neustar questions “as the npac” reidway - napm llc · the neustar npac notify pas with...

Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List

1 | P a g e

The following table contains responses to written questions submitted through the comments feature on

the LNPA Transition tab of the napmllc.org website, or the TOEP webcasts, for which the party

submitting the question provided authorization to publish, provided the question (i) is of common

interest to the NPAC Community, (ii) has not been previously asked and answered, and (iii) is not

otherwise inappropriate.

Date Submitter Organization Question / Response

8/10/2017 Bill Reidway

Neustar Neustar Questions “as the NPAC”

Q1 Is there a contingency plan for the event iconectiv is not able or willing to

deliver, or service providers are unable to retrieve [the transaction report]?

The report which iconectiv provides is supplemental to SPs own records. If

iconectiv were unable to provide the report, then SPs would be expected to re-create the list of transactions.

Q2

Will larger providers be given priority over smaller providers?

Service Providers will all be treated equally; larger SPs will not be prioritized ahead of smaller providers.

Q3 Will there be a test / dry run of the proposed rollback plan?

A rollback simulation is not practical and is not planned. However, the

report creation and distribution process will be tested, and Service Providers are expected to test their own internal resubmission processes as

a preparatory measure.

Q4

What will trigger the creation of NPA-NXX-X records for pooling?

This is to be determined in discussions with the Pooling Administrator.

Q5

Is there a plan to address inter-SP ports in conflict upon resubmission?

Service Providers will need to coordinate porting activity with their peers

during rollback to prevent inter-SP conflict. Note that these requests will

already have been coordinated once so a second "re-coordination" should

be manageable.


2 | P a g e


Q6

When Neustar restarts its NPAC a large volume of timers will expire,

particularly for pending SVs. Does the rollback plan account for any

database clean-up which may be necessary?

The assumption is that the timers will expire as they usually do exiting the

maintenance window. Service Providers should take the appropriate

actions in response to the timer expiration.

Q7

If large numbers of transactions are resubmitted to NPAC manually by the

service providers is there a plan to avoid / mitigate human error?

Service Providers would follow normal porting processes to resubmit

transactions in the event a rollback were required.

Q8

If providers build automated solutions for resubmitting transactions, is

there an expectation that they be throttled in any way, to ensure the LNP

ecosystem isn’t impacted by high volumes?

If Service Providers build automated processes they will be expected to

stay within the defined industry volumes. The NPAC would similarly be

expected to handle the volumes in the same manner as is done today.

Questions “as a Vendor and Service Bureau”

Q1 Should the rollback scenarios be considered temporary, permanent, or

should stakeholders plan for both possibilities?

Rollback should be considered a temporary state, to be resolved as rapidly

as is prudent.

Q2a For how long will providers be asked to keep records of transactions?

Service Providers are expected to retain records of transactions as per their

normal practices. They should be retained for rollback for a minimum of

one week after migration unless notified by the TOM.


3 | P a g e


Q2b

Will iconectiv provide their reports only in the event of a rollback, or will they be generated automatically on a daily basis on iconectiv’s SFTP site?

iconectiv will post one or more reports for each participating Service Provider (that has successful transactions) to the SFTP site for download

only in the event of rollback. Note that these reports are intended to supplement, not replace, providers' own records.

Q3

When will the TOM provide details on all milestones and specific dates for

the additional rollback meetings?

The meetings and delivery schedule have been announced in the industry rollback presentations; this will continue in future presentations.

Q4a

How will providers that do not attend the TOM managed open conference bridge/WebEx be notified of a rollback decision?

Notification of a rollback decision will be provided via the open conference bridge, WebEx, and via iconectiv email to the primary contact of all

registered users.

Q4b Will iconectiv send reports directly to the NPAC or to Service Bureaus to

act on behalf of SPs?

iconectiv will post transaction reports for each participant Service Provider

to the SFTP server. All Users will be provided SFTP access and credentials as part of onboarding.

Q5

Can the TOM share the details of its 18-month feasibility study, detailing the options reviewed and criteria used to ensure that its proposed solution

was the most cost-effective and operationally efficient?

The TOM facilitated a series of joint reviews with iconectiv, Neustar, and

the NAPM throughout 2016/17 to develop and evaluate options. The results of this evaluation and NAPM decision have been shared in the various

TOEP sessions and Industry Rollback Working Sessions.

Q6

What protections, if any, are in place to guard against iconectiv being


4 | P a g e


unable or unwilling to provide the necessary data for service provider

reflows?

The report which iconectiv provides is supplemental to SPs own records. If

iconectiv were unable to provide the report, then SPs would be expected to re-create the list of transactions.

Q7a

Can the TOM share the report specification availability, format, and testing period information?

This information was provided at the August Industry Rollback Working Session, please refer to the material posted at http://napmllc.org under the

LNPA Transition tab.

Q7b Will the reports be simple transaction logs, or will they have additional

information to compute dependencies and sequencing requirements? Will the reports at a minimum be time-sorted?

The reports will provide a detailed record of every successful transaction as described in the August Industry Rollback Session. The transaction report

specification package (containing the specification spreadsheet, a guide to understanding the spec, and an example file) was distributed 25 August to

all registered users.

Q7c

Will the testing period include providers testing the reports with their vendors and current NPAC?

iconectiv will test the report creation and distribution process with Service

Providers beginning in January 2018. Service Providers may involve other parties, including service bureaus, at their discretion.

Q7d

Will service bureaus and providers be included in the process design and

transaction report format specifications that iconectiv and the TOM will deliver?

Industry feedback regarding the report format and process is always

evaluated when received. The report process and format were designed by iconectiv at TOM request. Industry feedback was solicited at both the July

and August Industry Rollback Working Sessions. Feedback received as of

24 August, prior to release of the specification, was considered for


5 | P a g e


inclusion.

Q7e

Will current NPAC validate that they can receive the reports iconectiv will

provide to each provider? Is there a test plan/dry run?

The NPAC does not receive Transaction reports, these are distributed to service providers. The NPAC will only be required to process porting

transactions as normal via CMIP, XML, MUMP, et al.

Q8a

How long may out-of-synch condition between the NPAC and LSMSs be tolerated?

Each SP should make its own determination as to when they are ready to

re-sync an LSMS with the NPAC. We expect that this will be region and Service Provider specific.

Q8b

How will vendors and service providers know that the roll-back is

complete?

A conference bridge and WebEx will be used to provide regular reporting on system status during each transition. These will be opened when

transition begins and will be maintained on an as-needed basis until the region(s) are accepted. In the event of rollback, these will be used to

provide regular reporting on rollback progress to all participants.

Q8c

If the LSMSs are not reconnected immediately, and some providers / service bureaus require an LSMS check for Old-SPID validation as part of

the pre-port activities for the re-flowed transactions, how will this be done?

Each SP should make its own determination as to when they are ready to re-sync an LSMS with the NPAC. We expect that this will be region and

Service Provider specific.

Q9a

Will the industry introduce any changes to standard processing?

No change to standard processing is planned.

Q9b

Will any regular NPAC activity be suspended while the reflow process is


6 | P a g e


being executed?

We do not anticipate suspension of regular NPAC activity. However, we

anticipate that Service Providers may elect to prioritize completion of old

(re-flow work) ahead of new work during the period immediately following rollback.

Q10

Will service providers and service bureaus be expected to throttle re-flowed transactions, to avoid exceeding performance parameters in other SOAs /

LSMSs receiving broadcasts and notifications?

If Service Providers build automated processes they will be expected to stay

within the defined industry volumes. The NPAC would similarly be expected to handle the volumes in the same manner as is done today.

Q11

Is there a dry run planned for the selected approach?

