Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC030504-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

AT&T expectation is that Qwest deliver this 60 day process for validating maintenance bills no later than July 1, 2004.

Status History

Project Meetings

5/27/04 10:43 a.m. From: Pardee, Carla D, NEO [cdickinson@att.com] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda Subject: RE: AT&T PC030504-1 Linda - I have been asked to push back on Qwest on this request. Since the phone numbers have been provided, the dates and times should be evident to Qwest. If this is not the case, please let me know. Thanks for your continued assistance on this one.

--Original Message-- From: Sanchez Steinke, Linda [mailto:Linda.SanchezSteinke@qwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:50 PM To: Pardee, Carla D, NEO Subject: FW: AT&T PC030504-1

Carla - Did you find the dates for these ticket examples.

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Mark Gonzales with Qwest said that we are evaluating this CR and will have an update at the June meeting. This CR will be moved to Evaluation status.

5/7/04 1:08 p.m. From: Linda Sanchez-Steinke To: Carla, Pardee Subject: RE: AT&T PC030504-1 Carla - Would you be able to find out the dates and ticket numbers for these repairs?

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

5/4/04 11:50 a.m. From: Pardee, Carla D, NEO [cdickinson@att.com] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda Subject: RE: AT&T PC030504-1

Linda - here are the examples from Grant. Sorry for the delay, he was using the wrong e-mail address. Thanks.

Date: 5/4/04 10:41 From: Brown, Benjamin G (Grant), CSPMG [bgbrown@att.com] To: Pardee, Carla D, NEO, Riplinger, Linda K, CMOPM Subject: RE: Qwest Maintenance Wirecheck 30-60 Day Hold - AT&T PC030504-1

Here is what I sent to Linda S.

--Original Message-- From: Brown, Benjamin G (Grant), CSPMG Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:37 AM To: 'linda.sanchez-steinke@qwest.com' Subject: Examples for CR PC030504-1

Linda,

I was told to forward these examples supporting CR PC030504-1 to you.

480.836.8691 602.268.4706 480.946.0773

Grant Brown AT&T

5/3/04 4:19 p.m. From: Pardee, Carla D, NEO [cdickinson@att.com] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda Linda - and I followed up with Linda Riplinger and she said that Grant had sent three examples to you, I will find out what is going on! Sorry for the delay.

From: Sanchez Steinke, Linda [mailto:Linda.SanchezSteinke@qwest.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 3:47 PM To: Pardee, Carla D, NEO Subject: RE: AT&T PC030504-1

Hi Carla - Welcome back from vacation! I just wanted to let you know that I did not receive examples-- at CMP when Grant presented, he said he would provide to Donna. When Donna was out, I left a voice mail for Bern Seigler on Friday and haven't heard back.

Let me know if you have anything.

Linda Sanchez-Steinke Qwest CRPM 303-382-5768

4/30/04 9:32p From: Osborne-Miller, Donna, NEO [dosborne@att.com] To: Linda Sanchez-Steinke @qwest.com Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Examples PC030504-1 I will be out of the office beginning Monday, April 26, 2004, with an undetermined return date. In my abscence please contact Bern Seigler, 770-248-2127. Thank you, Donna

4/30/04 9:24 a.m. From: Linda Sanchez-Steinke To: 'dosborne@att.com' Subject: Examples PC030504-1 Hi Donna -

At the April CMP, Grant Brown said that he would provide you some examples, and I'm wondering if you received any. This was on the CR PC030504-1 "Qwest Premise Visits for Wirechecks and Subsequent Billing to CLECs (AT&T Local)".

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T presented this CR. Grant Brown with AT&T will forward examples to Donna and she will forward to Linda Sanchez-Steinke at Qwest.

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon fully supports this CR and would like to add all non-design products to the scope of this CR. Bonnie added that design products have an effective process that holds the ticket for two weeks prior to billing. When CLECs go through the dispute process it takes time and resources and Eschelon has one person working full time on this. Many times there are multiple repair tickets and they end up being a Qwest repair problem in the end.

Mike Zulevic with Covad supports this CR and said that Covad has problems reconciling billing on line shared and line splitting products.

Liz Balvin with MCI said that recently a CR for MLT testing prior to service order completion on DSL was denied because it was economically not feasible. There is a 51% failure rate on those circuits. Liz added that she has requested more information on that denial and there are many failures after handing off circuits to the CLECs.

Jen Arnold with U S Link said she also supports this CR.

Kit Thomte with Qwest asked if there would be billing examples provided. Grant said that these would be TN’s. Qwest doesn’t provide the TN level detail and would need help to determine if these were billed. This CR will be moved to Presented status.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

1:30 p.m. (MDT) / Monday March 15, 2004

1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC030504-1 Qwest Premise Visits for Wirechecks and Subsequent Billing to CLECs (AT&T Local)

Name/Company: Linda Riplinger, AT&T Carla Pardee, AT&T Bud Witte, Qwest Designed Services Alice Matthews – Qwest Wholesale Terri Kilker – Qwest Wholesale Shirley Tallman – Qwest Network Mark Gonzales – Qwest Network Alan Braegger – Qwest Designed Services Field Laura Baird – Qwest POTS Field Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Qwest welcomed all attendees to the meeting.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest read the description of change from the submitted change request; AT&T requests that Qwest implement a process to validate accurate billing for premise visits for wirechecks and subsequent maintenance issues by holding billing for 60 days preferably, (30 days minimum), to ensure that a maintenance issue is properly billed. At the present, Qwest may dispatch a maintenance technician to an AT&T UNE-P end user premise and initially not discover a problem, but subsequently another dispatch is made which does reveal a Qwest issue. Qwest bills for the first premise visit, even though the billing should not have occurred, as it was a Qwest issue, ultimately. AT&T simply requests that Qwest hold itself responsible for maintenance billing for 60 days to ensure appropriate and accurate billing to CLECs. Shirley Tallman with Qwest asked if wirechecks and premise visits were the same as TIC (Trouble Isolation Charges). Bud Witte with Qwest asked if these were maintenance of service charges. Linda Riplinger provided an example: a trouble ticket was issued for condensation on the wires and Qwest determines there isn’t condensation, but then there is a subsequent trouble ticket and trouble found on the Qwest side. Bud Witte explained the process on the designed services side is to delay billing 14 days and asked if billing was done on anything over 30 days. Alice Matthews with Qwest said that work over 30 days drops out and does not bill. AT&T said that other RBOCs are moving from 30 to 60 days and the 14 day billing delay would not be sufficient.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE-P POTS

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct Qwest personnel were involved in the clarification meeting.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Linda Sanchez-Steinke read the Expected Deliverable; AT&T expectation is that Qwest deliver this 60 day process for validating maintenance bills no later than July 1, 2004.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None identified.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) AT&T will present this CR at the April CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide a response in May.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the June 2004 CMP Meeting

Carla Pardee AT&T

SUBJECT: Change Request Response – PC030504-1 “Qwest Premise Visits for Wirechecks and Subsequent Billing to CLECs (AT&T Local)”

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request PC030504-1. This CR requests that Qwest implement a process to validate accurate billing for premises visits for wirechecks and subsequent maintenance issues by holding billing for 60 days preferably, (30 days minimum), to ensure that a maintenance issue is properly billed.

An analysis was performed to determine the implementation costs of this CR including resources and systems. A total of 2000 billed tickets were used which represents all CLECs volume of billed tickets for one month. Currently Qwest does not have a work group to analyze non-design tickets once they have been closed by the technician. In order to analyze the tickets Qwest would be required to deploy a new dedicated work group to perform the work function at an estimated cost $351,878 annually. This change would also require System modifications estimated at $1,020,000.

In addition, the State of Arizona ordered in, Docket Number T00000A-97-0238, that Maintenance and Repair charges must be processed and billed in a timely manner. The Arizona Commission stated that Maintenance and Repair charges must appear on the bill within two bill cycles after the ticket close date. The ticket close date is the date the work was completed. To comply with Docket Number T00000A-97-0238, Maintenance and Repair tickets must be processed within 30 calendar days of the date the work was completed.

Qwest respectfully denies this change request because it is economically not feasible and because regulatory reasons prohibit the change as requested.

Sincerely,

Mark Gonzales Staff Advocate Qwest Communications

May 11, 2004

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting

Carla Pardee AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC030504-1 "Qwest Premise Visits for Wirechecks and Subsequent Billing to CLECs (AT&T Local)"

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request (CR) PC030504-1. This CR requests that Qwest implement a process to validate accurate billing for premise visits for wirechecks and subsequent maintenance issues by holding billing for 60 days preferably, (30 days minimum), to ensure that a maintenance issue is properly billed.

Qwest is currently evaluating this change request and propose moving this CR into Evaluation Status while a complete answer to the request is prepared.

Sincerely,

Mark Gonzales Staff Advocate Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC051804-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

- 8/18/04 CMP Meeting Doug Andreen reported that a notice had been sent August 3, effective August 10 and requested the CR be moved to Test. The CR will be moved to Test.

-- 7/21/04 July CMP Meeting Anne Robberson, Qwest stated this CR will be accepted. Liz Balvin, MCI verified that the CR is requesting a clear message be sent to the CLECs if an address is not serviced by Qwest. Carla Pardee, AT&T said there is a real sense of urgency around this request and asked if there were any time frames for implementation. Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T added that there is a Systems CR in the works for this and it was recommended that this issue also be addressed from the Process side because of the long timeline to implement the systems request. Jill Martain, Qwest said we would investigate the timeframe. The CR will be moved to Development.

Meeting Minutes CMP June Meeting Carla presented this CR as a walk-on last month. There were no further questions. The CR will move to Presented Status.

- Time/Date: Place: Conference Call-In No.: CR No.:CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting 11:00 a.m. (MDT) Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC051804-1 Clear and Consist Error Message when Requested Service Address is not Within Qwest Territory/Service Area Attendees Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Carla Pardee, AT&T Phyllis Burt, AT&T John Daugherty, AT&T Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest Communications Anne Robberson, Qwest Communications Shirley Tallman, Qwest Communications Doug Andreen, Qwest

Meeting Agenda:Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change

Doug Andreen, Qwest read the full description of the CR as follows: Currently Qwest provides multiple error messages when a requested service address is not within Qwest territory or service area. AT&T is requesting an interim process (M&P) be developed by Qwest which would advise Qwest agents to send one consistent and accurate error message when a potential end-user is not Qwest’s service area. AT&T requests an error message such as Requested service address is outside Qwest’s territory . This change request is being submitted as an interim process for Qwest to develop until a permanent process, as set forth in AT&T’s pending change requests SCR040204-01 and SCR040204-02 can be implemented.

Carla explained that the two SCRs have been initially denied but that there was some discussion at the May CMP meeting and Qwest is taking a second look.

Doug asked if we should modify this CR to reflect a permanent solution rather than an interim process since the two SCRs may be denied. After some discussion it was agreed not to modify the CR but keep in mind that any process designed here may be needed on a permanent rather than an interim basis.

Doug verified the product impacts as UNE-P only. Carla said that they might want to extend to Resale and Kim agreed. Doug will modify the CR to reflect Resale also.

Carla verified that they need this put in place as soon as possible and that the ASAP or no later than July 15 date specified on the CR was to indicate the urgency involved.

At this point the call was opened up to questions/clarifications from Qwest. Anne and Shirley had no questions at this time.

Doug explained the timeframes for next steps. This CR was a walk-on in the May CMP meeting. It will be formally presented by AT&T in the June meeting and the Qwest response would be due at the July meeting.

Phyllis asked why it would take so long to implement an M&P change. To her mind it should be easy to do.

Shirley explained that research needs to be done to determine when in Qwest processes it is determined that the address is out of area.

Anne asked if the address could also be an apartment complex that is owned by a different company. Carla answered yes, that this was part of the problem.

Shirley added that her sense is that at the time of order issuance that Qwest does not know if the address is one not serviced by Qwest and that this is discovered later on the order process. Anne added that it might not be till the order hits Network that the address if found to be out of area.

John added that those reasons were why AT&T was looking for a system solution to help identify an out of area address as early in the process as possible.

Phyllis asked if from a process perspective there was a way to shorten the timeframe.

Doug said he would look into this. However the timeframes were established following the CMP process. Also if the SCRs moved forward they would be votable candidates for the 17.0 release which would be released in April 2005. (After the meeting Peggy informed Doug that AT&T had asked that these CRs be Late Adders into the 16.0 Release and AT&T was then notified, by Qwest, that the CRs were looking to be denied. Peggy stated that if the CRs do in fact move forward, they will be eligible for the 17.0 vote).

Anne asked if AT&T could send some examples for her to look into. Phyllis said she would get examples to Carla who will forward to Doug for distribution at Qwest.

There were no further questions or discussion and the meeting was adjourned.

3.0Confirm Areas & Products Impacted JUNE and possible expansion to Resale

4.0Confirm Right Personnel Involved Yes

5.0Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Implemented ASAP or no late than July 15

6.0Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests SCR040204-01 and SCR040204-02

7.0Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) AT&T will present the CR at the June CMP meeting with a response being in the July timeframe.

CenturyLink Response

July 13, 2004

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at July’s CMP Meeting.

Carla Pardee LSAM Manager AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC051804-01 - Clear and Consist Error Message when Requested Service Address is not Within Qwest Territory/Service Area

This is in response to AT&T’s request for a clear and consistent message when an LSR is submitted with a service address not serviced within Qwest territory.

Qwest accepts this CR as requested. Qwest currently has reject reason codes that are being returned when this scenario is identified at service order creation. The Reject codes are 801 for IMA version 15.0 users and 901 for IMA versions 13.0 and 14.0. The process being addressed is when this scenario is identified after service order creation, during the provisioning process. Qwest will agree upon verbiage to use and implement the verbiage as a Comment/Remark into the existing Jeopardy notification process for Error conditions identified after an FOC has already been sent.

In summary, we are working on the process as described in this CR and will be giving an update in the July CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Anne Robberson Sr. Process Analyst Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC060204-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

When AT&T, or it's designated vendor, is trying to locate the correct pair to connect a customer from the Demarc to CPE they would request that a tone be placed on the line. The expected result of this action will reduce the number of requested vendor meets, the number of trouble tickets being issued to request a "Tag and Locate". By having Tone on Line a customer's vendor can better isolate any troubles that may occur from the Demarc to CPE and or inside wire. The expected result will be a savings in resources and cost by both the CLEC and Qwest.

Status History

Project Meetings

July 21, 2004 CMP Monthly Meeting Notes: Denny Graham – Qwest reviewed the response and advised that Qwest is looking at the process and products impacted. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status. We will provide an updated status in August.

June 16, 2004 CMP Monthly Meeting notes: Kit Thomte – Qwest explained that we have had some difficulty with our conference bridge numbers. We have contacted our service provider and they are correcting the problem. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised she understands it was a problem with the bridge, and not that it was posted incorrectly on the calendar. Cindy Macy – Qwest apologized for the confusion and explained that she contacted the originator of the CR to provide a different call in number, but did not think to contact any other CLECs. Bonnie advised that is okay as she understands the issue. Bonnie suggested in the future though, if CLECs are having trouble connecting to conference bridge numbers that they should page the Project Manager. The CLEC community agreed that would be a good solution.

Ervin Rea – ATT presented the CR. Ervin explained that 10% of their trouble tickets are to tag and locate a loop at the DMARC or NID. This CR is asking for the ability to request when needed an identification tone be placed on the line. This would allow the CLEC to locate the line that they need to provision or repair without Qwest having to send a truck out to tag the line. This should apply to UNE – Loop, UNE-P and EEL products. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised that she would like to include all UNE-P including Resale products as Eschelon experiences this issue a lot also. Bonnie advised that all POTS orders are dropping to manual handling asking for a tag. Eschelon’s statistics for this issue are similar to ATT. Ervin Rea – ATT said he has forward SBCs ‘Tone on line’ process to Cindy Macy at Qwest. Ervin advised there is a system or center to contact to request the tone be placed on the line. We talked with Service Management and they advised that there is not a process available to the CLEC at this time. We know it is available to Qwest. John Berard – Covad advised it would be best to mechanize this type of activity and not have to call a center. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Clarification Call - PC060204-1 Tone on Line June 15, 2004 1:30 – 2:30 p.m.

In attendance: Ervin Rea – ATT Denny Graham – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Ervin Rea – ATT reviewed the CR. Ervin explained that 10-12% of the trouble tickets that ATT issues to Qwest requests that a technician goes out to tag and locate the cable pair. This CR requests that an identification tone is placed on the line so the ATT technician can locate the line themselves. This eliminates the need to have Qwest dispatch a truck to locate the DMARC/NID. Ervin said this should reduce the trouble ticket volume by 10-12 % and save resources. Ervin advised he has talked with the other CLECs and they also support this CR. This will reduce the cost that CLECs pay to Qwest for a truck roll. Ervin advised that he understands that Qwest provides this ability to Qwest technicians. Ervin advised he is not sure of the process, but a Central Office technician could put the tone on the line.

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked Ervin what products is he requesting this service on. Ervin advised it would be UNE – P non design mostly, EEL could apply which may be designed.

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked Ervin if they want this on all lines automatically or do they want to request it only when they are unable to locate the cable pair. Ervin advised this would only be requested if they could not locate it, not on all lines automatically. This would apply to both Provisioning and Repair.

Denny Graham – Qwest advised he understands what Ervin is requesting. He will have to investigate the current process. Denny advised he is not sure how the CLEC would request this to be done, and what time frames would be required.

Ervin Rea – ATT advised that Bell South has a process for Tone on Line. Ervin will send Cindy a copy of that process. Cindy will distribute to Denny to review.

Ervin Rea – ATT advised they checked with Service Management first and were told that this is not available today.

The group discussed the current process that to tag and locate a line in the first 10 days, there is no charge and it is requested on the LSR. This is done as a supplement to the LSR. There is a charge to tag and locate after the 10th day and this is requested on a repair ticket.

Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that we will review the request and provide a response at the July CMP meeting. Ervin will present the CR at the June CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

August 10, 2004

AT&T Ervin Rea Senior Specialist

SUBJECT: CR # PC060204-1

This letter is in response AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC060204-1 Tone on Line. This CR requests that Qwest provide the ability to AT&T to request and receive “Tone on the Line” for maintenance issues in an effort to locate the correct pair in a Dmarc.

Qwest is crossing over this CR to a systems CR as the implementation of the Tone on the Line request will consist of updates to existing Qwest systems. Qwest will provide an updated response at the September CMP Systems meeting.

Sincerely,

Denny Graham Qwest Communications

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the July 21, 2004 CMP Meeting

July 21, 2004

AT&T Ervin Rea Senior Specialist

SUBJECT: CR # PC060204-1

This letter is in response AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC060204-1 Tone on Line. This CR requests that Qwest provide the ability for the CLEC community to receive ‘Tone on the Line’ when requested for maintenance and provisioning issues. Providing ‘Tone on the Line’ helps to locate the correct pair in a Demarc.

Qwest would like to leave this CR in evaluation status. Qwest needs to look at the individual products and provisioning processes that are impacted by this request. Qwest will provide an updated response at the August CMP meeting. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status.

Sincerely,

Denny Graham Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR pc081904-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected deliverable: Revised Process ATT desires the capability to re-MLT at during open referral time.

Status History

Project Meetings

Clarification Call PC081904-1 MLT a TN during the open referral time

Attendance: Joyce Atwell – ATT John Wright – ATT Justin Sewell - Qwest Communications Jim Recker - Qwest Communications Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications

Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications opened the call and reviewed the agenda. Cindy explained that Qwest has met internally on this CR before the Clarification Call and we believe that we already provide the functionality that ATT is requesting.

Joyce Atwell introduced John Wright and explained that he is the requestor of this functionality. John explained that ATT is blocking the ability to perform MLT with Qwest so he is not aware if this feature works or not. John will work with his lab organization to remove the restriction and then test the feature.

Justin advised that Qwest added this feature in the 2001 time frame. John advised that ATT wanted to make sure that Qwest is aware that ATT will begin using this feature. Justin advised it is okay to begin using the feature. ATT believes it will reduce the number of Qwest dispatches.

John advised it will take several weeks for ATT to remove the feature. The team agreed that this CR will be withdrawn at the September CMP meeting. After ATT removes the feature they will test the functionality. If they have any trouble at that time they would contact the Help Desk to report a trouble report. If ATT determines they need to issue another CR they will do that at a later date.

Open Product/Process CR PC101904-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: To modify the existing CR form to include , Impacts LSOG Forms”.

Status History

Project Meetings

- April 26, 2005 Email Sent to AT&T: Hi Sharon, I hope you had a great vacation! Sharon, the CR that AT&T submitted, PC101904-2 To Modify Change Request Form to Include 'Impacts LSOG Forms' was implemented on March 3rd and was moved to CLEC Test at the March CMP Meeting. The new form has already been used to submit new CRs and is working great. Are you ready to close the CR? The meeting minutes from the April CMP Meeting are as follows: PC101904-2 To Modify Change Request Form to include ‘Impacts LSOG Forms’ Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this change was effective on March 3rd and is currently in CLEC Test. Jill stated that AT&T could not attend and Qwest would like to close this CR off-line with AT&T. There was no dissent to close the CR off-line. Please let me know if you are okay to close the CR. I appreciate it. Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale Change Management

-- April 20, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this change was effective on March 3rd and is currently in CLEC Test. Jill stated that AT&T could not attend and Qwest would like to close this CR off-line with AT&T. There was no dissent to close the CR off-line.

- March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that this was effective on March 3rd and that the CR submittal Form was revised and posted to the web site, and noted that the CMP Document was also updated with the update to Appendix D. Peggy stated that this CR moves to CLEC Test.

-- February 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the Level 2 notice was out on February 10th and that the effective date was March 3, 2005. This CR remains in Development status.

-- COMMUNICATOR EXCERPT: Announcement Date: February 10, 2005 Effective Date: March 03, 2005 Document Number: PROS.02.10.05.F.02545.ChangeRequestForm Notification Category: Process Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: CMP - Change Request Form Level of Change: Level 2 Associated CR Number or System Release Number: CLEC CR # PC101904-2

Summary of Change: On February 10, 2005, Qwest will post planned updates to its Wholesale Change Management Process Change Request Form to include revised documentation. These will be posted to the Qwest Wholesale Document Review Site located at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/review.html.

In response to the CLEC initiated CR PC101904-2, Qwest has updated the Wholesale Change Management Process Change Request Form to include additional LSOG information. In discussion during the January CMP monthly meeting, it was agreed that this Change Request would follow a Level 2 notification timeline. Upon becoming operational, in conjunction with the CR form update on the CMP operational URL, the sample Change Request form in Appendix D in the Change Management Process document will be updated to include this as the current CR example. This document is found at the following URL: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/whatiscmp.html. This does not change the CMP process in any way; it is only an update to the sample form.

Current operational documentation for this business procedure is found on the Qwest Wholesale Web Site at this URL: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html.

-- January 19, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that there was an ad-hoc meeting on January 5th for the final review of the proposed changes to the form and CLEC concurrence was obtained. Peggy stated that AT&T has requested that a shorter comment cycle be given for this CR in order for the form to be implemented sooner. Peggy asked for CLEC concurrence for a Level 2 notice, which is a 7-day comment cycle. There was no opposition to a Level 2 notice. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the Level 2 notice would be sent and noted that the status remains as Development.

January 5, 2005 Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes: Date: January 5, 2005 CR No & Title: PC101904-2 To Modify Change Request Form to Include ‘Impacts LSOG Forms’ Introduction of Attendees: Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Chris Terrell-AT&T, Jeff Sonnier-Sprint, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Amanda Silva-VCI, Jennifer Arnold-TDS Metrocom, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Hank Martinez-Qwest, Randy Owen-Qwest, Anne Robberson-Qwest Conference Call Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the purpose of the call was for final review of the Draft version 14 of the CMP CR Submittal Form and to discuss a shorter comment cycle, per the request of AT&T. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the form is the same that has been discussed in previous calls and the December CMP Meeting. Peggy stated that the additions to the form include new areas for Form/Transaction/Process Impacted (IMA Only) for Order, LSR Activity, Pre-Order, and Post Order. Peggy asked if all was any opposition to the new form, version 14. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that AT&T was okay with the form. Jennifer Arnold-TDS Metrocom stated that TDS Metrocom was also okay with the form. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked if everyone else was okay with the implementation of version 14. There were no additional comments or questions. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that it seems that all are in agreement that Qwest is to proceed with version 14 of the form. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that at the December CMP Meeting, AT&T asked if there could be a shorter comment cycle so this form could be implemented sooner and used, as it will be very helpful to the CLECs and to Qwest. Peggy asked if there was any opposition to a Level 2 notice being sent for a shorter comment cycle. There was no opposition brought forward. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest would obtain final concurrence to the Level 2 notice at the January CMP Meeting, and then the notice would go out for the implementation of the form, version 14. There were no additional questions or comments.

-- December 15, 2004 Product/Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston-Qwest stated that the more information that is known and is agreed upon, the better. Connie stated that specific product’s would still be called out. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the form that will be implemented is the same form that was provided for the conference call Connie Winston-Qwest responded yes. Jill Martain- Qwest stated that the field for 'all' products would not be incorporated. Jill stated that the 45-day notice would be sent and at the end of the comment cycle, the CR will move to CLEC Test. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that maybe the comment period could be shorter as this new form will be very helpful. Jill Martain-Qwest asked if the CLECs would like another ad hoc meeting prior to the 45-day notice being sent. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T responded yes and noted that on the ad hoc call, she will ask if all are agreeable to a shorter comment cycle. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR would move to Development Status.

December 6, 2004 Emailed Qwest Response to Sharon Van Meter, AT&T: Sharon, Attached is the Qwest Response to PC101904-2 To Modify Change Request Form to Include 'Impacts LSOG Forms'. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

-- November 19, 2004 Meeting Minutes: Attendees: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Kathy Stichter-Eschelon, Sue Wright-XO, Chris Terrell-AT&T, Nancy Saunders-Comcast, John Berard-Covad, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Hank Martinez-Qwest, Anne Robberson-Qwest, Judy DeRosier-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest

Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the purpose of the meeting was to review the DRAFT CR Submittal Form that was emailed to Sharon at AT&T, which is the mock-up of the revised CR Form. Peggy stated that Qwest wanted to review and obtain input to make that we were headed in the right direction for the delivery of this request. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest read the CRs description for the call participants. Peggy stated that the current version of the CR submission form is located on the Wholesale web site if the participants would like to pull it up and compare to the draft mock-up as we discuss the suggested changes. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the draft version 14 has no changes until page 2 of the form. Peggy stated that the proposed changes are under the Area Impacted section and is so that the CR originator can provide as much information as you can. Peggy stated that the new information was derived from the LSOG Forms and are categorized by Pre Order, Order, Post Order, and LSR Activity. Peggy stated that the information is optional, as is the current information in the Area Impacted Section. Peggy stated that the CR originator would indicate any boxes that would be applicable to the request. Peggy stated that the section is optional but noted that the more information that is provided to Qwest, the less chance for problems down the road as far as what the request covered. Peggy then asked the call participants to review the draft mock-up and provide feedback. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if all the impacted forms were under the new categories. Hank Martinez-Qwest responded yes. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked that if in the Products Impacted Section of the form, if they check LNP, can the form provide a pop-up list of all the applicable forms for LNP. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that it would then become a more interactive form. Judy DeRosier-Qwest stated that MSWord does have the capability to do drop down’s but can then only pick one-at-a-time; it would be more complicated if more than one Pre Order item is impacted. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she was just wondering and to leave the request as a paper form for this CR. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked if Cancel should be with Post Order. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that it should appear with Order and will be corrected. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked that the check box named Other be explained. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked if it would be used if the CR originator was proposing a new form. Hank Martinez-Qwest said yes. CLEC Community stated to keep Other as a check box. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that she liked the draft form. John Berard-Covad stated that Liz (Balvin-Covad) had a suggestion for him to bring forward. John stated that Liz would like to see a check box for all forms below. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that the designation of All has created problems in the past and that Qwest was moving away from the global designation of All. Hank stated that in the submission of a CR, there is thought and clarity that is needed so the request can be as complete as it can and not be subject to interpretation of ‘All’. John Berard-Covad asked if the forms listed in the draft CR form are the Industry forms. Hank Martinez-Qwest responded yes. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked if the originator can select only an order form or if needs to select a form and product(s). Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that the current process would not change of selecting the impacted areas, including the form and products. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked that if the End User form is selected and it has a potential to impact all products, can Qwest provide an LOE for the specified product and an LOE for all products that would be applicable for the End User Form. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that this can be cumbersome but if that would be beneficial to the CLECs and to Qwest, Qwest can look into doing that. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that was the real intent of this CR. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that the CR was driving to include the forms and not the products. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that the CLECs want to provide Qwest with as much information as they can and would like an LOE for the specific product checked, and an LOE for all products that would be applicable for the specified form. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that in the Products part of the form, they want the option to check all products for the form, or to check the specific product(s). Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that we may all be speaking of the same thing and the question is how to display it on the form. Hank stated that for example, Port Service can be several forms and sub sets of products. Qwest needs to know if the request is for all in the subset or maybe just part of the subset. Hank stated that the Clarification Call helps drive that discussion. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated for example, in the Order section, the form can have a check box for all products and if that All box is not checked, Qwest would then know to look in the Products section. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that it would be very helpful that if a form is selected in the Order Section, that a selection be made in the LSR Activity section. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon and Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that LSR Activity would be helpful. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that the CR originator should populate the impacted form and the impacted products, to determine the scope of the CR. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the CLECs want, in the impacted products sections, a check box for all products for the specified Form. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that LSR Activity is also important. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the CLECs do not want Qwest to reinvent the wheel but do want all products if there would be no substantial difference to the LOE. Bonnie stated that the CLECs need to get a clear understanding of what Qwest is doing. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that a check box for All may not be wanted for LSR Activity. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that the all check box needs to be in the product list, not below Pre-Order, Order, Post Order, or LSR Activity. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T and Phyllis Burt-AT&T agreed. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked if Qwest only relates products to Order and maybe Pre-Order. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated for Order only. Hank stated that Pre Order and Post Order are product independent. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that in the Impacted Products sections, the All check box needs to clearly state that it applies to Order Forms only. Hank Martinez-Qwest asked if the CLECs Community likes the areas of Pre-Order, Order, Post Order, and LSR Activity. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated yes and noted that the check box for Cancel needed to be moved. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that an All check box needs to be in the Product section. There were no other questions or comments. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest would consider the suggested changes and provide a response or status prior to the December CMP Meeting.

-- November 17, 2004 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Sharon Van Meter – ATT presented the CR. Sharon reviewed the CR description and advised that ATT’s expected deliverable is to identify the specific LSOG forms on the CR form. Sharon advised there is a meeting on Friday to review the CR form. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Time/Date: Place: Conference Call-In No.: CR No.:CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

2:00 p.m. (MT) / Monday November 1, 2004

1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC101904-2 To Modify Change Request Form to include Impacts LSOG Forms Attendees Attended Conference Call Name/Company: Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Stephanie Prull, AT&T Phyllis Burt, AT&T Sharon Van Meter, AT&T Rosalin Davis, MCI Jim Recker, Qwest Randy Owen, Qwest Connie Winston, Qwest Cindy Macy, Qwest Doug Andreen, Qwest Title:

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change This was a combined clarification call for two AT&T CRs. PC101904-1 was covered first. Then Sharon Van Meter read and reviewed this CR. This CR requests that all of the LSOG forms be placed in the Product Impacted section of the CR rather than focusing on a particular product. Doug verified that what AT&T is requesting is that the LSOG forms be placed on the Change Request Form so the CLECs can fill out what forms are affected when submitting a request. Phyllis answered yes and that the CLECs hoped this would be helpful for Qwest to see the request at the form level. Stephanie Prull said this can be used as a limiting tool since for instance there are fifteen products on the Resale form. Randy Owen asked how that would have helped the TN SANO issue. Phyllis felt this was done piecemeal and that products kept getting added when it probably would have been easier to do all at once. Stephanie added that this is an attempt to give all the information at once and then determine (if the LOE is too high for instance) if we need to piecemeal. Phyllis asked if the LOE would be lower to implement all at once. Randy responded that in some cases yes but probably not always. It depends on the scope of the request and the release pattern and would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. There were no further questions. 3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Potentially all products 4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation To add LSOG forms to Change Request Form 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) The CR will be presented at the November CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the December 15, 2004, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Sharon Van Meter AT&T

SUBJECT: AT&T’s Change Request Response - CR #PC101904-2

This is in response to the AT&T submitted CR PC101904-2. This CR requests a Modification to the existing CMP CR submittal form to include the impacted LSOG forms.

A clarification call was held on 11/01/04 to discuss the request and a subsequent meeting was held on 11/19/04 with AT&T and members of the CLEC Community.

Qwest accepts this CR. Qwest will modify the CMP CR submittal form to include the impacted LSOG forms in four new areas of the CMP CR submittal form. The four new areas are categorized as Order, LSR Activity, Pre-Order, and Post-Order. The LSOG Form names will be listed under the appropriate category.

Qwest will provide a status update of the work to implement this CR at the December CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC101904-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will modify it’s commitment deliverables by communicating to the forum, exactly how systems change requests are going to be developed and delivered.

Status History

Project Meetings

Connie Winston – Qwest recapped that this request is asking for additional CR development information earlier in the process. Connie advised that we do not have additional information or clarity before the Release Walk Through. Qwest has made some assumptions in the past at the walkthrough meetings. Qwest will work to add more clarification and discuss assumptions at the walk through meetings. Jill Martain – Qwest added that we are now also reviewing the spreadsheet of products at the Clarification calls which helps Qwest obtain additional clarity. Jill advised we will be updating the CR form also per the CR request PC101904-2. Liz Balvin – Covad advised the CLECs are trying to avoid getting to far down the path and have CLECs expecting one thing and Qwest going another direction. Liz asked if Qwest has considered publishing a draft version of the Walkthrough document sooner. (Insert comment from Eschelon) Connie stated that Qwest doesn’t believe that providing draft version of the walk through would help the issue. (End comment) Connie advised that being more clear at the Clarification meetings will help Qwest and if we find that we need more clarification we will bring it to the CLEC Communities attention. For example, Qwest found an issue on the Parse and Structure CR and brought this to CMP to further define. Liz Balvin – Covad asked if Qwest is concerned about the CLECs bringing forth too many changes. Connie advised no. Qwest believes it would be a repeat of the Clarification call. Liz Balvin – Covad said at the clarification meeting CLECs only understand what they expect the changes need to be and it is not until Qwest publishes the draft specs that CLECs may identify issues. Connie agreed that is true and that is the 73-day time frame that Qwest provides. Connie said that Qwest doesn’t believe we are missing a lot of items and we need to be more stringent around bringing our assumptions forward. Sharon Van Meter – ATT would like us to change the denial to reflect ‘no demonstrable Qwest business benefit’ (insert comment from Eschelon) instead of no demonstrable benefit because the CLECs believe that there is a benefit to this CR. Jill said this CR will move to Denial Status.

December 7, 2004 Email Sent to Sharon Van Meter,AT&T: Sharon, I have attached a copy of the Qwest Response for your submitted CMP CR, PC101904-1 Modify Release Commitment Deliverables. The CR will be included in the Distribution Package for the December Product/Process Meeting, scheduled for December 15th. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

-- 11/17/04 November meeting minutes Sharon Van Meter – ATT presented the CR. Sharon reviewed the CR description and read sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 from the CMP Document. Sharon explained their expected deliverable is to have Qwest provide additional information up front instead of later in the process. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon explained that the LNP UBL TN/SANO issue is an example of what they are trying to improve with this process. Stephanie advised that if we would have received more information sooner and discussed this in more detail it would have helped us react earlier. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Clarification Call PC101904-1 Modify Release Commitment Deliverables November 1, 2004 2:00- 3:00 MT

In Attendance: Roslyn Davis – MCI Sharon VanMeter – ATT Phyllis Burt – ATT Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Cindy Macy – Qwest Doug Andreen – Qwest Connie Winston – Qwest Jim Recker – Qwest Randy Owen – Qwest Stephanie Prull - Eschelon

The purpose of this meeting is to review the CR and ensure Qwest understands the CLECs expectations.

Phyllis and Sharon – ATT reviewed the CR. ATT explained that they need something that helps the CLECs understand the scope and limitations of the CR more clearly and earlier on in the process. The Disclosure Document provides us with much of this information but it is needed earlier on in the process.

Eschelon provided the example of TN and SANO. When this was deployed they didn’t realize it was only for certain products. We need to understand the limitations, differences or exceptions.

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked what would help the CLECs understand this. Is it another meeting, or documentation, more information on edits? Sharon – ATT advised that maybe a meeting to review the documentation earlier in the cycle would help. Sharon – ATT advised that the CLEC Walkthrough doesn’t provide enough information.

Stephanie advised that we have special walkthrough on specific CRs if the CLECs feel like they need it. Ones that are more complicated generally. Maybe we should do this more often.

Randy Owen – Qwest asked if we are trying to build a process around exceptions. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon advised scope issues happen quite often.

Stephanie advised that today we get the information 45 days prior to implementation (final disclosure). The walkthrough is day 68-58 generally. Stephanie said that if we have only 2 releases a year maybe we could adjust the dates.

Randy Owen – Qwest advised he understands the CLECs request and we will review the issue. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that this CR would be presented at the November CMP meeting by ATT. Qwest will provide a response at the December meeting.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the December 2004 CMP Meeting

Sharon Van Meter AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - PC101904-1 "Modify Release Commitment Deliverables"

This document is a response to AT&T’s PC101904-1 "Modify Release Commitment Deliverables."

AT&T requests that Qwest present at the CMP release commitment : "a detailed summary of HOW the CR is going to be developed and delivered based on the design work completed on the candidates. By revealing this information, CLECs can obtain a better understanding of the scope and the limitation of the expected deliverable. It also gives Qwest and CLECs a final opportunity to make any additional comments/clarifications to eliminate any surprises at delivery."

A clarification call was held on 11/01/04 to discuss the request. AT&T is requesting at the CMP Scope commitment a detailed analysis of the means and requirements of delivery. AT&T is asking for detailed requirements that Qwest provides as part of its IMA EDI Draft Disclosure publication and walkthrough. It should be noted that scope commitment occurs five weeks prior to Qwest publication of IMA EDI Draft Disclosure documentation, or 108 days prior to the release date. Initial Draft Disclosure documentation publication occurs 73 days prior to the implementation. Therefore, in effect, AT&T is requesting detailed documentation about the scope of changes for a candidate 35 days prior to current CMP commitments.

Qwest is already addressing some of the concerns brought forward by this CR. During the Clarification Calls on System CRs, Qwest now discusses more detailed information to identify and understand the specific product, activity type and request type. Qwest also is working on enhancing the CR form (via another CR,) which will allow for additional detail and specifications to be identified earlier in the process. The intent of these changes is to gather additional data earlier in the process and allow for a more detailed discussion of the change.

Currently, Qwest provides a complete a set of documentation at IMA EDI Draft Disclosure publication and the walkthrough. This should, however, be considered a Draft version. Changes do occur between publication of the Draft and the Final (at day 45). To provide the documentation any earlier than the Draft Disclosure point in the timeline would actually provide less value as many issues are addressed between scope commitment and publication of the Draft Disclosure. Qwest believes that the timeline of 73 days prior to release is the optimal point for publication of the documentation, providing for both a large window for the fielding of questions and concerns and a relatively stable set of documents. And, at this point in the timeline, Qwest believes that it publishes technical specifications that address both the business requirements (WHAT the candidate changes do) and the systems requirements (HOW Qwest will deliver it) for the candidate and the release.

AT&T also requested additional meetings to be held earlier in the process to discuss the CR. Qwest would not have additional information to provide to the CLECs earlier in the process and additional meetings would take time away from the resources working on the CR, thus delaying the progress and delivery of the Disclosure Documentation walkthrough.

When circumstances come about as a normal part of trial and testing during the release week, Qwest adheres to its standard process and protocols around notifying of the issue, and works quickly and with the CLECs to resolve it.

Therefore, Qwest is denying this request as providing no demonstrable business benefit.

Sincerely, Connie Winston Director, Information Technology, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC112904-1 Detail

Description Of Change

AT&T is requesting that Qwest change its process to allow a CLEC to choose the response for quoting rates and/or referring an AT&T Local customer to the appropriate phone number. The response might include a rate quote provided by AT&T for its rates or a referral to an 800# provided by AT&T Local Services.

Status History

Project Meetings

- June 15, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this was effective on June 3, 2005 and would like to move to CLEC Test. This CR is now in CLEC Test.

May 18, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the notices had been sent and that the proposed effective date is June 3, 2005. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked that once this is effective, if the Questionnaires needed to be updated before they could use this new process. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest responded yes. This CR remains in Development status.

April 20, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that notices were sent on April 19th for the PCAT changes, the OS Questionnaire and the New Customer Questionnaire and that the proposed effective date is on June 3rd. Peggy then noted that this CR would remain in Development status. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if they would be able to use them on the effective date. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated yes.

-- March 22, 2005 Adhoc Meeting Attendees: Sharon Van Meter - AT&T, Carol Kearney - AT&T, Anne Trees - Qwest, Elizabeth Hamilton - Qwest, Marty Cruze - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest stated that a request was made by AT&T in the March CMP Meeting that Qwest schedule an adhoc meeting to discuss the proposed changes to the PCAT and the Questionnaire. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T provided the history of this CR for Carol Kearney (AT&T). Anne Trees - Qwest stated that the Qwest solution is that in most cases we will be able to provide a rate quote to the Customer. Carol Kearney - AT&T asked if Qwest considered the number referral. Anne Trees - Qwest said that we did not due to some limitations associated with the number referral. Carol Kearney - AT&T asked if Qwest will be able to identify the AT&T Customer. Anne Trees - Qwest said that we will be able to identify the Customer. Carol Kearney - AT&T asked if this feature will be available for all Customers or just AT&T Anne Trees - Qwest stated that this feature will be available for any CLEC. Carol Kearney - AT&T stated that AT&T Management has placed a freeze on rate increases. She asked what rate does the Operator quote if rates are not provided. Anne Trees - Qwest said that the rate quote defaults to the Qwest rate. Carol Kearney - AT&T said that she hopes the rates are close and said that she needs to go back to her Management Team to determine what rates AT&T will provide. Anne Trees - Qwest stated that if AT&T chooses not to provide rates, we will quote Qwest rates. Anne said that is up to AT&T but that the vehicle will be there. Anne said that the Customer will provide the rate information on the DA Questionnaire. Carol Kearney - AT&T asked if there was a charge for this feature. Anne Trees - Qwest said that there is no charge. Carol Kearney - AT&T asked how long would it take for Qwest to begin quoting the rates they provide. Elizabeth Hamilton - Qwest said that the turnaround time is approximately four weeks. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T said that Qwest only chose to quote the rates and asked if it might be possible to refer the Customer back to the 800 number. Anne Trees - Qwest stated that we did not pursue due to system limitations and that one percent of Customers ask for a rate quote. Anne said that rate quotes are available in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Idaho, and Utah. Anne said that this feature is not availble in Montana, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wyoming and South Dakota. She said that the information will be provided by OCN and State. Anne also said that if the Customer's rates change, the Questionnaire needs to be updated. Anne asked if AT&T was Facility Based. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T said that she was not sure. Elizabeth Hamilton - Qwest stated that Facility Based and UNE are both treated by OCN and with the same rates. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T asked if there will be links letting them know where to find information for this feature. Elizabeth Hamilton - Qwest said yes. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T asked if Qwest could include which PCAT and where in the PCAT this information can be found. Anne Trees - Qwest said that the update will be in the Operator Services PCAT under Optional Features. Marty Cruze - Qwest asked if/when there are OSPS conversions does the PCAT need to be updated. Anne Trees - Qwest said yes and that we will be working towards getting the other States functional. Carol Kearney - AT&T asked when this feature will be functional. Anne Trees - Qwest said that we are currently working on getting the PCAT and Questionairre updated and should be functional by the end of April. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T asked what Level of Notification will be sent. Anne Trees - Qwest said that a Level 3 Notification will be sent. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T explained the comment cycle to Carol Kearney (AT&T). Carol Kearney - AT&T asked if this applies to DA rates and what does Qwest quote today. Anne Trees - Qwest said that the Questionnaire includes DA and that they can change the DA rate. Anne said that Qwest quotes the Qwest DA rate today. There were no other questions.

March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest was still working on the PCAT updates and the updates to the OS Questionnaire and that the CR remains in Development status. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T requested that another call be scheduled once the process has been determined and prior to the PCAT updates going into effect. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest agreed to schedule the call with AT&T. This CR remains in Development Status.

- February 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that we can provide the functionality in the Central and Western regions and will move forward in the updating of the PCAT and the OS/DA questionnaire, with the appropriate notices. Peggy stated that in the Eastern region, this is technically not possible due to the equipment in that region. This CR moves to Development status.

-- January 19, 2005 Discussed in the January Product Process Monthly CMP Meeting Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the Clarification Meeting was held in December and that internal meetings are continuing in order to discuss this request. Peggy stated that Qwest would like to move this CR to Evaluation Status and that a status would be provided in the February CMP Meeting. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if there was any status at all. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that this request is looking expensive and noted that we are continuing to look at options. Susie stated that new technology would be needed for this request as it is very complex. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she sees an economically not feasible denial coming. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR moves to Evaluation Status.

-- December 15, 2004 Product/Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T presented the CR and stated that the Clarification call had been held. Sharon stated that if the calling party asks for the rate to interrupt a line or to do a busy line verify, that Qwest may quote the rate or refer the caller to their local company. Sharon stated that Qwest has stated that the cost for a local collect call or for alternately billed calls cannot be provided. Jill Martain-Qwest asked if there were any questions or comments. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that she thought it was Qwest’s policy to refer the end user because Qwest can identify if is a CLEC customer. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that if the CLEC is Facility Based, Qwest can identify if the caller is a non-Qwest customer. Sharon stated that they do not want Qwest rates quoted and that this process cannot be across the board, it needs to be each CLECs option. Susie Bliss-Qwest asked if this information was discussed at the Clarification call. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated yes.

December 9, 2004 Clarification Meeting Minutes Attendees: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Anne Trees-Qwest, Carolyn Vance-Qwest

Review Requested CR Description: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest reviewed the CR Title, Number, and Description. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest confirmed the Product impacted is Operator Services. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she issued the CR as a result of her Service Managers recommendation. Sharon asked what Qwest does when AT&T Local dials 0 and requests a rate quote for a local collect call, calling card call, busy line verify, interrupt a line, or if the operator completes the call. Anne Trees-Qwest stated that if an AT&T end user dials 0 and asks for the cost for the person that the call is being billed to, that person may not be an AT&T end user customer. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that was correct. Anne Trees-Qwest stated that the originator is billed if the call is not alternately billed and Qwest normally quotes Qwest rates. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T wants the operator to refer the person requesting the rate quote to their local company and to give the requestor the local provider telephone number; or for the operator to quote the local provider's rate. Sharon stated that the option needs to be the CLECs choice as some CLECs do want Qwest rates quoted. Anne Trees-Qwest asked if AT&T was re-rating the calls and noted that Qwest currently only quotes Qwest rates because Qwest only knows Qwest rates. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that if the Qwest rate is $1.00 and AT&Ts rate is $1.50, the operator needs to say that the AT&T rate is $1.50. Anne Trees-Qwest asked to confirm that AT&T would then bill their end user at Qwest's rate. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T responded yes. Sharon stated that if AT&T wants Qwest to quote a rate, AT&T would bill whatever that quoted rate is. Anne Trees-Qwest asked to confirm that this request is for busy line verify or busy line interrupt and is not for alternately billed clls. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that was correct. Sharon noted that if the request is for a rate quote to interrupt a line, Qwest should quote the AT&T rate and AT&T would bill the customer the amount of the quoted rate. Sharon stated that another solution would be that the Qwest operator could refer the caller to their local provider, or could refer the caller to the local provider's telephone number. Sharon stated that AT&T does not want Qwest rates quoted to the CLECs customer. Anne Trees-Qwest stated that Qwest does not maintain other companies rates and stated that this request is not for alternately billed calls. Anne again stated that this request would cover busy line verify or busy line interrupt, operator assisted calls. Anne stated that if the request is for the cost of a collect call, Qwest quotes Qwest rates. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that that would be an alternaltely billed call and Qwest rates would be quoted. Sharon stated that all are in agreement. Sharon stated that she understands that the request is not for alternatley billed calls. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the Qwest operator can tell if the caller is an AT&T customer. Anne Trees-Qwest stated that the term AT&T customer is perplexing and stated that it could mean AT&T local customer, QPP, Facility Based with AT&T having their own switch. Anne stated that she needs to research to see if the operator can identify if the call is from an AT&T switch, if a reseller, or if UNE-P. Carolyn Vance-Qwest stated that if the call comes in from an ILEC or an IXC, we would know that the NPA NXX is not Qwest's. Carolyn stated that identification would also need to go down to the 10-digits and she does not know that an operator station can determine if the call is a CLEC call or can identify which CLEC. Anne Trees-Qwest stated that the request is dependant on if the NPA NXX owner can be identified. Anne stated that Qwest would do some research. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if this request might be possible if Qwest can identify that the NPA NXX is not a Qwest customer. Anne Trees-Qwest stated that Qwest would discuss internally. There were no additional questions or comments. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest would provide a status at the January CMP Meeting. The call was adjourned.

- December 6, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Sharon, I hope you had a great vacation. I have scheduled the Clarification Call for PC112904-1 Rate Quotes and Number Referrals from Qwest Operator Services. Call details are as follows: DATE: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 TIME: 9:00 am MT CALL IN: 1-877-564-8688, conference id of 8571927 Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

CenturyLink Response

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the January 19, 2005 CMP Meeting

January 10, 2005

AT&T Sharon Van Meter

SUBJECT: CR # PC112904-1 Rate Quotes and Number Referrals from Qwest Operator Services

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC112904-1 Rate Quotes and Number Referrals from Qwest Operator Services. This CR requests that Qwest change its process to allow CLECs to choose the response that Qwest Operators state when quoting charges to any other local service company customer. AT&T requests that this process be an option that each CLEC may choose or not choose to utilize.

Qwest would like to leave this CR in evaluation status as it needs to continue to look at the existing process. Qwest will provide an updated response at the February CMP meeting. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status.

Sincerely,

Anne Trees, Sr. Process Analyst Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC032504-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: As soon as possible.

Status History

Project Meetings

9/15/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest advised that we performed a test review on 19 order examples to make sure circuits were correctly tagged. The test was successful. This week Covad sent examples that Qwest will also review to make sure circuits are correctly tagged. Qwest will provide status at the next monthly CMP meeting. This CR will remain in CLEC Test Status.

8/16/04 CMP Meeting Mintues Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest advised this process was implemented and effective August 3. John Berard – Covad asked how will Covad know this process is in place. John requested a review by Qwest of a set number of examples. Cindy agreed to propose the review suggestion to Network. If agreed, Qwest will select a few Central Offices and have the Supervisor check to make sure the circuits were tagged. John Berard – Covad will send the order information that will be verified to Cindy Macy for 6 orders installed after August 3, 2004 (two in each region). If an audit is agreed to, Qwest will add additional circuits to the list to create a statistically valid sample. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

July 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest recapped the request. Cindy advised that Qwest currently marks anything above a DS0 circuit (not analog circuits), and with this CR Qwest has expanded the process to include DSL circuits (not including POTs process requests for Line Sharing and Line Splitting). In order to make the information available to the technicians we have updated the tech books. Tech book updates occur every 12 – 18 months. We have to train the technicians and we anticipate this to be completed the middle of August. Qwest will issue a Level 1 notification when this becomes effective. This CR will remain in Development status.

June 16, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Macy – Qwest advised this CR is in progress. The technician books need to be updated. Training the technicians will occur after the books are updated. Qwest anticipates implementing this towards the end of July. This CR will remain in Development Status.

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest reviewed the response and advised that Qwest will support this CR. Cindy recapped the intent of the CR, reviewed Wholesale’s current process, explained the parity of the process with Retail for analogous circuits and potential impacts of additions beyond what Qwest has agreed to in this response. Cindy advised that Qwest will support this process on additional products identified in the response. This CR will move to Development status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Mike Zulevic – Covad presented this CR. Mike explained that Covad would like for Qwest to provide SSP on certain UNE Loop type services. This would provide the ability to specify on a loop by loop basis when the order is placed that protectors are needed on the frame. Today most are black, except the SSP ones have red protectors. This tells the technician that the circuit should not be opened unless they get an okay from the customer. This is done on cross connects also, and on outside plant. These circuits are not to be moved without the proper release from the customer. This has been in place for 40 – 50 years on SSP. We need it now on additional data circuits. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked what would the customer use the circuit for? Mike advised burglar alarms, data, FAA, control and monitor traffic lights, fire department and some are POTS lines. In the future VOIP lines will need this. Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest asked if Mike was aware of Qwest’s Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP). This allows the customer to identify critical and expedited circuits. Cindy Buckmaster also clarified that the type of circuits are data, not POTS circuits. Mike advised some are ordered as 2Wire loop non loaded, but they are data capable loops. Cindy verified they are not 2Wire analog loops? Mike agreed Covad’s loops are not analog, but other CLECs may have 2W analog loops. Cindy advised we will look into this CR. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Clarification Meeting April 9, 2004 1-877-552-8688 7146042# PC032504-1 Special Service Protection for UNE Loops

Attendees John Berard – Covad Cindy Buckmaster - Qwest Denny Graham – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change John Berard – Covad reviewed the change request. John explained that this service is already offered on other products, such as Switch net 56 and DDS. Cross connection equipment is red flagged which alerts technicians to take special steps before working on the facility. John advised Covad would like to be able to request this service on specific accounts provided via UNE Loop also. Covad is launching a new product and some of those customers will be consider their service critical and may want the protection service available to them. Cindy Buckmaster verified the product lines that John is requesting this service to be available include Analog, digital capable loops including non-loaded, XDSL-I, ADSL, ISDN and DS1 and DS3. John agreed. Denny Graham advised that Qwest marks the facilities in the central office by placing red heat coils and jumpers or red caps and in the field by placing red jumpers or red caps. Denny advised that process changes would be required. Cindy Buckmaster advised we would have to look at the service order process and determine the impacts. Additionally we need to look at the practice on a geographic basis to ensure we incorporate the correct process and color used. Qwest will evaluate the viability of the service requested. Cindy Buckmaster asked John what their interval was for deploying their new product that would benefit from this service. John advised in the next month.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Cindy Buckmaster verified the product lines that John is requesting this service to be available include Analog, digital capable loops including non-loaded, XDSL-I, ADSL, ISDN and DS1and DS3 .

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Team agreed that Lori Langston needed to be involved.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Provide SSP on identified products. 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests none

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Covad will present the CR at the April CMP Meeting Qwest will provide our Response at the May CMP Meeting

CenturyLink Response

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the May 19, 2003 CMP Meeting

John Berard Covad

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC032504-1 “Special Service Protection (SSP) for UNE Loops ”

‘Covad proposes that a product be developed which can be ordered with a UNE Loop that will provide Special Service Protection at all cross-connects points in the Qwest network. This protection has been provided by Qwest for critical customer circuits (i.e.; alarm circuits, high capacity data circuits, emergency services circuits, etc.) for many years and Covad would like the option of ordering this for certain UNE Loops. These cross connect points, as well as the protector frame “heat coils” are either red, or have red devices attached that alert the technician to take special steps prior to initiating invasive actions for testing or maintenance. These cross connect points are “protected” at all possible points both in the central office, as well at field connection points.’

Qwest concurs with Covad’s request, currently performs this function for many circuits and will further expand that process as identified below.

In the evaluation of this request Qwest considered a number of factors: 1) Intent of the CR, 2) Current Wholesale process, 3) parity of that process with Retail process for analogous circuits, 4) Potential Impacts of Additions Beyond that Agreed to Here-in.

Each of these steps is addressed in this response. 1) Intent of the CR – based on the conversation in both the clarification meeting and in the subsequent CMP meeting it is Qwest’s interpretation that the CLECs want to ensure data integrity and avoid unnecessary down time. It is anticipated that by identifying certain ‘services’ by ‘color-coding’ the jumpers and other equipment could draw the attention of technicians causing them to exercise additional caution in their presence. Based on that assumption, it may help to re-iterate Qwest’s current practice of ‘marking’ circuits for Special Service Protection.

2) Current Wholesale Process – as mentioned at CMP and in other CRs currently under review, Qwest does mark some circuits to draw a technician’s attention to the need to operate carefully when in their presence. Those circuits currently include a) All Telecommunication Service Priority (TSP) Circuits – as mentioned before, that application is made to the Government, Qwest manages those circuits as identified by the applicable contacts at the City, State and Federal level, b) All Designed Data Services – including High Capacity Services (DS1 and above), all ISDN Circuits, and all Designed Data Capable Circuits. Each of those circuits are currently ‘marked’ according to a standard practice. The Central Office equipment is marked with Red Heat Coils and Jumpers and field terminations and cross connects are ‘marked’ with red cross jumpers, tags and/or termination caps. At present, Qwest is already marking the dispatched UBLs ordered as ISDN Capable, xDSL-I Capable, ADSL Compatible or DS1/DS3 at parity with Retail.

