Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR020404-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Implement by July 2004.

Status History

Project Meetings

-- June 16, 2004 Email Received from Byron Dowding, Alltel: Yes

- June 15, 2004 Email Sent to Alltel: Good Afternoon Byron, Do you agree with this CR being Withdrawn? Please advise. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

- June 9, 2004 Email Sent to Alltel: Hello Byron -- I have attached a copy of the current CR for JAVA Upgrade. It is now appropriate to have this CR Withdrawn. The CLEC Community agreed that we could work with you off-line to withdraw the CR, see the May 20th Meeting Minutes. Please advise if you disagree with this CR being Withdrawn. Thanks Much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM - System

May 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that she is working off-line with Alltel to withdraw this CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are waiting for the JAVA patch in June and then we will recode and test. Connie said that we are targeting the 16.0 release.

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that when Qwest was getting ready to implement 15.0, it was discovered that Internet login had not been done. It was found out that that the PC’s would not work due to a JAVA bug. Connie stated that Qwest re-coded to version 1.3 and released on version 1.3. Connie stated that the CLECs were notified that Qwest was releasing with version 1.3 and not with 1.4 or Internet. Connie stated that there has been communication with JAVA and noted that the workaround that Qwest was given does not work. Connie stated that this means that Qwest has to wait for their bug fix, the end of June. Connie stated that after it is fixed, it has to be tested. Connie stated that there is not yet a date for rolling out version 1.4. Connie stated that version 1.3 does have security problems, just as Qwest had advised. Connie stated that Qwest had coded around the security problems and now are being asked to fix this. Connie stated that with the cut & paste functional issue a while back, Qwest communicated that there was a potential security risk. Connie stated that the JAVA fix would take care of the security issue. Connie stated that another issue in going to 1.4 is testing and everyone being ready to go to 1.4. Connie stated that this would be a significant effort and partnership. Connie stated that this would require downloads and will need to be coordinated. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if this caused an impact. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T responded that it did to AT&T Consumer and is due to a detected bug. Donna stated that they cannot rollback to version 1.3. Connie Winston/Qwest asked if AT&T has been doing without all this time. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated, no, they have been going along but they cannot roll back to 1.3. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she does not know if any one else is having an issue and stated that she would talk to a developer who has indicated that it is possible to have multiple versions on your desktop, even though it is difficult and needs to be very well coordinated. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that Lydell (Peterson/Qwest) has indicated that the bug fix would be in October. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it could be, after Qwest installs the bug fix and tests it. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that AT&T might escalate. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she does not know if Eschelon was impacted by not going to 1.4. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that there was no impact to Eschelon due to the way they are set-up. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that they were forced to move to 1.4 for SBC and asked Stephanie (Prull/Eschelon) how that was managed. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that they are on individual platforms and set-up. Stephanie stated that they do not interact. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she would discuss off-line with Stephanie Prull (Eschelon). Connie Winston/Qwest stated that if Qwest IT help is needed, to let Qwest know and Qwest would involve a developer to assist. Nancy Sanders/Comcast stated that they do have several versions running but it is very difficult. There were no additional questions or comments. This Action Item remains open.

April 12, 2004 Email Sent to Byron Dowding @Alltel: Byron, This email is to advise you that I have removed the Pending Withdrawal Status on your CR and have changed the status to Presented. I have also added an Action Item, to the CR, in order for Qwest to discuss the CR at the April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

-- April 1, 2004 Email Sent to Byron Dowding at Alltel: Byron, Thank you for your response. I have placed the CR in Pending Withdrawal Status, for formal withdrawal at the April Systems CMP Meeting. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Systems CMP CRPM -- Systems

-- April 1, 2004 Email Received from Alltel, Byron Dowding: I will withdraw this CR. Byron

March 31, 2004 Email Sent to Byron Dowding-Alltel: Hi Byron, Have you made your decision regarding the withdrawal of your CR, based on the discussion at the March CMP Meeting? Please advise. Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

-- March 23, 2004 Email Sent to Byron Dowding/Alltel: Hi Byron, This email is to adise that your submitted CR was discussed in the March Systems CMP Meeting last week and to ask, based on last week's discussion, if you would now withdraw your CR. Please review the excerpt from that meeting, below, and advise. Thanks much. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

SYSTEMS MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT: SCR020404-01 Provide Status of SCR020404-01 JAVA Upgrade (originated by Alltel) Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest will upgrade to 1.4.15 with the 15.0 Release and stated that with the 16.0 Release, it would upgrade to 1.4.2. Connie stated that in general, Qwest will continue to upgrade JAVA as part of doing business and noted that CMP CRs are not needed to upgrade. Connie stated that Global Action Items could be opened, if needed. Connie stated that it is not the CLECs responsibility to ask Qwest to upgrade. John Berard/Covad asked if he would need to upgrade individual PC’s. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that a Notice would go out and it would have the instructions. There were no comments or questions. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest would work off-line with Alltel for the withdrawal of this CR and noted that the Action Item would be Closed.

March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest will upgrade to 1.4.15 with the 15.0 Release and stated that with the 16.0 Release, it would upgrade to 1.4.2. Connie stated that in general, Qwest will continue to upgrade JAVA as part of doing business and noted that CMP CRs are not needed to upgrade. Connie stated that Global Action Items could be opened, if needed. Connie stated that it is not the CLECs responsibility to ask Qwest to upgrade. John Berard/Covad asked if he would need to upgrade individual PC’s. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that a Notice would go out and it would have the instructions. There were no comments or questions. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest would work off-line with Alltel for the withdrawal of this CR and noted that the Action Item would be Closed.

- March 9 2004 Email Sent to Alltel: Byron, The status of SCR020404-01 will not be changed to Pending Withdrawal. The status is now 'Evaluation' for further review of the request. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

March 9, 2004 Email Received from Alltel:

I don't want the CR moved to Pending Withdrawal for now.

My business case is this: Companies are trying to make the software on PCs standardized throughout for all users. ALLTEL has elected to place Java 1.4.2 on all PCs this year. This would require the Nebraska CLEC to 1. Try to run two versions of Java on one PC or 2. Run 1.4.105 and risk not using some of the applications that might only run on 1.4.2.

So my preference is everyone would agree moving to 1.4.2

Byron

-- March 8, 2004 Email Sent to Byron Dowding/Alltel: Good Morning Byron, Have you had an opportunity to review and come to a decision regarding the email below, sent on March 2nd? Should we place the CR in Pending Withdrawal status? Please advise. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

- March 2, 2004 Email Sent to Alltel: Hi Byron, In regard to your request to upgrade Java to version 1.4.2; Qwest is upgrading Java to version 1.4.105 on April 19, 2004. It is being upgraded as part of the normal Release activities that take place. You have indicated that 1.4.105 would work for VeriSigns application's. I realize that your preference is 1.4.2, but with this new information of an upgrade already taking place that would work with your application's), is this sufficient to meet your need? If so, shall I place the CR in Pending Withdrawal Status, for withdrawal at the March CMP Meeting? If you do not believe that it will meet your need, can you please advise what your business need is for version 1.4.2 over 1.4.105? Based on that information, I can then schedule another meeting to discuss this request, if necessary.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

-- February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Byron Dowding/Alltel reviewed the CR Description. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest understands the request. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked Alltel to elaborate on the CR. Byron Dowding/Alltel stated that their vendor is moving to 1.4.2 and without going to that version, Alltel would not have all the features. Byron stated that Alltel would like to move to the standard of 1.4.2. Byron asked how this would affect other CLECs. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon also uses VeriSign so they are probably in the same position. There were no additional questions or comments. This CR moves to Presented Status.

Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that she wanted to provide an update to the funding approval process that was discussed in the January CMP Systems Meeting. Judy referred everyone to Attachment J in the Distribution Package. She stated that all CRs are being re-evaluated and must be approved. Judy said that CRs could not be scheduled without approval. Judy noted that the status of this CR is: This CR is New

February 13, 2004 Email Received from Alltel: Peggy, VeriSign's response. VeriSign has not tested 1.4.105 but has been told that it will work for their application.

I have talked with our Alltel IT group and Alltel's preference is to move to 1.4.2 . Alltel is going to make this their default Java version this year.

I should have asked on the call why the person from Qwest preferred 1.4.105 versus 1.4.2 .

If you have any questions let me know.

Byron

Systems Clarification Meeting Date: February 13, 2004 CR No & Title: SCR020404-01 JAVA Upgrade

Introduction of Attendees: Byron Dowding-Alltel, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Don Oakes-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Connee Moffatt-Qwest, Denny Graham-Qwest, Justin Sewell-Qwest, Hank Martinez-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: IMA GUI needs to be upgraded to support JAVA 1.4.2. ALLTEL and VeriSign are moving to implement JAVA 1.4.2 in the very near future. VeriSign has already moved to 1.4.2 and backed it out so Alltel could continue getting to the NPAC. (Number Portability Administration Center. Used to support LNP).

Expected Deliverable: Implement by July 2004.

Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Pre-Order, Ordering

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: IMA GUI

Confirmed Impacted Products: LNP, UBL

Additional Discussion: Byron Dowding-Alltel asked if CEMR uses JAVA. Justin Sewell-Qwest responded that CEMR is a web-based application and that this CR is not an issue for CEMR. Connee Moffatt-Qwest asked that if Qwest upgrades JAVA, could previous versions still be used, is it downward compatible. Don Oakes-Qwest stated that all users would need to do the upgrade. Don Oakes-Qwest asked if the version had to be upgraded to 1.4.2. Byron Dowding-Alltel stated that he is not a JAVA expert but that version 1.4.2 was the recommendation. Byron stated that he would send an email to VeriSign and ask that question. Byron will provide the information to Peggy Esquibel-Reed at Qwest. Connee Moffatt-Qwest asked what the impact to Alltel is. Byron Dowding-Alltel stated that he receives an error message stating that he is using the wrong version of JAVA and the result is that he cannot use number port. Don Oakes-Qwest stated that the current version is 1.3.1. Byron Dowding-Alltel stated that he wanted to test to see if he could use two different versions. Don Oakes-Qwest asked if VeriSign would support 1.4.105. Byron Dowding-Alltel asked if there were major differences. Don Oakes-Qwest stated that there probably was not a major difference. Connee Moffatt-Qwest asked if there was a charge to the CLECs to purchase the upgrade. Don Oakes-Qwest stated that it is a free download and noted that Qwest would provide the link for the download. Byron Dowding-Alltel asked when the upgrade is complete, is it backward compatible. Qwest responded that it depends on system variables. Byron Dowding-Alltel stated that he would send Qwest the information regarding the version, from VeriSign. There were no additional comments or questions.

Obtain the Business Need from the CR Originator-What is the problem that needs to be solved: To allow Alltel to use IMA GUI and enable Alltel to number port.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: Alltel to email VeriSign regarding JAVA version and send to Qwest. CR is due for presentation at the February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide the response to the CR in March 2004. (Section 5.1.4)

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR020404-01 JAVA Upgrade

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR020404-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide a status at the March Systems CMP Meeting.

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR012104-01 Detail

Description Of Change

1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes)to the current IMA documentation.

For example the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation.

Note: Final Technical Specification for Appendix F should still include a separate section to capture changes from Draft to Final however again only the last revision should be displayed and compared.

AT&T requests the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) to be issued with the changes highlighted. We would like something similar to what Qwest does today with the QWEST Document Review Process. For example, the latest addendum summary document for IMA 14.0 has two columns: one for the old rules ( under column heading “Description) and the other column for the new rule ( under column heading “Description II”) The Blocking changes that impacted the RS Worksheet went from pages 9-15 and the Feature Changes went from pages 17-22. This format forces the user to do a very time consuming and cumbersome stare and compare across multiple pages to identify the changes in order to determine the impact(s). The process as it is today, can lead to CLEC errors due to missed impacts. This change would eliminate the need for two columns (old and new) since the changes can be highlighted with a single column.

Expected Deliverables

AT&T requests the addendum summary document be highlighted to show the changes made, similar to what is done in the Qwest Document Review Process.

Status History

Project Meetings

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that Phyllis Burt/AT&T agreed to close this CR.

E-mail From Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T

Lynn, You may close this CR. Thanks!

--Original Message-- From: Osborne-Miller, Donna, NEO Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:58 AM To: 'Stecklein, Lynn' Subject: RE: SCR012104-01 Change EDI Summary Disclosure

Lynn, Please let me get occurrence from Phyllis and Regina. Thank you, Donna --Original Message-- From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:24 AM To: Osborne-Miller, Donna, NEO Subject: SCR012104-01 Change EDI Summary Disclosure

Hi Donna,

E-mail received from AT&T 5/27/04

During the May Systems CMP Meeting, we discussed SCR012104-01 Change EDI Summary Disclosure submitted by AT&T. Currently, this CR is in CLEC Test. In the meeting we agreed to close offline with AT&T because you nor Phyllis were on the call during that discussion.

On May 6, 2004 we discussed the changes associated with this CR and AT&T stated that they were happy with the changes. At that time, we placed the CR in CLEC Test.

Would you agree that this CR can be placed in a completed status?

I have attached a copy of the CR.

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein

CRPM

303 382-5770

Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com

5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting

This CR will be closed off-line with Phyllis Burt/AT&T.

5/6/04 General Meeting held with AT&T

Attendees: Carla Pardee - AT&T, Phyllis Burt - AT&T, Regina Mosley - AT&T, Cheryl Peterson, AT&T, Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Joyce Perry - AT&T, Donna Osborne - AT&T, Steph Prull - Eschelon, Randy Owen - AT&T, Kyle Kirves - Qwest, Lynn Steckelin

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest reviewed purpose of this meeting. Lynn stated that we wanted to get feedback from AT&T on the format changes Qwest made on the disclosure and addenda. Lynn also stated that we wanted to discuss SCR032904-02 Removal of Incremental changes on EDI Disclosure Change summary document and SCR032904-03 Request separate section for new products relative to EDI disclosure for change summary document.

Randy Owen/Qwest asked if everyone had an opportunity to review the 15.0 disclosure addendum. Qwest is now providing change summaries that 'highlights' the actual change. The CLECs will no longer have to do a stare and compare between column 1 and 2 to determine what changed. Red Font will indicate new inclusions, strikethrough red will indicate deletions, and blue test will notes, etc

Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that they liked the changes. Regina Mosley/AT&T stated that she also liked the changes made. Steph Prull/Eschelon stated that Eschelopn liked the format changes made.

Randy Owen/Qwest stated SCR012104-01 has accommodated what AT&T is requesting SCR032904-02 Removal of Incremental changes and SCR032904-03 Request separate section for new products.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T said that they appreciate the changes made to the format on this request but would like Qwest to pursue the changes being requested on SCR032904-02 and SCR032904-03.

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the status on this request would be changed to CLEC Test.

3/22/04 General Meeting held with AT&T

Attendees: Phyllis Burt/AT&T, Regina Mosley/AT&T, Donna Osborne-Miller, Stephanie Prull/McLeod, Kyle Kirves/AT&T, Lynn Stecklein/Qwest

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the purpose of this call was to discuss the revisions AT&T added to this change request.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T reviewded the description of change. AT&T revised as follows: 1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example, the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes) to the current IMA documentation. For example, the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation.

Kyle Kirves/Qwest stated that item #1 can be done and said that keeping items #2 and #3 may jeopardize the work on item #1 and would increase the overall LOE for this request. Kyle recommended that AT&T issue a separate CR that would address items #1 and #2.

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if they should issue 2 separate CRs.

Kyle Kirves/Qwest stated that would be the preferred route and the most efficient way to track each item.

Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that she would be glad to issue one of the CRs.

2/19/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that they have revised this CR based on the IMA 15.0 release call yesterday. Phyllis Burt/AT&T reviewed the description of the CR. AT&T requests the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) to be issued with the changes highlighted. Phyllis stated that the process as it is today, could lead to CLEC errors due to missing the changes. This change would eliminate the need for two columns (old and new) since the changes can be highlighted with a single column. Phyllis also reviewed the revisions they made to the CR as follows: 1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example, the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes) to the current IMA documentation. For example, the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we originally looked at this request before the revision and thought that maybe we could absorb the LOE. Connie stated that we need to go back and review the revisions to determine how they will impact the LOE. Connie stated that based on this review, AT&T could possibly look at adding this as a late adder to the IMA 16.0 Release. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that after talking with the Qwest SME that they understand that AT&T does not want the history trail. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we were keeping the date log because we thought that is what the CLECs were looking for. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked the other CLECs for their thoughts on keeping the history log. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that they did not want the history trail either. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we will re-evaluate the revisions to determine how they will impact the LOE and provide a status in the March CMP Systems Meeting.

2/18/04 e-mail from AT&T

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T requested that the following information be added to this CR:

1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes)to the current IMA documentation. For example the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation. Note: Final Technical Specification for Appendix F should still include a separate section to capture changes from Draft to Final however again only the last revision should be displayed and compared.

Can you please add this language and provide this in time for the OSS February forum? It is more definitive we feel of our business need. Thank you.

2/5/04 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, Regina Mosley - AT&T, Randy Owen - Qwest, Kyle Kirves - Qwest, Denise Martinez - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Description of Change Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that this CR was presented as a walk on in the January CMP system meeting and reviewed the description of change. AT&T requests the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) to be issued with the changes highlighted. We would like something similar to what Qwest does today with the QWEST Document Review Process. For example, the latest addendum summary document for IMA 14.0 has two columns: one for the old rules ( under column heading “Description”) and the other column for the new rule ( under column heading “Description II”) The Blocking changes that impacted the RS Worksheet went from pages 9-15 and the Feature Changes went from pages 17-22. This format forces the user to do a very time consuming and cumbersome stare and compare across multiple pages to identify the changes in order to determine the impact(s). The process as it is today, can lead to CLEC errors due to missed impacts. This change would eliminate the need for two columns (old and new) since the changes can be highlighted with a single column.

Discussion Lynn Stecklein/Qwest also recapped the discussion that took place in the January CMP Systems Meeting. (See meeting minutes below dated 1/22/04) Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T reiterated that AT&T is looking for anything such as redline, highlite, etc that will make it easier to to identify a change in the document. Regina Mosely - AT&T stated that the 1st column is larger that the 2nd column and doing a stare and compare is very difficult. Kyle Kirves - Qwest stated that effective with 15.0 the columns will be the same size. Donna Osborne-Miller- AT&T asked if the CR should be revised to reflect something different than the current title due to the fact that the summary and the addendum are housed in the same database. Kyle Kirves- Qwest stated that the CR title could be changed to 'Change to EDI Summary Disclosure'. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest will revise the title as noted and send a current copy of the CR to AT&T for their approval. Donna Osborne-Miller- AT&T stated that AT&T is looking for the desire to have the change highlighted and to alleviate the stare and compare.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted This request impacts all products and the interface is IMA EDI.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation AT&T requests the EDI summary disclosure document be highlighted to show the changes made, similar to what is done in the Qwest Document Review Process.

Establish Action Plan Qwest will evaluate this request to determine what options exist and present the response in the March CMP Systems meeting

1/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T is requesting that the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) be issued with the changes highlighted. Donna stated that AT&T would like to see something similar to what Qwest does today with Qwest Document Review Process. Donna stated that with the latest addendum summary document there are two columns, one for the old rules and one for the new rules. She stated that they would like the 1st column suppressed and only reflect the change. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the data is a 12,000-page document and is housed in a database. Judy Schultz/Qwest suggested that it might be more feasible to make changes to only those sections that are being updated. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we could look at all of these options when evaluating this request. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that they might be amenable to doing ‘chunks’ of work. Liz Balvin/MCI asked which document AT&T was referring to. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said it was the addendum and not the chapters. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon asked if it would possible to highlight the change in the columns. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if we could use the redline theory. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that redline doesn’t work in a database. Regina Mosely/AT&T asked if Qwest could look at changing the summary too. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we could look at all of these options when evaluating this request.

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR022504-01IG Detail

Description Of Change

Currently Qwest transmits DUF files, specifically 20-24 packs, in excess of 999,999 records. AT&T and other CLECs cannot process 20-24 packs that exceed 999,999 records. The OBF guidelines specify that the maximum number of records

in a 20-24 pack is 199,999. AT&T requests that Qwest not transmit any 20-24 packs that exceed 999,999 records.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Description (2/25/04):

OBF Guidelines specifies that the maximum number of records in a 20-24 pack is 199,999. AT&T requests that Qwest comply with this guideline and not send any packs exceeding the limit.

Expected Deliverable:

AT&T expects Qwest to comply with OBF guideline no later than June 1, 2004.

Status History

Project Meetings

July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR is scheduled to deploy on August 9, 2004.

- EXCERPT FROM JUNE 25, 2004 COMMUNICATOR: Announcement Date: June 25, 2004 Effective Date: June 25, 2004 Notification Number: SYST.06.25.04.F.01825.AugCRISRelFinTechSpecs Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: CMP-Wholesale Billing-August CRIS Release-Final Technical Specifications Associated CRs #: CLEC SCR022504-01 CLEC SCR031303-01 CLEC SCR102703-01 CLEC SCR061003-01 On June 25, 2004, Qwest will post planned updates to its Final Technical Specifications for the CRIS system release targeted for implementation on August 9, 2004. These will be posted to the System Document Review Archive and Responses at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/reviewarchivesystem.html

Summary of Change: Qwest will implement software changes related to 4 separate CLEC initiated CRs, with a summary of each change listed below:

CMP SCR022504-01 - Qwest will implement software changes that will limit the pack sizes on 202401/02 records. The pack size limitation will be 199,999, including header and trailer. If a single pack reaches a limit of 199,998(including the header record), a trailer record, with all appropriate pack and record totals, will be written and the pack closed out. For subsequent detail records, a new pack header record will be created, detail records written and trailer records written. This process will continue, ensuring no pack exceeds the 199,999 record limit, until all detail records are processed. Positions 95 - 102 of the 202402 will never be larger than 0199999 even though the field supports a 9,999,999 limit.

-- EXCERPT FROM MAY 28, 2004 COMMUNICATOR: Announcement Date: May 28, 2004 Effective Date: August 9, 2004 Notification Number: SYST.05.28.04.F.01741.AugCRISRelDrftTchSpecs Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: CMP-Systems Document In Review, August CRIS Release-Draft Technical Specifications Associated CRs #: CLEC CR # SCR022504-01 CLEC CR # SCR031303-01 CLEC CR # SCR102703-01 CLEC CR # SCR061003-01 On May 28, 2004, Qwest will post planned updates to its Draft Technical Specifications for the CRIS system release for all Qwest regions targeted for implementation on August 9, 2004. These will be posted to the Qwest Wholesale Document Review site. Summary of Change: Qwest will implement software changes related to 4 separate CMP CRs, with a summary of each change listed below:

CMP SCR022504-01 - Qwest will implement software changes that will limit the pack sizes on 202401/02 records. The pack size limitation will be 199,999, including header and trailer. If a single pack reaches a limit of 199,998(including the header record), a trailer record, with all appropriate pack and record totals, will be written and the pack closed out. For subsequent detail records, a new pack header record will be created, detail records written and trailer records written. This process will continue, ensuring no pack exceeds the 199,999 record limit, until all detail records are processed. Positions 95-102 of the 202402 will never be larger than 0199999 even though the field supports a 9,999,999 limit.

- May 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the targeted implementation date for this CR is 8/4/04. This action item will be closed.

-

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the LOE for this CR is 2500 to 3500 hours and is pending scheduling. There were no questions or comments. This Action Item is closed.

-- March 26, 2004 Email Received from Carla Pardee-AT&T: I need to amend or change the description of this change request to read: "Currently Qwest transmits DUF files, specifically 20-24 packs, in excess of 999,999 records. AT&T and other CLECs cannot process 20-24 packs that exceed 999,999 records. The OBF guidelines specify that the maximum number of records in a 20-24 pack is 199,999. AT&T requests that Qwest not transmit any 20-24 packs that exceed 999,999 records". Thanks! Carla

-- March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Carla Pardee/AT&T presented the CR Description. Carla stated that currently, AT&T cannot process DUF records in packs that exceed 1 million records. Carla stated that there is an OBF standard of 199,999 but AT&T would like a record limit of 999,999 records. Carla stated that she has received feedback from MCI stating that they support this as well. Connie Winston/Qwest asked if AT&T is asking Qwest to comply with OBF or move toward 999,999. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that AT&T needs 999,999 but would be happy with 199,999. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest does what is best for the Community and recommendations are based on that fact. Connie stated that Qwest is currently going down the path of 199,999 but stated that if 999,999 is better, Qwest is okay with exploring both. Connie stated that she would like to hear CLEC input. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that MCI supports the request of 999,999. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would check to see what Eschelon’s preference is and advise. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that as a Community, Qwest listens to OBF but may or may not abide by the guidelines. Connie Winston/Qwest agreed that OBF is a guideline and Qwest can champion for what is best for the Community. There were no other questions or comments. This CR moves into Presented Status.

-- March 5, 2004 Clarification Meeting

Attendees: Carla Pardee-AT&T, Cindy Bray-AT&T, Bernadette Siegler-AT&T, Bob Flagler-Kansas City RPC, Liz Balvin-MCI, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Kerri Waldner-Qwest, Fred Howard-Qwest, Brenda Kerr-Qwest, Sue Kriebel-Qwest, Wendy Thurnau-Qwest, Alan Zimmerman-Qwest, Kathy Pearce-Qwest, Danelle Haynes-Qwest, Don Kerschner-Qwest, Lydell Peterson-Qwest

Review CR Description and Expected Deliverable: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest reviewed the information from the submitted CR: OBF Guidelines specifies that the maximum number of records in a 20-24 pack is 199,999. AT&T requests that Qwest comply with this guideline and not send any packs exceeding the limit. The expected deliverable is that AT&T expects Qwest to comply with OBF guideline no later than June 1, 2004.

Confirm Impacted Interface: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked to confirm that this was a Billing request. Carla Pardee-AT&T responded yes.

Confirm Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked if it was more appropriate to indicate the impacted products as All or NA. Carla Pardee-AT&T stated that All products would be correct.

Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked Carla Pardee (AT&T) if she had additional information regarding this request. Carla Pardee-AT&T stated that this was negotiated in the AT&T/Qwest Interconnection Agreement so this should not be subject to a CR, as it is an OBF Standard. Bernadette Siegler-AT&T stated that the request is for a June 2004 timeframe and stated that they need an interim process prior to June. Carla Pardee-AT&T stated that AT&T has a huge interest in this request. Don Kerschner-Qwest asked to confirm if AT&T is referring to the size of individual files and not to the total size. Carla Pardee-AT&T responded yes. Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that the Interconnection Agreement in effect in 3 states is a different limit of 999,999. Bernadette Siegler-AT&T stated that AT&T wants no more than that. Bernadette stated that when she talked with Qwest, she indicated the OBF limit is 199,999. Bernadette stated that 500,000 or 900,000 is okay. Bernadette then noted that less than 999,000 would be acceptable. Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that the Interconnection Agreement would override the Change Management Process. Bernadette Siegler-AT&T asked if Qwest would go over 999,999. Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that Qwest does not have a preference, she is just asking for clarification and she knows is based on timing of the Interconnection Agreement. Sue stated that she wanted to make sure she understood AT&Ts preferred direction. Bernadette Siegler-AT&T stated that AT&T can handle up to 999,999 and that is why that number is in their Interconnection Agreement. Bernadette stated that 200,000 should be okay. Bernadette stated that 199,999 is in the CR because that is due to the OBF Guideline. Bernadette stated that if Qwest wants to negotiate 999,999, that would be okay. Carla Pardee-AT&T asked if MCI had a preference. Liz Balvin-MCI asked why the Interconnection Agreement was not being applied. Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that the Interconnection Agreement verbiage is currently for the states of Washington, Colorado, and Minnesota. Alan Zimmerman-Qwest stated that it is a new Interconnection Agreement. Brenda Siegler-AT&T stated that AT&Ts position is 999,999. Alan Zimmerman-Qwest stated that some companies may want the lower limit and stated that Qwest is glad to stick by the guidelines. Bernadette Siegler-AT&T stated that would be fine. Bernadette Siegler-AT&T asked in regard to the manual process request, how they would get a response for the manual effort. Alan Zimmerman-Qwest responded that the AT&T Service Manager was already working on the manual effort. Danelle Haynes-Qwest (Service Manager for AT&T) stated that she was running with it. Bob Flagler-Kansas City RPC stated that there is a current invoice that has been rejected because it contains over 1 million records. Bob asked if Qwest knows that it needs to be split and resent. Danelle Haynes-Qwest responded yes, and stated that Qwest is currently working on that.

Action Plan: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that this CR is due for presentation at the March Systems CMP Meeting and that the response would be provided in April.

CenturyLink Response

April 7, 2004

RE: SCR022504-01IG

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR022504-01IG. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held March 5, 2004) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 2500 to 3500 hours for this Wholesale Billing Interface Change Request.

At the next Monthly Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Any clarifications and/or modifications identified at that time will be incorporated into Qwest’s further evaluation of this Change Request. Upon obtaining consensus from CMP participants as to the appropriate direction for Qwest to take on this Change Request, Qwest will review release schedules and development timetables in an effort to evaluate options for potential scheduling of Change Request SCR022504-01IG.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR032904-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Ability to process REQTYP=HB using TN and SANO/AHN for DL listings only changes

Status History

Project Meetings

-- October 19, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: This CR deployed on 10/17/05 and will remain in CLEC Test

-- September 21, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: This CR will deploy on 10/10/05. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that she was notified late last night that there could be potential issues with the October releases and that since we were all meeting today she wanted to let everyone know that there was the potential that the release dates could slip. Jill advised that Qwest would send the appropriate system notifications if it is determined that the release date needed to change.

- August 10, 2005 EXCERPT from the 18.0 Release Qwest/CLEC Overview and the Combined Overview & IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation Walkthrough for IMA EDI Release 18.0 Walkthrough Attendees Anders Ingemarson-Qwest, Angela Stewart-Qwest, Angie Thompson-Wizor, Anne Robberson-Qwest, Brian Caywood-Qwest, Chris Terrell-AT&T, Chuck Anderson-Qwest, Cim Chambers-Qwest, Dave Schleicher-Qwest, Denise Martinez-Qwest, Diane Burt-AT&T, Dianne Friend-Time Warner, Gary Berroa-Qwest, John Sanclaria-Qwest, Judy DeRosier-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest, Mark Coyne-Qwest, Mark Haynes-Qwest, Michael Lopez-Qwest, Michelle Thacker-Qwest, Pat Bratetic-Qwest, Russ Urevig-Qwest, Sandie Tekavec-Qwest, Shon Higer-Qwest, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon Introductions: Kyle Kirves began the meeting by taking attendance and announcing the meeting purpose. The meeting notice included copies of the agenda and the candidate overview document. Kyle explained that the walkthrough would cover the candidates, the candidate impacts to the associated documentation, and the IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation overview.

Functional Overview extracted from Notice: "LISTINGS ONLY" is the way to make additions, deletions, or changes to directory listings after an account is established. A unique REQTYP of HB is used for the Listings Only requests, even though the account may be for Resale - POTS, UNE-P, or other services which carry their own REQTYP when provisioning is involved. No other service changes can be done on the Listings Only request. Listings Only requests will include a Local Service Request (LSR), End User (EU), and Directory Listings (DL) forms. SCR032904-01 requested the elimination of the need for CLECs to provide a full AN, End User Name and Service Address on UNE-POTS Directory Listing Only changes (REQTYP= HB). This project requests the ability to process REQTYP=HB using TN and SANO/AHN for DL (Directory Listings) only changes. Form Impacts: The LSOG EU form will be affect for product 13, the entry requirement will change to optional. Products: Product 13 - Listings only, SL (Straight Line) and SH (Straight Line Header), ReqType = HB, ACT = R, this will affect any product that currently can have listing changes today. Activities: EU form impacts for entries but no physical change to form.

Walkthrough Discussion: Russ Urevig reviewed the information provided in the candidate overview document circulated with the meeting agenda and the meeting notification announcement. Kyle opened the floor to Questions. Stephanie Prull asked if the changes would be applicable to all products that had Product 13-applicable rules. Russ confirmed that, yes, the candidate would apply to all products with Product 13 rules. Kyle stated that there were no corresponding documentation updates. Russ confirmed that statement.

- May 18, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest asked if there were any questions or comments regarding the IMA 18.0 Packaging, in attachment M. There were questions or comments brought forward.

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

-- July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would distribute the ballot on July 27th, it is due back to Qwest on July 30th, and Qwest would email the initial prioritization list to the CLECs on August 3rd. There were no questions. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that this is medium for AT&T.

- June 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the Level of Effort for this CR is 750 to 850 hours. This Action Item is Closed.

-- May 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the LOE is pending. Connie Winston/Qwest agreed that allowing the product field with ‘All’ can be confusing. Connie said that we clarified the CR, had the walk through meeting and also disclosed and updated the PCAT with a comment cycle. Connie stated that in the body of the CR, the product set was included and that we met our part of the agreement. 6/1/04 Revision to Minutes from MCI - Liz Balvin/MCI agreed that the CMP minutes clearly reflected the end result agreement that ALL products would be included in the CR. Connie Winston/Qwest said that the documentation stated that HB would not be included. Liz Balvin/MCI said that her main concern is that it was not communicated from CMP to the Qwest teams. Susie Bliss/Qwest said that we reviewed all the associated documentation and that the CR and PCAT were clear on what was to be implemented. Susie stated that we will just have to disagree. 6/1/04 Revision to Minutes from MCI - Liz Balvin/MCI stated that MCI is an EDI user and that they base their coding on EDI disclosure and that is where the documented business rules must be. Liz said that because Qwest didn’t properly take back what was agreed to in CMP, AT&T had to initiate another CR that may or may not get implemented in the next available release because there were the only CLEC impacted. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that you have to go to two different places for the PCAT and disclosure information and you should not have to. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the action item will remain open for the LOE.

-

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the CR Description. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that she would like a discussion regarding customer code. Liz stated that she checked previous meeting minutes and would like to discuss the AT&T CR to eliminate all products. Liz asked why this CR is required when the AT&T CR should have been a functional change. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this REQTYP (HB) was not included in AT&T’s CR. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that she is having a hard time with this and stated that AT&T and MCI had said that they wanted to eliminate the customer code all together. Liz stated that this is one scenario where the CLEC did not catch it in the walk-thru. Liz stated that this should be treated as a production support issue and not a CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the items In-Scope and Out-of-Scope are contained within the body of the CR and this specific item was out-of-scope. Connie stated that maybe the ‘All’ designation should not be used in the Products Impacted box of the CR and noted that is why Qwest needs specific details for each request. Connie stated that when the walk-thru was held, Qwest provided specific details of what was being deployed. Connie stated that we all have to be engaged. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that it was not vague; the CR was very specific. Liz stated that when the order goes in and the customer code is required, the response says that the ISC would figure out what the customer code is. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest and MCI disagree on this issue; Qwest feels that scope was clearly stated. Susie Bliss/Qwest asked Liz (Balvin/MCI) what she suggests be done. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that it should be resolved in a patch and that she would call in a trouble ticket. Liz stated that she does not have examples to provide. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked for the reason that the HB REQTYP was not included in AT&T’s CR. Bonnie stated that the assumption was that the CR was for any order. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she would check with the analyst that was assigned to that CR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would like to see all REQTYP’s included for products. 5/3/04 - Revision to minutes from Eschelon - Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would like to see all REQTYP’s automatically included for products. The request type should be assumed 'all' unless the CLEC requests otherwise. If Qwest determines all of the request types cannot be included, Qwest should disclose that to the CLECs. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that Qwest said that they would do for all REQTYP’s. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is doing that with Parsed and Structured CSR CR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Qwest needs to tell the CLECs if a particular REQTYP would be an issue. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that the customer code should have been eliminated with 14.0 and now AT&T issued a CR for a specific REQTYP. Liz stated that the CR might not get enough votes to be included with the 17.0 Release. Liz again stated that this should be a production support issue and does not think that AT&T should have had to submit a CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she would check the reason why the REQTYP of HB was not included. There were no additional questions or comments. This CR is in Presented Status.

- Systems Clarification Meeting Date: April 4, 2004 CR No & Title: SCR032904-01 Ability to Process REQTYP = HB Using TN and SANO/AHN (pertaining to Directory Listings only changes)

Introduction of Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Regina Mosley-AT&T, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest, Angela Stewart-Qwest, Russ Urevig-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Lynn Stecklein/Qwest reviewed the CR Description and Expected Deliverable: Eliminate the need to provide a full AN, End User Name and Service Address on UNE-POTS Directory Listing Only changes (REQTYP=HB); similar to what was implemented with IMA14.0 candidates SCR022703-18 and SCR 022703-24 for UNEP POTS (REQTYP=MB). Expected Deliverable is the ability to process REQTYP=HB using TN and SANO/AHN for DL listings only changes.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Lynn Stecklein/Qwest confirmed that the impacted interface is IMA Common only.

Confirmed Impacted Products: Lynn Stecklein/Qwest confirmed that this CR is for UNE-P Pots.

Additional Meeting Discussion: Russ Urevig/Qwest asked to clarify that this request is only that the TN & SANO is required on the LSR DL Form, for a free-standing listing. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that she did not understand Russ’ comment. Russ Urevig/Qwest clarified that AT&T is requesting that on the LSR, AT&T only wants to provide the TN & SANO and does not want to provide any other data. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated yes, this request is only for Directory Listings, a REQTYP of HB. Phyllis stated that a Directory Listing’s request, with other features, are already covered with other CMP CR’s. Russ Urevig/Qwest asked if AT&T is asking that Qwest mirror what was done for the other existing TN/SANO CMP CR’s. Phyllis Burt/AT&T responded yes. There were no further questions or comments.

CenturyLink Response

May 26, 2004

RE: SCR032904-01 The Ability to Process REQTYP= HB Using TN and SANO/AHN (pertaining to Directory Listings only changes)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR032904-01). Based upon the scope of this CR, Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 750 to 850 hours for this IMA Change Request, with no impact to SATE.

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 17.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

- DRAFT RESPONSE

May 11, 2004

RE: SCR032904-01 The Ability to Process REQTYP= HB Using TN and SANO/AHN (pertaining to Directory Listings only changes)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR032904-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held April 2, 2004) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the June Systems CMP Meeting.

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR032904-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: That business rule upgrade comparison only compares the last revision versus the existing incremental approach.

Status History

Project Meetings

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she reviewed the denials and understands that Qwest feels that they have accommodated these requests in another CR that highlighted changes. Donna said that she understands that Qwest has denied these requests due to no demonstrable benefit. Donna said that in the response it states that the LOE for SCR032903-02 is approximately 2000 hours. Donna also pointed out that the denial response stated that AT&T, in a clarification call, said that since new products and forms are introduced infrequently that this change to the database would be a costly enhancement used infrequently. Donna said that she does not feel they would have said that. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she would like Regina Mosely/AT&T to review the denial. Donna stated that she would contact Lynn Stecklein/Qwest to discuss any questions the may have. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon asked if other CLECs could be included if a call was scheduled. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that she would invite the other CLECs.

4/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the CR description. AT&T is requesting that the business rules upgrade comparison only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes). Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest understands the request. This CR is in Presented Status.

5/6/04 General Meeting held with AT&T

Attendees: Carla Pardee - AT&T, Phyllis Burt - AT&T, Regina Mosley - AT&T, Cheryl Peterson, AT&T, Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Joyce Perry - AT&T, Donna Osborne - AT&T, Steph Prull - Eschelon, Randy Owen - AT&T, Kyle Kirves - Qwest, Lynn Steckelin

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest reviewed purpose of this meeting. Lynn stated that we wanted to get feedback from AT&T on the format changes Qwest made on the disclosure and addenda. Lynn also stated that we wanted to discuss SCR032904-02 Removal of Incremental changes on EDI Disclosure Change summary document and SCR032904-03 Request separate section for new products relative to EDI disclosure for change summary document.

Randy Owen/Qwest asked if everyone had an opportunity to review the 15.0 disclosure addendum. Qwest is now providing change summaries that 'highlights' the actual change. The CLECs will no longer have to do a stare and compare between column 1 and 2 to determine what changed. Red Font will indicate new inclusions, strikethrough red will indicate deletions, and blue test will notes, etc.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that they liked the changes. Regina Mosley/AT&T stated that she also liked the changes made. Steph Prull/Eschelon stated that Eschelopn liked the format changes made.

Randy Owen/Qwest stated SCR012104-01 has accommodated what AT&T is requesting SCR032904-02 Removal of Incremental changes and SCR032904-03 Request separate section for new products.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T said that they appreciate the changes made to the disclosure format on this request but would like Qwest to pursue the changes being requested on SCR032904-02 and SCR032904-03.

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the status on this request would be changed to CLEC Test.

3/22/04 General Meeting held with AT&T

Attendees: Phyllis Burt/AT&T, Regina Mosley/AT&T, Donna Osborne-Miller, Stephanie Prull/McLeod, Kyle Kirves/AT&T, Lynn Stecklein/Qwest

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the purpose of this call was to discuss the revisions AT&T added to this change request.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T reviewded the description of change. AT&T revised as follows: 1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example, the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes) to the current IMA documentation. For example, the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation.

