Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC101804-1CM Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: Updated sections of CMP document to allow for clarification of Change Management process for Billing and Repair prioritization.

Project Meetings

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR was effective on 2/21/05 and stated that this CR can be closed.

Liz Balvin - Covad asked if there was a schedule for the billing and repair prioritization CRs.

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that there are no new billing or repair CRs to prioritize and that we will be discussing targeted implementation dates on existing CRs later in the meeting.

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said that Eschelon did submit a CEMR CR

3/16/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this request was effective on February 21st and will move to CLEC Test

2/16/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR is still on target for February 21st and will remain in Development until the March Meeting.

1/19/05 CMP Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that a notification was sent on January 6, 2005 and that the targeted implementation date is February 21, 2005. Jill said that this CR will remain in Development status.

12/15/04 CMP Product/Process Meetings

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that Qwest is proposing a language change to the CMP Document to provide clarification of the prioritization process for Billing and Repair system functionality. Lynn said that the proposed changes were reviewed and approved by the CLEC Community during two ad hoc meetings held November 11th and November 18th. Lynn stated that the December 6 notification did include the most current version of the redline document with the proposed changes. Lynn said that she also posted the current version of the document to the Wholesale Website. Lynn stated that Quorum required for this vote was 5 and has been achieved. Lynn reviewed what ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ votes will mean for PC1101804-1CM.

A vote of ‘Yes’ will indicate a desire to incorporate the proposed modifications as stated in PC101804-1CM.

A vote of ‘No’ will indicate a preference to not incorporate the proposed modification in PC101804-1CM

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest asked if there were any questions regarding the vote. There were no questions brought forward.

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest conducted the vote and the results are as follows:

Qwest – Yes SBC – Abstain Covad – Yes AT&T – Yes Eschelon – Yes Integra – Yes TDS Metrocom – Yes VCI Company – Yes MCI – Yes Time Warner – Yes Vartec – Yes ELI – Yes

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the vote was unanimous and that this CR was granted by a vote of 11 ‘Yes’ votes, 0 ‘No’ votes and 1 ‘Abstain’ vote.

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the vote disposition notice would be sent no later than close of business on December 22nd.

November 17, 2004

Jill Martain/Qwest advised that this is the CR that we issued to go over the wording in the CMP document regarding Billing and Repair prioritization. Jill advised that we held an ad hoc and will have other meetings. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest said that the new redline version of the document went out today for the meeting tomorrow. (Insert comment from Eschelon) Susan said Liz and Bonnie committed to providing new language before Qwest did the next red line. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon advised that Liz and Bonnie would not be sending language and believes that section should be omitted as Liz suggested on the call (end comment). This CR will move to Presented Status.

November 18, 2004

Adhoc Meeting PC101804-1CM Modifcations to Billing and Repair Prioritization

Attendees: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Steph Prull/Eschelon, Kathy Stichter/Eschelon, Roslyn Davis/MCI, Liz Balvin/Covad, Susan Lorence/Qwest, Jill Martain/Qwest, Lynn Stecklein/Qwest

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the purpose of this call is continue reviewing the proposed redline changes to the CMP Document.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that the minutes from the last adhoc call held on 11/11/04 were posted to the project meeting minute section of PC101804-1CM.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that she added clarity to section 5.1.4 around implementation dates.

Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she liked the clarity in section 5.1.4. Liz said that the sentence that states: “If prioritization is necessary needs to be removed or defined.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that this sentence was added for situations if all CRs could be accommodated in 1 release. Susan asked if the CLECs would want to go through the effort of prioritization if all CRs could be done in the specified timeframes or if, for example, there was only 1 CR.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that we need to discuss when prioritization is necessary or remove the language.

Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she felt we still needed to go through the prioritization process and that prioritization be the standard. She said that provisions are in place and can be changed if necessary.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that she was okay with removing the language.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that this issue was brought to the Oversight Committee to begin with because we had a misunderstanding about when prioritization was to take place. Bonnie said that prioritization needs to be implemented so that there are no misunderstandings.

Susan Lorence/Qwest reviewed the change in Section 5.1.4 associated with how the term of Release is used. Susan and wanted to clarify billing implementation and packaging. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon if the term ‘implementation’ mentioned in other areas in the document relate to IMA and CEMR.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said yes.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that there is no change to Section 5.2.2, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5. Susan said that in Section 8.0, we retracted the initially proposed change. Susan recapped what it now states: that Qwest standard operating practice is to implement three major releases and three point releases (for IMA only) within a calendar year. Susan said that the proposed language reads: Qwest standard operating practice will be to implement at least two Major Releases and two Point releases (for IMA only) within a calendar year.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that Liz Balvin (Covad) made it clear earlier that we want to propose a compromise. Bonnie asked if Qwest would consider the following: ‘Qwest will implement at least 2 major releases and 2 point releases within a calendar year and nor more than 4’.

Jill Martain/Qwest said that we would need to get concurrence on that proposal.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that if Qwest cannot get concurrence then leave the sentence as is with 3.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that in Section 8, paragragh 2 that states: ‘At a Monthly CMP Systems Meeting in the fourth quarter of each year Qwest will communicate to the CLECs the Major Release schedule and hourly capacity of each release for the next calendar year’, ‘IMA’ was removed.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if by removing ‘IMA’ does that mean you will be incorporating billing and CEMR.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said yes.

