Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC030205-1IG Detail

Description Of Change

Qwest would like to change the current agreed upon process where Qwest acting on behalf of a new service provider (NSLP) issues an LSR to the Old service provider (OSLP) to Port a TN back to the Qwest switch to complete a service request for the new provider. Currently, if Qwest does NOT receive an FOC from the OLSP Qwest will continue to force the port on the requested due date by the NSLP. With this change Qwest would Jeopardy the LSR back to the NSLP when the FOC is NOT received from the OLSP and follow the existing error identified after a FOC process. Jeopardy conditions may include bad LSR data, the information on the LSR does not match the OLSP CSR or no response from OLSP. Jeopardy resolution activities would be required by the NSLP when confirmation for the Port is not met. If the Port request to the OLSP has any problems, which drive a due date change requirement on the FOC Qwest receives back, Qwest will re-FOC the NLSP with new date

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest would terminate Forced Ports from wholesale activities, which would also bring the process within industry guidelines established for LNP. Qwest would like to implement this change by May 1, 2005.

Project Meetings

-- October 19, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the notice had been sent for this CR and that the CR would move to CLEC Test on October 21, 2005.

-- September 21, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that a Level 4 notice was sent on September 20th with an October 21st effective date. Jill stated that this CR will move to Development.

- August 17, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he is targeting the PCAT Updates to go out to the CLECs by the end of the month. Russ stated that the implementation date for this CR is targeted for October 2005. Russ stated that he would be handing this CR off to another person. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she would like this implemented before October because she has problems with activity and that the customer is working on 2 switches. Bonnie stated that as we worked thru this process, she made a request about a new service provider getting involved. Bonnie asked if that was incorporated into the process. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that if there were conflicts, when the LSR is sent to the old service provider (information causes a reject), there would be a notice to the new provider because of the mismatch. The new provider will need to work with the old provider in order to populate the LSR correctly. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked that in regard to the no response from the old provider, if the new service provider is allowed to get engaged. [Comment received from Eschelon: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said she understood a reject from the OLSP but the question was asked in regard to the no response from the old provider, if the new service provider is allowed to get engaged.] Bonnie stated that Qwest is the Network provider and has no vested interest in getting the order through. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that Qwest will send a notice to the new service provider and that the due date cannot be granted. Russ stated that Qwest would advise, in remarks that they need to contact the old service provider with issues. Russ stated that the new provider can reissue with a new date. Russ stated that Qwest does not want to issue an order that will cause an interruption of service to the end user customer. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if it would still reject. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that we would provide information on the contact and the data that the new provider will need to go to the old provider in order to resolve. Russ stated that information that will be provided is LSR #, when it was sent, and the name of the interface person. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she has 7 to 8 CLECs Contacts and will send them to Qwest. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that there has been an improvement, just from this being discussed. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon noted that she was disappointed that there would not be a jeopardy for non-response orders. Bonnie stated that it would be easier to supp then to do a reject. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that you could send in version 1 or version 2 of a reject without reentering everything. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she would look into that and the documentation when it is sent. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that CR remains in Development status.

July 20, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that the Stop Port Activities was implemented for the GETO exchange customers to determine how we wanted to incorporate into the PCAT. He said that the PCAT will be out shortly. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what a GET Customer was. Russ Urevig-Qwest said that a GET Customer orders PRI from Qwest through the General Exchange Tariff. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if Retail was porting into Retail. Russ Urevig-Qwest said that the customer is getting PRI from Retail and they are porting in these numbers. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said that when Eschelon’s comments were addressed, they had concerns and had suggested that Qwest do a one time sweep with the Service Managers to get a good contact. She said that the request could be sent out and the link could be provided to those that respond. She said that those that don’t respond, the Service Managers could get involved. Jill Martain-Qwest said that this CR will remain in Development.

June 15, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that an ad hoc meeting was held on June 1st and discussion took place regarding the feedback that Qwest received. Russ stated that Qwest discussion surrounded option with the perspectives of an OSP and an NSP. Russ stated that he is looking to develop the PCAT language by July 1st. Russ noted that changes were being made to some Qwest back-end systems and that he would line-up the PCAT updates with the implementation of the back-end system changes. Russ stated that he is targeting the PCAT updates by July 1st and that this CR would remain in Development status.

