Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC080117-1CM Detail

Description Of Change

o CMP primary and secondary contacts have changed

o Companies have merged, combined, are no longer in existence

o Company contacts are no longer active or have changed companies

CenturyLink is proposing changes to the CMP document that require only the CenturyLink POC information be maintained on the CMP website. The references to the POC reports will be removed.

A redline Change Management Process document will be provided.

Project Meetings

10/18/17 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink reminded callers that the idea to eliminate the CLEC POC information was initially discussed in the July Monthly CMP meeting. CLEC and PUC feedback and agreement on the initial CenturyLink proposal was received. In August, CenturyLink presented the new CR and reviewed the CenturyLink plan for CLEC input. CenturyLink also provided a view of the proposed redline changes to the CMP document and a view of what the CMP main page may then look like. These changes were discussed in detail in an ad hoc meeting that followed the September Monthly CMP meeting. A CMP notification was distributed on October 4, 2017 to relay a vote will occur in the October monthly meeting. Mark relayed that a copy of that notification was included in the CMP package. He then turned the meeting over to Susan Lorence- CenturyLink to explain the voting process and take the vote.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink relayed that the proposed CMP document updates have been posted to the calendar for the meeting along with the proposed updates to the web page. She then reviewed the CMP Vote process as included in Section 17.0 of the CMP document (which is available at http://www.centurylink.com/wholesale/cmp/index.html). The key points of the CMP voting process are: each entity is entitled to a single vote regardless of any affiliates and quorum must be established. Susan said quorum is based on 62.5% of the average CLEC and CenturyLink entities in attendance at the last six monthly CMP meetings, April 2017 through September 2017. The average number of entities in attendance during this period was seven so the quorum for the vote was four. Quorum was met with the one email vote and 5 CLECs plus CenturyLink in attendance. Susan reviewed what a vote of “Yes” and “No” meant as depicted on the voting Ballot in the CMP package and asked if there were any questions. The vote was then conducted and the results are listed in the table:

Voting Carrier Voting Participant VOTE LS Networks Valerie Starr (by email) YES POPP Communications Rebekah Byland (by phone) YES Granite Kristi Hyacinthe (by phone) YES Allstream Kim Isaacs (by phone) YES TDS Metrocom Rod Cox (by phone) YES Windstream Lynn Denton (by phone) YES CenturyLink Mark Coyne (by phone) YES

Susan confirmed that the vote was unanimous and asked if there were any objections to updating both the CMP Document and the CMP main web page via two Level 1 notifications. There were no objections.

9/20/17 Ad Hoc CMP Meeting - following monthly CMP meeting Ad hoc meeting minutes - FINAL September 20, 2017

Attendees: Andrea Smith – Comcast Kim Isaacs – Allstream Nancy Taylor – Allstream Joyce Oliveira – Granite Jonathan Kronewitter – Granite Victoria Holland – Granite Kristi Hyacinthe – Granite Rebekah Byland – POPP Communications Larry Stevens – Iowa Utilities Board Bonnie Johnson – Minnesota Department of Commerce Lan Nguyen – Neustar Inc Emily Arnoldy – Midcontinent Communications Valerie Starr – LS Networks Denise Martinez – CenturyLink Kathy Miller – CenturyLink Tonya Woods – CenturyLink Lee Brummett – CenturyLink Nicole James – CenturyLink Rita Urevig – CenturyLink BL Marcom – CenturyLink Janean Van Dusen – CenturyLink Linda Harmon – CenturyLink Susan Williams – CenturyLink Angie Thomas – CenturyLink Tracy Strombotne – CenturyLink Renee Albersheim – CenturyLink Doris Luttrell – CenturyLink Mark Coyne – CenturyLink John Hansen – CenturyLink Susan Lorence – CenturyLink

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said that during the monthly meeting, Mark Coyne – CenturyLink already reviewed a brief history of the CR. She then asked those on the call to open up the redlined CMP Document that was posted to the calendar. Susan said she searched on POC and Contact to identify what would possibly need to be updated due to this proposed change. In addition to the POC changes, the proposed updates included the removal of Fax/Facsimile references.

Those on the call then walked through each of the proposed changes to each Section of the CMP Document.

Kim Isaacs – Allstream said she had a question about the inclusion of the word “assumed” in Section 2.2 Change Management Point-of-Contact. Kim asked if the CenturyLink CLEC Questionnaire asked for the designated CMP POC and if that contact could be used instead of the word “assumed”. She said some of the other companies require a CMP contact to be identified.

BL Marcom – CenturyLink said he would look at the CLEC Questionnaire.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink then continued to review the proposed updates. In Section 3.3, she asked those on the call if the current wording that refers to how to access archived CMP information would suffice rather than adding the proposed wording later in the same Section. There was no customer preference identified and Liz Tierney – Global Capacity who originally requested the ability to get to historical data was not on the call so Susan said we would add the proposed wording in the bullet.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink referred customers to Section 17.1 - Voter to discuss the need for a backup third party in case a CLEC was not available for a specific CMP vote.