Kyle Kirves/Qwest stated that item #1 can be done and said that keeping items #2 and #3 may jeopardize the work on item #1 and would increase the overall LOE for this request. Kyle recommended that AT&T issue a separate CR that would address items #1 and #2.

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if they should issue 2 separate CRs.

Kyle Kirves/Qwest stated that would be the preferred route and the most efficient way to track each item.

Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that she would be glad to issue one of the CRs.

2/19/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that they have revised this CR based on the IMA 15.0 release call yesterday. Phyllis Burt/AT&T reviewed the description of the CR. AT&T requests the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) to be issued with the changes highlighted. Phyllis stated that the process as it is today, could lead to CLEC errors due to missing the changes. This change would eliminate the need for two columns (old and new) since the changes can be highlighted with a single column. Phyllis also reviewed the revisions they made to the CR as follows: 1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example, the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes) to the current IMA documentation. For example, the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we originally looked at this request before the revision and thought that maybe we could absorb the LOE. Connie stated that we need to go back and review the revisions to determine how they will impact the LOE. Connie stated that based on this review, AT&T could possibly look at adding this as a late adder to the IMA 16.0 Release. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that after talking with the Qwest SME that they understand that AT&T does not want the history trail. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we were keeping the date log because we thought that is what the CLECs were looking for. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked the other CLECs for their thoughts on keeping the history log. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that they did not want the history trail either. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we will re-evaluate the revisions to determine how they will impact the LOE and provide a status in the March CMP Systems Meeting.

2/18/04 e-mail from AT&T

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T requested that the following information be added to this CR:

1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes)to the current IMA documentation. For example the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation. Note: Final Technical Specification for Appendix F should still include a separate section to capture changes from Draft to Final however again only the last revision should be displayed and compared.

Can you please add this language and provide this in time for the OSS February forum? It is more definitive we feel of our business need. Thank you.

2/5/04 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, Regina Mosley - AT&T, Randy Owen - Qwest, Kyle Kirves - Qwest, Denise Martinez - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Description of Change Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that this CR was presented as a walk on in the January CMP system meeting and reviewed the description of change. AT&T requests the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) to be issued with the changes highlighted. We would like something similar to what Qwest does today with the QWEST Document Review Process. For example, the latest addendum summary document for IMA 14.0 has two columns: one for the old rules ( under column heading “Description”) and the other column for the new rule ( under column heading “Description II”) The Blocking changes that impacted the RS Worksheet went from pages 9-15 and the Feature Changes went from pages 17-22. This format forces the user to do a very time consuming and cumbersome stare and compare across multiple pages to identify the changes in order to determine the impact(s). The process as it is today, can lead to CLEC errors due to missed impacts. This change would eliminate the need for two columns (old and new) since the changes can be highlighted with a single column.

Discussion Lynn Stecklein/Qwest also recapped the discussion that took place in the January CMP Systems Meeting. (See meeting minutes below dated 1/22/04) Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T reiterated that AT&T is looking for anything such as redline, highlite, etc that will make it easier to to identify a change in the document. Regina Mosely - AT&T stated that the 1st column is larger that the 2nd column and doing a stare and compare is very difficult. Kyle Kirves - Qwest stated that effective with 15.0 the columns will be the same size. Donna Osborne-Miller- AT&T asked if the CR should be revised to reflect something different than the current title due to the fact that the summary and the addendum are housed in the same database. Kyle Kirves- Qwest stated that the CR title could be changed to 'Change to EDI Summary Disclosure'. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest will revise the title as noted and send a current copy of the CR to AT&T for their approval. Donna Osborne-Miller- AT&T stated that AT&T is looking for the desire to have the change highlighted and to alleviate the stare and compare.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted This request impacts all products and the interface is IMA EDI.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation AT&T requests the EDI summary disclosure document be highlighted to show the changes made, similar to what is done in the Qwest Document Review Process.

Establish Action Plan Qwest will evaluate this request to determine what options exist and present the response in the March CMP Systems meeting

1/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T is requesting that the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) be issued with the changes highlighted. Donna stated that AT&T would like to see something similar to what Qwest does today with Qwest Document Review Process. Donna stated that with the latest addendum summary document there are two columns, one for the old rules and one for the new rules. She stated that they would like the 1st column suppressed and only reflect the change. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the data is a 12,000-page document and is housed in a database. Judy Schultz/Qwest suggested that it might be more feasible to make changes to only those sections that are being updated. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we could look at all of these options when evaluating this request. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that they might be amenable to doing ‘chunks’ of work. Liz Balvin/MCI asked which document AT&T was referring to. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said it was the addendum and not the chapters. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon asked if it would possible to highlight the change in the columns. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if we could use the redline theory. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that redline doesn’t work in a database. Regina Mosely/AT&T asked if Qwest could look at changing the summary too. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we could look at all of these options when evaluating this request.

CenturyLink Response

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

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT:Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - SCR032904-02 Removal of Incremental Changes on EDI Disclosure Change summary Document (Appendix F)

This document is a response to AT&T’s SCR032904-02 Removal of Incremental Changes on EDI Disclosure Change summary Document (Appendix F).”

AT&T requests that the business rule upgrade comparison only show the difference between the most recent published version of the Disclosure to the next iteration of the deliverable instead of incremental changes (e.g., from IMA EDI 14.0 to IMA 15.0 etc.). AT&T cited the example of the FEATURE FIELD on the Resale form, which showed four changes occurring to the IMA15.0 Draft Disclosure documents, and each date revisions were made. As stated in the AT&T request: The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation. Note: Final Tech Specs for Appendix F should still include a separate section to capture changes from Draft to Final however, again, only the last revision should be displayed and compared.

Qwest responds to these items by stating that, with the publication of IMA EDI 15.0, it has made changes to the design and layout of the change summary in compliance with SCR012104-01. The new design of the change summary makes it easier for CLECs to identify changes from iteration to iteration by using strikethrough, colored font to indicate deletions, and underlined, colored font to show additions. CLECs can perceive the changes much more readily now, as opposed to earlier versions where the CLEC had to stare and compare. Positive feedback from the CLECs indicates that this improvement matches their expected deliverable. Qwest estimates that the amount of time spent by CLECs in using the new version is a fraction of the time spent using the previous two column change from and change to versions. Please see the figure below that shows a sample page of the new format:

W/S Ref Number Field Column Description CRS 75 Feature Negotiated Deleted rules referencing SERIES and MULTI-LINE products. Business Rule Products 9, 9a, 30, 31: Blocking USOCs & FIDs are not allowed in the FEATURE (Field 75) & FEATURE DETAIL (Field 76). These entries will be derived by Qwest from the BA (Field 48) and BLOCK (Field 49) entries. Products 9, 9a, 30, 31: This field is for FID and FID data entry only. Format is: / . If ACT = N, V, Z or C and FA=N, V, T and if requesting PPU Blocking do not submit as a FID and/or FID Data the following values: RCU, COT, AC, SDS, VFA, AR, and TWC. MEGACENTNM is required if Qwest DSL USOCs are populated. Products 9, 30: If ACT = V, or C and FA = N, V, or T of a Line Level USOC, then FEATURE DETAIL** field must be populated with LCC FID. If ACT = V and the LSR HTQTY = 0, then Hunting USOCs are prohibited. Hunting USOC information can be obtained from the Product Catalogs for SERIES and MULTI-LINE,. Products 9a, 31: If ACT=N, V, Z, T, C and, FA=N, T, V then the following shall be required if requesting any of the Call forwarding/Blocking/Custom Ringing USOCs ALL STATES: 1) If FEATURE** field contains any one of the following USOCs: RGG1+, RGG2+, or RGG3+ then FEATURE DETAIL** field must be populated with TN FID 2) If FEATURE DETAIL** field contains MCFI FID, then it must be populated with TN FID. The other USOCs only apply to UNEP POTS and Resale POTs, not Centrex 21 (resale or UNE-P). 3) If ACT = N, V, Z, C, T and FA = N, V, or T of a Line Level USOC, then FEATURE DETAIL** field must be populated with LCC FID. If ACT = V or Z and the LSR HTQTY = D, then hunting USOCs are

With this request, AT&T seeks to further change the format of the change summary in a manner that does not demonstrate appreciable business benefit.

The change summary is generated out of a database that records all of the changes made to the documentation from release to release. These changes are driven by candidate work, enhancements to the documentation, requests from CLECs for clarification, requests from Qwest internal to clarify, and other sources. Frequently, a single field may have numerous changes to it driven by several diverse an unassociated change requests. Each request, upon completion, is input into the database as a change. When the change summary report is run, these changes are listed separately and mapped to the associated, individual change request. So, using AT&T’s example above, the four changes to the Feature field came out of candidate work, enhancements, clarification, etc., and evolved from four separate change requests. In order to explain or justify each individual request, Qwest lists them separately so that it might map and address questions appropriately. Were all of the changes lumped together, Qwest would have no way of mapping the change back to the original request, and therefore would be unable to justify or provide reasoning for the change. This would effectively negate the utility of the walkthroughs Qwest has with the CLECs to explain or answer questions around each individual change.

Secondly, Qwest estimates the LOE for this effort to be approximately 2000 hours to change the structure and reporting functionality of the database. Qwest notes that AT&T has stated that their request is a preference and not something that is preventing them from conducting their business effectively.

Qwest maintains that the change summary format provided in compliance with SCR012104-01 allows CLECs to identify the changes related to the fields quickly even though multiple changes to each field are listed separately. Additionally, Qwest maintains that changing the format of the change summary would negatively impact the CLECs by not allowing them to identify specific changes that they want to question, and impedes Qwest’s ability to research the questions quickly. Last, the cost and resource allocation associated with the change does not demonstrate business benefit reciprocal to that associated cost.

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

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Director, Information Technology Qwest

Archived System CR SCR032904-03 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: Expectation is to have a separate section for New Products relative to the EDI Disclosure Change Summary Document (Appendix F)

Status History

Project Meetings

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she reviewed the denials and understands that Qwest feels that they have accommodated these requests in another CR that highlighted changes. Donna said that she understands that Qwest has denied these requests due to no demonstrable benefit. Donna said that in the response it states that the LOE for SCR032903-02 is approximately 2000 hours. Donna also pointed out that the denial response stated that AT&T, in a clarification call, said that since new products and forms are introduced infrequently that this change to the database would be a costly enhancement used infrequently. Donna said that she does not feel they would have said that. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she would like Regina Mosely/AT&T to review the denial. Donna stated that she would contact Lynn Stecklein/Qwest to discuss any questions the may have. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon asked if other CLECs could be included if a call was scheduled. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that she would invite the other CLECs.

4/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the request. AT&T is requesting the creation of a separate section to capture the changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms versus changes to existing documentation. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest understands the request. This CR is in Presented Status.

5/6/04 General Meeting held with AT&T

Attendees: Carla Pardee - AT&T, Phyllis Burt - AT&T, Regina Mosley - AT&T, Cheryl Peterson, AT&T, Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Joyce Perry - AT&T, Donna Osborne - AT&T, Steph Prull - Eschelon, Randy Owen - AT&T, Kyle Kirves - Qwest, Lynn Steckelin

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest reviewed purpose of this meeting. Lynn stated that we wanted to get feedback from AT&T on the format changes Qwest made on the disclosure and addenda. Lynn also stated that we wanted to discuss SCR032904-02 Removal of Incremental changes on EDI Disclosure Change summary document and SCR032904-03 Request separate section for new products relative to EDI disclosure for change summary document.

Randy Owen/Qwest asked if everyone had an opportunity to review the 15.0 disclosure addendum. Qwest is now providing change summaries that 'highlights' the actual change. The CLECs will no longer have to do a stare and compare between column 1 and 2 to determine what changed. Red Font will indicate new inclusions, strikethrough red will indicate deletions, and blue test will notes, etc.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that they liked the changes. Regina Mosley/AT&T stated that she also liked the changes made. Steph Prull/Eschelon stated that Eschelopn liked the format changes made.

Randy Owen/Qwest stated SCR012104-01 has accommodated what AT&T is requesting SCR032904-02 Removal of Incremental changes and SCR032904-03 Request separate section for new products.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T said that they appreciate the changes made to the format on this request but would like Qwest to pursue the changes being requested on SCR032904-02 and SCR032904-03.

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the status on this request would be changed to CLEC Test.

3/22/04 General Meeting held with AT&T

Attendees: Phyllis Burt/AT&T, Regina Mosley/AT&T, Donna Osborne-Miller, Stephanie Prull/McLeod, Kyle Kirves/AT&T, Lynn Stecklein/Qwest

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the purpose of this call was to discuss the revisions AT&T added to this change request.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T reviewded the description of change. AT&T revised as follows: 1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example, the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes) to the current IMA documentation. For example, the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation.

Kyle Kirves/Qwest stated that item #1 can be done and said that keeping items #2 and #3 may jeopardize the work on item #1 and would increase the overall LOE for this request. Kyle recommended that AT&T issue a separate CR that would address items #1 and #2.

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if they should issue 2 separate CRs.

Kyle Kirves/Qwest stated that would be the preferred route and the most efficient way to track each item.

Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that she would be glad to issue one of the CRs.

2/19/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that they have revised this CR based on the IMA 15.0 release call yesterday. Phyllis Burt/AT&T reviewed the description of the CR. AT&T requests the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) to be issued with the changes highlighted. Phyllis stated that the process as it is today, could lead to CLEC errors due to missing the changes. This change would eliminate the need for two columns (old and new) since the changes can be highlighted with a single column. Phyllis also reviewed the revisions they made to the CR as follows: 1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example, the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes) to the current IMA documentation. For example, the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we originally looked at this request before the revision and thought that maybe we could absorb the LOE. Connie stated that we need to go back and review the revisions to determine how they will impact the LOE. Connie stated that based on this review, AT&T could possibly look at adding this as a late adder to the IMA 16.0 Release. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that after talking with the Qwest SME that they understand that AT&T does not want the history trail. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we were keeping the date log because we thought that is what the CLECs were looking for. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked the other CLECs for their thoughts on keeping the history log. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that they did not want the history trail either. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we will re-evaluate the revisions to determine how they will impact the LOE and provide a status in the March CMP Systems Meeting.

2/18/04 e-mail from AT&T

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T requested that the following information be added to this CR:

1) Include Appendix F Change Summary in addition to the Addendum Change Summary Documents

(2) Create a Separate Section to capture changes due to the introduction of new products/new forms vs changes to existing documentation (usage rules, field lengths, etc). For example the introduction of Product 38, 39, 40, 41 made it very difficult to determine how the existing process was changing for IMA 15.0. If a CLEC is not interested in a particular new product/form they should not have to search (in IMA 15 through 276 pages) to find the impacts to existing processes.

(3) Only compare the last revision (instead of incremental changes)to the current IMA documentation. For example the FEATURE field on the RS form was listed 4 times on in the IMA 15.0 Draft Disclosure documents for each date revisions were made. The preference is to have a single reference that compares the last revision to the previous documentation. Note: Final Technical Specification for Appendix F should still include a separate section to capture changes from Draft to Final however again only the last revision should be displayed and compared.

Can you please add this language and provide this in time for the OSS February forum? It is more definitive we feel of our business need. Thank you.

2/5/04 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, Regina Mosley - AT&T, Randy Owen - Qwest, Kyle Kirves - Qwest, Denise Martinez - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Description of Change Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that this CR was presented as a walk on in the January CMP system meeting and reviewed the description of change. AT&T requests the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) to be issued with the changes highlighted. We would like something similar to what Qwest does today with the QWEST Document Review Process. For example, the latest addendum summary document for IMA 14.0 has two columns: one for the old rules ( under column heading “Description”) and the other column for the new rule ( under column heading “Description II”) The Blocking changes that impacted the RS Worksheet went from pages 9-15 and the Feature Changes went from pages 17-22. This format forces the user to do a very time consuming and cumbersome stare and compare across multiple pages to identify the changes in order to determine the impact(s). The process as it is today, can lead to CLEC errors due to missed impacts. This change would eliminate the need for two columns (old and new) since the changes can be highlighted with a single column.

Discussion Lynn Stecklein/Qwest also recapped the discussion that took place in the January CMP Systems Meeting. (See meeting minutes below dated 1/22/04) Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T reiterated that AT&T is looking for anything such as redline, highlite, etc that will make it easier to to identify a change in the document. Regina Mosely - AT&T stated that the 1st column is larger that the 2nd column and doing a stare and compare is very difficult. Kyle Kirves - Qwest stated that effective with 15.0 the columns will be the same size. Donna Osborne-Miller- AT&T asked if the CR should be revised to reflect something different than the current title due to the fact that the summary and the addendum are housed in the same database. Kyle Kirves- Qwest stated that the CR title could be changed to 'Change to EDI Summary Disclosure'. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest will revise the title as noted and send a current copy of the CR to AT&T for their approval. Donna Osborne-Miller- AT&T stated that AT&T is looking for the desire to have the change highlighted and to alleviate the stare and compare.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted This request impacts all products and the interface is IMA EDI.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation AT&T requests the EDI summary disclosure document be highlighted to show the changes made, similar to what is done in the Qwest Document Review Process.

Establish Action Plan Qwest will evaluate this request to determine what options exist and present the response in the March CMP Systems meeting

1/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T is requesting that the addendum summary documents (not the chapters or the appendices) be issued with the changes highlighted. Donna stated that AT&T would like to see something similar to what Qwest does today with Qwest Document Review Process. Donna stated that with the latest addendum summary document there are two columns, one for the old rules and one for the new rules. She stated that they would like the 1st column suppressed and only reflect the change. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the data is a 12,000-page document and is housed in a database. Judy Schultz/Qwest suggested that it might be more feasible to make changes to only those sections that are being updated. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we could look at all of these options when evaluating this request. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that they might be amenable to doing ‘chunks’ of work. Liz Balvin/MCI asked which document AT&T was referring to. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said it was the addendum and not the chapters. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon asked if it would possible to highlight the change in the columns. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if we could use the redline theory. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that redline doesn’t work in a database. Regina Mosely/AT&T asked if Qwest could look at changing the summary too. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we could look at all of these options when evaluating this request.

CenturyLink Response

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

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT:Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - SCR032904-03 Request separate section for New Products relative to EDI Disclosure Change Documentation Summary Document (Appendix F)

AT&T requests that the Change Summary for IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation contain a separate section to capture those changes brought about by the introduction of a new product or form. AT&T’s expected deliverable is a separate section for New Products relative to the EDI Disclosure Change Summary Document (Appendix F).

Qwest responds to these items by stating that, with the publication of IMA EDI 15.0, it has made changes to the design and layout of the change summary in compliance with SCR012104-01. The new design of the change summary makes it easier for CLECs to identify changes from iteration to iteration by using strikethrough, colored font to indicate deletions, and underlined, colored font to show additions. CLECs can perceive the changes much more readily now, as opposed to earlier versions where the CLEC had to stare and compare. Positive feedback from the CLECs indicates that this improvement matches their expected deliverable. Qwest estimates that the amount of time spent by CLECs in using the new version is a fraction of the time spent using the previous two column “change from and change to versions. Please see the figure below that shows a sample page of the new format:

W/S Ref Number Field Column Description CRS 75 FEATURE** Negotiated Products 9, 9a, 30, 31: Rules Blocking USOCs & FIDs are not allowed in the FEATURE (Field 75) & FEATURE DETAIL (Field 76). These entries will be derived by Qwest from the BA (Field 48) and BLOCK (Field 49) entries. Products 9, 9a, 30, 31: This field is for FID and FID data entry only. Format is: /. If ACT = N, V, Z or C and FA=N, V, T and if requesting PPU Blocking do not submit as a FID and/or FID Data the following values: RCU, COT, AC, SDS, VFA, AR, and TWC. MEGACENTNM is required if Qwest DSL USOCs are populated. Products 9, 30: If ACT = V, or C and FA = N, V, or T of a Line Level USOC, then FEATURE DETAIL** field must be populated with LCC FID. If ACT = V and the LSR HTQTY = 0, then Hunting USOCs are prohibited. Hunting USOC information can be obtained from the Product Catalogs for SERIES and MULTI-LINE. Products 9a, 31: If ACT=N, V, Z, T, C and, FA=N, T, V then the following shall be required if requesting any of the Call forwarding/Blocking/Custom Ringing USOCs ALL STATES: 1) If FEATURE** field contains any one of the following USOCs: RGG1+, RGG2+, or RGG3+ then FEATURE DETAIL** field must be populated with TN FID 2) If FEATURE DETAIL** field contains MCFI FID, then it must be populated with TN FID. The other USOCs only apply to UNE-P POTS and Resale POTs, not Centrex 21 (resale or UNE-P). 3) If ACT = N, V, Z, C, T and FA = N, V, or T of a Line Level USOC, then FEATURE DETAIL** field must be populated with LCC FID. If ACT = V or Z and the LSR HTQTY = 0, then Hunting USOCs are

With this request, AT&T seeks to further change the format of the change summary in a manner that does not demonstrate appreciable business benefit.

The change summary is generated out of a database that records all of the changes made to the documentation from release to release. These changes are driven by candidate work, enhancements to the documentation, requests from CLECs for clarification, requests from Qwest internal to clarify, and other sources. Frequently, a single field may have numerous changes to it driven by several diverse an unassociated change requests. Each request, upon completion, is input into the database as a change. When the change summary report is run, these changes are listed separately and mapped to the associated, individual change request. Qwest lists them separately so that it might map and address questions appropriately. With the implementation of this request, if a change affected both a new product and an existing established product, the change would have to be documented twice per AT&T’s request, making the change summary not, in fact, smaller, but probably much larger.

Qwest recommends that instead of separately the document into two sections, that the CLECs utilize the new features added to the change summary as part of request SCR012104 explained and graphically represented above in conjunction with the “Search” feature intrinsic in the Adobe software to identify where new products would be impacted. For example, if a new product were introduced that affected the feature field, the CLEC would very easily see by the colored font that the only change was to add the new product to the field, and could move on to the next change. Conversely, if the CLEC were only interested in the places where the new product was included, the CLEC could “Search” for all instances of that product in the change summary.

Secondly, Qwest estimates the LOE for this effort to be approximately 2000-3000 hours to change the structure and reporting functionality of the database. Qwest notes that on the clarification call, AT&T stated that since new products and form are introduced infrequently (i.e., few releases introduce new products or forms), that this change to the database would be a costly enhancement used infrequently.

Qwest maintains that the change summary format provided in compliance with SCR012104-01 allows CLECs to identify the changes related to the new products quickly. Additionally, Qwest maintains that splitting the change summary into two sections would negatively impact the CLECs by potentially having to capture the single change in two places, contributing to confusion and potential documentation errors. Last, the cost and resource allocation associated with the change does not demonstrate business benefit reciprocal to that associated cost.

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

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Director, Information Technology Qwest

Archived System CR SCR040204-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Problems:

1) This is too late in the order process

2) Inconsistent handling of the issue.

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

Sample Remarks:

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

- "xxx servicing area"

- "this is xxxxx area only served by xxxxxx"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expected Deliverable:

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

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- 10/28/05 Meeting for Clarification

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

Purpose of Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharon,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein

Qwest Wholesale CRPM

303 382-5770

--

9/30/05 Adhoc Meeting

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

Purpose of Meeting

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

Discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your patience.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

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

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

Carla,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Phyllis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, John Daugherty

Donna

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

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

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

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

Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Pre-Order

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: IMA Common (with XML)

Confirmed Impacted Products: NA

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

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

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

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

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

CenturyLink Response

May 11, 2004

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

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

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR040204-02 Detail

Description Of Change

AT&T has been experiencing UNE-P POTS Jeopardy responses stating that Qwest is unable to establish service.

Problems:

1. This is too late in the order process

2.) Inconsistent handling of the issue.

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

Sample Remarks:

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

"xxx servicing area"

"this is xxxxx area only served by xxxxxx"

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

Solution: We ask Qwest to implement a System Edit to detect when the service address is not within Qwest’s Territory/Service area (for example multiple dwelling units and Indian reservations**).

The Specific BPL Edit should return an error message that states that the "Address found is not within a QWEST Service Area"

There are currently two SCRs addressing this issue - SCR040204-01 requesting a PreOrder error Message and SCR040204-02 requesting an Order BPL Edit. The preference is to detect this situation as soon as possible within PreOrder. If the PreOrder SCR040204-01 is implement there is no need to implement Order SCR040204-02.

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

Expected Deliverable:

A BPL edit to reject orders that are not serviced by Qwest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORIGINAL CR DESCRIPTION:

AT&T has been experiencing UNE-P POTS Jeopardy responses stating that Qwest is unable to establish service.

Problems:

1.) This is too late in the order process

2.) Inconsistent handling of the issue.

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

Sample Remarks:

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

"xxx servicing area"

"this is xxxxx area only served by xxxxxx"

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

Solution: We ask Qwest to implement a System Edit to detect this problem upfront.

Expected Deliverable:

A BPL edit to reject orders that are not serviced by Qwest.

Status History

Project Meetings

July 16, 2004 Emailed CR Revision Received from AT&T: REVISED-SCR040204-01 Address Validation Response (AVR) Error Message When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area. WITHDRAWN-SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your patience.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

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

May 17, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T:

Carla,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Phyllis

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

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T presented the CR. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that this CR’s Description is also being revised. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that the current edit checks if the State and NPA NXX are valid for Qwest territory. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that was correct. There were no additional comments or questions. This CR is in Presented Status.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- April 8, 2004 Clarification Meeting: CR No & Title: SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

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

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Lynn Stecklein-Qwest reviewed the CR Description: AT&T has been experiencing UNE-P POTS Jeopardy responses stating that Qwest is unable to establish service. Problems are 1) This is too late in the order process and 2) Inconsistent handling of the issue. AT&T has seen different Jeopardy Reason Code Details (RDET) values used to indicate this problem such as SX(Error Condition Identified after the FOC was sent to the CLEC) and SO (Subscriber Other). We have received different types of remarks placed in the jeopardy response. Sometimes, depending on the Remarks, we do not detect the real reason for reject until we engage in conversation with the ISC. Sample Remarks: "JEOPD LSR AS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH SERVICE AT THIS ADDRESS" "xxx servicing area" "this is xxxxx area only served by xxxxxx" "Send a SUP to cancel or set a new DD, not to exceed 30 business days (10 for disconnects) from the initial DD. If billing is not accepted by that time, the LSR is rejected. Cancellation charges apply, if appropriate. Disregard, if a SUP has been sent."

Requested Solution is: We ask Qwest to implement a System Edit to detect this problem upfront. Expected Deliverable is a BPL edit to reject orders that are not serviced by Qwest.

Discussion: John Daugherty-AT&T stated that the CR was prompted because of the rejects they are receiving saying that is owned by another CLEC. John stated that a short term solution and a long term solution are needed. Donna Osborne-Mille-AT&T stated that SCR040204-01 is the long term request and SCR040204-02 is the short term request. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest asked if this CR has the same issue with XML, which exists in SCR040204-01. Liz Balvin-MCI stated that if they get in Pre-Order (SCR040204-01), thru XML, then this CR is not needed. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that AT&T issued the 2-CRs (SCR040204-01 & SCR040204-02) because one could be easier to implement than the other. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that the 2-CRs are voteable, so it is dependant on the ranking. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon requested CR be done for All Products, as a single product is harder to implement. Shon Higer-Qwest agreed with Stephanie. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that she saw rejects for another CLEC and asked if there was an edit that was in place for a short period of time. Conrad Evans-Qwest stated that an edit does exist for Malheur. Shon Higer-Qwest asked if there was an edit for NPA NXXs that identifies the NPA NXXs outside of Qwest’s Territory. Conrad Evans-Qwest stated that there could be. Conrad Evans-Qwest asked to confirm that if the CR is implemented for Pre-Order (SCR040204-01), that this CR for Ordering, is not needed. Phyllis Burt-AT&T responded yes. Liz Balvin-MCI stated that the Qwest ISC currently figures it out, but they need it upfront. Liz stated that the LOE will determine which is the long term solution and which is the short term solution. John Daugherty-AT&T asked if this will help with multi-dwelling units where another CLEC is the provider. Shon Higer-Qwest stated that he believes that is what the request is. Shon stated that the CR needs to specify that it is for multi-dwelling scenarios. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that she would send examples to Peggy Esquibel-Reed at Qwest. There were no additional comments or questions.

Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Ordering

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: IMA Common (with XML)

Confirmed Impacted Products: All

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

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

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

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

CenturyLink Response

May 11, 2004

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

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR040204-02. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held April 8, 2004) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the June Systems CMP Meeting.

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR041204-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverabe:

As soon as possible.

Status History

Project Meetings

July 20, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR deployed on July 11th and that AT&T wanted to keep this CR open another month.

- July 11, 2005 COMMUNICATOR EXCERPT: Announcement Date: July 11, 2005 Effective Date: Immediately Notification Number: SYST.07.11.05.F.03086.CRISJulyEnhance0-day Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: CMP-CRIS systems change -July 11, 2005 CRIS Release: Production Date Deployment Associated CR Numbers: CLEC CR #: SCR041204-01

Effective today, July 11, 2005, Qwest enhanched the CRIS application as outlined below.

Summary of Changes: 2. SCR041204-01 Provide WTN in all cases as part of the details in OCC: Qwest changed the way OC&C detail is displayed for Wholesale RSID/ZCID accounts. All bill media is included.

- The Eastern region displays the WTN for OC&C charges. - The Central region displays fractionalized charges at the USOC level. - There is no change to the way charges related to rate changes are displayed in the bill detail for all CRIS regions. - TN is not required to be displayed for rate changes.

Note: The final Technical Specification for SCR041204-01 'Provide WTN in all cases as part of the details in OCC' is on the Qwest Wholesale Review Archive site at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/reviewarchivesystemmay05.html under System Notification SYST.05.27.05.F.02960.CMP-SystFinalRelAnnoun.

-- June 15, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that we ran into difficulty in the Western region with fractional and rounding issues and that the cost for the Western region would double the LOE for this CR. Jill stated that Qwest is deploying this effort in the Eastern and Central regions and cannot deploy Western due to the cost. Jill then noted that July 11, 2005 is still the targeted date for the Eastern and Central regions. There were no questions or comments. This Action Item is now closed and this CR remains in Development status.

-- May 27, 2005 COMMUNICATOR EXCERPT: Announcement Date: May 27, 2005 Effective Date: Immediately Notification Number: SYST.05.27.05.F.02960.CMPSystFinalRelAnnoun Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: CMP-Systems Final Release Announcement July 11, 2005 CRIS Release: Associated CR Numbers: Qwest CR #: SCR040605-01IG, CLEC CR #: SCR041204-01

Due to system errors the following notice was sent twice; please find the correct notice below. No change in the notice, only in the E-mail subject line. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

In conjunction with the CRIS system release targeted for implementation on July 11, 2005, Qwest is enhancing the application as outlined below.

Summary of Changes: 2. SCR041204-01 Provide WTN in all cases as part of the details in OCC: Qwest is changing the way OC&C detail is displayed for Wholesale RSID/ZCID accounts. All bill media is included. Ø The Eastern region begins displaying the WTN for OC&C charges. Ø The Central region begins displaying fractionalized charges at the USOC level. Ø There is no change to the way charges related to rate changes are currently displayed in the bill detail for all CRIS regions. Ø TN is not required to be displayed for rate changes.

If you have any questions on this subject, please submit comments through the following link: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/comment.html.

-- April 20, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest provided the targeted implementation date of July 11, 2005 for this Change Request. This Action Item was Closed.

-- December 15, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest asked if there were any questions for Attachment J. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked for an updated status on #52, #57, #66 and #67. Sharon stated that these CRs are still in a Presented Status and asked if the status should be changed to something else. Jill Martain/Qwest said that these CRs are being worked on even though they are in a presented status and are part of the funding effort that is underway. Jill said that they remain in presented status until the CRs are scheduled and would then move to development status. There were no additional questions or comments.

August 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that this CR is funded and is currently targeted for 4th quarter implementation.

- July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the LOE for this CR is 2400 - 4800 hours and stated that we had said that we would look at the original LOE of 10000 - 20000 hours. Connie stated that the original LOE was based on a lot of assumptions that were made in order to provide an LOE for the Trial Ranking of Billing CRs exercise. Connie stated that some of the assumptions were moved and that brought the LOE down. The Action Item was Closed.

Susie Bliss/Qwest provided status on funding for billing CRs. Susie recapped the CRs and the order in which the CLECs ranked each CR in the ranking session. 1) SCR112503-02X Adjustment Recognition (originated by Eschelon) 2) SCR041204-01 Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN (originated by AT&T) 3) SCR0121102-01 Capability to request suppression of the paper Summary Bill except the summary page (Originated by Eschelon 4) SCR071603-02 Bordertown Change to Billing Files (originated by McLeod) 5) SCR121603-01 Only show the actual circuit ID on all billing media in the Eastern Region (originated by Qwest) 6) SCR112003-03 CSR Data on Bill (originated by Cbeyond) Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that she did not know if we would be moving forward on CR#6 SCR1120030-03 due Stephan Calhoun leaving Cbeyond. Susie said that she has two action items to complete before taking the issue up the ladder again. Susie said the 1st action item is to meet with the billing center to determine all the business benefits and the 2nd action item is to work with the Compliance Team to understand which CRs we may be obligated to meet. Susie said that she is hoping that by next week we will know which CRs will go down the obligation path, the CRs that require business cases, and which CRs will be denied. Liz Balvin/MCI said that she was surprised that Qwest was only to this point on this issue. Liz said that she understands Qwest is working on behalf of the CLECs and needs to understand why we are only this far in this process. Susie Bliss/Qwest said that SCR112303-02X Adjustment Recognition is the most expensive to implement. Susie said that if this CR was submitted today, it would have been denied upfront. Susie said that on billing and repair CRs each CR is looked at on an individual basis and needs funding approval. Susie said that this won’t change in 2005. Liz Balvin/MCI said that she wished she would have known that SCR112303-02X was causing Qwest a headache. Liz said that they could have been driving other CRs. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that based on what she knows today that #2 SCR041204-01 Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN (originated by AT&T) and #3 SCR0121102-01 Capability to request suppression of the paper Summary Bill except the summary page (Originated by Eschelon) should be implemented in 2005. Liz Balvin/MCI said that she thought we were looking to implement by the end of 2004. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if Qwest expected any movement at all in 2004. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that we talked about pulling some CRs out of scheduled releases but IT advised against that. Liz Balvin/MCI said that Qwest has not yet run this issue up the chain. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that the funding request went up the chain and then back down the chain. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon asked if Qwest had any releases scheduled in 2005. Connie Winston/Qwest said that she has not seen the OSS schedule yet. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if Retail was getting enhancements in 2004. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that she could not speak to Retail’s schedule. Liz Balvin/MCI said that she thought the CLECs ranked the CRs to get them implement by end of year. Susie Bliss/Qwest said that the plan was to start the funding process and to get the CRs implemented as soon as we could. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that she thought that a few months ago that Qwest was running this up the chain and now it appears that none of these CRs will be implemented. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that there were questions that had to be answered before moving forward and we also wanted to validate the LOEs to determine if they could possibly be lowered. Susie also said that with additional research, we were able to lower the LOE on SCR041204-01 Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN (originated by AT&T). Liz Balvin/MCI asked if Qwest was fighting for the 5 CRs mentioned earlier. Susie Bliss/Qwest said yes. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if Qwest would be providing the number of hours and the number of releases. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that we are not obligated to provide X amount of hours for Billing and CEMR CRs. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that MCI has been clear that if we are competing for resources we need to prioritize. Susie Bliss/Qwest said that MCI has been clear and that Qwest will provide a letter stating our position. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that if we are equivalent to Retail and Qwest has a 271 obligation, MCI would like to see it in writing. Susie Bliss/Qwest said that in the past we have not provided a set number of hours on Billing and CEMR. Comment from Eschelon 7/30/04 - Liz Balvin/MCI said that it’s because there was no resource issue. Liz stated that Qwest should have invoked the prioritization process as outlined in CMP Redesign. Comment from Eschelon 7/30/04 - Stephanie Prull/Eschelon asked if there would be a resource issue if the 5 CRs were approved for funding in 2005. Stephanie asked to have clarification of how that process worked. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that she was 95% sure that if funding was approved, there will not be a resource issue. Susie said that she is 95% sure if funding is approved that the CRs will be implemented and that there is no difference in Retail. John Berard/Covad asked if funding is done annually. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that IMA funding is annual and Billing and Repair is done as needed by individual CR. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that they will wait for the response from Qwest on their position. Jill Martain/Qwest asked if there were any other questions and there were none.

- June 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that that the March fix for Line # 103, SCR041204-01 Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN, did not work and the CR should remain open.

-- 5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Carla Pardee/AT&T reviewed the CR description. Carla stated that currently Qwest does not populate its CABS/IABS bills for each non-recurring charge on a WTN basis. AT&T is requesting that Qwest populate each account with each non-recurring charge by WTN. Carla also said that each non-recurring charge should be identified by USOC, activity and date of activity. Carla stated that Qwest is checking to see if the WTN is appearing on the bill and with what bill date and they will determine if it is associated with a certain condition. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that she had Kathy Stichter/Eschelon confirm if the WTN was appearing and that Kathy said that it is not appearing on all bills. Connie Winston/Qwest said that Qwest is checking to see if the WTN is appearing on the bill, what bill date it was applied to and if it is associated with a certain condition.

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she had an update to the action item brought up yesterday regarding SCR041204-01. A patch went in on the April 1, 2004 bill period and that the WTN should always be populated. Connie stated that we will validate the files and Eschelon and AT&T stated that they would too.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the status of this CR is in Presented Status.

May 19, 2004 Trial Ranking for Billing CRs - Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes Meeting Start Time: 2:00 p.m. MT

Purpose The purpose of the Ad Hoc Meeting was for Qwest to provide the additional information requested by the CLECs at the May 13, 2004 ad-hoc meeting and for the CLECs to rank the 6 Billing CRs.

Attendees Liz Balvin-MCI, Ron Stanker-AT&T, Carla Pardee-AT&T, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, John Berard-Covad, Lori Mendoza-Allegiance, Terri Kent-AT&T, June Kornett-AT&T, Emily Baird-Popp Telecom, Wayne Hart-Idaho PUC, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Matt Connelly-Birch Telecom, Candy Davis-Covad, Kathy Stichter-Eschelon, Jennifer Arnold-USLink, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest, Susie Bliss-Qwest, Sue Kriebel-Qwest, Brenda Kerr-Qwest, Connie Winston-Qwest

Meeting Minutes Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest reviewed the purpose of the meeting and stated that the Billing CR’s that are eligible for ranking are: SCR112503-02X Adjustment Recognition SCR112003-03 CSR Data on Bill SCR121102-01 Capability to Request Suppression of the Paper Bill Except the Summary Page SCR071603-02 Bordertown Change to Billing Files SCR121603-01 Only Show the Actual Circuit ID on All Billing Media in the Eastern Region SCR041204-01 Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that Qwest and the CLECs are trialing the process for the billing requests, that require funding, to rank them by your level of importance.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that some Billing CRs have already been targeted and funded. Susie stated that for those billing CRs that have not been funded, we need to determine which CRs need to go forward for funding.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that the original discussion was why the prioritization process was not automatically invoked based on the CMP process. Liz stated that IMA was the only impacted system and she is now hearing that the CLECs need to tell Qwest which CRs are important to the CLECs in order for Qwest to fight internally to see which CRs get prioritized.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that we need to rank the CRs for funding approval, not to get prioritized.

John Berard-Covad asked if the ones identified as the most important would be implemented.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that Qwest would then need to write mini business cases for the CRs in order to go for funding approval.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that these billing CRs impact the CLECs and that Qwest is saying that Retail is resources are competing for system changes. Liz stated that she would like to see the CLECs have an allotted set of hours for billing. Liz stated that we should collectively say what should get done. Liz stated that item 1 would not be voted in if they knew that they only had 4000 hours.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that the CLECs need to tell Qwest what is important to the CLECs so Qwest can try and get the funding. Susie stated that Qwest no longer has an open checkbook and noted that Judy (Schultz-Qwest) had previously stated that fact.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that there are 2 items to address. Bonnie stated that the first item is the process going forward starting in 2005. Bonnie stated that Qwest needs to meet internally and decide what that process could look like. Bonnie stated that the second item is that we need to look at the 6 CRs that are currently on the table so Susie (Bliss-Qwest) can try for funding. Bonnie stated that Susie may not get any funding. Bonnie stated that the CLECs need to tell Qwest what is important to the CLECs so Susie can attempt to get funding.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that she does not have an issue with the previous discussion but that she is not comfortable that Qwest will get the funding. Liz asked who Susie was fighting with for the funding, both Wholesale and Retail.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that Retail uses the same funding process and it also goes up the latter. Susie stated that Qwest knows that Qwest has an obligation and understands the legal requirements for Qwest to not impede the CLECs ability to compete and do business. Susie stated that Qwest needs to know which CRs are impeding the CLECs ability to compete and which ones are nice-to-haves.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that Qwest is still making the decision.

John Berard-Covad stated that this is the current process and not the going forward process.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked if all the CRs that have funding approved would be implemented in 2004.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that Qwest is working towards that but is still looking at scheduling.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that some CRs that are funded may have work to continue and carry over into the first few weeks of 2005 and noted that should be okay.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that the CLECs do not know what the Qwest scheduling is or where it is. Liz stated that the CLECs are truly competing for the Qwest resources so they need to have input. Liz stated that the CLECs are not able to fight that battle, Susie (Bliss-Qwest) fights it.

