Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC090203-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Change Flags (CFLAG)

The CFLAG is used to communicate changes Qwest made on the service order that are different from what was requested on the original LSR. These changes are a result of two different conditions:

1. Changes that occurred as a result of a verbal directive from you.

1. Changes due to processing requirements within Qwest.

When the CFLAG is marked, the Remarks section of the FOC contains text indicating any deviations from the original request. Examples of some of the uses of CFLAG in each of the preceding areas are as follows:

- Changes that occurred as a result of a verbal directive from you when no supplement is sent:

- On the DD, you request a Connecting Facility Assignment (CFA) slot change when the assigned slot is unavailable.

- On the DD, you called and requested a verbal DD change.

- You called and requested a verbal supplement as a result of a non-fatal error.

- You called and requested a verbal supplement because a SUP 1 (Cancel) or SUP 2 (Desired Due Date (DDD) change) cannot be submitted due to a system (either yours or Qwest's) outage or limitation.

- Changes that occurred as a result of the processing requirements within Qwest include the following:

- If special characters (i.e., a virgule "/" appears in specific fields such as the PON) that are not allowed in Qwest’s Service Order Processors (SOP) are included on the service request, they will be changed to dashes to allow the request to process.

- Whenever Qwest cannot use the DDD on the LSR as the DD. Examples include a DDD that did not meet standard interval requirements or the LSR requested an invalid DD such as a Sunday or Holiday.

- The Summary Billing Account Number (BAN) is incorrect on the LSR and Qwest provides the correct BAN information on the FOC.

- For LSRs with Requisition Type and Status of CB (Local Number Portability (LNP)) and BB (Unbundled Local Loop/LNP) that have the ported TN in the Account Number (AN) field instead of the main AN, Qwest will process the order (porting the requested TN) using the main AN and will provide the correct AN of the FOC.

- When the LSR is requesting a feature and an additional USOC/feature is also required in order to provision the service correctly, Qwest adds the appropriate USOC/feature on the service order. This change is only made if Qwest has not provided the ordering rules externally. As trends are identified, Qwest will either make process changes and/or update the PCAT, as appropriate.

- When the Coordinated Hot Cut (CHC) field equal "N" (or blank) and the Appointment Time (APPTIME) and Desired Frame Due Time (DFDT) fields are populated, Qwest will ignore the information in the APPTIME and DFDT fields because they are not required.

- If the LSR requests a dispatch, but dispatch is not required for provisioning and you have not requested the service be "tagged", Qwest will not dispatch a technician because it was not necessary.

- If during processing of a LSR Qwest determines that the TN entered on the LSR is not available, Qwest will provide a new TN.

- If the address entry is a minor deviation from Qwest PREMIS address data (e.g., LSR uses "suite" and PREMIS uses "unit"), Qwest will use the information in PREMIS.

- If you set the Manual Indicator (IND) to "Y" and service order affecting information in the Remarks field causes a mismatch in field-to-field comparison, Qwest will use the information in the Remarks field to process the order.

Expected Deliverable:

To create a mutually agreed upon list of reasons when the CFLAG/PIA field would be checked on the LSR and document that criteria in the Ordering PCAT located on the Qwest external web site.

Project Meetings

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Jill Martain – Qwest advised that the documentation is available for CFLAG/PIA effective with the 15.0 release on April 19. The PIA 14 process update is effective May 24. This documentation closed without comment. Liz Balvin – MCI said that she thought this was a known concept and was already in effect. Jill advised that Qwest could not remove the PIA 14 value without proper notification. We are currently going through the notification time frame. It is possible that until May 24 the PIA value of 14 could be used incorrectly. It is very unlikely that PIA 14 will be used prior to May 24. We were not able to remove this value with the 15.0 release and it will require a new CR and CLEC vote to have removed in IMA. This CR will remain in CLEC Test Status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Jill Martain – Qwest provided status on this CR. Jill advised that the documentation for this CR went out as part of the 15.0 release documentation. There also were notices issued related to the jep process and Line Sharing. Liz Balvin – MCI asked what the difference is between a LSR level PIA and an order level PIA. Jill advised that it depends on the circumstances as to whether you would use an order or LSR level PIA. If it was related to an order number or circuit ID it would be at the order level. If the CLEC submits an LSR and it has five TNs associated to it, Qwest may send a PIA response associated to the LSR, or it could be associated to one of the orders. It depends on the circumstances. Liz asked how does the PIA value come back and link back to the order. Jill advised that for EDI the information is in the Disclosure Document and Developer Worksheets. The field LR19 is used on LSRs. The field 40A is used at the service order level. This CR will remain in CLEC Test Status.

