Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC062603-03 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected deliverable: Adoption of SBC process relative to Business Rules Clarification and event notificattionupdates through the Addendum process

Project Meetings

06/16/04 June CMP Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said that AT&T is migrating to 15.0 and the business partners submitted questions to the Q&A process and responses were received. The Qwest responses asked that the questions be submitted through the external documentation process and the response was sent within 14 days. Regina Mosley is not on the call today and is available tomorrow to discuss during the systems meeting. Randy Owen with Qwest said that the questions submitted were not determined to be related to EDI. Liz Balvin with MCI said there were USOC driven questions and the business rules are not in the EDI disclosure. This CR will remain in CLEC Test status.

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Randy Owen with Qwest said that the CR is in CLEC test with 15.0 and that we are waiting for feedback. Carla Pardee from AT&T said they would start 15.0 in June. Randy asked if they could look at other CLECs information. Amanda Silva with VCI said there was a business rule for conversion on TN and the business rule is there but got rejected. There was supposed to be an event notification regarding the work around. Randy took the two trouble ticket numbers and will provide information at Thursday’s meeting. Liz Balvin with MCI said she attended one of the conference calls and has recommendations for improvement: 1) Highlight in the ticket that a conference call will be taking place. Put in bold type. 2) On the call Qwest should bring forth what the changes were, what it is changing from and what is it changing to. Unless you have the event notification during the call it is hard to understand what is changing. Add what interface is impacted by this change. Randy said he would take this back and can probably accommodate the request. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said this is AT&T’s CR and they could be viewing the CR differently than Qwest. This CR should be allowed to go into a different status. Eschelon had submitted a CR to change the CMP document to add a re-open status and Qwest voted no. (Begin Bonnie’s comment) Bonnie said that Eschelon will not be closing CR’s until we go into the release that the CR was implemented in. Bonnie recommended that Qwest and the CLECs find a status that appropriately reflects this situation. (end Bonnie’s comment) Linda Sanchez-Steinke said that the CR is not ready to be closed. This CR will remain in CLEC Test status

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Randy Owen with Qwest advised that we have held conference calls with the release as a trial and we are drafting the implementation notification that will include a comment cycle and plan to have the notification out at the end of this week. Donna Osborne-Miller asked for an update on the action item opened for the escalation process. Randy said that this was related to the question log and he was still researching the action item on the system side. This CR will remain in CLEC Test status.

03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Randy Owen with Qwest said that the combined question log will be provided with 15.0 and two or three event calls have taken place. Donna Osborne-Miller said that discussion on the wrap-up of the global action items would take place during the Systems meeting tomorrow. Phyllis Burt with AT&T said she would provide feedback on the question and answer log and the event log. This CR will move to CLEC Test status. -- Thu 2/19/04 3:59 PM From: Sanchez Steinke, Linda To: 'Osborne-Miller, Donna, NKLAM' Subject; RE: Phyllis's items for documentation

Thank you Donna, I forwarded to Beth Foster, Kyle Kirves, and Randy Owen.

Linda Sanchez-Steinke 303-382-5768

Thu 2/19/04 2:55 PM From; Osborne-Miller, Donna, NKLAM [dosborne@att.com] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda cc: New Cr, Cmp Subject; Phyllis's items for documentation

Hi Linda, Can you be sure to give this list to Beth Foster? It pertains to our conversation pertaining to PCO62603-03 and the Q&A log breakout of categories.

thank you, Donna

Attachment Category breakdown based on IMA Appendix Categories for Collective Q&A Migration

A.1 ADDRESS VALIDATION A.2 APPOINTMENT RESERVATION A.3 TN APPOINTMENT CANCELLATION A.4 CONNECTING FACILITY ASSIGNMENT A.5 CUSTOMER SERVICE RECORDS A.6 DESIGN LAYOUT RECORD (DLR) RETURN A.7 FACILITY AVAILABILITY QUERY A.8 LISTINGS RECONCILIATION A.9 LOOP QUALIFICATION A.10 MEET POINT A.11 RAW LOOP A.12 SERVICE AVAILABILITY A.13 TELEPHONE NUMBER ASSIGNMENT B.1 END USER B.2 LOCAL SERVICE REQUEST C.1 CENTREX RESALE SERVICES C.2 DIRECTORY LISTING C.3 DID RESALE SERVICE C.4 HUNT GROUP INFORMATION C.5 LOOP SERVICE C.6 LOOP SERVICE WITH NUMBER PORTABILITY C.7 NUMBER PORTABILITY C.8 PORT SERVICE C.9 RESALE C.10 RESALE FRAME RELAY C.11 RESALE PRIVATE LINE C.12 RESALE SPLIT C.13 UNE CENTREX 21 (P OR STAR) SPLIT D.1 BILLING COMPLETION NOTICE D.2 COMPLETION RESPONSE D.3 DIRECTORY SERVICE CONFIRMATION AND ERROR DETAIL (DSRED) RESPONSE D.4 LOCAL RESPONSE D.5 PROVIDER NOTIFICATION D.6 SERVICE ORDER STATUS INQUIRY D.7 STATUS UPDATES D.8 PENDING SERVICE ORDER NOTIFICATION GENERAL/OTHER