3) Parity of that Process with Retail Process for analogous circuits – This is at parity with what Qwest currently provides in its Retail environment. As DSL is provisioned via the Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) flow for Retail, none of the Retail DSL capable circuits are specially marked. In the past, Qwest did not assume that all LX-N circuits were data, however, as the CLEC Unbundled Requests (for Unbundled Network Elements) flows via the Designed Service Flow, Qwest is prepared to offer to mark (in the manner defined above) all dispatched Data Capable UBL circuits including the 2/4 wire Non-Loaded Loop (where the NC Code = LX-N). Effective with this notice, Qwest will mark these circuits (by class only – Data Capable) similar to the marking already provided for ISDN/xDSL-I and DS1/DS3. This (List Document Name) attachment 2 offer is for DSL only and not for DSL/Analog or split services (i.e. Line Sharing, Line Splitting, Loop Splitting or the Shared Distribution Loop). Additionally, this offer is for circuits on a going forward basis and not for the embedded base of UBL circuits.

4) Potential Impacts of Additions Beyond that Agreed to Here-in - an effort to mark any other circuits (i.e., Sharing, Line Splitting, Loop Splitting, Shared Distribution Loop or the Analog UBL), not in parity with those done in current practice, will be denied for two reasons, Economic In-feasibility and No Measurable Benefit to both Qwest and the CLEC. The first reason would be due to the fact that Qwest would need to equip and re-train all technicians who currently work on POTS circuits to mark specified voice grade CLEC circuits. With 2,000 POTS Technicians currently doing this work that cost is expected to be in excess of $200K. Additional changes to the systems would be required to allow a method for CLECs to identify which circuits they would like to ‘mark’. Although the information could be added in Remarks up-front, for no or little additional cost, down-stream systems would need to carry this information to the field and would require mechanization. The second reason, No Measurable Benefit to both Qwest and the CLEC, would be based on the outcome that all CLEC circuits would be marked as un-interruptible and would disrupt the efficient use of the current network design and quickly dissipate use of any plant that would allow the provision of services requiring special plant configurations (i.e., having a Voice Grade circuit on a non-loaded loop with no option to move that non-loaded configuration for Data use). This provides no benefit to the network and would further cost Qwest the economic imbalance of providing a service to the CLECs that it isn’t equipped to provide for its own end-users.

In summary, Qwest will mark all Data Capable CLEC circuits per their local practice to draw technicians’ attention to the fact that the circuit carries un-interruptible traffic.

Sincerely, Cindy Buckmaster Manager Product Management

Open Product/Process CR PC072604-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: As soon as possible

Status History

Project Meetings

8/18/04 CMP Meeting John Berard presented the CR saying that Covad is looking for a one day interval on line share orders. He had seen some notices with one day intervals from Qwest and is looking for the same thing in Wholesale. The CR will move to Presented status.

-- Clarification Meeting

1:00 p.m. (MDT) / Thursday August 5, 2004

1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC072604-1 Line Sharing Provisioning Interval Attendees

John Berard, Covad Doug Andreen, Qwest Heidi Moreland, Qwest Crystal Soderlund, Qwest Bob Mohr, Qwest

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug Andreen, Qwest read and reviewed the CR. The CR is titled Line Sharing Provisioning Interval and the description reads Covad proposes that a one day interval be provided for all Line Sharing Family of products that do not require a field dispatch. Qwest has shown that this is possible as outlined in the attached two accessible letters. Doug ask John Berard, Covad if he had anything to add to the description and he said not really that it was pretty self explanatory Heidi Moreland, Qwest asked if the request was for Line Sharing only or did it include Line Splitting or all the shared loop products. John answered that Line Sharing as the primary product with Line splitting being nice to have. John also added that the CR just includes those orders that involve CO work only. There were no further questions and the meeting was concluded. 3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Line Sharing and Line Splitting 4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation To be done as soon as possible. 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests TBD 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) John Berard, Covad will present the CR at the August CMP meeting. Qwest will respond at the September meeting.

CenturyLink Response

October 12, 2004

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the October 20, 2004 CMP Meeting

TO: John Berard Director Operations Support COVAD Communications

SUBJECT: CLEC CR - PC072604-1 Line Sharing Provisioning Interval

Covad proposes that a one day interval be provided for all Line Sharing Family of products that do not require a field dispatch and states “Qwest has shown that this is possible as outlined in the attached two accessible letters”. (See Supplemental Information)

This request is respectfully denied due to No Measurable Benefit to both Qwest and the CLEC.

The intervals offered in the documentation attached to the CR were short in duration and limited in scope – thus promotional. Promotional offerings by Qwest are not mechanized and therefore limited in order to provide a service for customers that would otherwise either not be accommodated or that would take time and costly system changes to effect. These promotional offerings were noticed to the CLEC community so that they too could take advantage of this interval during this time frame in this market. They are neither, by virtue of their short term nature, permanent nor extendable outside of the designated market.

Permanent interval changes, as mentioned above, affect both the systems and the work force. CLEC intervals are set to ensure parity and/or to provide a competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete. Qwest’s intervals were evaluated during Third Party testing, in some cases specific product intervals were ruled upon by state commissions and Qwest’s actual commercial performance (which is driven by existing intervals) was repeatedly found acceptable by the FCC in its evaluation of Qwest’s 271 applications. Additional changes are accommodated as process changes are made that can reduce the interval or where retail intervals are likewise reduced (where there is a comparable retail equivalent product).

COVAD has also entered a Commercial Agreement with Qwest that went into effect on October 2, 2004. That document states that the Line Sharing interval shall be Three (3) Business Days. While a CMP change in interval could be negotiated between the parties prior to October 2, such a change would be in effect at most 10 days in duration when that CMP negotiation would be superceded by the stated interval in your Commercial Agreement.

Because of their intensive nature, interval changes are costly and difficult to price. As Qwest is not required to undertake the substantial, costly modifications and upgrades to its systems and processes to allow a CLEC to order UNEs and other services at an interval different than the standard interval for the product and there is negative measurable benefit to Qwest and no demonstrable gain over the options already offered to the CLEC, this request is respectfully denied.

Sincerely,

Qwest

- September 8, 2004

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 2004 CMP Meeting

John Berard Director Operations Support Covad

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response PC072604-1 Line Sharing Provisioning Interval

This letter is in response to Covad’s Change Request (CR) PC072604-1. This CR requests that Qwest provide a one day interval for all Line Sharing Family of products that do not require a field dispatch.

Qwest is currently evaluating this request and proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while we continue to investigate. Qwest will provide an updated response at the October 2004 CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Cindy Buckmaster Product Manager - Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC031804-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

As soon as possible.

Status History

Project Meetings

March 22,2004

Dear John Berard,

Thank you for participating in the Qwest Change Management Process (CMP).

We have received your Change Request (CR) submission titled, "Special Service Protection (SSP) for UNE Loops."

Per your discussion with Kit Thomte on March 22, 2004 we would ask that you route this request through you service manager. As you and Kit discussed, your service manager with product management can best make the determination if meeting this request would require a new product introduction.

Should you and your service manager conclude that the request does not require a new product we would be glad to introduce it through the CMP process at that time.

Sincerely,

Doug Andreen Change Request Project Manager Qwest 303-382-5777

Open Product/Process CR PC031804-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: As soon as possible

Status History

Project Meetings

March 22,2004

Dear John Berard,

Thank you for participating in the Qwest Change Management Process (CMP).

We have received your Change Request (CR) submission titled, "Special Service Protection (SSP) for UNE Loops." Per your discussion with Kit Thomte on March 22, 2004 we would ask that you route this request through you service manager. As you and Kit discussed, your service manager with product management can best make the determination if meeting this request would require a new product introduction.

Should you and your service manager conclude that the request does not require a new product we would be glad to introduce it through the CMP process at that time.

Sincerely,

Doug Andreen Change Request Project Manager Qwest 303-382-5777

Open Product/Process CR PC040204-1 Detail

Description Of Change

This process is easier for Covad to process payment to Qwest. In turn Qwest will receive a quicker turn around on payments.

Here is an example of the initial bill that we receive via e-mail:

Status History

Project Meetings

June 16, 2004 CMP Meeting minutes: Mark Nickell – Qwest recapped the CR. Mark advised that Qwest is continuing our investigation to determine the level of effort for converting BART billing to IABS. Kathy Stitcher – Eschelon asked about the two questions that came up on the previous ad hoc call. Mark answered the questions advising that IABS can handle billing for non recurring charges and electronic billing is provided via IABS if the customer is willing to subscribe to the electronic billing format. John Berard – Covad asked how long does Qwest anticipate it will take to finish the investigation. Mark Nickell - Qwest advised he anticipates a few more weeks. This CR will remain in Evaluation Status.

PC040204-1 Collocation Final Invoice sent electronically via email rather than paper Ad Hoc Meeting Thursday June 3, 2004 1:00 – 2:00

In attendance: Kathy Stichter Eschelon Debra Knopp Qwest Communications Mark Nickell Qwest Communications Chad Warner MCI John Berard Covad Kim Isaacs Eschelon Sandy Thomas Qwest Communications Cindy Macy Qwest Communications

Cindy Macy – Qwest reviewed the purpose of the call. Cindy Macy advised that Qwest held the Clarification Call in April and have been reviewing options to address the CR. Qwest would like to share this information with the CLECs and gather additional data. Cindy asked John Berard-Covad to summarize what Covad is requesting with this CR.

John Berard – Covad explained that they currently receive the initial bill via email. The final bill comes via paper though. A paper bill takes longer to process. Covad would like to get the final bill via email also. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked John to clarify if this is the bill for recurring charges also, or just the non recurring charges from the Collocation quote. John advised it is just the non recurring charges. The monthly recurring charges are billed from IABS.

Mark Nickell – Qwest explained the items that the team reviewed to try and address Covad’s request. Mark advised there would be impacts to the BART billing systems. The team also looked at manual processes. The manual efforts will not replace the paper bill. The team came up with an ‘email notification’ that notifies the CLEC that the request to product a bill has been sent to BART. There would not be charges on the email notice and the CLECs need to still submit the bar code from the BART bill with their payment. The draft example – email template was reviewed with the team.

Debra Knopp – Qwest clarified that the 1st email is the quote. The 1st paper bill has a scan code (from BART). And the final bill has a scan code (from BART). Debra said that Covad will use the quote to pay their bill but that isn’t the correct process. When this happens it usually hold up posting of the payment (approximately 10 days) as the bar code is not included with the payment and BART has to investigate and manually process the payment. Kathy Stichter verified that BART sends out the initial and final bill.

John Berard – Covad advised that the email wouldn’t meet their needs as we could not remit payment with it. John advised he didn’t want Qwest to waste their time if it doesn’t really meet our needs.

Kathy Stichter asked what was the rational to place the billing for non recurring in BART and the recurring in IABS? Mark Nickell advised that he is not sure as that was determined quite some time ago, but probably because BART is a ‘one time’ billing mechanism used for a variety of miscellaneous billing activities.

The CLECs asked if Qwest would look into what it would take to move the non recurring billing from BART to IABS.

Mark Nickell – Qwest advised he would check on the following three items:

1. Does IABS provide electronic billing? 2. Does IABS provide non recurring billing? 3. Can IABS provide the bill for nonrecurring charges for Collocation initial and final bills, instead of BART?

Cindy Macy advised next steps are to gather this information and provide status at the June CMP meeting. Another ad hoc call may be held.

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Mark Nickell – Qwest advised that we have evaluated several different options and would like to have an ad hoc meeting with Covad to ensure our potential solution will meet Covad’s needs. John Berard – Covad advised all we are looking for is an email to be sent. Kathy Stichter – Eschelon advised this is important to Eschelon also and we would like to participate in the ad hoc meeting. Kathy asked why this meeting isn’t open to all the CLECs. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised it can be open to all the CLECs, the question was just directed to Covad as this is a Covad CR. Cindy advised she will post a meeting to the CLEC calendar. This CR will move to Evaluation Status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Mike Zulevic – Covad presented this CR. Mike advised that Covad is trying to address how the bills are sent to us. Emails are used on the initial quote and paper is sent on the final bill. Paper delays the process. Covad would pay the bill faster if they got the bill via email. Kathy Sticheter – Eschelon advised that they would like to see this as well. Steve Nelson – Qwest advised that we held a Clarification call and we understand the request. Steve advised that this CR will transition to Mark Nickell. Mark introduced himself to the team. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Clarification Meeting

April 16, 2004

1-877-552-8688 7146042#

PC040204-1 Collocation Final Invoice sent electronically via email rather than paper Attendees Name/Company:

Steve Nelson – Qwest Peggy Englert – Qwest Marie Chang – Covad John Berard – Covad Kim Isaacs - Eschelon Mark Nickel – Qwest Fred Howard – Qwest Lillian Robertson - Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change John Berard – Covad reviewed the change request. John explained that Covad has to follow 2 processes to pay the bill, in 2 different ways. John advised that paper is cumbersome and not efficient. The turn around time for payment would be faster if the bill was received via email. Marie Chang – Covad advised if we get a paper copy than we have to scan or fax and store the bill. We could process the bill electronically if we received it via email. Storing the paper copy takes a lot of time and space. Steve Nelson – Qwest explained that we request the invoice from Omaha once we know when the RFS is scheduled (30 days prior to RFS date), the invoice is then created and it goes to the customer. In some states the final invoice is different than the quote due to taxes. Marie Chang - Covad advised they can’t pay until they get the final invoice, but it can be received via email. Peggy Englert – Qwest advised revisions to the quote can happen. Steve asked if Kim Isaacs-Eschelon had any additional questions. Kim advised no, she is okay. 3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Collocation invoices

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Team agreed Steve Nelson would take the lead.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Covad would like to receive the final invoice via email, instead of paper.

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests none

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Covad will present the CR at the April CMP Meeting Qwest will provide our Response at the May CMP Meeting

CenturyLink Response

July 13, 2004

Covad Communications John Berard, Director-Operations Support

SUBJECT: Covad’s Change Request Response – CR #PC040204-1 Collocation final invoice sent electronically via email rather than paper

This letter is in response to Covad Communications Change Request (CR) PC040204-1. Currently Qwest emails the initial quote / bill for Collocation augments or new installations to CLECs via e-mail. This initial payment is made using this quote / bill. However, Qwest sends its collocation final invoice using a paper format. Covad’s request for an e-mail invoice method is based on the premise that it is easier for Covad to process payments to Qwest. Covad further believes that the e-mail final invoice method would shorten the invoice to payment interval. This CR requests that Qwest uses the same process for the final invoice that is used on the initial bill.

Qwest has completed the investigation and identified system development and implementation costs for the BART billing system are economically infeasible. The IT estimate is $108,000. In addition, the identified system development and implementation costs for moving the Collocation non recurring billing from BARTS to IABS, which can bill electronically, are economically infeasible. The IT estimate is $275,000.

As an alternative, Qwest has also looked at performing this process manually. Creating manual email invoices for all final bills is very time intensive. In addition, a manually generated email would not represent a readily auditable document. Qwest would not have the level of tracking that is needed to effectively support billing disputes.

The other concerns for this process included: • Increase in errors and delays because of manual processing (Qwest). Past experience has shown that the more manual the process, the higher the error rate and subsequent issues. • Increase in the interval because of manual processing (CLEC and Qwest). The bar code, issued by BART, allows semi mechanized processing of payments. Bypassing this process will actually increase Qwest’s processing interval.

As a result of this investigation, Qwest denies this change request due to it being economically not feasible based on system impacts.

Sincerely,

Mark Nickell Collocation Product Manager Qwest

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting

May 12, 2004

Covad John Berard Director – Operations/Change Management

SUBJECT: CR # PC040204-1 Collocation Final Invoice

This letter is in response to Covad’s Change Request (CR) PC040204-1 Collocation Final Invoice. Currently Qwest emails the initial quote / bill for Collocation augments or new installations to CLECs via e-mail. This initial payment is made using this quote / bill. However, when it comes to the final payment Qwest will only send a paper copy. The email method is easier for Covad to process payment to Qwest. In turn Qwest will receive a quicker turn around on payments. This CR requests that Qwest uses the same process for the final invoice that is used on the initial bill.

Qwest would like to leave this CR in evaluation status as it needs to continue looking at the process and costs associated with sending an email final invoice. Qwest will provide an updated response at the June CMP meeting. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status.

Sincerely, Mark Nickell Collocation Product Manager Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC040204-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Here are links to their systems:

https://clec.sbc.com/clec_colldb/colldb/collapp/login/autologin.cfm?action=ColloDBMainmenuEx&IsClec=Yes

https://collocation.bellsouth.com/NASApp/colo/ColoDispatchServlet?htbColoPage=colo.ui.COLOLogOff&source=lkLogoff&

Please note that Covad is willing to provide a password to Qwest to review these systems if they are un able to obtain from SBC and BellSouth.

Expected Deliverable:

Provide as soon as possible.

Status History

Project Meetings

8/16/04 CMP Meeting Mintues Steve Nelson – Qwest provided status that Qwest is still working with Bell South and we are doing our own evaluation internally on cost. This CR will remain in Evaluation Status.

July 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status on this CR. Qwest is in the process of working with Bell South to review their Collocation system. This CR will remain in Evaluation status.

June 16, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Steve Nelson – Qwest advised that we are in communication with Bell South about their Collocation system. SBC didn’t response so Qwest is not pursuing this any longer. Steve advised that Qwest had some personnel changes in IT. We are still evaluation the CR and should have additional information in the July meeting. The CR will remain in Evaluation Status.

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Steve Nelson – Qwest advised that we reviewed the 18 different application forms and obtained a cost to mechanizing the system using internal resources. The cost for this is prohibitive. Steve has made contact with SBC, and has not received a response. Steve has also made contact with Bell South, and they are interested in selling the application to Qwest. Bell South provided a non disclosure document to Qwest on Monday. Qwest is working to get the non disclosure document signed. Qwest has prepared questions to ask Bell South and will continue to pursue this. Susie Bliss- Qwest advised that we have looked at this in the past and it has been very expensive. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if this is something that will also benefit Qwest. Steve Nelson advised he would like to see the system mechanized, but it will probably be too expensive. This CR will move to Evaluation Status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Mike Zulevic – Covad presented this CR and advised that Covad is looking at ways to mechanize and streamline their Collocation process. Covad would like to be able to pull up a screen, populate the data and send it to Qwest, instead of using a spreadsheet and emailing applications to Qwest. Steve Nelson – Qwest advised that he will work on this CR and will have a response to this CR next month. Steve advised that Qwest is aware of the existing systems from SBC and Bell South. Steve advised that Qwest did try to implement a mechanized system a few years ago and failed. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Clarification Meeting

April 16, 2004

1-877-552-8688 7146042#

PC040204-2 Online System for Collocation Application Attendees Name/Company:

Steve Nelson – Qwest Peggy Englert – Qwest Marie Chang – Covad John Berard – Covad Kim Isaacs - Eschelon Mark Nickel – Qwest Fred Howard – Qwest Lillian Robertson - Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change John Berard – Covad reviewed the change request. John gave an example of Bell South’s system that is used for Collocation. Their system is easier to use. Marie Chang Covad advised that their system has features such as error checking, and there is less email going back and forth to clarify the application. Covad also receives a confirmation on line from Bell South. Marie explained that with Qwest’s system there is a lot of information to store. The information is in multiple spreadsheets so it is hard to keep track of revisions. Steve Nelson – Qwest advised that he understands Covad’s concern and that Qwest would like an automated system also. It would help reduce the order errors that occur. Steve advised that Qwest will take a look at this request. Steve advised Covad that Qwest did try to implement a system in the past and spent a large amount of money but failed to get the system implemented. 3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Collocation invoices

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Team agreed Steve Nelson would take the lead.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Covad would like a mechanized Collocation system.

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests none

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Covad will present the CR at the April CMP Meeting Qwest will provide our Response at the May CMP Meeting

CenturyLink Response

September 8, 2004

Covad Communications John Berard, Director-Operations Support

SUBJECT: Covad’s Change Request Response – CR #PC040204-2 Online System for Collocation Application.

This letter is in response to Covad Communications Change Request (CR) PC040204-2. This CR requests that Qwest consider implementing an online system for collocation applications. Currently Qwest uses a spreadsheet format for its collocation applications. Covad finds this method to be cumbersome and suggests that both SBC and BellSouth have online systems to which Covad offers to provide a password to Qwest.

Qwest has completed the investigation and found system costs to be economically infeasible. The IT estimate for creating an online ordering system similar to that of SBC and Bell South systems is between $540,000 and $1,080,000 for Qwest system development work that includes gathering requirements, designing the system changes, developing and testing the system changes and deploying them to the users. Qwest was unable enter into negotiations to purchase Bell South’s or SBC’s systems or to gather specific data regarding those systems. In fact, SBC refused to discuss their system with Qwest and negotiations with Bell South were terminated after four months of stalemate regarding terms under which their system could be discussed. Had Qwest been able to purchase an existing system from Bell South or SBC, Qwest would still incur additional costs to adapt the system to Qwest’s ordering processes, products and procedures, mitigating any possible economic savings.

Qwest’s Collocation application forms can be submitted via email to rfsmet@qwest.com and the Excel format allows for cost effective and timely maintenance of the forms as products are enhanced and changed. Qwest manually validates the Collocation application and interacts personally with the CLECs. The order validation process in the Collocation Project Management Center (CPMC) consists of acceptance or communication of areas in need of clarification or change. CPMC management employees are available for review of applications and conduct calls with customers as needed or requested. The manual validation process normally takes less than 24 hours.

As a result of this investigation, Qwest denies this change request due to it being economically not feasible based on the system impacts.

Sincerely,

Stephen C. Nelson Collocation Product Manager Qwest

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting

May 12, 2004

Covad John Berard Director – Operations/Change Management

SUBJECT: CR # PC040204-2 Online System for Collocation

This letter is in response to Covad’s Change Request (CR) PC040204-2 Online System for Collocation. This CR requests that Qwest develop an online system for collocation applications. Currently Qwest uses a spreadsheet format for its collocation applications. Covad finds this method to be cumbersome and is requesting that Qwest consider implementing an on- line system for submitting collocation applications.

Qwest would like to leave this CR in evaluation status as it needs to continue to look at the costs for purchasing and implementing an existing system from other ILECs. Qwest will provide an updated response at the June CMP meeting. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status.

Sincerely, Stephen C. Nelson Collocation Product Manager Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC011604-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: As Soon as Possible

Status History

Project Meetings

-- 6/16/04 CMP June Meeting Denny Graham, Qwest summarized the denial response that stated all the examples submitted by Covad were available on the Qwest website and that, if needed, training on navigating the Qwest web site was available. Based on this and the cost of developing and maintaining a separate web page the CR was being denied because the requested change is economically not feasible and also does not result in a reasonably demonstrable business benefit (to Qwest or the requesting CLEC) or customer service improvement. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon asked if it would be less work to have one page and link to the various processes. Jamal Boudhaouia, Qwest answered that creating and maintaining a separate repository based on feedback from developers is economically not feasible. Bonnie then asked if it would be possible to provide a job aide with bookmarks to the various sites. Jamal said his understanding is that if Covad could find these sites that they obviously know how to access them. Bonnie asked if Qwest could provide the information to all the CLECs or is this Covad’s responsibility. John Berard, Covad added that a word document with hyperlinks would suffice. Susie Bliss, Qwest asked if John had this. John answered no, but that he knows the concern is maintenance and he would be ok with a one time word document. Bonnie asked if Jamal was providing such a document for Qwest. Jamal said they are doing the research for Qwest. Liz asked if Qwest could point out where these sites are. Susie asked if we could put a list of the sites that were researched as part of the CR with hyperlinks in the denial. John added there were only 6 or 7 sites. Jamal said yes and would take as an action item since the denial had already been sent. Bonnie asked for confirmation that Qwest would provide the information on a one time basis. The CR status will be changed to Denied.

- 5/19/04 CMP May Meeting Minutes Denny Graham, Qwest said that since the last meeting an additional clarification call was held and that Covad had provided examples to Qwest that are now under evaluation. Denny said a response will be available at the June meeting. The CR will stay in Evaluation.

- Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PC011604-1 All Joint Maintenance and Trouble Isolation Documentation be placed in the same location on the Qwest Web Site CMP Product & Process 5/4/2004 1-877-521-8688, Conference ID 1456160 3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE

To move ahead with the evaluation of this CR.

List of Attendees: Carla Pardee, AT&T Liz Balvin, MCI Mike Zulevic, Covad John Berard, Covad Jennifer Arnold, U S Link Emily Baird, POPP Telecom Steve Collier, Eschelon Denny Graham, Qwest Communications Jarby Blackmun, Qwest Communications Jim Recker, Qwest Communications Erin Martin, Qwest Communications Mike Johnson, Qwest Communications Kit Thomte, Qwest Communications Doug Andreen, Qwest Communications

MEETING MINUTES

The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees.

John Berard, Covad reviewed the purpose of the CR. He said that when Covad technicians are working in the COs they need to look at what procedures to follow through one central location.

Mike Zulevic, Covad said that on points of termination and other situations this would be for both CLECs and Qwest and should help avoid misunderstandings between the two.

Doug Andreen, Qwest asked if this should be limited to CO processes. Mike answered no that it should include appropriate maintenance processes also.

Doug asked if all the processes were now located on the Qwest website. Mike said for the most part yes although some might be classified as proprietary.

Jim Recker, Qwest said that he wants to make sure that we don’t go down the wrong path by trying to do everything at once. So if we can pick one item and move forward to model and see if this can be done. With the proprietary information and information not on the web site we have to work through how to proceed.

Mike stated that the vast majority of data resides on soft copy and he could send sever examples.

Kit Thomte, Qwest asked Mike if he could send two or three examples to look at. Mike agreed and will send them to Doug.

Mike said the wiring schemes would be specific to Covad but all other information should be standard for all CLECs.

Denny Graham, Qwest asked if the wiring schemes were CO specific. Mike said no, that what he is proposing is generic information on how Qwest does things.

Kit asked what happens if Qwest and the CLECs miscommunicate. Mike offered an example where a Qwest technical wired a DS 1 circuit straight through when Covad expected something else. This resulted in three technicians being involved at different times and eventually the circuit was out of service. If there was a place to go to verify the wiring the problem could have been avoided.

Liz Balvin, MCI asked if Qwest was placing some M&Ps on the site. Jim said that Qwest could work with some process people to determine what should go on the site.

Liz brought up that Qwest technicians may also have suggestions. Jim agreed to hold a meeting with some of the Qwest technician’ supervisors s to get their input.

Mike pointed out that these documents already exist and it’s a matter of getting them together. He also said that Jamal Boudhaovia would be familiar with the CO documents.

Jim asked Mike how he got copies of the documents now. Mike said that through a variety of ways email etc. Mike said for instance the PCAT for Sync Testing is out there but not the easiest to locate for field technicians.

It was agreed that Qwest will review the documents that Covad will send and schedule another ad-hoc call after the review and meeting with Qwest technician’s supervisors.

4/21/04 April CMP Meeting Denny Graham, Qwest asked the request be moved to Evaluation and stated that Qwest is still awaiting examples from John Berard on how Covad technicians access this information. Mike Zulevic, Covad said that much of this documentation resides on the technicians own hard drives or on various places on the web site. Mike said he would talk to John about the examples but the idea is to bring the documentation into one web site for use by the CLECs and Qwest. Mike stated that some of the documentation resides on Qwest proprietary databases. The CLECs also need access to this information as they are common or mutually agreed to processes. Mike said this would really be a repository for common information. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon offered as an example the process around dispatch after normal access hours. If the documentation were in a common area there would be no dispute about what the process should be. Denny stated that what Qwest needs is where the CLEC technicians go to get the information. Kit Thomte, Qwest said that Qwest will organize an ad-hoc meeting as a way to start dialogue. Denny asked if any of the documentation in the CR was specific to Covad. Mike said the wiring diagrams were but all other categories were not. Liz Balvin, MCI said that Qwest would also benefit from gathering all the documentation in one place. The CR will move to Evaluation.

- 03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Denny Graham, Qwest stated that Qwest is evaluating the request in cooperation with Covad. Doug Andreen, Qwest further stated that Qwest is awaiting examples of how a typical search is done today from Covad. John Berard, Covad said he would forward the examples. It was agreed no screen shots are needed. This CR will remain in Presented status.

-- 2/18/04 CMP Meeting This was a walk-on CR by Covad in January. Doug Andreen, Qwest in John Berard’s absence stated that a Clarification call was held and the intent of the CR is to provide a method of easy access to documentation that the Qwest and CLECs technicians commonly use in trouble isolation and maintenance work. The CR calls for the documentation to be located or accessible from a common point on the web. Jim Recker, Qwest added that John would provide us with examples of processes Covad now uses to find the documentation. This CR will be moved to Presented status.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting 2:30 p.m. (MDT) / Wednesday February 11, 2004 1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC011604-1 All Joint Maintenance and Trouble Isolation Documentation be placed in the same location on the Qwest Web Site

Attendees John Berard, Covad Liz Balvin, MCI Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Jim Recker, Qwest Mike Johnson, Qwest Alice Matthews, Qwest Doug Andreen, Qwest Jarby Blackmun, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug read and reviewed the CR. Covad requests that joint maintenance and trouble isolation be placed in the same location on the Qwest web site. This would include wiring diagrams for connecting DS1/3 circuits on their ICDF, number conversion chart for splitters located in the common area, splitter card RMA process, process for strapping out defective data lines that impair voice, synch testing for new services, synch testing for trouble isolation, etc. Covad believes that this will assist both the Qwest and Covad operations technicians in insuring that the proper processes are being followed. John Berard, Covad added that the request came from their technicans. He also wanted to add two items to the list of documentation ie. The Qwest Test Point Documents and the MOP form. Mike Johnson, Qwest asked if all documents have been identified. John answered with the two additions and the documents on the CR that all have been. Doug Andreen, wanted to clarify that no change in any document is needed but they just need to somehow be located together on the web. John indicated that was correct. John further stated that using a table to link to the documents current locations would be acceptable. Jim Recker, Qwest brought up that we would need to find out how the documents are being arranged today and their current locations. Mike asked if there was a time frame for this CR. John answered no but as soon as reasonably possible. Jim asked how Covad technicians located the documents today. John said that a lot of the time the technician would call his office. He will then try to get in the correct section and then do a search. Jim asked if he could provide an example. John said he would email an example to Doug for distribution to the group. Jim questioned if what John was interested was sort of a front door. John replied that would work. Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Documentation placement on web.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Implementation to be as soon as possible

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) John will present the CR for Covad at the February CMP meeting. The response will be due at the March meeting.

1/21/04 January CMP Meeting Mike Zulevic, Covad walked-on this CR which calls for the placement of all documentation used by technicians in a common location on the Web. He said most of the documentation is available but is located in several different locations. He is calling for a grouping perhaps by process or a functional grouping for the technician. Examples of the type of documentation would be demarc information, DS1-3 ICDFs and how they are wired out, blank form for MOP etc.

CenturyLink Response

June 8, 2004

REVISED RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the June 16, 2004 CMP Meeting

John Berard Director - Operations Support Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest Change Request Response CR PC011604-1 All Joint Maintenance and Trouble Isolation Documentation be placed in the same location on the Qwest Web Site

This letter is in response to Covad Communications Change Request (CR) PC011604-1. This CR requests that Qwest place all joint maintenance and trouble isolation documentation in the same location on the Qwest web site.

The documentation referenced in this CR and provided to Qwest as examples already exist on the Qwest Wholesale Website. Additionally, Qwest has existing training material available on the Qwest Wholesale Website for the user. The training is located at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/training/iltdescwhtour.html and outlines how to navigate within the Wholesale website.

To place joint documentation on a single website would require the addition of a new location within the existing Wholesale website. The requested information would then need to be identified on the existing location(s) and linked to the new site. Developing this new site would merely duplicate the information that is already available. The estimated cost of providing this request is $125,000 per year.

Therefore, Qwest respectfully denies the request because the requested change is economically not feasible and also does not result in a reasonably demonstrable business benefit (to Qwest or the requesting CLEC) or customer service improvement. As an alternative it is recommended that both Qwest and the CLEC instruct the individual technicians to maintain bookmarks that would enable them to rapidly locate pertinent documentation.

Sincerely, Denny Graham

-- March 9, 2004

For Review by the CLEC community and discussion at the March 18, 2004 CMP Meeting

John Berard Covad

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC011604-1 "All Joint Maintenance and Trouble Isolation Documentation be placed in the same location on the Qwest Web Site"

This CR as submitted by Covad requests that joint maintenance and trouble isolation be placed in the same location on the Qwest web site. This would include wiring diagrams for connecting DS1/3 circuits on their ICDF, number conversion chart for splitters located in the common area, splitter card RMA process, process for strapping out defective data lines that impair voice, synch testing for new services, synch testing for trouble isolation, etc. Covad believes that this will assist both the Qwest and Covad operations technicians in insuring that the proper processes are being followed.

Qwest is evaluating this request in cooperation with Covad. Qwest is awaiting a response from John Berard in answer to a request from Qwest for examples of Covad’s current process to access this information. With this input Qwest can compare the Qwest Processes and the Covad processes to determine the feasibility of providing this request.

At this time the CR is still in the clarification stage. Upon receipt of the Covad process, Qwest will move the CR into the Evaluation status.

Sincerely,

Denny Graham Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Catherine R. Garcia, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest Cheryl Rock, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC021904-1 Detail

Description Of Change

No expected deliverable listed

Updated the title as a result of the Clarification call

Status History

Project Meetings

June CMP Meeting Minutes: Jill Martain – Qwest advised that this process is effective June 16 and we would like to move this CR to CLEC Test on June 16th. There was not any objection to change the status to CLEC Test.

May CMP Meeting Minutes: Jill Martain – Qwest advised that the PCAT documentation went out for review on May 9. The comment cycle will close on May 24 and become effective June 23, 2005. This CR will remain in Development Status.

April CMP Meeting Minutes: Jill Martain - Qwest advised that we are working internally to get the three expedite reasons implemented. Jill stated that after meeting internally, we determined that a slight modification was needed. Qwest wants the new Expedite reasons directed to our Business Services. Jill stated that in our ad hoc calls with the CLECs, we did talk about the critical impact to Business customers. Jill recapped the criteria for use of the new Expedite reasons: National Security Business Services unable to dial 911 due to previous order activity Business Service where hunting, call forwarding or voice nail features are not working correctly due to previous order activity where the customer business is being critically affected. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if there is a definition of business services.

Jill Martain - Qwest advised it would be for more complex business and 1FB type service and this excludes residential and 1FR.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked for this to be documented.

Jill Martain – Qwest confirmed it would be changed to reflect Business Classes of Service in the actual updates. Liz Balvin - Covad asked if the examples that Qwest looked at were based on Qwest customers.

Jill Martain – Qwest advised the examples were provided by both CLECs and Qwest and discussed in ad hoc meetings.

Liz Balvin – Covad agreed that we should provide definition of Business Services and also asked that the notice reflect that residential would not be included. Liz also confirmed that this does not affect the Expedite process that requires an amendment.

Jill Martain – Qwest confirmed that it does not impact that process. Jill advised the documentation will be updated and sent out for review. Bonnie said thank you for the good results.

This CR will remain in Development Status.

March CMP Meeting Minutes: Jill Martain - Qwest advised that we are still working internally on this request and are hopeful that within the next month the PCAT changes will be available to review with the three additional Expedite reasons. This CR will remain in Development Status. [Comment received from Eschelon: Jill Martain - Qwest advised that we are still working on additional scenarios internally and waiting for internal approval on this request and are hopeful that within the next month the PCAT changes will be available to review with the three additional Expedite reasons.]

February CMP Meeting Minutes: Jill Martain - Qwest advised we are still waiting for final internal approval. Qwest is hoping to have final status next month. This CR will remain in Development Status.

January CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Harlan/Qwest advised that an ad hoc meeting was held on January 6th. Qwest proposed adding the following as valid Expedite reasons: if access to 911 is not available, if the order is for National Security, and for certain Features in specific situations. The CLECs were receptive to these changes. Qwest has started the process to get final internal review and approval. Additional status will be provided next month. This CR will remain in Development Status.

CLEC Ad Hoc Meeting PC021904-1 Expedite Process January 6, 2005

In attendance: Kari Burke – Comcast Jeff Yeager – Accenture Sharon Van Meter – ATT Chris Terrell – ATT Linda Minesola – Comcast Amanda Silva – VCI Jill Martain – Qwest Wayne Hart – Idaho PUC Kim Isaacs- Eschelon Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Pete Staze – Eschelon Jennifer Arnold – TDS Metro Steve Kast – MCI Thomas Soto - SBC

Cindy Harlan – Qwest took attendance and reviewed the agenda. The purpose of this call is to discuss options for additional expedite reasons. Cindy explained that Qwest has been reviewing expedites and would like to discuss potentially having Features be considered as a valid expedite reason under certain circumstances. Qwest would like to discuss what the criteria would be and identify Features that cause major impact to the CLECs. We also can potentially add a valid expedite reason if you are unable to dial 911 service and to expedite for National Security reasons. Cindy asked the CLECs to identify what Features create the most impact to the CLECs so we can build some criteria. Cindy advised that Qwest is unable to open other reasons for expedites as we do not have the resources to support that effort.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon stated that she didn’t think additional resources would be needed to support this. Bonnie said Eschelon’s Expedite manager is on the call and she would like him to share with us the large impacting items. Pete advised that when customers are unable to receive calls this impacts them as if they are out of service. For business customers if they can’t receive calls it impacts their revenue.

Jill Martain – Qwest asked if normally there would be an original order to install the service and another one to correct it. Bonnie advised yes, or something changed on one of their features, such as voice mail service, either with their vendor or the equipment, and that causes a need for an expedite. The customer may not understand what they have ordered. Jill asked if it was a fair request that Qwest ask the CLEC for the order number or PON. Bonnie advised that they normally provide this anyway and it is fair, but she does not believe it should be a requirement as there are other reasons too. Jill asked if we could better define and refine the criteria for Hunting so we can go to Retail and Network and discuss further, and publish a reason that is allowable. Otherwise we would negate the standard interval if we automatically allowed expedites on all Hunting requests. Bonnie said it should be an urgent customer situation and their service is not working the way it should be. Bonnie advised that Qwest needs to trust the CLECs request and hope that the CLECs are not abusing the process. Pete Stave – Eschelon advised there are additional steps needed to expedite an order and it is not always easy so we do not request an expedite unless it is necessary.

Jill suggested that we set criteria for this to be an ‘urgent customer situation where Hunting or Call Forwarding features are not working correctly and the customer can explain why and provide a service order and/or PON’. The CLECs agreed with this criteria.

Jill asked if there were other features that need to be discussed. Amanda – VCI stated that Features don’t pertain to VCI very much, but what happens if a customer is disconnected in error and it is the CLECs error. This happens a few times a month usually due to a disconnect for non payment in error. Jill advised this would need to be handled as a new LSR with standard interval. Another request was made for voice mail set up incorrectly. This can be added to a wrong number for example.

Jill agreed that the items and criteria identified should be workable. Qwest needs to review this internally and determine impacts. Status will be provided at our CMP meeting and we will plan on reviewing the draft process prior to it being published in the PCAT. Another ad hoc meeting will be scheduled at that time.

December CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that an ad hoc meeting is scheduled for January 6 to review and further define some options for expanded Expedite reasons. This CR will remain in Development Status.

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that Qwest is currently reviewing the expedite process and meeting internally to determine if there are any changes that can be made to the process. This CR will remain in Development Status.

10/20/04 October CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that Qwest held an ad hoc meeting. We are reviewing the expedite reasons from the CLECs and the data gathered for potential changes. We hope to have additional information next month. Qwest will hold an ad hoc meeting to review our findings. This CR will remain in Development Status.

PC021904-1 Enhance Expedite Process Ad Hoc Meeting September 22, 2004

In Attendance: Pete Stave – Eschelon Colleen Forbes - ATT Kim Isaacs – Eschelon James Leblanc – McLeod Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Jean Novak - Qwest Communications Lori Nelson – Mid-Continent Terri Lee - SBC Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Chris Quinstruck - Qwest Cherron Halpern - Qwest Communications Rhonda Velasco – Oregon Telecom Sue Diaz - Qwest Communications Mark Sieres – Advanced Telecom LeiLani Hines – MCI Brandon McGovern–Advanced Telecom Valerie Estorga - Qwest Communications Roslyn Davis - MCI Christina Valdez - Qwest Communications Scott Ellefson – Qwest John Berard – Covad Dave Miller – Advanced Telecom Michelle Thacker - Qwest Communications Lydell Peterson - Qwest Phil Hunt – McLeod Leti Mudlo - Qwest Robin Jackson – Time Warner Diane Solomonson - Qwest Jolene Brown – Time Warner Stacy Berg – Time Warner Steve Kast - Qwest Communications Jim Christener – McLeod Mark Ashen Brenner – McLeod Chris Voorhees - McLeod Jennifer Fischer - Qwest Communications Diane Johnson – Qwest Michelle Sprague – McLeod Dawn Tafoya - Qwest Communications Jill Martain - Qwest Communications

Cindy Macy – Qwest Communications introduced the attendees and reviewed the agenda. Cindy advised that the purpose of this call is to discuss what is causing the need to expedite. Qwest would like to identify from a CLEC perspective why they expedite. Jill Martain – Qwest added that we would like to identify for non design documentation changes and process changes that could help reduce expedites. Cindy advised that Qwest would like to hear from each CLEC represented so we can gather input and determine what changes could be made to reduce the need for expedites.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised that Qwest’s appointments for new installs and moves in some states were 3 weeks out. This was due to resource issues (no technicians available). Eschelon can not give their customers a 3 weeks due date. We are expediting from a customer service perspective. This was happening in WA/CO/AZ on POTS service.

Colleen – ATT advised that when they submit their orders they have to use appointment scheduler and the date that comes back is what they have to put on their order. They will then call and expedite as the date is not acceptable for their customers. Donna Osborn Miller – ATT advised that they also engage their account teams to help.

Stacy – Time Warner advised that when the due dates is out 2-3 weeks, we have to expedite, and then Qwest wants to charge for the expedite. It is wrong for Qwest to charge for an expedite when the due date is way past standard interval.

Colleen – ATT advised many times the customer is disconnected and needs their service. The disconnect can be due to the customer moving early, an error on Qwest or the CLECs part, the order not getting processes correctly, or a jeopardy.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised specific to features, our customers have urgent needs. If their call forwarding was set up incorrectly (gave wrong number, or error in programming), and the calls are going to another number it can cause major issues. If a business forwards these calls to a residence, or if there is an emergency and the customer is not able to receive calls it causes major issues for all parties. Call Forwarding generally has a 1-3 day standard interval and a business can not loose calls for 3 days, nor can a residence customer receive calls from a business in error for 3 days. Colleen – ATT advised other LECs have same day turnaround if the order is received before 3p.m.

Jim – McLeod advised orders that are placed in jeopardy for no access are often done in error. The customer says they were available but the technician never came to the door. Then later it is determined that the technician couldn’t find the building, or couldn’t gain access. Sometimes the customer does give the wrong address and they are now out of service.

Robin Jackson and Stacy Berg – Time Warner advised they have lots of trouble with orders being issued incorrectly. They put information on the LSR that matches the CSR. Then the order gets rejected for address issues. They have to send it in and fix it later, and try to get a new due date. Time Warner also reported that when they build a subscription they send it in and Qwest has to release it. The ‘create’ needs to be done 3 days ahead and SOA has to concur. Time Warner wants to know if this is the official process. They work with the LNP team and this process is not working well. Cindy advised she will have the Service Manager contact Robin and Stacy. (robin.jackson@twtelecom.com, Stacey.berg@twtelecom.com)

Dave – Advanced Telecom advised they will get an FOC and the due date is okay. Then on the due date or the day before they will get a jeopardy notice which then needs to be expedited as they have given a due date to their customer.

Bonnie – Eschelon advised when there is an equipment install or vendor meet and we have to coordinate three companies it is very difficult and we usually have to expedite to get the companies represented and the services coordinated and installed.

Bonnie – Eschelon also advised that hunting causes an out of service condition as sometime equipments is needed or there are circular hunting issues and the calls go no where.

Pete – Eschelon advised that coordinated loops installed on LNP are complex and all parties have to be available to keep the customer service from going down.

Lori – Mid-Continent advised that if voice mail is not working the customer perceive this as their service not working. If the call forwarding number is incorrect (wrong area code and the voice messaging needs to be corrected) we have to place an order to fix the issue.

Nicki – Mid-Continent advised sometimes their customers have urgent needs related to their job or personal situation. For example, the customer could be on active duty and need service right away.

John Berard – Covad advised if something goes wrong in the process and the customer gets disconnected in error, it could be the CLECs error, then Covad has to issue another order with a new due date. Sometimes the order is issued as a new order and it should have been a move order so the due date is different.

Dave – Advanced Telecom advised that Qwest does not reject orders consistently. They can submit 10 orders the same and on the 11th order they get a reject. The representative interprets the business rule differently and now we are a day behind. We can talk to 4 different representatives and we can get 4 different answers.

Bonnie – Eschelon confirmed that for non design the same process and charges will apply to Retail. Jill Martain – Qwest confirmed that would occur. Jill – Qwest advised our direction is to not implement a fee for expedites on non design. We are trying to understand some reasons and causes for expedites and address them from a process and documentation perspective. Bonnie advised that is great.

Nicki – Mid-Continent advised she requested an expedite for medical reasons and was asked for a doctors note. Nicki advised this is confidential information. Jill advised it is part of the process to request a note. Our centers are trying to follow the process and make sure the expedite is valid.

Colleen – ATT advised recently we had a customer that filed a PUC complaint and it was on the news so it was a huge issue that needed to be resolved. Jill advised if there are extenuating circumstances you can go through the Escalations process. This is not the norm but under special conditions we do handle escalations.

Cindy – Qwest advised our next steps are to look at the input that was received today and the process. We will determine areas that we can impact to reduce the need to expedite and provide status at the next CMP meeting. Additional ad hoc meetings may be held.

9/15/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that there is an ad hoc meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 22 to discuss the reasons for expedites. The intent is to look at the cause of expedites to determine if there are improvements that can be made to reduce the number of expedites. This process focuses on non design services. This CR will remain in Development Status.

8/16/04 CMP Meeting Mintues Jill Martain – Qwest advised that Qwest has done additional work on this CR and determined that we won’t be able to implement the same process for non design that we implemented for design. We are doing root cause analysis on the data and will determine reasons why expedites are needed. Qwest will meet with each of the CLECs after we have the data and work through the expedite reasons. John Berard – Covad asked some questions about the Expedite V14 PCAT. Jill recapped the process and advised the CLECs that if they have questions they can call her to discuss. John Berard – Covad verified if the error was caused by Qwest than there would not be a charge to expedite. Jill advised that is correct. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised she tried to expedite a feature and the escalation group and Service Manager said they were not able to do this. Bonnie submitted a comment on this issue as Eschelon believes this is an existing process. Bonnie advised her definition of an existing process is if Qwest is performing the process it is an existing process. Bonnie and Jill discussed the issue and agreed that the issue was the difference between what Eschelon sees as an existing process and what Qwest views as an out of compliance. Jill told the center to go ahead and continue to handle feature expedites until we are able to resolve this issue. Bonnie appreciated this as it takes away the immediate pain to Eschelon. Bonnie advised that Eschelon has formed an internal team to review documentation against current process and previous CRs. They are focusing on DSL initially. Bonnie and Jill agreed that Eschelon should submit a CR to determine how to handle the situation when there is disagreement between when Qwest is out of compliance versus when Qwest is performing an existing process. This CR will remain in Development Status.

July 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Minutes: Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that the team held an ad hoc meeting on July 9. During the ad hoc meeting, Jill Martain reviewed the PCAT and addressed comments on the process. Cindy advised that this process is effective July 31 in most states. The following identifies exceptions: AZ 8/5, Northern Idaho and NE 8/2, NE 8/6, WA affects only Access Services. The FCC#1 is effective July 31. Qwest will continue to work on the non design process. Additional status will be provided later. Liz Balvin – MCI advised that the clarification and the updates that were discussed helped a lot. Jill advised those updates have been made. This CR will remain in Development status.

PC021904-1 Expedite Process Ad Hoc Meeting July 9, 2004 10:00 – 11:00 a.m. MT

In attendance: Eric Yohe – Qwest Liz Balvin – MCI Valerie Estorga – Qwest Susan Lorence – Qwest Jackie DeBold – US Link Steve Kast – Qwest Teresa Castro – Vartec Stephanie Prull – Eschelon Sue Lamb – 180 Comm John Berard – Covad Jill Martain – Qwest Ann Atkinson – ATT Julie Pickar – US Link Donna Osborn Miller – ATT Cindy Macy – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest reviewed the history of the CR. Cindy explained that this process was notified on June 15, 2004 and then retracted on June 29, 2004. Cindy reviewed the agenda and purpose of the meeting.

Jill Martain – Qwest advised the intent of the PCAT update was to address the new expedite process on design products. Currently we are not able to include non design products in the process. We will schedule additional ad hoc meetings to discuss non design products and CLEC caused error expedite situations.

Jill advised that July 31 is the tariff effective date. Interstate filings will occur next, and there are a couple states that may go a little later, but each state is in progress of getting the tariffs approved.

Liz Balvin – MCI verified V11 only impacts design services. Jill advised the list of products that are in the pre-approved section are all design products.

Jill advised there will be two processes. ‘Expedites that Require Approval’ (current process) and the new process ‘Approved Expedite Request’ for identified design services products. Jill reviewed the PCAT and process in more detail.

Stephanie Prull – Eschelon asked how Qwest will notify the CLEC when Qwest can not meet the expedited date. Jill advised that when the CLEC calls in Qwest will get the name of the person who requested the change and work with them. Stephanie asked what happens if we use the EXP field? Jill advised Qwest would send back the FOC with the PIA value. Stephanie asked if the Retail customers get charged on the ‘Expedite Requiring Approval’ process. Jill advised no, and neither would the CLECs, unless they sign up for the new process.

Liz Balvin – MCI asked for more clarity on the non design process. Jill advised that the Expedite Process that requires approval applies to non design services or Interconnection Agreements that do not carry the ‘per day’ expedite rate. Jill agreed to clarify that all non design service expedites or design services expedites if your contract is not amended, will not carry a charge. Non design products can only be expedited for the conditions listed currently. We are still trying to accommodate some CLEC reasons for non design expedites. We will continue working on this and we will have additional calls with the CLECs. Retail follows these same procedures. Jill advised we will work on this in phases.

Jill explained that when you amend your contract there are not reasons for expedites any longer. Qwest agrees to expedite and there is a charge for all expedites.

John Berard – Covad asked if there is a separate charge on design products if there is a fire. Jill advised no, the same charge applies. If Qwest causes the error than there is not a charge.

Stephanie Prull – Eschelon asked when the amendment will be available. Jill advised the target date is July 26. Stephanie asked how this new process affects resource assignment of network technicians. Jill advised we have the resources to cover expedited requests. We have performed volume forecasts. An expedited request and a regular request are equally weighted.

Jill summarized the Pre Approved Expedite process. The CLECs must amend their ICA, the estimated cost to expedite is 200.00 per day, and eligible products are identified in the PCAT.

Stephanie Prull – Eschelon advised that currently the CLECs have special reasons for an expedite that are not included in the list. The CLEC calls the center and works with Qwest to address these situations. Jill advised we need to follow our process, and we will still handle unique conditions. They may need to be escalated.

Liz Balvin – MCI asked if this will be implemented on the Access side. Jill advised the tariff target date is July 31 for Access products. Liz asked Jill to include the tariff reference in the response to comments. Jill advised the exception is the Washington tariff is not being filed at this time.

Jill reviewed the comments to make sure she had addressed the CLECs concerns in today’s meeting. The CLECs agreed that the comments have been addressed during today’s meeting. Jill advised she will make updates to the PCAT based on today’s call.

June 16, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Jill Martain – Qwest advised for design product the Level 3 notification went out on June 15. For non-design we are still investigating if the process is feasible. The CR will remain in Development Status.

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Jill Martain – Qwest advised that Qwest will accept this CR with the caveat to implement this on a product by product basis. There may be some products that this process will not be implemented for. For those products, the old process will stay in place. There will be a cost to expedite and amendments will need to be done. The approximate cost is in the $150.00 - $400.00 price range. A per day improvement charge would be assessed. Jill advised that the target list of phase 1 products is included in the response. Qwest is targeting July 31 for implementation. Bonnie verified that this will apply to Retail also. Jill advised yes, and a tariff would be filed. Jill will provide an update next month. This CR will move to Development Status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Jill Martain – Qwest reviewed the response for this CR. Jill advised that Qwest would like to leave this CR in Evaluation Status as we look at individual products for expedites. Jill asked the CLEC community if they are willing to pay just and reasonable charges to expedite. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon stated that these charges should apply to retail customers as well. Liz Balvin – MCI asked how this would work. Are the prices driven by what is on our Interconnection Agreement? Jill Martain advised there would be charges in the ICA, and the amendment would have to be written. Bonnie said they would have to be commission approved rates. Jill advised she is not the expert on this process but she believes so. Liz Balvin clarified that if the CLECs are not willing to opt in to the contract, then they would follow the process that is effective today. Jill advised yes. Bonnie advised we do have situations when we have requested an expedite and Qwest denies it. Then the end user customer goes directly to Qwest and the expedite occurs. Jill advised we will keep this perspective in mind. This CR will move to Evaluation Status.

March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting John Berard – Covad presented the CR and explained that Qwest’s Expedite Process is written based on certain situations, such as Medical Emergencies. However if the CLEC makes an error, there isn’t a process to expedite for a CLEC error reason and the CLEC has to take a regular interval. We want a process to request a faster interval, and we are willing to pay for it. Eschelon supports the request and would like to understand what type of opportunities are available for our Retail customers and if they get charged for an expedite. Bonnie advised that they have had trouble getting their customer in service, and if their customer contacts our Retail organization themselves, they get service in okay. Ervin Rae – ATT advised that he has heard that Qwest leadership is in the process of reviewing our Expedite Process. Jill Martain – Qwest advised that we can take a look at all of these aspects and also review PC081403-1 as this CR is also requesting a ‘Restoral Request Process’. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Clarification Meeting February 27, 2004 1-877-552-8688 7146042# PC021904-1 Expedite Process for Provisioning – enhancements to existing process

Attendees John Berard – Covad Bryan Comras – Covad Mark Gonzales – Qwest Heidi Moreland – Qwest Jill Martain - Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Meeting Agenda: 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change John Berard – Covad reviewed the change request. John explained that Covad would like the title of the CR updated, as this is really a request for an enhancement to the existing expedite process. Cindy agreed to update the CR. John advised that the expedite process is limited today to certain types of orders and processes. For example, medical emergencies. We may find that it is Covad’s error that caused the customer to be disconnected. We would like to be able to get our customers restored quicker than standard interval, when it is our error. We are willing to pay for this service. Other ILECs provide this service. We would like the criteria to be expanded to allow an expedite when the CLEC makes an error. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked for an example of this happening today. John Berard – Covad and Bryan Comras – Covad advised this relates to the Jeopardy process. When Covad fails to complete the order, but we complete the work at the DMARC the customer has service, but we do not close out the records so Qwest doesn’t think the customers service is working. Qwest issued a jeopardy notice and since we didn't respond to that notice within 30 days Qwest then cancelled the orders and the service gets disconnected. Covad then goes back and resends the order, but we have to wait the standard interval and that is too long for the end user customer to wait, especially if it is a business account. John Berard – Covad advised disconnects can also happen when the end user selects migration to a new ISP provider. This isn’t as critical as the down time is usually very limited as they are hooked up to the new provider. Heidi Moreland – Qwest asked how often this happens? Bryan – Covad replied approximately 20 times per month for Qwest, or once a day on average. Bryan advised that we get faster turn around time on certain products. Heidi confirmed that Shared Loop has a shorter standard installation interval than an unbundled xDSL-capable loop. Heidi advised that thethat the customer could be disconnected when the sync test fails and the notice is not cleared. The DSLAM port is done by the CLEC and the customer is in service. If a supplement is not sent by the CLEC, and if there is no response in 30 days, then the line gets cancelled and pulled down. Covad advised it shouldn’t matter what the history or circumstances are, if we are willing to pay for the expedite.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted DSL, Line Share, Designed and DSL Products (all products) This applies to any one that was in service and has gone out of service and needs to be set back up due to Customer or end-user error.

