Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC063003-1CM Detail

Description Of Change

Eschelon asks that the following language be added to the end of Section 5.8 (Change Request Status Codes) in the CMP Document:

? Re-Activated - The CR receives a Re-Activated status when a previously closed CR has been requested to be re-opened. Reasons include the CR was not implemented correctly and/or not completely as requested with further test results.

NOTE: It may be Qwest or another CLEC that determines the CR was not correctly implemented. In addition, “include” would mean includes but not limited to...there may be other reasons.

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will add reactivate status to the list of CMP CR statuses. A CLEC should not have to open a new CR or action item to fulfil the request of the original CR and the issue is not compliance to the new process.

Project Meetings

PURPOSE

At the October CMP Meeting, participants agreed to hold a conference call to conduct voting on the proposed changes to the CMP Document, CR PC063003-1CM, “CMP CR status of "reactivate" added to statuses available for a CR”. The following is the write-up of the discussion.

List of Attendees: Lori Mendoza, Allegiance Julie Pikar, U S Link Liz Balvin, MCI Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon Kim Issaacs, Eschelon Tom Hyde, Cbeyond Communications Sue Stott, Qwest Lynn Notarianni, 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 vote on CMP CR PC063003-1CM. Linda explained that quorum is 6 and we have established quorum with 7 attendees. Linda asked if everyone was clear on what we were voting on and asked if anyone is uncomfortable voting out loud that they could e-mail their vote and would arrange for cmpcr@qwest.com to be monitored to receive the vote. The following votes were provided by meeting participants: Eschelon voted yes Allegiance voted yes MCI voted yes U S Link voted yes Cbeyond voted yes

Linda read the e-mail votes: AT&T voted yes Qwest voted no

Linda said the result of the vote is 6 - yes and 1 - no and said the standard for a vote on changing the CMP document is a unanimous vote, and because this vote was not unanimous, the changes will not be incorporated into the CMP. Linda said she would provide notification of the vote disposition.

Lynn Notarianni asked if there had been discussions about the language change. Bonnie Johnson said that Qwest wants to be the driver of the decision to reactivate a CR. The CLECs had proposed that a re-activated CR be voted on, and with a two-thirds majority, the CR would be re-activated. There is no difference between a unanimous vote and Qwest determining if the CR should be re-activated. We were going to have another ad hoc call for discussion and that was cancelled so that we could vote on the CLEC proposed language.

Liz Balvin said that this will cause the CLECs to leave CRs open when they can’t test. Bonnie said that we have already started to see that happening.

Linda asked if there were any questions. No questions were asked.

10/15/03 October CMP Meeting Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said she had received Bonnie Johnson’s two e-mails stating that Eschelon would like to have a vote taken on the Eschelon proposed language. Bonnie said the 10/20/03 ad hoc meeting should be cancelled and asked that a meeting to vote be scheduled. Bonnie said that Qwest’s proposed language was not acceptable and the wording requiring "unanimous vote" is the same as "Qwest determining" if the deliverable was not met. Linda said that possible dates for the vote meeting are 10/24 p.m. and 10/27. Linda will e-mail Bonnie with possible dates and appropriate notification for the vote will be sent.

Mon 10/13/03 4:14 PM From; Bonnie Johnson Eschelon To; Linda Sanchez-Steinke Qwest Subject; FW: Change Manangement: Meeitng Agenda & Material: GN: CMP Ad Hoc Meeting, Effective Immediately

Linda, Will we be voting on my version at this meeting. I really don't want to spend anymore time passing this document back and forth. I will not agree to Qwest's new language so I requested we vote on my last version.

Please let me know.

Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc. Phone 612 436-6218 Fax 612 436-6318 Cell 612 743-6724

Mon 10/13/03 5:55 AM From; Bonnie Johnson Eschelon To; Linda Sanchez-Steinke Qwest Subject; Change Management Notice: Meetings: GN: CMP-Ad Hoc Mtg on Rea ctivate CR: Effective Immedaitely

Linda, I will not accept Qwest's proposed language to a unanimous vote. With a unanimous vote the language of "Qwest determines" might as well remain in the document. We can move directly to a vote on my last proposed language so Qwest can vote no and have the final decision....again.

Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc. Phone 612 436-6218 Fax 612 436-6318 Cell 612 743-6724

Sent Wed 10/8/03 12:40 PM From; Linda Sanchez-Steinke Qwest To; Bonnie Johnson Eschelon Subject; RE: Change Management Notice: Meetings: GN: CMP-Ad Hoc Mtg on Rea ctivate CR: Effective Immedaitely

Hi Bonnie -

In response to your examples of CRs, on the first example, CR 5522887, while this would require a clarification meeting to clearly identify what would be required to close the request, Qwest would probably agree to re-activate this CR.

The second example, SCR060702-01, Qwest would probably disagree to re-activate this CR because there are other Systems CMP CRs that have been opened to enhance this functionality.

The third example, SCR032602-1, is in CLEC test and wouldn’t be eligible for re-activation since it is not closed.

We would like to arrange another ad hoc meeting to discuss additional changes made to the re-activate lanaguage and we're looking at 10/20 9:30-10:30 Mountain, let me know if that would work for you.

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke 303-965-0972

Date: Mon 9/29/03 10:11 AM From; Johnson, Bonnie J. [bjjohnson@eschelon.com] To: Linda Sanchez-Steinke (E-mail) Subject; RE: Change Management Notice: Meetings: GN: CMP-Ad Hoc Mtg on Reactivate CR: Effective Immedaitely

Hi Linda, Here you are!

Sorry!

Date: Mon 9/29/03 9:05 AM From: Sanchez Steinke, Linda To: 'Johnson, Bonnie J.' Subject; RE: Change Management Notice: Meetings: GN: CMP-Ad Hoc Mtg on Reactivate CR: Effective Immedaitely

Hi Bonnie -

I received your e-mail and read through the attachment of the CMP document and do not see any red-line from you. Did you track the changes made? Maybe you can give me a call.

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-965-0972

Date: Fri 9/26/03 4:10 PM From; Johnson, Bonnie J. [bjjohnson@eschelon.com] To; Linda Sanchez-Steinke (E-mail) cc; Subject: FW: Change Management Notice: Meetings: GN: CMP-Ad Hoc Mtg on Reactivate CR: Effective Immedaitely

Linda, I have red lined the attached document with my changes. I am also adding the examples discussed on our call this week. I would like Qwest to communicate Qwest's position on what response Qwest would give if a CLEC requested the CR be reactivated. I am certain there are other examples for Eschelon and other CLECs. I will send more as I get them.

5522887 CLECs need clear loss information, particularly with respect to resale customers. If loss information is not communicated effectively, two providers may bill one customer at the same time. To prevent such problems and ensure accuracy, Qwest should provide loss and completion information in a more organized, clear manner. Currently, Qwest includes all activity on a CLEC account that has outward action of a line or loop on a service order. For example, a migration from resale to loops appears as a loss, even though the customer has not changed providers. A loss should be limited to lines leaving the CLEC to go to another provider. The loss report should only reflect information of those customers that have changed to a different local service provider. The completion report should include order activity initiated by the CLEC, regardless of the activity type requested. Eschelon requested this CR be reactivated and Qwest responded no. The request was very clear and to date Eschelon is not receiving accurate loss reports.

SCR060702-01 Z-Tel is requesting the ability to migrate customers as specified without having to list changes to the customer's current feature set. For example, when placing a customer migration order with Qwest, we are required to list the old line class of service with a feature activity code of 'change from', and list the new line class of service with an activity code of 'change to'. In addition, we must list all change and removes for all of the existing features on the account and adds for all of the new features that do not currently exist on the account. This practice is commonly referred to in the industry as a migrate as is with changes, not a migrate as specified. Z-Tel needs the ability to convert customers as we specify without having to list and map changes, adds or removes. SBC, Verizon, and BellSouth all provide this pure migrate as specified capability for UNE-P customers and we are asking Qwest to do the same. Expected Deliverable: The ability to truly migrate a customer as specified. Qwest implemented this CR but does not apply to hunting, blocks and listings. CR not implemented as requested.