A rollback simulation is not practical and is not planned. However, the

report creation and distribution process will be tested, and Service Providers are expected to test their own internal resubmission processes as

a preparatory measure.

Questions “as the Pooling Administrator”

Q1

Will the service providers request that PAS resubmit requests to create the

dash-X elements or will they ask the NPAC directly?


Q2

Will there be any need on the part of the PA to store, reprocess, or

distribute the NPAC work item history, or history of Part 1B and Part 5

records, as part of roll-back?


Q3

What, if any, coordination is required to ensure proper sequencing of

event processing as part of roll-back? For example, block modifications on

blocks which have not been activated, etc.


7 | P a g e



Q4

When pooled block activations are processed by the Neustar NPAC will

the Neustar NPAC notify PAS with work-item completion / deletion

status, and is the PA expected to re-notify service providers via email, as

today?

In the event of a rollback, the Neustar NPAC and the PA is expected to

return to normal operations and process work in the usual manner.

Q5

How will constituents be notified that the roll-back process is complete,

and that all processing is back to business as usual?

A conference bridge and WebEx will be used to provide regular reporting

on system status during each transition. These will be opened when

transition begins and will be maintained on an as-needed basis until the

region(s) are accepted. In the event of rollback, these will be used to

provide regular reporting on rollback progress to all participants.

Q6

What is the TOM’s test planning and execution schedule for the rollback

solution?

A rollback simulation is not practical and is not planned. However, the report creation and distribution process will be tested, and Service

Providers are expected to test their own internal resubmission processes as a preparatory measure.


8 | P a g e


8/16/2017 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar Per your slide, if release B is scheduled to end mid-Dec ... how are we

starting to test mid-Nov? How will 7 weeks of testing for an XML SOA product end in Mid-December if any issues are discovered?

The testing schedule is dependent on the type of system: CMIP SOA or LSMS, XML SOA, and XML LSMS have slightly different timelines.

1) Neustar CMIP systems (7 in total) are expected to begin Release B testing

in mid-December (on or about 18 Dec). There is little testing to be done, only 1 week is estimated, to verify the MUMP and NPA Split test cases that

could not be completed under Release A. Although only 1 week is

expected, three weeks are allocated to allow for regression testing and vacations. SPs using these Neustar CMIP systems will likely have already

completed their mandatory testing and will likely have begun Group and Round Robin...once Neustar completes these last few cases then SPs may

include the extra few features in their testing as well. 2) Neustar's XML SOA is expected to begin Release B testing in mid-

November (on or about 13 Nov). Comprehensive SOA testing is expected to take 7 weeks, however 8 weeks are allocated to allow for vacations.

3) Neustar's XML LSMS is expected to begin Release B testing in mid-

November (on or about 13 Nov). Comprehensive LSMS testing is expected to take 3 weeks, however 4 weeks are allocated to allow for vacations.

In all cases it should be noted that if extensive issues are discovered or any

repairs require an extended period for repair that this would necessarily reduce the time available for Service Providers to test those features.

8/16/2017 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar In your timeline, where can we understand how much time they have

allocated for a circuit to be installed and tested?

Circuit install and testing is handled during the onboarding process, not as part of vendor certification or SB/SP testing. The TOM strongly

recommends that the Neustar Service Bureau begin onboarding as soon as

possible so as not to unduly burden its customers.

8/16/2017 Syed

Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar How much time is going to be allocated for Release B CMIP functionality

testing and Required Regression Testing?

The total time allocated for Release B CMIP testing is two and 1/2 months.

We estimate that an LSMS will require 1 week for testing and a SOA will require 2 weeks for testing during this period.


9 | P a g e


8/16/2017 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar When was mid-December decided for CMIP? What is the Schedule for this

round of testing? This round of testing is from mid-December to 2/28/18. It has been the plan

from the beginning that the CMIP vendors would return to complete CMIP

testing.

8/16/2017 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar How are customers who are on a SB and who are using XML going to

complete comprehensive testing? This seems like this schedule is putting XML clients in a very precarious position.

Based upon feedback from the industry, and the goal of allowing as much time as possible for Service Provider testing, additional analysis will be

done of specific vendor testing status, and if appropriate, Service Provider testing will start even if the vendor has not been certified. The remediation

of existing issues may occur outside the existing Release A testing windows and addressed in Release B.

8/16/2017 Syed

Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar What is the schedule for resolving the PIMs and Change Orders being

discussed at the LNPA? Without these being resolved, how will systems be certified? What happens if issues are discovered and we have to go through

the PIM process for XML?

PIMs and Change Orders are expeditiously being worked through the

LNPA WG to ensure that a disposition is reached and solution is implemented and retested within the existing testing windows. Any issues

that are not resolved in Release A, will be fixed in Release B.

8/16/2017 Syed

Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar How are systems being certified if there are outstanding issues on the

iconectiv side? In particular with the Change Order at the LNPA about

Error Codes? Do certified systems have to load the iconectiv Error Code File which isn't the same as the current NPAC?

Systems will only certified once all required test cases are completed. Failed

functionality will need to be retested once a fix is in place. Circuit install and testing is handled during the onboarding process, not as

part of vendor certification or SB/SP testing. The TOM strongly recommends that the Neustar Service Bureau begin onboarding as soon as

possible so as not to unduly burden its customers.


10 | P a g e


8/16/2017 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar Per the previous public statements of the TOM and iconectiv, Service

Provider testing would only happen once vendors were 100% certified. Why has this policy changed? What if issues are not resolved until Release

B or later in the year? How will carriers conduct their own

regression/certification? What is the time-table for resolving all these issues?

Service Provider testing will start even if vendor have not been certified to

ensure that adequate time is allotted for fixing and retesting any issues. The remediation of existing issues may occur outside the existing Release A

testing windows and be addressed in Release B.

8/16/2017 Syed Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar Considering that "technical issues were identified" and also that many systems under test have exceeded their allocated time for testing, how are

you planning on addressing the extremely tight schedule for Release B testing?

The issues identified in Release A are actively being remediated through the required channels to identify and implement a solution within the

existing timelines. Vendor certification is not being required for the start of Service Provider testing to relieve pressures on existing schedules.

Contingent testing windows have been incorporated into the plan to allow for the resolution and testing of identified issues.

8/16/2017 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar XML SOA certification is being allocated 7 or 8 weeks? Your chart says 7

weeks, however you stated 8 weeks verbally.

XML SOA certification testing is 7 weeks.

8/16/2017 Syed Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar Per your survey 25% of users are employing the service of a SB. If they use XML, the time table I'm looking at puts their testing availability into Feb

2018. How are they supposed to compare to the carriers who have the ability to do testing starting in October?

The schedules was defined to allow for adequate time for testing across all

user groups. However, we will monitor progress closely to make necessary adjustments.


11 | P a g e


8/16/17 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

What happens to your timeline if you find issues with XML testing let alone

any rollback testing?

The XML testing schedule incorporates time for issue resolution and

retesting any fixes. We will closely monitor testing and make necessary adjustments for any issues that require remediation outside the existing

testing windows.

8/16/17 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

What is the deadline for the LNPA WG to resolve all the open issues with

LSMS vendor testing?

A deadline has not been specified for the LNPA WG to resolve all open

issues with LSMS vendor testing. However, the LNPA working group recognizes the criticality of resolving these issues in an expedited manner.

Additional meetings were held in July and August to address the open issues.

8/16/17 John Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Look at your 4th quarter. We do not perform upgrades from November to January. How will this impact LSMS testing if upgrades or patches are

required?

Any patches or upgrades needed for industry testing would be done in test systems only. This should not impact production systems during the

industry freeze period. See previous question for timing of production

upgrades

8/16/17 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

What is the impact of testing my LSMS system IF my vendor is not

certified? Will I need to go back and re-test? How will issues be resolved with my vendor's system and with my system?