March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: The PCAT has been updated with the PIA values that we agreed to for the 13.0 and 14.0 versions of IMA. Another update is coming effective in April with the new values that will be available with the 15.0 release. We had another ad-hoc meeting regarding the process where voice and DSL is requested on the same LSR, where the data cannot be provisioned and we mutually came to agreement to change the process to use a jeopardy notice instead of the PIA value of 14. The PCAT updates are being sent to the documentation team and should be available for comment within the next couple of weeks. In addition, Jill added after the meeting that although we won't be using the PIA value of 14 from a process perspective that the CLECs would still see it in the disclosure documentation as it will require a system change to remove it. We would like to move this CR into CLEC Test Status.

PC090203-1 CFLAG/PIA Ad Hoc Meeting PIA14 February 26, 2004

In attendance: Linda Miles – Qwest Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Cindy Schwartze – Qwest Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Crystal Soderlund – Qwest Jill Martain – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the agenda. During this call Qwest will review the current process, as Qwest understands it, and gather input and concerns from the CLECs.

Cindy Schwartze – Qwest explained the current process was effective August 2003 with the IMA release. This process is for N and T 1 LSR for voice and Qwest DSL. When you are ordering DSL with voice, the address has to pass Loop Qual for flow through. If the address qualifies, then we would accept the LSR, and issue the Service Order to provision the request. If the address does not qualify, then the LSR for voice and Qwest DSL would be rejected upfront by IMA.

In the event the DSL line can’t be provisioned and the order issued is for DSL and voice, we then follow the Retail provisioning process. We go ahead and provision the voice, send an FOC with a CFLAG saying that the data portion can not be provisioned. Cindy Schwartze – Qwest explained the volume is very low, and that we only have knowledge of this occurring once.

Crystal Soderlund – Qwest reviewed the Line and Loop Splitting process. This process was put in place in June 2001. The UNE P request is submitted, if the LSRs have the same due date and the DSL is available, Qwest will issue a pending order change to the UNE-P service to add the DSL. If the data portion cannot be provisioned, Qwest would allow the voice LSR to get provisioned. The Line Splitting LSR would follow the Held Order process. Crystal did not remember seeing this occur in production. With 15.0 IMA Qwest is offering the process to provision the 2 requests on 1 LSR. The CLEC may need to issue another LSR to condition the line. Loop Splitting will mirror Line Splitting.

Bonnie said we are not talking about a situation when you order line conditioning. We are talking about when you can’t provision DSL. In this case it should follow the standard process when you order a feature and it is not available. Qwest should reject the order, as that is what is done when a feature is not available. If we can’t have the DSL then we don’t want the voice. We have no use for just the voice line. This is in conflict with the Qwest reject process. Bonnie advised that the CLECs want to receive a Jeopardy notification and it should identify if DSL can’t be provisioned at all or if it needs to be conditioned. Qwest considers DSL a feature in other areas. It should be treated as a feature.

Crystal Soderlund – Qwest thanked Bonnie for helping us understand the issues. Crystal explained when the LSR is received the centers process the order. At that time we don’t know if the facility is DSL compatable. Crystal asked for clarification that the CLEC’s are really asking for Qwest to notify the CLECs with a Jeopardy notice and give 4 hours to respond? Bonnie asked if the SDC does not check to see if DSL is available? Crystal advised no, it is assumed the CLEC has done that up front, before the LSR is sent in. Bonnie asked what point in time is it determined when the DSL is not available? Crystal advised that the downstream organization contacts the SDC to remove the DSL. Bonnie said that Qwest should jeopardy the order at that time.