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Jill agreed to get with Joan Wells regarding the Workback / Restoral Request process

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Covad would like the ability to pay for an Expedited due date (restoral of disconnected end user) Covad would like to treat these like trouble reports and get the end user back in service in one day. 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests PC081403-1 Work Back Restoral Request

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Covad will present the CR at the March CMP Meeting Qwest will provide our Response at the April CMP Meeting

CenturyLink Response

May 12, 2004

Covad Communications John Berard, Director-Operations Support

SUBJECT: Covad’s Change Request Response – CR #PC021904-1 Enhance Expedite Process for Provisioning

This letter is in response to Covad Communications Change Request (CR) PC021904-1. This CR requests that Qwest enhance the expedite process to allow for an interval that is shorter than what is currently available for the product.

Qwest will accept PC021904-1 Enhancement to existing Expedite Process, with the caveat that it will be looked at and implemented on a product by product basis. Qwest will continue to look at all of the individual products to determine if we will implement these changes. For those products which the expedite criteria/process does not change, Qwest will leave the existing expedite criteria and process in place. Additionally, as discussed previously, expedite charges will become applicable for all expedites except those that are due to Qwest caused reasons and amendments will be required to existing Interconnection agreements to implement those charges. If a CLEC chooses not to amend their Interconnection Agreement, the current expedite criteria and process will be used.

The first phase of implementing a change to the expedite process will be around those products that are Designed Services. A list of those products is shown below. For Designed services, an expedite charge is applicable for each day that the due date is improved (unless the expedite is due to a Qwest caused reason). We are targeting an implementation date of July 31, 2004, pending approval of the Interstate FCC#1 tariff, individual state tariffs and Interconnection agreements.

Following are a list of products that will be included in Phase 1: Product UBL all except 2w/4w analog Analog PBX DID Private Line (DS0, DS1, DS3 or above) ISDN PRI T1 ISDN PRI Trunk ISDN BRI Tr unk Frame Relay Trunk DESIGNED TRUNKS (Includes designed PBX trunks) Trunk MDS / MDSI DPAs (multiple DPAs or FX, FCO) Trunk UBL DID (Unbundled digital trunk)

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 21, 2003 CMP Meeting

April 14, 2004

Covad John Berard Director – Operations/Change Management

SUBJECT: CR # PC021904-1 Enhance Expedite Process for Provisioning

This letter is in response to Covad’s Change Request (CR) PC021904-1 Enhance Expedite Process for Provisioning. This CR requests that Qwest enhance the Expedite process to allow for an interval that is shorter than what is currently available for the product.

Qwest would like to leave this CR in evaluation status as it needs to continue to look at the individual products and provisioning processes that are impacted by this request. Qwest will provide an updated response at the May CMP meeting. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status.

Sincerely,

Jill Martain Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC022304-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

1. Create a secure web based electronic New Customer Questionnaire

2. Develop questionnaire sections so only sections requiring updates will need to be submitted

Status History

Project Meetings

-- 6/16/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Judy Lewis, Qwest said since the last meeting she had looked at SBC’s questionnaire and found many similar items. The major difference is that the SBC model is designed to get the information to the entity it affects. Therefore, the program would require many modifications to work at Qwest. Judy did add she reviewed a word document of the system since she was not able to obtain access to the on-line system. Kim Isaacs, Eschelon said that Verizon is rolling out an electronic profile. Judy asked for a contact at Verizon and Kim said it was Gee GeeVanvig at 212-240-7841. Judy will contact Verizon. This CR will remain in denied status.

5/19/04 May CMP meeting Judy Lewis, Qwest summarized the response by saying that a list of requirements were sent to IT along with a request for a level of effort. The LOE came back with 16,600 hours to do the front end system work and data base development combined with the necessary testing and maintenance required. Therefore Qwest is denying this CR because it is economically not feasible. John Berard, Covad asked if the Bell South system was an option. It is called the On Line Profile System. Judy said that Qwest could look at that. Bonnie Johnson and Kim Isaacs, Eschelon said that this information was provided in the clarification call and Kim added that SBC believes that it is a help to them also. Judy said she didn’t recall getting a contact name. Ken Beck, Qwest said that he could call and obtain a contact. Susie Bliss, Qwest said that the denial would stand but we would check into the SBC system. She added that she would have Steve and Mark take a look as well. Liz Balvin, MCI said that it would help everyone if the system were mechanized. Bonnie asked if we could open an action item on this issue. Susie said yes. The CR will move to Denial but remain open.

- 4/21/04 April CMP Meeting Judy Lewis, Qwest stated that the requirements have been developed and a LOE has just been received. She said a response would be available next month. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon asked if any of the development previously done could be used to satisfy this CR. Judy replied that this had been checked and the development did not meet today’s requirements. The CR will be moved to Evaluation.

-- 03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon presented this CR calling for a New Customer Questionnaire that is web based and would be updateable by individual section. She stated that there is difficulty in updating the current questionnaire and that she hoped some work that might have been started one or two years ago could be used in developing the new questionnaire. She also stated that SBC has a questionnaire that is web based. Bonnie said that the SBC questionnaire takes the same path as it did previously once the updates are made. AT&T also supports the request. Ervin Rae, AT&T added that Sprint has this type of questionnaire but is having some problems with version control. This CR will be moved to Presented status.

-- CLEC Clarification Call 11:00 a.m. (MDT) / Monday March 1, 2004

1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC022304-1 Develop a web based electronic interface to enter and maintain the New Customer Questionnaire Attendees Attended Conference Call Name/Company: Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon Doug Andreen, Qwest Judy Lewis, Qwest Carrie Bell, Qwest Jennifer Beach, Qwest Ryan Hinkins, Qwest

Meeting Agenda:

1.0 Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug read the CR description: Eschelon is requesting that Qwest develop a web based electronic interface to enter and maintain information on the New Customer Questionnaire. The current Word version of the New Customer Questionnaire makes viewing the current information and updating the information difficult for CLECs. Eschelon requests that this web-based tool allows multiple CLEC users to view the most current CLEC profile data and allow a CLEC to update individual sections of the CLEC profile as needed. Eschelon believes a web based New Customer Questionnaire would streamline the process to make needed updates to the questionnaire saving the CLEC and Qwest time and resources. The expected deliverables are to create a secure web based electronic New Customer Questionnaire and Develop questionnaire sections so only sections requiring updates will need to be submitted.

Kim Isaacs, Eschelon added that recently she needed to update both the Qwest questionnaire and the SBC GUI profile and found it much easier to update the SBC GUI. She feels that we would also get more accurate information from an on-line version. It would also save time and resources for both Qwest and the CLECs.

Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon said that this used to be a frequent topic of conversation in the CMP meetings and that the CLECs were told quite some time ago that Qwest had started work. So there may be some work already done.

Doug Andreen, Qwest stated that Qwest would look into any work that had been started.

Jennifer Beach, Qwest asked if the amendments should also be added to the questionnaire.

Bonnie Johnson answered yes after Judy Lewis, Qwest clarified that we were talking about the product amendments.

Jennifer Beach asked if there should be edits for quality and business rules and Kim replied yes that would be fine.

Judy Lewis, Qwest asked if the SBC GUI was set up with digital certificates and Kim replied that it was.

Judy also asked if on the SBC system if multiple Eschelon employees can use the system at the same time. Kim replied yes but there are edits around who can submit the profile and who has read only capabilities.

Ryan Hinkins, Qwest asked how long the SBC GUI had been active.

Kim replied since January and added that each different section is routed mechanically to the appropriate employee in SBC.

Ryan asked how access control was envisioned.

Kim said either digital certificates or by id and password.

Bonnie added that there would have to be one type for update capabilities and one for read only or view capabilities.

Ryan asked if SBC allows read only and change.

Kim said yes for Eschelon 2 employees can make changes and the remainder is read only.

Judy said then it similar to what we have in IMA. Kim answered yes. Ryan verified that what your looking for is ability to retrieve, update and submit. Kim said yes with an added qualifier that SBC has time stamp and will reject sections with errors through status messages on the web.

Ryan asked if there were different questionnaires for different states. Kim answered no, just one questionnaire but with the option to select states and contacts.

Judy asked if the previous information in SBC was put in the GUI or if Eschelon had to load. Kim answered that Eschelon had to populate initially.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Web based questionnaire

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation The expected deliverables are to create a secure web based electronic New Customer Questionnaire and Develop questionnaire sections so only sections requiring updates will need to be submitted.

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests none

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Eschelon will present at the March CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

May 12, 2004

RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the May 19, 2004, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Kim Isaacs ILEC Relations Process Analyst Eschelon Telecom

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR 022304-1

This is Qwest’s response to Eschelon’s request to develop a web-based electronic interface to enter and maintain the New Customer Questionnaire.

A list of requirements was drafted that included Eschelon’s input from the clarification call held on March 1. A request for Level of Effort (LOE) along with the list of requirements was made to the Qwest IT department regarding this change request. The estimated time to complete the front end system and database development, combined with the necessary testing and maintenance required was approximately 16, 600 hours. Qwest is denying this CR because it is economically not feasible.

Sincerely,

Judy Lewis Customer Account Consultant

April 5, 2004

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting

Kim Isaacs ILEC Relations Process Analyst Eschelon Telecom

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response PC022304-1 "Develop web based electronic interface to enter and maintain the New Customer Questionnaire"

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request (CR) PC022304-1. This CR is a request by Eschelon for Qwest to develop a web based electronic New Customer Questionnaire.

Qwest is currently evaluating this change request and propose moving this CR into Evaluation Status while a complete answer to the request is prepared.

Sincerely,

Judy Lewis Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC030204-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will offer a block to block local directory assistance calls only without requiring additional blocks that a customer may not need.

Status History

Project Meetings

Summary of Change: On April 27, 2004, Qwest will post updates to its Wholesale Product Catalog that includes new/revised documentation for Wholesale Interconnection Agreements & Amendments - SGATs. This material becomes effective on April 27, 2004.

SGATs: Qwest is replacing the Wyoming Exhibit A with the correct version dated 10-16-02. Redline SGAT documents are found at URL: http://www.qwest.com/about/policy/sgats/ Actual updates are found on the Qwest Wholesale Web site at this URL: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/sgatswireline.html

You are encouraged to provide feedback to this notice through our web site. We provide an easy to use feedback form at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/feedback.html. A Qwest representative will contact you shortly to discuss your suggestion.

Sincerely, Qwest

-- 04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Sandy Foster, Qwest explained that when this CR was opened it was thought that Directory Blocking might be a software option in the switch. This was later found not to be true. Since CustomNet blocks other items along with directory assistance the only other alternative was found to be Customized Routing. If this did not meet the need of the CLECs then a new product would be needed. The CR on that basis was denied. Bonnie commented on the length of time it took to get this denial since it was obvious to her a current product did not exist. Sandy stated it was felt Qwest needed to do due diligence on the CR. Connee Mofffatt, Qwest also stated that she had hoped the software option would have been true. She also added that if it is a product that can be purchased that poses different problem from a translation that needs to be done on each switch. Bonnie asked how to handle this type of request in the future. Kit Thomte, Qwest stated that generally going forward such requests should start with the Special Request Process. Bonnie said that if a product is not currently offered a Special Request is needed, but she understands that on this CR Qwest was looking for an alternative. The CR is denied.

-- 03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon presented this CR that requests a block for directory assistance. She is aware that Qwest offers a block through CustomNet but that this product blocks direct dial LD at the same time. Bonnie said long distance blocks can be managed through account codes by the customer. She said she knows the feature is available on the DMS 100 and 5E switches. Connee Moffatt, Qwest stated that this is not a software feature. Bonnie and Connie agreed that the need is for a translation capability rather than an existing software feature. The status will be moved to Presented.

- Clarification Meeting 9:30 a.m. (MDT) Thursday March 11, 2003 1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC030204-1 Qwest to develop and implement a Directory Assistance only block.

Attendees: Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Stephanie Prull, Eschelon Connee Moffatt, Qwest Nancy Sanders, Comcast Emily Baird, POP Communications Doug Andreen, Qwest Sandy Foster, Qwest Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon Carla Pardee, AT&T

1.0 Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug Andreen, Qwest read the full description of the CR as follows: Eschelon requests Qwest develop a block that allows blocking for local directory assistance (411 and 555-1212). Qwest currently only offers the ability to block 411 and 555-1212 through the Custom-net block. Customers do not always want to block direct dial long distance but do have a need to block local directory assistance. Custom-net forces the End User Customer to use an alternate billing method for long distance. Alternate billing for long distance is difficult to use because it requires a calling card or third party billing and can be very costly. Eschelon’s customers are often forced to absorb the cost of unauthorized directory assistance calls because the consequence of fraud or misuse on a calling card can be catastrophic to a business owner. Qwest should provide a blocking in a manner that meets customers needs. Qwest should not package directory assistance blocking so that a customer is forced to have additional blocks they do not need. The functionality does exist in at least the DMS100 and 5E switch to block only local directory assistance without requiring a customer use alternate billing for long distance.

Doug asked Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon if she was asking for one identifier across the region. Bonnie said this would be preferable but Eschelon is not opposed to more if there are differences in switches or regions.

Sandy Foster, Qwest asked if by not blocking long distance is Eschelon leaving themselves open to misuse in that area.

Bonnie answered that there has been a long-standing need for a directory assistance block only without having to use alternate billing for long distance.

Sandy stated that she has not witnessed a need from Qwest customers and wondered why the need from Eschelon customers. Bonnie answered that she does recognize a need among Qwest customers also.

Connee Moffatt, Qwest asked if Eschelon is asking for this on the DMS10 or Erickson switches. Bonnie answered no, not specifically that she had put these two in because she knows the functionality exists.

Emily Baird, POP Telecom said they have several customers who would like to block directory assistance but who need long distance capabilities and use/have codes that manage that inside the line. Bonnie echoed that this is an important point.

It was noted that Comcast and AT&T also support this CR.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted All services that have Qwest switch translations

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Yes

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Qwest will offer a block for directory assistance calls only without requiring additional blocks that customer may not need.

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None identified.

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Eschelon will present the CR at the March CMP meeting with a response being in the April timeframe.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting

Bonnie Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC030204-1 Qwest to develop and implement a Directory Assistance only block.

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request PC030204-1. This CR is a request by Eschelon for Qwest to develop and implement a local service Directory Assistance (411) only block.

Qwest does not currently offer a 411 block on a standalone basis. We have analyzed our existing product offerings and, other than CustomNet, found one option, Customized Routing that Eschelon might be interested in: Customized Routing http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/customrouting.html

CustomNet http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/features/customnet.html

If this product offering does not meet Eschelon’s customers’ needs, a request should be submitted using the SRP (Special Request Process) as detailed in your ICA. SRP http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/preorder/bfrsrprocess.html

On this basis Qwest respectfully denies this request as being out of the scope of the CMP process.

Sincerely,

Sandy Foster Product Manager Qwest

-- April 8, 2004

Open Product/Process CR PC030204-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will send a red line attachment of changes along with the Process Notification for the SGAT, Amendment and Negotiation Template.

Status History

Project Meetings

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Macy – Qwest reviewed the response for this CR. Cindy advised that Bonnie and I have been passing emails on this CR. Bonnie Johnson explained that Eschelon is just asking for the document to be attached to the notification or linked. We are not asking to change the process. Cindy advised that this CR is being denied as these documents are outside of the scope of CMP. The notices that are sent for SGAT, Amendments and Negotiation Templates are non CMP notices. Cindy clarified the difference between a CMP and non CMP notice. CMP notices have a Level 1-4 associated to them. Liz Balvin – MCI advised that the request is to make a process change to the notification process which is part of CMP. Cindy clarified that there are two parts to this CR. There is the request to link the notice to the documents and to also produce these documents in redlined format. Jarby Blackmun – Qwest advised there would be issues with space limitation on sender and receiver’s mailbox if we attached the SGAT to the notice. Bonnie advised she did not ask for redlined versions of the Amendments and Negotiation Templates, even though she thinks they should be produced. Bonnie advised she just wants to have the redlined SGAT linked to the notification so they do not have to search a website for the document. Bonnie advised that she will use the right process to ask for further assistance on the other documents. Cindy agreed that she would hold an internal meeting to determine if we can provide a link to the redlined version of the SGAT. Kit Thomte – Qwest advised that this CR will stay in denied status, but we will open an action item on the linking question. This CR will move to Denied Status.

March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised that we held a clarification call on Monday. Bonnie worked with Neil Houston during the call to show him on the website what she was requesting. She believes Qwest understands what Eschelon is requesting. Bonnie explained that they are not requesting for Qwest to change the process, just to attach either the redlined document (SGAT, Amendments and Negotiations Templates) to the notices or to provide a direct link to the document. Bonnie explained they just want access to the document so they know what is being changed. Currently there is a link to a web site, and then you have to search for the document on the web site. Bonnie would like the notice to have a direct link to the document, in redlined version. This CR will move to Presented Status.

PC030204-2 Redline SGAT, Amendments and Negotiation Templates

Clarification Call March 15, 2004 3:00 – 4:00

In attendance: Neil Houston – Qwest Cindy Pierson – Qwest Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Cindy Macy – Qwest Kim Isaacs – Eschelon

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the agenda.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon reviewed the CR. Bonnie explained that they are having some degree of difficulty when reading the notices to determine what has changed to the SGATs, Amendments and Negotiations Templates. Bonnie would like to have a redlined version linked to each notice when changes are made to these documents. Currently a link is provided but it is to a web site and then you have to look for the right document. Bonnie would like the documents linked, just like the PCATs are linked to the notices. Bonnie explained she does not want to change the process; she just wants access to the documents that are changing. Bonnie stepped through the path to the documents, and explained how she would like that changed.

Cindy Pierson – Qwest asked if the documents are on the document web site, does this make it part of the CMP process. Bonnie advised that it doesn’t have to be part of CMP. Level 1 notices do not have comment cycles.

Cindy Macy – Qwest verified that these are changes to the state level documents, not to individual CLEC documents. Bonnie agreed and advised she is not asking to change the process; she just needs to understand what has changed.

The team agreed that they understand the request. Next steps are for Bonnie to present the CR at the March CMP meeting, and for Qwest to provide a response at the April CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon

SUBJECT: Change Request Response – CR #PC030204-2 ‘Provide Redline SGAT, Negotiation Template and Amendments in its Process notices’

This letter is in response to Eschelon’s Change Request (CR) PC030204-2. This CR requests that Qwest provide redlined versions of its SGAT, Negotiation Template and Amendments in its Process notices.

Qwest denies this CR on the basis that it is outside the scope of the Change Management Process as SGAT, Negotiation Template and Amendment documents do not fall within CMP.

The CLEC community currently has multiple avenues to provide input to the Amendment documents. These documents are then migrated into the SGATs. In addition, Qwest already provides redline versions of the SGAT documents via a link from the Wholesale web site.

Sincerely,

Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC012004-1ES Detail

Description Of Change

The detail should include: (when applicable) escalation ticket number, date received, caller name, caller call back TN, PON, LSR ID, product, complete date, reason for call (code opened under), service order number, remarks, closing code, closing sub code. The customer name and TN optional. Qwest has provided this information to Eschelon before and has this detail.

Expected Deliverable:

Include escalation ticket detail with the monthly escalation ticket report or develop a new report to provide the detail separate from the existing report Qwest provides to the CLEC.

Status History

Project Meetings

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Michelle Thacker with Qwest said that this CR was denied last month and there was an action item opened to research additional information that could be provided in the report. Qwest is unable to provide additional data and the CLEC already provides the requested data with the opening of the call center ticket. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that Qwest was going to find out what additional information was available. Susie Bliss with Qwest said that it is expensive to pull the information and we are not required to compile your data. Stephanie Prull with Eschelon said that the original intent of the CR was to be able to use the report as a training tool, and the current report provides data that we are unable to determine who might be making errors. Eschelon is not always tracking the way they should. Susie said that she understands but we are not able to provide any more at this point. This CR will remain in Denied status.

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Michelle Thacker with Qwest said that after researching this CR Qwest determined that it was economically not feasible to produce manual spreadsheets because it takes 91 hours to produce the spreadsheets for only 14 CLECs. Before an escalation ticket can be opened, the CLEC name opening the ticket, LSR ID or PON, are data that the CLEC already has.

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that the report provided today to the CLECs could include those data fields that can be electronically pulled. Bonnie said she would have a problem if the current report couldn’t be expanded to include those specific fields that are critical. Bonnie asked that it be communicated which fields can be provided. Caller Name TN and Subcode are critical information contained in the specific fields, and would be critical for the report. Michelle said that CLECs would have that information within their company. Bonnie said that there is a need to reconcile the data. Kim Issacs with Eschelon added that some tickets have been coded as Eschelon but are not tickets opened by Eschelon. Michelle said she would continue to research the separate report, and the current report from the database provides statistical information and counts the numbers of tickets.

Bonnie asked if Qwest uses reports from the escalation database for quality review and training. Michelle said that there are manual reports pulled, like the one Eschelon received from their service manager. These reports are used to sample tickets and work through spreadsheets and word documents. The samples are then discussed with supervisors and coaches and used for training. Bonnie said there might be some type of “crystal” program that would pull data electronically that could be used to provide the report requested and may help Michelle if she no longer needed to pull the manual report. This CR will remain in Evaluation status.

Sent 4/19/04 6:58 a.m. From: Johnson, Bonnie J. [bjjohnson@eschelon.com] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda, Johnson, Bonnie J. Subject: RE: Draft Response PC012004-1

Linda, I would like Qwest to determine what additional they could add to the existing escalation ticket report that would not need to be manually produced. For example, the sub codes and TN of caller...etc.

Thanks you,

Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc. Phone 612 436-6218 Fax 612 436-6318 Cell 612 743-6724 bjjohnson@eschelon.com

03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Michelle Thacker with Qwest said investigation and research is being conducted on this CR and asked if it could be moved to evaluation status and an updated response be provided at the April CMP meeting. This CR will move to Evaluation status. - 02/18/04 February CMP Meeting Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon presented this CR. Bonnie said this is an extension to the CR just closed and this CR asks for more detail than the report currently provides. Eschelon’s service manager has provided a report that included the level of detail required to address Eschelon’s training needs. This CR will be moved to Presented status.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

1:00 p.m. (MDT) / Tuesday February 3, 2004

1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC012004-1 Include escalation ticket detail along with the monthly escalation ticket report or create a separate report to provide the detail.

Name/Company: Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Michelle Thacker, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Qwest welcomed all attendees to the meeting. Review Requested (Description of) Change

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest read the description of change; Include escalation ticket detail along with the monthly escalation ticket report or create a separate report to provide the detail. The detail should include: (when applicable) escalation ticket number, date received, caller name, caller call back TN, PON, LSR ID, product, complete date, reason for call (code opened under), service order number, remarks, closing code, closing sub code. The customer name and TN optional. Qwest has provided this information to Eschelon before and has this detail.

The detail should include: (when applicable) escalation ticket number, date received, caller name, caller call back TN, PON, LSR ID, product, complete date, reason for call (code opened under), service order number, remarks, closing code, closing sub code. The customer name and TN optional. Qwest has provided this information to Eschelon before and has this detail.

Expected Deliverable: Include escalation ticket detail with the monthly escalation ticket report or develop a new report to provide the detail separate from the existing report Qwest provides to the CLEC.

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that the report Jean Novak provided was for February 2003 Escalation tickets. The report provided to Eschelon in April identified a high number of calls for account ownership. After researching the calls, Eschelon made internal changes and also discovered the loss report was inaccurate. Bonnie said she is disappointed that the original report did not include detailed information and it will be helpful to have additional details in the existing report as currently Eschelon doesn’t not have details about who made the calls and what department calls are being made from. Bonnie said that the report could be provided through the existing report or through the service manager.

Michelle Thacker with Qwest asked if Eschelon tracks the calls made to Qwest. Bonnie said that only one group is tracking calls and there are many departments that call Qwest.

Michelle asked if Eschelon asks the SDC for critical information on the ticket such as status or Product reason code, close code and sub close code. Bonnie said that she didn’t know if all departments were requesting that information. Bonnie said that Provisioning, Maintenance and Repair departments all make calls and the Billing group fields complaints for double billing, but primarily service delivery makes the calls.

Bonnie added that she is hopeful that with 14.0, information will be stored and will have the capability to search by TN which will help reduce the number of calls and will provide order number and due date.

Michelle asked if Jean would be tracking calls before and after the release. Bonnie said when Qwest provided the report in April 2003, no analysis was performed, just the report was provided.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Pre-Ordering, Ordering, Billing

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct Qwest personnel were involved in the clarification meeting.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Include escalation ticket detail with the monthly escalation ticket report or develop a new report to provide the detail separate from the existing report Qwest provides to the CLEC. I dentify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None identified.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Eschelon will present this CR at the February CMP Meeting and Qwest will provide a response in March.

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at April’s CMP Meeting

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon

SUBJECT: "Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC012004-1 (Include escalation ticket detail along with the monthly escalation ticket report or create a separate report to provide the detail)"

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request (CR) PC012004-1. This CR is a request by Eschelon to establish a process whereby CLECs can receive, on a monthly basis, ticket detail including (when applicable) escalation ticket number, date received, caller name, caller TN, PON, LSR ID, product, complete date, reason for call (code opened under), service order number, remarks, closing code, and closing sub code. The customer name and TN is optional.

Currently CLECs can request via their Service Manager a statistical report of their activity with the Call Handling Centers. These reports are sent monthly and contain the following data: - Total Tickets Received - Total Tickets Received by Date Across Tier - Total Tickets Received by Product Across Tier - Total Tickets Resolved Across Tier - Total Tickets Resolved by Reason Code Across Tier - Total Tickets Resolved by Product Across Tier

In assessing this request, Qwest evaluated the scope in relationship to the Change Management Process, business benefit, feasibility and the financial impact to implement this process.

Today, CLECs provide Qwest with the following details in order to open a call center database ticket: - Caller name - CLEC Representative - Caller TN - Call back number for CLEC Representative - PON or LSRID - End User Name - End User Telephone Number - Product (although this can be obtained by pulling a copy of the LSR) - A detailed explanation of their reason for calling

Once this detail is input on the ticket the Qwest Representative begins to research and gather additional information to assist the CLEC. A ticket cannot be opened properly if the CLEC does not provide the detail above.

Other requested fields such as Service Order Number, Escalation Ticket Number, Date Ticket Opened/Date Ticket Closed, and Close Code are available upon request from the Call Center Representative.

The remarks field detail requested by the CLEC contains data that may be confidential, proprietary, or extraneous to the information requested by the CLEC. Confidential data includes, but is not limited to, proper names of Qwest personnel, intracompany telephone numbers for Qwest personnel, data that may be a cut and paste from an internal website, etc. Qwest currently has no system that can read or parse confidential data from the remark fields. In order to accommodate this request, Qwest must manually retrieve data from the Call Center database, review each ticket, parse confidential/proprietary data and prepare the report to be sent to the CLEC. This currently would be an excel spreadsheet.

Eschelon sent along with the change request a copy of an excel spreadsheet that contained call center ticket data from February 2003 provided by Qwest. This report, in fact, was manually produced using the steps above.

Qwest performed analysis to determine the amount of time required to produce an excel report of tickets. A total of 8332 tickets were reviewed for 6 CLECs for an average of 1389 per CLEC for one month. The average time to parse an Excel spreadsheet was 39 hours, which consisted of reading and editing 214 tickets per hour. Today, we have 14 CLECs subscribing to the original request which is 1289 average tickets per CLEC X 14 CLECs = 19,446 tickets to parse with an average of 214 per hour. The hours of manual work per month for only 14 CLECs would be 91 hours. It is expected the number of CLECs requesting the monthly report will increase if the requested data is available.

Qwest respectfully denies this change request because it is economically not feasible, cost prohibitive to implement the request and because the requested change does not result in a reasonably demonstrable business benefit. CLECs currently provide Qwest with data to open a call center ticket, therefore, CLECs would already have some of the data they are requesting Qwest provide to them. Qwest provides detail requested via other sources.

Sincerely,

Michelle Thacker Sr. Process Analyst Qwest Communications

March 9, 2004

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC012004-1 "Include escalation ticket detail along with the monthly escalation ticket report or create a separate report to provide the detail"

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request (CR) PC012004-1. This CR is a request by Eschelon to establish a process whereby CLECs can receive, on a monthly basis, ticket detail including (when applicable) escalation ticket number, date received, caller name, caller TN, PON, LSR ID, product, complete date, reason for call (code opened under), service order number, remarks, closing code, and closing sub code. The customer name and TN is optional.

Qwest is currently evaluating this change request and propose moving this CR into Evaluation Status while a complete answer to the request is prepared.

Sincerely,

Michelle Thacker Sr. Process Manager Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC080204-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: Qwest will publish the available escalation codes and sub codes Qwest uses when closing out a CLEC escalation ticket. Qwest will include examples of when specific codes are used.

Status History

Project Meetings

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this request was effective on 2/24/05 and that this CR will be closed.

3/16/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting Discussion

Michelle Thacker - Qwest stated that this request was effective on February 24th. She said that this will move to CLEC Test with the expectation of closing in April 2/16/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Michelle Thacker - Qwest stated that the targeted implementation is February 24, 2005.

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR will remain in a Development Status.

1/19/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Michelle Thacker/Qwest stated that an adhoc meeting was held January 6, 2005 to review the product reason codes. Michelle stated that the notification will go out the 1st week of February and will be published the 3rd week of February. Michelle stated that it will be published in the ordering overview. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon thanked Qwest for considering publishing in the Escalation/Expedite PCAT because that is where people would look for it. Michelle Thacker/Qwest said that there will be a link and that there will be a pull down menu in ordering overview.

PC080204-1 Escalation Product Reason Codes Ad Hoc Meeting January 17, 2005

Cox Communications requested that Qwest schedule an adhoc meeting to discuss the Product Reason codes that were reviewed with the CLEC Community on January 6, 2005. Cox indicated that they did not receive the notification on the date change of the original meeting. Cindy Harlan reviewed what was discussed in the adhoc meeting held on January 6. Cox asked where they could locate this information. Cindy advised that this information will be sent via a level 4 notifcation upon completion. Chuck Ploughman stated that Cox could request to receive notifications directly. Cox said that they would look into receiving the notifications directly. There were no other questions.

January 6, 2005

In attendance: Gary Price – DSET Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Sharon Van Meter – ATT Michelle Thacker – Qwest Amanda Silva – VCI Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Cindy Harlan – Qwest

Cindy Harlan – Qwest advised the purpose of the call is to review the Product Reason code document that was distributed.

Michelle Thacker – Qwest explained the Product Reason codes are used to categorize escalation calls to the Wholesale Center.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if this is an exhaustive list. Michelle advised it is not a total list. Exceptions are codes that are used for a 30 day period to identify a specific or limited condition and codes for pay phone products, or control cards. Bonnie reviewed the list and asked Michelle to explain the Typing error code. Is this used when the LSR is accurate but something was omitted? Michelle agreed. Kim Isaacs- Eschelon asked about the Jep after FOC code and what happens if the Jep was in error? Michelle advised the centers assign these codes based on the information that they have at the time of the call. Qwest is not trying to focus on whose fault the issue is. Qwest is trying to resolve the issue and the center is just capturing data about the call. The focus is on addressing the issue, not updating the data. Bonnie advised more detail helps with a training issue of SDCs. Michelle advised the SDC decides how a ticket is coded based on the resolution of that ticket. They can not spend a lot of time on recording the data.

Michelle advised the document will be a pull down list in the PCAT. Discussion took place regarding locating the document in the Ordering Overview or the Escalations section. This document will be released with a Level 4 Notification.

Sharon Van Meter – ATT asked if this was for all products, except payphones. Michelle advised yes.

Bonnie asked if we could name the middle column to state ‘examples of this product reason code’. Michelle agreed.

Cindy recapped next steps are to complete the document updates and get these ready to be released via Level 4 Notification. Status will be provided at the next CMP meeting.

December CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised an ad hoc meeting is scheduled for January 6 to review the product sub codes. The product subcodes document was sent out for review with the meeting notification. This CR will remain in Development Status.

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that this process in under development and the PCAT should be available in the next few weeks. This CR will remain in Development Status.

10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Michelle Thacker, Qwest explained that a draft will be available in mid November for review and that she would like to move the CR to development status. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon wanted to ensure that the list of codes would be exhaustive while the examples may not be. Michelle said the temporary codes to collect data will not be included in the list. Michelle used the example of when BOSS was down in February there was a temporary code created in addition to the three regular codes for this area. The temporary code was for “impact from Boss being down”. There was discussion around this issue. It was determined that when the center is called the temporary code could be given to the CLEC and that Michelle will explain and give examples of the temporary codes in the documentation. The CR will move to development.

- 09/16/04 CMP September Meeting Michelle Thacker reported that Qwest will accept the CR and will post codes to the Wholesale web but not as part of the PCAT. Bonnie asked if the web would cover both codes and sub-codes. Michelle said yes and will also contain brief descriptions of each code. The CR will move to Development Status.

-- 08/18/04 CMP Meeting Bonnie Johnson presented the CR saying that Qwest and Eschelon did have a Clarification call, and that Eschelon is asking Qwest to provide on the Wholesale web site the codes and sub codes used in closing escalations. The problem is that while Qwest knows the codes meaning, Eschelon does not. (Comment begin) Bonnie said Eschelon wants to validate the codes Qwest uses when closing out a ticket and cannot do so because Eschelon does not know the list of codes (end comment). This CR will be moved to Presented status.

-- 11:00 a.m. (MDT) / Thursday August 12, 2004 1-877-521-8688 1456160# PCPC080204-1 Escalation Code and sub code, including examples, documented on Qwest’s Wholesale web site Attendees Attended Conference Call Name/Company: Bonnie Johnson, Eshcelon Stephanie Prull, Eschelon Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Doug Andreen, Qwest Michelle Thacker, Qwest Jim Rucker, Qwest Title:

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug read the title of the CR which is Escalation Code and sub code, including examples, documented on Qwest’s Wholesale web site”. The reading of the description was waived since everyone on the call has a good understanding of what is requested. Eschelon’s expectation is that Qwest will publish the available escalation codes and sub codes Qwest uses when closing out a CLEC escalation ticket. Qwest will include examples of when specific codes are used. Michelle said in past meetings she believed these codes were referred to as ‘Close codes Bonnie said yes and added that Eschelon is not asking for an exhaustive list but rather a definition of a category or a code. For example, XX is the code for when the telephone number is wrong. Like closing codes on service orders. Michelle said for example if Qwest didn’t type the telephone number correctly, or on an out of service, would want the codes associated. Bonnie said yes, though out of service is pretty self explanatory. Bonnie also suggested that if a list was sent to Eschelon that they could indicate the ones that are not clearly understood. Bonnie said she would leave it to Michelle on how to work it. There were no further questions or comments. 3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Areas impacted are Pre-Ordering, Ordering, Provisioning, and the Escalation process. 4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting. 5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Eschelon’s expectation is that Qwest will publish the available escalation codes and sub codes Qwest uses when closing out a CLEC escalation ticket. Qwest will include examples of when specific codes are used. 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Eschelon will present the CR at the August CMP Meeting. A response from Qwest will be given at the September meeting.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the October 2004 CMP Meeting

Bonnie Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response PC080204-1 Escalation Code and sub code, including examples, documented on Qwest’s Wholesale web site

This letter is a revised response to Eschelon’s Change Request (CR) PC080204-1. This CR requests that Qwest provide escalation codes and sub codes, including examples, on the Qwest Wholesale web site.

In the original response Qwest accepted the request and indicated that the information would be located outside of the Product Catalogue. After a review of the best location to place the information it was determined that the most appropriate location is a downloadable file in the Ordering Overview section of the PCAT. As agreed in the Clarification call, this will not be a totally exhaustive list but rather cover the codes, sub-codes and descriptions that are frequently used. The list will be updated as needed by Qwest.

As indicated in the original response, Escalations will continue to follow the existing process as currently documented in “Expedites and Escalations”.

Qwest will provide a status update at the November CMP Meeting.

Sincerely,

Michelle Thacker Process Manager - Qwest

-- September 13, 2004

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 2004 CMP Meeting

Bonnie Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response PC080204-1 Escalation Code and sub code, including examples, documented on Qwest’s Wholesale web site

This letter is in response to Eschelon’s Change Request (CR) PC080204-1. This CR requests that Qwest provide escalation codes and sub codes, including examples, on the Qwest Wholesale web site.

Qwest accepts this request and will move forward to place codes, sub codes and explanations on the Qwest Wholesale web site. The information will be located outside of the Product Catalogue and will be updated on an as needed basis.

Escalations will continue to follow the existing process as currently documented in Expedites and Escalations.

Qwest will provide a status update at the October CMP Meeting.

Sincerely,

Michelle Thacker Process Manager - Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC070804-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: Qwest and CLEC will collaboratively develop a new process for ASR jeopardies that provides the CLEC consistent jeopardy information in a non-verbal communication mode.

Status History

Project Meetings

PC070804-1 Develop more efficient and effective process for ASR jeopardizes - CR Status changed to Closed. Per Kim Isaacs, Integra: CR can be closed with a note that this request was met when Qwest implemented the C/NR in QORA.

Kim Isaacs – Integra wondered if the CR should show Closed or show as crossed over to systems.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said she was going to investigate when this functionality was implemented and reference that CR and then show the CR as Completed.

Kim Isaacs – Integra agreed.

March CMP Meeting Minutes: Jill Martain - Qwest advised that this CR will move to Deferred Status as Qwest will work the 'initial jeopardy email' piece of this CR using PC022105-1. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon advised that she issued the new CR as she wanted the CR titled to reflect accurately what Qwest is doing. Bonnie agreed to move forward with the piece that Qwest will implement and Bonnie advised that it is okay to move this CR to Deferred Status.

February CMP Meeting Minutes: Cindy Harlan - Qwest advised that Qwest held an ad hoc call on Monday February 14. The purpose of the call was to review Qwest's proposed process and obtain a decision from the CLEC community regarding whether to move forward or defer the CR. Bonnie agreed that she would provide a decision at the February CMP Meeting. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon reported at the February CMP meeting that she took this back internally and would like to move forward implementing the email on initial facility jeopardy notifications. Bonnie advised that she is deciding how she wants to move forward with the CR. There was some discussion around either moving forward with the existing CR or deferring the existing one and creating a new one. Bonnie advised that she does not want to loose the work that has been done as the CLECs may want to revisit this, if something changes at Qwest as it may be possible to implement the rest of this CR at a later time. Cindy Harlan - Qwest advised we can work together to determine how to implement some of the work and defer the rest. Liz Balvin-Covad asked who would receive the email jeopardy. Jill advised an email address needs to be populated in the initiator field on the ASR and that is where the email jeopardy would be sent. Jill advised that Qwest has internal work that needs to be done to implement this. This CR will remain in Development Status.

PC070804-1 ASR Jeopardy Process Ad Hoc Call February 14, 2005

In attendance: Jeff Sonnier – Sprint Cindy Dahlstedt - Qwest Communications Bill Trefts – Time Warner Communications Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Bob Eggert – SBC Rosyln Davis – MCI Kathy Oaken - Qwest Communications Doug Denny – Eschelon Phyllis Sunins - Qwest Communications Cindy Harlan - Qwest Communications

Cindy Harlan reviewed the history of the CR. This CR requested that a process similar to LSR jeopardy process be implemented for ASRs. Qwest reviewed the ASR jeopardy process and offered to provide a email jeopardy on initial facility jeopardy condition (pre-RID), on Post RID jeopardy condition, and to utilize the current CNR jeopardy process. Cindy explained that the CLECs mentioned a concern regarding ‘piece parting’ the process and causing inconsistencies, but would check with their organization and provide feedback during this ad hoc call.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon recapped her concern about the process being inconsistent and using different methods. Bonnie explained that Eschelon didn’t want to defer the CR without getting other CLEC input. Bonnie advised that the Qwest representatives (who work the process delay orders on ASRs) in Des Moines are experienced and changing the process may cause inconsistencies. Bonnie said if Qwest implements the email jeopardy on the initial facility jeopardy, Eschelon would like the CR functionality request that Qwest is unable to provide to stay in deferred status, as something may change in the future and allow Qwest to implement her request. Bonnie further explained that some type of system or process change, or center movement may occur that creates an opportunity for Qwest to look at this request again.

Bill Trefts – Time Warner expressed his desire to have Qwest implement the email jeopardy on the initial facility jeopardy condition. Bill advised he is the Escalations manager and when the Time Warner representative gets a voice message, the rep can be on vacation and Time Warner is not able to address the jeopardy. Phyllis Sunins – Qwest advised the CLECs would need to set up a ‘group email box’ that allows multiple people to access, otherwise, if the initiator is on vacation and no one is checking their email, the same problem would occur. Phyllis clarified that the Qwest representative would not call if no response was received via the email. The email initial jeopardy would have basic information on it as currently sent for LSR jeopardy notifications, e.g. Jeopardy Code & explanation. Next steps in the process are that Qwest would provide an FOC if a date became available, or call within 72 hours to provide additional jeopardy information.

Bonnie said it sounds as if the CLECs would like to consider implementing the email jeopardy on the initial facility jeopardy only. Bonnie advised Eschelon would prefer to have the full functionality that was requested on this CR, and if we implement the initial jeopardy, Eschelon would still like to have the request stay on the back burner, maybe put in defer status. Bonnie said that Qwest could implement the initial jeopardy with a new CR, and place this CR in deferred status. Cindy Harlan – Qwest agreed that we can determine the best way to handle the logistics of the CR.

Cindy Harlan – Qwest asked the other CLECs if they had additional input from their organizations. Jeff Sonnier – Sprint advised he does not have specific information from his organization as they use LSRs primarily, and he does not work on the ASR side. Phyllis advised that the Sprint Service Manager, Mark Tsypin worked with Sprint on the ASR side. Phyllis advised Jeff to contact Mark to discuss further.

Roslyn Davis – MCI advised using email is acceptable. Roslyn asked if Qwest would call if there is not a response to the email. Phyllis explained that the e-mailed jeopardy notification of a facility problem would be a 1 way communication . Phyllis advised that Qwest would not call to follow up on that the initial e-mailed facility jeopardy was received. The only initial facility notification would be the email jeopardy. The next step of the process is either the FOC or a phone call within 72 hours to provide more information. Phyllis advised the CLECs that they would need to set up a ‘group or community email box’ for this process to work effectively.

Bonnie advised she would like to take this back and discuss again. Bonnie advised she will provide status and a decision at the Feb. 16 CMP meeting. Phyllis advised if Qwest does move forward with the email initial jeopardy notice on facility conditions, Qwest has internal work that needs to be done. Bonnie advised okay and will provide an update at the February CMP meeting.

January CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Harlan/Qwest advised that an ad hoc meeting was held on January 10th and Qwest proposed the following jeopardy process. The email jeopardy could be sent Pre-RID which would addresses the initial facility jeopardy, a Post-RID email jeopardy could be sent at due date, and continue utilizing the existing CNR jeopardy process. Cindy advised that during the January 10th ad-hoc call that Eschelon expressed that they wanted to receive the 72 hour jeopardy details via email. Qwest is unable to provide this jeopardy via email due to the manual efforts involved. As a result of the ad hoc call the CLECs agreed to take this back to their operations centers to see if the recommendation would work. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon advised their view is that if we piece part the process it may do more harm than good. Right now, the process is consistent and experienced people are performing the process. If we piece part the process, each stage of the process would be handled differently and cause confusion and provide an opportunity to not be in compliance. Bonnie said Eschelon does not need another process to measure compliance on. Bonnie asked the other CLECs to take the issue to internal operations personnel and get feedback. Jill Martain/Qwest advised that we will then schedule another ad hoc meeting to review this with the CLEC Community. Bonnie suggested that we could possibly put the CR in Deferred Status. Bonnie said that if for example, Qwest were to shift work from the current centers and new people are doing the work we could reinstate the CR. Jill advised we can schedule an ad hoc meeting to get input for other CLEC operational organizations and then determine next steps or Deferring this CR. This CR will remain in Development Status.

PC070804-1 ASR Jeopardy Process Ad Hoc Meeting January 10, 2005

In attendance: Phyllis Sunins - Qwest Cindy Dahlstedt – Qwest Sharon Van Meter – ATT Jo McCleen – ATT Amanda Silva – VCI Bob Eggert – SBC Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Jennifer Arnold – TDS Metro Roslyn Davis – MCI Cindy Harlan – Qwest Gary Pierce – DSAT

Cindy Harlan – Qwest reviewed the history of this CR and the purpose of the meeting. Cindy explained that the team has met several times. At the last meeting Qwest offered to implement an email jeopardy process for the initial jeopardy only. The CLECs requested for Qwest to go back and see if an email process for the entire life cycle of the jeopardy and for all jeopardy types is possible.

Phyllis reported that Wholesale has looked at the request and determined that we can provide notifications in 1 of 3 ways:

PRE-RID: Implement a process that addresses the initial facility jeopardy. POST-RID -Network has an existing process that addresses a jeopardy at due date. CNR - CNR jeopardy process is currently available and would not change.

Phyllis summarized that Qwest can offer a pre-RID email jeopardy that is sent to the email id in the initiator field on the ASR if populated. Cindy Dahlsteadt explained the PTA post RID jeopardy process. The CLEC would have to be set up to have PTA (provider test access). A test is done on PTD and the test results are emailed to the CLEC. The order is closed on the due date (5 days later). The jeopardy goes out on the due date, not PTD. This is for Qwest jeopardy, not CNR.

Sharon Van Meter – ATT asked if this is for all products types. Phyllis advised yes it would be for any product ordered via ASR. . Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon, said she was looking for something that resembled the LSR jeopardy process. Bonnie advised what she is looking for is the jeopardy that is sent within 72 hours, that has more detailed information, to be sent via email.

Phyllis advised that we have looked at the process and we are trying to make a process work with the resources that we have. We are not able to provide the 72 hour jeopardy via email as that increases the manual work. We did received objections from an IXC customer and we have to develop a process to meet their needs too.

Sharon Van Meter – ATT asked if it would help the manual effort if the process was just for local service first and then add the IXC customer later. Bonnie advised she needs this process for Private Line customers.

Bonnie advised they need to know the level of detail on the jeopardy so they know whether they should offer other alternatives to their customers. Bonnie said she will check with her operations centers and see if they can make Qwest’s recommendation work.

Phyllis also said that based on the feedback, Qwest does have internal work to do to accomplish the PRE-RID e-mail notification so we can’t implement the PRE-RID process until that is complete. We will leave the CR in development until the delivery date is determined.

Sharon Van Meter – ATT confirmed that the meeting notes will capture the summarized process so the CLECs can all check with their organizations and provide status back to Qwest.

Cindy Harlan – Qwest advised notes will be taken and posted to the web. Qwest will Look for status from the CLECs in the near future.

December CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised an ad hoc meeting is scheduled for January 10. We are reviewing this request internally and having discussions with our customers who order via an ASR to determine impacts. Liz Balvin – Covad asked if this CR is specific to Interconnect products and if it is could that information be put on the meeting notification. Jill Martain – Qwest advised that Eschelon did request for this process to apply to all products ordered via an ASR. Kim Isaacs asked Cindy Macy to verify that we did include PLT. Cindy advised yes PLT was specifically requested. Cindy advised that during the last ad hoc meeting Qwest presented an option and the CLEC community was not happy with that option and asked Qwest to expand the scope for it to cover all jeopardy types and the entire life cycle of the jeopardy. Qwest has been reviewing the request based on a process that supports all products. Jill advised that although Qwest is reviewing this process for all products that the specific products/process for this forum is specifically around Interconnect products. Qwest will review our findings at the ad hoc meeting in January. This CR will remain in Development Status.

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Phyllis Sunins – Qwest advised we held an ad hoc meeting on November 12. Phyllis reviewed the CR request and advised that Qwest proposed that we could send an email jeopardy on the initial jeopardy by responding to the email address that is populated in the initiator field on the ASR for jobs held for engineering. Phyllis advised issues were discussed regarding the email field and whether this should be required or not. (insert comment from Eschelon) AT&T expressed concern about making the E-Mail field mandatory (end comment). Some CLECs had concerns and they expressed if this was changed (insert) and that field was made a mandatory field that (end insert) it needs to be coordinated with an ASOG release. The CLECs would need to identify the impacts to their organizations as they would potentially need a separate email address to receive the jeopardy from Qwest. The request was made to extend the email jeopardy process to all jeopardy conditions, not just K jeps, and the entire life cycle of the jeopardy, not just the initial jeopardy. Qwest will review the request and another ad hoc meeting will be scheduled for a later date. This CR will remain in Development Status.

PC070804-1 ASR Jeopardy Process Ad Hoc Meeting November 12, 2004

In attendance: Liz Balvin – Covad Diane Friend – Time Warner Sharon VanMeter – ATT Stephanie Prull – Eschelon Tomas Soto = SBC Phyllis Sunins – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest Terri Lee – SBC Lori Nelson – Mid-Continent Comm Jeff Sonier – Sprint Lynn – ELI Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Bonnie Marnie – TDS MetroComm

Cindy Macy – Qwest reviewed the CR and explained that Eschelon requested that Qwest provide email jeopardy notifications so the process is more consistent with the LSR jeopardy process and that the jeopardy information is documented.

Phyllis Sunins – Qwest reviewed the draft process that Qwest put together. Phyllis explained that the ASR process is not as mechanized as the LSR process. Phyllis explained with the new ASR process the notification would go to Interexchange and Wireless customers also. The key action that the CLEC needs to take is to populate the email address in the field on the ASR. Phyllis advised Qwest would create an email jeopardy notification that will be patterned after the information that is provided on the LSR jep. The format will be different as the LSR jep is generated by a system. The ASR jep would be generated manually and sent via email.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon thanked Qwest for including the other Interexchange products and customers in this process. Bonnie asked what information would be on the email? Would the same jep codes be used for ASRs as LSRs? Phyllis advised yes for UBL and Interexchange products. Phyllis advised that PCAT would be sent out for CLEC review as part of this CR.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked why is this just for the initial jeopardy? Phyllis advised in the LSR world we have the jeopardy process mechanized and the conditions are different between LSRs and ASRs. Phyllis explained there are several other variables and process changes that would have to be developed if we look at more than the initial jeopardy. For example the time frame for the CLECs to respond on an ASR jep would have to be determined. The process becomes much more manual as the systems are not mechanized and for Qwest to pull the information needed and create the manual jeopardy notification is more time consuming than making a phone call.

Phyllis advised she would like to start with the draft process that she proposed and look at improving it, if possible, at a later date. Qwest feels that we can send an email jeopardy notification on the initial jeopardy if there is an engineering job opened. This would be for K jeps only. Phyllis advised we would follow the same patter as LSRs as we will provide the initial jeopardy via email and then follow up 72 hours later to provide additional information. The second jeopardy that provides more information would be a phone call. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised this is the situation that they need and want the information to be in writing. Phyllis advised there is not mechanization in place to do this.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if Qwest could change the process to include only K jeopardy notifications but for the entire life cycle, not just for initial jeps. Phyllis advised this increases the cycle time for the SDCs. Phyllis asked if the second email would need to carry the initial jeopardy information? This would require a single mail location for all jeps to be sent from.

Bonnie asked what the time frame is today for a call back from CLECs on phone call jeps? Phyllis advised Qwest has an open but reasonable time frame. Phyllis advised the work goes back and forth between Qwest and the CLECs for approximately 10-20% of the K jeps, so it becomes an interactive process. Bonnie advised the CLECs prefer the entire flow be done via email.

Phyllis explained the additional work will impact the SDCs. Bonnie asked how it would impact the SDCs. Phyllis explained that today they place a phone call and can resolve the issue verbally. Tomorrow we will have to manually check each ASR to determine how to handle it (phone call or email) and gather data to populate the email template.

Diane Friend – Time Warner asked if Qwest required the email field to be populated. Phyllis advised no, that OBF says it is optional. Phyllis advised approximately 80% is populated today. Diane said that Qwest could make it a required field, but they would have to notify all of their operating partners and it would have to be implemented with an ASOG upgrade. ATT expressed their concern if Qwest tries to make it required, as they would have to make programming changes. Qwest is also concerned that if the emails are not monitored it could increase calls into the centers.

Phyllis advised this process would impact the CLECs operating centers also as they would need to make sure they had a designated email address that could be used, or each representative would have to have their own email addresses, and if they were gone the jep would not be worked.

Bonnie asked if we could look at the process and see if we could extend it to the entire jeopardy life cycle for either all jeps or just K jeps.

Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that Qwest looked at the process and determined that we could provide an email jep on initial K jeps only. The process has many variables and became very manual if we provided email jeps on anything else. Phyllis agreed that we can review the request and see if there is anything that we can do.

Phyllis agreed our next steps are to look at the ASR email field (optional or required) and to check the feasibility of sending additional jep notifications via email. We will have to look at the impacts to our centers. Qwest will do further investigation and have another ad hoc meeting.

The CLECs need to determine the impact to their operations also, as this change will impact their centers also.

10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that this process is under development. We are planning on holding an ad hoc meeting to review the draft process in early November. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if we are able to include Private Line Services in the process. Jill Martain – Qwest advised that we are including this product in the review. It is too soon to tell if it will be accepted but we are looking at the process for all products. This CR will remain in Development Status.

9/15/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest reviewed the CR request and advised that Qwest is accepting this CR. Qwest is developing a draft ASR Jeopardy process that will focus on Interconnect products ordered via the ASR. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon commented that the response states that Qwest is focusing on Interconnect products. Bonnie advised that the CLEC Community needs this process to handle additional products ordered via the ASR process, in particular PLT services. Jill Martain – Qwest advised that our focus is on Local Interconnect products as that is what CMP addresses, but Qwest will review the other products and determine what makes the most sense. Bonnie asked what other forum is available for the CLECs to use to address the other products. Jill advised that we will have that discussion if the decision is to not include additional products but for now we will continue working on the draft process. Cindy Macy advised that ad hoc meetings will be set up to review the draft process. This CR will remain in Development Status.

8/16/04 CMP Meeting Mintues Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon presented this CR. Bonnie explained that Eschelon previously submitted a systems CR that Qwest denied for economic reasons. Eschelon understands that this process can not be fully mechanized, but would like an electronic notification that is similar to LSRs. The current ASR jeopardy process is done via voice mail. This doesn’t provide any consistency or tracking. The Clarification Call was held and Eschelon did request the PLT product to be included in this process. Eschelon wants PLT included, especially with Qwest’s TRO position on Unbundled Loop. This CR will move to Presented Status.

PC070804-1 Develop more efficient and effective process for ASR jeopardies Clarification Call July 20, 2004 12:00 1:00

In attendance: Phyllis Sunnis Qwest Liz Balvin MCI Kim Isaacs Eschelon Stephanie Prull Eschelon Connie Nelson US Link Paul M Johnson Qwest Cindy Macy Qwest

Cindy began the call and introduced the attendees. Cindy reviewed the agenda and asked Bonnie Johnson Eschelon to review the CR with the team.

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon advised that she submitted a systems CR asking for mechanized jeopardy for QORA and requested an interim manual process until the system work could be done. The system CR was denied for economically not feasible reasons. Qwest also stated there were issues as this process affects Interexchange customers. Bonnie advised Qwest that if this impacts Interexchange customer they should be included, as she is okay with them attending the meetings. Bonnie was advised to issue a Product Process CR. Additional conversation occurred with Qwest stating that the CMP process is for CLEC customers, not Interexchange customers, so the analysis that is done is based on impacts to Interconnection processes and customers. We do not utilize the CMP process to implement process for Interexchange customers. We only use the CMP process for Interconnection. Qwest also stated that if the process works for Interexchange than it may be implemented, but that would be handled outside of CMP.

Bonnie continued to review the CR with the team. Bonnie explained that the voice mail process for ASR jeopardies leaves room for problems, lack of communication, and no documentation. Bonnie would like to work with Qwest to develop a more efficient and effective process. Bonnie would like for Qwest to look at an alternative such as email. The process that is used for ‘Notification after completion’ may work as a model as it was developed manually first. The voice mail process does not always work as we have a group that manages jeopardies and if we can’t auto forward information to this group it causes delays. Bonnie advised they would like consistency to the LSR side; such as a standard form, standard jeopardy codes. When a jeopardy code is used, it means the same thing whether it is an ASR or an LSR. Eschelon would like an alternative to voice mail.

Liz Balvin MCI advised that it is appropriate to work together to get the process cleaner and to use appropriate jep codes and reasons. This will benefit everyone.

Bonnie stressed that Eschelon has no objection to including IXC and Wireless customers if we need an open forum. Bonnie said that their main focus is LSRs, but with TRO, if Qwest gets their wish, DS1 capable loops go away and Special Access will increase, thus increasing ASR activity.

Phyllis Sunnis Qwest advised that based on past history on the LSR side we have made improvements in this area. We will have ad hoc meetings to discuss this process and work to make it more consistent and efficient. Phyllis advised that for CMP purposes we focus on Interconnect products so we can meet the CLEC needs. We do not want to impede the CMP process with additional players. We want to address the CLEC concerns first. This does not preclude the process from being implemented for additional ASR products, but that will not be included in the CMP process for this CR.