SCR032602-1 Currently when submitting a request in IMA using the request type of "P" for Centrex, the CSR is not recapped in IMA. As a result, the LSR is much more manually intensive to complete. In addition, there is a greater chance the CLEC could submit the LSR and receive a reject stating "all lines and/or services were not addressed on the LSR". This causes delays in processing LSR's and additional work for Qwest SDC's who manually type the service orders. This CR is still in CLEC test because tickets are open...however, the implementation of this CR was not fulfilled. It does not hsave the same functionality as the recap function for other products. If this were closed and Eschelon asked to have it reactivated...what would Qwest's response be?

Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc. Phone 612 436-6218 Fax 612 436-6318 Cell 612 743-6724 bjjohnson@eschelon.com

Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PC063003-1CM "CMP CR status of "reactivate" added to statuses available for a CR" CMP Product & Process September 22, 2003 1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 10:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE

At the September CMP Meeting, participants agreed to hold a conference call to discuss Eschelon submitted CR PC063003-1CM, CMP CR status of "reactivate" added to statuses available for a CR CMP document. The following is the write-up of the discussion.

List of Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon Kim Isaacs - Eschelon Connie Winston - Qwest Beth Foster - Qwest Sue Stott - 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 CR PC063003-1CM. Qwest provided proposed language changes to the CMP document along with the meeting notification.

Linda asked Bonnie for feedback on the proposed CMP document changes. Linda read the proposed change made to Section 5.1.4, addition of Section 5.1.4.1 Reactivation Requests. Bonnie asked how Qwest would care for CRs that a CLEC submits if the CLEC is not on the same version of EDI and how the process of opening a re-activated CR would work. Linda said that RA would be added as a suffix to the original CR number. Bonnie stated that she did not like the idea of Qwest making the determination as to whether or not a CR would be reactivated, she noted that she would like that to be more a collaborative effort between Qwest and the CLECs. Bonnie asked if Qwest determines the requested deliverable is within the scope of the original CR, then, what will the process be if the CLECs disagree with Qwest. Linda said that the process would follow the CMP document.

Bonnie said that she thought Qwest would provide additional wording on how Qwest will care for CR’s when a CLEC is on an EDI version, then cut to the next version of EDI, and what was changed in the CR doesn’t work. Bonnie noted that she had understood that Qwest was going to provide an additional status for such CRs. Linda asked if deferred status would be appropriate for those CRs where the CLEC is on a different version of EDI. Bonnie agreed to review the language around deferred status and will determine if deferred would be the correct status.

Beth Foster with Qwest said that she was unaware of Qwest offering another status for CRs. Beth stated that Qwest’s proposed language would allow for a systems CR to be closed upon implementation and re-activated once the CLEC cuts to the next version of the release. Beth reviewed the following example: If in systems we close an IMA CR with the implementation of 13.0 and then the CLEC cuts over to 14.0, the CLEC could then request a re-activated status if they discovered some problems with their CR once they cut to 14.0. If it was determined that the CR was in fact, not implemented per the expected deliverables of the CR, then the CR would be re-activated. The re-activated CR would then be handled using the production support guidelines in section 12.0 of the CMP document. The re-activated CR would be discussed at the monthly systems CMP meetings in conjunction with the CRs that are in the status of ‘CLEC-Test’, where it would remain open until the production support process resolved the open issue.

Bonnie noted that she would like to have a more collaborative decision in determining whether a CR is re-activated and will work with the other CLECs and draft language. Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said she also wanted a more collaborative approach and is concerned that Qwest alone would determine if the CR is re-activated.