Crystal said the ILECs should check to make sure the line can handle DSL and IMA also does a check. For example, if CLEC doesn’t loop qualify, then IMA should do a check right away and reject the order. This is why we don’t think this happens very much. Bonnie said if the line doesn’t qualify then we do not order the line. If it required line conditioning we do a separate order after the line goes in. So, why do we have a PIA value to accommodate this, if it doesn’t happen very often? Bonnie said it should be rejected.

Crystal advised that the reject reason isn’t always clear to the SDC, so she requested a PIA value to provide more details. Bonnie advised that the CLECs would like to be able to have a choice on whether to accept, reject or jeopardy the order. Otherwise, if Qwest just removes the data and installs the voice, then the CLEC would be liable for Non Recurring charges and 30-day billing in situations where they may have chosen otherwise to cancel the request. Her preference was to receive the jeopardy notice and then make the appropriate decision. Bonnie understands if we do follow the jeopardy process a sup or new LSR may be required and the standard interval would be followed.

Bonnie advised the CLEC community would prefer to have an option. They would like for Qwest to jeopardy the LSR and follow the current jeopardy process. The CLEC would have 4 hours to respond or the LSR would be cancelled. In this case there would not be a need for PIA 14. Bonnie advised she would check with the other CLECs to make sure this represents their needs. If there are concerns, Bonnie will send an email to Cindy Macy.

Cindy Macy advised that the team will meet internally to review the request and determine the impacts to this process. Qwest will provide status or schedule another meeting to discuss the results.

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting Jill Martain – Qwest advised the PCAT was published and comments were addressed. This closed January 28, 2004, effective March 3, 2004. Subsequent FOC was addressed. There will be a CLEC meeting to discuss PIA 14 on February 26, 2004. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon was in the 15.0 walkthrough meeting yesterday and realized that there would be an Order Level PIA and an LSR Level PIA. Stephanie advised this was never discussed in any of the PIA meetings. Qwest was able to page Denise Martinez-Qwest to join the call. Denise and Jill explained this is the way PIA is being implemented, opposed to the content or meaning of the PIA value. Denise and Jill advised this would allow Qwest to be specific with the correct level of PIA. Some PIA values are related to a BAN so that would be at an LSR level, and some PIA values are related to a Due Date or TN change so that would be at an Order level. Stephanie advised she understand the functionality and she agrees that it makes sense to implement it this way, but she was not aware of how she missed the way this was going to be implemented. Her understanding is that there would be multiple values, but not multiple fields or segments. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if the multiple PIA values are at different levels for the same PIA reason? This relates to PO20 impacts. Denise Martinez – Qwest advised it is a means for us to apply the value most accurately. It would not increase the amount of other PIAs. Jill Martain – Qwest advised that you might have LSR level PIA and then PIA values on the orders that are created from the LSR. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon advised our vendor does not support this so we will not be able to implement. Connie Winston – Qwest advised this is the CR in 15.0 for ‘Multiple PIA Values’. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said we never discussed order versus LSR level. We were under the impression that PIA was PIA – no different between order and LSR levels. Connie Winston – Qwest asked if we can provide a comment on the draft Tech Specs and then we will provide a response the to comment. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon advised she already submitted it as a comment and that this would be fine to handle it this way, instead of holding an ad hoc meeting. This CR will stay in Development Status.

January 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Jill Martain – Qwest advised that we had an ad hoc meeting with the CLEC and agreed to send the matrix documentation out. We agreed to omit PIA 14 from the matrix. The documentation will be distributed in two phases. The first phase will identify the PIA value definitions that are effective today. The second phase will be the additional PIA values added with 15.0 on April 19. Jill explained that we discussed PIA 14 and this was referred to the Product team. A CR should be issued this month to take care of this. Blocking will be discussed tomorrow in the systems meeting. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised that the problem is that Qwest requires CLECs to send in the end state, opposed to adds and deletes. This causes a recap, and recaps don’t appear on the PSON. Bonnie advised it wasn’t disclosed that there were going to be exceptions to the PSON. It is good that it is on the service order. The CLECs wanted to discuss tomorrow in the systems meeting whether the recap on all the listing information will also fix this problem.