Carla Pardee-AT&T asked if we were going to discuss the 2005 process.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that the process needs to first be developed, then communicated.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that when this was discussed in redesign, it was not inclusive to IMA. Liz stated that she needs to know how the CLECs get to provide input. Liz stated that the IMA process should be the process for Billing.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that prioritization takes place only if the capacity is exceeded.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that there are more CRs than can be implemented. Liz stated that it could be the same as IMA in the background and the CLECs just don’t see that. Liz stated that years ago, Qwest was building an entire billing system (4P) and now, 2-years later, it is gone. Liz stated that Qwest received a new CFO and 4P stopped. Liz stated that she now understands and feels better.

Carla Pardee-AT&T stated that the 6th CR, SCR041204-01 Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN, has not been formally presented so she would like to present it at this meetinf and could provide a recap at tomorrow’s Systems CMP Meeting.

SCR112503-02X Adjustment Recognition Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that one of the questions that Qwest needs to respond to is why this CR is a systems CR and not a process change. Sue stated that a process change would require no systems input and in order to track the information that is not currently tracked, there is systems work involved. Sue stated that an example of information not currently tracked is the bill date. Sue stated that if the data is not in the system, the data cannot be obtained. Sue stated that the requested functionality does not currently exist. Sue stated that currently, there is not a field to allow the information to be in the systems in order to carry it thru to the output. Sue stated that bill date information is not stored in the system but noted that it is captured for bill output. Sue stated that back-end billing systems need to create the data for extraction to the bill.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked for which bills and asked if for all.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated is for all electronic media and the paper bill. Sue stated that this would be a benefit to all CLECs.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the problem or business need is that there is a spreadsheet passed back and forth and there is no way to validate it. Bonnie stated that the CLECs don’t ever know what is being credited and they need to know what a credit is for.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that this CR builds on to AT&Ts CRs for CABS/BOS.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked how this CR is different from the AT&T CRs.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that the bill date was not requested to be returned on the adjustment. Sue stated that USOC level information is not captured in order to go thru the systems. Sue stated that the output media is ready for the Telecordia systems but not for EDI, ASCII, or the paper bill.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if it would be down to the level of detail. Bonnie stated that Eschelon disputes a USOC on the Summary Bill for 25 of them. The Qwest Billing group says that the credit is for 20 of the 25. Bonnie asked if the CLEC would then know which 20 are being credited. Bonnie stated that the CLEC needs to provide the detail to Qwest but then Qwest does not provide it back.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that piece is a process change. Sue stated that Qwest can do at the sub level or the Summary level.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that this is good conversation because maybe there is a different way to do this.

Sue Krieble-Qwest stated that the EXCEL Spreadsheet contains the TNs.

Kathy Stichter-Eschelon stated that it does not always show-up the same way on the bill. Kathy stated that she realizes that mistakes can be made but they cannot validate what was actually credited. Kathy stated that the CLEC needs to try and figure out what was adjusted and credited.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked that if this were to be at the sub account level, would it then be a process change only.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest responded no, because the system still would not have the from and thru date information or the USOC. Sue stated that the detail is currently not captured in order for the CLEC to see at the summary or sub account level.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if it could be done, it’s just that it cannot be retrieved from the system.

Kathy Stichter-Eschelon asked if this woild provide the WTN or the circuit ID at the sub account level.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that it would not if there were multiple TNs. Sue stated that the information is needed to be input for the adjustment.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked how Qwest verifies that the adjustments are accurate and asked if it was a manual process.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that the SDCs input into the system, BOS/CARS or IABS. The SDCs then pull reports but the detail is not on the reports.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked how Qwest validates that the adjustment is valid.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated if the question is regarding a dispute, that would be a separate discussion and a separate meeting from this ranking session.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that they need the ability to validate an adjustment.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that Qwest understands and agrees. Sue stated that the SDCs currently validate via a manual process.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked that when they receive a credit, does the adjustment provide details.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated is generic because the from and thru dates are currently not captured. Sue stated that an Out of Service adjustment may contain details. Sue stated that it is manually input into BOS/CARS.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked that when Qwest evaluated this CR, was it to update the systems to house the information or to pull data in order to provide the date to the CLECs.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated to input into BOS/CARS in order for the system to pass information through to the billing systems, for media output.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked if the information was currently housed somewhere, to grab it from, without changes to the back-end systems.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that the billing system would have to be aware of it thru the entire bill process or the bill output could be incorrect.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that this CR appears to be a benefit to Qwest and to the CLECs. Bonnie stated that they currently spend a lot of hours verifying adjustments. Bonnie stated that Eschelon goes to great lengths to provide details to Qwest and it is appropriate that when the credit appears, that the CLECs know what the credit is for. Bonnie stated that it is a very manual process to validate the credits.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that Qwest does not argue that, we just need to get the data in the systems.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked how disputes are currently sent.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated by Billing Spreadsheets.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that if the information is provided by the CLECs, we need to think of the easiest way to capture the data.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that some CLECs have created a text file and noted that Qwest is not yet there.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if Qwest would be looking for other options, for this request.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that she would check with her Business Partners but stated that she did not think that there were other options.

Kathy Stichter-Eschelon asked if the LOE was for BOS/CARS.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that the LOE is for capturing the data and carrying it thru for processing.

Brenda Kerr-Qwest stated that there are a lot of systems files but CRIS is the bulk of the estimate.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that this CR seems to be of high importance.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that it is very high for Eschelon.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked if this request is for all UBL products.

Kathy Stichter-Eschelon responded yes.

Carla Pardee-AT&T asked if any AT&T participants had any comments or questions. None were brought forward.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that she does not know if all UBLs are billed out of CRIS and this is good information to know.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that all UBL via IMA LSR are billed out of CRIS. Connie stated that in QORA ASR, they are billed out of IABS.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that was helpful information.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that there would be no restriction built in CRIS.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if this would benefit Retail as well.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest responded yes.

John Berard-Covad asked if we were looking to get these 6 CRs ranked today.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that a big driver of prioritization is knowing if you can get 4 CRs for 20000 hours. Liz stated this could benefit the ranking process.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that she currently has no dollars to say a number of hours.

There were no additional questions or comments for SCR112503-02X Adjustment Recognition.

SCR112003-03 CSR Data on Bill Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that this request is asking for CSR data on the bill. Sue stated that EDI does not have 811 series records for CSR data. Sue stated that the CLECs can get CSR via CABS output or via ASCII, but there is no EDI version of the CSR. Sue stated that if the CLECs want CSR data in the 811 records, Qwest would have denied this CR due to the fact that Qwest does not own the 811 records. Sue stated that the CSR data is on the CABS BOS file and it is currently available to them.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked if it was available for all products.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated for UNE-P, UBL, and maybe for Line Sharing. Sue stated that there are some out of BOS, such as Centrex.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that Qwest could currently provide CABS format or ASCII format.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that this CR is for BOS BDT.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked if this would be a better CR if it asked for other products.

Connie Winston-Qwest responded if the CLECs wanted to re-LOE this CR.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked if this CR covered all UB Local.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that is not for LIS Trunking.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that it sounds like CR is at the low end of importance.

There were no additional questions or comments for SCR112003-03 CSR Data on Bill.

SCR121102-01 Capability to Request Suppression of the Paper Summary Bill Except the Summary Page. Carla Pardee-AT&T stated that their Service Manager has suppressed all paper.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that they could currently select to suppress all paper or none of the paper.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon is asking for the Summary Page. Bonnie asked if this would apply to ASCII.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that it is for the paper bill only.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that the CLECs want the ability for the option to suppress if they want to, or if they want an all paper bill, they can continue to get it.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that as an FYI, there is a black diamond symbol in the top corner that tells you that you are at the end of the bill.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if Eschelon currently receives the Summary Page electronically.

Kathy Stichter-Eschelon stated that they did but noted that it is not always correct.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that EDI and BOS, or the paper, could be the bill of record. Sue stated that ASCII cannot be the bill of record.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon wants an accurate ASCII Summary Page.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that ASCII phase 2 was denied funding, as it was a very big effort. Connie stated that is why this CR was taken out of Deferred Status.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked Kim (Isaacs-Eschelon) for an estimate of the inaccuracy of ASCII.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that she was told, by Alan Zimmerman (Qwest), that some have sub-totals or that totals are not carried forward to ASCII.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if it was fractionalizing.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that she did not know.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if the other CR was denied.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that it was a Qwest originated CR and that it was very large, about 20,000 hours.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that if it was looked at as to how much Qwest spends on printing paper bills, would it be easier to sell.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that Qwest is supportive of this change.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked if all UNE Loops were included and stated that she needs the product set for this CR.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that it is for everything that is currently summary billed.

There were no additional questions or comments for SCR121102-01 Capability to Request Suppression of the Paper Summary Bill Except the Summary Page.

SCR071603-02 Bordertown Change to Billing Files Liz Balvin-MCI stated that this CR is of high importance to MCI.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Qwest should have to provide this.

There were no additional comments or questions for SCR071603-02 Bordertown Changes to Billing Files.

SCR121603-01 Only Show the Actual Circuit ID on All Billing Media in the Eastern Region Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Qwest issued this CR for Eschelon, under duress. Bonnie stated that Eschelon has a CR for the correct circuit ID and asked for the status of that CR.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that she knows that it is very, vary big and that it is still being evaluated.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the circuit ID should be consistent throughout the process.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that Qwest is not sure how the other CR would be split. Connie stated that Qwest needs to know how important this CR, SCR121603-01, was to the CLECs.

Candy Davis-Covad stated that they see bills via the BTN instead of the circuit ID.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that was a different issue. Connie stated that in the Eastern Region, there is zero filling of the circuit ID and noted that this CR is to remove the uniqueness to the circuit ID. Connie stated that this CR does not address BTN.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked if the circuit ID is not passed.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that it is stored in the unique way.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if with this CR, Qwest would remove the unique rules and would store the circuit ID correctly.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated yes and stated that it would always look right.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked if this was a functional change.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that it would be for anytime there was a circuit ID.

Carla Pardee-AT&T asked if this was for all output or only for ASCII.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that it was for all output.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what Qwest’s position was on this CR and asked if this was also an impact to Retail.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that she did not know if this would impact Retail.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that Qwest currently has no position, at this point.

There were no additional questions or comments for SCR121603-01 Only Show the Actual Circuit ID on All Billing Media in the Eastern Region.

SCR041204-01 Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN Carla Pardee-AT&T and Ron Stanker-AT&T presented the CR to the meeting participants. Ron stated that AT&T needs to verify the Qwest bills and asked to what extent do they get the WTN. Ron stated that they always need to know what the WTN is. Ron stated that they are looking at it nationwide. Ron stated that they need to validate the WTN and associated non-recurring charges.

Carla Pardee-AT&T questioned the LOE of 10,000 to 20,000 hours and stated that it seems to be extremely high.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that the change would be in CRIS, so it may be all output. Connie stated that this was a quick LOE and noted that Qwest has not had enough time to devote to this LOE since it was needed so quickly after the Clarification Call. Connie stated that the broad range could mean that the billing team is nervous about this CR.

Liz Balvin-MCI asked if Qwest bills for all WTNs that are associated to the Qwest BTN.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that she did not have the details of the CR and noted that the CR is too new.

Carla Pardee-AT&T stated that this is #1 for AT&T.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if they currently have non-recurring charges identified at the WTN level.

Kathy Stichter-Eschelon stated that she would have to check if they get it on ASCII.

Ron Stanker-AT&T stated that Qwest was not passing it and noted that Qwest did state, on the Clarification Call, that a change had gone into effect but stated that he has not had the opportunity to validate the bills yet.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that understanding the scope will help get a cleaner LOE.

Kathy Stichter-Eschelon stated that she is seeing, on a UNE-P bill, WTN & BTN but not seeing on all.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that it could depend on the condition.

Ron Stanker-AT&T stated that he needs to see on all.

There were no additional questions or comments for SCR041204-01 Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that ranking would now occur for the following CRs: CR 1) SCR112503-02X Adjustment Recognition CR 2) SCR112003-03 CSR Data on Bill CR 3) SCR121102-01 Capability to Request Suppression of the Paper Bill Except the Summary Page CR 4) SCR071603-02 Bordertown Change to Billing Files CR 5) SCR121603-01 Only Show the Actual Circuit ID on All Billing Media in the Eastern Region CR 6) SCR041204-01 Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon ranks as follows: 1, 3, 5, 4, 6, 2

Carla Pardee-AT&T stated that AT&T ranks as follows: 6, 1, 4, 5, 3, 2

Candy Davis-Covad stated that Covad has an interest in only CR 1.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that MCI ranks as follows: 1, 6, 4, 2, 3, 5

Jennifer Arnold-USLink stated that USLink ranks as follows: 1, 5, 4, 6 are the only ones of interest for USLink.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated Qwest ranks as follows: 1, 6, 3, 2, 4, 5

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that Qwest would tabulate the results and communicate those results at the next days Monthly Systems CMP Meeting.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the key is knowing if the change is being made in CRIS, then they know that it would make it to the CLECs.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the CLECs want the going forward process to look like IMA does and stated that she feels that the CMP document supports that.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that the going forward process would be researched.

There were no additional questions or comments. The meeting was adjourned.

May 13, 2004 Ad Hoc Meeting - Trial Ranking of Billing CRs Meeting Start Time: 1:00 p.m. MT

Purpose The purpose of the Ad Hoc Meeting was to initiate the trial process for ranking of the Systems CMP CRs for the Wholesale Billing Interface. The purpose of the ranking is for the CLECs and Qwest to rank the Billing CRs by order of importance.

Attendees Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Kathy Stichter-Eschelon, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Emily Baird-Popp Communications, Maureen Carroll-Birch Telecom, Matt Connelly-Birch Telecom, Carla Pardee-AT&T, Nancy Sanders-Comcast, Jennifer Arnold-USLink, Liz Balvin-MCI, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Kit Thomte-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest, Sue Kriebel-Qwest, Brenda Kerr-Qwest, Susie Bliss-Qwest, Connie Winston-Qwest, Michael Lopez-Qwest Meeting Minutes Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest reviewed the purpose of the meeting with call participants and stated that the Ad Hoc Meeting Notification included the spreadsheet containing the CRs to be discussed today and noted that the CR Detail is posted on the Wholesale web site.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that funding efforts are continuing but funds are limited. Susie noted that she still needs to send CRs for funding approval. Susie stated that Qwest would like to trial a process in order to help Qwest understand which CRs are important to the CLECs.

Carla Pardee-AT&T asked how many hours the CLECs were limited to and noted that there are CRs that are 1.5 years old: SCR012103-06ES and SCR012103-04ES.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that SCR012103-06ES and SCR012103-04ES are on their way to obtaining targeted dates and have funding approved.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that Covad had asked if CRs that have approved funding could be swapped out for CRs not yet approved. Susie stated that those CRs that are funded need to continue down their path. All agreed. Susie stated that SCR012103-06ES and SCR012103-04ES are just waiting for targeted dates.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what today’s call was trying to achieve.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that this is only a Trial.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if the Ranking List that was sent was only an example, as it does not list all of the Billing CRs.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that the Ranking List is a complete List, to date, of all the Billing CRs that are not yet funded or scheduled. Peggy stated that the CRs that have targeted implementation dates are not included in the list and are not to be included in this trial ranking exercise.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said okay.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that items 1 thru 6 on the Ranking List need to be ranked and items 9 and 10 are on the list due to parity, as Liz (Balvin) had asked about Retail.

Kathy Stichter-Eschelon asked if there was a process to prioritize CRs and stated that is where we should begin.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that there is not a process for Billing CRs and noted that this meeting was to start discussing how that would work.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she thought the LOEs would be provided today for the 2-CRs listed as LOE TBD.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that those LOEs are as follows: SCR112503-02X is 8000 to 12000 hours. SCR041204-01 is 10000 to 20000 hours.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked why SCR112503-02X (Adjustment Recognition) is not a process CR and asked how many hours are allocated to billing. Bonnie asked if Qwest has a certain amount of hours available and asked how many of the 6 CRs would have an opportunity for implementation.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that the 6 CRs need to be looked at and we need to make a case for funding. Susie stated that this is an evolving process.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked to confirm that no one has told Susie (Bliss) that she has 30000 hours for Billing and that she has to build a business case for getting funding approval because you have used-up your time for the year.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that it is not that all the hours have been used-up for this year; it is the fact that the funding approval process was put into place. Susie stated that these are all doable.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked that unlike IMA, where the CLECs are given the Release dates and hours, Billing is a different process and will need to rank them on an ongoing basis.

Susie Bliss-Qwest responded yes, and noted that CEMR may also be looked at for a ranking process.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that CEMR Releases are already identified.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that they are but that the CEMR CRs also go through the same funding approval process; even though there are scheduled releases.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she and Liz were confused because they thought that there was going to be a number of hours for billing CRs. Bonnie stated that Susie (Bliss) said that this would be an ongoing process and that the challenge is that all CLECs have different billing processes.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that thru redesign, only IMA fell into prioritization because there were so many CRs competing for resources and other systems were not prioritized because Qwest just did them. Liz stated that she believes that where we are today is that we need to invoke the prioritization process. Liz stated that due to the limited resources and that there are so many CRs; Qwest cannot implement the CRs within a year.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that she interprets resources to mean systems. Susie stated that CRs need to first be funded, and then the system’s team works on getting the CRs implemented.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that is not how prioritization works. Liz stated that in IMA, Qwest tells the CLECs how many hours are available in a release. Liz stated that when Qwest says that funding approval is needed, it is not for CRs. Liz asked how much Qwest will allow for CLEC CRs.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that she understands that and stated that she can take that back for internal discussion. Susie stated that she does not know what she can do for 2004 and stated that realistically, this would be a 2005 thought. Susie stated that Qwest will still be receiving CRs, in addition to the 6 that we currently have that are not yet funded.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she understood from the last meeting, that for billing CRs in 2004, there would not be any more funding approved and what has been approved would be implemented in 2004. Bonnie stated that she thought that the gate was closed for 2004 and now she is hearing that it is not the case.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that she does not know that the gate is closed until she tries. Susie asked the CLECs what they want her to try for.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that the CLECs can tell Qwest what is more important but they need to know what is left, in hours, to go forward.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that she would take that back.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that SCR112503-02X would benefit all CLECs.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that it looks like only #s 9 & 10, SCR030204-01 and SCR011504-01, will be implemented.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that they need to look at items 1 thru 6 and stated that items 7 thru 10 are going forward.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that item #5, SCR121603-01, should not be on the list and stated that Qwest should implement as SCRP.

Carla Pardee-AT&T stated that the CLECs need to know what billing systems each CR is for.

Susie Bliss-Qwest asked if that information is available.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that some CRs cross multiple systems. Susie noted an example: SCR041204-01 is BDT format and impacts CRIS and IABS.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon uses ASCII and asked what this CR would do for Eschelon.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that changes would need to be made in CRIS in order to populate the ASCII file. Sue stated that this CR, SCR041204-01, did not request the inclusion of any other media outputs.

Kathy Stichter-Eschelon asked that if they later need the changes for ASCII, would it be a smaller effort.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest responded yes.

Carla Pardee-AT&T stated that is good information to know.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what the difficulty would be to add ASCII to the LOE.

Sue Kriebel-Qwest stated that she did not know and stated that she is just communicating the systems that are impacted. Sue stated for example, SCR112503-02X is impacting to CRIS, but it does impact multiple processing pieces.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the Systems CRs are not discussed every month and noted that is part of the problem.

Liz Balvin-MCI stated that Qwest has many billing systems and stated that the CRs are usually pretty specific. Liz stated that the information needs to be in the CRs

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that since there are a few days before the next Monthly CMP Meeting, she is requesting that SMEs be available at the CMP Meeting in order to answer questions such as; what are the impacted systems and what bills will the changes be coming in on.

Susie Bliss-Qwest asked if the CLECs wanted to discuss the 6 CRs after the May Product/Process Meeting.

Carla Pardee-AT&T stated that she would like a review of the CRs and prioritization to occur every month.

Kit Thomte-Qwest stated that maybe they could be reviewed quarterly.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that a process needs to be developed, for 2005 and going forward. Bonnie stated that we need to start now with the 6 CRs. Bonnie stated that Susie (Bliss) needs to fight for funding and she is looking to the CLECs to identify the order of importance.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked that going forward, for CEMR and Billing, will Qwest have a set amount of hours allotted or will ranking work the same as today. Bonnie asked that for example, if they know that there will be 60000 hours, will the ranking occur twice a year.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that there is no current process that has been defined for 2005.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that it does not work today like IMA and Qwest does not envision that will be the case, so it does need to be looked at as to how it will be managed.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that we do need to look at what the current process is and what the going forward process should look like.

Jennifer Arnold-USLink asked if the Billing SMEs will be available on Thursday.

Susie Bliss-Qwest stated that we would look and see if they are available Wednesday afternoon, after the Product/Process Meeting.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that if Qwest can provide SMEs and get down to the root, the CLECs can commit to meet then to rank the billing CRs.

Carla Pardee-AT&T stated that the CLECs will have SMEs available as well and needs the time of the meeting.

It was agreed by the meeting participants that the meeting will start at 2:00 p.m. MT. This meeting will be to discuss the 6 CRs with the billing SMEs.

There were no additional comments or questions.

May 4, 2004 Clarification Meeting:

Introduction of Attendees: Carla Pardee-AT&T, Ron Stanker-AT&T, Jami Larson-Qwest, Fred Howard-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Connee Moffatt-Qwest, Don Kerschner-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest reviewed the CR Description Currently, Qwest does not populate its CABS/IABS bills for each non- recurring charge on a WTN basis. AT&T requests that Qwest populate each account with each non-recurring charge by WTN. Each non-recurring charge should be identified by USOC, activity and date of activity. DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked if AT&T had additional information to add. Ron Stanker-AT&T stated that there was nothing else to add. Ron stated that they need the TN and noted that currently sees a message of unbundled services. Jami Larson-Qwest asked if this request is for CSR data. Ron Stanker-AT&T stated that ADW is not receiving the information from Qwest. Jami Larson-Qwest stated that the 1030 Record, which is billing, does not have the activity date. Jami Larson-Qwest stated that some Service Order information was corrected with the April 1st bill cycle and noted that the CLEC should have noticed the corrections with the April 4th bill cycle. Jami stated that the WTN is now being provided, if Qwest has it. Jami noted that if Qwest does not have it, they will see spaces. Jami stated that the WTN is not always provided to Qwest by the originating billing system. Jami Larson-Qwest asked to confirm that this request is for OC&C data and not for CSR data. Ron Stanker-AT&T stated that it is for OC&C data. Connee Moffatt-Qwest asked if this request is also for Unbundled Switching. Ron Stanker-AT&T stated that it is only for Unbundled Loop and UNE-P. Jami Larson-Qwest asked if the WTN is in reference to UNE-P. Ron Stanker-AT&T responded yes.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel-Reed- Qwest confirmed that this a Wholesale Billing CR

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked if the Products of Resale, UBL, and UNE-P were correct. Jami Larson-Qwest stated that Resale is not appropriate for CABS BOS. Carla Pardee-AT&T agreed to remove Resale and stated that this CR is for UBL and UNE-P only.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: CR is due for presentation at the May 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting.

-- April 14, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Hello Carla & Donna, I have scheduled the Clarification Meeting for SCR041204-01 (Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN) based on your availability, as follows: DATE: Tuesday, May 4, 2004 TIME: 10:00 a.m. MT CALL IN #: 1-877-564-8688, 8571927

Donna - will you advise Ron Stanker, for Carla?

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

-- April 14, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Peggy - if you get a firm date, could you please forward to Donna, who would forward to Ron Stanker. I will take the meeting when I return form vacation. Thanks so much!

- April 12, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Yes, it is scheduled for presentation in May regardless of when the Clarification Meeting is actually held. Are you wanting to wait until you return? That seems like it is so far away, but it really isn’t that far. Let me know your availability and I will go ahead and get it scheduled. Have a great Vacation!! Peggy

April 12, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Peggy - I am leaving on Vacation on Wednesday and won't be back until May 3rd. If we schedule the clarification call for the 3rd, 4th or 5th, can it still be presented at the May CMP meeting? Just don't want to bog Donna down? Thanks.

-- April 12, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Carla, Will you please provide me with several options for the Clarification call for SCR041204-01 Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN. Thanks Much. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

CenturyLink Response

July 12, 2004

RE: SCR041204-01 (Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN)

The Original Level of Effort provided of 10000 - 20000 hours was a high level LOE based on the information that was know at the time the LOE was needed for the Trial Ranking of Billing CRs Exercise.

Qwest has further reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR041204-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held May 4, 2002) Qwest is able to provide a Revised Level of Effort (LOE) of 2400 to 4800 hours for this Wholesale Billing Interface Change Request.

This Change Request, SCR041204-01, is currently pending funding approval.

Sincerely, Qwest

DRAFT RESPONSE

May 13, 2004

RE: SCR041204-01 (Populate CABS Billing with Activity by WTN)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR041204-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held May 4, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an initial estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 10000 to 20000 hours for this Wholesale Billing Interface Change Request.

At the next Monthly Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Any clarifications and/or modifications identified at that time will be incorporated into Qwest’s further evaluation of this Change Request. This Change Request, SCR041204-01, is pending funding approval.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR041204-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Currently, various IMA Release related documents are delivered to the CLECs via the QWEST Document Review Process.

- IMA Disclosure Documents (for example: SYST.02.06.04.F.01318.15.0_IMA_EDI_DrftTechSpec)

- Draft Release Notes (for example: SYST.03.18.04.F.01489.IMA_15.0_GUI_Drft_Rel_doc )

- LSOG and PCAT Updates (for example: PROS.03.18.04.F.01491.LSOG_PCAT_Update_15.0Rel)

However, updates to the QWEST EDI Implementation Guidelines - for Interconnect Mediated Access (IMA) are currently not delivered under the Document Review Process. AT&T is requesting that future proposed changes to the EDI Implementation Guidelines follow the Document Review Process.

Expected Deliverable:

Future changes to the QWEST EDI Implementation Guidelines - for Interconnect Mediated Access (IMA) will be processed via the QWEST Document Review Process.

Status History

Project Meetings

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she reviewed the denials and understands that Qwest feels that they have accommodated these requests in another CR that highlighted changes. Donna said that she understands that Qwest has denied these requests due to no demonstrable benefit. Donna said that in the response it states that the LOE for SCR032903-02 is approximately 2000 hours. Donna also pointed out that the denial response stated that AT&T, in a clarification call, said that since new products and forms are introduced infrequently that this change to the database would be a costly enhancement used infrequently. Donna said that she does not feel they would have said that. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she would like Regina Mosely/AT&T to review the denial. Donna stated that she would contact Lynn Stecklein/Qwest to discuss any questions the may have. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon asked if other CLECs could be included if a call was scheduled. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that she would invite the other CLECs.

5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Phyllis Burt/AT&T was not available to present this CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was presented as a walk-on in the April CMP systems meeting. There were no questions or comments.

4/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the CR description. Donna said that stated on the Qwest Website, the Document review is the process of highlighting changes from one version to the next. The Document Review gives CLEC customers a formal way to review proposed changes and comment on them within the appropriate comment period and gives Qwest a streamlined way to receive, track and respond to customer feedback. Donna stated that AT&T would like future changes to the Qwest EDI Implementation Guidelines for IMA will be processed via the Qwest Document Process. Randy Owen/Qwest stated that Qwest understands AT&T's request and is currently evaluating.

This CR is in a Clarification Status.

4/19/04 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, Regina Mosely - AT&T, Phyllis Burt - AT&T, Randy Owen - Qwest, Cim Chambers - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest, Jim Recker - Qwest

Review Requested Description of Change

Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T reviewed the description of change. As stated on the QWEST website, the "Document review is the process of highlighting changes from one version to the next. The Document Review gives CLEC customers a formal way to review proposed changes and comment on them within the appropriate comment period. It also gives Qwest a streamlined way to receive, track and respond to customer feedback."

Currently, various IMA Release related documents are delivered to the CLECs via the QWEST Document Review Process. - IMA Disclosure Documents (for example: SYST.02.06.04.F.01318.15.0IMAEDIDrftTechSpec) - Draft Release Notes (for example: SYST.03.18.04.F.01489.IMA15.0GUIDrftReldoc ) - LSOG and PCAT Updates (for example: PROS.03.18.04.F.01491.LSOGPCATUpdate15.0Rel)

However, updates to the QWEST EDI Implementation Guidelines - for Interconnect Mediated Access (IMA) are currently not delivered under the Document Review Process. AT&T is requesting that future proposed changes to the EDI Implementation Guidelines follow the Document Review Process.

Discussion Randy Owen - Qwest asked where on the website was AT&T referring to. Phyllis Burt - AT&T stated that it is the Documentation Review Website, 1st paragraph. Randy Owen - Qwest asked what problem AT&T was trying to solve and/or what value would this provide to AT&T. Phyllis Burt - AT&T said just what the CR says. Randy Owen - Qwest asked if any process was 'broken'. Phyllis Burt - AT&T said no. Randy Owen - Qwest said that Qwest understands this request and there were no further questions.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted The interface noted on the CR was changed from IMA EDI to Process/Documentation and products impacted is NA.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation AT&T would like future changes to the QWEST EDI Implementation Guidelines - for Interconnect Mediated Access (IMA) will be processed via the QWEST Document Review Process.

Establish Action Plan AT&T requested that this CR be presented as a 'walk on' in the April 22, 2004 CMP Systems Meeting

CenturyLink Response

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT:Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - SCR 041204-02 Document review for Qwest EDI Implementation Guidelines Updates.

This document is Qwest’s response to AT&T’s CR SCR 041204-02. The SCR requests that the IMA EDI Implementation Guidelines, a document published by Qwest as part of its IMA EDI release cycle, be subject to the Qwest document review process. The document review process gives CLEC customers a formal way to review proposed changes and comment on them within the appropriate comment period.

Expected Deliverable: Future changes to the QWEST EDI Implementation Guidelines - for Interconnect Mediated Access (IMA) will be processed via the QWEST Document Review Process.

Qwest Response: Qwest has reviewed the request and finds that the request applies to a document that is outside the scope of the document review process. In the CMP document, it states that the document review process applies to Redlined PCATs and Technical Publications [i.e., Technical Specifications as defined in the CMP document] associated with product, process, and systems changes.

Further, by definition, the CMP defines Technical Specifications as: Detailed documentation that contains all of the information that a CLEC will need in order to build a particular Release of an application-to-application OSS Interface. Technical Specifications include: A chapter for each transaction or product which includes a business (OBF forms to use) description, a business model (electronic transactions needed to complete a business function), trading partner access information, mapping examples, data dictionary Technical Specification Appendices for IMA include: Developer Worksheets IMA Additional Edits (edits from backend OSS Interfaces) Developer Worksheets Change Summary (field by field, Release by Release changes) EDI Mapping and Code Conversion Changes (Release by Release changes) Facility Based Directory Listings Generic Order Flow Business Model

The above list may vary for non-IMA application to application interfaces

The Implementation Guidelines do not fall into any of these categories. Technical Specifications are systems coding documentation that contains actual enforced negotiated business rules that are used for coding to systems. The Implementation Guidelines are supporting guidelines intended to assist CLECs when developing their systems, but the content of the document does not influence coding to systems, and are therefore not Technical Specifications. CLECs could code their systems without consulting the IMA Implementation Guidelines.

Additional research around the Implementation Guidelines has determined that, during the life of the document spanning over eleven releases of IMA EDI, a total of sixteen (16) changes have occurred that alter the substance of the document. Of these sixteen, the bulk of the changes are beneficial enhancements brought forward by the CLECs and incorporated by Qwest. Customer feedback has indicated that the process whereby the Implementation Guidelines are updated is effective, and does not require alteration at this time.

Therefore, Qwest is denying the request based on this information because: 1.The Implementation Guidelines are not Technical Specifications and are not subject to the document review process. 2.The Implementation Guidelines are not relevant to a production system. 3.Changes to the Implementation Guidelines from release-to-release are not so substantial that they would benefit by such a review, and the current process around the updates is effective. 4. Both Qwest and the customer profit by having the Implementation Guidelines review be less regimented than other review processes (i.e., those around technical specifications).

In summary, Qwest is denying the request as it is outside the scope of the Change Management Process—the request is not within the scope of the Change Management Process (as defined in the CMP).

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Director, Qwest Information Technology

Archived System CR SCR041504-01 Detail

Description Of Change

2. AT&T is also requesting Qwest to investigate their 8XXrecordings. Approximately 10% of 110125 records have an unknown jurisdiction with an Interlata lata code. This also is a large percentage of usage with a lata code. 1% is normal for 8XX traffic to contain a lata code other than unknown.

AT&T is requesting that Qwest populate the correct LATA indicator.

Status History

Project Meetings

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this request was implemented on August 22nd and that there are no known problems. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that this CR could be closed.

8/17/05 Systems CMP Meeting

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR will deploy on 8/22/05. There were no questions.

3/16/05 Systems CMP Meeting

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that there were two parts to this request. Jill stated that Qwest does not receive the data associated with the 8XX information and is technically not feasible to provide. Jill stated that we could provide the portion of the request asking for the LATA identifier. She also stated that we are currently in the process of providing a targeted implementation date. There were no questions or comments. Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this action item could be closed.

12/15/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest asked if there were any questions for Attachment J. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked for an updated status on #52, #57, #66 and #67. Sharon stated that these CRs are still in a Presented Status and asked if the status should be changed to something else. Jill Martain/Qwest said that these CRs are being worked on even though they are in a presented status and are part of the funding effort that is underway. Jill said that they remain in presented status until the CRs are scheduled and would then move to development status. There were no additional questions or comments.

8/18/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the LOE for this CR is 1300 to 1800 hours and that this action item will be closed.

5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Carla Pardee/AT&T reviewed the CR description. Carla stated that approximately 61% of all interstate traffic recorded by Qwest has a lata indicator of 9 (unknown/undetermined). Carla stated that it is a standard obligation for LECs to provide a correct lata indicator. AT&T is requesting Qwest to investigate why such a large percentage of interstate traffic has an unknown lata code. Carla stated that AT&T is also requesting Qwest to investigate their 8XX recordings and that approximately 10% of 110125 records have an unknown jurisdiction with an interlata lata code. Carla said that AT&T is requesting that Qwest populate the correct LATA indicator. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the status of this CR is in Presented Status.

5/5/04 Clarification Meeting

Attendees: Carla Pardee - AT&T, Jama Simms - AT&T, Wendy Thurnau - Qwest, Alan Zimmerman - Qwest, Fred Howard - Qwest, Michael Lopez - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein

Review Description of change request Lynn Stecklein/Qwest reviewed the CR description. AT&T stated that Approximately 61% of all interstate traffic recorded by Qwest has a lata indicator of 9 (unknown/undetermined) and it is a standard obligation for LEC’s to provide a correct lata indicator. AT&T is requesting Qwest to investigate why such a large percentage of interstate traffic has an unknown lata code. AT&T is also requesting Qwest to investigate their 8XXrecordings. Approximately 10% of 110125 records have an unknown jurisdiction with an Interlata lata code. This also is a large percentage of usage with a lata code. 1% is normal for 8XX traffic to contain a lata code other than unknown.

AT&T is requesting that Qwest populate the correct LATA indicator.

Discussion Lynn Stecklein/Qwest asked what AT&T's business need is with this CR.

Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that this problem was negatively impacting AT&T's revenue.

Fred Howard/Qwest stated that he will look into AT&T's questions on the 'from' and 'to' NPA NXX issue.

Wendy Thurnau/Qwest stated that Qwest understands the request.

AT&T stated that they will also send examples.

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that she will provide the AT&T Trouble Ticket 579177 history log to the Qwest participants.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted This is a Wholesale Billing Interface request and impacts UNE-P

Establish Action Plan AT&T will Present this CR in the May CMP Systems Meeting.

Trouble Ticket History 579177 Trouble Ticket # 579177

2/3/2004 1:28:44 PM dxwils4 CASE CLOSURE NOTIFICATION SENT TO CONTACT

1/27/2004 2:34:14 PM plopez I talked with the customer advising if she needs information on the report that is not being provided today she needs to go through the change process with her qwest service manager.

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/27/2004 12:36:42 PM dxwils4 I emailed to Jama: "Jama, Here is status from tier 2:

"I've looked at the spreadsheet these are CAT 11 (Access records) examples. The Lata Code appears in Position 100 in the EMI record which is Indicator 19 which in the EMI hand book states:::: indicates that the LATA was not determined. (Valid on Category 11 records only). I'm not sure what else can be done for this customer Qwest is following OBF guidelines and if this customer wants changes it would need to go through OBF.

Talked to Alan Zimmerman again on this issue and he recommends if the customer wants the Lata populated got through the CMP for a Change Request."

Thanks, David WSHD"

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/27/2004 12:28:14 PM abcox Jama requested e-mail of resolution from tier II sent to her e-mail address is=jsims@att.com

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/27/2004 11:37:00 AM dxwils4 I left v/m to client with tier 2 status, asked that she call and let me know that she rec'd my v/m and that I can close this ticket.

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/26/2004 7:44:32 AM dklinge 1-26-04 Talked to Alan Zimmerman again on this issue and he recommends if the customer wants the Lata populated got through the CMP for a Change Request.

1/23/2004 10:22:06 AM dklinge 1-23-04 I've looked at the spreadsheet these are CAT 11 (Access records) examples. The Lata Code appears in Position 100 in the EMI record which is Indicator 19 which in the EMI had book states:::: indicates that the LATA was not determined. (Valid on Category 11 records only). I'm not sure what else can be done for this customer Qwest is following OBF guidelines and if this customer wants changes it would need to go through OBF.

1/23/2004 9:40:35 AM dxwils4 email from Jama: "As I stated during our phone conversation. Attached is a sample of the records from Qwest containing a 9 in the lata code for records other than 110125 (800) records.

It is acceptable to receive records from an ILEC with an undetermined lata code for 800 calls. However, for other record types containing to and from #'s, the lata code should be populated with something other than a 9. One exception to this is if the settlement code cannot be determined, then you would see a 9 in the lata code.

As you can see from the attached, there are records types (pos. 1 -6) other than 110125 with a 9 in the lata code, position 100.

Please forward this to your Tier 2 support for resolution. Thanks for your help." ... I attached the doc to email to Deb K.

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/22/2004 12:15:58 PM dxwils4 I called the customer, asked her for examples per tier 2. Seeing in 110101 records 110120. She is seeing to and from numbers present. She will email examples to us, I will then add them to this ticket.

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/21/2004 2:06:16 PM dklinge 1-21-04 I went to the most recent file today and the only messages that is populating Lata code 9 is in 1101XX. which is valid. Ask the customer for examples of the Lata code that is not going to an 8XX.

1/21/2004 1:44:09 PM dklinge 1-21-04 I have researched and investigated everything about the Lata Code being populated. I have talked to Alan Zimmerman the DUF SME/the PP42 SME on 1101XX messages we either populate a 5 intrastate or a 9 unknown and checked the EMI book regarding what is suppose to be populated in the Lata Code we are populating correctly per the OBF standards. The only thing I can suggest is to have the Customer contact their Service Manager to get clarification. This is not a DUF issue we are processing correctly.

1/21/2004 1:17:33 PM plopez I paged the tier2 with ticket update.

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/21/2004 1:17:12 PM plopez the customer said lata code is populated with 9 - unknown.

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/21/2004 1:12:20 PM plopez The customer called back. She said there are all different types of records that have unknown and have lata codes. She has records with jurisdiction of interstate with to and from numbers not 800 calls - why can't lata codes be populated?

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/21/2004 12:33:31 PM ckillio Client called stated that she is checking to see if there are more #'s than just the 8xx. Client wants to keep this ticket open until she finds out more information.

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/21/2004 11:54:55 AM dxwils4 2nd attempt, I left v/m to client asking if can close ticket or reason to keep open.

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/19/2004 2:50:20 PM dxwils4 I left v/m to Jama with tier 2 status, asked that she let me know if can close ticket or reason to keep it open.

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/16/2004 6:10:18 AM dklinge 1-16-04 Have verified with that AMA group, Access SME Alan Zimmerman and the EMI handbook. The Lata Code 9 is valid for access records we are not able to determine the Lata code for Interstate calls. These calls are going to an 8XX number and we have no way of determining what the Lata code is.

1/14/2004 1:13:07 PM plopez The customer called back and said 95% of the usage has lata code undetermined. The data has jurisdiction interstate. The lata code is determined by the to and from number - it could be any lata code. I net tooled the tier2. NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/14/2004 12:38:03 PM dxwils4 I left v/m to Jama asking, again, what she expects should be in lata code fields.

NOTES LOG NOTIFICATION SENT TO ASSIGNEE

1/14/2004 11:07:38 AM dklinge 1-14-04 Checking for status

1/13/2004 7:34:38 AM dklinge 1-13 checking for updated status

1/10/2004 7:13:36 AM ARESCALATOR Notification for Business Rule: Moderate 48 hr has been fired

1/9/2004 1:26:04 PM dxwils4 I left v/m to client stating tier 2 status. I asked her to call and let me know what they think should be in lata code fields.

