LNPA Working Group
Status Report to NANC
February 20, 2001

Charles Ryburn, ILEC Co-Chair
Stephen Addicks, CLEC Co-Chair
Brian Egbert, Wireless Co-Chair

Report Items
•	Wireless Number Portability Subcommittee (WNP SC) Report  (Anne Cummins - Separate Handout)
•	LNPA Report
-NPAC Release Status
-PIM Report

	    Next Meeting …  March 13 – 15, Denver, CO – ESI Host
-    NPAC/SMS Release Status

Release 4.0
NAPM has revised SOW.  

	Release 5.0
		Working Group continues to work on requirements for change orders that will become release 5.0. 
-	PIM Report

PIM 1 – Multi-Service Provider (Reseller) Flows

Last month a sub-team of OBF and NNPO members worked on revised flows for porting with resellers. OBF now supports two options:
•	The original process where the New Service Provider manages the overall porting process, sending LSRs to both the New Network Service Provider (NNSP) and the Old Service Provider.
•	An alternate process where the (NNSP) receives the LSR from the Reseller then forwards it to the Old Network Service Provider.  Current OBF processes allow an SP to designate another company as an “Authorized Agent” to send the LSR for them.  This allows the NNSP to optionally send an LSR for the reseller without any change to the existing NANC flows.  
A new concern has been raised for instances where a reseller chooses to manage all the LSRs.  Some network service providers are concerned that a reseller will be entering NNSP data on the LSR, or committing the NNSP to timeframes without their control or knowledge.  Network Service Providers are not going to accept allowing third parties to commit them to actions that are subject to performance metrics without consent and control.  NNPO will discuss this issue next week.  

PIM 5 – Inadvertent Porting
We reviewed the current status of corporate positions on this subject.  BellSouth does not think this process should be applied to cases where a service provider has gone out of business.  
Verizon still advocates adoption of this process and stated that the reason they are so adamant in their support of the PIM-5 process is that they have recently experienced having the New York City poison control hotline and the main number for a hospital inadvertently ported.  The other service provider could not be contacted at the times these problems occurred.  
Companies who would prefer that this PIM 5 be withdrawn include:  Qwest, WorldCom, BellSouth, Sprint, AT&T, 
SBC is neutral on the subject.
The group’s consensus is that this problem could be resolved if all carriers maintain 7x24 hr contacts with the authority and capability to perform emergency porting and back out of porting. 

The LNPA chose to:  
1)	Take the suggestion to NANC that all carriers be required to provide 7x24 support for emergency porting.  
2)	Once NANC has responded, LNPA will consider voting to close the PIM.

PIM 6 – NENA request for standard on unlock/migrate transactions during porting

There are two aspects to PIM 6
•	Timeliness of the data update –  NENA is currently working on an error resolution process to clean up all of the unlocked and partially migrated numbers in their databases.  NENA will begin work on modifying the migrate process to put it in the control of the New Service provider after they have completed the process for cleaning up the failed migrations.  NENA hopes to complete the error resolution process at their March meeting.  
•	EUMI – OBF  Delete/Inserts when the end user moves.  OBF has extensively discussed making the EUMI field a required field on the LSR, but some carriers are insisting that it be left “conditional.”  That is that carriers be required to mark EUMI field “yes” when the customer is moving, but that a blank field be interpreted as meaning “no”.

==== End of Report  ====