Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR040204-01 Detail

Problems:

1) This is too late in the order process

2) Inconsistent handling of the issue.

We have seen different Jeopardy Reason Code Details (RDET) values used to indicate this problem such as SX(Error Condition Identified after the FOC was sent to the CLEC) and SO (Subscriber Other). We have received different types of remarks placed in the jeopardy response. Sometimes, depending on the Remarks, we do not detect the real reason for reject until we engage in conversation with the ISC.

Sample Remarks:

-"JEOPD LSR AS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH SERVICE AT THIS ADDRESS"

- "xxx servicing area"

- "this is xxxxx area only served by xxxxxx"

- "Send a SUP to cancel or set a new DD, not to exceed 30 business days (10 for disconnects) from the initial DD. If billing is not accepted by that time, the LSR is rejected. Cancellation charges apply, if appropriate. Disregard, if a SUP has been sent."

AT&T would like Qwest to send a unique error code and error message when the NPA-NXX does not belong to Qwest (for example multiple dwelling units and Indian reservations**). Today this is discovered after a jeopardy is received on our order. This is too late in the order process

AT&T is requesting a unique error code and error message be returned on the response from Address Validation Query by TN indicating that the NPA-NXX is not within Qwest’s Territory/Service area (for example multiple dwelling units and Indian reservations**).

AT&T is also requesting the implementation of a System Edit to detect that the NPA-NXX does not belong to Qwest (for example multiple dwelling units and Indian reservations**). The Specific BPL Edit should return the same unique error code and error message.

The specific error message used for PreOrder and Order should state that the "Unable to establish service NPA-NXX found is not within the QWEST Servicing Area"

**NOTE: Please do not limit the scope to only the examples specified above

Expected Deliverable:

A unique error code and error message returned on PreOrder and Order to indicating QWEST was unable to establish service since the NPA-NXX found is not within the QWEST Servicing Area.

Status History

Project Meetings

- June 1, 2006 Email Sent to AT&T: Hi Kathy, This email is to follow-up on SCR040204-01 (PreOrder and Order Error Message When NPA NXX Does Not Belong to Qwest) and see if AT&T is ready to close this CMP CR. This effort was deployed in the IMA 19.0 Release on April10, 2006. At the May 17th Monthly CMP Meeting you indicated that you would check internally to see if AT&T was ready to close and could close this off-line. This email is to check and see if you are ready to close? If you are not yet ready, would you let me know if there are issues that are preventing closure and provide me with details? I can then do some investigation and asssist with resolution of any issues. Thanks much. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

May 17, 2006 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR was implemented on April 10, 2006 and asked if AT&T was ok to close. Kathy Lee-AT&T said that she will check internally and close offline.

- April 28, 2006 Email Sent to AT&T: Leo, Per our conversation today I’m sending this email to confirm that at&t and Qwest are in agreement that Qwest will not move forward with adding a pre-defined error code, i.e., "01" to the error messages associated with SCR 040204-01. Since the messages that Qwest is sending are pre-coded messages that are sent when this condition is identified, at&t will be able to code to those messages instead of needing the specific numeric identifier. I appreciate you assistance in working through this topic. Qwest considers this issue closed unless we hear from you otherwise. Regards, Jill Martain CMP Process Manager

- April 19, 2006 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that there has been conversation regarding this candidate and that discussion was needed at CMP. Jill stated that in order for a new error message to be generated, the address has to be in the LFACS data base. Jill stated that when an address is queried in LFACS if Qwest has a similar address, but not an exact match, Qwest doesn’t know if the address contained a typo so Qwest will return a near match and tell the CLECs what addresses are available. The CLEC then needs to make a decision and determine if the address is in Qwest or other ILEC territory; if it is Qwest territory, the CLEC calls Qwest to get the address added to the data base. If a near match or an exact match is not found, an error message is returned that says that the address was not found. Jill then noted that the only time the CLECs would get the new error message is if there was an exact match in LFACs and if it was flagged as another ILECs territory. Jill stated that the error message depends on the addresses in LFACS AN. Laurie Fredricksen-Integra asked why the address is left in if it is not in Qwest’s serving area. Jill Martain-Qwest stated one of the reasons is due to the fact that territories do get sold and when that occurs, Qwest flags the address at that point as another ILECs. Jill stated that there are a lot of dependencies and that this CR was issued because of those dependencies. Jill stated that the CR provided different options for the CLECs. Laurie Fredricksen-Integra asked if the CLECs see the flags. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that if a CLEC receives an error message, they will know. Dianne Friend-Time Warner asked if this information was documented in the package. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that it would be in the meeting minutes for SCR040204-01. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Kim (Isaacs-Eschelon) had asked for clarification of the documentation and Jill stated that Qwest would open a ticket on Eschelon’s behalf. Jill stated that she also wanted to provide this clarification at this CMP Meeting. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that the training documents made this CR sound larger in scope then what it is and noted that it did not do what she thought it would do. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that she would also check to see if we can change the training documentation. Jill Martain-Qwest advised that if there were any other questions regarding this to please work with their Service Manager’s or the CMP Team.

