Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR020802-1 Detail

Status History

Project Meetings

June 26, 2002 Conference Call With AT&T: AT&T Attendees: Jonathan Spangler, Tim Boykin, Carla Pardee Qwest Attendees: Jeff Thompson, Michael Buck, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Jonathan Spangler stated that he had discussions with his customer, AT&T Local Service Group, and gave them perspective on the Qwest options, specifically Option 3. It became clear that Option 3 was not a good option to move forward with as there are too many things not meeting the needs. Jonathan stated that he sent an email (June 25th) as a response. All on call indicated that they read the email. Jonathan requested that the email be included in the CR documentation. Jonathan asked if there was any other Qwest offer. Jeff Thompson stated that he is not understanding the request. He thought that Qwest was working with AT&T to get to a solution. Jeff asked Jonathan for clarification. Tim Boykin stated that Option 3 was going to take some time and asked for assurance that would get CSRs within 24 hours. Tim stated that he does not want Qwest to go through a lot of trouble and not meet the request. Jonathan stated that gets CSR’s 3 days after completion, could take up to 5 days. Tim asked what Option 3 will really do for AT&T. Jeff Thompson stated that Qwest’s position is that we will be meeting the request and asked AT&T for further explanation of their problem. Jonathan stated that the request is to accommodate a laundry list of problems that occur due to CSRs not updating within 24 hours. Jeff Thompson stated that he understands both the problems that AT&T is having and the submitted CR request. Jeff stated that the proposed solution is addressing the problem and now AT&T is stating that it doesn’t. Jonathan Spangler explained a pre-order / pending order scenario. Jeff Thompson stated that he understands the pending order problem and has some thoughts on how to solve that. Jeff asked AT&T what other problems they were having. Jonathan stated that other CLECs have other issues; he does not have them with him. Jonathan Spangler stated that proposed IMA coding is very extensive and is concerned that the new rules could start rejecting orders more often and make IMA hard to work through. Jeff Thompson stated that AT&T is knowledgeable but the complexities are Qwest’s to solve. Jonathan stated that so much will have to be done is concerned that Qwest is remedying AT&T’s Eastern and Central problems. Jeff asked if it is AT&T opinion that the technical risks associated with Option 3 are greater than the risk to re-tool CRIS? Jonathan stated that no; he was not saying that. Jeff stated that he is not understanding AT&T’s opinion that Option 3 would not meet their need, other than the technical difficulties. Jeff asked if he can reassure AT&T that the technical difficulties are solvable, are we okay with Option 3. Carla Pardee asked if Option 3 will provide 24 hour updates. Jeff Thompson stated that there are 2 problems that he needs to solve: pending orders to be available when issuing LSR and is hearing that AT&T is not agreeing with Qwest’s assessment of the technical solution. Tim Boykin stated that if we can get what AT&T’s internal clients need, doesn’t know if we have a problem. Jonathan Spangler stated that Connie Winston (Qwest) mentioned a virtual warehouse of data. With that, could see Option 2 as a viable solution. Is not comfortable that Option 1 would work. Jeff Thompson stated that AT&T should expect Qwest to deliver a solution that meets their needs, is not comfortable with AT&T determining what that solution should be. Jonathan stated that his email outlines the 4 things that are needed and stated that if those needs are met, we could definitely move forward. (the 4 items are: Ensure AT&T receives the most current and accurate CSR information from Qwest, Reductions of IMA order rejections, Improve Qwest flowthrough processes when related to orders submitted while there are pending order(s) against a customer's account and Improve feature change intervals after a customer has been converted to AT&T. Jeff Thompson stated that those are all fair and understands why is important to AT&T. Jeff stated that Qwest needs to go back and look at how the solution meets those needs. There can then be a dialogue and see if we can come to consensus. Jeff Thompson stated that Option 3 would be augmented. He will revise Option 3 and schedule a meeting to discuss. Jonathan requested revised Option 3 information prior to the July CMP Meeting. Jeff Thompson asked AT&T if next call is to be open to CLEC Community. Jonathan agreed to open call up to CLEC Community so that all CLECs will have a clear understanding of the proposed solution prior to the 12.0 vote.

