Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR121608-02a Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR092501-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

4/5/02 - A meeting with the CLEC community was held to discuss the stategy and direction of this CR that is scheduled for implementation in the 10.0 release. Attendees - Jonathan Spangler - AT&T, Nancy Conant - Telecordia, Monica Avila - Vartec, Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, Terry Wicks - Allegiance, Butch Stahlberger - XO Communications, Connie Winston - Qwest, Russ Urevig - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

A written summary was provided by Qwest and was reviewed during this call.

History

Up to this point in time, CLECs requesting unbundled loop would submit a request for the loop and once that request is completed, then submit a request for a facility based stand-alone listing. A request from CLECs via the CMP process has requested that Qwest update the current process so a request for an unbundled loop and a request for a facility listing can be requested via the same LSR.

Change Objectives

Allow one LSR for both Unbundled Loop and Facility Based Listings. The following UBL products are in scope for ACT = T, N, C & V, they are DS0 product 2 and 4 wire analog, 2 and 4 wire digital with the REQTYP of either AB or BB. All changes to existing Listing will be required to be modified with the same process that they were originally requested.

IMA entry issues for the CLEC

CLEC submits a request for an Unbundled Loop via normal process, they now have the availability of request a DL form with the REQTYP of AB or BB. The CLEC must now apply a CKR to the LS form, which will match the LTN of the DL form, this will be the only way Qwest will be able to associate the Listing to the circuit. This association will be critical to achieve flow through for Unbundled Loop with directory listing.

The DL form will be populated as normal, the only identified rule will be that the LTN must match a CKR in the same format on the LS form. Example for format is NPA-NXX-LLLL.

IMA will validate that the LTN on the DL form match either the CKR on the LS page or the CSR which is be modified has the matching CKR fid, if not the follow error message will be returned. The LTN on the DL form must match a CKR on LS or CKR fid on CSR.

IMA will reject UBL LSRs with directory listings requested when FBDL stand alone listing exist in LSS for the TN included on the listing request. This error message shall read: FBDL listing already exists; must submit Listing request on separate FBDL LSR. FOC FOC will be returned as normal upon a complete and accurate LSR received.

3/12/02 - A meeting was held with the CLEC Community to provide status and an overall summary of this CR. A written summary will be provided to the CLEC Community so that they can communicate the change internally. A follow-up meeting will be scheduled to discuss any questions.

11/30/01 - Meeting held with the CLEC community to discuss SCR092501-1. Connie Winston reviewed the purpose of this change request: When submitting their UBL order, the CLECs want to submit their Directory Listing at the same time, same order. Currently, the CLEC has to issue the orders separately. Connie reviewed Qwest's proposal to achieve this goal. On AB and BB req. type the CLEC would be able to submit one order for their Loop circuit and the Directory Listing (similar to the resale process that exists today) Simple or Straight Line only Listings will be accepted during this phase. The CLEC would receive one Firm Order Confirmation (FOC) . The listing will also now appear the Customer Service Record (CSR). There is an enhancement to the listing system scheduled to occur at the same time as this change. Any risks or impacts associated with this change request will be evaluated. Allegiance asked about Complex Listings. Connie said that Complex Listings will not be addressed in this phase of the request. The CLECs could re-vote on the complex listing phase of this request. Allegiance would like Connie to provide Qwests postion on the complex listing portion of this change request. A readout will be provided on the December CMP meeting as part of action item #379. 11/15/01- Discussed this CR in CMP meeting. Connie Winston advised that initially this CR had a size of large, however, now it is x-large. If you take everthing into consideration it gets very complex. None of it is impossible it just grows in complexity as we delve into further detail. We can scope it differently for a large size. This CR was ranked at #5 at the prioritization. Connie suggested a different meeting to define the scope of this (what's needed now vs later). The CLECs agreed and that we need to include EDI vendors. We need to go over possibilities so that we can determine how to deliver something feasible in 10.0. L Powers has concerns that there are already so many issues with directory issues - they have full time people to work these issues. She would be curious to find out more about Allegiances difficulty with this issue. Mark Routh will set up the clarification call. 10/8/01 Alignment/Clarification Meeting

9:00 p.m. (MDT) / Monday October 8, 2001

Attendees Terry Wicks - Allegiance Peggy Esquibel Reed, Qwest J J Bradley, Qwest Jerry Mohatt Qwest Lynn Stecklein Qwest Beth Foster Qwest Tracy Gilford Qwest

Interfaces - IMA Common Products - UNE

Process Specialists need to be included in the Clarification Meetings. This concern will be brought to the attention of the CMP system lead.

Allow CLEC’s to process Directory Listing information at the same time the LSR is submitted.

Change Request needs to be prioritized and shirt sized.

11/28/01 - See action item 373 - A special conference call to discuss the CMP CR from Allegiance - Ability to submit Directory Listings at the same time that the LSR is created for UNE orders through the IMA EDI interface. The call will begin at 3:00 pm mountain on Friday, November 30th. The call in number is 1-866-682-6250 and the passcode is 7248183. 11/28/01 - See action item 373.

CenturyLink Response

October 30, 2001

Terry Wicks ILEC Relations Manager Allegiance

CC: Mark Routh Gerald Mohatt Joseph J. Bradley

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, SCR092501-1 dated September 25, 2001- Capability to submit Directory Listing information at the same time the LSRs are being submitted through EDI for UNE orders.

Description of Change - On UNE orders, Allegiance want the capability to submit Directory Listings information at the same time the LSRs are being submitted through EDI on New Facility orders, Partial Migration orders, and Move orders. Allegiance wants the option to be able to do this through EDI or to still be able to submit DL information through the IMA GUI separately from the EDI order as is the current capability.

Qwest Response: The clarification meeting with Allegiance to discuss this Change Request was held on October 8, 2001. From this meeting, the level of effort was determined to be Large. This change request is an eligible IMA 10.0 candidate.

Sincerely,

John I. Gallegos Information Technologies Manager

Archived System CR SCR092501-2 Detail

Description Of Change

This current practice required by Qwest greatly increases the processing time and hard dollar expense to the CLECs to have to submit separate LSRs for multiple TNs. Qwest is the only ILEC that requires separate LSRs for multiple TNs for the same End User at the same location. Allegiance is requesting that Qwest develop the ability to allow CLECs to process multiple TNs on one LSR.

Also, Qwest does not allow for the migration of existing facilities from Qwest and the addition of new facilities for the same end user at the same location to be processed on the same LSR. Allegiance is requesting that Qwest develop the ability to allow the CLECs to be able to do this as well.

Status History

Project Meetings

Attendees - Jonathan Spangler - AT&T, Nancy Conant - Telecordia, Monica Avila - Vartec, Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, Terry Wicks - Allegiance, Butch Stahlberger - XO Communication, Connie Winston - Qwest, Russ Urevig - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest 1. History

The Unbundled Loop (UBL) product initial implementation requirements were that a request for disconnects, changes, and moves would require the CLEC to submit a request for each circuit individually. The change request was made to allow these types of activities involving multiple circuits be allow on a single Loop service request (LSR) when the changes being made to the circuits are the same and at the same end user (EU) address. Change Objectives

Changes to the IMA (Interconnect Mediated Access) and FTS (Flow Through Services) will allow multiple circuit requests to be processed from one LSR for the same activity and EU. FTS will process up to 10 requests in a mechanized format, greater than 10 requests on an LSR will drop to the SDC to be handled manually. This does NOT restrict the CLEC from requesting more that 10 disconnect, changes and move on a single LSR.

IMA entry issues for the CLEC

The CLEC submits an LSR for disconnect, change, and moves with the REQTYP = AB only, the ACT field can equal D, C, T, and M.

REQTYP = AB and ACT = D (Disconnect)

The CLEC will follow the normal entries for the disconnect requests, IMA will allow the entry of additional circuits on the LS form (loop service page). Flow through will handle up to 10 disconnect request, greater than 10 will drop to manual handling for the SDC’s within Qwest. The FOC’s for greater than 10 requests will follow the manual time lines not the mechanized time lines. NO manual indicated will be set by the CLEC, this will be handled through edit coding internally. All disconnect request will be basic disconnects.

REQTYP = AB and ACT = C, T, M

The CLEC will follow the normal entries for these for these types of requests, editing will be preformed to verify the circuits on the LS page match the EU address. If the address does not match the requested change will not be allowed.

The FOC will contain information for all service orders, also loss/completions reports will remain the same.

3/12/02 - A meeting was held with the CLEC Community to provide status and an overall summary of this CR. A written summary will be provided to the CLEC Community so that they can communicate the change internally. A follow-up meeting will be scheduled to discuss any questions.Alignment/Clarification Meeting

9:00 p.m. (MDT) / Monday October 8, 2001

Attendees Terry Wicks- Allegiance Peggy Esquibel Reed, Qwest J J Bradley, Qwest Jerry Mohatt Qwest Lynn Stecklein Qwest Beth Foster Qwest Tracy Gilford Qwest

Confirm Interfaces & Products Impacted Interfaces - IMA/EDI Product - UBL

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Change the current practice to allow the CLECs to submit multiple SBNs on one LSR.

3/12/02 - A meeting was held with the CLEC Community to provide status and an overall summary of this CR. A written summary will be provided to the CLEC Community so that they can communicate the change internally. A follow-up meeting will be scheduled to discuss any questions.

CenturyLink Response

Terry Wicks ILEC Relations Manager Allegiance

CC: Mark Routh Gerald Mohatt Joseph J. Bradley

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, SCR92501-2 dated September 25, 2001 - Eliminate Multiple LSRs for Moves, Changes and Disconnects of TNs.

Description of Change - On unbundled loop ordering, once an end user has been established with the CLEC, all subsequent order activity for the end user must be on a separate LSR for each TN involved even when all TNs are at the same end user location. This order activity includes Move orders, Change orders, and Disconnect orders. Allegiance wants the ability to put multiple TNs on one LSR without having to supply each separate SBN for each circuit. There is no place to put multiple SBNs on one LSR. There are fields to put multiple TNs and circuit Ids. This current practice required by Qwest greatly increases the processing time and hard dollar expense to the CLECs to have to submit separate LSRs for multiple TNs Qwest is the only ILEC that requires separate LSRs for multiple TNs for the same End User at the same location. Allegiance is requesting that Qwest develop the ability to allow CLECs to process multiple TNs on one LSR. Also, Qwest does not allow for the migration of existing facilities from Qwest and the addition of new facilities for the same end user at the same location to be processed on the same LSR. Allegiance is requesting that Qwest develop the ability to allow the CLECs to be able to do this as well.

Qwest Response: The clarification meeting with Allegiance to discuss this Change Request was held on October 8, 2001. From this meeting, the level of effort was determined to be Extra Large. At this time Qwest will not provide the functionality to allow the addition of new facilities at the same time a migration is done. This Change Request is a candidate for IMA Release 10.0.

Sincerely, John I. Gallegos Information Technologies Manager

Archived System CR SCR122701-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

01/17/02 CMP Meeting Discussion: Wendy Green/Qwest presented CR and stated that this CR came out of the SATE User’s Group and is co-sponsored by Qwest and the CLEC’s. Wendy advised this is for new documentation to provide examples based on test data. Bill Micou/AT&T Will not use SATE examples? Other ILECs provide EDI associated with test cases. Wendy responded - will populate EDI and not use SATE data, the CLEC’s know how to populate own data before move into production. Wendy advised level of effort is Large. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that this CR will move into Presented status and the ranking of SATE requests will take place at February CMP.

01/08/02 - Clarification Meeting Notes: Attendees were Ian Coleman/Allegiance, Ken Wilson/AT&T, Bob Carias/Nightfire, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Donna Montarone/Qwest, Jake Perlman/Qwest, Wendy Green/Qwest, Ellen Cross/Qwest, Francois Morel/Qwest. X12 data is the only requirement for this request. CLEC requested Qwest to provide X 12 mapping examples for all products and activities to all CLECS. No other questions were raised. Meeting notes emailed to all participants.

CenturyLink Response

January 10, 2002

Ian Coleman Allegiance Telecom, Inc.

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR122701-1 dated December 27, 2001, CR Title: SATE - X 12 Mapping Examples.

CR Description: Qwest will provide X 12 mapping examples for all products and activities to all CLECS. These examples can be based on a test CLEC and need not utilize production or SATE facilities including Central Offices, circuits or account numbers.

Qwest Response: The Clarification meeting for this request was held on January 8, 2002. There were no questions raised for this request. Based on the above noted information, the level of effort for this request is large. This request is an eligible CR for prioritization in February 2002.

Sincerely, Jeff Thompson Director, Information Technologies

Archived System CR SCR122701-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

May 16, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Wendy Green/Qwest stated that this effort would be deployed on 5/18 and that testing could begin on Monday, May 20th. Status is CLEC Test until June CMP Meeting.