Liz Balvin MCI asked if we have different personnel that handle ASR and LSRs. Phyllis advised it depends on the function, such as ordering, provisioning and billing. Liz stated that wouldn’t Qwest want a standard process for personnel to follow. Phyllis advised that the CMP process is for CLEC needs. Qwest may choose to implement a process for both LSR and ASR products but the focus with this CR is for Interconnect products handled via an ASR. These products include LIS, UDIT, UDF, 911/PS ALI.

Cindy Macy Qwest recapped that CMP is for Interconnection products and certain Interconnection products are handled via an ASR.

Bonnie asked if Private Line was included. Phyllis advised it does not include Private Line that is ordered out of FCC #1 tariff. Bonnie asked how could that product be included. Phyllis advised she will have to check further. Bonnie advised the DS1 capable loop is the CLEC comparable to the Private Line for Retail.

Cindy advised that Qwest will begin to work on this CR. This CR will be presented by Eschelon at the August CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 16, 2004 CMP Meeting

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC070804-1 “ASR Jeopardy Process”

Eschelon is requesting Qwest to develop a more efficient and effective process for ASR jeopardizes. Eschelon would like a process that provides consistency and tracking

Qwest accepts this CR and is in the process of developing an ASR Jeopardy Process that focus’ on the Interconnect products ordered using the ASR process. Qwest will schedule ad hoc meetings to review the draft process with the CLEC Community. This CR will move to Development Status.

Sincerely,

Phyllis Sunins Process Specialist

Open Product/Process CR PC100104-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: Track and Archive External Documentation Requests on the Qwest Wholesale Website.

Status History

Project Meetings

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR was effective on June 23rd and asked if this CR could be closed.

Kim Isaacs - Eschelon said that Eschelon was ok to close and that this request has met their needs.

6/15/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this request will become effective on June 23, 2005 and will remain in Development.

5/18/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jackie Cole - Qwest stated that a notification was sent on 5/9/05 and that the CLEC comment cycle ends 5/24/05. She said that this request will be effective on 6/23/05. This CR will remain in Development.

5/9/05 PROS.05.09.05.F.02890.CLECExDocReqProcess

Timeline: Planned Updates Posted to Document Review Site Available May 09, 2005 CLEC Comment Cycle on Documentation Begins Beginning May 10, 2005 CLEC Comment Cycle Ends 5:00 PM, MT May 24, 2005 Qwest Response to CLEC Comments (if applicable) Available June 08, 2005 Proposed Effective Date June 23, 2005 4/20/05 Product/Process Meeting

Jackie Cole - Qwest stated that an adhoc meeting was held to present the requested enhancements to the web interactive view. Jackie said that during that meeting an additional request was made to show the ‘denied’ and ‘closed’ status. Jackie said that we did review the request and have determined that we cannot provide this information. She stated that we would like to move forward with this request as originally presented with the archived report and the detailed description. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if they were to look at the history in the interactive view would they be able to see the history and status of the request. Jackie Cole - Qwest stated that they would be able to see the Documentation #, description of request, current status, start date, last date updated, initiators name, PCAT name, the documented URL and a detailed description of the request. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if they would be able to get to the document itself. Jackie Cole - Qwest said yes, just like the PCAT. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said that they would not be able to see the history of the request. Jackie Cole - Qwest said that their Service Managers would be able to access the detailed information and history. Kim Isaacs - Eschelon asked if the URL is blank would that mean that the documentation was not updated. Kim said that their concern is that it may look as if a request for documentation was completed but that it was actually denied. Jackie Cole - Qwest agreed that the URL will be blank. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said can we assume that if the URL is blank then the request would indicate a denied status and that the request was not satisfied. Qwest confirmed that would be the case. Liz Balvin - Covad asked how soon these changes would be implemented. Jackie Cole - Qwest stated that a 45 day notification would be sent to the CLECs. Susan Lorence - Qwest said that the 45 day notification could be shortened. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said that she was ok with the 45 day notification. Bonnie asked if this view will show historical data over 45 days and the current view for anything less than 45 days. Jackie Cole - Qwest said that anything older that 45 days can be viewed in the archive report and anything less that 45 days will show the current view. Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR will remain in Development

3/18/05 Adhoc Meeting

Attendees: Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Chris Terrell - AT&T, Jackie Cole - Qwest, Mark Coyne - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Jackie Cole - Qwest stated that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss changes associated with PC100104-1 Track and Archive External Documentation Request). Jackie stated that in a previous adhoc meeting, the CLEC Community requested that Qwest research the feasibility to add an archive report and detailed description. Jackie stated that Qwest was able to accommodate these items. Jackie referred participants to the URL for review.

Kim Isaacs - Eschelon stated that these changes work for Eschelon.

Chris Terrell - AT&T agreed.

Kim Isaacs - Eschelon asked if Qwest would be able to show when a request was denied.

Jackie Cole - Qwest stated that she would have to research whether or not this would be feasible and provide an update in the April CMP Meeting.

There were no other questions or comments.

3/16/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jackie Cole - Qwest stated that we will be able to implement the 3 action items requested in the last adhoc meeting. She stated that the test website is being readied and that a CLEC adhoc meeting will be scheduled to review. Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR will remain in Development.

2/16/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jackie Cole - Qwest stated that an adhoc meeting was held on 2/15/05 to review the URL changes with the CLEC Community. Jackie said that we have 3 action items from this meeting to research. She stated that we will be scheduling another adhoc meeting in the next couple of weeks.

2/15/05 Adhoc Meeting

Attendees: Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Roslyn Davis - MCI, Sharon VanMeter - AT&T, Amanda Silva - VCI Company, Liz Balvin - MCI, Chris Terrell - AT&T, Jackie Cole - Qwest, Carrie Bell - Qwest, Gary Berroa - Qwest, Mark Coyne - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest stated that the purpose of the meeting was to review the URL that supports PC100104-1 (Tracking and Archive External Documentation Requests). Lynn asked everyone to refer to the URL that provided in the notification sent 2/7/05.

Jackie Cole - Qwest provided an overview of the proposed changes located at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/review/clecs.html. She said that the proposed spreadsheet includes the EDR number, request, Company, current status, last update and initiator.

Kim Isaacs - Eschelon asked if Qwest could create an archived report of what has been completed and could Qwest provide the description of the request.

Jackie Cole - Qwest said that we would take Eschelon's request as an action item to determine if their request could be accommodated.

Chris Terrell - AT&T asked if Qwest could provide a link to the document (s) that were changed.

Jackie Cole - Qwest stated that she would need to take this as an action item to determine if AT&T's request would be feasible. Jackie summarized the action items and stated that we would provide a status in the next few weeks.

1/19/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jackie Cole/Qwest stated that the development team continues to work on the external website. She said that an adhoc meeting will be scheduled to review in mid February.

December CMP Meeting Minutes Jackie Cole – Qwest advised that we are still looking at a couple of different designs for the external web site and the level of effort. Once we have the design document we will schedule an ad hoc meeting with the CLECs. This CR will remain in Development Status.

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Qwest will accept this request and work to provide the functionality discussed in the Clarification Call. Jackie advised the External Documentation Request number, title, description and current status will be provided. Jackie advised that we will have another ad hoc call when Qwest is ready to present more details. This CR will move to Development Status.

10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Kim Isaacs presented this CR saying that Eschelon is requesting external documentation be tracked on the Wholesale web site similar to the way CRs are tracked today. This will be used to monitor status and check for duplication before new requests are submitted. Doug Andreen, Qwest added that the clarification call has been held and Qwest has a good idea of what is required. The CR will move to presented status. Comment from Eschelon: Bonnie said this information would be beneficial and said though it streamlined the documentation request process, the history is missing.

Time/Date: Place: Conference Call-In No.: CR No.: CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

2:00 p.m. (MDT) / Wednesday October 13, 2004

1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC100104-1 Track and archive external documentation requests Attendees Attended Conference Call Name/Company: Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Doug Andreen, Qwest Jackie Cole, Qwest Jim Recker, Qwest Mark Coyne, Qwest Title:

Meeting Agenda:Action 1.0Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug read and reviewed the CR. The CR requests that External Documentation Requests be tracked and archived on the Qwest Wholesale web site. Kim stated that External Documentation Requests are tracked internally by Qwest and would like to see this available to the CLECs. The business need for the CLECs is twofold. First to be able to check before submitting a request if a similar or duplicate request has already been submitted. Second, is to check the status on existing requests, similar to what is available through the Interactive Report on CR requests. Mark asked what level of detail Eschelon wanted. Kim said the description, current status, and status history i.e. when accepted, posted, denied, completed etc. There was discussion around how many status codes are used in the documentation process and if any other fields would be needed on the web version of the report. There were no further questions. 3.0Confirm Areas & Products Impacted No products or areas, only Wholesale Web site. 4.0Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

5.0Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Track and archive documentation requests on the Wholesale web site 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Kim will present the CR at the October CMP meeting and Qwest response will be due in the November time frame.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at November’s CMP Meeting

Kim Isaacs ILEC Relations Process Analyst Eschelon

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC100104-1

This is in response to Eschelon’s request that External Documentation Requests be tracked and archived on the Qwest Wholesale web site.

Qwest accepts this request and will move forward to provide the functionality as discussed on the Clarification call which includes: Document request number, Title of request, brief description of request and current status.

External Documentation Requests will continue to follow the existing process as currently documented.

Qwest will provide a status update at the December CMP Meeting. Sincerely, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC033104-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will redesign the archive change request information on the Qwest Wholesale web site to allow search and print functionality.

Status History

Project Meetings

- Meeting Minutes CMP June Meeting Doug Andreen, Qwest said the site is now up and running. He said the CLEC notification went out yesterday and the comment cycle starts today. Effective date is scheduled for July 6. John Berard, Covad asked if this is still an Adobe file. Doug said no. John asked if it could be downloaded as an Adobe file. Doug said he would check. Doug said it will work for download the same way as the new Interactive Report. (After the meeting it was found that the file can be downloaded as an Adobe (pdf) file or a text file but it will only download the specific level of the file you are in at the time. For instance, if you are in the CR Index, the download will only contain the Index and will not have links to the detail file. If you are in a Detailed Record the download will only contain that record. However, the file can be downloaded as an html file, and if downloaded at the Index level, will maintain links to the Detailed information.) Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon added that she is anxious to try the new search capabilities. Liz Balvin asked if individual CRs can be printed. Doug answered yes. This CR will move to Test Status

Meeting Minutes CMP May Meeting Doug Andreen, Qwest summarized the response saying that Qwest accepts the CR and is proceeding to design the Archive change request information in the same manner as the recently completed rewrite of the Interactive Report. He added that this design effort should be finished between now and the next meeting so the intent is to notice the CLEC Community and then post to the Web as a Prototype just as was done with the Interactive Report rewrite. The CR will move to Development.

-- 4/21/04 April CMP meeting Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon presented this CR and stated the plan is to design it in the same way as the Prototype Interactive Report. The CR will move to Presented.

- 10:30 (MST) / Wednesday April 7, 2004

1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC033104-1

Attendees Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon Cindy Macy, Qwest Communications Doug Andreen, Qwest Communications

Meeting Agenda:Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug read and reviewed the CR. The CR requests a redesign of the Archive CR Report to allow search and print functionality

Bonnie stated that the current structure there is so much data that search and print functionality is either hindered or cannot be performed. It calls for Qwest and the CLECs to collaboratively determine how to separate the data so functionality is restored.

Cindy asked if Bonnie could elaborate on the search and print function capabilities.

Bonnie stated that no new capabilities are needed but just to restore the functionality of these items. Search in particular has been crashing. The intent is to minimize the data.

(It is noted this CR was originally an action item and had been discussed in the last CLEC meeting. At that meeting it was discussed that if the Prototype Interactive Reports were approved in the April CLEC meeting that the Archive could follow the Interactive Report format and be broken into sections by the year the CRs had been initiated. ) 3.0Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Archive report for Product and Process and Systems CRs.

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Redesign the Archive Report to restore/allow search and print functionality of CRs.

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Bonnie will present this CR at the April meeting and a response will be due in the May timeframe.

CenturyLink Response

May 12, 2004

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the May CMP Meeting

Bonnie Johnson Senior Manager ILEC Relations Eschelon

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # 033104-1

This is in response to Eschelon’s request to redesign the archive change request information on the Qwest Wholesale web site to allow search and print functionality.

Qwest accepts this CR and will proceed to design the archive change request information in the same manner as the recently completed rewrite to the Interactive Report.

Qwest will provide an updated status in the June CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Doug Andreen Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC111504-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will develop a process and/or provide and document contact information on how a CLEC can escalate when calling the Qwest repair and DSL technical support centers using a contact other than the number a CLEC calls to report the trouble.

Status History

Project Meetings

Georgeanne Weidenbach/Qwest stated that Qwest undertook to reduce hold time issues in its DSL Technical Support Center by implementing shift changes as well as adding a significant number of agents in the fourth quarter of 2004. Georgeanne said that Qwest plans to continue evaluating needs and adding agents as resources permit in 2005. She also stated that Wholesale Customers can submit repair tickets, effective December 2004, on-line using CEMR. Georgeanne said that Qwest has not experienced hold time issues associated with its other repair centers. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she sent the denial to their Service Manager and advised that they would be paging them if the hold time is excessive. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR would be closed.

From: Johnson, Bonnie J. [mailto:bjjohnson@eschelon.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 2:33 PM To: Macy, Cynthia; Johnson, Bonnie J. Cc: Peterson, Pete; Isaacs, Kimberly D. Subject: RE: PC111504-1 Excessive Repair DSL hold time

Hi Cindy, Your request would be very time consuming. Perhaps if Qwest had requested we provide that information on a going forward basis when we had the clarification call, Eschelon could have done that. In addition, I believe Qwest is required to report hold time or time to answer information so chances are Qwest already has the data you are asking for.

To go back would and gather the information would be too difficult, if we could gather it at all. I will ask Pete Peterson our RSB Manager if he could forward examples on a going forward basis, however.

Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc. Phone 612 436-6218 Fax 612 436-6318 Cell 612 743-6724 bjjohnson@eschelon.com

--Original Message-- From: Macy, Cynthia [SMTP:Cynthia.Macy@qwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 2:26 PM To: Johnson, Bonnie J. Subject: RE: PC111504-1 Excessive Repair DSL hold time

Bonnie,

Thank you very much for the information. I have forwarded this on to the team working on this CR.

We would also appreciate it if you could please provide a list of Qwest ticket numbers (Designed Services) or Phone numbers (POTS & DSL) that were reported to Qwest repair that had the excessive hold time while trying to make the initial report.

It would be nice to have the date and time the circuits were reported as well but not necessary. This information will help us determine the scope of the potential problem and where we may have an issue with hold time i.e. center, day of week, time of day, Holidays, volumes of tickets with excessive hold time, etc.

I appreciate your efforts obtaining this information. If you can provide this for the past tickets and for future tickets that would be great.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Cindy

Cindy Harlan Wholesale Change Management Qwest 303-382-5765

--Original Message-- From: Johnson, Bonnie J. [mailto:bjjohnson@eschelon.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 12:36 PM To: Macy, Cynthia; Johnson, Bonnie J.; Isaacs, Kimberly D. Cc: Peterson, Pete Subject: RE: PC111504-1 Excessive Repair DSL hold time

Hi Cindy, The number Eschelon is calling for DSL (as well as other repair) are the numbers posted on Qwest's web site.

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/maintenance.html

Contacts Interconnect Service Center (888-796-9087): * To submit Trouble Reports within 24 hours of Service Order Confirmation.

QCCC Warranty Group (866-549-3846 option 5) * To submit Trouble Reports on UNEs within 30 calendar days of Service Order Completion

AMSC (800- 223-7881): * Telephone Number * Non-Designed Service * Centrex Service * Shared Loop Service * Designed Service DSO, DS1, and DS3 circuit number * Unbundled Loop Service

RCHC (888-405-0083): * Non-Design POTS: * Resale - Simple Residential (1FR) * Resale - Simple Business (1FB) * UNE-P POTS Qwest Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) Technical Support Center (800-247-7285) * Resale * UNE-P * UNE-STAR

In addition, as you can see from the repair escalation web site, Qwest does not provide alternate numbers for escalation. You have to escalate through the main TN and Qwest provides no information at all on DSL escalations.

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/customerService/escalation.html

Tier Repair Contacts Non-Design Services Designed Services Info To Provide 1 Qwest AMSC, CRSAB, or RCHC initial Trouble report 800-223-7881 800-223-7881 Non Design: Telephone Number Designed Services Circuit ID, CLLI code, 2/6 code or trunk group 2 Status 800-223-7881 800-223-7881 Non Design: Telephone Number Designed Services Qwest ticket number 3 Escalations Note: The appropriate Escalation Manager's name & number will be provided after the Designed Test Center is contacted after level one escalation at the technician level. Level two and three will occur at the line manager and center manager level. Levels four and five will occur at the Director and Vice president level as noted in tiers six and seven. 800-223-7881 800-223-7881 Non Design: Telephone Number Designed Services Qwest ticket number

Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc. Phone 612 436-6218 Fax 612 436-6318 Cell 612 743-6724 bjjohnson@eschelon.com

--Original Message-- From: Macy, Cynthia [SMTP:Cynthia.Macy@qwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 11:40 AM To: Johnson, Bonnie J.; Isaacs, Kimberly D. Cc: Macy, Cynthia Subject: PC111504-1 Excessive Repair DSL hold time

The team working on this CR needs to know what the exact phone numbers are that you are calling. Would you please provide the actual telephone numbers that are dialed that you are experiencing excessive hold time on.

Thank you, Cindy

Cindy Harlan Wholesale Change Management Qwest 303-382-5765

December CMP Meeting Minutes Kim Isaacs – Eschelon presented the CR. Kim advised that Eschelon is requesting escalation contact information for cases when there are excessive hold times for DSL repair and regular repair. The first level escalation number is the same as the second level escalation number. When the CLEC can’t get through on the first number they have no other alternative number to contact. John Berard – Covad asked if there was not a 3rd level number that was different. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that there is only one number to contact for DSL repair and regular repair so if there is an issue getting through it seems as if there is not an alternative available. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Clarification Call: PC111504-1 Excessive Repair / DSL hold time escalation contact information

December 3, 2004 1:0 0 – 2:00 p.m. MT

In attendance:

Paul Schlachter – Qwest Communications Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Jen Arnold – TDS Roslyn Davis – MCI Randy Owen - Qwest Communications Tim Francis - Qwest Communications Paul Diamond - Qwest Communications Jim Recker - Qwest Communications Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon John Berard – Covad Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and advised that this is the Clarification call for PC111504-1 Excessive Repair / DSL hold time escalation contact information. Cindy advised that we will have Eschelon review the CR that they submitted. We will make sure Qwest understands the CLECs expectations and discuss next steps.

Bonnie explained for DSL repair there is a number to call to report tickets and this is the same number to use if you have an escalation. There is only one number to call for any issue the CLECs may have. Bonnie explained the Service Managers are the escalation point for the CSIE group for provisioning, but for repair there isn’t another contact available.

Bonnie advised they are experiencing excessive hold times for Qwest DSL repair and for basic repair also. When a call is made to the repair line we can be on hold for up to 45 minutes. The problem is that there is not another number to call if we can’t get through on the repair line. It doesn’t matter if we have an escalation as we can’t get through any sooner. Bonnie clarified that it is not the repair call that needs to be escalated, but the fact that we can’t get through. We need another way to contact repair when the main line hold time is excessive.

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked about the comment on the CR that mentions that Eschelon has worked with Service Management on past incidents. Bonnie explained that they worked with Service Management in February 2004 and October 2004. Service Management investigated why the hold time was so long and provided that information to Eschelon. They did not put anything in place to reduce the hold time or discuss an alternate way to contact repair when hold times are long.

Paul – Qwest asked for the average call hold time? Bonnie advised that in February it was 45 minutes, October was 30 minutes and November is 25-30 minutes. Bonnie said she understands that the nature of doing business will occasionally cause delays, but we need to get a process or other avenue in place to address the excessive hold time when it occurs. This should not go on for extended periods of time.

The team clarified that Eschelon is asking for a process to contact repair (both DSL and regular repair) when the main number has excessive hold time. Cindy verified this could be a pager, email, another phone number or another person to contact. Bonnie advised yes, that they need an alternate process to contact repair when the hold time on the phone number is excessive.

Cindy advised the next step is for Eschelon to present the CR at the December CMP meeting. Qwest will have an internal meeting to review what can be done and a response will be provided at the January CMP meeting.

There were no other questions.

CenturyLink Response

January 11, 2005

Eschelon Bonnie Johnson Director, Carrier Relations

SUBJECT: CR # PC111504-1 Excessive Repair / DSL hold time escalation contact information

Qwest undertook to reduce hold time issues in its DSL Technical Support Center by implementing shift changes as well as adding a significant number of agents in the fourth quarter of 2004. Also, Qwest plans to continue evaluating needs and adding agents as resources permit into 2005. Further, Wholesale customers may submit repair tickets (including DSL repair tickets, effective December 2004) on-line using CEMR. Qwest has not experienced hold time issues associated with its other repair centers. Qwest is meeting or exceeding its repair measures in these centers. With the operational improvements that Qwest has already made, Qwest is denying this request because the requested change does not result in a reasonably demonstrable business benefit (to Qwest or the requesting CLEC) or customer service improvement.

Sincerely, Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC090704-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: Qwest and CLECs will collaboratively develop and Qwest will document a process to react to situations where Qwest changes an existing process for which Qwest provided CLEC documentation.

Status History

Project Meetings

-- June 15, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this was effective on May 23, 2005 and Qwest would like to move this CR to CLEC Test. There was no dissent to the status of CLEC Test.

May 18, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the Final Notice was sent on May 6th and that the proposed effective date is May 23, 2005. This CR remains in Development status.

-- April 20, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the notice was sent on April 8th and that the comment cycle runs thru April 23rd. Jill then noted that this would become effective on May 23rd and that the status remains as Development.

- March 24, 2005 Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes ATTENDEES: Carol Desborough-Wisor, Tom Larson-Cox, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Bob Eggert-SBC, Rosalin Davis-MCI, Julie Pickar-TDSMetroCom, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Gary Berroa-Qwest, Carrie Bell-Qwest, Jackie Cole-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest

Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that there have already been several discussions regarding this Change Request and that this ad hoc meeting was scheduled in order to review the process that was developed for PC090704-1 which is titled CLECs and Qwest will developed, and Qwest will document a new process, which allows CLECs to notify Qwest when Qwest makes changes to an undocumented existing process and it impacts any CLEC. Peggy stated that the URLs that will be used in the ad hoc call were provided in the meeting notification that was sent on March 16th. Peggy stated that one of the URLs contains the CLEC Process Clarification Change Request Form and the other URL is for the Process document. Gary Berroa-Qwest stated that one of the URLs contained the CLEC External Process Clarification Request form and the other link is the Process document that can be uploaded and saved to the user’s desktop. Gary then directed the call participants to open the link that contained the form and stated that the fields with an asterisk were required fields. Gary then walked through the fields on the form. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the form is slightly different than what was previously discussed and noted that we wanted it to be similar to the existing process. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the fields titled ‘Detailed Description of Change’ and ‘Description of Change Impacted CLEC’ could be interpreted to mean the same thing. Bonnie asked if the ‘Description of Change Impacted CLEC’ was for the impact to the CLEC. Jill Martain-Qwest stated yes, it is for the CLEC to indicate what they experienced and the impact to the CLECs normal course of business. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if the field could be named differently. Jill Martain-Qwest suggested that the field name be changed to something like ‘Description of How the Change Impacted the CLEC’. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she agreed with the field name change. Gary Berroa-Qwest stated that the change could be made and asked if there were any other questions or comments. There were none brought forward. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked if all on the call were okay with what was presented. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she liked the form and noted that she likes electronic forms. The CLEC Community agreed with Bonnie. Gary Berroa-Qwest stated that the other link is the CLEC External Process Clarification Request and noted that at the bottom is a hyperlink for the Process Guide. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if the Process Guide contained the language that was previously agreed to. Jill Martain-Qwest stated yes and noted that the only change will be to the form. Gary Berroa-Qwest stated that the web site will have a link to the form and will have the ability to upload the Process Guide. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that when there are items that had a resolution and were closed, it would be similar to the existing external process. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she likes that it is on the same web page as it is then all in one location. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that it sounds like everyone likes what they saw. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated yes and stated that she appreciated the work and effort. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that we would then proceed with the implementation of this process with the appropriate notifications. There were no additional comments or questions.

- March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that we are working to get the web up and working and noted that an ad hoc call had been scheduled for March 24th. This CR remains in Development status.

-- February 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that we were working on how to implement this on the web to look like the existing external documentation process. Jill stated that we would schedule ad ad-hoc meeting to take place in March for review and feedback. This CR remains in Development status.

January 19, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion Jill Martain/Qwest stated that there was an ad-hoc meeting on January 7th for review of the process. Jill stated that an agreement was reached and noted that Qwest is working internally to determine what needs to be done and how it will be done. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she had asked for the post-order process and noted that Qwest does not want to consider that. Bonnie stated that she has asked Qwest if the post completion process could be followed. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that was for a different change request but can be discussed now. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked why Qwest did not want to use the post completion process. Bonnie stated that she has discussed this with Covad, and Covad does not want any post completions. Bonnie stated that she had talked with Liz (Balvin/Covad) and that Liz told her that as long as Qwest is reviewing the examples to eliminate the problem causing post completions she is okay using the post completion process. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that with the previous agreement Qwest agreed to document the existing process, which was a telephone call. Jill agreed to take back and review if Qwest can utilize the Post Completion Process. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would rather that the post completion process be followed since this was a post completion issue. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that she would revisit and look at the pros and the cons.

PC090704-1 CLEC Impacting Change Process Ad Hoc Meeting January 7, 2005

In Attendance: Amanda Silva – VCI Kathy Stitcher – Eschelon Jill Martain – Qwest Pete Budner – Qwest Cindy Harlan – Qwest Bob Eggert – SBC Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon

Cindy Harlan – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the agenda. Cindy advised that this process was requested by Eschelon as a means to address an escalated situation when a process changes and it negatively impacts the CLECs. Jill Martain – Qwest advised that we have reviewed the process internally and made a few changes. The purpose of this call is to review the changes and discuss next steps.

Jill Martain – Qwest stepped through each section of the process. Jill reviewed the scope of the process and when it would be used.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if a phone call instead of email could be used for section 3.2. Jill explained a phone call is better as discussion needs to take place in this step. Jill agreed that in section 3.2.2 an email could be sent to capture the discussion.

Bonnie also suggested that Doug’s name be removed from the process document. Jill agreed. Bonnie asked what EDCR stood for. Jill replied External Documentation Change Request.

Bob Eggers asked if the request is out of scope is it still posted historically? Jill advised that is one of the next steps that we need to take. We need to meet with the web team to create a location on the web to store these, and model it after the External Documentation Change Request.

Next Steps include: Create the online form to submit Make web updates Provide notification of the process

December CMP Meeting Minutes Jill Martain – Qwest advised that we are continuing with our internal review. We have some updates to the process as a result of our reviews and some additional work to make the process and form available to the CLECs. An ad hoc meeting will be schedule to review the proposed changes with the CLECs after the first of the year. This CR will remain in Development Status.

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Jill Martain – Qwest advised an ad hoc meeting was held and feedback on the draft proposal was received. Qwest will meet internally and then will schedule another ad hoc meeting with the CLECs. The CR will remain in Development Status.

10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Jill Martain, Qwest stated that there had been one ad-hoc call and that Qwest was in the process of developing the form for review at the next ad-hoc meeting to be held October 27. Bonnie added that she thought the ad-hoc meeting had been a great start. The CR will move to development.

-- Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PC090704-1 CLECs and Qwest will develop, and Qwest will document a new process, which allows CLECs to notify Qwest when Qwest makes changes to an undocumented existing process and it impacts any CLEC. CMP Product & Process October 27, 2004 1-877-521-8688, Conference ID 1456160# 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE

To review the rough document and form for this process

List of Attendees: Jen Arnold – TDS Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Kathy Stichter - Eschelon Lynn Kellas – Electric Light Wave Mark Matson – SBC Telecom Rosalin Davis - MCI Jill Martain – Qwest Jim Recker – Qwest Doug Andreen - Qwest

MEETING MINUTES

The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees.

Doug Andreen explained that the purpose of the meeting was to review the document and form associated with this CR.

Jill Martain walked through the document. She said Qwest struggled with the title of the process and further discussion determined that if any of the CLECs had a better title to please submit.

Bonnie Johnson asked what types of situations were covered in section 1.0. Jill said situations where something was being viewed one way by the CLEC’s and a different way by Qwest.

Liz Balvin of Covad had submitted three questions in advance of the meeting. The first involved Impact to the CLEC and if the CLEC would have to prove impact. Jill answered that the impact is determined by the submitting CLEC. Changes could occur during meetings that follow by mutual agreement. Eschelon said this is ok as long as long as it is defined at the CLEC level. The second question concerned making the document less vague with respect to “short term course of action” and “until meetings can be scheduled”. The words “within one business day” were inserted at three places in the document to clarify time frames. The third question concerned CLECs having input to problem resolution. Jill explained that it would be a mutual decision of how to get to resolution, via CR, MCC, etc.

It was also clarified that the intent is to have this on the web in the same place as the External Documentation Process. Kim Isaacs asked if the information would be tracked and Jill answered that this was being looked into. Jill further clarified that out of scope problems would be resolved by Qwest calling the initiator.

It was agreed that the updated document would be distributed via notice tomorrow October 28th and that CLECs would forward comments or red-lines by close of business Wednesday November 3rd. The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday November 18, 9 a.m. Mountain time.

-- Time/Date: Place: Conference Call-In No.: CR No.: CLEC Change Request Ad-Hoc Meeting

October 7, 2004 9:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. Mountain Time

1-877-521-8688, Conference ID 1456160# PC090704-1

Attendees Attended Conference Call Name/Company: Jen Arnold – TDS Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Stephanie Prull, Eschelon Kathy Stiester, Eschelon David Bellinger, AT&T Rosalin Brewer, AT&T Rosalin Davis, MCI Amanda Silva, BCI Liz Balvin, Covad Jill Martain, Qwest Communications Jennifer Fisher, Qwest Doug Andreen, Qwest Communications Title:

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Introductions were made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0 Minutes Doug Andreen read and reviewed the CR. The CR requests that CLECs and Qwest will develop, and Qwest will document a new process, which allows CLECs to notify Qwest when Qwest makes changes to an undocumented existing process and it impacts any CLEC. He also said that at this meeting we wanted to get to the root cause of the problem from both a CLEC and Qwest perspective, establish a high level outline of the process, and establish next steps. Bonnie Johnson added that this process would be for the times when Qwest unknowingly does something different. Of course, when Qwest knows, they would handle the situation through the CMP process. Jill Martain proposed the following steps as a high level view to resolve the CR issues: 1. Determine a method in which the CLEC can communicate their concern/issue to Qwest, i.e., the comment or cmpcr mailbox. 2. Schedule an ad-hoc meeting to discuss the problem, establish the cause and correction and decide together how to move forward. 3. Decide if PCAT changes, notices, etc. are needed. Some discussion ensued and it was agreed that the above points were an excellent start. It was further agreed to use a yet to be developed template to communicate to Qwest in a standard manner via the cmpcr mailbox. These emails will carry a special Subject line so they are easily identifiable for special handling. It was decided the template would include a description of the issue (the situation before and the existing situation), any associated PCATs, manual processes, Technical Publications, etc., a history of steps taken so far i.e. Repair ticket numbers, escalation tickets, contact with Qwest employees including the CLECs Service Manager, additional SMEs the CLEC would like involved, any proposed solutions, and an assessment on the impact this is having on the CLEC. It was further agreed that the degree of impact would be expressed as high, medium, or low. If a high impact , the CLEC would be contacted within 24 hours to determine an immediate course of action. If a medium or low impact is indicated the regular timeframe for an ad-hoc meeting (5 days) would apply. Bonnie stated she would like to see these distributed to other CLECs. The method for doing this has yet to be devised. Also Bonnie added that this process would be for items where the CLEC has at least already visited with their Service Manager and determined this is the route to go. 3.0 Next Steps/Action Plan Qwest will design a rough draft of the form and process. The next meeting will be October 27, 9 – 10 am. Mountain time. Qwest will forward the form and process before the meeting.

Time/Date: Place: Conference Call-In No.: CR No.: CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

September 13, 2004 3:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. Mountain Time

1-877-521-8688, Conference ID 1456160# PC090704-1

Attendees Attended Conference Call Name/Company: Jen Arnold – TDS Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T Emily Baird, POP Telecom Liz Balvin, Covad Jim Recker, Qwest Communications Sue Kriebel, Qwest Communications Jill Martain, Qwest Communications Doug Andreen, Qwest Communications Title:

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug Andreen read and reviewed the CR. The CR requests that CLECs and Qwest will develop, and Qwest will document a new process, which allows CLECs to notify Qwest when Qwest makes changes to an undocumented existing process and it impacts any CLEC. Bonnie Johnson summarized the description of the CR and said that it is designed to cover situations such as the Design Process Expedite Process as discussed at last month’s CMP meeting where Qwest had always accepted requests but all of a sudden would not. She stated that Eschelon’s interpretation of and existing process is something that Qwest is doing globally whether it is internally documented at Qwest or not. When a process stops and CLECs are impacted, CLECs need a way to react since they cannot see the process change. Jill Martain said such cases are examples where Qwest might view this as a compliance issue while the CLECs view it as a change to existing process Bonnie said we need to collaboratively determine a process for when this happens, for instance when a Qwest employee tells us “Oh no, we got an MCC covering that”. Liz Balvin asked if there was an MCC sent out or if they were going by the final Product Notification. There was much discussion around the Expedite process in specific and what this CR would accomplish. . Discussion continued to state that in the case of expedites, the PCAT was silent on the activity types for expedites. Qwest’s intent is that it applies to all order activity types and the CLEC viewed the PCAT for installation activity only. This CR would implement steps the CLECs and Qwest would follow to resolve these types of situations. It was stated that the MCC or notification processes should not be confused with the intent of this CR. Bonnie stated for situations where Qwest has a document that says “do this” and the CLEC has a different viewpoint of the existing process. This CR is for unique situations where Qwest views an issue as a compliance matter and the CLECs view it as a process change. Jim Recker asked if this would encompass more than Installation and Repair. Jill answered yes that it would cover all areas. Doug pointed out that the CR was not received before the cutoff for the September meeting. Bonnie said she would like to walk it on this month. Therefore, the CR will be walked on at the September 16 CMP meeting.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted 4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting. 5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Qwest and CLECs will collaboratively develop and Qwest will document a process to react to situations where the CLECs and Qwest have different viewpoints on process issues/changes that have a direct impact on the CLEC community where the existing documentation needs clarity. 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) The CR will be walked on at the September 16 meeting. Response will be due at the November CMP meeting.

Open Product/Process CR PC091504-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

December CMP Meeting Minutes Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised this CR is effective December 15. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that this CR will eliminate 2FR and 4FR in North Dakota. Existing customers will be converted to 1FR service. Wholesale does not have any current customers. This CR is effective December 15. This CR will move to Development Status.

October 20, 2004 CMP Meeting MInutes Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised that this CR will eliminate 2FR and 4FR in North Dakota. Existing customer will be converted to 1FR service. Wholesale does not have any current customers. This CR is effective December 15. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Open Product/Process CR PC092104-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Delivarable: 12/15/04

Status History

Project Meetings

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Cindy Macy - Qwest advised that this CR is effective 12/15. The CR will move to Development Status.

10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Janean Van Dusen, Qwest presented this CR saying that the grandparenting will be effective 12/1. Liz Balvin, Covad asked if there was an equal service available and there is not. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon would like to assess the impact and then it will be decided if we need an ad-hoc call. The CR will move to presented status.

Open Product/Process CR PC092704-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected deliverable:

12-15-04

Status History

Project Meetings

-- December CMP Meeting Minutes Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised this CR is effective December 15. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that this CR is effective December 15. This CR will move to Development Status.

10//20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes: Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised that this has already been grand parented in all other states. This CR will grandparent LADS in Utah and Iowa. This CR is effective December 15. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised she does not know what LADS is but she will check to determine if Eschelon has any impacts. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Open Product/Process CR PC100404-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

This change will provide the CLECs and Qwest a consistent way to close non design trouble tickets. This should be implemented as soon as possible.

Status History

Project Meetings

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that Qwest has been tracking repeat trouble tickets for the last 2 months. He said that data shows that repeat tickets have decreased from 13.5% to 12.6%. Jim said that the repeat rate did not increase as a result of this CR and proposed closing the CR. Jill Martain - Qwest said that this CR will be closed

7/20/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting Jim Recker - Qwest stated that we got approval to move forward on this CR with the understanding that we would continue to monitor repeat tickets. Jim said that we will have the May data for analysis by the end of July.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if there was any indications of a spike in May.

Jim Recker - Qwest said that the data would not be available until the end of July (Comments to minutes from Eschelon 7/27/05) and Qwest will report in August.

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR would remain in Evaluation status.

6/15/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that this CR was completed and that we agreed to leave in CLEC Test to track and monitor the repeat rates during April and May. Jim said he did not have that data yet but that a readout would be provided by Qwest in the July Meeting.

5/18/05 CMP Product/Process Meeting

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that an adhoc call was held to discuss the action item associated with the process improvements on repeat tickets. Jim said that this CR will remain in CLEC Test to monitor reports to ensure that repeat tickets are not increasing from closing tickets electronically. Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR will remain in CLEC Test.

5/13/05 Adhoc Meeting

Attendees: Sharon Van Meter - AT&T, Jeff Ray - McleodUSA, Roslyn Davis - MCI, Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Kathy Stichter - Eschelon, Lynnette Durn - McleodUSA, Renee - Wisor, Bill Hutch - McleodUSA, JJ Lebya - McLeodUSA, Liz Balvin - Covad, Cathy Garcia - Qwest, Jim Recker - Qwest, Laura Baird - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest stated that the purpose of the meeting was to communicate some of the efforts underway associated with the repeat ticket process improvements.

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that Qwest is addressing and working to reduce repeat tickets and improve the duration. He said that job aides have been updated and training provided to the screeners in the Repair Call Center. Jim stated that we have implemented internal measures for the repair representatives. Jim stated that we are staying in parity with Retail. He said that we analyzing data in order to decrease chronic tickets. Jim said that we have several efforts underway to reduce the number of times we have to roll a truck.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said that it appears that Qwest has several positive initiatives underway and appreciates the effort. Bonnie asked if Qwest could define an unproductive dispatch.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest stated that the official definition is when we dispatch a technician when it wasn't necessary. Cathy said that we have efforts underway to reduce unproductive dispatches.

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that we have a process set up to report repeat tickets. He said that there is a screen selection in CEMR for repeats and chronics.

Bill Hutch - Mcleod asked if the ticket is channeled as a repeat/chronic.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest said no but it brings the ticket to the top. She said that ithe system augments the ticket by a couple of minutes.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if the system could identify chronic number.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest stated that she would be presenting a change request in the May Systems CMP Meeting that is a CEMR enhancement to automate display abbreviated trouble history analysis. Cathy said that the system will determine if there were any other trouble reports within a 30 day time period. She said that the system will automatically place repeat if it is the 2nd trouble report within 30 days, or chronic if it is the 3rd trouble report in the trouble narrative.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if this would be for the same ANI only.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest said it would be for the same trouble and same TN only.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if they have a customer that originally calls in for a Call Forwarding issue and then calls in for another problem, how would this be handled.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest said that if the customer calls in because a feature is not working and then calls in for no dial tone, these tickets would not be related.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if Qwest has discussed the possiblity of a lesser commitment on repeats.

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that we don't have a way to shorten the interval.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said this would be a moot point if we eliminated the problem.

Jim Recker - Qwest said that we are going to continue to monitor the repeat rate to ensure that the quantity of repeats does not increase. Jim said that we will be providing updates in the Monthly CMP Meetings.

4/20/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting Jim Recker - Qwest stated that this CR was effective last weekend. Jim said that they are monitoring the repeat rate to ensure that it is not increasing or impacted. He said that they are still analyzing the repeat rates for root cause and looking at updating or changing processes to get the repeat rate down.

Liz Balvin - Covad said that she appreciates the initiative of the action item to monitor repeat rates. Liz asked if since Qwest has been monitoring the repeat rates have they received any issues from the CLECs.

Jim Recker - Qwest said no and that they were cognizant of the issue and that repeat rates also have a big impact to Qwest.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if Jim (Recker) was involved in the Line Test Only project.

Jim Recker - Qwest said yes and that he will be transitioning the project to someone else and that they are analyzing how to move forward.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said that requesting Line Test Only is a process used to mask an underlying process and that they are gathering data for Qwest.

Jim Recker - Qwest said that the data will be helpful.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if Qwest’s documented process is when a Line Test Only is requested is MLT mandatory.

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that the PCAT needs to be clarified.(Change to minutes submitted by Eschelon 4/29/05) – Jim said his interpretation is yes but others are no.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon stated that she wants to work together with Qwest to clarify and resolve any issues. Bonnie said that she would object to any Qwest initiated changes such as charging for (Change to minutes submitted by Eschelon 4/29/05 line test only)

3/16/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR will move to CLEC Test Jim Recker - Qwest stated that this CR will go into effect on April 18th. Jim also stated that separate from this CR, we are currently reviewing and analyzing repeat tickets to determine if there is a way to handle more effectively. Jim said that an adhoc meeting will be scheduled to discuss with the CLEC Community.

2/16/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that an adhoc meeting was held on February 15. An agreement was reached to move forward on this CR with the caveat that an action item would be created to address repeat trouble tickets. Comments to notes received from Eschelon 2/24/05, including continuing to research the feasibility of changing the commit time on repeat tickets to a shorter interval. Bonnie suggested we could start by looking at repeat out of service tickets. Jim agreed that would be a good place to start. Qwest said they would look at the data and determine next steps.

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR will remain in Development Status and that we will be sending out a notification for the meetings associated with addressing repeat trouble tickets.

2/15/05

Attendees: Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, Pete Peterson - Eschelon, Jeff Bellen - Eschelon, Doug Denney - Eschelon, Kathy Stichter - Eschelon, Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Jen Arnold - TDS Metrocom, Cathy Garcia, Jill Martain - Qwest, Jim Recker - Qwest, Ro Erives - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest reviewed that the purpose of this meeting was to followup an action item from a previous adhoc meeting held on 1/20/05. Lynn stated that during that meeting, Eschelon requested that Qwest research whether or not Qwest would accept a CR requesting to reduce the repeat commitment. Lynn also said that we need to come to an agreement on how to move this CR forward.

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that we have already investigated enhancing various systems so that CLECs can deny the proposed closure of trouble tickets and that the cost was estimated to be approximately $14M. Jim stated that Repeat tickets have to be re-opened after they are closed and not fixed -- a new commit time is give and the cycle starts over. Jim also said that It is true that repeat tickets do have to be re-opened after they are closed. Jim said that Qwest does not believe with the implementation of this CR that it will increase the repeat ticket rate and that Qwest does not like to re-work a ticket and our goal is to fix the trouble right the first time. Jim said that we understand that there are additional costs and work for you, as well as to Qwest, when we have to roll another truck and dispatch another time. Jim said that from July-November, 2004 the repeat range was between 9.65 and 11.73%. Jim stated that we have teams in place already, which are addressing the repeat rates and we are looking into the possibility of enhancing our systems to identify repeat tickets in order to complete them faster. Jim said that Qwest is willing to take the repeat ticket issue as an action item and work collaboratively to see if we can isolate the big hitters or larger issues associated with repeat tickets, but we would like to still move forward with this CR in the mean time. Jim stated that CEMR event do not reflect the work that was done and our process dictates that the same level of detail should be provided whether the response is mechanical (electronic) or verbal. Jim said that CEMR was enhanced in October 2004 to give the CLECs the ability to monitor active non-designed trouble tickets and Technician coaching continues.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked what type of activity would be addressed with this action item. Bonnie said if it's just reporting, it won't work.

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that we can look at the heavy hitters cooperatively to determine if there are any heavy hitters percentage wise.

Jim Martain - Qwest stated that we can work together on what examples we want to look at in order to improve the process for repeats. Jim said that we can identify process issues on both sides and that we may find we need documentation as well.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said that we could look at out of service tickets first.

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that we could have another call to determine what criteria we want to look at,

Pete Peterson - Qwest asked what is the fall back plan if the percentage of 12% gets worse.

Jill Martain - Qwest said that we will be working on this issue on an ongoing basis and the team needs to make sure that does not happen..

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked that this CR remain in CLEC Test (when applicable) for a couple of months.

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest stated that an adhoc meeting will be scheduled in the next couple of weeks.

1/20/05 Adhoc Meeting

Attendees: Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, Jeff Bellin - Eschlelon, Doug Denny - Eschelon, Kathy Stichter - Eschelon, Pete Peterson - Eschelon, Stephanie Haas - Cox Communications, Roslyn Davis - MCI, Cathy Garcia - Qwest, Jim Recker - Qwest, Laura Baird - Qwest, Cindy Harlan - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest stated that the purpose of this meeting was to review the four items that were brought up in the meeting held on January 6 with the CLEC Community.

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that the 1st issue was: The CLECs are unable to deny the closure if the ticket is closed automatically. Jim said that a system CR (SCR042204-01 CEMR Request to Close) requesting that Qwest build a function in CEMR that would send a request to close when the technician has completed work on a trouble ticket. Jim said that Qwest denied that request due to the system costs involved and would not be an option.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that this ability exists with design tickets in CEMR and asked if this function can't be provided because of a backend system.

Jim Recker - Qwest said yes and that a re-write would be required in LMOS.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if there was interaction between LMOS and CEMR.

Jim Recker - Qwest said that once we close a ticket in LMOS the ticket is closed and it can't be reopened.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if WFA acts differently.

Jim Recker - Qwest said that WFA is a newer system.

Jim Recker - Qwest said that the 2nd issue is: Repeat tickets have to be re-opened when they are closed and the service is not fixed. He stated that we looked at August - October non-design repeat tickets and that it revealed that the overall repeat rate is 12%. Jim said that we continue to review and research issues that comprise the 12% so that we can reduce that rate and work on process improvements.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon stated that she considers a 12% repeat high and said that is about 1 in every 10 customers. Bonnie asked what Qwest was initiatives were underway doing to improve and asked what Qwest's goal is to improve this rate.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest stated that Qwest is working within the organizations and workgroups to improve processes associated with repeat repair patterns, chronics, no access, etc. that will improve this process.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said that Qwest always comes back with the same answer. Bonnie asked if there were any new initiatives underway and that the old ones don't appear to be working. Bonnie asked if representatives were on the call that could answer what the intiatives were for some of the other work groups

Cathy Garcia - Qwest said that Qwest is always looking at new processes and initiatives associated with reducing trouble tickets.

Laura Baird - Qwest said that in addition to what Cathy said, there team is also looking at processes associated with improving to reduce repeat tickets.

Jim Recker - Qwest said that the 2nd issue is: Electronic bonding is not available on CEMR tickets (no back and forth) communications. Jim stated that this goes back to issue number 1 and the system costs.

Jeff Bellin - Eschelon asked if there was a way to treat non-design DSL in CEMR like a design ticket.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest stated that non-design follows the WFA design practice.

Jeff Bellin - Eschlon asked if there was a way to flag repeat tickets.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest stated that we could possibly look at providing a better commitment on chronic repeat tickets. Cathy stated that multiple chronic tickets don't get a better commitment.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if Qwest would consider putting a flag on repeat tickets to place the ticket at the top of the list so that the ticket can be completed before other tickets because it is a repeat. Bonnie asked if Qwest would consider reducing the commitment time.

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that Eschelon could submit a CR.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon stated that she would not submit a CR that Qwest was going to deny. Bonnie said that Qwest should look at this issue within this CR (PC100404-1). Bonnie said that with the issues we have discussed #1 and #2 are too expensive, #3 Qwest has internal initiatives in place. Bonnie said that she feels that we have not gained anything. Bonnie said that Eschelon submitted a CR requesting CEMR to allow full MLT Test when opening a trouble report in CEMR. Bonnie said that Qwest denied that CR for no demonstrable benefit. Bonnie said that Qwest stated that the expectation is that the CLEC has the ability to run and view a full MLT in its current location and format fullfilled the customers needs for MLT data.

Jeff Bellin - Eschelon stated that a large percent of TOKs turn out to be a Qwest problem and that they spend double the amount of time to open another ticket.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon stated that you have to test anyway to determine if the trouble is in the switch.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest stated that is part of the trouble isolation.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said that she wanted to assure Qwest that they don't open a ticket for everything and that they do a lot of trouble isolation before submitting a ticket.

Jim Recker - Qwest asked if this was before the line test only.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said yes and that 1 reason for the line test only is a result of Qwest dispatching and that they had to pay TIC charges on features.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest said that some of our features are facility based and do require TIC charges. She said that the only time is if it is not on our side.

Jeff Bellin - Eschelon asked about PIC codes to be verified.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest said that she would like to see an example and said that we should be doing those in the switch. Cathy stated that CEMR was enhanced in October of 2004.

Cindy Harlin - Qwest stated that we would like to move this CR forward and that we don't want to do anything to negatively impact the repeat report rate. Cindy said that we are always looking for ways to improve.

Jim Recker - Qwest said that he agreed and that we do not want to do anything to jeopardize the repeat rate.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said that she is disappointed in Qwest's response and feels that we are not making any headway. Bonnie asked what Qwest's goal for improving the 12% repeat rate. Bonnie said that they have tried to tackle this problem via CRs and their Service Managers and can't seem to find a solution.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest said that we are looking at the repeat rate for improvement and that we don't want to roll a truck twice.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon stated that Qwest is doing things twice. Bonnie said that the call to us before we close the ticket did add some relief. Bonnie said that if Qwest changes the process a non compliance issue comes into play and will go into the comments. Bonnie said that they will issue a CR to request to reduce/shorten the commitment rate or this CR could be revised to include their request. Bonnie asked if Qwest posts the repeat rate and asked what the repeat rate was 12 months ago.

Cathy Garcia - Qwest stated that the results are posted.

Cindy Harlan - Qwest stated that Qwest will research to determine if a separate request is necessary.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon stated that they are agreeable to any solution for resolving the repeat rate.

Cindy Harlan - Qwest stated that Qwest will regroup internally and determine whether another CR is necessary.

1/19/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jim Recker/Qwest stated that an adhoc meeting is scheduled for January 20, 2005 to discuss Qwest’s response. Jim stated that Qwest will make recommendations in the February meeting. [1-28-05 Comment Received from Eschelon: Bonnie Johnson said she was anxious to hear the results of the examples Qwest reviewed] Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will remain in Development.

December CMP Meeting Minutes Jim Recker – Qwest advised that Qwest is looking at this internally and it is still in the development stage. Qwest is trying to determine how we can address the CLECs comments and issues. Qwest will provide additional details at the January CMP meeting. Kim Isaacs – Eschelon confirmed that the focus of this is to decrease the amount of repeat repair tickets. Jim agreed that is an area that we are looking at. This CR will remain in Development Status.

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Jim Recker – Qwest provided status on the CR. Jim advised what this CR entails is closing the trouble ticket in the same manner as Qwest receives them. Currently when we close trouble tickets we are calling the CLEC. This CR requests if we get a trouble ticket via CEMR/Mediacc we would use the system to close the ticket. If we get the trouble ticket via a phone call, we will use the phone to close the ticket. Jim advised there was an input meeting held on November 5. Four main issues were identified and Qwest is currently reviewing these issues (insert comment from Eschelon) and the associated action items from the call (end comment). Qwest will provide updated status at the December meeting. This CR will move to Development Status.

PC100404-1 Closing Non Design Trouble Tickets CLEC Input Meeting November 5, 2004

In attendance: Cindy Macy – Qwest Chris Quinn-struck – Qwest Jim Recker – Qwest Jeff Bellin – Eschelon Jennifer Fisher – Qwest Mark Mattson – SBC Jean Novak – Qwest Josh Nielson – Qwest Pete Budner – Qwest Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Jen Arnold – TDS Laura Baird – Qwest Roslynn Davis – MCI Cathy Garcia – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest reviewed the agenda and advised the purpose of this call to is gather input from the CLECs to understand their issues with closing repair tickets using the method that the ticket was initiated (via the system).

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon advised that in a perfect world the CLECs would like to be able to close tickets electronically, but there are four issues regarding this method.

1. The CLECs are unable to deny the closure if the ticket is closed automatically. 2. Repeat tickets have to be opened when the original ticket is closed, but not really fixed. A new commit time is given – the clock starts over. 3. Electronic bonding on non design tickets is not available via CEMR (no back and forth communication) 4. CEMR ticket events do not accurately reflect the work that was done. The same level of detail is not provided in the system as compared to when you talk with someone in person.

Kim advised the CLECS would like Qwest to lessen the duration of the outage and fix the problem the first time. Jenn - TDS advised they agree with Eschelon's examples. They have the same issues.

Kim advised they would like the ability to deny closure of the tickets. This would allow them to verify with their end user that the ticket is fixed. It is not productive for either the CLEC or Qwest to hold on the line while this takes place. If we could place the ticket in ‘hold or verify status’ for a certain period of time and then close it electronically that would be okay.

Jim Recker – Qwest asked about the CLECs current process. Jim verified that the CLEC tries to close the ticket with their end user while Qwest is on line. If the CLEC is unable to do that they accept closure of the ticket and then have to reopen a ticket if the problem is still occurring.

Shirley Stratton – SBC shared their process. Shirley advised SBC utilize electronic bonding on non-design tickets. They are able to communicate back and forth with Qwest and close tickets electronically. Qwest advised that Mediacc is available for non-design tickets. Currently Eschelon is not using Mediacc for non-design. Kim Isaacs asked about the difference in service levels between CEMR and Mediacc. Cathy Garcia -–Qwest advised that service levels are not a comparison between systems, there is different functionality provided by each system and the CLEC has the choice of either system to use.

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked about examples of repeat repair tickets. Kim Isaacs- Eschelon advised that she would send examples to Qwest to review.

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked if there was a previous CR requesting a system change. Kim Isaacs- Eschelon advised SCR042204-01 was denied for economically not feasible. This was requesting to Deny Closure of Non Design tickets.

Jenn Arnold – TDS advised that in some cases they do not receive a call from Qwest to close the ticket. Jim Recker – Qwest advised that some CLECs do not want Qwest to contact them so we are trying to maintain multiple processes.

Cindy advised the next steps will be to provide status at the November 17 CMP meeting. Qwest will review the information provided today by the CLECs and determine if there are changes that can be made to address the 4 issues identified.

10/20/04 Oct CMP Meeting Minutes Jim Recker – Qwest presented the CR. Jim advised what this CR entails is closing the trouble ticket in the same manner as Qwest receives them. Currently when we close trouble tickets we are calling the CLEC. This CR requests if we get a trouble ticket via CEMR/Mediacc we would use the system to close the ticket. If we get the trouble ticket via a phone call, we will use the phone to close the ticket. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon confirmed that this CR is to address the issue discussed last month. Qwest confirmed that is true. Bonnie advised there are reasons we need the call. The issue is that Qwest is closing tickets without fixing the problem. The CLECs do not have time to take the calls either. Other CRs in the past have been issued to try to get to the root of this problem. The issue is to get rid of the repeat repair tickets. On the design side we don’t close the ticket before we verify it is fixed. On the design side we do not create the order to charge for ‘no trouble found’ until 2 weeks after. This allows time to make sure there is not another repeat problem. Bonnie said Design customers are no more important than non design customers. Qwest treats non design differently. Jim Recker – Qwest advised we use different systems for design and non design and that drives some of the process. Jim advised that we are planning on having an ad hoc meeting to review the CLECs issues and try to address the root problem. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that an ad hoc meeting is planned for November 5. We would like to understand the root issue and discuss repeat repair tickets in more detail. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Open Product/Process CR PC102704-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: 1/15/05

1/13/05 Expected Deliverable changed to 7/16/05

Status History

Project Meetings

6/15/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR is still on target for 7/16/05 and will remain in Development.

5/18/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that the tariff effective date was moved from 8/1/05 to 7/16/05 and will remain in Development.

4/20/05/ Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jan VanDusen - Qwest stated that the tariff effective date is 8/1/05 and that this CR will remain in Development.

3/16/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Janean Van Dusen - Qwest stated that there was a delay in the February 14th filing and will now be effective on May 1st. She also said that the tariff notification is not out yet for review.

2/16/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Janean Van Dusen - Qwest stated that this CR is still on target for April 1, 2005.

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR will remain in Development Status.

