Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR013102-16 Detail

Description Of Change

Though it states in Qwest's OBF LSOG 6 Issues Matrix that there are "working solutions" for 3 out of 4 of the issues AT&T is sponsoring. AT&T would like 2096, 2196, 2201, 2244 to be implemented in the LSOG 6 work that wil be underway in 2002 and beyond,

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR013102-17 Detail

Description Of Change

Though it states in Qwest's OBF LSOG 6 Issues Matrix that there are "working solutions" for 3 out of 4 of the issues AT&T is sponsoring. AT&T would like 2096, 2196, 2201, 2244 to be implemented in the LSOG 6 work that wil be underway in 2002 and beyond,

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR013102-18 Detail

Description Of Change

Though it states in Qwest's OBF LSOG 6 Issues Matrix that there are "working solutions" for 3 out of 4 of the issues AT&T is sponsoring. AT&T would like 2096, 2196, 2201, 2244 to be implemented in the LSOG 6 work that wil be underway in 2002 and beyond,

Status History

Project Meetings

2/21/02 - Systems CMP Meeting Jonathon Spangler/AT&T presented this CR. He noted that AT&T is looking for implementation on this because it is very important to their business. Jonathon stated that there are 3 parts to this CR. Reservation, Cancellation and Loop '‘Make Up’. AT&T does recognize that Qwest has the capability for the Loop Make Up. This does seem to have functionality that AT&T is looking for. Jonathon explained why this change would be beneficial to all CLECs to have such standardization in place.

The level of effort is extra large (5501-8000) and will be on the ballot for prioritization. The status will be changed to presented.

Clarification Meeting was held on 2/12/02 Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller, Jonathan Spangler - AT&T Carol Zimmerman, Lane Jones, Julie Raible, Kevin Donofrio, Sunny Reimann

The purpose of this meeting was to clarify SCR013102-18, LSOG 6 Issue 2201: Add Reservation and Cancellation Transactions and Loop 'make up' by Facility Segment to the Pre-Order. AT&T expressed a concern that they have issued LSRs where the Loop looked 'clean" in the Raw Loop Data Tool and then placed an order. The order was rejected because the Loop has IDLC. Qwest requested AT&T provide examples. AT&T had a concern re: possible training and/or data integrity. Qwest will investigate examples to determine root cause. Carol and Lane provided an overview of the Raw Loop Data Tool and the Loop Qual Tool. Qwest also advised that there will be improvements effective with the 9.0 release. Jonathan indicated that he will be trained this week on the 9.0 release and will look at the improvement to the Loop Qual Tool. That might resolve the concerns raised in this CR re: Loop make up. Everyone on the call understood what AT&T is requesting with LSOG 6 issue 2201.

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR013102-19 Detail

Description Of Change

Though it states in Qwest's OBF LSOG 6 Issues Matrix that there are "working solutions" for 3 out of 4 of the issues AT&T is sponsoring. AT&T would like 2096, 2196, 2201, 2244 to be implemented in the LSOG 6 work that wil be underway in 2002 and beyond,

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR020602-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

July 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked for the deployment date for this CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the deployment date is August 4, 2003. There were no additional questions or comments.

June 19, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there are changes that are aligning with listings. Connie stated that it was discovered that there would also be a disclosure change. Connie stated that Qwest has contacted all of the FBDL user’s to communicate this due to the possible impact as most of you are going to 12.0. Connie noted that there is an open CR exception in order to allow Qwest to update disclosure for 12.0. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this change is for listings and is not an IMA change. It was stated that the pre-meeting for the exception CR is to be held on June 20, 2003. This action item was closed. There were no questions or additional comments for this Action Item.. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that if a CLEC wants Qwest to respond via email, Qwest would need that email address. Connie noted that this is variable, is per LSR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the FOC would go to the originator only. Connie Winston/Qwest stated no, that the originator can put their own email address or if you want it to go to a company box you can provide that general email address. Connie again stated that this is per LSR. This action item was closed. There were no questions or additional comments for this Action Item.

May 22, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked for status of this CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the targeted implementation date for this request is June 2003. Jim Maher/Qwest stated that there might be some process changes so we need to make sure that the notification process timelines are followed. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it has come up that EDI users may also want to use this and noted that Qwest is looking at that process. Connie stated that Qwest currently does not have the email addresses for the EDI users. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if they could provide multiple email addresses per company. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she would check into that. John Gallegos/Qwest asked if the request is for multiple addresses for a user or multiple addresses for a company. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated by company; an email address for AT&T Consumer and an email address for AT&T Business. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she thought it was specific to the person submitting the request. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she would verify and provide a read-out at June CMP.

Ad-Hoc CLEC-Qwest Conference Call - April 9, 2003 SCR020602-1 Directory Listing FOCs via E-Mai SCR031102-1 Header Info on DL FOC Confirmation Reports.

Attendees: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Mark Early/Qwest, Lee Gomez/Qwest, Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Shonna Pasionek/Qwest, Jennifer Arnold/USLink, Ian Coleman/Allegiance, Stephanie Prull/McLeodUSA, Christina Menk/USLink, Kathy/Advanced Telecom Group, Chad Warner/WorldCom, Sharon Van Meter/AT&T, Missy Wood/Comcast

SCR020602-1 Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the purpose of the call was to discuss two CR’s submitted by AT&T: SCR020602-1 Directory Listing FOCs via E-Mail and SCR031102-1 Header Info on DL FOC Confirmation Reports. Peggy stated that these CR’s have been discussed in previous CMP Meetings, where it was stated that we needed to wait to implement these CR’s until DirB was deployed and stable. We are now at that point and wanted to meet with you to discuss the requirements and status of these CR’s. Peggy stated that Qwest needs to ask if the email functionality is still requested and if both CRs are needed. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that the email functionality is still needed. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon also stated that she would also like the email functionality. Bonnie asked if this were all or nothing. Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that yes, once the email functionality was implemented, Qwest would no longer offer the option to fax. Lee stated that this would be similar to autofax where one email would be sent per company and would be based on the User Profiles. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked what would be on the subsequent confirmation/completion report, the name of the report and either initial or follow-up. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if things could be added? Sharon stated that she knows there are limits, like the name of the person it is going back to. Lee Gomez/Qwest asked to confirm that the CLECs would like the initiator name on the subject line. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that that would be great. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if they could tell Qwest what they wanted, then Qwest can tell us what you can do. Sharon stated wants 1 initiator name (1st initial and last name, not an email address), name of the report, initiator TN. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked that if there are 4 people sending in order’s, can’t have name, TN, and all order’s submitted yesterday? Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that will need to be separate ID’s. Missy Wood/Comcast asked if they had a need for a special project, is it ok for a special email box? Lee Gomez/Qwest stated if can do via autofax currently, can do via email. CLEC asked if a column could be added to the report to include all the names. Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that the change to the confirmation/completion report would be a separate CR. CLECs stated that appreciate the great strides for email. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that she is disappointed that more cannot be done and that it took a year to get to this point. Lee Gomez/Qwest asked to confirm that the subject line would contain the name of the report and that would be sufficient for this CR? Sharon Van Meter/AT&T responded yes.

SCR031102-1 Discussion: Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that the name of the report can be carried over on multiple pages. Lee asked if want report name and header information. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T read the CR description and stated that the header to say AT and have information. Lee Gomez/Qwest stated can do with this CR. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if can be sorted with all ACs appearing in one place. Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that the initial report is sorted AT, RF & AC, the subsequent report, follow-up to any AC, is sorted that way. Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that the report would be a Word or PDF document and would have a header on each page. Stephanie Prull/McLeodUSA asked for the products this is being done for. Lee Gomez/Qwest stated is for FBDL only. CLEC asked if this is based on 1 End User Profile and need to change all to have the same email address? Lee Gomez/Qwest stated yes and that internally will have information with valid email address associated to it. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked for special projects, can make an exception for a one-time-only thing? Lee Gomez/Qwest stated yes, we would work that out with you. Stephanie Prull/McLeodUSA asked how the CLEC would get the information if email goes down? Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that this is one of the challenges; if there is 1 email address and it goes down, there is no recourse, that is where it is sent. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that AT&T would like to go forward with the email request CR and if they want to further split out, they will issue subsequent CR’s. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that SCR031102-1 can be put in Pending Withdraw and asked for the implementation date for the other CR. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that it is not yet scheduled and that as soon as we have the targeted implementation date, we would bring it forward via an action item. There were no other questions or concerns. The call was concluded.

May 16, 2002 May Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Esther Scherer/AT&T stated that her service manager advised AT&T that this request and SCR031102-1 was not funded. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR has not been denied funding but due to the development of DirB, it is very risky to implement any changes to LSS. Qwest is not opposed to doing this work, it just could impact the deployment date. Connie/Qwest stated that will have some discussions with the AT&T service manager, doesn't know where the 'not funded' came from as the CR's are in the funding process. Esther Scherer/AT&T asked if these changes could be made with the implementation of DirB. Connie Winston/Qwest responded that is resistent to that, due to the risk. Has not been rejected and that is why has not brought this up at CMP. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if was hearing that not doing in LSS anot doing in DirB for now? Connie Winston/Qwest responded for now. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if these were a big deal? Connie Winston/Qwest responded no, is purely the risk factor. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked what the timeframe was, after the release. Connie Winston/Qwest stated probably Late August or September. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if these requests will get done and won't come back as denied? Connie Winston/Qwest responded that they are still in the queue for the new system.

March 21, 2002 - Discussed at March CMP: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T spoke to this - what AT&T is asking for is for the DL FOCs that are currently delivered by fax, to be delivered by Email. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is currently reviewing what the process looks like. Michael Buck/Qwest noted that there is a level of effort included. Judy Schultz/Qwest - is AT&T asking for both, are there other CLEC who still want it by fax? Should it always be email? Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T Stated that she wants the new CR SCR031102-1 to coincide with this CR. She stated that the fax is missing header information and this is not adequate. It is rather archaic and missing information. AT&T is not wanting fax anymore, Eschelon agreed, Allegiance agreed and Integra agreed. WorldCom wasn’t sure if they wanted fax any more. LeiLani Hines/WorldCom will check and get back to Peggy on this. Bonnie Jonhson/Eschelon noted that for GUI folks, they have to enter an email address, and that email address could be used to send the info to. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if this has to be prioritized because it is so small Michael Buck/Qwest - this is not an IMA impacting issue, no prioritization required Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest will start the work effort on this request. Terry Wicks/Allegiance asked if this impacted EDI users. Wendy Green noted that EDI responses are coming through the Gateway so this issue is moot for EDI users. Status changed to Presented.

February 21, 2002 - Discussed at February CMP: Majority of the Email addresses have been sent by Esther. Only need Denver address.

Clarification Meeting - February 14, 2002: Attendees: AT&T/Esther Scherer. Qwest/Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Gerald Mohatt, J. J. Bradley, Terri Kilker, Kathy Hill. Reviewed CR description. AT&T would like to start receiving FOCs via email in lieu of FAX. The emails that they receive today are from Kathy Miyake and is a manual process. The emails are for errors that Qwest needs to clear. The emails contain PONs, and columns for complete, reject pending, and reject reason. Emails will need to be sent to several locations, they will be generic email addresses, and will total about 6. Once AT&T migrates to a new system, the number of locations will be less, probably 3. Esther will advise when that occurs. Esther provided an example of an email that is received today. Esther will provide the generic email addresses to Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest by February 20, 2002. AT&T also requested the reject code on the emails. AT&T is flexible on the email format, it does not have to look like the emails received today. Data in rows vs. columns is not an issue. Esther Scherer is the AT&T single point of contact. Esther’s telephone number is 303.298.6228 and her email address is escherer@att.com AT&T requests email no matter how Qwest gets the order, EDI, IMA GUI, or manually. Currently for EDI orders, AT&T receives FOC’s via EDI and FAX. Will need to continue getting the EDI FOCs and additionally needs to start getting the emails in lieu of the current Faxes. AT&T has no problem with the emails being sent at 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time, each business day. AT&T will continue to look for emailed information before calls for duplicates. The email addresses must be added to the User Profiles, Qwest will key off of that to send to the appropriate email address.

CenturyLink Response

February 21, 2002: The Level of Effort for this request is Medium, 80 hours.

Archived System CR SCR020802-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

June 26, 2002 Conference Call With AT&T: AT&T Attendees: Jonathan Spangler, Tim Boykin, Carla Pardee Qwest Attendees: Jeff Thompson, Michael Buck, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Jonathan Spangler stated that he had discussions with his customer, AT&T Local Service Group, and gave them perspective on the Qwest options, specifically Option 3. It became clear that Option 3 was not a good option to move forward with as there are too many things not meeting the needs. Jonathan stated that he sent an email (June 25th) as a response. All on call indicated that they read the email. Jonathan requested that the email be included in the CR documentation. Jonathan asked if there was any other Qwest offer. Jeff Thompson stated that he is not understanding the request. He thought that Qwest was working with AT&T to get to a solution. Jeff asked Jonathan for clarification. Tim Boykin stated that Option 3 was going to take some time and asked for assurance that would get CSRs within 24 hours. Tim stated that he does not want Qwest to go through a lot of trouble and not meet the request. Jonathan stated that gets CSR’s 3 days after completion, could take up to 5 days. Tim asked what Option 3 will really do for AT&T. Jeff Thompson stated that Qwest’s position is that we will be meeting the request and asked AT&T for further explanation of their problem. Jonathan stated that the request is to accommodate a laundry list of problems that occur due to CSRs not updating within 24 hours. Jeff Thompson stated that he understands both the problems that AT&T is having and the submitted CR request. Jeff stated that the proposed solution is addressing the problem and now AT&T is stating that it doesn’t. Jonathan Spangler explained a pre-order / pending order scenario. Jeff Thompson stated that he understands the pending order problem and has some thoughts on how to solve that. Jeff asked AT&T what other problems they were having. Jonathan stated that other CLECs have other issues; he does not have them with him. Jonathan Spangler stated that proposed IMA coding is very extensive and is concerned that the new rules could start rejecting orders more often and make IMA hard to work through. Jeff Thompson stated that AT&T is knowledgeable but the complexities are Qwest’s to solve. Jonathan stated that so much will have to be done is concerned that Qwest is remedying AT&T’s Eastern and Central problems. Jeff asked if it is AT&T opinion that the technical risks associated with Option 3 are greater than the risk to re-tool CRIS? Jonathan stated that no; he was not saying that. Jeff stated that he is not understanding AT&T’s opinion that Option 3 would not meet their need, other than the technical difficulties. Jeff asked if he can reassure AT&T that the technical difficulties are solvable, are we okay with Option 3. Carla Pardee asked if Option 3 will provide 24 hour updates. Jeff Thompson stated that there are 2 problems that he needs to solve: pending orders to be available when issuing LSR and is hearing that AT&T is not agreeing with Qwest’s assessment of the technical solution. Tim Boykin stated that if we can get what AT&T’s internal clients need, doesn’t know if we have a problem. Jonathan Spangler stated that Connie Winston (Qwest) mentioned a virtual warehouse of data. With that, could see Option 2 as a viable solution. Is not comfortable that Option 1 would work. Jeff Thompson stated that AT&T should expect Qwest to deliver a solution that meets their needs, is not comfortable with AT&T determining what that solution should be. Jonathan stated that his email outlines the 4 things that are needed and stated that if those needs are met, we could definitely move forward. (the 4 items are: Ensure AT&T receives the most current and accurate CSR information from Qwest, Reductions of IMA order rejections, Improve Qwest flowthrough processes when related to orders submitted while there are pending order(s) against a customer's account and Improve feature change intervals after a customer has been converted to AT&T. Jeff Thompson stated that those are all fair and understands why is important to AT&T. Jeff stated that Qwest needs to go back and look at how the solution meets those needs. There can then be a dialogue and see if we can come to consensus. Jeff Thompson stated that Option 3 would be augmented. He will revise Option 3 and schedule a meeting to discuss. Jonathan requested revised Option 3 information prior to the July CMP Meeting. Jeff Thompson asked AT&T if next call is to be open to CLEC Community. Jonathan agreed to open call up to CLEC Community so that all CLECs will have a clear understanding of the proposed solution prior to the 12.0 vote.

June 25, 2002 Email from Jonathan Spangler/AT&T: I have reviewed the options Qwest has provided in response to Change Request (CR) SCR020802-1 (Update CSRs within 24 hours) with my customer, AT&T Local Services. Upon that review, AT&T has decided to continue with the original CR language and proceed with the original intent of the request. Moreover, AT&T cannot move forward with any of the options Qwest has offered. AT&T believes Qwest's response does not meet the needs of AT&T's request and we would like to continue to work with Qwest to identify a solution that will accommodate the needs of AT&T and the CLEC community.

AT&T's CR requested that Qwest systematically improve the interval of updating the customer CSR to within 24 hours of service after order completion. This request is consistent with the experience AT&T has with other RBOCs. AT&T believed that making this improvement would result in the following: * Ensure AT&T receives the most current and accurate CSR information from Qwest. * Reductions of IMA order rejections * Improve Qwest flowthrough processes when related to orders submitted while there are pending order(s) against a customer's account. * Improve feature change intervals after a customer has been converted to AT&T.

Qwest systems do not allow an order to flowthrough when pending order(s) are identified causing IMA to reject all flowthrough requests. A pending order takes between 3-5 business days to update the CSR and prohibits AT&T from issuing orders as flowthrough changes. In this scenario, AT&T has agreed to issue orders as a manually handled order to circumvent the IMA system edits to reject such orders. However, this is not an ideal solution for Qwest nor the CLEC community. Manual handling requires additional resources from Qwest and results in quality constraints for both Qwest and the CLEC community.

Over the past few months, AT&T has become well educated in Qwest backend systems. A number of problems stemming from the differences between regional system architectures have been addressed. AT&T agrees that the system architecture supporting the Western region functions in a realtime manner.

AT&T believes neither options 1, 2, or 3 will provide relief to the problems associated with our request. Specifically, Option 3 does not address improving CSR updating intervals. Instead, it will require an estimated resource allocation of 8000+ hours which AT&T believes is a lackluster solution to band-aid a broken leg. Also, this code intensive solution concerns AT&T with potential problems associated with slowing the IMA platform down, additional reject problems and conflicting LSOG requirements. Ultimately, AT&T believes the problem needs to be addressed in the Qwest back end systems not IMA. Jonathan Spangler AT&T Local Services & Access Management

June 20, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston (Qwest) mentioned that Qwest did an analysis and found that the Loss & Completion reports and SCR020802-1 don’t have any relationship. She indicated that the logic is different. Bonnie Johnson (Eschelon) indicated that she understood. Connie Winston (Qwest) (addressing all of the other action items for update CSRs) indicated that Qwest can relax the edit for these types of orders. Doing so does add complexity, but it is doable. It is not difficult to let the order come in the door and allow the centers to perform a manual effort, but to make it mechanized would take effort and the LOE has come in at 8,000+ hours. She noted that the manual solution is not a problem, but to let it flow through would require a lot of work. Jonathan Spangler (AT&T) stated that AT&T is getting to the prioritization. He indicated that he thought this CR should be presented as option 3, which is heavy on the edits, and it doesn’t exactly meet the request. But AT&T does understand the magnitude of what they are requesting. Because the goal of the CR has been refined over time, AT&T would like to change the title to more effectively describe what the option 3 solution would be to aid in prioritization. Jonathan committed to submit that change to Qwest within the next week. He indicated that he would like to reference all of the discussion points reflected in the title. Michael Buck (Qwest) asked if AT&T meant to ensure that all of the discussion around this CR be reflected in the detail. Jonathan Spangler (AT&T) said Yes. Michael Buck (Qwest) said he agreed that the CR should be updated to to emphasize that when the CLECs and Qwest vote on this CR for prioritization, the vote will be on option 3. Connie Winston (Qwest) confirmed that Qwest needs to make sure the description of the change is updated to reflect the most current scenario. Jonathan Spangler (AT&T) indicated that he will submit an update to the CR to include a new title and AT&T’s understanding of what the scope is. He wanted to insure that all the discussion points were referenced. Michael Buck (Qwest) confirmed with participants that these action items are closed.

May 16, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he has had some discussions since the last CMP meeting and has some questions. OPTION 1: Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked - Related to central & eastern region. What does the western region system do now that would not need updating? Connie Winston/Qwest responded that we have a relationship between the billing system and CSR on-line and would love to have everywhere. When a service order completes in the SOP, it is sent to CRIS, then is sent to CARS, which holds the CSR data. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if the Western region meets the 24-hour window. Connie Winston/Qwest responded yes, if it is error free. OPTION 2: Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if an additional pull was done in the SOP, would it meet the 24-hour commitment. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it would have the same problem, if it errors, it errors. It just might get to the SOP a few hours sooner. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that one of the reasons we submitted this was to get clarifications on the L&C report as well. Do you think any of these CSR errors are related to the problems we have been having with L&C? Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she does not think so, as the logic is very different, but can look into that. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T state that Option’s 1 & 2 are significant and would take many resources. OPTION 3: Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that the edits are to identify if there was a pending C order that may alleviate some rejects. Asked for the size of the change, in hours. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it is a significant change to what IMA does today. What we are proposing is that when IMA is checking orders it looks to see if it was a conversion order. Timing will be a concern. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if this would tie to an RSID so the C order that was pending, you will match the RSID for what the order is. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that some type of validation would need to be done. There would be an RSID/ZSID relationship. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked how that would affect other changes that Qwest has made such as for pending orders. Connie Winston/Qwest stated was not familiar with the changes. If set to manual, will allow LSR to come in. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that there is a concern when they issue the initial conversion order, will not be able to set to manual in order to get to Qwest due to the check for a pending C order. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the logic would not be applied to the initial order. Qwest will validate that you really own the account. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that that makes sense, that would help Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if this would cause a conflict with CUS Code. If it is rejected, will have to call into the Center. Can that be eliminated? Connie Winston/Qwest asked how the CLECs know them now. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T responded that they do not know until the order posts. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she understands the problem and could look at relaxing some edits. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if there was a way to relax the edit. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the customer code is defined by region and asked if there is logic that can be applied, such as incrementing by 100? Connie Winston/Qwest responded that there is and can supply the logic/rules. Terry Wicks/Allegiance stated that the new customer code is based on that logic but the CLECs still would not have it. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that it would still require research on our part. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Qwest would apply the logic based on the customer code of the original order. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked the size of option 3, what would we be looking at? You indicated it would be less than 1&2 Connie Winston/Qwest responded that option 3 is less than 1&2 but is still XL. Terry Wicks/Allegiance asked that if Qwest were to pick one, which one would they choose. We would like to get the most realistic option. Is option 3 more realistic? Could we identify the reason for the rejects like CUS code, and we knew a way to alleviate those, even if it has to fall out to manual handling, it seems it would save everyone time & effort. As a community we were thinking 3 is the only one we could possible get? Does Qwest have an opinion? Connie Winston/Qwest stated that option 3 is more realistic. Qwest also wants option 1 but it is very ,very big. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if there is any functionality that Qwest retail does not have to go through that the CLECs do. Connie Winston/Qwest responded no, they also have options to choose from via pre-order. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that with the options provided, would like to have the answers to the CUS code issue before makes a decision. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that the action item will be closed and others will be opened. CR will stay in evaluation and next month will provide the LOE for option 3.

April 18, 2002 CMP Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is looking at 3 options. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the real issue is that when a LSR has been issued, Qwest works it. Then a CLEC needs to change the circuit and it doesn’t yet look like the CLEC owns it. Connie Winston/Qwest reviewed the options: Option 1: Very, very big to update Central & Eastern CSR’s to process them in real time. This would take well into next year to do. Option 2: This option does not provide tremendous value. It is a little smaller and could be done early next year. Option 3: This is an IMA solution. This is a significant amount of work and option 3 would be eligible for 12.0 voting. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it has been asked if there could be a blend of solutions. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there really is not a good blend. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that in regard to the customer code and which one to use; if you have received billing notification, use the new customer code. If you have not received billing notification, use the old customer code. The workaround is to set the LSR to manual. Michael Buck/Qwest asked if a decision could be made on the option. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he needs to take the customer code piece back to his billing people. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the workaround was for GUI only. Connie Winston/Qwest responded no. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that the CR status would change to Evaluation.

April 9, 2002 - CLEC Conference Call to Discuss Options: Attendees: Jonathon Spangler/AT&T, Carla Pardee/AT&T, Carrie Tucker/United Communications, Kathy Stitcher/Eschelon, Julie Pikar/USLink, Bob Carias/Nightfire, Terry Wicks/Allegiance, Dennis Martinez/Qwest, Connie Winston/Qwest, Mark Coyne/Qwest, Pam DeLaittre/Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest. It was stated that the options that would be discussed are available via the interactive report on the web for this CR. The CR was reviewed. The CLECs need the ability to to issue subsequent LSR's for a product when a CSR is not updated within 24 hours. Jonathon Spangler/AT&T stated that also needs to track changes via customer code. Dennis Martinez/Qwest reviewed Option 1 for the Wholesale Billing Interface. Dennis stated that this would be an extremely large effort and would be a re-write of the CRIS System. Carla Pardee/AT&T asked why option 1 does not mention the Western Region. Dennis Martinez/Qwest responded that this capability was already in the Western Region. Carla Pardee/AT&Tstated that it would be in Qwest's best interest that all three regions are consistent. Dennis Martinez/Qwest reviewed Option 2 for the Wholesale Billing Interface. Dennis stated that this would be less effort than Option 1 but would still be Extra Large. Connie Winston/Qwest reviewed Option 3 for IMA EDI & GUI. Connie stated that would need to have the experts look into the customer code piece, this is a new requirement. Connie Winston stated that this option would be a significant effort. Jonathon Spangler/AT&T stated that there needs to be a customer code solution and requested a read-out at the April Systmes CMP Meeting. Connie Winston/Qwest responded that can certainly provide as much status as we have at that time. The customer code would not impact the Wholesale Billing options. Jonathon Spangler/AT&T stated that the only solution that would solve their problem is option 3. Option 1 may also, depending on the customer code solution. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she understands the problem and can have an update at the next CMP. Terry Wicks/Allegiance asked if option 3 was really the only option. Connie Winston/Qwest responded that Qwest can look into a blending of the solution. Connie Winston/Qwest confirmed that this would be a votable candidate for 12.0 if go with the IMA solution. Dennis Martinez/Qwest stated that the Wholesale Billing solutions would be later than the 12.0 date. Terry Wicks/Allegiance stated that IMA could be a solution but needs to look at which system is best to go with. Terry asked if Qwest has an opinion/recommendation as to which would be best? Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the Billing options are very large and would take a long time to get done. IMA would be a shorter tem solution. The CLECs stated that the Billing Option would be Option 1 and the IMA solution could be looked into. Terry Wicks/Allegiance asked if there would be a work-around until the automated solution got implemented? Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we could look into that. Terry Wicks stated that even if it was a Remark. It was mentioned that a manual order is the current work-around. Bob Carias/Nightfire asked how factual the description was. Jonathon Spangler/AT&T responded that the description was based on AT&T's experience, even has a 40-day example. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that this occurs more often on the more complex orders. Kathy Stitcher/Eschelon stated that has experience in the past that could be beyond 30 days. The meeting ended. There will be a read-out at the April 18, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting.