Ad Hoc Meeting PC090203-1

In Attendance: Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Phyliss Burt – ATT Jill Martain – Qwest Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Linda Harmon – Qwest Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Carla Pardee – ATT Liz Balvin – MCI Nancy Sanders – Comcast Ray Smith – Eschelon Cindy Macy – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and advised the team will be reviewing the CFLAG/PIA matrix and the updates that were made based on previous meetings with the CLECs.

Jill Martain – Qwest explained that because we have reviewed the matrix before, she would ask the CLECs if they have comments or questions on each item, opposed to reading each item. This way we will discuss only the items that the CLECs have questions about.

Discussion occurred on the following items / topics: Adding a mini definition section to help clarify terms (subsequent FOC) PIA 5 – subsequent FOC PIA 8 – update to identify this will be used in 13/14.0. PIA 11 – Jill clarified #11 and Bonnie’s comments. Jill advised she agrees with Bonnie’s comment as both of them are saying the same thing. Phyllis Burt – ATT asked how would the customer get a PIA 11. Jill advised if the same reserved TN# was used mutiple times an we have to reassign a new TN. Work is going on to improve this process. Phyllis also clarified Bonnie’s comment. PIA 14 – Jill explained she understands Bonnie’s concern about needing to document the process. Jill explained this is Qwest’s existing process. Bonnie advised she is open to the process of sending a jep notice and to complete the voice part, but she would like to discuss how this process should work. Jill asked if she can explain the issue to the Product team and have them take care of this issue, as she is not the process person for this process. Bonnie agreed that would be okay. Bonnie explained her concern is that Qwest is trying to create a process with a PIA, opposed to creating the process first and using a PIA as part of the process. Jill agreed to omit PIA 14 from the matrix initially. Jill will issue the notice and matrix to publish this information and omit PIA 14. Jill discussed the blocking question. Jill explained that it is recapped on the service order but it is not visable to the CLECs. Jill advised a CR could be opened to change this. Bonnie advised that we can discuss this at CMP (systems meeting).

Bonnie advised she appreciates Jill’s analysis of the PIA values and data. Bonnie still would prefer to have a more expanded PIA value list. Bonnie hopes that the use of PIA 4 decreases with this CR. Eschelon will continue to monitor the use of PIA. Liz Balvin – MCI agreed that we need to continue to review the information in remarks and create a new PIA value if necessary.

Bonnie asked if the new PIA values will be effective with 15.0. Jill advised yes.

Next Steps Publish documentation / matrix

December 17, 2003 CMP Meeting Jill Martain – Qwest advised that the team met and reviewed the PIA Matrix on December 15. Qwest agreed to make additional updates to the matrix. Liz Balvin – MCI verified that Qwest will clearly distinguish between LSR and Service Order activity and FOC and subsequent FOC in the document. Jill agreed those updates / clarifications would be made. Jill asked the CLECs if they would like to have another meeting or if the matrix is okay to be published. Liz Balvin – MCI and Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised they would like to have another meeting as they did request additional unique PIA values around Blocking. Jill advised she is working on the two issues that were brought up at the Ad Hoc Meeting (Blocking and PIA14 Data Portion not provisioned). The team will discuss these at the next meeting. Cindy Macy – Qwest agreed to schedule a meeting for January 5 or 9. Bonnie expressed her concern that the CLECs did request additional specific PIA values that were not included in the matrix. Jill explained that she has tried to include all the scenarios that were discussed and the concern with having too many PIA values is that it becomes unmanageable and the centers would not use all of the values. This CR will remain in Development Status.

December 15, 2003 Ad hoc meeting PC090203-1 CFLAG/PIA Ad Hoc meeting

In Attendance: Julie Pickar – US Link Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Ray Smith – Eschelon Stephanie Prull – Eschelon Carla Pardee – ATT Jill Martain – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest Colleen Sponseller – MCI Liz Balvin – MCI Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon

Jill Martain – Qwest advised she has updated the matrix based on investigations and previous meetings. Jill advised there is a large list of PIA values and it is very hard for Qwest to manage so many different values. As an example, we have combined some PIA 4 reasons into one code.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked about 20% of training issues identified in the matrix? Was the PIA field used inaccurately? Jill Martain – Qwest advised some were unclear selections and training will help. This is an example of how too many PIA values become hard to manage.

