Peter Black (NGNuk) - Chairman
Clive Fedida (NGNuk)
Peter Ryde (NGNuk)
Andy May (Cable & Wireless)
Steve Unger (Ofcom)
Phil Male (Thus)
Peter Agnew (Colt)
Huw Saunders (Kingston)
Angus Flett (BT Wholesale)
Stuart Shutt (Orange)
Robyn Durie (T- Mobile)
Apologies: Alireza Mahmoodshahi (COLT), Andy King (ntl Telewest), Neil McArthur (Opal), Phil Kirby (Vodafone), Justin Fielder (Easynet)
1.1 Minutes - No changes to the draft minutes had been received. The minutes of the last meeting were therefore accepted.
1.2 Actions - See outstanding actions update at the end of this document
Following the last Executive meeting discussion on progress Peter Black had written to all members of the Executive requesting feedback on specific questions relating to a number of areas of NGNuk activity. The summary of this feedback was presented to the Exec and briefly discussed.
Q. Was NGNuk's clear and articulated ambition to solve the problem of NGN interconnect for the UK on an any to any basis too wide in scope and scale?
A. No - the majority of the Exec wish to retain the stated ambition for NGNuk
Q. Do CPs really just want to solve the future of BT/21CN Interconnect issues?
A. No - the majority agree NGNuk's remit extends beyond BT/21CN interconnect
Q. Why has it been so hard to get Service Definitions created by CPs who know their product requirements?
A. A wide range of views on the issues regarding the Service Definitions were raised with general uncertainty about future products being the key issue
Q. Why was it so difficult to get CPs to get their Key Commercial Issues, even in the priority areas, onto the table?
Generally there was no consistent theme within the feedback as to why key Commercial Issues took so long to prioritise
Q. Have we changed our vision for the programme?
A. No - the majority of Exec members view that Vision remains unchanged but with a recognition of the importance of BT21CN to CPs:
Q. Do we get enough of your intellectual and business strength focused through your teams to ensure your views are being properly represented?
A. The general consensus is that enough resources are provided however the secretariat do see this an a key issue frustrating progress
Q. Is the Commercial Priorities Group all we need? If so why? And what therefore does not get attention?
A. The majority view was that more than Commercial Priorities Group is needed but limited feedback was provided on the of areas for attention. Going forward and in the absence of further guidance form the Exec, the Secretariat will set out the commercial requirements based on the agreed scope (once available)
Q. Do we still need to pursue a Technical Framework? Is NICC activity enough in to tease all the technical issues to the surface for resolution?
A. The consensus across the Exec was that NICC should take on the Technical activity associated with NGNuk. The issues raised related solely governance, co-ordination and resources
Q. Should the NGNuk Secretariat start Directing rather than Facilitating?
A. There was a divergence of views although all supported a more proactive and execution-oriented Secretariat
Q. Are we really all that far away from what we thought would be possible at this stage?
A. The was a divergence of views within the Exec. Some felt that as much progress as expected had been made and others that NGNuk were some months behind. There was consensus on the need for rapid progress
Q. How can we prevent 'Dead Air'?
A. General consensus that a null response IS required. Abstention implies acceptance and hence no recourse to resurrect the issue subsequently. There was however concern as to the implications of this in practise. It was agreed to leave this matter to the discretion of the Secretariat to identify when it might become an issue.
Q. What are the top 3 things we should do to make the NGNuk vehicle more fit for purpose?
a) Tighter governance - scoping, programme planning, decision taking etc
b) Faster progress - resourcing
c) Prioritisation
The impasse over the number of interconnects appears to have been resolved. Thus had modified their position towards the wider view that fewer, larger interconnects would better support IP the lowest cost of IP interconnect. This change in position is however caveated that it is based on the use of average data and that BTW charge levels are not yet known . This concern has been echoed by other CPs. However the consensus now appears to be that the number of interconnects with BTW should be between 20 to 30.
Unfortunately there had been a disappointing lack of response to the request for feedback on BTW's suggestion of using the wBC (Wholesale Broadband Connect) locations as the potential interconnects for session based products and services. This lack of response plus commercial constraints on circulating the information had frustrated progress.
A draft response to the BT proposal of the wBBC is being drafted and will represent the views of those that responded. This will cover the number, specific additional locations and what products/services industry expects to be made available at these locations. A first draft was circulated within the work group on 22nd Jan. The intent is to make this available for wider discussion at the Commercial Priorities meeting of 6th Feb and circulation prior to the February Exec.
Action 1 - 25/01/2007 - Peter Ryde to circulate draft paper on Interconnect ( Numbers and Locations) prior to the February Exec.
There was discussion within the Exec regarding whether the emerging consensus was overly predicated on a voice centric view of the world rather than addressing the future requirements more heavily biased towards video/data. This was recognised an issue however it was felt that it could be addressed by ensuring that (a) as work progresses the decision be reviewed based on the information becoming available (b) that a process is agreed whereby the number and locations of interconnects can be varied as demand changes. The Exec was also concerned that a number of subsidiary issues must also be addressed to assist CPs with network planning and investment decisions. This will be captured within the paper.