The purpose of Service Provider testing is to validate your User Profile. Any test cases currently failing with your vendor system will be fixed and

retested with your vendor and you will not need to re-test. You will, however, need to upgrade to your production LSMS to your vendor's

certified release level as quickly as possible after it has been certified, but no later than when transition is scheduled to begin April 7, 2018.


12 | P a g e


7/19/17 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar For Release B, how is the iconectiv/TOM planning on managing testing

efforts for the functions delta (new functions), the mandatory Regression testing for Vendors and Mechanized Users as well as XML testing. Per the

time-table, only 7 weeks are allocated (vs. 8 weeks for Release A), how do

we anticipate fixing any defects which may be discovered during that period?

Vendor testing begins November 13th, 2017. We expect that an XML SOA

will require seven (7) weeks to complete certification and that an XML LSMS will require four (4) weeks to complete certification. If testing begins

promptly, and no major issues are found with the vendor system(s), this

would result in certification near the end of 2017 for SOAs, and somewhat earlier for LSMSs. This allows nine (9) weeks for SP testing of an XML SOA,

and somewhat longer for an XML LSMS. If substantial issues are found during Vendor certification, the additional time for repair and regression

testing would reduce the time available for SP testing.

Please note that Release B includes more components than just the XML interface. These components (MUMP, IVR, billing, etc.) are not dependent

on XML and may be tested beginning as early as January 2nd, 2018.

7/19/17 Syed Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar When will the industry have an opportunity to review the Roll-Back testing plan?

The new LNPA will test the processes, procedures, and governance as part

of the regional transition testing. Additional details on the overall plan will

be shared in future industry working sessions, but SPs are also encouraged to review their internal transaction request resubmission processes

individually.

7/19/17 Syed

Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar Will the TOM please include Roll-Back testing on the time-line for

transition?

The rollback testing plan will be developed as the rollback testing plans are

finalized. We are currently gathering industry feedback on the planned approach. Additional details will follow.

7/19/17 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar When will specifications around Roll-Back be made available?

Expected availability of the rollback support specifications may be found in

the posted material from the July 12th meeting. Additional information will be provided in the planned August 16th meeting.


13 | P a g e


6/14/17 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

I understand that during the current vendor testing, defects have been

discovered. Can you please share which test-cases uncovered the defects, and also the details of these defects?

Going forward, what is the defect process management (for tracking)? And

what is the resolution process for these defects?

The TOM is not allowed to provide specific defect information because of the vendor confidentiality provisions agreed to by iconectiv and the

vendors. Please note that identified defects are under investigation.

When issues are discovered during testing they are investigated and

resolved by the vendor and iconectiv, leveraging an internal ticketing system and formal tracking mechanism. Vendors will need to pass all their

assigned test cases to be certified. Some issues may be connectivity issues or configuration issues either on the NPAC or the system under test, others

might be related to the vendor or NPAC software. The foremost goal is to resolve all issues within the vendor test window.

5/17/17 Jerry James LNP Alliance In testing, is iconectiv database real or sample/subset of the whole database or other?

The iconectiv test bed will use data known as the “Midwest Test Data”,

unloaded from the current NPAC testbed. During continued certification testing process, data will be created and managed by iconectiv on behalf of

those certifications tests. Actual regional databases unloads are also used in iconectiv internal testing of data migration, porting flows and performance.

5/17/17 Jerry James LNP Alliance How will you simulate load testing of the new system?

The iconectiv performance verification testing is done with porting

transaction loads (e.g.: create, concur and activate operations) meeting and exceeding the NPAC performance requirements. This is done in an

environment with full size databases and a representative number of

regional LTI, SOA and LSMS simulator instances. The testing flows are based on current industry performance validation practices as shown in

NANC Change Order 397.


14 | P a g e


5/17/17 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Will all "sanitized" vendor test results be shared with the Industry?

Sanitized - the vendor names will be changed to protect the guilty. Are all vendors using the same test plan?

Yes, the TOM will share aggregated vendor test results on future TOEP webcasts. Test plans are customized to match the requirements of the

System Under Test. So while the baseline tests are consistent, there can be differences depending on the capabilities implemented by each vendor.

5/17/17 Lori

Shepard

Windstream Would you be able to publish what SOAs/Service Bureaus have tested/plan

to test? We are not planning to publish the SOAs/Service Bureaus that have tested/plan to test. SOA Service Bureaus with a mechanized interface are

required to test with the iconectiv NPAC, and can do so once their vendor's SOA system has been certified with iconectiv.

We will provide aggregated testing results that are not SOA/Service Bureau

specific. We encourage users to reach out to their SOAs/Service Bureau to

understand the status of their testing efforts.

5/17/17 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar Can the TOM confirm that iconectiv had a 100% pass rate for their

requirements prior to opening up their NPAC system for testing? Can specific metrics be shared with the industry?

Yes, iconectiv had a 100% pass rate for their requirements prior to opening their NPAC system for external industry testing. The features delivered in

Release A to support vendor and external industry testing were fully tested internally and met all the quality criteria to be released for external industry

testing. Those quality gates include functionality, industry porting and process flows and performance testing.

No additional pre-industry testing metrics are expected to be shared.

However, we will be reporting aggregated industry test results in future

TOEP webcasts.

5/17/17 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar Which specific FRS requirements will be addressed in Release A and Release

B? In your previous TOEP seminars you indicated core functionality, however SPID migration are fundamental to porting functionality.

Release B contains XML, NPA Splits, SPID migration, MU/MP process, Pooling Administration Service Interface, and Ancillary Services. All other

FRS requirements are covered in Release A.


15 | P a g e


5/17/17 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar Will all type of Service Provider be able to participate in Round-

Robin/Group Testing?

Yes. The Group and Round Robin testing is being facilitated by the NANC's

LNPA WG. Questions regarding the participation in those tests should be addressed by the LNPA WG. It is the TOM's understanding that those tests

are focused on wireless-to-wireless, wireline-to-wireline, and intermodal (being between wireless and wireline providers).

5/17/17 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar The TOM indicated they would give the industry a statement of readiness

with key metrics of what iconectiv-as-NPAC has completed to prepare for the industry testing. Will the TOM be formally issuing a statement of

readiness? The TOM is not planning on providing any additional statements of testing readiness beyond what was announced in the TOEP webcast.

The TOM is not planning on providing any additional statements of testing

readiness beyond what was announced on the May TOEP webcast.

As indicated on the webcast, Release A has successfully completed

iconectiv’s quality assurance process and is ready for external industry testing, starting with SOA and LSMS CMIP vendors. iconectiv has

completed the following 5 complementary internal testing activities to ensure testing readiness: development testing, independent quality

assurance, internal industry testing, performance testing and solution testing.

4/12/17 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

When is iconectiv going to tell the mandatory mechanized users where we

need to order circuits to?

Once each mechanized user has completed registration, iconectiv will provide that user with the details on ordering of its dedicated circuits to the

new iconectiv NPAC data centers.


Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

What about the 1000+ legal entities that have not started Onboarding?

iconectiv is actively conducting outreach to legal entities that have not started onboarding. Through this outreach, a number of NPAC users were

discovered to be defunct. These preliminary conclusions are being verified

and iconectiv's onboarding team will continue its effort to register all active legal entities through Q2 2018. iconectiv is on track to obtain a final

disposition for all legal entities prior to the transition.


16 | P a g e


3/15/17 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Will users test to Release A or B?

Release A and B include different components of the system, for example,

the CMIP interface is included in Release A, while Ancillary Services and

XML interface are in Release B. Mechanized users will test only the appropriate functionality that their system utilizes. A mechanized user with

a CMIP interface is expected to test in Release A. A mechanized user with an XML interface is expected to test in Release B.