1/19/05 Product/Process Meeting

Janean Van Dusen/Qwest stated that a notification was sent on January 13, 2005 advising that the effective date was changed to April 1, 2005. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will remain in Development.

1/13/05

PROD.01.13.05.F.02469.REVFNLElmnatDS-1Radio Product Notification

Notification sent to change effective date from January 15th to April 1, 2005.

December CMP Meeting Minutes Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised this CR is effective January 15. There are not any customers using this service. The alternate service is to provide DS1 over copper or fiber facilities. This CR will move to Development Status.

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest presented this CR for Janean VanDusen. This CR is effective January 15, 2005. We currently do not have any customers. Sharon Van Meter – ATT asked if there is a similar product offering that is available. Cindy advised she would check on this and provide information back in the meeting notes. This CR will move to Presented Status. Janean VanDusen – Qwest provided additional information after the meeting that she is verifying the customer impact as there may be a limited number of existing customers. Additional information will be provided at the December CMP meeting.

Open Product/Process CR PC102704-1ES Detail

Description Of Change

Revised Description of Change effective 3/23/07:

The following products, from the original CR, are removed from this Change Request and were not completed with this CR. The effort for these products may occur via separate CRs.

Unbundled Local Loop-General Information

Unbundled Local Loop-Digital Signal Level 1 (DS1) Capable Loop

Unbundled Local Loop-Digital Signal Level 3 (DS3) Capable Loop

Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL)

Loop MUX Combination (LMC)

Unbundled Dark Fiber (UDF)

Unbundled Dedicated Interoffice Transport (UDIT)

Unbundled Customer Controlled Rearrangement Element (UCCRE)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised Description of Change effective 3/1/05:

This CR will be implemented as a product/process CR as there are no CLEC facing system changes.

This CR details changes to availability of certain Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) products.

The following UNE products are no longer available to CLECs unless the most current effective version of the CLEC's Interconnection

Agreement (ICA) of Amendment includes terms, conditions, and pricing for the products before 6/14/04.

Unbundled Network Element (UNE)- Switching (UBS) http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unswitch.html

Unbundled Network Elements- Platform (UNE-P)-General Information http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unep.html

Unbundled Network Elements - Platform (UNE-P) - Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) Basic Rate Interface (BRI)

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unepisdnbri.html

Unbundled Network Elements-Platform (UNE-P)-Centrex http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unepcentrex.html

Unbundled Network Elements-Platform (UNE-P)-Public Access Lines (PAL) http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/uneppal.html

Unbundled Network Elements- Platform (UNE-P)- Private Branch Exchange (PBX) Trunks http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/uneppbx.html

Unbundled Network Elements - Platform (UNE-P)-Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/uneppots.html

Unbundled Network Elements - Platform (UNE-P) - Digital Switched Service (DSS) http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unepdss.html

Unbundled Network Elements -Platform (UNE-P) - Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) Primary Rate Interface (PRI)

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unepisdnpri.html

The remaining products on this CR are being revised due to changes based on the FCC Order received 2/4/05. The following products will be revised and will be noticed on a future date associated with this change request.

Unbundled Local Loop-General Information

Unbundled Local Loop-Digital Signal Level 1 (DS1) Capable Loop

Unbundled Local Loop-Digital Signal Level 3 (DS3) Capable Loop

Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL)

Loop MUX Combination (LMC)

Unbundled Dark Fiber (UDF)

Unbundled Dedicated Interoffice Transport (UDIT)

Unbundled Customer Controlled Rearrangement Element (UCCRE)

As always, any future changes of law may impact this notification and will be supported by the applicable notification.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

Implement PCAT changes retroactive to 6-15-04 subject to CMP Guidelines

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised Description of Change effective 1/11/05:

This CR will be implemented as a product/process CR as there are no CLEC facing system changes.

This CR details changes to availability of certain Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) products.

The following UNE products are no longer available to CLECs unless the most current effective version of the CLEC's Interconnection Agreement (ICA) of Amendment includes terms, conditions, and pricing for the products before 6/14/04.

-All Enterprise and Mass Market Unbundled Network Elements Switching (UBS) products, detailed in the following Product Catalog

(PCAT): http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unswitch.html

-All Enterprise and Mass Market Unbundled Network Elements-Platform (UNE-P) products, detailed in the following PCAT:

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unep.html

-DS1 Unbundled Loop detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unloopds1caploop.html

-DS3 Unbundled Loop detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unloopds3caploop.html

-Unbundled Dark Fiber (UDF), including E-UDF and Meet-Point UDF, detailed in the following PCAT:

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/darkfiber.html

-DS1 and DS3 Unbundled Dedicated Interoffice Transport (UDIT), including E-UDIT and M-UDIT, detailed in the following PCAT:

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/udit.html

-DS1 and DS3 Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL) detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/eel.html

-Unbundled Customer Controlled Rearrangement Element (UCCRE) detailed in the following PCAT:

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/uccre.html

-DS1 and DS3 Loop Mux Combo detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/lmc.html

As always, any future changes of law may impact this notification and will be supported by the applicable notification.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

Implement PCAT changes retroactive to 6-15-04 subject to CMP Guidelines

_______________________________________________________

Previous Title and CR Description of Change - see below for information prior to 1/10/05. This CR was Revised on 1/11/05

Previous Title:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decision (USTA II) Decision No. 00-1012, and FCC Interim Rules Compliance: Certain Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) Product Discontinuance

Previous Description of Change:

This CR will be implemented as a product/process CR as there are no CLEC facing system changes.

This CR details changes to availability of certain Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) products pursuant to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decision 00-1012 ('USTA II') which vacated some of the FCC's unbundling rules, and the subsequent FCC Interim Rules which preserved some of the unbundling rules vacated in USTA II.

In accordance with these orders and findings, the following UNE products are no longer available to CLECs unless the most current, effective version of the CLEC’s Interconnection Agreement (ICA) or Amendment includes terms, conditions, and pricing for the products before 6/15/04:

-All Enterprise and Mass Market Unbundled Network Elements Switching (UBS) products, detailed in the following Product Catalog (PCAT): http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unswitch.html

-All Enterprise and Mass Market Unbundled Network Elements-Platform (UNE-P) products, detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unep.html

-DS1 Unbundled Loop detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unloopds1caploop.html

-DS3 Unbundled Loop detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unloopds3caploop.html

-Unbundled Dark Fiber (UDF), including E-UDF and Meet-Point UDF, detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/darkfiber.html

-DS1 and DS3 Unbundled Dedicated Interoffice Transport (UDIT), including E-UDIT and M-UDIT, detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/udit.html

-DS1 and DS3 Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL) detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/eel.html

-Unbundled Customer Controlled Rearrangement Element (UCCRE) detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/uccre.html

-DS1 and DS3 Loop Mux Combo detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/lmc.html

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

Retroactive to 6/15/04 pursuant to FCC Interim Rules, subject to CMP Guidelines.

___________________________________________________

Status History

Project Meetings

12-14-06 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Mark C-Qwest stated that this CR is in Development status & that an ad hoc call was held a few weeks ago which resulted in the creation & distribution of a product matrix being provided to the CLECs. Mark stated that Qwest is awaiting feedback, on the matrix and then will regroup internally & evaluate. Mark then stated that the next ad hoc call is scheduled for January 11th. Mark asked for questions or comments. Bonnie J-Eschelon asked if Qwest could outline what is going to happen with the items in each of the four buckets. Bonnie asked for Qwest’s proposal for each of the buckets. Cindy B-Qwest stated that as previously mentioned, discussions would take place in the ad hoc mtgs & noted that Qwest has no set plan. [Comment from Eschelon: Cindy B-Qwest stated that as previously mentioned, discussions would take place in the ad hoc meetings & noted that Qwest has no strategic plan.] Cindy stated that Qwest is waiting for concurrence on the list & feedback on where each item belongs; we can then proceed. Cindy stated that this effort is casual & that Qwest does not want to dictate the flow of the ad hoc mtgs. [Comment from Eschelon: Cindy stated that Qwest is coming at this very casually & that Qwest does not want to dictate the flow of the ad hoc mtgs.] Cindy asked if that answered Eschelon’s question. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that in regard to Qwest’s proposal, she is hearing that Qwest does not really have one. Cindy B-Qwest stated that was correct. Cindy suggested that we move forward with the discussions & noted that everyone was now aware of the classifications, including buckets 2&3. Cindy stated that some items, in buckets 2&3, could also end up in bucket 4. Cindy then stated that items that are in litigation are not open for discussion at this time. Cindy stated that buckets 2&3 will be the focus, unless they are in litigation. Bonnie J-Eschelon thanked Cindy for the information & stated that all, except Unbundled Dark Fiber, are currently in litigation. [Comment from Eschelon: Bonnie J-Eschelon thanked Cindy for the information & stated that Eschelon believes that products all, with possibly the exception of Unbundled Dark Fiber, are currently in litigation.] Cindy B-Qwest stated that we would discuss that in the ad hoc mtg. Lynn O-Covad asked when the matrix was sent. Cindy B-Qwest stated that it was sent a few weeks ago. Susan L-Qwest stated that it was provided via email to the call participants on 12/9 & was provided via a notification on 12/7 There were no additional questions or comments.

11-27-06 Ad Hoc Mtg: Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Sherry Krewett-McLeod, Doug Denney-Eschelon, Laurie Fredricksen-Integra, Sheila Harris-Integra, Kathy Lee-ATT, Kelly Leveritch-Elec Light Wave, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest, Mark Nickell-Qwest, Candace Mowers-Qwest, Vicki Dryden-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Karen Ferguson-Qwest. Discussion: Peg ER-Qwest stated that this CR that was submitted, by Qwest, in 10-04 for the discontinuance of certain UNE Products. Peg then stated that some products on this CR were implemented & that some of the products were put on hold & the CR was placed in Deferred Status. Peg then noted that at the October Monthly CMP Meeting, Qwest stated that we wanted to take this CR out of deferred status & to start conversations around how to move forward. This CR was placed in CLEC Test. Peg stated that we then received an email in regard to the CR being in CLEC Test status & the thought that Presented might be more appropriate. Peg stated that the CR was changed from Deferred to CLEC Test due to the implementation of this change for 9 UNE Prods on 3-18-05. There are 8 remaining products on the current CR & noted that Qwest agrees that it is not yet appropriate to ask for closure & that additional discussions are needed & that is what today’s meeting is for. Peg then stated that Presented was not an appropriate status, due to the partial implementation of this CR. Peg stated that Presented was for new CRs, after they have been presented in a Monthly CMP Meeting. Peg stated that if the CLECs are uncomfortable with the CLEC Test Status, that the status could be changed to Development. Bonnie J-Eschelon asked if the status could be changed to Evaluation. Peg ER-Qwest stated that CRs in similar situations have been placed in Development status. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that she would check the CMP Document & would send an email with her decision. Peg ER-Qwest advised Bonnie J-Eschelon to send her email to the cmpcr mailbox, & then turned the call over to Cindy B-Qwest. Cindy B-Qwest stated that she would tee-up the subject in order to introduce & discuss the items that were deferred in 2005. Cindy then stated that she has a suggested approach & noted that she has no structure, agenda, or intention. She wants to talk about subjects to discuss, the order, & grouping. Once the participants decide, we could set an agenda for future meetings. Cindy stated that if subjects are grouped, we would like to work CRs one at a time, from submission to completion. Cindy stated that it would help eliminate confusion & that discussions would be focused on the topic that is current at that time. Cindy then asked the call participants for feedback & suggestions. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated at the October CMP Meeting that there were some products that needed to be addressed & suggested that is where to start the discussion. Cindy B-Qwest stated that the discussions could start there because we need to talk about what is not currently under the ruling, arbitration, on the wire center list, or items that are not currently in the CMP process. Cindy gave examples of OCN, UBL, & Unbundled Packet Switching. Cindy stated that those are not available or that there is no volume. Cindy noted that there could be small elements at the TRRO level. Cindy stated that these discussions should be unstructured & stated that there is no list. Cindy then stated that she wanted to get the CLECs interests & would then go from there. Bonnie J-Eschelon asked which products were completed & which were not completed on the current CR & asked if they could get a list. Susan L stated that she would get the information from the Final Notification & would provide the information later on the call. Cindy B-Qwest stated that the CR is a tracking mechanism for what was implemented & what was not. Cindy stated that this discussion is related only to Local Service products therefore there are items that will not to be discussed on this call, such as 800 data base query. Cindy stated that other Product Managers may want to be addressing those items. Cindy provided examples of EEL, Comingling, LMC, DS1/DS3 Transport, Optical Carrier Level UDIT, UCCRE, Line Sharing, Unbundled Packet Switching, Fiber to the Curb, & others. Cindy asked if the CLECs were asking for a list of all impacted products that will be discussed on this call. CLECsresponded yes. Cindy B stated that she could not discuss the products that she is not responsible for. Sheila H-Integra stated that she would like a list of what was implemented, what is left, what products would be discussed on these calls, & which products would not be discussed. Susan L-Qwest read the list from the current CR of what was implemented & what was not implemented with the current CR. Cindy B-Qwest stated that was a list of PCATs that need to be addressed & asked to clarify if the requested list would be by products or by PCATs. Bonnie J-Eschelon asked that the list be by products with their associated PCATs identified. Cindy B-Qwest stated that she would do her best to compile the list. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that she noticed that quite a few, such as commingling & shared distribution, are not to be on the list that Susan L read. Cindy B-Qwest stated that is why she asked if the list being requested was to be by prod. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that she sees 3 buckets: done with PCATs, left to do with PCATs, & those currently in some type of legal arena. Cindy B-Qwest stated she sees 4 lists: the original CR list of what has been implemented, what has not yet been implemented, then what was not addressed on the current CR, & those held for some legal forum. Bonnie J-Eschelon asked if those items that are held for some legal forum are items that could also reside on the list of what has not yet been implemented & on the list of what has not been addressed via the original CR. Cindy B-Qwest stated that they could & stated that she would leave that up to CLEC input. Cindy stated that is due to the fact that she is not involved in all that is being challenged, as the CLECs are. Cindy noted that the CLECs would need to help identify those. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that we needed to get our arms around that before we can proceed with the discussions. Bonnie stated that we need the grouping before we can proceed. Cindy B-Qwest stated that she was fine with that & that she would deliver the list in the next few days. Cindy then asked when we would then meet. Bonnie J-Eschelon suggested that we have our next call about 3 days after Qwest provides the list. Peggy ER-Qwest stated that the CMP Process does call for at least 5 business days advanced notice for a call & would base the next call on that as well. Susan L-Qwest stated that Qwest would get the list out & that CLECs could provide suggested groupings back to the cmpcr mailbox, Qwest would compile the list, then schedule the next meeting for further discussion. Cindy B.noted that she would be available after 12-6.

11-15-06 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Mark C-Qwest stated that this CR had been in deferred status & is now in CLEC Test status. (Comment from Eschelon - Mark C-Qwest stated that this CR had been in deferred status & Qwest is now bringing this in CLEC Test status.) Cindy B-Qwest stated that the FCC issued & released The Report, Order on Remand, &d Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 03-36), referred to as the Triennial Review Order (TRO) effective 10-2-2003 & the Remand Order (CC 01-338) referred to as the Triennial Review Remand Order (TRRO) effective 3-11-2005. Subsequently, Qwest issued CR PC102704-1ES. At that time, Qwest provided notification only on items that were clearly not challenged in the TRO order. CLECs have signed the TRO TRRO amendments to their ICAs & are operating under processes associated with that amendment. Qwest would now like to move forward & release the post TRRO documentation through CMP. TRRO issues that are being addressed by Qwest & CLECs in arbitration of their ICAs or items being challenged by law will not immediately be processed through CMP. Cindy stated that Qwest would like to re-open this CR & would also like to issue subsequent CRs for this effort. (Comments from Eschelon: Cindy B-Qwest stated that the FCC issued & released The Report, Order on Remand, & Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 03-36), referred to as the Triennial Review Order (TRO) effective 10-2-2003 & the Remand Order (CC 01-338) referred to as the Triennial Review Remand Order (TRRO) effective 3-11-2005. Subsequently, Qwest issued Change Request PC102704-1ES. Cindy said, at that time, Qwest provided notification only on items that were clearly not challenged in the TRO order. She said CLECs have signed the TRO TRRO amendments to their ICAs and are operating under processes associated with that amendment. She said Qwest would now like to move forward & release the post TRRO documentation through CMP. Cindy said Qwest is asking to release the undisputed items, those not in arbitration or items being challenged under law. Disputed items will not immediately be processed through CMP. Cindy stated that Qwest would like to re-open this CR & would also like to issue subsequent CRs for this effort.) Bonnie J-Eschelon asked to clarify that Qwest wants to add, in CMP, those not in arbitration or are not being challenged under law. Bonnie asked what Qwest was doing. (Comment from Eschelon:Bonnie J-Eschelon asked Qwest to explain & indicate what products Qwest wants to add in CMP. Cindy B-Qwest stated that Qwest would like to move the current CR, for UNE-P and UBL products, to CLEC Test. The other products would then be addressed via different CRs.) Cindy B-Qwest stated that Qwest would like to move the current CR, for UNE-P and UBL products, to CLEC Test. The other products would then be addressed via different CRs. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that on the 6-30-2005 call, Qwest said that this would be deferred until Qwest filed SGATS, with CLEC input. Bonnie asked if that was still the plan. [Comment from Eschelon: Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that, on the 6-30-2005 call, CLECs said they wanted to negotiate these terms in ICA negotiations, and Qwest said that, when it filed SGATs, CLECs would at least get an opportunity to have input. Bonnie asked if that was still the plan.) Cindy B-Qwest stated that Qwest is not planning to file SGATs in any state in the near future. Cindy noted that one & a half years ago, we were planning to & that was the intent at that time.Cindy then stated that Qwest is not planning to file SGATs in any state in the near future & would like to move forward based on the CMP process. (Comment from Eschelon: Cindy B-Qwest stated that Qwest is not planning to file SGATs in any state, and that is a change. Cindy noted that was a good point. She said, one & a half years ago, we were planning to & that was the intent at that time.Cindy then stated that Qwest is not planning to file SGATs and would like to move forward based on the CMP process.) Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that there were TRRO PCATs changed outside of CMP & asked how that would work when the TRRO PCATs would be changed without CLEC input. (Comment from Eschelon: Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that TRRO PCATs were changed outside of CMP without CLEC input & asked how that would work.) Cindy B-Qwest the intent was to cover all issues under this CR. Other products, not contested, such as OCN, UPS; those that can no longer be ordered, the PCATs were moved to a separate place on the web site for those who have signed amendments & for other CLECs to look at. Cindy then stated that Qwest wants to add the PCATs that are not currently under arbitration or under a legal status (i.e. wire center lists) or where states need to finish to resolution. Cindy stated that Qwest wants to propose how to add and post those PCATs, with CLEC input. Cindy then noted that Qwest would like to move forward & make discussions public in an open forum. Cindy proposed that questions & discussion on the structure take place on the first meeting that is currently scheduled for 11-27. (Comment from Eschelon: Cindy B-Qwest said the intent was to cover all issues under this CR. Other products, not contested, such as OCN, UPS; those that can no longer be ordered, the PCATs were moved to a separate place on the web site to cover those who have signed amendments & for other CLECs to look at if you want to see them before you sign an amendment. Cindy then stated that Qwest wants to readdress the PCATs that CLECs did not have input on & that are not currently under arbitration or under a legal status (i.e.wire center lists) or where states need to finish to resolution. Cindy stated that Qwest wants to propose how to add and post those PCATs, with CLEC input. Cindy said Qwest would like to address similarly situated products in chunks for all products with the same flavor. Cindy then noted that Qwest would like to move forward & make discussions public in an open forum. Cindy proposed that questions and discussion on the structure take place on the first meeting that is currently scheduled for 11-27) Bonnie J-Eschelon asked if the statement regarding legal proceedings for wire centers included the Qwest/Eschelon arbitration. (Comment from Eschelon: Bonnie J-Eschelon asked if the statement regarding legal challenges included the Qwest/Eschelon arbitration.) Cindy B-Qwest said yes. Bonnie J-Eschelon said okay. Cindy B-Qwest stated that she proposes that this current CR be moved to CLEC Test & to have the 11-27 ad hoc call in order to start discussions. There were no questions or comments. Mark C-Qwest asked to clarify that the current CR would not be changed or updated. Cindy B-Qwest said that was correct. Mark C-Qwest then asked if the new items would be addressed via new CRs. Cindy B-Qwest said yes. Mark C-Qwest asked if there were any questions or comments. Mark N-Qwest stated that at this time Qwest would like the current CR to reflect CLEC Test in order to maintain continuity going forward. Once the new CRs are discussed & there is more comfort around this effort, the closing of this current CR can be addressed. (Comment from Eschelon: Mark N-Qwest stated that at this time Qwest would like the current CR to reflect CLEC Test in order to maintain continuity going forward. Once the new CRs are discussed & there is more comfort around this effort, Qwest will request closure of the existing CR.) Mark C-Qwest stated that this CR would reflect a CLEC Test status & that Qwest would move forward with the recommended call on 11-27. Bonnie J-Eschelon asked if Cindy B-Qwest had any idea as to what was not included in the legal proceedings at this time. Cindy B-Qwest stated that she is unable to provide a comprehensive list & provided examples of OCN, UBL, & Unbundled Packet Switching. Cindy also noted that Line Sharing may not yet be posted. Bonnie J-Eschelon thanked Cindy B-Qwest for the information. (Comment from Eschelon: Bonnie J-Eschelon thanked Cindy B-Qwest for that information.) There were no additional questions or comments. This CR is in CLEC Test status.

1-18-06 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Jill M-Qwest stated that this is the CR for the TRO work & because there has been no change in the status, for several months, she would like to put the CR in a Deferred Status. Jill stated that when it is time for the PCAT updates, this CR would move out of Deferred. There was no dissent to moving this CR to Deferred. Kim I-Eschelon stated that there was a notice out today for TRRO and asked if that was separate from this effort. Jill M-Qwest stated that it was separate & that it was a non-CMP Notice. (1/27/06 - Comment from Eschelon: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the TRRO notices sent today was for CLECs that had signed the TRRO Amendment.

12-14-05 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Jill M-Qwest stated that this is still unchanged & that Qwest is still waiting for the SGATs, as previously discussed. This CR remains in Dev Status.

11-16-05 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Jill M-Qwest stated that there is no change from the previous month.This CR remains in dev.

10-19-05 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Jill M-Qwest stated that there is no new status for this CR. Liz B-Covad noted that the CLECs do now have access to the secret PCATs.

9-21-05 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Jill M-Qwest stated that there was no change on this CR & that we are still in a hold mode Liz B-Covad stated that she had a question on a Process Notification on the TRRO Product and Service Log On Jill M-Qwest said that she believed that notice was a Non CMP Notice. Liz B-Covad said that they feel the General Notice should have been a CMP Notice because it was the result of a CR. She said that it did not come out in a notice fashion with & effective date of 10/3. Liz said that she can’t comprehend how Qwest can determine that you can only look at a PCAT when an amendment is signed. Liz said that she was confused because she thought it was a process change that Qwest was trying to implement. Liz said that the TRRO does not allow Qwest to restrict the ability to send in orders. Liz said that she would like to formally object to the process Qwest is trying to implement. Jill M-Qwest stated that she would like to take this discussion offline with Covad. Jill said that this stemmed from a Product/Process CR where we agreed in an adhoc meeting, held on 6-30-2005 (see PC102704-1ES for meeting minutes) that the TRRO PCATs would be provided separately. She also said that Qwest & the CLECs agreed Qwest would not update the CMP controlled PCAT documents until the SGATs were approved. Liz B-Covad said that restricting access gives the appearance of preferential treatment. Jill M-Qwest stated that she would like to get the appropriate people together & discuss offline. Bonnie J-Eschelon said that they would like to be included in the discussions. Liz B-Covad stated that it is inappropriate to restrict access to PCATs and that they have a concern with the effective date. Sue W-XO Communications stated that they have a concern as well. She said that they are concerned that Qwest would be implementing differences in process based on the CLEC. Nancy S-Comcast said that they are concerned too. Julie P-TDS Metrocom is concerned. Liz B-Covad stated that the PCATs are not binding and that an adhoc meeting is needed to discuss these concerns. Jill M-Qwest stated that we have noted these concerns & will get back with the CLECs. Liz B-Covad asked if she should escalate via the CMP Process. Jill M-Qwest said no and that we have their concerns noted.

8-17-05 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Jill M-Qwest stated that there is no change to the status and remains in Development.

7-20-05 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Jill M-Qwest stated that an adhoc meeting was held to communicate the proposal on how we will move forward and that we will continue down that path. Jill said that this CR will remain in Development.

6-30-05 Ad Hoc Mtg: Rosalin Davis-MCI, Chad Warner-MCI, Chris Terrell-AT&T, Greg Diamond-Covad, Tom Hyde-Cbeyond, Jeff Sonnier-Sprint, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Doug Henney-Eschelon, Liz Balvin-Covad, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon. DISCUSSION: Cindy B-Qwest said that Qwest suggested this Ad-Hoc mtg to help communicate our implementation plans for the TRO TRRO. She said that many of the CLECs are interested in the implementation of the rules laid out in the orders and may have questions. Cindy said the CLECs likely agree that these orders cover numerous products & processes, not to mention availability & even eligibility. Cindy said that Qwest is developing template language that encompasses our obligations under the TRO/TRRO & that we will be filing that template language with the states in the months to come. She said that the normal filing process will be followed likely allowing a comment period from interested parties. Cindy said that in the meantime, our negotiations team will negotiate the amendment or full template with interested CLECs. Cindy said that negotiation combined with State approval of our template language that is necessary to finalize applicable language &/or processes. Cindy said that in order to most effectively & efficiently work through that process, we believe that it is best to further delay announcements of process or product changes related to these orders via CMP until such time as the language is finalized & will impact all CLECs. She said that no TRO TRRO changes to products or processes will be made across the board until such language is final. Cindy said, as mentioned earlier, we will implement product & process changes only as you sign the amendment or template language, through the change of law provisions that are outlined in your individual contracts. She said that the CLECs, at that time, will be provided with individual PCATs & Business Procedures that are in alignment with their current language so that they can determine any changes to the way you do business with Qwest. Tom H-Cbeyond stated that this plan sounds logical and asked when Qwest could share a draft or final version of the language to review before negotiating. Cindy B-Qwest said that Candice M-Qwest is closer to the filings & this Qwest effort. Candice M-Qwest stated that with the SGAT, there are no filings scheduled yet & with the number of changes, getting language is quite a task. Candice said that there is a negotiations template & a TRO Remand Compliance template onthe Qwest Wholesale Web at www.Qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/amendments.html. Candice said that when the CLECs want to begin negotiations, they can contact the Qwest negotiations team. Tom H-Cbeyond said that they would like to review & schedule negotiations. Candice Mowers-Qwest said that this was a good idea & to wait until the last minute will be a push. Tom H-Cbeyond stated that he would download & review the information. The following question was raised in the meeting: What does this have to do with QPP? Cindy B-Qwest said that this has nothing to do with QPP. She said that the QPP Commercial Agreements are on the same website & will remain there. Liz B-Covad summarized that the purpose of this meeting was to relay information on the TRO negotiations, the templates are out there for review & that the PCATs won’t be updated until the final language is approved. Cindy B-Qwest stated that we did not want to make process changes that will impact a lot of you & that we will honor your contracts. She said we will share documents as process changes are made. The following question was asked in the meeting: Does this have anything to do with PC102704-1ES. Cindy B-Qwest said that this CR was opened as a way to communicate changes in the TRO/TRRO. She said that there are more changes coming & the CR is the means to share those changes. Cindy said that the CR was initially issued when the TRO came out and had changes. She said that we had to pull back some of the PCATs but will keep the CR open until we can finish CR. Tom H-Cbeyond said that he understood the format and information can be used on the website. Cindy B-Qwest stated that the next steps depend on where each Company is. She said that they can go to the web, study and start negotiations. Cindy said that if you don’t want involvement, they could do nothing. She said that as SGAT language changes, we will have a comment period & that the States will engage you when decisions are made. Cindy also said that PCAT changes will be brought through CMP. There were no additional questions or comments.

6-15-05 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Jill M-Qwest stated that an ad hoc meeting had been scheduled for 6-22 for discussion of Qwest’s direction as a result of the order & to discuss how Qwest would like to move forward. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that she needs to know who to invite to this meeting & asked for further explanation of the discussion intent. Bonnie then noted that this meeting conflicts with Eschelon’s schedule. Bonnie then asked who the Qwest participants would be & asked if there was an agenda. Jill M-Qwest stated that the Qwest participants would be Product Managers & stated that the meeting is to discuss how Qwest CMP would like to move forward with the CMP CRs. Bonnie J-Eschelon asked whom the CLECs should invite to participate & asked if they should include systems people or regulatory people. Jill M-Qwest stated that the discussion should not need systems type people & stated that in regard to regulatory participants; she did not know. Qwest wants to discuss how Qwest would like to move forward from a CMP perspective. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that it might be a good idea that those involved in TRO or with the change of law participate. Jill M-Qwest stated that the meeting was not regarding the interpretation of the rules; rather how Qwest would like to move forward with the implementation of the process as it related to CMP Liz B-Covad stated that she is also on vacation on 6-22 and could have a back-up at the meeting. Jill M-Qwest stated that the meeting could be rescheduled. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that 6-27 would work for Eschelon & noted that Tuesday’s & Wednesday’s were not good for Eschelon. Jill M-Qwest asked if 6-30 would work. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated yes. Liz B-Covad also said yes.Jill M-Qwest stated that Qwest would see if the meeting could be rescheduled for 6-30 and stated that if it could not, Qwest would look at other meeting options. There were no additional comments or questions.

5-18-05 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Peggy ER-Qwest stated that this was effective on March 18th for some products & was moved back to development for the implementation of the remaining products. Peggy stated that she was not aware of a date yet. Peggy then noted that the CR would remain in Development status. Liz B-Covad stated that the actual amendment notice is now available and so is the appendix A sheet. Jill M-Qwest stated that we would check with Cindy B-Qwest offline.

4-20-05 ProdProc CMP Mtg: Peggy ER-Qwest stated that this CR is in CLEC Test due to the effective date of 3-18 for the first set of products & stated that Qwest would like to move the CR back to Development status for the implementation of the remaining products. Liz B-Covad asked if there was a timeline for the changes in law provisions. Jill M-Qwest stated that there are no dates yet. There was no dissent to the CR moving back to Development status.

3-16-05 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Cindy B-Qwest stated that this CR will be effective on March 18th and that she would like to move the CR to CLEC Test on the 18th. Jill M-Qwest stated that she was okay moving this CR to CLEC Test on the 18th, but then would like it moved back to Development status for the rest of the piece. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that she was okay with this moving to CLEC Test on the 18th, for those that are effective on the 18th. [Comment from Eschelon: but does not think it is appropriate to do so before 3/18.] Cindy B-Qwest agreed. Jill M-Qwest stated that this CR would move to CLEC Test on 3-18, then when the other notices go out for the rest of the CR, the status would change to Development.

2-16-05 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Jill M-Qwest stated that when the final rulings came out, we received feedback. Jill stated that Qwest would withdraw the PCATs that were affected by the final rules and that Qwest would proceed with UNE-P. Jill stated that Qwest would reissue the PCATs that are being removed from the CR, once it is determined what those changes are & would notify via this same CR.Liz B-Covad asked if Qwest would confirm that Qwest will follow the change of law provisions in their ICA. Comment received from Eschelon 2/24/05 and said she expected a response to her comments. Jill M-Qwest stated that Qwest had received Covads comment & that Qwest would be responding to the comment & all comments that were received. Jill M-Qwest stated that this CR remains in Development status.

1-25-05 Ad Hoc Mtg: Liz Balvin-Covad, Sue Lamb-One Eighty, Elaine Birkquest-Norstar, Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Becky Quintana-CO PUC, Marty-Rantel, Noreen Carol-Birch Telcom, Chris Terrell-AT&T, Doug Denney-Eschelon, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Tom Hyde-Cbeyond, Rosalin Davis-MCI, Chad Warner-MCI, Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest, Bob Mohr-Qwest, Robyn Libadia-Qwest, Pat Finley-Qwest, Vicki Dryden-Qwest, John Hansen-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Jennifer Fischer-Qwest, Pete Budner-Qwest, Chris Quinn Struck-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest. DISCUSSION: Peggy ER-Qwest stated that the purpose of the call was for Qwest to review the updates that will be made to PCAT documentation, for this CR. Cindy B-Qwest stated that in the last CMP Meeting, the CR revisions were communicated & that the CR was re-introduced. Cindy stated that Qwest received a lot of opposition in regard to the Regulatory designation. Cindy noted that Qwest agreed to remove the regulatory designation & moved this CR to a non-regulatory category. Cindy also stated that references to the law & regulatory were removed. Cindy noted that law was the reason for the change, but Qwest would now show this CR as non-regulatory. Cindy stated that the changes are based on Qwest not being obligated to provide products added to the CR. Cindy noted that future changes will affect product offerings & that they would be noticed. Cindy stated that the PCATs are identified & the products are included in the CR. Cindy then stated that there would be a simple change at the beginning of the PCATs that will state that this PCAT change details changes to availability of certain Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) products pursuant to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decision 00-1012 ('USTA II') which vacated some of the FCC's unbundling rules, & the FCC’s Interim Rules, which preserved some of the unbundling rules vacated in USTA II. In accordance with these orders & findings, the ‘product specified’ is/are no longer available to CLECs unless the most current, effective version of CLEC’s Interconnection Agreement (ICA) or Amendment includes terms, conditions, & pricing for the products before 6/15/04. Bonnie J-Eschelon asked if they would be sent out for review. Cindy B said yes & stated that Qwest is not changing the availability to those who have via an ICA; & would make available for CLECs who do not have an ICA. Tom H-Cbeyond asked for the timing of giving DS1 wire center information. Cindy B-Qwest stated that there would be no wire center information & stated that Qwest is standing by for further instructions from the FCC. Cindy stated that the order is not yet posted & said that once it is posted, Qwest would then have it go into effect in 30-days. Cindy noted that the process would be followed & that notices would be sent to communicate the changes.Tom H-Cbeyond stated that he had a concern regarding timing, & noted that by 3-14, major changes would be involved & concerned as to how quickly Qwest would get the changes out. Tom stated that all need to make changes & need time to react. Cindy B-Qwest stated that Qwest would not make changes without the proper timeframes in place. Sharon VM-AT&T asked if this information was in the CR. Peggy ER-Qwest stated that this discussion would be in the meeting minutes of this call. Liz B-Covad stated that if Qwest did not want to receive comments, Qwest needs to state clearly in the notices. Jill M-Qwest stated that the revised & noted Description of Change would also help. Liz B-Covad stated that Qwest needs to provide the intent of the changes & who would be impacted. Jill M-Qwest stated that what Cindy B-Qwest is proposing will be clear in the notices. Liz B-Covad stated that what Cindy B-Qwest related would go a long way & asked to confirm that once the FCC rules are permanent, that Qwest would adhere to the timeframes and go thru the Regulatory process. Jill M-Qwest said that she agreed that if a particular change is a result of the TRO or is a regulatory change, Qwest would follow that process & would provide the appropriate information. Liz B-Covad asked what level of change the PCATs would be. Jill M-Qwest stated that they would be Level 4 Notices. Liz B-Covad stated that she recommends time be provided, due to Cbeyond’s concern. Bonnie J-Eschelon said that she had a global comment that she has noticed that the notices do now have additional information included. Bonnie then thanked Qwest for providing that additional information. There were no additional questions or comments. The call was concluded.

1-21-05 Email to Cbeyond: Mr. Hyde, I received your email & will make note of your comments in the CR. As a result of the Oversight meeting that was held with this CR, Qwest is moving forward with the ad hoc call, & if the final rules warrant a change, we will address it at that time. Thank you, Peggy ER Qwest CMP CRPM

1-21-05 Email from Cbeyond: Once again, it is premature to hold any discussion until the permanent FCC rules are issued in the next few weeks. Among other things, the permanent rules allow DS1 loops & EELs in many-if not most-Qwest locations. Any attempt to implement prior to reading the FCC’s final order is an exercise in futility & a waste of precious resources.

1-10-05 CMP Ovrsght Mtg. PURPOSE: This was the second meeting of the CMP Oversight Committee to review an issue submitted to the committee on 11/30/04 by Liz Balvin of Covad. The following is the write-up of the discussion. Attendees: Jen Arnold-TDS Metrocom/U S Link, Liz Balvin-Covad, Becky Quintana-Colorado PUC, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Amanda Silva-VCI, Susie Bliss-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Bill Campbell-Qwest, Cindy Macy-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Linda Sanchez-Steinke-Qwest. DISCUSSION: Linda SS-Qwest stated that on Friday Qwest sent an e-mail to Oversight members explaining that we would prefer to revise the CR PC102704-1ES. By revising the CR the historical information is preserved & the references to law would be removed & the title would be changed. Attached to the e-mail was a redlined CR with the proposed changes. The proposed deletions would become the revised title & the revised description of change keeping the original title & the original description of change within the CR. The Oversight members stated they had received & reviewed. Liz B-Covad stated she did not think this process would preserve the CR history & recalled from the last meeting the only recommendation was to defer the CR until the final rules were issued. Susie B-Qwest stated Qwest reviewed three options for the CR; defer until final rules, amend the CR or withdraw the CR & issue a new CR. Liz B. asked if Qwest was going to consider deferring until the rules are permanent. Susie B. said that the approach was considered & voiced concern that the products are currently not available & current contracts are expiring. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated there are products in the PCAT that cannot be ordered because they are not in the CLEC’s contract. Bonnie said she was trying to understand why the CR is needed. Bill C-Qwest explained that the PCATs are based on the approved SGATs & the SGATs can be different from the ICA. We try to time the CMP update changes with the SGAT changes & Qwest did put together SGAT changes. However, the SGAT’s have been pulled back with concurrence of the states due to the unsettled regulatory situation post USTA II, post interim order & pre final FCC order. Qwest has changed the ICA language template (insert comment) but the current SGAT’s do not accurately reflect the prods Qwest offers & Qwest (end comment) feels it is important to notify CLECs on the changes to the prods. Liz B countered that if the legal implications were removed, the situation is in flux, the permanent rules will be issued later this month & the CLECs are restricted from ordering existing products that are not included in their ICA. Bill C. responded after 6/15/04 CLECs without the ICA including the products do not have the option of ordering the prods. Qwest is choosing to move forward with the CR because the final FCC rules although scheduled to be finalized in January and effective in March, it would most likely be June before changes tothe order are made. Liz B. felt that the process was backward because if a CLEC wants these products they would work with the negotiation team and would not go through CMP (insert comment) because CMP specifically call out ICA’s override (end comment). Bill C. discussed that Qwest has an obligation to notice the change in the PCAT when the SGAT has not changed. Bonnie J. said that product availability is based on the ICA and even though Qwest notices about product availability, CLEC’s can’t get the products without an agreement including the product. Bill C. explained that new CLECs may go to the Qwest website to find which products are available & then would be given a contract that does not list all the products that were available on the website. Normally the SGAT change would force the change in the PCAT. Liz Balvin stated that Qwest restricting products to CLECs who don’t have them in their ICA is different than limiting the product availability. The intent of the CR was drawn from legal rules & the permanent rules could change the offering. Bill C responded that the CR would have to be changed. Bonnie J asked if traditionally a new CLEC would go to the SGATor PCAT to see what is available & they are not in sync. Bill C. explained that the PCAT & SGAT are in sync but they are not in sync with Qwest policy.The states are not accepting SGAT changes at this time & the SGAT & PCAT are in sync but the ICA template is different. Becky Q-COPUC asked if Qwest was considering filing the SGAT prior to the final rules or waiting & Bill C.stated that Qwest is waiting, although we did file prior to the USTA decision, but withdrew the filings when it was clear that the states did not believe the timing was right to make the proposed changes knowing full well any state proceedings would have to be revisited. Becky Q voiced concerned that the SGAT on file & the Wholesale tariff are not the current Qwest offering. Liz B & Bill C agreed that the CR was issued as a result of law. Liz was concerned that Qwest would be restricting CLECs from gaining the product going forward but it is available for CLECs with an ICA. Liz B stated that she continues to see the only option is deferring to keep the history of the CR & that not all the history is maintained about the Escalation & Oversight review. Susie B said at the last meeting the committee was polled on the options.Liz B and Bill C discussed whether the CR is limiting products (as called for in the CMP document), restricting new CLECs from getting these products & if a CLECs contract expires then they would be restricted from the product availability. Liz B stated that the CR should identify the interim rules as the basis for notifying the CLECs of 6/15 product changes & that Qwest is not going to file the SGAT until the permanent rules are available. Bill C agreed that the CR is based on the USTA II rules & that Qwest has restricted the products & changes will have to be made to comply with the final rules. Liz B stated the basis is USTA II & Bill C said he agreed that the basis is USTA II, & under the FCC guidance, are no longer required to provide unbundled elements. Liz B said Qwest’s current position needs to be identified in the CR. Bill C said that AT&T & Eschelon have a different opinion. Bonnie J said AT&T & Eschelon agree this is not a Regulatory CR & restated Liz’s concern if it was appropriate to issue the CR at all if the guidelines are not followed. We agreed the CR is not regulatory because Qwest was not ordered, Qwest made the choice not to offer the products. Bill C asked Liz if we include the language & make it a regulatory CR. Liz B said that the genesis of the change was the USTA II decision & now Qwest wants to remove that. Bill C stated that during the last meeting it was clear this was not a Regulatory CR. USTA II was a court opinion about what needed to be offered. Bonnie J said that is what takes it out of Regulatory CR classification. Liz B argued that the rules are 'as is' until the permanent rules come out & since it is just an opinion & believes Qwest should follow the SGATs until the rules are permanent. Bill C stated that the DC court vacated the FCC rules & in a sense undermined them & took away the unbundled rules. The FCC said here is the interim rules & will freeze prior to 6/15 until we can put out the final rules. Qwest doesn’t want to put the CR in deferred status. Bonnie J said Eschelon does not have an objection to Qwest updating the existing CR (insert comment) because Eschelon has updated CRs without the clock starting over. Becky Q questioned whether the CLECs were arguing the merits of the CR rather than the process that Qwest used. Liz B said the CR could be updated & requested information relating to Oversight & Escalation be included. Linda SS stated that Qwest has not included Escalation response or Oversight minutes in other CRs as the Escalation & Oversight minutes are found in another location on the web site. There was agreement that the CR would provide the revised title, original title, revised description of change, original description of change & url links to the Escalation & Oversight web locations. CR PC120803-1 was provided as an example of a CR that has been revised. Bonnie stated that the history is captured & that this CR is an anomaly because it had the regulatory issue & was not just a systems to process crossover, but does not agree with the CR & does understand what Qwest is trying to accomplish & Qwest feels the need to move forward. Sharon VM stated that AT&T does not think this is a regulatory CR & would like the CR to include the history of what has been discussed. Deferring the CR would be better & revising is acceptable if the history is included. Liz B agreed deferring would be better & revising the CR sets a precedent that the CR is regulatory but not identifying in that way. There was recommendation from Covad, Eschelon, AT&T, TDS/MetroCom & MCI that the CR be deferred until permanent rules are issued. Becky Q stated that without making any statement on the merits of the CR, she believed that Qwest should go ahead with the CR because she agreed with Bill Cs estimated timeline for permanent rules. Qwest would like to move forward by revising the CR. The Oversight Recommendation will include the different recommendations from the Oversight members. Bonnie J & Becky Q discussed the merit of language changes to the CMP process. Liz B & Bonnie J stated that the CR should not have defaulted to CMP as it was not the appropriate approach & the importance of keeping the CMP guidelines in tact. The meeting was concluded.

1-4-05 CMP Ovrsght Mtg. PURPOSE: This was a meeting of the CMP Oversight Committee to review an issue submitted to the committee on 11/30/04 by Liz B-of Covad. The following is the write-up of the discussion. Attendees: Jen Arnold-TDS Metrocom/U S Link, Liz Balvin-Covad, Becky Quintana-Colorado PUC, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Kathy Stichter-Eschelon, Doug Denny-Eschelon, Amanda Silva-VCI, Jeff Sonnier-Sprint, Susie Bliss-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest, Bill Campbell-Qwest, Cindy Macy-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest, Linda Sanchez Steinke-Qwest DISCUSSION: The meeting began with Qwest making introductions. Linda S-S-Qwest reviewed the issue Covad submitted to Oversight on 11/30/04. Linda read from the Description of the Issue; Qwest inappropriate use of CMP to drive legal interpretation of the Law, & the desired resolution; the proposed changes (PC102704-1ES) be withdrawn until Qwest can properly follow the CMP governing document. Qwest responded on 12/10/04 requesting that Oversight meet to discuss how to move forward with the CR. Liz B reviewed the history of the issue & stated Covad’s position that the biggest issue is Qwest is out of scope of CMP. She stated that the first problem is that the Systems CR SCR102704-1RG was identified as Regulatory & did not follow the process of referencing the page & paragraph & called into question the law or mandate. The second problem is that six CLECs objected to the regulatory classification of the CR & the objections should have been addressed. The CR was then converted to Prod Proc, the regulatory classification removed, & Qwest did not follow the crossover guidelines. Qwest’s binding response to the Covad escalation continued to assert that Prod Proc is not the correct category & it is a regulatory CR. Qwest has been out of scope of CMP for this CR. [Comment received from Covad: Qwest’s binding response to the Covad escalation continued to base decision on USTA II & FCC interim rules but not call regulatory. Qwest has been out of scope of CMP for this CR.]Susie B-Qwest stated Qwest’s position was when objections to the regulatory classification were received, the regulatory definition in CMP did not fit. There was not unanimous agreement that the CR was regulatory. Section5.1.1 states that if there is not unanimous agreement then the CR will be treated as non-regulatory. PCAT changes need to be made & when PCAT changes are made, Qwest is obligated to notify the CLECs by following 5.4.5 limiting the product availability. Qwest proceeded as a Prod Proc Level 4 change. Liz B & Susie B discussed the concern that CLECs were not given a chance to discuss the CR & whether Qwest was limiting or restricting availability of products. [Comment received from Covad: Liz B stated that CLECs were not given the opportunity to iron out whether the CR should have been categorized as regulatory. Susie B indicated that Qwest has the right to limit the availability of products based on the CMP document. Liz Balvin stated that Qwest is not limiting, but restricting products that other carriers continue to be able to purchase.]Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that Qwest can not make a decision as a company & not allow the customer to order the product any longer. It is required to provide the basis under which the product is removed. Bill C-Qwest, Liz B, Bonnie J, & Susie B discussed resolving the issue by providing the USTA II document & identifying for each product the page & paragraph reference. Liz B & Bonnie J were concerned that CMP process has not been followed, & stated the CR is lacking the steps required. Susie B asked if citing the paragraph would resolve. Liz recalled that the CMP document was written to address regulatory CRs & that Qwest tried to remove the regulatory classification & page & paragraph of law should be provided to move forward with the change. Cindy B-Qwest restated Liz’s position; Covad does not want the Regulatory classification removed, but instead would like Qwest to add the page & paragraph. [Comment received from Covad: Cindy B-Qwest asked to restate Liz’s (Covad’s) position; does Covad want the Regulatory classification removed or Qwest to cite add the page & paragraph. Liz’s stated that Qwest continues to call into question the law but not want to cite page & paragraph, there is a difference.] Further discussion ensued between Liz B & Cindy B whether appropriate to revise the CR or leave the CR as is currently. Susan L-Qwest added that when grandparenting products, the CRs remove the product availability. Liz B felt that Qwest has called into question the law & has jerry rigged the CMP process to meet Qwest’s needs because there are system edits in place to restrict ordering the products. [Comment received from Covad: products & that the notifications, even level 4 notices carry the clause that IA supercede PCAT documents.]Becky Q-COPUC asked if Liz’s issue was there is not a way the CR can be categorized as a regulatory CR. Liz Balvin responded that Qwest has called into question the law & should follow the CMP guidelines & provide page & paragraph. Becky Q stated that if Qwest withdraws the CR & then re-submits the CR as regulatory it is not clear how the CLECs could object. Sharon VM-AT&T stated AT&T had objected to the regulatory classification & read the AT&T attorney position. Cindy B. interjected that this is the very objection that resulted in Qwest removing Regulatory classification from the CR. A number of CLECs objected on this basis & that is where Qwest took its action from. Liz indicated that may have been some CLEC prematurely showing part of their hand but she didn’t see these remarks nor a response from Qwest on these remarks & therefore didn’t know Qwest had this information. Bonnie J, Bill C. & Cindy B. discussed that a regulatory classification means Qwest cannot (by law) provide the product & a non-regulatory classification means that Qwest does not have an obligation to & chooses not to provide the product. It was agreed this CR is non-regulatory. Becky Q. added that it is now clear why this is not a regulatory CR. Liz B-Covad stated that had objected to the Systems CR & then escalated the Prod Proc CR. If Qwest had followed the process, the CLECs would have discussed the objections and Qwest’s responses to the objections. Qwest is aware of all the other CLEC’s positions. [Comment received from Covad: Liz Balvin stated it is easy for Qwest, now that it has all the information in hand, to take this new position. If Qwest had followed the process, the CLECs would have discussed the objections & Qwest’s responses to the objections. Qwest is aware of all the other CLEC’s positions & by not following the CMP guidelines has eliminated CLECs insight to all that Qwest has.] Cindy B. requested input on how the CR could be moved forward. Liz B. requested that Qwest respond to the objections. There was discussion between Linda S-S, Liz B.& Susie B. concerning Section 5.1.1 related to any requirement that Qwest respond to objections. There was further discussion between Liz B, Susie B, Cindy M & Susan L regarding the CMP voting process, classification of the CR, following CMP guidelines for the CR & the precedent that has been set with change to disposition requests. Liz felt these were different situations. [Comment received from Covad: Liz stated these situations were different because no one has requested a change in disposition.]Becky Q. asked if the concern was that Qwest did not follow the process outlined in 5.1.1 or if the concern would be the same if 5.1.1 were followed. Liz B said she couldn’t say for sure because Qwest has all the ammunition & we have none. Bonnie J & Becky Q discussed Qwest exercising their rights to limit product availability, basis for product limitation as it relates to PCAT comments, limiting of products prematurely, & appropriateness of legal discussion on Prod Proc changes.[Comment received from Eschelon: Bonnie J & Becky Q discussed Qwest exercising their rights to limit product availability, basis for product limitation as it relates to PCAT comments, Bonnie said Qwest is limiting products prematurely & Becky agreed. Becky & Bonnie discussed the appropriateness of legal discussion on Prod Proc changes.]Susan L. & Liz B. discussed processing grandparenting change requests, the tariff reference being out of CMP scope & whether the products are currently ordered by CLECs. Liz felt this CR is different because Qwest is citing the law. [Comment received from Eschelon: and on grandparenting CRs no CLECs order the products.][Comment received from Covad: Liz stated that whenever Qwest grandfather’s a product, the first question from CLECs is whether anyone is ordering the products.]Cindy B. responded that Qwest has the right to not have to offer products based on the law. Kim I-Eschelon said that the title of the CR, USTA II, implies that the change is based on the law. Cindy B. said that she was not involved when the CR was initiated or when it was decided it was a regulatory CR. The change is not a mandate & Qwest is obligated to notify CLECs of the change. There has been no effort to jerry rig CMP. Qwest is notifying CLECs the products will not be available on a going forward basis. Liz B & Becky Q discussed if notification should be through CMP & PCAT changes. Bill C said a note in the PCAT stating if the CLEC does not have these products in the current ICA then these products are not available. Bill C, Liz B & Cindy B continued discussing options to process the CR, ability to vote down a regulatory CR & then move it to prod proc. Re-issuing the CR & starting the clock over based on conversation & intent, changing the title & editing the CR, & posting of historical information to the CR. Bonnie J asked that the meeting minutes reflect all of the conversation that has taken place. [Comment received from Eschelon: Bonnie said Qwest often reflects their views but not CLECs.]Liz B, Sharon VM, Susie B & Becky Q presented options to process the CR; changing it to a regulatory CR because it is citing the law, submitting a new ProdProc non-regulatory CR stating intentions, changing the CR title, deferring, amending the current CR & maintaining the history. Susan L suggested Oversight members take a poll on which would like to modify the existing CR, which would like a new CR .Bill C, Becky Q, Cindy B, Bonnie J, & Liz B discussed options related to the CR. The CR is currently accurate & may change soon. When the final rules are issued DS1 & DS3 loops may not be accurate. [Comment received from Eschelon: When the final rules are issued this will change because DS1& DS3 loops may not be accurate.] Bill C asked if the CR is moved to deferred status if the CLEC community is willing to waive the notification requirement. Kim I & Bill C discussed SGAT changes, PCAT changes & the ICA negotiations. [Comment received from Eschelon: Bill said that the current negotiation template reflects the correct information but the SGATs have not been updated. Bonnie asked if there was a particular CLEC that was challenging Qwest on this issue & if that is why Qwest needed to update PCATs.]Cindy B, Bonnie J & Liz B continued discussion related to processing the CR, Bonnie J, Bill C & Liz B discussed how CLECs should be notified of the product change & the PCAT reflecting the SGAT, notification through change of law, how contracts override the PCATs, & product availability is negotiated through the ICA agreements. [Comment received from Eschelon: Bonnie said if Qwest will limit product availability in its existing ICA, Qwest would need to notify Eschelon through the change in law provision of its contract and not through a PCAT CMP notice. Bill agreed.]Becky Q suggested that Qwest discuss the CR options internally. The Oversight committee agreed to meet again on 1/10/04 at 3:00 p.m. MT. The meeting was concluded.

1-19-05 Prod Proc CMP Mtg: Jill M-Qwest stated that a meeting was held & that the CR Title was revised. Cindy B-Qwest provided history of the CR & noted that the CR was issued as Regulatory & it limited the availability on certain products. The CR designation changed, in 11-2004, to a Prod Proc CR & that several elements remained on the request. Cindy noted that there was discussion in December & on a 1-5 ad-hoc meeting. Cindy stated that the CR was again revised & noted that there is no law forcing Qwest to make this decision. Cindy stated that this is an opportunity that Qwest is taking advantage of. Cindy noted that the CRs Title & Description were changed to remove references to USTA II. Cindy then reviewed the new Title and Description. Cindy stated that the CR Description states "any future changes of law may impact this notification & will be supported by the applicable notification". Cindy stated that the CR is in Development status & will notify the CLECs, on a going forward basis, the dates that the products cannot be ordered. Cindy then noted that there is an ad-hoc meeting scheduled for 1-25 to review the changes. Linda SS-Qwest stated that Qwest sent a notice on 1-17 and as there was no recommendation from Oversight, the notice included the competing recommendations. Jill M-Qwest asked if there were any questions or comments. Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that she has not yet reviewed the revisions & will reserve comments for the ad-hoc meeting. [1/28/05 Comment from Eschelon: and/or comment cycle.]

12-2005 CMP Mtg: Cindy B-Qwest advised that we have suggested an Oversight Committee meeting be held. Qwest has scheduled the meeting for 12-20 at 1:00 p.m. MT. Liz B-Covad advised that Qwest continues to site law without issuing the CR as Regulatory. Covad believes system edits are in place to not allow CLECs to order products not available. If Qwest sites legal interpretation of law the page & paragraph must be included. Covad is not saying that CMP is or isn’t the right forum, but Qwest is trying to make a unilateral decision & we do not know what law Qwest is citing. Qwest doesn’t believe the CLECs need to know what page & paragraph are referenced, as the CMP document states. It was agreed more discussion would take place at the Oversight meeting. This CR will move to Development Status.

