Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC081403-1 Detail

Description Of Change

********************************************************************************

Change Jeopardy Notices sent on DVA and PTD for Designed Services

After analysis of Due Dates that are being missed when jeopardy

notices are sent prior to the Due Date, Qwest is proposing that only

specific jeopardy conditions be sent to the CLEC on the critical date of DVA

and PTD. On DVA, Qwest would prefer to only send jeopardy notices for

facility and plug-in issues. The jeopardy codes would be those that start

with a "K" (facility reasons) or on a jeopardy code of V25 (PICS/BRI

plug-ins required.) For the critical date of PTD, Qwest would continue to

send all jeopardy notices except those that end in "33" (work force issues)

i.e., B33, E33, P33. The reason for eliminating the "33" jeopardy code is

due to the fact that Qwest is not missing Due Dates for this reason and is

causing unnecessary jeopardy notices being sent to the CLEC. Along with these proposed changes, Qwest would also like to hear suggestions from the CLEC community any changes they feel would benefit the overall jeopardy notification process. Changes being implemented with PC072303-01, Expanding the Jeopardy Notifications to 6 p.m. Mountain Time are also helping the overall jeopardy process.

Expected Deliverable:

Change the jeopardy notification process to reduce unnecessary

jeopardy notices being sent to the CLEC when the Due Date is not in jeopardy

and to improve the overall jeopardy notification process.

***********************************************************************************

Qwest will contact the CLEC to test and accept only after the updated FOC has been sent and a designated time frame has passed. Qwest will not put the order in a CNR (customer not ready) jeopardy status until this time frame has passed and the CLEC is not ready.

When Qwest puts a CLECs request in delayed for facilities jeopardy status, Qwest should be required to send the CLEC an updated FOC when the delayed order is released and allow the CLEC a reasonable time frame to prepare to accept the circuit. Qwest releases orders form a held status (in some cases the CLEC has not even received an updated FOC) and immediately contacts the CLEC to accept the circuit. Because Qwest does not allow the CLEC a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the release of the delayed order, the CLEC may not be ready when Qwest calls to test with the CLEC. Qwest then places the request in a CNR jeopardy status. Qwest should modify the Delayed order process, to require Qwest to send an updated FOC and then allow a reasonable amount of time for the CLEC to react and prepare to accept the circuit before contacting the CLEC for testing.

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will modify, document and train a process, that requires Qwest to send an updated FOC and allow a CLEC a reasonable amount of time (from the time the updated FOC is sent) to prepare for testing before Qwest contacts the CLEC to test and accept the circuit. Qwest should cease applying a jeopardy status of CNR to delayed orders that are released and the CLEC has not been provided a reasonable amount of time to prepare to test/accept the circuit.

This should apply to all orders where the delayed order process is followed and testing is required.

Project Meetings

June 16, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Macy – Qwest advised this process was implemented May 27. No comments came in for this CR. We would like to move this CR to CLEC Test Status.

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Macy – Qwest advised this process will be implemented May 27. No comments were received. Cindy thanked Phyllis Sunins and Jill Martain for all of their work on this CR. Qwest held several input sessions with the CLECs to work out issues prior to releasing the documentation. This CR will remain in Development Status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Phyllis Sunins – Qwest advised that the updates to the documentation have posted to the documentation site. The comment cycle is open with customer feedback due by April 27. This CR will remain in Development Status.

March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Agreement was reached that the initial jeopardy notice would continue to be sent as documented (based on current system functionality). Qwest proposed that an updated Jeopardy Notification with additional detailed remarks would be sent within 72 hrs from when the Initial Jeopardy was sent if a solution to the delayed condition has not been reached. The proposal means that within 72 hrs from the initial Jeopardy Notification, the CLEC will receive one of the following: 1. FOC confirming original Due Date 2. FOC confirming revised Due Date based on Network resolution of the Jeopardy condition including details on the delay. 3) An “updated” Jeopardy Notification with more specific details of the Jeopardy condition. An FOC will follow when the revised Due Date has been determined.