3/15/17 Syed

Mubeen Saifullah

Neustar On your industry testing section, you mention that 5 acceptance test plans

have been approved by the NAPM LLC in conjunction with the FCC along with 1 more testing plan which is pending approval. When will these test

plans and the results of their testing be released and made public?

The Acceptance Test Plans are provided to the NAPM LLC and FCC for review as required under the MSA. There are no current plans to further

publicize these documents or their results.


Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

If I have to test to Release A & B - do I have to perform my MANDATED testing twice?

Mechanized users will receive a single test plan that will contain

components of Release A and B based upon their functionality. Provided

testing is successful, users will only have to test once.

2/15/17 Syed Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar When will iconectiv or the TOM be sharing detailed testing results showing industry readiness? Also, during testing, will there be clear communication

regarding success, defects, and issues discovered? Who will be the primary communicator of these? TOM or iconectiv?

Detailed test results will be provided to the NAPM and FCC in accordance

with the MSA. Note that results will be provided in a form that does not

identify specific vendors or service providers. A summary of testing

progress will be shared by the TOM during the monthly TEOP webcasts.

2/15/17 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

What will happen if an LSMS is down at the time of

transition/cutover?

In the event an LSMS is out of service during the transition, that LSMS

would need to be brought up with the new LNPA (iconectiv) and re-

synchronized. The process for doing so will depend in part on how long

the LSMS has been out of service.


17 | P a g e


1/18/17 Syed

Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar When will the TOM or the LNPA include vendors and carriers in the

discussion around Roll Back? There are likely processes and procedures

which will impact the industry and we are respectfully requesting the

need to be part of these discussions.

The rollback capability is currently being defined with Neustar and

iconectiv. The local system vendors have all been invited to join in the

transition process, beginning with onboarding. Participating vendors will

be engaged in the rollback planning as soon as their involvement is

warranted.

1/18/17 Jerry James Jerry James

Associates

How will calls between regions during the transition be handled?

The NPAC data is managed region-by-region today, and the transition

does not directly affect carrier switching systems, so call routing during

transition will not be impacted.

12/13/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

What is the impact of operating in the Southeast and Midwest? Do I have

to perform two cutovers?

Yes, if you operate in both of these regions, then you will need to

participate in two regional transitions. If you are working with a Service

Bureau that is implementing the “cutover” on your behalf, we expect your

Service Bureau to manage this change with limited impact to you.

12/13/16 Scharleen

Citron

West Are authorized users everyone who will eventually use the service or just

for initial set-up etc.?

Authorized users are the individuals who will utilize iconectiv's LNPA

NPAC services after transition.

10/27/13 Lisa

DeKalb

BroadRiver

Communicati

on Corp

Is there a task list we can use as a service provider to ensure we are

completing all the on boarding steps in a timely manner?

To get started with onboarding, please begin by registering online at

www.numberportability.com. Once you have registered, you will fill out a

Non-Disclosure Agreement, next a User Agreement, and finally a Regional

User Agreement. For additional questions concerning on-boarding, please

contact iconectiv at 844-820-8039, or you can email iconectiv at:

[email protected].


18 | P a g e


10/27/13 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

I have an NCA issue and I need a human contact not a web address to talk

to.

Thank you for your question. For questions concerning on-boarding,

please contact iconectiv at 844-820-8039, or you can email iconectiv at

[email protected].

9/21/16 Mandi

Naylor

Comtech

Telecommuni

cations Corp

Are the costs of services changing at all with the transition?

Pricing is specific to each User and will be provided by iconectiv during

onboarding. Pricing under the contract with the new LNPA is

substantially lower, to the industry overall, than that of the current LNPA

9/21/16 Syed

Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar Per your August presentation (slide 10), Release A will include: core

NPAC/SMS services, including the CMIP, LTI Interfaces and Data

migration tools.

Release B will include XML, SPID Migration, MUMP, Pooling and

Ancillary Services.

As I’m sure you are aware, the SOA using CMIP today has the

functionality for both SPID Migration and Pooling. If I’m certified on

Release A, per your presentation it seems that I will have to re-certify parts

of my CMIP SOA on Release B. Is that an accurate understanding? If not,

can you please clarify?

Vendor interoperability testing may take place in stages and may require

repetition/re-certification depending on the vendor’s product, feature set,

maturity, performance during testing, or for other reasons. Vendors will

be expected to actively participate as in any major system release or

upgrade.

8/31/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

When can I expect to be contacted by my iconectiv rep?

If you are the primary contact for your company, you should have already

been contacted. If you have not yet heard from iconectiv, and you are the

primary contact, please contact iconectiv at: LNPA-ACCT-

[email protected]

8/31/16 Ross Olsen AT&T I've heard no mention of the Canada NPAC regional transition. Does your

transition plan include the Canada region?

The LNPA Transition affects only the USA. Canada is not within the scope

of this transition.


19 | P a g e


8/31/16 Syed

Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar iconectiv has stated that only representatives from the User itself can be a

primary contact. In some cases today, Service Bureaus act as the primary

contact, is this a change in policy and can you explain the reasoning

behind it?

Service Bureaus may continue to act as the primary contact for Service

Providers for certain activities and coordination, and this will remain the

preferred approach. However, the NPAC vendor is required to maintain

direct User contacts for some items like NDAs and Regional User

Agreements, so the User can be contacted directly.

8/31/16 Syed

Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar Also, please confirm whether vendors and mechanized users are expected

to certify against an unfinished system at the end of the release. Or if

vendors/mechanized users will be expected to re-certify if a major bug fix

is identified.

As noted in the webcast, the underlying platform will be completed and

tested first. Thereafter, the CMIP interface will be made available for

Vendor testing. The XML interface will be made available later in the

schedule.

In the event that defects are found during any phase of testing, the TOM

will work with iconectiv to have them corrected. Any re-certification that

may be required would depend on the nature of the defect and resolution.

8/31/16 Syed

Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar Based on what I just heard, can you please clarify...will testing be different

for vendors?

If you intended to ask "will Vendor certification be different than

Mechanized User certification" then, yes, the two test suites could be

different.

If you intended to ask "will all Vendors be required to pass the same

certification testing" the answer is also yes, certification will be the same

for all Vendors although of course SOA system testing will be different

from LSMS testing, just as it is in today’s environment.

8/31/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

If I own an LSMS am I considered a Mechanized User or If my vendor

certifies then I am certified? Please clarify.

If you operate an LSMS, then you are considered a Mechanized User. First,

the Vendor that developed your LSMS must certify their product(s) that

you are using. When the Vendor completes certification then you will be

required to test your as-built configuration.


20 | P a g e


8/31/16 Ross Olsen AT&T Does the transition include the current Neustar Lab/Testing environment?

The Neustar lab/test environment will not transfer, but the test data

service providers have built in the Neustar testbed will populate the

iconectiv testbed. iconectiv will provide a similar lab/test environment as

required by the contract.

8/31/16 Eric Goble Windstream

Communicati

ons

Assumed no impact to our current Neustar/SOA until cutover?

No impact is expected to your current SOA before cutover.


Communicati

ons

As a large service provider across multiple states it sounds like we will

have "dual" systems running for a period of time or can we convert all at

once?

If you operate across multiple regions and those regions are not in the

same cutover group, then you will likely have to maintain multiple

connections during the migration.

8/31/16 Syed

Mubeen

Saifullah

Neustar You just stated that we would be testing against a fully tested system. If I

as a vendor am testing against iconectiv release A, and release B isn't done

yet, how will this be managed?

