Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR022703-04 Detail

For Example:

Today QWEST is sending the following:

USOC = Feature 1 (3 way Calling)

FID = TN

FIDDATA = Telephone Number 1

USOC = Feature 2 (Call Waiting)

FID= TN

FIDDATA = Telephone Number 3

USOC = Feature 1 (3 way Calling)

FID = TN

FIDDATA = Telephone Number 2

USOC = Feature 3 (Speed Dial 8)

FID = TN

FIDDATA = Telephone Number 1

All of the information is randomly sent without any type of logical structure. We don’t know how many lines are within the account therefore we have to search thru the entire response to identify the unique line (TNs) and then restructure the CSR response so that this information is reported so that it makes sense to our service reps. They can view every available on each line at a quick glance.

We are requesting via this CR:

Quantity of Lines = 3

Telephone Number 1 has:

Feature 1 (3 way Calling)

Feature 3 (Speed Dial 8)

AT&T requests that QWEST supports a Parsed CSR based on predefined LSOG Fields instead of LICs (Listing Instruction Codes), FID and FID Data (see fields on associated Products forms such as RTY, LTY, PLA, PIC, ALI, LTOS, PIC, LPIC, FEATURE & FEATURE DETAIL)

For Example:

Today QWEST is sending the following:

FID = AL

FIDDATA = (B)(LNR) WINDOW, JANE

FID = LN

FIDDATA = (OCLS) FLEET, CALVIN

QWEST is not parsing the data in the desired LSOG fields. Our Service Reps are required to translate the QWEST specific FID & Listing Instruction Codes (LICs) information in order to understand what the customer currently has in place today.

We are requesting via this CR :

RTY (Record Type) = LAL

LNLN (Listed Last Name) = WINDOW

LNFN (Listed First Name) = JANE

BRO (Business/Residence Placement Override) = R

ALI (Alphanumeric Listing Identifier Code) = B

RTY = LML

LNLN = FLEET

LNFN = CALVIN

DML (Direct Mail List) = O

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

Compatible with Release 14.0.

Status History

Project Meetings

- March 10, 2004 Conference Call Attendees: Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Regina Mosley-AT&T, Carla Pardee-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, John Gallegos, Qwest, Terri Kilker-Qwest John Gallegos-Qwest stated that he requested the meeting to discuss and ensure that Qwest was going down the right path for this 14.0 candidate. John stated that Qwest did receive Phyllis Burt's email stating that it is not the direction that AT&T wants to go, based on the examples provided by Qwest. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked if Qwest is now clear. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that Qwest is very clear and will make sure that the change that Qwest is currently working on will not take place. John stated that Qwest will not go forward and the bug fix would not go in. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that it impacted main listing only. John Gallegos-Qwest responded correct and will keep it as it is and make no changes. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked if the revision to SCR103103-01 needed to be removed. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that it did not need to be removed, the revision stays. John stated that it is just the 14.0 bug that would not go forward. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that in Phyllis Burt's email, the Qwest example shows the LML under each SNL Loop. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that it what is being requested within SCR103103-01 Parsed and Structured CSR #2. Regina Mosley-AT&T responded okay. John Gallegos-Qwest re-stated that the 14.0 candidate would stay in place and Qwest would not make any more changes for the 14.0 candidate. Phyllis Burt-AT&T asked if any other CLECs have complained. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that they have not and that this is just an impact to AT&T. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T thanked Qwest for the call. There were no additional questions or comments.

March 8, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Hi Peggy, I wanted to provide some feedback before our meeting tomorrow. Based on the attachment, it seems that QWEST is proposing to send back multiple LMLs (resulting in multiple SLN Loops for the LML only). As QWEST is probably aware, this is not what AT&T requested. Our discussion was about one LML with multiple LFIDS (resulting in one SLN for each unique listing). See examples below.

As far as I can tell during SATE testing, this issue only occurs with the LML. I think sending multiple LMLs on the PreOrder CSR Response would cause confusion for the CLECs. Based on our IMA 14.0 SATE test results, AT&T Consumer had to modify our software and test this modification so we could handle listing data (SLN Loops) that was not associated to a listing. The QWEST proposed change would require additional code changes by AT&T Consumer since we're not expecting multiple LMLs. If my understanding of the QWEST proposal is correct, I would prefer that QWEST either make the changes as AT&T proposed or leave things the way they are.