02/18/04 February CMP Meeting Beth Foster with Qwest said that this CR has been discussed at the global action item meetings and last week Qwest met with AT&T and Liz Balvin with MCI. Qwest took action items from that meeting and determined that meeting minutes will be provided and posted on the production support page along side the trouble ticket information which is currently populated on the Wholesale Web site. There was discussion regarding the timeframe of posting meeting minutes. Connie Winston with Qwest said they would post the minutes within 3 days and would strive to get completed as soon as possible. Connie also said that Qwest would capture necessary information, necessary action items and a general re-cap of the meeting intent. Phyllis Burt mentioned that issues of importance to Qwest might not be the same as those that are important to the CLEC. Connie suggested that the CLEC could provide a red-line of meeting minutes back to Qwest.

Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said that we could put this CR into CLEC test and see how the process works.

Beth said that another action item was to look at how to handle the business rules clarification piece of the request, and noted that AT&T had initially asked that the Disclosure documentation be updated when CLECs ask for clarification. Qwest would like to start a single Q&A log with 15.0 release and provide the log on the wholesale website out where the EDI Documentation FAQ pages currently resides. This single Q&A log will provide needed clarification to documentation, a way to see documentation before the addendum is posted, and, will allow everyone to see what questions other CLECs have had and how Qwest has responded. Beth explained that the process for EDI will be covered by the CLECs EDI Implementation Teams, and included in the body of the Q&A document that will be posted.

Randy Owen with Qwest said an e-mail address would be set up for CLECs to send questions.

Phyllis Burt requested the Q&A log be categorized by topic, such as Appointment Scheduling. Randy Owen will take that action item to see if this is feasible. Donna Osborne-Miller said the Q&A log would be cumbersome if not broken out by fields.

Beth asked if everyone agreed that the process trial could begin with 15.0, and once the documentation was posted the CR could move into CLEC test for AT&T feedback. All agreed and Beth said that a Systems Notification will be sent stating that the Q&A log will be located on the Wholesale Web Site, under OSS, IMA, EDI Documentation under the FAQ link. This CR will move to Development Status.

Fri 2/13/04 8:38 AM From; Linda Sanchez-Steinke To; 'dosborne@att.com' Subject; Updated Draft Response PC062603-03

Hi Donna -

As a follow up to yesterday's meeting regarding PC062603-03, attached is the updated draft response.

As we discussed, Qwest took the following action items; documentation addendum notification meeting minutes, question and answer log. We will give an update at the CMP meeting.

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

Meeting Minutes PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification update through the Addendum process CMP Product & Process February 12, 2004 1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 2:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE

This meeting was held to discuss CR PC062603-03. The following is the write-up of the discussions, action items, and decisions made in the working session.

List of Attendees: Liz Balvin - MCI Regina Mosley - AT&T Phyllis Burt - AT&T Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T Beth Foster - Qwest Randy Owen - Qwest Kyle Kirves - Qwest Lynn Stecklein - Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke - Qwest

MEETING MINUTES

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest welcomed all attendees and explained that Qwest scheduled this meeting to discuss changes that have been implemented to address this CR.

Kyle Kirves said that Qwest has made progress in the following areas; providing clearer information in the event notifications, revisited the event notification template, provide additional reasons behind severity issues, schedule conference calls on major impacts, and have initiated a CR to change the CMP document Section 12. A good example of Qwest’s effort to improve is the 2/13 conference call clarifying Event Notification 674340. AT&T said they appreciated these efforts.

Phyllis Burt with AT&T asked when clarification calls would take place. Kyle said they would take place for addendum changes. Phyllis Burt and Donna Osborne-Miller asked about meeting minutes from the clarification calls and Kyle said that minutes would be recapped in disclosure. Phyllis added AT&T prefers to get minutes as soon as possible because of the impacts to production. Randy Owen and Kyle Kirves agreed to address this action item and respond at Product Process CMP.

Phyllis Burt asked about the question and answer log and said that with IMA 11 AT&T had lots of questions. Kyle said that in the addendum there will be a "change from" and a "change to" identification. Beth Foster added that the event notification would be in disclosure. Donna asked what the timing would be and Kyle answered that it may be two weeks after notification.