- April 14, 2006 Email Received From AT&T: Thanks again Cim. Leo

April 14, 2006 Email Sent to AT&T: Hi Leo, The 19.0 Errors List document was updated on 4/10. However, the change to add the WO999 information for the errors returned on the Local Response (LR) will be published on 4/24. There will be a notification regarding posting of this document and we are also hosting a call to discuss the changes per the CMP guidelines. Just wanted to make sure you have the correct date. Thanks! Cimberlie Chambers Team Lead - Electronic Access/CLEC Implementation Team Qwest

- April 14, 2006 Qwest and AT&T Meeting ATTENDEES: Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T, John Blaszcyk-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest, Cim Chambers-Qwest, Angela Stewart-Qwest, Anders Ingemarson-Qwest, Carol McKenzie-Qwest, Denise Martinez-Qwest, Sai Kalaga-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest requested the meeting with AT&T for discussion regarding the CMP CR titled ‘PreOrder and Order Error Message When NPA NXX Does Not Belong to Qwest’. Peggy noted that the CR was deployed in the IMA 19.0 Release on April 10th and that this meeting was prompted due to questions that AT&T had regarding the CR. Jill Martain-Qwest provided a history of this CR and stated that this was a request to add unique error codes and messages. Jill stated that there have been a lot of discussion regarding this effort and stated that there were originally 2 CR’s and that they were combined into this one CR. Qwest determined how to provide error messages upfront and Qwest walked away , from the discussions, with implementing error messages in Pre Order and order along with unique error codes. Jill then stated that the way that IMA is set-up; IMA has a functional way in using error code of 999 with a specific error message. Jill then provided examples: Error code 001 is used when a field is required but not sent, Error code 002 is used when a field is formatted incorrectly, Error code 003 is used when an invalid value is input, Error code 900 is used when there is an error on a conditional field, and Error code 999 is used for external system related issues, which includes OSS errors coming from other systems. Error code 999 is the existing category that is used for error conditions such as the one that is requested with this CR. Jill then stated that When Qwest looked at implementing the functionality; we did so based on the current format that IMA has existing, keeping new error messages within the existing code ranges. Qwest apologizes for not making that as clear as we could have, but we did meet the requirement of providing a unique error message. Jill noted that additional error codes were not developed and wants to understand if this is not working today, why the existing parameters are not working for AT&T and then can determine next steps. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T stated that he understood the approach of how this CR was implemented. Leo stated that when he looked at the details of the implementation, he only saw the 999 associated to AVQ Response. Leo stated that this could be a documentation issue regarding LSR. Leo stated that he understands the generic 999 and that other error messages can be received. Leo stated that AT&T asked for unique codes because their system automatically triggers different processes, on AT&Ts end, on an order perspective. Leo then stated that due to volumes, it is easy to miss messages and a different process handles a no match response. Jill Martain-Qwest asked if that was specific to outside of the territory or overall and then asked if the same condition could exist within the territory. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T stated that within the territory, the messages do not trigger other processes. Jill Martain-Qwest asked if it were possible to continue working in the current mode and clarify documentation. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T noted that 19.0 was deployed and stated that AT&T was looking to get unique error codes down the road. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest could look into that but Qwest’s preference is to keep the same logic and existing codes. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T stated that he understands that some conditions would need generic codes. Leo then stated that 1 condition, 1 message, and 1 code would be helpful to their automated system for each condition. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the error message will be the same for all 999’s and asked if AT&T could set-it-up so that 999 could trigger events on their side. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T stated that it was possible. John Blaszcyk-AT&T asked if 999 along with a message should uniquely identify a condition. Jill Martain-Qwest said yes. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T stated that it is unique in itself and that AT&T sacrifices processing time. Leo then noted that the speed is fast and the time that is being sacrificed is micro or milliseconds. Jill Martain-Qwest asked AT&T if that was an option for them to do this. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T said yes and noted that the error messages need to stay unique. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the messages are not being changed and noted that they are hard coded. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T then asked if 2-digits could be added. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that she would look into that and provided an example of Q999nn and the existing message. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T stated that would be acceptable. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that she would check on the feasibility. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T stated that what was deployed seems pretty simple and he thanked Qwest. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T then stated that he did not see the new messages under the local response piece. Cim Chambers-Qwest stated that it was corrected on April 10th. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T said okay. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest would get back with AT&T either by email or phone call. Jill then asked John (Blaszcyk-AT&T) if agreed with this approach. John Blaszcyk-AT&T said yes and thanked Qwest.

- March 15, 2006 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR will be deployed on April 10, 2006, in the IMA 19.0 Release.