Bonnie agreed to make changes to the red-line CMP document for Qwest to review and provide a few examples. Qwest will schedule another ad hoc meeting to discuss once they receive the red-lined language from Eschelon.

09/17/03 September CMP Meeting Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said there would be an ad hoc meeting on 9/22/03 to discuss this CR.

08/20/03 August CMP Meeting Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon explained if a CR was moved into re-activate status it would be because the original CR had not been fulfilled. Judy Schultz with Qwest explained when the CR goes through CLEC test, and then, if it needs to be reactivated, we would need to explain what the specific problem is that initiated reactivation. The CR number could have an RA suffix and note the date closed and the date re-opened. In addition we would need some communication about what piece of the CR was not addressed and bring the information forward for the CLEC Community at the CMP meeting. Bonnie explained that on the Systems side when a CR is implemented and the CLEC is not on the same version of EDI, they would not want to be forced to close the CR. Bonnie suggested that we could do another type of status. Judy said she would give that some thought and clarified Bonnie’s concern about EDI. Judy said that she understands that if a CLEC on EDI submits a CR that is worked in higher version, the CLEC is not in a good position to close the CR. Bonnie said that she might want an additional status. Judy said that Qwest would draft language to the CLECs and set up an Ad Hoc Call to discuss the draft language.

07/16/03 July CMP Meeting Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon presented this CR which proposes changes to Section 5.8 Change Request Status Codes. Bonnie said that when closing a CR sometimes the CLEC test phase doesn’t allow enough time to identify issues or problems with the CR. Two examples were the CRs for loss and completion and migrate by TN. If the CLEC is on EDI and submits a systems change request they don’t have the ability to test until they move to that version of EDI. Compliance issues are not part of this CR and the only situation that the re-activate status would be used if for the deliverable of the CR hasn’t been completed. Judy Schultz with Qwest asked about CR numbering assignment. Bonnie suggested we keep the original CR number. Judy has a concern that the CR would look like it had been open for a long time. Donna Osborne-Miller asked if the CR number could be followed by RA. Liz suggested that the clock start when re-activated. Bonnie would like to work collectively to resolve and if this CR is not implemented then they would leave CRs open longer and not be pushed to close them. Judy said she appreciates Bonnie testing and closing CRs promptly and perhaps if this change is implemented that the CR could be earmarked with the date it was re-activated. This CR will be moved to presented status.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

8:00 a.m. (MDT) / Friday, July 11, 2003

1-877-562-8687 3393947# PC063003-1CM

Name/Company: Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon Stephanie Prull, McLeod 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 Eschelon’s CR requests that the CMP Document, Section 5.8 be changed to add “Re-Activated” as a status code for change requests. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that she is trying to add “Re-activated” as an additional status for situations where a change request wasn’t implemented or honored. An example would be a CR was submitted, and worked, and then closed after CLEC test. Then after CLEC Test, issues or problems that hadn’t been identified during CLEC Test are identified. The change request is not referring to change request compliance or training issues. Bonnie provided an additional example of a change request submitted by Eschelon to convert by TN, part of the 12.0 release. The end state of the LSR is what Eschelon wanted in the change request. After the CR was completed, Eschelon found it did not apply to blocking, hunting or listing. With the lag time with EDI, CLEC’s weren’t on the same version and didn’t understand the impact until they had gone to the 12.0 version. Stephanie Prull added that McLeod usually skips a release for the GUI or EDI and McLeod wouldn’t be aware of a problem until they are in the same release. An additional example Bonnie provided was a CR Eschelon submitted for loss and completion reports. The options are to open a new CR or leave the existing CR open longer. Qwest is persistent in closing CRs after CLEC test and CLEC test may not provide enough time to determine if there are problems. Stephanie asked if there would be a limit on how long the CR was in completed status and be changed to “Re-Activated” status. Bonnie answered that there would be no time limit and that we may get input from Qwest and the CLEC community.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted The area of this Change Request impacts the CMP process section 5.8

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

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Change Section 5.8 to add Re-activated as a status code.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No systems change requests.

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