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 Email: John.email@example.com 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.