Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC110205-3CM Detail

Description Of Change

- If Qwest determines a CLEC meeting is needed to further discuss the escalation, and upon agreement by the originating CLEC, Qwest will also invite the CLECs that chose to participate in the escalation. The meeting will not require 5 day advance notification due to the escalation time constraints.

- Qwest will respond to the originating CLEC and copy the participating CLECs, with a binding position e-mail including supporting rationale as soon as practicable, but no later than:

- For escalated CRs, seven (7) calendar days after sending the acknowledgment e-mail,.

- For all other escalations, fourteen (14) calendar days after sending the acknowledgment e-mail.

Expected Deliverable:

December 2005. Present CR at the November CMP meeting. Vote at the December CMP meeting

Project Meetings

-- December 14, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that there is a vote scheduled for today. Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest stated that the CR was presented in the November CMP Meeting and stated that this CR is asking for changes to the current escalation process, which is in section 14.2 of the CMP document. The changes are for Qwest to invite the CLECs who have joined an escalation to calls to clarify the escalation, and also for Qwest to copy the participating CLECs with the response to the escalation. Peggy noted that the Quorum is 9 and noted that it was achieved. Peggy then stated that A vote of ‘Yes’ would indicate a preference that if Qwest determines that a CLEC meeting is needed to further discuss the escalation, and upon agreement by the originating CLEC, Qwest will also invite the CLECs that chose to participate in the escalation, and that Qwest will respond to the originating CLEC and copy the participating CLECs, with the binding position via e-mail. A vote of ‘No’ would indicate a preference that the proposed language changes not be made and that the Escalation process and language will remain as it currently exists in Section 14.2 of the Qwest Wholesale Change Management process Document. Peggy noted that the vote requires unanimous agreement in order for the change to occur. Peggy then asked if there were any questions regarding the vote. There were none. The vote was then conducted: Sharon Van Meter/AT&T voted Yes Dianne Friend/Time Warner voted Yes Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon voted Yes Sue Wright/XO voted Yes Lynn Hankins/Covad voted Yes Laurie Fredricksen/Integra voted Yes Tom Hyde/Cbeyond voted Yes Nancy Sanders/Comcast voted Yes (Peggy Esquibel Reed asked to confirm that Comcast’s vote is yes. Nancy confirmed Comcast’s vote is Yes. Qwest emailed a vote of Yes Sprint emailed a vote of Yes Velocity emailed an Abstain Peggy Esquibel Reed/Qwest stated that the result of the vote is that the requested change was granted by a vote of 10 Yes votes, 1 Abstain, and 0 No votes. Peggy then noted that the vote disposition would be sent.