1/9/2004 6:48:44 AM dklinge 1-9-04 Talked to the DUF SME and found that the 202109 headers will stay the same until the new PTID is implemented changing it to 202409's we have no targeted date at this time. In reference to the Lata code 9 what do they think it should be?

1/8/2004 1:03:54 PM dklinge 1-8-04 Pulled the file TOL.#CO.R730.BJ97A02Z.G0179V00 date 1-7-04. Checked position 100 and is populated with 9 which per OBF standards indicates unable to determine the Lata. I also checked the header/trailer and those are correct. I did request validation from Alan Zimmerman and will update this when I get the information.

1/8/2004 8:41:12 AM dxwils4 Kathy left me v/m that this should go to DUF group, assigning to DUF. Debbie K left me v/m to call her so I called her with info rather than net tool.

ASSIGNMENT NOTIFICATION SENT TO CONTACT

ASSIGNMENT NOTIFICATION SENT TO GROUP

1/8/2004 7:06:51 AM dxwils4 I left v/m to Kathy P with all info.

1/8/2004 7:02:31 AM dxwils4 Can Be Reached Number= 770-750-3745 Complete Description of the Problem=2 problems with files. Lata codes are being populated incorrectly on category 11 access records. 95% of usage have lata code of 9, which is unknown, and to and from numbers in the records. Wants the lata codes populated correctly and wants to know why they were not. Header is incorrect. Dataset Name Sent=AF60.USWCO.UNEPC.ACCESS Dataset Name Received=AF60.USWCO.UNEPC.ACCESS Pack Invoice # (header and trailer info)=invoice number of last file rec'd: 202109 is header on files. She says it should be 202409. Invoice # is 39. Create Date=1/7/04 Date Received=1/7/04 Volser # (if tape)=na State or Region=AZ Record Count #=158,740 How they Receive the File=NDM How often they Receive the File=Daily OCN=7963 RAO=153 RSID=A02

E-mail from AT&T 4/15/04 Osborne-Miller, Donna, NEO [dosborne@att.com]

I received as you will read, an explanation of what has happened on this topic and AT&T's need. Perhaps after reading her account(s) you can decide the best route of action: that being the CR process or to work with the account team. I do not know historically if Carla and Liddell conversed about this before we decided to submit a CR. Nonetheless let me be still now and let you read and respond to the path you believe we should take on this topic.

I called in a trouble ticket for this issue back in January. What I reported to Qwest with the trouble ticket was there seems to be a recording problem because a very large % of their usage has an unknown lata code. This is unusual especially if the settlement code can be determined. And the settlement codes were populated. I asked them to look into this.

Their response back to me was they were populating the records with a valid lata code, which is correct, however the lata code is unknown/undetermined. Once again, I asked if the settlement code could be determined why can't the lata code be determined. I explained that it is a standard recording procedures to populate settlement codes/lata codes in the EMI field if they can be determined. I was then told by Qwest that I needed to go through change management to get this fixed. This is only happening in the Qwest states, all other LEC's provide valid lata codes with a settlement code.

This could very well be a recording problems which could require some system/programming changes. Either way, if it the lata can be determined, Qwest is not following the expected recording procedures implemented by the OBF.

As far as the language in the CR, we need to tell Qwest.......... There appears to be a recording problems in all the UNEPC Qwest states. Approx 90% of the usage received from Qwest is populated with an undetermined lata code. Also, for the 8YY recordings it is highly unusual to receive 8YY data with a lata code other than undetermined. Can we tell Qwest that we called in a trouble ticket and were told to go through change management? The ticket number was 579177.

CenturyLink Response

July 20, 2004

RE: SCR041504-01 Provide LATA Identifier in Billing Output (DUF)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR041504-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held May 5, 2004) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1300 to 1800 hours for this Wholesale Billing Interface Change Request.

At the next Monthly Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Any clarifications and/or modifications identified at that time will be incorporated into Qwest’s further evaluation of this Change Request. Upon obtaining consensus from CMP participants as to the appropriate direction for Qwest to take on this Change Request, Qwest will review release schedules and development timetables in an effort to evaluate options for potential scheduling of Change Request SCR041504-01.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR041604-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

10/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was deployed with the IMA 16.0 Release and will remain in CLEC Test.

9/16/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will be deployed prior to the next monthly CMP Meeting.

5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Woldey Assefa/Qwest stated that SCR041604-01 Add Trunk Products to SATE submitted by AT&T is packaged for the SATE 16.0 release. Regina Mosley/AT&T asked what products were included in this CR. Woldey Assefa/Qwest stated that UNE-P PBX Designed Trunks and UNE-P PBX DID In only Trunks were included

4/22/04 CMP Sytems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that AT&T is requesting that Trunk Products (I.e. UNE-P PBX Designed Trunks and UNE-P PBX DID in Only Trunks) be added into SATE. Donna stated that AT&T Business will be introducing UNE-P Trunks later and would like to test this product in the same test environment as other Qwest Product Testing. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if Qwest will look at the volume or will Qwest look to see if they can accommodate with this CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this request would be treated the same as previous SATE CRs and will look to see if we can incorporate into 16.0.

This CR is in a Clarification Status.

4/26/04 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees:

Regina Mosley - AT&T, Liz Balvin - MCI, Cim Chambers - Qwest, Woldey Assefa - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Description of Change Lynn Stecklein/Qwest reviewed the description of the CR. AT&T is requesting that Trunk Products (i.e. UNE-P PBX Designed Trunks and UNE-P PBX DID In Only Trunks ) be added into SATE. AT&T Business will be introducing UNE-P Trunks later this year and would like to test this product in the same test environment as other Qwest Product testing. Trunk Products currently reside in the Interoperability Test Environment which would require AT&T to initiate testing efforts in 2 test environments. This would require that digital certificates and IP addresses be maintained in 2 separate environments rather than 1.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted This interface impacted on this request is SATE. Regina Mosley/AT&T stated that the request is for Trunk Products but asked how other products would impact the LOE. Woldey Assefa/Qwest stated that including more products would impact the LOE. Regina Mosley/AT&T said that they would like this request to address trunk products only.

Discussion Woldey Assefa/Qwest said that these will be a new products in SATE and asked if AT&T would be looking at specific activities or all activies for these 2 products. Regina Mosely/AT&T stated that they would probably be testing both initially for all activity types. Cim Chambers/Qwest asked if AT&T would be using 15.0 or 16.0. Regina Mosely/AT&T said that they would use 16.0 going forward in SATE.

Establish Action Plan Regina Mosley/AT&T said that AT&T is requesting that this request be processed as a late adder in the 16.0 Release. Qwest will be scheduling the late adder vote meeting in the next couple of weeks.

CenturyLink Response

April 27, 2004

RE: SCR041604-01 Add Trunk Products to SATE (IMA 16.0)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR041604-01). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held April 26, 2004) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 500 to 600 hours for this SATE Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the SATE17.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR042204-01 Detail

Description Of Change

RTC will allow the CLEC to verify completion of repairs and in many cases initiate an automatice test through MLT or other methods avialable to the CLEC. This will result in verification of repairs and no need to create a subsequent trouble ticket, as is the cast now, when the ticket is closed without verification. The ultimate result is a savings in resources, both mechanical and personnel, lower MTTR since the CLEC ticket will be closed when repairs are completed and there is no need for additional tickets, and improved customer satisfaction.

Status History

Project Meetings

Jim Recker/Qwest stated that this CR was denied. Jim stated that this CR requires two events and is not available for POTS. Jim said that for non-design, it is not available until the ticket is closed. Jim stated that the cost for the Telecordia system and other modules is in the $9M range and is economically not feasible. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that AT&T was disappointed that this CR was denied. Donna asked who Qwest requested bids from. Jim Recker/Qwest stated that we used the Qwest IT experts that work with the various repair systems to determine the costs associated with this request. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that they are disappointed and hoped to have further opportunities and discussions in 2005. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will be closed. 9/27 Comment Received from Eschelon – This should be a denied status. Not Closed.

8/18/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are still evaluating this CR.

7/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are still evaluating this CR.

5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Ervin Rae/AT&T reviewed the CR description. Ervin stated that AT&T is requesting that Qwest build a function into the CEMR system that will send a Request to Close (RTC) when a technician has completed work on a trouble ticket. He said that the RTC will allow the CLEC to verify completion of repairs and in many cases initiate an automatic test through MLT or other methods available to the CLEC. Ervin stated that this will result in verification of repairs and no need to create a subsequent trouble ticket, as is the case now, when the ticket is closed without verification. He stated that AT&T is requesting this functionality on UNE-P POTS. 6/1/04 Revision to Minutes from Eschelon – Bonnie asked Ervin if the intent of this CR was to have Qwest verify the issue is resolved before closing the ticket. Ervin said yes it is. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that they support this change request. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the status of this CR is in Presented Status.

4/30/04 Clarification Meeting

Attendees:

Ervin Rae - AT&T, Cathy Garcia - Qwest, Angie Blue - Qwest, Curt Anderson - Qwest, Michael Lopez - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Description of Change Lynn Stecklein - Qwest reviewed the description on behalf of AT&T. AT&T is requesting that Qwest build a function into the CEMR system that will send a Request to Close (RTC) when a technician has completed work on a trouble ticket.

Ervin Rae - AT&T said that RTC will allow the CLEC to verify completion of repairs and in many cases initiate an automatice test through MLT or other methods avialable to the CLEC. This will result in verification of repairs and no need to create a subsequent trouble ticket, as is the case now, when the ticket is closed without verification. The ultimate result is a savings in resources, both mechanical and personnel, lower MTTR since the CLEC ticket will be closed when repairs are completed and there is no need for additional tickets, and improved customer satisfaction.

Discussion Ervin Rae - AT&T stated that Qwest is the only ILEC that does not provide this function. Curt Anderson - Qwest asked how this works today. Ervin Rae - AT&T stated that the trouble may be resolved but additional tickets are created. Ervin said that this is for inside and outside technicians. Curt Anderson - Qwest asked if this would be in addition to the call. Ervin Rae - AT&T said that they are trying to get away from the call. Ervin stated that 11% of their trouble tickets require other tickets. Cathy Garcia - Qwest asked if Qwest was able to provide this functionality, how long would AT&T take to close the ticket. Ervin Rae - AT&T said that closure would be almost simultaneously (2 minutes). Cathy Garcia - Qwest asked if the customer is on the phone and the MLT doesn't work

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted Ervin Rae - AT&T stated that they would like this functionality in CEMR and for the UNE-P product.

Establish Action Plan Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that AT&T would present this request in the May 20, 2004 CMP Systems Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

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

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: CEMR Request to Close

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, SCR042204-01, dated 04/22/2004, Titled: CEMR Request to Close.

CR Description: That Qwest build a function into the CEMR system that will send a Request to Close (RTC) when a technician has completed work on a trouble ticket.

RTC will allow the CLEC to verify completion of repairs and in many cases initiate an automatic test through MLT or other methods available to the CLEC. This will result in verification of repairs and no need to create a subsequent trouble ticket, as is the cast now, when the ticket is closed without verification. The ultimate result is a savings in resources, both mechanical and personnel, lower MTTR since the CLEC ticket will be closed when repairs are completed and there is no need for additional tickets, and improved customer satisfaction.

Expected Deliverable: Build a function into the CEMR system that will send a Request to Close (RTC) when a technician has completed work on a trouble ticket.

Qwest Response:

Qwest has completed the analysis for SCR042204-01, titled, CEMR Request To Close and has determined that this change is economically not feasible.

The RequestToClose procedure used in the Designed Services operations centers today involves two events from the Qwest technician and one response from the CLEC technician. The Request to Close capability is existing in the Designed Services Operations Support System. For non-design (POTS), the capability is not available.

All event”data elements (access period, dispatch detail, etc.) in the Non-Design process may not be available until the ticket is closed.

To perform the functions requested in this change request, development of a new system would be required to do the translation between the new OSS changes and the new user procedure. The estimated cost for the middleware for this new system would be approximately $5.5 Million. Additional enhancements would be needed for existing vendor software (Telcordia, Tekmark and Fluke Network) and Operations that are estimated at an additional $9 Million.

Due to the high cost of implementing this request, Qwest is denying SCR042204-01 CEMR Request to Close.

Estimated Costs:

New System Development $ 5,500,000 Tekmark Systems $ 3,000,000 Telcordia Application Changes $ 5,000,000 SSM (Shared Module $ 1,000,000 TOTAL $14,500,000

Sincerely,

Qwest

DRAFT RESPONSE

July 13, 2004

RE: SCR042204-01 (CEMR Request to Close)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR042204-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held April 30, 2004) Qwest is still examining this change request. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the August Systems CMP Meeting.

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR050704-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Terri Kilker/Qwest reviewed the denial response as follows: Qwest has evaluated this request, and while it finds that it is technically feasible to perform the function of interfacing with Appointment Scheduler to schedule a technician visit for the CLEC, if an LSR is allowed to bypass the edits, there is a risk of an incorrect address impacting back office systems. Terri said that if that occurs, then manual intervention would be required to correct the address which has the potential to delay the order. Terri also said that it is Qwest’s belief that the responsibility for coordinating the dispatch of a technician to CLEC’s end user premise is the responsibility of the CLEC and it is Qwest’s responsibility to provide the CLEC with the tools to allow them to perform that activity. Terri also said that Qwest has fulfilled that obligation by providing the same access to Appointment Scheduler as it provides to its own service order writers. Terri said that by utilizing Appointment Scheduler to schedule its own technician visits, CLECs will preserve their relationship with their end user customers and through their coordination of the date with their end user be able to ensure that the customer will be ready on the date selected. Terri said that Qwest finds no reasonable business benefit to the CLEC or Qwest in acceptance of this change request and therefore respectfully denies the request. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that Cheryl Peterson/AT&T is the owner of this request and that she may have questions. Donna will contact her to determine next steps.

6/17/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that this CR was a walk on in the May CMP Systems Meeting. Kit asked if there were any questions or comments and stated that the status would move to Pending Prioritization.

5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Cheryl Peterson/AT&T reviewed the description of the CR. AT&T is requesting the removal of the requirement to use the appointment scheduler for UNE-P Move, Add and Brand New Orders. She stated that this request would allow LSR’s to pass the edits that check for the need of a technician (CHC is not populated on their orders even when a tech is needed) and the confirmation number from the appointment scheduler in APTCON as well as the appointment time. AT&T experiences error messages with SAG Only addresses when using the appointment scheduler, which results in a need to use a work around. The work around would be eliminated with removal of the requirement of the appointment scheduler. AT&T would like Qwest to schedule their own technicians on the requested Due Date, as Qwest can better identify when a technician is needed at the facility.

Liz Balvin/MCI asked if AT&T was looking to remove the requirement to schedule a dispatch in pre-order.

Cheryl Peterson/AT&T said that they would like to make this optional because they have found that 50% of the time the scheduling of a technician is not accurate. Cheryl stated that it gets down to the APTCON field.

Liz Balvin/MCI stated that MCI would support this request on pre-order.

Cheryl Peterson/AT&T stated that they are working with Qwest on a separate issue associated with the Facility Availability Query and error messages.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the status of this CR is in Clarification Status.

5/17/04 Clarification Meeting

Attendees: Cheryl Peterson - AT&T, Carla Pardee - AT&T, Regina Mosley - AT&T, Ann Adkinson - AT&T, John Gallegos - Qwest, Angela Stewart - Qwest, Terri Kilker - Qwest, Anne Robertson - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Description of Change Lynn Stecklein - Qwest reviewed AT&T's request. AT&T is requesting the removal of the requirement to use the appointment scheduler for UNE-P Move, Add and Brandy New Orders. The request would allow LSR’s to pass the edits that check for the need of a technician (CHC is not populated on our orders even when a tech is needed) and the confirmation number from the appointment scheduler in APTCON as well as the appointment time. AT&T experiences error messages with SAG Only addresses when using the appointment scheduler, which results in a need to use a work around. The work around would be eliminated with removal of the requirement of the appointment scheduler. AT&T would like Qwest to schedule their own technicians on the requested Due Date, as Qwest can better identify when a technician is needed at the facility.

Discussion Cheryl Peterson - AT&T reiterated that AT&T would the requirement to use the appointment scheduler as optional. John Gallegos - Qwest asked if when Qwest determines that a technician is required, AT&T would like us to schedule the appointment with the CLEC. Cheryl Peterson/AT&T said yes.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted The products impacted are UNE-P and UNE-P Pots and the interface impacted is IMA Common.

Establish Action Plan AT&T will present this change request in the Systems CMP meeting on June 17, 2004.

CenturyLink Response

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

Cheryl Peterson AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response SCR050704-01 Remove Requirement to use appointment scheduler on UNE-P Move, Add or New orders

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) SCR050704-01. This CR requests that Qwest remove the requirement for the CLEC to use the Appointment Scheduler for UNE-P Move, Add and New Order requests. The request further asks that Qwest allow the Local Service Requests (LSRs) to pass Qwest edits that check for the need of a technician, especially when encountering SAG Information Only addresses, and use Appointment Scheduler to schedule its technicians when it is determined that one is necessary.

Qwest has evaluated this request, and while it finds that it is technically feasible to perform the function of interfacing with Appointment Scheduler to schedule a technician visit for the CLEC, if an LSR is allowed to bypass the edits, there is a risk of an incorrect address impacting back office systems. If that occurs, then manual intervention will be required to correct the address which has the potential to delay the order.

Furthermore, it is Qwest’s belief that the responsibility for coordinating the dispatch of a technician to CLEC’s end user premise is the responsibility of the CLEC and it is Qwest’s responsibility to provide the CLEC with the tools to allow them to perform that activity. Qwest has fulfilled that obligation by providing the same access to Appointment Scheduler as it provides to its own service order writers. By utilizing Appointment Scheduler to schedule its own technician visits, CLECs will preserve their relationship with their end user customers,.and through their coordination of the date with their end user be able to ensure that the customer will be ready on the date selected.

Qwest finds no reasonable business benefit to the CLEC or Qwest in acceptance of this change request and therefore respectfully denies the request.

Sincerely,

Qwest

Archived System CR SCR051304-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

That Qwest notify CLECs of Line Loss(es) to Wireless Carriers by way of a wireless indicator on the Line Loss file.

Status History

Project Meetings

Sorry Peggy for not following up with you sooner. I've checked with Leo Dimitriatis and he is OK with closing this, as well as SCR051304-01 Request for Line Loss Notification to notify CLECs if the customer was lost to a Wireless Carrier.

5/17/06 Systems CMP Meeting

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

4/19/06 Systems CMP Meeting

Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this was just deployed in the IMA 19.0 Release and would remain in CLEC Test.

3/15/06 Systems CMP Meeting

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR will deploy on April 10, 2006.

February 8, 2006 Combined Overview and IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation Walkthrough for IMA EDI Release 19.0 (facilitated by Qwest IT) Attendees List (may be incomplete): Kyle Kirves-Qwest, Anders Ingemarson-Qwest, Angela Stewart-Qwest, Annelyn Aficial-AMS, Carol McKenzie-Qwest, Chris Terrell-AT&T, Chuck Anderson-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Dawn Beck-Qwest, Denise Martinez-Qwest, Diane Burt-AT&T, Dianne Friend-Time Warner, Ellen McArthur-Qwest, Gary Berroa-Qwest, Jeff Yeager-Accenture, Judy DeRosier-Qwest, Lee Gomez-Qwest, Linda Birchem-Comcast, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest, Maria Aquino-AT&T, Mark Haynes-Qwest, Michael Lopez-Qwest, Nancy Thompson-Wisor, Orbit.com Representatives, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Roslyn Davis-Verizon Business, Shonna Pasionek-Qwest, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon Walkthrough Discussion: Introductions Kyle Kirves began the meeting by taking attendance and announcing the meeting purpose. The meeting notice included copies of the agenda, the candidate overview document, and a summary sheet of changes that customers can expect to see in the final version of the tech specs that do not appear in the draft. Kyle explained that the walkthrough would cover the candidates, the candidate impacts to the associated documentation, and the IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation overview. Kyle introduced Ellen McArthur to go over the first candidate, SCR051304-01- Request for Line Loss Notification to notify CLECs if the customer was lost to a Wireless. CANDIDATE REVIEWS: SCR051304-01a Wireless Ellen McArthur reviewed the information provided in the candidate overview document circulated with the meeting agenda and the meeting notification announcement. Kyle opened the floor to Questions. Stephanie Prull asked if the customer does not code for 18.0, and the candidate is multirelease, will it cause fallout? Dawn Beck answered that there will be no fallout on the Qwest side if the customer does not code to the candidate in 18.0. Test is still recommended to see if the CLEC’s translator will ignore the transaction when received or if it will fail translation. Stephanie asked how this will look on the Line Loss Report, Anders Ingemarson stated that, the NPDI field will be added to the Line Loss Report but the details have yet to be worked out. Stephanie asked if an example of the Line Loss report will be made available. Kyle stated he would try to include an example with the minutes. NOTE: At time of publication of the minutes, the report sample was not available. Qwest will, however, provide a sample as soon as it is available, and will notify on its availability accordingly. There were no other questions. Kyle asked about other documentation updates. Mark Haynes covered the changes to the Error Messages that will occur once the candidate is implemented. Kyle asked if there were any other questions. No questions, so Kyle moved discussion to the next candidate.

1/18/06 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston - Qwest stated that there is only 1 map for line loss notification. She said that when we make changes to a field, the map has to change so that they can accept the feed. Connie said that this impacts 17.0, 18.0 and 19.0 and we just wanted to remind the CLECs that everyone needs to be ready to cut with us on the release for the changes associated to this CR. Cim Chamber - Qwest stated the PN = Provider Notification field was the field that had changes. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T asked when this was going in. Connie Winston - Qwest said that it is scheduled in the April 19.0 Release

2/16/05 Systems CMP Meeting - IMA 18.0 Candidate Discussion

Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that this CR is a low priority for AT&T. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that the interface should be IMA Common.

7/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would distribute the ballot on July 27th, it is due back to Qwest on July 30th, and Qwest would email the initial prioritization list to the CLECs on August 3rd. There were no questions.

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that this is medium for AT&T. This CR is for IMA Common.

6/17/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that this CR was a walk on in the May CMP Systems Meeting. Kit asked if there were any questions or comments and stated that the status would move to Pending Prioritization.

5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that AT&T is requesting that Qwest provide a Wireless Indicator on the Line Loss File as notification to CLECs in the event that the customer moves to a Wireless Carrier. Carla stated that the Wireless Indicator should be provided on 836 transactions as well as on the Line Loss File.

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this is a complicated request because of the port out that is generally a disconnect order. Connie stated that we had a request in CMP to put LNP on the Loss Report.

Revision to Minutes from Eschelon 6/1/04 - Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked AT&T why they would need to know why the loss was to a Wireless Carrier vs. a local service provider.

Carla Pardee/AT&T said that she didn’t know.

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we would not know the identity of the Wireless Carrier.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the status of this CR will remain in Submitted Status until the clarification meeting is held.

6/3/04 Clarification Call

Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, John Daugherty - AT&T, John Gallegos - Qwest, Angela Stewart - Qwest, Connee Moffatt - Qwest, Dusti Bastian - Qwest, Jim Recker - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Description of Change Lynn Stecklein - Qwest reviewed AT&T's request. AT&T is requesting that Qwest provide a Wireless Indicator on the Line Loss File as notification to CLECs in the event that the customer moves to Wireless Carrier. AT&T would like the Wireless Indicator be provided on 836 transactions as well as on the Line Loss File.

Discussion Dusti Bastian - Qwest asked if AT&T wanted a letter indicator. John Daugherty - AT&T stated that they were looking for a letter indicator. John Gallegos - Qwest asked if AT&T was looking for the indicator on wireless only. Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T said yes. Dusti Bastian - Qwest asked if this would be when the service was ported to wireless. Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T agreed. John Gallegos - Qwest asked if AT&T wanted this information included in the 836 EDI functionality. Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T stated that they want it consistent.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted The Product impacted is UNE-P and the interface is IMA EDI.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation AT&T is requesting that Qwest notify CLECs of Line Loss(es) to Wireless Carriers by way of a wireless indicator on the Line Loss file.

Establish Action Plan AT&T will present this change request in the June 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR051304-01 Request for Line Loss Notification to notify CLECs if the customer was lot to a Wireless Carrier

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR051304-01). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held June 2, 2004) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 3500 to 5100 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 17.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR070804-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

AT&T would like a parsed and structured CSR for Centrex. We would like to see the Centrex "Telephone Numbers" displayed in the WTN Feature and Feature Detail section like the format presented in IMA 14.0.

IMPACTED PRODUCTS - CONFIRMED DURING 7/16/04 CLARIFICATION CALL:

IN SCOPE:

UNE-P Centrex 21

REQ TYPE: MB

ACT TYPE is not applicable for Pre-Order

OUT OF SCOPE:

Analog Line Side Port / REQ TYPE: FB

DID/PBX Trunk Port Facility / REQ TYPE: FB

Digital Line Side Port / REQ TYPE: FB

DS0/Analog Trunk Port / REQ TYPE: FB

DS1 Trunk Port / REQ TYPE: FB

Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL) / REQ TYPE: MB

Facility Based Directory Listings (FBDL) / REQ TYPE: JB

Interim Number Portability (INP) / REQ TYPE: CB

Line Sharing/Shared Loop / REQ TYPE: AB

Listings Only / REQ TYPE: HB

Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: CB

Resale - Centrex 21 / REQ TYPE: PB

Resale - Centrex Plus & Centron / REQ TYPE: PB

Resale - DID Trunks / REQ TYPE: KB

Resale - Frame Relay Service (FRS)/ REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - ISDN BRI / REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - ISDN PRI Facility / REQ TYPE: KB

Resale - ISDN PRI Trunks / REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - PAL / REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - PBX Trunk Service / REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - PBX Trunk Service - Designed / REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - POTS / REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - Private Line Transport (PLT) - Non-switched / REQ TYPE: KB

Resale - Qwest DSL / REQ TYPE: EB

Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL) / REQ TYPE: AB

Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL)-Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: AB

Unbundled Feeder Loop (UFL) / REQ TYPE: AB

Unbundled Local Loop / REQ TYPE: AB

Unbundled Local Loop Split / REQ TYPE: UB

Unbundled Local Loop-Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: BB

UNE-P /STAR- Centrex 21 Split / REQ TYPE: SB

UNE-P/STAR - Centrex Plus and UNE-P - Centron / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - DSS Facility / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - DSS Trunks / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - ISDN BRI / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - ISDN PRI Facility / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - ISDN PRI Trunks / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - PBX Trunks / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - PBX Trunks Split / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - PBX/DID Trunks / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P/STAR-POTS / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - POTS Split / REQ TYPE: SB

Status History

Project Meetings

- August 16, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Hi Peggy, I received an email from Bill Micou Friday evening. AT&T will withdraw both our CR's that we had submitted that dealt with a parsed and structured CSR for Centrex and for Trunks. The CR numbers are:SCR070804-01 (Centrex) and SCR070804-02 (Trunks). Thank you, Donna

- August 9, 2004 Voicemail Received from Donna at AT&T: "AT&T is still not ready for a subsequent call to discuss Parsed & Structured CSRs for Trunks and for Centrex. AT&T is still discussing internally in order to determine if the CRs are to move forward or if AT&T will withdraw the CRs.

- August 3, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Hello Peggy, I am still waiting for Bill and Regina to respond to meeting availability. I hope to let you know that tomorrow or Wednesday. Will contact you as soon as I hear back from Regina or Bill. Thank you, Donna

August 3, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Donna, SCR070804-01 Parsed and Structured CSR for Centrex SCR070804-02 Request for a parsed and structured CSR for Trunks This is a follow-up to see if AT&T is ready to meet with Qwest in order to discuss the CRs noted above. Would you please send me the following: - The completed form that contains the Directory Listings fields for your request for ‘Trunks’ CR (this is the form that Lynn sent you on July 27, 2004) - Your availability for a meeting to discuss and clarify. Thanks, Donna. We will then be able to move forward with the evaluation of these CRs. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

- July 28, 2004 Email Received Copy of an Email from AT&T:

I just got a call from Qwest and they are needing the parsed and structured Directory Listings fields we seek for this CR. Qwest would like AT&T to fill out this attached form in the same manner as was done previously for a former candidate. They found this detail to be quite helpful in meeting our needs before. We need to have this information today, and back to Qwest for the call tomorrow. Otherwise they will postpone the call until next week. Lynn, have I stated Qwest's request correctly? Bill. Regina, I am out of the office this afternoon. Carla Pardee is my back-up. Please pass the required information back to Carla, and she will get it to Lynn today. If we are not able to populate this form for them, will you let Carla know that. She will then negotiate the next dates of availability for the call in that is needed. Sorry for the last minute request. Thank you, Donna

- July 27, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Lynn, Here is information for our call on Thursday. Thank you. Donna This is trunk-level detail information. Of course, in addition to this, we would need to see account-level information about the account as well as (such as AN, Service Address, etc. -- similar fields as would be sent at the account-level on a POTS parsed CSR). In addition to the change to get the TN parsed and the USOCs subordinate to the TN, I would like to see the following Trunks data parsed as well: DID Numbers TERs Route Index Hunt ID and Multi-line Hunt ID PIC LPIC TLI ECCKT Trunk ID Trunk Group Number Start Signaling Digits Out Pulse Signaling

-- July 27, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Hi Donna, I am sending the attached document to request additional information associated with SCR070804-02 (Request for a parsed and structured for Trunks). We are looking for what fields you are requesting on this CR. AT&T previously provided this information on SCR022703-04 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR and we found it very helpful. Do you think you would be able to provide this information before our call on Thursday? Let me know. Thanks, Lynn

-- July 26, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: I did not get a message from Bill Micou. Now it is very possible that they will write to me (Regina and Bill) early in the morning. I did not know if you penciled us in for tomorrow. If not Lynn, can you give me dates and times. Here is Bill and Regina's times that they cannot be on a call for the week of July 26th up to and including the 30th of July: The times below are depicted as Eastern Time! When you are looking at the calendar, can you check Qwest SME availability for next week and if need be, the following week? Thank you, Donna

July 26, 2004 Voicemail Received from Donna at AT&T: "Will send a memo with AT&Ts availability and needs to revisit the intent and language. Regina sent examples for Centrex, however, as it appears when you read her memo, that AT&T Business may be in better shape as AT&T has a Parsed understanding of Centrex, so it looks like AT&Ts greater need is for Trunks and might be asking for a Late Adder for Trunks. Also need to talk about Parsed and Structure for Directory Listings for Trunks. Could be a new CR of a separate CR."

-- July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that AT&T has 2 similar CRs, for Centrex and for Trunks, items 1 and 2 in Attachment B. Donna reviewed the CR descriptions. Connie Winston/Qwest noted that AT&T knows how much trouble we have with Centrex, it doesn’t fit the parsed and structured model and the CLECs that worked with Centrex agree it shouldn’t be changed. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that the Clarification Call had been held and that AT&T had submitted revisions to the CRs. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the revisions were received and that a follow-up call would be scheduled with AT&T to discuss the changes to the CRs. Liz Balvin/MCI asked why the REQ TYPE comes into play. John Gallegos/Qwest explained that this is one piece of information that Qwest is starting to ask for in order to better clarify the request. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that these CRs are for IMA Common. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the CRs would move to Presented Status.

- July 21, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Regina, In response to your question on the Trunks CR Late Adder vs. the Centrex CR; you can invoke the Late Adder process on any IMA CR that did not make the timeframe for the upcoming vote. We will need to go forward with the vote, and then we will start the Late Adder Process with the vote being in the August Systems CMP Meeting. Please advise me of your availability for a follow-up call. Thanks Much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP Systems CRPM

- July 20, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Peggy, It looks like we may need to make some tweaks to the Centrex and Trunk CR's based on the clarifications I received from the AT&T SME's. CENTREX After more investigation, we are pretty satisfied with the way in which we receive the CSR for Centrex. The only clarification we would like to request is in regards to the TOS. Currently, this information is provided at the account level only so our interpretation is that all the TNs within the account have the same TOS. Can there be a mixed Type of Service (or class of service accounts) at the line level? If so, then we would like the TOS field parsed at the line level. This is our only requirement for Centrex Parsed CSR. TRUNKS Please see the attached example CSR for Trunks. It currently displays the CSR in a pre-14.0 format. AT&T Business would like to see the format parsed in the following way: TN 1/TER 1 PIC, LPIC, TLI, CLT (i.e. ECCKT), TGP (trunk group number), RTI (route index), SST (start signaling type), USDO (DID digits out, TPL (pulse type), Hunting USOCs, etc. (whatever is currently being passed as floating FIDs on the USOC). TN 1/TER 2 PIC, LPIC, TLI, CLT (i.e. ECCKT), TGP (trunk group number), RTI (route index), SST (start signaling type), USDO (DID digits out, TPL (pulse type), Hunting USOCs, etc. (whatever is currently being passed as floating FIDs on the USOC). TN1/TER 3.......etc. AT&T Business would like to see listings parsed for Trunks only. This would follow the same format that was provided in SCR103103-01 for TN based products. The main listing loop would repeat LFIDNUM of times and the SLN loops would be presented to show that they are part of the LML. Let me know if you need additional information and examples. Donna and Peggy, since the Centrex CSR is in better shape than anticipated, can we submit the Trunks parsed CSR as an exception for 17.0 rather than Centrex? Regina Mosley AT&T Business - Systems Analyst

- July 19, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Peggy, I did not receive confirmation from the AT&T Trunks and Centrex SME's regarding the requirements for parsing out the CSR's. They are reviewing and providing comments, therefore, the close of business date today I had given you to supply the examples will not be met. I understand that the follow up clarification call will probably need to be moved, but I want to make sure that I provide you with the correct requirements for parsing the Centrex and Trunks CSR. Hopefully, I will have their comments by COB tomorrow. Thank you. Regina Mosley AT&T Business - Systems Analyst

- Clarification Meeting-July 16, 2004 SCR070804-01 Parsed and Structured CSR for Centrex SCR070804-02 Request for a Parsed and Structured CSR for Trunks

Introduction of Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Regina Mosley-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Susie Wells-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, Sami Hooper-Qwest, Paul Johnson-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change and Discussion: SCR070804-01 Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest reviewed the CR Description and Expected Deliverable. AT&T Business requests a parsed and structured CSR to be implemented for Centrex; in the same manner as SCR022703-04 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR for TN based products. Currently, the Qwest retail CSR for Centrex displays the data in the S&E Major Heading Section. AT&T gets the USOC and the Feature Detail, but the "Telephone Number" is not specifically identified, It is embedded in the Feature Detail of the USOC. Peggy stated that the expected deliverable is that AT&T would like a parsed and structured CSR for Centrex. AT&T would like to see the Centrex "Telephone Numbers" displayed in the WTN Feature and Feature Detail section like the format presented in IMA 14.0.

SCR070804-02 AT&T Business requests a parsed and structured CSR to be implemented for Trunks in the same manner as SCR022703-04 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR for TN based products. Currently, the Qwest retail CSR for Trunks displays the data in the S&E Major Heading Section. AT&T gets the USOC and the Feature Detail, but the "Telephone Number" is not specifically identified, It is embedded in the Feature Detail of the USOC. Peggy stated that the expected deliverable is that would like a parsed and structured CSR for Trunks. AT&T would like to see the Trunk "Telephone Numbers" displayed in the WTN Feature and Feature Detail section like the format presented in IMA 14.0.

Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked what the process was if other CLECs wanted to add other products to the CRs. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that an action item would be taken for Qwest to determine what the impacts to the LOE would be, and then would provide the information at a CMP Meeting. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked if Qwest would provide both an LOE for the originator’s requested products and an LOE for the additional products. Donna also asked if the decision to include or exclude the additional requested products would be made by the CRs originating CLEC. John Gallegos-Qwest stated yes, two LOE’s could be provided, and noted that the timing of the request for additional products should also be a factor to the inclusion or exclusion decision. Susie Wells-Qwest asked for clarity of the sentence "We would like to see the Centrex "Telephone Numbers" displayed in the WTN Feature and Feature Detail section like the format presented in IMA 14.0" for pre-order. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that she thought that she received an email stating that the TN information on Centrex and Trunk Products was not at the WTN Level and that it was displayed in the S&E Level. Regina asked if that was not true. Susie Wells-Qwest stated that she just needed to make sure that she understood the request correctly. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that with 14.0, now have the information at the WTN Level; have the features and USOCs associated to the Product’s. Regina stated that she is seeing the TNs in the pre-14.0 format and wants what they currently see with the 14.0 CR, which covered TN based products. Sami Hooper-Qwest asked for the Trunk piece, if is DID with most trunks having the same TN, is AT&T needing DID2 or DID3 and their features; such as DID TNs themselves. Sami stated that she is asking because Qwest does not know how they could be aligned due to the fact that they are aligned with the PBX. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that they are looking to have detail in a parsed structure at that level. Regina stated that it would then have TN1, TN2, etc. Sami Hooper-Qwest stated that if is DID and for example has a group of 20 number’s, would AT&T consider that a feature of the trunk number. Regina Mosley-AT&T asked if Qwest would group the Trunk Group together. Sami Hooper-Qwest stated that if trunk, needs the RTI index. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that due to the issues with the previous candidates, he would like an example of what AT&T is looking for at the trunk perspective. John asked if AT&T could provide a mock CSR. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that she would provide what she is looking at and an example of what AT&T is asking for. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that the examples and mock-up would give Qwest a good base to go from. Regina Mosley-AT&T agreed and stated that examples are good and stated that she would provide them to Peggy (Esquibel-Reed-Qwest) directly. John Gallegos-Qwest asked if the expectation is that Qwest would get the examples, from AT&T, and then have another conference call to discuss. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that once the information was received, a follow-up call would be scheduled. Conrad Evans-Qwest stated that examples for both CRs, Centrex and Trunks, were needed. Susie Wells-Qwest stated that the Feature Detail, of the S&E Detail, contains the WTN that AT&T is looking for. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that was correct. Susie Wells-Qwest asked that if the information is already there, would it make it easier if was in the WTN Field. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that AT&T has developed coding for the other products and the coding for the specific products on these CRs has to be different. Conrad Evans-Qwest asked if AT&T is seeing the bills but that the data is not populated. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that they do see the field but it is not populated. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that they see it in the pre-14.0 structure, for Centrex Products. Conrad Evans-Qwest asked if the requests included the Listing Section. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that AT&T Business does not have Listing information parsed out. Regina stated that the CRs do not impact the Listing Section. There were no additional questions or comments. Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked to confirm that the impacted area is for Pre-Order only for both SCR070804-01 and SCR070804-02. Regina Mosley-AT&T responded yes, Pre-Order only for both CRs.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked to confirm that this was a request for IMA EDI only. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that it should be IMA Common. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that IMA Common would be more appropriate. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that she would make the change to the CR.

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked to confirm the impacted products. The In-Scope and Out-of-Scope Product Lists are as follows:

SCR070804-01 IN SCOPE: UNE-P Centrex 21 REQ TYPE: MB ACT TYPE is not applicable for Pre-Order

SCR070804-01 OUT of SCOPE: Analog Line Side Port / REQ TYPE: FB DID/PBX Trunk Port Facility / REQ TYPE: FB Digital Line Side Port / REQ TYPE: FB DS0/Analog Trunk Port / REQ TYPE: FB DS1 Trunk Port / REQ TYPE: FB Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL) / REQ TYPE: MB Facility Based Directory Listings (FBDL) / REQ TYPE: JB Interim Number Portability (INP) / REQ TYPE: CB Line Sharing/Shared Loop / REQ TYPE: AB Listings Only / REQ TYPE: HB Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: CB Resale - Centrex 21 / REQ TYPE: PB Resale - Centrex Plus & Centron / REQ TYPE: PB Resale - DID Trunks / REQ TYPE: KB Resale - Frame Relay Service (FRS)/ REQ TYPE: EB Resale - ISDN BRI / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - ISDN PRI Facility / REQ TYPE: KB Resale - ISDN PRI Trunks / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - PAL / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - PBX Trunk Service / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - PBX Trunk Service – Designed / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - POTS / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - Private Line Transport (PLT) - Non-switched / REQ TYPE: KB Resale - Qwest DSL / REQ TYPE: EB Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL) / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL)-Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Feeder Loop (UFL) / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Local Loop / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Local Loop Split / REQ TYPE: UB Unbundled Local Loop-Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: BB UNE-P /STAR- Centrex 21 Split / REQ TYPE: SB UNE-P/STAR - Centrex Plus and UNE-P – Centron / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - DSS Facility / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - DSS Trunks / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - ISDN BRI / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - ISDN PRI Facility / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - ISDN PRI Trunks / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - PBX Trunks / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - PBX Trunks Split / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - PBX/DID Trunks / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P/STAR-POTS / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - POTS Split / REQ TYPE: SB

SCR070804-02 IN SCOPE: UNE-P DSS Trunks UNE-P ISDN PRI Trunks UNE-P PBX Trunks UNE-P PBX DID Trunks REQ TYPE: MB for SCR070804-02 Products noted above ACT TYPE is not applicable for Pre-Order

SCR070804-02 OUT of SCOPE: Analog Line Side Port / REQ TYPE: FB DID/PBX Trunk Port Facility / REQ TYPE: FB Digital Line Side Port / REQ TYPE: FB Analog Trunk Port / REQ TYPE: FB DS1 Trunk Port / REQ TYPE: FB Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL) / REQ TYPE: MB Facility Based Directory Listings (FBDL) / REQ TYPE: JB Interim Number Portability (INP) / REQ TYPE: CB Line Sharing/Shared Loop / REQ TYPE: AB Listings Only / REQ TYPE: HB Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: CB Resale - Centrex 21 / REQ TYPE: PB Resale - Centrex Plus & Centron / REQ TYPE: PB Resale - DID Trunks / REQ TYPE: KB Resale - Frame Relay Service (FRS)/ REQ TYPE: EB Resale - ISDN BRI / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - ISDN PRI Facility / REQ TYPE: KB Resale - ISDN PRI Trunks / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - PAL / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - PBX Trunk Service / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - PBX Trunk Service – Designed / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - POTS / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - Private Line Transport (PLT) - Non-switched / REQ TYPE: KB Resale - Qwest DSL / REQ TYPE: EB Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL) / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL)-Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Feeder Loop (UFL) / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Local Loop / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Local Loop Split / REQ TYPE: UB Unbundled Local Loop-Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: BB UNE-P/STAR - Centrex 21 / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P /STAR- Centrex 21 Split / REQ TYPE: SB UNE-P/STAR - Centrex Plus and UNE-P – Centron / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - DSS Facility / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - ISDN BRI / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - ISDN PRI Facility / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - PBX Trunks Split / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P/STAR-POTS / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - POTS Split / REQ TYPE: SB

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: CR is due for presentation at the July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting.