In addition, Qwest will discontinue critical date jeopardy notifications and continue due date jeopardy notifications. (Critical date jeopardy notifications will still go out until a system enhancement can be made to change this, but the CLECs can disregard them). Phyllis will revise the PCAT to identify jeopardy codes where “The Due Date is in Jeopardy” (YES/NO) so that you can ignore “Critical Date” Jeopardy Codes that do not impact the Due Date until a separate enhancement can be made. The PCAT update has been forwarded to the external documentation team. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon stated that she wants to make sure that we get documentation to support the process that an FOC must be sent before a customer not ready jeopardy occurs. Phyllis advised she is still working on this issue with an interdepartmental team . Phyllis advised that Jean Novak – Service Manager has had meetings with Network to respond to the examples that Eschelon forwarded as “inaccurate Jeopardy Notices and is still working on the issue. Jean is working on ‘inaccurate jeopardy notices’ and Phyllis is working on ‘when you don’t get an FOC’. Bonnie Johnson advised Qwest can contact us anytime during the day to accept the service. If we are contacted after 5PM we don’t want the jeopardy to be considered a customer not ready. Bonnie advised she wants this information in the PCAT. This CR will stay in Development Status.

PC081403-1 Jeopardy Notification Process Ad hoc meeting March 4, 2004

In attendance: Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Phyllis Sunins – Qwest Julie Pickard – US Link Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Regina Mosely – ATT Cheryl Peterson – ATT Phyllis Burt – ATT Carla Pardee – ATT Jill Martain – Qwest Jim McClusky – Accenture Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Peggy Rehn – New Start Stephanie Prull – Eschelon

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the agenda items. Phyllis Sunins – Qwest thanked Kim Isaacs – Eschelon for providing examples that Phyllis investigated. Phyllis asked if the CLECs had the chance to review the documentation and if they had any questions.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said she reviewed the documentation and summarized the changes. Bonnie verified that Qwest is proposing to omit critical jeopardy notifications, but not due date impacting jeopardy notifications. All of the CLECs agreed to this change as previous meetings so this change is okay to implement.

Bonnie asked if the mechanical notifications are the ones that will not be updated with additional information. Phyllis advised that it could be a manual notification also, as the same notification goes out, it is just that the process is manual.

Phyllis explained we could send additional information on the updated notification. Qwest does not always have enough information when we first determine a jeopardy condition. If we try to provide more information in the beginning, the chances are that the information will not be very accurate. We do not want to convey a service issue if it really isn’t a problem. Phyllis advised Qwest would send additional information within 72 hours.

Bonnie confirmed that the CLEC should always receive the FOC before the due date. Phyllis agreed, and confirmed that Qwest cannot expect the CLEC to be ready for the service if we haven’t notified you. Bonnie asked about the CNR in error? (When the CLEC has gotten a CNR without a FOC). Jill Martain – Qwest advised that we believe eliminating the ‘critical date’ jeopardies will take care of the bulk of the problem with CNR jeopardies.

Jill advised this solution would be implemented in two phases. The CLECs will get jeopardy notices, but you can ignore the ‘critical date’ jeopardy notices. These jeopardies are identified on the matrix that Phyllis put together. System changes are needed to stop these jeopardies and that will take awhile to get implemented. We would like to implement this process and monitor the impact and see if it has reduced the number of issues.

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked how will the CLECs know which jeopardy codes to ignore? Jill and Phyllis asked for the CLECs preference to how they would like this identified on the matrix. Agreement was reached to add a column to the matrix (3rd column) and call it ‘Due Dates in Jeopardy’.

Phyllis Burt – ATT asked if these codes are going away and we wouldn’t see them on the order. Phyllis – Qwest advised these are not due date impacting codes, they are interim steps before the due date. These codes will not go away until the system changes can be made. The CLECs do not need to take action on these codes.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked Stephanie about the EDI impacts. Can we ignore these or do we have to change any code? Stephanie said so far it seems as if this will work for us.