March 21, 2002 - Discussed at CMP: Carla Pardee/AT&T - spoke to this Connie Winston/Qwest noted that this is a huge effort, Qwest sat down with some of the experts to identify the true business needs to identify any options that are do-able. Qwest does not have all of the options yet. Qwest has quite a few experts looking into this right now. If Qwest has options that come out before the next meeting, a meeting can be called. Connie to let Jonathon Spangler or Carla Pardee of AT&T know when Qwest is ready to discuss options. If the options are not prepared for an earlier meeting, they will definitely be discussed at next Systems CMP meeting. Jeff Thompson/Qwest- Qwest looked at 3-4 scenarios; all are very, very expensive. Jeff was wondering if the intent behind this CR is to update the CSR after doing a conversion. He indicated that solving that particular problem would be easier than what was requested in the CR. If Qwest had to work the CR the way it is written, Qwest would probably have to deny it. But if agreement could be secured on a certain sub-set of issues, then that would be more do-able. Donna Osborne-Miller /AT&T confirmed that subsequent activity is the problem. Jeff Thompson/Qwest indicated the Qwest could look into that. Connie Winston/Qwest mentioned that options would be provided. Jeff Thompson/Qwest committed to a general meeting in which the options would be presented. It was further confirmed that the option decided on in the meeting would be used to update the CR so this request can be evaluated. Terry Wicks/Allegiance indicated that Allegiance is also interested in this change request.

February 21, 2002 - Discussed at CMP: Jonathon Spangler presented CR as a walk-on item.

Clarification Meeting - February 15, 2002 Attendees: AT&T/Carla Pardee, Qwest/Peggy Esquibel-Reed, J. J. Bradley, Fred Howard, Monica Manning, Carl Sear Peggy reviewed CR description. Carla P. stated that the Center’s use a manual work around which requires the use of a manual log. AT&T is requesting Qwest to electronically update CSR’s more quickly. Has seen other ILECs do updates within 24 hours. Carl S. asked if there were error conditions for those that are having problems? Advised that Centrex and large orders could take 30 days. Small or general orders currently take 3-5 days. Carla advised would send examples to Peggy E-R. Fred H. stated that CSR’s are updated when order’s get posted. Carla P. stated needs electronically updated orders are being dropped for manual handling and manual handling could mean more errors.

CenturyLink Response

July 25, 2002

Jonathan Spangler AT&T, Local Services & Access Management

This letter is a revised response to AT&T’s Change Request SCR020802-1.

At the July Systems CMP Meeting held on July 18, 2002 Qwest and the CLEC Community again reviewed this change request. Qwest reiterated its position that the proposed ‘Option 3’ represents a viable solution to the underlying business problem identified and agreed to at the March Systems CMP Meeting. AT&T reconfirmed the position that ‘Option 3’ is not an acceptable approach. AT&T, with the support of the other CLECs attending the meeting, again asked Qwest to deny the change request.

Qwest expressed concern that once the CR is denied it would not be eligible for prioritization. Qwest expressed reservations about removing a viable solution to an expressed business problem from the list of change requests eligible for the entire CLEC Community to consider in the upcoming prioritization process.

The CLEC Community in attendance at the July Systems CMP Meeting indicated their preference that if any CLEC is interested in pursuing ‘Option 3’ then that CLEC could initiate a new CR specifically requesting the approach outlined in ‘Option 3.’ The meeting attendees agreed that should such a request come forward, it could be addressed using the process for "Ranking of Late Added CRs" as described in the Qwest Wholesale Change Management Process Document.

Thus, at the request of the CR originator and the CLEC Community, Qwest respectfully denies this change request.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Thompson Qwest, Information Technologies

CC: Connie Winston Michael Buck Dennis Martinez Loretta Huff Judith Schultz

July 9, 2002

Jonathan Spangler AT&T, Local Services & Access Management

This letter is a revised response to AT&T’s Change Request SCR020802-1.

SCR020802-1 was submitted on February 8, 2002. In the initial response provided at the March 21, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting, Qwest indicated that the effort to update CSRs within 24 hours is considerable. In light of the estimated level of effort Qwest asked AT&T to clarify the underlying business issue. AT&T indicated that ensuring up to date CSR information in order to support 'subsequent activity' after a conversion is the problem to which a solution is required. Qwest agreed to research and provide options to solve the business issue as clarified.

At a follow-up conference call held on April 9, 2002 Qwest proposed what has come to be known as 'Option 3.' From early April through early July Qwest has worked collaboratively with AT&T and the CLEC community to develop further the high level approach for 'Option 3.' At the June Systems CMP Meeting AT&T indicated a willingness to formally revise this Change Request to reflect that Option 3, also known as 'virtual CSR,' would be the option to be considered during the IMA 12.0 prioritization process.

Qwest believes that the approach was substantially reconfirmed at a June 26, 2002 conference call held with AT&T. While AT&T did express concern at the June 26, 2002 call, Qwest left that call with the understanding that the concern could be addressed. Specifically, AT&T wished to ensure that Qwest’s proposed solution would:

* Ensure AT&T receives the most current and accurate CSR information from Qwest * Provide reductions of IMA order rejections * Improve Qwest flowthrough processes when related to orders submitted while there are pending order(s) against a customer’s account * Improve feature change intervals after a customer has been converted to AT&T

Qwest reiterated the belief that the virtual CSR approach outlined in 'Option 3' could meet these needs. At AT&T’s request Qwest agreed to host a call on July 8, 2002 for the purpose of providing to the CLEC Community final clarification for 'Option 3.'

At the July 8, 2002 meeting the CLEC Community expressed concerns about the support and interest this request would receive in the IMA 12.0 prioritization process. The CLEC Community appears to believe that this change request would be voted low in the prioritization vote. Additionally, there appeared to be concern over a change request taking up a substantial portion of an IMA release.

At the conclusion of the July 8, 2002 meeting AT&T requested that Qwest update the status of this CR to 'Denied.' Call participants did ask whether it would be more appropriate to update this CR to a status of 'Deferred.' AT&T indicated their preference that the status of the CR be updated to 'Denied.'

Qwest believes that the proposed solution is a viable solution to the business problem raised in this change request. Therefore, Qwest believes that the proper approach is to allow the change request to proceed through the CMP prioritization process for IMA 12.0. Qwest is updating the status of the Change Request to a 'Pending Prioritization' status and proposes that the CLEC Community be given the option of ranking 'Option 3.'

Sincerely,

Jeffery Thompson Qwest, Information Technologies

CC: Connie Winston Michael Buck Dennis Martinez Loretta Huff Judith Schultz

--

April 5, 2002: Qwest has evaluated this CR and offers three options to discuss during the conference call scheduled for Tuesday, April 9, 2002. The goal of the call will be to come to an agreement as to which option the CLEC Community requests Qwest to implement to resolve the issue of the inability of the CLECs to do subsequent activity on a circuit because CSR’s are not updated in 24 hours.

OPTION 1 - Wholesale Billing Interface: Would require Qwest to update the Central and Eastern CRIS processing environments to accommodate near real time processing of CSRs. Qwest has determined that this change would be extremely large. It has been determined that this would require two full releases for each of the Central and Eastern CRIS system environments to accommodate this request.

The extremely high estimate is based on the current non-transactional system architecture that is inherent in the design of the Central and Eastern CRIS systems and the effort it would take to accommodate a transactional base architecture that would allow for a more expeditious update of the CSR.

OPTION 2 - Wholesale Billing Interface: Have the Central and Eastern CRIS environments process SOP pulls at mid-day and at the end of the day. The benefit to adding a mid-day SOP pull would be loading of any CSR that were submitted prior to the SOP pull. These CSRs would be available by 6:00 p.m. that evening or approximately 12 hours earlier than the regular SOP pull, which has CSRs available at 6:00 a.m. the next day, in most cases. While this option requires less effort than option one, it still falls into the extra large category.

OPTION 3 - IMA (EDI & GUI): Allow the entry of an LSR on a recently converted account that does not have an updated CSR.

The LSR would continue to be validated against the CSR. When the LSR fails the ownership check, IMA would then access the Service Order Processors to determine if a pending conversion order exists.

If a pending order exists, IMA will determine if the order is a conversion order for the CLEC submitting the new LSR. If the validation is successful IMA will accept the new LSR.

If a conversion order is not found IMA will reject the LSR based on ownership failure.

This would be an X-Large effort for IMA.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

March 13, 2002 Qwest will provide a response at the March 21, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting.

Archived System CR SCR021302-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

There were three unanswered questions that AT&T will provide answers to: 1) What is the turnaround time required for these files? 2) What is the expected volume of records on each file? 3) Is this going to be run one time for each city or will this be an ongoing process even after the cleanup is completed?

CenturyLink Response

3/13/02 - Qwest will accomplish this by using the MYNAH scripting capability. MYNAH is a Qwest generated scripting program that will be use to extract the data from a backend OSS. This data will be formated in a delimited file per AT&T's requirements.

Archived System CR SCR012302-1 Detail

Description Of Change

that need separate transmission of certain files. AT&T requested RSID/ZCID values because AT&T understood that RSID/ZCID values drove transmission of these various files. AT&T is open to Qwest creating some other value for driving these various data files.

The description from the original Product & Process Change Request (PC102601-1) follows:

Currently Qwest assigns only one RSID/ZCID per company. RSID/ZCID is an indicator that drives the daily usage files for all products within a CLEC. AT&T has multiple usage products within Qwest’s system. AT&T has a need to receive separated Meet Point/IXC usage files by product. Qwest is currently sending separate usage files to several locations by product. Due to RSID/ZCID assignment, Qwest will send duplicate files of the same data to two locations. For AT&T, this creates duplicate files and unnecessary records that AT&T is not able to eliminate. AT&T receives separate files from all other ILECs, and it appears that the RSID/ZCID is driving this concern. If Qwest will assign a new RSID/ZCID for AT&T business UNE-P Meet Point/IXC records which would be transmitted separately from the MEET Point/IXC currently going to Statton Island. Consequently, AT&T requests that Qwest assign a new RSID/ZCID specifically for AT&T UNE-P business products.

AT&T would like to see a mechanized approach to allow CLECs to tell Qwest how to segment customers for purposes of Daily Usage Feeds and any other system interfaces CLECs desire to have segmented.

Status History

Project Meetings

Discussion formn the May 16 CMP meeting: Carla Pardee/AT&T said that this CR is in deferred status and now we are ready to proceed. She would like a clarification meeting on this CR to be scheduled. Mark Routh/Qwest will contact Carla Pardee/AT&T to set up the meeting.

5/30/02 As a result of a clarification meeting today, AT&T wishes to withdraw this request due to the fact that Qwest has already seperated the ODUF and ADUF records, and the Loop orders don't have DUF files.

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR031102-1 Detail

Description Of Change

AT&T would like to see either Confirmed Update (AT) Accepted with Changes (AC) and Fatal (RF) or Accepted with Changes (AC) as the header on each page of the DL FOC reports.

Status History

Project Meetings

-- Ad-Hoc CLEC-Qwest Conference Call - April 9, 2003 SCR020602-1 Directory Listing FOCs via E-Mail SCR031102-1 Header Info on DL FOC Confirmation Reports.

Attendees: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Mark Early/Qwest, Lee Gomez/Qwest, Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Shonna Pasionek/Qwest, Jennifer Arnold/USLink, Ian Coleman/Allegiance, Stephanie Prull/McLeodUSA, Christina Menk/USLink, Kathy/Advanced Telecom Group, Chad Warner/WorldCom, Sharon Van Meter/AT&T, Missy Wood/Comcast

SCR020602-1 Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the purpose of the call was to discuss two CR’s submitted by AT&T: SCR020602-1 Directory Listing FOCs via E-Mail and SCR031102-1 Header Info on DL FOC Confirmation Reports. Peggy stated that these CR’s have been discussed in previous CMP Meetings, where it was stated that we needed to wait to implement these CR’s until DirB was deployed and stable. We are now at that point and wanted to meet with you to discuss the requirements and status of these CR’s. Peggy stated that Qwest needs to ask if the email functionality is still requested and if both CRs are needed. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that the email functionality is still needed. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon also stated that she would also like the email functionality. Bonnie asked if this were all or nothing. Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that yes, once the email functionality was implemented, Qwest would no longer offer the option to fax. Lee stated that this would be similar to autofax where one email would be sent per company and would be based on the User Profiles. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked what would be on the subsequent confirmation/completion report, the name of the report and either initial or follow-up. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if things could be added? Sharon stated that she knows there are limits, like the name of the person it is going back to. Lee Gomez/Qwest asked to confirm that the CLECs would like the initiator name on the subject line. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that that would be great. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if they could tell Qwest what they wanted, then Qwest can tell us what you can do. Sharon stated wants 1 initiator name (1st initial and last name, not an email address), name of the report, initiator TN. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked that if there are 4 people sending in order’s, can’t have name, TN, and all order’s submitted yesterday? Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that will need to be separate ID’s. Missy Wood/Comcast asked if they had a need for a special project, is it ok for a special email box? Lee Gomez/Qwest stated if can do via autofax currently, can do via email. CLEC asked if a column could be added to the report to include all the names. Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that the change to the confirmation/completion report would be a separate CR. CLECs stated that appreciate the great strides for email. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that she is disappointed that more cannot be done and that it took a year to get to this point. Lee Gomez/Qwest asked to confirm that the subject line would contain the name of the report and that would be sufficient for this CR? Sharon Van Meter/AT&T responded yes.

SCR031102-1 Discussion: Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that the name of the report can be carried over on multiple pages. Lee asked if want report name and header information. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T read the CR description and stated that the header to say AT and have information. Lee Gomez/Qwest stated can do with this CR. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if can be sorted with all ACs appearing in one place. Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that the initial report is sorted AT, RF & AC, the subsequent report, follow-up to any AC, is sorted that way. Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that the report would be a Word or PDF document and would have a header on each page. Stephanie Prull/McLeodUSA asked for the products this is being done for. Lee Gomez/Qwest stated is for FBDL only. CLEC asked if this is based on 1 End User Profile and need to change all to have the same email address? Lee Gomez/Qwest stated yes and that internally will have information with valid email address associated to it. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked for special projects, can make an exception for a one-time-only thing? Lee Gomez/Qwest stated yes, we would work that out with you. Stephanie Prull/McLeodUSA asked how the CLEC would get the information if email goes down? Lee Gomez/Qwest stated that this is one of the challenges; if there is 1 email address and it goes down, there is no recourse, that is where it is sent. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that AT&T would like to go forward with the email request CR and if they want to further split out, they will issue subsequent CR’s. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that SCR031102-1 can be put in Pending Withdraw and asked for the implementation date for the other CR. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that it is not yet scheduled and that as soon as we have the targeted implementation date, we would bring it forward via an action item. There were no other questions or concerns. The call was concluded.

May 16, 2002 May Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Esther Scherer/AT&T stated that her service manager advised AT&T that this request and SCR020602-1 was not funded. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR has not been denied funding but due to the development of DirB, it is very risky to implement any changes to LSS. Qwest is not opposed to doing this work, it just could impact the deployment date. Connie/Qwest stated that will have some discussions with the AT&T service manager, doesn't know where the 'not funded' came from as the CR's are in the funding process. Esther Scherer/AT&T asked if these changes could be made with the implementation of DirB. Connie Winston/Qwest responded that is resistent to that, due to the risk. Has not been rejected and that is why has not brought this up at CMP. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if was hearing that not doing in LSS anot doing in DirB for now? Connie Winston/Qwest responded for now. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if these were a big deal? Connie Winston/Qwest responded no, is purely the risk factor. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked what the timeframe was, after the release. Connie Winston/Qwest stated probably Late August or September. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if these requests will get done and won't come back as denied? Connie Winston/Qwest responded that they are still in the queue for the new system.

April 18, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Esther Scherer/AT&T presented CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR is currently in definition. Qwest is currently looking into the email portion of this request and whatever is done there will be in the header as well. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that the Level of Effort was in the CR response. The Status remains as Presented.

March 21, 2002 CMP Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T mentioned that this CR might dovetail with SCR020602-1 (Directory Listing FOCs). Donna indicated that this CR seeks to have the header information placed on each page of the CSR. Judy Schultz indicated that if Qwest can do this CR, it may supercede SCR020602-1. Status changed to Presented

March 18, 2002 Clarification Meeting - Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T Carla Pardee, AT&T Chuck, AT&T Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest J. J. Bradley, Qwest Mark Early, Qwest Kathy Hill, Qwest Gerald Mohatt, Qwest

Reviewed CR Description: This CR seeks to include header information on the DL FOC Confirmation/Completion Reports on each page of report. AT&T would like to see either Confirmed Update (AT) Accepted with Changes (AC) and Fatal (RF) or Accepted with Changes (AC) as the header on each page of the DL FOC reports. Donna stated that this effort would help out their Center’s. AT&T is requesting that the header information that appears on the first page, be included on all subsequent pages of both reports. The sort is to remain as it is today: AT, AC, and RF. AT&T Center’s use IMA GUI but other’s do use IMA EDI.

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR031402-04 Detail

Description Of Change

EXPECTED DELIVERABLE:

AT&T request LSS availability to coincide with IMA hours of operation.

Status History

Project Meetings

November 12, 2002 -- DirB hours have been extended to 10:00 p.m. MT.

October 17, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the goal is still to know in the Nov/Dec timeframe. They will not commit until the system is stable. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T questioned what the problems encountered were. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there are significant problems and are working them as they come up. The problems are normal new system problems.

September 19, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that still can't commit to 10pm. Qwest is still committing to 9pm. Once in production and stabilizes, believe that 10pm is a possibility. The last conversion is in November so hopes by the November or December CMP Meeting, can have an answer regarding extending the hours. Donna Osborn-Miller/AT&T asked how will you know it's stable? Connie Winston/Qwest stated that when goes into production and no Sev 1's are created. This usually takes 30-days. DirB is still working towards 10pm MT, just can't commit yet. Donna Osborn-Miile/AT&T asked if that looks like November for stabilizing? Connie Winston/Qwest stated yes, and are encouraging to extend the hours to 10pm. Should know by January 2003.

August 22, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest - there is no update at this time. There is no commitment yet for the hours. The Action Item will remain open.

July 18, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest said that Qwest had originally planned to implement the new system in July. The new target date is September. The DirB team is not in a position to commit to this work. They have new code and they will have to re-test it. Connie Winston/Qwest apologized for the delay. Michael Buck/Qwest said that action item will remain open and Qwest will provide status in the August CMP meeting

June 20, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston (Qwest) said that while things are looking up Qwest can’t yet give a commitment at this time. Sharon Van Meter (AT&T) asked if this is for the new system. Connie Winston (Qwest) said yes. She added that the goal is 10:00 p.m. but that Qwest can’t commit to that yet. She indicated that the hours will be extended to 9:00 p.m. with the DirB system and possibly 10:00 p.m. She noted that if we can extend the hours prior to the July CMP meeting, Qwest will send out notification to all CLECs. Action Item will remain open for readout in July.

May 16, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated could back-off the LSS to IMA relationship during that period of time. Can't do an IMA edit due to timing. Has strongly suggested that the new system stay up later. Won't know about that until later. Has received agreement fthat the new system would stay up until 9pm. Is trying for 10pm. The new system is targeted for July deployment. Connie will provide a read-out of DirB testing at the June CMP meeting. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if the deployment would be transparent to the CLECs. Connie Winston/Qwest responded yes. Bob Carias/NightFire asked what the 10.0 impact is to directory listings. Connie Winston/Qwest responded none. The change has to do with how Qwest handles resale. The Action Item will remain open for a June CMP read-out by Connie Winston.

April 18, 220 CMP Meeting Discussion: Michael Buck/Qwest stated that this was a walk on CR last month; we wanted to formally bring it forward. Esther Scherer/AT&T presented CR. Esther Scherer/AT&T stated they are continuing to have a problem with LSS slowing down after 8pm and would like to extend the LSS system hours. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest cannot extend LSS hours due to nighttime commitments for CLECs. Qwest may make a change to IMA, which is defined, but the work has not yet been started. It is to stop checking at a certain time. Qwest has a new system, DirB, that is implementing this summer and it may be able to stay up later, could be until 9 p.m. Sunday may not be an option due to maintenance of the system. It is a big risk to take the maintenance hours away from any system. Connie admitted that it’s not the perfect solution but it will reduce the pain. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that the Status is Evaluation. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that that IMA piece is being pursued as a bug fix and is not something that is to be prioritized.

March 21, 2002 CMP Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T indicated that she would like this packaged in May. Qwest Help Desk told AT&T that IMA was trying to validate data that is not available after 8 p.m. Donna indicated that the LSS SME stated that this CR would not be possible due to other batch processing. However, AT&T still wants it. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that AT&T wants something to do the function. Qwest is looking at something that can be done so the CLECs don’t feel the pain after 8 p.m. A balance must be struck to make sure LSS can continue to do the batch process. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T indicated that a mirror system would also meet AT&T’s needs. Connie Winston/Qwest indicated that Qwest is looking at multiple options. Jeff Thompson/Qwest indicated that Qwest is upgrading the LSS system this summer and Qwest could look into rolling this change into that upgrade. Status changed to Presented

March 18, 2002 Clarification Meeting - Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T Carla Pardee, AT&T Chuck, AT&T Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest J. J. Bradley, Qwest Mark Early, Qwest Kathy Hill, Qwest Gerald Mohatt, Qwest

AT&T requests that the LSS hours of availability be the same as IMA’s. If that is not feasible, requests a mirror system for when LSS has to be taken down.

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR041202-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Application Date is defined as: The date (and time) on which Qwest receives from the CLEC a complete and accurate local service request (LSR) or access service request (ASR) or retail order, subject to the following:

· For the following types of requests/orders, the application date (and time) is the start of the next business day:

(1) LSRs and ASRs received after 3:00PM MT for Designed Services

(2) Retail orders received after 3:00 PM local time for Designed

Services.

(3) LSRs received after 7:00PM MT for POTS Resale (Residence and Business), Non-Design Resale Centrex, non-designed UNE-P, Unbundled Loops, LNP.

Retail orders for comparable non-designed services cannot be received after closing time, so the cutoff time is essentially the business office closing time.

Status History

Project Meetings

4/19/02 Clarification call was held with AT&T attendees:

Esther Scherer - AT&T Terry Bahner - AT&T Mark Routh - Qwest (System CRPM) Jerry Mohatt - Qwest (Project Manager - Wholesale) Carol Zimmerman - Qwest (LSOG Rep) Jill Martain - Qwest ( Wholesale Process Manager) J.J. Bradley - Qwest (Business Application Process Manager)

Mark opened the meeting and everyone introduced themselves. Terry stated that she wished to withdraw the request and rewrite it with more detail. Mark encouraged her to contine with the existing CR in order to save time and noted that Qwest could rewrite the existing request to capture the needs. Terry agreed and went on to talk about how this request sprang out of the request that addressed the JEP after the FOC. Jill mentioned that the APP date is not on the FOC due to the LSOG standard and that Qwest would be able to add this information to the new Pending Service Order Notice (PSON). Terry indicated that that would be fine to provide the information on that form. J.J. mentioned that the PSON would be produced in the IMA 10.1 release and would contain the Due Date and the Completion date but will not contain the APP date at this point. Mark indicated that this change would be elligable for the IMA 12.0 prioritization in June, 2002.

CenturyLink Response

April 22, 2002

RE: SCR041202-01 (Add APP Date to Pending Service Order Notice (PSON))

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR041202-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held April 19, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1400 to 2100 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This CR will be eligible for prioritization in the IMA 12.0 prioritization vote that will be conducted in the July 18, 2002 System CMP monthly meeting.

Sincerely, Jeff Thompson Qwest, Information Technologies

Archived System CR SCR043002-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Clarification call attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T Terry Bahner - AT&TJonathan Spangler - AT&T Sharon VanMeter - AT&T Bill Micou - AT&T Regina Mosley - AT&T Dale Carlin AT&T Bret Birkholtz - Qwest J.J. Bradley - Qwest Beth King - Qwest Jerry Mohatt - Qwest Berkley Loggie - Qwest Mark Routh - Qwest

Mark Opened and asked everyone to announce themselves. He introduced the CR and read the tiltle. Donna provided summary of the request and asked that the title be corrected to include Name as well as address. Mark indicated that he would update the CR to reflect the change. Beth asked if this change was only for the CSR Transaction. Donna and Bill stated that it was only CSR. Bill mentioned that no other ILECs require the name and address fields be populated for CSR. Just the phone number is required. Donna mentioned that Jonathan had raised the flag on this issue. …...(Thanks Jonathan) Bill asked for confirmation that this would be an IMA Common change. Beth agreed, because it would effect the back end data bases that are used by both the IMA GUI as well as IMA EDI. JJ asked if this request was to remove the fields or just remove the requirement to populate them. If they were included, should they be edited? Beth pointed out that if they were "Optional", they would not be edited. Bill indicated that he didn't see any reason to leave the fields in. JJ mentioned that there could be some back end legacy system impacts. Bill mentioned that in the event that there were more than one CSR returned on the CSRQ, the Cust Code could be used as the tie breaker. He said that the Ref # would resolve multiple CSRQs as well. He added that the Cust Code filed is not a required field. Beth pointed out the fact that the Ref # is a conditional field. She stated that Ref#, not Cust Code is used for the tie breakers (there isn't a Cust Code field on CSR). Bill indicated that the CSRQ 37 field had a length of 12 with 2 hyphens. Beth indicated that the Cust Code is not included Bill said that if, on a query, you get back multiple responses, the user could go in with the Ref # to identify the correct account. Beth said that Qwest would be open to leaving them optional. Bill indicated that if Qwest took away the edits, he wouldn't have any problem leaving the fields in. Beth indicated that Qwest may need to come back with two options: 1) Make the fields optional but leave them in the form due to the fact that if they were removed, it would require a mapping change. 2) Remove the fields from the form. The call was concluded by Mark summarizing the next steps and reiterating that he would update the tile field on the CR.

