Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC040604-1 Detail

Description Of Change

- Introduce required fields for submitting a claim on a standard form.

- Define pertinent terms, such as resolution, status, legal dispute;

- Standardize the escalation processes; and

- Finalize rules for submitting and processing claims involving multiple months

As a result Qwest will update the Product/Process Catalog (PCAT) describing the dispute process, including the process flow diagram discussed in LTPA

Expected Deliverable:

Date to be determined

Project Meetings

- May 18, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Donna Devine-Qwest stated that this CR has been in CLEC Test for over a month and asked for CR closure. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked that the CR not yet be closed and that we wait until they get through an entire cycle or 2. Bonnie stated that Eschelon just recently used the process and asked that it be kept open. Donna Devine-Qwest agreed to keep the CR open another month. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- April 20, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that this change was implemented on April 4th and would like to move the CR to CLEC Test. Liz Balvin-Covad stated (Change to minutes submitted by Covad 4/28/05) that this CR was discussed in the CLEC forum in the fact that this change impacted access claims and the fact the CLECs were not notified. Liz stated that when she was involved in the discussions that took nearly a year and the changes were specific to local wholesale. Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that CMP discussions were for local but this process was implemented for other customers.Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that a Courtesy Notice was sent. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what a Courtesy Notice was. Mark Coyne-Qwest stated is a notice and go. Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that the Courtesy Notice was for the non-CMP process. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that (Change to minutes submitted by Covad 4/28/05) the negotiated procedures for local/wholesale took nearly a year and couldn’t understand how Qwest believed IXCs would only need a 1-day notice and go. Liz stated that she understood MCI has numerous claims and noted that they all failed upon implementation by Qwest. Liz stated that the PCAT updates were specific to wholesale. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that in all Companies, they don’t do the same functions (Change to minutes submitted by Eschelon 4/29/05 and were not aware of these meetings, so a 1-day notice is not good. Sue Kriebel-Qwest asked to clarify that all Companies do not provide local and access services. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that was correct. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest did appreciate the feedback and that Qwest would continue to discuss internally, Jill advised this CR moves to CLEC Test.

March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Devine-Qwest stated that the CLEC Comment cycle was through March 5th and that Qwest is reviewing the comments. Donna stated that this CR remains in Development status.

-- February 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Devine-Qwest stated that Qwest was on target to announce the process on February 18th.Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR remains in Development status and that the Level 4 notice would be sent.

- January 19, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion Donna Devine/Qwest stated that she is targeting the Level 4 Notice to be sent the week of February 14th. Jill Martain/Qwest asked for questions. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon thanked Donna for sending responses to their questions and stated that she does not believe that all were responded to. Bonnie stated that she would comment when the notice is sent. Bonnie then thanked Donna for her efforts. [1-28-05 Comment Received from Eschelon: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon thanked Donna for sending responses to their questions and stated that she does not believe Qwest answered the comments. Bonnie stated that she would expect Qwest to respond to Eschelon’s comments when the notice is sent. Bonnie then thanked Donna for her efforts to respond.]

December 15, 2004 Product/Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Devine-Qwest stated that there have been several ad-hoc meetings, since April, and the last meeting was held on December 9th. Donna stated that (insert comment from Eschelon) Qwest (end comment) it was agreed in the last adhoc meeting that Qwest will proceed with the 45-day notice for this process. (Insert comment) Bonnie said she does not agree. (End comment). Donna stated that Qwest addressed over 70 issues and that the same issues were being brought forward multiple times. Donna stated that there would be a 15-day comment cycle and a 30-day test cycle. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon asked when Qwest would provide the written response to Eschelon’s questions. Donna Devine-Qwest stated that the response would be sent December 20th. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon said Thank you.

December 10, 2004 Email Sent from Donna Devine, Qwest to Chad Warner, MCI: Chad, I checked with the QPP contract process owner regarding your question: Are QPP contracts excluded from the dispute business procedure process? Response: The CLEC can not bring Commercial Contract issues and concerns to the CMP process. The CLEC will continue to follow the business procedures for all Wholesale products including Commercial Agreement Contracts. If you have other questions, please let me know! Donna Devine Qwest Wholesale Process Specialist

-- December 9, 2004 Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes: Please see Supplemental Information for Meeting Minutes.

November 17, 2004 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Devine-Qwest advised that the CLECs should receive the most current copy of the process on November 22. The document has been base lined as Version 9. Redline marks will not be displayed as this was making the document to hard to read. Donna advised the group that she will be on vacation so she would like to have comments sent in by December 7. We will have the next ad hoc meeting on December 9. Donna advised that her back up is Jami Larson and her email is Jami.Larson@qwest.com. John Berard-Covad advised some of their billing representatives were involved initially but were told that this process would be optional. Because of this, Covad did not stay involved. Donna Devine advised that it has not been stated that this is an optional process. We have approximately 70 issues identified. Maybe it was mentioned that for access customers it was optional, but it is not optional for CLECs. Donna advised that the CLECs can use the same spreadsheet. Liz Balvin stated that if your contract outlines your procedure and timelines that this would over ride. Donna advised that she does not put language in the process that references a PID. Liz advised we would always default to our contract. Donna asked the team to review the process and make comments. Sharon Van Meter asked if additional information will be sent via CMP. Donna advised the notice has already been sent for the next meeting on December 9. Donna also stated that Qwest did testing on the submittal part of the process and we can discuss if we need additional testing. This CR will remain in Development Status.

-- 10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Donna Devine, Qwest stated that Qwest is in the process of reviewing comments from Eschelon and MCI and is targeting the next ad-hoc meeting for early November. Bonnie said that both agree that the test hit too many roadblocks and with every CLEC having a different process it is difficult to incorporate them all. The CR will remain in development. (Comment from Eschelon: Bonnie said that both agree that the test hit too many roadblocks and with every CLEC having a unique different process it is difficult to incorporate them all gain consistency without impacting the CLECs. The CR will remain in development.)