Bonnie confirmed that Qwest would provide additional information on Jeopardies within 72 hours from distribution of the initial jeopardy notification. Jill agreed and summarized that we will publish the process as a Level 3 with a comment cycle. If the CLECs need to meet again before we publish the document please advise Cindy Macy. The CLECs should monitor the process after it is implemented to determine if it has improved.

Next steps: Publish documentation Level 3.

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting Phyllis Sunins – Qwest advised that she is working with Kim Isaacs – Eschelon and analyzing some examples that were sent in. Qwest did find a few process compliance examples that are being addressed. Cindy Macy – Qwest will provide a document to address Eschelon’s examples and this will be reviewed during the ad hoc meeting the first week in March. This CR will remain in Development Status.

Ad Hoc Call January 23, 2004 PC081403-1 Jeopardy Process

In attendance: Liz Balvin – MCI Karen Severson – Telephone Associates Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Phyllis Sunins – Qwest Jill Martain – Qwest Stephanie Prull – Eschelon Trudy Hughs – Idea One Shirley Richard – Idea One Rosie Glastell – Idea One Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Colleen Sponseller – MCI Mary Hunt – MCI Carla Pardee – ATT Linda Sanchez-Steinke – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest Nancy Sanders – Comcast

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the agenda. Cindy advised that we will discuss providing more detail on Jep Notices, review the improvements as a result of the CNR 6pm Jep CR, and discuss examples that were sent in regarding subsequent FOC not sent.

Jill Martain reviewed the agenda and advised that Phyllis Sunins will provide additional details regarding the work that has been completed. Phyllis will share where we have been, where we are and where we want to go with this CR.

Phyllis began the discussion and asked the CLECs how the jeopardy notification process change to 6pm is going? Kim Isaacs – Eschelon advised she had gathered a couple weeks worth of data. It does appear there has been an effect. The impact is not as great as she thought it would be, but they will continue to monitor the change. Kim explained she noticed an interesting situation and Eschelon saw that quite a few sups of due date, then FOC on due date and then Jep on sup. Kim will send examples to Phyllis to investigate.

Rosemary – Idea One asked why is Qwest holding the jep until 6 PM. Phyllis explained a CR was issued to implement a new process. Effective with the new process a jeopardy notification is not sent when a jeopardy condition is cleared the same day by 6 PM. Kim Isaacs – Eschelon advised this process is only on mechanized jeps, not manual jeps.

Phyllis said the next topic to discuss is the request for additional wording on jeps. Phyllis explained that we can provide more detail on subsequent jeps. The first jep that goes out is considered a preliminary jep, with a preliminary view of the issue. Qwest does not know additional details until the engineer does investigation and finds out more. Our target is that within 72 hrs Qwest would either send an FOC or another jeopardy notification with additional detail. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised the mechanical jeps are not detailed enough.

Phyllis advised another idea that may be possible is to use HEET, which is used on the ASR side. This is a web tool to check status on delayed orders. It may be possible to implement for LSRs. Rosemary – Idea One asked what is RTT. Phyllis advised RTT is a Referral Tracking Tool that tracks facility shortages. RTT is Engineering’s database for resolving facility situations referred to them. Bonnie advised she would like to review other alternatives if HEET is not a viable solution.

Today Qwest sends jeopardy notifications for both Critical Date Jeopardies and Due Date Jeopardies. Phyllis discussed the idea of sending jeopardy notifications that would impact the Due Date only. Qwest would discontinue sending jeopardy notifications for jeopardies on Critical Dates that are cleared the same day or the next day and the Due Date is still met. As an example; Qwest sends jeopardy notifications for PICs – V25 (plug in network cards) problems. This jeopardy situation is resolved so that the Due Date is met. Another example is Jeopardy Notifications for Work Force Issues (33’s). Qwest works with our Work Forces to readjust their loads so that the Due Date is met. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon agreed they do not want to see jeps for ‘interim date’ issues. If the end due date is impacted, then they need to know. Idea One and MCI supported Bonnie’s comment. Phyllis confirmed that the due date jep would still happen, (Qwest could discontinue the Critical Date jeopardies which are cleared by Due Date) . If the Due Date will be missed, it is part of Qwest’s Network Processes to call the CLEC on the Due Date. In addition, the CLECs will receive their jeopardy notification after 6 PM. MCI verified when the jep is sent it comes as an 865 EDI transaction, and the FOC is an 855 EDI transaction.