Discussion from the May 16 CMP meeting: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T presented this CR. This CR centers on CSR retrieval in GUI and EDI. Donna Osborne- Miller/AT&T reviewed the requirements and noted that there is no other ILEC has these requirements. Donna Osborne-Miller said that she realizes that this is a walk on, but during the clarification meeting Qwest said that they could possibly make these fields optional, as well as a second option (but this option was a large effort). Michael Buck/Qwest noted that the LOE is included (200-750 hours) and is a potential candidate for IMA 12.0. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that she believed the hours assigned were for the option of making it optional and this seems like the best option for both Qwest & other CLECs. Michael Buck/Qwest noted that Qwest needs to make the option visible in the body of the response of the CR so that it is more obvious come voting.

Dicussion from the September 19 CMP meeting:

Connie Winston/Qwest said that in definition on the name and address field requirement on the CSR retrieval, the notes had reference to pre-order and order. Qwest clarified with the originating CLEC that their expectation was for “pre-order” only. This Action Item is to make sure that we brought it to the entire CMP community. Liz Balvin/WorldCom wanted to clarify that this request is the one that seeks not only the lifting of the name and address field but once the CSR is retrieved, that Qwest is only going to respond with the active CSR. Connie Winston/Qwest said Yes Liz Balvin/WorldCom also said that WorldCom has had some issues with CSRs that actually list multiple accounts as live. How is Qwest determining the actual active account. Connie Winston/Qwest said that live accounts would be displayed since we can’t necessarily make that determination. Now we do still have SANO as a requirement but not full name and full address. So we would try to do a SANO validation. If that matched both of them, we would not make that choice for you and we would not hide from you that there are two options there. We would you to make that determination. That is rare but Qwest is not saying that it could never happen. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon - couldn’t the one customer have two active accounts up at one time due to posting? So then you would have to make the determination, which was the most recent? Connie Winston/Qwest said that it shouldn’t stay live. When another live one comes, the other one should go away. That’s the goal. When that isn’t successful, we would not hide one of them from you and make that determination by ourselves with the system. We would tell you that there are two active live accounts. Liz Balvin/WorldCom– I sort of have a side bar question. I think we’ve talked about this before, I just want to make sure I’m clear regarding the customer code. I know that’s returned on the CSR but is customer code required for the order? Connie Winston/Qwest — Qwest definitely recommend that you provide the customer code. John Gallegos/Qwest - that’s correct but there is not a hard edit Liz Balvin/WorldCom — What is the logic for assigning customer code? I believe Customer Codes increment by 100. Connie Winston/Qwest — no, there is different logic for different order types Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon — could you publish that please? It would help to identify if you come across two CSR MickiJones/WorldCom- if not required to put Customer Codes on order, how do you determine which one to put on account? Connie Winston/Qwest — it falls out to manual handling Liz Balvin/WorldCom — the highest increment would be the active account? Connie Winston/Qwest — No, not necessarily. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon — it could be lower or higher Liz Balvin/WorldCom — The logic for customer code assignment would be very helpful. Also, when is a Customer Code generated? For every change or only when they migrate? Connie Winston/Qwest — it is at origination, but we can provide that information. Mike Buck/Qwest — Are they any other questions? There were no questions on the phone or in the room. This action item will be closed, the CR will of course remain open, and a new action item will be created to answer the questions on Customer Code. SCR061802-02 (Separate Local End Office Usage and Shared Transport Usage on UNE-P BillMate files.) Jeff Thompson/Qwest said that the LOE is about 6,000 hrs and is a fairly significant piece of work. Qwest is still trying to get a target date provide the scheduling info when it’s available. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon said thanks, I’d appreciate that. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that we’ve never really had a prioritization for billing before, and I’m curious if this, with the level of man-hours, would require that going forward. Jeff Thompson/Qwest said when I say it’s significant I mean that the issue is that it’s touching multiple sub-systems. Scheduling the work in all the sub-systems is a matter of coordination that requires meetings and discussion with all those sub-systems. Those efforts are underway. It’s not a matter of being able to do the work, it’s a matter of getting all of the systems to work together. This could be #1 in priority and we would still be in the same bucket. Mike Buck/Qwest asked if there were any other questions and there were none.

CenturyLink Response

As discussed and agrred to by Qwest and the CLECs in the May Systems CMP meeting, Qwest will implement Option 1 for this request.

This request is eligible for prioritization for the IMA 12.0 release.

Additional Information: Qwest has placed an indicator on the CSR for all accounts that are pending disconnection. This indicator will appear in the Account Description field with the value of DISC when the CSR is retrieved, so the user can distinguish between that account and the active account in the event that they are both returned on the CSR Query. This information can be found in the IMA User's Guide in the Pre Order Process section under within the CSR portion of the Reviewing Customer Service Records section.

Archived System CR SCR052902-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: Documentation change in SATE to add "EDI Responses" to (X12) mapping for each LSR order and pre-order transaction.

Status History

Project Meetings

Attendees were: Wendy Green-Qwest Annelyn Aficial-Qwest Mark Routh-Qwest Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T Sharon VanMeter-AT&T Bobby Carias-NightFire Software

Introduction of Attendees: Mark opened the meeting with the introduction the participants on the Conference Call.

Review Request: Mark read the CR Description of Change.

Confirm Area & Product Impacted: Mark confirmed the area and products impacted as Pre Order and Order/SATE/Local Switching

Confirm Right Personnel Involved: Mark asked if anyone else needed to be involved in the discussion. Nobody else was required other than Wendy Green and Annelyn Aficial.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation: Annelyn asked AT&T what type of response they are looking for? She asked if they were looking for examples of FOCs or do they want Completion notices, Jeopardy notices, and Reject notices. Donna indicated that she thought it would be of value. [to have all of the components] Wendy said it makes sense to have a sample of each different response. Or do they want to see an FOC for each product? Donna asked to have responses show FOCs only. Later, if the user group wanted, additional responses could be provided. Bobbie asked if there could be a sample of each response per product? Donna asked to see what both options looked like. Wendy indicated that she saw 3 possible options: 1. Produce an FOC for each product 2. Produce an FOC for each product and 1 example of every other type of response 3. Produce 1 of each type of response per product Donna indicated that we should focus on the first two

Identify any Dependencies: Mark confirmed that there was no other system dependencies Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame): Annelyn Aficial will develop the LOE for 2 options for this CR. 1) Produce an FOC for each product 2) Produce an FOC for each product and 1 example of every other type of response This will be discussed at the Monthly Systems CMP meeting on 6/20/02.

CenturyLink Response

June 13, 2002

RE: SCR052902-01 (Add sample EDI (X12) Responses to the SATE Documentation)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR052902-01. As discussed at the Clarification Meeting (held June 11, 2002) Qwest anticipates two options as possible solutions for this SATE Change Request:

Option 1 - Produce an FOC for each product Option 2 - Produce an FOC for each product and 1 example of every other type of response

Based upon the scope of this request as discussed at the Clarification Meeting, Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 100 to 200 hours for Option 1 and an estimated LOE of 200 to 300 hours for Option 2.

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 SCR052902-01.

Sincerely, Qwest

REVISED RESPONSE:

July 8, 2002

RE: SCR052902-01 (Add sample EDI [X12] Responses to the SATE Documentation)

In the June 20th Systems CMP meeting, the CLECs chose option 3. Qwest projects to complete the work and publish the updated document by July 26, 2002. Therefore, the status of this Sate documentation Change Request is updated from Pending Prioritization to Development.

Option 3: Produce the appropriate pre-order response for each pre-order transaction and an FOC for each order transaction in the document and 1 example of every other type of response.

The LOE for this option is 300-400

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR052902-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: Receive completion notification no later than 24 hours of the service being completed.

_________________________________________

Updated Description of Change:

AT&T would like to see not only a date stamp but also the time stamp for Service Order Completions.

Status History

Project Meetings

6/11/02 Clarification Call meeting minutes:

Attendees were: Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T Sharon VanMeter-AT&T Wendy Green-Qwest Annelyn Aficial-Qwest Mark Routh-Qwest Lydell Peterson-Qwest Mark Early-Qwest J.J.Bradley-Qwest

Introduction of Attendees: Mark opened the meeting with the introduction the participants on the Conference Call.

Review Request: Mark read the CR Description of Change.

Confirm Area & Product Impacted: Mark confirmed the area and products impacted as UNE-P.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved: Mark asked if anyone else needed to be involved in the discussion. Nobody else was required other than those on the call.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation: Mark mentioned that the request might be either a Product /Process change or a contract modification rather than a systems change. Donna asked if the Installation Guidelines and the Completion Guidelines. Nobody had a definite answer. Mark indicated that he would find out for sure. Lydell indicated that he would look into this issue as well. Wendy asked if the request was for LSR completions or work completions. There was some clarification discussion around the different intervals. Donna indicated that the request was for the completion notices after the work is completed. Mark mentioned that Qwest is currently measuring this interval and would get back with AT&T on what that interval is. Donna stated that AT&T wasn't sure that they were not getting the completions within 24 hours but suspected that it was taking longer than 24 hours because of a Minnesota UNE-P trial. The discussion wrapped up with Lydell stating that he and Mark Routh would work together to do some more investigation on this issue.

Identify any Dependencies: Mark confirmed that there was no other system dependencies, but there may be a contract dependency. Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame): Lydell Peterson is going to do some checking on how to categorize this request and Qwest will discuss this at the monthly Systems CMP meeting on 6/20/02.

7/9/02 Call with AT&T Attending the call were: Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T David Belanger - AT&T Jeannie McKelvie - AT&T Sharon Van Meter - AT&T Michael Pearl - Qwest Teresa Stewart - Qwest Lydell Peterson - Qwest Mark Routh - Qwest

The purpose of the call was to obtain the training needs from AT&T for the IMA GUI screen for Completions.

It was determined that AT&T was correctly using the screens but the data that is displayed is suspect.

Teresa is going to work directly with David to review the data.

CenturyLink Response

June 12, 2002

RE: SCR052902-02 (Twenty four hour completion notification for UNE-P)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR052902-02. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held June 11, 2002) Qwest is still unable to validate the issue identified in the Change Request. Qwest is continuing to look into the problem and may need to request that examples be provide to further research this issue.

At the next 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

REVISED RESPONSE

July 09, 2002

RE: SCR052902-02 (Twenty four hour completion notification for UNE-P)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR052902-02. Based upon the updated scope of this CR as agreed to in the June Monthly Systems CMP Meeting (held on June 20, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1250 to 2075 hours for this IMA Change Request. This LOE is to provide a time stamp in addition to the currently provided date stamp for service order completions.

This change request is eligible to be prioritized in the IMA 12.0 prioritization vote which will be conducted after the CR Review in the July 18th Systems CMP monthly meeting.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR111102-03 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

January Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that AT&T Consumer is cutting to 14.0 on February 14th and asked that the CR remain in CLEC Test until February CMP.

-- December 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked that this CR remain open. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

November 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: 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: LSR submitted using the error override feature would follow the manual flow and display a new override indicator to have the request drop to manual. The CLEC will request reject override functionality for a GUI LSR via a drop-down list. In IMA EDI, reject override functionality will be made available via a new field in the 850 and 860 transactions. In either case, the CLEC will be given a choice of 'Override' or 'Override with Fax', 'Override with Fax' will make every attempt to process the LSR within IMA. If, IMA is unable to process, the LSR will be faxed automatically to IIS. The CLEC will be notified via a LR notice that further communications regarding the LSR should be directed to ISC. If an LSR is faxed to IIS, the same format will apply for both GUI- and EDI-originated requests. Products: All

Forms Impacted: LSR

Fields: Implement a new override field both GUI and EDI LSRs "Reject Override field."

ACTs: N/A

Connie Winston - Qwest stated that this CR is requesting that Qwest accept an LSR when an edit or error is causing rejects that Qwest is in the process of fixing. Liz Balvin - MCI asked if it could be stated if the CR is being implemented for EDI, GUI, or both. Connie Winston - Qwest responded yes, we would add that information for the next walk-thru. Connie stated that she would also like to discuss the format.

Questions & Answers:

Q: Does this candidate allow GUI users to override upfront BPL error messages? A: Connie Winston - Qwest responded that is for GUI and EDI.

There were no additional comments, questions, or clarification requested.

Q: If the LSR is faxed to the llS will subsequent Qwest responses be sent via fax or email? A: Connie Winston - Qwest responded that IMA will automatically take care of faxing to the Center’s and that responses will be returned via the path chosen, it will behave like faxing. Monica Manning - Qwest stated that the CLEC would also get a confirmation from IMA and will say that the request was successfully faxed to IIS. Monica stated that the fax number could be typed on the LSR. There were no additional comments, questions, or clarification requested.

March 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion Regarding IMA 14.0 Prioritization: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the CR and asked if the LOE was correct. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this was the old LOE and stated that it would be updated before prioritization. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR should be for IMA Common and that Qwest is building a table that can be updated when needed to add or delete from it. Sue Stott/Qwest stated that Qwest still wants the LSR to be as clean as it can be but that this CR will have a fax component.

-- February 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that that business need is for a way to communicate with Qwest when there is a back end system issue or when we have a release go in and there is a bug with a sev 2 causing some pain. Connie stated that what Qwest would like to recommend is creating an overwrite field, that for pre-defined reasons, Qwest would allow the overwrite field to be marked. Connie stated that some edits would then be relaxed and it would fall into the Center’s. Connie stated that when we have an instance where there is a bug, and we see that you’re struggling with a condition, we’ll let that field be marked. A text window could pop up indicating that we could fax this over to the center (that you won’t have to re-type) and the centers will accept it. The CLEC would have to enter a fax number. Connie stated that Qwest tried to cover all bases and situations so that the CLECs can continue sending in LSRs. Connie stated that Qwest would like you to stay in IMA, as this is our way to meet your need. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked that when the text box pops up, is there a possibility that the FOC could be sent to the submitter via email; an online form that could be used. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that that would be a significant change. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest anticipates that the text box would be rare. Connie Winston/Qwest stated yes and that Qwest could not think of an example as to when this would occur. Sue Stott/Qwest stated that Qwest looked at trouble tickets from the past to see if any of those issues would have resulted in the fax option and none would have. Sue stated that Qwest’s goal is to keep it in IMA. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that for her own purpose, needs a ticket number in order to go thru the override, to prevent abuse. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we would like to prevent abuse and that there could still be rejects by the centers. Connie stated that after a release, if there is a problem, there has to be a ticket. Connie stated for the daily occurrances,, we would not require that a ticket be opened. Connie stated that in general I think the CLECs want it to flow through too, they don’t want it falling out, they want it to go through process. Connie stated that if the center’s see abuse, you could get a reject back. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that with this new definition, the CR needs to be clear in the title. Stephanie Prull/McLeod asked if faxed, how will the confirmation be received. Connie Winston/Qwest stated via fax, once you enter the fax world. Candy Skaff/Eschelon asked if they could get a message that it was sent via fax. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that if this candidate makes it into 14.0, Qwest will look into that. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she would revise the CR title. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that the action item is now closed.

-- January 16, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the meeting was held with the CLEC Community. Connie stated that at that meeting it was agreed that Qwest would prepare options and provide details at the February Systems CMP Meeting.

- CLEC Community Meeting - January 9, 2003

Attendees: Byron Dowding/AllTel, Trina/Cox Communications, Nancy/Cox Communications, Sharon Van Meter/AT&T, Wayne Hart/Idaho PUC, Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T, Jonathan Spangler/AT&T, Ray Acevedo/Winstar, Nancy Curniffe/Winstar, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Conrad Evans/Qwest, John Gallegos/Qwest, Cynthia Gomez/Qwest, Monica Manning/Qwest, Deb Roth/Qwest, Kit Thomte/Qwest, Rob Mitchell/Qwest, Connie Winston/Qwest, Sue Stott/Qwest, Lori Langston/Qwest

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest advised that this CMP CR was discussed at the December Systems CMP Meeting and an off-line call was requested to possibly change the scope of this request, that is the purpose of this conference call. Peggy stated that this call will be for fact finding only and stated that solutions will not be offered on today’s call.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that Qwest would like to obtain additional information to better understand the exact problems and situations that are occurring that has prompted this change request for the email functionality. Peggy asked the CLEC Community what they are looking for the email functionality to help with. Peggy stated that previously there was a problem brought forward regarding address validation. Qwest may ask for clarity around that issue and ask for specific details surrounding other problems/situations. Qwest will then research and investigate those problems/situations brought forward today in order to determine an approach to help you with them.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked AT&T if they had anything to add before the start of the discussion. No comments were brought forward.

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that when this change request was originally discussed, the level of effort was determined to be rather large. That was due to the fact that we were trying to solve everything, every scenario. Qwest would like to better understand the most painful situations and problems to make this effort more manageable. Qwest’s goal is to create an environment that allows CLECs to send us LSRs. Qwest would like to ensure that the CLECs understand that the solution that will be implemented will never apply for when the system is completely down. Connie stated that IMA is rarely down, and when it is, Qwest works diligently to get it working. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that that sounds logical. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the solution would be for oddities, such as the address validation issue. Connie Winston/Qwest asked for other examples/situations in order to determine what needs to be done. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest would like to capture other reasons, in addition to address validation, that you want to utilize email functionality for LSRs.

Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he is not sure what would be inclusive on a list. Jonathan stated that his criteria for the CR is if a CLEC populates the LSR, with the back-end systems working, then submits the LSR, IMA rejects the LSR and the reject is not fixable. Then the CLEC needs to fax the request in a specific format. Jonathan stated that an inclusive list is unknown. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she agrees with Jonathan Spangler/AT&T. Bonnie stated that she is not sure she wants to see an exhaustive list. Bonnie stated that after the 11.0 Release, Eschelon cannot submit a conversion order on a Centrex account without a BTN and that is a challenge. Bonnie stated that traditionally as a result of a patch or release, an edit that has been used in the past creates a problem that causes them to be unable to submit an LSR. Bonnie stated could be on a UNE-POTS order. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that situations cause more pain to some CLECs than to other CLECs. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that when Qwest assigns the severity level, the same level is assigned for all CLECs and that may not be appropriate. Bonnie understands that sometimes the address validation problems can’t be fixed.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that after a patch or a release goes in, things sometimes happen that Qwest did not anticipate. She would like a process to be used on an interim basis. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she does now have a general understanding and realizes that a list would not be easy to compile; problems are based depending on the release. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the CLECs can disagree with the assigned severity level by using the escalation process. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she is aware and does understand that. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Allegiance and Eschelon had a problem with loop to loop conversion orders and a severity level of 1 was assigned, for a reason. Bonnie stated that if they had a useable option to get the LSRs submitted, this would not be on the top of the list. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she understands that a particular product could be more important to some CLECs then others. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there could be multiple options after a release. Connie stated that there could be different solutions that could meet different needs, such as the ampersand in the address validation issue. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is currently exploring opportunities in order to accept LSRs, such as relaxing edits to get LSRs through or sending to IIS. Connie asked the CLEC Community if those possible solutions were still worth exploring. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated yes. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that internal meetings have taken place to discuss potential solution. Connie asked the CLECs if they could provide examples of other daily types of problems. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he could go back and ask for some. Jonathan stated that has address validation examples but they have been taken care of via a fax to Qwest. Jonathan advised that the fax solution is not something that AT&T wants to do very often, prefers to go through IMA EDI. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon agreed with Jonathan and stated that should only have to fax when there is no other way to get their LSRs through. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she does believe that the CLECs would not abuse the fax option. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that they want flow through as much as Qwest does.

Sue Stott/Qwest stated that if the GUI is up and there is a problem, could give the option to route to whatever manual handling system that you have. It would come to Qwest as a fax even though the CLECs would not be faxing through a fax machine that you would walk over to.

Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he would not want the email solution to have edits or rules. Jonathan stated that the email solution process should use the IMA format but needs a different channel, email or whatever, without rules that would reject orders. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the email would be emailed to a Qwest faxing environment. IMA would send to a Qwest Center and the Qwest Center would use the same process as they currently use for faxes. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this is something for Qwest to look at but is not offering it as a solution at this time. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest has not worked through this in any depth and maybe it could be used when you would be going to the fax machine anyway. Connie stated that there would be no increase of faxes into the Qwest Center’s, would just come in a different format. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that that was correct. Connie Winston/Qwest asked if any other CLECs had any comments. No comments were brought forward.

Sue Stott/Qwest asked if the CLECs have a ‘top 10’ list. Sue stated that Qwest would like to look at the list to assist in the development of solution(s). Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that there is not much volume here. Jonathan stated that this does not happen very often so might not be able to provide a list. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest does not really need a list but does need the CLECs to walk through what the problems and scenarios are that Qwest needs to look into. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that the situations that would be provided are those already called into the IMA Help Desk. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest would query the IMA Help Desk. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the CLECs would only use the solution if has a trouble ticket. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked to confirm if Qwest was going to find the information without Jonathan/AT&T providing examples. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that yes, we find through the IMA Help Desk. Connie Winston/Qwest if there were any questions from the Qwest Process Specialists. Cynthia Gomez/Qwest asked how notifications and confirmations were expected back. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he would expect them back in the same format; the email format, to the LSR submitters email address. Jonathan stated that he knows that this may not happen. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this would change the process, if goes through IIS, so would need to look at that when we look at potential solutions.

Connie Winston/Qwest asked for other comments or questions. None were brought forward.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that status would be provided at the January Systems CMP Meeting. Peggy stated that Qwest may not yet have potential solutions to offer, but a status would be provided.

- December 19, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that he didn’t see a response on this CR Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that a response was sent to AT&T yesterday and showed that it was a fairly large effort. Connie Winston/Qwest said that effort would basically require a new interface and explained that behind the GUI there is a layer of edit logic that would have to be replicated. We would have to address every single field for an e-mail solution. We did provide another option to AT&T that is less expensive. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he was unclear why this would require a new interface. IMA currently has an email functionality that allows you to click and convert a form that can be sent via e-mail. Connie Winston/Qwest said this functionality doesn’t invoke all the edits and we would literally have to walk through all the edits that IMA currently has. If we back down on some of the functionality that you’ve listed, then certainly we can create something less expensive. Jonathon Spangler/AT&T said that AT&T did submit this CR under the premise of it being systems or product/process change Connie Winston/Qwest—if we did more of a form format (IMA not QLSOG) the centers were rejecting because it is not the form they are expecting. The centers could be trained to accept the IMA format. They’re currently not trained to accept the format. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that’s actually all we need is if we can populate the form in the GUI and then fax it out and as long as the centers are prepped to accept that format, I think that works. A lot of the errors we are running into, address validation problems and it’s when we submit and it hits those edits and it rejects it. If we could just email it to submit the form, then that would work. Judy Schultz/Qwest asked if this CR needs to be processed as a Crossover. Connie Winston/Qwest said that there would be systems work depending how you want it. If you want to fax it that’s one thing, but if you want us to send it to IIS that’s IMA work. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if AT&T could provide some examples. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that this goes back to the address validation problem. There are situations where we pull the CSR from the Qwest backend system and the CSR has an ampersand (&). When you try to use that information and submit it through the IMA GUI, IMA has edits that don’t accept the “&” and we have to correct it when it was pulled from a Qwest backend system. Instead of having to fill out an LSOG form to fax it in, we would drop it into an email and submit it to our own fax machine with Qwest’s fax number and it would go through the faxing route. The problem is that the fax was not accepting the format of the IMA GUI, they would only accept the LSOG format. Instead of doing this CR as written with this huge LOE, we could change it to have the centers accept the IMA GUI format. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if this gives you the ability to correct & and remove the '&' Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that this is one example of a work around we are trying to develop. We don’t have the ability to do this with any number of back end system edits. That example specifically is when we call in to the help desk then get the address that’s correct, we still get a reject because it doesn’t match the address on the CSR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated since this is an occasional thing, and know you’d like to continue with the LSR flow. Switching back to the QLSOG form is unfamiliar and is somewhat more difficult. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that is correct. Connie Winston/Qwest said that we can have an offline discussion about it, we were looking at having Qwest fax back the information. Judy Schultz/Qwest noted that we are up against the 13.0 prioritization window and asked if we would still need to prioritize this CR. Connie Winston/Qwest said yes because there would be systems changes. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we have an LOE for the proposed solution that we had provided to AT&T. Sue Stott/Qwest said that it is not the same LOE, we’d have to revise it a little bit because you are discussing interactive behavior. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that he doesn’t understand what the system edits are because if I’m looking for being able to download and then fax, why would edits need to be applied. Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that she would like the operation side to evaluate this. We do not want to implement something and do it wrong. She asked if everyone would agree to another clarification call to have IT re-evaluate and treat this CR as a late adder. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said yes. Kim Isaac/Eschelon asked if we were looking for the ability to fax in the Center. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that is a simple way of describing it, yes. The problem is when we have attempted that it has been rejected because it is the incorrect form. Kim Isaac/Eschelon said that in past years they have accepted the IMA format. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that when we try to fax it only accepts a certain number of pages. The faxing option is really a roadblock as well. She also asked if other CLECs coull be involved in the follow up call. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that this would not be a problem. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if we can get it resolved with the systems folks, if the IMA system causes the problem, if the order were submitted via fax in the IMA format, I think Qwest would be required to accept that. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that Qwest is only seeing a fax from us, but for AT&T, we will be able to submit the order using our own email functionality. This should reduce the legibility rejects because we receive these via email and we won’t look for a piece of paper that could get thrown away. It seems like it would just be Qwest seeing a new format. Judy Schultz/Qwest said that it seems like there is enough interest. When we schedule the meeting we’ll include everyone and then if there are systems impacts this will be a late adder. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if you will mark the LSR for manual handling, will it still reject. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that it still rejects. We know it will happen inevitably for flow through purposes but we want to be able to circumvent. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that she didn’t realize that you had edits when manual handling was marked. Connie Winston/Qwest said that we still have edits for data integrity issues. We have explored relaxing some edits, but it’s very risky to allow that kind of data into the database. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if there were thoughts being given to get Qwest to correct the CSR. This is broader than the address and the corresponding CSR. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that because it’s only one account, they are not willing to push the issue. If we really escalate, they will do it, however this is a two-day interval that we have to wait on, so that delay’s our submittal. Judy Schultz/Qwest said that the status of this CR will remain in evaluation, concerning the holidays let’s give a range of dates to cover as many people as possible. Let’s wait and have the meeting before updating the CR. Kit Thomte/Qwest said that this CR will remain a System CR and we’ll have this as a late adder if there are systems impacts, otherwise it will change to a crossover.

11/19/02 Clarification Meeting SCR111102-03 Ability for Qwest to accept LSRs via the email functionality within IMA GUI.

