- The letter asking for information from ATIS was read and accepted by our team. Some more conversation on affiliating with ATIS yielded ....

ATIS adds credibility.

We need our companies buy in since affiliation will undoubtedly carry a

cost, not the least of which is the employees time.

This forum would be more effective than any given OBF committee for

LNP since our singular task will be LNP.

We should expect internal questions as to why, etc. Guess what...

your scribe has already!

John Rollins asked whether we have considered any processes to insure we don’t engage in anti-competitive actions, and, do we have a feel for the cost and the independence (or lack thereof) we might encounter under ATIS. Not yet, I suspect. We also discussed whether the letter should contain more detail but decided to leave it alone.

- The next item was to go through the delta document in it’s present form. Yes folks, again! The scribe tried in vain to capture the conversation issue by issue. Finally decided to wait for Debbie to send out the revised version.

Please note that the changed delta document will be available on the

web sight only. Can we plead for notification of when it is sent?

But then, the document could be sent along with the notice.

It was noted that specific switch feature changes, and the relative

cost/speed of delivery ought not be discussed in a public forum. So,

each company can contact it’s vendor(s) for detail.

Some elements of the delta discussion are:

The CNA record. Option 1 wanted on an office wide basis. Must be

discussed by the vendors. Not ready to agree to option being an

office wide parameter.

ISSUE 1 is a closed issue. The vendors are doing what we want.

Not all Call Codes have the LNP module. Calif. has already submitted

to the vendors. Not all have replied as yet.

Issues 6 and 7 may be short term and combined with 16 and 17.

When doing last resort query, need to have the N-1 carrier. The

Western Region may have a partial solution. Refer to their ISSUE 49

Solution ISSUE 57.

We rehashed last resort query and cost causer etc. And how

recording. We still don’t know how to get LSPI if call not IXC

delivered.

More discussion on signaling JIP from originating end office.

Identified one reason it was requested - IXC could use it to

determine LSPI (more or less) of a customer making a casual call.

Some switches send LRN on JIP for all lines, not just for those

lines that are ported. Options for obtaining originating end

LRN are translating the incoming trunk are translating the incoming

trunk or doing a dip. Optional Req 1220 of the ICC GR contains info.

If we were to require no JIP sent if originating line not ported,

signaling changes would be needed, as per Raj. It was noted that

always recording and signaling a non meaningful JIP is also wasteful.

If we want to make a new requirement not to send JIP unless ported, need to

discuss with our signaling and switch experts. Talk to them before

Dallas meeting to get meaningful input. This would be considered

issue 9B in the delta.

- Raj suggested we prioritize the switch changes identified in to delta

document.

- John will get inf. as to whether there are any OCN issues. I don’t

remember why this came up.

END OF MINUTES.

- The next meeting will be hosted by John Rollins, GTE, in Dallas.

Dates are 10/14, 10/15, and 10/16, starting at 8:30AM. John will

attempt to get a block of rooms in a nearby hotel. PLEASE get to

John as soon as possible if you are going to attend.