Phyllis Burt said that when working with Wendy Green last year they wanted to have the ability to have clarifications added to the document about how the system behaves and didn’t want to wait until the next IMA release to get clarification updated.

Beth Foster suggested that documentation changes could be made via the documentation request website. Kyle stated the website is for everything but disclosure document changes. Randy added that many times documentation changes have coding changes and is concerned about that. Kyle said that documentation rejects are not representative of what the system is doing, for simple clarification that represents enhancement to documentation. Phyllis said that AT&T builds systems from the documentation and then it will become a production problem. Beth said a trouble ticket should be opened for production problems. Phyllis said that AT&T asks questions and looks at the question log and gives them a good clarification and this is not in the Qwest disclosure document. Liz Balvin with MCI said we would want to assure that clarifications don’t get lost in the flow of the next release. Phyllis will provide examples of clarification questions and answers. Randy Owen said that Qwest had been considering a single Q&A log with all CLEC questions and clarifications. Liz added that the while Qwest might think clarification, it may be CLEC code impacting to have the update in the addendum especially from the EDI standpoint.

Qwest will provide an update to the open action items at the Product Process CMP.

01/21/04 January CMP Meeting Connie Winston with Qwest said that this issue has been worked through oversight and in the emergency meetings. Qwest can initiate a quick meeting and CLECs are also able to initiate meetings. Carla Pardee with AT&T said that there had been a meeting held on loss and completion. Connie also said there are potential CMP language changes being proposed. Qwest will have an updated response in February. This CR will remain in Evaluation status.

12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Connie Winston with Qwest said this CR has been discussed in the Global Action Item meetings and expects that the Global Action Item meetings will be wrapping up in the January timeframe. This was also discussed at the Oversight meeting and whether the new process will meet the intent of this CR.

11/19/03 November CMP Meeting Kit Thomte with Qwest said that this CR was being discussed with the Global Action Item meeting 11/18/03. This CR will remain in Evaluation status.

10/15/03 October CMP Meeting Kit Thomte with Qwest said that this CR was discussed at the 10/14/03 Global Action item meeting. It was agreed this CR would remain in Evaluation status.

09/17/03 September CMP Meeting Connie Winston with Qwest provided an update and said that Qwest is reviewing what we can do better. Qwest has implemented calls to appropriate CLECs. When faxing becomes only solution Qwest is raising the severity level because there is no way for the CLEC to Communicate with Qwest. Liz Balvin said that a severity level 1 or 2 is fine and that 3 or 4 is not acceptable. Bonnie Johnson said there is a difference in the definition of immediately. Connie said that at Event Notification closure Qwest is providing clearer information about what we did and what we are doing. Monica Avila with VarTec provided an example that when Qwest end user fields went from optional to conditional, it required coding outside of the release. Liz Balvin said that because the fields were optional, had Qwest lifted the edits as emergency patch, then CLEC coding wouldn’t have to change. Connie said there was concern not knowing documentation was wrong CLECs didn’t know the CR made it into the release. Liz said by TN and SANO didn’t know back end changes were taking place. Liz said that address information needs to match SAV response. SAV needs to be in disclosure and in addendum for optional to conditional. Connie said that we are reviewing when it makes sense to reference the PCAT. Liz said that if it impacts coding then is should be in disclosure. Connie would like to roll this CR into the discussion of the Global Action item. It was determined that 10/14 from 10 a.m. –5 p.m. would be a good timeframe to discuss the CRs. This CR will remain in Evaluation Status.

Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum processs CMP Product & Process September 9, 2003 1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 8:00 a.m. - 8:45 a.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE

At the August CMP Meeting, participants agreed to hold a conference call to provide additional clarity and explain Phyllis Burt’s series of questions and statements about intent and meaning of the change request. The following is the write-up of the discussion.

List of Attendees: Julie Pikar - U S Link Jen Arnold - U S Link Kim Issaacs - Eschelon Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T Phyllis Burt - AT&T Regina Mosley - AT&T Tom Hyde - Cbeyond Byron Dowding - Alltel Stephanie Prull - McLeod Randy Owen - Qwest Kyle Kirves - Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke - Qwest

MEETING MINUTES

The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees.

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss and get further clarification about the AT&T CR PC062603-03. At the August CMP meeting, Qwest provided the draft denial response and Phyllis Burt with AT&T provided a counter proposal at the CMP meeting and asked that Qwest provide an updated response at the September meeting.

Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T provided the denial response red-lined with a series of questions and statements written by Phyllis Burt. Kyle Kirves with Qwest had received the questions/statements. Phyllis Burt with AT&T said that the purpose of the CR was to provide clearer information in event notifications. Phyllis said that when event notifications are not clear, AT&T goes to their implementation manager and then calls the help desk and try to get answers, but production problems are not clear. Phyllis said that with the SBC process there is a clarification call where questions can be asked. The issue is, if workarounds conflict with other business rules, then something else can fail. When AT&T Consumer converts from IMA 12 to 13 Phyllis will have to go back through the event notifications for the 13.0 release and look at to see if there is anything they would need to consider.

Phyllis said that the purpose behind the CR is to make sure there are not long gaps in time on production impacts. AT&T suggests that there is a need for good clarification and AT&T has hundreds of questions in their Q&A log, and weeks go by and questions linger and wait. AT&T wants to find other avenues to head off production problems.

Stephanie Prull with McLeod will not go back and look at Event Notifications for releases. McLeod will only do what is documented in the Disclosure and try to code to the business rules. McLeod stated that they should not have to implement to anything other than the business rules. If McLeod has a CR or UR when going in then will code to it.

Phyllis reiterated that there are two big things in the red-lined response: 1) AT&T wants to make sure that they understand the work around and that it is not conflicting with other rules so they don’t have to re-word the workaround. 2) AT&T would like clarification around the current impact and if they will receive rejects or jeopardies based on that impact.

Kim Issacs said that Eschelon uses EDI and GUI (used for resale & UNE-P) and if they receive a work around notice and it conflicts with business rules Kim will call the help desk. Kim sometimes can wait up to two days to get an answer on what the product impact and issues are. In addition, they get communication of workarounds and then get rejects from the centers.

Phyllis and Stephanie both have concerns with the PCRM ticket 167601 (LNUM) and still can’t explain what the impacts are to their companies. Randy Owen with Qwest said that he didn’t have specifics, and knows that the issue is discussed every day trying to get to a solution.

U S Link said they are not on EDI, but share frustrations with process and support the AT&T CR. Randy said that we would take this information back and look at it further. Randy said that the CLECs should call the technical escalations if they are waiting too long on open trouble tickets that are severity level 3 and should escalate to severity level 2.

Phyllis said that she suggests Qwest look at the proposal of having CLEC calls because questions and problems will be brought up as a group and would trigger discussions. With the technical escalation process, McLeod may raise an issue and AT&T may raise another issue, but discussion as a group would help.

Randy said that he would like to know the rules and timing of the potential CLEC call. Kim said that having all CLECs on a call (for LNUM issue) would have helped. Stephanie Prull said that a call would not be needed on every event notice, but suggested that on event notices that the CLECs send an e-mail saying they want a call and if several CLECs sent an e-mail then Qwest should have a call.

Phyllis said that AT&T just requests calls on workarounds event notifications that change a business rules and documentation appears not to be working the way Qwest says it is working.

Phyllis also said that the second part of the red-lined document that with IMA 11 have Q&A log with major gaps. The next major release these will be worked into the addendum process.

Randy said that we will take that back also and that if there is a bug identified or is this enhancement which would have to be in the next major release.

Phyllis discussed the documentation for service address validation when look at Qwest Documentation it appears copied from pre-order, order and SANO populated. Phyllis said that what needs to be done is a documentation change.

Linda asked if there were any other questions or additional information to provide. There were no additional comments or questions.

08/20/03 - August CMP Meeting Connie Winston with Qwest reviewed the draft response for this CR. Connie said that the information provided in the Event Notification Closure should include additional information that identifies the change, what was changed and what it was changed to. CLECs can also use the Technical Escalations to get more clarity in Event Notification. Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said that Phyllis Burt has provided documentation to the CLEC Community on Event Notifications and Donna will e-mail to Linda Sanchez-Steinke. Discussion continued when Connie Winston came into the CMP meeting. What AT&T would like is to hold an Ad Hoc meeting and provide additional clarity and explain Phyllis Burt’s counter proposal’s intent and meaning. Liz said that CLECs see the addendum as changes to EDI / GUI and want the ability to comment on the addendum. This CR will be moved to Evaluation status and Qwest will provide a revised response at the September meeting.

8/20/03 4:53 p.m. Sent by: "Osborne-Miller, Donna, NKLAM" To: Linda.Sanchezsteinke@qwest.com> cc: cmpcr@qwest.com> Subject: Phyllis's counterproposal to documentation CR Linda,

Here is the redline document Phyllis composed that I spoke with Connie about this morning.

Thank you, Donna

ATTACHMENT - PC062603-03 Response - FEEBACK.doc

AT&T is seeking a clear understanding of the problem via a clarification call so all CLECs have a clear understanding of the problem/issue and the impact to their business so that they can make the appropriate business decisions. Currently, the event notification issued today are very vague as to the actually QWEST problem and the impact to the CLEC business. How can I identify this problem in production today? Is QWEST currently rejecting these orders, sending jeopardies or are the orders completing successfully but not being provisioned correctly?