- July 13, 2004 Email Sent to Donna at AT&T: Hi Donna, Can you provide me with your availability for the Clarification Call? Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

- July 9, 2004 Email Sent to Donna, Regina, & Carla at AT&T: Donna, SCR070804-01 Parsed and Structured CSR for Centrex SCR070804-02 Parsed and Structured CSR for Trunks Please advise of your availability for a Clarification Meeting. We can discuss both CRs, noted above, on one call, if that is agreeable to you. Several dates and times would be great. I will then schedule the meeting and send the call-in information.

Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

CenturyLink Response

August 12, 2004

RE: SCR070804-01 Parsed and Structured CSR for Centrex

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR070804-01. The Clarification Call was held on July 16, 2004 and additional information is pending from AT&T. Qwest will continue to examine the issue, upon receipt of the information.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR070804-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

AT&T would like a parsed and structured CSR for Trunks. We would like to see the Trunk "Telephone Numbers" displayed in the WTN Feature and Feature Detail section like the format presented in IMA 14.0.

IMPACTED PRODUCTS - CONFIRMED DURING 7/16/04 CLARIFICATION CALL:

IN SCOPE:

UNE-P DSS Trunks

UNE-P ISDN PRI Trunks

UNE-P PBX Trunks

UNE-P PBX DID Trunks

REQ TYPE: MB for SCR070804-02 Products noted above

ACT TYPE is not applicable for Pre-Order

OUT of SCOPE:

Analog Line Side Port / REQ TYPE: FB

DID/PBX Trunk Port Facility / REQ TYPE: FB

Digital Line Side Port / REQ TYPE: FB

Analog Trunk Port / REQ TYPE: FB

DS1 Trunk Port / REQ TYPE: FB

Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL) / REQ TYPE: MB

Facility Based Directory Listings (FBDL) / REQ TYPE: JB

Interim Number Portability (INP) / REQ TYPE: CB

Line Sharing/Shared Loop / REQ TYPE: AB

Listings Only / REQ TYPE: HB

Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: CB

Resale - Centrex 21 / REQ TYPE: PB

Resale - Centrex Plus & Centron / REQ TYPE: PB

Resale - DID Trunks / REQ TYPE: KB

Resale - Frame Relay Service (FRS)/ REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - ISDN BRI / REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - ISDN PRI Facility / REQ TYPE: KB

Resale - ISDN PRI Trunks / REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - PAL / REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - PBX Trunk Service / REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - PBX Trunk Service - Designed / REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - POTS / REQ TYPE: EB

Resale - Private Line Transport (PLT) - Non-switched / REQ TYPE: KB

Resale - Qwest DSL / REQ TYPE: EB

Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL) / REQ TYPE: AB

Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL)-Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: AB

Unbundled Feeder Loop (UFL) / REQ TYPE: AB

Unbundled Local Loop / REQ TYPE: AB

Unbundled Local Loop Split / REQ TYPE: UB

Unbundled Local Loop-Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: BB

UNE-P/STAR - Centrex 21 / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P /STAR- Centrex 21 Split / REQ TYPE: SB

UNE-P/STAR - Centrex Plus and UNE-P - Centron / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - DSS Facility / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - ISDN BRI / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - ISDN PRI Facility / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - PBX Trunks Split / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P/STAR-POTS / REQ TYPE: MB

UNE-P - POTS Split / REQ TYPE: SB

Status History

Project Meetings

- August 16, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Hi Peggy, I received an email from Bill Micou Friday evening. AT&T will withdraw both our CR's that we had submitted that dealt with a parsed and structured CSR for Centrex and for Trunks. The CR numbers are:SCR070804-01 (Centrex) and SCR070804-02 (Trunks). Thank you, Donna

- August 9, 2004 Voicemail Received from Donna at AT&T: "AT&T is still not ready for a subsequent call to discuss Parsed & Structured CSRs for Trunks and for Centrex. AT&T is still discussing internally in order to determine if the CRs are to move forward or if AT&T will withdraw the CRs.

- August 3, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Hello Peggy, I am still waiting for Bill and Regina to respond to meeting availability. I hope to let you know that tomorrow or Wednesday. Will contact you as soon as I hear back from Regina or Bill. Thank you, Donna

August 3, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Donna, SCR070804-01 Parsed and Structured CSR for Centrex SCR070804-02 Request for a parsed and structured CSR for Trunks This is a follow-up to see if AT&T is ready to meet with Qwest in order to discuss the CRs noted above. Would you please send me the following: - The completed form that contains the Directory Listings fields for your request for ‘Trunks’ CR (this is the form that Lynn sent you on July 27, 2004) - Your availability for a meeting to discuss and clarify. Thanks, Donna. We will then be able to move forward with the evaluation of these CRs. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

- July 28, 2004 Email Received Copy of an Email from AT&T:

I just got a call from Qwest and they are needing the parsed and structured Directory Listings fields we seek for this CR. Qwest would like AT&T to fill out this attached form in the same manner as was done previously for a former candidate. They found this detail to be quite helpful in meeting our needs before. We need to have this information today, and back to Qwest for the call tomorrow. Otherwise they will postpone the call until next week. Lynn, have I stated Qwest's request correctly? Bill. Regina, I am out of the office this afternoon. Carla Pardee is my back-up. Please pass the required information back to Carla, and she will get it to Lynn today. If we are not able to populate this form for them, will you let Carla know that. She will then negotiate the next dates of availability for the call in that is needed. Sorry for the last minute request. Thank you, Donna

- July 27, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Lynn, Here is information for our call on Thursday. Thank you. Donna This is trunk-level detail information. Of course, in addition to this, we would need to see account-level information about the account as well as (such as AN, Service Address, etc. -- similar fields as would be sent at the account-level on a POTS parsed CSR). In addition to the change to get the TN parsed and the USOCs subordinate to the TN, I would like to see the following Trunks data parsed as well: DID Numbers TERs Route Index Hunt ID and Multi-line Hunt ID PIC LPIC TLI ECCKT Trunk ID Trunk Group Number Start Signaling Digits Out Pulse Signaling

-- July 27, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Hi Donna, I am sending the attached document to request additional information associated with SCR070804-02 (Request for a parsed and structured for Trunks). We are looking for what fields you are requesting on this CR. AT&T previously provided this information on SCR022703-04 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR and we found it very helpful. Do you think you would be able to provide this information before our call on Thursday? Let me know. Thanks, Lynn

-- July 26, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: I did not get a message from Bill Micou. Now it is very possible that they will write to me (Regina and Bill) early in the morning. I did not know if you penciled us in for tomorrow. If not Lynn, can you give me dates and times. Here is Bill and Regina's times that they cannot be on a call for the week of July 26th up to and including the 30th of July: The times below are depicted as Eastern Time! When you are looking at the calendar, can you check Qwest SME availability for next week and if need be, the following week? Thank you, Donna

July 26, 2004 Voicemail Received from Donna at AT&T: "Will send a memo with AT&Ts availability and needs to revisit the intent and language. Regina sent examples for Centrex, however, as it appears when you read her memo, that AT&T Business may be in better shape as AT&T has a Parsed understanding of Centrex, so it looks like AT&Ts greater need is for Trunks and might be asking for a Late Adder for Trunks. Also need to talk about Parsed and Structure for Directory Listings for Trunks. Could be a new CR of a separate CR."

July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that AT&T has 2 similar CRs, for Centrex and for Trunks, items 1 and 2 in Attachment B. Donna reviewed the CR descriptions. Connie Winston/Qwest noted that AT&T knows how much trouble we have with Centrex, it doesn’t fit the parsed and structured model and the CLECs that worked with Centrex agree it shouldn’t be changed. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that the Clarification Call had been held and that AT&T had submitted revisions to the CRs. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the revisions were received and that a follow-up call would be scheduled with AT&T to discuss the changes to the CRs. Liz Balvin/MCI asked why the REQ TYPE comes into play. John Gallegos/Qwest explained that this is one piece of information that Qwest is starting to ask for in order to better clarify the request. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that these CRs are for IMA Common. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the CRs would move to Presented Status.

- July 21, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Regina, In response to your question on the Trunks CR Late Adder vs. the Centrex CR; you can invoke the Late Adder process on any IMA CR that did not make the timeframe for the upcoming vote. We will need to go forward with the vote, and then we will start the Late Adder Process with the vote being in the August Systems CMP Meeting. Please advise me of your availability for a follow-up call. Thanks Much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP Systems CRPM

July 20, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Peggy, It looks like we may need to make some tweaks to the Centrex and Trunk CR's based on the clarifications I received from the AT&T SME's. CENTREX After more investigation, we are pretty satisfied with the way in which we receive the CSR for Centrex. The only clarification we would like to request is in regards to the TOS. Currently, this information is provided at the account level only so our interpretation is that all the TNs within the account have the same TOS. Can there be a mixed Type of Service (or class of service accounts) at the line level? If so, then we would like the TOS field parsed at the line level. This is our only requirement for Centrex Parsed CSR. TRUNKS Please see the attached example CSR for Trunks. It currently displays the CSR in a pre-14.0 format. AT&T Business would like to see the format parsed in the following way: TN 1/TER 1 PIC, LPIC, TLI, CLT (i.e. ECCKT), TGP (trunk group number), RTI (route index), SST (start signaling type), USDO (DID digits out, TPL (pulse type), Hunting USOCs, etc. (whatever is currently being passed as floating FIDs on the USOC). TN 1/TER 2 PIC, LPIC, TLI, CLT (i.e. ECCKT), TGP (trunk group number), RTI (route index), SST (start signaling type), USDO (DID digits out, TPL (pulse type), Hunting USOCs, etc. (whatever is currently being passed as floating FIDs on the USOC). TN1/TER 3.......etc. AT&T Business would like to see listings parsed for Trunks only. This would follow the same format that was provided in SCR103103-01 for TN based products. The main listing loop would repeat LFIDNUM of times and the SLN loops would be presented to show that they are part of the LML. Let me know if you need additional information and examples. Donna and Peggy, since the Centrex CSR is in better shape than anticipated, can we submit the Trunks parsed CSR as an exception for 17.0 rather than Centrex? Regina Mosley AT&T Business - Systems Analyst

- July 19, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Peggy, I did not receive confirmation from the AT&T Trunks and Centrex SME's regarding the requirements for parsing out the CSR's. They are reviewing and providing comments, therefore, the close of business date today I had given you to supply the examples will not be met. I understand that the follow up clarification call will probably need to be moved, but I want to make sure that I provide you with the correct requirements for parsing the Centrex and Trunks CSR. Hopefully, I will have their comments by COB tomorrow. Thank you. Regina Mosley AT&T Business - Systems Analyst

Clarification Meeting-July 16, 2004 SCR070804-01 Parsed and Structured CSR for Centrex SCR070804-02 Request for a Parsed and Structured CSR for Trunks

Introduction of Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Regina Mosley-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Susie Wells-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, Sami Hooper-Qwest, Paul Johnson-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change and Discussion: SCR070804-01 Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest reviewed the CR Description and Expected Deliverable. AT&T Business requests a parsed and structured CSR to be implemented for Centrex; in the same manner as SCR022703-04 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR for TN based products. Currently, the Qwest retail CSR for Centrex displays the data in the S&E Major Heading Section. AT&T gets the USOC and the Feature Detail, but the "Telephone Number" is not specifically identified, It is embedded in the Feature Detail of the USOC. Peggy stated that the expected deliverable is that AT&T would like a parsed and structured CSR for Centrex. AT&T would like to see the Centrex "Telephone Numbers" displayed in the WTN Feature and Feature Detail section like the format presented in IMA 14.0.

SCR070804-02 AT&T Business requests a parsed and structured CSR to be implemented for Trunks in the same manner as SCR022703-04 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR for TN based products. Currently, the Qwest retail CSR for Trunks displays the data in the S&E Major Heading Section. AT&T gets the USOC and the Feature Detail, but the "Telephone Number" is not specifically identified, It is embedded in the Feature Detail of the USOC. Peggy stated that the expected deliverable is that would like a parsed and structured CSR for Trunks. AT&T would like to see the Trunk "Telephone Numbers" displayed in the WTN Feature and Feature Detail section like the format presented in IMA 14.0.

Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked what the process was if other CLECs wanted to add other products to the CRs. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that an action item would be taken for Qwest to determine what the impacts to the LOE would be, and then would provide the information at a CMP Meeting. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked if Qwest would provide both an LOE for the originator’s requested products and an LOE for the additional products. Donna also asked if the decision to include or exclude the additional requested products would be made by the CRs originating CLEC. John Gallegos-Qwest stated yes, two LOE’s could be provided, and noted that the timing of the request for additional products should also be a factor to the inclusion or exclusion decision. Susie Wells-Qwest asked for clarity of the sentence "We would like to see the Centrex "Telephone Numbers" displayed in the WTN Feature and Feature Detail section like the format presented in IMA 14.0" for pre-order. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that she thought that she received an email stating that the TN information on Centrex and Trunk Products was not at the WTN Level and that it was displayed in the S&E Level. Regina asked if that was not true. Susie Wells-Qwest stated that she just needed to make sure that she understood the request correctly. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that with 14.0, now have the information at the WTN Level; have the features and USOCs associated to the Product’s. Regina stated that she is seeing the TNs in the pre-14.0 format and wants what they currently see with the 14.0 CR, which covered TN based products. Sami Hooper-Qwest asked for the Trunk piece, if is DID with most trunks having the same TN, is AT&T needing DID2 or DID3 and their features; such as DID TNs themselves. Sami stated that she is asking because Qwest does not know how they could be aligned due to the fact that they are aligned with the PBX. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that they are looking to have detail in a parsed structure at that level. Regina stated that it would then have TN1, TN2, etc. Sami Hooper-Qwest stated that if is DID and for example has a group of 20 number’s, would AT&T consider that a feature of the trunk number. Regina Mosley-AT&T asked if Qwest would group the Trunk Group together. Sami Hooper-Qwest stated that if trunk, needs the RTI index. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that due to the issues with the previous candidates, he would like an example of what AT&T is looking for at the trunk perspective. John asked if AT&T could provide a mock CSR. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that she would provide what she is looking at and an example of what AT&T is asking for. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that the examples and mock-up would give Qwest a good base to go from. Regina Mosley-AT&T agreed and stated that examples are good and stated that she would provide them to Peggy (Esquibel-Reed-Qwest) directly. John Gallegos-Qwest asked if the expectation is that Qwest would get the examples, from AT&T, and then have another conference call to discuss. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that once the information was received, a follow-up call would be scheduled. Conrad Evans-Qwest stated that examples for both CRs, Centrex and Trunks, were needed. Susie Wells-Qwest stated that the Feature Detail, of the S&E Detail, contains the WTN that AT&T is looking for. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that was correct. Susie Wells-Qwest asked that if the information is already there, would it make it easier if was in the WTN Field. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that AT&T has developed coding for the other products and the coding for the specific products on these CRs has to be different. Conrad Evans-Qwest asked if AT&T is seeing the bills but that the data is not populated. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that they do see the field but it is not populated. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that they see it in the pre-14.0 structure, for Centrex Products. Conrad Evans-Qwest asked if the requests included the Listing Section. Regina Mosley-AT&T stated that AT&T Business does not have Listing information parsed out. Regina stated that the CRs do not impact the Listing Section. There were no additional questions or comments. Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked to confirm that the impacted area is for Pre-Order only for both SCR070804-01 and SCR070804-02. Regina Mosley-AT&T responded yes, Pre-Order only for both CRs.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked to confirm that this was a request for IMA EDI only. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that it should be IMA Common. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that IMA Common would be more appropriate. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that she would make the change to the CR.

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked to confirm the impacted products. The In-Scope and Out-of-Scope Product Lists are as follows:

SCR070804-01 IN SCOPE: UNE-P Centrex 21 REQ TYPE: MB ACT TYPE is not applicable for Pre-Order

SCR070804-01 OUT of SCOPE: Analog Line Side Port / REQ TYPE: FB DID/PBX Trunk Port Facility / REQ TYPE: FB Digital Line Side Port / REQ TYPE: FB DS0/Analog Trunk Port / REQ TYPE: FB DS1 Trunk Port / REQ TYPE: FB Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL) / REQ TYPE: MB Facility Based Directory Listings (FBDL) / REQ TYPE: JB Interim Number Portability (INP) / REQ TYPE: CB Line Sharing/Shared Loop / REQ TYPE: AB Listings Only / REQ TYPE: HB Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: CB Resale - Centrex 21 / REQ TYPE: PB Resale - Centrex Plus & Centron / REQ TYPE: PB Resale - DID Trunks / REQ TYPE: KB Resale - Frame Relay Service (FRS)/ REQ TYPE: EB Resale - ISDN BRI / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - ISDN PRI Facility / REQ TYPE: KB Resale - ISDN PRI Trunks / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - PAL / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - PBX Trunk Service / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - PBX Trunk Service-Designed / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - POTS / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - Private Line Transport (PLT) - Non-switched / REQ TYPE: KB Resale - Qwest DSL / REQ TYPE: EB Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL) / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL)-Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Feeder Loop (UFL) / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Local Loop / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Local Loop Split / REQ TYPE: UB Unbundled Local Loop-Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: BB UNE-P /STAR- Centrex 21 Split / REQ TYPE: SB UNE-P/STAR - Centrex Plus and UNE-P-Centron / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - DSS Facility / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - DSS Trunks / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - ISDN BRI / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - ISDN PRI Facility / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - ISDN PRI Trunks / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - PBX Trunks / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - PBX Trunks Split / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - PBX/DID Trunks / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P/STAR-POTS / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - POTS Split / REQ TYPE: SB

SCR070804-02 IN SCOPE: UNE-P DSS Trunks UNE-P ISDN PRI Trunks UNE-P PBX Trunks UNE-P PBX DID Trunks REQ TYPE: MB for SCR070804-02 Products noted above ACT TYPE is not applicable for Pre-Order

SCR070804-02 OUT of SCOPE: Analog Line Side Port / REQ TYPE: FB DID/PBX Trunk Port Facility / REQ TYPE: FB Digital Line Side Port / REQ TYPE: FB Analog Trunk Port / REQ TYPE: FB DS1 Trunk Port / REQ TYPE: FB Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL) / REQ TYPE: MB Facility Based Directory Listings (FBDL) / REQ TYPE: JB Interim Number Portability (INP) / REQ TYPE: CB Line Sharing/Shared Loop / REQ TYPE: AB Listings Only / REQ TYPE: HB Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: CB Resale - Centrex 21 / REQ TYPE: PB Resale - Centrex Plus & Centron / REQ TYPE: PB Resale - DID Trunks / REQ TYPE: KB Resale - Frame Relay Service (FRS)/ REQ TYPE: EB Resale - ISDN BRI / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - ISDN PRI Facility / REQ TYPE: KB Resale - ISDN PRI Trunks / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - PAL / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - PBX Trunk Service / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - PBX Trunk Service-Designed / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - POTS / REQ TYPE: EB Resale - Private Line Transport (PLT) - Non-switched / REQ TYPE: KB Resale - Qwest DSL / REQ TYPE: EB Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL) / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL)-Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Feeder Loop (UFL) / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Local Loop / REQ TYPE: AB Unbundled Local Loop Split / REQ TYPE: UB Unbundled Local Loop-Local Number Portability (LNP) / REQ TYPE: BB UNE-P/STAR - Centrex 21 / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P /STAR- Centrex 21 Split / REQ TYPE: SB UNE-P/STAR - Centrex Plus and UNE-P-Centron / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - DSS Facility / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - ISDN BRI / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - ISDN PRI Facility / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - PBX Trunks Split / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P/STAR-POTS / REQ TYPE: MB UNE-P - POTS Split / REQ TYPE: SB

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: CR is due for presentation at the July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting.

-- July 13, 2004 Email Sent to Donna at AT&T: Hi Donna, Can you provide me with your availability for the Clarification Call? Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

-- July 9, 2004 Email Sent to Donna, Regina, & Carla at AT&T: Donna, SCR070804-01 Parsed and Structured CSR for Centrex SCR070804-02 Parsed and Structured CSR for Trunks Please advise of your availability for a Clarification Meeting. We can discuss both CRs, noted above, on one call, if that is agreeable to you. Several dates and times would be great. I will then schedule the meeting and send the call-in information.

Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

CenturyLink Response

August 12, 2004

RE: SCR070804-02 Request for Parsed and Structured CSR for Trunks

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR070804-02. The Clarification Call was held on July 16, 2004 and additional information is pending from AT&T. Qwest will continue to examine the issue, upon receipt of the information.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR060204-01X 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

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR deployed on 10/10/05. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T said that this CR can be closed.

10/19/05 Systems CMP Meeting

This CR deployed on 10/10/05 and will remain in CLEC Tes

9/9/05 - Communicator Issued

SYST.09.09.05.F.03263.CEMROctRelDrftRelNotice Announcement Date: September 9, 2005 Effective Date: Immediately Notification Number: SYST.09.09.05.F.03262.CEMROctRelDrftRelNotice Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: IXCs, Wireless Subject: CEMR System Change October 10, 2005 CEMR Release: Draft Release Announcement In conjunction with the CEMR system release targeted for implementation on October 10, 2005, Qwest is enhancing the application as outlined below. Summary of Changes: 1. Tone on Line: Qwest will provide the ability to request and receive "Tone on the Line" for maintenance issues in an effort to locate the correct pair at the Demarc. When a Wholesale customer is trying to locate the correct pair to connect an end user customer from the Demarc to CPE, they will request that a tone be placed on the line. 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. This request is available only from CEMR. 2. Allow customers to bond a message in CEMR on a non-design ticket when the error message is received that indicates that the commit time has passed: Qwest will update CEMR to allow the ability to bond a message in CEMR on a non-design ticket when the initial commit time has passed. The customer needs the ability to electronically accept the next available commit time without an initial call to request one. Once the new commit time has been accepted by the customer, the customer then needs the functionality to bond a message. Once a customer has found the trouble report needed, they will be able to edit it, cancel it, change the appointment time, or request a new commitment time. A customer will be able to change commitment times only for which the original commitment time has expired and if the trouble report is still opened. The customer will be able to view closed trouble reports for a day after they’ve been closed, but won’t be able to change commitment times. Note: The above changes will be reflected in the final 2.08.00 CEMR Online Help October 10, 2005. The CEMR Online Help is available at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/systems/cemrandrce.html. The 2.08.00 Online Help will also include information on process changes for cable verification. Details for cable verification can be found at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/notices/cnla/ under process notification PROS.08.18.05.F.03198.CEMRCableVerify. Timeline: Release Announcement Available September 09, 2005 Final Release Announcement September 19, 2005 Targeted Production Date October 10, 2005 If you have any questions or would like to discuss this notice, you may submit questions to itcomm@qwest.com, or your Qwest Service Manager. Qwest appreciates your business and we look forward to our continued relationship.

Sincerely,

Qwest Corporation

6/15/05 Systems CMP Meeting

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that the targeted implementation date for this CR is 10/10/05.

12/15/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest asked if there were any questions for Attachment J. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked for an updated status on #52, #57, #66 and #67. Sharon stated that these CRs are still in a Presented Status and asked if the status should be changed to something else. Jill Martain/Qwest said that these CRs are being worked on even though they are in a presented status and are part of the funding effort that is underway. Jill said that they remain in presented status until the CRs are scheduled and would then move to development status. There were no additional questions or comments.

10/20/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the level of effort for this CR is 300 to 600 hours and that this action item will be closed.

8/18/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR was crossed over from Product and Process to Systems. Jill stated that we will provide the LOE in the September Systems CMP Meeting.

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

September 17, 2004

RE: SCR060204-01X Tone On Line

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR06020401-01X). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held June 15, 2004) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 300 to 600 hours for this CEMR Change Request.

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR030404-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Before August 1,2004

Status History

Project Meetings

Thank you for your time.

Kaysee Kauer Black Hills FiberCom

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR021104-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

--Original Message-- From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:47 AM To: Hankins, Lynn Subject: RE: SCR021104-01

Hi Lynn,

I can take care of closing the CR for you. Thanks for letting me know!

Lynn Stecklein

303 382-5770

--Original Message-- From: Hankins, Lynn [mailto:LHankins@covad.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:25 AM To: Stecklein, Lynn Subject: SCR021104-01

Lynn,

Who do I contact in CMP to get this CR closed? Covad did the testing, everything works, and we can close it out.

Thanks!

Lynn Hankins

1/18/06 Systems CMP Meeting

Lynn Hankins - Covad stated that she is waiting for the test results and would like to keep this CR open for another month. She will let Qwest know off line when this CR can be closed.

12/14/05 Systems CMP Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR deployed on October 17th and asked if Covad was ready to close the CR. Lynn Hankins/Covad asked that this CR remain is CLEC Test for testing purposes.

11/16/05 Systems CMP Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR deployed on 10/17/05. Lynn Hankins/Covad stated that she would like this CR to remain in CLEC Test for testing purposes.

10/19/05 Systems CMP Meeting

This CR deployed on 10/17/05 and will remain in CLEC Test.

Combined Overview and IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation Walkthrough for IMA EDI Release 18.0

August 10, 2005 8:00 am – Completion

Location: CONFERENCE BRIDGE ONLY Conference Bridge: 1-888-725-8686 Conference ID: 4317009

Attendees List* Anders Ingemarson - Qwest Angela Stewart - Qwest Angie Thompson - Weiser Anne Robberson - Qwest Brian Caywood - Qwest Chris Terrell - AT&T Chuck Anderson - Qwest Cim Chambers - Qwest Dave Schleicher - Qwest Denise Martinez - Qwest Diane Burt - AT&T Dianne Friend - Time Warner Gary Berroa - Qwest John Sanclaria - Qwest Judy DeRosier - Qwest Lynn Stecklein - Qwest Mark Coyne - Qwest Mark Haynes - Qwest Michael Lopez - Qwest Michelle Thacker - Qwest Pat Bratetic - Qwest Russ Urevig - Qwest Sandie Tekavec -Qwest Shon Higer - Qwest Stephanie Prull - Eschelon

*List may be incomplete. 1. Introductions Kyle Kirves began the meeting by taking attendance and announcing the meeting purpose. The meeting notice included copies of the agenda and the candidate overview document. Kyle explained that the walkthrough would cover the candidates, the candidate impacts to the associated documentation, and the IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation overview.

SCR021104-01- GUI System Log-Ins for Agency Companies Michelle Thacker reviewed the information provided in the candidate overview document circulated with the meeting agenda and the meeting notification announcement.

Kyle opened the floor to Questions.

Stephanie asked about companies that may have two or more different ACNAs. Would a company need to log in/log out to use the functionality as described?

Michelle stated that it is truly a partnership arrangement; however you can set up the two RCIDs as a partnership by adding it to the ownership table, waiting 8 days, then using the functionality. There is no limit on partnerships.

Kyle asked about documentation updates. Sandie Tekavec and Dave Schleicher covered the changes.

Kyle moved discussion to the next candidate.

2/16/05 Systems CMP Meeting - IMA 18.0 Candidate Discussion

Liz Balvin-Covad stated that this is Covad’s number 2 priority

7/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would distribute the ballot on July 27th, it is due back to Qwest on July 30th, and Qwest would email the initial prioritization list to the CLECs on August 3rd.

There were no questions. John Berard/Covad stated that this is high for Covad. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that this is high for AT&T.

6/17/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is still evaluating this request and will provide an update in the July CMP meeting.

This Action Item remains open.

5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are working through the definition on this CR and will provide additional information next month. This action item remains open.

3/18/04 CMP Systems Meeting

John Berard/Covad presented the description of change. John stated Covad is taking on more partners for IMA and CEMR and would like Qwest to consider adjusting their log-in systems to allow partner DLECs to use their existing log-ins to access orders/trouble tickets related to partnered orders. John said that they were looking for any way of using some type of identifier so that they would know who they are partnered with and to make it easier for their agents to log in. Kit Thomte/Qwest asked if there were any questions. Kit stated that the status would be changed to presented.

2/23/04 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees John Berard - Covad, Rita Sandoval - Qwest, Angela Stewart - Qwest, Crystal Soderlund - Qwest, Hank Martinez - Qwest, Deb Roth - Qwest

Review Description of Change John Berard/Covad stated that Currently Covad is partnered with many different CLEC Voice providers as a DLEC providing data on line split orders. When logging in to the Qwest GUI systems Covad is currently required to log-in using an account provided by our VLEC partner. This means that we must manage multiple account log-ins for every partner we work with. Covad Communications is requesting that Qwest adjust their log-in systems to allow partner DLECs to use their existing log-ins to access orders/trouble tickets related to partnered orders.

Discussion John Berard/Covad stated that Bell South has tables that map who they partner with and enables Covad to log in without a separate log in. John stated that he thought Qwest had to maintain these type of tables because of migrations. John said that these were just some thoughts on how this may be done but was open to other ideas, Crystal Soderlund/ Qwest asked what Covad's expectation was on this CR. John Berard/Covad stated that they want one 'log in/password with scenarios where they have a letter of authorization from their DLEC partners. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that she was unaware of any tables that exist that track partnerships or agency agreements and that there could be security issues.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted The products impacted are UNE, Switching, Loop & UNE-P and the interfaces noted are the IMA GUI and CEMR.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation Covad is requesting that Qwest adust their log in systems to allow their partner DLECs to use their existing log ins

Establish Action Plan Covad will present this change request in the March 18, 2004 CMP Systems Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

July 16, 2004

RE: SCR021104-01 GUI System Log-Ins for Agency Companies (line-split partnerships)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR021104-01). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held February 24, 2004) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 3900 to 5600 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 17.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

DRAFT RESPONSE

April 13, 2004

RE: SCR021104-01 GUI System Log-Ins for Agency Companies (line-split partnerships)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR021104-0.1 Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held February 23, 2004) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the May Systems CMP Meeting.

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR021904-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

John Berard/Covad said that he did not have any questions on the denial and said that he stated that he was open to other solutions. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we looked at other solutions and checked with Network to determine if we could break out the circuit ID. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if the number was porting out. John Gallegos/Qwest said that the number is not porting. Liz Balvin/MCI said that Qwest accepts order to move an end user with UNE-P and DSL. Liz said that the POTS get moved but the DSL doesn’t move with it. Connie Winston/Qwest said that Covad was asking to change the 2nd line if the voice service transferred, shut off line and notify the DSL Carrier via a Loss Report. Connie said that there are processes but Covad wanted a different approach. John Berard/Covad said that they could use the circuit ID and for Qwest is the TN and they cannot distinguish between the circuit ID and TN. Connie Winston/Qwest said that it is very expensive to change to the circuit ID. Jill Martain/Qwest asked if Covad was ok to close this CR. John Berard/Covad said that he was ok to close.

6/17/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is still evaluating this request and will provide an update in the July CMP meeting. This Action Item remains open.

5/20/04 Sytems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are working through the definition on this CR and will provide additional information next month. This action item remains open.

3/18/04 CMP Systems Meeting

John Berard/Covad reviewed the description of change. John stated that Covad is currently experiencing difficulty in managing move orders in the Qwest Territory for the line sharing family of products. John said that in the Qwest region, the Telephone Number (TN) is used as the Circuit ID (CID) for all line share products. John stated that Qwest is the only ILEC that currently uses the TN for the CID and makes it impossible to distinguish between the old and new CID on move orders. John said that one suggestion is to change the policy of using the TN for the CID; however, Covad is open to other solutions. Kit Thomte/Qwest asked what Covad does in these instances. John Berard/Covad stated that they have to work the orders manually. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that the status would be changed to presented.

3/2/04 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees John Berard - Covad, Chris Delrio - Covad, Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, Liz Balvin - MCI, Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, Crystal Soderlund - Qwest Joan Pfeffer - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Description of Change Lynn Stecklein/Qwest reviewed the description of change Covad is currently experiencing difficulty in managing move orders in the Qwest Territory for the line sharing family of products. In the Qwest region, the Telephone Number (TN) is used as the Circuit ID (CID) for all line share products. Qwest is the only ILEC that currently uses the TN for the CID. This therefore makes it impossible to distinguish between the old and new CID on move orders. One suggestion is to change the policy of using the TN for the CID, however, Covad is open to other solutions.

Discussion Crystal Soderlund/Qwest asked if Covad could provide more detail on their process. Crystal stated that when a T/F order is issued, Covad is not waiting for the Loss Report before they issue a disconnect which is causing the problem. .

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted Lynn Stecklein/Qwest confirmed that the interface impacted is IMA Common and Covad stated that the product impacted is Line Sharing. Lynn stated that she will remove the UNE P product from the CR

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation Covad is requesting that the policy of using the TN for the CID, however, Covad is open to other solutions.

Establish Action Plan Covad will present this CR in the March CMP Systems Meeting

CenturyLink Response

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

John Berard Covad

SUBJECT: Line Share Family of Products Move Order Process

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, SCR021904-01, dated 02/19/2004, Titled: Line Share Family of Products Move Order Process.

CR Description: Covad is currently experiencing difficulty in managing move orders in the Qwest Territory for the line sharing family of products. In the Qwest region, the Telephone Number (TN) is used as the Circuit ID (CID) for all line share products. Qwest is the only ILEC that currently uses the TN for the CID. This therefore makes it impossible to distinguish between the old and new CID on move orders. One suggestion is to change the policy of using the TN for the CID. However, Covad is open to other solutions.

Covad provided additional clarification on March 2, 2004. This CR applies to the Line sharing product only.

Expected Deliverable: Covad is requesting a change to the policy of using the TN for the CID on the Line Share family of products. However, Covad is open to other solutions.

Qwest Response: At Qwest, the provisioning order flow has two distinct paths; POTS flow and Design flow. The Line Sharing family of products follows the POTS order flow. The non-design (POTS) flow request derives the circuit identifier from the main account telephone number. For Line Sharing accounts, when Qwest receives a request for a move with the same Telephone Number, the Circuit ID will always remain the same whether it is derived from the main account Telephone Number or from a unique Circuit ID. A unique Circuit ID would not enable a CLEC to distinguish between an old and new address request.

Qwest responds to this CR stating that in order to assign a unique Circuit ID on all Line Sharing requests, Qwest would need to develop a new system to assign and inventory the new unique Circuit IDs. In addition, all existing Line Sharing accounts would need to be updated with a valid Circuit ID (an embedded base).

Therefore, Qwest is denying this request based on cost.

Summary of LOE: New System Development $ 351,000 IMA $189,000 Billing System Changes (CRIS) $ 216,000 SOPS $ 54,000 BOSS/CARS $ 54,000 System Changes to the Embedded base $ 405,000 TOTAL $1,269,000

Sincerely,

Qwest

DRAFT RESPONSE

April 13, 2004

RE: SCR021904-01 Line Share Family of Products Move Order Process

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR021904-0.1 Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held March 2, 2004) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the May Systems CMP Meeting.

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR100104-01ES Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

That Qwest extract the circuit id and provides on all shared loop billing outputs/As soon as possible.5.4 - Continue to provide timely approval on notifications to the Documentation Team

Status History

Project Meetings

January 13, 2005 Email Received from Covad: Peggy, I continue to struggle because Qwest has not provided the specific changes. Thus, please answer the following: 1) Qwest provides a TN based circuit ID on the FOC in the EKKCT field, it this the circuit ID Qwest is referring to when they state 'Shared Loop circuit id is not currently housed in the ordering or billing systems'? 2) What changes would be expected to generate a 'new circuit id to appear on the CRIS billing account'? Because CRIS houses an ECCKT field? Thanks, Liz Balvin Covad Communications

- January 12, 2005 Email Sent to Covad: Liz, I have attached a copy of SCR100104-01 which contains the revised denial, in the Qwest Response portion of the document. This will also be included in the distribution package for next week’s Systems CMP Meeting. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

December 15, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest was asked to explain the cost. Connie stated that when the service order goes to the billing system, the circuit information is in a free flow section and is posted as meaningless data. Connie stated that there are several systems impacted and that a field would need to be created; it would need to be recognized and passed on to the bill output. Connie noted that is what needs to happen just to set it up. Connie stated that there is also the issue with the imbedded base and how to pass text and get it in a formatted field. Connie stated that the front-end and service order billing systems were never asked to retain the information due to the cost and the fact that the information was not necessary. Liz Balvin/Covad asked if the denial was in the CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated yes. Liz Balvin/Covad asked that the detail that Connie just shared be in the CR. Liz stated that she needs to understand why the cost is so high. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the information would be added to the response. (Changes to meeting minutes 12/28/04 from Covad) Liz Balvin/Covad stated that the denial is confusing and needs to see the elaborated response in writing. Liz stated that the TN based circuit id is on the FOC and is captured in a fielded format. Liz stated that Unbundled Loop orders do bill by circuit id in the ECCKT field so she does not understand why it cannot be passed to the billing system. Connie Winston/Qwest stated it is because it is $900,000 of work. (Changes to meeting minutes 12/28/04 from Covad) Liz Balvin/Covad stated that the FOC provides the information in the ECCKT Field of the FOC and that the billing system is fielded for the ECCKT information. Liz stated that she needs to see if the additional information on the cost and until then she cannot accept the denial. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that for Line Splitting, there is one customer of record and all billing is on one CSR. Crystal stated that for Line Sharing, we are dealing with 2 CSRs. Crystal stated that 2 CSRs are needed in order for billing to remain anonymous to the End User and noted that some of the fields cannot be put on the end user’s account. Crystal stated that the cost is to combine the data from 2 separate customer’s CSR’s for CRIS billing. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she needs the detail in writing in order to determine if Qwest assessment is appropriate. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she would do. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that Qwest should have her email with her questions. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest does have the email and stated that the denial would be revised. There were no additional questions or comments.

December 10, 2004 Email Received from Liz Balvin, Covad: Peggy, Covad requests the detailed intended changes noted by Qwest that drove the cost estimate to 900K which resulted in a denial. Covad questions the economical infeasibility based on the following facts: 1) The shared loop orders are provided for on the Loop Service Form (as are other circuit id format driven orders) 2) Qwest provides the TN formatted circuit ID on the FOC but simply doesn’t pass that information to the back-end billing system 3) The billing system today accommodates the circuit id of which Qwest has identified four types (NOTE all fall within the required a/n character field length for circuit id):

A) Serial Number Format - Prefix: 1-2 alphanumeric characters. This is an optional field. - Service code & Modifier: 2-4 alphabetic characters (usually 4). This is a required field. - Serial Number: 1-6 digits. This is a required field. - Suffix: 3 character suffix to the serial number may be required (rarely used). - CO (Company) Code: 2-4 alphabetic characters (usually NW, MS, or PN). This is a required field. - Segment: 1-3 alphanumeric characters. optional for non-multi-point circuits. multi-point segments map to Circuit End Location, e.g. CLK1 = A, CLK2 = B. A Billing Telephone Number (BTN) cannot be used for opening a Trouble Report. The Serial Number Circuit Format must be used.

B) Telephone Number Format - Prefix: alphanumeric characters. required if it exists (not all telephone number circuits have a prefix) - Service Code & Modifier: 2-4 alphabetic characters (usually 4); This is a required field. - NPA: 3 digits. This is a required field. - NXX: 3 digits. This is a required field. - Line: 4 digits. This is a required field. - Extension: 1-5 alphanumeric characters. This is an optional field. For states: AZ, CO, ID, MT, NM, UT, WY, alphas not accepted; convert D1 to 0001, D2 to 0002, etc. - Segment: 1-3 alphanumeric characters. This is an optional field. rarely used

C) Carrier Facility Format - Channel Group Number: 1-5 alphanumeric characters. This is a required field. - Facility Type: 1-6 alphanumeric characters. This is a required field. Examples: T1, T1F, T1U, T1UZF, T1Z, T1ZF, T3 - 'A' CLLI Code: 8 or 11 alphanumeric characters. This is a required field. - 'Z' CLLI Code: 8 or 11 alphanumeric characters. This is a required field. All 4 of the above components are required D) Message Trunk Format - Trunk Number: 1-4 alphanumeric characters. This is a required field. - Traffic Class: 1-2 alphanumeric characters. This is a required field. A hyphen may be allowed - Office Class: 1-2 alphanumeric characters. This is a required field. A hyphen may be allowed A separator is not used between the Traffic Class and Office Class - Traffic Use Code: 2 alphanumeric characters. This is a required field. A hyphen may be allowed. No separator between Office class and Traffic Use Code - Traffic Modifier: 1-7 alphanumeric characters. This is an optional field. No separator between Traffic Use Code and Traffic Modifier - 'A' CLLI Code: 8 or 11 alphanumeric characters. This is a required field. - Pulse & Direction: 2 alphanumeric characters. This is a required field. - 'Z' CLLI Code: 8 or 11 alphanumeric characters. This is a required field.