01/17/02 CMP Meeting Discussion: Wendy Green/Qwest presented CR and stated that this CR came out of the SATE User’s Group and is co-sponsored by Qwest and the CLEC’s. Wendy advised that currently use made-up NPA/NXX’s. This CR will use actual NPA/NXXs. Wendy advised level of effort of Large. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that this CR will move into Presented status and the ranking of SATE requests will take place at February CMP.

01/08/02 - Clarification Meeting Notes: Attendees were Ian Coleman/Allegiance, Ken Wilson/AT&T, Bob Carias/Nightfire, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Donna Montarone/Qwest, Jake Perlman/Qwest, Wendy Green/Qwest, Ellen Cross/Qwest, Francois Morel/Qwest, Nancy Denny/Qwest. All current SATE data must be altered to utilize NPA/NXX’s currently in Qwest’s network footprint. No other data elements are required. Meeting notes emailed to all participants.

CenturyLink Response

January 10, 2002

Ian Coleman Allegiance Telecom, Inc.

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR122701-2 dated December 27, 2001, CR Title: SATE Data - NPA/NXX’s.

CR Description: All current SATE data must be altered to utilize NPA/NXX’s currently in Qwest’s network footprint.

Qwest Response: The Clarification meeting for this request was held on January 8, 2002. Confirmation was received that there were no other data elements involved in this request. This request is for NPA/NXX’s only. Based on this information, the level of effort for this request is large. This request is an eligible CR for prioritization in February 2002.

Sincerely, Jeff Thompson Director, Information Technologies

Archived System CR 4458737 Detail

Description Of Change

? For orders (LSRs) which are archived from the IMA GUI

? For Confirmations on LSR orders

The PON currently exist in the email message section.

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 4869731 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 4869838 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 4869887 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 4869914 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Byron,

We need to clarify a question that has come to our attention on the above CR. The description of change says, "ALLTELL would like the ability to use a span (range) of telephone numbers and single telephone numbers together on the same LSR for the same customer. Currently, users can 5001, 5002, 5003, and 5009 but cannot enter 5001-5003 and 5009 on the same LSR. There is not mention of a specific product or LSR form to be impacted by the change.

The UR issued for the CR has the following listed in the assumptions and dependencies: Products associated with this candidate are UBL w/NP and UDL w/NP. This request is for ported TNs only. Loop products with number portability are the only products impacted with this request.

The IMA CR is scheduled for the 9.0 Release and will "allow the entry of a range or ranges with individual numbers in any combination on a single request for LNP".

Your Change Request didn't specify a product or LSR form. The UR specified Loop Service with Number Portability. The IMA CR only addresses Number Portability. Different LSR forms are required for Number Portability (NP) vs Loop Service with Number Portability (LSNP). In the 9.0 Release you will see the change for NP but not LSNP.

Is this what you were expecting to see (product/form change) with the 9.0 Release.

Thanks for your help in advance!

CenturyLink Response

Number Portability is what we would like. So if I read this correctly Release 9.0 would take care of this.

thanks

Byron Dowding OSS Coordinator CLEC Nebraska Market ALLTEL Phone: 402.436.4336 Pager: 402.790.6069 Fax: 402.436.5160 Email: Byron.Dowding@alltel.com

> --Original Message-- > From: "Lynn Stecklein" [SMTP:lsteckl@qwest.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:24 PM > To: Dowding, Byron > Cc: "Peggy Esquibel-Reed" > Subject: CR4869914 - Allow IMA GUI Users to use TN spans (ranges) and > > Byron, We need to clarify a question that has come to our attention on the > above CR. The description of change says, "ALLTELL would like the ability > to use a span (range) of telephone numbers and single telephone numbers > together on the same LSR for the same customer. Currently, users can 5001, > 5002, 5003, and 5009 but cannot enter 5001-5003 and 5009 on the same LSR. > There is not mention of a specific product or LSR form to be impacted by > the change. > > The UR issued for the CR has the following listed in the assumptions and > dependencies: Products associated with this candidate are UBL w/NP and UDL > w/NP. This request is for ported TNs only. Loop products with number > portability are the only products impacted with this request. > > The IMA CR is scheduled for the 9.0 Release and will "allow the entry of a > range or ranges with individual numbers in any combination on a single > request for LNP". > > Your Change Request didn't specify a product or LSR form. The UR specified > Loop Service with Number Portability. The IMA CR only addresses Number > Portability. Different LSR forms are required for Number Portability (NP) > vs Loop Service with Number Portability (LSNP). In the 9.0 Release you > will > see the change for NP but not LSNP. > > Is this what you were expecting to see (product/form change) with the 9.0 > Release. > > Thanks for your help in advance!

Archived System CR 4869972 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

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 SCR050203-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected deliverables/proposed implementation date (if applicable): As soon as possible

Status History

Project Meetings

SCR050203-01 UNE-P PAL in IMA (originated by Arizona Dialtone) Laurel Nolan/Qwest stated that this CR was a duplication of a current CR submitted by Ernest Group. She stated that Qwest was currently looking at other alternatives to address some of Arizona Dialtone’s concerns. She stated that because of this Arizona Dialtone accepted withdrawing the CR.

Email from Tom Bade Arizona Dialtone to Laurel Nolan-Qwest CMP July 7, 2003

thanks do it! Email from Laurel Nolan-Qwest CMP to Tom Bade Arizona Dialtone July 7, 2003

From: "Nolan, Laurel" To: "'Tom Bade'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 8:59 AM Subject: RE: CR for UNE-P PAL in IMA

Tom,

Thanks for your email. Through the CMP you can request manual solutions for systems change while the system solution is going through the prioritization process.

I would like to suggest that we hold a meeting with your Service Manager and Qwest's Process Specialist to review the current process and discuss the problems that you are having. During this meeting we can discuss possible solutions like emailing PDFs. After the meeting you are welcome to submit CMP CRs for any possible manual change you would like.

Please let me know if you're interested in attending a meeting with your Service Manager and Qwest's Process Specialist and what times work best for you on Friday, July 11th or Monday, July 14th.

Thank you, Laurel CMP

Email From: Tom Bade [mailto:tombade@arizonadialtone.com] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 9:35 AM To: Nolan, Laurel Subject: Re: CR for UNE-P PAL in IMA

As I have indicated in several communications, it appears that une-p pal will never receive any favorable prioritization unless Qwest ways in on the difficulty for qwest to provision service properly and the amount of time Qwest employees take to implement PAL lies and go back and check for all the provisioning errors that have been occurring. I think our request supports Ernest position and would like it to stay in the process.

I thought that you were checking on alternative methods of transmission such as e-mail instead of the poor quality faxes which seem to cause most of the problems.

Email from Laurel Nolan to Tom Bade July 1, 2003

Tom,

Thank you for your voice mail. As I stated in my message, Qwest would like to hold a call with you and your Subject Matter Experts to discuss the problems that you are having with the IIS System and the submission of UNE-P PAL orders.

As you know, there is currently a CR, submitted by Ernest, that addresses the need for UNE-P PAL in IMA. I would suggest that after we have the internal call to discuss the problems and determine if you would like to open a product/process CR for a manual solution while the Ernest CR waits for prioritization.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks, Laurel

Laurel Nolan Qwest Communications CMP-Systems 303.965.3715 lnolan@qwest.com

June CMP Systems Meeting Meeting Minutes SCR050203-01

SCR050203-01 UNE-P PAL in IMA (originated by Arizona Dialtone) Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR is in evaluation and noted that Qwest is working with Arizona Dialtone. Connie noted that Qwest believes that this request is a duplicate and we are working towards combining them, if they are in fact the same. There were no questions or comments.

Subject: Re: Related CMP CR-SCR082202-01 Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:55:07 -0700 From: "Tom Bade" To: "Laurel Nolan" References: 1 , 2 , 3

I would like qwest to accept e-mailed pdf files (or any reasonable format for that matter) for LSRs as it appears as if IMA is not a viable alternative. This would at least save a lot of paper and be more legible for the data entry people.

Subject: Re: Related CMP CR-SCR082202-01 Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 15:34:31 -0600 From: "Laurel Nolan" Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc. To: Tom Bade References: 1 , 2 Tom,

Thank you for your email. I understand your concerns, but Qwest does not have control over the order in which IMA CRs are worked. Under section 10.0 of the Qwest Wholesale Change Management Process Document, Qwest and the CLECs work IMA CRs through the Prioritization Process. The prioritization process provides an opportunity for CLECs and Qwest to prioritize CRs and each CLEC and Qwest receive one vote.

The Qwest Wholesale Change Management Process Document is available at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/whatiscmp

If you would like to change your CR to request that Qwest send you pdf files, I am more than happy to help you.

Regards, Laurel CMP

Subject: Re: Related CMP CR-SCR082202-01 Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:51:35 -0700 From: "Tom Bade" To: "Laurel Nolan" References: 1 Good Morning Laurel,

Ernest request doesn't address the multitude of problems, delays and incorrect provisioning because of legibility of faxes and data input when the Qwest order entry department works each order each of the several times it takes to get it provisioned properly. If I keep mine in there will it's priority be set and reset further back in the bunch as Ernest's was? Does Qwest consider that making it harder to provision certain types of lines as anti-competitive, as it certainly discourages selling PAL lines (which Qwest didn't want to do until settling with Ernest on their FCC Complaint)? Perhaps the request should be changed to request acceptance of pdf files attached to e-mails.

Thanks for the update. I look forward to your response.

Tom

Subject: Related CMP CR-SCR082202-01 Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 12:09:56 -0600 From: "Laurel Nolan" Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc. To: tombade@arizonadialtone.com CC: me

Tom,

Attached is a CR that Qwest believes addresses the CR that you submitted regarding UNE-P PAL in IMA, SCR050203-01.

Please review the attached CR and let me know if you would like to withdraw your CR or move forward with your request.

Thank you,

Laurel Nolan Qwest Communications CMP-Systems 303.965.3715 lnolan@qwest.com

Clarification Call: May 13, 2003

Attendance: Tom Bade-Arizona Dialtone, Carrie Ranges-Arizona Dialtone, Suzy Enny-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, Monica Manning-Qwest, Berkley Loggie-Qwest, Laurel Nolan-Qwest CRPM

Review of request Nolan-Qwest read through the description of change and the expected deliverable. She asked Bade-Arizona Dialtone if he had any changes to the CR. He stated that he thought that this would be something that Qwest would really want because of the number of times that CLECs had to send manual orders over and over again. He asked Carrie (Arizona Dialtone) how many orders out of 10, were not correct. Ranges-Arizona Dialtone stated that only 3-4 would be correct. She stated that there were a lot of problems with fax and that sometimes PONs were transposed. She continued that they (Arizona Dialtone) submitted 100 orders at one time and that remarks weren't read. She stated that manual processing always has problems. Bade-Arizona Dialtone stated that there were problems with features not apearing on the lines. Gallegos-Qwest asked if the problems were on UNE-P PAL. Bade-Arizona Dialtone stated yes.

Nolan-Qwest confirmed the products, interface, and impacted areas. She asked if there were any additions or changes.

Nolan-Qwest asked if there were any other question or concerns in regards to this CR. Manning-Qwest stated that she thought that there might be a simular request currently open. Nolan-Qwest stated that she would research related CRs and provide any to Bade and Ranges (Arizona Dialtone) for review.

Nolna-Qwest stated that the CR would be presented by Bade-Arizona Dialtone in the June systems meeting and that she would provide him with the details prior to the meeting. She stated that Qwest would provide a response to the CR prior to the meeting as stated in the CMP.

Meeting adjourned.

Called CLEC: May 5, 2003

Contact Tom in regards to classification of CR. CR form stated Product/Process, but Qwest believes it to be a systems change. Left voice mail stating that the CR would be acknowledged as systems and that Qwest would like to discuss.

CenturyLink Response

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR050203-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held May 13, 2003) Qwest has determined that SCR082202-01, submitted by Ernest, addresses this request.

At the June 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 SCR060903-01 Detail

Description Of Change

AT&T revision sent 6/23/03 features requesteing as a part of this change request.

Caller ID;

Call waiting;

Call forwarding;

Speed dial 8 and 30;

Call transfer;

Talking call waiting.

Status History

Project Meetings

--Original Message-- From: Martain, Jill [mailto:Jill.Martain@qwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:05 PM To: Van Meter, Sharon K, NEO Cc: cmpcr@qwest.com Subject: RE: Close CR SCR060903-01

Thank you for your quick reply. Let me know when you hear back on the other CRs.

Jill

--Original Message-- From: Van Meter, Sharon K, NEO [mailto:svanmeter@att.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:47 PM To: Martain, Jill Subject: Close CR SCR060903-01

Jill,

Qwest can close CR SCR060903-01. I'm still checking on the other ones.

Sharon Van Meter AT&T Western Region LSAM 303-699-6483 303-540-1637 (pager)

11/17/04 Systems CMP Meeting

John Gallegos/Qwest asked if AT&T had been able to test this CR. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T said that she needs to research this CR further and will close offline if possible.

10/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that a Patch for this CR was completed in 16.0.

9/16/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was completed in the 15.0 release. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she would like to keep this CR in CLEC Test for further investigation.