-- June 1, 2005 Ad Hoc Meeting ATTENDEES: Ann Hurley-SBC, Jackie Diebold-TDSMetroCom, Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Joseph Koltis-Eschelon, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Tiffany Ellwood-McLeodUSA, Rosalin Davis-MCI, Liz Balvin-Covad, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Pete Stave-Eschelon, Russ Urevig-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Jamal Boudhaouia-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Jennifer Fisher-Qwest MEETING DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that there was an ad hoc meeting held on April 28th where Qwest asked the CLEC Community for input. Peggy stated that at the May CMP Meeting, Qwest noted that input was received from the perspective of an old service provider and from the perspective of a new service provider. Peggy then stated that today’s call was for further discussion of this change request. Peggy asked if there were any questions so far. There were none. Russ Urevig-Qwest reviewed the intent of this call and stated that when Qwest makes a request of an OSP for port-in and Qwest receives an LSR from the NSP (port-in from the OSP), Qwest handles the LSR to the OSP on the behalf of the NSP. Qwest then expects an FOC from the OSP with the date. When Qwest sends the LSR and reclaims facilities from an UBL, Qwest identifies that and would be an analog loop. Russ stated that this could be a port-in with a new facility pair, if the OSP is loosing in its entirety. The OSP would then send an LSR to Qwest. Russ stated that currently there are several steps if Qwest does receive the FOC; another LSR is sent, a call is placed to the OSP using the contacts, and if no response is received, Qwest proceeds on the due date and is a forced port, which is a concern. Russ noted that the concern is that if the OSP has not ported the number, the calls could die at the switch. Russ stated that Qwest is proposing a modification to the PCAT to no longer perform forced ports if no FOC was received from the OSP. Russ stated that on day-3, Qwest would send a jeopardy to the NSP and advise that the date was in jeopardy. The PON of the LSR that was sent to the OSP is sent to the NSP and if the NSP then needs to interface with the OSP due to Qwest not receiving the FOC, from the OSP. Russ noted that a due date change may be needed from the OSP. Russ stated that if the OSP does not send Qwest an FOC, the number would not be ported. Russ stated that Qwest received feedback from a few CLECs, which gave the perspectives of an OSP and an NSP. Russ noted that the one item, received in the feedback, was that a CLEC would like to see a modified code that would identify this condition. Russ noted that Qwest looked at this suggestion and stated that this would require system changes to IMA and that the 19.0 prioritization was scheduled for July. Russ noted that this would be a Qwest concern due to the timing; and that non-impacting system changes were already scheduled for October. Russ stated that those changes follow the normal Level 4 timeline, if the PCATs are updated by the 1st of July. Russ then stated that other feedback was that an OSP has concerns regarding the NSP interfacing with them and that an NSP would work with Qwest as a third party. Russ noted that the OSP only wants to interface with Qwest when no FOC was sent. Russ stated that this could be worked out with the current escalation process for wireline and wireless numbers. Russ stated that based on LNP activity guidelines, the number cannot be ported in. Russ noted that there are issues on both sides and stated that Qwest wants to deliver service in the right fashion. Russ stated that Qwest would like to proceed with the modification of the PCAT, send the modifications out for review, and receive comments. Russ asked for questions. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she believes that if the OSP had followed Industry Standards and had not responded to the LSR or to the escalation that it should be too bad. Bonnie stated that the OSP should be responding to Qwest. Bonnie stated that there are three parties involved, which are the NSP, the OSP, and the Network provider. Bonnie stated that the NSP getting involved only makes sense and stated that forced ports should stop. Bonnie stated that she was not aware that Qwest moved forward if there was no response received from the OSP. Bonnie stated that this could always end-up as an escalation and a repair call. Bonnie stated that if an OSP does not want the NSP involved, the OSP should then be responding via the FOC, the reject, or to the escalation. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that information is sent to the OSP and stated that Qwest is the Network provider and has no stake in this transaction. Russ stated that Qwest would not move forward if no response is received from the OSP. Russ stated that the interface then would become outside of the Network Service Provider realm and is then between the OSP and the NSP. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she agreed with Russ (Urevig-Qwest). Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that at that point, the LSR would need to be resubmitted, by the NSP, with a different due date or would need to interface with the OSP. Russ stated that we need to allow the end user to move between providers. Russ stated that Qwest is the network provider of the facilities and has no control. Russ stated that the PCAT would state the network service providers position and that the NSP would be provided with information. Russ stated it would then be up to the NSP and OSP. Russ stated that Qwest would not suggest that the NSP interface with the OSP, it is up to the NSP to decide. Russ noted that Qwest would provide information to the NSP and leave it at that. Russ stated that there would be appointment scheduler activity anytime there are new facilities and would not be applicable if reusing facilities. Russ stated that if the OSP sends concurrence to Qwest, the transaction would take place. Russ stated that Qwest is still looking at a unique jeopardy code but that it would be a new/separate CR for the IMA effort. Russ noted that it would not be eligible for 19.0. Russ stated that this was a possibility in the future and stated that it is really a secondary issue. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the new CR could be the long term effort and that this existing CR could be the short term. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that Qwest would look into it. Russ noted that if it is prior tot the FOC, it would result in a reject for the error to be sent back to the NSP. Russ stated that the reject could be due to an incorrect address. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that this should be a reject and that the NSP LSR would need to be corrected. Bonnie asked if this would be 2 CRs. Russ Urevig-Qwest said yes and stated that it could be 2 different activities. Russ stated that there could be a reject from the OSP due to incorrect information, and if no FOC is received by Qwest from the OSP, this would be a jeopardy. Russ stated that something would need to be done with the error. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that we would need to define the terms. Bonnie then stated that a customer jeopardy was a good long term solution and that the short term could be accommodated via the error process. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he would update the port-in PCAT before July 1st and present the changes for review. Russ stated that this CR would remain in development status and that Qwest would proceed with the implementation of the CR. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that another recommendation was that the Qwest Service Managers, for the facility based CLECs, solicit for updated contact information for LSRs and escalations. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that this is a good idea so all are working from the same list. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the information or a link to the information would be helpful for getting a response. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he agreed. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon asked if the reuse of loops would be for analog only and stated that the migration/conversion PCAT says that LX Loops for DSL capable loops would be reused, if they qualify. Kim asked that if they go from UBL to a Qwest product, if that was not the case. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that when is equivalent to a 1FR; if the circuit is to be reused facilities. Russ stated that he would need to look at UBL going to the end user. If LX--, Qwest will automatically take it. If the circuit is LX-N (more than basic or a voice grade loop) Qwest does not know if the NSP wants DSL capability from the OSP. Qwest would then ask for the port only. Russ stated that this is the current practice and that it has been working well. Russ stated that Qwest does not want to take facilities from an LXR-, LX-N, or from an ISDN line the end user may want to keep with the OSP. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon thanked Russ for the clarification. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked that if the LSR, from the NSP, indicates the circuit id, if the facilities would be taken. Russ Urevig-Qwest said yes and stated that if sees LX-N or LXR-, Qwest does not know and won’t leave a customer without DSL. Tiffany Ellwood-McLeodUSA asked that in regard to the NSP contacting the OSP, that Qwest would do all that they can, with the OSP, before the NSP contacts the OSP. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that the internal method is being modified so that data from the NSP LSR will be validated and if there are changes, Qwest will ask the OSP for concurrence. Russ stated that Qwest would do all that Qwest can. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the NSP LSR could be rejected to the NSP and that a new LSR may be needed from the NSP to Qwest. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that when Qwest gets the reject from the OSP, it will take Qwest out of the loop in requesting a CSR from the OSP. Russ stated that in some cases, Qwest can see that no CSR was requested because the data provided is not even close to what it should be. Russ stated that today, Qwest pulls the CSR and this could delay the process and stated that this should not be the network providers responsibility. Russ stated that Qwest will populate data as it was provided to Qwest and in the future, this will reject because the information does not match the information from the OSP and Qwest will not pull the CSR. Russ stated that the NSP needs to pull the CSR from the OSP. Russ stated that this will make this a lot smoother and that the end user is currently not getting all the calls from the OSP. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he would update the PCAT by July 1st. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked if there were any additional questions or comments. There were none. Peggy stated that Qwest will proceed with this CR and that a status would be given at the June CMP Meeting.