Liz Balvin – MCI asked about subsequent FOCs as there is no such notifier. Jill Martain – Qwest advised if there is something missing Qwest will send a jep after the FOC. If Qwest makes an error and there is nothing to correct than Qwest will send another FOC with the correct PIA information. This is done on a Qwest typo error. Steph Prull – Eschelon advised their systems don’t look at the second FOC. So any updates on second FOC are not updated. Jill explained this is not new, it has always been the process. The CLECs asked if this is in the PCATs. Jill advised CFLAG was created to accommodate these situations so that is the purpose of CFLAG. Jill advised PIA is an industry standard. The industry only has four values.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked about due date change by Qwest. Bonnie asked why can’t there be a different PIA value for each of these due date changes. Jill advised this created the possibility of error and the ‘reason change’ is the same. Jill is very concerned about the number of different values.

The team agreed the next steps are to make changes to the document and then meet again to review. Liz wanted to make sure the changes would specify when Qwest felt it was appropriate to make changes. Specifically, Liz requested Qwest to identify if it was a change made from the CLEC LSR to Service Order or whether it was a change made to correct an error identified on the FOC notification . Jill agreed those changes would be included.

November 19, 2003 CMP Meeting Jill Martain – Qwest advised that she received comments from the CLECs regarding the last matrix that was distributed. Jill is in the process of providing a response to those issues. In addition, as a result of those comments and internal discussions the list is growing and there is concern about the number of values Qwest could be requiring our centers to manually review and accurately select. Jill will take another look at the most commonly used reasons and the CLEC feedback and provide a final proposal to the CLEC community hopefully, within the next week.

Lastly, there was discussion around retrofitting the multiple values and additional PIA values into the 13.0 and 14.0 releases. Since it has not been the practice to retrofit new changes into earlier EDI versions, Qwest does not plan to pursue retrofitting new PIA functionality into earlier EDI versions. However, Qwest is still looking into options of adding any new PIA values into the 15.0 release.

CLEC Ad Hoc Meeting PC090203-1 CFLAG / PIA October 30, 2003

In attendance: Julie Pickar – US Link Liz Balvin – MCI Kim Isaccs – Eschelon Ray Smith – Eschelon Jill Martain – Qwest Jenn Arnold – US Link Jackie Debold – US Link Denise Martinez – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and explained we will review the matrix, make updates and determine next steps. Cindy confirmed that the users had copies of the matrix.

Jill Martain – Qwest reviewed the PIA numbers and reasons. Discussion took place on several of the PIA values and reasons. See below.

PIA 4/15 – MCI requested that Qwest validate that this is in the disclosure document and this may create an out of sync condition. Liz advised she would like the business rules to be clear in the disclosure document. If the centers are using PIA 15 they would also notify the process specialist so we can be sure we review and correct the reason that we are using PIA 15.

Address Validation –MCI advised that different address systems are used to validate different forms or requests. Please be specific on PIA 4 as to which address system is being checked.

Remarks field can cause a mismatch. The request was that Qwest would monitor PIA 4 and Other to improve the reason that is causing us to use PIA 4.

The CLECs advised they will need to review this matrix with their coworkers to gather input. Jill asked the CLECs to get back to Cindy Macy at cynthia.macy@qwest.com to confirm that the PIA reasons are acceptable. After that, Jill would pursue obtaining new PIA values.

Jill explained that to implement these changes there are process and documentation changes, system changes are needed to assign new PIA values, and the request to retrofit the 15.0 changes into 13/14.0 releases require an exception meeting. -

October 15, 2003 CMP meeting minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status for Jill as she is on vacation this week. Cindy advised the CLECs met October 1, 2003 to review the current use of CFLAG/PIA. During the Ad Hoc meeting Jill explained the reasons we use each CFLAG/PIA and the team began to further define acceptable reasons for ongoing use of CFLAG/PIA. Bonnie Johnson advised she made a request at the Long Term PID meeting that the CFLAG/PIA changes planned for Release 15.0 also be incorporated into 13, 14 and 15.0. Cindy advised she will discuss this with Jill when she returns from vacation. Stephanie Prull – McLeod advised they are on 13.0 and it seems like the use of CFLAG/PIA in the system is different with 13.0. Every time a conversion order that goes through autoflow, a PIA 12 (cus code change) is assigned. Stephanie advised McLeod is aware of the cus code changing so a PIA of 12 is not needed. This CR will move to Development Status.