-- Ad hoc meeting September 24, 2004 In attendance: Jenna Chang – Covad, Cherish Hubbard – Global Crossing, Chad Warner – MCI, Rodney Griffin - MCI, Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon, Kathy Stichter- Eschelon, Ellen Copley – Eschelon, Gary Effler – Eschelon, Rosilyn Davis - MCI, Jen Arnold- TDS Metrocom/US Link, Audrey Wolford- TDS Metrocom/US Link, Sue Lamb- 180 Communications, Jackie Kole – Qwest, Jeremy Rice - MCI, Cindy Macy -Qwest, Donna Devine- Qwest, Sue Kriebel – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest introduced all of the attendees and reviewed the agenda. Donna Devine – Qwest advised during the ad hoc call today we will review the results of the trial and updates to the document. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised the document was just received last night around 6:00 p.m. Donna advised that we did not expect the CLECs to have reviewed the updates to the document as of yet. We will review the changes during the meeting. Donna summarized that during the trial Qwest received two Option 1 disputes, two Option 2 disputes, and one Option 3 dispute. Qwest processed these claims so there was not a delay. In the background we gathered data on how the trial was working and identified improvements and changes that could be made. Donna reviewed the changes / information: Donna advised on Page 5 of the process the diagram was cleaned up and made clearer. The customer claim number was missing from claim acknowledgment to MCI during the trial. This would make it difficult for the CLEC to match up the claim with the other documents. This was Qwest’s mistake as it was not sent back on the acknowledgment. On Page 7 – every claim was missing the reason why the claim was submitted. Qwest expected to see a verbal description of what the claim was for. There is a summary tab after the description. Donna advised she believes this was her error as it wasn’t clear in the PCAT example. Jenn Arnold – TDS Metro said that they have questions on the install charges and why they were charged. Donna advised what Qwest would like to see on the form in these situations is: On Service Order# XX TDS was charged an install and should not have been per [reference to legal document showing what TDS feels they should have been billed]. Qwest would then reply with reasons for the charge or reasons it was an error and when the correction was made. On Page 8 – Bill mate data is being used and there are not ‘column headers’ on the spreadsheet. When the data is entered into the spreadsheet Qwest does not know if it is a complete record or if it is data from different fields within the file. Discussion took place and it was determined that the data that is sent over is the complete record. The Bill mate file has a name for the file, but the actual data elements descriptions are not within the file. The data elements are identified in the user guide. Donna agreed she would take this as an issue and do additional investigation on it. For Qwest to add the ‘column headers’ to the data would be difficult. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said that Qwest doesn’t send it to us so it would be just as difficult for Eschelon to send it back. Page 9 – Box 12 The money amounts didn’t match the details on the spreadsheet. The example from Eschelon was that the TIC Repair Charges were sent in advance. The claim information didn’t match what was sent in previously. Bonnie said they will not send these in advance. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon stated that this [claim] process was optional from her perspective. Donna Devine – Qwest asked Bonnie why she believes the process is optional, as Qwest has stated that it is not optional. Bonnie advised that the Interconnection Agreement dictates what we do. The Interconnection Agreement says that we send disputes in writing. Sue Kriebel – Qwest advised that the Interconnect Agreement doesn’t go into this level of detail. It references that disputes need to have a valid reason and in writing. Qwest works many items in CMP that are more specific and not in the Interconnect Agreements. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said that there is a significant amount of work for Eschelon to change the process that has been in place for the past 2 years. Sue Kriebel – Qwest advised we can take the discussion of optional off line as Qwest does not consider this process optional. Bonnie Johnson advised that Eschelon has requested for Qwest to make this process optional. Eschelon’s option is to send these to Larry Christenson. Donna Devine – Qwest advised there are still 3 options in the process. We have added Option 3 to accommodate Eschelon’s existing process. The Billing SDCs gave feed back that this process was not changing Eschelon’s current process very much. Page 15 Donna explained that the BOSS / CABs information was rejected because requiring customer code on working telephone number (WTN), and should not have been, as this information is not available. Rodney – MCI advised thank you. Donna Devine – Qwest asked Rodney – MCI if he has a question about sending multiple products on one spreadsheet. Rodney explained that they need a way to track every dispute and make sure it was processed by Qwest. Rodney asked if Qwest could populate the information on a spreadsheet if MCI sent the spreadsheet to Qwest. Donna advised that Qwest will provide the customer claim number on each claim acknowledgment and you would need to match that to your file. An acknowledgement and a response are sent on every claim. Donna advised if MCI uses Option 2 or 3 we can populate information on your spreadsheet. The process may work better if you use Option 2 or 3. Rodney will talk with Chad/Jeremy and get back to Donna if there are additional questions. Donna advised other test findings include if you are challenging a rate, Qwest needs to understand where you are getting the rate from; tariff, a bill, etc. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised that our goal is to participate and provide Qwest with the dispute claim form and information. Eschelon is not willing to make significant changes to our process. Thanks for having a trial as this helps identify issues. The intent is to provide Qwest with clear dispute reasons. For recurring claims, Qwest has put the ownership on the CLECs. If the CLECs puts something in our contract or in a tariff, that should be sufficient. We will provide the data once, when it is a recurring issue we don’t want to provide it again. Jenn Arnold – TDS Metro said they have the same issue with recurring claims. We do not want to fill out forms every month. Donna Devine advised if you put the same claim number on the form and just reference it that would work. Bonnie advised that would require the CLECs to look up the claim number which it too much work. Jenn asked why Qwest doesn’t just fix the problem. Donna advised that generally the claim is being processed and until it is complete the problem continues. Donna advised the CLECs do not have to submit a recurring claim if one is already opened. Bonnie advised that Eschelon’s choice is to submit the claim each month if the claim is open. Donna advised she will add to the process that the CLEC can just reference the previous claim and not have to send in the details. Bonnie asked if on the trial claim form rejection reason, when Qwest populated information there were some fields left blank, if nothing was populated does that mean it was okay Donna advised no, these were just examples. Donna agreed to populate all lines and send back to the CLECs. Bonnie asked about Page 18 and the additional historical information. Bonnie asked if this is required for all options. Donna advised yes. Donna advised there would be a payment history for every claim. If the CLEC sends in this information that is fine. Qwest will use our information for credit purposes. Bonnie advised she will share this information with their VP of Network Finance. Bonnie asked Donna to summarize the changes that were agreed to in today’s meeting. Donna advised the following: Donna will research the ‘common headers’ information Request to add more information under description and will send back to the CLEC for review If choose to send in recurring claims the CLEC is not required to add the details again. Donna asked the CLECs to review the flow and document and send comments by end of day Thursday September 30. Send comments to donna.devine@qwest.com and copy Cynthia.macy@qwest.com. After the comments are reviewed Qwest will schedule another ad hoc meeting. Bonnie advised she will include Karen Klausen and Bill Market in later meetings. 