- February 8, 2006 Combined Overview and IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation Walkthrough for IMA EDI Release 19.0 (facilitated by Qwest IT) Attendees List (may be incomplete): Kyle Kirves-Qwest, Anders Ingemarson-Qwest, Angela Stewart-Qwest, Annelyn Aficial-AMS, Carol McKenzie-Qwest, Chris Terrell-AT&T, Chuck Anderson-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Dawn Beck-Qwest, Denise Martinez-Qwest, Diane Burt-AT&T, Dianne Friend-Time Warner, Ellen McArthur-Qwest, Gary Berroa-Qwest, Jeff Yeager-Accenture, Judy DeRosier-Qwest, Lee Gomez-Qwest, Linda Birchem-Comcast, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest, Maria Aquino-AT&T, Mark Haynes-Qwest, Michael Lopez-Qwest, Nancy Thompson-Wisor, Orbit.com Representatives, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Roslyn Davis-Verizon Business, Shonna Pasionek-Qwest, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon Walkthrough Discussion: Introductions Kyle Kirves began the meeting by taking attendance and announcing the meeting purpose. The meeting notice included copies of the agenda, the candidate overview document, and a summary sheet of changes that customers can expect to see in the final version of the tech specs that do not appear in the draft. Kyle explained that the walkthrough would cover the candidates, the candidate impacts to the associated documentation, and the IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation overview. Kyle introduced Ellen McArthur to go over the first candidate, SCR051304-01- Request for Line Loss Notification to notify CLECs if the customer was lost to a Wireless. CANDIDATE REVIEWS: SCR040204-01 PreOrder and Order Error Message When NPA/NXX Does Not Belong to Qwest Angela Stewart reviewed the information provided in the candidate overview document circulated with the meeting agenda and the meeting notification announcement. Kyle opened the floor to Questions. There were no questions. Kyle asked about GUI documentation updates. Mark Haynes covered the changes that can be expected in the Error Messages (as outlined in the candidate overview). Gary Berroa explained the corresponding changes for the PCATs. IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation Review Kyle conducted the review of the IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation. Kyle reviewed the agenda and advised as to the content of the agenda. Kyle reviewed the five change requests that are outstanding to date that CLECs can expect to see in the final disclosure. These changes appear as a separate attachment with the meeting materials. Kyle advised that there were no questions submitted through the CMP channels to date, but that those channels remain open through February 14, 2006. Kyle opened up the floor to questions on the changes for the Product/Transaction chapters (i.e., Appendix F). There were no questions. The majority of the questions asked involved the method Qwest uses to show changes in the new format and that change and replace cause the customer to stare and compare to identify the change. Chuck Anderson and Kyle Kirves agreed to review the process. There were no additional questions. Kyle moved discussion to the next candidate.

- January 18, 2006 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the IMA and SATE 19.0 Commitment are in Attachment M and there are no changes from Packaging.

November 16, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Attachment M lists the IMA and SATE candidates.

-- 10/28/05 Meeting for Clarification

Attendees: Sharon Van Meter - AT&T, Maria Aquino - AT&T, Leo Demitriadis-AT&T, Anne Robberson - Qwest, Anders Ingemarson - Qwest, Jim Recker - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest, Michael Hays - Qwest

Purpose of Meeting

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest reviewed the purpose of this call. She said that the examples that AT&T sent us have nothing to do with the address on the requests not being in a Qwest serving area.

Anne Robberson - Qwest said that two of the orders were cancelled by the end-user when the Qwest technician went out to install the service and the third is now a held order. She said that all of these are in Qwest’s serving area. Anne said that we need new examples.

Leo Demitriadis - AT&T stated that he found 2 new examples that he will send to Sharon Van Meter - AT&T. He said that this request is asking that Qwest send an error message when the NPA NXX is not in Qwest's territory. Leo said that on Pre-Order they want an error message in any service area that Qwest does not support.

Anders Ingemarson - Qwest stated that on an address validation by address that it would be very difficult to determine if the address is serviceable. He said that the switch may be partly Qwest and another service provider. Anders asked AT&T had Pre-Order examples.

Leo Demitriadis - AT&T said that he did not but will send the examples for Qwest to review.

Sharon Van Meter - AT&T asked if another meeting would scheduled.

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest said that we can take a look at the examples and determine if another meeting is necessary.

9/30/05 E-mail sent to AT&T

From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 11:03 AM To: Van Meter, Sharon K, NEO Cc: Esquibel-Reed, Peggy; Robberson, Anne; Ingemarson, Anders; Recker, James Subject: Questions associated with SCR040204-01 PreOrder and Order Error Message When NP

Sharon,

Following are the questions captured during our call today to discuss SCR040204-01 PreOrder and Order Error Message When NPA NXX Does Not Belong to Qwest:

1. Is this request asking that IMA provide an edit when an existing account you are taking ownership of is not in a Qwest serving area that IMA edit the TN?

