PAS $20,736.00


9/8/2008



4 9/17/2008

INC Issue #591 - Change Timeline of

Part 1 / Part 3 Processing for

NANPA $9,504.00


9/24/2008



5 11/21/2008

INC Issue #602 - Checking returned block in the NPAC $33,837.00


12/10/2008


NOWG informed by PA on 2/19/2009 S/B 7/24/2009


PA Change Order Recommendations (Continued)

Change Order

Number Date Filed Summary Cost NOWG Status FCC Action

PA Implemented

Changes (Date)

6 12/18/2008User-Proposed

Enhancements to PAS $18,188.00


1/12/2009



7 1/10/2009

INC Issue # 592 - Changes to TBPAG

and COCAG for Mass update Modifications $14,987.00


1/20/2009


NOWG informed by PA on 2/19/2009 S/B 7/24/2009

8 3/20/2009

INC Issue #613 - Notification of an SP

missing the Part 4 Due Date $6,131.00


3/26/2009




NOWG 2009 Meeting Schedule

Contact any of the Co-Chairs for complete meeting or conference call details [email protected] or [email protected] or

[email protected] (Other meetings for the NOWG may be scheduled as needed beyond what has been identified in this list)

Month Activity

July 21 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1pm ET, 1 hr

July 21 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2pm ET, 1 hr

August 13 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1pm ET, 1 hr

August 25 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2pm ET, 1 hr

September 15 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2pm ET, 1 hr

September 17 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1pm ET, 1 hr

mailto:[email protected]



NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) July 16, 2009 Co-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile USA Karen.

Documents

pa performance survey

pa performance reports

successful performance

met slide

performance year

pa slide

performance feedback

performance requirement