9/16/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Donna Devine reported that a trial is in progress for the Claim Submittal Form. She has received all three options. Since these are real claims, Qwest has been accepting the claim so we don’t delay processing them. Donna is compiling a list of what would have been rejected. Bonnie and Kathy thought the trial would be more real if we knew what Qwest would be accepting or rejecting upfront like you would if following the new PCAT. They want to make sure we flush out all the issues. Donna agreed to take the trial claims and send Eschelon and MCI reasons why they would have been rejected in the new process. If Eschelon or MCI have questions on the rejection reasons, those questions should be filtered to Donna. If they do not have questions they will try to work through re-submitting. This will also filter through Donna. Bonnie and Kathy agreed this is o.k. Doug is checking to see if the next CMP AD HOC meeting can occur on Friday September 24 from 9:30 AM - 10:30 AM MDT. Both Eschelon and MCI will confirm if this is a good date by COB today. The CR will stay in Development. - 8/18/04 CMP Meeting Donna Devine reported that an ad-hoc meeting was held Friday August 13. It was agreed to trial the new dispute notification form. She is waiting to hear if MCI will participate in this trial. The target trial date is the week of September 13. Before that date a trial meeting with all participates will be scheduled to work through the details. Qwest will coordinate the meeting. The idea is to trial the draft PCAT language “Claim Submittal Section”. Participating CLECs will submit real disputes using the new dispute forms 3 options. An analysis will be made of what worked and what could work better. After that analysis, revisions will be made to the draft PCAT and the next Ad Hoc meeting will be coordinated. Leilani Hines said she will check with her co-workers at MCI to see about trial participation. Bonnie Johnson expressed thanks for Qwest performing the trial. The CR will remain in Development status. - 9:30 10:30 (MDT) / Friday August 13, 2004 Attendees: Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon, Kathy Stichter, Eschelon, Ray Smith, Eschelon, Liz Balvin, MCI, Brad Patton, MCI, Jen Arnold, TDS Metrocom/US Link, Audrey Wolford, TDS Metrocom/US Link, Sue Lamb, 180 Communications, Carla Pardee, AT&T, Joyce Atwell, AT&T, Doug Andreen, Qwest, Cindy Macy, Qwest, Donna Devine, Qwest Meeting Agenda: 1.0 Introduction of Attendees: Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change: Doug Andreen, Qwest said that we would follow our usual process of having Donna Devine, Qwest review the document and point out changes as she reviews. CLECs are encouraged to comment or ask questions as the review moves forward. Donna pointed out that we are using revision seven of the document. There were no comments on page one or two. Donna began on page three, there were no changes. On page four the flow diagram had been added. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon said they had several questions and asked Donna if it would be possible to step through the flow diagram especially who is providing what and what is meant by end of process. Donna said Day 0 is when the SDC receives the Claim from the customer. The SDC enters the claim into the Dispute tool and acknowledges within two business days of receipt. Bonnie questioned if the CLECs get the information in the middle box regardless if the Claim is accepted or not. Donna said yes, but if the claim is rejected you will also get the reason why it was rejected. Donna went through the remainder of the document. Bonnie felt the two diamond boxes were causing the confusion as they are both named the same thing. It was agreed the first diamond would be changed to Review Claim. Bonnie said she now understood the concepts and would review and email any further comments. Donna stated under Terms and Conditions item 3 was added per the previous meeting and item 4 added per follow-up email from Bonnie. Bonnie asked on number 4 if the wording could be changed to reflect that CLECs can initiate an escalation any time. Donna said yes and said the sentence will say You can initiate an escalation for any issue, at anytime, and to any Qwest escalation point. This was agreed. Liz asked if the word you can be changed to CLEC. Donna said the entire document is a process for the CLECS so that is why we use the word You. This was agreed. Bonnie expressed concern about the second sentence in # 1and asked if the second sentence could be separated. from the 1st.This was agreed. Donna summarized and added we will now have 5 items under Terms and Conditions. Issue # 40 on the issues list was closed. Kathy Stichter, Eschelon asked if there wasn’t a set phrase about Interconnect Agreement(s) taking precedence. Donna said she was unaware of this. Bonnie said she would find one and email the statement. Donna said she wanted to point out the first and the newly added second statements in the Terms and Conditions are in relation to dispute retention guidelines. There were no comments on page 5. Bonnie said page 6, Tab 2 only applies to Option 3 Donna initially answered yes but then asked how will you summarize if you use option 2. Bonnie said that Eschelon had offered to trial the claim submittal form with Qwest and would like to use the claim submittal form process on a couple of disputes. Bonnie added that she didn’t want a process where everything ends up with Larry Christensen. Doug asked Bonnie to explain what she had in mind for a trial. Bonnie said she wasn’t talking about CLEC Test but rather something up front, a trial for clarity and format of the submittal form. Not a trial of the entire dispute process. Donna asked if Bonnie wanted to use selected claims and Bonnie said yes perhaps one with multiple account numbers etc. Donna clarified. Are we going to use real disputes? Bonnie answered yes. Doug asked if Eschelon wanted to represent all CLECs as Qwest does not want to exclude CLECs wanting to participate but the complexity will increase with the number of CLECs participating. Bonnie pointed out that of the three formats for documenting a Dispute Eschelon will only use number three. Doug asked if MCI or any other CLEC would be willing to participate using formats 1and 2. Liz Balvin, MCI said she would have to check with Brad Patton and would get back to Qwest. No other CLECs volunteered to participate. Donna said she would like to do the trial the week of September 13. Bonnie suggested that we do one claim for each product. Donna agreed. Liz said that MCI could only do UNE-P. Doug said there would be a meeting called to set the criteria before the 13th. Bonnie said she felt more comfortable knowing this type of test would be done. Donna asked if we should continue with the Claim Submittal Process section pages 6 and 7 or just proceed to next section. It was agreed to proceed. There were no questions regarding changes on pages 8, 9, and 10. n page 11 Donna asked if everyone was ok with fields 10, 12, 13 and 14 adding the words You are required to split out by Main Account Number if more than one Main Account Number submitted on the claim. Kim Isaacs, Eschelon asked if this meant Main Account Number A for fields 10, 12, 13, 14 and next main account number B format for fields 10,12,13 and 14 to which Donna answered yes. Donna moved on to page 12 where the word required was removed from the sentence Rejected means a Qwest Dispute ID number is assigned, but the claim is not submitted using the [required] claim submittal form This closed issue #42.There was much discussion around example #4 involving CABS/BOSS and the Differences list. Carla Pardee, AT&T agreed to check with her billing group but thought most of the problems with the Differences List are no longer significant. Bonnie asked Donna if Qwest could assure that disputes would not be rejected because of the Differences list. Donna said no. The only intent of example #4 is to ask the customer to check the Difference list before they submit a claim. Most of the time the answer to their claim is already on the differences list. Issue 43 will remain open. Carla asked if any other CLEC uses CABS/BOSS and MCI answered they do. Donna said there were no changes on page 13 and moved on to page 14. Eschelon submitted an email asking to add additional information to bullet #1 page 14.Donna said in reference to the Docket number that Qwest would like to keep consistent with the information given on the Notification letter. Ray Smith, Eschelon asked what is meant by full document number. Donna gave an example from a Notification Letter Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Docket No P-421/C1-01-1375. P-421/C1-01-1375 is the Docket Number. Donna asked if the CLECs were having trouble with the notifications sent today. Bonnie said she would like to take this issue back since Qwest wants to continue sending what they are sending today. Donna said that would be fine and she will leave issue 41 open. Jen Arnold, TDS Metrocom/US Link added that the problem for her was the [effective] date. Bonnie wanted to know if there was a notice number on the example. Donna said the notice number does not appear on the example she has but will go on the web site and look. Bonnie said she would let us know if the information they are getting today is enough. Note: after the meeting, Donna and Doug checked and there are notice numbers on all notification located on Qwest.Com web site. Also on page 14 Donna read issue 22 regarding the 30 day time limit to disagree with Qwest Resolution. . Donna explained this dispute process is for submitting claims to the Billing SDC. Alternatives are submitting the original claim form to the SDC within 30 days or to Larry Christensen according to your ICA. Bonnie said Eschelon disagrees. She feels a time frame is not appropriate and doesn’t agree with the concept. Bonnie said to go ahead and close as unresolved. Donna said then we agree to disagree and we are o.k. Bonnie said yes. Bonnie said she had several comments on the payment section on page 15. Donna said the information under Payments was added to make this standard. She said about half the CLECs now submit this information and half do not. Donna said this was all brought up because Bonnie asked at the last meeting if we could eliminate sending the payment history spreadsheet. The answer is yes if you submit this payment information. Bonnie wanted to confirm that this did not apply to Eschelon since they are already doing this. Donna said she believed this was true but to check with the Eschelon people for verification to see if they are providing this information on their dispute payments. Meeting time was running out and it was decided Bonnie will submit comments on the payment section. The meeting was brought to a close at this point. No future meetings were scheduled at this time. 3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted: Billing. 4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved: Correct personnel were involved in the meeting. 5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests. 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame): Next meeting was not set at this time