- December 6, 2004 Email Sent to john Berard, Covad: John, Attached is a copy of SCR100104-01 Provide Circuit ID on Billing Outputs for the Shared Loop Family of Products. This attachment contains Qwest’s response to the request. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM Peggy.Esquibel-Reed@qwest.com

-- November 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR is currently in Evaluation and that Qwest is looking at potential solutions.

-- October 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Liz Balvin/Covad stated that the CR is for billing outputs for the Shared Line products. Liz stated that these are in the POTS flow and noted that Qwest validates on the AN Field. [Comment Received from Covad: Liz stated that these are in the POTS flow which as she understands means Qwest validates on the AN Field instead of the circuit id field. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that she believes that is per the request of the CLECs. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that Qwest is the only ILEC that is tracking the Shared Line products using the BTN. Liz stated that Covad tracks to the circuit id. Liz stated that the bill reflects the Qwest BTN and is not the WTN that was on the order. Liz stated that this causes Covad to be out-of-synch for bill validation. Liz stated that if Qwest houses the circuit id, that it be placed on the bill. [Comment Received from Covad: Liz stated that the bill reflects the Qwest BTN which may or may not be the WTN that was on the order plus the addition of the unique customer code provided only adds additional out-of-synch conditions from order to bill validation. Liz stated that if Qwest houses the circuit id anywhere in their back-end systems, that Covad requests it be placed on the bill.] There were no other comments or questions. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will move into Presented Status.

- October 14, 2004 Clarification Meeting

Attendees: John Berard (Covad) Liz Balvin (Covad) Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) Brenda Kerr (Qwest) Alan Zimmerman (Qwest) Wendy Thurnau (Qwest)

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) reviewed that Covad requests the circuit id be provided on billing output files such that CLECs can accurately reconcile billing from Qwest. Covad believes Qwest houses the circuit ID but does not pass that information on its billing records. The BTN provided is not sufficient enough for Covad to validate the bills, thus the request for this additional information. Peggy stated that the Expected Deliverable is that Qwest extract the circuit id and provides on all shared loop billing outputs/As soon as possible.

Obtain the Business Need from the CR Originator: Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) asked if the business need that prompted this CR was for bill validation only. John Berard (Covad) stated yes.

Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) asked to confirm that this CR was for Maintenance & Repair and Provisioning. John Berard (Covad) responded yes.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) asked to confirm that this CR was submitted for changes to Wholesale Billing. John Berard (Covad) stated yes.

Obtain Specific Billing Output Files: Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) asked for which specific Billing Output Files that this request was to include. Liz Balvin (Covad) asked why the question was being asked. Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) stated that Qwest needs to obtain as much information as we can during the Clarification Call in order to ensure that the request is fully understood and to prevent problems/issues from occurring in the future regarding the implementation of the request. Peggy asked Covad to please identify the Billing Output Files that Covad is requesting that this CR accommodate. Peggy listed the files of ASCII, Paper, EDI, BOS/BDT, and/or Billmate. John Berard (Covad) stated that he believed that Covad received BOS/BDT files and stated that he would need to confirm. Alan Zimmerman (Qwest) stated that Covad may be receiving Billmate or ASCII files. John Berard (Covad) stated that he would check and confirm.

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) asked to confirm that this CR is only for the Products listed on the CR: UNE, Line Sharing, Line Splitting, and Loop Splitting. John Berard (Covad) stated yes.

Additional Discussion Regarding the CR: Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) asked Covad if they had additional information regarding the request. Covad stated that there was no additional information to add. Alan Zimmerman (Qwest) stated that currently these are in the POTS flow, not the design flow and that there is no circuit id in the POTS flow. Alan asked if Covad’s intent was to move to the design flow. John Berard (Covad) responded no and indicated that he has seen EDI output in a circuit id format, containing alpha’s and numerics. John stated that Qwest may just not call it a circuit id but that is what Covad is looking for. Liz Balvin (Covad) asked Qwest to define a design flow. Alan Zimmerman (Qwest) stated that the circuit ids would be obtained from LFACS and is TN based inventory; that is the design flow. Alan Zimmerman (Qwest) stated that currently the FOC has a circuit id with the TN format. Liz Balvin (Covad) stated that there is a circuit id on the FOC but what Covad needs captured on the bill is the circuit that is provisioned. Liz stated that is the true validation step. Liz noted that the BTN is the AN plus the customer code. Liz stated that she has seen examples where the TN is not equivalent to what is sent on the orders, on the Loop Order Form. Alan Zimmerman (Qwest) stated that in the design flow the circuit id would be important but in the POTS flow it is not important and is not retained anywhere. Liz Balvin (Covad) provided 2 examples that provided circuit ids. Liz provided PONs, BTNs, and circuit id’s received. Liz Balvin (Covad) stated that Covad does not want to move to the design flow, she realizes that it would be a huge effort. Liz Balvin (Covad) stated that if Qwest has the circuit id, Covad would like it on the billing output. Alan Zimmerman (Qwest) asked if Covad did not have the account numbers and stated that the BTNs are included in the FOCs. Liz Balvin (Covad) stated that she has the AN plus the customer code. Alan Zimmerman (Qwest) asked how that information could not be used for bill validation. Liz Balvin (Covad) stated that for every other ILEC, they validate by the circuit id. Liz stated that Covad would like Qwest to be consistent with the other RBOCs as Covad would have to make coding changes in order to accommodate the BTN. Liz stated that Covad does not provide the customer code, that Qwest provides it and Covad strips it off. Alan Zimmerman (Qwest) asked if that is difficult for Covad to do. Liz Balvin (Covad) stated that it would be a significant change since all the other RBOCs go by the circuit id. Alan Zimmerman (Qwest) stated that Qwest understands the request and stated that Qwest would review the request. Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) asked if there any other comments or questions. There were no additional questions or comments.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) stated that this CR is due for presentation at the October 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting and that Qwest would provide the response/status in November 2004.

CenturyLink Response

January 10, 2005

To: John Berard Covad CC: Jill Martain, Connie Winston, Peggy Esquibel-Reed RE: SCR100104-01 Provide Circuit ID on Billing Outputs for the Shared Loop Family of Products

SCR Description: Covad requests the circuit id be provided on billing output files such that CLEC’s can accurately reconcile billing from Qwest. Covad believes Qwest houses the circuit ID, but does not pass that information on its billing records. The BTN provided is not sufficient enough for Covad to validate the bills, thus the request for this additional information.

Expected Deliverable: That Qwest extract the circuit id and provide it on all shared loop billing outputs as soon as possible.

History: A clarification meeting was held on October 14, 2004 with Covad and Qwest representation. At this meeting the request was reviewed and no further questions were required.

Revised Qwest Response: Below is a high level itemization of the LOE for this request. The complexity and cost for this request spans multiple systems from ordering through billing. The Shared Loop circuit id is not currently housed in the ordering or billing systems, thus several systems would require changes in order to create a field for the circuit id, recognize, retain and pass the circuit id information through to the bill output.

In addition to the changes to implement this new functionality, the existing accounts would have to be converted to support the enhancements to the circuit ID. This conversion would require extracting the circuit id from a free flow text to populate the newly created shared loop circuit id field. Additional modifications would have to be made to address the issue that in order for the new circuit id to appear on the CRIS billing account, both the end user and the Line Share billing Customer Service Records will need to be involved.

Process changes for this request would include changes to the media procedures, changes to PCAT documentation, and re-training of Center personnel for bill validation via the electronic media.

Consequently, Qwest is respectfully denying your request for SCR100104-01, due to economic infeasibility.

Cost Summary: Changes to Ordering Systems $ 25,500 Changes to Billing Systems 828,500 Process Changes 50,000 TOTAL $904,000

Sincerely, Qwest

Revised Response December 6, 2004

To: John Berard Covad

CC: Jill Martain, Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Connie Winston

RE: SCR100104-01 Provide Circuit ID on Billing Outputs for the Shared Loop Family of Products

SCR Description: Covad requests the circuit id be provided on billing output files such that CLEC’s can accurately reconcile billing from Qwest. Covad believes Qwest houses the circuit ID, but does not pass that information on its billing records. The BTN provided is not sufficient enough for Covad to validate the bills, thus the request for this additional information.

Expected Deliverable: That Qwest extract the circuit id and provide it on all shared loop billing outputs as soon as possible.

History: A clarification meeting was held on October 14, 2004 with Covad and Qwest representation. At this meeting the request was reviewed and no further questions were required.

Qwest Response: Below is a high level itemization of the LOE for this request. The complexity and cost for this request spans multiple systems from ordering through billing. In addition to the changes to implement this new functionality, the existing accounts would have to be converted to support the enhancements to the circuit ID.

Consequently, Qwest is respectfully denying your request for SCR100104-01, due to economic infeasibility.

Cost Summary: Changes to Ordering Systems $ 25,500 Changes to Billing Systems 828,500 Process Changes 50,000 TOTAL $904,000

Qwest

- DRAFT RESPONSE

November 5, 2004

RE: SCR100104-01 Provide Circuit ID on Billing Outputs for the Shared Loop Family of Products

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR100104-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held October 14, 2004) and the October 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the December Systems CMP Meeting.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR082304-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR is being denied for no demonstrable business benefit as the problem has happened only three times in 18 months. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked what process should be followed and if it is documented. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this happens very infrequently and when it does, it is resolved very quickly. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that they still need to know what process to follow when this occurs as one of the LSRs that had this condition was around a delayed order and they were not receiving statuses. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that she will review the process.

9/16/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Kim Isaacs/Eschelon reviewed the description of the change request. Kim stated that IMA does not have the capability to allow Qwest to correct the status of a LSR when the order is completed in error. Kim said that Eschelon is requesting that Qwest make the necessary system changes and associated process changes that allow Qwest to correct that status of the LSR. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will move to a Presented status. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest had any comments on the above new CRs. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the clarification calls were recently held and that we were still evaluating the requests.

September 2, 2004 Clarification Meeting Minutes: Attendees: Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Randy Owen-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, Bob Hercher-Qwest, Denise Martinez-Qwest

Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest reviewed the CR Description: IMA does not have the capability to allow Qwest to correct the status of an LSR when Qwest completes the LSR in error. Eschelon is requesting that Qwest make the necessary system changes and develop an associated process that allows Qwest to correct the status of an LSR, that Qwest has completed in error. Currently if Qwest completes an LSR in error, Qwest is unable to correct the status of the LSR in IMA to truly reflect the status of the LSR. When Qwest completes an LSR in error, Qwest can no longer provide the CLEC with the statuses the CLEC requires to manage the LSR through its completion. Eschelon recently experienced this situation on escalation ticket 25535538. Qwest completed the service order and subsequently the LSR in error, when in fact the LSR was not completed because Qwest was unable to provision this request due lack of facilities. After a number of escalation tickets with both the ISC and WSHD and the involvement of Eschelon’s service manager, Qwest told Eschelon that the Qwest completed the service order and the LSR in IMA in error. Qwest also told Eschelon there was no way to change the status in IMA and Qwest would be sending any subsequent responses and details to Eschelon on this held order via the Post Completion Notification Process. Qwest did not care for this scenario when Qwest developed the Post Completion Notification process. When Qwest completes an LSR in error, Qwest should have the ability to change the IMA status of orders Qwest has completed in error so the CLEC will continue receive timely and accurate information about the LSR. This information is required by the CLEC to effectively manage the LSR to completion. The CLEC should not have to manage the request by the Post Completion Notification Process because the completion never occurred. This change request will save CLEC and Qwest valuable resources by minimizing the confusion Qwest causes when Qwest completes the LSR in error. The Expected Deliverable is that Qwest will make the changes in IMA required to allow the ability for Qwest to correct the status of LSR that Qwest completed in error. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked Kim if she had additional information to add. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that there was nothing more to add. Bob Hercher-Qwest asked if this was a chronic problem or if the example provided was the only instance. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that it does not happen very often but noted that it does happen. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked for more information as to the frequency that this occurs. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that she does not have a percentage but stated that it has been reported to her about 3 other times in the last 18-months. Denise Martinez-Qwest asked to clarify if Eschelon is requesting to have a notification sent that notifies that the status was changed from and what it was changed to. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon responded yes and stated that another FOC or jeopardy would also be acceptable. Denise Martinez-Qwest stated currently there are edits that if a completion notice has been sent, no other notice can be sent. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that is exactly where the difficulty is. Denise Martinez-Qwest stated that is why she asked to clarify if Eschelon was requesting a notice that say’s what the status changed from and what it changed to. Denise stated that there are other CLECs that do not want another notice to be sent, after the completion notice. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that with the Post Completion Notification Process, if the order has completed then a feature is then added, Qwest would contact the CLEC via the Post Completion Notice Process. Kim stated that in this instance, the order never completed; that status of complete is in error. Kim stated that Eschelon needs the status to be other than complete; it needs to be the true status. Denise Martinez-Qwest asked if Eschelon is requesting that just the status changes or if Eschelon is also requesting a notice be sent that indicates that the status changed. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that the CLEC would be working with the Wholesale System Help Desk on a ticket and that the ticket would say that they want the status changed back to the real status, so would not need another notice. There were no additional questions or comments.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel-Reed asked to confirm that this request is for IMA Common. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon responded yes.

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked to confirm the products that this request is for. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon confirmed the products as noted below: IMA Products - In Scope: (Product Name (Product Number) / Request Type / Activity Type Analog Line Side Port (11) / Req. Type: FB / ACT Type: N, D, V, Z, C DID/PBX Trunk Port Facility (20) / Req. Type: FB / ACT Type: N, D, V, Z Digital Line Side Port (12) / Req. Type: FB / ACT Type: N, D, V, Z, C DS0/Analog Trunk Port (18) / Req. Type: FB / ACT Type: N, D, V, Z, C DS1 Trunk Port (19) / Req. Type: FB / ACT Type: N, D, V, Z, C Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL) (26) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, C, T, M Facility Based Directory Listings (FBDL) (14) / Req. Type: JB / ACT Type: N, D, W, C, T Interim Number Portability (INP) (6) / Req. Type: CB / ACT Type: D, V, Z, C Line Sharing/Shared Loop (24) / Req. Type: AB / ACT Type: C Listings Only (13) / Req. Type: HB / ACT Type: R Local Number Portability (LNP) (5) / Req. Type: CB / ACT Type: V, Z Resale - Centrex 21 (9a) / Req. Type: PB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, Y, B Resale - Centrex Plus & Centron (9) / Req. Type: PB / ACT Type: W, V, C Resale - DID Trunks (16) / Req. Type: KB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, M Resale - Frame Relay Service (FRS) (15) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, C, T, M Resale - ISDN BRI (8) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, M Resale - ISDN PRI Facility (27) / Req. Type: KB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, C, T, M Resale - ISDN PRI Trunks (28) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T Resale - PBX Trunk Service (10) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, Y, B Resale - PBX Trunk Service - Designed (20) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, B, M Resale - POTS (1) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, Y, B Resale - Private Line Transport (PLT) - Non-switched (2) / Req. Type: KB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, C, T, M Resale - Qwest DSL (21) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: D, W, V, Z, C, Y, B Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL) (23) / Req. Type: AB / ACT Type: N, D, V, C, T, M Unbundled Distribution Loop (UDL)/Local Number Portability (LNP) (23a) / Req. Type: AB / ACT Type: V Unbundled Feeder Loop (UFL) (22) / Req. Type: AB / ACT Type: N, D, C Unbundled Local Loop (4) / Req. Type: AB / ACT Type: N, D, V, C, T, M Unbundled Local Loop Split (41) / Req. Type: UB / ACT Type: N, T Unbundled Local Loop/Local Number Portability (LNP) (42) / Req. Type: BB / ACT Type: V, Z UNE-P/STAR - Centrex 21 (31) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, Y, B UNE-P /STAR- Centrex 21 Split (40) / Req. Type: SB / ACT Type: N, T UNE-P/STAR - Centrex Plus and UNE-P - Centron (30) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: W, V, C UNE-P - DSS Facility (36) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, C, T, M UNE-P - DSS Trunks (37) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T UNE-P - ISDN BRI (29) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, M UNE-P - ISDN PRI Facility (32) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, C, T, M UNE-P - ISDN PRI Trunks (33) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T UNE-P - PBX Trunks (35) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, B, M UNE-P - PBX Trunks Split (39) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: T UNE-P - PBX/DID Trunks (34) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, M UNE-P/STAR - POTS (25) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, Y, B UNE-P - POTS Split (38) / Req. Type: SB / ACT Type: T

IMA Products - Out of Scope: (Product Name (Product Number) / Request Type / Activity Type Resale - PAL (3) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, Y, B

Obtain the Business Need from the CR Originator-What is the problem that needs to be solved: The status of the order needs to reflect the actual status and not show completed, in error.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: CR is due for presentation at the September 16, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide the response to the CR in October 2004.

CenturyLink Response

October 12, 2004

Kim Isaacs Eschelon

CC: Connie Winston Randy Owen Jill Martain Peggy Esquibel-Reed

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number SCR082304-01, dated 08/23/04, titled: IMA Capability to provide Correct Status of Orders Completed in Error.

CR Description: IMA does not have the capability to allow Qwest to correct the status of an LSR when Qwest completes the LSR in error. Eschelon is requesting that Qwest make the necessary system changes and develop an associated process that allows Qwest to correct the status of an LSR, that Qwest has completed in error. Currently if Qwest completes an LSR in error, Qwest is unable to correct the status of the LSR in IMA to truly reflect the status of the LSR. When Qwest completes an LSR in error, Qwest can no longer provide the CLEC with the statuses the CLEC requires to manage the LSR through it's completion. Eschelon recently experienced this situation on escalation ticket 25535538. Qwest completed the service order and subsequently the LSR in error, when in fact the LSR was not completed because Qwest was unable to provision this request due to lack of facilities. After a number of escalation tickets with both the ISC and WHSD and the involvement of Eschelon's service manager, Qwest told Eschelon that Qwest completed the service order and the LSR in IMA in error. Qwest also told Eschelon there was no way to change the status in IMA and Qwest would be sending any subsequent responses and details to Eschelon on this held order via the Post Completion Notification Process. Qwest did not care for this scenario when Qwest developed the Post Completion Notification process. When Qwest completes an LSR in error, Qwest should have the ability to change the IMA status of orders Qwest has completed in error so the CLEC will continue to receive timely and accurate information about the LSR. This information is required by the CLEC to effectively manage the LSR to completion. This change request will save the CLEC and Qwest valuable resources by minimizing the confusion Qwest causes when Qwest completes the LSR in error.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable): Eschelon expects that Qwest will make the changes in IMA required to allow the ability for Qwest to correct the status of the LSR that Qwest completed in error.

History: A clarification meeting was held on Thursday, September 2, 2004 with Eschelon and Qwest representation. At this meeting, Eschelon stated that this request impacts most products with the exception of PAL in IMA Common.

Qwest Response: Qwest has completed an analysis for SCR082304-01, IMA Capability to provide Correct Status of Orders Completed in Error, and has determined that this change does not provide a reasonable demonstrable business benefit, due to the low volumes associated with this problem. Eschelon stated that this problem has only been reported 3 times in the last 18 months. Qwest does not feel that the low volumes substantiate supporting this request.

Additionally, recent Qwest Network initiatives have corrected processes to reduce and/or eliminate completions in error that have previously occurred.

Qwest is denying your request for SCR082304-01, IMA Capability to provide Correct Status of Orders Completed in Error, due to no demonstrable business benefit.

Sincerely,

Qwest

Archived System CR SCR080904-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

The IMA GUI Order/Open LSR function will fetch LSRs using the PON, LSR ID or Date Range.

Status History

Project Meetings

October 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Michelle Thacker/Qwest stated that this request was analyzed and that the request is being denied for no demonstrable business benefit. Michelle stated that a query can currently be performed with a PON or a date range. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon was keeping a tally and there seems to be a new trend in using this denial reason of no demonstrable business benefit. Bonnie stated that she assumes that Qwest is saying that there is no business benefit to Qwest because Qwest cannot say that there is no benefit to the CLECs; Qwest does not know that.. Bonnie asked how Qwest can claim that there is no business benefit. Bonnie asked what harm it would be in giving the LOE and letting the CRs be prioritized. Bonnie stated that there is a business benefit to the CLECs. Bonnie further stated that Qwest is not aware of the CLECs back-end systems or processes. Bonnie stated that Qwest perceives that there is no benefit but there is and that is why we asked for it. Bonnie stated that in the past Qwest gave the LOE for the change and the CR was prioritized based on the importance to the CLECs. Bonnie stated that Qwest is not in the position to make decisions on if there is a business benefit to the CLECs. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that during the Clarification Call, Qwest asks the originator what their business need is and the benefit to their company and in some cases the response was a nice-to-have and in other situations there were one to three occurrences in an 18-month period, which does question a business benefit. Jill stated that Qwest does use that information to assist in the determination. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that Qwest sees that the functionality already exists in some of these instances to provide the information and that this request is for a third means to get the same information. Susie stated that Qwest has concerns around using limited funds to provide a third means of doing something. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Qwest requires the LSR ID if the CLEC opens a trouble ticket and it is not appropriate that Qwest requires it from the CLEC and but the CLEC cannot require it from Qwest. Bonnie stated that the CLECs prefer LSR ID because the PON can be convoluted due to the version; the LSR ID is always unique. Liz Balvin/Covad asked if the LSR ID was available in IMA GUI. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that it is on the responses but she wants to pull-up by the LSR ID in the GUI. Liz Balvin/Covad asked if the field was currently available. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she was not sure if it was. Liz Balvin/Covad asked if Qwest could look at this CR again, now that there has been more discussion, and see if Qwest could deliver the requested functionality. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that the end result would probably be the same because the question is if Qwest wants to spend limited dollars to provide another way to do this and it is a nice to have. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that is where the CLECs should prioritize. [Comment Received from Covad: Liz Balvin/Covad stated Qwest should provide an LOE such that the CLECs would determine if feasible with prioritization.] Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the CLECs need to vote on the importance of a CR. [Comment Received from Eschelon: the CLECs should be able to vote on the importance of a CR that is the reason we prioritize. If a CLEC sees no business benefit for them or Qwest sees no business benefit they can vote the CR low.] Liz Balvin/Covad stated that if the field is available it could be a minimal effort. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that a lot of the CRs are just a nice to have for the CLECs. Susie Bliss/Qwest agreed and stated that they were accepted when Qwest had unlimited funds but it is now a different telecommunications world and our funds are now limited. [Comment Received from Eschelon: Qwest’s funds are now limited] Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest’s position has now changed. Susie Bliss/Qwest responded yes. Becky Quintana/COPUC asked what the harm was if Qwest allows a vote and implemented the request. Becky asked if the denial reason was one of the reasons that are in the Process Document. [Comment Received from Eschelon: Becky Quintana/COPUC asked what the harm was if Qwest gave the CR an LOE and allowed the CR to be prioritized Becky asked if the denial reason was one of the reasons that are in the Process Document.] Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that it is. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that Qwest is interpreting their business need. [Comment Received from Covad: to be clear, it is truly Qwest interpretation of the business benefit.] Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that the harm is in using the available limited funds in implementing the nice to haves. Susie asked the CLECs if they felt that Qwest was required to implement those items. Becky Quintana/COPUC stated that if the CLECs vote them in, they are important to them. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that prioritization is based on importance. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she is concerned that CRs are now going to be denied because Qwest says there is no business benefit. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that she does not remember this denial reason on the Systems side because of prioritization and that the CLECs decide where the money is to be used, by voting. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that a query can currently be performed with a PON or a date range and Eschelon is now requesting to query by LSR ID, which is a third way to perform a query. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that this has come full circle because Qwest cannot do anything without the LSR ID. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that she would take the comments and look at it again but noted that she did not see a different outcome. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would like this CR revisited to see if it could go forward.

- September 16, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kim Isaacs/Eschelon reviewed the CR description. Kim stated that Eschelon is requesting to be able to query by LSR ID in addition to the current process of PON and Date ranges. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will move to Presented.

- August 23, 2004 Clarification Call: Introduction of Attendees: Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Jennifer Arnold, TDS Metrocom USLink Stephanie Prull, Eschelon Emily Baird, Popp Comm Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest Michelle Thacker, Qwest Angela Stewart, Qwest Denise Martinez, Qwest Conrad Evans, Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest reviewed the CR Description and Expected Deliverable. Peggy asked Eschelon if they had additional information to share. Kim Isaacs, Eschelon stated no. Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest asked what questions Qwest had for Eschelon. Michelle Thacker, Qwest asked if Eschelon wanted to pull the LSR to view it or to supp it. Kim Isaacs, Eschelon responded both and stated that she wants to see the LSR ID. There were no additional questions or comments.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest confirmed that the impact was to GUI only.

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest asked to confirm the products of Centrex, LNP, Resale, UBL, UNE Loop, UNE-P, and EEL. Kim Isaacs, Eschelon stated that this request is for All IMA GUI Products.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest stated that this CR is due for presentation at the September 16, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting.

August 12, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Kim, I have scheduled the Clarification Call for these 2 CR's. We will utilize the one call to discuss both CRs. Call details are as follows: DATE: Monday, August 23, 2004 TIME: 2:00 p.m. MT CALL IN: 1-877-564-8688, 8571927

Have a great day! Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

- August 10, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Hi Peggy, I am available: Friday 8-20-04 from 12:00 - 2:00 MT, Monday 8-23-04 from 2:00 - 3:00 MT, Tuesday 8-24-04 from 9:00 - 12:00 MT Please let me know if any of these dates works for you. Thank and have a great afternoon. Kim Isaacs ILEC Relations Process Specialist kdisaacs@eschelon.com Eschelon Telcom Inc

-- August 10, 2004 Email Sent to Kim Isaacs, Eschelon: Hi Kim, Please advise me of your availability for the Clarification calls for the CRs of: SCR080904-01 Query by LSR ID in IMA GUI Order/Open LSR SCR080904-02 Provide All FOC Responses in IMA GUI LSR Notice Inquiry I will then get the call scheduled and provide you with call details. If you would provide several options, that would be great. Thanks much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

CenturyLink Response

October 13, 2004

Kim Isaacs Eschelon

CC: Connie Winston Randy Owen Jill Martain This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number SCR080904-01, dated 08/9/04, titled: Query by LSR ID in IMA GUI Order/Open.

CR Description: Eschelon is requesting that Qwest allow the ability to open LSRs in the IMA GUI by using the LSR ID. Currently in the IMA GUI/Order/Open LSR function CLECs can submit a query using the PON or date range only. This request would allow a CLEC the additional option of using the LSR ID to fetch an LSR. The ability to query LSRs by PON, Date Range or LSR ID would further streamline the Open LSR function and provide a time saving tool to the CLECs.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable): The IMA GUI Order/Open LSR function will fetch LSRs using the PON, LSR ID or Date Range.

History: A clarification meeting was held on Monday, August 23, 2004 with Eschelon and Qwest representation. At this meeting, Eschelon stated that this request impacts the products of Centrex, LNP, Resale, UBL, UNE Loop, UNE-P, and EEL. This requested change is for only the IMA GUI.

Qwest Response: Qwest has completed an analysis for SCR080904-01, Query by LSR ID in IMA GUI Order/Open, and has determined that this change does not provide a reasonable demonstrable business benefit. Qwest currently provides the functionality to query an LSR utilizing the Purchase Order Number or by Date Range. This CR is requesting a third means for the CLECs to perform an LSR Query.

Qwest is denying your request for SCR080904-01, Query by LSR ID in IMA GUI Order/Open, due to no demonstrable business benefit.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR080904-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Expexted Deliverable:

The IMA GUI LSR Notice Inquiry will allow a CLEC to view all FOC responses associated with an LSR ID that have been sent by Qwest.

Status History

Project Meetings

-- October 19, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: This CR deployed on 10/17/05 and will remain in CLEC Test

- September 21, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: This CR will deploy on 10/10/05.

August 10, 2005 EXCERPT from the 18.0 Release Qwest/CLEC Overview and the Combined Overview & IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation Walkthrough for IMA EDI Release 18.0 Walkthrough Attendees Anders Ingemarson-Qwest, Angela Stewart-Qwest, Angie Thompson-Wizor, Anne Robberson-Qwest, Brian Caywood-Qwest, Chris Terrell-AT&T, Chuck Anderson-Qwest, Cim Chambers-Qwest, Dave Schleicher-Qwest, Denise Martinez-Qwest, Diane Burt-AT&T, Dianne Friend-Time Warner, Gary Berroa-Qwest, John Sanclaria-Qwest, Judy DeRosier-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest, Mark Coyne-Qwest, Mark Haynes-Qwest, Michael Lopez-Qwest, Michelle Thacker-Qwest, Pat Bratetic-Qwest, Russ Urevig-Qwest, Sandie Tekavec-Qwest, Shon Higer-Qwest, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon Introductions: Kyle Kirves began the meeting by taking attendance and announcing the meeting purpose. The meeting notice included copies of the agenda and the candidate overview document. Kyle explained that the walkthrough would cover the candidates, the candidate impacts to the associated documentation, and the IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation overview.

Functional Overview extracted from Notice: Currently, the IMA GUI LSR Notice Inquiry only displays the most current FOC associated with an LSR ID. IMA will display all FOCs, providing CLECs the ability to view those notices using the LSR Notice Inquiry function. Each generated FOC notice will be identified in the heading - Confirmation Notice Sent: mm/dd/ccyy, hh:mm, MST. The notices will be sorted from the newest to the oldest date. Form Impacts: None Products: All Activities: All

Walkthrough Discussion: Denise Martinez reviewed the information provided in the candidate overview document circulated with the meeting agenda and the meeting notification announcement. Kyle opened the floor to Questions. There were no questions. Kyle asked about GUI documentation updates. Dave Schleicher explained that the GUI post-order documentation would show changes for this candidate. There were no additional questions.

May 18, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest asked if there were any questions or comments regarding the IMA 18.0 Packaging, in attachment M. There were questions or comments brought forward.

February 16, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that this CR is a high priority for Eschelon.

- November 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest said that Qwest will change the status of this CR from Denied to Presented. Jill stated that the LOE is 1400 to 2100 hours.

October 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR is denied due to no demonstrable business benefit. Jill stated that there was functionality delivered in the 12.0 Release which provided a means for resends of notices. Jill stated that the current process allows for resends of Reject, FOC, Error, Jeopardy, Service Order Completions, and Cancel Notices. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if Qwest is stating that this CR has no benefit for Qwest. Jill Martain/Qwest responded yes and noted that what is looked at is if there is a benefit to the CLEC or to Qwest. Jill stated that the information is there and available. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that the requested functionality is not the same, is a call versus a system change. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would like this CR revisited to see if it could go forward. This CR remains open in denied Status.

-- September 16, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kim Isaacs/Eschelon reviewed the CR description. Kim stated that Eschelon is requesting to view all history per LSR ID for FOCs sent. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will move to Presented.

- August 23, 2004 Clarification Call: Introduction of Attendees: Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Jennifer Arnold, TDS Metrocom USLink Stephanie Prull, Eschelon Emily Baird, Popp Comm Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest Michelle Thacker, Qwest Angela Stewart, Qwest Denise Martinez, Qwest Conrad Evans, Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest reviewed the CR Description and Expected Deliverable. Peggy asked Eschelon if they had additional information to share. Kim Isaacs, Eschelon stated no. Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest asked what questions Qwest had for Eschelon. Denise Martinez, Qwest asked if the request is for a complete historical view of all FOCs that were sent to the CLEC. Kim Isaacs, Eschelon responded yes and stated that currently they only see the most current FOC. Kim stated that she wants the history of all confirmations that were sent by Qwest. Conrad Evans, Qwest asked to confirm that the request is for FOC Notices only. Kim Isaacs, Eschelon responded yes and noted that all others are already historical. There were no additional questions or comments.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest confirmed that the impact was to GUI only.

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest asked to confirm the products of Centrex, LNP, Resale, UBL, UNE Loop, UNE-P, and EEL. Kim Isaacs, Eschelon stated that this request is for All IMA GUI Products.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest stated that this CR is due for presentation at the September 16, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting.

- August 12, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Kim, I have scheduled the Clarification Call for these 2 CR's. We will utilize the one call to discuss both CRs. Call details are as follows: DATE: Monday, August 23, 2004 TIME: 2:00 p.m. MT CALL IN: 1-877-564-8688, 8571927

Have a great day! Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

- August 10, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Hi Peggy, I am available: Friday 8-20-04 from 12:00 - 2:00 MT, Monday 8-23-04 from 2:00 - 3:00 MT, Tuesday 8-24-04 from 9:00 - 12:00 MT Please let me know if any of these dates works for you. Thank and have a great afternoon. Kim Isaacs ILEC Relations Process Specialist kdisaacs@eschelon.com Eschelon Telcom Inc

-- August 10, 2004 Email Sent to Kim Isaacs, Eschelon: Hi Kim, Please advise me of your availability for the Clarification calls for the CRs of: SCR080904-01 Query by LSR ID in IMA GUI Order/Open LSR SCR080904-02 Provide All FOC Responses in IMA GUI LSR Notice Inquiry I will then get the call scheduled and provide you with call details. If you would provide several options, that would be great. Thanks much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

CenturyLink Response

October 13, 2004

Kim Isaacs Eschelon

CC: Connie Winston Randy Owen Jill Martain Susie Bliss This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number SCR080904-02, dated 08/09/04, titled: Provide all FOC Responses in IMA GUI LSR Notice Inquiry.

CR Description: Eschelon requests that Qwest provide all FOC responses associated with an LSR ID in the IMA GUI LSR Notice Inquiry. Currently, the IMA GUI LSR Notice Inquiry only displays the most current FOC associated with an LSR ID. In cases where the order has been placed in jeopardy status and/or there was a need to resend the FOC, all past FOC notices are no longer available for viewing. The ability to view all FOC responses would be an additional tool used to assist the CLEC in managing jeopardy situations and assist the CLEC in understanding the current status of an order.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable): The IMA GUI LSR Notice Inquiry will allow a CLEC to view all FOC responses associated with an LSR ID that have been sent by Qwest.

History: A clarification meeting was held on Monday, August 23, 2004 with Eschelon and Qwest representation. At this meeting, Qwest asked if the request is for a complete historical view of all FOCs. Eschelon confirmed that the request is to provide a complete historical view of FOCs only.

Qwest Response: Qwest has completed an analysis for SCR080904-02, Provide all FOC Responses in IMA GUI LSR Notice Inquiry, and has determined that this change does not provide a reasonable demonstrable business benefit, because functionality that was implemented in Release 12.0 to Resend IMA Notices (SCR042402-04) provides substantially the same benefits as requested in the CR. The 12.0 functionality provides the ability for Qwest to re-send all requested notices, not just the last sent notice. The current process allows a CLEC to call Qwest and request a re-send of a Reject, FOC, Error, Jeopardy, Service Order Completion, and Cancel Notices.

Qwest is respectfully denying your request for SCR080904-02, Provide all FOC Responses in IMA GUI LSR Notice Inquiry, due to no demonstrable business benefit.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR081204-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Currently the LSR ID is provided on all IMA GUI responses except for the upfront BPL edits.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

Eschelon expects that the LSR ID field all EDI responses will be consistent with the IMA GUI responses. Eschelon expects to see an LSR ID on all responses except for BPL Edit rejects. Eschelon also expects that this field will be denoted in a consistent format and naming convention on the responses.

Implementation would be with a future IMA release.

Status History

Project Meetings

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR deployed on 10/17/05. Steph Prull/Eschelon said that this CR can be closed

10/19/05 Systems CMP Meeting

This CR deployed on 10/17/05 and will remain in CLEC Test.

Combined Overview and IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation Walkthrough for IMA EDI Release 18.0

August 10, 2005 8:00 am

Location: CONFERENCE BRIDGE ONLY Conference Bridge: 1-888-725-8686 Conference ID: 4317009

Attendees List* Anders Ingemarson - Qwest Angela Stewart - Qwest Angie Thompson - Weiser Anne Robberson - Qwest Brian Caywood - Qwest Chris Terrell - AT&T Chuck Anderson - Qwest Cim Chambers - Qwest Dave Schleicher - Qwest Denise Martinez - Qwest Diane Burt - AT&T Dianne Friend - Time Warner Gary Berroa - Qwest John Sanclaria - Qwest Judy DeRosier - Qwest Lynn Stecklein - Qwest Mark Coyne - Qwest Mark Haynes - Qwest Michael Lopez - Qwest Michelle Thacker - Qwest Pat Bratetic - Qwest Russ Urevig - Qwest Sandie Tekavec -Qwest Shon Higer - Qwest Stephanie Prull - Eschelon

*List may be incomplete. 1. Introductions Kyle Kirves began the meeting by taking attendance and announcing the meeting purpose. The meeting notice included copies of the agenda and the candidate overview document. Kyle explained that the walkthrough would cover the candidates, the candidate impacts to the associated documentation, and the IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation overview.

SCR081204-01- LSR ID on responses Denise Martinez reviewed the information provided in the candidate overview document circulated with the meeting agenda and the meeting notification announcement.

Kyle opened the floor to Questions. There were no questions.

Kyle asked about updates to the GUI documentation.

Dave Schleicher explained that the GUI documentation would show negligible changes (small wording changes).

Kyle asked if there were any other questions. No questions, so Kyle moved discussion to the next candidate.

2/16/05 CMP Systems Meeting - IMA 18.0 Candidate Summary

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said this CR is a high priority for Eschelon.

11/17/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the LOE for this request is 1200 to 1600 hours.

10/20/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that she has a question on this denial and has been working with Lynn (Stecklein/Qwest). Jill Martain/Qwest stated that some of the information on the denial is in error and as a result of the comments submitted by Eschelon that Qwest is accepting this CR. Jill stated that there is value in having consistency between EDI and the GUI. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that was great and that it would help in solving notice problems that she is finding in the GUI. Liz Balvin/Covad asked if the effort is a synch-up for EDI & GUI, would a CR be necessary. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that a CR would be required because it is a change to the system. Jill noted that the LSRID is not in the same field in EDI on all notices and that the CR was asking for changes from that perspective as well, so yes, a CR is required. Liz Balvin/Covad stated okay.

9/16/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR was presented as a walk on in the August Meeting. There were no questions or comments.

8/23/04 Clarification Meeting

Attendees: Steph Prull - Eschelon, Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Jen Arnold - TDS Metrocom/US Link, Emily Baird - Popp Telecom, Denise Martinez - Qwest, Michelle Thacker - Qwest, Conrad Evans - Qwest, Peggy Esquibel - Reed - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Description of Change Request Eschelon is requesting that Qwest systems make the LSR ID of an order required on the following responses: Completions, LR where RT = Z and reject is from the ISC, Service Order Status Inquiry, and PSONs. Eschelon is also requesting that the naming convention for the LSR ID field be consistent among the transactions. Currently the LSR ID is either designated by LSR NO or ID on the EDI Responses.

Currently the LSR ID is provided on all IMA GUI responses except for the upfront BPL edits.

Discussion: Steph Prull - Eschelon stated that Eschelon would like to see EDI and GUI standard.

Denise Martinez - Qwest stated that she understood what Eschelon was requesting and had no questions.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Steph Prull - Eschelon stated that this impacted all products and IMA EDI.

Establish Action Plan Lynn Stecklein - Qwest stated that Eschelon will present this CR in the September 16, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting.

8/18/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that this CR is requesting that Qwest systems make the LSR ID of an order required on Eschelon is requesting that Qwest systems make the LSR ID of an order required on the following responses: Completions, LR where RT = Z and reject is from the ISC, Service Order Status Inquiry, and PSONs. Stephanie said that Eschelon is also requesting that the naming convention for the LSR ID field be consistent among the transactions. Stephanie stated that request would accommodate a previous Covad action item. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the status of this CR will change to presented.

E-mail from Eschelon 8/12/04

Hi,

Attached please see the systems CR for Population of the LSR ID on EDI Responses. I would like to add this CR as a walk on item for the Wednesday Aug 18th systems meeting. This CR is related to action item: AI052004-03. Please note that Covad has indicated to Eschelon that this is a CR they have high interest in and would be willing to co sponsor. I will let John comment to the CR as he feels necessary.

Please let me know what times are available for Qwest to host the clarification call.