Release A includes the complete CMIP interface and NPAC/SMS

functionality. Release B includes the complete XML interface and

'additional' functions like Mass Updates/Mass Ports. Each release will be

fully tested before involving vendors.


Communicati

ons

Is there a map of the regions we can look at? Is there a time line on each

region?

A region map maybe found at:

https://www.npac.com/the-npac/about/npac-regions

Precise timing for each region has not yet been finalized as the migrations

will not occur until 2018.

8/31/16 Jerry James LNP Alliance Will IP to IP routing be available under the iconectiv system?

IP-to-IP routing is being accomplished today. If providers are using NPAC

fields to IP route today, they will continue to be able to do so when the

iconectiv NPAC is in place.

8/31/16 Lauren

Calaby

Intermedia Will iconectiv offer a similar service as Neustar's Port PS service?

iconectiv will provide a capability called Port Query Service.


21 | P a g e


7/21/16 Jim Falvey Eckert

Seamans on

behalf of the

LNP Alliance

How is it that you can say that the press has confirmed that the MSA has

been approved when the FCC has not issued a public order approving the

MSA? What press are you referring to? And won't the MSA actually be

approved only when an FCC order is issued approving it?

During the webcast, the TOM said “As of today, we understand that the

press is reporting that the FCC has confirmed that the Master Services

Agreement between iconectiv and the NAPM has been approved”. We

mentioned this because, shortly before the webcast, we learned that a

publication had reported it. We have subsequently learned that an FCC

order approving the MSA has been released.

7/21/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

20 years later - Why can't iconectiv make Onboarding easier?

Onboarding, as detailed during the webcast, must necessarily verify a

minimal set of regulatory, legal, and technical information to meet FCC

and Industry requirements. The iconectiv process is very similar to what is

done today to onboard with the current NPAC.

7/21/16 James

Nelson

State of NH -

DESC

Will Law Enforcement/PSAP users also use the iconectiv website to

register for access?

Soon after the signing of the MSA, Service Providers, Service Bureaus and

Providers of Telecom Related Services (PTRS) will be able register with the

iconectiv NPAC. Instruction for registration will be provided at that time.

Plans for outreach to the Law Enforcement, Wireless Do Not Call

(WDNC), and other users of ancillary services are underway and will be

shared in the coming months. Information on how to register will be

shared at that time.

7/21/16 Bridget

Alexander

JSI Will iconectiv have to be added as an insured on all SP and Service Bureau

insurance policies?

All Service Providers and Providers of Telecom Related Services

registering with the iconectiv NPAC must furnish a certificate showing

that either (1) iconectiv has been specifically added to their insurance

policy as an additional insured or (2) evidence that their insurance policy

includes coverage for all of their vendors (which would include iconectiv)

as additional insureds. Additional details will be provided during the

onboarding process.


22 | P a g e


6/21/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

What did the TOM learn at the NENA conference?

The TOM met with a number of industry participants and revisited the

state of the transition as presented in the TOEP webcast series. Project

schedule is a continuing area of interest and that testing, in particular,

seems to be the biggest concern.

6/21/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

"What is the status of "The Contract”?

The MSA (Master Services Agreement, "the Contract") remains in review

with the FCC.

6/21/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Onboarding Webinars - when?

We do not have a specific schedule for onboarding yet as the MSA is not

yet approved. We will provide more detail as soon as approvals complete

and information is available.

6/21/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

How many people have you met with in face to face events?

The number varies by event of course; overall the face-to-face events have

been attended by roughly 100 in total.


23 | P a g e


6/21/16 James

Falvey

Eckert

Seamans

Cherin &

Mellott, LLC

You mentioned on the webcast you will release "revised Gantt charts" once

the MSA is approved. Could you release current Gantt charts so

companies can understand the interdependencies in the process?

Could you release a Gantt chart with MSA approval listed as Day 1? Are

there financial or other restrictions on the TOM performing this type of

work at this time?"

An approximate Gantt chart is included in the TOP posted at the NAPM

LLC site (https://napmllc.org) on the "LNPA Transition" tab under the

"Reference Documents" menu selection. Additional detail on some

components has been provide in the April and prior webcasts, the material

for which is also posted to the website above.

In terms of issuing an MSA Day 1 Gantt chart, it’s not quite as simple as a

proportional change rippling through the work plan. The TOM has heard

stakeholder concerns around planning Q4 activities, due to resource

bandwidth, higher volumes, blackout periods and other constraints. Some

activities can be re-sequenced to avoid these periods, while for other tasks,

there are stronger dependencies which limit flexibility. Additionally, some

activities can be accelerated by deploying more iconectiv resources, while

others can’t. However, this can only scale so far, there are minimum times

independent of resources applied.

All of this needs to be brought together, and until the MSA is approved

and start dates for key activities like data center construction are known,

we won’t be able to best fit together all the moving pieces to orchestrate a

transition that is well-tested, orderly, and as timely as appropriate. Once

we have clarity on front-end approvals, the TOM will work with iconectiv,

Neustar, the FCC, the NAPM, industry and other stakeholders to define

an optimum transition schedule based on all the factors involved.

6/21/16 Rachel

Hamilton

Walnut

Telephone

Company

How do we verify our info in NPAC - just call the help desk?

Contact Neustar, the current LNPA, to verify your Primary and Secondary

contacts in the NPAC. The help desk is one good way to contact Neustar.

6/21/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

The NPAC sends out a contact email every month. Are you using that list?

Are you using the LNPA WG Contact List?

The contact email lists are a supplementary component of the overall

outreach list. However, the Primary and Secondary contacts in the NPAC

are the official contacts and are expected to be more reliable.


24 | P a g e


6/21/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Is the Mechanized User Test Plan available?

The onboarding process for Mechanized Users, and more detailed

onboarding plans generally, will be released following MSA approval.

Specific test plans for Mechanized Users will be tailored to their systems

and will be co-developed/shared during onboarding.

6/21/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Why do I have to re-test things that my vendor has already tested?

As noted in the FAQ: Vendors’ LSMS and SOA products must be certified

for proper function. However testing the 'vanilla' product is not the same

as testing the actual in-service system as configured. So, once Vendor

certification is complete, all of the local systems (LSMS/SOA) that connect

to the NPAC must be tested to verify that their specific configuration and

connection settings are being supported correctly.

5/25/16

John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

What is the value of attending the face-to-face meeting in Indianapolis in

June if there is no formal agenda or presentation?

In-person meetings provide stakeholders the opportunity to share

perspectives and ask questions about the LNPA transition. These events

offer a less formal and structured environment than allowed by the

webcast format.

5/25/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Is a list of the questions asked at the LNPA WG face-to-face meeting

available?

No. However, questions of general interest arising from such in-person

meetings will be added to the Frequently Asked Questions list maintained

by the TOM and posted to https://www.napmllc.org.

Note that in-person meetings will not be used to announce new

information.

5/25/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

TOEP Events - No formal presentation and no agenda - Why should I

attend?

In-person meetings provide stakeholders the opportunity to share

perspectives and ask questions about the LNPA transition. These events

offer a less formal and structured environment than allowed by the

webcast format. Attendance is entirely at your discretion.


25 | P a g e


5/25/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

iconectiv can add resources at their end but I can't at my end. So I do not

like the shortened testing interval.

As discussed in the May 25, 2016 TOEP webcast, iconectiv has added

resources to support a larger number of users testing at the same time. Enabling more testing in parallel can shorten the overall testing period

without impacting the testing period for each user.

5/25/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

If my vendor tests my LSMS against iconectiv what can be gained by me

re-testing the same LSMS if on the same release?