For example: If the Customer has three listing one Main (LML) and two Additional Listings (LALs)

Thanks, Phyllis

March 8, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: I have scheduled the meeting to take place as follows: DATE: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 TIME: 8:30 MT / 10:30 ET CALL-in #: 1-877-564-8688, 8571927 Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

March 8, 2004 Email Sent AT&T: Hi All, Qwest would like to have further discussion with you in regard to your Parsed and Structured CSR Change Request. I have attached a document with some examples that we would like to use in this discussion. It looks like the Qwest calendars are open on Tuesday, March 9th at 12:00 p.m. MT / 2:00 p.m. ET. Please advise if this time works for you. I will then schedule the call and send you the call-in information. Thanks much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems 303.382.5761

- February 25, 2004 - Conference Call SCR022703-04 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR (deployed with the IMA 14.0 Release) SCR103103-01 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR #2 (currently ranked 13 of 50 in IMA 16.0)

Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Regina Mosley-AT&T, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, Danelle Haynes-Qwest

Purpose: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the purpose of the call was to discuss the 2 CR’s that were submitted, by AT&T, for Parsed and Structured CSR.

Meeting Discussion: Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that something was noticed as part of the 14.0 release for Part 1 of the 2-CRs. Phyllis stated that EDI was not coming back as AT&T assumed it would, based on disclosure. Phyllis stated that AT&T expected every DL in a separate structure. Phyllis stated that there needs to be a fix for the LFID and stated that Qwest has said that it is not a bug and that the system is working as it was designed. Phyllis stated that her EDI Team suggested that she modify the CR for Part 2 to get the LFID issue taken care of. Phyllis noted that AT&T had sent an email (February 17, 2004) regarding this issue. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the emailed information was received. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that AT&T had specifically coded to handle the LFID. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that there have been extensive ad-hoc meetings to identify and close any gaps and noted that the Listing Section was not mentioned or discussed. Conrad Evans/Qwest stated that on previous conference calls, what was discussed was the structuring of the S&E Section. Conrad again stated that the Listing Section was not ever discussed. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that she was in agreement that the discussions for Parsed and Structured CSR were regarding the S&E Section and that the Listing Section was not discussed. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that Qwest understands the issue and the concern and apologized that AT&T was experiencing difficulty surrounding this candidate. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that Qwest really couldn’t do a fix for the 14.0 candidate, as it would be a very large effort for the work that needs to be done for the Listing Section. John stated that AT&T can revise their Parsed and Structured CSR #2 to incorporate the Listing Section. John stated that Qwest understands what AT&T is looking for. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that she agrees with revising of the #2 CR (SCR103103-01). Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that Phyllis (Burt) could send the revision to her. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked what, in addition to the emailed information, needed to be provided. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the information from the email would be sufficient and could be incorporated into the CR as the revision. John Gallegos/Qwest again apologized for the difficulty that AT&T was having. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that AT&T agrees that the Listing Section was not discussed in the original scope of the first CR (SCR022703-04). Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that she would revise the CR and provide a copy of the revised CR to the participants on the call. There were no additional comments or questions.

-- February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion Excerpt (Attachments G, H & J): Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is working an open issue with AT&T and the CR needs to remain open. Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that she wanted to provide an update to the funding approval process that was discussed in the January CMP Systems Meeting. Judy referred everyone to Attachment J in the Distribution Package. She stated that all CRs are being re-evaluated and must be approved. Judy said that CRs could not be scheduled without approval. Judy stated that the CRs with an impact to the IMA interface would follow the existing prioritization process. Judy noted that the funding for IMA 15.0 and IMA 16.0 has been approved, as well as funding to begin work on IMA 17.0.

- January Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that AT&T Consumer is cutting to 14.0 on February 14th and asked that the CR remain in CLEC Test until February CMP.