CLEC Ad Hoc Meeting PC090203-1 CFLAG/PIA October 1, 2003

In attendance: Julie Pickar US Link James McClusky Accenture Liz Balvin MCI Steve Trana Launch Now Phyllis Burt ATT Mike Zulevic Covad Jill Martain Qwest Bonnie Johnson Eschelon Kim Issacs Eschelon Jennifer Arnold US Link Stephanie Prull McLeod

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and advised the purpose of this call is to review the current use of CFLAG/PIA and to determine new uses for CFLAG/PIA. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon advised her goal is to create a finite list for use of PIA. Liz Balvin-MCI advised at a minimum the CLECs have to know how the field is being used. Jill Martain-Qwest advised she has concerns over loosing the ability to use PIA in an interim process or work around. Liz Balvin-MCI asked why wouldn’t Qwest reject the LSR instead of use PIA. Jill advised sometimes the better option is to use PIA, opposed to missing a due date. Liz said she understands as long as the CLEC is contacted and advised about the use of PIA.

Jill explained CFLAG will be eliminated with 13.0 and PIA will be used 13.0 going forward. EDI 11 and 12 it is still valid. CFLAG and PIA terms are interchangeable.

Bonnie advised CFLAG/PIA has direct impacts to PO20. If CFLAG is used it excluded the order from PO20. The use of CFLAG/PIA has to be limited. Bonnie wants to have an exhaustive list. If something is broken, then Qwest needs to fix the problem opposed to using CFLAG.

Phyllis Burt ATT asked to explain the use of PIA 4 value of ‘other’. Bonnie explained this allows the CLEC to enter the LSR so it can be rejected. Qwest uses this field to notify CLECs of changes made to the order. It helps the order be processed.

Jill Martain – Qwest went through the CR and discussed the current uses for PIA. Bonnie requested that we go through the information and ask that the CLECs have time to go back to their organizations to gather input, before we make final decisions on the use of PIA. The team agreed this was okay and that we would have another meeting to discuss our findings. Jill agreed she would create a matrix that identifies the reason to use PIA and identify which PIA would be used in each situation. This matrix should be available to review at the next CLEC Ad Hoc Meeting.

The group discussed the PIA changes as a result of Verbal direction from CLECs, Changes due to processing requirements within Qwest, Changes for ‘other’ reasons and System limitations.

Jill agreed to look at creating multiple PIAs for system limitations such as: DD change per CLEC DD changes per Qwest Cancel per CLEC Cancel per Qwest Verbal DD changes Delayed order condition causing DD change The CLECs expressed their concerns over system limitation PIAs. If Qwest talks to the CLECs and gets their approval it is more acceptable.

Liz Balvin advised MCI does not subscribe to PSONs so the process can not be to notify via a PSON. Jill agreed to look at the Dispatch field and PIA 11 to make sure we understand how this is being used.

Bonnie Johnson advised the address field is another area where we may want multiple PIA. Qwest should identify minor deviations on address data. Jill explained we need to create a manageable list of PIAs. Bonnie and Liz advised they would like to know what specifically changed on the address so they can fix it next time. Jill offered to create a PIA for address and include the specifics in the remarks. Liz was okay with this.

Non fatal errors were discussed and agreed that these should be talked about further to identify situations when it would be used.

PIA 15 Requested USOC was discussed. Jill advised PIA 15 is only used when the feature PCAT does not tell us what to do.

Bonnie asked if PIA 3 could go away with 15.0. Jill agreed to check on.

PIA 13 BAN change – optional field. What happens is we don’t populate it? Jill advised if BAN is populated with the incorrect BAN Qwest uses PIA to fix it. If BAN is blank we don’t use PIA.

PIA 14 should be further defined. Jill will updated the matrix to further define PIA 14. PIA 8 goes away with Release 15.