June 25, 2002 Email from Jonathan Spangler/AT&T: I have reviewed the options Qwest has provided in response to Change Request (CR) SCR020802-1 (Update CSRs within 24 hours) with my customer, AT&T Local Services. Upon that review, AT&T has decided to continue with the original CR language and proceed with the original intent of the request. Moreover, AT&T cannot move forward with any of the options Qwest has offered. AT&T believes Qwest's response does not meet the needs of AT&T's request and we would like to continue to work with Qwest to identify a solution that will accommodate the needs of AT&T and the CLEC community.

AT&T's CR requested that Qwest systematically improve the interval of updating the customer CSR to within 24 hours of service after order completion. This request is consistent with the experience AT&T has with other RBOCs. AT&T believed that making this improvement would result in the following: * Ensure AT&T receives the most current and accurate CSR information from Qwest. * Reductions of IMA order rejections * Improve Qwest flowthrough processes when related to orders submitted while there are pending order(s) against a customer's account. * Improve feature change intervals after a customer has been converted to AT&T.

Qwest systems do not allow an order to flowthrough when pending order(s) are identified causing IMA to reject all flowthrough requests. A pending order takes between 3-5 business days to update the CSR and prohibits AT&T from issuing orders as flowthrough changes. In this scenario, AT&T has agreed to issue orders as a manually handled order to circumvent the IMA system edits to reject such orders. However, this is not an ideal solution for Qwest nor the CLEC community. Manual handling requires additional resources from Qwest and results in quality constraints for both Qwest and the CLEC community.

Over the past few months, AT&T has become well educated in Qwest backend systems. A number of problems stemming from the differences between regional system architectures have been addressed. AT&T agrees that the system architecture supporting the Western region functions in a realtime manner.

AT&T believes neither options 1, 2, or 3 will provide relief to the problems associated with our request. Specifically, Option 3 does not address improving CSR updating intervals. Instead, it will require an estimated resource allocation of 8000+ hours which AT&T believes is a lackluster solution to band-aid a broken leg. Also, this code intensive solution concerns AT&T with potential problems associated with slowing the IMA platform down, additional reject problems and conflicting LSOG requirements. Ultimately, AT&T believes the problem needs to be addressed in the Qwest back end systems not IMA. Jonathan Spangler AT&T Local Services & Access Management

June 20, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston (Qwest) mentioned that Qwest did an analysis and found that the Loss & Completion reports and SCR020802-1 don’t have any relationship. She indicated that the logic is different. Bonnie Johnson (Eschelon) indicated that she understood. Connie Winston (Qwest) (addressing all of the other action items for update CSRs) indicated that Qwest can relax the edit for these types of orders. Doing so does add complexity, but it is doable. It is not difficult to let the order come in the door and allow the centers to perform a manual effort, but to make it mechanized would take effort and the LOE has come in at 8,000+ hours. She noted that the manual solution is not a problem, but to let it flow through would require a lot of work. Jonathan Spangler (AT&T) stated that AT&T is getting to the prioritization. He indicated that he thought this CR should be presented as option 3, which is heavy on the edits, and it doesn’t exactly meet the request. But AT&T does understand the magnitude of what they are requesting. Because the goal of the CR has been refined over time, AT&T would like to change the title to more effectively describe what the option 3 solution would be to aid in prioritization. Jonathan committed to submit that change to Qwest within the next week. He indicated that he would like to reference all of the discussion points reflected in the title. Michael Buck (Qwest) asked if AT&T meant to ensure that all of the discussion around this CR be reflected in the detail. Jonathan Spangler (AT&T) said Yes. Michael Buck (Qwest) said he agreed that the CR should be updated to to emphasize that when the CLECs and Qwest vote on this CR for prioritization, the vote will be on option 3. Connie Winston (Qwest) confirmed that Qwest needs to make sure the description of the change is updated to reflect the most current scenario. Jonathan Spangler (AT&T) indicated that he will submit an update to the CR to include a new title and AT&T’s understanding of what the scope is. He wanted to insure that all the discussion points were referenced. Michael Buck (Qwest) confirmed with participants that these action items are closed.