December 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked that this CR remain open for testing. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- September 19, 2003 IMA 14.0 High-Level Walk-thru Meeting Minutes Excerpt:

Functionality Description: Restructure the IMA Pre-Order CSR response to identify the Quantity of Lines on an account and display each service level TN with all of its associated Features together. For example, Quantity of Lines on Account = 2 Telephone Number 303 555-1234 has Feature 1 (3 Way Calling) and Feature 3 (Speed Dial 8). (not all inclusive) Telephone Number 303 555-1235 has: Feature 1 (3 Way Calling). Parse CSR response on pre-defined LSOG fields, instead of Listing Instruction Codes, FIDs, and FID data. Pre-order only. IMA Recap functionality is not in scope for this Candidate

Products: All TN based products. Note: Centrex is not included in scope.

Other impacts: Pre order Query /CSR Developer worksheet

Field Impacts: Note: TOS & Title2D are NOT IN SCOPE

ADI NOSL ALI NSTN BLOCK OMTN BRO PIC DML PLA FEATURE PROF FEATURE DETAIL PUL HID RTY HNTYP STYC HTSEQ TERS LNPL TITLE1D LPIC TL LSCP TLD LTEXT TMKT LTN TOA LTXTY WTN LTY DESD

ACTs: N/A

Questions & Answers:

Q: Please confirm that with the implementation of this CR, will the Service and Equipment data be sent as a repeating structure for each TN similar to the RS form (one EDI PO1 segment for each TN). A: Connie Winston - Qwest responded yes and noted that repeating is not a pre-order function. Phyllis Burt - AT&T asked if the CLECs would be getting a structured CSR. Connie Winston - Qwest responded yes, the CLECs would be getting a structured CSR.

There were no additional comments, questions, or clarification requested.

Q: Please confirm that with the implementation of this CR, will the Account Level data (such as Service Address, Cust code) be sent in the first occurrence of the repeating structure for each TN? A: Connie Winston - Qwest responded no, as there is no relationship to a TN. Connie stated that the account level S&E information would appear at the top of the S&E data before the Line level information. Connie stated that the Service address does not appear in the S&E section, it appears in the listing section. Phyllis Burt - AT&T asked how they would appear. Connie Winston - Qwest stated that EDI Disclosure would provide more specifics. Phyllis Burt - AT&T asked to confirm that Qwest will give the CLECs information at the TN level. Sue Stott - Qwest responded yes. Phyllis Burt - AT&T stated that for example, have 3-way calling and call forwarding with 2 lines. Phyllis stated that she doesn’t get TN for line 1 and the associated features. Connie Winston - Qwest stated that Qwest will do that, will show for this TN, these are the features with USOCs and FIDs. Connie stated that the List Section would have USOCs and FIDs. Connie stated that disclosure will make more clear, when is S&E, the account level USOCs will appear first, then repeating will appear. Connie Winston - Qwest stated that Qwest is testing any which way we can to catch any CSR oddities. Connie stated that some oddities have been found and stated that Qwest would share if something were not clear.

There were no additional comments, questions, or clarification requested.

Q: Please confirm that with the implementation of this CR, will the Listing data be sent as a repeating structure for each Listing similar to the DL form (one EDI PO1 segment for each listing). A: Connie Winston - Qwest responded that the listing area is repeatable, one time per listing. Connie stated that if more detail is needed for EDI, Qwest would provide it at disclosure meeting. Connie stated that each listing would have parsed information associated with it. Liz Balvin - MCI asked why TOS is out of scope. Monica Manning - Qwest responded that it cannot be derived based upon data on the CSR. Connie Winston - Qwest agreed with Monica’s response. Liz Balvin - MCI stated that it does not matter from an ordering perspective, but asked to confirm that it would not be required. Kim Isaacs - Eschelon stated that Eschelon does get a lot of rejects for an incorrect TOS because the TOS on conversion orders must match what is stored by Qwest. Connie Winston - Qwest stated that Qwest does not need to know the old TOS; Qwest will only need to know the new TOS.

There were no additional comments, questions, or clarification requested.