Please see the response to question “If my Vendor tests - do I have to

test?” below. Note that, as described in the FAQ, “vendor” means an

LSMS (or SOA) software developer. We refer to an entity that operates an

LSMS as a Service Provider or Service Bureau. If you use a mechanized

Service Bureau to connect to the NPAC, then their testing will be

mandatory but yours will be optional.

5/25/16 Jerry James Jerry James

Associates

Before going "live" with the new LNPA, will the testing be real time and

with real data?

As described in the FAQ, iconectiv NPAC testing will include use of a live

system operating with the “Midwest Testbed Data” as is done by the

current NPAC.

5/25/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

I have a Test LSMS Platform. Can I run my certification tests from the test

LSMS or do I have to run my tests from the live LSMS?

Your production configuration must be validated, not necessarily the

production system. During onboarding, iconectiv will work with you to

develop an appropriate test plan and assess which system(s) to test.


26 | P a g e


4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

What entities will be required to perform certification testing besides

vendors? Service Providers? On the FAQs it says that vendors can test on

behalf of SPs, does that mean Service Provider testing is optional? Service

Provider Testing: why do I have to test IF my vendor has already certified

my release? The only difference may be options and IP addresses...this is

why I pay my vendor. For a system that I know already works.

Clarification of terms may be helpful: we refer to vendors as those that

develop and sell local systems (LSMS/SOA) but do not operate them. We

refer to Service Bureaus as those that operate local systems (acquired from

Vendors) on behalf of Service Providers and PTRS. Note that some

Vendors may separately operate a Service Bureau business.

The Vendors’ LSMS and SOA products must be certified for proper

function. However this is not the same as testing the actual in-service

system as configured. So, once Vendor certification is complete, all of the

local systems (LSMS/SOA) that connect through a mechanized interface to

the NPAC, must be tested to verify that their specific configuration and

connection settings are being supported correctly. Testing for other users

(e.g., Service Providers using Service Bureaus or non-mechanized NPAC

users) is optional.

4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Will iconectiv attempt to automate SPID updates?

SPID migrations will continue to operate as defined in the Functional

Requirements Specifications (FRS). Automation of the processing of SPID

migration data provided by the NPAC is a feature that would need to be

provided by a downstream system (e.g. LSMS vendor or systems

integrator).

4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

How will test results from ad-hoc testing (i.e., testing outside the

mandated test cases that vendors are required to execute) be reviewed and

addressed?

The incoming LNPA will provide test engineers and a help desk to

facilitate the testing process, including trouble reporting and problem

resolution. In addition, the TOM will share aggregated test results with

the Industry to provide an overall view of testing while maintaining

anonymity for individual testers.


27 | P a g e


4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

What did you present at the outreach event last week?

There was no presentation and no new information was released. In -

person meetings offer stakeholders a forum to share perspectives and ask

questions about the LNPA transition. These events are informal and

intended in large part to gather stakeholder input.

4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

How will performance testing be executed and measured? There is no

detail provided in the latest published timeline.

Performance testing is part of the overall transition plan. Details are not

yet ready for release.

4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

How do I get a copy of the FRS? What about things the Neustar NPAC

does that are not in the FRS? Will iconectiv do these things too?

All functionality required of the current NPAC will be part of the iconectiv

NPAC and is within the scope of this transition. The associated FRS

(functional requirements specification) is available at

https://www.npac.com on the “The NPAC” tab under “Software

Releases”.

Some included components, beyond the core NPAC/SMS are: mass ports,

mass updates, most regular and custom/ad hoc reports, ELEP service (also

known as LEAP), WDNC service, and Bulk Data Download (BDD) file

support. If you have a question about a specific feature that is not the

subject of an FRS requirement, please contact us.

4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Will a failover exercise be part of testing? During vendor testing? During

Service Provider testing?

An extensive suite of testing is integral to the project plan and will be

implemented in multiple levels from Vendor through Service Provider

and Ancillary Services user. Testing will cover the functional and

operational elements of the system including security, disaster, continuity,

and performance components.

4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Will I have to pay iconectiv to test?

Total cost of services through the new LNPA are expected to be lower

than those of the current LNPA. Fees for the different NPAC services will

be communicated during your onboarding process.


28 | P a g e


4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Where will iconectiv's test bed be located and is there a document for

interconnection?

The network interconnection locations for the new LNPA production and

test platforms are not the same as Neustar’s current locations. During the

onboarding process, the new LNPA will provide the details required for

interconnection.

4/20/16 Scott

Hillman

Verizon Statement that connectivity to iconectiv Midwest NPAC TESTBED from

LSMS and SOA systems would not require T1 connections by service

providers is inaccurate. All service providers with a mechanized interface

will need to establish circuits to the new iconectiv datacenters.

The datacenters for the new LNPA are not in the same locations as those

of the current LNPA. The new LNPA will support testing over VPN

connections over the Internet. While T1s will be supported, they are not

required for testing.

4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Will iconectiv perform any kind of verification to ensure that some SPs are

not hoarding numbers and have release back non-working numbers?

iconectiv will perform all tasks for which the LNPA is responsible in

accordance with the relevant specification or regulation. This includes a

range of block pooling and snapback activities in support of number

management.

4/20/16 Scharleen

Citron

Intrado /

West Safety

Services

When will the MSA be available for review? Will we be able to access the

MSA from the NAPM website? Will there be time to review the MSA and

submit comments?

The MSA has been released by the FCC under a protective order and is

available for review by permitted parties. Additionally, a redacted, public-

inspection version (outside the protective order) has been made available

on the napmllc.org website.

4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Last Webcast you stated you would be at the LNPA WG AFTER the

Raleigh-Durham meeting in JULY - What happened?

TOEP schedule announcements and the list of events which the TOM

expects to attend in 2016 are posted on napmllc.org. The current event list

includes both the May and July LNPA Working Group meetings. Prior

TOEP participants, and those identified in TOEP mailing lists, will receive

updates by email.


29 | P a g e


4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Mass Ops Modify plus, will it work as before? And will it still be free?

Mass Update/Mass Create/Mass Release/Mass Activate/Mass

Disconnect/Create Activate

Mass actions (like mass updates, creates, releases, and activates) will be

supported by the new LNPA and operate as defined in the FRS.

Total cost of services through the new LNPA are expected to be lower

than those of the current LNPA. Fees for the different NPAC services will

be communicated during your onboarding process.

4/20/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Will iconectiv's locations be geographically diverse?

Yes, geographic diversity is part of the high availability/redundancy

requirements that the new LNPA must meet.

4/4/16 Justin Akin River Road Asset Management

How will pricing be determined for non-NAPM members with regard to

the ENUM registry?

ENUM registry is outside the scope of the LNPA transition. Please

contact your current ENUM registry provider for details.


Why is the IP transition not a part of the LNPA transition?

IP transition is a separate initiative with multiple components that is

being evaluated on its own timetable. It is expected that, if there are any

NPAC updates required for IP transition, they will be incorporated when

available.


Will Telcordia be able to introduce new revenue opportunities outside of

the core services outlined in their RFP?

Telcordia is a commercial enterprise and can pursue revenue

opportunities beyond the services outlined in the RFP. However, there

are restrictions that prohibit Telcordia from using its position as the

LNPA to favor its other service offerings.


30 | P a g e



Why does the FCC consider Telcordia (a subsidiary of Ericsson - who

provides wireless network support services to major carriers) to be a

neutral administrator?

Section E of the FCC’s March 27, 2015 selection order captures the FCC’s

neutrality considerations and the steps that Telcordia has taken to

address neutrality.

The order states “FCC has undertaken a careful and extensive review of

Telcordia’s fitness to serve as a neutral LNPA”. It also states, “Telcordia

has proposed safeguards to ameliorate possible undue influence from

Ericsson…We find that, when considered together in light of the

safeguards and conditions that we adopt in this Order, Telcordia will not

be subject to undue influence by Ericsson, nor will Ericsson adversely

affect Telcordia’s ability to serve as a neutral LNPA.”