May 16, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he has had some discussions since the last CMP meeting and has some questions. OPTION 1: Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked - Related to central & eastern region. What does the western region system do now that would not need updating? Connie Winston/Qwest responded that we have a relationship between the billing system and CSR on-line and would love to have everywhere. When a service order completes in the SOP, it is sent to CRIS, then is sent to CARS, which holds the CSR data. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if the Western region meets the 24-hour window. Connie Winston/Qwest responded yes, if it is error free. OPTION 2: Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if an additional pull was done in the SOP, would it meet the 24-hour commitment. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it would have the same problem, if it errors, it errors. It just might get to the SOP a few hours sooner. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that one of the reasons we submitted this was to get clarifications on the L&C report as well. Do you think any of these CSR errors are related to the problems we have been having with L&C? Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she does not think so, as the logic is very different, but can look into that. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T state that Option’s 1 & 2 are significant and would take many resources. OPTION 3: Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that the edits are to identify if there was a pending C order that may alleviate some rejects. Asked for the size of the change, in hours. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it is a significant change to what IMA does today. What we are proposing is that when IMA is checking orders it looks to see if it was a conversion order. Timing will be a concern. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if this would tie to an RSID so the C order that was pending, you will match the RSID for what the order is. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that some type of validation would need to be done. There would be an RSID/ZSID relationship. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked how that would affect other changes that Qwest has made such as for pending orders. Connie Winston/Qwest stated was not familiar with the changes. If set to manual, will allow LSR to come in. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that there is a concern when they issue the initial conversion order, will not be able to set to manual in order to get to Qwest due to the check for a pending C order. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the logic would not be applied to the initial order. Qwest will validate that you really own the account. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that that makes sense, that would help Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if this would cause a conflict with CUS Code. If it is rejected, will have to call into the Center. Can that be eliminated? Connie Winston/Qwest asked how the CLECs know them now. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T responded that they do not know until the order posts. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she understands the problem and could look at relaxing some edits. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if there was a way to relax the edit. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the customer code is defined by region and asked if there is logic that can be applied, such as incrementing by 100? Connie Winston/Qwest responded that there is and can supply the logic/rules. Terry Wicks/Allegiance stated that the new customer code is based on that logic but the CLECs still would not have it. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that it would still require research on our part. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Qwest would apply the logic based on the customer code of the original order. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked the size of option 3, what would we be looking at? You indicated it would be less than 1&2 Connie Winston/Qwest responded that option 3 is less than 1&2 but is still XL. Terry Wicks/Allegiance asked that if Qwest were to pick one, which one would they choose. We would like to get the most realistic option. Is option 3 more realistic? Could we identify the reason for the rejects like CUS code, and we knew a way to alleviate those, even if it has to fall out to manual handling, it seems it would save everyone time & effort. As a community we were thinking 3 is the only one we could possible get? Does Qwest have an opinion? Connie Winston/Qwest stated that option 3 is more realistic. Qwest also wants option 1 but it is very ,very big. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if there is any functionality that Qwest retail does not have to go through that the CLECs do. Connie Winston/Qwest responded no, they also have options to choose from via pre-order. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that with the options provided, would like to have the answers to the CUS code issue before makes a decision. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that the action item will be closed and others will be opened. CR will stay in evaluation and next month will provide the LOE for option 3.

April 18, 2002 CMP Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is looking at 3 options. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the real issue is that when a LSR has been issued, Qwest works it. Then a CLEC needs to change the circuit and it doesn’t yet look like the CLEC owns it. Connie Winston/Qwest reviewed the options: Option 1: Very, very big to update Central & Eastern CSR’s to process them in real time. This would take well into next year to do. Option 2: This option does not provide tremendous value. It is a little smaller and could be done early next year. Option 3: This is an IMA solution. This is a significant amount of work and option 3 would be eligible for 12.0 voting. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it has been asked if there could be a blend of solutions. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there really is not a good blend. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that in regard to the customer code and which one to use; if you have received billing notification, use the new customer code. If you have not received billing notification, use the old customer code. The workaround is to set the LSR to manual. Michael Buck/Qwest asked if a decision could be made on the option. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he needs to take the customer code piece back to his billing people. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the workaround was for GUI only. Connie Winston/Qwest responded no. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that the CR status would change to Evaluation.