Thanks Steph

<>

Stephanie Prull EDI Business Analyst Eschelon Telecom, INC. Phone: 612-436-6058 Fax: 612-436-6158 Email: saprull@eschelon.com

CenturyLink Response

November 4, 2004

RE: SCR081204-01 LSR ID on Responses

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR081204-01). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held August 23, 2004) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1200 to 1600 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 18.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Qwest Response

October 12, 2004

Stephanie Prull Eschelon

CC: Connie Winston Randy Owen Jill Martain Peggy Esquibel-Reed

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number SCR081204-01, dated 08/12/04, titled: LSR ID on responses.

CR Description: Eschelon is requesting that Qwest systems make the LSR ID of an order required on the following responses: Completions, LR where RT = Z and reject is from the ISC, Service Order Status Inquiry, and PSONs. Eschelon is also requesting that the naming convention for the LSR ID field be consistent among the transactions. Currently, the LSR ID is either designated by LSR NO or ID on the EDI responses.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable): Eschelon expects that the LSR ID field on all ECI responses will be consistent with the IMA GUI responses. Eschelon expects to see an LSR ID on all responses except for BPL Edit rejects. Eschelon also expects that this field will be denoted in a consistent format and naming convention on the responses.

History: A clarification meeting was held on Monday, August 23, 2004 with Eschelon and Qwest representation. At this meeting, Eschelon stated that this request impacts all products and IMA EDI.

Qwest Response: Qwest has completed an analysis for SCR081204-01, LSR ID on responses, and has determined that this change does not provide a reasonable demonstrable business benefit, due to the fact that although Qwest does not provide the LSR ID/NO on the notices defined by Eschelon, the CLEC PON is provided.

LSR IDs/NOs are currently not provided for the IMA GUI transactions of those notices (Completions, LR where RT = Z and reject is from the ISC, Service Order Status Inquiries, and PSONs) either. However, Qwest does provide the CLEC PON on these transactions for matching purposes. The LSR ID/NO is not entered on Qwest service orders, which are the source that provides the data necessary for most of those notifications identified by Eschelon

Qwest is denying your request for SCR081204-01, LSR ID on responses, due to no demonstrable business benefit.

Sincerely,

Qwest

Archived System CR SCR081204-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Cassandra Hunt/Qwest stated that the example provided by Eschelon where they had to wait 5 hours for the ASR to move from a submitted status to acknowledge was the exception not the rule. She said that Qwest sends a batch to the backend system every 15 minutes and sometimes less than 15 minutes. Cassandra also stated that the Industry Standard supports waiting for the acknowledged status. Liz Balvin/Covad asked if the process that states that the ASR has to be in an acknowledged status was documented. Cassandra Hunt/Qwest stated that she will check. She also said that the ASR pertains to GUI ASRs and is not a reject. She said that an ASR can’t be supplemented until it is in acknowledged status.

9/16/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Kim Isaacs/Eschelon reviewed the description of the change request. Kim stated that Eschelon is requesting the ability to submit supplements in QORA on ASRs in a submitted status. Stephanie stated that currently QORA requires that an ASR be in an accepted status before a supplement can be submitted. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will move to a Presented status.

8/25/04 Clarification Meeting

Attendees: Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Steve Edwards - Qwest, Cassandra Hunt - Qwest, Bob Hercher - Qwest, Jim Recker - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein

Reviewed Description of Change Kim Isaacs - Eschelon reviewed the description of the change request.

Eschelon request the ability to submit supplements in QORA on ASRs in a Submitted status. Currently QORA requires that an ASR be in an Accepted (Acknowledged) status or Confirmed status before a supplement can be submitted. This requirement can unnecessarily delay the order process. Eschelon has experienced cases where the QORA user has known that a supplement was required but had to wait up to five hours for the ASR to move from a Submitted status to Acknowledged or Rejected status before being able to supplement the order. This type of delay can impact the due date of the order. The ability to submit supplements on ASR in a Submitted status will benefit Qwest by decreasing the work Qwest does to determine the order should be rejected when Eschelon is already aware that there is an error on the order, which requires a supplement. Therefore Eschelon requests the ability to submit supplements in QORA on ASRs in a Submitted status.

Discussion: Steve Edwards - Qwest asked Eschelon if the five hour example they cited in the description of change was an exception. Steve said that the normal timeframe between submitted and acknowledged is no more than 15 minute window. Kim Isaacs - Eschelon said that this example was an exception. Steve Edwards - Qwest asked if Eschelon, based on knowing that the normal window is no more than 15 minutes, did they still want to pursue this request. Kim Isaacs - Eschelon stated that she would like Qwest to provide the scope of reducing the window from 15 minutes to 5 minutes. Steve Edwards - Qwest clarified that Eschelon wanted the window between the submitted and acknowleged timeframe minimized. Kim Isaacs - Eschelon said yes. There were no other questions or comments

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Kim Isaacs - Eschelon stated that this request impacts the QORA GUI and all products ordered via this GUI.

Establish Action Plan Lynn Stecklein - Qwest stated that this CR will be presented in the September 16, 2004 meeting

CenturyLink Response

Kim Isaacs Eschelon

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number SCR081204-02, dated 8/12/2004, and titled: Allow Supplements on ASRs in Submitted Status.

CR Description: Currently, an ASR must be in Accepted or Confirmed status in QORA before a supplement to that ASR can be submitted to Qwest. Eschelon asserts that this can delay the order process. In certain instances, Eschelon personnel have been aware of the need for a supplement, but unable to submit the supplement because the initial ASR has not yet been acknowledged by Qwest. Eschelon is requesting that Qwest implement the capability in QORA to accept a supplemental ASR prior to the initial ASR being accepted by Qwest. History: A clarification meeting was held on August 25, 2004, with Eschelon and Qwest representation. At this meeting, it was determined that in general the interval between Eschelon’s submission of an ASR and Qwest’s acknowledgment is not excessive, and that intervals of up to five hours were exceptions and not the norm. In fact, the maximum normal time frame between when an ASR is submitted to Qwest and acknowledged is fifteen minutes. This amount of time allows customers to submit supplements quickly, in a timely manner, without affecting the due date of the initial ASR.

Qwest Response: Qwest has completed an analysis for SCR081204-02, Allow Supplements on ASRs in Submitted Status, and has determined that this change does not provide measurable business value for the cost involved to implement the change.

In the vast majority of cases, Qwest acknowledges an ASR within a 15-minute timeframe. This amount of time does not impose any limitations on customers in terms of affecting due dates or other critical dates on the ASR. Additionally, the industry standard implies that supplemental ASRs should not be submitted until the initial ASR is acknowledged by the provider of service.

After an analysis of the effort involved to allow QORA to accept and correctly process supplemental ASRs prior to acknowledging the initial ASR, Qwest has determined that the system cost would exceed $75K. The minimal business value to be derived from allowing supplemental ASRs an extra fifteen minute-interval at the start of the overall ASR process flow is not commensurate with this cost.

Consequently, Qwest is denying your request for SCR081204-02, Allow Supplements on ASRs in Submitted Status, as the request does not provide reasonable, demonstrable business benefit over current process for the cost of the solution.

Sincerely,

Qwest

Archived System CR SCR122204-01 Detail

Description Of Change

.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

Flow through for orders requesting non-billable non-published (USOC NP3) listing in IMA.

Status History

Project Meetings

Russ Urevig - Qwest stated that Qwest researched ways to accommodate this request. Russ said that in reviewing the current process for the application of the NPU-NP3 USOC, Qwest currently has a process established for the request to be handled on an individual basis when the account is eligible for a free listing. Russ stated that enabling an additional field or expanding current fields for an associated TN would still not qualify these requests for flow through processing as the database that contains the listings for FBDL (Facility Based Directory Listing) cannot be linked with the database that contains the listing associated to a customer account. Russ said that these requests would still be required to drop for manual review by a Service Delivery Coordinator for validation of the TN association to the same end-user, same address, same provider and the determination of the facility use. Russ said that since it is not possible to interface the two databases mechanically to perform the necessary validation, Qwest is denying this CR for technologically not feasible reasons. Kathy Stichter - Eschelon stated that this was working fine until about a year ago when Qwest either changed the process or started adhering to an existing process and now they have issues with billing. Comment to notes from Eschlelon received 2/22/05 Russ Urevig - Qwest stated that if we lengthened the field it would still be dropped for manual handling and would have to be validated between two databases. Russ said that he will be working with the Service Manager to discuss these issues. Kathy Stichter - Eschelon stated that they need to review internally to determine if dropping to manual handling will create bigger problems than letting the order go mechanized and disputing the billing with the SDC after the fact. Kathy asked if Eschelon will be included in the meetings with the Service Manager. Comments to notes received from Eschelon 2/22/05 Russ Urevig - Qwest said that Eschelon will be included in the meetings to clarify what may be causing the problem. Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR will be closed and that Russ will have further discussions with Eschelon.

1/19/05 CMP Systems Meeting

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that this CR is requesting mechanization with Flow Through when ordering non-billable non-published (USOC NP3) listings in IMA. Bonnie said that today Qwest requires the CLECs to submit LSRs for manual handling. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon added that Eschelon wants the process to flow through. Connie Winston/Qwest asked if Eschelon was looking for complete flow through and not sent to the Center. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she does not want to set to manual and does want to achieve flow thru. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it was a very complicated look-up. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that it needs to be identified that non-billable USOCs apply and noted that she does not have an objection to Qwest validating. Jen Arnold/TDS Metrocom stated that they support this CR. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the status will change to Presented.

1/6/05 Clarification Meeting

Attendees: Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Kathy Stichter - Eschelon, Diane Tang Mills - Qwest, Russ Urevig - Qwest, Randy Owen - Qwest, Lee Gomez - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Description of Change Kim Isaacs - Eschelon s a requesting mechanization with Flow Through when ordering non-billable non-published (USOC NP3) listings in IMA. Currently Qwest requires CLECs to submit LSRs for manual handling (noting the listed TN) when requesting NP3 (no charge non-published service) for an end user (who has existing listed service at the same address for the same customer or for data only lines). When orders are dropped for manual handling, there is an increased risk of Qwest service order errors, therefore Eschelon request mechanization with Flow Through for ordering non-billable non-published listings. Eschelon suggests that the Listing Type (LTY) field be expanded to include additional listing types for Non-Published Data Only TN and Non-Published Associated TN Non-billable.

Discussion: Russ Urevig - Qwest said that he was familiar with this request and understood what Eschelon was requesting. Russ asked if Eschelon was requesting mechanization prior to the gateway and that Qwest would validate the TN field and reject upfront. Kim Isaacs - Eschelon said that an edit would be a Qwest benefit and a benefit to flow through.

Confirm Areas and Products impacted

Resale - Centrex 21 (9a) / Req. Type: PB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, Y, B Resale - Centrex Plus & Centron (9) / Req. Type: PB / ACT Type: W, V, C Resale - DID Trunks (16) / Req. Type: KB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, M Resale Frame Relay Service (FRS) (15) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, C, T, M Resale - ISDN BRI (8) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, M Resale - ISDN PRI Facility (27) / Req. Type: KB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, C, T, M Resale - ISDN PRI Trunks (28) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T Resale PAL (3) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, Y, B Resale - PBX Trunk Service (10) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, Y, B Resale - PBX Trunk Service – Designed (20) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, B, M Resale POTS (1) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, Y, B Resale - Private Line Transport (PLT) - Non-switched (2) / Req. Type: KB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, C, T, M Resale Qwest DSL (21) / Req. Type: EB / ACT Type: D, W, V, Z, C, Y, B UNE-P/STAR - Centrex 21 (31) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, Y, B UNE-P /STAR- Centrex 21 Split (40) / Req. Type: SB / ACT Type: N, T UNE-P/STAR - Centrex Plus and UNE-P – Centron (30) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: W, V, C UNE-P - DSS Facility (36) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, C, T, M UNE-P - DSS Trunks (37) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T UNE-P - ISDN BRI (29) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, M UNE-P - ISDN PRI Facility (32) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, C, T, M UNE-P - ISDN PRI Trunks (33) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T UNE-P - PBX Trunks (35) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, B, M UNE-P - PBX Trunks Split (39) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: T UNE-P - PBX/DID Trunks (34) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, M UNE-P/STAR –POTS (25) / Req. Type: MB / ACT Type: N, D, W, V, Z, C, T, L, Y, B UNE-P - POTS Split (38) / Req. Type: SB / ACT Type: T

Hello Lynn, I have reviewed the list and believe that all the subheadings under resale and UNE-P should be included in the scope of this CR. Thank you and have a great afternoon.

Kim Isaacs ILEC Relations Process Analyst Eschelon Telecom 612-436-6038 kdisaacs@eschelon.com

--Original Message-- From:Stecklein, Lynn [SMTP:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent:Thursday, January 06, 2005 2:32 PM To:kkdisaacs@eschelon.com; klstichter@eschelon.com Subject:IMA product List Hi Kathy and Kim,

Attached you will find the IMA product list we discussed in the clarification call for SCR12204-01 (Mechanize the Ordering of Non-billable Non Published Listings in IMA). During the call you indicated that the products impacted by this CR are UNE-P and Resale. Can you take a look at the list and let me know if all the subheadings under resale and UNE-P would be included?

Thanks!

Establish Action Plan Kim Isaacs - Eschelon stated that Kathy Stichter (Eschelon) will be presenting this change request in the January 19th CMP Systems Meeting

CenturyLink Response

February 9, 2005

Kim Isaacs Eschelon

CC: Connie Winston Jill Martain Russ Urevig

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number SCR122204-01, dated 12/22/04, and titled: Mechanize the Ordering of Non-billable Non-Published to Listings in IMA

CR Description: Eschelon is a requesting mechanization with Flow Through when ordering non-billable non-published (USOC NP3) listings in IMA. Currently Qwest requires CLECs to submit LSRs for manual handling (noting the listed TN) when requesting NP3 (no charge non-published service) for an end user (who has existing listed service at the same address for the same customer or for data only lines). When orders are dropped for manual handling, there is an increased risk of Qwest service order errors, therefore Eschelon request mechanization with Flow Through for ordering non-billable non-published listings. Eschelon suggests that the Listing Type (LTY) field be expanded to include additional listing types for Non-Published Data Only TN and Non-Published Associated TN Non-billable.

Expected Deliverables/Flow through for orders requesting non-billable non-published (USOC NP3) listing in IMA

History: A clarification meeting was held on Wednesday, January 5, 2005 with Eschelon and Qwest representation.

Qwest Response: In reviewing the current process for the application of the NPU/NP3 USOC, Qwest currently has a process established for the request to be handled on an individual basis when the account is eligible for a free listing. Enabling an additional field or expanding current fields for an associated TN would still not qualify these requests for flow through processing as the database that contains the listings for FBDL (Facility Based Directory Listing) cannot be linked with the database that contains the listing associated to a customer account. Therefore, these requests would still be required to drop for manual review by a Service Delivery Coordinator for validation of the TN association to the same end-user, same address, same provider and the determination of the facility use. Since it is not possible to interface the two databases mechanically to perform the necessary validation, Qwest is denying this CR for technologically not feasible reasons.

Sincerely,

Qwest

Archived System CR SCR021904-02 Detail

Description Of Change

This issue makes reporting and tracking of jeopardy notices difficult. It also causes discrepancies in the appearance of the status updates in IMA when trying to view both EDI and IMA status updates.

Expected Deliverable:

Eschelon is requesting that any status update that is due to service order jeopardy, when the LSR has not yet been placed in Jeopardy should not be sent to the CLEC. Eschelon is asking that this become an optional Status Update that the CLEC may subscribe to if desired. Suppression of these updates will allow the CLEC to be clearer as to when their order is in a “true” jeopardy state. If a CLEC chooses to suppress the SU Jeopardy notice the only time the CLEC should see a jeopardy notice is the 855/865 LR that is sent back with a RT = J.

Suppressing of the jeopardy notice should not interrupt the status update flow of other statuses.

Implementation Date is an IMA Release.

Status History

Project Meetings

-- May 10, 2006 Email Received From Eschelon: Hi Eschelon would like to withdraw SCR021904-02. This CR has already been implemented in an earlier version. This CR is no longer needed in its intended form by Eschelon. Thanks Stephanie Prull EDI Business Analyst Eschelon Telecom, INC

- May 8, 2006 Received Voicemail from Eschelon Withdrawing SCR021904-02

- March 23, 2006 General Meeting Held ATTENDEES: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Denise Martinez-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Anders Ingemarson-Qwest, Liz Emery-Qwest, Phyllis Sunins-Qwest, Steph Prull-Eschelon DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that this meeting is to discuss this change request and a possible change in scope. Peggy stated that Qwest wants to make sure that the SME Team fully understands exactly what the request is so we go down the correct development path. Peggy stated that this additional clarification call was requested, with Eschelon, because Qwest does have some questions. Peggy then noted that Steph (Prull-Eschelon) had indicated earlier in the week that this may or may not still be a problem due to a workaround that Eschelon had put into place. Peggy then asked Steph if she had talked to her users to see if this was still an issue and asked if she had found and LSR examples that she could share with Qwest. Step Prull-Eschelon stated that this is still a problem. Steph stated that the customers that subscribe to status updates, in EDI, are getting the status update for a jeopardy but then did not receive an actual jeopardy. Steph stated that the response was suppressed and caused confusion because they received a notice of a jeop but not the jeop itself. Steph stated that the next day, they would get a call asking if they were ready to accept because the problem had been cleared before the actual jeopardy. Steph stated that this request was originally to stop the status updates and then on the initial clarification call, Qwest gave an option of receiving all status updates, via an update to a CLECs Profile. Denise Martinez-Qwest asked if the statuses that they are receiving are based on a query or if they were proactive statuses. Steph Prull-Eschelon stated that they are autopushes from Qwest. Steph stated that Eschelon used to load all statuses, and then the status updates caused confusion, so put a temporary workaround into place. Steph stated that there are some that they still want to see. Denise Martinez-Qwest asked if the Jeopardy Notice is the only one that Eschelon wants suppressed. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that is the case for Eschelon but that Qwest had said that it was easier to do all. Steph then noted that Eschelon wants a Jeopardy Notice when the LSR comes out of Jeopardy. Steph said that they would also take the option of seeing some. Steph Prull-Eschelon stated that she would send service order or LSR numbers for Qwest to look at. There were no additional questions or comments.

March 20, 2006 Email Received from Eschelon: Perfect. I have it blocked off for you. Steph

March 20, 2006 Email Sent to Eschelon: Steph, 2:00 MT / 3:00 CT it is. Same call-in number. Thanks.

- March 20, 2006 Email Received from Eschelon: Hi Peggy, I will send them as fast as I can. One question. Would it be possible to do this call either an hour earlier or later? I have been scheduled for a mandatory meeting at that time. It just happened to come in between the time I emailed you and now (Go figure). Otherwise I am completely open on Friday. Let me know if that is possible. Sorry for the conflict already. Thanks Steph

-- March 20, 2006 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Steph, I have scheduled our discussion to take place as follows: DATE: Thursday, March 23rd TIME: 1:00 MT / 2:00 CT CALL IN: 1-877-564-8688, 8571927# Thanks, Steph. If you do get those examples, just send them on over. Peggy E-R

March 20, 2006 Email Received from Eschelon: Hi Peggy, Honestly I'm not sure if this is still occurring or not. But I can discuss with you. Since we had no idea when this CR would be implemented, we did a workaround on our side to surpress these from our systems perspective. I will check with my users to see if they have any examples that they have found out recently, but I'm not sure how fast I will get those. Let me do some searching and see what I can find. If you want to have a call to discuss I'm available Thursday and Friday this week. Steph

- March 20, 2006 Email Sent to Eschelon: Good Morning Steph, This email is in regard to your submitted CMP CR SCR021904-02 Suppression of Jeopardy Status Updates. This CR was ranked as the #2 candidate in the IMA 20.0 Release and during the business requirement phase of this effort, we have discovered some information, things that have occurred in the past, that may somewhat change the scope of your request. We would like to ask if the problem that prompted your submittal of this change request is still occurring and ask that you PLEASE provide some LSR examples to further assist us in our investigation and to make sure that we are headed down the correct path with this development effort. If you would send those examples within the next few days, that would be great. We will do some additional research of those examples to see exactly what you are experiencing. We would also like to schedule a call with you to discuss the request and what may still be or no longer be required to be done for this CR. I have attached a copy of the CR for your review. Thanks Steph, I appreciate your prompt response. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

- March 15, 2006 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the list of IMA 20.0 Initial Prioritization List is located in Attachment M. There were no questions or comments.

February 15, 2006 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion for IMA 20.0 Prioritization CR Review: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the list of IMA 20.0 candidates is located in Attachment M. She said instead of reviewing all candidates each CLEC will indicate what their top 2 candidates are. Jill said that we will also review the prioritization and ranking instructions following this exercise. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest said that we will ask each CLEC what there top 2 candidates are based on the attendance list. Below are the top two candidates per CLEC in attendance: AT&T-Sharon Van Meter #1 SCR031203-02 Resolve Disconnect of Account Number #2 SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason Field on the LSR Covad (via email) #1 SCR102102-1X Dual Inventory of DSL Tie Cables in TIRKs and SWITHCH/FOMS #2 SCR103103-01 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR #2 Eschelon-Kim Isaacs #1 SCR 050305-01 Bulk PIC Change Process in IMA #2 SCR032202-1 IMA GUI-PostOrder/Status Updates/Posted to be Billed Integra Laurie Fredricksen stated that she would have to get back to Qwest on there top 2 candidates. McleodUSA (via email) #1 SCR031103-01 Changes to Edits or Process Regarding Complex Listings on an ACT of N Order for Resale #2 SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason Field on the LSR SBC Bob Eggert said he is the ASR representative and that he will refrain from the IMA 20.0 prioritization process. Time Warner-Dianne Friend #1 SCR010705-01 Directory Listing Changes in Conjunction with LNP #2 SCR042704-01 FBDL PON Field VCI No representative from VCI was present. Verizon Business-Rosalin Davis #1 SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason Field on the LSR #2 Rosalin stated that she would get back to Qwest on her second candidate. Information received via e-mail: #1 SCR042704-01 FBDL PON Field #2 SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason on the LSR XO No representative from XO was present. Sprint-Jeff Sonnier #1 SCR010705-01 Directory Listing Changes in Conjunction with LNP #2 SCR031105-01 Change of Usage of CCNA for Sprint on LNP Orders TDS (via email) Julie Pickar stated that she would have to get back to Qwest on there top 2 candidates. E-mail received 2/15/06 on the TDS top 2 candidates #1 SCR032202-1 IMA GUI-PostOrder/Status Updates/Posted to be Billed #2 SCR 050305-01 Bulk PIC Change Process in IMA Cox-Tom Larson #1 SCR010705-01 Directory Listing Changes in Conjunction with LNP No second pick. Qwest-Jill Martain #1 SCR021904-02 Suppression of Jeopardy Status Updates #2 SCR102505-02 Edits for the LSR Delivery Address Activity (DACT) Field Comcast (via email) #1 SCR102505-02 Edits for the LSR Delivery Address Activity (DACT) Field #2 SCR110702-01 Request to Add Ability for CLECs to Get a List of Circuit IDs or Telephone #s Associated with Active POTS-Splitter

Jill Martain-Qwest stated that we will include everyone’s top 2 candidates in the meeting minutes. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest reviewed the prioritization instructions. She said that Qwest will distribute the Prioritization Form by 5 p.m. MT on February 20, 2006. She said that the completed Prioritization Form should be submitted to cmpcr@qwest.com no more that 3 business days following Qwest’s distribution of the prioritization form. Lynn said that the total point will be calculated by the Qwest CMP Manager and the results will be distributed to the CLECs within 2 business days following the submission of the ranking and no later than 5 p.m. on February 27, 2006. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if Qwest could explain how the highest point value works and how, for example, number 21 would be the top choice. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest said that the highest point value (i.e. 21) should be assigned to the CR that Qwest and CLECs wish to be implemented first. She said that the next highest point value (i.e. 20) should be assigned to the CR that Qwest and the CLECs wish to be implemented second and so on. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon explained that we go through this exercise to take into consideration what the other CLECs top priorities are so that as each CLEC votes they could take into consideration the other CLECs top 2 as well instead of just ranking their top 2 and then going down the list. Jeff Sonnier-Sprint asked if the ballot would have a ‘Point Value’ Column. Jill Martain-Qwest said that the ballot would have the ‘Point Value’ Column and that instructions would be included with the notification. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what the IMA 20.0 capacity was, hinting at 75,000 hours Jill Martain-Qwest said that the IMA 20.0 capacity is 7,500 hours.

February 16, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that this CR is medium high for Eschelon. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR is also medium high for Qwest.

July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would distribute the ballot on July 27th, it is due back to Qwest on July 30th, and Qwest would email the initial prioritization list to the CLECs on August 3rd. There were no questions. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that this is medium for Eschelon. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this is medium for Qwest as well.

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there are several options for this request. Connie stated that one option is for Qwest to provide functionality of suppressing Jeopardy Status updates or another is for Qwest to provide the option of receiving all status updates. Connie stated that since the LOEs are pretty close, the option of choice would probably be the second option. Connie stated that the LOE for the second option is 1275 to 2550 IMA hours and 100 to 200 SATE hours. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that the second option is their choice. This Action Item is closed.

- March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Stephanie Prull/Eschelon presented the CR and reviewed the CR Description. There were no questions or comments. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that this CR now moves to Presented Status.

-- March 3, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Hi Peggy, See my responses below. Thanks Steph

1) Is this request only for the existing jeopardy codes, codes that can currently receive jeopardy notices? [Prull, Stephanie A.] Yes this is for existing codes that can currently receive jeopardy notices. However I would assume this would apply to any new ones that may come along especially those that may fall under the 6pm rule. 2) Can you confirm that Qwest is not to stop any other status conditions; only those that are associated to an existing jeopardy code? [Prull, Stephanie A.] That is correct. I only want to see the statuses labelled "jeopardy" affected. We want the other status updates to continue as normal. This again would include new jeopardy codes in the future as well as they are introduced.

March 2, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Stephanie, We have additional question's regarding you CR for Suppression of Jeopardy Status Updates. 1) Is this request only for the existing jeopardy codes, codes that can currently receive jeopardy notices? 2) Can you confirm that Qwest is not to stop any other status conditions; only those that are associated to an existing jeopardy code? Thanks. I hope you feel better. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

-- March 2, 2004 Clarification Meeting:

Attendees: Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Jackie Diebold-USLink, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Liz Balvin-MCI, Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Deb Roth-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest, Phyllis Sunins-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest Reviewed the CR Description that currently the Jeopardy process states a Jeopardy notice will not be sent until 6pm if the Jeopardy can not be cleared. At this time the status updates are still being kicked off from Qwest backend systems to indicate the service order has gone into a jeopardy status. This causes confusion to the CLEC when they receive the Status update of Jeopardy however they never see a Jeopardy notice come to them. This issue makes reporting and tracking of jeopardy notices difficult. It also causes discrepancies in the appearance of the status updates in IMA when trying to view both EDI and IMA status updates. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the Expected Deliverable states that Eschelon is requesting that any status update that is due to service order jeopardy, when the LSR has not yet been placed in Jeopardy should not be sent to the CLEC. Eschelon is asking that this become an optional Status Update that the CLEC may subscribe to if desired. Suppression of these updates will allow the CLEC to be clearer as to when their order is in a 'true' jeopardy state. If a CLEC chooses to suppress the SU Jeopardy notice the only time the CLEC should see a jeopardy notice is the 855/865 LR that is sent back with a RT = J. Suppressing of the jeopardy notice should not interrupt the status update flow of other statuses. Implementation Date is an IMA Release. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked Stephanie (Prull) and Bonnie (Johnson) if they had anything to add to the description of the request. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that she had no additional information to add. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she also had no additional information.

Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked to confirm that the impacted area is Provisioning. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon responded yes.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked to confirm that the impacted interfaces are IMA and SATE. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon responded yes, that is correct.

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked to confirm that this was an impact to All Products. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon responded yes.

Additional Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest asked to confirm that Eschelon does not want Autopush to go, and does not want SOSI Queries to go. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that it is correct that Eschelon does not want Autopush to go and stated that Eschelon only gets Autopush. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Autopush is an update and a SOSI Query is to get status on a specific order or LSR. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that she only wants to see it if a Jeopardy Notice has been sent. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that first would see the Status Update, then the Jeopardy notice, then Autopush. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that in order to prevent confusion, she only wants to see it if a Jeopardy Notice has been sent. Phyllis Sunins/Qwest asked Jill Martain (Qwest) if she understood the piece that states "Eschelon is asking that this become an optional Status Update that the CLEC may subscribe to if desired. Suppression of these updates will allow the CLEC to be clearer as to when their order is in a 'true' jeopardy state". Jill Martain/Qwest stated that she does understand that statement and stated that it was done with the error notice and is the same type of functionality. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that was correct and stated that they need the options. Deb Roth/Qwest asked to confirm that Eschelon is requesting to not see the Jeopardy Notice or to only see it when the LSR is in Jeopardy. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that whichever is easier is okay, but that Eschelon’s preference is to not see it at all. Stephanie stated that, to prevent confusion, if the LSR is in Jeopardy Status, she wants to see the notice. If the LSR is not in Jeopardy Status, she does not want to see the notice at all, until the LSR reaches Jeopardy Status.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: CR is due for presentation at the March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide the response to the CR in April 2004.

February 19, 2004 Email Sent to Stephanie Prull/Eschelon: Hi Stephanie, Please provide me with your availability for the Clarification Call. Several dates and times would be great. I will then schedule the call and send you the call-in information. Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

CenturyLink Response

March 31, 2004

RE: SCR021904-02 Suppression of Jeopardy Status Updates

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change RequestSCR021904-02. As discussed at the Clarification Meeting (held March 2, 2004) Qwest anticipates two options as possible solutions for this IMA and SATE Change Request:

OPTION 1) Qwest to provide functionality of suppressing all Jeopardy Status Updates across the board. Status updates, autopush, and SOSI Query would be suppressed if not in jeopardy status. The LOE for this option, Option 1, is 1050 to 2100 IMA hours and 75 to 150 SATE hours.

OPTION 2) Qwest to provide an option of receiving all status updates. The LOE for this option, Option 2, is 1275 to 2550 IMA hours and 100 to 200 SATE hours.

At the April Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Any clarifications and/or modifications identified at that time will be incorporated into Qwest’s further evaluation of this Change Request. Upon obtaining consensus from CMP participants as to the appropriate direction for Qwest to take on this Change Request, this Change Request, SCR021904-02, will become available for the next IMA Prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR011904-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will implement the use of the PS form for UNE-P.

Status History

Project Meetings

- April 20, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that 17.0 was deployed on 4/11/05 and that this CR will remain in CLEC Test.

-- March 16, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR is scheduled to be implemented on April 11, 2005, with the IMA 17.0 Release.

-- November 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the IMA 17.0 Packaging Status is located in Attachment M. Jill also said that the Release date for 17.0 was changed from April 25, 2005 to April 11, 2005. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that the LOE was reduced for this release and asked if Qwest would provide capacity in December of 2004. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would provide the capacity for 2005 in December of 2004. Liz Balvin/Covad asked if the 1400 to 1600 hours for SCR121003-01EX Mechanization for SUPP Type 3 Activity scheduled in December were available. Liz said the hours should be available for 17.0 Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that we were utilizing those hours this year. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that here understanding was that the hours were available for 17.0. Susie Bliss/Qwest said that we don’t know what the hours are for 2005 yet. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the available resources stayed at 20,000 hours for the year. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that the 20,000 hours is an estimate for 17.0. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that Qwest used to package to mid-range and that for 17.0 Qwest packaged at the high range. Susie Bliss/Qwest said that this is due to the uncertainty. Comment received from Eschelon 11/29/04 – and Qwest does not know the hours for 2005 right now. Liz Balvin/Covad asked why the IMA 17.0 production date was moved. John Gallegos/Qwest said that Qwest needed to sync up with other systems and for other technical reasons. John Berard/Covad asked if the date was moved because of the hours. John Gallegos/Qwest said no, it was not because of the hours.

-- August 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Stephanie Prull/Eschelon asked if the edits done for an MCI request would carry over to the PS Form. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she would share that with the definition team. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that they would like it mirrored.

July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would distribute the ballot on July 27th, it is due back to Qwest on July 30th, and Qwest would email the initial prioritization list to the CLECs on August 3rd. There were no questions. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that this was very high for Eschelon; it is Eschelon’s #1. Jennifer Arnold/ TDS Metrocom/USLink stated that this is high for them as well. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that this was also high for MCI.

-- March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the LOE for this candidate is 3000 to 3400 IMA hours and 125 to 150 hours. Connie noted that this CR is eligible for the next vote. There were no comments or questions. The Action Item is Closed.

February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Stephanie Prull/Eschelon presented the CR. (3/2/04 Revision from Eschelon - Stephanie explained that other ILECs use the PS form for UNE-P. As a result our vendor does not code to the RS form for UNE-P. Eschelon needs this to use EDI for UNE-P). There were no questions or comments. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that the CR status would be changed to Presented. Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that she wanted to provide an update to the funding approval process that was discussed in the January CMP Systems Meeting. Judy referred everyone to Attachment J in the Distribution Package. She stated that all CRs are being re-evaluated and must be approved. Judy said that CRs could not be scheduled without approval. Judy stated that the CRs with an impact to the IMA interface would follow the existing prioritization process. Judy noted that the funding for IMA 15.0 and IMA 16.0 has been approved, as well as funding to begin work on IMA 17.0.

- Systems Clarification Meeting - Eschelon Change Request Date: January 29, 2004 CR No & Title: SCR011904-01 Port Service (PS) Form Used for UNE-P Requests in Place of Resale Form (RS)

Introduction of Attendees: Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Donna Osborne Miller-AT&T, Liz Balvin-MCI, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Hank Martinez-Qwest, Mark Gonzales-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Terri Kilker-Qwest, Ellen McArthur-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest reviewed the CR Description and Expected Deliverable: Qwest to follow OBF guidelines and use the PS form for UNE-P orders. Qwest currently requires CLECs to use RS form for submitting UNE-P orders. Because Qwest is the only LEC that requires CLECs to use the RS form, CLECs code differently for the UNE-P product when doing business with Qwest than they when they code for other LECs. To efficiently manage EDI coding, CLECs require consistency across regions. OBF recommends guideline to allow CLECs to achieve this consistency. When Qwest does not follow the recommended guidelines it creates additional work for the CLEC. The Expected Deliverable is for Qwest to implement the use of the PS form for UNE-P.

Additional Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked Eschelon if they had additional information regarding their request. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that when a CLEC has a home grown system, it requires different coding. Stephanie stated that there are companies like Eschelon, who use a 3rd party vendor. Stephanie stated that the 3rd party vendor codes to Industry Guidelines and this makes it difficult for those companies the 3rd party vendors to order UNE-P because it is not Industry Standard. Stephanie noted that Eschelon does support the RS Form. Hank Martinez-Qwest asked if this request is for all Resale Form products. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that this CR is for UNE-P. Hank Martinez-Qwest asked to confirm, at a hi-level, the fields of: PTLI which is used by UNE-P PBX Designed Trunks only. PTKCON which is used by UNE-P PBX Designed Trunks, UNE-P ISDN BRI, UNE-P PRI ISDN Trunk, UNE-P DSS Trunk. MEGACENTNM which is used by UNE-P POTS (P or STAR) and UNE-P PBX Designed Trunks NIDR which is used for all UNE Products IWJK which is used by UNE-P PBX Designed Trunks IWJQ which is used by UNE-P PBX Designed Trunks Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that the majority is PBX and Designed Trunks. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked if the CR was for any other products besides UNE-P POTS. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that Eschelon’s preference is UNE-P POTS but that the CR is All UNE-P. Stephanie noted that she is agreeable to All UNE-P. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that it would mean moving over a MEGACENTNM. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon responded that was correct. Liz Balvin-MCI stated that all other LECs support and MCI only does UNE-P POTS. Terri Kilker-Qwest asked Hank (Martinez) if the impact is to the Loop Form in addition to the Port Form and asked if the PS Form has everything or would a PS and Loop Form combination be needed. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that he would need to look into that question and stated that only one may be needed due to the MEGACENTNM. Terri Kilker-Qwest asked if the product was limited to UNE-P POTS only, only the PS Form would be involved. Hank Martinez-Qwest responded yes. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that the sequencing of the elements would also change. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked that as Qwest evaluates this request, to look if all would be required to be moved or would it be an option to move to the PS Form or stay with the RS Form. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that the data elements, for UNE-P, would not change with the move. Liz Balvin-MCI asked Eschelon if they were going to request that this be a Late Adder into the 16.0 Release. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that she would not make that request due to the anticipation of a high Level of Effort. Liz Balvin-MCI asked if it makes more sense to accommodate this request when the LSOG version changes. Liz stated that MCI’s IT people tell her that this is going to be a lot of work. Stephanie Prull- Eschelon agreed with Liz. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T also agreed with Liz. Terri Kilker-Qwest asked if they currently use the PS Form for UNE-P. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that they only use the PS Form in Qwest territory. Stephanie stated that their vendor is nationwide and they support all RBOCs. Stephanie noted that the decision of the vendor was to code to Industry Standards, to use the PS Form and not the RS Form. There were no addition comments or questions. Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest confirmed that the impacted area is Ordering.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest confirmed that the impact is to IMA Common.

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest confirmed that this CR is for All UNE-P Products.

Obtain the Business Need from the CR Originator/What is the problem that needs to be solved: For CLECs using a 3rd Party Vendor. The 3rd party vendor codes to Industry Standards, which is the PS Form. This makes it difficult for companies using 3rd party vandors to order UNE-P because it is not Industry Standard.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: CR due for presentation at the February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide the response to the CR in March 2004.

CenturyLink Response

March 12, 2004

RE: SCR011904-01 Port Service (PS) Form Used for UNE-P Requests in Place of Resale Form (RS)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR011904-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held January 29, 2004) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 3000 to 3400 hours for this IMA Change Request and 125 to 150 hours for SATE.

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 17.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

DRAFT RESPONSE

March 10, 2004

RE: SCR011904-01 Port Service (PS) Form Used for UNE-P Requests in Place of Resale Form (RS)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR0011904-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the March Systems CMP Meeting.

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR011904-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

CEMR will allow a CLEC to run a full MLT test when opening a CEMR ticket and the results will be recorded in CEMR as a part of the CEMR ticket.

Status History

Project Meetings

--

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that CR has been denied. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she did not remember receiving the denial response. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the denial response was emailed to Bonnie (Johnson/Eschelon) on April 15, 2004. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would look for it.

- April 15, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Bonnie, I have attached a copy of your CR requesting ‘CEMR to Allow Full MLT Test When Opening a Trouble Report in CEMR and Have the Results Shown in the CEMR Ticket.’ The CR contains the Qwest Response and will be in the Distribution Package for the April Systems CMP Meeting. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

April 1, 2004 Conference Call ATTENDEES: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Jeff Bellin/Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Curt Anderson/Qwest, Cathy Garcia/Qwest, Justin Sewell/Qwest, Dave Anderson/Qwest DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the purpose of the call was for further discussion for this request. Curt Anderson/Qwest stated that Qwest is still evaluating this request and so far is not finding a really good solution for this request. Curt stated that Qwest wanted further discussion so Qwest could further explain the current situation, and to ensure that Qwest fully understands Eschelon’s request. Curt stated that based on the current situation and what Qwest currently does provide; Eschelon may opt to withdraw this CR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon would not withdraw the CR and noted that Qwest would need to deny the CR. Bonnie asked for the reason to deny the request. Curt Anderson/Qwest stated that he would like to further explain the current situation. Curt stated that currently in CEMR, you would go to the Full MLT Tab and run a full MLT. Curt stated that the full results are then displayed. Curt Anderson/Qwest stated that she believes that this request is asking for full results from the Submit Trouble Ticket Tab. Curt stated that the MLT is a full MLT, but the results actually display in the Full MLT Tab. Curt asked to confirm that the request is to incorporate the full results into the Submit Trouble Ticket Tab. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon believed that because they are not getting the results, they thought it was not a full MLT Test. Curt Anderson/Qwest stated that it is a full MLT Test. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that it is an additional step for Eschelon and noted that it is an efficiency issue. Curt Anderson/Qwest stated that the request is for Qwest to incorporate the test results into the ticket and noted that Qwest cannot provide this functionality due to the space limitation on the ticket and due to back-end systems limitations. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest would have a record of the MLT Test that Eschelon would be able to refer to. Curt Anderson/Qwest stated that it depends on the trouble ticket. Curt noted that Qwest also runs our own MLT Test. Justin Sewell/Qwest stated that the MLT results are available for a period of 8-days. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if it was a separate transaction or when opening the ticket. Justin Sewell/Qwest stated that CEMR would not have the record of the results, when opening the ticket. Justin stated that he would have to check if the back-end would have the results record. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon’s business need is to get the results and to get accurate results. Bonnie noted that this would be a benefit to the CLECs and to Qwest. Bonnie stated that they need to determine where the trouble is by running a full MLT Test before they open a trouble ticket. Bonnie stated that the amount of time the transaction takes is an issue. Jeff Bellin/Eschelon stated that running the MLT in a stand-alone mode or when opening a ticket, takes the same amount of time. Jeff stated that if in stand-alone mode, they still would then need to open a ticket. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that occasionally when they run a full MLT Test, the problem is identified and fixed; the problem is with the ‘no trouble founds’. Bonnie asked that when they run a stand-alone MLT Test, does Qwest have a record for 8-days or only the most recent test. Justin Sewell/Qwest stated that Qwest would have a record of every execution of an MLT Test. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest would be denying this CR based on storage or due to economic infeasibility. Cur Anderson/Qwest stated that Qwest realizes that it is an extra step for Eschelon, but Qwest does currently offer a full MLT Test and does currently display the results. Curt stated that Qwest does currently provide the functionality that Eschelon is requesting. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the functionality is not there while opening a ticket, which is what this request is asking for. Cathy Garcia/Qwest asked Eschelon if Eschelon does not run an MLT before they open a ticket anyway. Jeff Bellin/Eschelon responded no due to the volume and the fact that the ticket only says that there is trouble, and they already are aware of that. Jeff stated that the test does not say where the trouble is and Eschelon will not dispatch until they know the reason for the trouble. Jeff stated that they would ask for a Line Test but that test and results takes up Qwest’s and CLEC’s time. Cathy Garcia/Qwest noted that other CLECs may not follow that same process. Jeff Bellin/Eschelon stated that it takes time for the Qwest Screener to run the test and call the CLEC back. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that it is not done for every ticket. Cathy Garcia/Qwest stated that if the problem is Qwest related, no TIC charge is assessed. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that in the process, depending on the customer’s problem, they run the MLT Test while opening the ticket and currently they do not get enough information. Bonnie stated that if that step could be prevented and they could get the full MLT results from the ticket, and not do a stand-alone MLT, they could authorize a dispatch with a full understanding of the trouble. Cathy Garcia/Qwest stated that Qwest starts from scratch on running the test’s, so this request does not really have a benefit to Qwest as far as saving Qwest time is concerned. Cathy stated that the Line Test and calling the CLEC for authorization to dispatch is the extra step for Qwest. Cathy again noted that Qwest would not assess a TIC if it is Qwest’s problem. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated what she has heard today will not work for Eschelon and asked if Qwest had any other options. Curt Anderson/Qwest stated that Qwest is not promising to do what he is going to ask, but he would like to know that if having the results displayed, but not on the ticket, acceptable. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if they would be able to see the results while opening a ticket and asked if it was possible to keep the results of the ticket. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked that if Eschelon changed the request to be able to see the full MLT Test, would Qwest do that effort. Curt Anderson/Qwest stated the Qwest is presenting the option but is not committing to any solution at this time. Curt stated that Qwest would need to meet internally in order to further discuss that option to see if it is a possibility. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she appreciates the discussion and stated that if Qwest can deliver a portion of the request, Eschelon would revise the CR, or Qwest could deny this request and Eschelon would submit a new CR. There were no further questions or comments. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/’Qwest stated that Qwest would provide a status at the April Systems CMP Meeting. The call was adjourned.