8/18/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was implemented in 15.0 and would remain in CLEC Test.

7/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this was implemented in 15.0 and would remain in CLEC Test.

6/17/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated this CR will remain in CLEC Test for another month per the request of Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T.

5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion This CR will remain in CLEC Test.

-

4/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was just deployed in the IMA 15.0 Release and will remain open for another month.

Malia Tasi/VCI Company said that they were unable to add Call Waiting ID and that they had to use the workaround. She asked if there was an Event Notification. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that there was an Event Notice (Ticket Number HD727575) that the NWT USOC (Call Waiting) began rejecting in March with the description ‘Feature NWT requires one of the following USOCs and that this was patched.

Malia Tasi/VCI Company stated that they received an error that the NWT was not valid at switch and that it is on every order and that they had to add a remark.

Liz Balvin/MCI stated that an edit went in with the IMA 15.0 Release. Liz asked VCI Company if they turned in a trouble ticket.

Michael Lopez/Qwest said that the trouble ticket number is 727575.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that this is specific enough to not impact other orders. 5/3/04 Revision to Minutes from Eschelon - Bonnie also asked what progress Qwest had made on defining errors to a lower level so this override functionality could be used more frequently. Connie said Qwest was still looking into this.

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest will take an action item to determine if the patch went in and to determine if the override functionality can be used.

This CR remains in CLEC Test.

3/18/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR is deploying on April 19, 2004, in the IMA 15.0 Release. There were no questions or comments.

MEETING MINUTES - February 17, 2004 Hi-Level Walk Through of IMA 15.0 Committed CR's

Attendees: Anne Robberson-Process Analyst (Qwest), Curt Anderson- IT Systems Analyst (Qwest), Diane Burt-Systems Analyst (AT&T), Donna Osborne-Miller - Carrier Relations Manager (AT&T), Dusti Bastian-Process Analyst (Qwest), Ellen McArthur-Process Analyst (Qwest), Hank Martinez-IT Systems Analyst (Qwest), James McCluskey-ILEC Manager (Accenture), John Daugherty-Product Management (AT&T), John Gallegos-IT Manager (Qwest), Kathy Miller-Process Manager (Qwest), Kim Isaacs- ILEC Relations Process Analyst (Eschelon), Kyle Kirves-IT Analyst (Qwest), Linda Miles-Process Manager (Qwest), Lori Langston-Process Manager (Qwest), Marie Acceno-Systems Analyst (AT&T), Nancy Denny-IT Analyst (Qwest), Nicole James-IT Analyst (Qwest), Pat Bratetic-Process Manager (Qwest), Phyllis Burt-Systems Analyst (AT&T), Randy Owen-IT Manager (Qwest), Shon Higer-Process Analyst (Qwest), Shonna Pasionek-IT Analyst (Qwest), Stephanie Prull-EDI Business Analyst (Eschelon), Susie Wells-Product/Process Analyst (Qwest) Meeting Facilitator: Nancy Denny (Qwest)

Purpose: High-level walk-through of the CRs that are committed in the IMA 15.0 Release.

Supporting Documents: Qwest Notification: SYST.02.13.04.F.01366.IMAEDI15.0Cand&DocWkth Documentation containing 15.0 Candidate Summaries: February 17, 2004, attached to notification CRs can be found in the Qwest Wholesale Change Request Interactive Report located at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html Functional Overview: This enhancement will introduce a Qwest reject for LSR if the feature is not available at the end user Central Office Switch and allow the CLEC to contact the customer and let the customer make the decision as to whether or not the customer still wants the service without the feature.

Form Impacts: Resale (RS) form

Products: Resale POTS UNE-P POTS UNE-Star POTS

Activities: ACT = N, T, V, Z, C

Discussion

SCR060903-01 Reject message required if Call Waiting ID Unavailable in Switch

Susie provided the overview based on the document circulated with the meeting agenda.

Phyllis: In the Appendix E of Disclosure, it looks as if the AN or TNS on Resale form should be used as the NPXX. The Service Availability requirements states that we should use the LSO from the validation. When NPXX does not equal the LSO, what do we do? (Phyllis cited an example). John: Qwest will takeaway that question and research an answer.

12/17/03 CMP Systems Meeting Liz Balvin/MCI stated the SOC indicates that something is provisioned and Qwest is saying that is not the case. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that Qwest has completed the analysis of the examples Liz provided and will forward to her. Lynn also said that a meeting will be scheduled with MCI after the 1st of the year to discuss.

11/20/03 CMP Systems Meeting Denise Martinez/Qwest reviewed that the current process in the Center is to issue service orders supporting what the CLEC has requested in the LSR. The assumption is that a Service Availability check has been done by the CLEC before sending the request to Qwest. Once the service order(s) has been created and submitted in the Qwest SOP, the SDC sends an FOC. When it is identified that a requested feature is not available in a particular switch after an FOC is sent, a Jeopardy notice is sent with a C05 (designed order) or SX (non-designed order) jeopardy code which identifies Error Conditions Identified After an FOC is Sent. The documentation supporting Error Conditions Identified after an FOC is Sent PCAT can be found at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/provisioning.html. For LSRs where a jeopardy notice is sent due to a CLEC error being identified after FOC and if a supplement is not received to correct the error condition within 4 hours, the service order(s) will be cancelled but the LSR remains in a jeopardy condition. If after 30 business days the LSR is still in a jeopardy status, the LSR will be rejected. If for some reason it was identified that a requested feature is not available in a particular switch before an FOC being sent, an Error Notification is sent to the CLEC. Information regarding the Error notification process PCAT can be found at URL http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/ordering.html. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the jeopardy process is not happening. Bonnie asked if the feature type is not compatible with switch, will it error out. Denise Martinez/Qwest said that it depends. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that she had an example last month where the feature was not available in the switch. Denise Martinez/Qwest stated that she could take a look at the examples. Denise stated that if the order is completed and the feature is not available that is a different issue. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the example she reviewed showed that we removed what was not available on the switch and that the CLEC was not billed and that’s why Denise was asked to provide the jeopardy process. Denise Martinez/Qwest stated that she could check to see if after completion, if someone could contact the CLEC to notify. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that the USOCs were on the completions. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that they have issues with this as well where they were not notified. Bonnie asked if once the order is completed could it post to the bill. Denise Martinez/Qwest stated that the process states if there are any changes after completion, you will be notified via e-mail. Denise stated that we could review the examples and determine if any coaching is needed. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the e-mail is sent to the submitter. Denise Martinez/Qwest stated yes. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that would not work for MCI. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that MCIs first example was processed correctly with no change, but that the other examples were of the FOC and was corrected internally prior to completion. John said that they should have been notified back to MCI and that was not done. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we will work off-line with MCI. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that for 15.0 it would become an upfront reject. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if it is based on feature availability. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the applicable features are listed on the CR.

10/16/03 CMP Systems Meeting Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we did review the examples sent to us by AT&T and the research done indicated that the USOCs did not make it all the way to billing. Connie said that the process is to send a jeopardy back to let you know that the feature is not available so that you can remove. Carla Pardee/AT&T asked if the jeopardy process is fully documented. Liz Balvin/MCI said that she has an example where the USOCs were not available at the switch and that the end user called to ask why they did not get the service they requested. Liz stated that you did confirm on the SOC that you did provision the feature. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it should have fallen off the SOC and will validate the MCI's example. Bobby Chen/Qwest will provide the example. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we need to true-up the jeopardy process and make sure it is documented. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this action item will remain open to review the MCI examples.

10/23/03 e-mail from Liz Balvin --Original Message-- From: Elizabeth Balvin [mailto:liz.balvin@mci.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:23 AM To: 'Kast, Steven' Cc: 'ChadWarner (E-mail)'; 'Chen, Bobby'; 'Doug Lacy (E-mail)' Subject: RE:

Steve,

We are researching what it will take not send features not available at Qwest switch but in the mean time, we need to determine how to deal with the issue of Qwest reflecting provisioned services (when a reject should result) for features not available.

Thanks,

Liz Balvin MCI Carrier Management - Qwest Region Internal Line - V625-7305 External Line - 303-217-7305 Pager (888) 900-7221

--Original Message-- From: Kast, Steven [mailto:Steven.Kast@qwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:09 AM To: liz.balvin@mci.com Cc: ChadWarner (E-mail); Chen, Bobby; Doug Lacy (E-mail) Subject: RE:

Liz, A quick thought to this question. I believe that we have seen this problem before and MCI (Carren) was looking into using feature availability. Is MCI not using feature availability to determine what features are available in the switch before placing provisioning orders? We will reexamine this this issue.

Steve Kast 303 965-0427

--Original Message-- From: Elizabeth Balvin [mailto:liz.balvin@mci.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 4:46 PM To: Kast, Steven Cc: ChadWarner (E-mail); Chen, Bobby; Doug Lacy (E-mail) Subject:

Steve (and/or Bobby),

Please advise on the following issue...Qwest is completing orders for USOCs not available at the switch. While I can understand there may not be system edits in place that would cause rejects on these orders, I don't understand why there were not manually generated rejects. The completed orders places MCI LSRs out of synch with what was actually provisioned by Qwest. In addition, the end-user does not get provisioned what was requested.

Here are four examples:

1) 507-283-4893/S016268380qwmnpr 7/21/03 7/21/03 ticket #25237514 (Per Qwest, NWT not compatible with switch AXRSS)

2) 320-629-8123/S016162284qwmnpr 7/14/03 7/14/03 ticket #25237535 (Per Qwest, NWT not compatible with switch AXE10)

3) 507-835-2447/S016179601qwmnpr 8/13/03 8/13/03 ticket #25237550 (Per Qwest, NWT not compatible with switch AXE10)

4) 320-679-5594/S016302699qwmnpr 8/06/03 8/06/03 ticket #25237580 (Per Qwest, NWT not compatible with switch AXRSS)

Thanks,

Liz Balvin MCI Carrier Management - Qwest Region Internal Line - V625-7305 External Line - 303-217-7305 Pager (888) 900-7221

9/18/03 CMP Systems Meeting Connie Winston/Qwest said that Qwest has researched this issue and believes that provisioning is catching this information. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that she provided examples. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we need to review the examples from AT&T and would like to leave this action item open.

8/21/03 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest noted that we did look at the LOE for just call waiting and the LOE for all features and the LOE remains the same.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that this CR was critical and very very important to AT&T. Stephanie Prull/McLeod stated that they were moderately interested.

8/21/03 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are still reviewing all USOCs and combinations of USOCs.

7/17/03 CMP Systems Meeting Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that this CR was initiated because Call Waiting ID was not available in a switch. When the feature was not available, the order was accepted instead of rejected. Carla stated that she did not think this should be a CR and that she sees this as a defect. Carla also said that she did not think they should have to come to Qwest to ask to have their orders provisioned correctly. She stated that she did not know if this would be an edit that would affect all USOCs, or if you have to go feature by feature. If you have to look at feature by feature, AT&T would like Caller ID first and the other features can wait. Carla also would like Qwest to provide two LOEs, one LOE for Caller ID and one LOE for the other features. Connie Winston/Qwest said that Qwest can certainly take that as an action item and provide the LOE for all features and the LOE for just the Caller ID portion. She stated that the LOE that we have provided on the CR, is the LOE for all features. She reviewed the current process and how we reject LSRs with features that cannot be provisioned. Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that it sounds like there is an existing manual process and the LOE provided is for the mechanized process. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that is correct. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked since this applies to pre or post FOC, could Qwest confirm that in all cases it would be before the due date. Is there opportunity for the order to actually go all the way through the system and complete inaccurately with the feature on the service order. Connie Winston/Qwest said that the examples we researched did not apply to that scenario, but that we would take an action item to research if there were USOCs that could make it all the way to billing. Carla Pardee/AT&T said that she has specific examples if we need them. Connie Winston/Qwest said that would be great. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that the post FOC rejects cause the CLECs more headaches. Connie Winston/Qwest said that she understood, however, the post FOC is a jeopardy. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that a jeopardy means that the facilities are not available. Connie Winston/Qwest that’s correct the feature is not available. Pre-order provides feature availability and should be used to reduce the potential of adding a feature that isn’t available in the switch. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that pre-order is not a requirement and that she would like to see the up front edit as stringent as possible. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest could look at the ICONN database when defining the up front edit and said that she thought this might be an optimum solution. Connie Winston/Qwest said that if this candidate is voted into the 15.0 release, that we can certainly consider that when we are in definition.

To: cc:

Subject: FW: SCR060903-01 Reject Message Required if Call Waiting ID Unavailable in Switch

Lynn:

At our clarification call last week, you asked for a list of all of the features AT&T requested as a part of this change request. Our biggest priority right now, is call waiting ID. I don't want to do anything to jeopardize this request for that feature. Once that is done, we would also request the following features be added to the request. Caller ID; Call waiting; Call forwarding; Speed dial 8 and 30; Call transfer; Talking call waiting.

Thanks. Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.