April 9, 2002 - CLEC Conference Call to Discuss Options: Attendees: Jonathon Spangler/AT&T, Carla Pardee/AT&T, Carrie Tucker/United Communications, Kathy Stitcher/Eschelon, Julie Pikar/USLink, Bob Carias/Nightfire, Terry Wicks/Allegiance, Dennis Martinez/Qwest, Connie Winston/Qwest, Mark Coyne/Qwest, Pam DeLaittre/Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest. It was stated that the options that would be discussed are available via the interactive report on the web for this CR. The CR was reviewed. The CLECs need the ability to to issue subsequent LSR's for a product when a CSR is not updated within 24 hours. Jonathon Spangler/AT&T stated that also needs to track changes via customer code. Dennis Martinez/Qwest reviewed Option 1 for the Wholesale Billing Interface. Dennis stated that this would be an extremely large effort and would be a re-write of the CRIS System. Carla Pardee/AT&T asked why option 1 does not mention the Western Region. Dennis Martinez/Qwest responded that this capability was already in the Western Region. Carla Pardee/AT&Tstated that it would be in Qwest's best interest that all three regions are consistent. Dennis Martinez/Qwest reviewed Option 2 for the Wholesale Billing Interface. Dennis stated that this would be less effort than Option 1 but would still be Extra Large. Connie Winston/Qwest reviewed Option 3 for IMA EDI & GUI. Connie stated that would need to have the experts look into the customer code piece, this is a new requirement. Connie Winston stated that this option would be a significant effort. Jonathon Spangler/AT&T stated that there needs to be a customer code solution and requested a read-out at the April Systmes CMP Meeting. Connie Winston/Qwest responded that can certainly provide as much status as we have at that time. The customer code would not impact the Wholesale Billing options. Jonathon Spangler/AT&T stated that the only solution that would solve their problem is option 3. Option 1 may also, depending on the customer code solution. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she understands the problem and can have an update at the next CMP. Terry Wicks/Allegiance asked if option 3 was really the only option. Connie Winston/Qwest responded that Qwest can look into a blending of the solution. Connie Winston/Qwest confirmed that this would be a votable candidate for 12.0 if go with the IMA solution. Dennis Martinez/Qwest stated that the Wholesale Billing solutions would be later than the 12.0 date. Terry Wicks/Allegiance stated that IMA could be a solution but needs to look at which system is best to go with. Terry asked if Qwest has an opinion/recommendation as to which would be best? Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the Billing options are very large and would take a long time to get done. IMA would be a shorter tem solution. The CLECs stated that the Billing Option would be Option 1 and the IMA solution could be looked into. Terry Wicks/Allegiance asked if there would be a work-around until the automated solution got implemented? Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we could look into that. Terry Wicks stated that even if it was a Remark. It was mentioned that a manual order is the current work-around. Bob Carias/Nightfire asked how factual the description was. Jonathon Spangler/AT&T responded that the description was based on AT&T's experience, even has a 40-day example. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that this occurs more often on the more complex orders. Kathy Stitcher/Eschelon stated that has experience in the past that could be beyond 30 days. The meeting ended. There will be a read-out at the April 18, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting.