Steph Prull/Eschelon asked if it should say Release or Schedules.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that a Major Release is defined as coding impacts to CLECs.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that we need to clean up the language and said that some CEMR changes releases don’t require coding changes.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that we may not want to tamper with that language.

Liz Balvin/Covad stated that Qwest may not know if something impacts the CLECs from a billing perspective. Liz said that Qwest defines Major Release schedules and documentation gets published within the normal timelines. Liz stated that the CLECs can determine if there are coding impacts.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated Qwest will communicate schedules and capacity at the end of the year. Susan said that Major and Point releases are defined and clear in the documentation.

Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she is okay with removing IMA.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that in Section 8.1.1, 8.1.2 through 8.1.5 the release production date was deleted and replaced with implementation. Susan said that the previously proposed language in Section 10.0 was removed. Susan stated that we need to make clear the requirements of Qwest to be in parity with retail and what needs to be implemented 2 times per year. Susan said that we removed the language based on the CLECs comments and feedback and that those aspects of changes will not be prioritized just as today.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that is how she understood it.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that we also removed the changes based on the CLECs feedback.

Steph Prull/Eschelon agreed and said that it is spelled our in other areas.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that is what they asked for.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that she will be sending out the updated redline and that it will be ready to present for acceptance and approval.

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest said that the next step is the vote to accept or reject the changes in the December Meeting.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that the only question is how many releases per year.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that we took an action item and will update the language accordingly.

Jill Martain/Qwest said that there will be no more adhoc meetings scheduled unless the CLECs have questions after reviewing the updated redline.

There were no other questions or comments.

PC101804-1CM Modifications to Billing and Repair Change Management Prioritization Process November 11, 2004

Attendees: Liz Balvin Covad, Lynn Chellis ELI, Roslyn Davis MCI, Sharon Van Meter AT&T, Bonnie Johnson Eschelon, Kathy Stichter Eschelon, Steph Prull – Eschelon, Kim Isaacs Eschelon, Susie Bliss Qwest, Susan Lorence Qwest, Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest, Lynn Stecklein –Qwest

Lynn Stecklein /Qwest stated that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss PC101804-1CM (Modifications to Billing and Repair Change Management Prioritization Process) originated by Qwest.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that the CMP Document was reviewed to identify what needed to change and that from that review several assumptions were identified. Susan said that a key change and the 1st assumption for prioritization for Billing CRs for 2005 is that a release may have multiple implementation dates.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that it appears now that there will only be 2 prioritizations per year and that there will be scattered implementation dates rather than one release date. Bonnie said that all implementation dates need to occur prior to the next release.

Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she understood that prioritization would occur twice a year for any CR that impacts the 7 billing output files.

Susan Lorence / Qwest agreed.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that each output file will have it’s own release schedule.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the CMP Document needs to be clear. Bonnie said that it should clearly state that not all CRs will be implemented in prioritized order and that all CRs would be implemented prior to the next release.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that we would address anything that was not clear when we walk through the redline changes. Susan said that Qwest would provide a package for Release 1 with the CRs identified for that release. Susan said that the CRs for Release 1 would be implemented as part of Release 1, with different implementation dates and prior to Release 2.

Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she felt we were all saying the same thing. Liz said that Qwest sees all output files as one Release and that each CLEC may not be impacted with each file. Liz said that documentation needs to be clear so that the CLECs know whether they are impacted or not.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that one Release per output file may not be true because a CR could impact multiple files. Susan said that when we package a Release, Qwest will identify which CRs impact which output files.

Susan Lorence/Qwest reviewed the following Assumptions:

Assumption #2 - Qwest will continue to provide the CLECs with an estimate of release capacity at the end of the year for the next calendar year.

Assumption #3 - Qwest will conduct prioritizations for the IMA, Billing Output and Repair CRs independently of each other; each having separate spreadsheets for prioritization and ranking.

Assumptions #4 The guidelines and cut off dates for CR submission will follow the same guidelines as currently established.

Assumptions #5 Current wording in the CMP Document allows Qwest to remain flexible as to when the prioritization of the releases will occur. The view for Billing and Repair releases is that prioritization will occur twice a year, April and December. However, specific wording will not be added to the CMP Document to allow continued flexibility.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest was committing to prioritize two times a year.

Susan Lorence/Qwest that the current documentation for IMA does not state specific months.

Sharon Van Meter/AT&T said that what she heard is that Qwest will prioritize two times a year but does not want to specify the months in the Document.

Susan Lorence/Qwest agreed.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that language was removed from Section 8.0 and that Covad does not want it removed. (See Redline Document)

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon was ok with changing the language from three to two major releases, but they do not want the language removed. Bonnie said that Eschelon would not vote yes if the language is removed.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that Qwest will make a note of Covad’s and Eschelon’s concerns. Susan said that we may not want to include this as part of the CR and look at this globally.

Assumption #6 Once prioritization occurs, Qwest will use current CMP Guidelines to present packaging options for billing that address the prioritized candidates. Packaging for Billing CRs for a given release will likely spread the top ranked CRs across several designated months – based on Qwest IT resource availability.

Assumptions #7 Qwest will follow the documented Release notice/technical specification timelines just as today. In the case of a specific Billing release, the release may include more than one occurrence of Release notifications that will adhere to the documented timelines and standards.

Assumptions #8 Qwest considers Billing CRs to change requests that are asking for changes to the output files that contain billing information: DUF, ASCII, Paper, EDI, BOS BDT, Diskette (IABS only), Internet downloadable files.

Assumptions #9 Repair CRs are those that are requesting changes to the CEMR GUI and MEDIAAC interface.

Assumption #10 Qwest will exclude from the prioritization, ranking and commitment process any enhancements to any systems that are being implemented for the following reasons: Non-discrimination obligations Industry Guideline CRs associated with OBF BOS Specific changes.

Steph Prull/Eschelon asked if Retail requests are those that Qwest needs to provide to the CLECs for parity but that request would not impact the hours.

Susan Lorence/Qwest agreed.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that the process already exists and should not be in the Document because of legal interpretation.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that Industry Guidelines CRs would not come out of the hours.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that Covad wants the language removed. Liz said that this was never included before and is out of scope.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that the intent was to do a little clean up of the language and to be clear as to what is or is not prioritized.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that the language in 10.0 and 10.2.2 has different language for Industry Guideline changes.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that the intent of 10.2.2 is to support the 10.0 bulleted item.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that they want the language removed because OBF requests have their own release schedules and is outside of CMP.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that Eschelon also wants the language removed.

Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that Industry Guidelines are discussed in CMP.

Liz Balvin/Covad agreed and that timelines are published. Liz said that Industry Guidelines support more of the access products and are more of an Industry imposed release.

Susie Bliss/Qwest said that quite a few CLECs upgrade to these guidelines and is concerned that it won’t be documented. Susie said that some CLECs expect these enhancements twice a year. Susie asked if the CLECs were looking to have it posted to the OSS calendar and call it good.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that it is out of the scope of prioritization and said she did not understand the coordination in the output files because the product is local.

Susie Bliss/Qwest cited UNE-P and UBL products are impacted.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that the Industry Standards OBF BOS go through enhancements and that Qwest extracts data from the release and provides the billing the way the CLECs requested for UNE-P and UBL. Liz said that this would not be part of the hours.

Susie Bliss/Qwest said that she thought we were saying the same thing and that the CLECs expect upgrades at specified timeframes.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that an action item needs to be opened. Liz said that local product outputs should not be part of billing releases. Liz said that those releases are to accommodate access users and local products and that Qwest extracts data to provide output file data.

ACTION ITEM: Verify if OBF releases are separate than Releases provided for CLEC output of data coming from that system.

Assumptions #11Qwest will continue to submit and track these changes via system CRs so CLECs will have visibility to these changes.

Assumptions #12 There should be no changes to document wording to consider the billing releases as point releases.

Assumptions #13 There are several instances where the reference to Release must be changed to implementation to allow for multiple implementation dates for one prioritized release.

Steph Prull/Eschelon said that the concept of Release vs. Implementation needs to be clarified. Steph said that the notification timelines would not work with Implementation dates and may be confusing.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that we need to keep the term Release for IMA.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that we did struggle with this idea and asked if the CLECs had other ideas to make it clearer.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that it needs to be spelled out in Section 5 of the CMP Document. Bonnie said that the language needs to define how billing and repair prioritization will take place and that we need to document that Release applies to IMA prioritization.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that IMA and CEMR have release schedules and that billing will have implementation dates.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that they prefer the term release for CEMR and MEDIAAC.

Steph Prull/Eschelon stated that CEMR has always had releases.

Liz Balvin/Covad said that CEMR and MEDIAAC only impact CLECs and that billing is impacting to others.

ACTION ITEM: Qwest will check with IT and will look at changing the language in Section 5.0 accordingly.

Susan Lorence/Qwest summarized the discussion as follows: • Review the language in Section 5.0 • Determine the approach on Release vs. Implementation • Section 8.0 change the language from four to two. Note: Covad and Eschelon do not agree that the language should not be changed but will consider changing the language from three to two. • 10.0 – Covad does not want and Qwest needs to clarify what is excluded – Action Item created to determine if release calendar impacts output files provided to CLECs. The answer will determine if the language stays. The output files for CLECs need to be cared for if IG’s impact local products.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that the the bullet in Section 10.0 needs to be re-worded. Bonnie said that Qwest is legally obligated to implement for parity reasons. Bonnie said that Eschelon will not vote for anything that has the term ‘251’ in it.

Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that the intent is to make the language more clear.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the current process is via a CR.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said yes.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon and Liz Balvin/Covad will review and come up with ideas as to what the language should look like.

Susan Lorence/Qwest said that Qwest would welcome any suggestions associated with the language changes. Susan said that the next meeting is scheduled on 11/18/04 at 10:30 am and asked if any proposed changes could be sent to Qwest no later than 11/16/04.