CIC IMG

1. CIC IMG Presentation to the NANC November 29, 2000

2. CIC IMG • The initial meeting of the CIC IMG was held via conference call on 11-08-00 • During this meeting, time was spent reviewing FCC 00-255, a letter from Yog Varma to the NANC, and a plan for meeting our objectives • 11 participants attended the initial call representing the following industry participants: • AT&T, AT&T Wireless, Qwest, Verizon, Worldcom, SBC, NANPA, Sprint and USTA

3. CIC IMG • The IMG developed the following list of issues in its read of FCC 00-255. • In the letter from Yog Varma to the NANC, questions asked of the NANC seem to vary slightly from the Order. • The IMG requests the NANC to review issues and validate the direction being taken by the IMG. The IMG requests the NANC determine whether the IMG should focus onthe letter from Yog to the NANC Chair or do we focus on the FCC CIC Order items which may contain more or less items than the NANC letter

4. CIC IMG ISSUESFCC 00-255 • Should switchless resellers obtain and use their own CIC’s to address ‘soft slamming’ and related carrier identification problems • Address the impacts, both positive and negative, of a CIC requirement on the carrier industry • Estimate the costs associated with deploying and loading of CIC’s in LEC switches • Identify technical issues associated with the deployment of CIC’s in LEC switches that may be realized if CIC’s are required for resellers. (For example, what switch limitations exist that limits the number of CIC’s loaded into specific switch technology) • What impact would CIC assignment to resellers have on the projected exhaust of the CIC assignment pool.

5. Yog Varma’s Letter to NANC • We request the NANC to provide its analysis and recommendations as to whether the Commission should adopt a requirement that switchless resellers obtain and use their own CICs to address “soft slamming” and related carrier identification problems. • Specifically, the NANC should propose measures that would increase the effectiveness of such a CIC requirement in preventing soft slamming. • Also, the NANC should address the impacts, both positive and negative, of a CIC requirement on the carrier industry. For example, the NANC should consider the potential financial burdens on switchless resellers and any potential competitive consequences, as well as whether such financial burdens could be mitigated. The NANC should consider whether a CIC requirement would require LEC switch upgrades, the time and expense of such upgrades, and potential ways to minimize the burden on LECs. • The NANC also should consider whether a CIC requirement would accelerate exhaustion of the four-digit CIC pool and, if so, the degree to which it would do so. • Related to that issue, the NANC should consider whether the Commission should eliminate or modify its current policy of restricting CIC assignments to two CICs per carrier, or take any other specific measures to ensure the availability and equitable distribution of CICs. We ask that the NANC address when this numbering resource is likely to exhaust if all switchless resellers are required to use CICs.

6. CIC IMG • It was agreed by the IMG that enough facts are not currently available to determine whether CIC’s should be required by switchless resellers • Over the next several months the IMG plans to obtain relevant facts associated with each issue through participant contribution. • Once all pertinent facts are gathered by the IMG, a consensus recommendation regarding the CIC assignment question will be sought

7. CIC IMG • The IMG has targeted delivery of its report for the March, 2001 NANC meeting. This will allow the NANC 3 meetings to review the report and and develop its recommendation to the FCC

8. Future Meetings • Upcoming activities scheduled for the IMG: • Upcoming conference calls: • Thursday, December 7, 2000 2:00 PM EST • Friday, December 15, 2000 2:00 PM EST • Call in number-877-815-3003 PIN=9136761539#--All are invited to participate