Introduction of Attendees: Jonathan Spangler-AT&T, David Belanger-AT&T, Shonna Pasionek-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Monica Manning-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of Change) Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest reviewed the description from the CR: AT&T would like the ability to submit LSRs to Qwest via the IMA email function. Expected Deliverable: Ability for AT&T to fill out in IMA an LSR request, provide a corresponding email address for responses and submit the LSR via the IMA email function. All responses from Qwest would be sent to the email address provided on the LSR. This would provide Qwest and CLECs an additional option for IMA system troubles other than faxing. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that a scenario would be for UNE-P. AT&T is having an issue in that the only real system workaround, when there is a discrepancy when performing address validation, is to call the Help Desk and they give the fax option. Jonathan stated that this is difficult to manage and that Qwest sometimes still rejects it because Qwest cannot read it. Other issues include jeopardy tracking and managing responses. Jonathan stated that AT&T would like to submit email’s. Jonathan stated that some advantages would be that it would be legible for Qwest and it would be make it easier for the CLECs to manage. Jonathan stated that IMA does currently have email functionality but is strictly for submitting LSRs to the IMA Help Desk to see if there are field error’s. Would like the email functionality expanded to accept LSRs. John Gallegos/Qwest asked if the request is limited to trouble situations only. David Belanger/AT&T stated would like open to all situations. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that would be a reference to production support issues within the CMP process. John Gallegos/Qwest asked if this is for production support issues or for all LSRs? Jonathan Spangler/AT&T responded that this request is for all LSRs. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the CR needs to be revised to indicate that is for all LSRs. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T agreed to send the revised CR to CMPCR@qwest.com with a copy to Peggy Esquibel-Reed at Qwest. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if this would be in the IMA prioritization. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that he believes so but that Qwest needs to look further into the request. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if this CR would be discussed in December. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that this CR is scheduled to be presented, by AT&T, at the December Systems CMP Meeting.

Confirmed Interfaces: IMA GUI

Confirmed Products: LNP, Private Line, Resale, Unbundled Loop, UNE Loop, and UNE-P

Confirm Right Personnel Involved - All appropriate personnel participated in the clarification meeting.

Establish Action Plan - Jonathan Spangler/AT&T to present this Change Request at the December 19 Systems CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide a response by December 12.

There were no additional questions or comments.

CenturyLink Response

REVISED DRAFT RESPONSE December 18, 2002

RE: SCR111102-03 Ability for Qwest to accept LSRs via the email functionality within IMA GUI.

The email below constitutes a deny response for CMP request SCR111102-3 to have the ability for Qwest to accept LSRs via the email functionality within IMA GUI.

The combined systems and operational costs to implement the CR are estimated in excess of $3 million. Therefore, the reason for deny is economically not feasible.

Sincerely, Qwest

DRAFT RESPONSE December 11, 2002

RE: SCR111102-03 Ability for Qwest to accept LSRs via the email functionality within IMA GUI.

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of AT&T's Change Request SCR111102-03. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification meeting (held November 19, 2002) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the December Systems CMP Meeting.

At the December 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 SCR110702-01 Detail

Description Of Change

It would be VERY useful to have another column in the output of the splitter query or splitter query by range which lists the active circuitID or telephone number (or any other identifier which would enable us to quickly track down what Qwest thinks the port is being used for) instead of just a invalid with a message of Specified device VDA.XXXXXXX.XX.XX-NNN not available.

The IMA tool for CFA validation/lookup does exactly what we’re asking for here (allows us to query based on The cable we have in a given central office and range of pairs, resulting in columns which list (among other Things) the CKTID/CLO for any pair being used. We’re just looking for the same output functionality seen In CFA queries for VDA (Pots’s Splitter) queries.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable): Modify a future/next version of IMA to include a column for CKTID/CLO or equivalent in the output of the POTS Splitter Query functionality or enhance the existing last column to say Specified device VDA.XXXXXXX.XX.XX-NNN not available used by CKTID 29.XXXX.XXX.XXXX or equivalent.

Status History

Project Meetings

May 31, 2007 Email Received From Complete Telecommunications: Sure -- go ahead and mark it as withdrawn :-) Thanks John Uhley Complete Telecom/VailNet

- May 31, 2007 Email Sent to Complete Telecommunications: Good Afternoon, This email is in regard to a CMP CR that Complete Telecommunications submitted, to Qwest, in November 0f 2002. I have attached a copy of the CR. In the 5 years since this CR was submitted, there has been some changes. The CR was submitted for Line Sharing and for POTs. Effective on July 13, 2007, Line Sharing is available through a Commercial Agreement only and is no longer a product that can utilize the CMP Process. Also, based on investigation, POTs is not applicable due to the data query being part of Line Sharing, making POTs not valid for this request. Based on this information, will Complete agree to withdraw SCR110702-01? Thank you 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.

March 15, 2006 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the list of IMA 20.0 Initial Prioritization List is located in Attachment M. There were no questions or comments.

February 15, 2006 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion for IMA 20.0 Prioritization CR Review: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the list of IMA 20.0 candidates is located in Attachment M. She said instead of reviewing all candidates each CLEC will indicate what their top 2 candidates are. Jill said that we will also review the prioritization and ranking instructions following this exercise. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest said that we will ask each CLEC what there top 2 candidates are based on the attendance list. Below are the top two candidates per CLEC in attendance: AT&T-Sharon Van Meter #1 SCR031203-02 Resolve Disconnect of Account Number #2 SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason Field on the LSR Covad (via email) #1 SCR102102-1X Dual Inventory of DSL Tie Cables in TIRKs and SWITHCH/FOMS #2 SCR103103-01 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR #2 Eschelon-Kim Isaacs #1 SCR 050305-01 Bulk PIC Change Process in IMA #2 SCR032202-1 IMA GUI-PostOrder/Status Updates/Posted to be Billed Integra Laurie Fredricksen stated that she would have to get back to Qwest on there top 2 candidates. McleodUSA (via email) #1 SCR031103-01 Changes to Edits or Process Regarding Complex Listings on an ACT of N Order for Resale #2 SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason Field on the LSR SBC Bob Eggert said he is the ASR representative and that he will refrain from the IMA 20.0 prioritization process. Time Warner-Dianne Friend #1 SCR010705-01 Directory Listing Changes in Conjunction with LNP #2 SCR042704-01 FBDL PON Field VCI No representative from VCI was present. Verizon Business-Rosalin Davis #1 SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason Field on the LSR #2 Rosalin stated that she would get back to Qwest on her second candidate. Information received via e-mail: #1 SCR042704-01 FBDL PON Field #2 SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason on the LSR XO No representative from XO was present. Sprint-Jeff Sonnier #1 SCR010705-01 Directory Listing Changes in Conjunction with LNP #2 SCR031105-01 Change of Usage of CCNA for Sprint on LNP Orders TDS (via email) Julie Pickar stated that she would have to get back to Qwest on there top 2 candidates. E-mail received 2/15/06 on the TDS top 2 candidates #1 SCR032202-1 IMA GUI-PostOrder/Status Updates/Posted to be Billed #2 SCR 050305-01 Bulk PIC Change Process in IMA Cox-Tom Larson #1 SCR010705-01 Directory Listing Changes in Conjunction with LNP No second pick. Qwest-Jill Martain #1 SCR021904-02 Suppression of Jeopardy Status Updates #2 SCR102505-02 Edits for the LSR Delivery Address Activity (DACT) Field Comcast (via email) #1 SCR102505-02 Edits for the LSR Delivery Address Activity (DACT) Field #2 SCR110702-01 Request to Add Ability for CLECs to Get a List of Circuit IDs or Telephone #s Associated with Active POTS-Splitter

Jill Martain-Qwest stated that we will include everyone’s top 2 candidates in the meeting minutes. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest reviewed the prioritization instructions. She said that Qwest will distribute the Prioritization Form by 5 p.m. MT on February 20, 2006. She said that the completed Prioritization Form should be submitted to cmpcr@qwest.com no more that 3 business days following Qwest’s distribution of the prioritization form. Lynn said that the total point will be calculated by the Qwest CMP Manager and the results will be distributed to the CLECs within 2 business days following the submission of the ranking and no later than 5 p.m. on February 27, 2006. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if Qwest could explain how the highest point value works and how, for example, number 21 would be the top choice. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest said that the highest point value (i.e. 21) should be assigned to the CR that Qwest and CLECs wish to be implemented first. She said that the next highest point value (i.e. 20) should be assigned to the CR that Qwest and the CLECs wish to be implemented second and so on. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon explained that we go through this exercise to take into consideration what the other CLECs top priorities are so that as each CLEC votes they could take into consideration the other CLECs top 2 as well instead of just ranking their top 2 and then going down the list. Jeff Sonnier-Sprint asked if the ballot would have a ‘Point Value’ Column. Jill Martain-Qwest said that the ballot would have the ‘Point Value’ Column and that instructions would be included with the notification. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what the IMA 20.0 capacity was, hinting at 75,000 hours Jill Martain-Qwest said that the IMA 20.0 capacity is 7,500 hours.

-- June 14, 2005 Information Received from Jil Martain (Qwest) Jill spoke with John Uhley and was advised that he still wanted to leave the CR active because it would be a nice to have from an audit perspective. John said that this CR is not a high priority.

February 16, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: There was no discussion on this CR.

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. The CR Originator was not on the conference bridge. There were no questions.

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: There were no comments or questions for this CR.

-- Clarification Meeting: 11/15/02

Attendees: Laurel Nolan-Qwest, Berkley Loggie-Qwest, Joan Pepper-Qwest, Monica Manning-Qwest, John Uhley-Complete Telecommunications

1.0 Introduction of Attendees Nolan-Qwest welcomed the meeting attendees and took attendance.

2.0 Review Requested Change Nolan-Qwest reviewed the Requested change as stated on the CR form.

3.0 Confirm Areas and Products Impacted Nolan-Qwest stated that the CR form stated that IMA-GUI would be effected. She asked Qwest-IT if IMA-EDI would also be impacted. Pepper-Qwest stated that IMA-EDI would also be effected and that Line sharing would be effected. Uhley-Complete Telecommunication stated that the issue is when something is cancelled. He states that it happens infrequently, but that they needed a correct list of pots splitter connects. Pepper-Qwest asked if he was asking for a query by range for circuit id or telephone or both. Uhley-Complete Telecommunications asked Qwest whatever was easiest. He stated that he thought that they system was already processing this information, but that it wasn't being displayed. Pepper-Qwest stated that the change was technically feasible.

4.0 Confirm personnel involved N/A

5.0 Confirm CLEC's Expectations Nolan-Qwest read the expectations as listed on the CR form.

6.0 N/A

7.0 Action Plan Nolan-Qwest informed Uhley-Complete Telecommunication that he would need to present the CR at the December 19th CMP Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR110702-01-Request to add ability for CLEC’s to get a list of circuit ID’s or Telephone#’s associated with active pots-splitter connections. Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR110702-01). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting, Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1300-2200 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 13.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR062702-06 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

You may close the CR.

Jon Walker Vail Resorts Information Technology 137 Benchmark Road, MS71 Avon, Colorado 81620 970.477.8588 - Office 970.331.1617 - Cell

11/22/05 E-mail Sent to Complete Telecommunications

Jon,

The purpose of this e-mail is to let you know that the attached CMP change request deployed on October 17, 2005 with the IMA 18.0 Release. In the November Systems CMP Meeting, it was agreed that I would contact you to determine if this CR can be closed. Please let me know if you concur.

Thanks for your help.

Lynn Stecklein

Qwest Wholesale CRPM

303 382-5770

Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com

11/16/05 Systems CMP Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR deployed on 10/17/05. She said that we will work off line with Complete Telecommunications to determine if this CR can be closed.

10/19/05 Systems CMP Meeting

This CR deployed on 10/17/05 and will remain in CLEC Test.

Combined Overview and IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation Walkthrough for IMA EDI Release 18.0

August 10, 2005 8:00 am

Location: CONFERENCE BRIDGE ONLY Conference Bridge: 1-888-725-8686 Conference ID: 4317009

Attendees List* Anders Ingemarson - Qwest Angela Stewart - Qwest Angie Thompson - Weiser Anne Robberson - Qwest Brian Caywood - Qwest Chris Terrell - AT&T Chuck Anderson - Qwest Cim Chambers - Qwest Dave Schleicher - Qwest Denise Martinez - Qwest Diane Burt - AT&T Dianne Friend - Time Warner Gary Berroa - Qwest John Sanclaria - Qwest Judy DeRosier - Qwest Lynn Stecklein - Qwest Mark Coyne - Qwest Mark Haynes - Qwest Michael Lopez - Qwest Michelle Thacker - Qwest Pat Bratetic - Qwest Russ Urevig - Qwest Sandie Tekavec -Qwest Shon Higer - Qwest Stephanie Prull - Eschelon

*List may be incomplete. 1. Introductions Kyle Kirves began the meeting by taking attendance and announcing the meeting purpose. The meeting notice included copies of the agenda and the candidate overview document. Kyle explained that the walkthrough would cover the candidates, the candidate impacts to the associated documentation, and the IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation overview.

SCR #062702-06 USOCs and Description By Product for IMA GUI Anne Robberson 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 documentation updates. Gary Berroa and Dave Schleicher covered the changes.

There were no additional questions.

Kyle asked if there were any more questions about any of the candidates or this portion of the walkthrough. There were no questions.

2/16/05 Systems CMP Meeting - IMA 18.0 Candidate Discussion

There was no discussion on this CR.

7/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would distribute the ballot on July 27th, it is due back to Qwest on July 30th, and Qwest would email the initial prioritization list to the CLECs on August 3rd. There were no questions.

The CR Originator was not on the conference bridge. There were no questions

7/18/02 Systems CMP meeting

SCR062702-06 USOC's and description by product for IMA GUI (Originated by Complete Telecommunications Inc)

Michael Buck/Qwest said that no one from Complete Telecommunications Inc is in attendance to discuss this request. He asked everyone to review the description associated with this change request. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked how this would look. Jeff Thompson/Qwest said that it would be listed by Product with the applicable USOCs. The status of this change request will be changed to Pending Prioritization. The LOE is provided in the CR response and the CR eligible for the 12.0 vote.

6/26/02 Clarification Meeting Request that a list of Features (USOCs) be provided by Product. The scenario described was that they wanted a list of the USOCs that would drop down after they provided the product information and when they select the particular USOC it is removed from the list. Referenced a Sprint GUI that did this.

The GUI currently provides a drop down list of the most common USOCs for Resale POTS (there are about 27). The way the GUI works is that the features are in a separate tab and the tab allows you to add features, so from the drop down list you can only choose one USOC. If you needed another USOC you would need to add another feature section.

The list of USOCs is not available for UNE-P POTS. UBL and LNP do not require CLECs to enter USOCs so this would not apply.

CenturyLink Response

July 9, 2002

RE: SCR062702-06 USOCs and desciption by product for IMA GUI

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR062702-08). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held June 26, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1275 to 2150 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the 12.0 IMA Release.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR020502-1X Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Lynn Stecklein" cc:

Subject: RE: New CMP CR SCR042402-01 -- Eliminate Requirement to Provide Tie CableSpecification

thanks

> --Original Message-- > From: Lynn Stecklein [mailto:lsteckl@qwest.com]

> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:11 AM > To: mzulevic@Covad.COM > Subject: New CMP CR SCR042402-01 -- Eliminate Requirement to Provide Tie > CableSpecification > > Michael, > > Qwest CMP Systems has received a Change Request form from Qwest > Product and > Process as a crossover CR. The Product/Process CR number is > PC020502-1 As > a result of the request, SCR042402-01 (Eliminate Requirement to > Provide Tie > Cable Specification) has been created. This CMP Change Request > is eligible > for Presentation at the May Monthly Systems CMP Meeting to be held on May > 16, 2002. > > Attached below for your reference is a copy of the Systems Change Request > submitted on your behalf. > > The CRPM for this change request is Lynn Stecklein and can be reached at > lsteckl@qwest.com. A subsequent clarification meeting may not be necessary > because of the detailed information that was received in the Product and > Process clarification meeting. Please advise your CRPM is you feel that a > subsequent meeting is needed. > > Your Change Request will appear in the next scheduled update of the "CMP > Change Requests -- Systems Interactive Report" on the Qwest CMP web site. > You may access the interactive report at > http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html. (Scheduled updates > take place every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, except for Qwest > holidays.) > > If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. > > Thank you, > > Lynn Stecklein > Qwest Communications > CRPM - Systems > (303) 294-1664 >> (See attached file: SCR042402-01.doc) > Subject: RE: Action Item from April's CMP on CR PC020502-1 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:07:48 -0700 From: "Michael Zulevic" To: "Richard Martin"

Ric,

I would like Qwest to find out why your TIRKS system has this requirement when other ILECs don't. My thought was for Qwest to use it's contacts from TIRKS user groups, or Telcordia, to determine if there is an easy way to address this. I don't think any contacts we may have would be useful in making this determination.

Mike Z.

--

Subject: Action Item from April's CMP on CR PC020502-1 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:18:52 -0600 From: Richard Martin Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc. To: Mike Zulevic

Mike,

At April's CMP meeting, we took an action item to contact ILECs regarding their practice of not requiring cable gauge information.

With the issuance of the Systems CR, do you still want Qwest to pursue this item. If so, could you provide the various contacts at the other ILECs that you deal with on the subject.

Thanks

Ric

Subject: APOT cable gauge problem Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:08:30 -0700 From: "Michael Zulevic" To: "Richard Martin" CC: "Judi Hotovec"

Ric,

Here is another example of the problem we are having with the cable guage. I'm told this office in Denver has become a major problem.

Thanks for your help.

Michael Zulevic Director- External Affairs Office(520)575-2776 Cel(303)884-5657 Fax (520)575-2785

Order# 1900877, pon# 1519719 out of central office DNVRCOCH on pair 8 > has the cable gauge info as 24-NL. The correct cable gauge for this CO > is pairs 1-300 = 26-NL pairs 301-900= 24-NL. Could you change this > information for me?

-

CLEC Change Request Additional Clarification Meeting

March 7, 2002 8:00 am (MDT) Conference Call TEL: 877-564-8688 CODE: 8973036 PC020502-1, ASR/LSR Cable Specification

Attendees: Mike Zulevic, Covad Judy Hotovec, Covad Richard Martin, Qwest Diana Rasmussen, Qwest Crystal Soderlund, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of the participants on the Conference Call was made and the purpose of the call discussed

Additional Change Request Clarification Covad provided clarification that they would provide the cable name and/or cable pair number as required. They do not inventory the cable specification (i.e. cable gauge) and would prefer not to provide this. They indicated that no other ILEC required cable gauge information. They advised of past experience where the cable gauge changed and they were not aware. Qwest advised that they use TIRKS to inventory the cable information. Covad indicated that they thought the other ILECs also used TIRKS. Qwest advised that from the ASR stand point, the CLEC was required to provide the cable information if they were responsible for the cable assignment. Qwest advised that they would need to check what IMA validates in TIRKS and what is required for a partial/full flow through. It was agreed that the product type would cover UBL, UDIT and maybe Private Line, but would exclude shared loop. Qwest confirmed that the cable information is provided with the APOT and any revisions would generate a revised APOT.

Action Plan Qwest advised that they would be prepared to provide verbal options at the next CMP meeting.

Subject: CR PC020502-1 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:50:24 -0700 From: Richard Martin Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc. To: Mike Zulevic CC: Karen Kraas , Diana Rasmussen , Laurel Burke

Mike,

Could you please address the following questions:

1. What field(s) on the LSR and ASR do you populate with the tie cable specifications that causes the reject/delay?

2. I believe the LSR numbers you provided on our clarification call are Covad's internal LSRs. They do not appear in our system. Could you provide the corresponding Qwest LSR or PON.

Thanks

Ric

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

2:30 p.m. (MDT) / Friday February 15, 2002 Conference Call TEL: 877-564-8688 CODE: 8973036 PC020502-1, Collocation Point of Demarcation cross-connect wiring

Attendees: Mike Zulevic, COVAD Richard Martin, Qwest Jeff Cook, Qwest Diana Rasmussen, Qwest Karen Krass, Qwest Laurel Burke, Qwest Bob Mohr, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of the participants on the Conference Call were made and the purpose of the call discussed

Review Requested (Description of) Change Mike advised that on LSRs and ASRs information requested relates to the make-up of the specific tie-cable (1.e. 22/24 ga. Or 734/735 cable). Qwest provides the cable information. If COVAD doesn’t provide the cable information, or the cable information is different than what is in Qwest’s database, their order is delayed or rejected. Qwest advised that the cable information was part of the APOT number. It was confirmed that in IMA, this is a mandatory field. Qwest asked if there was a timing issue with providing the cable specification. Mike advised that there wasn’t a timing issue, but was concerned that there is no real value for the information, since Qwest has the information. Qwest advised that the cable information is provided in the APOT. COVAD indicated that sometimes the preliminary & final do not match up. COVAD provided the LSR examples: 1773574, 1738856, and 1850263. Qwest will look into these examples to determine what the downstream impact would be if the cable specification wasn’t provided.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted COVAD advised that they would be interested in addressing any product that requires a tie cable going back to their Collo. . Confirm Right Personnel Involved Ric advised that we would need to identify another SME for this CR. The examples provided were for LSR. The SME on the call was responsible for Collo and dealt with ASRs. Qwest will identify the appropriate SME. Ric advised that if an additional clarification meeting were required, they would coordinate.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation COVAD confirmed that they would like to remove the mandatory requirement to provide the cable specifications with the LSR/ASR.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests It was confirmed that there is no corresponding Systems Change Request.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Qwest to obtain appropriate SME(s). The CR will be open to the CLEC community clarification at March’s CMP Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

April 3, 2002

Michael Zulevic Director, Technical Regulatory Support Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC020502-1 Eliminate Requirement to Provide Tie Cable Specification

This letter is in response to Covad’s Change Request PC020502-1 requesting that Qwest revise its LSR and ASR requirement for providing tie cable type or technical specification (i.e. cable gauge).

The APOT CFA data for cable gauge information is a requirement for the Qwest TIRKS database. If the cable gauge information is not passed via the service order, it does not allow the order to flow through without manual design intervention. This could cause delays for the CLEC and an increase in costs and resources for Qwest to perform this manual work. Increasing manual intervention defeats Qwest’s goal to promote flow through mechanization.

Programming for retrieving the cable gauge information from TIRKS and passing it to the order would require multiple systems changes. A Systems Change Request would be required to accomplish this. If Covad would like to pursue the systems changes that could accommodate their Change Request, Qwest will open a Systems Change Request on Covad’s behalf.

Sincerely,

Crystal Soderlund Sr Process Analyst

Cc: Diana Rasmussen Karen Kraas Susie Bliss

Archived System CR SCR072402-01EX Detail

Description Of Change

Covad will not be migrating to 9.0, but will move directly to 10.0 by 9/7/02, which is 2 weeks before Qwest’s current IMA version (8.0) sunsets. Nightfire, our vendor, is not in a position to provide IMA 10.0 SPI software by 8/15/02 which is when migration testing should start to meet the 9/7/02 date. We just found out about this situation the first week of July.

According to Nightfire they cannot provide IMA 10.0 earlier than 9/6/02 as the Qwest interfaces will not stabilize for several weeks after their initial release on 6/17/02.

If Covad does not get the extension for 8.0 then there is a high probability that we would not be able to process orders in Sep 2002.

As agreed to in the 8/2/02 Exception call, the date for the delay will be 10/18/02 rather than 10/26/02 as originally requested.

Status History

Project Meetings

Attendees were:

Nitin Jain - Covad EDI Subject Matter Expert Steve Velasquez - Qwest EDI Subject Matter Expert Mark Routh - Qwest Systems CRPM

Mark opened the meeting and had all participants introduce themselves. Mark provided the overview of the purpose for the meeting - to enable Qwest to understand the request. Nitin described the need for the delay of the IMA 8.0 Sunset date. Mark asked if the conversion could be completed by 10/18/02 rather than 10/26/02. Steve and Nitin discussed the processes involved in the conversion and concluded that it could be completed by 10/18/02 Mark asked if NightFire had been advised of this schedule. Nitin indicated that he had spoken with NightFire and they would be done with their efforts in time for the 10/18/02 conversion. Mark asked if there were any other questions or concerns. There were none. The call was concluded.

8/2/02 Exception Meeting

TYPE OF MEETING: COVAD IMA 8.0 SUNSET EXTENSION EXCEPTION CR DATE, TIME, PLACE: FRIDAY AUGUST 2, 2002, 11:30 A.M. (MT), 1801 CALIFORNIA STREET, DENVER Meeting Attendees:

Name Company Attendance Terry Bahner AT&T Called In Liz Balvin WorldCom Called In Michael Buck Qwest In Person Cim Chambers Qwest Called In Mindy Cutcher Covad Called In Steve Eddy Qwest In Person Alan Flanigan Time Warner Telecom Called In Beth Foster Qwest In Person Nitin Jain Covad Called In Bonnie Johnson Eschelon Called In Randy Owen Qwest In Person Judy Schultz Qwest Called In Sharon Van Meter AT&T Called In Terry Wicks Allegiance Telecom Inc Called In Matt White Qwest In Person

August 2, 2002 Exception CR Emergency Call/Meeting meeting minutes

The meeting began at 11:30 a.m. MT.

Introductions Michael Buck (Qwest) opened the meeting and asked everyone on the bridge to announce him/herself. All the participants announced him/herself. Michael apologized for the incorrect phone number provided on the original notification. He noted that Qwest sent out another notification early this morning, once the mistake was discovered. Sharon Van Meter (AT&T) stated hat she did not received the notice. Terri Wicks (Allegiance) stated that he had received it. Michael Buck (Qwest) stated that Qwest sent out the notification when we recognized the error and the also sent out a targeted email to the people who normally attended the systems monthly meeting as an added precaution, He apologized again to everyone on the call for the incorrect initial notification. Michael Buck (Qwest) asked who would represent each company when it came time to vote. Michael Buck (Qwest) described the achievement of quorum. He stated that the calculation is to look at the number of attendees at the last 6 Monthly CMP Meetings (July, June, May), discard the high and the low numbers, divide the sum by 4 and multiply by 62.5% . He stated that in this case quorum was 7 carriers. He noted that there were 7 carriers on the call so a Quorum had been established. He stated that the purpose of the meeting was to address an exception CR that has been submitted by Covad. He continued that the team would be voting on whether to accept this as an exception change request and asked if there were any questions. There were none.

