Team, attached are the "brief" (?) minutes of the 12/12-13/96 Operations meeting. The minutes were taken by Lorin Pollock (Sprint) and the bolded italics are additions from my notes. Our thanks to Lorin for trying to document our highly charged meetings. A difficult task to say the least.

In Attendance:

Dick Becker Cincinnati Bell

Ruth Fox Illuminet

Walt Subora Ameritech

John Shea JFS Telecom Consulting (representing Lockheed Martin)

Bob Chodkiewich Comcast

Sue Seitz Ameritech

Bill Belshaw MCI

Jim Joerger MCI

Richard Anderson MFS

Bettie Shelby MFS

Jan Trout-Avery Lockheed Martin

Bryan Bentlin Lockheed Martin

Lorin Pollock Sprint

Phil Presworsky Teleport

Victoria L. Cerinich INENA/Chicago Police Dept.

Harland H. Hector SR. Illinois NENA

Brent Struthers Illinois Commerce Commission

Ed Elkin AT&T

Fay Seymour Lucent Technologies

Joan Ahern Bell Atlantic

Karen Kay TWC

Gene Johnston GTE

Robert Junlemann GTE

Jeff Rodrigues Chicago 9-1-1

Rick Jones Winnebago Co. 9-1-1

Steve Markowski Lockheed Martin

Don Dabney SWBT

Dave Garner Sprint

Larry Lovett Sprint

Barry Bishop Ameritech

Donna Navickas Ameritech

DECEMBER 12, 1996 LNP OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING

BARRY BEGAN MEETING WITH UPDATE

Monday 12/16/96 is the next steering committee meeting.

Michigan meeting has the same major issue as ourselves with the process flows for provisioning.

Their roll out schedule is aligned with Illinois. Indiana was mandated by their commission to create a LNP Taskforce which will provide recommendations to the commission.

TCG (Phil Presworsky) presented a "strawman" for NPA/NXX opening for porting. Referring to the handout with questions framed in boxes. (sent in fax prior to meeting).

How will Service Providers notify others when a request is made to open a NPA/NXX? Only the owner of the NXX can make changes to the LERG. Phil proposed that a letter be sent to the Donor by the new service provider 45 days in advance. 45 days from the time that the LERG is updated. Discussion about who should make changes to the LERG to notify others of an NXX opening. For MSA 1, a schedule was made that shows when each switch will be opened for portability that is 98% complete.

Phil proposed that the new service provider send a letter to the NPA/NXX owner requesting porting capability by a specific date. Suggested that the issue of what the universe of NXXs is, be left to the Implementation team. The LERG is the source for determining which NPA/NXX's (switches) are LNP capable.

What information is provided in the request? Discussion about the DIG committee determining what information. Include NPA/NXX and the expected due date which is >45 days. The question about split NPA/NXX offices to the thousands group. The request should include the number range.

Who, within each service providers company, gets the information? The LERG has a contact person.

Should the request be sent at a specific time? How far in advance should the information be provided? What about how far in advance, i.e. six months, can information be input into the LERG as a long range forecast? What are LERG parameters? Suggested that the information must be provided by the 15th of the month prior to the LERG update which is capable of being updated by the end of the month for the next month issue.

Which service provider get the information. Should the letter be copied to the NPAC?

Determined that no other party is required to receive the letter and that the letter is to used only for the purpose of updating the LERG.

Should the sender expect an acknowledgment of receipt. What time frame should the acknowledgment be sent? Determined that there should be a positive acknowledgement on when the LERG would be updated.

Barry proposed that conversation be suspended until tomorrow so that the provisioning issues can be discussed.