Bonnie advised they do want more detail on what the jep’d problem is. They need to know if it is a F1 pair, or the street needs to be dug up. She would like more detail on one jep in particular: ‘Local Facility not available’. Bonnie asked when does this jep occur. What situation causes this jep to be assigned?

Phyllis discussed the two examples that Eschelon sent in. 1) One was a jeopardy notification sent for a PICs issue, no FOC was sent & then CNR. – This was an example of a Critical Date Jeopardy that would be addressed by the proposal of not sending Critical Date Jeopardy Notifications as the situation is cleared so that the Due Date can be met, thus the CLEC would expect Qwest to deliver on the Due Date.

2) The other example is a Network compliance issue, which Phyllis is working with Network to correct.

Bonnie thanked Phyllis for reviewing the examples. Bonnie advised that if they receive a CNR jep, and the CLEC has not received the FOC, they would escalate the situation. Bonnie advised they want the order worked without having to sup the order and they would like the jep lifted. Bonnie advised she would like to develop a process of how we will handle this situation when we get a CNR and didn’t get the FOC.

Phyllis summarized our next steps:

Kim Isaacs will send examples to Phyllis of orders sup’d on due date

CLECs will continue to monitor 6pm jeps

Jill / Phyllis will review wording of jeps to add more detail

Bonnie brought up a concern on the time required for getting funding to implement the “Due Date only” Jeopardy notifications (from a mechanical perspective). She proposed having Qwest furnish a list of “Critical Date” jeopardy notifications which could be “disregarded on an interim basis. Phyllis will research this request. This information will be worked via the CMP process and additional meetings.

January 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Jill Martain – Qwest advised that we met with the CLECs last month and agreed to monitor the JEP process and then meet again in January to review additional information that can be put on the Jeopardy notice. We have a meeting scheduled for January 23 to discuss this further. Bonnie sent in two examples where they did not get a subsequent FOC and the order was jep’d for CNR. Bonnie advised that Qwest needs to find a way to get the FOC to the CLEC. The impact to our business is that we are forced to supp the order and take a new due date. Qwest no longer takes the hit on the held order in this situation too. Bonnie advised that Qwest needs to aggressively tackle this issue as it impacts our business, end users and held orders. It is high profile and critical and it needs to be fixed. Jill Martain – Qwest advised we have the examples and we are prepared to talk in more detail at the Friday meeting. This CR will remain in Development Status.

- December 17, 2003 CMP Meeting Jill Martain – Qwest advised we had an ad hoc meeting to review the updated Jeopardy matrix. Jill is working with the centers to provide additional information on the Jeopardy notices. The team agreed to monitor the impact of the change to 6pm jep notices and meet again next month to review any additional changes needed and to review enhanced jeopardy description information. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised she will monitor internally the impact to the change in jeopardy time frames and provide feedback at our next meeting. (Included comment from Bonnie Johnson in the following sentence). Bonnie said this CR is not related to CR to change the jeopardy to 6pm). This CR will remain in Development Status.

Clarification Call PC081403-1 Jeopardy Notification Process

December 8, 2003 3:00 – 4:00

In attendance: Valerie Estorga – Qwest Valerie Star – NoaNet Oregon Marty Petrowski – WAN Tel Oregon Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Anne Atkinson – ATT Jill Martain – Qwest Phyllis Burt – ATT James McClusky – Accenture Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Steph Prull – Eschelon Ray Smith – Eschelon Cheryl Peterson – ATT Carla Pardee – ATT Wayne Hart – Idaho PUC Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Cindy Macy – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest introduced the attendees and reviewed the purpose of the call. Cindy verified the attendees had the Jeopardy Notification matrix.

Jill Martain – Qwest explained we have held discussions with the CLECs in hopes of improving the jeopardy process. Jill would like to review the matrix and allow the CLECs to ask questions and voice their concerns.