Carla Dickinson Pardee AT&T Local Services & Access Management 1875 Lawrence Street, Suite 8-38 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: 303-298-6101 6/16/03 Clarification Call

Introduction of Attendees Carla Pardee - AT&T, John Gallegos - Qwest, John Ebert - Qwest, Denise Martinez - Qwest

Review Description of Change Lynn Stecklein/Qwest reviewed description of change. Currently, if a CLEC submits an LSR for UNE-P requesting Call Waiting ID (USOC = N2W) and the feature is not available in a particular switch, Qwest will process the order without the feature. AT&T requests that Qwest reject the LSR and allow AT&T to contact the customer and let the customer make the decision as to whether or not the customer still wants the service without the feature.

Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that the USOC noted in the description should be NWT and not N2W. She also stated that AT&T would like to include other features, not just call waiting.

John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the USOC of N2W is for residential and NWT is for business and that we would look at doing both.

Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that she wouldsend the list of features that AT&T would like to include in the description of change to Lynn Stecklein/Qwest.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted The Products associated with this change request is UNE-P and AT&T will verify the features.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation AT&T requests that Qwest reject the LSR and allow AT&T to contact the customer and let the customer make the decision as to whether or not the customer still wants the service without the feature.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests NA

Establish Action Plan AT&T will present this CR in the July 17, 2003 CMP Systems Meeting. Carla Pardee/AT&T will revise the CR with the additional features they want Qwest to evaluate

CenturyLink Response

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR060903-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held June 16, 2003) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1100 to 1825 hours for this IMA Change Request with no SATE impacts. .

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

This Change Request is eligible for the IMA 15.0 Prioritization.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR040403-03 Detail

Description Of Change

Currently QWEST requires CLECs to provide the expedite reasons (http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/exescover.html) in the Remarks field.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable): AT&T requests Qwest support a new Expedite Reason field on the LSR.

Status History

Project Meetings

- August 2, 2007 Email Sent to AT&T: Thanks Kathy. I will place the CR in Pending Withdrawal status and the formal withdrawal will occur in the August CMP Meeting. Thanks again for your prompt reply! Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

-- August 1, 2007 Email Received From AT&T: Hi Peggy, I checked with the originator, and this can be withdrawn. Thanks for your patience with this one!! Kathy

August 1, 2007 Email Sent to AT&T: Good Afternoon Kathy, This email is in regard to a CMP CR that AT&T submitted, to Qwest, in April 2003. I have attached a copy of the CR. In the 4+ years since this CR was submitted, there have been some changes. TRO/TRRO being one of those changes. The CR was submitted for UNE-P POTS and effective March 18, 2005, UNE-P POTS is only available through a Commercial Agreement and is no longer a product that can utilize the CMP Process. Based on this information, will AT&T agree to withdraw SCR040403-03? Thank you, in advance, for your prompt reply. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

- April 18, 2007 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that this attachment contained the Initial Prioritization List for the IMA 22.0 Release. Mark asked if there were any questions on the list. There were none. Mark then mentioned that Packaging would occur in the June timeframe and be communicated in CMP.

- 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: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that this CR is a low priority for AT&T Liz Balvin-Covad stated that we need to look at QPP going forward. Chris Terrell-AT&T said that she agreed.

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 was a low priority for AT&T. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that this is a medium to high for MCI.

-- 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 stated that the CRs with an impact to the IMA interface would follow the existing prioritization process. Judy noted that the funding for IMA 15.0 and IMA 16.0 has been approved, as well as funding to begin work on IMA 17.0.

- January Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that this is a low priority for AT&T.

-- August 21, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that their interest was moderate. Stephanie Prull/McLeod stated that their interest was moderate.

- CMP Monthly Meeting- excerpt from Meeting Minutes May 22, 2003

SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason field on the LSR (originated by AT&T) Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T presented the CR. She asked if there were any questions. No questions were asked.

- Clarification Meeting March 10, 2003

Attendees: Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Berkley Loggie-Qwest, Ann Robberson-Qwest, Shonna Pasionek-Qwest, Phyllis Suninss-Qwest, Terri Kilker-Qwest, Wendy Green-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Joleen Wees-Qwest, Lee Gomez-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Laurel Nolan- CRPM Qwest

Review of Request: Nolan-Qwest reviewed the CR description and asked if there were any additions or changes from AT&T. She read out the list of Expedite reasons from the PCAT. Burt-AT&T stated that the Medical was not current listed and that AT&T wanted all the reasons (including medial) to be added. Simons-Qwest stated that the OBF Document listed numbers related to each reason. Burt-AT&T stated that listing out the numbers and reasons would be fine. She asked what version Simons-Qwest was reading from. Simons-Qwest stated that the version was dated October 18, 2002 and that she did not see a version number. She said that the effective date was in September 2003.

Review of Products Pashonic-Qwest asked if the product was for UNE-P only. Burt-AT&T stated that she was requesting UNE-P POTS. She stated that it might be better to expand to all products. Osborne-Miller-AT&T explained that during the CMP Monthly Meeting the CR would be discussed and that other CLECs would give their input on the product set selected.

Review of Interface Pashonic-Qwest stated that the CR was currently listed as IMA EDI. She asked if it should be IMA Common. Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that she wanted Qwest to look at the CR and determine if it should be IMA EDI or IMA Common.

Nolan-Qwest asked if there were any other questions or concerns. No further questions were asked. She stated that the CR would be presented by AT&T during the May CMP Monthly Meeting and that Qwest would provide a response within the required timeframe.

Meeting on CR adjourned. (Call continued on other AT&T CRs.)

CenturyLink Response

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of AT&T Change Request SCR040403-03. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification meetings (held May 10, 2003), Qwest is able to provide an LOE of 1675-2775 for this change. There are no SATE impacts.

At theMay 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 into further evaluation of this Change Request.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR040403-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Based on the current PCAT for Custom Ringing Service (last updated: September 10, 2002) a CLEC should be able to order Custom Ringing Service using the FA (Feature Activity), FEATURE and FEATURE DETAIL fields. However, during testing we received the following error messages :"RESALE Form:Service Details Section 1:Features Section: Can not convert or change USOC(s) not already on the account: RGGxx not on the account". We were instructed that this was not a defect, and this is how the system works for this particular item.

AT&T is requesting the support of Custom Ringing Service using the Feature Activity, Feature and Feature Detail fields.

Expected Deliverable:

That Qwest support Custom Ringing Service using the Feature Activity, Feature and Feature Detail fields

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: This SCR will allow IMA to recognize Custom Ringing USOCs RGG1A RGG1+, RGG2+, RGG3+, DRS1+, DRS2+, DRS3+, NLQ1+, NLQ2+, NLQ3+ as features associated to a Primary Number (PN), or as features associated to the main TN of an account if there is only one line on the CSR. IMA will use feature rules to allow Custom Ringing USOCs to be converted to another Product or Provider. Custom Ringing USOCs will be allowed to be entered in the Feature and Feature Detail Section of the Product Specific form following the standard feature rules for FA. Form Impacts: NA Products: Resale POTs, UNE-P POTs, Resale CTX 21, UNE-P CTX 21, Resale CTX, UNE-P CTX Activities: ACT V, Z, N, T FA of V, C, T, N, D

Walkthrough Discussion: Kyle Kirves 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 candidate applied to QPP as well. Chuck Anderson confirmed that, yes, the candidate is applicable to QPP. Kyle asked about PCAT updates. Gary Berroa covered the changes to the Ordering PCAT.

- 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.

April 19, 2005 Meeting Minutes Attendees: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T, Bishan Agrawal-AT&T, Susie Wells-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Carol McKenzie-Qwest, Anders Ingemarson-Qwest, Pam Harlan-Qwest

Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that this meeting was requested to discuss this CR and see what AT&T was currently experiencing with this issue. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T stated that this CR was submitted for multi-distinct ring features, which is currently supported via the Remarks field. Leo noted that this CR is asking to handle features with a USOC. Leo stated that AT&T is not currently experiencing this problem due to a special case. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T does no currently have this problem due to a workaround. Sharon stated that they need this enhancement so that the information would no longer need to be place in Remarks. Pam Harlan-Qwest asked what AT&T was putting in the Remarks field for Feature Activity. Anders Ingemarson-Qwest asked for a current example or scenario. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she does have a recent LSR example and will send it to Peggy (Esquibel Reed-Qwest). Susie Wells-Qwest asked to confirm if AT&T was requesting to be able to do an FA of N for new. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T stated that they want similar to any other feature. Susie Wells-Qwest asked if the workaround could be bypassed in order to issue a Custom Ringing LSR. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T stated that in order to bypass the workaround; AT&T would need coding on their side. Leo stated that Custom Ringing is automatically handled via the Remarks field. Susie Wells-Qwest asked if the workaround was hard coded in their EDI process and cannot manually be bypassed. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T said that was correct. Leo then asked for the status of this CR. Carol McKenzie-Qwest stated that this CR is the #5 ranked CR, as a result of the 18.0 Prioritization. Leo Dimitriadis-AT&T stated that AT&T was moving to IMA 18.0 in November/December. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked that when this CR is implemented, if it would work as requested. Anders Ingemarson-Qwest stated yes There were no additional questions or comments.

- February 16, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T rates this CR as medium. Jill Martain-Qwest said that Qwest rates this CR as high. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said that Eschelon rates this CR as high.

-- 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 was low for AT&T.

- 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 stated that the CRs with an impact to the IMA interface would follow the existing prioritization process. Judy noted that the funding for IMA 15.0 and IMA 16.0 has been approved, as well as funding to begin work on IMA 17.0.

- January Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that this is a low priority for AT&T Consumer and a high priority for AT&T business.

August 21, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that their interest was moderate.

May 22, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the CR description. Kit Thomte/Qwest asked if there were any question for this CR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she strongly supports this CR and requested to expand the Products to include all Resale and all UNE-P. Mallory Paxton/Qwest stated that she would also like to have the products expanded. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that this CR would move to Presented status. (The Level of Effort for this request is 1500 to 2500 hours with no SATE impacts)

CLARIFICATION MEETING - APRIL 10, 2003 ATTENDEES: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T, Phyllis Burt/AT&T, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Lynn Stecklein/Qwest, Laurel Nolan/Qwest, Mark Early/Qwest, John Gallegos/Qwest, Lee Gomez/Qwest, Wendy Green/Qwest, Terri Kilker/Qwest, Berkley Loggie/Qwest, Shonna Pasionek/Qwest, Anne Robberson/Qwest, Phyllis Sunins/Qwest, Jo Wees/Qwest REVIEW REQUESTED DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest reviewed the CR description: Currently the PCAT provides Ordering Instructions for all of the UNEP Features stated in the UNE-P Features Matrix (http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/features/unepfeatures.html). Based on the current PCAT for Custom Ringing Service (last updated: September 10, 2002) a CLEC should be able to order Custom Ringing Service using the FA (Feature Activity), FEATURE and FEATURE DETAIL fields. However, during testing we received the following error messages :"RESALE Form:Service Details Section 1:Features Section: Can not convert or change USOC(s) not already on the account: RGGxx not on the account". We were instructed that this was not a defect, and this is how the system works for this particular item. AT&T is requesting the support of Custom Ringing Service using the Feature Activity, Feature and Feature Detail fields. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked AT&T if they had information or additional clarification. Donna Osborne-Miller and Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that they had no additional information regarding the request. CONFIRMATION OF IMPACTED INTERFACE: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked if this request is for IMA EDI only. It was stated that the interface should reflect IMA Common. CONFIRMATION OF IMPACTED PRODUCTS: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked if the product was only UNE-P. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that the product is UNE-P POTS. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that the CLEC Community, at the Monthly CMP Meeting, may ask for this to be for all products. CR DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked the Qwest participants if there were any questions for this request. Jo Wees/Qwest stated that she had no questions. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that he had no questions. ACTION PLAN: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that AT&T will present this CR at the May Systems CMP Meeting. There were no additional question or comments. Tha call was concluded.

CenturyLink Response

May 6, 2003

RE: SCR040403-02 Support Custom Ringing Service via the LSR fields

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR040403-02.. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held April 10, 2003) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1500 to 2500 hours for this IMA Change Request with no SATE impacts..

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

This Change Request is eligible for the IMA 15.0 Prioritization.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR032103-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Today the BCN is returned for each WCN via the Status Updates – Auto Push transaction.

If a CLEC sends a Move Order for UNEP POTS this will generate two internal QWEST orders or WCNs.

The internal QWEST order numbers must be captured and managed by the CLEC from the single Firm Order Confirmation (FOC) transaction. As each WCN completes provisioning a Status Updates – Auto Push Transaction is created. Once all WCN have been provisioned a single Service Order Complete (SOC) transaction is sent.

As each WCN completes billing a Status Updates – Auto Push Transaction is created. Once all BCNs have completed (unlike the SOC) a single BCN transaction is NOT generated. Thus the CLECs are required to use the internal QWEST orders to identify all of the BCNs and determine when Billing is completed for the LSR.