Michael Buck (Qwest) asked Covad to discuss their request Nitin Jain (Covad) reviewed Covad’s request. He noted that the 8.0 Sunset is currently scheduled for September 21st, and stated that Covad needs to migrate to 10.0 without going out of production. Terri Wicks (Allegiance) stated that he thought the sunset date for 8.0 was August 22nd, asked why Covad thought it was scheduled for September 21st. Cim Chambers (Qwest) stated that September 21st was the original retirement date. She explained that in April the dated was extended to September 21st. Alan Flanigan (Time Warner Telecom) asked if extending 8.0 would affect 10.0 in any way. Cim Chambers (Qwest) stated that an extension would not not affect 10.0 Alan Flanigan (Time Warner Telecom) asked how many versions can be supported in production. Cim Chambers (Qwest) stated that currently 8, 9, and 10 were in production. Bonnie Johnson (Eschelon) asked if there were any negative impacts to the CLECs for extending the sunset date. Cim Chambers (Qwest) stated that there were no negative impacts to any CLECs. In fact, it would be beneficial for many CLECs for various reasons: they might not be done with testing, their vendors may deliver software late or their vendors might be going out of business. Terri Wicks (Allegiance) stated that the request is asking for an October 26th sunset date and the response is showing that Qwest is offering to extend to October 18th. He asked why was there a difference in dates. Randy Owen (Qwest) stated that October 18th is how far we will push out the sunset of 8.0 Nitin Jain (Covad) stated that October 18th date would work well for Covad. Michael Buck (Qwest) asked Covad to confirm that the October 18th date is an acceptable solution. Nitin Jain (Covad) stated that it was. Michael Buck (Qwest) stated that the CMP document does have language addressing the period of time allowed before the sunset of a release, and explained that this is why this was done as an exception request. He asked if everyone agreed. Terri Wicks (Allegiance) stated that he agreed. Alan Flanigan (Time Warner Telecom) stated that he just wanted to make sure that this won’t affect any other releases. Cim Chambers (Qwest) stated that this change would not affect any other releases. Michael Buck (Qwest) asked if the team could move forward with voting on this being an exception request. Nitin Jain (Covad) asked Buck to explain the exception process. Michael Buck (Qwest) stated that Qwest has put together a CMP process document that it views as very important and is very interested in adhering to the process document. He explained that Qwest believes that exception is a valid request. Nitin Jain (Covad) asked if the earlier extension had to follow this process. Michael Buck (Qwest) stated that he believed that the earlier extension was completed prior to this process being agreed upon. Michael Buck (Qwest) asked each of the company representatives if they agreed to the exception CR. He asked each person to state either yes, no, or abstain. Everyone on the call stated yes. Michael Buck (Qwest) stated that Qwest will formally provide a response that codifies the date agreed to here, and asked if there were any questions on the next steps. Judy Schultz (Qwest) stated that she had a comment. She explained that this was the first time that CMP had formally executed the exception process and she thought Buck did a nice job stepping everyone through it. Michael Buck (Qwest) thanked Schultz and asked if there were any other questions? There were no other questions Terri Wicks (Allegiance) stated that he would like to say that it was nice to see a process that is working as designed. Bonnie Johnson (Eschelon) concurred. The meeting ended at 11: 56 a.m. (MT).

CenturyLink Response

July 24, 2002

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR072402-01EX. Based upon the scope of this CR, Qwest is able to accommodate Covad's request for a delay in the IMA 8.0 Sunset date. Qwest will extend the sunset date for IMA 8.0 to 10/18/02.

Qwest will hold an Emergency meeting to discuss the acceptance of this CR as an Exception CR. The meeting information is as follows: Friday, August 2, 2002 Time: 11:30 AM MT Location: 1801 California Street 13th Floor, Conference Room 3 Denver, CO 80202

Sincerely,

Qwest

FINAL RESPONSE

August 5, 2002

On Friday, August 2, 2002, the CMP Community agreed to handle SCR072402-01EX as an Exception under the CMP guidelines. At that meeting, Covad also agreed to amend SCR072402-01EX requesting that IMA 8.0 sunset on October 18, 2002.

Based upon CMP Community agreement to treat this as an Exception change request, Qwest confirmed on the August 2, 2002 call that IMA 8.0 sunset could be extended to October 18, 2002 and has updated the OSS Interface Release Calendar accordingly. Qwest has made the necessary arrangements to extend the IMA 8.0 sunset date. Qwest has updated the OSS Interface Release Calendar to reflect the new date.

This response reflects Qwest's formal acknowledgment of the IMA 8.0 sunset date change. Qwest will seek agreement with the CMP Community to update the status of the CR to "Completed" at the August Systems CMP Monthly Meeting.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR101802-02 Detail

Description Of Change

This would reduce the number of address rejects at LSR placement. In addition to this would be using listed name and TN so if those did not match we would receive a reject for name and TN not matching which would resolve the issue of orders being delivered to the wrong location.

Desired Implementation Date: 12/1/02

Status History

Project Meetings

September 23, 2005 Email Sent to Covad: Hi Liz- Is this CR okay to be closed? Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

September 16, 2005 Email Received from Covad: Peggy, I’ve not forgotten this request, I hope to have a response by CMP. Thanks, Liz

September 8, 2005 Email Sent to Covad: Hi Liz, RE: SCR101802-02 Ability to submit Line sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting LSR’s with TN only. (Omit address) I found a Covad Systems CR that was implemented in an IMA Release and had a bug fixed in the IMA 16.0 Release. I see notes that I was working with you, off-line, in order to close the CR, but do not show that it was ever closed. I believe that you were waiting until you migrated to the 16.0 Release in order to validate that the implementation was working properly. My question is if you have any dissent to my showing this CR as closed? I have attached a copy of the CR, for your review. Thanks, Liz, I appreciate your looking at this and apologize for my confusion. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale Change Management

November 4, 2004 Email Sent to Covad: Liz, I will place SCR101802-02 in Deferred Status. Will Covad be migrating to 16.0 early or late this month? I ask as a timing issue so I will know to take out of deferred in December or January for closure. Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

-- November 3, 2004 Email Received from Covad: Peggy, Covad requests this CR be moved to 'deferred' status. The reason being, we are migrating to 16.0 this month and until then, cannot determine whether functionality is working. Specifically the bug fix that went into 15.0. Thanks, Liz Balvin Covad Communications

-- November 3, 2004 Email Sent to Covad: Hello Liz, Any status to the email below? Is Covad ready to close SCR101802-02? Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

- October 26, 2004 Email Sent to Covad: Hi Liz, This email is in regard to SCR101802-02 Ability to submit Line sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting LSR’s with TN only. This is a follow-up to see if you have had an opportunity to check with John (Berard) to see if this CR can be closed. This CR was deployed with 13.0 and there was a bug fix with 15.0. Please let me know if the CR is ready for closure or if there are open issues. If there is a problem that is preventing closure, please advise me of the trouble ticket number and what the issue is. I will then follow-up from that end. Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

- October 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there was a bug fix in 15.0 and asked if this CR was ready to close. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she would check with John (Berard) and will close the CR off-line if OK’d by John.

- September 16, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: John Berard/Covad stated that they have not had an opportunity to test and asked if this request fixed back versions. Connie Winston/Qwest said no. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will remain in CLEC Test.

-- August 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was implemented in 13.0 and a bug fix was implemented in 15.0. Connie stated that this CR 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 that there was a bug fix with 15.0 for this CR and noted that it needs to be validated by the CLECs. John Berard/Covad stated that he would like the CR to remaining CLEC Test.

-- May 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: This CR will remain in CLEC Test.

-

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the fix for this CR went in with the IMA 15.0 Release and will remain open for another month for Covad to look at it. Connie stated that it was a significant bug fix. There were no questions or comments. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the associated bug fix is going in with the 15.0 Release. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: John Berard/Covad stated that ticket 442850 is scheduled to be fixed with the 15.0 Release and asked that the CR remain open, for deployment of the full functionality. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- January Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there is an open trouble ticket and that fix is being delivered with the 15.0 release. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- December 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: John Berard/Covad stated that there is an open trouble ticket concerning a ported number problem and going to the wrong central office. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the CR would remain in CLEC Test until the ticket has been resolved.

- November 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: John Berard/Covad stated that there is a defect in that Qwest is looking at the NPA NXX and that all ported numbers are being rejected. John stated that the rejects are because Qwest is not looking at the ported numbers. John stated that there is an open trouble ticket for this CR. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- October 16, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR will remain in CLEC Test for Covad’s 13.0 migration.

-- September 18, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: John Berard/Covad stated that Covad is migrating to 13.0 at the end of September so would like to leave this CR open until October or November CMP. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

September 3, 2003 Email Received from John Berard/Covad: Peggy: Covad plans to cut over to IMA 13.0 on Sat 9/27/03. We would then like to have one month to verify if the new enhancements work as designed. So I would target the October or November CMP meeting to close these two out. John Berard Director - Operations Support/Change Mgt - Covad

September 3, 2003 Email Received from Mike Zulevic/Covad: John Berard has been tracking the CRs. I'll pass this along to him and ask him to get back to you.

- September 3, 2003 Email Sent to Mike Zulevic/Covad: Good Morning Mike, This email is in reference to 2 CMP CR's submitted by Covad. They were implemented in the IMA 13.0 Release on August 4, 2003. The CRs are currently in CLEC Test Status. Can these CR's be closed? There were no issues brought forward, from the CLEC Community, at the August Systems CMP Meeting. Please advise if you are okay to close these CRs, or if you need more time to validate. If you have encountered any issues that would prevent closure, please advise me of what those issues are so we can investigate. The 2 CRs are: SCR101802-02 Ability to submit Line sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting LSR’s with TN only. SCR111102-02 Abbreviated ordering information for UNE DSL. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CRPM -- Systems

- August 21, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was implemented as part of the IMA 13.0 Release. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if this request was fully implemented. She noted that her understanding was that only a part of it was implemented. Connie Winston/Qwest responded that the CR was completed and noted that Liz was thinking of the N&T Loop Qual CR. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that Qwest would work with Covad off-line to close this CR. There were no additional questions or comments.

July 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR would deploy in Release 13.0, on August 4, 2003.

-- March 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion on IMA 13.0 Packaging: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we don’t have packaging options and went right down the list. We did deploy #3 (SCR062802-09) based on the Exception Request and we used approximately 42,000 hours. I know that everyone is very familiar with these CRs. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if Qwest found any synergies with other CRs. Connie Winston/Qwest said that if we find synergies we tell you upfront. We did not find any during this time. Beth Foster/Qwest noted that the SATE packaging is also listed on the CMP web site under the walk on section.

-- March 18, 2003 Email from Mike Zulevic: Thanks. We will watch how these changes impact our rejects. Hopefully, it will get us to an acceptable level. If not, we will initiate another CR to seek other solutions. Mike Z.

March 18, 2003 Email to Mike Zulevic and Kasie Murphy/Covad, Sharin Van Meter/AT&T, Liz Balvin/WorldCom, Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon: I do in fact mean House Number. Sorry for the confusion.

March 18, 2003 Email from Mike Zulevic/Covad: Thank you for reconsidering the requirement for street name. Just to be clear, your email indicates Qwest will validate on "Street Number." Do you mean "House Number" (SANO)? I also confirmed the requirements of Verizon and Bell South. For line shared LSRs, Verizon performs edits on TN and name only. Bell South edits on TN only. Michael Zulevic Dir.- External Affairs/Operations Covad Communications

- March 18, 2003 Email to Mike Zulevic and Kasie Murphy/Covad, Sharin Van Meter/AT&T, Liz Balvin/WorldCom, Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon: RE: SCR101802-02 Ability to Submit Line Sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting LSRs with TN Only (Omit Address). Upon further review, Qwest will remove the proposed Street Name requirement from the Covad submitted Systems CMP CR SCR101802-02. The checkpoints for validation will be TN, Last Name/Business Name, and Street Number. Thank you for your participation and feedback during this morning's conference call. Please contact me at pesquib@qwest.com with any questions, comments, or concerns regarding this issue. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Communications CRPM -- Systems

- Ad-Hoc Meeting With CLEC Community - March 18, 2003

Attendees: Sharon Van Meter/AT&T, Liz Balvin/WorldCom, Lori Langston/Qwest, Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Mike Zulevic/Covad, John Gallegos/Qwest, Crystal Soderlund/Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the purpose of the ad-hoc call is for Qwest to explain and discuss the requirement of Surname for Covad’s submitted CR, SCR101802-02. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that a 3-point validation will ensure that we are dealing with the correct customer and stated that if we rely on TN only, the result could be a disconnect in error. The 3-point validation would be 1) last name or business name, would look for ‘Smith’, 2) house number or street name, would look for 3215 & 5 for an address of 3215 5th St., 3) location, street, etc.’ would look for Robin for an address such as Robin Rd. Crystal noted that there is a high level of urgency to ensure that the correct account is being worked with. Crystal stated that this validation would prevent an End User or CLEC from being upset that their wrong customer was pulled down in error. Mike Zulevic/Covad asked if Crystal if she could require the house number only. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that needs the house number and the street name. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked to clarify if the 3-point validation was TN, listed name, and listed address. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that Qwest needs to ensure an exact match. Mike Zulevic/Covad asked if Liz’s CR is with SANO and street name. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated no, and stated that she was advised that if the TN matched, the street name would not need to be checked. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that for DSL services, they are different types of facilities. Crystal stated that once the DSL goes down, the facilities get taken immediately. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that wanted SANO because the double check will ensure migrating the correct user. Liz stated that with the data portion, if migrate by TN & SANO, 99% of the time, a house number would be different. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that she is not aware of the percentage but there have been instances with the wrong customer account. Crystal stated that if just SANO, it could be the same house number but a different street name. Crystal noted that to provide data services, a customer has to be completely pulled down and we do not want to pull down the incorrect customer. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that there seems to be a 4th validation step. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he agrees with the check-points being TN, last name/business name, street name, and house number. Crystal Soderlund stated that could possibly relax some edits to not look for location. Crystal stated that the 3-point check is TN, listed name for last name only, and listed address. Mike Zulevic stated that there are 2 types of service, stand alone data line and line shared services. Mike asked if Qwest’s desire is the same as for SCR111102-02 (Abbreviated ordering information for UNE DSL). Crystal Soderlund stated that the line share product is a different candidate and that more than 1 provider is involved if taking down a DLEC. Crystal stated that the result could be the taking down of the wrong DLEC; that is why we need to ensure it is the correct customer. Crystal stated that for UBL, we only accept the request from who ever owns the loop, so it would be your own loop. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that if a CLEC is attempting to migrate DSL, if the End User had DSL provided by Qwest, they could migrate. Liz stated that for instance, if had MSN or another IP provider, they have to disconnect DSL with Qwest before they can place an order. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that that is a different scenario, when line share is in place and changed DSL provider. Crystal noted that Qwest is getting escalation’s for disconnects in error. Mike Zulevic/Covad asked if Qwest has experienced that many problems. Crystal Soderlund stated yes. Mike Zulevic/Covad asked if they could be attributed to this situation. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that she has experienced where manual LSRs or overridden LSRs. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he does not have data at hand but believes is less than 5% of the volume. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he has 2 ILECs supporting TN only and there have been no problems with the wrong customer scenario. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that when dealing with a DSL, it is a lot more difficult to put the customer back up. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that with UNE-P, we don’t pull a customer down like it happens with DSL, that is the difference. Liz Balvin/Qwest stated that SANO is in there due to Qwest’s concern. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that migrations are not a significant number of LSRs and that using only TN and the customer’s house number would provide an accurate validation. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if Qwest would drop the street name and have the CLEC provide TN, SANO, and surname. Liz stated that that should be enough validation. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that she would be happy to look at that and asked why it was important to the CLEC to not include the street name. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that it is another step for the CLEC reps to have to perform. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that his request is for the CLECs to provide as minimal information as possible. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest asked what other CLECs provide TN only. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated BellSouth and Verizon. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest asked Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) to contact other ILECs. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that she would work with Crystal regarding contacts. There were no other questions or concerns. The call was adjourned.

-- February 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR will include TN, SANO and surname and stated that Covad understands the need. Connie stated that Qwest’s concern is that we really want to ensure that we are dealing with the correct customer, to prevent disconnects in error. Connie stated that the CLECs need to understand the direction for this CR. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked why the surname was needed. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest needs the surname to match the surname on the account to ensure that it is the correct customer. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that she is not sure why it is needed as it was not needed for UNE-P. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the difference is with the product. Jill stated that there was an issue with DSL and the potential of taking someone down incorrectly and the issue is different with UNE-P. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the TN with UNE-P is with conversion and that this is adding DSL so there are a few more risks with that type of order. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he doesn’t see that there are more risks with DSL. Mike stated that he agreed in the adding of the customers last name as a compromise, he doesn’t feel that more than the TN is needed. Mike stated that other ILECs do with TN only. Mike stated that if this doesn’t get us to where we want to be we, Covad will come back and ask for TN only. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that there could be more problems if the last name is spelled wrong. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we can take this off line and talk to our business partners to get clarity around potentially causing more issues. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that misspelling has not been an issue. Jill agreed that it would be best to take off line to discuss. Mike Zulevic/Covad asked if there is a possibility of a miss match because the billing customer is different than the ordering customer. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest matches against listed name. Judy Schultz/Qwest asked if we look at this offline, is there a need to have a meeting prior to next month so we don’t jeopardize delivery. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that clarity is needed because we have to package next month and if we have a strong reason for needing the name then we will have an additional meeting with the CLECs to discuss further; otherwise, we will move forward with TN and SANO.

-- February 6, 2003 Email Response to Kasie Murphy/Covad Kasie -- Thank you for your prompt response and your willingness to work with us on a viable solution. Should you continue to have problem's after the implementation of this CR, Qwest would encourage you to submit a subsequent CR. Thanks again, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Communications CRPM -- Systems 303.896.6332

- February 6, 2003 Email From Kasie Murphy/Covad As discussed this morning you have suggested an alternate solution for our CR 108202. Our request was to have TN and Name only in order placement and the alternate solution provided by Qwest was to have Customer Last Name, SANO, Street Name, and TN. in order placement. This alternate solution is agreeable to Covad. However, we want to ensure that if after implementation and additional analysis the problems persist we will put in another Change Request or work with Qwest to determine other solutions. We appreciate your effort in trying to provide us an alternate solution for our request. Thanks Kasie Murphy kmurphy@covad.com 720-208-3043 Covad Communications

-- Ad-Hoc Meeting - February 6, 2003

Attendees: Kasie Murphy/Covad, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, John Gallegos/Qwest, Berkley Loggie/Qwest, Jill Martain/Qwest, Joan Pfeffer/Qwest, Crystal Soderlund/Qwest

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the purpose of the meeting was for Qwest to discuss the proposed solution with Covad. Peggy stated that Qwest would like to treat this CR similarly to the Covad CR SCR111102-02 (Abbreviated Ordering Information for UNE DSL. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that Qwest would look to the CLEC to provide customer surname, SANO, street name, and TN. That would result in minimal fallout. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that for example: for the name of John Smith, ‘Smith’ would need to be provided; for an address such as 3215 W. 5th Street, what would need to be provided is '3215’ and ‘5’. Another example for address is an address of W. Robin Ave. ‘Robin’ would be required. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that Qwest is looking for a solution for both CRs that would ensure both Covad and Qwest that we are dealing with the correct TN. Crystal stated that it is understood that one of Covad’s concerns is surrounding loc. vs. ste. And by going with this solution, it would really reduce the problems. This solution would also ensure that we are dealing with the correct telephone number and would help to prevent the disruption of service for Covad’s customers. Kasie Murphy/Covad stated that the proposed solution does seem to address their issues and asked if this was the same solution for the other CR (SCR111102-02). Jill Martain/Qwest responded that it is the same, except that SANO is not being used for the SCR111102-02. Kasie Murphy/Covad asked by using the street names, how does that ensure that there would be no disruption of service. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that the street name would be another checkpoint to ensure that we have the correct customer and not disrupt the wrong customer, which is a Covad customer. Kasie Murphy/Covad stated that she would take the information to Mike Zulevic and stated that this could be a viable solution. Kasie stated that it would help to resolve Covad’s thoroughfare, directional issues. Kasie Murphy/Covad stated that she would analyze to see what the results would look like if this were to be implemented and advise if we can move forward. Kasie Murphy/Covad asked if this CR and SCR111102-02 would be worked together. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the 2 CR’s (SCR101802-02 & SCR111102-02) are on the 13.0 vote list, but packaging has not yet occurred. Kasie Murphy/Covad stated that she is pretty sure that this solution would work but would like to confirm with Mike Zulevic. Kasie advised that she would let Qwest know today. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked Kasie to please advise via email to pesquib@qwest.com

-- December 19, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kit Thomte/Qwest reviewed the prioritization process as defined in the CMP document. She noted that December 30th, 2002 is the due date for submitted votes. Judy Schultz/Qwest noted that the due date would be included in the instructions in the notification that goes out with the ballot. Kit Thomte/Qwest reviewed the sample prioritization form. John Berard/Covad said that this CR is pretty much nirvana if they get it. He also said that they have implemented this with other ILECs and it works great, it eliminates a lot of work upfront.

November 21, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Mike Zulevic/Covad presented CR and stated that he would also like to use SANO or customer name. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that SANO was used for other product types. The status of this CR is 'Pending Prioritization.

Clarification Meeting - October 23, 2002 Introduction of Attendees: Mike Zulevic/Covad, Kasie Murphy/Covad, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, John Gallegos/Qwest, Berkley Loggie/Qwest, Crystal Soderlund/Qwest, Joan Pfeffer/Qwest. Review Requested (Description of Change): Submitting Lineshared, Linesplit and Loopsplit LSR’s without address information. More specifically including only the name and TN in the EU contact information section. This would reduce the number of address rejects at LSR placement. In addition to this would be using listed name and TN so if those did not match we would receive a reject for name and TN not matching which would resolve the issue of orders being delivered to the wrong location. Confirm Impacted Interface: IMA EDI & GUI Confirm Impacted Products Physical Collocation, UNE, Line Sharing, Line Splitting, Loop Split Discussion: Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that when submitting an LSR by TN, if the TN contains a typo, Qwest would be able to catch if the TN does not match the customer. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that possibly could by using SANO & Name Lite. Joan Pfeffer/Qwest stated that there is a 12.0 CR, Migrate by TN, for UNE-P that will use SANO, but this is not a migration. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he was hoping could build off that. Kasie Murphy/Covad stated that when do an address validation, and working with Beth King (Qwest), she gets an address back, then the LSR gets rejected when the LSR gets submitted due to multiple addresses. Kasie stated that does not want to send the address, can send the end user name & address. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that can send end user last name or business name. Joan Pfeffer/Qwest stated that the information is available via the CSR. Kasie Murphy/Covad stated that Covad does not utilize the CSR, uses address validation. Comes down to submitting TN and name. The name should resolve name mismatches or rejects. John Gallegos/Qwest asked if this is specific to EDI and not to SATE? John stated that he would discuss with Beth King. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he wants to order as simply as he can and using as little information as he can and still be efficient. There were no other questions or comments.

-- October 17, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: This was a walk on item by Mike Zulevic/Covad. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that on submitting LSRs; how do we order service for Line Shared and Loop Shared? We are having problems with rejections caused by names that are not quire right. These then need Covad and Qwest intervention. What we’ve implemented with other ILEC is using ‘name lite’. We already know the telephone number; want to use the TN along with a surname. That has dramatically reduced rejects. An agreement would need to be reached as to which name to use. Listed name or what? Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that they have a CR for migrate by TN. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that this is for new service, not a migration. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the migrate by TN product is UNE-P. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that Mike/Covad submitted this CR yesterday and requested it to be walked on today. There will be a clarification call in the future. The CMP process will be followed. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that it sounds like you are looking for this for 1FRs. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that it could be a business, wasn’t necessarily a 1FR. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that is asking for a customer surname. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he hasn’t really thought of the business aspect. Jeff Thompson/Qwest stated that an alternative that might be more uniform would be the TN and SANO. It would be worthwhile to have a clarification call and maybe reach some consensus. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that for her migrate by TN, let us place an order, let us do a validation on TN and SANO. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that typo’s might be the only reason for a reject. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that this CR would be discussed again next month.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR101802-02 Ability to submit Line sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting LSR’s with TN only. (Omit address)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR101802-02). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held October 23, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1250 to 2100 hours for this IMA Change Request and 25 to 50 hours for SATE.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 13.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR111102-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Zulevic-Covad stated that he wanted to withdrawl the CR based on the other existing CRs. See Meeting Minutes.

Additional meeting: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 Time: 3:00pm-3:35pm

Introduction of Attendees Mike Zulivic-Covad, John Barard-Covad, Sheila Hougeman-Covad, Sandy Caron-Covad, Jill Martain-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, Laurel Nolan-Qwest CRPM

Martain-Qwest stated that after the clarification call Qwest looked and the system change and determined that it would be very large. She continued that with the current E911 conversion, there will be a lot of exceptions occurring to the requested documentation. She stated that Qwest was looking at other solutions to Covad's issue and that there might be process solutions. She asked if Covad believed that the problem was with LSR being accepted and then reject or LSR being rejected immediately. Zulevic-Covad stated that Covad was looking for a way to get LSRs to flow through and eliminate rejects. He stated that Covad was looking for a solution and that they had submitted several CRs relating to the problem. He stated that he understood that the change would be a very large effort. He continued that he wanted to work together with Qwest on a solution and that he wanted to increase flow through and decrease rejects. He then stated that Covad had experienced inconstancies between the Raw Loop Data Tool and the Pre-Qual Tool. Martain-Qwest stated that that Qwest was researching the option of changing or relaxing edits for different conversion activity. She continued that if Covad was able to provide the customer name and location then a match might be possible. Zulevic-Covad stated that Covad was not currently doing a lot of conversions, but that they hoped to in the future. He stated that they needed a solution for new orders. Martain-Qwest asked if Covad had existing CSRs. Zulevic-Covad stated that they did for line sharing customers. Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest could work with Covad to create process rules and that Qwest wanted to insure that they were not taking down the wrong customer. Zulevic-Covad stated that 99% of the orders were on existing CSRs where the customer was adding DSL or adding a data line. Martain-Qwest suggested that Qwest and Covad work together on an alternate solution. Zulevic-Covad stated that they had several CRs issued because different products provide different information. Caron-Covad stated that they have found inconstancies between the Loop Qual Tool and the Raw Loop Data Tool. She stated that they provide different answers. Martain-Qwest asked if Covad was looking for address validation or if they were looking at conditioning. Caron-Covad stated that they were looking at conditioning and that she understood that it was a seperate issue from this call. Hougeman-Covad stated that they were primary having issues with pre-ordering rejects, but that they had had problems with pre and post. She stated that she was recently on a call with Beth King-Qwest in regards to rejected orders and IMA. She also stated the difference between the Loop Qual Tool and the Raw Loop Data Tool.

