1. ENUM Tekelec’s opinion on Change orders NANC 400 and NANC 401

2. LNP Compared to ENUM (High level) • Problem Statement is the same • LNP resolves a Phone Number to LRN (carrier) in the PSTN • Tier I Public ENUM resolves a phone number to a Name Server (e.g. carrier) in 3G • Tier II Public ENUM provides the device the subscriber wants to be contacted on • Tier I Private ENUM can resolve a phone number to a non e164.arpa carrier domain (e.g. NANC 400,401) • Tier I Private ENUM should be competitive (Who owns the phone number?) Phone Number  Carrier Database Query Response

3. Tekelec Issues with NANC 400 and 401 • DPC/SSN is not analogous to URI • Is an IP address analogous to a telephone number, really? • DPC/SSN was implemented in NPAC for SMS portability • Most Carriers do not use SS7 to deliver inter-carrier SMS. • ENUM data and LNP data used by separate applications • Why tie provisioning of future application to existing CMIP interface? • Unnecessarily increases complexity of performance analysis and data modifications

4. Tekelec Issues with NANC 400 and 401 • ENUM data being placed in a government mandated system controlled by a monopoly • Contradicts ENUM LLC and Forum drivers for Tier I ENUM • Understand that NeuStar may be providing a private ENUM service today for inter-carrier MMS – how does this relate? • Large impact on existing LNP architecture • If NANC 400 passes, Tekelec will adjust as necessary but industry must then not retract approval. • Competitive benefit for Tekelec given LNP footprint

5. Backup

6. LNP Compared to ENUM (Details) • ENUM actually works very differently than LNP • Call processing • LNP is SS7 based Query/Response • NPAC is not in the call path • ENUM is DNS based Query/Response • Tier I ENUM is in the call path • Provisioning: • The NPAC provisions routing information into service providers’ routing DBs. Carriers use that routing information within their own networks to route calls and SS7 messages • ENUM provisions a DNS server, called Tier 1. Users (e.g., carriers) query that DNS server which points them to another server, called Tier II, to retrieve the routing data

7. LNP Compared to ENUM (Details) • Control over ENUM is very different than LNP • Entities Involved in the Service • NPAC - the NPAC, the LLC and the NPAC Users • ENUM – consumers (i.e., registrants), registrars, ENUM LLC, Tier 1 providers, Tier II providers, application service providers, etc. • Regulatory Oversight: • The FCC has oversight of NP • ENUM receives oversight from the DoC, FCC, State Dept., FTC, and ITU-T. The IAB and the 18 other countries within CC1 provide policy-related input. • Access to Data: • NP data is only available to NPAC Users • ENUM, like the DNS, is potentially a public resource (anyone can query)

8. LNP – ENUM Interaction (Details) • There are no mechanisms within ENUM to account for LNP • There is no concept of a service provider/SPID (i.e., carrier) in public ENUM, only registrars and registrants • The public ENUM record could be changed at either Tier 1 or Tier 2 to reflect the change in carrier • Any changes in an public ENUM record requires the approval (opt-in) of the consumer (registrant) • It’s possible that a carrier could port a number but would be unable to modify public ENUM records • It’s possible that a consumer would not allow the carrier to change their public ENUM record