2. Is this request asking that IMA provide an edit when an address on a new account (ACT=N or T) is not in Qwest serving area that IMA edit the address?

3. Is this request encompassing both questions 1 and 2?

(IMA would have to create new look ups for each of these and we are trying to determine what business requirements to write to accommodate this request.)

4. Qwest has not been able to reproduce the ordertime scenarios AT&T is referencing in this SCR. It appears that existing ordertime CSR ownership edits and Switch embargo edits would prevent this from happening. In order to aid our analysis, could AT&T provide the product/activity combinations where this occurs, together with production LSRs examples?

If you find that I have omitted anything from our call, let me know.

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein

Qwest Wholesale CRPM

303 382-5770

--

9/30/05 Adhoc Meeting

Attendees: Sharon Van Meter - AT&T, Chris Terrell - AT&T, Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Leo Demitriadis-AT&T, Anne Robberson - Qwest, Anders Ingemarson - Qwest, Jim Recker - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein

Purpose of Meeting

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest stated that several questions came up while reviewing the requirements for this candidate and reviewed the description of the CR.

Discussion:

Anders Ingemarson - Qwest said that Qwest has not been able to reproduce the ordertime scenarios AT&T is referencing in this SCR. He said that it appears that existing ordertime CSR ownership edits and Switch embargo edits would prevent this from happening. Anders asked that in order to aid our analysis, could AT&T provide the product/activity combinations where this occurs, together with production LSRs examples.

Leo Demitriadis - AT&T said that he would provide the information

Anne Robberson - Qwest asked if this request was asking that IMA provide an edit when an existing account you are taking ownership of is not in a Qwest serving area that IMA edits the TN. She also asked if this request is asking that IMA provide an edit when an address on a new account (ACT=N or T) is not in Qwest serving area that IMA edits the address or is this request encompassing both questions 1 and 2? Anne said that IMA would have to create new look ups for each of these and that we are trying to determine what business requirements to write to accommodate this request.

Leo Demitriadios - AT&T asked if Qwest could type up these questions and send them to him for investigation.

Anne Robberson - Qwest stated that we would do that and send to Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Sharon Van Meter - AT&T asked Lynn (Qwest) to send the questions to her.

Anne Robberson - Qwest stated that we needed clarification on this request because it will make a difference of how we look at the data. She said that the information would come from a different location or wesite

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said that AT&T was requesting the TN and said it would be wonderful if Qwest could get down to the address level.

Leo Demitriadios - AT&T said that he should have the answers to these questions by Tuesday, October 4th.

July 20, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion for IMA 19.0 Prioritization CR Review: Jill Martain - Qwest stated that we provided a list of all candidates for IMA 19.0 in the June Meeting. Jill said that for this month’s prioritization, instead of reviewing all candidates, we would like to trial reviewing the top two candidates per CLEC. Liz Balvin-Covad asked why the Covad CR was not on this list. She said that she submitted it before the June 1st cutoff. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest said that the CR was a Product/Process CR not a System CR.

Below are the top two candidates per CLEC: Qwest #1 SCR061703-01 Create new fields of OCC and OCCNA on the LSR and DL Forms to identify old Service Prov #2 SCR052303-02 Request to Implement Interactive Agent Issue 3

AT&T #1 SCR051304-01 Request for Line Loss Notification to Notify CLECs if the Cust was lost to a Wireless Carrier #2 CR040204-01 PreOrder and Order Error Message When NPA NXX Does not Belong to Qwest

Liz Balvin-Covad asked if the Interactive Agent Issue 3 should be an Industry Change. Liz said that Qwest is not supporting Issue 2 anymore. Liz said that she was asking because the software won’t work going forward. Steph Prull-Eschelon said that if the Interactive Agent goes bad they would be in trouble as the vendor does not have to support it and EDI would be down until the new version was installed Jill Martain-Qwest stated that we currently don’t have it as an Industry Change and noted that the Industry Change CRs would still need to be voted upon and prioritized.

Covad #1 SCR102102-1X Dual Inventory of DSL Tie Cables in Tirks and Switch/FOMS #2 SCR052303-02 Request to Implement Interactive Agent Issue 3

Eschelon #1 Bulk PIC Change in IMA #2 SCR030405-01 Change to Reject RT Codes

Integra-Laurie Frederickson stated that she was not prepared for this exercise.

MCI #1 SCR103102-02 Eliminate PON Tracking Requirement for Reserved Title #2 SCR040204-01 PreOrder and Order Error Message When NPA Does not Belong to Qwest Communications

VCI #1 SCR040204-01 PreOrder and Order Error Message When NPA Does not Belong to Qwest Communication #2 SCR050305-01 Bulk PIC Change Process in IMA

Dianne Friend-Time Warner asked if all CLECs would be included in SCR031105-01 (Change of Usage of CCNA for Sprint on LNP Orders) Jill Martain-Qwest said yes.