March 21, 2002 - Discussed at CMP: Carla Pardee/AT&T - spoke to this Connie Winston/Qwest noted that this is a huge effort, Qwest sat down with some of the experts to identify the true business needs to identify any options that are do-able. Qwest does not have all of the options yet. Qwest has quite a few experts looking into this right now. If Qwest has options that come out before the next meeting, a meeting can be called. Connie to let Jonathon Spangler or Carla Pardee of AT&T know when Qwest is ready to discuss options. If the options are not prepared for an earlier meeting, they will definitely be discussed at next Systems CMP meeting. Jeff Thompson/Qwest- Qwest looked at 3-4 scenarios; all are very, very expensive. Jeff was wondering if the intent behind this CR is to update the CSR after doing a conversion. He indicated that solving that particular problem would be easier than what was requested in the CR. If Qwest had to work the CR the way it is written, Qwest would probably have to deny it. But if agreement could be secured on a certain sub-set of issues, then that would be more do-able. Donna Osborne-Miller /AT&T confirmed that subsequent activity is the problem. Jeff Thompson/Qwest indicated the Qwest could look into that. Connie Winston/Qwest mentioned that options would be provided. Jeff Thompson/Qwest committed to a general meeting in which the options would be presented. It was further confirmed that the option decided on in the meeting would be used to update the CR so this request can be evaluated. Terry Wicks/Allegiance indicated that Allegiance is also interested in this change request.

February 21, 2002 - Discussed at CMP: Jonathon Spangler presented CR as a walk-on item.

Clarification Meeting - February 15, 2002 Attendees: AT&T/Carla Pardee, Qwest/Peggy Esquibel-Reed, J. J. Bradley, Fred Howard, Monica Manning, Carl Sear Peggy reviewed CR description. Carla P. stated that the Center’s use a manual work around which requires the use of a manual log. AT&T is requesting Qwest to electronically update CSR’s more quickly. Has seen other ILECs do updates within 24 hours. Carl S. asked if there were error conditions for those that are having problems? Advised that Centrex and large orders could take 30 days. Small or general orders currently take 3-5 days. Carla advised would send examples to Peggy E-R. Fred H. stated that CSR’s are updated when order’s get posted. Carla P. stated needs electronically updated orders are being dropped for manual handling and manual handling could mean more errors.

CenturyLink Response

July 25, 2002

Jonathan Spangler AT&T, Local Services & Access Management

This letter is a revised response to AT&T’s Change Request SCR020802-1.

At the July Systems CMP Meeting held on July 18, 2002 Qwest and the CLEC Community again reviewed this change request. Qwest reiterated its position that the proposed ‘Option 3’ represents a viable solution to the underlying business problem identified and agreed to at the March Systems CMP Meeting. AT&T reconfirmed the position that ‘Option 3’ is not an acceptable approach. AT&T, with the support of the other CLECs attending the meeting, again asked Qwest to deny the change request.

Qwest expressed concern that once the CR is denied it would not be eligible for prioritization. Qwest expressed reservations about removing a viable solution to an expressed business problem from the list of change requests eligible for the entire CLEC Community to consider in the upcoming prioritization process.

The CLEC Community in attendance at the July Systems CMP Meeting indicated their preference that if any CLEC is interested in pursuing ‘Option 3’ then that CLEC could initiate a new CR specifically requesting the approach outlined in ‘Option 3.’ The meeting attendees agreed that should such a request come forward, it could be addressed using the process for "Ranking of Late Added CRs" as described in the Qwest Wholesale Change Management Process Document.

Thus, at the request of the CR originator and the CLEC Community, Qwest respectfully denies this change request.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Thompson Qwest, Information Technologies

CC: Connie Winston Michael Buck Dennis Martinez Loretta Huff Judith Schultz

July 9, 2002

Jonathan Spangler AT&T, Local Services & Access Management

This letter is a revised response to AT&T’s Change Request SCR020802-1.

SCR020802-1 was submitted on February 8, 2002. In the initial response provided at the March 21, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting, Qwest indicated that the effort to update CSRs within 24 hours is considerable. In light of the estimated level of effort Qwest asked AT&T to clarify the underlying business issue. AT&T indicated that ensuring up to date CSR information in order to support 'subsequent activity' after a conversion is the problem to which a solution is required. Qwest agreed to research and provide options to solve the business issue as clarified.