The CLECs will take PIA and review with their organizations. Jill will update the PIA matrix and we will discuss it during our next meeting.

Bonnie sent in the following information as a result of CLEC discussions:

The CLECs committed to hold a meeting and review 3 issues on this CR. 1. Verbal sups on non fatal errors: * The CLECs collectively agree with Qwest (Char Mahs communicated Qwest will be sending a level 3 notice soon) that verbal sups should be allowed only when a sup is not possible due to a system or some other unique limitation. 2. PIA #15 value to be implemented in 14.0 * The CLEC community has a concern about this value. * How will the process for blocking and hunting impact this. Qwest process states that the USOC will no longer be required. Will every LSR with blocking requested (requiring a USOC) and hunting have a #15 value? * If so the CLECs would like a new value to apply to USOCs not required on the LSR and one for USOCs that are required. More discussion is needed on this. 3. Can we eliminate the #4 "other" field? * The CLECs would like to develop the detailed value list and discuss at that point, however, the general consensus is that if we can create a total list we may be able to accomplish that.

Some additional points: * CLECs want to ensure that the PIA field is not replacing any processes. The PIA field is merely Qwest defining the LSR/Service order mismatch and CLECs will not be required to use the PIA field will not communicate any data currently relayed to CLECs via other methods. For example, Qwest marks PIA value 12 because the customer code has changed. Qwest communicates the new customer code in remarks on the FOC. The CLEC will not need to now obtain the new customer code from the remarks field when they currently obtain the information through other means. * Will Qwest submit a special request to make all changes requested in this process in 15.0 and update 13.0 and 14.0 at that time?

September 17, 2003 CMP Meeting Jill Martain presented this CR and asked if Qwest could hold a CLEC Input meeting on 9-29-03 from 9 – 11:00 a.m. Liz Balvin-MCI advised Monday’s do not work for her. Cindy agreed to send a notification to offer 3 meeting options and then reschedule.

MEETING MINUTES

Request to change Level 2 Notification PROS.07.28.03.F.01137.ProvisioningV27 to a Level 4 Change Request

August 20, 2003 CLEC-Qwest Conference Call Meeting Time: 1:00 – 2:00 PM MDT

Purpose The purpose of the ad-hoc meeting was to determine how to move forward with implementing changes notified in PROS.07.28.03.F.01137.ProvisioningV27 and how to manage the CLEC requests that came in asking that this change be managed as a Level 4 CR.

Attendees Carla Pardee-ATT, Donna Osborne-Miller- ATT, Sharon Van Meter – AT&T, Mike Zulevic-Covad, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Bill Littler-Integra, Stephanie Prull-McLeod, Liz Balvin-MCI, Jennifer Arnold-US Link, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Jim Maher-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest, Judy Schultz-Qwest, Kit Thomte-Qwest

Meeting Minutes

Jim Maher-Qwest opened the meeting and explained that Qwest had issued a Level 2 notification PROS.07.28.03.F.01137.ProvisioningV27 updating information associated with CFLAG processes. The notification had been issued as Level 2 because it was an update that included documentation concerning existing processes/products not previously documented. Jim explained that comments had been received from Cbeyond, Covad, Eschelon and MCI requesting that the CLECs be involved in developing the procedures and that this could be accomplished by handling this as a Level 4 CR.

Jill Martain-Qwest proposed that the Level 2 change be implemented based on a request from the CLECs that this process should be more clearly documented. Martain stated that having the processes documented through the Level 2 notification might be more advantageous to all involved with this process, and that a Level 4 CMP CR could be opened to modify the process.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon had an issue with posting the information provided in the Level 2 notification because Eschelon did not think the information represented what was happening with CFLAG. She further explained that Eschelon had raised concerns regarding CFLAG for some time and that they had concerns with PID impacts. Mike Zulevic-Covad and Liz Balvin-MCI also stated they were uncomfortable with the Level 2 language being implemented and agreed that this should be managed as a CR. Jill Martain stated that the language provided in the Level 2 notification could be the starting point for the CR. Bonnie Johnson agreed with that approach. Martain agreed to proceed with th CR, and stated there may be a short term and longer term CR associated with this work.

The meeting adjourned.