-- September 18, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR is committed into the IMA 14.0 Release. Connie stated that it was de-scoped, effort will not be done for Centrex. Stephanie Prull/McLeod asked if there would be 2 CSR transactions. Connie Winston/Qwest stated just in the response that Qwest sends back. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Centrex would not break. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she was glad that Qwest de-scoped Centrex in order to get this CR into the Release. Bonnie stated that it was the right thing to do because no CLEC asked to have additional products (Centrex) added to the CR. There were no additional comments or questions. This Action Item is closed.

September 10, 2003 Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) advised Donna Osborne-Miller (AT&T) that Qwest is implementing all the fields that were on AT&T's priority list with the exception of the TOS and TITLE2D fields. Donna Osborne-Miller (AT&T) stated that she would send an email to the CLEC Community with this information.

September 9, 2003 Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) if all fields, except for the four that were previously identified, would be implemented. Peggy agreed to check into and call her with info.

September 2, 2003 Meeting Held with CLECs and Qwest: Attendees: Sharon Van Meter/AT&T, Phyllis Burt/AT&T, Connie Winston/Qwest, John Gallegos/Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest John Gallegos/Qwest stated that we (Qwest) communicated information to Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T, Stephanie Prull/McLeodUSA, and Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon on August 29th that this candidate is committed to the IMA 14.0 Release. John stated that this CR was descoped, Centrex functionality, will not be included, and stated that this has been discussed several times, in past meetings. John stated that Donna was agreeable to not having this functionality for Centrex. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that Qwest made Donna's weekend by calling her with the good news last Friday and thanked Qwest. Sharon asked for the deployment date for 14.0. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it is December 8, 2003. Connie thanked all CLECs for their patience in working through this matter. There were no additional coments or questions. The call was concluded.

August 29, 2003: Candidate included in IMA 14.0 Release. John Gallegos and Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest talked with Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T and advised that the candidate made the release but was descoped, will not include functionality for Centrex. John advised that candidate's functionality will be for the UNE-P POTS product, which was the original scope. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T very happy that the cadidate is to be included in 14.0. Donna stated that she was sorry for the other CLECs in the fact that Centrex was removed but agreed that it was not in the original scope. Donna had no other questions or comments.

John Gallegos and Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest left voice mail messages for Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon and Stephanie Prull/McLeodUSA advising that this candidate made the release but was descoped, will not include functionality for Centrex. John stated that this candidate's functionality will be for the UNE-P POTS product, which was the original scope. John stated that if there were questions to please contact Peggy Esquibel Reed at 303.896.6332.

August 21, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that everything stayed the same on the IMA 14.0 Commitment List except #4 SCR022703-04 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR, originated by AT&T. Connie stated that Qwest has had several lockdowns to discuss potential issues with this CR and that most of the problems are associated with the Centrex. Connie said that we need until next Friday, August 29, 2003 to determine if this CR can stay in the release. Connie also said that the AT&T requirements are not changing. DPA is a left-handed FID that changes some of the logic of TN, which may cause address impacts for Centrex. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if this could go into a point release. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this could not go into a point release because it is fairly significant. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that if it is disclosed it can be in a point release. Connie Winston/Qwest said that there wasn’t a point release scheduled. Stephanie Prull/McLeod said that a point release would not work for McLeod because we would code to the new maps and then wouldn’t be able to get our LSRs in. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are looking at several options. On August 29 we will commit or exclude this candidate into the 14.0 release. Connie said that it could be a late adder to the 15.0 Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that her client can’t accept that and asked when was this discovered. Connie Winston/Qwest said that we discovered it just this week and have been meeting daily. Carla Pardee/AT&T said that AT&T doesn’t offer Centrex. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that we understand you need to look at the needs of all CLECs. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are still trying for 14.0. Carla Pardee/AT&T asked if Qwest would schedule a meeting once a decision is made. Connie Winston/Qwest said that we would schedule a meeting on September 2, 2003. If it is still in, we will send out a notification stating that and then cancel the meeting.

-- June 19, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there was a meeting with Qwest and the CLECs and stated that there are four fields that Qwest thought couldn’t be provided but Qwest is still defining as determining how the data can be derived. Connie stated that the goal is to provide the fields. Connie stated that more information would be provided prior to, or with, packaging. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked that as soon as it is known if it is doable, to please let her know. There were no additional questions or comments. This action item was closed.