If a CLEC wants to receive the BCN they must subscribe to the Status Updates-Auto Push transaction. Once subscribed six types of statuses are automatically sent via this transaction. CLECs are required to filter through the unwanted statuses to obtain the BCN information related to the internal QWEST order number.

AT&T is requesting a Single BCN transaction thus resulting in FOC-SOC-BCN.

Status History

Project Meetings

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was completed in the 15.0 release. The CLEC Community agreed that this CR could be closed. 8/18/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was implemented in 15.0 and would remain in CLEC Test.

7/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this was implemented in 15.0 and would remain in CLEC Test.

6/17/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated this CR will remain in CLEC Test for another month per the request of Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T. 5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting This CR will remain in CLEC Test.

4/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was just deployed in the IMA 15.0 Release and will remain open for another month.

There were no questions or comments.

This CR remains in CLEC Test. .

3/19/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR is deploying on April 19, 2004, in the IMA 15.0 Release. There were no questions or comments.

MEETING MINUTES - February 17, 2004 Hi-Level Walk Through of IMA 15.0 Committed CR's

Attendees: Anne Robberson-Process Analyst (Qwest), Curt Anderson- IT Systems Analyst (Qwest), Diane Burt-Systems Analyst (AT&T), Donna Osborne-Miller - Carrier Relations Manager (AT&T), Dusti Bastian-Process Analyst (Qwest), Ellen McArthur-Process Analyst (Qwest), Hank Martinez-IT Systems Analyst (Qwest), James McCluskey-ILEC Manager (Accenture), John Daugherty-Product Management (AT&T), John Gallegos-IT Manager (Qwest), Kathy Miller-Process Manager (Qwest), Kim Isaacs- ILEC Relations Process Analyst (Eschelon), Kyle Kirves-IT Analyst (Qwest), Linda Miles-Process Manager (Qwest), Lori Langston-Process Manager (Qwest), Marie Acceno-Systems Analyst (AT&T), Nancy Denny-IT Analyst (Qwest), Nicole James-IT Analyst (Qwest), Pat Bratetic-Process Manager (Qwest), Phyllis Burt-Systems Analyst (AT&T), Randy Owen-IT Manager (Qwest), Shon Higer-Process Analyst (Qwest), Shonna Pasionek-IT Analyst (Qwest), Stephanie Prull-EDI Business Analyst (Eschelon), Susie Wells-Product/Process Analyst (Qwest) Meeting Facilitator: Nancy Denny (Qwest)

Purpose: High-level walk-through of the CRs that are committed in the IMA 15.0 Release.

Supporting Documents: Qwest Notification: SYST.02.13.04.F.01366.IMAEDI15.0Cand&DocWkth Documentation containing 15.0 Candidate Summaries: February 17, 2004, attached to notification CRs can be found in the Qwest Wholesale Change Request Interactive Report located at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html

Anne Robberson provided the overview based on the document circulated with the meeting agenda.

Phyllis: What is the timing of the new transaction? Today, there is autopush when you subscribe to the Posted to Be Billed. With single BCN will I receive the BCN right after the transaction is posted to be billed? Hank Martinez Qwest (Hank): You will receive the BCN once all the orders associated with that request have posted. Phyllis: When would that would be? John: Multiple orders won’t show up on a BCN until all requests on the LSR are processed. Phyllis: But right after? Immediately? Within seconds? John: Yes. Phyllis: So we can likely stop status updates and just get BCN? (Phyllis cited an example.) John: You may still do the posted to be billed at the order level. Phyllis: And the status update will be based on subscription? You can get both? John: Yes. Qwest will provide status update even when you subscribe to BCN. Phyllis: Is it the same process? Should CLECs request a profile update? Anne Robberson Qwest (Anne): Yes. Hank Martinez Qwest (Hank): It should be noted that the effective date for the subscription to the BCN is the next business day following the profile sign up.

10/16/03 CMP Systems Meeting Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we validated that a final 'AN' will be issued on SCR032103-01 (Request Final BCN) and that this action will be closed. 8/21/03 CMP Systems Meeting

Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that their interest was high. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that their interest was high.

4/17/03 CMP Systems Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T noted that the original BCN request was reviewed in the March CMP Systems meeting and was denied. Phyllis Burt (AT&T) revised the request to reflect what was discussed in the March meeting. Donna reviewed the description of change. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the clarification call was held and that the level of effort is 2100 to 3500 hours. John clarified that this request would provide a BCN for each LSR. The CLECs profile will determine how they want to receive the BCN. The CLECs will still receive the BCN at an order level but can choose to receive it at an LSR level. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the LOE would be impacted by adding other products to this request. Phyllis Burt/AT&T said that in the clarification meeting it was discussed that this request would apply to all products. John Gallegos/Qwest agreed and stated this functionality would be applicable on products where BCN is standard. Sue Stott/Qwest said that the LOE includes all products where the BCN is provided. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that she wanted to thank Qwest for the help on this request and wanted to give a heads up that AT&T will be seeking to process this request as a Late Adder. Sue Stott/Qwest clarified that the Release date for 14.0 is December. Otherwise, it will be eligible for 15.0 Release. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked where the other late adder was in the document. Kit Thomte/Qwest said that SCR040403-01 (Generate LML for additional listing changes) is located in Attachment T and will be discussed later in the day.

4/10/03 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, Phyllis Burt - AT&T, Terry Kilker - Qwest, Anne Roberson - Qwest, John Gallegos - Qwest, Shonna Pasionek - Qwest, Wendy Green - Qwest

Review Requested Description of Change Request for Single BCN at the LSR level similar to the FOC and SOC. Today the BCN is returned for each WCN via the Status Updates Auto Push transaction. If a CLEC sends a Move Order for UNEP POTS this will generate two internal QWEST orders or WCNs. The internal QWEST order numbers must be captured and managed by the CLEC from the single Firm Order Confirmation (FOC) transaction. As each WCN completes provisioning a Status Updates Auto Push Transaction is created. Once all WCN have been provisioned a single Service Order Complete (SOC) transaction is sent. As each WCN completes billing a Status Updates Auto Push Transaction is created. Once all BCNs have completed (unlike the SOC) a single BCN transaction is NOT generated. Thus the CLECs are required to use the internal QWEST orders to identify all of the BCNs and determine when Billing is completed for the LSR. If a CLEC wants to receive the BCN they must subscribe to the Status Updates-Auto Push transaction. Once subscribed six types of statuses are automatically sent via this transaction. CLECs are required to filter through the unwanted statuses to obtain the BCN information related to the internal QWEST order number. AT&T is requesting a Single BCN transaction thus resulting in FOC-SOC-BCN.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted John Gallegos - Qwest confirmed which products AT&T was requesting this functionality. AT&T stated that they want on UNE-P POTS but in the March CMP Meeting other CLECs stated that they would like on other Products. John stated that this functionality would be applicable on products where BCN is standard. The interface will be changed to IMA Common. John Gallegos/Qwest clarified that this request would provide a BCN for each LSR. The CLECs profile will determine how the they want to received the BCN. They will still have the choice to receive a BCN at the order level or now have the option of receiving the BCN at the LSR level.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation AT&T requested that this request be processed as a late adder.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests NA

Establish Action Plan AT&T will present this CR in the April CMP Systems Meeting and the Late Adder Process will be discussed.

March CMP Systems Meeting SCR022703-13 Single WCN and Single BCN (Originated by AT&T) Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T presented this CR and asked for more information regarding the denial. Lynn Notarriani/Qwest noted that this is a substantial architectural change to our billing system and would be a very large effort. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that currently we get confirmation of the Qwest internal order number and asked if there was a way not to subscribe to the auto push and receive just a single BCN. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that Eschelon asked that question and the response was no. You have to get them all or none at all. Candy Skaff/Eschelon said that the final response was for the GUI and we could retrieve the status update out of the GUI and for EDI the information would be via an EDI file. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that the asked the same question and from an EDI perspective we felt that we could build to one of the status indicators from the auto push for the status updates. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if it is possible to build in EDI to the BCN. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that they do not want the auto push, we just want the final BCN. Lynn Notarriani/Qwest said that she hears two questions 1 – You want to which statuses to receive and, 2—You want one BCN. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that you are going to status update to get BCN and you have to look at all status updates. Connie Winston/Qwest said that we would be happy to have an options meeting to discuss these issues but there’s just no way to do this in time for the vote. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if they could opt to build their interface to receive only status updates numbers 1 or 3 or 5 in EDI instead of all of the status updates. Connie Winston/Qwest said that’s what we’d have to talk to development about. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked for clarification on how they could revise this CR to meet the vote. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that she thought they could do a late adder. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that she did not think we could respond with the LOE within the necessary timeframe and believe we are designing on the fly. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if another clarification call was necessary. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the 3-day timeframe is a critical issue and is driving up the cost. That is one of the reasons for the denial. If we can get agreement to change the 3-day timeframe to the 5-day timeframe, we may be able to re-look at this. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked Phyllis Burt/AT&T is they could take out the 3-day timeframe and Phyllis agreed if they could still get it into the vote. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she we will have to redesign and LOE in time for the vote. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if there was anything that could be negotiated. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we could have an options meeting but it could not be done before the 14.0 vote. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked about the option of having the BCN that exists today but building to one status. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that would be an architectural change and once again don’t know what the effort would require. Lynn Notarriani/Qwest said she thought AT&T might be willing to remove the sentence to remove the requirement of 3 days but also heard a request to be able to pick and choose what status updates you want. And I don’t’ think that’s part of what was LOEd. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that she would like to open an action item to see why the CLECs can’t have the option of having something less than the full 6 status options. Wendy Green/Qwest said that we currently don’t have the system programmed to allow the CLECs to choose which statuses they wanted to receive, so it would be a change to the system. She also stated that WorldCom would need to open a CR. Sue Stott/Qwest said if you look at the EDI side, your development team will also have to code to filter and build a filter to select the ones you care about. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said thank you. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that AT&T does not want to give up on this and we understand the denial. We would like to re-write this and have it potentially be a late adder. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated AT&T’s desire is a single BCN, if they can use the autopush. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked if it’s a late adder could she add what WorldCom is looking for. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest doesn’t make those decisions, if it’s able to be ranked and voted in 14. What we can do is look at a new definition, and then AT&T can try to do it as a late adder. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if they removed the sentence requesting the 3 days. John Gallegos/Qwest said no I said that was one of the gaps that was causing such a high LOE. Lynn Stecklein sent a request to AT&T asking if the last sentence of the description of change could be removed and got a negative response. Connie Winston/Qwest summarized that AT&T would like 1 BCN, no 3-day timeframe and no WCN. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that if it’s the 3 days that’s causing the deny, then AT&T will remove. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we just want to be really clear that we would only be looking at LOEing a single BCN and she also stated that the time is short and also don’t know if it will be econmically feasible until we check with the Development Team. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that this would be harder to do as a late adder then to have Qwest try to go back and re-LOE it and try to get it in the vote. Connie Winston/Qwest said that we can certainly try, but can almost guarantee that this can’t be done in time for 14.0 prioritization. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that she didn’t think Phyllis had changed her mind on what she wants other than the 3-day requirement. Connie Winston/Qwest said that she wanted to clarify that we did try to make that suggestion before hand, but now the time is so short. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that there didn’t need to be an additional clarification meeting. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon other than what Phyllis is looking at which is having a BCN at the LSR level, we don’t want to add anything to the scope of that. Connie Winston/Qwest said that we will do what we can. Sue Stott/Qwest said that this is a huge change, and the ballot goes out Tuesday and I really don’t want to set any false expectations. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that obviously it has a lot of CLEC support and so although late adder requires a unanimous vote it doesn’t seem there’ll be a problem. Connie Winston/Qwest asked if AT&T could have the CR updated by tomorrow. Phyllis Burt/AT&T said that she would have it updated tomorrow. She also asked to keep in mind that the request is for a single BCN and if they can generate a separate BCN that’s fine too. Kit Thomte/Qwest asked if the status would be changed to evaluation. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the CR will remain in denied status until the new CR information is reviewed.

3/20/03 CMP Systems Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T presented the change request. Liz Balvin /WorldCom asked why the WorldCom CR was rejected. Lynn Notarriani/Qwest stated that the difference was a real-time EDI individual transaction vs. a report coming back from EDI. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that when we looked at your request, we thought you wanted all of Loss & Completions coming back through EDI. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that she was frustrated because when she came to CMP she just wanted the Loss report and was told it had to be both (Loss & Completions). Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it is still a report. This is a transactional change and not a report. Lynn Notarriani/Qwest said that it might be helpful for WorldCom to go back and verify with their teams. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that the confusion may have been the way the CR was worded. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that it is still frustrating and feels that there was a lack of communication in what was put in her CR and questioned why Qwest did not provide options. Peggy Esquibel/Reed/Qwest stated that she sent an e-mail asking WorldCom if this CR met their needs. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that she did receive the e-mail and wanted to discuss with AT&T but had not done so. John Gallegos/Qwest reviewed the title of the WorldCom CR and noted that it was for Loss & Completion. Lynn Notarriani/Qwest said that we do not want to spend a lot of time trying to look at how to do the same thing in a different format or way. Any gaps in communication on the clarification call should have been identified by the WorldCom and their technical team. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that in the clarification call the request was identified as Loss and Completions but one of the WorldCom SMEs referred to the report. Connie Winston/Qwest recommended that in the future we need to make sure we have the correct subject matter experts on the clarification call. When it clearly states ‘report’, that’s the direction we would take. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked how everyone felt about opening up the invitation to anyone interested in joining the clarification call. Connie Winston/Qwest said that when we get the whole community together some people may have different ideas or have additional questions. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that it’s hard enough to get the initiator together so perhaps we could have the meeting set up with only the initiator and they could invite the entire group. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that she will take an action item and talk to Judy Schultz/Qwest. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T said that AT&T would be happy to create the CR to get the language in the CMP document changed. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that this issue warrants readdressing especially when a vote is at stake. Kit Thomte/Qwest said she understood and will take the action item and address in the April CMP Product/Process meeting.

CenturyLink Response

April 11, 2003

RE: SCR032103-01

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR032103-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held April 10, 2003) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 2100 to 3500 hours for this IMA Change Request with SATE impacts of 300 to 350 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.

Sincerely,

Qwest

DRAFT RESPONSE

April 10, 2003

RE: SCR032103-01

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of AT&T's Change Request SCR032103-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification meetings (held April 10, 2003) 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 April 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 into further evaluation of this Change Request.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR040403-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Since the LML is not changing, AT&T is requesting QWEST to system generate the LML information they require to access their legacy system using the information provided on the LSR order such as ATN, ALI and LTN fields.

Status History

Project Meetings

Connie Winston/Qwest asked if AT&T was still validating this request from the 14.0 Release. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked Phyllis (Burt/AT&T) if she was ready to close the CR. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that that CR could be closed. This CR moves to Completed Status.

2/19/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that this CR needs to remain in CLEC Test.

1/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she would like to keep this CR open until the February CMP Systems Meeting.

12/17/03 CMP Systems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she would like this CR to remain open.

11/20/03 CMP Systems Meeting Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR would be implemented with the IMA 14.0 Release on December 8, 2003.

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

Functionality Description: Currently, CLECs are required to enter the Local Main Listing (LML) and a LACT of Z information on the first DL form when performing subsequent product listing activities such as a change order or Directory Listing Order on an existing account. In an effort to streamline these listing activities, this candidate proposes to remove the requirement that the first DL form must be RTY=LML. Additionally, a LACT of Z will no longer be required

IMA will be modified so that a CLEC will NOT be required to enter either LML information or a LACT of Z on the first DL form when performing product listing activity on change orders (REQTYP = MB, ACT = C) or Directory Listing Orders (REQTYP = HB, ACT = R) or for re-sale orders when the REQTYP = EB, ACT = C. The CLEC will still have the option to enter LML information on the first DL form, but this will no longer be a requirement.

Questions & Answers:

There were no questions submitted for this CR. Connie Winston - Qwest asked if there were any questions or comments. There were no comments, questions, or clarification requested.

-- 5/22/2003 CMP Systems Meeting Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that this CR was presented last month and is a Late Adder for IMA 14.0. 4/17/03 CMP Systems Meeting Lynn Stecklein/Qwest asked if AT&T could present the other late adder. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the second CR that AT&T would like to have considered as a Late Adder. SCR040303-01 (System Generate LML for additional listing only changes) She reviewed the description of change. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that we are hoping to get the LOE soon and will provide to everyone upon receipt. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if with a late adder, do we re-prioritize Jim Maher/Qwest stated that we will send out instructions, but you insert where you want the late adder CR added, ex: between 10 and 11. You will not go back and re-prioritize you will clearly note where you want the CR to fall. The intent in re-design was so that the companies would not go back and re-do their prioritization. Jim read from Section 10.3 of the CMP document. Sue Stott/Qwest asked if we re-calculate. Randy Owen/Qwest noted that Qwest will adjust the point value assigned to whatever the CLEC chooses as their placement for the late adder. Sue Stott/Qwest said that what this does is allow you to insert the late adder CR into the current prioritized list. This is important because we have already begun working on the list as it is currently prioritized. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T and we are going to vote on this. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest said that because of the submitted date of the CRs and the late adder request we had to ask AT&T to submit an exception. She reviewed the exception to the CMP document (Exception request to allow a vote on Late Adder CRs outside of a Monthly CMP Systems Meeting), she reviewed what a vote of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ will indicate. She also noted that there would be a meeting next Tuesday, April 22, 2003 at 10:00 am MT to hold the vote. Jim Maher/Qwest said that there will be three votes, one for the exception, and one for each of the CRs being requested as late adders. Carla Pardee/AT&T asked if there needed to be a quorum. Laurel Nolan/Qwest said yes and we will calculate the quorum after this meeting. Typically, it has been around 5-6. Kit Thomte/Qwest re-capped what the separate votes would cover. Laurel Nolan/Qwest noted that when we have the vote, it’s just a yes or no vote. The CLECs will not be expected to provide their ranks at the meeting. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked when will there be an outcome. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest said that at the latest, May 2nd, 2003. Lynn also told Phyllis that she could get the details on all that was discussed associated with the Exception and late adder CRs on the Wholesale Resources Website.

4/10/03 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, Phyllis Burt - AT&T, Mark Early - Qwest, Lee Gomez - Qwest, John Gallegos - Qwest, Shonna Pasionek - Qwest, Wendy Green - Qwest

Review Requested Description of Change QWEST requires the recap of the Local Main Listing (LML) whenever action is taken on an additional listing on a Change Order (REQTYP=MB & ACT=C) or Directory Listing only order (REQTYP=HB & ACT=R).

Since the LML is not changing, AT&T is requesting QWEST to system generate the LML information they require to access their legacy system using the information provided on the LSR order such as ATN, ALI and LTN fields.

Confirm Areas of Products Impacted Lee Gomez - Qwest asked if this request is UNE-P and not FBDL. AT&T confirmed that it is UNE-P

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T stated that this request is very important to AT&T and asked Qwest if there was anyway if Qwest would consider including in the 13.0 IMA release. John Gallegos-Qwest said that he would take that as an action item. Donna also stated that if Qwest would not consider including in the 13.0 IMA release, then AT&T would like to process this request as a late adder to the 14.0 release.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests NA

Establish Action Plan AT&T will present this CR in the April Systems CMP meeting and the late adder process will be discussed.

CenturyLink Response

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR040403-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held April 10, 2003) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1350 to 2500 hours for this IMA Change Request and SATE impacts of 20 to 25 hours.

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

AT&T has requested that this change request be processed as a 14.0 Late Adder.

Sincerely, Qwest

DRAFT RESPONSE April 10, 2003 RE: SCR040403-01

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of AT&T's Change Request SCR040403-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification meeting (held April 10, 2003) 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 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 into further evaluation of this Change Request.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR041103-01EX Detail

Description Of Change

Desired outcome:

Exemption from the CMP process as described in CMP Document, Section 10.3.4. This will allow the vote for the Late Adder approval to take place at an ad hoc CMP Meeting, and not the Monthly CMP Meeting as described in Section 10.3.4.

See CR, (SCR032103-01, SCR040403-01), in the Systems Interactive Reports at

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html.

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR070203-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable : October 2003

Status History

Project Meetings

September 4, 2003 Email Sent to Sharon Van Meter/AT&T: Sharon, RE: SCR070203-01 CABS Billing for Line Splitting This email is in response to the Action Items that came out of our September 3rd conference call. The captured Action Items were for Qwest to confirm that the recurring and non-recurring charges are on the bill, confirm that cross connects are on the UNE-P summary accounts, and that if cross connects are not on the UNE-P bill, to advise where they are billed. Qwest is able to confirm that the UNE-P recurring loop charges, UNE-P nonrecurring charges and Line Splitting channel termination charges (associated with the tie-pairs) are all billed on the same UNE-P POTS BAN. All charges, which are currently billed on the UNE-P POTS bill, are mapped to the CABS/BOS billing format media. There are no "cross-connects" associated with UNE-P Line Splitting; if you are currently being billed for cross-connects, it is associated with another product and would appear on a bill separate from your UNE-P POTS bill. As stated above, however, there are tie-pairs associated with Line Splitting which are billed as Channel Terminations with a TYL++ USOC.

Based on the above information, please advise of the disposition for this CR. Is AT&T okay to withdraw this CR. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CRPM - Systems Peggy.Esquibel-Reed@qwest.com

- September 3, 2003 Conference Call Meeting Minutes Attendees: Sharon Van Meter/AT&T, Gary Duffy/AT&T/ Carla Pardee/AT&T, Jeff Lindsay/AT&T, Marie /AT&T, Jami Larson/Qwest, Mark Heline/Qwest, Terri Kilker/Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest Discussion: Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that Line Splitting is available in CRIS, AT&T would like confirmation that they can get Line Splitting in CABS format. Jami Larson/Qwest stated that if Line Splitting is on UNE-P, then is currently available to AT&T. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that it should then be okay. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that she read the PCAT and that Line Splitting is referenced under different systems. Sharon asked Gary (AT&T) if is okay regarding CABS. Gary Duffy/AT&T stated that is okay for recurring and non-recurring charges for Line Splitting; the question is regarding if cross connects are on the UNE-P bill. Terri Kilker/Qwest stated that she would verify that the recurring and non-recurring charges appear for Line Splitting and will verify if cross connects are billed on the UNE-P bills. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that the PCAT references cross connects but AT&T needs on the bill. Sharon stated that once Qwest verifies that cross connects do appear on the UNE-P summary accounts, AT&T may be able to withdraw this CR. Gary Duffy/AT&T agreed. Terri Kilker/Qwest will email information to Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) for distribution to AT&T. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that she would distribute within AT&T. Gary Duffy/AT&T stated that if Terri (Qwest) finds that the cross connects are not on the UNE-P bills, AT&T needs to know where they are billed. Terri Kilker/Qwest stated that she would research and would try and have the information this afternoon. There were no other questions or comments. The call was concluded.

- August 26, 2003 Email Received from Sharon Van Meter/AT&T: Peggy, Thanks for setting up the call. I would like for Qwest to further explain what elements are billed to which billing systems. We have read the PCAT and see that different pieces of the Line Splitting process are billed to different systems, so we want to make sure that the elements billed to CABS meet our needs. Also, Carla Pardee has a CR requesting that UNE-P charges are billed through the CABS billing system. I think the resolution for that is that UNE-P is billed through CRIS but in a CABS format. We will want the same thing for Line Splitting since a customer needs UNE-P to support Line Splitting. Let me know if you have any questions or need further clarification. Sharon

August 26, 2003 Email sent to Sharon Van Meter/AT&T: Good Morning Sharon -- I have scheduled a conference call to discuss CABS Billing for Line Splitting. DATE: Wednesday, September 3, 2003 TIME: 8:00 a.m. MT CALL IN: 1-877-564-8688, passcode 8571927 Would you please send me a list of your questions prior to the call. I would like to have them to make sure that I have invited the correct SMEs to answer those questions. It would also give us the opportunity to investigate the questions and have the info ready for you on the 3rd. Please note that my email address has changed to Peggy.Esquibel-Reed@qwest.com. The pesquib@qwest.com will soon no longer work. Thanks Much. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CRPM -- Systems 303.896.6332 Peggy.Esquibel-Reed@qwest.com

-- August 25, 2003 Email received from Sharon Van Meter/AT&T: Peggy, We'd like to have a conference call on Wednesday, September 3 from 8-9 AM (MDT) to further discuss this CR. We have some questions and need more information before we withdraw the CR. Can you please have the SMEs on the line who would be able to answer our questions. Thanks. Sharon

- August 21, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that this CR is in Pending Withdrawal status. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that her internal customer is reviewing the PCAT to determine if their need will be met. Sharon stated that this CR needs to remain in Pending Withdrawal and noted that she would withdraw off-line if the PCAT does meet their need. There were no other questions or comments.

- August 13, 2003 Email sent to Sharon Van Meter/AT&T: Hi Sharon -- This is an email to follow-up on the email sent to you on July 24th, see below. Have you had the opportunity to review the referenced PCAT to see if it takes care of your request stated in SCR070203-01 CABS Billing for Line Splitting? I will place this CR in Pending Withdrawal, pending your approval to Withdraw. If you feel that the referenced PCAT does not result in your need being met, please advise ASAP. Thanks much. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CRPM -- Systems Peggy.Esquibel-Reed@qwest.com

July 24, 2003 Email sent to Sharon Van Meter/AT&T: Good Morning Sharon -- This email is in regard to your submitted Systems CMP CR asking for CABS Billing for Line Splitting. Based on analysis performed after the Clarification Call, held on July 14th, it has been determined that there is no systems work to be done for this request. CABS Billing for Line Splitting is currently available to you, in conjunction with UNE-P POTS. It is a matter of sending in the LSR with the appropriate information. Please refer to the PCAT located at http://qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/linesplitting.html for ordering information. After reviewing the PCAT, please advise if you feel that a follow-up call is needed to further discuss or advise that the CR can be withdrawn at the August CMP Meeting. Thanks, Sharon. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CRPM -- Systems Peggy.Esquibel-Reed@qwest.com

- Clarification Meeting - July 14, 2003

Introduction of Attendees: Sharon Van Meter/AT&T, Carla Pardee/AT&T, Marie Ivanov/AT&T, Jeff L./AT&T, Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest, Mark Heline/Qwest, Jami Larson/Qwest, Crystal Soderlund/Qwest, Judy Teshima/Qwest, Luke Von Hagen/Qwest Review Requested Description of Change: Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest reviewed the CR description: Currently Qwest only provides CRIS as a wholesale billing option for line splitting. AT&T receives its UNE-P and UNE-Loop bills via the CABS system. AT&T requests that Qwest provide CABS as an option for CLECs to receive a wholesale bill via the CABS system. Expected Deliverable of October 2003. Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest asked AT&T if they wanted to provide additional information. AT&T responded no. Confirm Impacted Interface: Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest confirmed the impacted interface of Wholesale Billing Confirm Impacted Product(s): Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest asked to confirm impacted product of Line Splitting. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated product is Line Splitting for DSL. Meeting Discussion: Crystal Soderlund/Qwest asked if UBL is currently billed via CRIS. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that is also billed via CABS. Jami Larson/Qwest stated that CABS is not billing UNE-P and UNE Loop. Jami stated that is on bill data tape, the CSR is in CABS BOS format, and is sent via NDM. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest asked if this request is the same for line splitting. Marie Ivanov/AT&T stated that Covad requires line splitting in CABS format for DSL and that AT&T is requesting in CABS, in order to provide it to Covad. Luke Von Hagen/Qwest asked to confirm that AT&T is looking for something similar, looking for BOS format via the bill data tape. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that could be referred to as CABS or BOS. Jami Larson/Qwest stated that Is CABS/BOS format. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that AT&T’s concern is that if AT&T is the customer of record, they need one consistent format. Jami Larson/Qwest stated that UNE-P and UNE Loop are billed via CRIS and that they format and put on the appropriate bill data tape. Jami stated that CRIS does this function. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that AT&T is requesting consistent billing format. Marie Ivanov/AT&T stated that they are referring to format and asked if there are standard fields. Luke Von Hagen/Qwest asked if this was a USOC or usage sensitive product. Marie Ivanov/AT&T stated is USOC for DSL. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that line splitting is by TN but is USOC specific. Jami Larson/Qwest asked if AT&T was receiving a bill for usage. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest responded no, we are billing a monthly charge. Marie Ivanov/AT&T confirmed Crystal’s comment. There were no additional questions or comments. Establish Action Plan: Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest stated that AT&T will present this CR at the August 21, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting and that Qwest will be providing the CR response.

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR072303-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

8/6/03 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees Carla Pardee - AT&T, Dave Green - AT&T, Qiana Davis - Qwest, John Gallegos - Qwest, Nicole James - Qwest, Barb Carlson - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Reviewed Description of Change Currently Qwest does not provide 2 way blocking restriction capabilities. AT&T requests that Qwest provide this functionality at the TN level. This essentially means, that when a customer is in delinquency, Qwest would be able to block both in bound and out bound calls, with the exception of 911 calls.

John Gallegos/Qwest stated that an AT&T request was submitted on February 27, 2003 (SCR022703-22 Line Level restrict for Non-Payment) and said that this CR may be a duplicate. Carla Pardee/AT&T asked if this CR could be combined with SCR022703-22. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that SCR022703-22 was denied on March 14, 2003 due to economic feasibility.

John Gallegos/Qwest confirmed that AT&T was requesting two way blocking but wanted to allow 911. AT&T said yes. John also asked if AT&T was looking for this change at a TN level and if a multi-line account was involved, the TN level restriction would be applicable to each line. In addition, 1 line would have full capability. AT&T said yes. Dave Green/AT&T said that AT&T internally submits at the account level and asked if there is any difference in their TN versus out TN or if they requested 2 way blocking restriction at the BTN level would it be the same as our BTN. John said that he would have to assume yes. Dave stated that Qwest provides 2 way blocking restriction at the account level and AT&T would like the restriction at the TN level. John said that AT&T send the request by the TN (or what AT&T identifies as the BTN)

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted John Gallegos/Qwest confirmed that the interface impacted is IMA Common and the Product is UNE-P. Dave Green/AT&T asked what other products would be looked at. John stated for example resale POTS.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation AT&T stated that Qwest provides 2 way blocking restriction at the account level and AT&T would like the restriction at the TN level.

Identify Any Dependent Requests SCR022703-22 Line Level restrict for Non-Payment

Establish Action Plan AT&T will present this request in the August 21, 2003 CMP Systems Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

Carla Pardee AT&T

CC: Lynn Notarianni Connie Winston Sue Stott Beth Foster Kit Thomte

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number SCR072303-01, dated 07/23/2003, titled: Request for 2 way blocking restriction.

CLEC CR Description as written by AT&T: Currently Qwest does not provide 2 way blocking restriction capabilities. AT&T requests that Qwest provide this functionality at the TN level. This essentially means, that when a customer is in delinquency, Qwest would be able to block both in bound and out bound calls, with the exception of 911 calls.

History: A clarification meeting was held on Friday August 8, 2003 with AT&T and Qwest representation. At this meeting Qwest confirmed with AT&T that this CR was requesting similar functionality as SCR022703-22, Line Level restrict for Non-Payment, which AT&T submitted in February of 2003.

Qwest Response: Qwest has completed an analysis for CR SCR072303-01, Request for 2 way blocking restriction, and has determined that this change is economically not feasible. As discussed in the clarification call, in February of 2003, AT&T submitted SCR022703-22-Line Level restrict for Non Payment, requesting similar functionality, which Qwest ultimately denied due to economic infeasibility. However, the new CR submitted in July is requesting even more functionality than the original CR submitted in February 2003. The new change request would require Qwest to restructure the manner in which accounts are currently processed through the billing system. Through Qwest’s analysis it was determined that the estimate for the initial implementation of this change would be at least $1 million. Qwest believes that to implement a restriction at the line level for non-payment would be cost prohibitive.

Qwest is denying your request for SCR072303-01, Request for 2 way blocking restriction due to economic infeasibility.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR081803-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Qwest has also suggested an additional value of HA = BLANK in which the Hunting form would not need to be sent. The "BLANK" would indicate that the customer is being migrated and no hunting is being requested.

Expected Deliverable:

To not have to recap existing hunting USOCs and to utilize HA=N to be inclusive of the end state of the customers account.

Status History

Project Meetings

August 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was implemented in 15.0 and would remain in CLEC Test.

- July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this was implemented in 15.0 and would remain in CLEC Test.

-- June 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated this CR will remain in CLEC Test for another month per the request of Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T.

May 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the majority of the CRs in Attachment G were deployed in 15.0. Connie said that we usually like to wait for the 1st EDI customer to certify a new release. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that when the submitting CLEC of a CR has not moved to the release and another CLEC performs the test, they may not understand the submitting CLECs intent or their system may be different. Bonnie said that she initiated a CR to establish a new status and Qwest voted no. 6/1/04 - Revision to Minutes from Eschelon. Bonnie said that we need to define in the CMP Document, a new status that fits the situation when a CR has not been tested in a release. Randy Owen/Qwest said that we might look at something between CLEC Test and Completed. Cheryl Peterson/AT&T said that we might use CLEC Test One and Two. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that we could use ‘Pending Test’ or ‘CLEC Hold’. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we would create an action item to research the possibility of establishing a new Status Code.

This CR will remain in CLEC Test.

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was just deployed in the IMA 15.0 Release and will remain open for another month. There were no questions or comments. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR is deploying on April 19, 2004, in the IMA 15.0 Release. There were no questions or comments.

- 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 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.

- MEETING MINUTES February 17, 2004 Hi-Level Walk Through of IMA 15.0 Committed CR's

Attendees: Anne Robberson-Process Analyst (Qwest), Curt Anderson- IT Systems Analyst (Qwest), Diane Burt-Systems Analyst (AT&T), Donna Osborne-Miller - Carrier Relations Manager (AT&T), Dusti Bastian-Process Analyst (Qwest), Ellen McArthur-Process Analyst (Qwest), Hank Martinez- IT Systems Analyst (Qwest), James McCluskey-ILEC Manager (Accenture), John Daugherty-Product Management (AT&T), John Gallegos- IT Manager (Qwest), Kathy Miller-Process Manager (Qwest), Kim Isaacs-ILEC Relations Process Analyst (Eschelon), Kyle Kirves- IT Analyst (Qwest), Linda Miles- Process Manager (Qwest), Lori Langston-Process Manager (Qwest), Marie Acceno-Systems Analyst (AT&T), Nancy Denny- IT Analyst (Qwest), Nicole James- IT Analyst (Qwest), Pat Bratetic- Process Manager (Qwest), Phyllis Burt-Systems Analyst (AT&T), Randy Owen- IT Manager (Qwest), Shon Higer-Process Analyst (Qwest), Shonna Pasionek- IT Analyst (Qwest), Stephanie Prull- EDI Business Analyst (Eschelon), Susie Wells-Product/Process Analyst (Qwest)

Meeting Facilitator: Nancy Denny (Qwest)

Purpose: High-level walk-through of the CRs that are committed in the IMA 15.0 Release.

Supporting Documents: Qwest Notification: SYST.02.13.04.F.01366.IMAEDI15.0Cand&DocWkth Documentation containing 15.0 Candidate Summaries: February 17, 2004, attached to notification CRs can be found in the Qwest Wholesale Change Request Interactive Report located at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html

Functional Overview: This enhancement will allow the CLEC to provide end state hunting information for Conversions/ Migrations as Specified. If hunting is desired on the converted account, the CLEC will populate the HTQTY field on the LSR with a quantity greater than zero and provide hunting information on the HGI form. On the HGI form, the only HA allowed will be N = New. If an HGI form is not provided, Qwest will remove any existing hunting from the account. If an HGI form is provided, Qwest will provision hunting on the converted account as specified on the HGI form. If no HGI form is provided, hunting USOCs and FIDs will be prohibited in FEATURE and FEATURE DETAIL on the Product Specific Form. This enhancement will not affect hunting functionality in previous versions of IMA. In addition, current hunting functionality for ACT = C, N or T will remain unchanged.

Form Impacts: Hunt Group Information (HGI) Resale (RS) Centrex Resale (CRS) Port Service (PS) - FEATURE/FEATURE DETAIL fields. LSR - HTQTY field

Products:

Functionality will be available for ACT= V or Z for: Resale POTS Resale BRI ISDN Centrex 21 PBX Analog Line Side Port Digital Line Side Port Designed Trunk Resale Qwest DSL UNE POTS (P or STAR) UNE-P ISDN BRI UNE Centrex (P or STAR) UNE-P PBX Designed Trunk

Functionality will be available for ACT = V only for: Centrex Plus/Centron UNE Centrex 21 (P or STAR)

Activities: Activity Type = V and Z

Meeting Discussion: Susie Wells/Qwest: provided the overview based on the document circulated with the meeting agenda.

Stephanie Prull/Eschelon: For ACT = W, hunting will remain even though the HGI not sent? Susie Wells/Qwest: That is correct. (John Gallegos/Qwest confirmed).

- October 16, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kit Thomte/Qwest noted that the CR Title has been revised for the 10th ranked CR on the list. There were no questions or comments.

September 18, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the CR. Regina Mosley/AT&T stated that this CR was issued to be in synch with OBF standards. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this was all shared on the Clarification Call. There were no additional comments or questions. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that this CR has been requested to be a Late Adder into the IMA 15.0 Prioritization. Peggy stated that it might be appropriate to do the vote at this time instead of waiting until the end of the CMP Meeting. There was no dissent for taking the vote. Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest reviewed the following: A vote of ‘Yes’ will indicate that SCR081803-01 is to be included in the IMA 15.0 Prioritization, utilizing the Late Adder Process. A vote of ‘No’ will indicate that SCR081803-01 will NOT be included in the IMA 15.0 Prioritization as a Late Adder request. There were no questions associated with the Yes and No vote. Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest stated that Quorum was achieved with 7 Carriers. Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest stated that emailed ‘Yes’ votes have been received from AT&T and from Qwest. Bonnie Johnson stated that Eschelon votes ‘Yes’. Monica Avila stated that VarTec votes ‘Yes’. Liz Balvin stated that MCI votes ‘Yes’. Ian Coleman stated that Allegiance ‘Abstains’ from the vote. Stephanie Prull stated that McLeodUSA votes ‘Yes’. Jennifer Arnold stated that USLink votes ‘Yes’. John Berard stated that Covad votes ‘Yes’. Alan Flanigan stated that Time Warner ‘Abstains’ from the vote. Nancy Sanders stated that Comcast votes ‘Yes’. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that based on the results of the vote, SCR081803-01 was granted by a vote of 9 ‘Yes’ votes, 0 ‘No’ votes, and 2 ‘Abstain’ votes. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if this effort could include Resale. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest would review for a possible revision to the LOE. Connie stated that if the LOE can be determined in time for the ranking, it would be included in the Notification. Connie stated that if Qwest could not have the revised LOE in time for the Notification that the effort would be for UNE-P only.

-- September 8, 2003 Email Received From Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T: May I please change my mind about the vote. I would like to ask that a vote to allow this cr as an exception be voted on the this month's systems forum. I had stated in my exception request that we did not want it to take place, but we do. If I need to send this "change of heart" would you like me to send another exception to cmpcr......? Thank you, Donna

September 4, 2003 Email Received From Donna Osborne-Miile/AT&T: AT&T would like to request an exception as a late adder to IMA 15.0 SCR 081803-01 Recapping of hunting USOCs After much consternation and discussion on the hunting process and the eventual agreed- upon matrix creation and distribution, we seek changes and additions to the hunting process as it relates to end state and recapping of USOCs. We seek consideration as a late adder exception to the latest IMA prioritization. In addition AT&T wishes to have the vote NOT taken at the next systems CMP meeting. We believe the community may need time to resonate on the change and to re-examine the results of IMA 15.0 prioritization. If there are any question or concerns on this request please contact: Donna Osborne-Miller at 303.465.4134 Thank you, Donna

-- September 2, 2003 Email Received From Regina Mosley/AT&T: Donna/Peggy, Hope it's not too late to make the revisions to the CR......see below...Regina Please correct wording to read: Description of Change: AT&T does not want to recap any existing hunting USOCs the customer has on their account. Whatever the customer wants as their "end state" hunting arrangement (whether the USOC is existing or not), we would populate using HA=N. This includes the hunting USOCs and the lines hunting is to be applied to. Also, if Hunting exists on the Qwest retail CSR, but is NOT specified on the LSR, it should be deleted when the customer is migrated over. Qwest has also suggested an additional value of HA = BLANK in which the Hunting form would not need to be sent. The "BLANK" would indicate that the customer is being migrated and no hunting is being requested. Expected Deliverable: To not have to recap existing hunting USOCs and to utilize HA=N to be inclusive of the end state of the customers account.

August 29, 2003 Email sent to Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T: Subject: SCR081803-01 Late Adder ?? Hi Donna -- In regard to your submitted CMP CR, SCR081803-01. I have attached the revised CR for your review. Please advise if corrections need to be made. I revised the CR description, Interface, and Impacted Products. A question for you - Have you submitted your exception requests? One asking to invoke the late adder process and a separate request asking that the vote be held outside of the monthly CMP meeting? If you have, can you please resend them to CMPCR@qwest.com with a copy to me? I apologize but I am not finding them. I will start the late adder process as soon as we have the exception CRs. Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CRPM -- Systems Peggy.Esquibel-Reed@qwest.com

- August 26, 2003 Email Received From Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T: Hello Peggy, As agreed on the clarification call, I owe you a correction in wording in the description of change to SCR081803-01: Please correct wording to read: Description of Change: AT&T does not want to recap any existing hunting USOCs the customer has on their account. Whatever the customer wants as their hunting arrangement, we would populate. This includes the hunting USOCs and the lines hunting is to be applied to. IMA release 13.0 introduces new hunt values that are more specific that what is in IMA 12.0. AT&T would like to utilize HA= N to include "end state" as well. Expected Deliverable: To not have to recap existing hunting USOCs and to utilize HA=N to be inclusive of the end state of the customers account.

- Clarification Meeting - August 22, 2003: ATTENDEES: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T, Regina Mosley/AT&T, Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest, Curt Anderson/Qwest, Mallory Paxton/Qwest, Shon Higer/Qwest REVIEW REQUESTED DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest reviewed the CR description: AT&T does not want to recap any existing hunting USOCs the customer has on their account. Whatever the customer wants as their hunting arrangement, we would populate HA= (value determined by team)and provide the hunting USOCs and the lines hunting is to be applied to. IMA 13.0 will introduce new hunt values that are more specifice than what was in IMA 12.0 . AT&T woiuld like to add another hunting value: perhaps that of A, for example. To illistrate, associated rules for A would look something like this: A= to show end state of the account (this would be used for E (to convert hunting with no change) and C (to change hunt sequence) The E and the C values would not br replaced with the end state as the CLECs would be given a choice to use A versus E or C. Expected Deliverable: As stated and requested in the description of change, adoption of HA=A to the hunting rules. CONFIRM INTERFACES: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the interface noted is IMA EDI. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that it should be IMA Common, in the interest of the CLEC Community. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest agreed to revise the interface to reflect IMA Common. CONFIRM PRODUCTS: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the noted product is UNE-P. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that in the interest of the CLECs, it is for all products. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest agreed to revise the impacted products to All UNE-P. DISCUSSION: Regina Mosley/AT&T requested to change the CR Description to ask for a new value and to use an existing value of 'N' to be end-state, as well as for new. Mallory Paxton/Qwest stated that she thought that would be better. Curt Anderson/Qwest stated that he agreed with Mallory and that it is OBF compliant to use 'N' for end-state. Mallory Paxton/Qwest stated that then there would be 2 options for migration or conversion, An 'N' would be for end-state. A blank would result in the removal of all hunting. Mallory noted that an 'N' would be used to keep, add, or change hunting; that it would be treated like a request for new service. Mallory stated that if the Hunting Form is not filled out, the CLEC would not get hunting. Mallory Paxton/Qwest stated that in other words, a blank or no hunting form would result in no hunting. N would be the only valid value for HA. Regina Mosley/AT&T asked if hunting exists on the Qwest CSR and is not specified on the LSR, how would the other USOCs get deleted, does not want to recap anything. Mallory Paxton/Qwest stated that with conversion as specified, if the USOCs are left off, they don't get the feature. Shon Higer/Qwest stated that if hunting is not specified, it would be removed and would not get converted. Regina Mosley/AT&T stated that she does want hunting to work the same way, if it is not specified, they are not to get hunting. Shon Higer/Qwest stated that he understands the request. Donna Osborne-Miller/Qwest stated that she would like this to be a late adder. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest advised AT&T that they will need to submit an exception request asking to invoke the late adder process and needs to submit an exception request asking that the vote be held outside of the CMP Meeting. There were no other questions or comments.

- August 21, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion (Attachment F - Walk-on Requests): Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the CR description. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked Regina Mosley (AT&T) if this request should also include blocking. Regina Mosley/AT&T stated that she was still checking with Peter Cole (AT&T) and noted that 14.0 does include blocking for end state. Regina stated that this CR is for the 15.0 vote. Kim Isaacs/Eschelon stated that end state for Listings is via recapping in LML. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that was also in 14.0. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if this candidate made the cut-off date for 15.0. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it did not make the cut-off date to be included in the 15.0 vote. There were no additional questions.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR081803-01 Seeking Ability To Migrate UNE-P Customer As End-State

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR081803-01). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held August 22, 2003) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1900 to 2400 hours for this IMA Change Request, and an impact to SATE of 40 to 60 hours.

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 currently an eligible candidate for the IMA 16.0 prioritization. At the request of AT&T, there will be a vote conducted at the September Systems CMP Meeting seeking to allow this candidate as a Late Adder into the IMA 15.0 Prioritization.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR092503-03 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

For AT&T to be able to use it’s RSID in SATE testing.

Status History

Project Meetings

-- October 7, 2003 Email Sent to AT&T: Donna, In the SATE enviroment, there is no other field but the CCNA field that uniquely identifies one customer from another. Let me know if you have additional questions. Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

-- October 7, 2003 Email to AT&T: Donna, I will forward your question to John and Woldey. Thanks, Peggy

October 7, 2003 Email Received from AT&T: Hi Peggy, Is it too late for Qwest to consider this: is there another field that IT could look at in the SATE environment that uniquely identifies the CCNA? We were hoping that is a key field in which logic could be built to support this suggestion? Can you please take back to John and Woldey? Thank you, Donna

- October 7, 2003 Email Sent to AT&T: Hello Donna, Attached is a current revised report of your submitted CMP CR, SCR092503-03 Request to Change CCNA (RSID) in SATE Test Environment. The revision contains the Qwest Response to your request. Due to the denial response, there will not be a vote at the October CMP Meeting for this CR to be considered as a Late Adder into the most recent SATE Prioritization. I'm sorry this could not be better news. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

- 10/30/03 Clarification Call

ATTENDEES Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, Regina Mosley - AT&T, Phyllis Burt - AT&T, Woldey Assefa - Qwest, Shonna Pasionek - Qwest, John Gallegos - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

REVIEW DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE Lynn Stecklein - Qwest reviewed the description of the CR. AT&T is requesting Qwest to Change CCNA (RSID) in SATE Test Environment. SATE is coded with predefined SATE specific RSIDS. With this limitation AT&T is forced to use what has been designed in logic. This restriction forces AT&T to do code changes while testing. AT&T would like to use its RSID in production, in the SATE test environment.

CONFIRM AREAS & PRODUCTS IMPACTED The interface impacted is SATE for all products.

IDENTIFY/CONFIRM CLEC'S EXPECTATION Expected Deliverable: For AT&T to be able to use it’s RSID in SATE testing.

DISCUSSION Woldey Assefa - Qwest asked AT&T to describe the problem they were having with the RSID for SATE. Regina Mosely - AT&T stated that the problem is that when they begin testing they are using the production RSID, then they have to change to R03, and finally have to change back to T02. Woldley asked if the field was a drop down and AT&T said no, it is coded. Woldley said that the environment is very data driven and used the example of AT&T with the RSID of T02 and Woldey with the RSID of W02. The 'CC' field on the account is tracked by the last two digits of the RSID. In this example, the system only tracks the '02' portion of the RSID and that is where the problem is. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked if CLEC has its own RSID and Woldley said yes. Phyllis Burt - AT&T asked why SATE could not recognize the three character RSID. Woldley stated that to have SATE recognize the three character RSID would require a full re-architecture of SATE. Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T asked Woldley to explain why recognizing the three characters would require a full re-architecture. Woldley explained that all the logic is driven by that code. John Gallegos - Qwest stated that this effort would be extremely large and that we are trying to look at other alternatives. Donna Osborne-Miller asked if Phyllis or Regina had any ideas of an alternative. They could not think of any at this time. Donna said that if they thought of an alternative, they would contact Qwest. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that Eschelon is in full support of this CR.

ESTABLISH ACTION PLAN AT&T will present this CR at the October CMP meeting as a 'late adder'

September 29, 2003 Email Received from AT&T: Hello Peggy, AT&T would like to submit SCR092503-03 as a late adder to SATE prioritization pertaining to IMA 15.0 Thank you, Donna Osborne-Miller

- September 29, 2003 Email to Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T: Donna, Would you please provide me with your availability for the Clarification Meeting for your CMP CR of SCR092503-03. Please provides me with several options through October 6th. Thanks much. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems 303.896.6332

-- September 18, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that her business partner has a business need for SATE and asked if she should wait until 15.0 SATE Prioritization has completed. Donna stated that the RSID of R03, in SATE, needs to be the same as production. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that would be the right approach. Jim Maher/Qwest stated that it would need to be requested as a Late Adder since prioritization process starts today. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that if SATE does not mirror production, that aspect should be researched. Woldey Assefa/Qwest stated that is the nature of how SATE works, that it has a different RSID. Liz Balvin/MCI stated okay. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she would submit a CR.

CenturyLink Response

Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T

CC: Lynn Notarianni Connie Winston Sue Stott Beth Foster Christy Turton Kit Thomte

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number SCR092503-03 dated 09/25/03, titled: Request to Change CCNA (RSID) in SATE Test Environment.

CLEC CR Description as written by AT&T: "SATE is coded with predefined SATE specific RSIDs. With this limitation AT&T is forced to use what has been designed in logic. This restriction forces us to do code changes while testing. AT&T would like to use its RSID in production, in the SATE test environment Expected Deliverable: For AT&T to be able to use it’s RSID in SATE testing."

Qwest Response: Qwest has completed an analysis for CR SCR092503-03. The EDI SATE environment has been specifically architected and designed around the CCNA’s of R01 thru R99 in order to control environmental and data variables such as number of users, system performance, data integrity rules, simplicity of customer use, security of test transactions, parity between CLECs, proper documentation, thorough system testing, and achievement of expected results to the Customer. The implementation of production CCNA’s into the SATE environment equates to a significant increase in the scope of the current SATE environment, including potential test clients, transaction support, system testing, documentation, infrastructure, and maintenance. The proposed change would have significant impacts requiring the re-architecture of the SATE system, and a significant system scope increase requiring the purchase of additional hardware and software. The initial cost of implementing the SATE system rework, the required redesign of the multiple systems feeding into SATE, and on-going maintenance costs, makes this request economically not feasible.

Qwest is denying your request for CR SCR092503-03, Request to Change CCNA (RSID) in SATE Test Environment based on the economically infeasibility of implementing the 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