Jill explained the change to send jeopardy notification at 6pm was effective over the weekend. This applies to all mechanized jeopardy codes. The intent of this change should reduce the number of jeopardies sent, as Qwest clears many jeopardies through out the day.

Jill explained there are some manual jeopardies that are not part of this process, such as C)% and SX. Based on investigation, we are looking at sending jeopardies on Facility and Plug in equipment issues. These would be K and V25 – PICS jeps. Possibility exists to eliminate all 33 work force jeps. This will allow us to reduce the number of jeps sent on certain phases of the order.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said she would be glad to try this process and see what improvement it makes.

Marty – WAN Tel asked if Qwest could send more information on the jep notification. If the description / content / reason why Qwest is placing the order in jep, would help the CLEC understand and address the problem. For example, if Qwest says there are local facility issues but does not say what kind of issue, the CLEC can not take action on the issue. It is very difficult for the CLEC to find more out about the issue too. Jill agreed she would see if we could provide more detail on why the order was placed in jeopardy. Jill said if more information can be included she would try to get that implemented as soon as possible.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon agreed that providing adequate information on jeopardy notices is critical for the CLEC to look at alternative solutions.

Steph Prull – Eschelon asked if the process could be revised to include the correlation between the ‘reason code’ and the ‘jeopardy detail code’ on the jeopardy notice. The Disclosure document has the reason code but does not have a correlation to the jeopardy detail code. Jill advised she would look into this.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked about C09 as this code seems in conflict with the held order process. Jill advised C09 would not occur on a held order situation. Jill advised jeps are per order, not per LSR.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked about the CR request regarding when the CLEC gets a jep, and then Qwest does not allow the CLEC time to react to the FOC (4 hour minimum). Jill asked Bonnie if we could wait and determine the impact of the 6pm jep time change as this change should reduce the number of jeps and reduce this issue. Bonnie agreed we could discuss this later if it is still an issue.

Bonnie also asked if there was a CLEC forum planned for January. Cindy advised she did not know but would check on. Bonnie suggested we talk about it at the December CMP meeting, and that possibly a better time for the Forum would be in February.

Jill agreed to check on the following items:

1 – adding content to the jeopardy description to make it more informative 2 – check how reason codes match to jep codes in the Disclosure document

Next Steps: The team agreed to meet again around the week of January 13 to review how the 6pm jeopardy change has impacted the process and to determine our next steps

Novmeber 19, 2003 CMP Meeting Jill Martain- Qwest advised this CR was revised to say that the CR was going to revisit the existing Jeopardy process, including what notices should be sent to the customer and then also discuss the content of those notices. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon agreed updating the CR was okay. Jill Martain-Qwest advised the next step is to schedule an ad hoc meeting to review information and gather input. John Berard – Covad advised he has a jeopardy request item to be included in this CR.

Oct 15, 2003 CMP Meeting Phyllis Sunins – Qwest reported that she is doing a study of the August data and that there are synergies with this CR and PC072303-1. Jill Martain will also open a new CR to address the overall Jeopardy Process. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised she would like to keep this CR open and reference it to PC072303-1 and Jill’s new CR. Discussion took place regarding maybe the scope of this CR should be changed, instead of Jill creating a new CR. Cindy agreed she would talk to Jill about this. Liz Balvin – MCI advised she has some questions about what certain jep codes mean. A documentation CR has been issued to request definition of jep codes. The team advised that Liz should respond during the comment cycle and ask about the jep codes she is interested in (C31 and C34). John Berard – Covad asked how many jeps are resolved the same day? Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said she did not know numbers but Jill implied the majority of jeps are resolved the same day. This CR will move to Development Status.