11/17/04 CMP Mtg: Cindy B-Qwest stated that this CR has drawn quite a bit of attention. Qwest would like to clarify the intent of the CR. Cindy advised that we are having an ad hoc meeting on Friday, 11-19 to review the documentation & take issues. Qwest apologizes for the confusion as we issued the CR two times. The CR was modified to clarify the scope to include USTA II & FCC Interim Rules. Cindy B.advised that CLECs who have language in their ICA can continue to order these products & CLEC who do not have language in their ICA can not order the products nor amend their ICA to include such language. Cindy listed the products affected. Josh T-TelWest asked what if a CLEC opts into an existing contract? Cindy B-Qwest advised that you are permitted with the exception of the elements cited. David M-TelWest questioned without signing a TRO USTA II agreement a CLEC can opt into a contract? David advised that Qwest Regulatory has said CLECs can not do this. Cindy B-Qwest said that the contract would be modified as it has to be TRO & USTA II compliant. Liz B-Covad advised that we continue to object that Qwest bring (insert comment from Covad/Eschelon) to CMP its legal interpretation. Liz advised that Qwest is using ad hoc meetings to gain insight into the CLECs view of the law and it is inappropriate (end comment). Cindy B-Qwest advised this has nothing to due with Qwest telling our interpretation of the law. This is in CMP to advise about a product that is being limited. Liz B-Covad stated that this is more than a product being discontinued.In addition, Qwest can not cite the law & then not call it a Regulatory CR. There are legal means to negotiate agreements. Cindy B. advised this CR was initially a Regulatory CR & it was opposed. That is why we changed it to a Prod Process CR. We are only telling you that you can’t have the product if you don’t have it in your contract. Liz B-Covad advised the reason they objected to the Regulatory classification is that Qwest didn’t cite the page & paragraph. Qwest is still citing the law, [comment from Covad/Eschelon) not calling it a regulated changed and that is still out of scope for CMP. Liz advised that Qwest should have followed CMP governing document & not simply converted the systems CR to prod proc, that the objections should have been addressed & if agreed to by the community, the CR would have ‘crossed over’ to prod proc. Qwest is trying to manipulate the CMP process to fit their needs. Liz advised that it is inappropriate for Qwest to host an ad hoc meeting. Without following the CMP governing documentation, Qwest is asserting its legal interpretation, & that is the problem (end comment) This should be handled through arbitration of contracts. Cindy B. restated that if you do not have the products in your contract you can not order them. Qwest does not have an obligation to offer this. David M-TelWest said it is not important to me what Qwest’s interpretation is. It should be arbitrated & not unilaterally implemented by Qwest. Cindy B. summarized & clarified the discussion-if Qwest sites the page & paragraph, and why it is the law, & if we come to agreement on the language in the CR, than we can move it forward in CMP. Bonnie J-Eschelon said whether or not we agree on the language, this should not be discussed in CMP. We do not discuss legal interpretation in CMP. This should be done in a different forum. Liz B-Covad stated that this is an ICA negotiation discussion. David M-TelWest stated that he still has a concern with how we are treating CLECs without an existing ICA & that they can not opt into existing ICAs. I think the interpretation is wrong & CLECs should be able to do this. Qwest agreed to cancel the 11-19 ad hoc meeting, review the CR, & provide additional information at a later date. This CR will move to Presented Status. (comment from Eschelon) Cindy B. said like in the words of Arnold Swartzager I’ll be back (end comment).

Open Product/Process CR PC100504-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: PCAT documentation, validation of email addresses used today, copy of form for CLEC review. Proposed implementation date mid to late January 2005 (after notification).

Status History

Project Meetings

May 18, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this was effective on April 1st and proposed closure of the CR. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if anyone had used this process and asked if it were working. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she would like to check and see if AT&T has used the process and asked that the CR remain open for another month. Jill Martain-Qwest agreed to keep the CR open another month. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that this process applied more to residential than to business. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR remains in CLEC Test

-- April 20, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this was effective on April 1st and would like to move to CLEC Test. Amanda Silva-VCI stated that she would like to go over the process, including the workinleftin@qwest.com mailbox. Amanda stated that she has a working line, marked it for manual handling, and now has a missed due date of the 14th and was not notified. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Michelle Thacker is currently on vacation and she would have Michelle clarify with her off-line. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that (Change to meeting minutes from Covad 4/28/05) the meeting minutes from last month reflected CLECs need to provide email addresses ASAP and asked what the process was. She wanted to confirm that Covad may still opt into the process if desired. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she had asked for a notice and asked if one was sent. Susan Lorence-Qwest stated that Michelle had mentioned this in the March monthly Product/Process meeting and stated that workingleftin@qwest.com was identified in the PCAT final notice response to comments. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if Covad still had the option to do this. Susan Lorence-Qwest stated yes. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR is now in CLEC Test.

-- March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated that formal comments had been received and addressed. Michelle stated that the CLECs need to provide Qwest with email addresses ASAP. Michelle asked that the email addresses be sent to Qwest at the workingleftin@qwest.com mailbox. Michelle then noted that the targeted effective date was April 1st. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that a notice should be sent stating that information is needed. Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated that a notice was being sent and would include instructions. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR remains in Development status.

February 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated that the comment cycle begins on February 16th. Michelle stated that there has been a process change from the October 28th meeting discussion. Michelle stated that upon further investigation it has been determined that the follow-up to resend the second notification to clear a working left in is not feasible at this time. Michelle stated that the 24 hour reminder would not be done and that an email would be sent after 48 hours. Michelle again stated that the 24 hour interval is removed. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she had reviewed the notice and stated that she needed additional clarification. Bonnie asked if this process would apply for residential locations only. Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated that it could also apply to small businesses that choose to move and abandon the service. Michelle stated that this would be for 1FR and 1FB. Michelle stated that there would not be a working left in situation on a Centrex 21. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if this traditionally would apply to residential. Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated yes but noted that it could also apply to small businesses. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked how the CLEC is to communicate that a working left in is not to be disconnected. Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated that the CLEC would need to reply on the form that Qwest would send to the CLEC. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if it would be a good idea that the notice identifies what is required and when; such as which fields that Qwest is responsible for and which fields the CLEC is responsible for populating. Bonnie stated that she needs to better understand the fields on the form. Bonnie asked that if the CLEC does not want a working left in to be disconnected, which fields are to be populated. Comments to notes received from Eschelon 2/24/05 - Bonnie recommended that Qwest develop a form dictionary so Qwest and the CLEC know what fields they are responsible for and when. Michelle Thacker-Qwest thanked Bonnie for the input and stated that she would take the information back and look into it. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if Retails process was the same in the event that Qwest determines that there is a working left in, the LSR needs to be supped and it needs to indicate that it is an additional line situation and then the due date is pushed out. Bonnie asked if a Retail order also gets rejected. Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated that if it is not identified as a working left in, Retail has to go back and have the proper information on the service order so that it reflects additional lines. Michelle stated that Comments to notes received from Eschelon-if Retail has to make that change, Retail has to apply the standard interval. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon thanked Michelle for the clarification. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the CR remains in Development status.

January 20, 2005 Email Sent to VCI: Malia and Amanda, Thank you for sending the examples of what you currently receive for a working left in. What you are receiving is the process that is currently in place, a generic email. Once PC100504-1 is implemented, there will be a new form that Qwest will use to notify a CLEC to clear a working left, rather than placing a telephone call or sending a generic email. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

- January 19, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion Michelle Thacker/Qwest stated that she is working to get the information to the documentation team next week and will then negotiate the Level 4 notice and effective dates. Michelle stated that the status remains in Development and that she would provide a status at the February CMP Meeting. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if this process was generally working for Qwest. Michelle Thacker/Qwest stated that this process is not yet in effect and will go in effect after it has been noticed. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T said that explained her issue. Lydell Peterson/Qwest stated that he would work offline, with AT&T. Michelle Thacker/Qwest asked Lydell to call her of he had questions. Susan Lorence/Qwest asked if there should be a lower level notice sent for a shorter timeframe. Amanda Silva/VCI asked if this would pertain if has a working residential account line. Michelle Thacker/Qwest stated that it is identified that there is a working left in once the LSR is in IMA and then is worked to clear. Michelle noted that the CLEC may receive a jeopardy. Michelle stated that the form would be used across the board; for Qwest blocking a CLEC, CLEC blocking a CLEC or when a CLEC is blocking Qwest. Michelle stated that the Interconnection Call Center can be contacted to check status of a working left in. Amanda Silva/VCI asked if they could mark the LSR that there is a working left in, if they already knew that. Michelle Thacker/Qwest asked that they do, so Qwest can work it and try to prevent a jeopardy. Amanda Silva/VCI stated that VCI is currently receiving the form via email. Michelle Thacker/Qwest stated that the form has not yet been implemented and asked who VCI was receiving the form from. Amanda Silva/VCI stated that Malia (Tasi/VCI) receives the form and will send the form to Peggy (Esquibel Reed) at Qwest. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she is concerned because Qwest Retail sends notices to tell CLECs to clear a working left in and the CLECs receive jeopardizes. Bonnie stated that the end user then needs to contact the owner, so the sooner this is implemented, the better. Jill Martain/Qwest asked if there was any objection to a Level 2 Notice being sent, as this is needed quickly. There was no objection. Jill stated that the Level 2 Notice would be sent. Michelle Thacker/Qwest stated that she would work on the notice and noted that the CR remains in Development status.

- 11/17/04 November meeting minutes Cindy Macy - Qwest advised that this process is under development and the PCAT should be available some time in December. The CR will move to Development Status.

10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Michelle Thacker, Qwest presented the CR saying that there are now several different ways left ins are being worked and Qwest would like to standardize the process and present PCAT documentation. Doug Andreen, Qwest added the CLEC Input Call will be on 10/28. The CR will move to presented.

- CLEC Input Call Meeting Minutes PC100504-1 Request to clear a working left in October 28, 2004 1-877-521-8688, Conference ID 1456160# 9:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE To gather input from the CLECs regarding this CR List of Attendees: Emily Baird – POP Communication Stephanie Prull – Eschelon Sharon Van Meter – AT&T Caren Schaffner - MCI Nicki Notberg – MIDCO Communications Mark Matson – SBC Telecom Rosalin Davis - MCI Jeff Sonnier - Sprint Lydell Peterson – Qwest Doug Andreen – Qwest Michelle Thacker – Qwest Jennifer Fischer - Qwest

MEETING MINUTES

The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees.

Doug Andreen explained that the purpose of the meeting and reviewed the description of the CR.

Sharon Van Meter asked for a definition of Working Left In (WLI). Michelle responded that it is when service is live and we have another company trying to install new service at the address. She said there is no documentation in the PCAT, no criteria around how long to clear a WLI or how to notify. The form and CR are designed to document and standardize the process.

Michelle asked if email was an acceptable way of communicating WLIs. There were no objections.

Jeff Sonnier asked if the situation was when the CLEC sends an LSR to Qwest and Qwest finds working service at the address. Michelle said yes or the reverse situation when Qwest is trying to put in service and the CLEC has WLI. She added the ownership is determined by the CSR.

Lydell Peterson stated AT&T had a concern about the current 24 hour time period to clear. They feel this is too tight and their suggestion was two to three days. Stephanie Prull agreed saying especially around weekends.

Michelle added that WLIs could be in association with moves but not porting. She added that since the standard interval for new service is three days and will affect both CLECs and Qwest.

It was agreed that a two working day timeframe was reasonable and that Qwest could still meet its three day commitment interval.

Nicki Notberg said she had a WLI where her customer could not get service and that the previous Qwest subscriber had passed away. She said it took her Account Manager to get it cleared. Her question was if the information is provided can WLI be cleared sooner. Michelle said the D order should be issued immediately. Stephanie reiterated that we are not saying you have to wait the two business days. Michelle said yes, the sooner the information is received the sooner the disconnect. Michelle said she would check into why Nicki is not getting jeopardy notices.

Stephanie asked when emails would go out. Michelle answered as soon as notified of the WLI throughout the day. Nicki asked how long it takes Qwest to find a WLI after an LSR is issued. Michelle said should be pretty immediate but within 24 hours.

Michelle asked what the expectation would be if there is no response to the email within the two business days. Will it be escalated, a D order issued, etc. It was agreed that escalation is appropriate following the PCAT escalation process. Some LSRs have been issued when actually it is a request for an additional line etc. so a D order is too risky.

Rosalin asked if a dispatch was ever necessary. Michelle said yes on things like abandon service.

Eric of NOS asked who the email would go to. Michelle said her expectation is whoever is designated within the CLEC with a primary and secondary contact being ok. Some discussion ensued and it was agreed that specific CLEC email contacts would be used.

Caren said that MCI follows almost the same process today and would that remain the same. Michelle read through the WLI form and asked if there was anything to add. Caren asked if there was a dispute, like with an additional line do the CLECs email the form back. Michelle said yes and she will add an Other/Reply heading to the form. Caren added that a disconnect in error process needs to be mentioned. Michelle said she would put a link in to the appropriate process. Stephanie added that it needs to also be specified which escalation process is used for WLI escalations. Michelle noted this and said she would provide links.

Stephanie asked what the plan would be if she received a jeopardy notice but no email. Michelle said the expectation is that after the jeopardy is issued that it will be cleared as soon as possible and the an FOC sent with a due date.

The last question was asked by Stephanie about if Qwest has the customer and the CLEC needs to clear the WLI. Michelle responded that if it isn’t cleared within the two day timeframe the escalation process would be invoked. It was further agreed that if no response to an email is received within 24 hours a reminder will be sent.

The next steps were outlined: • Michelle will negotiate with Retail so Wholesale and Retail are on the same page. • Michelle will formulate a rough version of the PCAT which will be distributed to the CLECs before calling an ad-hoc meeting • An ad-hoc meeting will be called to review the rough PCAT in advance of any formal comment cycle. This will probably occur in the December timeframe.

Open Product/Process CR PC101804-1CM Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: Updated sections of CMP document to allow for clarification of Change Management process for Billing and Repair prioritization.

Status History

Project Meetings

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR was effective on 2/21/05 and stated that this CR can be closed.

Liz Balvin - Covad asked if there was a schedule for the billing and repair prioritization CRs.

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that there are no new billing or repair CRs to prioritize and that we will be discussing targeted implementation dates on existing CRs later in the meeting.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said that Eschelon did submit a CEMR CR

3/16/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this request was effective on February 21st and will move to CLEC Test

2/16/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR is still on target for February 21st and will remain in Development until the March Meeting.

1/19/05 CMP Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that a notification was sent on January 6, 2005 and that the targeted implementation date is February 21, 2005. Jill said that this CR will remain in Development status.

12/15/04 CMP Product/Process Meetings

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that Qwest is proposing a language change to the CMP Document to provide clarification of the prioritization process for Billing and Repair system functionality. Lynn said that the proposed changes were reviewed and approved by the CLEC Community during two ad hoc meetings held November 11th and November 18th. Lynn stated that the December 6 notification did include the most current version of the redline document with the proposed changes. Lynn said that she also posted the current version of the document to the Wholesale Website. Lynn stated that Quorum required for this vote was 5 and has been achieved. Lynn reviewed what ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ votes will mean for PC1101804-1CM.

A vote of ‘Yes’ will indicate a desire to incorporate the proposed modifications as stated in PC101804-1CM.

A vote of ‘No’ will indicate a preference to not incorporate the proposed modification in PC101804-1CM

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest asked if there were any questions regarding the vote. There were no questions brought forward.

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest conducted the vote and the results are as follows:

Qwest – Yes SBC – Abstain Covad – Yes AT&T – Yes Eschelon – Yes Integra – Yes TDS Metrocom – Yes VCI Company – Yes MCI – Yes Time Warner – Yes Vartec – Yes ELI – Yes

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the vote was unanimous and that this CR was granted by a vote of 11 ‘Yes’ votes, 0 ‘No’ votes and 1 ‘Abstain’ vote.

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the vote disposition notice would be sent no later than close of business on December 22nd.

November 17, 2004

Jill Martain/Qwest advised that this is the CR that we issued to go over the wording in the CMP document regarding Billing and Repair prioritization. Jill advised that we held an ad hoc and will have other meetings. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest said that the new redline version of the document went out today for the meeting tomorrow. (Insert comment from Eschelon) Susan said Liz and Bonnie committed to providing new language before Qwest did the next red line. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon advised that Liz and Bonnie would not be sending language and believes that section should be omitted as Liz suggested on the call (end comment). This CR will move to Presented Status.

November 18, 2004

Adhoc Meeting PC101804-1CM Modifcations to Billing and Repair Prioritization

Attendees: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Steph Prull/Eschelon, Kathy Stichter/Eschelon, Roslyn Davis/MCI, Liz Balvin/Covad, Susan Lorence/Qwest, Jill Martain/Qwest, Lynn Stecklein/Qwest

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the purpose of this call is continue reviewing the proposed redline changes to the CMP Document.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that the minutes from the last adhoc call held on 11/11/04 were posted to the project meeting minute section of PC101804-1CM.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that she added clarity to section 5.1.4 around implementation dates.

Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she liked the clarity in section 5.1.4. Liz said that the sentence that states: “If prioritization is necessary needs to be removed or defined.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that this sentence was added for situations if all CRs could be accommodated in 1 release. Susan asked if the CLECs would want to go through the effort of prioritization if all CRs could be done in the specified timeframes or if, for example, there was only 1 CR.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that we need to discuss when prioritization is necessary or remove the language.

Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she felt we still needed to go through the prioritization process and that prioritization be the standard. She said that provisions are in place and can be changed if necessary.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that she was okay with removing the language.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that this issue was brought to the Oversight Committee to begin with because we had a misunderstanding about when prioritization was to take place. Bonnie said that prioritization needs to be implemented so that there are no misunderstandings.

Susan Lorence/Qwest reviewed the change in Section 5.1.4 associated with how the term of Release is used. Susan and wanted to clarify billing implementation and packaging. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon if the term ‘implementation’ mentioned in other areas in the document relate to IMA and CEMR.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said yes.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that there is no change to Section 5.2.2, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5. Susan said that in Section 8.0, we retracted the initially proposed change. Susan recapped what it now states: that Qwest standard operating practice is to implement three major releases and three point releases (for IMA only) within a calendar year. Susan said that the proposed language reads: Qwest standard operating practice will be to implement at least two Major Releases and two Point releases (for IMA only) within a calendar year.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that Liz Balvin (Covad) made it clear earlier that we want to propose a compromise. Bonnie asked if Qwest would consider the following: ‘Qwest will implement at least 2 major releases and 2 point releases within a calendar year and nor more than 4’.

Jill Martain/Qwest said that we would need to get concurrence on that proposal.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that if Qwest cannot get concurrence then leave the sentence as is with 3.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that in Section 8, paragragh 2 that states: ‘At a Monthly CMP Systems Meeting in the fourth quarter of each year Qwest will communicate to the CLECs the Major Release schedule and hourly capacity of each release for the next calendar year’, ‘IMA’ was removed.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if by removing ‘IMA’ does that mean you will be incorporating billing and CEMR.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said yes.

Steph Prull/Eschelon asked if it should say Release or Schedules.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that a Major Release is defined as coding impacts to CLECs.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that we need to clean up the language and said that some CEMR changes releases don’t require coding changes.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that we may not want to tamper with that language.

Liz Balvin/Covad stated that Qwest may not know if something impacts the CLECs from a billing perspective. Liz said that Qwest defines Major Release schedules and documentation gets published within the normal timelines. Liz stated that the CLECs can determine if there are coding impacts.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated Qwest will communicate schedules and capacity at the end of the year. Susan said that Major and Point releases are defined and clear in the documentation.

Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she is okay with removing IMA.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that in Section 8.1.1, 8.1.2 through 8.1.5 the release production date was deleted and replaced with implementation. Susan said that the previously proposed language in Section 10.0 was removed. Susan stated that we need to make clear the requirements of Qwest to be in parity with retail and what needs to be implemented 2 times per year. Susan said that we removed the language based on the CLECs comments and feedback and that those aspects of changes will not be prioritized just as today.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that is how she understood it.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that we also removed the changes based on the CLECs feedback.

Steph Prull/Eschelon agreed and said that it is spelled our in other areas.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that is what they asked for.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that she will be sending out the updated redline and that it will be ready to present for acceptance and approval.

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest said that the next step is the vote to accept or reject the changes in the December Meeting.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that the only question is how many releases per year.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that we took an action item and will update the language accordingly.

Jill Martain/Qwest said that there will be no more adhoc meetings scheduled unless the CLECs have questions after reviewing the updated redline.

There were no other questions or comments.

PC101804-1CM Modifications to Billing and Repair Change Management Prioritization Process November 11, 2004

Attendees: Liz Balvin Covad, Lynn Chellis ELI, Roslyn Davis MCI, Sharon Van Meter AT&T, Bonnie Johnson Eschelon, Kathy Stichter Eschelon, Steph Prull – Eschelon, Kim Isaacs Eschelon, Susie Bliss Qwest, Susan Lorence Qwest, Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest, Lynn Stecklein –Qwest

Lynn Stecklein /Qwest stated that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss PC101804-1CM (Modifications to Billing and Repair Change Management Prioritization Process) originated by Qwest.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that the CMP Document was reviewed to identify what needed to change and that from that review several assumptions were identified. Susan said that a key change and the 1st assumption for prioritization for Billing CRs for 2005 is that a release may have multiple implementation dates.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that it appears now that there will only be 2 prioritizations per year and that there will be scattered implementation dates rather than one release date. Bonnie said that all implementation dates need to occur prior to the next release.

Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she understood that prioritization would occur twice a year for any CR that impacts the 7 billing output files.

Susan Lorence / Qwest agreed.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that each output file will have it’s own release schedule.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the CMP Document needs to be clear. Bonnie said that it should clearly state that not all CRs will be implemented in prioritized order and that all CRs would be implemented prior to the next release.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that we would address anything that was not clear when we walk through the redline changes. Susan said that Qwest would provide a package for Release 1 with the CRs identified for that release. Susan said that the CRs for Release 1 would be implemented as part of Release 1, with different implementation dates and prior to Release 2.

Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she felt we were all saying the same thing. Liz said that Qwest sees all output files as one Release and that each CLEC may not be impacted with each file. Liz said that documentation needs to be clear so that the CLECs know whether they are impacted or not.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that one Release per output file may not be true because a CR could impact multiple files. Susan said that when we package a Release, Qwest will identify which CRs impact which output files.

Susan Lorence/Qwest reviewed the following Assumptions:

Assumption #2 - Qwest will continue to provide the CLECs with an estimate of release capacity at the end of the year for the next calendar year.

Assumption #3 - Qwest will conduct prioritizations for the IMA, Billing Output and Repair CRs independently of each other; each having separate spreadsheets for prioritization and ranking.

Assumptions #4 The guidelines and cut off dates for CR submission will follow the same guidelines as currently established.

Assumptions #5 Current wording in the CMP Document allows Qwest to remain flexible as to when the prioritization of the releases will occur. The view for Billing and Repair releases is that prioritization will occur twice a year, April and December. However, specific wording will not be added to the CMP Document to allow continued flexibility.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest was committing to prioritize two times a year.

Susan Lorence/Qwest that the current documentation for IMA does not state specific months.

Sharon Van Meter/AT&T said that what she heard is that Qwest will prioritize two times a year but does not want to specify the months in the Document.

Susan Lorence/Qwest agreed.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that language was removed from Section 8.0 and that Covad does not want it removed. (See Redline Document)

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon was ok with changing the language from three to two major releases, but they do not want the language removed. Bonnie said that Eschelon would not vote yes if the language is removed.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that Qwest will make a note of Covad’s and Eschelon’s concerns. Susan said that we may not want to include this as part of the CR and look at this globally.

Assumption #6 Once prioritization occurs, Qwest will use current CMP Guidelines to present packaging options for billing that address the prioritized candidates. Packaging for Billing CRs for a given release will likely spread the top ranked CRs across several designated months – based on Qwest IT resource availability.

Assumptions #7 Qwest will follow the documented Release notice/technical specification timelines just as today. In the case of a specific Billing release, the release may include more than one occurrence of Release notifications that will adhere to the documented timelines and standards.

Assumptions #8 Qwest considers Billing CRs to change requests that are asking for changes to the output files that contain billing information: DUF, ASCII, Paper, EDI, BOS BDT, Diskette (IABS only), Internet downloadable files.

Assumptions #9 Repair CRs are those that are requesting changes to the CEMR GUI and MEDIAAC interface.

Assumption #10 Qwest will exclude from the prioritization, ranking and commitment process any enhancements to any systems that are being implemented for the following reasons: Non-discrimination obligations Industry Guideline CRs associated with OBF BOS Specific changes.

Steph Prull/Eschelon asked if Retail requests are those that Qwest needs to provide to the CLECs for parity but that request would not impact the hours.

Susan Lorence/Qwest agreed.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that the process already exists and should not be in the Document because of legal interpretation.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that Industry Guidelines CRs would not come out of the hours.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that Covad wants the language removed. Liz said that this was never included before and is out of scope.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that the intent was to do a little clean up of the language and to be clear as to what is or is not prioritized.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that the language in 10.0 and 10.2.2 has different language for Industry Guideline changes.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that the intent of 10.2.2 is to support the 10.0 bulleted item.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that they want the language removed because OBF requests have their own release schedules and is outside of CMP.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that Eschelon also wants the language removed.

Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that Industry Guidelines are discussed in CMP.

Liz Balvin/Covad agreed and that timelines are published. Liz said that Industry Guidelines support more of the access products and are more of an Industry imposed release.

Susie Bliss/Qwest said that quite a few CLECs upgrade to these guidelines and is concerned that it won’t be documented. Susie said that some CLECs expect these enhancements twice a year. Susie asked if the CLECs were looking to have it posted to the OSS calendar and call it good.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that it is out of the scope of prioritization and said she did not understand the coordination in the output files because the product is local.

Susie Bliss/Qwest cited UNE-P and UBL products are impacted.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that the Industry Standards OBF BOS go through enhancements and that Qwest extracts data from the release and provides the billing the way the CLECs requested for UNE-P and UBL. Liz said that this would not be part of the hours.

Susie Bliss/Qwest said that she thought we were saying the same thing and that the CLECs expect upgrades at specified timeframes.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that an action item needs to be opened. Liz said that local product outputs should not be part of billing releases. Liz said that those releases are to accommodate access users and local products and that Qwest extracts data to provide output file data.

ACTION ITEM: Verify if OBF releases are separate than Releases provided for CLEC output of data coming from that system.

Assumptions #11Qwest will continue to submit and track these changes via system CRs so CLECs will have visibility to these changes.

Assumptions #12 There should be no changes to document wording to consider the billing releases as point releases.

Assumptions #13 There are several instances where the reference to Release must be changed to implementation to allow for multiple implementation dates for one prioritized release.

Steph Prull/Eschelon said that the concept of Release vs. Implementation needs to be clarified. Steph said that the notification timelines would not work with Implementation dates and may be confusing.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that we need to keep the term Release for IMA.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that we did struggle with this idea and asked if the CLECs had other ideas to make it clearer.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that it needs to be spelled out in Section 5 of the CMP Document. Bonnie said that the language needs to define how billing and repair prioritization will take place and that we need to document that Release applies to IMA prioritization.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that IMA and CEMR have release schedules and that billing will have implementation dates.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that they prefer the term release for CEMR and MEDIAAC.

Steph Prull/Eschelon stated that CEMR has always had releases.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that CEMR and MEDIAAC only impact CLECs and that billing is impacting to others.

ACTION ITEM: Qwest will check with IT and will look at changing the language in Section 5.0 accordingly.

Susan Lorence/Qwest summarized the discussion as follows: • Review the language in Section 5.0 • Determine the approach on Release vs. Implementation • Section 8.0 change the language from four to two. Note: Covad and Eschelon do not agree that the language should not be changed but will consider changing the language from three to two. • 10.0 – Covad does not want and Qwest needs to clarify what is excluded – Action Item created to determine if release calendar impacts output files provided to CLECs. The answer will determine if the language stays. The output files for CLECs need to be cared for if IG’s impact local products.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that the the bullet in Section 10.0 needs to be re-worded. Bonnie said that Qwest is legally obligated to implement for parity reasons. Bonnie said that Eschelon will not vote for anything that has the term ‘251’ in it.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that the intent is to make the language more clear.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the current process is via a CR.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said yes.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon and Liz Balvin/Covad will review and come up with ideas as to what the language should look like.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that Qwest would welcome any suggestions associated with the language changes. Susan said that the next meeting is scheduled on 11/18/04 at 10:30 am and asked if any proposed changes could be sent to Qwest no later than 11/16/04.

Open Product/Process CR PC120104-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

2/15/2005

Status History

Project Meetings

March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Janean Van Dusen-Qwest stated that this was effective March 4th and that this CR moves to CLEC Test.

-- February 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Janean Van Dusen-Qwest stated that we were on track for the March 4th effective date, noted that the notices would be sent and the PCAT would be updated. This CR remains in Development.

- January 19, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion Janean Van Dusen/Qwest stated that there was a meeting on January 12th with the CLECs where it was clarified that this change is only for Qwest DSL and is available for Resale and UNE-P. Janean stated that she has several documentation updates to make and that the notices would be out shortly. Janean stated that there would be a PCAT Level 4 change and a Level 1 process change. Janean stated that we are looking at a March 4, 2005 effective date. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon noted that this change will impact their ability to sell Qwest DSL and noted that she was disappointed. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR moves to Development Status.

-- December CMP Meeting Minutes Janean Van Dusen- Qwest presented this CR and advised that Qwest will no longer be performing conditioning on DSL. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon clarified that when the Loop Qual comes back with bridge taps and load coils, the CLEC can not request to have these removed? Janean advised yes. (Insert comment from Eschelon) Kim stated that Eschelon objects to this change request because it will limit the CLECs ability to provide Qwest DSL. Kim asked how Qwest retail is handling conditioning. (End comment) Retail has been dong this since November. Liz Balvin-Covad advised this does not make sense as the loop would need to be conditioned. (Begin insert comment from Covad) In addition, Liz questioned what Qwest expected the CLEC could do at that point. (End comment) Janean suggested that a CLEC Input Meeting be held to discuss this in more detail. John Berard-Covad confirmed that in November a new policy for retail went into effect that if conditioning is needed (Begin insert comment from Covad) Qwest would not provision their end user’s service request (End comment) we are not doing it? Janean verified that is correct and we will have an ad hoc meeting to discuss in more detail. Cindy Macy-Qwest advised that she will schedule an ad hoc meeting. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Open Product/Process CR PC102704-1ES2 Detail

Description Of Change

Revised Description of Change effective 3/23/07:

The following products, from the original CR, are removed from this Change Request and were not completed with this CR. The effort for these products may occur via separate CRs.

Unbundled Local Loop-General Information

Unbundled Local Loop-Digital Signal Level 1 (DS1) Capable Loop

Unbundled Local Loop-Digital Signal Level 3 (DS3) Capable Loop

Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL)

Loop MUX Combination (LMC)

Unbundled Dark Fiber (UDF)

Unbundled Dedicated Interoffice Transport (UDIT)

Unbundled Customer Controlled Rearrangement Element (UCCRE)

--------------------------------------------

Revised Description of Change effective 3/1/05:

This CR will be implemented as a product/process CR as there are no CLEC facing system changes.

This CR details changes to availability of certain Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) products.

The following UNE products are no longer available to CLECs unless the most current effective version of the CLEC's Interconnection

Agreement (ICA) of Amendment includes terms, conditions, and pricing for the products before 6/14/04.

Unbundled Network Element (UNE)- Switching (UBS) http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unswitch.html

Unbundled Network Elements- Platform (UNE-P)-General Information http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unep.html

Unbundled Network Elements - Platform (UNE-P) - Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) Basic Rate Interface (BRI)

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unepisdnbri.html

Unbundled Network Elements-Platform (UNE-P)-Centrex http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unepcentrex.html

Unbundled Network Elements-Platform (UNE-P)-Public Access Lines (PAL) http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/uneppal.html

Unbundled Network Elements- Platform (UNE-P)- Private Branch Exchange (PBX) Trunks http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/uneppbx.html

Unbundled Network Elements - Platform (UNE-P)-Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/uneppots.html

Unbundled Network Elements - Platform (UNE-P) - Digital Switched Service (DSS) http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unepdss.html

Unbundled Network Elements -Platform (UNE-P) - Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) Primary Rate Interface (PRI)

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unepisdnpri.html

The remaining products on this CR are being revised due to changes based on the FCC Order received 2/4/05. The following products will be revised and will be noticed on a future date associated with this change request.

Unbundled Local Loop-General Information

Unbundled Local Loop-Digital Signal Level 1 (DS1) Capable Loop

Unbundled Local Loop-Digital Signal Level 3 (DS3) Capable Loop

Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL)

Loop MUX Combination (LMC)

Unbundled Dark Fiber (UDF)

Unbundled Dedicated Interoffice Transport (UDIT)

Unbundled Customer Controlled Rearrangement Element (UCCRE)

As always, any future changes of law may impact this notification and will be supported by the applicable notification.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

Implement PCAT changes retroactive to 6-15-04 subject to CMP Guidelines

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised Description of Change effective 1/11/05:

This CR will be implemented as a product/process CR as there are no CLEC facing system changes.

This CR details changes to availability of certain Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) products.

The following UNE products are no longer available to CLECs unless the most current effective version of the CLEC's Interconnection Agreement (ICA) of Amendment includes terms, conditions, and pricing for the products before 6/14/04.

-All Enterprise and Mass Market Unbundled Network Elements Switching (UBS) products, detailed in the following Product Catalog

(PCAT): http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unswitch.html

-All Enterprise and Mass Market Unbundled Network Elements-Platform (UNE-P) products, detailed in the following PCAT:

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unep.html

-DS1 Unbundled Loop detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unloopds1caploop.html

-DS3 Unbundled Loop detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unloopds3caploop.html

-Unbundled Dark Fiber (UDF), including E-UDF and Meet-Point UDF, detailed in the following PCAT:

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/darkfiber.html

-DS1 and DS3 Unbundled Dedicated Interoffice Transport (UDIT), including E-UDIT and M-UDIT, detailed in the following PCAT:

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/udit.html

-DS1 and DS3 Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL) detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/eel.html

-Unbundled Customer Controlled Rearrangement Element (UCCRE) detailed in the following PCAT:

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/uccre.html

-DS1 and DS3 Loop Mux Combo detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/lmc.html

As always, any future changes of law may impact this notification and will be supported by the applicable notification.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

Implement PCAT changes retroactive to 6-15-04 subject to CMP Guidelines

_______________________________________________________

Previous Title and CR Description of Change - see below for information prior to 1/10/05. This CR was Revised on 1/11/05

Previous Title:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decision (USTA II) Decision No. 00-1012, and FCC Interim Rules Compliance: Certain Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) Product Discontinuance

Previous Description of Change:

This CR will be implemented as a product/process CR as there are no CLEC facing system changes.

This CR details changes to availability of certain Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) products pursuant to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decision 00-1012 ('USTA II') which vacated some of the FCC's unbundling rules, and the subsequent FCC Interim Rules which preserved some of the unbundling rules vacated in USTA II.

In accordance with these orders and findings, the following UNE products are no longer available to CLECs unless the most current, effective version of the CLEC’s Interconnection Agreement (ICA) or Amendment includes terms, conditions, and pricing for the products before 6/15/04:

-All Enterprise and Mass Market Unbundled Network Elements Switching (UBS) products, detailed in the following Product Catalog (PCAT): http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unswitch.html

-All Enterprise and Mass Market Unbundled Network Elements-Platform (UNE-P) products, detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unep.html

-DS1 Unbundled Loop detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unloopds1caploop.html

-DS3 Unbundled Loop detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unloopds3caploop.html

-Unbundled Dark Fiber (UDF), including E-UDF and Meet-Point UDF, detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/darkfiber.html

-DS1 and DS3 Unbundled Dedicated Interoffice Transport (UDIT), including E-UDIT and M-UDIT, detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/udit.html

-DS1 and DS3 Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL) detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/eel.html

-Unbundled Customer Controlled Rearrangement Element (UCCRE) detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/uccre.html

-DS1 and DS3 Loop Mux Combo detailed in the following PCAT: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/lmc.html

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

Retroactive to 6/15/04 pursuant to FCC Interim Rules, subject to CMP Guidelines.

___________________________________________________

Status History

Project Meetings

March 29, 2007 Email Sent to Eschelon: Bonnie, Qwest is not treating all of the CR as completed. As stated in the email below, dated March 26th, The CR was revised in order to remove the products that were not completed. The Completed Status of the CR is valid due to the completion of the products that remain on that CR. Perhaps the confusion is because you have not seen the revised CR. I have attached a copy. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

March 28, 2007 Email Received from Eschelon: Eschelon continues to believe Qwest is not in compliance with CMP closing codes. Not all of the Change Request was completed, but Qwest appears to be treating it all as completed. More importantly, as Eschelon has said before, changes regarding TRRO are considered change in law and should be handled via negotiations and perhaps also in some type of forum, such as changes to the SGAT, where there is also Commission oversight. Bonnie Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom Inc.

March 26, 2007 Email Sent to Eschelon: Bonnie, The CRs (PC102704-1ES and PC102704-1ES2 have been revised to indicate that some products were removed from the original CRs and that the effort for some of those products would occur via separate CRs. The products that were not removed from the CRs were the products that were completed, therefore the status of Completed would be appropriate. Withdrawal is not appropriate, as some of the products were completed and Defer would also not be appropriate as there is no more action for these specific Change Requests. The history continues to be retained on PC102704-1ES and PC102704-1ES2 and those CRs continue to be available via the Interactive Reports on the Qwest Wholesale web site. None of the documentation has been or will be lost. The email below has been added to PC102704-1ES2, as requested. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

March 23, 2007 Email Received from Eschelon: Eschelon’s position has not changed regarding PC102704-1ES and 1ES-2. Changes regarding TRRO are considered change in law and should be handled via negotiations or in some type of forum, such as changes to the SGAT, where there is Commission oversight. In addition, the CR is not completed so a status of complete is not appropriate. Will Qwest be withdrawing or deferring this CR? Please add this comment to the CR before changing the status. Thanks, Bonnie Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom Inc.

March 21, 2007 Product Process CMP Meeting: Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that these are the two TRRO CRs that were opened a few years ago. Mark then stated that based on the discussion at the February CMP Meeting, where Qwest acknowledged that the effort was moving forward with individual CRs, Qwest is moving to close these two CRs. Mark stated that all the history and notes will be retained and are available via the interactive reports on the web site. Mark stated that none of the information would be lost and asked if there was any objection to the closure of PC102704-1ES and PC102704-1ES2. There were no objections to the closure of the two CRs. 3/27/07 - Comments to minutes received from Eschelon Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that these are the two TRRO CRs that were opened a few years ago. Mark then stated that based on a number of meetings and discussions, including a discussion at the February CMP Meeting, where Qwest acknowledged that the effort was moving forward with Qwest submitting individual CRs, Qwest is closing these two CRs. Mark stated that all the history and notes will be retained and are available via the interactive reports on the web site. Mark stated that none of the information would be lost

- February 21, 2007 Product Process CMP Meeting: Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that at the end of the last ad hoc call it was mentioned that Qwest would schedule additional calls in order to continue the discussions on this CR to categorize products on the TRRO Product matrix and try to move forward with a prioritization of products. The original Qwest plan to gain CLEC input on the priority of the various products has not been as successful as we planned or hoped. We heard all the comments on that call and considered all the feedback that another call would just be rehashing the same things again. We then took all that feedback and gave it some additional thought in order to determine what the most logical next step would be, to allow Qwest and the CLEC community to continue to move forward on this issue. What makes sense at this point, to Qwest, is that we issue individual CMP CRs for the products that need to be addressed in CMP and hold discussions for specific CRs or product groupings. That would allow those CLECs with impact on those specific products to have a CMP forum for input on the process related changes associated with these products. It should provide a more meaningful and valuable method for proceeding with this effort for Qwest and for those CLECs who are impacted by these changes. Some, if not all, of those CRs will be submitted for the March 21st CMP Meeting. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that on the last call, Cindy Buckmaster (Qwest) committed to taking one of her products, due to Integra’s concerns regarding the PCATs, and to re-do the PCAT and meet on those changes. Bonnie asked if Qwest is now not going to do that. [Comment Received from Eschelon: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that on the last call, Cindy Buckmaster (Qwest) committed to taking one of her products, due to Integra’s concerns regarding Qwest cut an pasting information from the ICA into the PCATs, and to re-do the PCAT and meet on those changes. Bonnie asked if Qwest is now not going follow through with that commitment.] Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that we internally evaluated what would work best and determined that the next step should be to issue the CRs. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she had no comment at this time.