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the four fields are still being evaluated and that any change to the LOE would be communicated at packaging. There were no additional questions or comments. This action item was closed.

- June 11, 2003 Meeting with Qwest and CLEC Community Attendees: Lori Mendoza-Allegiance, Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, James McCluskey-Accenture, Carla Pardee-AT&T, Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Dave Burley-MCI, Regina Mosley-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Monica Manning-Qwest, Deb Roth-Qwest, Connie Winston-Qwest Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T provided a history of the CR and stated that AT&T resubmitted a list of 13 fields. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest looked at the 'yes' rows on the spreadsheet to see if Qwest could incorporate and keep within the current scope of the CR. Connie stated that a revised LOE would be provided at packaging. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that for the HNTYP field: Qwest is unable to accommodate, cannot be derived from data that is on the CSR. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked for details as to what causes the inability to derive. Monica Manning/Qwest stated that the OBF value for HNTYP is 1 - 2 numeric's for different types of hunting. Monica stated that cannot locatethe needed information to derive the type of hunting to translate to a code. Connie Winston/Qwest asked if that was regarding series hunting. Monica Manning/Qwest stated that there are 12 different values in the LSOG and once it hits the account, they can look very similar. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked if it is required on the order. Monica Manning/Qwest stated that the information is represented in multiple places. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that is on the LSR in order to construct the order correctly, then once the order is constructed it looks similar. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that when is migrating a customer with hunting, needs to populate on the LSR. The CLEC pulls the CSR to populate the LSR and the HNTYP field is one that of the fields. Phyllis asked that if Qwest cannot derive it, how can it be expected that the CLECs can. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest would look into that. Monica Manning/Qwest stated that features are migrated and depending on the type, the hunting field on the LSR is populated. Monica stated that it is a complex process and needs to look in multiple places. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked if Qwest supports the OBF Guidelines. Monica Manning/Qwest stated that Qwest does not use the hunt codes that are in the OBF (4 & 5). Connie Winston/Qwest stated that need to see if can map to a 4 or a 5. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the LTXTY is not supportable by CSR data. Monica Manning/Qwest stated that the OBF set's values for the kind of text and cannot make the determination by looking at the listing information. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked if Qwest only supports what is in the disclosur document. Phyllis stated that the whole point of the CR is to take data from the CSR to put onto the order. Monica Manning/Qwest stated that we have discussed the difficulty when there is a stream of data that would have to be parsed out and not specific to a code; that is very difficult. Monica stated that we can take a lower level look at this but it could bring it outside the scope of this CR. Connie Winston/Qwest asked how much of the data, based on the scope, is necessary. Connie stated that the general theme seems to be migrations. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that they have to manually train their AT&T rep's to read the Qwest CSR in order to prevent rejects. Connie Winston/Qwest asked to confirm that when a CLEC is setting up or changing hunting, the CLECs will let Qwest know what the preference is and for migrations, the CLEC wants Qwest to derive and populate the fields. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated yes, for Consumer. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that the business side would like that as well. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is requiring on migrations and we can explore how necessary they are on a migration. An option could be to keep the same stuff on a migration. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if Qwest will take a lower level look. Connie Winston/Qwest stated yes and that remapping and determining the field would increase the LOE. Connie stated that the business need is to keep the same thing on a migration order. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that relaxing the migration rules may not meet the need. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that she needs to understand cross reference. Connie Winston/Qwest stated is based on the field. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that when LTXTY comes across, can see if there is a cross reference listing and determine action. Currently, needs to look at the CSR and then determine how to put it on the order. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that relaxing the migration rules would not meet the need and would take another look at it. Connie Winston/Qwest staed that STYC cannot be derived from the CSR data. Monica Manning/Qwest stated that there is not 1-piece of data that says is a caption header. Monica stated that this would involve some analysis. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked if they can know if indent is causing the problem. Phyllis asked if Qwest can tell them if is staight line or caption. It was stated that the business side only uses straight line. Connie Winston stated that for TOA, it seems to be another migration issue and Qwest needs to understand the need. Connie asked if Res, Bus, Gov, & Military are the values and stated that the translations are difficult. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are still in definition we will see what solutions we can come up with. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if the revised LOE would be provided at the June CMP Meeting. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it would be provided at packaging, which is in July. Connie stated that Qwest will try and keep within scope of the current LOE. There were no additional questions or comments. The call was concluded.