Time Warner #1 SCR031105-01 Change of Usage of CCNA for Sprint on LNP Orders #2 SCR042704-01 FBDL PON Field

Sprint #1 #1 SCR031105-01 Change of Usage of CCNA for Sprint on LNP Orders #2 SCR10705-01 Directory Listing Changes in Conjunction with LNP.

Liz Balvin-Covad asked if Qwest new what the capacity for IMA 19.0 would be. Jill Martain-Qwest said that she did not know at this time. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if Qwest could provide a guesstimate. Jill Martain-Qwest said that her guess would be between 10,000 to 15, 000 hours but would not know until the end of the year.

February 16, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that this is AT&T’s number two priority on the list.

- July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the LOE for this CR is 1000 - 1400 hours. The Action Item was Closed. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would distribute the ballot on July 27th, it is due back to Qwest on July 30th, and Qwest would email the initial prioritization list to the CLECs on August 3rd. There were no questions. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that this was high for AT&T.

-- July 16, 2004 Emailed CR Revision Received from AT&T: REVISED-SCR040204-01 Title Changed from: Address Validation Response (AVR) Error Message When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area. Title Changed to: PreOrder and Order Error Message When NPA NXX Does Not Belong to Qwest

CR Description Changed from: REVISED CR DESCRIPTION 5-5-2004: AT&T would like Qwest to send a unique error code and error message on the Pre-Order Address Validation Response when an address is not within Qwest’s Territory/Service area (for example multiple dwelling units and Indian reservations**). Today this is discovered after we have received a jeopardy on our order. This is too late in the order process

Currently the PreOrder Address Validation Response either (1) Successfully validates the address (2) Returns an Address Validation error message (for example: "OSS Gateway: Verify ZIP. If correct, Routing Table Update Required, call OSS/UHD"**)

AT&T is requesting in both conditions that a unique error code and error message be returned on the response from Address Validation Query by Address & Address Validation Query by TN indicating that the address is not within Qwest’s Territory/Service area (for example multiple dwelling units and Indian reservations**).

The specific error message should state that the "Address found is not within a QWEST Service Area"

There are currently two SCRs addressing this issue - SCR040204-01 requesting a PreOrder error Message and SCR040204-02 requesting an Order BPL Edit. The preference is to detect this situation as soon as possible within PreOrder. If the PreOrder SCR040204-01 is implement there is no need to implement Order SCR040204-02. **NOTE: Please do not limit the scope to only the examples specified above

Expected Deliverable: A unique error code and error message returned on PreOrder Address Validation Response (AVR) to indicate when the service address is not served by Qwest. --

Original CR Description: AT&T would like Qwest to send an indicator on the Pre-Order Address Validation Response when an address is not within Qwest’s Territory/Service area. Today this is discovered after we have received a jeopardy on our order. This is too late in the order process

Expected Deliverable: New fields in Address Validation Response (AVR) to indicate when the service address is not served by Qwest.

WITHDRAWN-SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

- July 15, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Good Morning,

SCR040204-01 Address Validation Response (AVR) Error Message When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area. SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

This email is a follow-up to the Conference Call that we had last Friday, July 9th. During that call AT&T agreed to send a revision with the combining of the 2 CRs noted above, and the withdrawal of the other CR. We are now in the process of putting together the Distribution Package for the July Systems CMP Meeting which will include the 17.0 Initial Prioritization Sample Ballot. A review of all eligible CRs for 17.0 will be conducted at the same July CMP Meeting. With that, we would like to have the revised CR and withdrawal of the other CR by close of business today so we can have the most accurate data in the package and on the sample ballot as we can.

Thanks much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

-- July 9, 2004 Conference Call Meeting Minutes: SCR040204-01 AVR Error Message When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area. SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

Introduction of Attendees: Carla Pardee-AT&T, Phyllis Burt-AT&T, John Daugherty-AT&T, Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Liz Balvin-MCI, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Anne Robberson-Qwest, Shirley Tallman-Qwest

Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that this meeting is to discuss the combining of the 2 CR’s, a CR Revision, and the withdrawal of one of the CRs. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that the effort by TN can identify that certain blocks are owned by a Company other than Qwest. John stated that doing by address would need to go thru the provisioning process. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked John Daugherty and Phyllis Burt (AT&T) if the request by TN is acceptable. John Daugherty-AT&T responded yes. Phyllis Burt-AT&T also responded yes. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked for the Level of Effort. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that he would first like to understand the difference between the 2 CRs. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that SCR040204-01 is for pre-order and is AT&Ts first choice. Phyllis stated that SCR040204-02 is AT&Ts second choice and is for order. Liz Balvin-MCI asked if the only way that Qwest can contemplate the request is by TN and not by address. John Gallegos-Qwest stated yes and noted that via address, Qwest would need to check first if the TN is owned by Qwest or by another Company. John stated that we could be down thru the provisioning process before the full determination can be made. John stated that by TN, we would catch the majority of those up-front. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked if by TN, it would catch 99.9% of the time. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that the majority would be caught but that he was not sure of the percentage. John Daugherty-AT&T stated that the solution by TN was acceptable. Phyllis Burt-AT&T asked if the TN solution would be for order. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that it would be for both order and for pre-order. John noted that pre-order is actually address validation by TN. Liz Balvin-MCI asked if the TN was always required for ordering. John Gallegos-Qwest stated yes and asked if AT&T could combine the 2 CRs. Phyllis Burt-AT&T responded yes. John Daugherty-AT&T also stated yes. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that the CRs would be combined. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that she would combine the CRs and revise to be by TN. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked for the Level of Effort based on today’s discussion. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that the LOE for the combined effort is estimated to be approximately 1400 hours. John stated that he needs to look at what the range of hours would be. Liz Balvin-MCI stated that when this was originally discussed, there was discussion around XML. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that this effort would result in a BPL edit in IMA and would not be XML or QORA impacting. Donna Osborne-Mille-AT&T stated that SCR040204-01 would be revised and SCR040204-02 could then be placed in Pending Withdrawal Status. There were no additional questions or comments.

- June 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is still evaluating these requests and is looking into the addition of TN. Connie noted that the Service Address piece is looking to be very difficult. The Action Item will remain open on both of these CRs.

-- June 15, 2004 Email Received from Carla Pardee, AT&T: Thank you Peggy.

-- June 15, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: SCR040204-01 Address Validation Response (AVR) Error Message When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area. SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area Carla, In regard to the 2 CR’s noted above, Qwest’s research continues and the research includes the addition of the request of checking by TN. I know you wanted a call prior to the June CMP Meeting but due to the continuing research, the call will need to take place after the June CMP Meeting. I will contact you as soon as the research is completed in order to schedule the call and discuss these CRs with you.

Thank you for your patience.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

-- May 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are evaluating this request to determine how we could deliver. Liz Balvin/MCI asked what is done today when an address/TN is not serviced by Qwest. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she is not familiar with the error in pre-order but that in order it is set to manual with a kickoff to the team to either accept or reject. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that if there is a reject (no account found) does Qwest have a process to determine if it is in Qwest territory or that the address is just not in the database. Connie Winston/Qwest said yes and that we don’t have a way in our system that identifies Qwest territory. Connie said that we are looking at this from the address not the TN. Connie said that the error message might say TN not available. Carla Pardee/AT&T said that she received an e-mail stating that this CR was going to be denied due to technically not feasible. Carla stated that she would like to have an off-line meeting to further understand the denial. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest could look at the TN. Liz Balvin/MCI said that if you are looking at the NPA NXX you might be able to but that you don’t get this on pre-order. Qwest has to investigate and then reject. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that the LERG would have to tell you where your territory ends. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we would look at the TN option. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the CR should be updated. Connie Winston/Qwest said that we need to scope 1st. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that she would prefer to have the meeting before the June Systems CMP Meeting. This action item remains open.

-- May 17, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T:

Carla,

SCR040204-01 REVISED 5-5-2004: Address Validation Response (AVR) Error Message When the Service Address is Not Within Qwests Territory/Service Area. (Originally AVR Indicators to Identify When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area)

SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

Last week Donna Osborne-Miller advised Qwest that AT&T was looking into invoking the Late Adder Process for one of the 2 Systems CR’s noted above. Donna stated that before AT&T could determine which CR to pursue as a Late Adder, she asked that Qwest advise AT&T if these CRs were doable, based on Qwest’s statement at the April CMP Meeting, that it was not yet known how these requests could be automated. Donna also asked that if they are doable, that Qwest provide the Level of Effort for these CR’s in order for AT&T to make the decision as to which CR should move forward as a Late Adder into the IMA 16.0 Release.

Qwest has reviewed the requests, performed analysis, and is providing the initial response as follows: All indications at this time are that these requests are technically infeasible. Qwest will follow-up with the formal response to these change requests.

Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

- May 5, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Hi Peggy, Thanks for info. Carla is covering for Donna who is out sick. I've attached our revisions based on the initial clarification call with QWEST. I originally sent these modifications to Donna on 4/9. Please remove the 4/9 revisions that were recently added to the CRs and replace it with Title, Description of Change and Expect Deliverables from the WORD attachments. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any issues or concerns.