Martain-Qwest asked if this proposed solution addressed just this CR or if addressed all of Covad's related CRs. Zulevic-Covad stated that he might issue a CR on the Loop Qual Tool and the Raw Loop Data Tool issue, but that he was ok with this CR. Martain-Qwest asked if Covad wanted to keep the CR open or if it could be closed or withdrawn and if Qwest could work with Covad to move ahead with the proposal for the other existing Covad CRs. Zulevic-Covad asked for a caucus with the other Covad participants. He then returned to the call and stated that Covad would withdraw the CR and work with Qwest on a solution for the other CRs. He stated that Covad would issue an additional CR for the Loop Qual Tool and the Raw Loop Data Tool issue.

Nolan-Qwest stated that the CR would be discussed in the next day's CMP System Meeting and that the status would not reflect the current information due to the distribution package already being published. She stated that Zulevic-Covad could state that his request to withdrawal the CR when it was brought up for discussion. Zulevic-Covad agreed.

Meeting adjourned.

Clarification meeting: Friday, November 15, 2002 Time: 1:00pm-1:30pm

Introduction of Attendees Mike Zulivic-Covad, Monica Manning-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest, Shonna Pasionek-Qwest, Laurel Nolan-Qwest CRPM

Review of Request: Nolan-Qwest read the description as posted on the CR from Covad. She stated that the CR had been presented as a walk on during the CMP Systems Meeting on November 21. She asked Zulivic-Covad if there were any additions to the CR. Martain-Qwest asked about the discussion at the systems meeting. Zulevic-Covad stated that the CR tieded into others and that he was looking for a way to deal with mismatches. Manning-Qwest asked if Covad was having problems with validating CSRs in preordering and receiving errors OR if Covad was validating and then receiving a reject later. Zulevic-Covad stated that he did not think they were using the raw loop data tool, but he stated that he would check. Nolan-Qwest suggested that he send the information to her and she would distribute to the team. Zulevic-Covad stated that the way SCRs were populated were regional and suggested that there were region wide specifications. Manning-Qwest stated that there were differences within regions and that they were slowly converting to a standardized system with E911 and going to the postal standard. She stated that the pre-order validation tool is available.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted Nolan-Qwest reviewed the products and systems listed and asked if there were any additions.

Identify/Confirm CLEC's expectations Nolan-Qwest stated that Covad had requesed a Jan 1, 2003 date. She stated that the CR would be available for the 13.0 prioritization of IMA in the December 19th meeting.

Establish Action Plan Nolan-Qwest stated that Qwest will provide a response at the December 19th CMP Systems Meeting.

Nolan-Qwest asked if there were any other questions or concerns. No questions.

Meeting Adjourned.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR111102-01-Standardize System Terminology in All Regions

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR111102-01). Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification meeting. Qwest is working to clarify each issue in order to develop potential solutions. Qwest will continue to research the CR, and will provide an updated response at the December Systems CMP Meeting.

Qwest is working diligently to address this Change Request and to provide the most accurate LOE possible. At the December CMP Monthly Systems Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Qwest is Systems CMP Meeting into further evaluation of this Change Request.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR111102-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

-- October 16, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR would remain in CLEC Test for Covad’s 13.0 migration.

-- September 18, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: John Berard/Covad stated that he would like this CR to remain open until the October CMP Meeting. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- September 3, 2003 Email Received from John Berard/Covad: Peggy: Covad plans to cut over to IMA 13.0 on Sat 9/27/03. We would then like to have one month to verify if the new enhancements work as designed. So I would target the October or November CMP meeting to close these two out. John Berard Director - Operations Support/Change Mgt - Covad

September 3, 2003 Email Received from Mike Zulevic/Covad: John Berard has been tracking the CRs. I'll pass this along to him and ask him to get back to you.

-- September 3, 2003 Email Sent to Mike Zulevic/Covad: Good Morning Mike, This email is in reference to 2 CMP CR's submitted by Covad. They were implemented in the IMA 13.0 Release on August 4, 2003. The CRs are currently in CLEC Test Status. Can these CR's be closed? There were no issues brought forward, from the CLEC Community, at the August Systems CMP Meeting. Please advise if you are okay to close these CRs, or if you need more time to validate. If you have encountered any issues that would prevent closure, please advise me of what those issues are so we can investigate. The 2 CRs are: SCR101802-02 Ability to submit Line sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting LSR’s with TN only. SCR111102-02 Abbreviated ordering information for UNE DSL. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CRPM -- Systems

-- August 21, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we will contact Covad off-line to determine if this request can be closed.

-- Ad-Hoc meeting: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Time: 4:00-4:30pm

Introduction of Attendees Mike Zulivic-Covad, Sheila Hoffman-Covad, Monica Manning-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Kimberely Powers-Qwest, Cindy Schwartz-Qwest, Laurel Nolan-Qwest CRPM

Review of Request- Nolan-Qwest reviewed the change request and the current status. She stated that during the last CMP Systems Meeting (December) Zulevic-Covad had withdrawn SCR111102-01 and decided to move ahead with the proposed solutions for this CR. Nolan-Qwest then turned the discussion over to Martain-Qwest. Martain-Qwest stated that the discussion had started from the ordering perspective. She stated that Qwest had offered a proposal to make some changes in edits and that she thought the conversation should start at that point. Zulevic-Covad stated that they wanted to be able to provide as little information as possible. He continued with the option of using SANO and the company name or end user last name. He stated that this would be used when adding a second line or a DSL order. Manning-Qwest stated that she wanted to understand the products effected. She stated that the CR stated UNE-DSL. She asked if Covad wanted UNE-DAL with UNE-P? Zulevic-Covad stated that they were requesting on Unbundled Loop and also line splitting. Manning-Qwest asked if it was all unbundled? Zulevic-Covad stated yes. Martain-Qwest clarified that this change would also be used for existing CSRs and not new orders. Zulevic-Covad stated that was correct and that it wasn't an issue on new orders. Martain-Qwest asked what activity types Covad was using when submitting orders. Hoffman-Covad asked if Qwest wanted a specific list of request types. Martain-Qwest stated yes, because Qwest had edits off of activity types. She stated that she needed the request and activity type. Hoffman-Covad stated that she would send the information in an email. Martain-Qwest asked if Covad would also provide an account number with SANO and the business name/end user last name. Hoffman-Covad stated that they don't always have a valid account number up front. Martain-Qwest stated that Covad should have the account numbers. Hoffman-Covad stated that they did on some, but not all. She stated that the edits should apply to IMA EDI and IMA GUI. Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest would need the valid account number to complete the search. Zulevic-Covad asked Hoffman-Covad how often Covad did not have the account number. Hoffman-Covad stated that Covad normally had them, but not always with older disconnects. Zulevic-Covad asked Hoffman-Covad had the SANO, Account Number, and business name/last name, do we think this would work. Hoffman-Covad stated that it would help. Martain-Qwest recapped that Covad would send the activity and request types and that Qwest would continue working on the request. She stated that she wanted to ensure that Qwest was processing the order for the correct account. Manning-Qwest asked if there were any other error conditions that Covad was trying to solve. Hoffman-Covad stated there were not. Martain-Qwest stated that she did not have any other questions and stated that they would wait for Covad's examples. Nolan-Qwest asked if there were any other questions or concerns. No other questions.

Meeting adjourned.

Clarification meeting: Friday, November 15, 2002 Time: 1:00pm-1:30pm

Introduction of Attendees Mike Zulivic-Covad, Monica Manning-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest, Shonna Pasionek-Qwest, Laurel Nolan-Qwest CRPM

Review of Request: Nolan-Qwest read the description as posted on the CR from Covad. She stated that the CR had been presented as a walk on during the CMP Systems Meeting on November 21. She asked Zulivic-Covad if there were any additions to the CR. Zulivic-Covad stated that he was trying to identify the scope of the problem. He stated that he was open to discussing combining the CR with SCR111102-01. Manning-Qwest asked if Covad was having problems with pre-order. Zulivic-Covad stated that he was not sure if Covad was using the pre-order tool. He stated that Covad was looking for flow through. He continued that they were having problems with UNE-Loops and that they were currently using the information provided by the customer.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted Nolan-Qwest reviewed the products and systems listed and asked if there were any additions.

Identify/Confirm CLEC's expectations Nolan-Qwest stated that Covad had requesed a Jan 1, 2003 date. She stated that the CR would be available for the 13.0 prioritization of IMA in the December 19th meeting.

Establish Action Plan Nolan-Qwest stated that Qwest will provide a response at the December 19th CMP Systems Meeting.

Nolan-Qwest asked if there were any other questions or concerns. No questions.

Meeting Adjourned.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR111102-02-Abbreviated ordering information for UNE DSL Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR111102-02). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting, Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1000-1700 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 13.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR112002-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

Add the 3 requested flags to the Bulk Pre-Qual Extract and also include in pre-qual order process. / Next software release or sooner.

Status History

Project Meetings

John Berard/Covad stated that Covad is okay to close this CR. This CR moves to Completed status.

12/17/03 CMP Systems Meeting

John Berard/Covad said that he opened a trouble ticket yesterday because the raw loop extract had not been updated. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that she thought this CR was not related to that issue. John Berard/Covad stated that the CR was for both and would like the CR to remain open.

11/20/03 CMP Systems Meeting

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

Functionality Description: This candidate will provide a flag that identifies if a loop is currently a 3rd party voice line, a resale line, or has existing DSL on the line. The addition of these flags would reduce the number of rejected orders due to lack of sufficient pre-qual data.

Product Impact: N/A

Other Impacts: Pre Order Transaction Query /Loop Qualification and Raw Loop Data Response

Field Impacts: There is a new field added to Pre-Order Response. It is TPRDI Third Party Resale DSL Indicator

ACTs: N/A

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.

- 12/09/02- 3:00PM

Introduction of Attendees: Mike Zulevic-Covad, John Barard-Covad, Berkley Loggie-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, Monica Manning-Qwest, Laurel Nolan-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of Change) Nolan-Qwest reviewed the title and description of change as stated on the CR form. "Covad continues to experience false positive results from Qwests pre-qual tools when placing linesharing orders. Covad requests that Qwest provide a flag that identifies if a loop is currently a 3rd party voice line, a resale line, or has existing DSL on the line. The addition of these flags would reduce the number of rejected orders due to lack of sufficient pre-qual data. " No additions. Nolan-Qwest then reviewed the expected deliverables as stated on the CR form. "Add the 3 requested flags to the Bulk Pre-Qual Extract and also include in pre-qual order process. Next software release or sooner." Manning-Qwest asked about Covad's use of the pre-qual loop qual tool or raw loop data tool. Zulevic-Covad stated that the CR applied to any tool used for line sharing services. He stated that Covad was currently using the raw loop data tool. Manning-Qwest asked if Covad was trying to determine what lines were available for line sharing. Zulevic-Covad stated that it was different then loop splitting. Barard-Covad stated that Covad currently recieves a downloard file. He stated that they wanted flags. Manning-Qwest asked if they received a bulk file and asked how they requested the file. Barard-Covad stated that he did not know exactly, but that product support sends the information to Covad. Manning-Qwest asked if they had problems getting information through the CSR. Barard-Covad stated that the information was received differently then other ILECs. He stated that it was much smoother then getting the information off of the CSR. Nolan-Qwest asked Covad if there were any additions or corrections.

Nolan-Qwest asked if there were any additional comments and then read the expected deliverables as listed on the CR form.

Confirm Interfaces and Products Impacted: IMA Common. Zulevic-Covad stated that the product should be Line sharing. Nolan-Qwest stated that she would update the products in the CR form.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved - All appropriate personnel participated in the clarification meeting.

Establish Action Plan - Nolan-Qwest stated that Covad had presented the CR as a walk on in the November meeting and that Qwest would provide a response at the December CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR112002-01- Addition of 3rd Party Voice, Re-Sale, and existing DSL Flag added to all Qwest Pre-Qual Tools. Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR112002-01). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting, Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1500-2500 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 13.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR101802-1X Detail

Description Of Change

Submitted 02-11-03

PC101802-1 Description of Change

Currently, Covad obtains demarc information from Qwest as part of the joint acceptance testing process. In the event that demarc in not transmitted at that time, Covad can obtain demarc info by calling Qwest’s Interconnect Group. By making demarc info available offline, electronically, Qwest will eliminate the need to staff this function and Covad and other CLECs can access that information at any time. All CLEC’s require demarc information on any install performed by Qwest regardless of the product. The CLEC itself or a Vendor will need to finish or extend the install to the customer and often cannot locate the line or circuit. The result is a call to obtain the information.

Expected Deliverable

Electronic Access to demarc information

==============

Currently, Covad obtains demarc information from Qwest as part of the joint acceptance testing process. In the event that demarc in not transmitted at that time, Covad can obtain demarc info by calling Qwest’s Interconnect Group. By making demarc info available offline, electronically, Qwest will eliminate the need to staff this function and Covad and other CLECs can access that information at any time.

Expected Deliverable

Electronic Access to demarc information

Status History

Project Meetings

1/24/05 Email Sent to Covad: John, SCR061303-01 Access to MLT Post Order Placement - Pre Order Completion SCR101802-1X Electronic Access to DMARC Information Just a follow-up regarding the 2 CRs noted above. At the January CMP Meeting, you stated that Covad was receiving error messages that stated that access was denied and that the user did not have the authority to perform the request. Will you please let me know the trouble ticket number that you received when you called in the problem? If you called in separate tickets for each of the CRs, please give both numbers to me. I would just like to follow-up on these internally, and need the ticket numbers so I can start asking questions. Thanks much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

1/19/05 CMP Systems Meeting

John Berard/Covad stated that they tested this functionality and received an ‘access to data denied’ message. Jill Martain/Qwest advised Covad to submit a trouble ticket This CR remains in CLEC Test.

12/15/04 CMP Systems Meeting

John Berard/Covad stated that he would like this CR to remain in CLEC Test for another month.

11/17/04 CMP Systems Meeting

John Berard/Covad said that he would like to keep this CR open one more month. John said that he will send an e-mail to close offline if possible. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that the functionality is working for Eschelon.

11/4/04 E-mail sent to Covad

Hi Liz,

During the October CMP Systems Meeting, we discussed SCR101802-1X (Electronic Access to Demarc) that was completed on October 10, 2004.

You stated that you wanted to validate the deployment and would like to close off-line if the CR was implemented successfully.

Have you had an opportunity to validate?

Let me know,

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein

CRPM – Systems

303 382-5770

.

10/20/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Liz Balvin/Covad will validate the deployment of this CR and will close off line. Liz Balvin/Covad will validate the deployment of this CR and will close off line if it is determined to be implemented successfully.

9/16/04 CMP Systems Meeting

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

E-mail to sent to Covad 6/23/04

John,

During the June CMP Systems Meeting, you asked about the implementation date on SCR101802-1X Electronic Access to Demarc Information. This is to let you know the implementation date is October 10, 2004.

Call me with any questions.

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein 303 382-5770 CRPM Systems Lynn.Stecklein.qwest.com

3/18/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that in the February CMP System Meeting, Judy Schultz indicated that we would have additional information on the funding approval process. Susie said that we have completed research on several additional CRs and will provide status on those CRs today. Susie said that our goal is to wrap this action item up in the next couple of weeks pending our CEO’s calendar. Susie said that we intend to start looking at the next batch of CRs and figure out a process going forward. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if it was Qwest’s goal to schedule all outstanding CRs. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that we need to get funding approval and then work with our IT partners to get the CRs scheduled. Susie Bliss/Qwest provided status on the following CRs: SCR042303-01EX (AT&T requests that Vendor Meet (coordinated dispatch) requests for non-design POTS service be at specific times) – Targeted Implementation Date 4/4/04 SCR061303-01 (Access to MLT Post Order Placement – Pre Order Completion) – Targeted Implementation Date 12/12/04 SCR100703-01 (Provide log information in CEMR for non-design tickets as Qwest provides for design tickets) – Targeted Implementation Date 10/10/04 SCR101802-1X (Electronic Access to Demarc Information) Targeted Implementation Date 10/10/04 SCR103003-05IG (ASOG 28 Exact Upgrade) Implementation Date 3/22/04 SCR030403-01ES (AT&T requests changes to commit time to be communicated on an Event Report through the attribute “commitment time”) Implementation Date 12/12/04 SCR103003-04IG (ASOG 28 TELIS Upgrade) Implementation Date 3/22/04 SCR103003-06 (TELIS Retirement) Targeted Implementation Date 8/31/04 SCR103003-02IG (ASOG 28 – QORA Upgrade) (Targeted Implementation Date 3/22/04)

7/28/03 - The resolution will allow CLECs to use CEMR to find: - For Designed Services – any information related to demark location and binding post termination available - For Non-Designed Services – any information related to binding post termination available - The data will be available from ASAP after installation until the record ages off of the system - The data will only be available from CEMR if it exists in the current data-bases, no processes will be modified for this effort.

6/19/03 CMP Systems Meeting Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that the LOE for this request is 1200 – 1300 hours and we are looking to schedule this CR. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that this CR has already been discussed in great detail and had nothing new to add. There were no questions or additional comments.

04-16-03 - CMP Meeting

Buckmaster-Qwest stated that Qwest had researched the Eschelon request from the March meeting and determined that it would signifigantly change the scope and cost of the solution. She suggested that current testing had shown that 100 percent of the samples included binding post information. She cautioned that Qwest could not guarantee that information would be in the report. She asked the CLECs to evaluate the strength of the Qwest solution and submit another CR if they felt that it did not meet their specific needs. The CR was moved to development status.

================================================

03-19-03 - CMP Meeting

White-Qwest stated that an Ad Hoc meeting to discuss this CR was held on 3/17. He stated that Qwest presented a proposed solution at this meeting and, based on questions here, would present a formal response to the web after this meeting and present it at the April CMP Meeting. Johnson-Eschelon asked if binding post information would be available to the CLECs. Buckmaster-Qwest stated that binding post information would be available for POTS and designed services when it was available. She stated that the focus of this CR was on the information that was in WFA/C for designed services; primarily the location of the demarc. She stated that this database may include additional information, and that Qwest would provide all information it had. She stated that she had reviewed several examples and that all of them had the information Bonnie was interested in. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she did not want to alter this CR and would submit a separate CR if there were many instances where there was no binding post information. Buckmaster-Qwest pointed out that Qwest provides the CLECs demarc information two times, by voice and e-mail, immediately following the completion of work. Mendoza-Allegiance stated that the Qwest technicians should provide binding post information. Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the description of change for this CR did not include changing the processes for Qwest technicians. Zulevic-Covad agreed that the CR was only written to obtain access to demarc information. Thomte-Qwest asked Zulevic and Johnson if they would be amenable to opening an additional CR for this if necessary. Johnson-Eschelon and Zulevic-Covad stated that they would.

==================================================

Ad Hoc Meeting 10:00 a.m MT, March 17, 2003

Attendees Matt White – Qwest Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest Dan Busetti – Qwest Jeanne Whisenant – Qwest Dave Hahn - Qwest John Berard – Covad Rick Paine – US Link Lori Mendoza – Allegiance Liz Balvin – WorldCom Terrance Morgan - WorldCom Erica Beamus – WorldCom Jeff Gelwick - WorldCom Stephanie Prull – McLeod USA Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon

White-Qwest welcomed attendees and explained the purpose of the meeting. He asked Buckmaster to review the potential solution Qwest had identified for the CR.

Buckmaster-Qwest reviewed the issues identified on the prior Ad Hoc call and stated that Dan Busetti came up with a potential solution. Busetti-Qwest reviewed the solution. He stated that Qwest would add functionality in CEMR to meet this request. He stated that for non-design circuits, CLECs would go to the non-design services action page and select a radial button to view the demarc information. He stated that a similar process would be in place for design services.

Mendoza-Allegiance asked if this functionality would include orders that have been dispatched or only those that have not been dispatched. Buckmaster-Qwest stated that Qwest would provide any information Qwest has. She explained that there would be occasions when Qwest doesn’t have all the information. She clarified that Qwest would not dispatch just to provide information to the database. She stated that the information for Designed Services would be pulled from WFA/C. She stated that information is populated into the database by Qwest technicians at many different locations. Johnson-Eschelon stated that at the previous Ad Hoc meeting Buckmaster had stated that the times when information was not available would be rare. Buckmaster-Qwest stated that at the previous Ad Hoc call the participants discussed that the Demarc information is most important in multi-tenant environments. She stated that binding post information was ancillary to the original request. She explained that Qwest would provide all the information that it can. Johnson-Eschelon asked if Qwest would provide binding post info if it is available. Buckmaster-Qwest stated that Qwest would.

Mendoza–Allegiance asked how the information got into the database if the order was not dispatched. Buckmaster–Qwest stated that if a technician anywhere provides the information, it would provided to the CLECs. She stated that Qwest was not modifying the existing processes for Qwest technicians. She stated that any information in the databases would be available to the CLECs. She explained that POTS has a different source than the Design Services side. Busetti–Qwest stated that LMOS was the database that Qwest would be be pulling the POTS information from. He stated that this database, if properly populated, includes terminal and binding post information.

Berard–Covad asked if specials would be pulled from WFA-C. Busetti–Qwest stated that the would.

Berard–Covad asked if Qwest was setting up a separate database and if Qwest could send the information to the CLECs. Busetti–Qwest stated that Qwest would not send reports to the CLECs, but that the functionality would take a live look at the data in WFA/C and LMOS at the time of the request. Berard–Covad stated that he was happy to hear that it was a live look. He confirmed that when CLECs went into CEMR and made a request it would be live look. Busetti–Qwest stated that the information would be pulled directly from WFA/C and LMOS.

Mendoza-Allegiance asked how the data would be in these databases. Busetti–Qwest stated that it would be in the database as long as the circuit is alive. Prull–McLeod asked how long it took the technicians to update the information in the database. Buckmaster–Qwest stated that she would check. She stated that it was updated within the same workday and that the practice is to do it as soon as the work is completed.

Mendoza–Allegiance asked if the technicians would go out on the plant test date for designed services. Buckmaster–Qwest stated that she needed to check to get an accurate answer to that question.

White-Qwest asked if this met Covad’s intent for the request. Berard–Covad stated that Covad would still like the information sent to them, but that this was a good solution. Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the information is delivered to the CLECs twice for Designed Service circuits: verbally upon closure, and via e-mail within 48 hours of closure. Berard-Covad stated that was good to hear. He stated that Covad could work with that.

White-Qwest stated that Qwest would present a verbal response at the March 19 CMP Meeting and would post a written response on the interactive report following the meeting. He thanked the attendees and adjourned the meeting.

==================================================================

02-19-03 - CMP Meeting

Buckmaster-Qwest presented the Qwest response. Zulevic-Covad stated that his preference was to have the information sent to the CLECs, and his second preference was to have Qwest make the information available to the CLECs. Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she understood that this CR requested three things: 1. An electronic means of accessing information regarding the Demarc and Binding Post location - for orders that were provisioned by Qwest at the CLEC’s request. 2. The CLECs would like this information for both Designed and POTS. 3. Provided as soon as possible upon completion of Qwest’s work. There were no further questions.

==========================================================

Ad Hoc Meeting 02-07-03

Attendees Matt White – Qwest Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest Deni Toye - Qwest Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon Rick Paine – U.S. Link Kelly Hamilton – U.S. Link Karla Kaatz – 180 Communications Mike Zulevic – Covad Glenn Gill – ATG

White-Qwest announced attendees and explained that the purpose of this meeting was to allow Qwest to ask Covad some questions about the CR.

Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she thought the Covad was requesting demarc information in an accessible form so the company could route its technicians properly. Zulevic-Covad stated that this was the gist of the request. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she would like Qwest to give the demarc information including the where the cross-connect is made. She would like the information to include terminal and binding post information. Zulevic-Covad stated that he would revise the Description of Change to reflect this information.

Buckmaster-Qwest asked if the location of the demarc information was only important for large (primarily commercial) buildings. Zulevic-Covad stated that the majority of the sites they wanted demarc information for were commercial sites or large buildings, but there were some unique residential locations they also needed it for.

Buckmaster-Qwest stated that the demarc information may not be available on 100% of the circuits. Zulevic-Covad asked if the Qwest installation technicians reported the demarc information into WFA. Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she did not know. Toye-Qwest stated that the demarc information was communicated via the PTA e-mail after and order is completed. Johnson-Eschelon stated that the e-mail did not include binding post information except for T1’s. She stated that they CLECs were asking for a report that included POTS.

Buckmaster-Qwest stated that she might have to issue a response that commits to only giving the CLECs the information that Qwest currently has. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she understood that the information might not be everything the CLECs would like. Buckmaster-Qwest stated that currently the demarc information is supplied to the CLECs at two different times: verbally when the order is closed and electronically (via e-mail) within 48 hours after the order is closed.

Johnson-Eschelon stated that the real issue was the CLECs are having a problem finding demarc locations and binding post assignments. As a result, the CLECs call QCCC. She stated that completing this CR would result in a small call flow to the center. Zulevic-Covad stated that Covad calls the QCCC to determine demarc information for every order their technicians went on. He stated that he was not sure that Qwest had the complete information for every call.

Buckmaster-Qwest recapped that the CLECs were looking for an electronic method to access information on demarc and binding post locations. Gill-ATG stated that the appropriate means to communicate this information would be on the loop DLR/DSR. Johnson-Eschelon stated that the DLR is not available soon enough. Buckmaster-Qwest reviewed that the CLECs want access to the information about the physical location that Qwest did its work. Johnson-Eschelon stated that Buckmaster had adequately summarized the essence of the request. Zulevic-Covad stated that the CLECs wanted this information as soon as the Qwest technicians finish their work.

Zulevic-Covad stated that he was not familiar with the PTA e-mail results. He stated that that method of communication would not work for POTS.

Buckmaster-Qwest recapped that the CLECs were looking for: 1. An electronic means of accessing information regarding the Demarc and Binding Post location - For orders that were provisioned by Qwest at the CLEC’s request 2. The CLECs would like this information for both Designed and POTs services 3. Provided as soon as applicable after the close of the order

There were no further questions. White-Qwest and Buckmaster-Qwest thanked the attendees and adjourned the meeting.

===================================================================

01/15/03 - CMP Meeting

Moreland-Qwest presented the Qwest response. White-Qwest recommended the CR be placed in Evaluation status when it is crossed over. Johnson-Eschelon asked if a representative from IT could explain in more detail why the CR needed to be crossed over. Schultz-Qwest stated that they could. The CR was crossed over to systems with a status of Evaluation.