10/6/03 Ad Hoc Meeting

Lori Mendoza Allegiance Russ Urevig Qwest Deni Toye Qwest Phyllis Burt ATT Julie Pickar US Link Dave Hahn Qwest Jeanne Whisnet Qwest Laurie Dalton Qwest Ann Adkinson ATT Jill Martain Qwest Phyllis Sunins Qwest Carla Pardee ATT Jen Arnold US Link Kim Issacs Eschelon Bonnie Johnson Eschelon Donna Osborne Miller ATT Regina Mosely ATT

Jill Martain discussed the synergy's between PC072303-1 and this CR and the issue that came up in the CLEC Forum about FOCs not being sent after a delayed order is released. Jill explained she would like to implement changing the jep timeframe to 6 pm as identified in PC072303-1. As a result of this change it will address many of the issues with not enough time to respond to a jep. Jill referred to this as Phase 1. Jill will issue a Qwest CR to modify the Jep Process and make additional changes as needed. Changes such as define jep codes, determine when to send jeps, and for what conditions. Jill said she certainly can accommodate some time frames in between FOC and Jep. Jill referred to this as Phase 2. Bonnie agreed that Jill's new CR and implementing the changes for PC072303-1 will take care of this CR. Changing the jep times will take care of most of these issues.

- 9/17/03 CMP Meeting Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon presented the CR to the CLEC Community. Bonnie advised this continues to be a problem. Eschelon does not normally get an FOC after a delayed order gets released. Sometimes we get the FOC and we do not have time to react. Qwest needs to make certain that if we release an order from delayed status that the CLEC gets an FOC, and has time to react before the order is put in a CNR jep. This happens often. Our service delivery personnel escalate with the tester and the FOC group. Jill Martain is working on the issue with not receiving an FOC. This was brought up at the CLEC forum. Cindy Macy-Qwest asked if the changes associated to PC072303-1 – changing the time when Qwest jeps for CNR, would meet this CR. Bonnie advised no, because in this case the order is being released from delayed status and the original FOC has already occurred.

CLEC Change Request – PC081403-1 Clarification Meeting Tuesday August 26, 2003

1-877-552-8688 7146042#

Attendees Cindy Macy – CRPM Russ Urevig – Qwest Phyllis Sunins – Qwest Laurie Dalton – Qwesst Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Deni Toye – Qwest Stephanie Prull – McLeod Julie Picker - US Link

Introduction of Attendees Cindy Macy-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon reviewed the CR. Bonnie explained that ½ the time they do not get an FOC after the order is released. This problem is being addressed by Jill Martain and is not part of this CR but it is an issue that impacts this CR. The CLEC needs time to react to the released LSR and to accept the circuit.

Phyllis explained the jep could be placed early in the morning and the tech working on the it may get a solution the same day. This creates a timing difficulty. The current process is for the order to be jep’d, Qwest would send an FOC when they find out the issue has been taken care of, and then if the customer is not ready the LSR is put in CNR.

Bonnie advised they would like a 2-4 business hour time frame to respond to the FOC before Qwest puts the LSR in CNR.

The process today does not give a time frame on the FOC, it gives a date but no time frame.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted Macy - Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Macy - Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Macy-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm Eschelon’s expectation.

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests Macy-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan Macy-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. Macy-Qwest stated that the next step was for Eschelon to present the CR at the September Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the October 15, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon

SUBJECT: CLEC Change Request Response - CR # PC081403-1

This is a preliminary response regarding the Eschelon CR PC081403-1. This CR requests that the ‘Delayed order process be modified to allow the CLEC a designated time frame to respond to a released delayed order after Qwest sends and updated FOC. Qwest will contact the CLEC to test and accept only after the updated FOC has been sent and a designated time frame has passed. Qwest will not put the order in a CNR (customer not ready) jeopardy status until this time frame has passed and the CLEC is not ready’.

Qwest believes this CR has synergies with the Eschelon CR PC072303-1 ‘Customer Not Ready (CNR) jeopardy notice should not be sent by Qwest to CLEC before 5 PM’. Qwest proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while we investigate the commonalities further and will provide a status update at the November CMP meeting.

An Ad Hoc Meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 6, 2003 from 10:00 – 11:30 a.m. MST to discuss CR# PC072303-1 and PC081403-1.

Sincerely,

Phyllis Sunins Wholesale Markets Process Organization