3/9/16 Eliza

Wygant

West Safety Systems / Intrado

What type of testing will be needed if you don't know the type of

connection you currently have vs. what you will need after transition?

For example I am not sure if I am using a mechanized interface,

mechanized SBs, LTI SBs, IVR, or Help Desk?

iconectiv will determine your current status using the NPAC SMS data

and will contact you for onboarding at the appropriate stage. During

onboarding your connection details and profile information will be

determined and updated/corrected as needed. This will inform the

required testing. If you have questions as to your onboarding group,

please send an email to [email protected].

3/9/16 Jerry James LNP Alliance During the testing, will the iconectiv database be "live" and mirror

the existing database or be a "mock" database?

The iconectiv testbed will be a live NPAC testbed containing the

same Midwest region test data as the Neustar test bed.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

What is the projected testing timeframe? Best guess?

The projected testing timeframe was covered during the 1/27/16

TOEP webcast. Materials from the webcast are available on the

napmllc.org website.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

If my Vendor tests - do I have to test?

Vendors and mechanized service providers, mechanized service bureaus

and mechanized PTRS users will need to complete industry testing. In

some cases, service bureaus may test on behalf of service providers.

mailto:[email protected]


31 | P a g e


3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Any cost to test with iconectiv?

Information related to iconectiv testing costs, if any, will be

available upon completion and approval of the iconectiv MSA.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

To onboard we need to know where the systems are, so where are we

connecting to? This takes a while.

The network interconnection locations for iconectiv have been identified

and will be different than Neustar’s current locations. As part of the

onboarding process, iconectiv will provide the location details required

for interconnection.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Who is our account manager and when and how do we get RUAs?

Once the contract with iconectiv is executed, iconectiv representatives will

begin their outreach to existing users of the NPAC. Additionally, you can

reach iconectiv at [email protected] for any LNPA transition

related questions.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

How do we get a copy of the NDA? The User Application?

Details on the onboarding process were covered during the 3/9/16 TOEP

webcast and are available on the napmllc.org website. iconectiv will

provide materials as part of the onboarding process.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

What is the timeline for the Onboarding process? Is there a deadline? Is

there a cost? This looks just like the old NPAC process...

The projected onboarding timeframe was covered during the 1/27/16

TOEP webcast. Materials from the meeting are available on the

napmllc.org website. New and existing onboarding processes have many

similar elements.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

The folks on the call do not have travel budgets.

Recurring TOEP webcasts are the primary means to distribute transition

information and do not require travel or budget for fees of any kind.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

What happened to polling for the LNPA WG meeting in Raleigh?

Polling on this webcast focused on broad communications and public

safety conferences to understand the degree of LNPA stakeholder interest

in these events, and to enable capacity planning. There was less

uncertainty with regard to LNPA WG attendance and interest in the

transition.



32 | P a g e


3/9/16 Sherry

Lichtenburg

NRRI Why is NARUC not included here?

The initial list of conferences was developed to reach various groups of

users of the NPAC system (including LEA and WDNC). NARUC is

primarily attended by regulators. However, a presence at NARUC may

be arranged. The TOM will evaluate the level of interest in NARUC

support in future TOEP events and surveys.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Why didn't we have this option (Publication Authorized) at the first TOM

update?

Based on the feedback received on the TOEP webcasts, the TOM has

established an "opt in" process to provide attendees the ability to request

their questions and responses be made public.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Who is my iconectiv rep?

You can reach iconectiv at [email protected] for any LNPA

transition related questions. Once the contract with iconectiv is executed,

iconectiv representatives will begin their outreach to existing users of the

NPAC.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Onboarding!? Why not use a Telco term - Interconnection?

Onboarding is a 5 step process. It involves (1) Initiating outreach with the

user (2) Executing a Non-Disclosure Agreement between user and

iconectiv (3) Gathering information via the Transition User Application

(4)Executing Regional User Agreement(s) between users and iconectiv,

and (5) Establishing connectivity. Interconnection is just a portion of the

onboarding process.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

What are my projected costs for interconnection to the iconectiv NPAC?

As part of the onboarding process, iconectiv will provide the details

required for interconnection and estimation of costs.

3/9/16 John

Howison

Cincinnati

Bell

Telephone

Why not purchase the existing NPAC from Neustar? It works and

everybody is already connected?

In March 2010, the NAPM announced its intention to begin a competitive

process to select a new LNPA. This process resulted in the FCC

approving the NANC recommendation that Telcordia d.b.a. iconectiv

serve as the next LNPA in its March 27, 2015 selection order. Further

details of the selection process can be found in the FCC LNPA selection

order.



33 | P a g e

2/18/16 James

Falvey

LNP

Alliance,

FISPA, Open

Technology

Institute at

New America

1. The TOM TOEP FAQ (“FAQ”) posted on the NAPM website stipulates

that the only mechanism by which interested parties may submit input,

feedback or direct questions relative to the LNPA transition to the TOM

is through the “Comments” form on the NAPMLLC.org website. The

FAQ also claims that the TOM’s goal is to provide “transparent

communications” regarding the LNPA Transition.

a. Has the TOM recorded and archived all input submitted

through the Comments section?

Yes

b. Has the TOM recorded and archived all questions submitted

through the two prior webcasts?

Yes

c. Has the TOM recorded and archived all its

communications, including reports to NAPM, the FCC, or the

NANC?

No, it has recorded some of those listed.

d. Will all questions submitted in the Comments and the

webcasts by any party and the applicable responses be

available to the public for review on the NAPM website? If not,

why not?

Written questions submitted through the napmllc.org website or

during a TOEP webcast with authorization for publication will be

published with a response on the napmllc.org website so long as

the question (i) is of common interest to the NPAC Community,

(ii) has not been previously asked and answered, and (iii) is not

otherwise inappropriate. More generally, responses to questions

of common interest to the NPAC community, whether submitted

through the napmllc.org site, during a TOEP webcast or in any

other manner, will also be published in the FAQ. Questions that

are not of general interest will be logged but omitted from

publication, including, for example, specific individual requests

(e.g., requests to be added to distribution lists). To the extent that

information needed to respond to a particular question is

confidential or not yet available, the question will be logged for

response when the information becomes available.

e. The TOM Engagement Letter Summary posted on the NAPM

website February 16, 2016 states that the TOM’s reporting to the


34 | P a g e


NAPM will include “written outlines, executive summaries,

presentations, memoranda, analysis of issues, and schedules

prepared in connection with the engagement as requested by the

NAPM and sufficient to document and to evidence the advice

and Services . . . .” Will all such communications (“Industry

Reports”), including reports to NAPM, the FCC, and the NANC

be made available to the public for review on the NAPM website?

If not, why not?

The TOM publishes all materials developed for general audiences

through TOEP webcasts and the napmllc.org website. The NAPM

LLC and the FCC release materials following their own respective

release processes.


35 | P a g e

2. Although the TOM and the Commission claim that transparency is

required, the current method of communication—where only the TOM sees

all the questions and dictates which ones will be answered—is completely

lacking in transparency absent additional disclosure on the part of the

TOM. Relative to this point:

a. Is the TOM prepared to release all communications, including

Industry Reports, and those questions and comments submitted

through the previously described Comments form and prior and

future webcasts to all interested parties? If so, when? If not, why not?

Please see the responses to 1d and 1e.

b.Has the TOM organized all such communications into categories,

quantifying the number of questions in each category for the purpose

of prioritization and weighting? If so, what methods were used? If

not, why not?