Kim Isaacs – Allstream said the way it reads is that the most recent customer representative attending the CMP meetings could send an email designating that someone else could provide the vote.

BL Marcom – CenturyLink said though the CenturyLink CLEC Questionnaire has lots of contacts identified, he could not find a CMP POC referenced in the document.

Kim Isaacs – Allstream said it must have been another ILEC then.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink asked if there were any other thoughts customers had on this Section 17.1. There were none. The review of the redlined document continued. Susan referred customers to Section 17.4.2 and said these proposed updates were more in line to how the voting has really occurred over the years and reflects that the POC list has not been maintained.

Kim Isaacs – Allstream said she thought that the proposed updates to this section looked ok.

The remainder of the proposed redline changes to the CMP document were reviewed.

Kim Isaacs – Allstream said she would like to discuss how the assumed POC would work when there are multiple representatives that attend the monthly CMP meeting like Allstream and Granite.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said she assumed that Kim would be the POC for Allstream and that if Kim could not attend a meeting where a CMP vote was to be taken that Kim would have communicated her vote to Nancy Taylor – Allstream who also regularly attends. Susan asked if that would be correct.

Kim Isaacs – Allstream said that is how the language reads. Kim said she thought she would have either let CenturyLink know that was going to occur or that she could also vote by email.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said the situation with Granite is worth discussing since there are four representatives. Susan asked if they would designate a main POC in that instance.

Joyce Oliveira – Granite said Jonathan Kronewitter – Granite would be their main POC.

Kim Isaacs – Allstream asked about a theoretical situation that may not pertain specifically to a CMP vote. Because we are talking about eliminating the CLEC primary POC since the contact list has not been well maintained, Kim asked what happens to those customers who do not attend CMP on a regular basis. If there was an issue, Kim asked how CenturyLink would get input.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said maybe it would be a good idea to walk through and talk through some different areas to see how the information would be communicated. • For a meeting like the Ad hoc call today, CenturyLink distributes a meeting notice via CenturyLink MAILOUTs to all who have signed up to receive that various categories of notices. • For Monthly meetings minutes, CenturyLink sends the meeting minutes to those who attend the call. If we have a new CLEC attendee, we search for the new person’s contact information in CCDB or ask another representative from that company to either send us their email or forward the meeting minutes. • For a new Change Request, the customer must submit the CR to the CMP CR mailbox which provides their contact information. Often another person from the company is CC’d when the CR is submitted which provides additional contacts. There is also a line on the CR form to include the current email address. • For the CMP Escalation, Dispute and Postponement processes, the submitting company must send each of those requests to the appropriate mailbox which provides an email with the contact information of a specific person. • For CR Prioritization of a release for IMA, CenturyLink distributes the Release prioritization form via MAILOUT. We expect one Release Prioritization form response back to the CMPCR mailbox from a company. If more than one Prioritization form is submitted for a specific company, CenturyLink would follow-up with that company.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink asked if Kim was concerned with the idea of having a single POC.

Kim Isaacs – Allstream said a single POC provides some efficiency and that she wants to confirm the logistics of various areas. She said what we have talked about are good solutions for the various areas. Kim said if it is problem, it can be changed. Kim asked what are the next steps.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said we will send a CMP Vote notice for the October meeting with the changes we just talked through. We will likely propose that the updates to the CMP document be implemented with a level 1 notice similar to how we have done it in the past. Susan referred those on the call to the third document posted to the calendar which shows the CMP main page updates that John Hansen – CenturyLink proposed. These were good updates to provide information about the various CMP mailboxes. Susan asked if there were any questions. There were none.

Kim Isaacs – Allstream said she thinks it looks good.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink thanked everyone for the review and discussion and for coming to agreement on what CenturyLink believes will be a positive change.

The Ad hoc meeting was adjourned at 10:00 AM MT.

9/20/17 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink reminded callers that the idea to eliminate the CLEC POC information was initially discussed in the July Monthly CMP meeting. CLEC and PUC feedback and agreement on the initial CenturyLink proposal was received. In August, CenturyLink presented the new CR and reviewed the CenturyLink plan for CLEC input. CenturyLink also provided a view of the proposed redline changes to the CMP document and a view of what the CMP main page may then look like. On September 6, a CMP meeting notice CMPR.MEET.09.06.17.F.15894.AdHocMtgCRPC080117-1CM was sent to all customers to advise that an Ad Hoc call would follow this meeting. Mark said in the interim, CenturyLink continues to maintain the POC list Business as Usual; the most recent update was made as of September 13, 2017.