February 6, 2007 Qwest/CLEC Ad Hoc Meeting: ATTENDEES: Mary Roberts-Unicon, Sue Yoder-Iowa Telecom, Pam Trickel-TDS MetroCom, Julie Redmond Carter-McLeodUSA, Kathy Lee-AT&T, Peter Huley-TDS MetroCom, Lynn Oliver-Covad, Ken Black-McLeodUSA, Sheila Harris-Integra, Steve Fisher-Integra, Jay Newsbom-Integra, Nancy Thompson-Wisor, Joyce Bilow-McLeodUSA, Karen Clausen-Eschelon, Doug Denney-Eschelon, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Colette Davis-Covad, Rod Cox-TDS MetroCom, Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Candace Mowers-Qwest, Vicki Dryden-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Karen Chandler Ferguson-Qwest, Mark Coyne-Qwest DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the purpose of this meeting was to continue with the open dialogue for the TRO/TRRO CMP CR. The documents for this meeting can be accessed from the Wholesale calendar out on the CMP web site, by clicking on the entry for this call. Those documents are the PCAT Impacts Matrix and 2 other documents which are the CRs for this effort. PC102704-1ES which is the original CR and contains the history thru January 10th. It references PC102704-1ES2 for the continuation of the history for this effort. The creation of PC102704-1ES2 was necessary due to the character limitation being reached for the original CR, in our data base that houses the CR information. This means that that the PC102704-1ES record/CR could not house any more data or content. PC102704-1ES2 was then created in order to continue with the documentation of this effort. The 2 CRs (-1ES and -1ES2) have a complete accounting of all that has transpired, all the history, regarding the calls and communications that have been held and documented. There was a concern, received in an email, that 2 CRs creates the impression that there is no earlier status history. That should not be the case because the 2 CRs are VERY clearly marked and cross referenced in 6 different places: 1) The numbering of the CRs carries the same number with the 2 added to the end of the continuation CR. 2) The CR Titles are the same and make reference to the other CR 3) The first statement in the CR descriptions note that 'Documentation for this CR is continued on/from the other CR number' 4) There is a Status History Line that indicates that there is a Related CR and notes the CR that is continued to/from 5) There is a second Status History Line of a Record Update stating that documentation is continued to/from the other CR 6) The Project Meetings portion of the CRs each contains a statement AT THE TOP that documentation is continued to/from the other CR. Again, there has been no loss of any history for this CR, the history is complete. Both CRs are active and are available via the Interactive Reports out on the web site. The call today as well as future communications will be documented on the continuation CR PC102704-1ES2. There were no comments or questions. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest then noted that the last call was held on January 11th and its purpose was to start the discussions regarding the PCAT Impacts Matrix and getting items in the appropriate buckets in order to proceed and move forward. There were some CLECs on that call who were not comfortable discussing the Matrix without obtaining input from their regulatory folks so that discussion had to be rescheduled and that is why we are meeting today. Details of that January 11 call are in the meeting minutes of the CR, in case you have not yet had the opportunity to read them. Peggy then stated that this brings us all up to date and that today’s discussion would be started by Cindy Buckmaster (Qwest). Doug Denney-Eschelon asked for the meaning of the terms going forward and proceeding. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that we would like to move forward with the open dialogue and the discussion on the moving of the bucketed items in the appropriate place on the PCAT Impacts Matrix. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that our intent is to identify all product documentation associated with TRO TRRO that are impacted by law. Cindy stated that a list was compiled and that it is separated into sections, the first section identified items that were already introduced, in 2005. Cindy stated that the 2nd list is the products with changes that were postponed and removed from the initial effort of PC102704-1ES. Cindy noted that those products were moved to Category 2. Cindy stated that the 3rd set is yet to be introduced and that no discussions have yet taken place for them. Cindy then stated that the last set is those products that are currently in litigation. Cindy noted that the 4th set is a subset of the 2nd bucket. In the last meeting there was a concern regarding litigation and a desire to have identified where changes have been made in the catalogues. Qwest’s intent is not to usurp litigation and noted that these discussions are so all know what to expect if have signed TRRO agreement. Cindy then noted that at the last call, the CLECs said that they wanted to bring their regulatory/legal people on the call in order to help identify the items, in the buckets, that should be moved to bucket 4. Cindy stated that the intent is then to discuss items that are not in bucket 4, or are in bucket 4, with the CLECs that want to discuss them. Doug Denney-Eschelon stated that there are a lot of assumptions on how processes apply to each CLECs ICAs. Doug noted that the wire center litigation is one example. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that these discussions have been for the entire CLEC Community and Qwest is happy to let the CLECs structure the calls. Cindy stated that Qwest has no pre-conceived notion of what will or will not be discussed. Cindy stated that Qwest would discuss what the CLECs want to discuss. Cindy then stated that Qwest would take feedback as to what additional items need to be moved into Bucket 4, if the CLECs want to share that information. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that an assumption, in the Matrix, is that if you want to talk about it, the discussion starts with the non-TRRO PCATs. Karen stated that was her observation. Karen then noted that Eschelon had provided the list of items that are in litigation to Qwest and stated that Qwest needs to tell them what is in litigation. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she is neither in legal nor in the regulatory group. Cindy then stated that she would not force discussions and would discuss what the CLECs want to discuss. Cindy stated that the starting place could be the PCATs Impact Matrix and the documents on the main web site, www.qwest.com. Cindy stated that we could also discuss the changes that were made for the TRRO web site. Steve Fisher-Integra stated that every PCAT that is related to TRRO is far reaching. Steve then asked that if a PCAT is related to TRRO and there are ICA negotiations occurring, why the PCATs had so much relationship to the ICAs. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the PCATs contain a general description and the flow of a product. Cindy stated that this is how to do business to business. The contracts are not intended to carry the detail of business to business relationships. Steve Fisher-Integra stated that the new PCATs are far reaching into TRRO and are not product specific. Steve stated that we are blurring the distinction between the ICA and the PCAT and there needs to be discussion. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that she disagrees with what was just said and stated that it was asked that issues be brought into negotiations. Karen stated that Qwest is trying to draw a distinct line and that some issues do belong in contracts. Karen then stated that in the CMP Document, the scope will sometimes overlap with an ICA and states that the ICA will have control. Karen then stated that she agreed with Integra and that Qwest should negotiate that. Karen Clausen-Eschelon then noted that Cindy (Buckmaster-Qwest) was not regulatory and that Cindy had asked CLEC regulatory personnel to be present on this call. Karen then asked if there was Qwest legal representation on the call. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she did not request that CLEC regulatory or legal personnel be on the call, the CLECs said that they wanted regulatory and/or legal folks on the call. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that they had already identified that all products are in litigation. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked that for bucket 1, which includes UBS and UNE-P, if anybody believes that these products are in litigation. Cindy then stated that Qwest believes that these have been completed. Cindy asked if anyone disagreed that they have been completed. Doug Denney-Eschelon stated that Qwest has filed a tariff, in Colorado, to amend SGATs and noted that this is part of that filing and that investigation is suspended. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that if we were to take that approach then we could never have a CMP call due to changes to the tariff and/or SGAT. Cindy stated that could be pushing the envelope and that this call was for discussion of PC102704-1ES/-1ES2 ONLY. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that if Qwest had read what they submitted the day before, that PC102704-1ES/-1ES2 should be left in bucket A. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the matrix is to identify all products that are impacted by TRRO. Cindy then noted that she saw, in the email, that Eschelon agrees that those items are closed. Cindy then stated that we have not heard from the other CLECs as to the completion on March 18, 2005, for the items in bucket A. Cindy asked if all on the call agree that all items in bucket a are closed. Steve Fisher-Integra stated that if you go into UBS PCAT, there are links that are in the PCATs that link to other documents that might not yet be closed. Steve stated that he would be hesitant to agree that bucket A is closed due to those links to the other documents. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that was a very good point and noted that the PCAT, as it specifically relates to UBS is closed. Cindy asked if all were in agreement that UBS is not offered by Qwest and asked if all agreed that UNE-P as identified on the matrix is not offered by Qwest. Karen Clausen-Eschelon asked Cindy (Buckmaster-Qwest) if she was asking the CLECs to agree and comment. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest said that she was only saying that the CR was closed in March 2005 and at that time CLECs had no issue with those items. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that Cindy was then asking two questions. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that yes, the CR was closed in March 2005 and agreed that all are not subject to TRRO. Karen stated that no items are open and noted that there is a fuzzy line. Karen stated that the question is if Qwest intend to make similar filings (tariffs in lieu of SGATs) in other states. She stated that she has asked that question a number of times, specifically asked it in a pre-meeting e-mail and expected it to be answered on this call. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that did not fall into her area of responsibility and noted that the question is not for this call. Cindy stated that this call is for the discussion of TRRO PCATs ONLY. Karen Clausen-Eschelon asked if Cindy (Buckmaster-Qwest) was going to find out who would answer her question. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest said no and advised Karen (Clausen-Eschelon) that she would trust that Karen would obtain that information from one of the other avenues, within Qwest, that she has probably already asked. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that if Qwest’s intent was to insult Eschelon that they had. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that it was not her intent to insult Eschelon and apologized. Cindy stated that she was not sure if there were filings in other states as that is not her decision or area of responsibility. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that she understood that Cindy (Buckmaster-Qwest) does not know the answer. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked if there were any items in the third bucket, such as 800 data base query, that were involved in litigation. Karen Chandler Ferguson-Qwest stated that Qwest is not aware of any current arbitration or litigation that was occurring for items in that third bucket. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that Qwest had Eschelons written response and stated that she would not go thru the matrix again. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked if there were any CLECs on the call that believed that items in that third bucket were in litigation or arbitration. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated yes, for all items. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked for input from other CLECs. McLeod agreed with Eschelon and stated that they were not in a position to discuss, due to negotiations. Integra stated that they echo McLeods comment. Karen Chandler Ferguson-Qwest stated that 800 data base is offered via the tariff and asked if it was in arbitration. McLeod said no and stated that they are moving from negotiations to arbitration. McLeod then stated that Qwest needs to give them the next steps. McLeod then stated that they have a confidentiality agreement. McLeod then stated that all products on the matrix fall under TRRO and that they need to protect McLeod. McLeod stated that they were not in a position to discuss this now. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the discussion has made it clearer and thanked the CLECs for their input. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that Eschelon has taken time to respond and noted that they have been more clear than Qwest. Karen Chandler Ferguson-Qwest apologized and stated that Eschelon did not want to respond further on this call and stated that McLeod’s explanation did make it clearer. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that the law is taking something away and stated that all is subject to arbitration and litigation as to how and when this will be handled. Karen stated that all read an order that something has gone away and Qwest is now asking broad statements as to what is in arbitration and litigation. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked if there was any CLEC on this call that is interested in discussing the changes for 800 database service. Karen Clausen-Eschelon asked what those changes were. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she does not yet have the proposed changes and stated that what those changes will be is what needs to be discussed. Cindy stated that for bucket 2, the PCATs may be a starting place for the discussion and the same could be true for bucket 3. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that Eschelon will discuss in the ICA negotiations. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she is hearing Eschelon saying that Eschelon does not want to discuss 800 data base. Karen Clause-Eschelon asked Cindy (Buckmaster-Qwest) to not recap what she said because she will disagree with Cindy’s recap. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked if there was any CLEC on the call that is interested in discussing 800 data base. Integra said no. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that it might be better to ask if any one was interested in discussing by bucket instead of by product. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked if there was any CLEC that is interested in discussing bucket B. Karen Clausen-Eschelon asked if the discussion would be in the context of CMP. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest said yes. Steve Fisher-Integra said no because TRRO is far reaching and he needs to know what the PCAT changes are. Steve stated that the PCATs needed to be slimmed down. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the matrix identifies by product and has a link to the PCAT in column C. Cindy asked the CLECs to help her understand how they want the PCATs slimmed down. Steve Fisher-Integra stated that the product descriptions are too far reaching and stated that the content copied from the Contract should not be in a PCAT, it should be in the ICAs. Karen Chandler Ferguson-Qwest stated that everyone’s PCAT could then be different and stated that the CLECs contracts do govern how Qwest does business with your business. Karen stated that the PCATs could be general and that each individual contract would govern. Steve Fischer-Integra stated that it would need to be negotiated between two parties and stated that the CLECs would not have to agree on them. Steve stated that the PCAT dictates how Qwest deals with a CLEC and stated that is what they are disagreeing with. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked if that is different then how they deal with Verizon, BellSouth, or AT&T, for example. CLEC said yes and noted that if they do not agree, they file changes and/or disputes. McLeod stated that they did not like the idea of committing now and discussing generically. McLeod noted that they may not have any issues now but that they might have issues later and does not want to have to go through CMP later because of TRO/TRRO arbitration. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest thanked McLeod for the input and then asked if there was any CLEC under a TRRO amendment, not in litigation, that is interested in discussing in CMP, these items. No response. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked if the silence meant no. Colette Davis-Covad stated that Covad has signed TRRO agreements with Qwest and stated that any changes that Qwest is proposing, with Covad, needs to be in CMP. Colette noted that she also handles BellSouth and Sprint in the same manner. Colette stated that if an ILEC wants to make changes to a process, it is evaluated. Colette stated that if something is in arbitration, it is then between that CLEC and Qwest. Colette stated that proceeding forward is also important. Colette stated that, from one side, she can see what everyone on the call is saying and on the other side, we need to move forward and see what Qwest recommends and challenge via CMP if need to. Colette stated that if there is a disagreement related to changes in requirements, CLECs can then file a complaint or go into mediation or arbitration for an issue. Colette stated that we need to collaboratively move forward and stated that the CLECs need to arbitrate independently of CMP and that mixing the two together is a problem and why we come to a crossroad. Colette stated that not all CLECs are arbitrating the same thing and noted that Covad’s position is a collaborative position. TRRO or CMP will go through proper channels and if the CLECs need to challenge Qwest’s position, they can go to the FCC or the PUC. Colette stated that she is trying to get a better sense of what the CLECs want out of this call. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that Qwest asked Regulatory and Legal reps to come to the call. Karen stated that the CMP document says that there could be overlap with CMP and the contracts and that the ICAs would have control. The problem is when things are in an ICA when discussing TRRO and Qwest is trying to move forward in CMP and negotiations for ICAs could be an issue. Karen stated that if Qwests purpose is to remove products from the PCATs, it clearly belongs in an ICA and the ICA does control. Karen stated that they were asked what was in litigation and Qwest doesn’t have their people on the call. Karen stated that they are being asked to agree and commit and she is asking agree to what. Colette Davis-Covad stated that with CMP, it gets down to a granular change and that is where it needs to be evaluated. Colette stated that if there is a process that needs to be changed, generally an ICA does not rule, where there is a contract change, the ICA does rule. Steve Fisher-Integra stated that the issue is that a process is in a PCAT. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the intent of the PCAT is to contain general information about the product and further define the how-to (for process purposes). Steve Fisher-Integra stated that if he needs to find out if he can have Inter Office Transport, he would go to his ICA to see if he can have it and that the PCAT would tell him how. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest said Yes! That is the intent of the PCAT. The PCAT structure is such that it begins with a general description of the product and then identifies more of the ‘how to’ about a product request. Cindy stated that Qwest wants the PCATs to be of value to the CLECs. Cindy noted that the ICAs do govern but that the PCATs should tell the CLECs how to submit an LSR. Steve Fisher-Integra asked Cindy to show him a PCAT that is showing him that. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she would but that is not the purpose of this particular call. Colette Davis-Covad stated that is the gap, CMP addresses processes and procedures. Product availability is generally conrolled via an ICA. Colette stated that the PCAT is redundant with the ICA and asked why ICA language is in a PCAT. Colette stated that CMP should be focused on giving the CLECs ordering instructions. The FCC & PUC issue orders on what Qwest can and cannot provide to the CLECs. CMP should be focused on giving CLECs information on how to order products and services. The issue is that Qwest is putting ICA language in the PCATs and Qwest needs to stick to publishing how to order products. Jay Newsbom-Integra stated that they would not write the PCATs for Qwest and stated that Qwest is putting the cart before the horse in trying to write processes before the ICAs are done. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she does not want to discuss processes with those CLECs who do not want to discuss. Cindy asked that in the next meeting, if we can get those who have already signed or who are about to sign, interested in discussing. Colette Davis-Covad stated that this should not impede the process on how to order out of a non-impaired wire center. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that Utah has already reviewed the wire center list and decided what is and what is not impaired. Cindy noted that they need that avenue to tell the CLECs how to order that product. Colette Davis-Covad stated that she does not see a problem. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that the PCATs on the matrix may be different than those telling me how to order. Karen stated that she believes that these conversations should occur in negotiations and stated that she will not be told to talk about it in CMP. Karen stated that the discussions need to be in negotiations. Karen stated that they were asked about legal issues that Qwest wants to remove from PCATs and that those are in arbitration and/or negotiations. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that there is no underlying intent, then asked if there were any CLECs who have signed or are about to sign, that want to discuss any item on the matrix, in CMP. Steve Fisher-Integra said not the way that they are currently structured. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that we can discuss and change the template, if this one is not of value, but proposed we get through the discussion of topics before PCAT format is discussed. Karen Clausen-Eschelon asked if Cindy (Buckmaster-Qwest) was offering to update the template in CMP. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest said No, she is offering to update the matrix in CMP. She further stated that if any ‘template’ is to change via CMP it would be the PCAT template and not the Negotiations Template. Steve Fisher-Integra stated that he was not sure that it needed to be updated. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked the CLECs to look at item #3 Line Sharing. Cindy stated that this was removed as a result of TRRO, is available in a Commercial Agreement, and proposed changes have been made in the PCAT that have not yet been shared. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that was Qwests legal view and stated that Qwest could voluntarily offer it, under 251. Karen stated that Qwest needs to get their ducks in order before the PCATs can be updated. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that if we are talking to those who have signed, the horse is where it belongs, before the cart. Colette Davis-Covad stated that the operational details are not yet in the contract. Karen Clausen-Eschelon asked if it is Qwests position that the Commercial Agreement processes go through CMP. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that Line Sharing has not yet been addressed in any CMP CR and noted that changes that affect how to order it would be communicated via CMP (for example that you first have to have a Commercial Agreement). Steve Fisher-Integra stated that the Commercial Agreements are separate from this process. Karen Clausen-Eschelon asked if we had gone beyond the scope of this call. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest said no, that the scope of this call is to determine if there is any CLEC interested in discussing items on a matrix. Cindy then noted that this call started with no structure in mind and stated that everything now seems to be in bucket 4. Cindy stated that process changes, the operational way we do work applies to all CLECs. The TRRO, and how it applies to CLECs, is what we want to discuss. Jay Newsbom-Integra asked why Qwest doesn’t just send out the changes. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the changes that have been made are already in bucket 2, such as EEL and LMC. Steve Fisher-Integra asked that everything that is in the ICA be taken out of the PCAT and for Qwest send the changes out to the CLECs. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked that we discuss product related items. Colette Davis-Covad stated that this could interfere or compromise where Covad is, in their negotiations. Colette stated that process can be discussed; and legal positions are not to be discussed. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that process is what Qwest wants to discuss. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that the term ‘process’ is also in litigation. Karen then stated that she does not agree that process belongs in the PCAT, as opposed to a Commercial Agreement. Karen stated that she opposes using TRRO PCATs as a starting place, for discussions. Karen stated that Qwest is claiming that existing processes are to be discussed and that they need to edit PCATs before Qwest can send them out for review. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that Qwest is not attempting to force anything down anyone’s throat. Cindy stated that she wants to talk to CLECs who want to discuss the items. Cindy asked if there would be value if we had another call. Steve Fisher-Integra stated that they want a call and don’t want it to be structured. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she was fine with that and asked the CLECs what the next call length should be. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that she only wanted to discuss the ICA negotiations. Susan Lorence-Qwest recommended that the next call be 2 hours because there are CLECs who do want to discuss. Susan then suggested that a PCAT be reviewed on that next call. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that Eschelon will not discuss issues that are in litigation. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that if a CLEC does want to discuss an item that is on the matrix, that is fine…they don’t eed to come to the call. She stated she wants to have that discussion with CLECs who do want to discuss. Karen Clausen-Eschelon stated that she wanted a document that contains only the processes. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she would not edit a PCAT without knowing what the CLECs want and what would be of value to them. Cindy noted that she did not want a separate copy, for Eschelon. Jay Newsbom-Integra stated that if Qwest does not provide a document, the next discussion will be the same as today’s discussion. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she does not know what the CLECs want in the PCATs or want to discuss. Jay Newsbom-Integra stated that Qwest heard their concerns; the ICA language in the PCATs, and he wants the PCATs edited down to processes and procedures. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she would research the difference between other ILEC PCATs and Qwest’s PCATs for one of her products if that would help the discussion move back to TRRO changes and doesn’t plan to allow the discussion to be derailed by discussion about format of the PCAT. If that proves to be do-able before the next call, she will complete a re-write of that one PCAT. Jay Newsbom-Integra stated that they need to see how to do things. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that is how we will proceed. Cindy stated that proposed PCAT language would be provided at least 3 days prior to the next call. Cindy then noted that the next call would be scheduled for 2 hours. There were no additional comments or questions. The call was concluded. -- February 5, 2007 Email Received From Eschelon: Peggy, Thank you for the response. We have asked specific questions and will look forward to Qwest’s responses on the call. Bonnie Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom Inc. -- February 5, 2007 Email Sent to Cbeyond: Tom, Your email below was received. The Ad Hoc call scheduled for tomorrow will continue to take place in order for the open dialog to continue and for Qwest to address CLEC concerns. If Cbeyond cannot attend the call, the meeting minutes will be posted to the CMP CR, for your future reference. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP -- February 5, 2007 Email Sent to Eschelon: Bonnie, Your email below was received. The Ad Hoc call scheduled for tomorrow will continue to take place in order for the open dialog to continue and for Qwest to address CLEC concerns. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP -- Email Received From Tom Hyde, Cbeyond: Cbeyond objects to the Ad-Hoc Meeting scheduled for 2/6/2007 as premature. Qwest has not yet furnished sufficient information to make the call meaningful. If Qwest decides to continue requesting a call on this issue with CLEC legal and regulatory personnel, Qwest should provide the necessary information, as well as Qwest's proposal(s), sufficiently in advance of any call so that CLECs and their attorneys and regulatory personnel may review the information and proposal and be prepared to respond. A call, if it is to be held, should be rescheduled until Qwest provides this information. Cbeyond may not be able to participate on tomorrow's call. Cbeyond reserves all of its rights -- February 5, 2007 Email Received From Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon SUBJECT: Information for tentative call tomorrow - CMPR.01.30.07.F.04487.TRROAdHocMeeting Qwest asked CLEC regulatory/legal personnel to answer questions regarding the status of litigation for each item on Qwest's matrix of the "buckets" in which Qwest placed certain products. Enclosed is Eschelon's response to Qwest's questions. Also enclosed is a copy of Qwest's matrix, with letters and row numbers added in the margin for ease of reference. (This numbering had to be added manually, as Qwest provided the document only in PDF format.) Please explain Qwest's reason and agenda for a call given that: (1) except for items that are completed (Bucket A), the items are in litigation (a fact known to Qwest, as Qwest is a party to each litigation), and Qwest's position is that "Disputed items will not immediately be processed through CMP," (2) Qwest has provided no proposal (see 12/14/06 minutes); and (3) Qwest needs to provide additional information (see Eschelon's Response to Bucket C) on the items that Qwest identifies as "Not Yet Covered in any CR." If Qwest continues to request a call on this issue and/or with CLEC legal/regulatory personnel, Qwest should provide the requested information, as well as Qwest's proposal, sufficiently in advance of any call so that CLECs and their attorneys/regulatory personnel may review the information and proposal and be prepared to respond. A call, if it is to be held, should be rescheduled until Qwest provides this information. Also, please indicate whether Qwest will initiate any proceeding/make any filing similar to its filing in Colorado Commission Docket No. 07S-028T (with respect to a tariff, SGAT, Qwest's template, etc.) in any other state. (Please either provide this information before any call or, if a call is held tomorrow and Qwest has not responded, please respond on the call.) If a call is held, Karen Clauson, an attorney and Sr. Director of Interconnection, will represent Eschelon on the call, per Qwest's request that CLECs bring legal representation to the call. In addition, Doug Denney, a witness familiar with issues in litigation, will participate as well. Eschelon reserves all of its rights. ATTACHMENT included with this Email: ESCHELON RESPONSE TO QWEST’S QUESTION AS TO WHICH ITEMS ON QWEST’S CHART ARE SUBJECT TO LITIGATION/ARBITRATION February 5, 2007 If a call is held, please add these comments to the meeting minutes for the call. If not, please add these minutes to the status history for the CR. (Please note that Qwest has inappropriately separated out the CR into two numbers, with one being followed by '-2', which creates the impression that there is no earlier status history, when there is additional information that is part of the history of events. Qwest needs to put them back together, so the single status history is complete.) Qwest CMP Minutes of 1/11/07 Ad Hoc Call: "Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest confirmed that the CLECs will take this information back. She said that she would still like to go through the matrix line-by-line in the next adhoc meeting. Cindy states that we need to ask two questions: 1) Is this in litigation and why, and 2) Can we get consensus if something is in litigation where we can move it on the list." -- See Eschelon responses below to each of these questions for each Qwest Bucket on Qwest’s matrix. Qwest CMP Minutes of 11/15/06 Monthly Call: "Cindy said Qwest is asking to release the undisputed items, those not in arbitration or items being challenged under law. Disputed items will not immediately be processed through CMP." Qwest CMP Minutes of 12/14/06 Monthly Call: "Bonnie J-Eschelon stated that in regard to Qwest’s proposal, she is hearing that Qwest does not really have one. Cindy B-Qwest stated that was correct." Minnesota Arbitrators’ Report, Qwest-Eschelon ICA MN Arbitration, ¶¶21-22: "The CMP document itself provides that in cases of conflict between changes implemented through the CMP and any CLEC ICA, the rates, terms and conditions of the ICA shall prevail. In addition, if changes implemented through CMP do not necessarily present a direct conflict with an ICA but would abridge or expand the rights of a party, the rates, terms, and conditions of the ICA shall prevail. Clearly, the CMP process would permit the provisions of an ICA and the CMP to coexist, conflict, or potentially overlap. The Administrative Law Judges agree with the Department’s analysis that any negotiated issue that relates to a term and condition of interconnection may properly be included in an ICA, subject to a balancing of the parties’ interests and a determination of what is reasonable, non-discriminatory, and in the public interest. Eschelon has provided convincing evidence that the CMP process does not always provide CLECs with adequate protection from Qwest making important unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of interconnection." QWEST BUCKETS FROM QWEST’S CHART (enclosed) A = "Products/Processes Introduced on PC102704-1ES" B = "Products/Processes Postponed on PC102704-1ES" C = "Products/Processes Not Yet Covered on any CR" D = "Products Known to be in Arbitration/Litigation" NOTE: Eschelon disagrees with Qwest’s characterizations, as further described in Eschelon’s testimony in the Qwest-Eschelon ICA arbitrations. QWEST BUCKET A All nine of the items listed in Qwest Bucket A (A1-A9) deal with UNE-P. Qwest has indicated that items A1-A9 were completed in CMP. In addition, CLECs have signed amendments regarding elimination of UNE-P (at least some in conjunction with QPP), and the terms of those agreements control. Eschelon is not aware of pending litigation regarding UNE-P. As Qwest has said it intends to discuss which products or terms relating to its identified items are subject to litigation, if Qwest is a party to, or aware of, any pending litigation, Qwest should provide this information to CLECs (before a call, if any call is held). RESPONSE TO QWEST #1: Not in litigation to Eschelon’s knowledge. RESPONSE TO QWEST #2: Leave in Bucket A and note in final column ("Notes"): "Completed in CMP." There is no need to "release the undisputed items" because they are completed. QWEST BUCKET B All eleven of the items in Qwest Bucket B (B10 - B20) are subject to litigation. Qwest repeats B(10), B(15), B(17), and B(18) in Qwest’s Bucket D (which identifies these items as known to be in litigation). Qwest does not explain why it does not also include the other items, which are also in litigation (often in the same cases). See Colorado Commission Docket No. 07S-028T, The Investigation and Suspension of Tariff Sheets Filed by Qwest Corporation with Advice Letter No. 3058. See also Wire Center Dockets: AZ Docket Nos.T-03632A-06-0091; T-03267A-06-0091; T-04302A-06-0091; T-03406A-06-0091; T-03432A-06-0091; and T-01051B-06-0091; CO Docket No. 06M-080T; MN Docket Nos. P-5692, 5340, 5643, 5323, 465, 6422/M-06-211 and P-5692, 5340, 5643, 5323, 465, 6422/M-06-685; OR Docket No. UM 1251; UT Docket No. 06-049-40. See also Qwest-Eschelon ICA arbitrations: AZ T-03406A-06-0572, T-01051B-06-0572 CO 06B-497T MN P5340, 421/IC-06-768 OR ARB 775 UT petition not yet filed WA UT-063061 As Qwest has said it intends to discuss which products or terms relating to its identified items are subject to litigation, if Qwest is a party to, or aware of, any additional pending litigation, Qwest should provide this information to CLECs (before a call, if any call is held). RESPONSE TO QWEST #1: In litigation. RESPONSE TO QWEST #2: Move to Bucket D. QWEST BUCKET C All thirteen of the items in Qwest Bucket C (C21-C33) have related terms that is subject to approval before becoming effective in the Qwest-Eschelon ICA arbitrations and/or Colorado Docket No. 07S-028T. In addition, C31 (Reclassification of Terminations for UNE Conversions, APOTs) relates to open disputed language in the Qwest-Eschelon ICA arbitrations. For all thirteen of the items in Qwest Bucket C (C21-C32), Qwest identifies them as "not yet covered." Depending on what these items entail, additional issues could be subject to litigation. See Colorado Commission Docket No. 07S-028T, The Investigation and Suspension of Tariff Sheets Filed by Qwest Corporation with Advice Letter No. 3058. See also Qwest-Eschelon ICA arbitrations: AZ T-03406A-06-0572, T-01051B-06-0572 CO 06B-497T MN P5340, 421/IC-06-768 OR ARB 775 UT petition not yet filed WA UT-063061 As Qwest has said it intends to discuss which products or terms relating to its identified items are subject to litigation, if Qwest is a party to, or aware of, any additional pending litigation, Qwest should provide this information to CLECs (before a call, if any call is held). FOR C(21)-C(30) & C(32)-C(33): RESPONSE TO QWEST #1: In litigation. RESPONSE TO QWEST #2: As "not yet covered" by Qwest, Qwest to provide (before a call, if any call is held) a written proposal identifying the changes it wants to make to the existing PCAT and indicating, for each change, whether all ICAs have been amended accordingly. FOR C(31): RESPONSE TO QWEST #1: In litigation. RESPONSE TO QWEST #2: Move to Bucket D. QWEST BUCKET D All four of the items in Qwest Bucket D (D34 – D37) are subject to litigation, per Qwest’s own inclusion of them in the bucket for "Products Known to be in Arbitration/Litigation." (Qwest provided no docket numbers. Eschelon has provided docket numbers below.) Qwest’s list is incomplete (see above). For example, Qwest omits Commingled EELs (B19), Reclassification of Terminations for UNE Conversions (APOTs) (B19), Loop Mux Combination (B11), UCCRE (B13), TRRO compliance and transition procedures (B20) from its Bucket D, even those issues are clearly subject to litigation in the Qwest-Eschelon ICA arbitrations and wire center proceedings and are subject to change of law provisions requiring ICA terms (see, e.g., TRRO ¶196). See Colorado Commission Docket No. 07S-028T, The Investigation and Suspension of Tariff Sheets Filed by Qwest Corporation with Advice Letter No. 3058. See also Wire Center Dockets: AZ Docket Nos.T-03632A-06-0091; T-03267A-06-0091; T-04302A-06-0091; T-03406A-06-0091; T-03432A-06-0091; and T-01051B-06-0091; CO Docket No. 06M-080T; MN Docket Nos. P-5692, 5340, 5643, 5323, 465, 6422/M-06-211 and P-5692, 5340, 5643, 5323, 465, 6422/M-06-685; OR Docket No. UM 1251; UT Docket No. 06-049-40. See also Qwest-Eschelon ICA arbitrations: AZ T-03406A-06-0572, T-01051B-06-0572 CO 06B-497T MN P5340, 421/IC-06-768 OR ARB 775 UT petition not yet filed WA UT-063061 As Qwest has said it intends to discuss which products or terms relating to its identified items are subject to litigation, if Qwest is a party to, or aware of, any additional pending litigation, Qwest should provide this information to CLECs (before a call, if any call is held). RESPONSE TO QWEST #1: In litigation. RESPONSE TO QWEST #2: Remain in Bucket D (Bucket D should also be expanded to include the items identified above as in litigation and belonging in Bucket D). Bonnie Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom Inc. -- January 17, 2007 Monthly CMP Meeting Discussion: Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that this CR is currently in Development Status. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the meetings for this effort are being held outside of the monthly CMP Meeting and are ongoing. Jeff Sonnier-Sprint asked if the next meeting has been scheduled. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that it had not yet been scheduled. This CR remains in Development Status. -- January 11, 2007 Ad Hoc Meeting: Jeff Sonnier-Sprint Nextel, Paulette Davis-Covad, Lynn Hankins-Covad, Tom Hyde-Cbeyond, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Nancy Thompson-Wisor Telecom, Sue Wright-XO Communications, Ken Black-McLeod, Pam Trickel-TDS, Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Candice Mowers-Qwest, Vicki Dryden-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that the matrix to be discussed in this meeting could be located on the Wholesale Resource Website (http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/calendar/) and by clicking on the calendar entry for today’s meeting. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that this matrix was provided to the CLECs for their review from the last Ad Hoc meeting. She reviewed the 4 categories on the matrix – the 1st category introduced on CR PC102704-1ES 3/18/05, the 2nd category for Product/Processes postponed on PC102704-1ES, the 3rd category for Product/Processes not yet introduced, and the 4th category for Products known to be in arbitration or litigation. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she mentioned in the last CMP Meeting that Eshelon does not agree that this is the case. She said that Eschelon believes that everything with the exception of Dark Fiber is in litigation or arbitration. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that Qwest would like to review the matrix line-by-line and come to an agreement where each Product/Process belongs. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the CLECs on this call are operations people. She said that she is not in a position to discuss Products that may be a legal issue or in a legal arena and does not know what is being discussed in the Wire Center hearings. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest said what she is hearing is that the CLECs on this call are not prepared to discuss legal issues. Tom Hyde-Cbeyond stated that they need their Regulatory people involved in these discussions. Jeff Sonnier-Sprint Nextel stated that he agreed with Eschelon and that their Regulatory people need to be involved. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest said that we could arrange a call with their Regulatory people or the CLECs could take this information to their Regulatory Teams for review and bring back to discuss in an adhoc meeting. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon’s position when Qwest introduced this CR and looking at the escalation from Covad that the introduction of TRO is considered a change of law and that some are done in Commission Oversight or in negotiations. She said that CMP is not the appropriate area to discuss because this is a change of law. Bonnie said that in June of 2005, Qwest said that they were updating SGATs and that the PCATs should be updated appropriately. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that we are in between two different circumstances. She said that the CR was introduced to make a process change to align with the law and that there is no other way to do this except in CMP. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said that the operations people don’t take part in the Wire Center hearings and the discussion in those hearings are done at a high level with little detail. She said that they have been clear that they are trying to negotiate in the Interconnect Agreement. Bonnie reiterated that she is on the operations side and not an attorney. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the Interconnect Agreement does not cover process and process was never part of the Commission Oversight. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that if you read their proposal, that we are back to square one and that we are talking about an interpretation of orders. Bonnie said that she does not believe that CMP is appropriate arena to discuss Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she was very clear when we talked in the Monthly CMP Meeting that this was our intent. She said that she would like to take a vote from the CLECs on the call to determine if everyone agrees that these items can be discussed today. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Qwest did not want to talk about items in litigation. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest said that we are not here to override the FCC or State level. She said that we want to communicate processes associated with TRO. Cindy said that 8 items were implemented on March 18, 2004 Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said that those associated with UNE-P were completed with the Commission Oversight. Tom Hyde-Cbeyond stated that the effective dates are confusing on the matrix. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the algorithm was adding a 1 to the date and that we will get that corrected. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she thought they made it clear in the CMP meeting and in the minutes and that Qwest agreed that these items were in litigation and would not be discussed. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that we are not here to override any topics outside of litigation. She said that there is no hidden agenda and that she thought we made our intent very clear. Cindy stated that there are more CLECs that have signed up to do business with Qwest under the TRRO. She said that the reason we delayed was because TRO was in an appeal status. She said we want to provide the process for those CLECs doing business with us or for those who will be. She also said that she would challenge that there are items on the list that nobody cares about. She stated that all we want to do is put a note in the column for example that this item is in litigation. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated once again that the people on the phone don’t know that answer. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked if there was consensus that we can’t discuss this topic. Sue Wright-XO Communications stated that they do not have the answers and can’t discuss. Tom Hyde-Cbeyond stated that if something is in litigation they can’t discuss the process on items not yet decided on. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that was her concern at CMP and should have made her concern clearer. Sue Wright-XO Communications stated that they might not be in litigation but someone else may be. Tom Hyde-Cbeyond stated that he is not tapped to testify. Lynn Hankins-Covad said that Covad is not prepared to discuss this either and that she reviewed the CR and is not completely sure of what Qwest is trying to do. Ken Black-McLeod stated that McLeod is not up to speed either. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that we have consensus and that the CLECs will take this item to their Regulatory Teams for discussion. She said that is may be easier to have their Regulatory people attend the meetings. Jeff Sonnier-Sprint Nextel stated that the Regulatory people should sort this out. Sue Wright-XO Communications agreed. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon also agreed and that they need to get their Regulatory Teams engaged. She said that she is not in a position to make that decision. Sue Wright-XO Communications said that they might find that they don’t want to discuss in CMP. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest confimed that the CLECs will take this information back. She said that she would still like to go through the matrix line-by-line in the next adhoc meeting. Cindy stated that we need to ask two questions – 1) Is this in litigation and why, and 2) Can we get consensus if something is in litigation where can we move it on the list. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said that she thought we were going to discuss processes and that the TRO PCATs exist and that without CLEC input and that Qwest just changed unilaterally. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest asked what processes Eschelon was referring to and that we have been discussing this topic for over a month. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what was being done with the PCATs and that Qwest has not been clear on what they are trying to do. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that this is not any different than any other CLEC CMP change. She said that we need to look at the number of CLECs operating under the new process, look at recommendations. She said that we need to determine if there any questions and go through step by step to make sure everyone understands. Cindy said that we need to set up a hierarchy of what to go through 1st Sue Wright-XO Communications asked if there was a Regulatory review prior to implementation. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that Regulatory always looks at the process changes if necessary. She said that regardless of the operating environment we try to implement with as little risk as possible. Tom Hyde-Cbeyond stated that he was looking at the PCATs on the website and does not see the proposed changes. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that is what we want to discuss. She said that EEL, for example, if you click on the link, you will see the TRRO version of the EEL PCAT. Tom Hyde-Cbeyond said that he missed the TRO PCAT on the website but he will review. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that it could be a matter of interpretation but that we just want to get the process communicated. Cindy Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the CLECs will bring information from their Regulatory Teams to the next adhoc meeting and that we will prioritize the list and discuss with those CLECs who are interested. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest asked for input on when the next meeting should be scheduled. Sue Wright-XO Communications asked if 2 weeks was enough time for the CLECs to contact their Regulatory people. Ken Black-McLeod stated that his contacts are out of the office until February. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the week of February 5th looked good with the exception of the afternoons of February 6th and 7th. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that a meeting would be scheduled sometime during that week.

Open Product/Process CR PC072204-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

CLEC facing meetings with Qwest will explore and hopefully reach agreement on this issue.

Status History

Project Meetings

Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR had been in Deferred status for awhile and stated that Qwest would like to withdraw the CR. This CR moves to Withdrawal status.

9/16/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Mark Nickell reported that an ad-hoc call was held and it was mutually agreed to suspend CMP meetings until the current dispute resolution activities conclude in Colorado. Covad and Eschelon agreed. Bonnie Johnson added that the people involved in the call would not be able to do anything outside of the dispute resolution process and this is the reason to cease the calls. The CR will move to Deferred Status.

- Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PC072204-1 Clarification of wording CLEC to CLEC Connections CMP Product & Process September 9, 2004 1-877-521-8688, Conference ID 1456160# 12:30 a.m. 2:00 a.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE

The purpose of this ad-hoc call was to provide background on the CR and to set the stage for future meetings.

List of Attendees: John Berard Covad Jen Arnold U S Link Bonnie Johnson Eschelon Karen Clauson, Eschelon Paul Hansen, Eschelon Emily Baird, POP Telecom Mona Glover, DSET Paul Garneau, Sovereign Telecommunications Tommy Thompson, Qwest Communications Cindy Kalakis, Qwest Communications Evelyn Montez, Qwest Communications Jamal Boudhaouia, Qwest Communications Mike Norman, Qwest Communications Steve Nelson, Qwest Communications Doug Andreen, Qwest Communications

MEETING MINUTES

The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees.

Steve Nelson summarized meeting norms by saying please allow only one conversation at a time, turn off cell phones and pagers, speak to be understood, and if you have trouble being heard press the # key a couple of times to get his attention. Steve said this is the first of three meetings and is designed to provide background information on the CR that will be helpful in the meetings to follow. He also said comments are welcome and that Qwest would take action items as we proceed.

Steve went through the current level 4 CR (sent as an attachment to the agenda) reading the title and description. There were no questions. Steve further explained that this was originally submitted as a level 2 change, however the CLEC community thought it should be a level 4.

Jamal Boudhaouia gave the history of the Eschelon CR PC120301-4 (sent as an attachment to the agenda) dealing with this topic. This CR was submitted on November 3, 2001 and completed on April 17, 2002. Karen Clauson said Eschelon still maintains opinions expressed during the last series of meetings on this topic.

Tommy Thompson spoke on the current SGAT language. Since this was not sent as an attachment Tommy agreed he would forward to Doug Andreen who would distribute to all attendees. He said he would send the version that is applicable to all states except Washington and Arizona. He will send the specific wording for those two states also. There was conversation around the definition of “CLEC premises” in the document. It was agreed that the definition extends beyond COs to cover all buildings or similar structures that house Network facilities, owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by Qwest. It was also pointed out that one of the differences between the CLECs and Qwest is CLEC to CLEC direct connections. Karen Clauson stated that this is far from the only difference between Eschelon and Qwest concerning the CLEC-to-CLEC issue.

Karen asked the purpose of SGAT language in a CMP meeting and how the current discussion relates to negotiations that are going on between Qwest and Eschelon.

Steve said the SGAT is background since the current PCAT refers to the SGAT. He said nothing on the agenda today should affect negotiations. Karen asked how we are going to resolve in this forum since Eschelon is in negotiations and Covad is in arbitration on this issue. There was much discussion around this and Karen said that in reference to the PCAT, Eschelon’s position has not changed in that Eschelon submitted a CR (PC120301-4) and that Eschelon believes this is what we are operating under.

Steve answered that after this call Qwest would ask the CLECs to restate their position. Steve said after the meeting Qwest will gather comments and see if there is any movement in Qwest’s position. Steve said there may or may not be a change considering the position that arbitration has taken and how Qwest will respond.

Steve reviewed the current PCAT language. There were no questions. He said that in the redlined PCAT he tried to separate the CLEC to CLEC Direct connections from Cross Connections. He proceeded through the remainder of the redlined document. There were no questions.

Karen Clauson asked since we know there are major differences, how do you see us proceeding. Steve answered for the CLECs to send Qwest an annotated version of the PCAT and go from there. Karen added with the negotiations and arbitrations going forward if it would be a better use of time to let those finalize before continuing these meetings. It was agreed that these meetings would be suspended until arbitrations and negotiations have finalized. Tommy will not forward copies of the SGAT but Doug will publish minutes and cancel the other two meetings already scheduled.

The meeting was then adjourned.

8/18/04 CMP Meeting Steve Nelson presented the CR saying that the CR was previously communicated via a Level 2 notice but based on a CLEC facing call and CLEC comments it was withdrawn. Qwest believes that CLECs have the responsibility to design and regenerate CLEC to CLEC connections on a common ICDF frame. The CLECs believe it is a Qwest responsibility. Steve said that this CR will require a good amount of work since it will involve looking at FCC documents etc. He added that this is a sincere effort to move through this issue collaboratively to reach agreement. The CR will be moved to Presented status.

Open Product/Process CR PC032604-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: none listed

Status History

Project Meetings

06/16/04 June CMP Meeting Pat Finley with Qwest said that the PCAT updates were sent out for review and received no comments. The effective date was 6/10/04. This CR will move to CLEC Test status.

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Pat Finley with Qwest said that the PCAT updates were sent out for review with a proposed effective date of 6/10/04. This CR will move to Development status.

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Pat Finley with Qwest presented this CR and said that it was issued because we are streamlining the process and will revise the IRI form. Pat asked if the CLECs would like to hold an ad hoc call to provide input or provide comments through written comment cycle. The CLECs thought a written comment cycle would work. This CR will move to Development status.

Open Product/Process CR PC062904-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: Implementation date 9/7/04

Status History

Project Meetings

Open Product/Process CR PC040504-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Effective June 30, 2004 Custom Centron will be grand parented in Arizona. Effective June 30, 2006 Centron Custom in Arizona will sunset.

Expected Deliverable:

June 30, 2004

Status History

Project Meetings

- December CMP Meeting Minutes Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised the final state was completed on December 1. This CR will move to Completed Status.

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised the remaining states are effective December 1. The CR will remain in CLEC Test Status.

10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Janean Van Dusen said that this has been in CLEC Test but some of the states are not effective until December 1. The CR will remain in test status.

- 9/16/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Doug Andreen reported that the CR was effective September 1 and that the only customer affected is MCI with a minimal amount of customers. LeiLani Hines said that she was ok with working with Qwest to migrate those accounts. The CR will move to Test Status.

-- 8/18/04 CMP Meeting Doug Andreen reported there is no change to this CR. The final notice was sent July 30 and the CR will be affective September 1. Stephanie Prull said the first CR was scheduled to be affective much earlier and gave the CLECs until October 1 to have customers removed from these features. Bonnie Johnson remembered that Janean had stated that adjustments would be made to this date and that Qwest would work with the individual CLECs.

- 7/21/04 CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest said the final notice went out on 6/23. Grandparent effective date will be 9/1/04 for AZ, IA, and WA. The CR will stay in Development.

- 06/16/04 June CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that dates have changed on this CR. Centrex Plus grandparenting will be effective 9/1/04 and a revised final notice will be sent on 6/23/04. Month to month USOC’s in AZ and WA will be effective 12/1/04, IA 3/1/05, OR has no date, and Sunset dates for AZ, IA, and WA are 6/30/06. OR has no date.

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update on this CR. Janean said this was going to be effective on 6/30/04 but there was a delay and currently have no new effective date. Janean said there was no effect on UNE-P Centrex Plus. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that the notice contained a change in the USOC and we have not had to change USOCs. Janean said that AZ, IA, OR, WA, Centrex Plus will be grand parented on 6/30. In AZ and WA only month to month Centrex Plus will be eliminated and customers must be migrated to something else or term agreement. Janean will make sure to let service management know of CLECs that have any end users. Liz Balvin with MCI asked if there would be impact to end users or record change orders. Liz asked if the customer maintains existing service today or submits orders. Janean said the CLEC doesn’t have to do anything for the end user unless they are month to month. This should be invisible to the end user, except for anything that the CLECs decide to change. Bonnie Johnson would go through physical conversion if migrated and asked if service management would know soon. Janean said yes. This CR will move to Development Status.

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest presented this CR. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon asked if UNE-P Centrex Plus was included. Janean did not believe the UNE-P product was included and will find out from Michael Whitt. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Open Product/Process CR PC040604-1 Detail

Description Of Change

- Introduce required fields for submitting a claim on a standard form.

- Define pertinent terms, such as resolution, status, legal dispute;

- Standardize the escalation processes; and

- Finalize rules for submitting and processing claims involving multiple months

As a result Qwest will update the Product/Process Catalog (PCAT) describing the dispute process, including the process flow diagram discussed in LTPA

Expected Deliverable:

Date to be determined

Status History

Project Meetings

- May 18, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Donna Devine-Qwest stated that this CR has been in CLEC Test for over a month and asked for CR closure. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked that the CR not yet be closed and that we wait until they get through an entire cycle or 2. Bonnie stated that Eschelon just recently used the process and asked that it be kept open. Donna Devine-Qwest agreed to keep the CR open another month. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- April 20, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that this change was implemented on April 4th and would like to move the CR to CLEC Test. Liz Balvin-Covad stated (Change to minutes submitted by Covad 4/28/05) that this CR was discussed in the CLEC forum in the fact that this change impacted access claims and the fact the CLECs were not notified. Liz stated that when she was involved in the discussions that took nearly a year and the changes were specific to local wholesale. Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that CMP discussions were for local but this process was implemented for other customers.Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that a Courtesy Notice was sent. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what a Courtesy Notice was. Mark Coyne-Qwest stated is a notice and go. Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that the Courtesy Notice was for the non-CMP process. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that (Change to minutes submitted by Covad 4/28/05) the negotiated procedures for local/wholesale took nearly a year and couldn’t understand how Qwest believed IXCs would only need a 1-day notice and go. Liz stated that she understood MCI has numerous claims and noted that they all failed upon implementation by Qwest. Liz stated that the PCAT updates were specific to wholesale. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that in all Companies, they don’t do the same functions (Change to minutes submitted by Eschelon 4/29/05 and were not aware of these meetings, so a 1-day notice is not good. Sue Kriebel-Qwest asked to clarify that all Companies do not provide local and access services. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that was correct. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest did appreciate the feedback and that Qwest would continue to discuss internally, Jill advised this CR moves to CLEC Test.

March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Devine-Qwest stated that the CLEC Comment cycle was through March 5th and that Qwest is reviewing the comments. Donna stated that this CR remains in Development status.

-- February 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Devine-Qwest stated that Qwest was on target to announce the process on February 18th.Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR remains in Development status and that the Level 4 notice would be sent.

- January 19, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion Donna Devine/Qwest stated that she is targeting the Level 4 Notice to be sent the week of February 14th. Jill Martain/Qwest asked for questions. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon thanked Donna for sending responses to their questions and stated that she does not believe that all were responded to. Bonnie stated that she would comment when the notice is sent. Bonnie then thanked Donna for her efforts. [1-28-05 Comment Received from Eschelon: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon thanked Donna for sending responses to their questions and stated that she does not believe Qwest answered the comments. Bonnie stated that she would expect Qwest to respond to Eschelon’s comments when the notice is sent. Bonnie then thanked Donna for her efforts to respond.]

December 15, 2004 Product/Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Devine-Qwest stated that there have been several ad-hoc meetings, since April, and the last meeting was held on December 9th. Donna stated that (insert comment from Eschelon) Qwest (end comment) it was agreed in the last adhoc meeting that Qwest will proceed with the 45-day notice for this process. (Insert comment) Bonnie said she does not agree. (End comment). Donna stated that Qwest addressed over 70 issues and that the same issues were being brought forward multiple times. Donna stated that there would be a 15-day comment cycle and a 30-day test cycle. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon asked when Qwest would provide the written response to Eschelon’s questions. Donna Devine-Qwest stated that the response would be sent December 20th. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon said Thank you.

December 10, 2004 Email Sent from Donna Devine, Qwest to Chad Warner, MCI: Chad, I checked with the QPP contract process owner regarding your question: Are QPP contracts excluded from the dispute business procedure process? Response: The CLEC can not bring Commercial Contract issues and concerns to the CMP process. The CLEC will continue to follow the business procedures for all Wholesale products including Commercial Agreement Contracts. If you have other questions, please let me know! Donna Devine Qwest Wholesale Process Specialist

-- December 9, 2004 Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes: Please see Supplemental Information for Meeting Minutes.

November 17, 2004 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Devine-Qwest advised that the CLECs should receive the most current copy of the process on November 22. The document has been base lined as Version 9. Redline marks will not be displayed as this was making the document to hard to read. Donna advised the group that she will be on vacation so she would like to have comments sent in by December 7. We will have the next ad hoc meeting on December 9. Donna advised that her back up is Jami Larson and her email is Jami.Larson@qwest.com. John Berard-Covad advised some of their billing representatives were involved initially but were told that this process would be optional. Because of this, Covad did not stay involved. Donna Devine advised that it has not been stated that this is an optional process. We have approximately 70 issues identified. Maybe it was mentioned that for access customers it was optional, but it is not optional for CLECs. Donna advised that the CLECs can use the same spreadsheet. Liz Balvin stated that if your contract outlines your procedure and timelines that this would over ride. Donna advised that she does not put language in the process that references a PID. Liz advised we would always default to our contract. Donna asked the team to review the process and make comments. Sharon Van Meter asked if additional information will be sent via CMP. Donna advised the notice has already been sent for the next meeting on December 9. Donna also stated that Qwest did testing on the submittal part of the process and we can discuss if we need additional testing. This CR will remain in Development Status.

-- 10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Donna Devine, Qwest stated that Qwest is in the process of reviewing comments from Eschelon and MCI and is targeting the next ad-hoc meeting for early November. Bonnie said that both agree that the test hit too many roadblocks and with every CLEC having a different process it is difficult to incorporate them all. The CR will remain in development. (Comment from Eschelon: Bonnie said that both agree that the test hit too many roadblocks and with every CLEC having a unique different process it is difficult to incorporate them all gain consistency without impacting the CLECs. The CR will remain in development.)

-- Ad hoc meeting September 24, 2004 In attendance: Jenna Chang – Covad, Cherish Hubbard – Global Crossing, Chad Warner – MCI, Rodney Griffin - MCI, Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon, Kathy Stichter- Eschelon, Ellen Copley – Eschelon, Gary Effler – Eschelon, Rosilyn Davis - MCI, Jen Arnold- TDS Metrocom/US Link, Audrey Wolford- TDS Metrocom/US Link, Sue Lamb- 180 Communications, Jackie Kole – Qwest, Jeremy Rice - MCI, Cindy Macy -Qwest, Donna Devine- Qwest, Sue Kriebel – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest introduced all of the attendees and reviewed the agenda. Donna Devine – Qwest advised during the ad hoc call today we will review the results of the trial and updates to the document. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised the document was just received last night around 6:00 p.m. Donna advised that we did not expect the CLECs to have reviewed the updates to the document as of yet. We will review the changes during the meeting. Donna summarized that during the trial Qwest received two Option 1 disputes, two Option 2 disputes, and one Option 3 dispute. Qwest processed these claims so there was not a delay. In the background we gathered data on how the trial was working and identified improvements and changes that could be made. Donna reviewed the changes / information: Donna advised on Page 5 of the process the diagram was cleaned up and made clearer. The customer claim number was missing from claim acknowledgment to MCI during the trial. This would make it difficult for the CLEC to match up the claim with the other documents. This was Qwest’s mistake as it was not sent back on the acknowledgment. On Page 7 – every claim was missing the reason why the claim was submitted. Qwest expected to see a verbal description of what the claim was for. There is a summary tab after the description. Donna advised she believes this was her error as it wasn’t clear in the PCAT example. Jenn Arnold – TDS Metro said that they have questions on the install charges and why they were charged. Donna advised what Qwest would like to see on the form in these situations is: On Service Order# XX TDS was charged an install and should not have been per [reference to legal document showing what TDS feels they should have been billed]. Qwest would then reply with reasons for the charge or reasons it was an error and when the correction was made. On Page 8 – Bill mate data is being used and there are not ‘column headers’ on the spreadsheet. When the data is entered into the spreadsheet Qwest does not know if it is a complete record or if it is data from different fields within the file. Discussion took place and it was determined that the data that is sent over is the complete record. The Bill mate file has a name for the file, but the actual data elements descriptions are not within the file. The data elements are identified in the user guide. Donna agreed she would take this as an issue and do additional investigation on it. For Qwest to add the ‘column headers’ to the data would be difficult. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said that Qwest doesn’t send it to us so it would be just as difficult for Eschelon to send it back. Page 9 – Box 12 The money amounts didn’t match the details on the spreadsheet. The example from Eschelon was that the TIC Repair Charges were sent in advance. The claim information didn’t match what was sent in previously. Bonnie said they will not send these in advance. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon stated that this [claim] process was optional from her perspective. Donna Devine – Qwest asked Bonnie why she believes the process is optional, as Qwest has stated that it is not optional. Bonnie advised that the Interconnection Agreement dictates what we do. The Interconnection Agreement says that we send disputes in writing. Sue Kriebel – Qwest advised that the Interconnect Agreement doesn’t go into this level of detail. It references that disputes need to have a valid reason and in writing. Qwest works many items in CMP that are more specific and not in the Interconnect Agreements. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said that there is a significant amount of work for Eschelon to change the process that has been in place for the past 2 years. Sue Kriebel – Qwest advised we can take the discussion of optional off line as Qwest does not consider this process optional. Bonnie Johnson advised that Eschelon has requested for Qwest to make this process optional. Eschelon’s option is to send these to Larry Christenson. Donna Devine – Qwest advised there are still 3 options in the process. We have added Option 3 to accommodate Eschelon’s existing process. The Billing SDCs gave feed back that this process was not changing Eschelon’s current process very much. Page 15 Donna explained that the BOSS / CABs information was rejected because requiring customer code on working telephone number (WTN), and should not have been, as this information is not available. Rodney – MCI advised thank you. Donna Devine – Qwest asked Rodney – MCI if he has a question about sending multiple products on one spreadsheet. Rodney explained that they need a way to track every dispute and make sure it was processed by Qwest. Rodney asked if Qwest could populate the information on a spreadsheet if MCI sent the spreadsheet to Qwest. Donna advised that Qwest will provide the customer claim number on each claim acknowledgment and you would need to match that to your file. An acknowledgement and a response are sent on every claim. Donna advised if MCI uses Option 2 or 3 we can populate information on your spreadsheet. The process may work better if you use Option 2 or 3. Rodney will talk with Chad/Jeremy and get back to Donna if there are additional questions. Donna advised other test findings include if you are challenging a rate, Qwest needs to understand where you are getting the rate from; tariff, a bill, etc. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised that our goal is to participate and provide Qwest with the dispute claim form and information. Eschelon is not willing to make significant changes to our process. Thanks for having a trial as this helps identify issues. The intent is to provide Qwest with clear dispute reasons. For recurring claims, Qwest has put the ownership on the CLECs. If the CLECs puts something in our contract or in a tariff, that should be sufficient. We will provide the data once, when it is a recurring issue we don’t want to provide it again. Jenn Arnold – TDS Metro said they have the same issue with recurring claims. We do not want to fill out forms every month. Donna Devine advised if you put the same claim number on the form and just reference it that would work. Bonnie advised that would require the CLECs to look up the claim number which it too much work. Jenn asked why Qwest doesn’t just fix the problem. Donna advised that generally the claim is being processed and until it is complete the problem continues. Donna advised the CLECs do not have to submit a recurring claim if one is already opened. Bonnie advised that Eschelon’s choice is to submit the claim each month if the claim is open. Donna advised she will add to the process that the CLEC can just reference the previous claim and not have to send in the details. Bonnie asked if on the trial claim form rejection reason, when Qwest populated information there were some fields left blank, if nothing was populated does that mean it was okay Donna advised no, these were just examples. Donna agreed to populate all lines and send back to the CLECs. Bonnie asked about Page 18 and the additional historical information. Bonnie asked if this is required for all options. Donna advised yes. Donna advised there would be a payment history for every claim. If the CLEC sends in this information that is fine. Qwest will use our information for credit purposes. Bonnie advised she will share this information with their VP of Network Finance. Bonnie asked Donna to summarize the changes that were agreed to in today’s meeting. Donna advised the following: Donna will research the ‘common headers’ information Request to add more information under description and will send back to the CLEC for review If choose to send in recurring claims the CLEC is not required to add the details again. Donna asked the CLECs to review the flow and document and send comments by end of day Thursday September 30. Send comments to donna.devine@qwest.com and copy Cynthia.macy@qwest.com. After the comments are reviewed Qwest will schedule another ad hoc meeting. Bonnie advised she will include Karen Klausen and Bill Market in later meetings. 9/16/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Donna Devine reported that a trial is in progress for the Claim Submittal Form. She has received all three options. Since these are real claims, Qwest has been accepting the claim so we don’t delay processing them. Donna is compiling a list of what would have been rejected. Bonnie and Kathy thought the trial would be more real if we knew what Qwest would be accepting or rejecting upfront like you would if following the new PCAT. They want to make sure we flush out all the issues. Donna agreed to take the trial claims and send Eschelon and MCI reasons why they would have been rejected in the new process. If Eschelon or MCI have questions on the rejection reasons, those questions should be filtered to Donna. If they do not have questions they will try to work through re-submitting. This will also filter through Donna. Bonnie and Kathy agreed this is o.k. Doug is checking to see if the next CMP AD HOC meeting can occur on Friday September 24 from 9:30 AM - 10:30 AM MDT. Both Eschelon and MCI will confirm if this is a good date by COB today. The CR will stay in Development. - 8/18/04 CMP Meeting Donna Devine reported that an ad-hoc meeting was held Friday August 13. It was agreed to trial the new dispute notification form. She is waiting to hear if MCI will participate in this trial. The target trial date is the week of September 13. Before that date a trial meeting with all participates will be scheduled to work through the details. Qwest will coordinate the meeting. The idea is to trial the draft PCAT language “Claim Submittal Section”. Participating CLECs will submit real disputes using the new dispute forms 3 options. An analysis will be made of what worked and what could work better. After that analysis, revisions will be made to the draft PCAT and the next Ad Hoc meeting will be coordinated. Leilani Hines said she will check with her co-workers at MCI to see about trial participation. Bonnie Johnson expressed thanks for Qwest performing the trial. The CR will remain in Development status. - 9:30 10:30 (MDT) / Friday August 13, 2004 Attendees: Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon, Kathy Stichter, Eschelon, Ray Smith, Eschelon, Liz Balvin, MCI, Brad Patton, MCI, Jen Arnold, TDS Metrocom/US Link, Audrey Wolford, TDS Metrocom/US Link, Sue Lamb, 180 Communications, Carla Pardee, AT&T, Joyce Atwell, AT&T, Doug Andreen, Qwest, Cindy Macy, Qwest, Donna Devine, Qwest Meeting Agenda: 1.0 Introduction of Attendees: Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change: Doug Andreen, Qwest said that we would follow our usual process of having Donna Devine, Qwest review the document and point out changes as she reviews. CLECs are encouraged to comment or ask questions as the review moves forward. Donna pointed out that we are using revision seven of the document. There were no comments on page one or two. Donna began on page three, there were no changes. On page four the flow diagram had been added. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon said they had several questions and asked Donna if it would be possible to step through the flow diagram especially who is providing what and what is meant by end of process. Donna said Day 0 is when the SDC receives the Claim from the customer. The SDC enters the claim into the Dispute tool and acknowledges within two business days of receipt. Bonnie questioned if the CLECs get the information in the middle box regardless if the Claim is accepted or not. Donna said yes, but if the claim is rejected you will also get the reason why it was rejected. Donna went through the remainder of the document. Bonnie felt the two diamond boxes were causing the confusion as they are both named the same thing. It was agreed the first diamond would be changed to Review Claim. Bonnie said she now understood the concepts and would review and email any further comments. Donna stated under Terms and Conditions item 3 was added per the previous meeting and item 4 added per follow-up email from Bonnie. Bonnie asked on number 4 if the wording could be changed to reflect that CLECs can initiate an escalation any time. Donna said yes and said the sentence will say You can initiate an escalation for any issue, at anytime, and to any Qwest escalation point. This was agreed. Liz asked if the word you can be changed to CLEC. Donna said the entire document is a process for the CLECS so that is why we use the word You. This was agreed. Bonnie expressed concern about the second sentence in # 1and asked if the second sentence could be separated. from the 1st.This was agreed. Donna summarized and added we will now have 5 items under Terms and Conditions. Issue # 40 on the issues list was closed. Kathy Stichter, Eschelon asked if there wasn’t a set phrase about Interconnect Agreement(s) taking precedence. Donna said she was unaware of this. Bonnie said she would find one and email the statement. Donna said she wanted to point out the first and the newly added second statements in the Terms and Conditions are in relation to dispute retention guidelines. There were no comments on page 5. Bonnie said page 6, Tab 2 only applies to Option 3 Donna initially answered yes but then asked how will you summarize if you use option 2. Bonnie said that Eschelon had offered to trial the claim submittal form with Qwest and would like to use the claim submittal form process on a couple of disputes. Bonnie added that she didn’t want a process where everything ends up with Larry Christensen. Doug asked Bonnie to explain what she had in mind for a trial. Bonnie said she wasn’t talking about CLEC Test but rather something up front, a trial for clarity and format of the submittal form. Not a trial of the entire dispute process. Donna asked if Bonnie wanted to use selected claims and Bonnie said yes perhaps one with multiple account numbers etc. Donna clarified. Are we going to use real disputes? Bonnie answered yes. Doug asked if Eschelon wanted to represent all CLECs as Qwest does not want to exclude CLECs wanting to participate but the complexity will increase with the number of CLECs participating. Bonnie pointed out that of the three formats for documenting a Dispute Eschelon will only use number three. Doug asked if MCI or any other CLEC would be willing to participate using formats 1and 2. Liz Balvin, MCI said she would have to check with Brad Patton and would get back to Qwest. No other CLECs volunteered to participate. Donna said she would like to do the trial the week of September 13. Bonnie suggested that we do one claim for each product. Donna agreed. Liz said that MCI could only do UNE-P. Doug said there would be a meeting called to set the criteria before the 13th. Bonnie said she felt more comfortable knowing this type of test would be done. Donna asked if we should continue with the Claim Submittal Process section pages 6 and 7 or just proceed to next section. It was agreed to proceed. There were no questions regarding changes on pages 8, 9, and 10. n page 11 Donna asked if everyone was ok with fields 10, 12, 13 and 14 adding the words You are required to split out by Main Account Number if more than one Main Account Number submitted on the claim. Kim Isaacs, Eschelon asked if this meant Main Account Number A for fields 10, 12, 13, 14 and next main account number B format for fields 10,12,13 and 14 to which Donna answered yes. Donna moved on to page 12 where the word required was removed from the sentence Rejected means a Qwest Dispute ID number is assigned, but the claim is not submitted using the [required] claim submittal form This closed issue #42.There was much discussion around example #4 involving CABS/BOSS and the Differences list. Carla Pardee, AT&T agreed to check with her billing group but thought most of the problems with the Differences List are no longer significant. Bonnie asked Donna if Qwest could assure that disputes would not be rejected because of the Differences list. Donna said no. The only intent of example #4 is to ask the customer to check the Difference list before they submit a claim. Most of the time the answer to their claim is already on the differences list. Issue 43 will remain open. Carla asked if any other CLEC uses CABS/BOSS and MCI answered they do. Donna said there were no changes on page 13 and moved on to page 14. Eschelon submitted an email asking to add additional information to bullet #1 page 14.Donna said in reference to the Docket number that Qwest would like to keep consistent with the information given on the Notification letter. Ray Smith, Eschelon asked what is meant by full document number. Donna gave an example from a Notification Letter Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Docket No P-421/C1-01-1375. P-421/C1-01-1375 is the Docket Number. Donna asked if the CLECs were having trouble with the notifications sent today. Bonnie said she would like to take this issue back since Qwest wants to continue sending what they are sending today. Donna said that would be fine and she will leave issue 41 open. Jen Arnold, TDS Metrocom/US Link added that the problem for her was the [effective] date. Bonnie wanted to know if there was a notice number on the example. Donna said the notice number does not appear on the example she has but will go on the web site and look. Bonnie said she would let us know if the information they are getting today is enough. Note: after the meeting, Donna and Doug checked and there are notice numbers on all notification located on Qwest.Com web site. Also on page 14 Donna read issue 22 regarding the 30 day time limit to disagree with Qwest Resolution. . Donna explained this dispute process is for submitting claims to the Billing SDC. Alternatives are submitting the original claim form to the SDC within 30 days or to Larry Christensen according to your ICA. Bonnie said Eschelon disagrees. She feels a time frame is not appropriate and doesn’t agree with the concept. Bonnie said to go ahead and close as unresolved. Donna said then we agree to disagree and we are o.k. Bonnie said yes. Bonnie said she had several comments on the payment section on page 15. Donna said the information under Payments was added to make this standard. She said about half the CLECs now submit this information and half do not. Donna said this was all brought up because Bonnie asked at the last meeting if we could eliminate sending the payment history spreadsheet. The answer is yes if you submit this payment information. Bonnie wanted to confirm that this did not apply to Eschelon since they are already doing this. Donna said she believed this was true but to check with the Eschelon people for verification to see if they are providing this information on their dispute payments. Meeting time was running out and it was decided Bonnie will submit comments on the payment section. The meeting was brought to a close at this point. No future meetings were scheduled at this time. 3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted: Billing. 4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved: Correct personnel were involved in the meeting. 5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests. 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame): Next meeting was not set at this time

- 9:00 10:00 (MDT) / Monday Friday July 30, 2004 Attendees: Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon, Kathy Stichter, Eschelon, Ray Smith, Eschelon, Ellen Copley, Eschelon, Liz Balvin, MCI, Chad Warner, MCI, Brad Patton, MCI, Teresa Castro, Var Tec Telecom, Candy Davis, Covad, Janet Chang, Covad, Jen Arnold, TDS Metrocom/US Link, Audrey Wolford, TDS Metrocom/US Link, Julia Redmond Carter, McCloud, Sue Lamb, 180 Communications, Mark Brindamoue, Nancy Sanders, Comcast, Doug Andreen, Qwest, Lynn Stecklein, Qwest, Donna Devine, Qwes.Meeting Agenda: 1.0Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug Andreen, Qwest asked if there was anyone on the call that was new to the meetings or unfamiliar with the CR. For those unfamiliar, Doug gave a brief description of the CR and a brief history of the meetings held previously. Doug then stated that the way Qwest would like to proceed is to go through the document page by page, noting changes and incorporating CLEC outstanding questions as we proceeded through the document. There were no objections. Bonnie Johnson, Eshcelon asked if CLECs could give their thoughts, new questions on a page by page basis and Doug said yes. The meeting was then turned over to Donna Devine, Qwest who started through the document. Liz Balvin, MCI wanted to verify that this was a CMP meeting and Doug answered that it was with the standard ad-hoc minutes as usual. Donna said her objective was to go through the document and arrive at an agreed upon process prior to a formal comment cycle. Donna started with page 1 where Wholesale Local was added to the title. On page 3 the word Local was added to the title. Liz asked if that meant products ordered out of the Interconnect Agreement will go under this process. Donna said yes. On the Web Site it will appear under Qwest.Com;Wholesale/Interconnection;Business Procedures. Donna asked if the last sentence on the first paragraph under Description on page 3 could remain. There were no comments and the sentence will remain. Donna apologized for the diagram not appearing in the document. Doug said that we would make arrangements at the end of the meeting to get the diagram to the CLECs. Donna continued with page 4 Terms and Conditions. Bonnie said that Eschelon was looking for something more general and that in #3 it might help to strike everything after the word Agreement. It was agreed that the remainder of #3 would be stricken. Regarding Terms and Conditions #3: Bonnie said that the idea is to make the process agreeable to everyone and asked if it would go to Larry Christensen. Donna said yes with a copy to Legal. Donna asked if that is the process they use today and Bonnie answered Yes. Liz asked if the CLECs can invoke an escalation anytime and Donna answered yes. Donna continued with page 4 saying the pricing had been removed as requested from the rate section. Donna continued with page 5. The second paragraph under Submitting a Claim was moved to Terms and Conditions. In paragraph 3 the word Local had been inserted. In paragraph 4 Donna walked through the change and said Qwest can allow more than one main account number per spreadsheet. Bonnie expressed thanks for this change being made. Also on page 5 the word required information and will be removed from paragraph 2. The sentence will read: A spreadsheet with all supporting information can be attached to the Claim Notification Form. There was discussion around the date/year. Liz asked how it would work if the greater than, less than 60 days take it into more than one year. Donna agreed this needs rework. Donna asked about all the data Eschelon supplies on their spreadsheet. Bonnie asked if what Donna was referring to was the historical data the SDCs wants on the spreadsheet. Donna answered that she only wants the current dispute information. Bonnie asked if the historical data could be removed. Donna answered yes. Bonnie said the intent was to put the detail in the spreadsheet and the claim form will show the current dispute. Bonnie questioned if the data referred to was on the Summary Tab. If so this data was at the request of the SDCs to have historical data. Donna said she would take the topic of Historical Data as an action item. Bonnie said what Eschelon wants to do is have a template for the claim form that can be a separate tab in the spreadsheet. So then the spreadsheet would have claim form, detail, claim form, detail, etc. Donna agreed with this.Donna said back to Liz’s question if the flow is greater than 60 days it would have to go back. Liz asked meaning you’ll strike the year in the document. Donna answered yes and Bonnie said this appears in several sections. Donna said she would strike all of them. There was discussion around the inclusion of the customer code on the form. It was decided that the customer code will remain on the form. Brad Patton, MCI indicated this would be alright. Bonnie asked if the wording could be changed in paragraph 5 under Submitting a Claim. Donna was concerned because other smaller CLECS also use this PCAT and want to express that Qwest first choice is submit only one Main Billing Account Number per claim. It was agreed the words Qwest preference is that” would be added to the beginning of the first sentence. Donna did say that allowing more than one main account number per spreadsheet still required separate tabs. Also, separate tabs for greater than 60 days and less than 60 days. Donna reviewed the out of office wording change on page 6 and Bonnie said the changes looked ok. Going back to page 5 Bonnie asked if the Qwest Claim Form should be identified as being able to be sent as a Word or Excel document. Donna said she would work on the wording to identify. Donna outlined the options for submitting a claim. They are 1. A Claim Form with all needed information. 2. A Claim Form and a Spreadsheet. 3. A spreadsheet with the Claim Form as a tab. Donna pointed out that in all cases greater than 60 days and less than 60 days should be split out. She said she would change the bottom of the form on page 7 to reflect these options. Donna also noted she would remove the year in field 11. There were no questions on pages 8 or 9. On page 10 of the document Donna asked if Eschelon will have one claim per account number. Bonnie answered she was not sure. Donna went back to field 7 on page 10 and asked about multiple main account numbers. Bonnie asked if this meant they could have multiple main account numbers per dispute form. Donna answered she would have to think about it since the dollar amounts would total in field 12. Bonnie pointed out that it would still be separate in the detail and that multiple lines could be added field 12 and 13 on the form to accommodate multiple Main Account numbers. Donna said then that would be ok. Candy Davis, Covad asked if one Main Account Number was optional Donna answered yes, but the preference from Qwest was one main account number per form. However, Donna said she would put something in field 12 of the form to enter multiple totals. She added when the detail is on the claim form it needs to be split out by main telephone number and product. Bonnie asked if on the product side is UNE-P and Resale accounts considered products, then that would be 2 claims. Donna said yes because different products go to a different SDC. Donna said she should provide an example of different kinds of products. The meeting was then stopped with the following items noted: 1.Eschelon would send additional comments on the remaining pages of the document to Doug to be incorporated before the next meeting. If other CLECs had additional comments they should be forwarded to Doug by COB Monday, August 2. 2.Doug would send the high level flow chart via a notice to the CLECs by COB Monday, August 2. 3.The next meeting will be Friday August 13 from 9:30 to 10:30 MDT. The revised document will be sent by COB August 11. 3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted: Billing. 4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved: Correct personnel were involved in the meeting. 5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation. 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests. 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame). Next meeting August 13 to continue with document review.