March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is still evaluating this request and stated that a status would be provided at the April Systems CMP Meeting. There were no comments or questions. The Action Item remains Open.

-- February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed the CR Description. (3/2/04 Revision from Eschelon-Bonnie explained that Eschelon wants full MLT test results included on the ticket. Eschelon does not want to put the test results in remarks). There were no questions or comments. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that the CR would move to Presented Status.

Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that she wanted to provide an update to the funding approval process that was discussed in the January CMP Systems Meeting. Judy referred everyone to Attachment J in the Distribution Package. She stated that all CRs are being re-evaluated and must be approved. Judy said that CRs could not be scheduled without approval. Judy noted that the status of this CR is: This CR is New.

- Systems Clarification Meeting - Eschelon Change Request Date: January 28, 2004 CR No & Title: SCR011904-02 CEMR to Allow Full MLT Test When Opening a Trouble Report in CEMR and Have the Results Shown in the CEMR Ticket

Introduction of Attendees: Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Jeff Bellin-Eschelon, Sheryl Peterson-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Angela Stewart-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Rita Sandoval-Qwest, Cathy Garcia-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest reviewed the CR Description and Expected Deliverable: CEMR only allows a basic MLT test and not a full MLT when opening a CEMR ticket. CEMR should allow the CLEC to run a full MLT test when opening a ticket and the results of the test should appear in the CEMR ticket. Eschelon currently runs a full MLT test before opening a CEMR ticket. Eschelon then communicates the results of the MLT test to Qwest in the CEMR ticket. If the CLEC inaccurately communicated or misinterprets the results of the test or Qwest misinterprets the CLECs explanation of the results or problem, the customer end user can experience delays in the repair. If CEMR allowed a full MLT test and the results were recorded in CEMR and the test showed a problem in the Qwest network, Qwest knows at the time the ticket is read what the problem is and can repair the service in a timely manner. If Qwest runs another MLT test and it shows different results, Qwest will know the result is a 'came clear' because of the first MLT test the CLEC ran. If the CLEC cannot run the full MLT test at the time the ticket is opened, the CLEC must take an extra step in the repair process. Eschelon runs a test, opens the ticket and runs the basic test when the ticket is opened. Because the tests results are not the same for a basic MLT test and a full MLT test, there is no way to know if the same problem exists that did when the CLEC ran the full MLT test. The CLEC and Qwest could gain efficiency, decrease repair time and eliminate miscommunication if CEMR would allow a full MLT test and attach the results in the CEMR ticket. Expected Deliverable: CEMR will allow a CLEC to run a full MLT test when opening a CEMR ticket and the results will be recorded in CEMR as a part of the CEMR ticket.

Additional Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed - Qwest asked Eschelon if they had additional information regarding their request. Jeff Bellin - Eschelon stated that Eschelon’s backlog is too big for a full MLT and the result is vague information. The information only states that there is trouble on the line, with no detail. Jeff stated that more information is provided for a full MLT. Jeff stated that Eschelon does not roll a truck if a test shows that there is trouble on the line and stated that Eschelon does not have time to run a full MLT on every ticket. Jeff stated that a full MLT takes the same amount of time to run and the results provide more data. Kim Isaacs - Eschelon stated that there is a need to gain efficiency for both Eschelon and Qwest technicians. Kim stated that detail on the CEMR ticket streamlines the process and eliminates communications. Kim stated that it is an extra step to wait for a full MLT result. John Gallegos - Qwest asked to confirm that this is for all products. Kim Isaacs - Eschelon stated that MLT is for non-designed products. Jeff Bellin - Eschelon agreed. Curt Anderson - Qwest asked to confirm that Eschelon does not want to utilize the MLT Tab before they issue a ticket. Jeff Bellin - Eschelon stated that the current process slows down the process and it results in a backlog. Jeff stated that Eschelon does not know if trouble is on the Eschelon end or the Qwest end. Jim Recker - Qwest asked how long it took to run a full MLT test. Jeff Bellin - Eschelon stated that it takes from 3 to 10 minutes. Curt Anderson - Qwest stated the timeframe is usually 3 minutes. John Gallegos - Qwest asked if the expectation was that the CLEC initiates the MLT when the ticket is opened or that the MLT is automatically generated for every ticket. Jeff Bellin - Eschelon stated that it should be a selection and that Eschelon is looking for significant results, such as how far out, etc. Jim Recker - Qwest asked Eschelon if they could estimate how many, out of 10, would Eschelon request a full MLT for. Jeff Bellin - Eschelon stated that it is hard to say and that it depends on the problem. Jeff stated that if their customer could not use their line, Eschelon would request an MLT 50% of the time. John Gallegos - Qwest asked to confirm that Eschelon would run a full MLT at lease 50% of the time. Jeff Bellin - Eschelon stated that 50% was just a guess. John Gallegos - Qwest asked if there were specific types of trouble that a ticket would be opened for, that Eschelon would want a full MLT for. John stated that he was asking in order to determine the degradation of an MLT test. Jeff Bellin - Eschelon stated that in going back 5-days to January 23rd, there were quite a few trouble tickets opened. Kim Isaacs - Eschelon asked Jeff (Bellin) if there is a trouble reported field that Qwest could look at and asked if it is a free-form text. Jeff Bellin - Eschelon stated that he has not researched that and stated that he does not know if it separates anywhere. Kim Isaacs - Eschelon stated that Qwest is looking for the scope, it would be for non-designed with trouble categories of static, no dial tone, can’t be called, and can’t call out. Kim stated that there could also be more categories, for a full MLT test. Jeff Bellin - Eschelon stated that it would be for a priority 1 and a priority 2. Kim Isaacs - Eschelon stated that she hopes that this will streamline the workflow for Eschelon and for Qwest. There were additional questions or comments. Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Peggy Esquibel Reed - Qwest confirmed the impacted area of Maintenance & Repair.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest confirmed that CEMR is the impacted interface.

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel Reed - Qwest confirmed that this CR is for All Non-Designed Products.

Business Need/Problem to be Solved: Possible delay in repair for the CLEC end user customer. To streamline the workflow for Eschelon and Qwest.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: Peggy Esquibel Reed- Qwest stated that this CR is due for presentation at the February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide the response to the CR in March 2004.

CenturyLink Response

April 6, 2004

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number SCR011904-02, dated 01/19/04, and titled: CEMR to Allow Full MLT Test When Opening a Trouble Report in CEMR and Have the Results Shown in the CEMR Ticket.

CR Description: CEMR only allows a basic MLT test and not a full MLT when opening a CEMR ticket. CEMR should allow the CLEC to run a full MLT test when opening a ticket and the results of the test should appear in the CEMR ticket. Eschelon currently runs a full MLT test before opening a CEMR ticket. Eschelon then communicates the results of the MLT test to Qwest in the CEMR ticket. If the CLEC inaccurately communicated or misinterprets the results of the test or Qwest misinterprets the CLECs explanation of the results or problem, the customer end user can experience delays in the repair. If CEMR allowed a full MLT test and the results were recorded in CEMR and the test showed a problem in the Qwest network, Qwest knows at the time the ticket is read what the problem is and can repair the service in a timely manner. If Qwest runs another MLT test and it shows different results, Qwest will know the result is a 'came clear' because of the first MLT test the CLEC ran. If the CLEC cannot run the full MLT test at the time the ticket is opened, the CLEC must take an extra step in the repair process. Eschelon runs a test, opens the ticket and runs the basic test when the ticket is opened. Because the tests results are not the same for a basic MLT test and a full MLT test, there is no way to know if the same problem exists that did when the CLEC ran the full MLT test. The CLEC and Qwest could gain efficiency, decrease repair time and eliminate miscommunication if CEMR would allow a full MLT test and attach the results in the CEMR ticket.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable): CEMR will allow a CLEC to run a full MLT test when opening a CEMR ticket and the results will be recorded in CEMR as a part of the CEMR ticket.

History: The CR was submitted on 01/19/04 and acknowledged on 01/20/04. A clarification meeting was held on January 28, 2004 with Eschelon, AT&T, and Qwest representation. At this meeting Eschelon clarified that this request would eliminate an extra step in running the full MLT Test. There was an additional call on April 1, 2004 where Qwest explained that the results of the Full MLT Test are currently available, in CEMR. Eschelon confirmed that their business need was to have the results of the MLT Test on the trouble ticket, which would eliminate an extra step and improve their efficiencies. Qwest Response: Qwest has completed an analysis for SCR011904-02, "CEMR to Allow Full MLT Test When Opening a Trouble Report in CEMR and Have the Results Shown in the CEMR Ticket." Qwest’s expectation is that a CLEC will run an MLT prior to creating a trouble ticket as part of trouble isolation as opposed to when the ticket is opened. Qwest believes that the ability to run and view a full MLT in its current location and format fulfills the customer’s needs for MLT data. It should be noted that Qwest automatically runs its own MLT when necessary, and the results from this test are used by the Qwest technician. CLEC submitted trouble ticket MLT data that is inaccurately provided will not have an impact on the processing of the trouble ticket. Thus, having CLEC initiated MLT results incorporated into the trouble ticket would be an unnecessary or redundant system usage.

MLT is a diagnostic repair test that can be performed by a CLEC via CEMR on a loop connected to a Qwest switch after the loop has been provisioned to the CLEC. Today, the CEMR User has the opportunity to run four (4) different types of MLT from the MLT tab in CEMR. If the user chooses, they may incorporate the results from the MLT test into the narrative section of the trouble ticket.

Additionally, Qwest does not recognize the benefit in providing this information in two different places.

Consequently, Qwest is denying your request for SCR011904-02, CEMR to Allow Full MLT Test When Opening a Trouble Report in CEMR and Have the Results Shown in the CEMR Ticket, for no demonstrable business benefit.

Sincerely, Qwest

-- DRAFT RESPONSE

March 5, 2004

RE: SCR011904-02 CEMR to Allow Full MLT Test When Opening a Trouble Report in CEMR and Have the Results Shown in the CEMR Ticket

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR011904-02. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held January 28, 2004) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the April Systems CMP Meeting.

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR012604-01MN Detail

Description Of Change

REVISION / ADDITION TO CR DESCRIPTION 2-17-2004:

Qwest will use closing codes associated to the DSL repair and not use "referred to another department".

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will provide an electronic means to open, track status and view history for Qwest DSL feature repair tickets. On an interim basis, Qwest will develop a manual process to provide CLECs electronic information upon CLEC request.

REVISION / ADDITION TO EXPECTED DELIVERABLE 2-17-2004:

On an interim basis, when CLEC opens a ticket in CEMR for DSL, Qwest will provide the information the CLEC requires to track the ticket in the notes. When Qwest closes the ticket to "referred to another department", Qwest will provide the information on the number ticket opened.

Status History

Project Meetings

March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that Qwest is still evaluating the requested manual process. There were no questions or comments. This CR remains open.

-- February 23, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Thanks Peggy!!

Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

February 23, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Bonnie, - SCR012604-01 REV. 2-17-04 Mechanize Qwest DSL feature repair tickets opened, tracked & history provided in CEMR using the associated TN to request information. Use closing codes associated to the DSL repair & not use "referred to another department".

- SCR012604-01MN REV 2-17-04 Manual: When a ticket is opened in CEMR for DSL, provide the information the CLEC requires to track the ticket in the notes. When ticket closed to "referred to another department", provide the information on the number ticket opened.

I thought I had sent these to you already but do not find them in my 'sent' box. I apologize.

I have made revision's to the CR Titles, CR Descriptions, and Expected Deliverables. Please review them and advise if you are ok with the changes or advise what you would like changed. The Titles look a little different because the text was too long and I had to shorten them. They should still be appropriate for the request's. Let me know.

Thanks, Bonnie.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

-- February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that a CR Revision was received and stated that the revised title is REV. 2-17-04 Mechanize Qwest DSL feature repair tickets opened, tracked & history provided in CEMR using the associated TN to request information. Use closing codes associated to the DSL repair & not use "referred to another department". Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed the CR Description, including the revision, and stated that regardless of the Qwest department, that is working the order, they need the ability to track tickets electronically. Bonnie stated that they are not currently able to view history. Bonnie stated that on an interim basis, Eschelon wants information of where the ticket was sent and who, within Qwest, to call to get information regarding the ticket. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon might submit another CR for voicemail and AIN features. There were no questions or comments regarding this change request.

Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that she wanted to provide an update to the funding approval process that was discussed in the January CMP Systems Meeting. Judy referred everyone to Attachment J in the Distribution Package. She stated that all CRs are being re-evaluated and must be approved. Judy said that CRs could not be scheduled without approval. Judy noted that the status of this CR is: This CR is New

-- February 17, 2004 Received Revised CR from Eschelon; ORIGINAL TITLE: Qwest DSL feature repair tickets opened, tracked and history provided in CEMR using the telephone number the Qwest DSL feature is associated with to request information - Manual Process.

- February 6, 2004 Email Response Received from Eschelon: Thanks Peggy. Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

-- February 5, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Bonnie and Kim, This email is in regard to your submitted CMP CR of SCR012604-01 Qwest DSL Feature Repair Tickets Opened, Tracked and History Provided in CEMR Using the Telephone Number the Qwest DSL Feature is Associated with to Request Information. The CR is requesting both a mechanized solution and a manual process be put into place. This was confirmed during yesterday's Clarification Call. The CMP Process Document (Section 5.1.4) states that if a manual process is to be put into place, a second systems CR must be opened with the same number as the original CR with a suffix of MN. The 'MN' CR would remain open until the closure of the associated systems CR. Based on that information, I have created the 'MN' CR for the manual process work effort. As stated in the CMP Process Document, the CR number assigned is SCR012604-01MN. Please let me know if you have any concerns in regard to this issue. I have attached a copy of SCR012604-01MN for your records. I have also added the words 'Mechanized Solution' to the title of SCR012604-01. I have attached a copy of that CR as well. Both SCR012604-01 and SCR012604-01MN are scheduled for presentation at the February Systems CMP Meeting. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

Eschelon Change Request - Systems Clarification Meeting Date: February 4, 2004 CR No & Title: SCR012604-01 Qwest DSL Feature Repair Tickets Opened, Tracked and History Provided in CEMR Using the Telephone Number the Qwest DSL Feature is Associated with to Request Information Introduction of Attendees: Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Ray Smith-Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Rita Sandoval-Qwest, Cathy Garcia-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Angela Stewart-Qwest, Michael Lloyd - Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest reviewed the CR Description and expected deliverable.

Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Maintenance and Repair

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Mechanized Solution is CEMR Manual Solution is Other

Confirmed Impacted Products: Qwest DSL

Meeting Discussion: Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that Eschelon is not able to see tickets of EB, MB, or PB so they cannot be tracked electronically. Kim stated that this is a manually intensive process for Eschelon to track. Kim stated that they do not have the ability to track and view history. Curt Anderson-Qwest stated that CEMR does not currently have that functionality and asked if Eschelon calls in the trouble ticket information today. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon responded yes. Curt Anderson-Qwest asked if Eschelon uses the telephone number. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon responded yes and noted that they are required to provide the ticket number. Curt Anderson-Qwest asked Eschelon which was more important to them; the ability to track a ticket or the ability to submit a ticket. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that they would like to do all and stated that it is manually intensive to track via phone conversations. John Gallegos-Qwest asked that if Qwest could only provide one of those options, would the preferred option be for the ability to open a ticket or the option of the ability to track a ticket. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that the ability to open a ticket is nice, but the trouble is really after the ticket is opened because there is not a way to track it. Kim stated that tracking a ticket to conclusion is the problem. Kim stated that if they can open a ticket via a phone conversation and then have CEMR track the ticket, that would be the preferred option. John Gallegos-Qwest asked if a manual process was still needed prior to a system change. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated yes and stated that the manual process needs to include the history. Cathy Garcia-Qwest asked how Eschelon currently gets that information. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that their Service Manager could get some WFA information and history but that it takes time to get it. Cathy Garcia-Qwest stated that the current process is to call in a ticket and to call for status. Cathy asked if Eschelon has tried calling the Center to request history. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated yes and stated that this CR is asking for it to be electronic. Cathy Garcia-Qwest stated that it sounds like the manual process is already in place and the CR would then be for the electronic process. Cathy asked if Eschelon is asking for the response to be electronic. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated yes, they want a copy of the OFFLOG. There were no additional questions or comments. Obtain the Business Need from the CR Originator - What is the problem that needs to be solved: Need ability to electronically track trouble tickets and to view the history.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: CR due for presentation at the February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide the response to the CR in March 2004. (Section 5.1.4)

CenturyLink Response

March 5, 2004

RE: SCR012604-01MN REV 2-17-04 Manual: When a ticket is opened in CEMR for DSL, provide the information the CLEC requires to track the ticket in the notes. When ticket closed to "referred to another department", provide the information on the number ticket opened.

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR012604-01MN. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the March Systems CMP Meeting.

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR012604-01 Detail

Description Of Change

REVISION / ADDITION TO CR DESCRIPTION 2-17-2004:

Qwest will use closing codes associated to the DSL repair and not use "referred to another department".

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will provide an electronic means to open, track status and view history for Qwest DSL feature repair tickets. On an interim basis, Qwest will develop a manual process to provide CLECs electronic information upon CLEC request.

REVISION / ADDITION TO EXPECTED DELIVERABLE 2-17-2004:

On an interim basis, when CLEC opens a ticket in CEMR for DSL, Qwest will provide the information the CLEC requires to track the ticket in the notes. When Qwest closes the ticket to "referred to another department", Qwest will provide the information on the number ticket opened.

Status History

Project Meetings

- January 14, 2005 Communicator Excerpt: Announcement Date: January 14, 2005 Effective Date: Immediately Notification Number: SYST.01.14.05.F.02472.UpdCEMROnlHelp204 Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: CMP-Systems: CEMR Online Help and User Guide Updates Associated CR # or System Name and Number: SCR012604-01-DSL Clarification

On January 14, 2004 Qwest will post updates to the final 02.04.00 CEMR Online Help to the Qwest Wholesale Systems CEMR and RCE website at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/systems/cemrandrce.html.

Summary of Changes: 1. SCR012604-01: Circuit ID Format Tutorial: The FAQ>Circuit ID Format Tutorial>Telephone Number Format column>Service Code and Modifier section has been modified to clarify that this is a required field for non-DSL telephone numbers.

Submitting a DSL Trouble Report: The sentence "An example of a valid circuit specification would be 303/555/1234" has been added to Design Services>Design Trouble Reports>Submitting a DSL Trouble Report>Step 2.

2. Submitting a Design Trouble Report: A new note which contains instructions and examples for scheduling joint Dispatch Out (DPO) and joint Dispatch In (DPI) meets has been added to Design Services>Design Trouble Reports>Submitting a Design Trouble Report>Step 3>Note1.

December 28, 2004 Email Received from Kim Isaacs, Eschelon: Thank you Peggy. Kim Isaacs ILEC Relations Process Analyst Eschelon Telecom

December 28, 2004 Email Sent to Kim Isaacs, Eschelon: Hi Kim, The CEMR online help will be modified and posted with the next CEMR Release. The modifications will include the Circuit ID Format Tutorial, Service Code & Modifier, and Submitting a DSL Trouble Report. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP

- December 15, 2004 Email Sent to Kim Isaacs, Eschelon: Kim, I will check into that for you. Peggy E-R Qwest

December 15, 2004 Email Received from Kim Isaacs, Eschelon: Thanks Peggy, Can you have someone modify the Circuit ID Format Tutorial. As you see below it states the Service Code is required. *Prefix: alphanumeric characters. required if it exists (not all telephone number circuits have a prefix) *Service Code & Modifier: 2-4 alphabetic characters (usually 4); This is a required field. *NPA: 3 digits. This is a required field. *NXX: 3 digits. This is a required field. *Line: 4 digits. This is a required field. *Extension: 1-5 alphanumeric characters. This is an optional field. <<...OLEObj...>> For states: AZ, CO, ID, MT, NM, UT, WY, alphas not accepted; convert D1 to 0001, D2 to 0002, etc. *Segment: 1-3 alphanumeric characters. This is an optional field. rarely used

Kim Isaacs ILEC Relations Process Analyst Eschelon Telecom

December 15, 2004 Email Sent to Kim Isaacs, Eschelon: Kim, In response to your question regarding circuit format and what Service code and modifier is needed for DSL: The information is contained within the CEMR on-line Help FAQ section. It is in the Circuit ID Format Tutorial. The tutorial indicates that there are 4 ways to enter a CEMR ticket and one of those ways is with a TN. A Service Code and modifier are not needed for DSL. To enter a ticket, go to Design, DSL, and enter the TN in the format of xxx/xxx/xxxx (the x's being npa/nxx/line number). This was tested and a ticket was successfully created. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP

- December 15, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest provided a response to Covad’s question last month associated with appointment scheduler and asked if everyone was okay to close this CR. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that the question was whether the CLEC’s could access the IMA Appointment Scheduler without an amendment. Liz said that Qwest responded that the CLECs would be required to have their Interconnection Agreement amended in order to use the BHC functionality Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will be closed.

December 13, 2004 Communicator Excerpt: Announcement Date: December 13, 2004 Effective Date: Immediately Notification Number: SYST.12.13.04.F.02384.CEMRRelNotesFinalDeploy Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: CMP-Systems: CEMR Release Notes Final Deployment Associated CR # or System Name and Number: CEMR Release 02.04.00

On December 13, 2004 Qwest will post the final 02.04.00 CEMR Online Help to the Qwest Wholesale Systems CEMR and RCE website at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/systems/cemrandrce.html. Summary of Changes:

2. SCR012604-01: Open, track status, and view history for DSL repair: An electronic means to open, track status, and view history for Qwest DSL feature repair tickets is provided. - A new section on Submitting a DSL Trouble Report is provided.

-- November 22, 2004 Communicator Excerpt: Announcement Date: November 22, 2004 Effective Date: Immediately Notification Number: SYST.11.22.04.F.02322.CEMRFinalRelNotesOnlHelp Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: CMP-Systems: CEMR Final Release Notes Associated CR # or System Name and Number: CEMR Release 02.04.00, CLEC CR # SCR061303-01, CLEC CR # SCR090503-01, CLEC CR # SCR012604-01 On November 22, 2004 Qwest will post the final CEMR GUI Release Notes and Online Help to the Qwest Wholesale Systems Document Review Archive site at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/reviewarchivesystem.html

Comment Response: Qwest received one comment during the review cycle. The Qwest response to CLEC comments has been posted to the Document Review Archive website under the heading of "View Qwest’s Response to CLEC Comments." This response is listed at the previous URL.

Summary of Changes: 2. SCR012604-01-Open, track status, and view history for DSL repair: An electronic means to open, track status, and view history for Qwest DSL feature repair tickets is provided. - A new section on Submitting a DSL Trouble Report is provided.

Final Release Notes: Available 11/22/04 Targeted Production Date: Available 12/13/04

-- November 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will deploy on 12/12/04. There were no questions or comments.

- November 12, 2004 Communicator Excerpt: Announcement Date: November 12, 2004 Effective Date: November 15, 2004 Notification Number: SYST.11.12.04.F.02293.CEMRDecRlDrftRlNtsOnlHelp Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: CMP-Systems Document In Review CEMR GUI Draft Release Notes Associated CR # or System Name and Number: CLEC CR # SCR061303-01, CLEC CR # SCR090503-01, CLEC CR # SCR012604-01

On November 15, 2004 Qwest will post planned updates to the 2.04.00 CEMR GUI draft Release Notes and draft Online Help to the Qwest Wholesale Document Review site.

Qwest provides a Document Review website for customers to comment on proposed changes. The website provides a list of all documents that are in review, the comment process for customers to follow for document changes, a comment link, and links to the current and past documentation reviews.

The Document Review website is found at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/review.html. Please fill in all required fields and be sure to reference the Notification Number listed above.

Comment Cycle: Customers are encouraged to review the release notes and provide comments at any time during the review period. The review period begins November 15, 2004 and concludes at close of business on November 17, 2004.

Summary of Changes: 2. SCR012604-01 Open, track status, and view history for DSL repair: An electronic means to open, track status, and view history for Qwest DSL feature repair tickets will be provided. - A new section on Submitting a DSL Trouble Report is provided.

- September 16, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the targeted date for this CR is 12/12/04.

August 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR is currently targeted for implementation in October 2004. Jill stated that if the date changes, it would be communicated.

- July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that we had communicated a targeted date of August and stated that Qwest Retail was funding this CR for the CLECs. Susie stated that the Retail funding got pulled so this will be delayed. Susie stated that Qwest is looking for alternative funding and are looking to try and implement this CR in October. Liz Balvin/MCI asked what it means that Retail is funding. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that Retail was looking to do this change in conjunction with Wholesale. The Retail funding got pulled. and now Wholesale is looking for funding. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this Action Item would remain open for status in August. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked how optimistic Qwest was in obtaining funding for an October deployment. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated is about 50-50. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the SGAT and ICA has it in there, so that might give Susie additional fuel. Bonnie stated that this change just makes good sense for Retail and for Wholesale. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that all information helps and thanked Bonnie. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if any of the design, so far, had been lost. Connie Winston/Qwest stated no.

- May 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the targeted implementation date for this CR is 8/14/04 This action item will be closed.

-

March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the LOE for this CR is 900 to 1100 hours and Qwest is looking at the potential scheduling of this CR. There were no comments or questions. The Action Item was Closed.

-- February 23, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Thanks Peggy!!

Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

February 23, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Bonnie, - SCR012604-01 REV. 2-17-04 Mechanize Qwest DSL feature repair tickets opened, tracked & history provided in CEMR using the associated TN to request information. Use closing codes associated to the DSL repair & not use "referred to another department".

- SCR012604-01MN REV 2-17-04 Manual: When a ticket is opened in CEMR for DSL, provide the information the CLEC requires to track the ticket in the notes. When ticket closed to "referred to another department", provide the information on the number ticket opened.

I thought I had sent these to you already but do not find them in my 'sent' box. I apologize.

I have made revision's to the CR Titles, CR Descriptions, and Expected Deliverables. Please review them and advise if you are ok with the changes or advise what you would like changed. The Titles look a little different because the text was too long and I had to shorten them. They should still be appropriate for the request's. Let me know.

Thanks, Bonnie.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

-- February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that a CR Revision was received and stated that the revised title is REV. 2-17-04 Mechanize Qwest DSL feature repair tickets opened, tracked & history provided in CEMR using the associated TN to request information. Use closing codes associated to the DSL repair & not use "referred to another department". Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed the CR Description, including the revision, and stated that regardless of the Qwest department that is working the order, they need the ability to track tickets electronically. Bonnie stated that they are not currently able to view history. Bonnie stated that on an interim basis, Eschelon wants information of where the ticket was sent and who, within Qwest, to call to get information regarding the ticket. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon might submit another CR for voicemail and AIN features. There were no questions or comments regarding this change request.

February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion Excerpt (Attachments H & J): Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that she wanted to provide an update to the funding approval process that was discussed in the January CMP Systems Meeting. Judy referred everyone to Attachment J in the Distribution Package. She stated that all CRs are being re-evaluated and must be approved. Judy said that CRs could not be scheduled without approval. Judy noted that the status of this CR is: This CR is New

-- February 17, 2004 Received Revised CR from Eschelon: ORIGINAL TITLE: Qwest DSL Feature Repair Tickets Opened, Tracked and History Provided in CEMR Using the Telephone Number the Qwest DSL Feature is Associated with to Request Information - Mechanized Solution.

February 6, 2004 Email Response Received from Eschelon: Thanks Peggy. Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

-- February 5, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Bonnie and Kim, This email is in regard to your submitted CMP CR of SCR012604-01 Qwest DSL Feature Repair Tickets Opened, Tracked and History Provided in CEMR Using the Telephone Number the Qwest DSL Feature is Associated with to Request Information. The CR is requesting both a mechanized solution and a manual process be put into place. This was confirmed during yesterday's Clarification Call. The CMP Process Document (Section 5.1.4) states that if a manual process is to be put into place, a second systems CR must be opened with the same number as the original CR with a suffix of MN. The 'MN' CR would remain open until the closure of the associated systems CR. Based on that information, I have created the 'MN' CR for the manual process work effort. As stated in the CMP Process Document, the CR number assigned is SCR012604-01MN. Please let me know if you have any concerns in regard to this issue. I have attached a copy of SCR012604-01MN for your records. I have also added the words 'Mechanized Solution' to the title of SCR012604-01. I have attached a copy of that CR as well. Both SCR012604-01 and SCR012604-01MN are scheduled for presentation at the February Systems CMP Meeting. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

Eschelon Change Request - Systems Clarification Meeting Date: February 4, 2004 CR No & Title: SCR012604-01 Qwest DSL Feature Repair Tickets Opened, Tracked and History Provided in CEMR Using the Telephone Number the Qwest DSL Feature is Associated with to Request Information Introduction of Attendees: Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Ray Smith-Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Rita Sandoval-Qwest, Cathy Garcia-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Angela Stewart-Qwest, Michael Lloyd - Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest reviewed the CR Description and expected deliverable.

Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Maintenance and Repair

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Mechanized Solution is CEMR Manual Solution is Other

Confirmed Impacted Products: Qwest DSL

Meeting Discussion: Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that Eschelon is not able to see tickets of EB, MB, or PB so they cannot be tracked electronically. Kim stated that this is a manually intensive process for Eschelon to track. Kim stated that they do not have the ability to track and view history. Curt Anderson-Qwest stated that CEMR does not currently have that functionality and asked if Eschelon calls in the trouble ticket information today. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon responded yes. Curt Anderson-Qwest asked if Eschelon uses the telephone number. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon responded yes and noted that they are required to provide the ticket number. Curt Anderson-Qwest asked Eschelon which was more important to them; the ability to track a ticket or the ability to submit a ticket. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that they would like to do all and stated that it is manually intensive to track via phone conversations. John Gallegos-Qwest asked that if Qwest could only provide one of those options, would the preferred option be for the ability to open a ticket or the option of the ability to track a ticket. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that the ability to open a ticket is nice, but the trouble is really after the ticket is opened because there is not a way to track it. Kim stated that tracking a ticket to conclusion is the problem. Kim stated that if they can open a ticket via a phone conversation and then have CEMR track the ticket, that would be the preferred option. John Gallegos-Qwest asked if a manual process was still needed prior to a system change. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated yes and stated that the manual process needs to include the history. Cathy Garcia-Qwest asked how Eschelon currently gets that information. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that their Service Manager could get some WFA information and history but that it takes time to get it. Cathy Garcia-Qwest stated that the current process is to call in a ticket and to call for status. Cathy asked if Eschelon has tried calling the Center to request history. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated yes and stated that this CR is asking for it to be electronic. Cathy Garcia-Qwest stated that it sounds like the manual process is already in place and the CR would then be for the electronic process. Cathy asked if Eschelon is asking for the response to be electronic. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated yes, they want a copy of the OFFLOG. There were no additional questions or comments. Obtain the Business Need from the CR Originator - What is the problem that needs to be solved: Need ability to electronically track trouble tickets and to view the history.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: CR due for presentation at the February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide the response to the CR in March 2004. (Section 5.1.4)

CenturyLink Response

March 5, 2004

RE: SCR012604-01 REV. 2-17-04 Mechanize Qwest DSL feature repair tickets opened, tracked & history provided in CEMR using the associated TN to request information. Use closing codes associated to the DSL repair & not use "referred to another department".

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change RequestSCR012604-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held February 4, 2004) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 900 to 1100 hours for this CEMR Change Request. Qwest is currently reviewing development timetables for the potential scheduling of Change Request SCR012604-01.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR030204-04 Detail

Description Of Change

On an Interim basis, develop a manual process to provide Jeopardy Notices & detailed explanation of the Jeopardy reason, via E-mail, to the CLEC order originator until the system change can be processed in QORA, and for TELIS requests, until a CLEC changes to QORA or until TELIS sunsets.

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will provide a system generated jeopardy notice in QORA and implement an interim process to send the jeopardy notice via E-mail for TELIS users and until the system generated jeopardy notice is implemented in QORA.

Status History

Project Meetings

June 11, 2004 Email Sent to Bonnie Johnson at Eschelon: Hi Bonnie, Attached is a copy of your SCR030204-04 Provide Electronic Jeopardy Notices for ASRs in QORA and Develop an Interim Manual Process. This copy contains the Revised Qwest Response in the Qwest Response portion of the document. Thanks, Bonnie. Let me know if you have questions. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM- Systems

- May 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are defining how to provide the jeopardy notices. This CR remains open.

-

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this is in Evaluation Status and that the Action Item would remain open.

- March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon presented the CR Description. Bonnie stated that currently, there is no electronic jeopardy process and this CR is asking for QORA to be updated to provide an electronic jeopardy status. Bonnie stated that Eschelon is also asking for a manual process until the QORA system is updated and Telis retires. Bonnie stated that the manual process to be developed is to electronically notify the CLECs of Jeopardies on ASRs. Bonnie stated that this is a struggle to manage via voicemail. Bonnie stated that with voicemail there is no trail of when the call was placed or of what was said. Bonnie stated that the electronic means would benefit all. Bonnie noted that the order originator information would be available and an email to that originator would be appropriate. There were no questions or comments. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that this CR is in Presented Status.

-- 3/12/04 Clarification Call

Introduction of Attendees Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Stephanie Prull/Eschelon, Cassandra Hunt/Qwest, Kerry Waldner /Qwest, Phyllis Sunins/ Qwest, Jim Recker/ Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest Review Description of Change Lynn Stecklein - Qwest reviewed the description of change of change. Eschelon is requesting that Qwest provide Electronic Jeopardy Notices for ASRs in QORA and Develop an Interim Manual Process. Meeting Discussion Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she hoped that this request wouldn't be too difficult to implement. Bonnie noted that they were able to get this functionality on the IMA/LSR side. Phyllis Sunins/Qwest asked if Eschelon wanted the same type of functionality that they have on the LSR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said yes. Phyllis Sunins/Qwest stated that on the ASR process that a call is made when a due date change is required. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that she thought that this functionality would be more efficient for Qwest and that it is so much easier to have a trail of what has occurred. Phyllis Sunins/Qwest asked if Eschelon wanted the e-mail to go to one single point of contact during the interim process. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon could handle an e-mail to one single point of contact, however, some CLECs may not want a designated single point of contact. Bonnie said that she would like to see consistency and said that Eschelon would be amenable to whatever is the most least impacting to Qwest. Phyllis Sunis/Qwest asked whatiwould happen if the single point of contact if out of the office. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that they would be able to forward the information and would automate on their side. Bonnie said that she did not know if the other CLECs would be able to do the same thing. Cassandra Hunt/Qwest asked if Eschelon was looking to receive an e-mail. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said yes, with the interim process. Cassandra Hunt/Qwest asked if Eschelon wanted the notification after the ASR FOC had been sent. Phyllis Sunis/Qwest stated that today we have K, C, & D type jeopardies and that we would probably mimic what we are doing on the LSR side. Phyllis stated that K=Facility, C = Customer, and D = ICO. Cassandra Hunt/Qwest asked what type of information Eschelon wanted on the jeopardy notice. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that they want information on why the order is being held and would like as much detail as possible. Bonnie cited examples such as Facility not available or F2 pair recovery. Phyllis Sunis/Qwest stated that efforts were underway on the LSR to add language to the Product Catalog that would mirror network's phraseology. Phyllis stated that after 72 hours we would provide additional detail on the jeopardy. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that ASRs are not just for CLECs processes and issues. Cassandra Hunt/Qwest stated that we would address products ordered through QORA. Cassandra asked if this request would apply to Exact like the GUI/EDI requests. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that they use TELIS and not NDM. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon said that they don't use NDM and would like the notification through the GUI. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that other CLECs may be interested in other means of receiving the information, for example - NDM. Confirm Areas and Products Impacted Lynn Stecklein/Qwest confirmed that the interface impacted is QORA. The products impacted are those ordered via EXACT/QORA. Establish Action Plan Eschelon will present this change request in the March CMP Systems Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

June 11, 2004

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number SCR030204-04, dated 3/2/04, and titled: Provide Electronic Jeopardy Notices for ASR’s in QORA and Develop an Interim Manual Process.

CR Description: Qwest’s current jeopardy notification process for ASRs is to notify the CLEC via a phone call from the Qwest account management team to the CLEC. Eschelon has requested that Qwest institute an automated process for sending Jeopardy Notifications to CLECs via QORA when an ASR goes into jeopardy status. Additionally, Eschelon has requested an interim process for Jeopardy Notifications to be sent via email, until QORA can process the Jeopardy Notifications.

Qwest Response: Qwest has completed an analysis for SCR030204-04, Provide Electronic Jeopardy Notices for ASRs in QORA and Develop an Interim Manual Process and has determined that this change is economically infeasible.

Today at Qwest, ASR status information is held in several systems and managed via a process that is largely manual. In order to automate the process to notify on jeopardy statuses, multiple Qwest systems would require enhancements, at an estimated cost of at least $1,117,000 (see breakdown below): Changes to Ordering Systems $310,000 Changes to Provisioning Systems $807,000 Changes to Repair Systems NA Changes to Billing Systems NA TOTAL: $1,117,000

Automating the Jeopardy notification process from end to end would require significant and expensive upgrades to Qwest systems. Additionally, automation would not support all Qwest ASR customers and would require that Qwest support multiple processes simultaneously. Any Qwest ASR customer using the NDM process for submitting ASRs and receiving notifications would need to implement the new, Qwest-specific form in its internal systems. Until all customers supported the jeopardy notification, Qwest would be required to notify non-compliant customers manually, thus making multiple processes necessary. The alternate manual process proposed by Eschelon will not be supported by Qwest, since it cannot be considered an interim step to automation. Increased manual processing will add more steps in gathering information and would require partial implementation of the proposed mechanized solution to support the manual process.

Consequently, due to the high cost of this request, Qwest is denying your request for SCR030204-04, Provide Electronic Jeopardy Notices for ASR’s in QORA and Develop an Interim Manual Process, due to economic infeasibility.

Sincerely, Qwest

- DRAFT RESPONSE

April 9, 2004

RE: SCR030204-04 Provide Electronic Jeopardy Notices for ASR’s in QORA and Develop an Interim Manual Process

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change RequestSCR030204-04. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held March 12, 2004) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the May Systems CMP Meeting.

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR030204-04MN Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will provide a system generated jeopardy notice in QORA and implement an interim process to send the jeopardy notice via E-mail for TELIS users and util the system generated jeopardy notice is implemented in QORA.

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR030204-05 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will make the required changes to all systems for ordering, billing or output file to gain a consistent use of the CKT ID format Qwest assigns to CLEC.

Status History