- May 22, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we want to provide a status for this CR. Connie stated that the LOE that was provided (3225 to 5375 hours) was for exactly what was noted in the CR. Connie stated that AT&T then provided additional fields for exactly what they are looking for. Connie stated that when Qwest and AT&T met, it was discussed as to whether or not the scope was being clarified or increased. Connie stated that if the scope increases, we would communicate. Connie stated that Qwest does realize that this is a popular CR, as it was ranked #4. Connie noted that Qwest does want to deliver something that you want. Connie noted that AT&T submitted additional information yesterday, they ranked their priority order for the fields. Connie stated that Qwest is doing analysis and are taking everything into consideration and everything that AT&T has suggested. We need to determine if the data is available or if the data needs to be derived and from where. Connie stated that this CR is in Evaluation and asked that if the type of information that AT&T has provided is available for the initial Clarification Meeting, that would allow Qwest to LOE appropriately. Connie stated that we do not currently have an updated LOE but that we will certainly provide it no later than packaging. Connie asked the CLECs if they wanted to go through the AT&T list of fields during this CMP Meeting. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that we might want to take the discussion off-line, outside of the CMP Meeting. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon agreed that an ad-hoc meeting would be better. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that the LOE would probably change. Connie Winston/Qwest stated yes, it probably would. Connie stated that we might need to do some coding in order to derive the data. Connie stated that the CLECs might want to derive some of the data themselves. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that she would like her IT people on the ad hoc call. Liz stated that this seems to have synergies to an MCI CR, SCR081602-01, which is asking for the creation of fields that do not currently exist. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest would look at SCR081602-01 and see if that request is covered in this request. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked what this means to the timelines. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is currently taking all of the fields into definition and will have to re-LOE. Connie stated that the revised LOE would be provided no later than packaging. Connie noted that the initial LOE’s are fairly high level and once we have defined, we sometimes re-LOE and provide the revised LOE no later than packaging. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there will be an ad hoc call to discuss the details of the matrix provided by AT&T. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked if Qwest could provide the revised LOE before the ad hoc call. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it will be provided no later than packaging and stated that we’ve done a swag and the LOE looks to have at lease doubled, but that is just a swag because we have not had the opportunity to define to that level. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked what the purpose of the ad hoc call is. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the ad hoc call would be to discuss the AT&T matrix and ensure that everyone is on the same page. Connie noted that not all CLECs have seen the detail that AT&T has provided. Beth Foster/Qwest noted that 14.0 packaging will take place at the July Systems CMP Meeting. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest noted that the Action Item in Report Line Number 11, of Attachment I, can be closed. Peggy stated that the Action Item was for AT&T to provide the additional data and the data has been received by Qwest. There were no additional questions or comments.

-- May 15, 2003 Meeting with AT&T and Qwest

Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Regina Mosley-AT&T, Diane Burt-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, Monica Manning-Qwest, Connie Winston-Qwest

Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that the purpose of the meeting was for a discussion as a result of the new information received from AT&T and to see if AT&T still had an open issue in regard to the format. Connie Winston-Qwest asked for a re-cap of the question from AT&T. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest read the question from the email received from AT&T: “When working this CR, will the format follow the OBF/LSOG guidelines? For example, will you list the account level data in the ATN section of the parsed CSR followed by the individual WTN(s) Features and Feature Details at the line level?” Monica Manning-Qwest stated that some research has been done and that more research is needed in order to provide an accurate response. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that the question does require a lot of research. Conrad Evans-Qwest asked for clarification as to the request of AT&T requesting for the account level and the TN level only or for more? Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that primarily is at the account level, TN section and feature detail. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that other ILECs format with the first occurrence at the account level and subsequent occurrences at the line level. Phyllis stated that the CR is asking for the account level and that Regina is also requesting that the line level be sent back. Phyllis recapped that the first occurrence would be at the account level and subsequent occurrences would be at the line level. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that Qwest would provide a status, to the 4/28 AT&T question, at the May CMP Meeting. Connie stated that we might not have the detail but that a status would be provided. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that an action item would be opened for the status. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that the requested discussion is due to the fact that a handful of fields were mentioned in the CR, AT&T agreed to provide additional fields that they wanted supported. Qwest anticipated a few more fields. AT&T provided alot more fields. Because there were a lot more fields requested, then what was anticipated, Qwest is doing additional research and Connie stated that the LOE does not reflect the number of fields. Connie stated that Qwest needs to find out how passionate AT&T and the CLECs feel about all the fields that were provided. Connie stated that all of the fields will certainly impact the LOE and will impact what will be in the 14.0 Release. Connie stated that it needs to be determined what the importance is to the CLECs for just the fields that were stated in the CR versus all of the additional fields. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that what was in the CR were examples and asked if Qwest believed that the CR contained the only fields that AT&T was requesting. Connie Winston-Qwest stated yes, that was the belief and that was what was LOE’d. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked how much bigger the LOE is to include the additional fields. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that a rough ballpark is that it looks to be double the current LOE. Connie stated that it is a ballpark, it could be less than or more than double the current LOE. Connie stated that Qwest could start looking to see what the LOE would be for the current understanding of the request and will look to see what the LOE would look like for the full scope. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked Phyllis Burt (AT&T) where AT&T can give & take. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that Qwest might not have some of the data, on the CSR, in order to provide it. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that some items are not required on the CSR. Phyllis stated that AT&T needs the items that are required on the CSR and stated that she will need time to research. Connie Winston-AT&T stated that as Qwest goes through definition phase, Qwest could identify what is not on the CSR. Connie stated that for other fields, maybe we could negotiate. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that for the fields that state ‘TBD by Qwest’, in the Word doc, it is up to Qwest to decide. Connie Winston-Qwest asked if those marked as TBD’s, they are not significant to AT&T. Phyllis Burt-AT&T responded yes. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that Qwest will get a new LOE and will provide at CMP, we need to discuss with CLECs and Connie asked AT&T to evaluate their required fields. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked when AT&T needed to supply the information to Qwest. Connie Winston-Qwest stated by the end of the first week of June and asked AT&T if that was doable. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that the fields marked as TBD’s are not being used for UNE-P POTS, but are on the list because doesn’t know if other products need them. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that will focus the re-LOE to the fields marked as New. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that the Products on the CR states as ‘All’ due to the potential needs for products other than UNE-P POTS, which is her interest. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that we would then need to look at the TBD’s as well, to LOE. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that she will provide the list of the AT&T required fields. Conrad Evans-Qwest asked if the format on the existing fields was ok, such as for the AN field. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that the existing formats are ok for the existing fields. There were no other questions or comments. The meeting was adjourned.

- April 24, 2003 Email from Phyllis Burt/AT&T: Attached is the list of new CSR Response (CSRR) fields AT&T Consumer would like supported for this CR.

April 22, 2003 Sent email to AT&T requesting status of action item: Good Afternoon Donna -- Can you provide status regarding the email below, sent to AT&T on April 16th? Thank You, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CRPM -- Systems

-- April 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that when doing a pre-order query for CSR in the GUI, it is not different than in EDI. Lynn stated that with the re-cap functionality in the GUI, the data is sorted with TNs and USOCs. In EDI, it is not. Liz Balvin/MCI asked to confirm that a re-cap does sort CSR feature information by TN. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest responded, yes, in the GUI. Sue Stott/Qwest stated that it is the same data and that this feature will be added for EDI in 14.0. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that CSR has been a real struggle for MCI and noted that MCI has had to code to support this. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that Qwest has had to as well. Regina Mosely/AT&T stated that Qwest says there is no structure difference but we notice that there are format differences, such as in thoroughfares and directionals. Wendy Green/Qwest stated that the differences discussed with AT&T are between AVQ and CSR. Regina Mosely/AT&T asked if this was only for CSR. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that this is isolated to the CSR. Regina Mosely/AT&T asked if it is 2 separate issues for address validation and CSR and asked if there was a CR open for that. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she and Regina would discuss off-line and get a CR submitted. Kit Thomte/Qwest asked if this action item could be closed. There was no dissent to close the action item.