AT&T is requesting whenever a workaround is document that a clarification call to clearly communicate (1) the workaround in detail (2) the current impact to the CLECs order or service in production Example: (a) A notification for PCRM Ticket Number: 167601 has been issued several times. Initially it was not clear which Products were impacted. The extent of the change required and what happens to our orders when this occurs is still unknown. I’ve personally tried getting an answer via the contact number provided on the notification. A QWEST TT has been open since Friday August 15.

AT&T is not requesting that the entire CLEC Q&A log be provided. QWEST has requested that AT&T provide the exact disclosure document update in the Q&A log. AT&T is requesting that CLECs that request documentation of clarifications provided in the Q&A and provide the exact wording required for the update to the Disclosure Document should be able to get these worked into the next Addendum update issued.

AT&T Consumer disagrees that the current process is working effectively. If this were the case, I would not be making this request. The current notification process only provides confusion due to the lack of in depth analysis

Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification update through the Addendum process CMP Product & Process July 31, 2003 1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE

At the July CMP Meeting, participants agreed to hold a conference call to discuss and gain input from CLECs on this CR. The following is the write-up of the discussions, action items, and decisions made in the working session.

List of Attendees: Liz Balvin - MCI Stephanie Prull - McLeod USA Regina Mosley - AT&T Phyllis Burt - AT&T Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T Kyle Kirves - Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke - Qwest

MEETING MINUTES

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest read the change request description: AT&T requests that the Business Rules be opened up for clarification and that event notification updates be incorporated into the Addendum process. We seek Qwest adoption of SBC's process of a standard conference be established to address issues or concerns with the event notification and addendum updates. This SBC process includes conference call logistics: date, time and bridge number. They also send out a notification capturing the questions and answers provided during the conference call.

Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said there were copies of the e-mail handout provided at the July CMP meeting and asked if CLECs on the call had the opportunity to look at the documentation. Liz Balvin asked if AT&T would give an overview. Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said the handout is also included in the body of the CR in the interactive report.

Phyllis Burt with AT&T provided an overview of the handout. Phyllis explained how the SBC process of event notification is different from the Qwest process. In the Qwest event notifications there is an e-mail address to send questions to. SBC’s process for appending business rules documentation includes a set conference call within 3-5 days of the notification. This set conference call time is convenient because it allows everyone to have an hour free on their calendar and the opportunity, during event notification, to discuss issues or questions and understand how business rules are impacted. The meeting minutes from the conference calls are included in the final notification and that allows everyone unable to attend the conference call ability to read the minutes for additional information. AT&T is looking for Qwest to provide this type of process. Phyllis also said that if Qwest had this type of conference call it would provide the opportunity to discuss the change and the impact. That way everyone would understand how to communicate and what the business rule is. In addition, sometimes CLECs get different answers from different people at Qwest and we are all trying to understand and seek clarity to the blocking issues.

Liz Balvin with MCI said the SBC process seems to be a more expeditious approach.

Kyle Kirves with Qwest asked if CLECs were talking about providing PCAT and LSOG updates or addendum and disclosure document impacts. Phyllis Burt with AT&T said the Qwest notification explains that something is happening but there is no addendum. Kyle Kirves asked if CLECs were looking for information in the disclosure notification and if they want the notification to provide what the documentation change will be. Phyllis said yes.

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest asked if there were any additional questions. There were no questions.

07/16/03 July CMP Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T presented this CR. Donna stated that AT&T would like Qwest to adopt the SBC process to address issues and concerns with event notifications and addendum updates. Donna said that they receive many event notifications from Qwest and the SBC process includes a clarification call 1-3 days after the notification to understand impacts. In addition, meeting notes are posted with a question and answer log. With EDI implementation 250-300 questions have been asked and some of the questions are not answered. Today, CLECs share their logs with other CLECs, MCI shares their log and McLeod shares their log. Judy Schultz with Qwest asked if the clarification call would take place during the production support timeframe. Donna said she is not sure if there is commonality between this CR and the CR for System Defects. Liz Balvin with MCI commented that if the Q& A logs were made public then they may not have to go to EDI teams which would be less work for Qwest. The CLEC community agreed to hold an ad hoc meeting to discuss this CR and Donna Osborne-Miller will provide the dates available for AT&T SMEs to Linda Sanchez-Steinke.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

2:00 p.m. (MDT) / Friday, July 11, 2003

1-877-260-8255 7616533# PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum processs

Name/Company: Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T Carla Pardee, AT&T Phyllis Burt, AT&T Regina Mosley, AT&T Kyle Kirves, Qwest Dan Busetti, Qwest Wendy Thurnau, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change AT&T’s CR requests that Qwest adopt SBC’s process of a standard conference to address issues or concerns with event notification and addendum updates. Phyllis Burt with AT&T read the e-mail below at the Clarification Meeting for participants on the call:

(1) Several Event Notifications have come out that required discussion (see below). This CR is requesting that QWEST provide a clarification call for notifications that impact CLECS. The call should be held within 1-3 business days after the announcement at a set standard time for example (11am Mountain/12pm Central/1pm Eastern). (a) The initial notification should include the addendum summary if impacts the disclosure documents. (b) The appropriate SMEs should attend the clarification call to answer any issues/concerns and a walkthrough of the appropriate documentation should be completed. (c) The closure notifications should include meeting minutes from the clarification call and the new addendum version should be posted on the Disclosure document website with a reference to the closure notification #.

Event Notification: 85434 IMA EDI GUI Initial Closure 061803 "Description of Trouble: CLECs may be experiencing difficulty processing POTS and UNE-P POTS orders on the Resale form when attempting to change a line level USOC and a non-line level USOC on the same order. Business Impact: CLECs may not be able to process POTS or UNE-P POTS orders on a single form when a line level and a non-line level USOC is changing. Qwest Proposed Work Around: CLECs should send the requests for line and non-line level USOCs separately. Alternatively, CLECs may submit their orders, mark the request for manual handling, and provide instructions in the REMARKS."

Event Notification: 75800 IMA EDI GUI 060503 Initial-Closure Description of Trouble: CLECs may be experiencing difficulty processing conversion LSRs with a Block Activity (BA) = N (no change to existing blocking). Business Impact: CLECs may be experiencing difficulties retaining existing blocks during conversion. Qwest Proposed Work Around: CLECs should use the Feature Activity (FA) = V to recap blocking USOCs.

(2) QWEST/CLEC Q&A log clarification should be captured in the Addendum. There should be a monthly process to submit clarification updates. Followed by a standard monthly event notification and review as discussed above.

Phyllis also said that MCI had quite a few questions when migrations were done and it would have been helpful to have Q & A logs for other CLECs to refer to. SBC identifies a timeline when the answers to questions will be given and includes center personnel and OSS personnel in their clarification calls for notifications that impact CLECS.

Phyllis said that it would have been helpful for the April release to have included a Qwest/CLEC Q&A log because code wasn’t in the business rules. In addition, Phyllis has a concern that if IMA 10 or 11 had a clarification log then they could refer back to it for IMA 12 and 13. Whatever other CLECS have learned has not been documented in the disclosure document.

Donna asked Kyle to provide an overview of the addendum process Qwest currently practices. Using the example above ( event 85434), Kyle described how this notification would justify an addendum. Specifically, he stated that, in this case, if the system were not functioning as documented, and the issue compromised the CLEC’s ability to process transactions, then a notification would be issued, and an addendum published. Situations that Qwest finds worthy of an addendum are those instances where the system is not functioning as documented. Clarification types of issues do not necessitate an addendum.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted The area of this Change Request impacts addendum notifications.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed the correct personnel were on the call to resolve the CR.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation AT&T’s expectation is that Qwest adopt the SBC process relative to Business Rules Clarification and even notification updates through the addendum process.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No systems change requests.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) AT&T will present this CR at the July CMP meeting.

To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda, Donna Osborne-Miller From: Burt, Phyllis S, CSCIO [phyllissburt@att.com] Sent: Fri 7/11/03 1:56 PM Subject: RE: Clarification call for the documentation CR Here's some additional information for our call today.

(1) Several Event Notifications have come out that required discussion (see below). This CR is requesting that QWEST provide a clarification call for notifications that impact CLECS. The call should be held within 1-3 business days after the announcement at a set standard time for example (11am Mountain/12pm Central/1pm Eastern). (a) The initial notification should include the addendum summary if impacts the disclosure documents. (b) The appropriate SMEs should attend the clarification call to answer any issues/concerns and a walkthrough of the appropriate documentation should be completed. (c) The closure notifications should include meeting minutes from the clarification call and the new addendum version should be posted on the Disclosure document website with a reference to the closure notification #.

Event Notification: 85434 IMA EDI GUI Initial Closure 061803 "Description of Trouble: CLECs may be experiencing difficulty processing POTS and UNE-P POTS orders on the Resale form when attempting to change a line level USOC and a non-line level USOC on the same order. Business Impact: CLECs may not be able to process POTS or UNE-P POTS orders on a single form when a line level and a non-line level USOC is changing. Qwest Proposed Work Around: CLECs should send the requests for line and non-line level USOCs separately. Alternatively, CLECs may submit their orders, mark the request for manual handling, and provide instructions in the REMARKS."

Event Notification: 75800 IMA EDI GUI 060503 Initial-Closure Description of Trouble: CLECs may be experiencing difficulty processing conversion LSRs with a Block Activity (BA) = N (no change to existing blocking). Business Impact: CLECs may be experiencing difficulties retaining existing blocks during conversion. Qwest Proposed Work Around: CLECs should use the Feature Activity (FA) = V to recap blocking USOCs.

(2) QWEST/CLEC Q&A log clarification should be captured in the Addendum. There should be a monthly process to submit clarification updates. Followed by a standard monthly event notification and review as discussed above.

Thanks,

Phyllis

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the March 2004 CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - PC062603-03 "Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum process"

This response is a supplementary response to AT&T’s CR PC062603-03. Originally, Qwest denied this CR at the August CMP meeting. In response to a series of questions and statements provided by AT&T, and as a result of an ad hoc call held on 09/09/03, Qwest reviewed the points raised by the CLECs.

As a result of the discussions held at the Global Action Items Meetings (held on September 12, 2003; October 14, 2003; November 4, 2003; November 18, 2003; December 16, 2003), Qwest believes that the spirit of the original request has been met.

Qwest is using this document to supplement its response to the request dated February 11, 2004. Subsequent to the February 11 response, a meeting was held to discuss any gaps between Qwest’s understanding of the request, and the request’s intent. During that meeting, two gaps were discussed. They were:

- AT&T requested that meeting minutes from any discussion around “Addendum to Disclosure Documentation” notifications be provided to the CLECs. Qwest committed to provide meeting minutes for these sessions no later than three (3) business days after the meeting. As the notification form itself is not designed to capture meeting minutes from the discussion, Qwest will record minutes from the meetings and publish them to the Production Support web site under the notification number. CLECs will have an opportunity to provide redlined edits to the minutes back to Qwest. - If any updates to the notification itself are required, Qwest will make those changes and republish the notification within one (1) day. - Regarding clarification to business rules, Qwest stated that it will continue to observe its established process for addendums and clarifications. Where “bugs” are identified, Qwest will publish a notification, documenting the bug, to be followed up by an addendum. For clarifications that do not constitute bugs, Qwest will capture the clarification in its Question/Answer log. Further, Qwest will start a single Q&A log with the15.0 release and provide the log on the wholesale website where the EDI Documentation FAQ pages currently reside. This single Q&A log will provide needed clarification to documentation, a way to see documentation before the addendum is posted, and, will allow everyone to see what questions other CLECs have had and how Qwest has responded.

It was agreed that the process trial could begin with 15.0, and once the documentation was posted, the CR could move into CLEC test for AT&T feedback.

Qwest maintains that the original request has been satisfied.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Director, Information Technology Qwest

February 11, 2004

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the February 2004 CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - PC062603-03 "Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum process"

This response is a supplementary response to AT&T’s CR PC062603-03. Originally, Qwest denied this CR at the August CMP meeting. In response to a series of questions and statements provided by AT&T, and as a result of an ad hoc call held on 09/09/03, Qwest reviewed the points raised by the CLECs.

As a result of the discussions held at the Global Action Items Meetings (held on September 12, 2003; October 14, 2003; November 4, 2003; November 18, 2003; December 16, 2003), Qwest believes that the spirit of the original request has been met.

Qwest responds to these items by stating that, since the implementation of IMA EDI Release 14.0 on December 8, 2003, Qwest has made best efforts to invigorate the notification process. Qwest maintains that by revisiting its process, providing training to notifications authors, and revising the notification template itself. Qwest itemizes its actions taken to address this CR as follows:

- Qwest is endeavoring to provide clearer information in the event notifications; and positive feedback from the CLECs indicates that Qwest has made significant progress on this front. - Qwest has a contingency plan in place to initiate calls with CLECs for high-profile, major impact event notifications and announce the conference calls in the body of the event notification. Qwest does not recognize the feasibility of initiating calls for every event, but will comply with major impact events, as stated. - As always, Qwest has worked to mitigate issues quickly; however, some production gaps will always exist due to prioritization of issues for resolution. - Qwest’s new internal process allows for event notification authors to work with the Interconnect Service Centers to generate appropriate, working workarounds that are approved by both Qwest and the CLEC. - Qwest now provides complete descriptions of impacts and error messages resultant from the issue, and has a separate place on the event notification form for capturing the error message verbatim. - Qwest now captures changes in documentation resulting in the body of the notification itself, in a “Change From:” and “Change To:” format. - As part of change request PC010704-1CM, Qwest is working toward language changes in the CMP document. The language change describes process improvements regarding notifications and documentation changes that cover some of the requests in this CR. Specifically, Qwest has updated the CMP document to demonstrate the following commitment regarding notifications, workarounds, and conference calls to CLECs:

Qwest will attempt to make a software patch when the system is not working as defined in the technical specifications and/or the GUI systems documentation, and issue an event notification clearly defining the change.