- 9:00 10:00 (MDT) / Monday Friday July 30, 2004 Attendees: Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon, Kathy Stichter, Eschelon, Ray Smith, Eschelon, Ellen Copley, Eschelon, Liz Balvin, MCI, Chad Warner, MCI, Brad Patton, MCI, Teresa Castro, Var Tec Telecom, Candy Davis, Covad, Janet Chang, Covad, Jen Arnold, TDS Metrocom/US Link, Audrey Wolford, TDS Metrocom/US Link, Julia Redmond Carter, McCloud, Sue Lamb, 180 Communications, Mark Brindamoue, Nancy Sanders, Comcast, Doug Andreen, Qwest, Lynn Stecklein, Qwest, Donna Devine, Qwes.Meeting Agenda: 1.0Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug Andreen, Qwest asked if there was anyone on the call that was new to the meetings or unfamiliar with the CR. For those unfamiliar, Doug gave a brief description of the CR and a brief history of the meetings held previously. Doug then stated that the way Qwest would like to proceed is to go through the document page by page, noting changes and incorporating CLEC outstanding questions as we proceeded through the document. There were no objections. Bonnie Johnson, Eshcelon asked if CLECs could give their thoughts, new questions on a page by page basis and Doug said yes. The meeting was then turned over to Donna Devine, Qwest who started through the document. Liz Balvin, MCI wanted to verify that this was a CMP meeting and Doug answered that it was with the standard ad-hoc minutes as usual. Donna said her objective was to go through the document and arrive at an agreed upon process prior to a formal comment cycle. Donna started with page 1 where Wholesale Local was added to the title. On page 3 the word Local was added to the title. Liz asked if that meant products ordered out of the Interconnect Agreement will go under this process. Donna said yes. On the Web Site it will appear under Qwest.Com;Wholesale/Interconnection;Business Procedures. Donna asked if the last sentence on the first paragraph under Description on page 3 could remain. There were no comments and the sentence will remain. Donna apologized for the diagram not appearing in the document. Doug said that we would make arrangements at the end of the meeting to get the diagram to the CLECs. Donna continued with page 4 Terms and Conditions. Bonnie said that Eschelon was looking for something more general and that in #3 it might help to strike everything after the word Agreement. It was agreed that the remainder of #3 would be stricken. Regarding Terms and Conditions #3: Bonnie said that the idea is to make the process agreeable to everyone and asked if it would go to Larry Christensen. Donna said yes with a copy to Legal. Donna asked if that is the process they use today and Bonnie answered Yes. Liz asked if the CLECs can invoke an escalation anytime and Donna answered yes. Donna continued with page 4 saying the pricing had been removed as requested from the rate section. Donna continued with page 5. The second paragraph under Submitting a Claim was moved to Terms and Conditions. In paragraph 3 the word Local had been inserted. In paragraph 4 Donna walked through the change and said Qwest can allow more than one main account number per spreadsheet. Bonnie expressed thanks for this change being made. Also on page 5 the word required information and will be removed from paragraph 2. The sentence will read: A spreadsheet with all supporting information can be attached to the Claim Notification Form. There was discussion around the date/year. Liz asked how it would work if the greater than, less than 60 days take it into more than one year. Donna agreed this needs rework. Donna asked about all the data Eschelon supplies on their spreadsheet. Bonnie asked if what Donna was referring to was the historical data the SDCs wants on the spreadsheet. Donna answered that she only wants the current dispute information. Bonnie asked if the historical data could be removed. Donna answered yes. Bonnie said the intent was to put the detail in the spreadsheet and the claim form will show the current dispute. Bonnie questioned if the data referred to was on the Summary Tab. If so this data was at the request of the SDCs to have historical data. Donna said she would take the topic of Historical Data as an action item. Bonnie said what Eschelon wants to do is have a template for the claim form that can be a separate tab in the spreadsheet. So then the spreadsheet would have claim form, detail, claim form, detail, etc. Donna agreed with this.Donna said back to Liz’s question if the flow is greater than 60 days it would have to go back. Liz asked meaning you’ll strike the year in the document. Donna answered yes and Bonnie said this appears in several sections. Donna said she would strike all of them. There was discussion around the inclusion of the customer code on the form. It was decided that the customer code will remain on the form. Brad Patton, MCI indicated this would be alright. Bonnie asked if the wording could be changed in paragraph 5 under Submitting a Claim. Donna was concerned because other smaller CLECS also use this PCAT and want to express that Qwest first choice is submit only one Main Billing Account Number per claim. It was agreed the words Qwest preference is that” would be added to the beginning of the first sentence. Donna did say that allowing more than one main account number per spreadsheet still required separate tabs. Also, separate tabs for greater than 60 days and less than 60 days. Donna reviewed the out of office wording change on page 6 and Bonnie said the changes looked ok. Going back to page 5 Bonnie asked if the Qwest Claim Form should be identified as being able to be sent as a Word or Excel document. Donna said she would work on the wording to identify. Donna outlined the options for submitting a claim. They are 1. A Claim Form with all needed information. 2. A Claim Form and a Spreadsheet. 3. A spreadsheet with the Claim Form as a tab. Donna pointed out that in all cases greater than 60 days and less than 60 days should be split out. She said she would change the bottom of the form on page 7 to reflect these options. Donna also noted she would remove the year in field 11. There were no questions on pages 8 or 9. On page 10 of the document Donna asked if Eschelon will have one claim per account number. Bonnie answered she was not sure. Donna went back to field 7 on page 10 and asked about multiple main account numbers. Bonnie asked if this meant they could have multiple main account numbers per dispute form. Donna answered she would have to think about it since the dollar amounts would total in field 12. Bonnie pointed out that it would still be separate in the detail and that multiple lines could be added field 12 and 13 on the form to accommodate multiple Main Account numbers. Donna said then that would be ok. Candy Davis, Covad asked if one Main Account Number was optional Donna answered yes, but the preference from Qwest was one main account number per form. However, Donna said she would put something in field 12 of the form to enter multiple totals. She added when the detail is on the claim form it needs to be split out by main telephone number and product. Bonnie asked if on the product side is UNE-P and Resale accounts considered products, then that would be 2 claims. Donna said yes because different products go to a different SDC. Donna said she should provide an example of different kinds of products. The meeting was then stopped with the following items noted: 1.Eschelon would send additional comments on the remaining pages of the document to Doug to be incorporated before the next meeting. If other CLECs had additional comments they should be forwarded to Doug by COB Monday, August 2. 2.Doug would send the high level flow chart via a notice to the CLECs by COB Monday, August 2. 3.The next meeting will be Friday August 13 from 9:30 to 10:30 MDT. The revised document will be sent by COB August 11. 3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted: Billing. 4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved: Correct personnel were involved in the meeting. 5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation. 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests. 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame). Next meeting August 13 to continue with document review.