===================================================================

12/18/02 - CMP Monthly Product/Process Meeting

Moreland-Qwest described the CR and presented the Qwest response. Berard-Covad stated that Qwest was looking at a database but Covad was open to Qwest introducing any type of electronic means of presenting the information, not just EDI. He stated that Covad would prefer EID, however. Boudhaouia-Qwest stated that stated that Verizon doesn’t have a database and Qwest is trying to determine if there is a feasible way for Qwest to make this information available to the CLECs. Johnson-Eschelon stated that regardless of how Verizon delivers, the fact is that they do make the information available and Qwest does not. She continued that this would be a good change for all companies involved. The attendees agreed to move the CR into Evaluation status.

===================================================================

11/20/02 - CMP Monthly Product/Process Meeting

Berard-Covad presented the CR. He stated that Covad wanted electronic access to demarc information and was given that access by other ILECs. White-Qwest asked which ILECs provided this information and how they provided it. Berard-Covad stated that Verizon provides CLECs a downloadable file that contained demarc information and updated this file four times a day. He stated that the information included floor/closet/binding post or language like “northwest corner of the basement.” Schultz-Qwest asked how having electronic access to this information helped Covad. Berard-Covad stated that it allowed them to access the information at any time and that Covad was hoping to streamline the process in the future to allow JAT without a phone call. Berard-Covad stated that Covad would prefer a file be sent to them every day, but would be happy with a download. Spangler-AT&T and Johnson-Eschelon stated that they would prefer delivery as well and that this should apply to all resale products as well. The CR status was updated to Presented.

===================================================================

CLEC Change Request – PC1018002-1 Clarification Meeting 2:00 PM (Mountain Time) / Tuesday, November 5, 2002

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

Attendees Matt White – CRPM Minda Cutcher – Covad Brett Fesler – Qwest Neil Houston - Qwest

Introduction of Attendees White-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Cutcher-Covad reviewed the CR and stated that Covad was seeking the same information about the physical location of demarcs at customer prems through electronic means as they got when they called the interconnect center QCCC. She said an example would be to say the demarc was in the northwest corner of the basement of a building.

Houston-Qwest confirmed that Covad was seeking a physical description so the Covad Technician could find the demarc.

Cutcher-Covad stated that they currently get the information during Joint Acceptance Testing, and that she would like a means to access the information electronically. She stated that Qwest must have a database in which it records this information and surmised that to grant this request, Qwest could design a means for Covad to access that database.

Houston-Qwest asked if Covad was seeking a Web site format.

Cutcher-Covad stated that they weren’t necessarily seeking a Web site that could be accessed 24x7, just a means of getting the information electronically during normal business hours. She stated that other ILECs (Verizon and PacBell) had offered this functionality to Covad.

Houston-Qwest stated that he would work with some of his contacts at those companies to understand how they offered this information to CLECs.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted White-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted. Confirm Right Personnel Involved White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm Covad’s expectation.

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests White-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for Covad to present the CR at the November Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR101802-1X. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held March 19, 2003 and April 16, 2003) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1200 to 1300 hours for this CEMR Change Request.

At the June 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

May 14, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the May 21, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Mike Zulevic Director - GEA Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC101802-1

Qwest accepts this change request. Qwest will implement a solution to this request in the CEMR release currently scheduled for implementation in first quarter 2004.

Functionality, scheduled for inclusion in this release, will include: - For Designed services – any information related to demarc location and binding post termination available - For Non-Designed services – any information related to binding post termination available.

There may be instances when no information is available in the source data. In such instances, the information will not be available via the new functionality. Additionally, Qwest will continue to provide customers with all applicable demarc/binding post information, by voice and e-mail, immediately following completion of work to connect a designed services circuit.

Qwest will provide updates on the progress of the implementation of this solution at Monthly CMP Product/Process Meetings.

Sincerely, Cindy Buckmaster Product Manager

Archived System CR SCR121202-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Mark Coyne – Qwest said this CR is part of the IMA 24.0 October 20th Release and will be closed.

10/15/08 Systems CMP Meeting

Mark Coyne – Qwest said this CR is part of the IMA 24.0 October 20th Release. Gloria Velez – AT&T asked if this was the complete V24 list (IMA 24.0) Mark Coyne – Qwest said yes.

8/15/07 Systems CMP Meeting

Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that IMA 23.0 is scheduled in April of 2008. Note: Kim Isaacs-Eschelon said that candidate number 7 - SCR121306-01 Enable the EOS Field on the Directory Listing Form is on the Commitment List for IMA 22.0. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that we will remove that candidate from the IMA 23.0 list. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that the Prioritization Instructions and spreadsheet candidate list are included in this attachment. She stated that there are 11 candidates on the list. She said that Qwest and the CLEC ranks each CR on the list by providing a point value from 1 through 11. Peggy said that the highest point value (11) should be assigned to the CR that Qwest and the CLECs wish to be implemented first. The next point value (10) should be assigned to the CR that Qwest and the CLECs wish to be implemented second and so on. The lowest point value (1) should be assigned to the least desired CR. Peggy stated that the total points will be calculated by the Qwest CMP Manager and the results will be distributed to the CLECs via mailout within 2 business days following the submission of the ranking. Peggy reviewed the timelines associated with prioritization: - Qwest Re-Distributes the Prioritization Form by 5 pm MT on August 20th - The Completed Prioritization Form will be submitted to cmpcr@qwest.com by 5 pm MT on August 23rd. - Qwest e-mails the Initital Prioritization Form by 5 pm MT on August 27th. - Peggy asked if everyone would like to provide their top 2 candidates. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that their top candidate is #9 SCR062906-03 Allow End State Ordering for Resale POTS Service. Integra – no response Jeff Sonnier-Sprint said that he would send an e-mail with this information. Note: 8/17/07 - E-mail received from Sprint with top 2 candidates: 1. Change of usage of CCNA for Sprint on LNP Orders 2. Allow NP Bus Name on Residential Account TDS – no response Verizon Business – no response Sue Wright-XO Communications stated that she had nothing to share. Janet Harper-Bresnan Communications stated that she did not have anything to share. McLeod – no response Synchronous – no response Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest’s top 2 candidates are #10 SCR110106-02 Allow NP Bus Name on Residential Account and #11 SCR071307-01 Add TSP Reject Code.

2/16/05 Systems CMP Meeting - IMA 18.0 Candidate Discussion

There was no discussion on this CR.

7/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would distribute the ballot on July 27th, it is due back to Qwest on July 30th, and Qwest would email the initial prioritization list to the CLECs on August 3rd. There were no questions.

The CR Originator was not on the conference bridge. There were no questions.

2/21/03 - E-mail notification received from Cox Communication This is a followup to our conversation earlier this week. This serves as an official notification that we would like it to be an option for CLEC or ILECs as to whether they want to receive the auto completion notices.

1/16/03 Systems CMP Meeting Delynn Ball/Cox presented this change request. Cox Communications is requesting that Qwest stop auto-completion notifications from being routed to their e-mail inbox. He also said that when they want this information they currently could access IMA on an individual case basis. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon does use the auto-completion notifications and would like Cox/Communications to revise this change request to say that this would be optional. She stated that Eschelon would support this change request if this revision were made. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that they use the auto-completions to track as well. Connie Winston/Qwest said that it would be in your best interest to update your CR to make this optional; otherwise it might not get a lot of support in the 14.0 vote. Delynn Ball/Cox Communication agreed to revise this CR. Kit Thomte/Qwest asked if there were any other questions or comments. Delynn Ball/Cox Communications asked how the process works from here. Connie Winston/Qwest said that the change request needs to be updated to reflect that this would be an optional feature, by CLEC. This CR will be included in the 14.0 vote. Delynn Ball/Cox Communications said that he would update the change request. Kit Thomte/Qwest noted that the status would change from clarification to presented.

12/17/02 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees Delynn Ball - Cox Communications, Deb Osborne - Qwest, Conrad Evans - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Requested (Description of Change) Cox Communications would like Qwest to stop auto-completion notifications from being routed to their e-mail inbox.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved All appropriate personnel were involved in the clarification meeting.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation Cox stated that they receive on average 400 of these notifications per day and locks up their e-mail inbox and takes resources to manage and delete files that are not needed. They feel that these notifications can be pulled in IMA on and individual case basis.

Deb Osborne/Qwest reviewed the process associated with the cycle of notifications for Cox and the history associated with PSONs. Qwest stated that they fully understands the CR submitted by Cox and there were no further questions.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests NA

Establish Action Plan Cox Communications will present this CR in the January CMP Systems Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR121202-02 Auto-completion notification process change request Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR121202-02). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting, Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 650-1075 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 14.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR080702-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Updated CEMR application, ASAP.

Status History

Project Meetings

- October 17, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Michael Buck/Qwest stated that the patch was deployed and there were no issues from Desktop Media. Unless anyone has any objection, we will update this to completed status. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that CEMR was ready to accept RSID, UNE-P would expect ZCID. Dan Busetti/Qwest stated that CEMR will accept RSID and ZCID. The trouble was in a downstream system, which was fixed. ZCID is now populated correctly. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if a patch was done. Dan Busetti/Qwest stated that in the downstream system we did put a fix in place. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked when that happened. Dan Busetti/Qwest stated September 27th and that there was one put in earlier. Jeff Thompson/Qwest stated that he was not sure how WorldCom would have an issue here. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that she went to IMA training and it was mentioned that this was a problem. Jeff Thompson/Qwest stated that that issue has been addressed and that this has been working. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if there are any unique nuances for UNE-P when submit trouble tickets? Dan Busetti/Qwest stated that they are to be sent in as normal, the same way you send everything else. Dan Busetti/Qwest stated that he would make sure the training folks understand that there are no issues.

September 19, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Michael Buck/Qwest stated that Qwest implemented a bug fix, another bug fix is in process and the permanent fix will be implemented on September 27, 2002. Dan Busetti/Qwest stated that the bug fix is for marking the difference of line splitting and line sharing. The bug fix in progress is for a functionality issue with the line share flow. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if this request is specifically for line splitting and line sharing. Dan Busetti/Qwest responded, yes. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that the status is now Development and on 9/27 can change to CLEC Test or can work off-line with Desktop Media to close this CR. There was no dissent, from the CLECs, to working off-line for CR closure.

September 6, 2002 Emailed investigation results for the TN examples to Corey Hauer: Hi Corey -- Here are the investigation results for the TN examples that you provided. I will add the information onto your CR prior to the September Systems CMP Meeting. Please let me know if you have questions/comments. 507-645-7953 doesn't ask about line splitting Correction was made to the line record, CEMR now ok. 507-334-1504 does ask about line splitting, can't open ticket on voice CEMR now ok. 507-377-2062 doesn't ask about line splitting Correction was made to the line record, CEMR now ok. 507-373-8293 doesn't ask about line splitting Correction was made to the line record, CEMR now ok. 507-373-6583 doesn't ask about line splitting Correction was made to the line record, CEMR now ok. 507-373-6449 does ask about line splitting, can't open ticket on voice CEMR now ok. 507-334-8379 doesn't ask about line splitting, ownership error on features Not resold or Line Share/Line Split. 507-334-9499 doesn't ask about line splitting Correction was made to the line record, CEMR now ok. 507-664-9543 doesn't ask about line splitting Correction was made to the line record, CEMR now ok. 507-663-7808 doesn't ask about line splitting Correction was made to the line record, CEMR now ok. 507-645-0487 doesn't ask about line splitting Correction was made to the line record, CEMR now ok.

August 14, 2002: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest forwarded Corey's examples to those in attendance on the Clarification Call.

August 14, 2002 Email from Corey Hauer/Desktop Media to Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest: Hello Peggy, Thanks for scheduling the call today for this CR. Here are the numbers we discussed that have line splitting: 507-645-7953 doesn't ask about line splitting 507-334-1504 does ask about line splitting, can't open ticket on voice 507-377-2062 doesn't ask about line splitting 507-373-8293 doesn't ask about line splitting 507-373-6583 doesn't ask about line splitting 507-373-6449 does ask about line splitting, can't open ticket on voice 507-334-8379 doesn't ask about line splitting, ownership error on features 507-334-9499 doesn't ask about line splitting 507-664-9543 doesn't ask about line splitting 507-663-7808 doesn't ask about line splitting 507-645-0487 doesn't ask about line splitting I hope that is helpful. Please let me know if you need additional information. Corey Hauer Desktop Media 507-373-2155x107

August 14, 2002 Clarification Meeting - Attendees: Corey Hauer/Desktop Media, Denise/Desktop Media, Dan Busetti/Qwest, Cathy Garcia/Qwest, Roszan Jarman-Konkel/Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated the purpose of this call was for Qwest to ask questions of Desktop Media to ensure that Qwest fully understands the request. Peggy Esquibel-Reed confirmed with Desktop Media that the CR was for any UNE-P product and reviewed the CR description. Corey Hauer/Desktop Media - feature verification is not working for any UNE-P accounts. Get ownership error's and trouble tickets do not work when there is line splitting because the ZCID is not utilized. Dan Busetti/Qwest - Are you having problems opening trouble tickets? Corey Hauer/Destop Media - Yes, for line splitting with UNE-P. CEMR looks and evaluates if they own the POTS account. CEMR can't find that they do and an error is received. Dan Busetti/Qwest - asked for examples of 4 or 5 TNs and asked what type of error that Desktop Media was getting. Denise/Desktop Media - When they call AMSC, they also get the same error message. Dan Busetti/Qwest - Do you receive the error message when own voice & data portions? Corey Hauer/Desktop Media - Yes. CEMR does not accommodate ZCID, only RSID. Corey Hauer/Desktop Media - provided some TN's on the call: 507.663.9088, 507.377.2929, 507.373.2678, 507.373.3929. Some were CEMR issues, some were not. Dan Busetti/Qwest - asked for examples in order to do root cause on them. Corey Hauer/Desktop Media - Nothing works for feature verification and problems with the opening of trouble tickets when there is line splitting on the account. Corey agreed to email examples to Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest today. Dan Busetti/Qwest - he has examples for the feature verification issue.

CenturyLink Response

September 9, 2002

RE: SCR080702-01 (Update CEMR to use ZCID in addition to RSID)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR080702-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held August 14, 2002), Qwest has investigated this request. As a result of information received during the Clarification Call and investigation of ticket numbers 6027057 and 6019935, Qwest has: - Established an interim solution on August 20, 2002. - Discovered a bug which was fixed on September 4, 2002. - Targeted implementation of the permanent fix on September 27, 2002.

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

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR041202-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: an updated version of IMA with appropriate changes.

Status History

Project Meetings

Denise Duncan - Desktop Media Cory Houer - Desktop Media Mark Routh - Qwest Jerry Mohatt - Qwest J.J. Bradley - Qwest Chrystal Soderlund - Qwest Angela Stewart - Qwest

Mark opened the meeting and everyone introduced themselves.

Denise stated that Desktop Media submitts orders via the IMA GUI on one of 3 types of forms. The LSR, Directory Listing and Resale forms. There was some discussion around the CLECs issue to port a customer under the Line splitting and line sharing environments without causing an interuption is service. Cory provided the following summary: I am hopeful that the CMP process can resolve what I believe to be to parity issues inherent in the current Qwest Wholesale process for Line Splitting versus how Qwest treats it's competing retail and wholesale QwestDSL product.

Scenario A) - CLEC sells UNE-P POTS service to existing DSL customer

Qwest Retail dialtone customer has CLEC Line Sharing in place from previous LSR. Customer decides to order UNE-P POTS service from CLEC. CLEC cannot place order for UNE-P POTS conversion except by doing the following:

1. Issue LSR to disconnect line sharing knocking CLEC's end user out of broadband service - wait SI of 2 days for order to complete, then wait 48+ hours for CSR to update 2. Issue LSR to convert service to UNE-P POTS, wait SI of 2 days for order to complete, wait 48+ hours for CSR to update, customer still has no broaband 3. Issue LSR to add line splitting, wait 5 day SI

Scenario B) - Qwest Retail solicits DSL business from CLEC DSL customer

1. Qwest Retail places order to add USOC for DSL to account 2. Qwest techician disconnects CLEC line sharing and replaces with QwestDSL splitter connection

Some at Qwest would tell you that the process involves a step between 1 and 2 where the CLEC places an LSR to remove line sharing. I can tell you for certain this is not true. Qwest Retail has told customers switching from Desktop Media to QwestDSL that we needed to place an order to remove line sharing. Once Qwest Retail starts down the road of placing an order to provision Qwest DSL IMA doesn't allow us to do any order activity regarding line sharing - I have tried this. IMA says "coprovider D17 not authorized on this account" or somesuch message.

Regardless, in scenario A) my end user is without broadband for as much as two weeks, in scenario B) the customer is without broadband for a number of minutes plus whatever time the end user takes to change the CPE and computer settings.

This isn't parity - and clearly favors Qwest Retail over CLECs.

As an action item for Qwest I am looking for a process (manual or otherwise) to allow Desktop Media to sell UNE-P POTS service to our existing DSL customers without service interruption.

Scenario C) CLEC has end user orders new UNE-P POTS service and wants DSL at same time. IMA is currently unable to accomodate this - instead CLEC must do the following:

1. Place LSR for new UNE-P POTS service, wait 2-day SIG 2. Wait 48 hours to 10 days (or more) for CSR to be generated 3. Place order for line splitting, wait 5-day SIG

Scenario D) Qwest Retail end users orders new Service and wants DSL at same time.

1. Qwest enters order for new service with QwestDSL usoc as a feature

Mark indicated that Qwest will investigate these issues and provide a response back to the CLEC as soon as possible.

Discussion from the May 16 CMP Meeting: Connie Winston/Qwest presented this CR on behalf of Desktop Media. The Originator from Desktop Media was not in attendance. Connie Winston/Qwest summarized the two issues that Desktop Media has raised. Connie Winston/Qwest said that Qwest is researching the issues to determine why IMA rejected this LSR. Judy Schultz/Qwest asked if this might be a production support problem. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there may be a production support issue or it could also be a process problem. It is also possible that data was entered incorrectly on the LSR. Michael Buck/Qwest said that this CR will remain in evaluation status and Qwest will report at some point in the future.

CenturyLink Response

As I have investigated your recent Change Request for Ordering line splitting along with a conversion, I have found the following information related to this issue. The conversion to UNE-P POTS requires a change in the Customer of Record. As you are well aware, that is done on an LSR. The account has to be established as a new ZSID account. To create the line splitting requires a second LSR. It can not be on the same LSR because these are two different Product Types and are handled in two different service centers. However, you can place an RPON reference on the second LSR that will allow the LSR to be processed as soon as the

CSR for the first LSR is established. This will allow for a much quicker processing of the line splitting LSR and minimize the service interruption. The RSID (resold account) information may not be a factor in this scenario so comparing the RSID and ZSID in IMA, as you suggested, is not an option. Qwest is preparing a document that outlines the process for submitting the two LSRs. If you have any questions about this process, Joshua Nielsen has indicated that he would be happy to assist you with this.

If you have additional questions concerning your Change Request, please contact me. We will be discussing this request at the monthly Systems CMP meeting on May 16. Concerning scenarios C&D in your memo: Qwest retail DSL does not take a DSL order concurrent with a new connect. The line must be provisioned before it can be loop qualified. This takes about three days. If the line loop qualifies, the Interval for turning up the DSL is 10 business days. The Wholesale Resale and UNE-P DSL products follow the same process.

In all cases, Qwest Retail and Wholesale orders are processed using the same procedures and the same Standard Intervals apply to both types of orders.

I hope this is a satisfactory response to your questions. If not, I will try to get whatever information you need. Please let me know.

Thank you.

6/11/02 Letter to Desktop Media:

Corey and Denise,

Qwest has been investigating your request to be able to order Line Splitting along with a conversion. As you know, Qwest was under the assumption that this could be done using the existing systems and processes. However, with your assistance, we discovered that there is a bug in the system that prevents this transaction from successfully completing. As a result, Qwest is working on repairing this problem and plans to implement the fix in the IMA 10.01 Release that will be installed on August 18th. We will contact you at that time to see if the functionality is working to your satisfaction.

Thank you again for bringing this to our attention.

Mark Routh

Corey and Denise,

On Friday 7/12/02 during the maintenance window in the evening, Qwest will install a patch to the IMA system that should allow you to order line-splitting along with a conversion. Please feel free to test this system change anytime after this weekend and let me know if the updated process satisfies your business requirements.

Thank you.

Mark Routh

Archived System CR SCR082202-01 Detail

Description Of Change

UNE-P PAL is a new UNE-P product providing the equivalent functionality of the Qwest Basic Public Access Lines (PAL) product and breaking it down into its unbundled elements for billing purposes. A Basic PAL line is a ‘dumb’ line to which the customer connects a ‘smart’ pay telephone. The smart pay telephone contains a microprocessor that is programmed to provide coin control signaling, including coin collection and coin return.

Qwest Retail and Resold PAL Service is provided for use by Independent Payphone Providers (IPPs), Payphone Service Providers (PSPs), and COCOT (Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephone) customers, allowing them to place their own coin or coinless public pay telephone instruments on the PAL line. The UNE-P PAL product makes this similar PAL functionality available to UNE-P CLEC customers.

Currently several UNE-P CLEC customers are required to manually create and submit several hundred UNE-P PAL requests each week. Manual creation and submission of requests is more labor intensive for these UNE-P CLEC customers and may allow for a greater number of errors to exist in the request, resulting in more rejects and re-work of the requests. Adding the UNE-P PAL product into IMA will allow for the mechanized creation and submission of these requests. Mechanized IMA processing is currently available for the Retail and Resold PAL products and adding this new UNE-P product into IMA will allow ordering parity for the entire line of Qwest PAL products.

CLECs may order new UNE-P PAL combinations or convert preexisting Qwest Retail or Resold PAL services to UNE-P PAL.

UNE-P PAL consists of the following unbundled network elements:

* 2-Wire Voice Grade Analog Loop

* Analog Line Side Port Switch

* Shared Transport

Original Description:

Request is to have full order capabilities through IMA for Coin UNEP Products.

Status History

Project Meetings

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the Ernest Group requested that this request be withdrawn.

8/26/01 E-mail received from Ernest Group

This request can be withdrawn. Thank you,

Steve Reynolds Director Ernest Communications 770.242.9069 770.448-4115 fax

--Original Message-- From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:58 PM To: sreynolds@ernestgroup.com Cc: Esquibel-Reed, Peggy Subject: SCR082202-01 Allow Coin UNEP orders to be processed through IMA

Steve,

The reason for my e-mail is to determine if you still have an interest in keeping the attached change request open. Your change request has gone through several prioritizations and has not been ranked high enough by the CLEC Community to be voted into any IMA Releases. In addition, Ernest Group no longer participates in the Monthly Change Management Meetings.

Please let me know if you would like to withdraw or keep this CR open and I will take the necessary steps.

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein CRPM - Systems 303 382-5770 Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com

July 22, 2004 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.

The CR Originator was not on the conference bridge. There were no questions.

December 19, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kit Thomte/Qwest reviewed the prioritization process as defined in the CMP document. She noted that December 30th, 2002 is the due date for submitted votes. Judy Schultz/Qwest noted that the due date would be included in the instructions in the notification that goes out with the ballot. Kit Thomte/Qwest reviewed the sample prioritization form. Wendy Green/Qwest said that Qwest submitted a similar CR and we withdrew ours and Ernest Group kept theirs. Terry Bahner/AT&T asked if this was something Qwest supports. Connie Winston/Qwest said no, this is just something that we’d opened long ago.

Clarification call held at 8:00 a.m. Mountain Time on 8/28/02 Attendees: Steve Reynolds - Ernest Group Michael Redd - Ernest Group John Gallegos - Qwest Berkley Loggie - Qwest Gloria Graham - Qwest Eric Yohe - Qwest Joann Garramone - Qwest Michael Whitt - Qwest Mark Routh - Qwest

Mark opened the call and had all of the participants introduce themselves. Mark Described the purpose of the meeting and read the title of the CR. Mark discussed the fact that this CR is the same as an existing Qwest initiated CR (30212) and pointed out the fact that it had been prioritized in IMA 10.0, 11.0 and 12.0 but had fallen too low to be completed. He mentioned the fact that all of the business requirements have been completed for this request. Mark noted that Qwest would like to Withdraw the existing Qwest initiated CR and allow the Ernest Group CR to continue as the representative of this request. This decision was based on the fact that as a CLEC initiated CR, it may get a higher prioritization than the Qwest initiated CR has gotten for the past 3 releases. Steve asked how the prioritization process worked. Mark briefly described how the prioritization process works. He added that he would be available to answer any questions that Ernest Group had concerning the process. Eric also noted that he would be available to help Ernest Group with any aspect of the process. Mark asked if there were any additional questions or comments. There were none. Mark thanked everyone for participating and the call was concluded at 8:20 a.m. (mountain)

Discussion at the September CMP Meeting:

Mike Buck/Qwest—presented this CR on behalf of Ernest Group who was not in attendance. In the clarification call it was determined that this was a duplicate of Qwest initiated CR 30212. 30212 had gone through prioritization numerous times and was ranked very low. In the call, the thought was that a CLEC initiated CR might be prioritized higher, so Qwest agreed to withdraw their CR to let this one move forward. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if this is one of the LSOG issues Qwest presented Connie Winston/Qwest said no. This CR was to add UNE-P PAL. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if it is currently being ordered via fax or some other manner. Connie Winston/Qwest said it is ordered via IIS. Mike Buck/Qwest asked if there were any other questions. There were none. This status will be changed to Pending Prioritization for IMA 13.0 and Qwest has provided the LOE in the CR response.

CenturyLink Response

August 28, 2002

RE: SCR082202-01 (Allow Coin UNEP orders to be processed through IMA)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR082202-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held on August 28, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 3125 to 5225 hours for this IMA Process change.

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 SCR082202-01.

This change is eligible to be prioritized in the IMA 13.0 prioritization vote which will be conducted after the CR Review in the December 19th, 2002 Systems CMP monthly meeting.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR070202-1X Detail

Description Of Change

Additional Information:

A process to supply CLECs with an "Invoice" of repair charges at the time of the repair visit.

Status History

Project Meetings

3/17/03 - Meeting held to discuss Eschelon's concerns. Eschelon would not have to apply for another Digital Certificate and could existing. The ticket information would be provided on a daily basis. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest will contact Kathy Stichter on 3/24/03 when she returns from vacation and provide status and update on Eschelon's concerns and questions.