At a follow-up conference call held on April 9, 2002 Qwest proposed what has come to be known as 'Option 3.' From early April through early July Qwest has worked collaboratively with AT&T and the CLEC community to develop further the high level approach for 'Option 3.' At the June Systems CMP Meeting AT&T indicated a willingness to formally revise this Change Request to reflect that Option 3, also known as 'virtual CSR,' would be the option to be considered during the IMA 12.0 prioritization process.

Qwest believes that the approach was substantially reconfirmed at a June 26, 2002 conference call held with AT&T. While AT&T did express concern at the June 26, 2002 call, Qwest left that call with the understanding that the concern could be addressed. Specifically, AT&T wished to ensure that Qwest’s proposed solution would:

* Ensure AT&T receives the most current and accurate CSR information from Qwest * Provide reductions of IMA order rejections * Improve Qwest flowthrough processes when related to orders submitted while there are pending order(s) against a customer’s account * Improve feature change intervals after a customer has been converted to AT&T

Qwest reiterated the belief that the virtual CSR approach outlined in 'Option 3' could meet these needs. At AT&T’s request Qwest agreed to host a call on July 8, 2002 for the purpose of providing to the CLEC Community final clarification for 'Option 3.'

At the July 8, 2002 meeting the CLEC Community expressed concerns about the support and interest this request would receive in the IMA 12.0 prioritization process. The CLEC Community appears to believe that this change request would be voted low in the prioritization vote. Additionally, there appeared to be concern over a change request taking up a substantial portion of an IMA release.

At the conclusion of the July 8, 2002 meeting AT&T requested that Qwest update the status of this CR to 'Denied.' Call participants did ask whether it would be more appropriate to update this CR to a status of 'Deferred.' AT&T indicated their preference that the status of the CR be updated to 'Denied.'

Qwest believes that the proposed solution is a viable solution to the business problem raised in this change request. Therefore, Qwest believes that the proper approach is to allow the change request to proceed through the CMP prioritization process for IMA 12.0. Qwest is updating the status of the Change Request to a 'Pending Prioritization' status and proposes that the CLEC Community be given the option of ranking 'Option 3.'

Sincerely,

Jeffery Thompson Qwest, Information Technologies

CC: Connie Winston Michael Buck Dennis Martinez Loretta Huff Judith Schultz

--

April 5, 2002: Qwest has evaluated this CR and offers three options to discuss during the conference call scheduled for Tuesday, April 9, 2002. The goal of the call will be to come to an agreement as to which option the CLEC Community requests Qwest to implement to resolve the issue of the inability of the CLECs to do subsequent activity on a circuit because CSR’s are not updated in 24 hours.

OPTION 1 - Wholesale Billing Interface: Would require Qwest to update the Central and Eastern CRIS processing environments to accommodate near real time processing of CSRs. Qwest has determined that this change would be extremely large. It has been determined that this would require two full releases for each of the Central and Eastern CRIS system environments to accommodate this request.

The extremely high estimate is based on the current non-transactional system architecture that is inherent in the design of the Central and Eastern CRIS systems and the effort it would take to accommodate a transactional base architecture that would allow for a more expeditious update of the CSR.

OPTION 2 - Wholesale Billing Interface: Have the Central and Eastern CRIS environments process SOP pulls at mid-day and at the end of the day. The benefit to adding a mid-day SOP pull would be loading of any CSR that were submitted prior to the SOP pull. These CSRs would be available by 6:00 p.m. that evening or approximately 12 hours earlier than the regular SOP pull, which has CSRs available at 6:00 a.m. the next day, in most cases. While this option requires less effort than option one, it still falls into the extra large category.

OPTION 3 - IMA (EDI & GUI): Allow the entry of an LSR on a recently converted account that does not have an updated CSR.

The LSR would continue to be validated against the CSR. When the LSR fails the ownership check, IMA would then access the Service Order Processors to determine if a pending conversion order exists.

If a pending order exists, IMA will determine if the order is a conversion order for the CLEC submitting the new LSR. If the validation is successful IMA will accept the new LSR.

If a conversion order is not found IMA will reject the LSR based on ownership failure.

This would be an X-Large effort for IMA.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

March 13, 2002 Qwest will provide a response at the March 21, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting.