Issue Statement Currently no common guidelines exist supporting

Document Sample
Issue Statement Currently no common guidelines exist supporting Powered By Docstoc
					Emergency Services Interconnection Forum
Issue Identification Form

The Use of Pooled or Ported Numbers as ESRKs

                                               ESIF Issue Number:                                ESIF-025
                                                                         *                       Final Closure
                                               Current Status:

                                               Subcommittee:                                     H

                                               Submission Date:                                  July 16, 2003 (ESIF 6)

                                               Acceptance Date:                                  July 16, 2003 (ESIF 6)
                                               Estimated Resolution Date:                        ESIF 9

                                               Initial Closure Date:                             (ESIF 9) April 22, 2004

                                               Final Closure Date:                               May 25, 2004
                                               * Current Status should be one of the following: Proposed, Active, Initial Closure, Final Closure,
                                               Referred, No Industry Agreement

Issue Statement/Business Need:
A wireless carrier should not use pooled or ported numbers as ESRKs. If a pooled or ported number (TN
has LRN assigned) is used as an ESRK, the call would not be routed to the PSAP resulting in delayed
emergency support. A carrier can control the numbers that are issued from its own inventory, but cannot
control whether numbers assigned by a LEC have been pooled or ported.

NOTE: The term ESRK as used herein is synonymous with pANI and ESRD.

Desired Results:
All LECs and carriers will assure that neither pooled nor ported numbers are assigned or issued for
assignment as ESRKs.

Impact on Other Issues or Procedures:

Activity Log (can be very brief but this must be regularly updated on a meeting-by-meeting basis):

    ESIF 6 – The issue was accepted. Mark Drennan, Intrado, noted that the primary recommendation
     Study Group H is making is to make ESRKs and ESRDs non-dialable and make this part of the IWG
     guidelines. The target completion date should be as soon as possible. The secondary
     recommendations which support this effort are that the E9-1-1 switching elements (MSC and
     selective router) should not get LNP changes that need translation. Additionally, ESIF Study Group H
     will work with wireless and wireline carriers to insure that ESRK and ESRD assignments are not
     made. A liaison letter to INC should be composed and a conference call should be arranged in order
     to expedite the process in time for the INC September 16-19 meeting. Overall, much of the
     discussion of the study group revolved around “future proofing” the process.
   ESIF 7 – Mr. Mark Drennan, Study Group H Chair, noted that the study group had agreed that any
    kind of PANI should be drawn from non-dialable numbers only. In this scenario, there would need to
    be a third party administrator to handle the number administration. The Pooling Administrator from
    NANPA-NeuStar was recommended. Requests for all carriers should be sent from ESIF and INC to
    the North American Numbering Council (NANC) by ESIF 8. The study group’s next steps will include:
    1) Mark Drennan answering Dana Smith’s e-mail with clarifications from the study group on her
    questions (this will be done by 10/24/03), 2) at the appropriate time, INC will decide on the
    method/process to disseminate the industry notice, and 3) the migration schedule/guidelines would
    be worked out by ESIF and NANPA-PA.

   ESIF 8 – Mark Drennan, Subcommittee H Chair, noted that the subcommittee had resolved that
    ESIF should send a response to INC asking explicitly for a consensus that INC support the use of
    non-dialable pANIs and that 511 and 211 NXXs would be the first NXXs to be used in the scenario
    outlined in the issue. It was noted that there was a very strong statement from one INC member that
    they did not perceive that this issue was in fact a problem. This liaison letter will be sent to INC in
    time for INC 74 (February 3-6). The study group also agreed that a discussion would need to take
    place with the FCC. The FCC would certainly need to be consulted in order to get its imprimatur on
    establishing any third party administrator. This is in part driven by INC’s concern that only the FCC
    can actually mandate that these numbers be used for anything. It was also noted during the INC
    conference call dealing with this issue that NANPA has no authority over non-dialable numbers. Mark
    Drennan added that a potential future complication is that when pANIs begin to be used for other
    uses (e.g., telematics) then this problem only become exacerbated and would definitely need to be
    remedied at some point in the future.

   ESIF 9 – The issue was placed in Initial Closure.

   5/25/04 – Since no objections to its closure were received, the issue was placed in Final Closure.

SPECIAL NOTE: Despite the fact that this issue has been placed in Final Closure, regular Subcommittee
H activity updates relating to the content of the issue will continue to be added, as appropriate.

   ESIF 12 – Jim Shepard, Subcommittee H Chair, noted that the subcommittee had continued its
    discussion on identifying an effective funding mechanism(s) and selection process for the
    administration of pANIs. An informal consensus had been achieved to defer most of the funding
    debate, in favor of allowing an RFP process to reveal the most innovative types of business models
    which could be employed. The subcommittee continues to work on the guidelines document: “Official
    Keeper of the Codes for pANIs Used for Routing Emergency Calls – pANI Assignment Guidelines
    and Procedures.” The goal will be to have the subcommittee reach consensus prior to ESIF 13. Mr.
    Shepard noted that the subcommittee had held a good discussion on ensuring it designs a
    mechanism that works for all carrier types (e.g., not just wireless, but VoIP and beyond), how long
    pANIs can be assigned without being implemented, the general concept of “sub-keepers” whereby a
    carrier/wholesaler may allocate numbers obtained from OKOTC to their “customers,” and how to
    determine what is a reasonable request. As has been stated before, the resulting process would
    undoubtedly need the backing of the Industry Numbering Committee (INC).

Updated: 2/11/05

Issue Champion:

Name:        John Garner
Company:     AT&T Wireless Services
Address:     External Affairs
               3831 Robertson Gin Rd
               Hernando MS 38632
Telephone:     601-209-8201

Resolution Statement:

The issue is resolved as follows:

   1. ESIF determined the best practice is to use only non-dialable pANIs (ESRK/ESRD, etc.)

   2. A 3rd party administrator will be required to manage the number assignment process.

   3. The numbers shall be from pools of NPA-511-XXXX; NPA-211-XXXX. 511 shall be used
      prior to 211 being utilized. Details of implementation to include future NXX plans are to
      be worked out by the 3rd party administrator.

   4. The Industry Numbering Committee (INC) is in consensus with points 1, 2, & 3 and has
      made provisions in its guidelines

   5. Other industry issues addressed:

              VoIP’s use of service routing numbers
              Telematics’ use of service routing numbers
              Number conservation
              Standardization
              Minimizes false calls into the PSAP

   Any service routing number (pANI) for Emergency Services being used for future technologies like
   Telematics and VoIP are also bound to this decision, as expressed in points 1-3 above. ESIF
   Subcommittee H will open a new issue to address the identification of a third-party administrator.