- May 18, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discusson: PC030205-1IG Port In PCAT-Stop Force Port Activities Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that an ad hoc meeting was held and that it provided good input. Russ stated that input was due back to Qwest by May 13th and noted that Qwest did receive information from an old provider perspective and from the perspective of a new provider. Russ stated that we are internally reviewing the information and that another ad hoc is being scheduled for June 1st. Russ stated that a status would be provided at the June CMP Meeting. Russ then noted that this CR would remain in Development status.

- April 28, 2005 CLEC Input Meeting Minutes Attendees: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Tiffany Ellwood-McLeod, Liz Balvin-Covad, Kerry Birks-Comcast, Tom Larson-Cox Communications, Linda Minasola-Comcast, Russ Urevig-Qwest, Jennifer Fisher-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Jamal Boudhaouia-Qwest, Connee Moffatt-Qwest, Scott Ellefson-Qwest, Chris Quinn-Struck-Qwest

Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the purpose of the call was for PC030205-1IG Port In PCAT-Stop Force Port Activities, originated by Qwest. Peggy stated that this change is based on the Industry Standards that were established via the LNPA Working Group at NANC for LNP Practices. Peggy then stated that Russ (Urevig-Qwest) had mentioned, at the CMP Meeting, that he wanted to talk to the CLEC Community about this Change Request. Peggy then noted that included with the meeting notification were 3 documents: the Port In Process Documentation changes, the Inter-Service Provider LNP Operations Flow Charts, and the Narratives for the Flow Charts. Peggy then asked if there were any questions before the call was turned over to Russ Urevig (Qwest). There were no questions brought forward. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that the current process if a new LSP requested is that Qwest port in a number from another provider on their behalf, Qwest issues an LSR to the OLSP. Qwest issues the order to the SOP and FOCs the new provider, and then proceeds. Qwest generates an LSR to the OLSP requesting concurrence based on the interval and waits for the FOC. The service is already in the system for the new provider; the current date is for the OLSP. Russ stated that this may result in a date adjustment, which then Qwest re-FOCs to the new provider. Russ stated that if no FOC is received from the old provider, Qwest then has no confirmation. Qwest would then issue another LSR to the old provider and continues with the new provider. Billing would start to the new provider. Russ stated that this could result in the end user not receiving all of their calls. Russ stated that the calls originating for the OSP switch would not go through. Russ stated that Qwest works with the OSP to get the number ported. Russ then noted that Qwest does have issues getting the confirmation from the OSP and that the issue for the new service provider is that the service would not be working as it should. Russ then stated that Qwest is proposing to become more standard with the LNP Working Group. Russ stated that the flow charts and narratives indicate the Network and stated that Step 9 & 12 of the narrative says that the Network Service Provider issues the LSR, service order, and send an FOC. Russ then noted that was where the change in this process is. Russ stated that in the 6 day interval, on Day 0-Qwest receives the LSR from NLSP and issues LSR to OLSP and reserves the requested due date in appointment scheduler; then on Day 1-Qwest is waiting for FOC from OLSP and if received, issues the order and FOC to the NLSP. Russ stated that Qwest waits for the FOC thru Day 1 and does not issue the service order until concurrence is received. On Day 3 if the FOC is received, the service order gets issued. Russ stated that if the FOC is not received, Qwest starts the escalation process with the OLSP and noted that Qwest does have contact names and telephone numbers. The LSR is then in jeopardy status, after a 4 hour wait on the escalation, and the NLSP is advised of a possible no port condition. Russ stated that this could increase the number of jeopardies and rejects to the new service provider. Linda Minasola-Comcast stated that on page 5 of the narrative, it states that if Qwest has an arrangement with the reseller and no notification is sent, would they know about that and stated that her concern is regarding the lengthening of the timeframe if it is not known. Linda asked how this would impact a Facilities Based Provider. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that there would be no lengthening and stated that Qwest would port the number to the LSP. Russ stated that there would be no effect to the Facility Based providers. Russ stated that in this specific scenario, it would only impact when Qwest is requesting a port-in from Comcast. Linda Minasola-Comcast thanked Russ. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that the effects that can occur for the NLSP is when they send an LSR, they normally receive the FOC within 24-hours and now the FOC could take 3-days. Then would get a reject, an FOC, or a jeopardy on that 3rd day. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she was surprised because when the current process was being developed, she was not aware that Qwest was moving forward if no concurrence was received from the OLSP. Bonnie stated that if a call originates from a non-Qwest switch, that call would not go through. Bonnie stated that she was aware of the escalation process. Bonnie then stated that she did not disagree that this needs to be fixed because this is not good for the end users. Bonnie stated that it can be fixed by working on the process. Bonnie then stated that she understood that the reject, FOC, jeopardies could be implemented. Bonnie stated that she looked at this closely in order to come up with some recommendations. Bonnie stated that the escalation process needed to be no less than the escalation process for the Retail customer. Bonnie stated that the new provider is the middle person and has no control. Bonnie stated that she would like a process that Qwest escalates and then if no response is received, to have the new provider get involved in the escalation. Bonnie noted that she has had to contact the old service provider before. Bonnie then made the following recommendations: she agreed that if no concurrence is received from the OSP, that cannot move forward and need to work together. Bonnie then stated that possibly a unique jeopardy code could be used. Bonnie stated that in regard to the process, where under the traditional process it could take 4-hours, that maybe could have a longer timeframe so the due date could be met without supplementing the LSR; i.e.: don’t reject if the new service provider wants to take the escalation over, and then supp the order with the due date. Bonnie stated that this could result in no missed due dates. Russ Urevig-Qwest asked to confirm that when Bonnie refers to the order she is talking about the LSR. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said yes and stated that Qwest needs to determine what works best for Qwest. Bonnie stated that at a high level, a unique jeopardy code that when it is jeop’d, Qwest could give a high level history of the escalation, including the name and telephone number, so that if an escalation is taken over they have the history. Bonnie stated that the Service Management team needs to get contact names and numbers, especially for those CLECs who do not attend CMP, so that there could be a current common contact list. Bonnie stated that Eschelon has contact names & numbers on their web site and noted that it is continually updated but noted that not all CLECs have that is why CLECs need to provide contacts or links to the information. Bonnie stated that she thought the orders were already being rejected and noted that it does need to move if the old provider does not do their work. Bonnie stated that this impacts the old provider, the new provider, and Qwest. Bonnie stated that if jeop’s, maybe the CLEC needs to positively respond with either yes or no that they would become involved in the escalation or take the escalation over in order to try and get the FOC for Qwest. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that the new provider sends the LSR, the information is transferred to the LSR and forwards to the OSP. Russ stated that sometimes there is a reject due to incorrect data. Qwest then has to request a CSR from the OSP in order to populate the LSR correctly. The new service provider should be responsible to make sure that the OSP CSR information is correct. Russ stated that some CLECs do make sure but that some CLECs do have problems, so would like to automatically pull them. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said that if Qwest gets a reject from the OSP, she thought that the NSP would be notified because the LSR from the NSP would probably be wrong. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that it would meet the edit validations. Russ stated that the information is sent to the OSP and that the edits are more stringent on the CLEC side because of requests to have Qwest edits relaxed or removed. Russ stated that we try and make sure that the information is correct and that a CSR is requested, if needed. Russ stated that for those where we get a lot of rejects, the rejects are back sooner. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that was a different issue and noted that all are happy to work with Qwest. Bonnie stated that for the purpose of this CR, we are talking about no response received at all. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that when modifying the PCAT, when the condition occurs, this will also have to be included. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that both should be done at once. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon asked that after the order is rejected back, what if you get the FOC after the order is rejected to the OSP? Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that when the LSR is rejected to the NSP at the same time as the order is sent to the OSP, the LSR is cancelled. Russ stated that looking from Bonnie’s perspective, if look at the new jeop code, maybe it would not be a reject and could possibly move forward, and then FOC. Russ stated that we need to work through this and have further discussion. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that maybe the NSP does not want to get involved, so in that case it would be logical to cancel the LSR. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that we do need to work through this. Russ Urevig-Qwest asked for additional questions. None were brought forward. Russ then asked the CLECs to document their suggestions and forward them to Peggy.Esquibel-Reed@qwest.com, we would look at the suggestions, discuss, and see how can do hand-offs. Russ stated that we could then have another call. Russ stated that this process has been around for a while and noted that a change is needed and that we would work together through this. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that this is doable and that we do need to work together. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that the next steps are that the CLECs are to send their suggestions to Peggy Esquibel Reed (Qwest); we would work on the process, review the PCAT changes, and then issue documentation for review and approval. Russ stated that Qwest does want to incorporate the feedback from the CLECs. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she would send-in her thoughts and asked at what point, in the 6-day interval, if a due date is reserved, does Qwest need the FOC and what day to look at a new due date. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated on day-3 a new appointment would be needed. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked to confirm that it would be on day-4 and after. Russ Urevig-Qwest said yes and asked that the CLECs discuss suggestions amongst themselves. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that those who participate are not traditionally the CLECs that have problems with. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that we do have Service Manager’s on the call and stated that they have been asked to interface with their customers regarding the proposed changes and to get feedback. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked for the timeframe that the feedback is needed. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he would like the information by May 13th and stated that a status would be provided at the May CMP Meeting, Qwest would meet internally, and then a status would be given in June. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked if there were any additional questions or comments. There were none. Peggy thanked the call participants for their input and stated that Qwest would certainly take the input into consideration and again provided the email address for suggestions Peggy.Esquibel-Reed@qwest.com The call was then concluded.