- 7/21/04 July CMP meeting Donna Devine, Qwest reported that there is an ad-hoc meeting scheduled for July 30 at 9:00 AM MDT. Qwest will have the updated documents sent on July 28th. Donna asked Bonnie Johnson, from Eschelon, if her offer is still open, Donna would like an example of Eschelon’s request for submitting a claim on one claim form with multiple spreadsheets. Bonnie agreed she had a couple more hours of work and will send to Doug within next day or two. Doug said he was on vacation and to send direct to Donna. Donna also stated she welcomed anyone else who would like to submit examples. Donna said she did receive comments from MCI. Liz Balvin, MCI wanted to discuss the last meeting being outside the CMP process. She said that the CLECs requested meeting minutes and that Qwest’s position was that these meetings were outside of CMP and therefore the document and question list provided by Donna would serve as the record of the meetings. Susie Bliss, Qwest said when the meeting is to talk about LTPA, that process will be used and when they talk about processes associated with this CR, minutes would be taken. Doug Andreen added the meeting on the 30th will be a CMP meeting. Susie added it’s all about being clear upfront in the meetings. Liz said that her biggest concern was starting the process over again. Liz understood that it was brought to CMP because LTPA could not resolve issues without a process. Liz said that Donna was doing a good job on the issues log, however, since we are not documenting all conversations there are some questions discussed in the meetings that are not on the issues log, for example, a question from McLeod. This CR will stay in Development.

6/16/04 June CMP meeting minutes Donna Devine Qwest reported that the next meeting is scheduled for July 1, 9 to 11 a.m. and that she will send out the issues list and the supplemental documentation before the meeting. She also added that the concerns presented by Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon via email will be addressed at the meeting. Bonnie said she feels this is crucial to address since it sounds like the process for review will be different and CLECs have a right to know . She submitted the concern via email so that Qwest would be aware sooner than later. Donna said she is trying to work through where to place this information in the document. Liz Balvin, MCI wanted everyone to know that this process is only for local products and not for Access. Donna confirmed that this is for local products. Liz added that Access processes will remain the same. This CR will stay in Development.

-- Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PURPOSE The purpose of this meeting was to discuss/reply to questions posed by the CLEC community during the ad-hoc meeting held May 4, 2004. List of Attendees: Jim McCluskey, Accenture, Lori Mendoza, Allegiance, Jan Arnold, U S Link, Cheryl Peterson, AT&T, Terri Kent, AT&T, Nancy Sanders, Comcast, Mike Zulevic, Covad, Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon, Ray Smith, Eschelon, Ellen Copley, Eschelon, Kathy Stichter, Eschelon, Wayne Hart, Idaho PUC, Liz Balvin, MCI, Brad Patton, MCI, Chad Warner, MCI, Benita Matthews, MCI, Rod Cox, U S Link, Char Mahs, Qwest, Sue Kriebel, Qwest, Jim Recker, Qwest, Kit Thomte, Qwest, Donna Devine, Qwest, Doug Andreen, Qwest MEETING MINUTES: The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees. Doug Andreen with Qwest explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Qwest initiated CR PC040604-1 Dispute (CLAIM) Process, specifically to discuss/respond to questions raised by the CLECs at the last ad-hoc meeting. The meeting followed a standard format with Donna Devine, Qwest reviewing the question and Qwest response. In the interest of brevity questions and responses from the document will not be captured in these minutes. Rather, additional discussion/comments/commitments will be captured. Please refer to the previously distributed “Questions from Eschelon, MCI and Cbeyond related to Supporting Documents Associated with Dispute (Claim) Process CMP PC040604-1 – dated 4/20/2004 and Revision 2 dated 5/6/2004” for initial questions and responses. Donna Devine, Qwest stated she had received no additional questions on the following items and they will be considered closed. The question numbers were 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 19, 24, 27, 31, 32, 35, 36, and 47. It was agreed to proceed through the document by category of question received. General Questions: Question #5: Ray Smith, Eschelon wanted to make sure the meaning of dispute and claim are used consistently. Does it mean the same thing when referring to the PID as it does in English? Sue Kriebel, Qwest asked for an example and Ray responded that it is a singular vs. plural issue as in the words dispute (singular) vs. charges (plural) as used in this question. Ray proposed having lower case for the English meaning and upper case for the meaning as used in the PID. Donna agreed to work on the definition of a Claim and how it affects the “count” in BI5A and BI5B. This question will remain open and will be referred to LTPA for more discussion. Question #38: Donna read the question and Qwest response. Chad Warner, MCI asked if there was a time frame on starting to work on categories other than local billing disputes. There is not. Kathy Stichter, Eschelon asked what other than local billing disputes were. Chad answered categories like access disputes. There was no further discussion or comments. The question will be closed. Submitting a Claim Question # 10: Chad questioned why it was that if Qwest had the majority of information on a claim that it would be returned for missing information. Donna responded that at the time of acknowledgement it is considered one claim and therefore the entire claim is returned if a required field is missing. There were no additional questions/comments. This item will be closed. Question #13: Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon stated that this information is not required for the PID and she would like to see it removed from the form. Donna said the Dispute Form was addressed in LTPA but they did not get down to the field level. Kathy Stichter said if there is a disputed USOC, for instance, she does not believe it is an Eschelon responsibility to provide a count but rather a Qwest responsibility. Many times it may take three or four months to fix. Bonnie reiterated that this is putting additional work on the CLECs. Sue Kriebel asked if you are disputing 100 USOCs and the adjustment was for 80, would it not be good to know how many you had originally disputed. Kathy said the assumption is that Qwest will see there is 100 in dispute. Bonnie added that this is not information provided today. Donna said the intention is that since it was already on the spreadsheet that it could be added up, but that she will change Field 14 to and optional field. There was no further discussion and the item will be closed. Question #26: Ray Smith, Eschelon asked if a claim is rejected is it counted in BI5B. Donna answered no it is not. There was no further discussion or comments. This question will be closed. Question #29: There were no comments/discussion on this question. It will be closed. Question #30: Liz Balvin, MCI said she thought Stephan had left Cbeyond and could we check with Cbeyond before closing their items. Kit Thomte, Qwest said Qwest will call Stephan’s telephone to see if he is still there or referring calls. This question will be closed. Question #39: Donna read the question and response. Liz questioned if the time zone applied to Salt Lake City and Des Moines and Donna responded yes. There were no comments or questions. This question will be closed. Question #17: Donna asked if MCI was supporting one spreadsheet with one tab for greater than 60 days and another tab for less than 60 days. Liz and Brad answered yes. Brad further stated he could send an example of what they mean. Sue Kriebel asked if Qwest could say in the reply how Qwest will work with and populate the table in the supplemental document on page 5. Donna responded that she could. Ray Smith ask if the intention was to put the example and response out to general distribution. Donna said yes. This item will remain open. One question was submitted via email and has no reference number. Bonnie had questioned the supporting document dated May 6, 2004 page 4 and 5 examples 1 and 2. While it was Donna’s intention to show how these would count, in essence the example would not count in 5A or 5B. Donna asked if that answered Bonnie’s concern and Bonnie answered that it did. Donna agreed to change the document. Out of Office Question #9: Donna said that questions 9, 18, 28 and 34 all relate to the out of office issue. She has talked to SDCs who felt that out of office was not used that frequently. Bonnie stated the concern is that when an out of office message was left, there is no direction to contact anyone else. Chad Warner added that if for instance MCI had a claim there was no person to send it to. He suggested the need for a general mailbox. Both Char Mahs, Qwest and Donna suggested this be tabled for discussion at the Thursday meeting. Donna suggested the general internal dispute procedures advise the SDC to provide backup information. This question will remain open. Resolution of Status Claim. Question # 1: There was much discussion around this question centering on the level of detail on the Resolution Status letter. The following issues/questions were agreed. It was agreed the Service Order Number AND Purchase Order Number (PON) will be provided by Qwest. It was agreed Qwest will utilize provide a standard Resolution and Status template. It was agreed Qwest will research Cost Docket Resolution examples, specifically MN docket No P-421/C1-01-1375. It was agree Qwest will provide examples where Qwest requires the SGAT as apposed to the ICA. It was agreed discussion regarding "mutual agreement" to resolve including escalation process will be defaulted to LTPA PID discussions It was agreed Qwest will continue investigating supplying the Maintenance and Repair (M&R) trouble ticket number. Question #4: Bonnie stated the business concern is that in LTPA Qwest committed to provide the information on resolution letters it is now asking the CLECs to provide. The concern is sometimes there is nothing to point to such as a cost docket etc. A second concern is that at Eschelon about 75% of what is disputed on a monthly basis is the same things disputed the previous month. Can we differentiate something that is in dispute for the first time from something that has been disputed before? Sue asked if the question is do the CLECs have to submit the same dispute month after month. Bonnie said the CLECs understand that they have to dispute month after month but the question is can we provide Qwest the detail just one time. Bonnie asked if she had to dispute the same exact dispute month after month? Donna said she would have to address with Qwest later. Bonnie also asked if Qwest could look into the situation where there isn’t any information for instance if there are no approved Commission rates. Donna said yes. Ray remembered a situation dealing with poison control in LTPA and questioned what if there is no reference to a tariff, Cost Docket or Interconnection Agreement what happens? Sue said when the dispute is something that is not related to USOCs or rates but is additional tax or surcharges etc., then that would also be an example of when no information is required. Donna also stated it is an optional field on the form. Sue said if you are disputing a rate, then when submitting a claim we require a reference to a Tariff, Cost Docket or Interconnection Agreement. Sue and Donna questioned if the Poison Control situation was a Rate or a Tax /Surcharge issue. Donna said page 6 of the Supporting Document dated May 6, 2004 explains “required supporting information”. A reference to a tariff, Cost docket o r Interconnection Agreement is not required for a Tax or Surcharge issue. Bonnie said she would look at it more closely as she did want to ensure that nothing is left to interpretation since it is part of the rejection criteria. Jan Arnold asked about if the claim is for an invalid rate. Donna answered that the solution letter response will reference where the rate was found. Cheryl Peterson said what she was hearing is both that Qwest will provide and not provide references. Sue said the goal is to get to a process where references are outlined consistently. Sue added that if Qwest can’t provide documentation then will adjust. For auditing purposes have to have referenced documentation. This question will remain open. Question #14: There were no comments/questions on this item. This question will be closed. Question #20: Liz Balvin asked when, if there is still a dispute over the “final verdict” from Qwest does a CLEC have the opportunity to bring it up again. Donna clarified if the claim is denied and the CLEC disagrees. Liz answered yes if the issue is not resolved. Donna added that it is resolved from a Qwest perspective. Liz asked what the process is to re-dispute, do we use the resolved id when it is really not resolved. Donna said the escalation process is still under discussion. Liz added that now it is just Qwest's resolution to the dispute. Bonnie agreed with Liz and wanted to make certain that within 28 days if there is not resolution where both parties agree that there is some type of escalation process. Sue added that she does not think we can resolve this with a process and that it is an appropriate discussion for Thursday’s meeting. Donna agreed that mutual agreement is a discussion to have at Thursday’s meeting. This issue will remain open. Question #21: Liz said her intention was to try to shorten the time frame. Donna stated that the majority of the time the status didn’t change and Sue added that if the claim is not resolved in the initial 28 days, it is usually something that takes a long time to resolve. Liz verified that Qwest would not wait till the 28th day. Brad asked what percent go over 28 days. Donna said some work had been done on that but no status was available. Brad also felt the language was not clear. Donna agreed to reword the language to say “The follow-up date will be no later than 28 calendar days from the receipt of the claim or sooner if claim is resolved”. This item will remain open. Question #25: Bonnie asked if this information will be on a form. Donna answered yes and the resolution letter will outline the information behind the granting or denying of a claim. Bonnie said what the CLECs are looking for here is consistency. Sue said the SDCs will use a template for the resolution letter. The meeting was called to a close with Qwest stating that it would digest the information gathered and set another ad-hoc meeting to continue the progress. Due to the meeting coming to a close the following questions were not addressed, 23, 33, 11, 22, 6, and 15.

0005/19/04 CMP meeting Donna Devine Qwest reported that the first adhoc meeting occurred on May 4. As a result of that meeting, Qwest responded to several questions from meeting participants. In turn MCI, Cbeyond, Time Warner and Eschelon submitted responses and additional questions. Qwest will respond to these follow-up questions by the end of this week. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday May 24 from 9AM – 11 AM MTN time. This CR will be moved to Development.

Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PURPOSE The purpose of this meeting was to review process changes, introduce recommendations from Qwest to assist in improving the quality of the dispute process and to reply to comments made by the CLEC community. List of Attendees: Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon, Ray Smith, Eschelon, Ellen Copley, Eschelon, Kim Isaacs, Eschelon, Kathy Stichter, Eschelon, Carla Pardee, AT&T, Liz Balvin, MCI, Linda Bell, 180 Communications, Mark Rendmore, 180 Communications, Emily Baird, POPP Telecom, Chad Warner, MCI, Audrey Wolford, U S Link, Lori Mendoza, Allegiance, Wendy Perrot, Allegiance, Larita Tillison, Allegiance, Rob Garth, Liberty Bell, Christie Hubbard, Global Crossings, Cheryl Peterson, AT&T, Brad Patton, MCI, Malia Ciasi, VCI, Stephen Calhoun, Cbeyond, Kevin Youngblood, Jean Novak, Qwest Communications, Char Mahs, Qwest Communications, Sue Kriebel, Qwest Communications Jim Recker, Qwest Communications, Kit Thomte, Qwest Communications, Donna Devine, Qwest Communications, Doug Andreen, Qwest Communications MEETING MINUTES The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees. Doug Andreen with Qwest explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Qwest initiated CR PC040604-1 Dispute (CLAIM) Process, review process changes, introduce recommendations from Qwest to assist in improving the quality of the dispute process and to reply to comments made by the CLEC community. It was agreed to proceed by waking through the document and provide feedback to CLEC submitted questions/comments as we reached pertinent sections in the document. Donna Devine, Qwest thanked MCI and Eschelon for submitting comments and proceeded with page 3 of the document Customer Billing Dispute (Claim) Notification Form and Field Dictionary dated April 20, 2004. There were no comments on page 3 covering the Introduction and Submitting a Claim sections. The next section started on page 4. Donna Devine began by stating that claims should be submitted using the form on page 4. If you have an agreement with the Billing Center, you may also attach a spreadsheet with all required information. If required information is not provided, the claim will be returned and considered closed. Liz Balvin, MCI asked that the way it reads a spreadsheet is an option. Donna said it is an option and agreed to remove the phrase. If you have an agreement with the Billing Center. There were no objections to this. Donna Devine explained in the Dispute Detail Information Section of the form if multiple bill dates are disputed (i.e. 4th, 7th, 10th), dispute claims must be split out by bill date/year. Enter claims within 60 days of the bill date on one claim and those greater than 60 days on another claim. If the disputes greater than 60 days from the bill date are not separated from those within 60 days from the bill date, Qwest will group using the oldest bill date. Refering to one of MCI’s questions Donna further said MCI commented that MCI currently keeps disputes separated by billing account numbers. Is it Qwest’s intent that a dispute for each invoice date for each ban must be filed? It would be cumbersome to file a Claim Form for the same issue month after month. One claim to identify the issue should be sufficient, using a spreadsheet to outline the activity on a monthly basis. Donna cited the following example: Dispute is from January 2004 April 2004 submitting claim in May. Bill date is the 4th. Today is May 1. January 2004 February 2004 4th bill period is submitted on one claim. March 2004 April 2004 4th bill period submitted on one claim. Donna was asked to change the term bill date to bill period. For purposes of the document bill date, bill period and invoice date are interchangeable. The Bill Date field identifies the Billing Period for the Billing Account Number (BAN) & invoice entered. Brad Potter, MCI asked if there is an advantage to splitting the 60 day time line. Donna answered yes for the SDC and for inclusion in the BI-5 PID. Bonnie asked if that was because greater than 60 days doesn’t count in BI5-PID. Donna answered yes. Bonnie asked what constituted a dispute, if we’re disputing call waiting is that a dispute. Donna referred to page 5 of the document for dispute types. Numerous questions in the form of possible scenarios were offered around how to submit/count disputes. Donna agreed to provide examples in the next document to clarify the scenarios mentioned. Liz asked if BANs were unique for bill periods. Both Donna and Sue Kriebel, Qwest answered yes for both CRIS and IABS. Liz said she would prefer to dispute by BAN as is currently done. Donna responded that this has not changed. Liz asked what would happen if the BAN is exhausted. Sue answered that when a BAN is exhausted new order activity will not flow to this BAN and a new BAN will be established. Brad Potter, MCI stated that breaking out greater than and less than 60 days presented more work for MCI. Bonnie said that if you put all the disputes on one without this breakout then it would not be counted in PID. Sue said this is correct since Qwest uses the oldest bill date when not broken out. Bonnie stated she is still unclear on what constitutes a numerator in the PID. (In checking with Char Mahs, Qwest the numerator in BI-5 is determined by whether Qwest resolved the claim whthin 28 days. If eligible, the claim would be in the denominator regardless of whether we met the 28 days to resolve or not.) Donna explained Acknowledgments are counted once and Resolutions are counted per Dispute Type. Donna said dispute type is referred to as reason code in the PID. Brad asked how Qwest knows if it has all the information to proceed. Donna answered that if all the required fields are filled in. Bonnie stated that having the information to process a dispute and having the information to get measured in PID are two different things. For instance if items older than 60 days are included the claim will be excluded from measurement. Donna answered yes. Eschelon made a comment that they currently submit claims using the fields we are requesting on the form except for the ACNA and Total # of items. Bonnie stated she still needs more information on how to submit and get it counted in PID. For instance if send 3 UNE loops for the same bill period. Sue answered that would be one claim for acknowledgement. Bonnie asked if she added three claims for a different dispute type. Sue said that would be one claim for acknowledgement however in working the claim would be split by dispute type and therefore would be two claims. Bonnie then said in BI-5B a dispute is counted by dispute type. Char answered yes. Bonnie stated that if she has one spreadsheet for greater than 60 days and one for less than 60 days then she is ok. Sue said yes but don’t want to receive one dispute for different bill periods (i.e. 4th 7th or receiving the spread sheets by ban is ok). Bonnie said that for April and May for same bill period and same product is ok. Sue answered yes. Bonnie clarified that as long as bill dates are not mixed and there is one spreadsheet for greater than 60 days and one for less than 60 days then it should get counted in PID to which Donna answered yes. Bonnie further asked if the process was required and Donna answered yes. Kathy Stichter, Eschelon wanted to verify that this will involve an extra form for each bill date, each month for each product. She said she now saves disputes and submits to Qwest once monthly. Sue Kriebel asked if that meant that Eschelon saves their disputes for bill period 1,4,7,10,22 etc and sends them to Qwest together. Kathy replied yes. Sue pointed out that this delays Qwest starting to investigate claims. Bonnie asked how the SDCs like the new process. Sue said it was a collaborative effort in development of the process. It was agreed to set a two hour meeting to further discuss and drive forward on this document. The following tentative timetable was established. Donna will submit updates to the document and respond the the CLEC questions by COB Thursday May 6, 2004. The CLECs will respond with their questions by COB Thursday May 13, 2004. The two hour ad-hoc meeting will be scheduled for as soon as possible after all comments have been considered.

- 4/21/04 April CMP Meeting Donna Devine, Qwest presented this CR and explained that over the past months multiple customers have participated in discussions to enhance the Dispute process. This new CR addresses dispute process changes requested by the customer and also introduces recommendations from Qwest to assist in improving the quality of the dispute process. These enhancements plus recommendations from Qwest are the basis for this CR. Donna proposed an ad-hoc meeting and will provide information with the notice. The ad-hoc meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 5/4 from 2 to 3 Mountain time. Ray Smith, Eschelon asked about a proposed implementation date. Donna stated right now the date is to be determined ‘TBD’ based on Ad Hoc meeting results and internal system changes. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon asked if system changes were involved in all parts of this, or can the work be phased in.. Donna said that the system changes that we will implement need to be done all at once as they impact results. Bonnie added that the implication is that all will be implemented at once. Liz Balvin, MCI asked if funding is approved and Donna said yes. Bonnie asked if a date could be estimated, is it 6 months/9 months/ years? Donna said third or fourth quarter of this year. Qwest verified probably six to nine months. Sue Kriebel, Qwest added that the due date depends on changes proposed since it is also related to the PID. Bonnie added that making the process changes were one item and Qwest making system changes to track was another. Ray added this should work jointly with LTPA. Sue said it is two different forums that will have to be clarified. Mike Zulevic, Covad echoed what Ray said about LTPA being compatible with what is developed. Liz added that with changes to PIDs there has to be coordination with LTPA. Mike stated that each company has a primary responsible person for LTPA and Qwest has a corresponding person. Qwest said the person from Qwest is Char Mahs. Bonnie asked if Char Mahs could be at the meeting and Sue agreed they could be. Jamal, Qwest asked if LTPA is part of CMP and Bonnie answered no but that this CR is related to a PID. Liz added that CMP is not the place to request a new PID. If a change to process or system affects a PID coordination must take place. This CR will be moved to Presented.

Open Product/Process CR PC032404-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: 6/15/2004

Status History

Project Meetings

- 6/16/04 June Meeting Minutes CMP Janean Van Dusen, Qwest reported that the effective date is June 15 except for Arizona which is effective June 16. The final notice was sent May 28. The CR will move to Test.

- 5/19/04 CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest reported that the effective date is June 15 except for Arizona which is effective June 16. . The updated USOC list is available included with the initial notification sent on April 30. The CR will move to in Development.

4/21/04 April CMP meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest presented this CR and said that the effective date would be 6/15. The first notice will go out next week. The CR will be moved to Presented.

Open Product/Process CR PC012604-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest currently does not have a documented process on how LSRs that are related with RPON should be handled when a reject condition exists on one or more of the LSRs. Qwest is proposing the following process: LSRs that are due dated the same day and are RPON’d, will reject all. LSRs submitted where processing one or more is dependent on processing the other(s) will all be rejected. Qwest will further define this statement with further research.

Status History

Project Meetings

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised this process was effective November 4. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon commented that they are very unhappy with the results of the process and that the CLECs comments made no difference. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Jill Martain – Qwest advised that Qwest did receive comments on the PCAT. Qwest has responded to the comments and the effective date is November 4. This CR will remain in Development Status.

9/15/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that the PCAT is being revised to include Qwest’s definition of RPON. This PCAT should be available for review soon. This CR will remain in Development Status.

8/16/04 CMP Meeting Mintues Jill Martain – Qwest advised that we have had ad hoc meetings and done analysis internally. This is a process that Qwest and the CLECs will need to agree to disagree as there is manual work involved for both parties. Qwest isn’t going to be able to do the reject request in all scenarios. If the LSRs are submitted together at the same time, the due date is the same and the provisioning has not started yet, then we could reject both orders. If the provisioning process has started on the LSR, the CLEC will have to make the decision to stop the order. Bonnie clarified what a true RPON is versus a reference to another order. Bonnie said it sounds like if the order is not truly a RPON, it is a TACO ‘to assume completion of’. Jill advised Qwest will take the previous PCAT and add definition and clarity around the definition of RPON and resubmit the PCAT for review. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon advised that not all CLECs code to the ‘Page of field’. The RPON process includes the reference to submit a sup to add ‘page of field’. This process makes the field ‘conditional’ and this would be a coding change. Jill advised Qwest will look at the disclosure document to identify impacts. This CR will remain in Development Status.

July 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Minutes: Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that the team held an ad hoc meeting on June 29. Qwest is still researching alternative options. Qwest will provide status at the August meeting. This CR will remain in Development status.

PC012604-1 LSR Rejects with RPON Ad hoc meeting 6-29-04 2:00 – 3:00

In attendance: Amanda Silva – VCI Anne Robberson - Qwest Communications Liz Balvin – MCI Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Jeff Sonnier – Sprint Lori Nelson – Mid Continent Communications Carla Pardee – ATT Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications Jenn Arnold – US Link Nancy Sanders – Comcast Jill Martain - Qwest Communications Julie Pickar – US Link

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and verified the attendee names. Cindy reviewed the history of the CR. Qwest has held several ad hoc meetings on this process. The PCAT was distributed. The CLEC community had comments on the PCAT and the project was discussed in the CMP meeting. The CLEC community provided order/process examples that they had concerns with. Qwest reviewed the examples. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss Qwest’s original intent for this CR and determine next steps.

Anne Robberson – Qwest advised the original intent of this CR was to address LSRs issued on the same day, whose FOC had not been sent. The intent was not to address LSRs issued on different days or LSRs that were related where one or more of the LSRs had an error identified after a FOC.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon clarified that if the CLECs RPON the order, the orders need to be worked together. Jill Martain – Qwest advised there are major system changes needed otherwise. The only time that Qwest can reject all orders with RPON is when the LSR has not been FOC’d. Qwest can support the process to reject all orders if they were all submitted on the same day, with the same due date, and none of them have been FOC’d.

Liz Balvin – MCI said she believes the CLECs have been clear on this process all along. Liz advised the CLECs are required to receive the FOC back on a DSL order before they can submit the second LSR. Liz advised this process would not work for DSL, and she is confused that it has taken this long to determine there are system impacts. Jill Martain – Qwest advised in 16.0 DSL can be done on one LSR. Kim Isaacs – Eschelon advised two LSRs are still required if conditioning is needed.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked what does RPON on the same day provide to the CLEC. Jill advised the LSRs are worked together from a due date perspective, assignments and provisioning all happen together. Jeff Sonnier – Sprint advised another advantage is the customer doesn’t go out of service if the work is for the same customer and same due date. Jill advised that once Qwest has started the provisioning process we can not reject them all if they have different due dates or submit dates. Once a LSR has had a FOC issued, our systems do not allow us to reject the LSR. We are required to follow the jeopardy process, whereby we send a jeopardy after a FOC, follow-up in 4-hours and then cancel the service orders and then follow-up again to see if the jeopardy condition was cleared or reject the LSR at that time. The intent is that Qwest would reject all of them if the LSRs were issued on the same day and with the same due date. The reason for this is that Qwest has different processes in place after the FOC and the provisioning process begins.

Jeff Sonnier – Sprint advised that their systems do not allow them to issue the 1st LSR with an RPON to the 2nd LSR, as the 2nd LSR hasn’t been issued yet. Liz Balvin – MCI advised their system processes the same way.

Jill advised if the 1st one came in without RPON and it went flow through, Qwest can’t reject it as it has already started the provisioning process and the system doesn’t allow for that. Kim Isaacs asked if Qwest can send a jeopardy notice because there is trouble on the RPON order, using the jeopardy code associated with a problem with a related order. Jill advised that jeopardy code doesn’t stop the provisioning process. Further discussion went on to explain how the jeopardy code associated to a related order works from a technician perspective verses the business office use of the same code and Jill explained how the business office using that code would not put the order on hold unless additional manual steps occurred. Jill advised that the only other possible code that could be used was the error condition identified after a FOC, but that code still did not stop the provisioning for the first 4-hours and if unresolved, the service orders were cancelled.

Jill questioned whether another option would be to have the CLEC make the determination if the first LSR or other RPON’d orders should be cancelled. There are situations where the LSR that is being rejected either has a typographical error or only requires a minor correction to re-submit. In this case, the first order that was submitted would not need to be touched by either Qwest or the CLEC and the provisioning process would not be stopped. Jeff Sonnier advised this would cause our LSR costs to increase.

Jill advised the best solution is a system solution to fix the issues for both the CLECs and Qwest. Liz Balvin – MCI advised that it will take a long time to get this as we are working on 17.0 prioritization currently and asked if there could be a manual interim solution.

Jill advised the CLEC community that Qwest will go back and revisit the CR based on the discussion today to determine next steps and possible other alternatives. Qwest will meet internally and then schedule another ad hoc meeting. The CLEC community advised that would be fine and asked Qwest to please consider a manual process or additional alternatives.

June 16, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Anne Robberson – Qwest advised we have set up an ad hoc meeting for June 29 at 2:00 p.m. MST to discuss this CR. This CR will remain in Development Status.

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status on this CR. Cindy advised that the effective date is June 18, 2004. Qwest did receive comments on this CR and we are currently reviewing the comments. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised that Eschelon has a real concern with the process. Bonnie understood that on RPON orders, if one is rejected, than all would be rejected. Eschelon does not believe that Qwest will have insight as to how the order should be provisioned. If something is rejected than every LSR should be rejected. Bonnie advised that Eschelon checked with the other CLECs and they also understood this was the process. Liz Balvin – MCI advised she submitted the same comment. We want the process to be as clean as possible and we don’t want the decision to be made by Qwest. Jill Martain discussed the differences between a reject and a jeopardy and the timing of the FOC. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon and Kim Isaacs – Eschelon gave examples of situations when they would want both orders placed in jeopardy status. Kim advised there is a jep type that can be used when we are jeopardizing an order due to a problem on another order. Liz Balvin – MCI advised that there are procedures in place to reject, jep and keep orders in sync for the end users. Jill agreed and said that she has questions on how we would do this. Jill suggested having another ad hoc call to discuss how the RPON process works with the jeopardy process. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that during the CLEC meetings on this CR we did not discuss the jeopardy process, just rejects and RPON. Liz Balvin – MCI asked Jill to outline her concerns before the ad hoc call so this can be sent to the CLECs in advance. Jill agreed and asked for examples from the CLECs on scenarios that they would want both LSRs placed in jeopardy status. This CR will remain in Development Status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status for Anne Robberson on this CR. We have a meeting with the CLECs on Friday, April 23 to review the process again. The CLECs wanted to review the process one more time and then we will release the documentation. This CR will remain in Development Status.

LSR Rejects with RPON PC012604-1 April 23, 2004

In attendance: Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Anne Robberson - Qwest Communications Emily Baird – POP Aaron Chong – MCI Julie Pickar – US Link Noreen Carol – Birch Telecom Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications

Cindy Macy-Qwest Communications began the call and explained that two previous meetings were held to discuss this process. The CLECs wanted to meet one additional time to address any new questions. Anne Robberson - Qwest Communications reviewed the process.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked what the supp type of the related LSR should be. Should it be supp type two or three? Anne advised if we are not impacting the due date on the original request then use supp type three. Anne agreed to update the document to include this information.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked if there is an escalation do we need to tell the escalation desk about all of the LSRs, or will the escalation desk know that there is an RPON and they need to escalate all of the LSRs. Anne advised it is safer to tell the escalation desk about all of the LSRs.

Julie Pickar – US Link asked if there are three LSRs and one of them is rejected, do we have to put sups in for all of them. How does Qwest know the LSR in error? Anne advised there is a reject reason and remarks that are used.

The group agreed to have the documentation released to the document review site. A comment cycle will be available if there are additional comments, or you can direct questions to your Service Manager.

LSR Rejects with RPON Ad hoc meeting March 25, 2004

In attendance: Kathy Morales – NOS Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Anne Robberson - Qwest Communications Regina Mosely – ATT Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Liz Balvin – MCI PJ Keller – Priority 1 Stephanie Prull - Eschelon Amy Brown – Time Warner Jennifer Fischer - Qwest Communications Peter Budner – Qwest Communications Twila Gossman – McLeod USA Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications

Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications opened the call and introduced attendees. Cindy reviewed the history of the project and the agenda. The team agreed Anne would go over the updated process and address questions.

Anne reviewed the process and the updates that were made as a result of our first CLEC input meeting. Liz Balvin – MCI asked if both orders need to have RPON on them. What happens when two separate orders are issued and one does not have RPON on it? Will Qwest know how to find the other RPON order if only one of the orders has RPON on it? Anne agreed she would check on this and let us know.

Stephanie Prull – Eschelon asked if we can use ‘page of’ field instead of RPON for EDI on the first LSR. Not all companies use the page of field though. Anne – Qwest advised the Migrations and Conversions PCAT references the ‘page of field’. Stephanie – Eschelon asked should the ‘page of’ field be conditional now instead of optional. The LSOG says the related request must contain RPON and page of field (optional). Anne advised she will need to check on this and let us know. Stephanie said she prefers that Qwest has a means to determine the related order. A suggestion was made that maybe Qwest could use the Remarks field to put the related RPON information in remarks. Stephanie – Eschelon also reviewed with the team that the (14.0 ) EDI Disclosure document states that ‘when multiple RPONs in a series are to be related it would have a blank RPON on the first one’. Anne advised she will need to check on this and let us know.

Anne provided the following information after her investigation: Unless indicated on the LSR, Qwest has no way of knowing PONs are related. The first PON should contain an entry in the “page of” field and subsequent LSRs need to have RPON populated. This is the only way Qwest will know the lead LSR has RPONs. If the lead LSR is submitted without “page of” information, our expectation would be that you submit a SUP to add the “page of” information.

Catherine – NOS asked for a copy of the notes from the last meeting. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that the notes are available on the public website or you can send me your email address and I will forward the notes to you.

The team agreed to hold another meeting after Anne finds out more about if both orders have to have RPON on them, the use of ‘page of’ field, and using remarks to relate the order.

LSR Rejects with RPON Ad hoc meeting March 25, 2004

In attendance: Kathy Morales – NOS Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Anne Robberson - Qwest Communications Regina Mosely – ATT Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Liz Balvin – MCI PJ Keller – Priority 1 Stephanie Prull - Eschelon Amy Brown – Time Warner Jennifer Fischer - Qwest Communications Peter Budner – Qwest Communications Twila Gossman – McLeod USA Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications

Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications opened the call and introduced attendees. Cindy reviewed the history of the project and the agenda. The team agreed Anne would go over the updated process and address questions.

Anne reviewed the process and the updates that were made as a result of our first CLEC input meeting. Liz Balvin – MCI asked if both orders need to have RPON on them. What happens when two separate orders are issued and one does not have RPON on it? Will Qwest know how to find the other RPON order if only one of the orders has RPON on it? Anne agreed she would check on this and let us know.

Stephanie Prull – Eschelon asked if we can use ‘page of’ field instead of RPON for EDI on the first LSR. Not all companies use the page of field though. Anne – Qwest advised the Migrations and Conversions PCAT references the ‘page of field’. Stephanie – Eschelon asked should the ‘page of’ field be conditional now instead of optional. The LSOG says the related request must contain RPON and page of field (optional). Anne advised she will need to check on this and let us know. Stephanie said she prefers that Qwest has a means to determine the related order. A suggestion was made that maybe Qwest could use the Remarks field to put the related RPON information in remarks. Stephanie – Eschelon also reviewed with the team that the (14.0 ) EDI Disclosure document states that ‘when multiple RPONs in a series are to be related it would have a blank RPON on the first one’. Anne advised she will need to check on this and let us know.

Catherine – NOS asked for a copy of the notes from the last meeting. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that the notes are available on the public website or you can send me your email address and I will forward the notes to you.

The team agreed to hold another meeting after Anne finds out more about if both orders have to have RPON on them, the use of ‘page of’ field, and using remarks to relate the order.

March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting Anne Robberson – Qwest advised that we held a CLEC Input meeting on March 2 and reviewed the draft process. There were some questions and action items taken. There is another call scheduled next week Thursday March 25 from 1:00 – 2:00 to review the updated process. We anticipate we will then be able to publish the updated process. This CR will move to Development Status.

PC012604-1 Rejects with RPON CLEC Input Call Tuesday March 2, 2004

In attendance: Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Regina Mosely – ATT Anne Robberson – Qwest Stephanie Prull – Eschelon Liz Balvin – MCI Phyllis Burt – ATT Mark Gonzales – Qwest Steve Kast – Qwest Cheryl Peterson – ATT Cindy Macy – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the attendees names. Cindy advised that the purpose of today’s call is to review the Draft process for Rejects with RPONs and to gather input from the CLECs. The team agreed to have Anne review the draft process and then open it up for questions and comments.

Anne Robberson – Qwest read the draft process. Anne advised that LSRs could be related for varying reasons. Anne reviewed the two main situations that could cause a related LSR to be rejected. Anne explained that if the DDD (desired due date) is the same on the RPONs and one of LSRs has an error on it, then all of the LSRs need to be rejected as they would have to be supp’d for a new due date per the SIG. Anne confirmed that if the DDD is longer than the standard interval and we can fix the error before the due date is in jeopardy, then we don’t reject these. This is being added to the document draft.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked if the original LSR was a reject in error, and then it was fixed, how do the CLECs clear this? For example, if the only reason the LSR was rejected was a mistake, done in error, are the CLECs required to contact the Help Desk for each error, or does the Help Desk clear all of the LSRs? Ann agreed to check on this? CLECs can call the help desk for any reason, we don’t limit why they can or can’t call. The process says that if one reject is cleared, all should be cleared.

Cheryl Peterson – ATT asked if Qwest were to reject all RPONs and only 1 was in error, how does Qwest identify this on the LSR? How does the CLEC know what LSR has the error on it? Anne Robberson – Qwest advised that the center places a note on the LSR to identify which one has the error. There is a generic reject reason code that is used, but a note is also but in the remark section. Currently, the reject codes used by the ISC are generic and are 915 and 919. Either one of these would be used with a note saying LSR was rejected due to Related PON reject. With the 15.0 release in April, we are adding a new reject code (831) to encompass this scenario. This will only be in the 15.0 version of IMA. So until you are on the 15.0 version, you will receive either the 915 or 919 codes with a comment. After you are on 15.0, you will receive and 831 which will say the related PON is in error.

Cheryl Peterson – ATT asked if there is a time frame to respond to reject reasons? Anne advised it is based on the situation. To summarize, if it is a jeopardy notice you have 4 hours to respond, if it is a reject you have to respond within a 30-day time frame. Clarification: The answer to this question is found in the Ordering Overview PCAT under Error Notice Matrix section. According to this matrix, if a fatal error is found, Qwest will send a Reject Notice and you have as much time as necessary to respond on the original LSR. If a non-fatal error condition exists PRIOR to FOC, Qwest sends an Error Notification. Qwest then waits 4 business hours for you to send a SUP correcting or canceling the LSR. If Qwest does not receive a SUP within 4 business hours, we reject the LSR by sending a Reject Notification. If AFTER FOC is sent Qwest finds an error condition (fatal or non-fatal-), Qwest sends you a Jeopardy Notification requesting a SUP within 4 business hours. If a SUP is not received within 4 business hours, we cancel the service order(s) associated with the LSR, but the LSR stays in Jeopardy status for 30 days. If Qwest does not receive a SUP within 30 days, we send you a Reject Notification.

Cheryl Peterson – ATT asked if there is a cost to resubmit the orders? Anne advised there is no cost for a supp.

Stephanie Prull – Eschelon asked when the subsequent orders are sent back, does Qwest look at all the orders or just the subsequent order that was sent back? Anne advised she would check on this. Anne advised this is part of the higher level process that Denise Martinez manages so she will check with Denise. The process says that the ISC is to look for all errors before sending back the LSR. Once it is returned to us, they are to look for all errors to be cleared.

Cheryl Peterson – ATT asked if we send RPON and all are error free do they flow through? Anne advised she believes so if the product is flow through eligible. Kim Isaacs – Eschelon advised that the Flow Through Exception Matrix implies that RPON orders do not flow through. Anne agreed to check on this. In the Ordering Overview PCAT, there is a matrix that does say any LSRs with RPON do not flow through. So, to answer the question, if you send RPON and all are error free, they drop to the ISC and are manually processed.

Anne advised she will update the draft process to help clarify and include some of the questions and information from today’s meeting. The team agreed to meet again to review the updated draft process, and then it could be sent out for CLEC review and comments via notifications. Cindy will schedule another review meeting for later in the month.

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting Anne Robberson – Qwest advised this is a new CR that is addressing a process that is not handled consistently and not currently documented. This CR was created as a result of a CLEC inquiry. Qwest is in the process of documenting the Draft Process and will review this with the CLECs the first week in March. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if the process would be sent out prior to the meeting. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that a meeting notification would go out with the process attached. The intent of the meeting is to review the process and gather input from the CLECs. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Open Product/Process CR PC020404-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Business - Eliminate USOC B1M after convert to new Measured USOC LMB

Status History

Project Meetings

6/16/04 CMP June meeting minutes Janean Van Dusen, Qwest said the effective date is June 4 and the final notice was sent May 20. This CR will move to Test.

-- 5/19/04 CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest reported this CR was re-noticed on April 22 identifying the USOCs. Business USOCS will not be eliminated. Effective date is June 4 and the final notice will be sent this week. This CR will remain in Development.

- 4/21/04 CMP April meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest reported that the level 4 notice that was sent 3/9 was retracted on 4/8. A new notice will be sent by 4/22 with a June 4 effective date. This CR will stay in Development.

-- 03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest reported that this CR is on track with the only change being the effective date has moved from 4/22 to 4/23. The CR will remain in Development status.

- 2/18/04 CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest stated that the USOCs would be grandparented and eliminated at the same time since new USOCs will be implemented. The effective date will be April 21. The new USOCs are provided on the CR. The CR will move to Development status.

Open Product/Process CR PC020404-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

04-21-04

Status History

Project Meetings

06/16/04 June CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that the effective date was 6/4/04. This CR will move to CLEC Test status.

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that Residence will be effective on 6/4/04. This CR will remain in Development Status.

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that Residence will be effective on 4/23/04 and Business will be effective on 6/4/04. The following are corrections to the meeting minutes for this CR: Business measured service plans will not be impacted and Residence measured service plans effective date will move to 6/4/04. A revised notice will be sent this week. This CR will remain in Development Status.

03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that this CR will be effective on 4/23/04. This CR will move to Development Status. - 02/18/04 February CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest presented this CR and said that the USOCs will be grandparented on 4/21/04. This CR will be moved to Presented Status.

Open Product/Process CR PC020404-3 Detail

Description Of Change

Convert USOCs LW1 & AKN to new Measured USOCs RWV & AWV

Eliminate USOCs LW1, AKN & 21M

Business - Convert USOCs THB & THF to USOC TMB

Eliminate USOCs THB & THF

Status History

Project Meetings

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Janean VanDusen – Qwest advised that this CR is effective April 29. The final notice went out April 8. This CR will move to CLEC Test.

March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised that April 23 is the new implementation date. This CR will move to Development Status.

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. The Business portion of this CR has been cancelled. Residence still applies with a target implementation date of April 21. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Open Product/Process CR PC020404-4 Detail

Description Of Change

2/11/04 This CR will not include Northern Idaho at this time.

Status History

Project Meetings

8/18/04 CMP Meeting Doug Andreen reported that the effective date was August 16. The CR will move to Test status.

July 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen said the effective date is August 16 and the initial notice was sent 7/2. The CR will stay in Development.

-- 6/16/04 CMP June meeting minutes Janean Van Dusen, Qwest said the effective date is August 16and that the CR is on track. She also verified that area wide calling plans will be available in South Dakota. The CR will stay in Development.

- 5/19/04 CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest reported the effective date has moved from 7/12 to 8/16. It will include all Res packages. No notices have gone out as yet. Amanda Silva, VCI wanted to verify that any existing customer that has the packages can keep it. But new customers can’t order. Janean said that is correct. You can order it until the effective date. Amanda asked if there will be any new packages. Janean said there will be two new packages but they are still under development. Qwest will issue the appropriate notices and PCATs on these. Liz Balvin, MCI asked if amendments will be required. Janean said no these will all be resalable. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon asked if the customer has a package with their current provider can they convert their service. Janean answered yes. Liz asked when the new packages come out, from an ordering perspective how will CLECs know. Janean said that they will be ordered the same and there will be Regulatory noticing, new PCATs and PCAT noticing. This CR will remain in Development.

- 4/21/04 April CMP meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest reported the effective date has moved to 7/12. The scope has increased to include the grandfathering all related residential packages. Liz Balvin, MCI asked what was causing the grandfathering. Janean said that it was redefining how to bundle and package at Qwest. The CR will remain in Development.

-- 03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest reported that the new effective date for this CR is 5/24 to accommodate tariff filing. The CR will change to Development status.

2/18/04 CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest stated that this CR affects all states except northern Idaho. The effective date is May 17 and the USOC list is provided in the CR. The CR will move to development.

Open Product/Process CR PC021204-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Revision to the current process of submitting two separate LSRs for porting in and adding new lines at the same time for the same end user. Would like April time frame. Update to Port In PCAT will be necessary to add scenario for new process.

Status History

Project Meetings

03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Susie Wells with Qwest said she would like to withdraw this CR because it is not a level 4 change and actually is a level 3 change to an existing process. Updates will be made in the Port In PCAT. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said she is interested in this one because 2 LSRs are currently issued and then go to different centers. Liz Balvin with MCI asked if there would be changes to the EDI disclosure document. Susie said she would check and get back at the April meeting. Liz said that if nothing will change then it is ok, and if changes need to be made, there should be appropriate notification. This CR will remain open in Pending Withdraw status.

Open Product/Process CR PC022604-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

6/15/04

Status History

Project Meetings

06/16/04 June CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that the effective date was 6/15/04 in all states except Arizona which will be effective 6/16/04. This CR will move to CLEC Test status.

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest said that the effective date will be 6/15/04 in all states except Arizona which will be effective 6/16/04. The updated USOC list was sent with the initial notification. This CR will move to Development Status.

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest said that the effective date will be 6/15/04. The updated USOC list will be available associated with the initial notification. This CR will move to Development Status.

03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest presented this CR and said that the effective date will be 6/15/04. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Open Product/Process CR PC010604-1 Detail

Description Of Change

USOC Description

G5L21 QDSL DMT Pro 640k Centrex PlusPrime 1 yr

G5L23 QDSL DMT Pro 640k Centrex PlusPrime 3 yr

G5L25 QDSL DMT Pro 640k Centrex PlusPrime 5 yr

G5L2M QDSL DMT Pro 640k Centrex PlusPrime MTM

G5L31 QDSL DMT Pro 960k Centrex PlusPrime 1 yr

G5L33 QDSL DMT Pro 960k Centrex PlusPrime 3 yr

G5L35 QDSL DMT Pro 960k Centrex PlusPrime 5 yr

G5L3M QDSL DMT Pro 960k Centrex PlusPrime MTM

G5L41 QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Centrex PlusPrime 1 yr

G5L43 QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Centrex PlusPrime 3 yr

G5L45 QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Centrex PlusPrime 5 yr

G5L4M QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Centrex PlusPrime MTM

G5L51 QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg Centrex PlusPrime 1 yr

G5L53 QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg Centrex PlusPrime 3 yr

G5L55 QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg Centrex PlusPrime 5 yr

G5L5M QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg Centrex PlusPrime MTM

G5L61 QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg Centrex PlusPrime 1 yr

G5L63 QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg Centrex PlusPrime 3 yr

G5L65 QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg Centrex PlusPrime 5 yr

G5L6M QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg Centrex PlusPrime MTM

G5LB1 QDSL DMT Pro 640k Centrex 1 yr

G5LB3 QDSL DMT Pro 640k Centrex 3 yr

G5LB5 QDSL DMT Pro 640k Centrex 5 yr

G5LBM QDSL DMT Pro 640k Centrex MTM

G5LC1 QDSL DMT Pro 960k Centrex 1 yr

G5LC3 QDSL DMT Pro 960k Centrex 3 yr

G5LC5 QDSL DMT Pro 960k Centrex 5 yr

G5LCM QDSL DMT Pro 960k Centrex MTM

G5LD1 QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Centrex 1 yr

G5LD3 QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Centrex 3 yr

G5LD5 QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Centrex 5 yr

G5LDM QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Centrex MTM

G5LE1 QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg Centrex 1 yr

G5LE3 QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg Centrex 3 yr

G5LE5 QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg Centrex 5 yr

G5LEM QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg Centrex MTM

G5LF1 QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg Centrex 1 yr

G5LF3 QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg Centrex 3 yr

G5LF5 QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg Centrex 5 yr

G5LFM QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg Centrex MTM

G5LG1 QDSL DMT Pro 256k Centrex 21 1 yr

G5LG3 QDSL DMT Pro 256k Centrex 21 3 yr

G5LG5 QDSL DMT Pro 256k Centrex 21 5 yr

G5LGM QDSL DMT Pro 256k Centrex 21 MTM

G5LJ1 QDSL DMT Pro 256k Centrex PlusPrime 1 yr

G5LJ3 QDSL DMT Pro 256k Centrex PlusPrime 3 yr

G5LJ5 QDSL DMT Pro 256k Centrex PlusPrime 5 yr

G5LJM QDSL DMT Pro 256k Centrex PlusPrime MTM

GPRBM QDSL DMT Pro 640k Ctx Analog MTM

GPRCM QDSL DMT Pro 960k Ctx Analog MTM

GPRDM QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Ctx Analog MTM

GPREM QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg Ctx Analog MTM

GPRFM QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg Ctx Analog MTM

GPRNM QDSL DMT Pro 256k Ctx Analog MTM

GRLB1 QDSL DMT Pro 640k dn/544 up 1 yr

GRLB3 QDSL DMT Pro 640k dn/544 up 3 yr

GRLB5 QDSL DMT Pro 640k dn/544 up 5 yr

GRLBM QDSL DMT Pro 640k dn/544 up MTM

GRLC1 QDSL DMT Pro 960k 1 yr

GRLC3 QDSL DMT Pro 960k 3 yr

GRLC5 QDSL DMT Pro 960k 5 yr

GRLCM QDSL DMT Pro 960k MTM

GRLD1 QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg 1 yr

GRLD3 QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg 3 yr

GRLD5 QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg 5 yr

GRLDM QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg MTM

GRLE1 QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg 1 yr

GRLE3 QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg 3 yr

GRLE5 QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg 5 yr

GRLEM QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg MTM

GRLF1 QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg 1 yr

GRLF3 QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg 3 yr

GRLF5 QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg 5 yr

GRLFM QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg MTM

GRLG1 QDSL DMT Pro 256-640k dn/272 up 1 yr

GRLG3 QDSL DMT Pro 256-640k dn/272 up 3 yr

GRLG5 QDSL DMT Pro 256-640k dn/272 up 5 yr

GRLGM QDSL DMT Pro 256-640k dn/272 up MTM

Expected Deliverable:

03/31/04

Status History

Project Meetings

01/18/04 February CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update stating the effective date moved to 5/28/04 and some USOCs will be eliminated and some grandparented. A new list of USOCs will be provided. This CR will be moved to Development Status.

1/21/04 January CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest presented this CR and said that effective 3/31/04 all DSL Pro Line USOCs will be grandfathered. Bonnie Johnson asked if the DSL pro product would be going away. Janean said yes. This CR will be moved to Presented Status.

Open Product/Process CR PC010704-1CM Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status that this CR was voted on and passed during an ad hoc meeting held on February 10, 2004. It was agreed that this change would be implemented on April 19, 2004 with the 15.0 release time frame. There are three other CRs that were voted on during the January CMP meeting, and it was agreed that those CRs would also be implemented at the same time. (CR: PC112503-1CM CMP Document Language Change Section 3.0 to allow for alternative arrangements for the Change Management Process Meetings, PC120303-1CM CMP Document Language Changes to Section 12.4 and 12.5, PC120303-2CM Changes to the CMP Document Section 12.7).

Ad Hoc Meeting to Vote on PC010704-1CM Changes to CMP Section 12.3 February 10, 2004

In attendance: Liz Balvin – MCI Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Jennifer Arnold – US Link Carla Pardee – ATT Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Cindy Macy – Qwest Doug Andreen – Qwest Jim Maher – Qwest Randy Owen – Qwest (Emma Brown – Time Warner Telcom email vote)

Cindy Macy opened the call and reviewed the items on the agenda. The purpose of the meeting is for the group to vote on PC010704-1CM, and determine the implementation date for this CR and the three CRs that were voted on during the January 21, 2004 CMP meeting (sections 12.5, 12.7 and 3.0). The CLECs agreed to the agenda.

Cindy advised the quorum is 5 CLECs and we have 6 CLECs available to vote (including the email vote from Time Warner). Cindy advised the CLECs to email their ballots, and we will also ask for a verbal vote at this time. The CLECs agreed.

Donna Osborne Miller – ATT asked if we should have the February 2, 2004 version of the notice. Cindy agreed, and said that is the correct version to review and vote on.

Jim Maher – Qwest reviewed the language and advised that we did include the request from MCI stating ‘(excluding PCAT documentation)’. Liz Balvin – MCI wanted to be clear on what Qwest talks about in GUI technical documentation. Liz said they don’t want PCAT included, as the needs are different.

Each CLEC cast their vote as reflected on the Vote Results document attached. MCI, ATT, Eschelon, US Link, Time Warner and Qwest voted yes, which unanimously passes the vote.

Jim Maher requested that Qwest implement this CR and the other 3 CMP changes with the 15.0 release on April 19, 2004. We need time to train the resources. If we could coordinate the implementation with 15.0 that would be preferred. Liz Balvin – MCI advised this is okay. They have waited long enough and want this implemented correctly, so the training is important. ATT agreed. Jim advised that Qwest would issue a Level 4 effective with the 15.0 release April 19, 2004. The CMP document will be updated and published effective April 19, 2004.

No other questions were asked. The meeting was adjourned.

January 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Jim Maher – Qwest reviewed the language change and presented the CR. Jim advised this language was developed jointly with the CLECs as a result of a Technical escalation and discussed in CMP Oversight Committee. The language is what was agreed to, with the addition from MCI. Liz Balvin – MCI advised that she didn’t want the event notification to NOT trigger the technical escalation. Liz requested that the first paragraph be updated to include ‘This does not include PCAT documentation’. Jim agreed to add the sentence about ‘excluding PCAT documentation’. Jim will also check with IT to make sure they are in support of the change. After agreements are reached, Cindy Macy – Qwest will schedule another meeting to vote on the changes.

Open Product/Process CR PC010704-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CMP June Meeting minutes Janean Van Dusen, Qwest reported that the effective date is June 15 except for Arizona which is effective June 16 and that the final notice was sent May 28. The CR will move to Test.

-- 5/19/04 CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest reported that the effective date is June 15 except for Arizona which is effective June 16. . The updated USOC list is available included with the initial notification sent on April 30. The CR will stay in Development.

-- 4/21/04 April CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest reported that the effective date is June 15. The updated USOC list will be available associated with the initial notification. The CR will stay in Development.

03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest reported that the effective date of this CR has changed to June 15. The revised and final USOC list will be provided at the time of the notice. This CR will remain in Development Status. - 2/18/04 CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen, Qwest stated that the new effective date for the CR is May 28. The USOC has also changed and will go out with the notification. The CR will move to development.

1/21/04 January CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen presented this CR. It is to eliminate certain USOCs from Analog Private Line. It is due to be implemented March 31st. There will be the standard notifications and a comment cycle in lieu of a CLEC Input meeting. This CR will be moved to Presented status.

Open Product/Process CR PC010704-3 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

03/31/04

Status History

Project Meetings

06/16/04 June CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that the effective date was 6/15/04 in all states except Arizona which will be effective 6/16/04. This CR will move to CLEC Test status.

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that the effective date is 6/15/04 in all states except Arizona which will be effective 6/16/04. The updated USOC list was provided with the initial notification. This CR will remain in Development Status.

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that the effective date is 6/15/04. The updated USOC list will be available associated with the initial notification. This CR will remain in Development Status.

03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that the effective date has moved to 6/15/04 and an updated list of USOCs will be provided. This CR will remain in Development Status.

02/18/04 February CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that the effective date has moved to May 28 and an updated spreadsheet will be provided for the USOCs. This CR will be moved to Development Status.