- 7/21/04 July CMP meeting Donna Devine, Qwest reported that there is an ad-hoc meeting scheduled for July 30 at 9:00 AM MDT. Qwest will have the updated documents sent on July 28th. Donna asked Bonnie Johnson, from Eschelon, if her offer is still open, Donna would like an example of Eschelon’s request for submitting a claim on one claim form with multiple spreadsheets. Bonnie agreed she had a couple more hours of work and will send to Doug within next day or two. Doug said he was on vacation and to send direct to Donna. Donna also stated she welcomed anyone else who would like to submit examples. Donna said she did receive comments from MCI. Liz Balvin, MCI wanted to discuss the last meeting being outside the CMP process. She said that the CLECs requested meeting minutes and that Qwest’s position was that these meetings were outside of CMP and therefore the document and question list provided by Donna would serve as the record of the meetings. Susie Bliss, Qwest said when the meeting is to talk about LTPA, that process will be used and when they talk about processes associated with this CR, minutes would be taken. Doug Andreen added the meeting on the 30th will be a CMP meeting. Susie added it’s all about being clear upfront in the meetings. Liz said that her biggest concern was starting the process over again. Liz understood that it was brought to CMP because LTPA could not resolve issues without a process. Liz said that Donna was doing a good job on the issues log, however, since we are not documenting all conversations there are some questions discussed in the meetings that are not on the issues log, for example, a question from McLeod. This CR will stay in Development.

6/16/04 June CMP meeting minutes Donna Devine Qwest reported that the next meeting is scheduled for July 1, 9 to 11 a.m. and that she will send out the issues list and the supplemental documentation before the meeting. She also added that the concerns presented by Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon via email will be addressed at the meeting. Bonnie said she feels this is crucial to address since it sounds like the process for review will be different and CLECs have a right to know . She submitted the concern via email so that Qwest would be aware sooner than later. Donna said she is trying to work through where to place this information in the document. Liz Balvin, MCI wanted everyone to know that this process is only for local products and not for Access. Donna confirmed that this is for local products. Liz added that Access processes will remain the same. This CR will stay in Development.

-- Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PURPOSE The purpose of this meeting was to discuss/reply to questions posed by the CLEC community during the ad-hoc meeting held May 4, 2004. List of Attendees: Jim McCluskey, Accenture, Lori Mendoza, Allegiance, Jan Arnold, U S Link, Cheryl Peterson, AT&T, Terri Kent, AT&T, Nancy Sanders, Comcast, Mike Zulevic, Covad, Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon, Ray Smith, Eschelon, Ellen Copley, Eschelon, Kathy Stichter, Eschelon, Wayne Hart, Idaho PUC, Liz Balvin, MCI, Brad Patton, MCI, Chad Warner, MCI, Benita Matthews, MCI, Rod Cox, U S Link, Char Mahs, Qwest, Sue Kriebel, Qwest, Jim Recker, Qwest, Kit Thomte, Qwest, Donna Devine, Qwest, Doug Andreen, Qwest MEETING MINUTES: The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees. Doug Andreen with Qwest explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Qwest initiated CR PC040604-1 Dispute (CLAIM) Process, specifically to discuss/respond to questions raised by the CLECs at the last ad-hoc meeting. The meeting followed a standard format with Donna Devine, Qwest reviewing the question and Qwest response. In the interest of brevity questions and responses from the document will not be captured in these minutes. Rather, additional discussion/comments/commitments will be captured. Please refer to the previously distributed “Questions from Eschelon, MCI and Cbeyond related to Supporting Documents Associated with Dispute (Claim) Process CMP PC040604-1 – dated 4/20/2004 and Revision 2 dated 5/6/2004” for initial questions and responses. Donna Devine, Qwest stated she had received no additional questions on the following items and they will be considered closed. The question numbers were 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 19, 24, 27, 31, 32, 35, 36, and 47. It was agreed to proceed through the document by category of question received. General Questions: Question #5: Ray Smith, Eschelon wanted to make sure the meaning of dispute and claim are used consistently. Does it mean the same thing when referring to the PID as it does in English? Sue Kriebel, Qwest asked for an example and Ray responded that it is a singular vs. plural issue as in the words dispute (singular) vs. charges (plural) as used in this question. Ray proposed having lower case for the English meaning and upper case for the meaning as used in the PID. Donna agreed to work on the definition of a Claim and how it affects the “count” in BI5A and BI5B. This question will remain open and will be referred to LTPA for more discussion. Question #38: Donna read the question and Qwest response. Chad Warner, MCI asked if there was a time frame on starting to work on categories other than local billing disputes. There is not. Kathy Stichter, Eschelon asked what other than local billing disputes were. Chad answered categories like access disputes. There was no further discussion or comments. The question will be closed. Submitting a Claim Question # 10: Chad questioned why it was that if Qwest had the majority of information on a claim that it would be returned for missing information. Donna responded that at the time of acknowledgement it is considered one claim and therefore the entire claim is returned if a required field is missing. There were no additional questions/comments. This item will be closed. Question #13: Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon stated that this information is not required for the PID and she would like to see it removed from the form. Donna said the Dispute Form was addressed in LTPA but they did not get down to the field level. Kathy Stichter said if there is a disputed USOC, for instance, she does not believe it is an Eschelon responsibility to provide a count but rather a Qwest responsibility. Many times it may take three or four months to fix. Bonnie reiterated that this is putting additional work on the CLECs. Sue Kriebel asked if you are disputing 100 USOCs and the adjustment was for 80, would it not be good to know how many you had originally disputed. Kathy said the assumption is that Qwest will see there is 100 in dispute. Bonnie added that this is not information provided today. Donna said the intention is that since it was already on the spreadsheet that it could be added up, but that she will change Field 14 to and optional field. There was no further discussion and the item will be closed. Question #26: Ray Smith, Eschelon asked if a claim is rejected is it counted in BI5B. Donna answered no it is not. There was no further discussion or comments. This question will be closed. Question #29: There were no comments/discussion on this question. It will be closed. Question #30: Liz Balvin, MCI said she thought Stephan had left Cbeyond and could we check with Cbeyond before closing their items. Kit Thomte, Qwest said Qwest will call Stephan’s telephone to see if he is still there or referring calls. This question will be closed. Question #39: Donna read the question and response. Liz questioned if the time zone applied to Salt Lake City and Des Moines and Donna responded yes. There were no comments or questions. This question will be closed. Question #17: Donna asked if MCI was supporting one spreadsheet with one tab for greater than 60 days and another tab for less than 60 days. Liz and Brad answered yes. Brad further stated he could send an example of what they mean. Sue Kriebel asked if Qwest could say in the reply how Qwest will work with and populate the table in the supplemental document on page 5. Donna responded that she could. Ray Smith ask if the intention was to put the example and response out to general distribution. Donna said yes. This item will remain open. One question was submitted via email and has no reference number. Bonnie had questioned the supporting document dated May 6, 2004 page 4 and 5 examples 1 and 2. While it was Donna’s intention to show how these would count, in essence the example would not count in 5A or 5B. Donna asked if that answered Bonnie’s concern and Bonnie answered that it did. Donna agreed to change the document. Out of Office Question #9: Donna said that questions 9, 18, 28 and 34 all relate to the out of office issue. She has talked to SDCs who felt that out of office was not used that frequently. Bonnie stated the concern is that when an out of office message was left, there is no direction to contact anyone else. Chad Warner added that if for instance MCI had a claim there was no person to send it to. He suggested the need for a general mailbox. Both Char Mahs, Qwest and Donna suggested this be tabled for discussion at the Thursday meeting. Donna suggested the general internal dispute procedures advise the SDC to provide backup information. This question will remain open. Resolution of Status Claim. Question # 1: There was much discussion around this question centering on the level of detail on the Resolution Status letter. The following issues/questions were agreed. It was agreed the Service Order Number AND Purchase Order Number (PON) will be provided by Qwest. It was agreed Qwest will utilize provide a standard Resolution and Status template. It was agreed Qwest will research Cost Docket Resolution examples, specifically MN docket No P-421/C1-01-1375. It was agree Qwest will provide examples where Qwest requires the SGAT as apposed to the ICA. It was agreed discussion regarding "mutual agreement" to resolve including escalation process will be defaulted to LTPA PID discussions It was agreed Qwest will continue investigating supplying the Maintenance and Repair (M&R) trouble ticket number. Question #4: Bonnie stated the business concern is that in LTPA Qwest committed to provide the information on resolution letters it is now asking the CLECs to provide. The concern is sometimes there is nothing to point to such as a cost docket etc. A second concern is that at Eschelon about 75% of what is disputed on a monthly basis is the same things disputed the previous month. Can we differentiate something that is in dispute for the first time from something that has been disputed before? Sue asked if the question is do the CLECs have to submit the same dispute month after month. Bonnie said the CLECs understand that they have to dispute month after month but the question is can we provide Qwest the detail just one time. Bonnie asked if she had to dispute the same exact dispute month after month? Donna said she would have to address with Qwest later. Bonnie also asked if Qwest could look into the situation where there isn’t any information for instance if there are no approved Commission rates. Donna said yes. Ray remembered a situation dealing with poison control in LTPA and questioned what if there is no reference to a tariff, Cost Docket or Interconnection Agreement what happens? Sue said when the dispute is something that is not related to USOCs or rates but is additional tax or surcharges etc., then that would also be an example of when no information is required. Donna also stated it is an optional field on the form. Sue said if you are disputing a rate, then when submitting a claim we require a reference to a Tariff, Cost Docket or Interconnection Agreement. Sue and Donna questioned if the Poison Control situation was a Rate or a Tax /Surcharge issue. Donna said page 6 of the Supporting Document dated May 6, 2004 explains “required supporting information”. A reference to a tariff, Cost docket o r Interconnection Agreement is not required for a Tax or Surcharge issue. Bonnie said she would look at it more closely as she did want to ensure that nothing is left to interpretation since it is part of the rejection criteria. Jan Arnold asked about if the claim is for an invalid rate. Donna answered that the solution letter response will reference where the rate was found. Cheryl Peterson said what she was hearing is both that Qwest will provide and not provide references. Sue said the goal is to get to a process where references are outlined consistently. Sue added that if Qwest can’t provide documentation then will adjust. For auditing purposes have to have referenced documentation. This question will remain open. Question #14: There were no comments/questions on this item. This question will be closed. Question #20: Liz Balvin asked when, if there is still a dispute over the “final verdict” from Qwest does a CLEC have the opportunity to bring it up again. Donna clarified if the claim is denied and the CLEC disagrees. Liz answered yes if the issue is not resolved. Donna added that it is resolved from a Qwest perspective. Liz asked what the process is to re-dispute, do we use the resolved id when it is really not resolved. Donna said the escalation process is still under discussion. Liz added that now it is just Qwest's resolution to the dispute. Bonnie agreed with Liz and wanted to make certain that within 28 days if there is not resolution where both parties agree that there is some type of escalation process. Sue added that she does not think we can resolve this with a process and that it is an appropriate discussion for Thursday’s meeting. Donna agreed that mutual agreement is a discussion to have at Thursday’s meeting. This issue will remain open. Question #21: Liz said her intention was to try to shorten the time frame. Donna stated that the majority of the time the status didn’t change and Sue added that if the claim is not resolved in the initial 28 days, it is usually something that takes a long time to resolve. Liz verified that Qwest would not wait till the 28th day. Brad asked what percent go over 28 days. Donna said some work had been done on that but no status was available. Brad also felt the language was not clear. Donna agreed to reword the language to say “The follow-up date will be no later than 28 calendar days from the receipt of the claim or sooner if claim is resolved”. This item will remain open. Question #25: Bonnie asked if this information will be on a form. Donna answered yes and the resolution letter will outline the information behind the granting or denying of a claim. Bonnie said what the CLECs are looking for here is consistency. Sue said the SDCs will use a template for the resolution letter. The meeting was called to a close with Qwest stating that it would digest the information gathered and set another ad-hoc meeting to continue the progress. Due to the meeting coming to a close the following questions were not addressed, 23, 33, 11, 22, 6, and 15.