-- November 30, 2005 Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes: ATTENDEES: Rosalin Davis-MCI, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Nancy Thompson-Wisor, Jeff Sonnier-Sprint, Joyce Bilow-McLeod, Colette Davis-Covad, Jen Arnold-TDS, Nancy Sanders-Comcast, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Cynthia Guy-SBC, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest, Cindy Harlan-Qwest DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that PC110205-3CM for the proposed language changes to Section 14.2 of the CMP Document was presented in the November CMP Meeting. Peggy stated that a CLEC requested that additional language be added that would state that the CLEC could request a meeting for clarification on an escalation. Peggy said that at the November CMP Meeting Qwest agreed to look into the suggestion and that is the purpose of the ad hoc meeting. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the CR was looked at along with the intent of what she wanted to originally accomplish and looked at the suggested addition to the language. Jill stated that she was not comfortable with the suggested change because by the time that the escalation comes into Qwest, Qwest has 7-days to respond to the escalation. Jill stated that she has done some research and found only one instance where a meeting for clarification of the escalation was held. Jill stated that her hope is that if a CLEC wanted discussion, that the other available avenues be used for that discussion. Jill said that an ad hoc could be requested and oversight is also an option. Jill stated that adding the suggested additional language change would really shorten the timeframe for Qwest to provide the binding response to the escalation, back to the customer. Jill then asked if there was any objection to leaving the Qwest proposed language changes as is, in the CR and then asked if there were any other ideas. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that she was not comfortable leaving as is in the original proposal but noted that she did understand Qwest’s concern. Kim then stated that Qwest needs to be comfortable that Qwest has enough time to provide the response to the escalation. Jill Martain-Qwest asked that in order to understand, why the CLECs would want a meeting after the escalation has been submitted instead of before the escalation was initiated. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon said that when a CLEC joins an escalation and if there is confusion or if they felt that clarity was needed in regard to the escalation. Kim stated that then they might want discussion in a meeting. Kim also stated that the CLECs may want to communicate their feelings about the escalation. Kim stated that the discussion could assist with the Qwest’s response to the escalation. Kim then noted that some issues are complex enough that a discussion could be warranted prior to the response being determined. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the response is based on the escalation and is not based on feedback. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that was not her interpretation. Jen Arnold-TDS stated that she thought that the process currently called for other CLECs to join in on an escalation. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that CLECs can join an escalation but are joining the same concern that was escalated. Jill stated that if the concern is different, then a different escalation would need to be initiated. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that other CLECs join based on the given escalation and other CLECs comments may show different views. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that comments are not received from joining CLECs; they just join in on the escalation. Cindy Harlan-Qwest stated that Jill’s intent was that she wants the CLECs to have discussion, as a Community, prior to submitting an escalation. Cindy stated that the other avenues should be exhausted prior to the submission of an escalation. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon noted that there is discussion at CMP and asked that if the CLECs feel that more discussion is needed if they should take it to oversight before they submit an escalation. Cindy Harlan-Qwest stated that an ad hoc meeting could be requested and Qwest would schedule the meeting in order to have some discussion. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that there are many options and opportunities to have meetings before something is escalated. Jill stated that she agrees that there is currently a gap that when a CLEC joins an escalation they are not currently included in the response and that is what she wanted to care for with the CR. Cindy Harlan-Qwest stated that she believes that having the CLECs request a meeting confuses the escalation process because those situations are cared for in other areas of the CMP document. Jeff Sonnier-Sprint stated that if there is an escalation and he wants to join, he will and noted that if his issues are different he will submit a separate escalation. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that makes sense and then the different issue could be addressed as well. Cindy Harlan-Qwest stated that another option for discussion is the forum that the CLECs conduct on the Monday before the monthly CMP meeting. Cindy stated that the concerns could be discussed there before an escalation is submitted. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon thanked Qwest for the explanation in understanding that there are other options available to the CLECs. Kim then stated that she was in agreement to leave the language changes as originally proposed. Jill Martain-Qwest asked if all were okay with that as well. Jeff Sonnier-Sprint responded yes. Colette Davis-Covad said yes. Joyce Bilow-McLeod said yes. Jill Martain-Qwest asked if there were any objections. There were no objections brought forward. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the original proposed language changes would remain as is in the CR. Jill then stated that the vote for the proposed language changes would be conducted in the December 14th CMP Meeting. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the Vote Notification would be sent no later than December 7th, for the vote on December 14th. Jill Martain-Qwest thanked all for their participation and the call was concluded.

-- November 16, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Cindy Harlan/Qwest advised that based on the discussion in last months CMP meeting Qwest issued this CR to update the CMP document Escalation section 14.2. Cindy reviewed the changes to the document and the language update. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if we could add ‘the CLEC’ to the following sentence: ‘If Qwest (or the CLEC) determines a meeting is needed to further discuss the escalation...’ Cindy Harlan/Qwest asked if Bonnie meant the ‘originating CLEC’ as there are other processes to follow if the CLECs want to discuss an item, and due to the short time frames for Qwest to send out a binding response, having additional meetings puts that date in jeopardy. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said she would like to include ‘Qwest or the originating CLEC within the necessary time frame’. Jill Martain/Qwest said she thought that we could include that change. Jill asked if the vote would take place at the December meeting, and Cindy confirmed yes.