- April 16, 2003 Email sent to Phyllis Burt and Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T: Good Morning Phyllis -- I am checking status of an action item that was assigned to you during our Clarification Meeting, held on March 12th. Below is the excerpt from the meeting notes. Can you please advise when we can expect to receive the information? We are at a critical point and are in need of the data. Thank you. EXCERPT FROM MEETING NOTES: Wendy Green/Qwest stated that if the request was for every field on the RS, LSR, and EU forms, she would like AT&T to send a comprehensive list of the fields. Phyllis Burt/AT&T agreed to send the list to Peggy Esquibel-Reed at pesquib@qwest.com Thanks again, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP -- Systems CRPM pesquib@qwest.com

March 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T introduced Phyllis Burt. Donna reviewed the description of the CR. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that WorldCom would very much support this and stated that this CR will resolve a number of issues. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that this is a need for both the AT&T business partner and the consumer side. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that the Level of Effort is provided on the CR and asked what the thought process was as to how Qwest would accommodate this CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it is how Qwest reads it into the systems and would need to restructure that. Connie stated that it was similar to PSON in that you have to read the data and interpret it. It is a change in how we read in the data and how we interpret it on the screen. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if this will be through IMA. Sue Stott/Qwest stated yes, that is correct. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that the IMA GUI is structured and that IMA EDI is not. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she does not know that to be true and stated that things typically behave very similarly in the GUI as in EDI. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that about several weeks ago, AT&T found disparity and is having a meeting with Qwest (Kim Chambers) to discuss. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that an action item would be taken to investigate if the EDI and GUI structures are different. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that the EDI team will meet with AT&T to review this. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she would also discuss with Kim Chambers (Qwest). Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that this CR will move to pending prioritization

March 12, 2003 Clarification Meeting Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T, Phyllis Burt/AT&T, Regina Mosley/AT&T, Carla Pardee/AT&T, Diane Burt/AT&T, John Blaszczyk/AT&T, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Monica Manning/Qwest, Terri Kilker/Qwest, John Gallegos/Qwest, Berkley Loggie/Qwest, Lynn Stecklein/Qwest, Wendy Green/Qwest, Jan Martin/Qwest, Denise Martinez/Qwest, Shelley Mason/Qwest, Rob Mitchell/Qwest, Laurel Nolan/Qwest, Shonna Pasionek/Qwest, Mallory Paxton/Qwest, Joan Pfeffer/Qwest, Deb Roth/Qwest, Carl Sear/Qwest, Kerri Waldner/Qwest, Scott Carne/Qwest

Reviewed CR Description: AT&T requests that QWEST supports a Structured CSR where information is reported for each Service Level TN instead of TN information being provided at the FID level for each USOC.

The Expected Deliverable is for compatibility with Release 14.0.

Confirmed Impacted Interface: IMA EDI only

Confirmed Products: UNE-P POTS

Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest reviewed the CR description. Phyllis Burt/AT&T noted and identified that the CR has duplication and asked Qwest to clean it up. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest agreed to modify the CR to remove the duplication. Wendy Green/Qwest stated that some of the identified fields are not associated to listings; PIC, LPIC, and others. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that she wants everything listed to be passed and stated that those listed on the CR are examples only. Wendy Green/Qwest stated that if the request was for every field on the RS, LSR, and EU forms, she would like AT&T to send a comprehensive list of the fields. Phyllis Burt/AT&T agreed to send the list to Peggy Esquibel-Reed at pesquib@qwest.com Monica Manning/Qwest stated that it might make sense to use the LSOG Guide for Customer Service Inquiry for the fields. There were no additional questions or comments.

Action Plan: This CR will be presented by AT&T at the March 20th CMP Meeting and Qwest will be providing the CR response.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR022703-04 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR022703-04. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held March 12, 2003) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 3225 to 5375 hours for this IMA Change Request and SATE impacts of 120 to 200 hours.

At the March Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Any clarifications and/or modifications identified at that time will be incorporated into Qwest’s further evaluation of this Change Request.

This Change Request is eligible for the IMA 14.0 Prioritization.

Sincerely, Qwest