0005/19/04 CMP meeting Donna Devine Qwest reported that the first adhoc meeting occurred on May 4. As a result of that meeting, Qwest responded to several questions from meeting participants. In turn MCI, Cbeyond, Time Warner and Eschelon submitted responses and additional questions. Qwest will respond to these follow-up questions by the end of this week. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday May 24 from 9AM – 11 AM MTN time. This CR will be moved to Development.

Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PURPOSE The purpose of this meeting was to review process changes, introduce recommendations from Qwest to assist in improving the quality of the dispute process and to reply to comments made by the CLEC community. List of Attendees: Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon, Ray Smith, Eschelon, Ellen Copley, Eschelon, Kim Isaacs, Eschelon, Kathy Stichter, Eschelon, Carla Pardee, AT&T, Liz Balvin, MCI, Linda Bell, 180 Communications, Mark Rendmore, 180 Communications, Emily Baird, POPP Telecom, Chad Warner, MCI, Audrey Wolford, U S Link, Lori Mendoza, Allegiance, Wendy Perrot, Allegiance, Larita Tillison, Allegiance, Rob Garth, Liberty Bell, Christie Hubbard, Global Crossings, Cheryl Peterson, AT&T, Brad Patton, MCI, Malia Ciasi, VCI, Stephen Calhoun, Cbeyond, Kevin Youngblood, Jean Novak, Qwest Communications, Char Mahs, Qwest Communications, Sue Kriebel, Qwest Communications Jim Recker, Qwest Communications, Kit Thomte, Qwest Communications, Donna Devine, Qwest Communications, Doug Andreen, Qwest Communications MEETING MINUTES The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees. Doug Andreen with Qwest explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Qwest initiated CR PC040604-1 Dispute (CLAIM) Process, review process changes, introduce recommendations from Qwest to assist in improving the quality of the dispute process and to reply to comments made by the CLEC community. It was agreed to proceed by waking through the document and provide feedback to CLEC submitted questions/comments as we reached pertinent sections in the document. Donna Devine, Qwest thanked MCI and Eschelon for submitting comments and proceeded with page 3 of the document Customer Billing Dispute (Claim) Notification Form and Field Dictionary dated April 20, 2004. There were no comments on page 3 covering the Introduction and Submitting a Claim sections. The next section started on page 4. Donna Devine began by stating that claims should be submitted using the form on page 4. If you have an agreement with the Billing Center, you may also attach a spreadsheet with all required information. If required information is not provided, the claim will be returned and considered closed. Liz Balvin, MCI asked that the way it reads a spreadsheet is an option. Donna said it is an option and agreed to remove the phrase. If you have an agreement with the Billing Center. There were no objections to this. Donna Devine explained in the Dispute Detail Information Section of the form if multiple bill dates are disputed (i.e. 4th, 7th, 10th), dispute claims must be split out by bill date/year. Enter claims within 60 days of the bill date on one claim and those greater than 60 days on another claim. If the disputes greater than 60 days from the bill date are not separated from those within 60 days from the bill date, Qwest will group using the oldest bill date. Refering to one of MCI’s questions Donna further said MCI commented that MCI currently keeps disputes separated by billing account numbers. Is it Qwest’s intent that a dispute for each invoice date for each ban must be filed? It would be cumbersome to file a Claim Form for the same issue month after month. One claim to identify the issue should be sufficient, using a spreadsheet to outline the activity on a monthly basis. Donna cited the following example: Dispute is from January 2004 April 2004 submitting claim in May. Bill date is the 4th. Today is May 1. January 2004 February 2004 4th bill period is submitted on one claim. March 2004 April 2004 4th bill period submitted on one claim. Donna was asked to change the term bill date to bill period. For purposes of the document bill date, bill period and invoice date are interchangeable. The Bill Date field identifies the Billing Period for the Billing Account Number (BAN) & invoice entered. Brad Potter, MCI asked if there is an advantage to splitting the 60 day time line. Donna answered yes for the SDC and for inclusion in the BI-5 PID. Bonnie asked if that was because greater than 60 days doesn’t count in BI5-PID. Donna answered yes. Bonnie asked what constituted a dispute, if we’re disputing call waiting is that a dispute. Donna referred to page 5 of the document for dispute types. Numerous questions in the form of possible scenarios were offered around how to submit/count disputes. Donna agreed to provide examples in the next document to clarify the scenarios mentioned. Liz asked if BANs were unique for bill periods. Both Donna and Sue Kriebel, Qwest answered yes for both CRIS and IABS. Liz said she would prefer to dispute by BAN as is currently done. Donna responded that this has not changed. Liz asked what would happen if the BAN is exhausted. Sue answered that when a BAN is exhausted new order activity will not flow to this BAN and a new BAN will be established. Brad Potter, MCI stated that breaking out greater than and less than 60 days presented more work for MCI. Bonnie said that if you put all the disputes on one without this breakout then it would not be counted in PID. Sue said this is correct since Qwest uses the oldest bill date when not broken out. Bonnie stated she is still unclear on what constitutes a numerator in the PID. (In checking with Char Mahs, Qwest the numerator in BI-5 is determined by whether Qwest resolved the claim whthin 28 days. If eligible, the claim would be in the denominator regardless of whether we met the 28 days to resolve or not.) Donna explained Acknowledgments are counted once and Resolutions are counted per Dispute Type. Donna said dispute type is referred to as reason code in the PID. Brad asked how Qwest knows if it has all the information to proceed. Donna answered that if all the required fields are filled in. Bonnie stated that having the information to process a dispute and having the information to get measured in PID are two different things. For instance if items older than 60 days are included the claim will be excluded from measurement. Donna answered yes. Eschelon made a comment that they currently submit claims using the fields we are requesting on the form except for the ACNA and Total # of items. Bonnie stated she still needs more information on how to submit and get it counted in PID. For instance if send 3 UNE loops for the same bill period. Sue answered that would be one claim for acknowledgement. Bonnie asked if she added three claims for a different dispute type. Sue said that would be one claim for acknowledgement however in working the claim would be split by dispute type and therefore would be two claims. Bonnie then said in BI-5B a dispute is counted by dispute type. Char answered yes. Bonnie stated that if she has one spreadsheet for greater than 60 days and one for less than 60 days then she is ok. Sue said yes but don’t want to receive one dispute for different bill periods (i.e. 4th 7th or receiving the spread sheets by ban is ok). Bonnie said that for April and May for same bill period and same product is ok. Sue answered yes. Bonnie clarified that as long as bill dates are not mixed and there is one spreadsheet for greater than 60 days and one for less than 60 days then it should get counted in PID to which Donna answered yes. Bonnie further asked if the process was required and Donna answered yes. Kathy Stichter, Eschelon wanted to verify that this will involve an extra form for each bill date, each month for each product. She said she now saves disputes and submits to Qwest once monthly. Sue Kriebel asked if that meant that Eschelon saves their disputes for bill period 1,4,7,10,22 etc and sends them to Qwest together. Kathy replied yes. Sue pointed out that this delays Qwest starting to investigate claims. Bonnie asked how the SDCs like the new process. Sue said it was a collaborative effort in development of the process. It was agreed to set a two hour meeting to further discuss and drive forward on this document. The following tentative timetable was established. Donna will submit updates to the document and respond the the CLEC questions by COB Thursday May 6, 2004. The CLECs will respond with their questions by COB Thursday May 13, 2004. The two hour ad-hoc meeting will be scheduled for as soon as possible after all comments have been considered.

- 4/21/04 April CMP Meeting Donna Devine, Qwest presented this CR and explained that over the past months multiple customers have participated in discussions to enhance the Dispute process. This new CR addresses dispute process changes requested by the customer and also introduces recommendations from Qwest to assist in improving the quality of the dispute process. These enhancements plus recommendations from Qwest are the basis for this CR. Donna proposed an ad-hoc meeting and will provide information with the notice. The ad-hoc meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 5/4 from 2 to 3 Mountain time. Ray Smith, Eschelon asked about a proposed implementation date. Donna stated right now the date is to be determined ‘TBD’ based on Ad Hoc meeting results and internal system changes. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon asked if system changes were involved in all parts of this, or can the work be phased in.. Donna said that the system changes that we will implement need to be done all at once as they impact results. Bonnie added that the implication is that all will be implemented at once. Liz Balvin, MCI asked if funding is approved and Donna said yes. Bonnie asked if a date could be estimated, is it 6 months/9 months/ years? Donna said third or fourth quarter of this year. Qwest verified probably six to nine months. Sue Kriebel, Qwest added that the due date depends on changes proposed since it is also related to the PID. Bonnie added that making the process changes were one item and Qwest making system changes to track was another. Ray added this should work jointly with LTPA. Sue said it is two different forums that will have to be clarified. Mike Zulevic, Covad echoed what Ray said about LTPA being compatible with what is developed. Liz added that with changes to PIDs there has to be coordination with LTPA. Mike stated that each company has a primary responsible person for LTPA and Qwest has a corresponding person. Qwest said the person from Qwest is Char Mahs. Bonnie asked if Char Mahs could be at the meeting and Sue agreed they could be. Jamal, Qwest asked if LTPA is part of CMP and Bonnie answered no but that this CR is related to a PID. Liz added that CMP is not the place to request a new PID. If a change to process or system affects a PID coordination must take place. This CR will be moved to Presented.