INFORMATION FROM THE OCTOBER 2005 MONTHLY SYSTEMS CMP MEETING (walk-on item): Escalation Process - Eschelon Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that Eschelon requested that we discuss the escalation process. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the CLECs felt that Qwest is not following the same process for escalations. Bonnie said that in the past they felt that they were a part of the escalation and that they were notified of the response. She said that we may need to look at the overall process and that there appears to be no value in joining the escalation. Bonnie said that VCI submitted 2 CRs with a need for information and that there were other CLECs in support of the 2 CRs. She said that the end result was that Qwest denied the CRs that resulted in the escalation from VCI. Bonnie said that they were not notified and that Qwest arranged for an adhoc call with VCI to discuss an alternative solution. She said that it would have been nice for the participating CLECs that were part of the escalation to participate in that call. Bonnie said that VCI requested that other CLECs participate in the call and Qwest said no. She said that Qwest should know that the CLECs want to be involved in the process when something is escalated and that they do not feel they are part of the process as they were in the past. Bonnie said that in the past the CLECs participating in the escalation knew what was going on. Bonnie said that the concern with this escalation was the adhoc call with VCI when the solution was only provided to them and not the other CLECs. Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that she looked at the escalations back to January 2004, to determine how the responses were handled. Susan stated that the process outlined in Section 14.0 was followed on the VCI escalation and noted that nothing has changed. Susan stated that the mentioned ad hoc meeting was not an ad hoc meeting and that it was not a CMP Meeting. The VCI Service Management Team scheduled the meeting in order to talk to their customer and explain what was currently available to them as an alternative data source. Susan stated that it was definitely not a CMP ad hoc; it was a CLEC meeting with their Service Management Team. Susan noted that in the escalations that she went back and looked at there were no ad hoc meetings that took place for any of the escalations. The process specified in the CMP document was followed and stated that the responses to the escalations did only get sent to the originator of the escalations and were posted to the web site so that the CLEC Community could see what the responses were. Susan stated that the CMP document does not indicate that all CLECs needed to be included in the escalation responses. Susan then stated that she was not aware of any responses that were sent to all CLECs. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Qwest may now be following the process and that she was referring to escalations that took place in the Jim Maher era. Bonnie stated that she thought that all would agree that just clicking a button and not having participation doesn’t make sense. Bonnie stated that she is concerned with that a Service Manager worked directly with VCI because it could cause the same situation that Jennifer now has (Comments to minutes received from Eschelon 10/27/05) with the rate loaded data. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that the CLECs think that they did the right thing and that Qwest is taking this out of CMP. Loretta Huff/Qwest stated that the data viewed with VCI is data that is available to all and noted that it is PID data and PIDs are outside of CMP. Loretta stated that the response did state that and that the response referred CLECs to their Service Management Team. Loretta stated that this is not at all the same situation as Jennifer’s. Loretta stated that the same process was followed consistently, in the past 22 or so months, on how the escalations were handled and that all CLECs had access to the information via the web whether they joined the escalation or not. Loretta noted that VCIs Service Management Team handled this because they walked thru VCI specific data. Jennifer Arnold/TDS Metrocom stated that she is interested in the information and stated that she does get PID data and that it is raw data. Jennifer stated that they were not included and stated that escalations are usually initiated by Covad or Eschelon. Jennifer stated that if you go back to Bonnie’s point, it is nice that the response is communicated after the fact, but they join the escalation because they want to participate. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that PID data is not real-time and is used as reference. Liz stated that VCI requested the report as a means to drive solutions. Liz stated that the CLECs did not want to be left out of the process and that the joiner’s need to be part of the discussion. Liz stated that maybe the language needs to be added to the CMP document. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she is not insinuating that Qwest (Comments to minutes received from Eschelon 10/27/05) may not be following the CMP process, as it is a working process; all just realize that the way that the document was written, it is exclusionary. Bonnie stated that she is feeling like the escalation process is not doing what it should do. Bonnie stated that all participants used to get copied on the response and that now they don’t even get notified that a response has been sent to the originator. Bonnie then stated that VCI asked for other CLECs participation and Qwest was not receptive to that so only VCI was included. Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that the report was a CLEC specific report and that the Service Manager wanted to work with their customer. Susan stated that when an escalation is received, it is reviewed, discussed and then is replied to. Susan stated that similar report data that is currently available is what the Service Management Team went over with their customer, VCI. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that part of the escalation process is that when a response is provided it is a binding response by Qwest and any CLEC could take the response to dispute resolution. Liz stated that all CLECs need to understand the response and that it could be via a phone call, to notify of an ad hoc meeting. Liz stated that language could be drafted. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would look at the current language. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon noted that we had in the past talked about escalations in CMP and now does not. Jennifer Arnold/TDS Metrocom stated that she would be interested in the detail of what other data is available and asked if she should get with her Service Manager. Loretta Huff/Qwest said yes and stated that the Service Managers would bring in the experts to help with the request. Jennifer Arnold/TDS Metrocom asked if the process could just be documented. Loretta Huff/Qwest asked that they please meet with their Service Managers and noted that the Service Managers are aware of what is currently available. Jennifer Arnold/TDS Metrocom stated that all the CLECs are interested in the report and that the request was denied due to no business benefit. Jennifer asked where the CLECs go from there. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that reducing the error reject rate is important to Qwest too and that (Comments to minutes received from Eschelon 10/27/05) the raw data contains multiple columns that the column title is not always self-explanatory. Bonnie said she has asked her Service Manager what columns mean in the past and it took weeks for Service Managers to get back with the CLECs with the raw data. Bonnie stated that when you want to deal with a real time training situation, the data is 45-75 days old and it is difficult to train with old data. Bonnie noted that PID Data does exist but that it is old data and that the information is needed in a real time basis. Jennifer Arnold/TDS Metrocom stated that she agreed and stated that TDS is willing to try if Qwest can tell TDS where to get the data. Jennifer stated that she would like Qwest to document so she has one place to go. Loretta Huff/Qwest stated that she cannot speak to documenting but asked that she please get with her Service Manager. Loretta noted that the Service Manager’s would not be caught off-guard and that they can speak to the CLECs specific data. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the Service Managers would talk to it at a hi-level. Jennifer Arnold/TDS Metrocom said that she needs to know what fields to look at. Amanda Silva/VCI stated that Qwest stated that the data would be on a going forward basis and that was not acceptable to VCI. Amanda stated that Qwest advised that they could not obtain historic data. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that the CLEC would also need to really understand the PID data. Jennifer Arnold/TDS Metrocom asked if there could be another escalation meeting for further discussion. Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that it was not a CMP ad hoc meeting, that it was scheduled by the Service management Team with VCI. Susan stated that from a CMP perspective, there was no meeting scheduled, attended, or awareness of the content of that Service Management meeting. Susan stated that as Loretta has advised, for those CLECs interested in the data, to contact their Service Management Team. Susan then stated that the meeting that was held was not an ad hoc meeting associated to a CR. Jennifer Arnold/TDS Metrocom stated that she would contact her Service Manager; it would just take more time. Loretta Huff/Qwest stated that there are PID results every month. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that if they wanted the data, they would only get data going forward and not historical data. Susan Lorence/Qwest stated that the CR only requested real-time data; it did not request historical data. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that VCI wanted real-time access to the stored data. Loretta Huff/Qwest stated that she still encourages the CLECs to meet with their Service Manager’s and noted that they should not be caught off guard. Loretta said that if they are to have them call the VCI Service Manager or herself. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would look at the escalation language and see if can draft some language changes There were no additional questions or comments.