nanc report numbering oversight working group (nowg) june 20, 2013 co-chairs: laura dalton, verizon...
TRANSCRIPT
NANC Report
Numbering Oversight Working Group(NOWG)
June 20, 2013
Co-Chairs:
Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications
Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel
Contents
• 2012 NANPA Performance Report• 2012 PA Performance Report• NOWG Leadership• Outstanding PA Change Orders• Outstanding NANPA Change Orders• NOWG Participating Companies• Meeting Schedule
06/20/2013 2
06/20/2013 3
Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report
The NANPA’s annual performance assessment is based upon:
• 2012 Performance Feedback Survey
• Written comments and reports
• Annual Operational Review
• NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA
06/20/2013 4
Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report
NANPA’s rating for the 2012 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be Exceeded. This rating is defined below:
Satisfaction Rating Used when the NANPA...
EXCEEDEDExceeded performance requirement(s) Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectations Performance was well above requirements Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations
Summary 2012 NANPA Survey Respondents
5068
26
140150
69
4736
1534
26 19
4537 38
17 14 1626 30
22 20 21 21 20 27 27 29 2517
0
50
100
150
200
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
IndustryRegulators
06/20/2013 5
The total number of respondents to the 2012 NANPA Survey was down from 2011. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the NOWG performance survey:
06/20/2013 6
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
06/20/2013 7
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
06/20/2013 8
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
06/20/2013 9
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
06/20/2013 10
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
06/20/2013 11
Summary2012 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.
06/20/2013 12
Summary2012 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.
06/20/2013 13
Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report
Suggestions
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.
• 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.
06/20/2013 14
Summary 2012 PA Performance Report
The PA’s 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
06/20/2013 15
Summary 2012 PA Performance Report
The PA’s rating for the 2012 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be Exceeded. This rating is defined below:
Satisfaction Rating Used when the PA...
EXCEEDEDExceeded performance requirement(s) Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectations Performance was well above requirements Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations
Summary2012 PA Survey Respondents
32
71 68
55 53 50
65
56
40
68
1925 26 23
1725
32 31 30 30
0
20
40
60
80
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Industry & Other
Regulators
06/20/2013 16
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 2011. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:
06/20/2013 17
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
06/20/2013 18
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
06/20/2013 19
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
06/20/2013 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 .
06/20/2013 21
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
Summary 2012 RNA Survey Respondents
8
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
2012
Industry & Other
Regulators
06/20/2013 22
2012 is the first year for the RNA Survey and the following chart represents the number of Industry & Other and Regulators that participated in this year’s survey. In subsequent years, the chart will reflect the trend of respondents with previous years.
06/20/2013 23
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
06/20/2013 24
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
06/20/2013 25
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
06/20/2013 26
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
.
06/20/2013 27
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 email.
06/20/2013 28
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.
06/20/2013 29
Summary 2012 PA Performance Report
NOWG SuggestionsThe 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 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.
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
Outstanding NANPA Change Orders
Change Order Number
Date Filed Summary NOWG Status FCC Action Scheduled Implementation
Date
1 9/24/2012 INC 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
Outstanding PA Change Orders
Change Order Number
Date Filed Summary NOWG Status FCC Action Scheduled Implementation
Date
24 11/6/2012 Enhancement of the FTP Interface with
the Pooling Administration
System
NOWG Recommendation to
Approve sent to FCC on 11/16/2012
12/5/12 End of June 2013
23 6/1/2012 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 4/5/13
3206/20/2013
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
NOWG Upcoming Meeting Schedule – 2013
Month Activity
June 25 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hrNANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr *
July 16 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hrNANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr *
August 27 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1 pm Eastern, 1 hrNANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2 pm Eastern, 1 hr *
* NOWG-Only Monthly Call following Calls with the Administrators
3406/20/2013
NOWG Meetings
• Contact the Co-Chairs for complete meeting or conference call details: – [email protected]
• 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
06/20/2013 35