8/16/17 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink stated this CR is a result of discussion that occurred in last month’s meeting where CenturyLink introduced the idea that we would like to eliminate the CLEC POC report since the Customer contact information is very out of date. Mark said there was good discussion during the call last month and that there was agreement that CenturyLink would issue a CMP CR to update the CMP document. The July Monthly CMP meeting minutes have been added to the new CR.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said that Section 2.1 of the CMP document identifies how a change to the CMP must occur. She said to allow all CLECs to be aware of and provide input to this change request, our proposal is to send a meeting notice relaying that at the end of the September monthly meetings, we would be discussing the proposed CenturyLink redlined language changes. If we come to agreement on the changes to the CMP document in September, we propose that we take a vote during the October CMP meeting. Susan asked if there were any questions about using that input approach. There were none. CenturyLink is continuing business as usual to post any requested CLEC POC information updates. Susan then reviewed the CenturyLink proposed changes:

• Post only the CenturyLink CMP Contact information and include some information about the four CMP mailboxes on the main CMP page • Eliminate the POC report and POC update web page • Provide a way to request a copy of the last POC report of historical content • Update the CMP document with more generic references for POC and contacts

Susan pointed those on the call to the third document posted to the Wholesale calendar which is the CenturyLink proposed CMP document changes for review prior to the September meeting. She said John Hansen – CenturyLink has created a redline example of proposed changes to the main page of the CMP website which is on page 21 in the monthly package. Susan asked if there were any questions. There were none.

PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION PRIOR TO CR BEING SUBMITTED BY CENTURYLINK 7/19/17 Product Process CMP Meeting - Under Attachment E in the CMP Package - Proposed Modifications to CMP Framework

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink stated that there was an item on the agenda to discuss. CenturyLink would like to explore eliminating the CMP Points of Contact (POC) Report as it is outdated. He asked Susan Lorence to elaborate.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink stated that when the report was recently updated, it became apparent that the report may not be relevant and that we wanted to present some ideas and discuss how valuable the report was to members of CMP. Susan said two additional documents are posted to the calendar entry; a Word document identifying the instances of the term “POC” and “contact” in the CMP Document with highlights as to potential necessary changes, and a copy of the current POC report. The POC report is lengthy and contains companies and contacts that are no longer valid. Options include only posting the company contacts that are active or to only post CenturyLink CMP contacts and eliminate the POC report altogether. Susan said she thought most customers are not even aware of the POC report. Susan referred to the Word document and said there are two designations included for review: those instances that will likely require a change to the CMP document and those instances where it is not likely a change will be required. She asked those on the call what their thoughts were about the POC reports.

Bonnie Johnson – Minnesota Department of Commerce stated she had a lot of experience with this report and that she used to be very good about making updates but even her current number is incorrect. Bonnie said that she had not accessed the report in a long time and would not be opposed to its elimination. She suggested that CenturyLink could send an email to all contacts on the list and see which ones came back or CenturyLink could send a CMP notice advising that the current information would be eliminated and allow contacts to sign up anew.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said that certainly was one approach to start with a clean state. Susan said it would be time consuming to send an email to all contacts because those on the report are only the contacts that indicate they can be published externally. There are many more contacts in the database.

Kim Isaacs – Allstream stated that she had not used the POC report in a long time either. Her purpose in referring to the report was to find information regarding the initiator of a CR. Kim suggested that CenturyLink might consider adding CR Initiator contact information to the CR form and including it in the posted CR.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said another option vs. making a change to the CR that is displayed externally is for a person to use the meeting minutes that are distributed to garner the contact information for a particular CR.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink stated that it would come down to whether companies would commit to keeping the report updated or would they simply maintain their own internal lists.

Rebecca Byland – POPP Telecom stated that they maintain their own list and do not use the POC report and would not be affected if the report were removed.

Liz Tierney – Global Capacity stated that she also does not use the POC report regularly and knows it is a significant commitment to maintain the data. Liz asked if CenturyLink could maintain the list for historical purposes since though contacts change, the report might be useful to be able to get a telephone number to try to contact someone within a company.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink stated that was the current status of the list as basically a historical document and wondered if that would be meaningful.

Bonnie Johnson – Minnesota Department of Commerce said she understood Liz’s point about historical data but thought that having outdated information posted might be worse than having no information. Bonnie said if there is no value identified in maintaining the data, it might be best to remove it and just keep it for historical reference.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said it does not appear the changes to the CMP document will be that significant. She asked if it was agreeable that we create a Change Management CR and present it in the August meeting to discuss an approach to eliminate the report, provide capability to get to historical data, and post CenturyLink Points of Contact.

Kim Isaacs – Allstream stated that she was in agreement but would have to look at the language in the CMP document especially around voting.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said the CMP language around POCs for a CMP vote had not been strictly used in the past since the POC data was potentially out of date.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink stated that he thought this was a good approach and that we would readdress the issue in the August CMP meeting.