Thanks, Phyllis

May 4, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Hi Donna and Phyllis, Attached are the CR Revisions for your review and approval. I had previously added the information into the Project Meetings Section of the CRs. These revisions show a change in the Title and CR Description on SCR040204-01, and a change in the CR Description of SCR040204-02. Please advise if you concur with these revisions or advise what you would like changed. Thanks Much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

- April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T presented the CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest understands the request and is investigating solutions. Connie stated that it is not yet known how this could be automated but noted that Qwest is looking into this. Connie stated that currently when new territory is involved, this requires a discussion with engineering. Connie stated that sometimes there is a very fine line with the territories. Connie stated that PREMIS only knows that it does not recognize the address and it takes engineering to look at it. Connie stated that Qwest does not yet know if this can be automated. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that in XML, they get a response that says that there was an OSS Gateway failure and this was when Qwest did not own the territory. Liz stated that the response should have been no account found. Liz stated that on the Clarification Call, Qwest agreed to look at for XML as well. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that a response could also be that Qwest has not built out and noted that this message could be for both. Connie stated that PREMIS just didn’t find the address. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if this request is for new lines and moves. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she believes is for new and for moves only and noted that it would exist on conversions. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the new construction box also needs to be marked and directions given. Bonnie stated that she also believes this to be for new lines and moves only. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T agreed with Bonnie (Johnson/Eschelon). Liz Balvin/MCI stated that they need to know up-front, in pre-order, if it is not within Qwest’s territory. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is researching and stated that if PREMIS does not have the address; it is too soon to know if Qwest owns it. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that the CR Description needs to be revised. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the revision is in progress. Amanda Silva/VCI stated that VCI gets a message asking that the address be specified or that the address is invalid. Amanda stated that they then contact the Center who then contacts Address Management. There were no additional questions or comments. This CR is in Presented Status.

April 12, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: --Original Message-- From: Osborne-Miller, Donna, NEO [mailto:dosborne@att.com] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 5:18 PM To: Stecklein, Lynn Subject: FW: Lat week's issues follow up

Here is the other message Lynn, that I wanted to give you. It pertains to the human exchange between trading partners relative to the explanation about TN's not served by Qwest: therefore our desire for upfront edits to circumvent this happening. Thank you, Donna

--Original Message-- From: Peterson, Lydell [mailto:Lydell.Peterson@qwest.com] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:02 PM To: Osborne-Miller, Donna, NEO Cc: Peterson, Lydell Subject: FW: Lat week's issues follow up

Donna per our discussion, there currently is no BPL edit in place and the information you will receive regarding the LEC owner will be via an ISC reject. If you want to pursue getting an upfront BPL edit, then I would suggest you pursue that via a CMP CR. Thanks for your patience. Lydell

--Original Message-- From: Osborne-Miller, Donna, NEO [mailto:dosborne@att.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 9:49 AM To: Peterson, Lydell Subject: Lat week's issues follow up

Well hello again! I am attaching an email so you may see the conversation Lydell that is going back and forth about territories that look to be served by other carriers. We need to understand from Qwest what is happening and what is the resolution. Thank you, Donna

I called the Wholesale Systems Help Desk. Qwest looked at both orders and said "I see they made it through IMA and you were able to validate the addresses. These Jep entries were made by an interconnect rep. You would need to call them at 888-796-9087 to discuss these orders"

I called 888-796-9087. Qwest looked at both orders and read the same Jep message back to me that I had read to her. She said the Jep messages mean what they say - Qwest does not offer service at these addresses. I asked if there was any way to determine that information in Pre-Order. She said the only way would be for us to call in to validate the address. They would then contact Address Management and find out. She said it does not show in Premise.

Needless to say , this is not a feasible option. In the mean time, I have located another 5 orders. As I suspected, they are sometimes sending them back as Rejects and possibly as 1P "verify address".

TN xxxxxxxxxx PON xxxxxxxxxx Qwest sent this message: 1P NO QWEST FACILITIES ALL (CLEC Name) SERVICE. Customer Delay. A SUP is required to cancel or set a new DD. TN xxxxxxxxxx PON xxxxxxxxxx Qwest sent this message: REJ this is on (address) - area only served by (CLEC Name).

TN xxxxxxxxxx PON xxxxxxxxxx Qwest sent this message: REJ JEOPD LSR AS NOT ABEL TO ESTABLISH SERVICE AT THIS ADDRESS AEPL211

TN xxxxxxxxxx PON xxxxxxxxxx Qwest sent this message: REJ area served by (CLEC Name).

TN xxxxxxxxxx PON xxxxxxxxxx Qwest sent this message: REJ Send a SUP to cancel or set a new DD. A rep called Qwest and was verbally advised that this area was served by (CLEC Name).

April 9, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: I think I have more dialogue as it relates to the conversation that the Helpdesk had with John. Stand by......Donna.

I see 2 AZ mech jeps from last week that concern me. The first is: TN xxx xxx xxxx PON xxxxxxxxxx - Qwest sent this message: 1P address is in open territory-not served by Qwest. A response to this notice must be made within 4 bus hours of this notice being sent or all associated orders will be canceled. If no response is made within 30 bus days.