Feedback had been received from members following the request for comment on the questions circulated on the merits of the various charging options.
The input was largely consistent across member feedback regarding the suitability of CPP, RPP and B&K. In most instances there was consensus around retaining CPP in the majority of instances and in the applicability of the charging models. A summary would be discussed with the Exec at the next meeting and the full feedback made available via the members area of the web site.
Action 2 - 25/01/2007 - Peter Ryde to circulate summary of Charging Model feedback prior to the February Exec.
The Working Group felt that due to the high level of consensus around the application of the charging models ("who will pay?") that the focus should now be on the Charging Framework ("what will be charged for?"). The work on the Charging Models needs to continue however the work group felt that this work could be undertaken by the Secretariat/3rd Party. The work they have identified as being required is as follows:
There was some discussion amongst the Exec regarding the merits of publishing an external paper. It was recognised that the NGNuk position may be challenged or at least questioned about how it had reached it's decision. It was therefore felt that on balance that action was warranted that satisfied the requirement to have a consistent & justifiable internal paper that could be used for external interaction if required.
Peter Ryde had circulated a draft consultant's brief to the working group. He would incorporate any feedback and distribute to the Exec for comment
Action 3 - 25/01/2007 - Peter Ryde to update and simplify consultant's brief regarding the activity on the Charging Models and distribute to the Exec. Comments will be requested by return.
The work group now plans to focus on developing it's views of a suitable charging framework. It was felt that the key focus should be on voice related services but with a view towards ensuring that this focus did not prejudice the framework for other services.
Two issues had been discussed:
The action is with Peter Ryde to draft a proposal for circulation to the working group regarding the programme scope and plan for the development of the Voice Charging Framework. This will include the proposal on the modified way of working. The intent is to seek endorsement of this at the February Exec.
Action 4 - 25/01/2007 - Peter Ryde to present scope and programme plan for the Charging Framework for agreement at the Feb Exec.
Feb Exec
End Feb
Mar Exec
Sign off the NGNuk Paper on Charging Principles
June Exec
Apart for an update from Peter Agnew no further progress had been made on the reference service documents.<//font><//font>
An early ( but incomplete) draft of the consolidated NGNuk "End to End" requirements had been circulated on 21st December with a partial review of this by the work group on the 8th January. This draft received mixed feedback with some of the work group concerned of "solution bias" within the document. A further update had been expected by 18th January however this had been delayed due to illness. Phil Male indicated that further resource had been allocated to support Russell Craig (Thus) was acting as Editor. It was still the Secretariat's intention to deliver a substantive consolidated document by the end Feb ( although it was unlikely to reach agreed status by this date ). To support this the Secretariat had engaged a consultant to assist over the next few weeks.
Action 5 - 25/01/2007 - Clive Fedida to progress NGNuk Requirements Scope document to Final Draft stage in readiness for formal review and agreement by the full membership by the end of February
Paul Rosbotham (NICC/CW) reported on the RAG status of the technical work for the Green release. The resource plans are still being worked on but these should be available shortly. They would identify to an individual and company level who is undertaking the work on the Green release and the specific resource requirements to complete this.
Paul also confirmed that in principle that the technical work in NGNuk should be handed over to NICC but that the detail of how this would work in practice needed to be agreed. It was likely that the interface would be via the ANR group within NICC.
The Secretariat presented their views on the current status of the work plan.
The Secretariat advocated a preferred way forward which included:
This was agree by the Exec however it was felt that generally the approach needed to be iterative in terms of development rather than expecting to get it correct at the first attempt.
An updated programme plan was presented and is appended. The discussion around this focused on the need for greater detail ( dependent upon the requirements definition) and also on where a number of the key milestones could be achieved unless they were limited to replacing existing voice services. It was recognised that such a limitation would create risks once the wider product and service set was considered.
Action 6 - 25/01/2007 - Secretariat to provide an updated Programme Plan at the end of Feb 2007