If Qwest determines that a software patch is not feasible, and/or Qwest or any CLEC identifies a Patch Release of software or related systems documentation changes that may impact CLEC production coding, Qwest will issue an event notification, initiate a Technical Escalation, and request a joint meeting between Qwest and the CLECs in order to discuss the particular Patch Release. Qwest will notify CLECs of the joint meeting in which Qwest will review the Patch Release, the proposed solution, and the variables which affect the resolution. In all instances, these joint meetings are exempt from the five (5) business day advance notification requirement described in Section 3.0. At this joint meeting, Qwest and the impacted CLECs will discuss how the pending Patch Release will affect their code. Qwest and the impacted CLECs will discuss any potential resolution options and implementation timeframes. In the event that agreement cannot be reached between Qwest and the impacted CLECs regarding the type of Patch Release to be implemented, the parties will attempt to negotiate an appropriate workaround.

Qwest maintains that the original request has been satisfied.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Director, Information Technology Qwest

September 10, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 2003 CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

CC: Lynn Notarianni Beth Foster Kit Thomte

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC062603-03

This response is a supplementary response to AT&T’s CR PC 062603-03. Originally, Qwest denied this CR at the August CMP meeting. In response to a series of questions and statements provide by AT&T, and as a result of an ad hoc call held on 09/09/03, Qwest is currently reviewing the points raised by the CLECs.

Qwest proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while we continue to investigate to provide workable solutions. Qwest would like to add this item as a topic for discussion for the meeting on September 19th. Qwest will then provide an updated response no later than the October CMP Meeting.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Director, Information Technology Qwest

August 12, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the August 20, 2003 CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

CC: Lynn Notarianni Beth Foster Kit Thomte

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC062603-03

CR Description: AT&T’s original change request states:

AT&T requests that the Business Rules be opened up for clarification and that event notification updates be incorporated into the Addendum process. We seek Qwest adoption of SBC's process of a standard conference be established to address issues or concerns with the event notification and addendum updates. This SBC process includes conference call logistics: date, time and bridge number. They also send out a notification capturing the questions and answers provided during the conference call.

Qwest Response: AT&T requests that Qwest adopt a regular call to address notifications issues that pertain to documentation changes or addenda to the Disclosure Documentation, and provide SMEs to answer the questions on the calls. In many cases, Qwest has not identified specific, word-for-word documentation impacts with the publication of the initial notification. Nor is that information available with the publication of the closure in all cases (in some cases, we are able to insert the Disclosure Documentation change into the closure, but this is typically a “documentation only” change notification). This is due to the fact that all documentation changes are reviewed by our System Requirements team. This System Requirements review is thorough and time consuming and would not be able to be completed during the timelines required by the notifications process in the CMP Document, Section 12.7. It involves research into field impacts, review of every instance to the field, cross-document impacts, systems and code impacts, and more. It is conducted over a period of time far greater than those involved in the notifications process.

Qwest maintains that both a.) the initial notification cannot include the documentation impacts and b.) the clarification call would not be able to clarify the documentation changes, as there would be insufficient detail available at the time of the proposed call. Moreover, the Qwest resources who would be needed on the calls are those who would be working to remedy the issue. Having them on the calls removes them from working to effectively solve the problem, and would lengthen the time to resolve.

If AT&T is requesting that all, or individual CLEC QA logs be provided as a part of the addendum process, this is not a logistically feasible business practice, because publishing these logs would require edits to every QA log for confidentiality.

Qwest's existing process of providing notifications with workarounds, business impacts, and channels for escalation works effectively, and allows for targeted responses to customer concerns. Publishing the clarifications made to each individual CLEC to all other CLECs does not add a demonstrable business benefit to the process, to the CLECs, and would require Qwest to assume an additional two to three resources to implement the solution AT&T is proposing. Qwest will, however, endeavor to enhance its notifications pertaining to Disclosure Documentation by including the change in the body of the closure notification. For Disclosure Documentation changes that would constitute an addendum, Qwest will include the documentation change in a “Change From—Change To” format similar to the change summaries in the addenda themselves.

Qwest respectfully denies this change request because the change does not result in a reasonably demonstrable business benefit and is economically not feasible.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston, Director, Information Technology Qwest