The other is: TN xxx xxx xxxx PON xxxxxxxxxx Qwest sent this message: 1P address is on (address) and is served by (CLEC name).

Why would Qwest allow these addresses to be validated if they know they do not offer service at these addresses?

Thank you, John Daugherty

Donna

-- April 8, 2004 Clarification Meeting CR No & Title: SCR040204-01 Address Validation Response (AVR) Indicator When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

Introduction of Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Regina Mosley-AT&T, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Nancy Sanders-Comcast, John Daugherty-AT&T, Liz Balvin-MCI, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, Shon Higer-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Lynn Stecklein-Qwest reviewed the CR Description: AT&T would like Qwest to send an indicator on the Pre-Order Address Validation Response when an address is not within Qwest’s Territory/Service area. Today this is discovered after we have received a jeopardy on our order. This is too late in the order process. The Expected Deliverable is a new field in Address Validation Response (AVR) to indicate when the service address is not served by Qwest.

John Daugherty-AT&T stated that the CR was prompted because of the rejects they are receiving saying that is owned by another CLEC. John stated that a short term solution and a long term solution are needed. Donna Osborne-Mille-AT&T stated that SCR040204-01 is the long term request and SCR040204-02 is the short term request. Liz Balvin-MCI stated that they were advised that they needed to submit a CR when testing the XML Interface. Liz stated that they never get to the jeopardy point but they do get a special error response that says "OSS Gateway: verify zip...table update required". Liz stated that Qwest has said that it is not Qwest owned, so should instead get a ‘no account found’ error. Conrad Evans-Qwest asked to confirm that on pre-order address validation, they input the order, and then receive the jeopardy. Phyllis Burt-AT&T responded yes, in IMA EDI. Conrad Evans-Qwest asked to confirm that XML gives the error but the error does not indicate what that error is. Phyllis Burt-AT&T responded yes. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that can sometimes error when go thru EDI or XML, because Qwest did at one time have the service and the records have not yet been purged. Stephanie stated that the OSS error is given when Qwest never owned the service. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that the error message should be clear that the service is not owned by Qwest. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that the CR is asking for an indicator for when Qwest used to own the customer, and asking for an indicator for when Qwest never owned the service. Shon Higer-Qwest asked what the CLECs find when a number is ported out or a Central Office is sold. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that they usually get ‘office is no longer with Qwest’. Shon Higer-Qwest asked if the information is available in the LERG, as to owns an NPA NXX. Conrad Evans-Qwest stated that yes, that information is in the LERG. Shon Higer-Qwest stated that he would like to see the error message documented that AT&T is receiving. Liz Balvin-MCI stated that she has forwarded it on to Donna Osborne-Miller at AT&T. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that she would forward it on to Peggy Esquibel-Reed at Qwest, for exposure into the CR. Donna stated that she would send in a CR revision. Conrad Evans-Qwest asked if the XML piece is to be included. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that it sounded like the same thing. Conrad Evans-Qwest asked that the CR reflect IMA Common with XML. There were no additional comments or questions.

Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Pre-Order

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: IMA Common (with XML)

Confirmed Impacted Products: NA

Obtain the Business Need from the CR Originator-What is the problem that needs to be solved: CLEC needs to know, prior to receiving a jeopardy, that there is no account found when the service address is not within Qwest’s Territory or Service Area.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: CR is due for presentation at the April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide the response to the CR in May 2004.

April 7, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Hi Donna, I have scheduled the clarification meeting for SCR040204-01 and SCR040204-02 to take place as follows: DATE: Thursday, April 8, 2004 TIME: 1:00 MT / 3:00 ET CALL IN: 1-877-564-8688, 8571927 Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems 303.582.5761

- April 6, 2004 Received Email from AT&T: Hello Peggy, Here are team member's availability for this week. This is given in Easter Daylight Time Zone. Wed, April 7 After 5 Eastern Thurs, April 8 10A-11A, 3P-6P (Eastern time) Fri, April 9 10:00am - 4:00pm Eastern All, Except 2P-3P (Eastern Time) thank you, Donna

April 5, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Hi Donna, Will you please provide me with several options, of your availability, for the Clarification Meeting to discuss the Systems CMP CRs noted below. I will then schedule the meeting and send you the call details. Thanks much SCR040204-01 Address Validation Response (AVR) Indicator When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

CenturyLink Response

May 11, 2004

RE: SCR040204-01 Address Validation Response (AVR) Error Message When the Service Address is Not Within Qwests Territory/Service Area.

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR040204-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held April 8, 2004) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the June Systems CMP Meeting.

At the May Monthly Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Qwest is interested in the experiences of the CMP community as relates to this issue. Qwest will incorporate any feedback received at the next Monthly Systems CMP Meeting into further evaluation of this Change Request.

Sincerely, Qwest