Major discussion from 911 point of view about assurances that ported numbers are routing to the correct PSAP and that selective routers and ALI data bases are updated properly. They (emergency agencies) would like to have a box in the provisioning process that includes them in the process for notification of a number being ported. (Note: Attached is a memo from Mr. Richard Jones (Illinois NENA Region 3 vice-president) noting some of the concerns of the emergency service providers. Barry Bishop will arrange a separate meeting (in January) with the emergency service providers and Operations team members where the issues can be discussed and quantified so appropriate action can be taken. (Brent Struthers, can you provide me with the name and telephone number of the new 911 ICC Staff person?) BB)

J. JOERGER (MCI) presented the case for provisioning with the FOC being the vehicle for old service provider notification. He worked jointly with Ed of AT&T to develop the new process map and verbiage. The MCI proposal suggested the removal of old SP input into NPAC with the new SP in control of port process.

Following lunch, MCI Metro reviewed figure 5 proposal for cancellation of service order.

Major discussion took place concerning the changing of the provisioning process. Without checks and balances, customers may be placed out of service either intentionally or inadvertently. MCI stated that no service provider would jeopardize a customer as it would not be in their best interests. Dave of Sprint stated that we should take the opportunity to provide a check and balance system in the name of customer service.

Lockheed stated that a decision (concurrence) must be reached by 12/23/96 and the requirements re-written by 1/7/97 in order to meet a 4/1/97 delivery. They will provide a cost to the committee tomorrow

12/13/96. (Note: costs are proprietary information and will be made available to the individual companies NPAC team representative at the NPAC meeting. Please see your NPAC rep for details. BB)

Steve of Lockheed clarified the impact of the change orders related to NPAC.

Barry stated that listing the pros and cons from each position would probably not accomplish anything.

Barry suggested that a roll be taken to assess the position of each company.

Sprint is opposed

Ameritech is opposed

MFS is abstaining

TCG is for

MCI is for

AT&T is for

Barry asked other participates, not related to MSA 1 to comment.

Joan (Bell Atlantic) said that Maryland agrees that the old service provider does not want to input every order into the NPAC and therefore agrees with the MCI proposal.

Discussion :

Dave of Sprint proposed that the FOC process be strengthened to make an agreement to port prior to the FOC being returned. J.J. of MCI disagreed with this proposal because the old service provider could still impede an order to port a number.

Ruth (Illuminet) is on the fence

Bob of Comcast is on the fence

Karen of Time Warner is opposed and read a statement.

GTE is opposed.

SWBT is opposed

Is very apparent that no consensus will be reached on this issue. So do we have any suggestions?

Ed proposed a change to the process where the current service provider would send just the number and the due date to NPAC who would compare these entities for a match.

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1996 LNP OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING - DAY 2

Barry distributed "PROPOSED-prime LNP PROVISIONING PROCESS FLOW" from AT&T (modification of MCI proposal (see attached) BB)

Brent Struthers of the ICC e-mail address BSTRUTHE@ICC084R1STATE.IL.US would like each company to write their concerns to him about the provisioning process prior to Monday.

Ed Elkin (AT&T) presented his compromise proposal hand out. After discussion, AT&T withdrew their compromise proposal and supported MCIs' proposal from yesterday. MCI proposed that participants be polled about AT&Ts' proposal. The Canadian process was reviewed where no response from the current service provider does not stop the process. Sprint and Ameritech rejected AT&T's' proposal.

Barry stated that there is consensus that there is not consensus. Sprint would consider modification with the current provider having a halt capability. MCI & AT&T would not agree with Sprint. MFS would agree with any process that provides an exception report and the responsibility for the order stays with the new service provider, and therefore would accept Sprints' proposal. Ameritech would agree to compromise with a variation of Sprints' and AT&T's' proposals maintaining the capability of the incumbent LEC to hold the porting based on an NPAC information validation. If the ILEC sends no information to NPAC, the process continues.

This issue will be addressed at the Steering Committee meeting on Monday per Brent Struthers (ICC) and would prefer this group reach an agreement as a recommendation to the committee.

AT&T agreed with an interim solution with the following conditions:

1.) Maximum of one time into conflict state.

2.) Can't go into conflict less than xx hours prior to due date, due time.

3.) New service provider can take order out of conflict, into pending, by itself.

4.) Times: FOC returned within 24 hours of receipt of the LSR; 3 business days; 18 hours (conflict state)

-----> xx =30 hours (hours prior to due date/due time).

MCI stated that they would not agree with any process that allowed the old service provider to place an order into conflict. This forces the new service provider to take an action because the old provider may arbitrarily place the order in conflict. Jim would prefer that only the new service provider could place an order in conflict after hearing the old service providers' concerns via a phone call to them.

Discussion continued about timing in conflict as related to the 3 day provisioning process.

Discussion about the old service provider not supplying information to NPAC to have an accuracy check of the order. The order would continue to be processed and ported as scheduled. The old service provider may decide not to enter information into NPAC because they agree that the order is correct, or they over looked the order, which would be their own failure.

There is limited consensus (MCI disagrees) that an interim solution is:

1.) AT&T's' 4 conditions are met. (see above)

2.) Failure of the old service provider to provide order information to NPAC for comparison will not place an order into conflict.

3.) The new service provider has control over the conflict status.

4.) Old service provider "shall make a concerted effort" to contact the new service provider prior to placing an order into conflict.

5.) The new service provider "shall make a concerted effort" to contact the old service provider to remove an order from the conflict status.

The NPAC SMS must review this interim proposal to determine the impact on the delivery timeline.

(Handwritten changes to flows (Crafted by Ed Elkin (AT&T) and Dave Garner(Sprint) are attached. I will provide a more formal drawing ASAP (BB))

(Note: there are several caveats on the "Limited consensus" stated above:

  1. Whatever method used for an "interim method" will be prefaced with a letter to the FCC, NANC, ICC, (CC'ed to world in general), that in essence would state in essence " this method is only being used by the participants in MSA1 of Illinois in an effort of inter-company cooperation to meet the FCC mandated testing and timeline and is not to be construed as an endorsement of the method by the participants as a whole, nor should it be precedent setting merely due to it's application to foster the aforementioned testing ". (Please note that this verbiage is only an attempt (by me BB) to represent that a letter reflecting this sentiment or similar sentiment needs to be drafted and agreed upon by participants as a condition to even the "limited consensus")

  1. Some (if not all) of the participants in MSA1 need to discuss the "Limited Consensus" internal to their corporations before finalizing even the limited consensus. The MSA1 participants will discuss this internal to their corporations during the next week and meet on a conference call on Friday Dec 20th at 11:00 CST. The conference bridge number is 312-814-8097.

(While it was not discussed at the meeting, it is my assumption that this call is open to ALL participants to listen, but the discussion will be limited to the necessary MSA 1 participants who need to come to agreement (and of course Brent Struthers (ICC)). If this assumption is incorrect, please let me know BB)

  1. The information presented needs to be reviewed by the NPAC team and Lockheed with at the very minimum a rough assessment of impact provided to the Operations team.

****** (NPAC TEAM and LOCKHEED, once again the Operations team is asking for your input (in a very short time frame) based on the limited information contained in this document and the attached drawing)

Prior to the close of the meeting a discussion concerning the recommendation from the Operations team to the Steering committee regarding the Implementation date took place. We have received input from the test team that based on the current information they have received, that they feel they can have the testing completed by 8/15/97 and allowing two weeks for "cleanup, any necessary re-testing, etc." could be totally completed by 8/30/97 .

Short, but lively discussion ensued whether the recommended implementation date to the Steering committee should be 9/1/97 or 10/1/97, with differing opinions among participants.

Ameritech pointed out that it is difficult to commit to a 9/1/96 date when we do not have the basic provisioning process in place. We (Ameritech) do not know at this point if /when that process is finalized if it may (or may not) jeopardize any work which has taken place internally to support the originally agreed upon provisioning process flow, and that we feel that it would be premature to agree to the 9/1/97 .