April 20, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that there was a CLEC Input Meeting scheduled for April 28th at noon MT and that the notice was being sent. Russ stated that the meeting was delayed due to additional internal discussions. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that there would be discussion at the CLEC Input Meeting. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if references could be added to the CR for the IG classification. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that they would be added. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that the (Change to minutes submitted by Covad 4/28/05) reference would come from Industry Guidelines. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she would like the information prior to the CLEC Input Meeting. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR moves to Development status.

March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Russ Urevig-Qwest reviewed the CR and stated that when the PCAT was developed, it was a joint effort with the CLECs. Russ stated that we now have a forced port scenario and that it causes concern for both the old and new provider’s. Russ stated that when the process was developed it was prior to the Industry Standard being established. Russ stated that we never do a forced port without an okay from the old provider and now we are operating outside of the Industry Standard. Russ stated that Qwest and the CLECs need to work together and that he was currently working on a proposal. Russ stated that we would have an ad hoc meeting to discuss the proposal with the CLECs. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she is anxious to discuss this and agrees that the customer was highly impacted. [Comment received from Eschelon: Eschelon stated that she had just sent an example where Qwest did an unauthorized port to her service manager and Qwest was unable to produce the LSR Qwest sent for the port and is anxious to discuss this and agrees that this customer was out of service highly impacted.] Bonnie stated that she agreed that conversation is needed regarding the options. Sue Wright-XO asked if this was in reference to CLEC to CLEC migrations. Russ Urevig-Qwest said yes. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked to confirm that the PCAT would not be changed until after the ad hoc call. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that was correct. Russ then noted that this was originally going to just be a Level 3 notice, but he felt strongly about obtaining CLEC input, so he issued the Level 4 CR. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she appreciated that a CR had been issued and that the CLECs would be able to provide input. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the meeting would be scheduled. This CR moves to Presented status

- March 2, 2005 Clarification: Russ Urevig-Qwest requested a CLEC Input Meeting to review the CR with the CLEC Community. Russ will provide Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) with an attachment to include with the notification of the CLEC Input Call.