7.1 The next meeting will be 10.00 to 14.00 on 22nd February 2007 at Riverside House.
7.2 Future scheduled meetings:
DATE<//font> | MEETING<//font> | TIME<//font> |
29th March 2007<//font> | NGNuk Executive Meeting<//font> | 10.00 - 14.00<//font> |
26th April 2007<//font> | NGNuk Executive Meeting<//font> | 10.00 - 14.00<//font> |
Peter Ryde
NGNuk Office
07771 555 048
020 7783 4688
Action 3 - 26/6 - Peter Black undertook with the help of Ofcom to take the necessary steps to apply for registration of the 'NGNuk' logo.27/7 - Application for registration of the NGNuk logo is in preparation by Ofcom. Steps have already been taken to secure URLs 'ngnuk.org.uk' and 'ngnuk.co.uk'. Unfortunately, 'ngnuk.com' is already reserved. 28/9 - The application was registered at the beginning of September and the trademark attorneys are now waiting for the trademark office to process it. This normally takes about 6 weeks, so we should hear something in about 2-3 weeks. 26/10 - the trademark lawyer is still waiting for the application to be processed by the trademark authority. It has taken longer than normal. 14/12 Still awaiting a response from the Trademark Authority . Update - the NGNuk trademark was published by the UK Trademark Office on 1st December 2006. This means that the Trademark Office has accepted it. There is now a period of 3 months ( i.e. until 1st March 2007) during which objections can be lodged. | NGNuk Secretariat 27/7/2006 |
Action 3 - 26/10 - Stuart Shutt agreed to set out his ideas for what he felt the sequence of steps should be for the workgroup plan in a short paper for input to the working groups via the Orange attendees. Stuart felt this had been completed via John Abrahams input at the Programme Board | Stuart Shutt 3/11/2006 Deleted |
Action 1 - 14/12/2006 - Paul Rosbotham to identify any named individuals required to act as Document authors to further the Green Release requirements. Paul reported that this work is not yet complete but would be shortly. It will identify the activity down to an individual and company level | Paul Rosbotham Ongoing |
Action 2 - 14/12/2006 - Action 2 - 14/12/2006 - Tandem Free Operation, as described in the accompanying slidepack, was incorporated into the Green Release requirements. There is now some debate as to whether: (a) it is actually needed - the requirement was wrapped up with a largely unrelated requirement for Transcoder Free Operation, and (b) the technical implications and mechanisms of support - some NICC members view it as trivial, others more complex. Interested Members are asked to make contributions into the January NICC Architecture & Requirements (A&R) meeting addressing both of the above aspects (ie confirming both the requirement and proposing a solution to address it). If none are received, TSG has agreed that the requirement will be deprioritised at this time. | All Members Jan 2007 Completed |
Action 3 - 14/12/2006 - Peter Black to discuss with Ofcom the role they anticipate within the Governance of the Common Numbering Database in the light of the Executive comments Ofcom may provide a facilitation role ( e.g. in the absence of NGNuk) Meanwhile , NGNuk should drive and resolve all commercial questions in supporting NICC to progress. The Secretariat will prepare a set of commercial issues in discussion with NICC and make proposals to the NGNuk Executive on areas of support and how to proceed. For the Feb Exec. | Peter Black Completed |
Action 4 - 14/12/2006 - Peter Ryde to draft briefing document to cover the scope of the LINX proposal and forward to Executive Members for comment. The proposal for the work was circulated and discussed by the Exec. It was felt inappropriate ( and possibly anti-competitive) that NGNuk should be seen to endorse one provider over another by any form of association (albeit that LINX are a member of NGNuk). It was felt that LINX should pursue the activity under it's own auspices with it's own membership , which includes a number of NGNuk members. | Peter Ryde Completed |
Action 5 - 14/12/2006 - Mobile Operators were requested to give a specific statement on their views regarding their position on the BT/CP feedback to date on numbers of interconnects, if only to confirm that it is not a priority issue for them at this time. No formal response had been provided | Mobile Operators Deleted |
Action 6 - 14/12/2007 - NGNuk Executive members will review attendees proposed for the workshop to review the Requirements Definition on 8th January with a view towards ensuring the attendance of Product personnel. This had been partially successful but greater product input was still required in support of completing the Requirements definition | NGNuk Executive Ongoing |
Action 7 - 14/12/2006 - Peter Black to discuss opportunity for NICC to take delivery responsibility of all technical activity with the Chair of NICC The idea has been supported in principle by NICC. TOR proposal for NGNuk / NICC inter working to be produced by 5/2/2007 | Secretariat Ongoing |
Action 8 - 14/12/2006 - NGNuk Secretariat to review work plan and present recommendations to the NGNuk Executive. Discussed as part of the agenda | NGNuk Secretariat Completed |
Action 1 - 25/01/2007 - Circulate draft paper on Interconnect ( Numbers and Locations) prior to the February Exec. | Peter Ryde |
Action 2 - 25/01/2007 - Peter Ryde to circulate summary of Charging Model feedback prior to the February Exec. | Peter Ryde |
Action 3 - 25/01/2007 - Peter Ryde to update consultant's brief regarding the activity on the Charging Models and distribute to the Exec. Comments will be requested by return to. | Peter Ryde |
Action 4- 25/01/2007 - Peter Ryde to present scope and programme plan for the Charging Framework for agreement at the Feb Exec. | Peter Ryde |
Action 5- 25/01/2007 - Clive Fedida to progress NGNuk Requirements Scope document to Final Draft stage in readiness for formal review and agreement by the full membership by the end of February | Clive Fedida 28/2/2007 |
Action 6 - 25/01/2007 - Secretariat to provide an updated Programme Plan at the end of Feb | Secretariat |
Action 7 - 25/01/2007 In discussion with NICC to identify where NICC require NGNuk commercial input to facilitate progress on the technical solutions for ENUM for discussion at the Feb Exec. | Secretariat |