Additional points were raised that there are many open and unresolved issues and that they have not been raised as an impediment to the earlier original date of 7/1/97.

There was no consensus at this point on a date certain for deployment by the members of the Operations team. There was agreement by participants that we would at this point work towards a 9/1/97 target date.

Due to the necessary short turn around time on the minutes (and also the volume of discussion that took place) these minutes (and attached proposed Interim provisioning flow) may be more prone to errors, omissions and/or misrepresentations than normal. Please feel free to contact me with necessary changes or additions and I will forward them to the team ASAP.

Barry Bishop

Operations Chairperson

312-220-8000

Concerns regarding LNP issues/procedures discussed at Operations Committee meeting 12/12/96.

Opening an NPA/NXX for porting

Potentially affected 9­1­ 1 systems should have access to when an NPA/NXX is opened for porting and which service provider is involved.

This would allow systems to do necessary pre­planning internally and also insure that contacts have been made with new provider regarding its planning.

Two concerns I would see from the service providers' view are ( 1) another time­consuming step which may not be necessary and (2) confidentiality.

Regarding (2) confidentiality, I would think some basic understandings/rules should take care of that. 9­1­1 is in the public safety arena and we are already covered by confidentiality/privacy laws throughout our profession.

Regarding concern ( 1 ), another time­consuming step which may not be necessary, it is needed for pre­planning so that when numbers in an NPA/NXX are ported by a specific service provider, we have internal plans and backup plans in place, and so that we know in advance, our contact procedure.

Our initial 9­1­1 problems with alternate exchange carriers in Illinois were largely created by lack of pre­planning and lack of contact with the new carrier.

Being involved in the LNP flow, first in the opening of NPA/NXXs for porting, can seriously minimize potential 9­1­1 problems.

Proposed LNP provisioning process flow

My concern with this area is two­fold. (1) Is the process being designed to move so quickly that accuracy of the needed 9­1­1 ANI routing and ALI display cannot possibly be done prior to a customer's dial tone being provided by a new carrier?

If this is so, I would think we in 9­1­1 have to be sure that the public knows this.

If this is not so, I would think some mention of this and how it is to be done should be included on whichever provisioning process flow is chosen.

I think that whether a customer can call Pizza Hut on his/her first day with a new service provider and correctly place an order with them utilizing their automatic address display, is something to be resolved between the customer and the new provider. However, I think we in 9­1­1 have a responsibility to our user base regardless of that user's choice of service provider.

Second (2), I seem to feel that speed of doing the provisioning is taking precedence over accuracy.

Enhanced 9­1­ I has been in Illinois approximately six years. During that time, we who have Ameritech has our main 9­1­1 provider, have been striving for database accuracy. This has included meetings and discussions regarding up to 6 different databases, none of which have seemed to totally agree at any point in time.

While we seem to be nearing some resolution on the three 9­1­1 databases (those being ANI/router, MSAG, and ALI, we seem to have work left to do regarding customer service orders, both new and changing ones.

If an Ameritech customer's order is processed correctly, that customer has dial tone within 3 days, however, current processing steps mean that the 9­1­1 displays may take another 24 hours to be correct. (This is better than the potential one week plus that currently exists when another telco has customers within the same system, prior to any alternate carriers coming in.)

Those that are not done correctly up front, may not be found until a 9­1­1 emergency call is placed six months later.

While it is not my place to get involved in an issue of which provider may have veto power or at least delaying power, it is my place to question whether a proposed process flow is accepting that customer record errors will occur as a part of new business procedures.

On a strictly monetary note, in Cook County only, there are more than 100 9­1­1 systems funded by surcharge from telephone customers. Each and every month, each customer pays 15 cents for accurate 9­1­1 ANI (so that the call routes correctly) and ALI (so that the address displays correctly).

Richard Jones

Ameritech­Illinois 9­1­1 Users' Group president

Illinois NENA Region 3 vice­president

9­1­1 supervisor

9­1­1 call taker