TOEP webcast questions are categorized according to area of focus

(e.g., schedule, testing, customer experience, etc.) to gauge the level

of participant interest in each area and prioritize topics for future

outreach and education efforts.

c.Are there any categories that the TOM has chosen not to address?

For example, LNP Alliance members have asked a number of

questions on the two webinars about costs and yet the FAQs are

completely silent on the issue of costs. The lack of disclosure

described above makes it impossible for the vast majority of

companies in the industry to have input into the LNPA Transition

process. The fact that the TOM can only be accessed by non- NAPM

carriers through the NAPM website and only through one-way

webinars should be of obvious concern to the Commission. There

must be communication between all industry members in order to

have a meaningful collaborative process, as takes place in the LNPA

Working Group, ATIS, or the NANC, for example. Why are interested

parties who have signed the Protective Order not given this

collaborative opportunity as a critical component of transparency

obligations?

No categories of questions are excluded. As explained above, to the

extent that the information needed to respond to a particular

question is confidential or not yet available; the question will be

logged for response when the required information becomes

available. As mentioned during the January 27, 2016 webcast, the


36 | P a g e


TOM will participate in NANC meetings and industry conferences

to facilitate as much collaborative discussion of issues of interest as

possible. The pace of these collaborative discussions will increase

and their scope broaden over time as more information becomes

available and the transition proceeds.

With respect to costs, please note that the NPAC invoices sent to

each individual service provider show and explain the transition

costs that the service provider is incurring. As additional

information regarding costs becomes available, the information,

like information about all relevant issues, will be discussed during

a TOEP Webcast and published in the FAQ.

d. What are the long list of “action items” that have been opened and

closed, or remain pending? There is no reason why non-NAPM

carriers should not have access to this information.

Action items pertain to specific tasks assigned to iconectiv, Neustar,

NAPM LLC, and the TOM. Any action items of general interest will

be discussed during a TOEP webcast or published in the FAQ.

3. The TOM’s FAQ response to a question regarding coordination with the

IP Transition states that the: IP transition is a separate initiative with

multiple components that is being evaluated on its own timetable. It is

expected that if there are NPAC updates required for IP transition, they will

be incorporated when available. This answer is unresponsive to the

question. The IP transition is not a future development; it is happening now.

Does the TOM, under the TOM Engagement Letter, have the responsibility

to identify and contemplate potential inter-dependencies between the two

transitions as part of its core responsibilities? Does the TOM have a process

to stay informed about the IP Transition? If so, how is the TOM insinuating

itself into the IP Transition implementation process (e.g., through

communications with the NANC and/or FCC Staff) in order to stay

informed of potential interdependencies?

The TOM interacts with many stakeholders engaged in IP transition,

including the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and various

service providers, including, but not limited to, participants in meetings

of the NANC and TOEP webcasts as well as members of the NAPM LLC.

For the sake of clarity, however, IP transition is not part of the defined

LNPA transition scope, and it does not fall within the TOM’s contractual

responsibilities under the engagement letter entered into with the NAPM

LLC with the oversight of the FCC.


37 | P a g e


4. Obviously, any delay of the LNPA Transition is costly to the industry and

to consumers. When does the TOM anticipate having a definitive schedule,

presumably based on a fully executed iconectiv agreement? When does the

TOM expect a fully executed iconectiv agreement to be executed and when

will such agreement be made public?

The FCC, NAPM LLC, iconectiv, and other stakeholders directly involved

in the contracting process are working to complete these agreements. It is

not possible to forecast a specific completion date. Once the agreements

have been finalized and approved, the updated transition schedule will

be published.

5. When will we know the complete transition timeline and have a basis for

estimating the costs of the LNPA Transition for carriers and any changes to

carriers’ costs resulting from the LNPA Transition?

It is not possible to forecast a specific contract execution date. Once the

agreements have been finalized and approved, the updated transition

schedule will be published, which will permit parties to develop more

precise estimates of the costs and cost savings of transition.

6. The FCC directed the NAPM to hire a transition manager “familiar with

communications infrastructure.” What are the technical capabilities and

subject matter expertise of the members of the TOM as it relates to this

project, including prior experience implementing number portability

systems in the U.S.?

With oversight by the FCC, the NAPM LLC conducted an extensive

evaluation process to select PwC as TOM. PwC and the TOM team members

have significant engineering, telecommunications, number portability,

systems migration, and large program management experience.

7. The NAPM recently made a summary of the TOM Engagement Letter

public. Will the TOM and the NAPM make the actual Engagement Letter

and all associated documents public? The LNP Alliance has asked this of the

Commission and directly of the NAPM. If not, why not, given that the

industry and consumers are paying for the TOM’s services?

A detailed summary of the TOM engagement letter, including the full scope

and deliverables, as well as terms, fees, and incentives, has been published

on the napmllc.org website.


38 | P a g e


8. As for the project planning by small/medium carriers, the fourth quarter

is a difficult and very busy period due to increased consumer activity,

budget planning activity, end-of-year sales/implementation activity, the

holidays, and resource limitations. Will the TOM take such factors

concerning fourth quarter demands into consideration when planning its

testing periods?

Yes

9. Will the network interconnections with iconectiv be in the same location

as Neustar or different? When will these locations be identified?

The network interconnection locations for iconectiv have been identified

and will be different than Neustar’s current locations. As part of the

onboarding process, iconectiv will provide the details required for

interconnection.

10. Testing should be mandatory because all carriers rely on other carriers to

be in compliance with porting and routing of traffic, which by definition are

bilateral activities. How can any provider or service bureau be permitted to

go “live” without a firm requirement to pretest their network and systems

to ensure no disruptions or delays in porting and routing?

NPAC testing requirements are determined by the industry through the

LNPA WG and its subcommittees. All parties are welcome to join these

discussions. Any mechanized system that has direct connectivity to the

NPAC will be required to become certified through the testing process.

Testing is optional, but welcomed, for those accessing the NPAC through

non-mechanized interfaces such as the LTI GUI, IVR and Help Desk

interfaces. The TOM will work with iconectiv to implement measures so all

interested users can access the new NPAC/LNPA to validate the use of their

non-mechanized interfaces.


39 | P a g e


11. How will non-carrier providers that obtain direct access to numbers

under the FCC’s new process for providing direct access to non-carriers be

treated in the testing process? Will testing be mandatory for non-carriers to

ensure proper porting and routing?

All providers, regardless of how they obtain numbers, will be taken into

consideration during the development of the testing procedures for NPAC

functionality. All mechanized systems with direct connectivity to the NPAC

will have to be certified through the testing process. Testing will be optional

for service providers accessing the NPAC through non-mechanized

interfaces (i.e., LTI GUI, IVR and Help Desk interfaces). The specific testing

requirements and procedures will be determined by the industry through

the LNPA WG and its subcommittees.

12. How will the TOM handle notification to each carrier to ensure

compliance with any network changes or system modifications prior to

testing? Will any issues be made public so other carriers may be alerted?

The TOM will continue to keep stakeholders apprised of transition-related

activities. As the transition progresses, iconectiv will also conduct outreach

activities to engage all NPAC users regarding their testing options and

obligations as part of the onboarding process.

13. What industry conferences will TOM representatives attend to meet

with carriers and answer questions? Will these questions and responses be

posted on the NAPM website?

TOM participation at industry conferences is still being finalized. Once final,

these events and times will be publicized through TOEP webcasts, the

napmllc.org website, and other means. The TOM attended Incompas in

April; other events on the preliminary 2016 list include CTIA, NTCA,

NENA, APCO, and IACP conferences.

14. Will there be requirements to notify end user customers of the LNPA

Transition? What are those requirements and when will they be

implemented?

All transition stakeholders, including the general public and end users, will

continue to be engaged through the Transition Outreach and Education

Program.