3/6/03 - Contacted Kathy Stichter/Eschelon regarding Qwest developing a Web Tool to provide this information stead of sending the ticket information via e-mail. Kathy raised three concerns: 1. Don't want to have to apply for another Digital Certificate and asked if they could use there existing certificate. 2. Eschelon would have to look at tickets pro-actively. 3. How often would web be updated with ticket information. Kathy also indicated she would be on vacation until March 24, 2003 and would not be able to provide an answer until that time. 3/3/03 - Talked with Kathy Stichter/Eschelon regarding the description of change. Per Kathy ok to revise the description to remove any reference that Qwest will provide the cost or the total cost of each USOC.. Eschelon agreed that they will identify the rates and total cost associated with each USOC.

1/16/03 CMP Systems Meeting Dan Busetti/Qwest stated that this Change Request is in design. Dan stated that we are providing an updated LOE but it is still not scheduled. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon asked if we would have the implementation date in the February Systems CMP Meeting. Connie Winston/Qwest said that we could work towards that. Kit Thomte/Qwest said that this action item would remain open.

Additional Clarification Meeting / Conference Call Time/Date: 11:00 a.m. (MDT) / Thursday, September 12, 2002 Place: TEL 877.564.8688 Conference Call-In No.: CODE: 8571927 CR No.: CLEC Change Request SCR070202-1X "Time & Material Repair Charges invoice process"

Introduction of Attendees: Kathy Stichter, Eschelon, ILEC Relations Manager Dan Busetti, Qwest, Lead IT Analyst Craig Suellentrop, Qwest, 271 Network Technical Regulatory Roszan Jarman-Konkel, Qwest, Lead QA Engineer Justin Sewell, Qwest, Software Development Engineer Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest, CRPM

Meeting Purpose: This CR was crossed over from a Product & Process CR. Additional clarification is needed form a systems perspective.

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that when Qwest goes out for repair for a Retail customer, there is a Time & Material invoice left with the customer to advise what will be billed. They leave an RG25-0015; she has a copy of one that was provided to her from one of her customers. Eschelon requests the same type of information provided to them before the charges are billed. Eschelon can then review the information for possible disputes and can check into subsequent tickets. Eschelon is requesting this information prior to the bill. Once is on the bill, is very time consuming to find the charges and to determine if the charges are applicable.

Discussion: Dan Busetti/Qwest asked what type of information is she seeing on the RG25-0015. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated the ticket number, customer address, city, state, billing telephone number, customer name, check box for installation visit or repair visit, technician’s name, total labor hours & minutes, list of USOCs, USOC description’s, quantity, cost, and total lines. Dan Busetti/Qwest asked if Eschelon’s request was for Maintenance & Repair charges. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon responded yes, repair only for designed and non-designed services. Dan Busetti/Qwest asked what information Eschelon needs. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated ticket number, customer BTN or circuit ID, whatever trouble was found on, USOC, quantity, labor hours, and what is being billed for. For non-designed, it would be a TIC and designed would be dispatch & increments of time charges. Dan Busetti/Qwest asked - how soon do you want the information? Kathy Stichter/Eschelon responded - immediately. The information is left for Retail on the premise as the technician is leaving. Is thinking a daily report. Dan Busetti/Qwest - immediately or the day after? Kathy Stichter/Eschelon - yes, the day after would work. Dan Busetti/Qwest - how do you want to receive the report? Kathy Stichter/Eschelon - via Email. Dan Busetti/Qwest - someone will be looking at the form and do the compilations? Kathy Stichter/Eschelon - yes, I will be doing that. Dan Busetti/Qwest - do you want the Eschelon ticket number? Kathy Stichter/Eschelon - Ideally, yes. Dan Busetti/Qwest - a report the next day would be okay, would get Tuesday’s work on Wednesday? Kathy Stichter/Eschelon - yes, that would be okay. Dan Busetti/Qwest asked Craig Suellentrop/Qwest if he missed anything. Craig Suellentrop/Qwest stated that Dan captured the key issues. Craig stated that it could differ by CLEC and/or by state. Craig asked for verification that the CLECs would get their own rates. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated yes, does not expect Qwest to provide the rates, only the increments. Craig Suellentop/Qwest stated that the CLEC ticket number is contained in CEMR Dan Busetti/Qwest stated that on the report, it would be received the next day with the Qwest ticket number, possibly the CLEC ticket number, circuit ID or WTN, date of dispatch. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon - the WTN would be better than the BTN. Dan Busetti/Qwest asked Craig Suellentrop/Qwest if general information regarding the Maintenance of service charge is left with the End Users. Craig Suellentrop/Qwest stated he believes so but will verify for Dan.

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

-- 07/17/02 - July CMP Meeting Minutes: Eschelon presented their Change Request. CR status is clarification

Alignment/Clarification Meeting Conference Call Time/Date: 2:00 p.m. (MDT) / Wednesday, July 10, 2002 Place:TEL: 877.521.8688 Conference Call-In No.: CODE: 7901848 CR No.:CLEC Change Request PC070202-1"Time & Material Repair Charges invoice process"

Kathy Stichter, Eschelon, ILEC Relations Manager Craig Suellentrop, Qwest, 271 Network Technical Regulatory Alice Matthews, Qwest, Process Specialist Michael Keegan, Qwest, CMP Manager

Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Description: Currently Qwest leaves a "Time and Materials Invoice" with its retail customers during a repair visit when the trouble was not found in the Qwest network. Qwest does not supply anything to CLECs. This "Invoice" would assist Eschelon in reconcilling its bill. Eschelon asks Qwest to develop, document and train an adhered to process to supply CLECs with this same "Invoice" or something similar, with the same detail, that will state the charges that Qwest plans to bill at the time of the repair visit. The "Invoice" should contain the Qwest repair ticket number, the number or circuit ID which was reported in trouble, the customer's name and address, the Qwest technicians name and telephone number, the date, the USOCs that Qwest will bill, the quantity of each USOC, the cost of each USOC, the total cost and the reason for the charge.

Discussion: Eschelon is requesting that the same type of time & material invoice that is generated by Qwest technicians for Qwest retail customers be generated for the CLECs prior to billing and mailed to the CLEC for review and signature.

Qwest indicated that they understood the scope of this CR. Craig Suellentrop will coordinate the production of the Qwest response. N/A

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Areas Impacted: Maintenance/Repair Products Impacted: Centrex, Unbundled Loop, UNE Loop, UNE-P, Resale N/A

Confirm Right Personnel Qwest confirmed the correct personnel were on the call.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation A process to supply CLECs with an "Invoice" of repair charges at the time of the repair visit.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Eschelon can present this Change Request to the CLEC community at the July Product/Process CMP meeting scheduled for July 17 Qwest will issue draft response to this Change Request by Aug 14 (one week prior to the Aug 21 CMP meeting). Qwest will discuss the draft response at the Aug 21 CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

January 17, 2003

RE: SCR070202-1X Time & Material Repair Charges invoice process

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR070202-1X. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting, Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1500 to 2000 hours for this Change Request.

Qwest will review release schedules and development timetables in an effort to evaluate options for potential scheduling of Change Request SCR070202-1X

Sincerely, Qwest

See Crossover SCR070202-01X

August 13, 2002

DRAFT RESPONSE for PC070202-1 For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at August’s CMP Meeting

Kathy Stichter ILEC Relations Manager Eschelon

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC070202-1 “Time and Material Repair invoice process.”

This CR states that “Qwest leaves a ‘Time and Materials Invoice’ with its retail customers during a repair visit when the trouble was not found in the Qwest network.” The CR requests that Qwest “supply CLECs with this same ‘invoice’ or something similar, with the same detail that will state the charges that Qwest plans to bill at the time of the repair visit.”

Qwest does leave a Time and Materials Invoice with retail customers when a repair dispatch will result in a charge. This invoice is informational in nature. The technician that is dispatched leaves it at the premises. The actual bill (for both wholesale and retail customers) is generated through automated systems and manual processes that occur when a technician closes a trouble ticket. Qwest does not have a billing relationship with CLEC end-users; therefore, Qwest’s process is to not leave invoices with CLEC end-users. CLECs may use electronic maintenance and repair systems (CEMR) to view trouble ticket history as it appears in Qwest’s systems. This information would be valuable in disputing or substantiating repair charges.

Qwest does not have an organization that is responsible for collecting and distributing these invoices. Qwest believes that a systems CR should be opened to generate an automated report that would provide CLECs with data regarding maintenance and repair billing in the timeframe requested. A meeting will be scheduled for late August to discuss CR’s involving maintenance and repair billing, including this CR. Further clarification and direction for this CR will be determined after this meeting.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Susie Bliss, Director-Process Management, Qwest Alice Matthews, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR082902-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

BillMate MONSERV files will contain a column identifying each monthly service charge.

Status History

Project Meetings

- December 15, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR is related to #18 SCR121603-01 (Only Show the Actual Circuit ID on all Billing Media in the Eastern Region) and #8 SCR060402-04 (BillMate to include CKT ID and date of Qwest dispatch for TIC, MOS, Dispatch and Optional Testing charges). Jill stated that these CRs were deployed on December 2, 2004 and will remain in CLEC Test. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon said that she would like these CRs to remain in CLEC Test to validate their bills.

-- COMMUNICATOR EXCERPT: Announcement Date: November 15, 2004 Effective Date: December 6, 2004 Document Number: SYST.11.15.04.F.02306.CRISEastChgCircuitID Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: CRIS Courtesy Notification-Circuit ID change for Eastern Region Associated CR # or System Name and Number: Qwest CR # SCR 121603-01; CLEC CRs # SCR 060402-04 and SCR082902-01

On December 6, 2004, Qwest will implement changes to the CRIS system. The changes affect CRIS functionality in the Eastern Region, and are systems-related, but do not have a corresponding coding-impact on the customer side. Qwest is sending this notification as a courtesy to let customers know about the change and its effective date.

Details of the change: Beginning December 6, 2004, Qwest will remove the trailing zeros from the circuit ID on the CRIS bill. The result will be that the circuit ID will now match the circuit ID as represented on the Customer Service Record (CSR).

Example: Previous representation of the circuit ID on the bill: 77ZZAA11111000NW Circuit ID on the CSR: 77.ZZAA.11111..NW

New representation of the circuit ID on the bill: 77.ZZAA.11111..NW Circuit ID on the CSR: 77.ZZAA.11111..NW

Change affects Eastern region only.

-- March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that a fix went in on March 13, 2004 and was notified. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this Action Item could be Closed. There were no questions or comments.

February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that the circuit ID appeared until July 2003. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it looks like this is an impact only to Eschelon and noted that Qwest is looking into the root cause. Connie stated that Qwest would work with Eschelon directly and would continue to update Eschelon.

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 that it is being reviewed at the Qwest CEO level.

There were no questions or comments.

January 27, 2004 Email sent to Kathy Stichter/Eschelon: Hi Kathy, I received your question and examples regarding Circuit ID on MONSERV File. I have sent it onto IT and will provide you with a status once the research has been completed. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems 303.382.5761

- January 27, 2004 Email received from Kathy Stichter/Eschelon: It was brought to my attention that the amounts on the Monserv file in BillMate do not show the corresponding CKT ID. This trouble is appearing on our UNE Loop BANs in Arizona, Colorado and Utah only. Eschelon issued the CR SCR082902-01 and at one point Qwest did supply the CKT ID. After some investigation I found that the CKT ID identifier went away on our July 2003 bills. This CR is still open because of the zero fill issue with the MN CKT IDs. Please investigate and let me know what caused the change in July 2003 and when Qwest expects this to be fixed. I have attached a copy of one of our BANs per state. The attachments should not be shared outside of Qwest. Thanks, Kathy Stichter Senior Invoice Validation Analyst Eschelon Telecom, Inc

- December 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Lynn Notarianni/Qwest noted that this was discussed earlier with SCR060402-04 and that the action item was ok to close Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon agreed to close the action item.

- November 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that Qwest is still evaluating this CR. She stated that we do not have a date or solution on the zero fill issue and would like to keep this CR open. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon requested that this CR be changed from CLEC Test to Evaluation. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we wanted to make sure that this CR remained visible and that we would change the status to Evaluation.

- October 24, 2003 Email Received from Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon: Subject: MN CKT ID Zero fill I committed to providing a response on whether Eschelon agrees the CR (SCR082902-01) requesting the CKT ID on the MONTSERV should be closed. Qwest said it was willing to open a new CR to address the zero fill issue. Eschelon submitted this CR because Eschelon needed Qwest to provide CKT ID information on the bill Qwest sends Eschelon to validate Qwest charges. Eschelon believes this information is critical and Eschelon should be able to verify what Qwest is charging us for and believes the information should have already been provided to us. Eschelon has met internally and believes our business need was clearly communicated to Qwest during clarification calls and through the course of working this CR. When Qwest orders a CKT from Qwest, Qwest provides a CKT ID to Eschelon on the FOC. That CKT ID is then populated in internal Eschelon systems and appears on the Qwest CSR Qwest posts for that CKT ID. When Qwest provides the CKT ID on the FOC for Eschelon to populate in its systems, Qwest provides an standard CKT ID format that does not include the "zero fill" rule. However, when Qwest sends the CKT ID on the MN bill, Qwest does not use the same format for the CKT ID as it does on the FOC. Eschelon is then unable to compare the CKT ID on the bill to the CKT ID Qwest sent to Eschelon on the FOC. Eschelon asks that Qwest provide the CKT ID on the MN bills for the Eastern region in the same format Qwest sent on the FOC. Eschelon needs consistent data to validate Qwest charges. Eschelon does not feel it should have to close this CR because Qwest was clear on what Eschelon needed. Qwest should provide consistent CKT ID information on all communication. If Eschelon had known the CKT ID Qwest would provide on the MN bill had zero fills and would not match the CKT ID information Qwest sends on the FOC, Eschelon would have requested Qwest provide consistent data when Eschelon submitted the CR. Not only did Qwest not disclose the CKT ID would be different, it was Eschelon that told Qwest the CKT ID information was not consistent. Please let me know if you require an ad-hoc call. Thanks, Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

- October 16, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR is still open for the zero fill in Eastern region. Connie stated that Qwest did deliver code that this CR requested and that the unique condition has existed for a long time. Connie asked if this CR could be closed and that Qwest would open a new CR for the Eastern Region only situation regarding the zero fill uniqueness. Connie stated that this is being requested due to the fact that the requested functionality was delivered. Connie noted that this specific issue could be better tracked with its own separate CR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she will discuss off-line with Kathy (Stichter/Eschelon) and will advise Qwest. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that she understands what Qwest wants to do and that Qwest is providing the business rules. Kathy stated that she and Bonnie would discuss. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that a call could be scheduled, if needed. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would advise if a meeting is needed. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that this CR would be closed off-line if a new CR is opened.

September 18, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that the zero fill rules work and that they do apply. Lynn stated that she would like Eschelon to re-look at this. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that she would do that but that it is still not on the bill correctly. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon does not have an automated process and that Eschelon would like the circuit ID to appear on the bill. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that at the August Meeting, Integra stated that they had an automated process and noted that Qwest has not heard from them. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that Qwest is determining what the Level of Effort would be and what it would take. Lynn asked Eschelon if they would open a CR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that this is a bug. Bonnie stated that the CR asked for the Circuit ID on the bill. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that she would re-look at the CR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would be happy to have another call if it is needed. There were no other comments or questions. These Action Items are closed. The CR remains in CLEC Test.

August 21, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that Eschelon provided examples of issues on the rules that were published. Lynn stated that Qwest is reevaluating and will revise the rules. Lynn noted that this CR would remain open. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that she appreciated the interim period effort in providing the rules, but that the job aid is only a temporary fix. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that the rules explain how circuit Ids are parsed which should resolve this Action Item. Lynn stated that if the CLECs are now asking for a format change for the Circuit ID, it would require a CR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the CR was submitted to ask for information and stated that she has looked at the 6-page job aid. Bonnie stated that she appreciated the effort in describing the rules but that the expectation is still that Qwest will provide accurately. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon agreed with Bonnie (Johnson) and stated that she said that she has alot of background with circuit ids and stated that she had to read the business rules several times and still found them confusing. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest said that she might have had a misunderstanding of what the CLECs do in the process. Lynn asked if the CLECs take the rules and mechanize the process, or if the process was manual. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that it is all manual. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that Qwest will continue to work on the rules and will look to see of it is feasible to change the system and what that would entail. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that they could go back and look at whether they could create a mechanized solution to use the business rules as well. Bill Littler/Integra stated that he would also look at the rules. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that Qwest will determine the feasibility of making any system changes and noted that sometimes those changes can be very large. Lynn also stated that we would look at the rules and possibly schedule a meeting for further clarification. There were no additional comments or questions.

-- July 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discsussion: Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that there are rules that can be provided and Qwest is determining how best to provide those rules. Lynn noted that Qwest is working to get them out and stated that the Action Item on this would remain open until the rules are provided. There were no questions or comments.

-- June 19, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Beth Foster/Qwest stated that there is a trouble ticket, 49360, opened by Eschelon and stated that Eschelon was contacted and agreed open a new CR. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that spaces are zero filled but is something she can work with. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the request was to get the Circuit ID, and if MN information is not the circuit ID, this requested is not fulfilled. Bill Littler/Integra stated that they need to pull out the zeros or it looks like multiple circuit Ids. Bill noted that Integra has only felt it in Minnesota. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that an action item would be created to see what is driving the zero fills and to explain why. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the CLECs need to know in which instances there is zero filling. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that some circuit ID’s do actually end in a zero and with zero filling cannot determine if the zero is to be kept or removed. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that we need to see if there are specific rules for MN. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated yes and asked that the rules be provided so the CLECs know how to handle the situations. Bill Littler/Integra stated that zero’s at the end of a circuit ID can be meaningful. Kit Thomte/Qwest asked if this CR could be closed and an action item opened. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would prefer that the CR remain open until this is resolved. There were no additional questions or comments. This Cr will remain in CLEC Test.

-- May 22, 2003 Email received from Kathy Stichter/Eschelon: I called the Qwest Wholesale Help Desk today to open a ticket on the formatting of the CKT ID in the MONSERV file for MN. The ticket number is 49360. This is just for your info. Thanks Kathy Stichter Senior Invoice Validation Analyst

- May 22, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that fillers are being used for Minnesota and that is causing problems when trying to look up circuit id’s. Kathy asked if the fillers could be removed. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest asked Kathy (Stichter) to call in a trouble ticket so Qwest can track the issue. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon agreed to open a trouble ticket and asked that this CR remain open. This CR will remain in CLEC Test.

-- April 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated that there is a trouble ticket open on this that is currently in date TBD, so this CR will remain open. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that she had contacted the CRPM on this issue and when the event notification came out it stated that Qwest found the problem with no CLECs reporting. Kathy asked if that was because she did not call the Help Desk. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest stated yes and recommended that if a CLEC encounters problems to contact the Help Desk. Lynn stated that the CLEC could call the CRPM but to also simultaneously to call the Help Desk to report the trouble. Lynn noted that if the CLEC does not open the trouble ticket, it tracks as Qwest initiating the trouble. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon said ok.

April 4, 2003 Email sent to Kathy Stichter at Eschelon: Kathy -- There was a trouble ticket opened for this issue, 6195387, on April 2, 2003. The Event Notification was sent on 4/2. I'm sure you've seen it but will attach a copy....just in case. This ticket currently has a Sev 3 and is TBD. Peggy Esquibel-Reed CRPM -- Systems

-- March 28, 2003 Email sent to Kathy Stichter/Eschelon: Good Morning Kathy -- I received your email and am checking into it. I'll keep you poseted.

- March 28, 2003 Email received from Kathy Stichter/Eschelon: Peggy, I have had a chance to check all of our February MONSERV files to verify that the CKT ID is populated. It is populated in each of our states. The only issue is in Minnesota. The CKT ID is showing as 303 instead of just using the 3 for the state code. Can this be fixed? Please let me know. Thanks. Kathy Stichter Senior Invoice Validation Analyst Eschelon Telecom, Inc

March 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon noted that Kathy Stichter (Eschelon) is on vacation and will address in the April CMP Systems meeting.

-- February 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Eschelon has not yet had the opportunity to validate, so this CR will remain open and look to close in March. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that the bill dates are not until the end of the month, so Eschelon would like the CR to remain open another month.

-- January 16, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CMP CR is targeted for implementation on February 3, 2003. There were no questions or comments.

-- November 21, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the level of effort for this request did not change with the inclusion of all states and all products. The action item was closed.

- September 19, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kathy Stichter/Eschelon reviewed CR and stated that the request is for Minnesota only. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked why the request is only for MN. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that is already in all other Eschelon states, just not in MN. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon does not do business in all of Qwest's 14 states. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that Qwest understands the request and that the LOE and response are provided in the CR. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T state that there is an impact to other states. Jeff Thompson/Qwest stated that is hearing that the CLECs would like the states broadened. Asked Eschelon if they wanted broadened, if yes Qwest would meet the need. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Eschelon could include other states in their request or another CR could be submitted. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that is okay to remove the state specified on the CR. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked which circuit ID is being requested. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon responded, the Qwest circuit ID. Jeff Thompson/Qwest stated that Qwest does provide the circuit ID on PLTs. This CR would provide for Unbumdled Loops. Couls provide for all 14 states, for all products. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that as Qwest updates the LOE, we will bring back to CMP.

-- September 4, 2002 Clarification Meeting - Attendees: Kathy Stichter/Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Carl Sear/Qwest, Dennis Martinez/Qwest Confirmed: Billing for Unbundled Loop & EEL Products Kathy Stichter/Eschelon - This request is for the state of Minnesota only. The MONSERV file contains information for all other states. Dennis Martinez/Qwest - Is this request also for the Private Line Products? Kathy Stichter/Eschelon - No, is for Unbundled Loop & EEL Products which are designed services. Carl Sear/Qwest - stated that the circuit ID will be populated on all products that have circuit ID's, may not be able to do for just specific products. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon - that's okay with her. Dennis Martinez/Qwest - the information will need to be put on the bill in order to get to the MONSERV File. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon - stated that Qwest can give more than what has been requested. That would be okay as long as she gets what she has requested, the Circuit ID on the MONSERV File. There were no other questions or comments.

CenturyLink Response

September 10, 2002

RE: SCR082902-01 (Circuit ID on MONSERV file [MN only])

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR082902-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held September 4, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1200 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 SCR082902-01.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR090302-01EX Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables:

Extend sunset of IMA 10.0 from May 18th, 2003 to July 18th, 2003.

Status History

Project Meetings

Michael Buck/Qwest introduced the exception request SCR090302-01EX (Eschelon is requesting that the sunset date of IMA 10.0 be extended). Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that Eschelon was seeking to treat this change request as an exception due to an internal system upgrade required to move to 11.0 they are asking that the sunset date of 10.0 be extended for as long as the hardware allows but no sooner that July 18th. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon also said that the date is available leaves no time for testing and implementation of the upgrade. Michael Buck/Qwest said that the change request is clear and need to vote as an exception. He also stated that Exception language was changed in redesign but agreed this would be voted on under the previous guidelines. Michael Buck/Qwest also said that no e-mail votes were received. Alan Flanigan/Time Warner asked if this change would impact any other dates (i.e., 11.0, 12.0) Wendy Green/Qwest said no. Bob Carias/NightFire asked if this change would impact recertification. Wendy Green/Qwest said that the dates would be adjusted to reflect the retirement dates. Michael Buck/Qwest reviewed the Quorum calculation. The quorum required for vote was determined to be carriers. Ten (10) carriers were present, resulting in a quorum. Michael Buck/Qwest reviewed that a yes vote means that you are voting to request that the sunset date of 10.0 be extended. A ‘no’ vote means that you are voting not to extend the 10.0 sunset date and an ‘abstain’ vote means you are choosing not to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Following are the results of the vote: Allegiance – Yes AT&T – Yes Covad – Yes Eschelon – Yes McLeod – Yes Qwest – Yes Time Warner – Yes U S Link – Yes WorldCom – Yes Z-Tel – Yes

The vote was unanimous to extend the sunset date of 10.0. Michael Buck/Qwest said that the disposition notice, vote tally and the meeting minutes will be sent to the CLEC Community within the notification guidelines. In addition, the OSS calendar will be updated to reflect the revised date. There were no other questions or comments.

Eschelon CR Clarification meeting Held on Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. Mountain Conference bridge 1-877-560-8688 ID 5282369 For CR # SCR090302-01

Attendees: Terry Wicks - Allegience Telecom Mark Routh- Qwest Cim Chambers- Qwest Michael Buck- Qwest Deb Osborne- Qwest Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon Beth Foster - Qwest Jana Harmon - Qwest Randy Owen- Qwest

Mark Routh-Opened the meeting and described that the purpose of the call was to review/clarify a CR from Eschelon. Mark read the title/description of the CR.

Bonnie Johnson -Stated that she had learned a lot about this on yesterday’s call (the WorldCom Exception call on 9/11/02). She added that she and Mark Routh had talked earlier and Mark told her that he thought they would not be able to go out as far as August 18th as had been requested.

Michael Buck -Stated that we can not look at this CR in a vacuum, the WorldCom CR has some obvious implications on Eschelon’s request as explained yesterday. However, he did think that we could make some headway by considering the various possible things that might happen. For example, if we assume the WorldCom CR is not successful and the current schedule did not change, it’s his understanding that Qwest would be able move out the IMA 10.0 sunset date to July 18, with some pretty firm definition at this point. Qwest anticipates obstacles to pushing the date beyond July 18.

Terry Wicks -Stated that July 18 is good for Allegiance, but it’s more critical for Eschelon. As far as Allegiance is concerned, they are not going to IMA 11.0 because there’s nothing in it for them, they are going to go straight to IMA 12.0, so an extension to July 18th would work for Allegiance.

Bonnie Johnson - Replied that as far as Eschelon is concerned, the reality is that they will take whatever they can get and make it work. She added that if Eschelon can get out further, that would be great. She asked at what point Qwest would have a firm date on the sunset of IMA 10.0.

Michael Buck - Replied that Qwest is trying to firm up the date. Clearly, the final outcome of the WorldCom bears in the decision.

Randy Owen - Stated that he believed Qwest can get to July 18 with minimal obstacles.

Bonnie Johnson-Replied, ok, so we are assuming July 18 and attempt to get further out if at all possible.

Randy-Explained that it’s the same constraints that Qwest spoke of in yesterday’s WorldCom call. There are many things that drive the date: hardware platforms, training, schedules etc. These were discussed on the WorldCom call. He stated that until the schedule variables are firmed up Qwest can’t make further decisions.

Michael Buck-Stated that if the WorldCom CR is successful, Qwest will not be able to extend the sunset date but in fact it will be retracted to the March time frame as Jeff Thompson had discussed during the WorldCom call.

Mark Routh -Asked if there were any other questions.

Bonnie Johnson -replied that she didn’t think so, and asked if there were any other impacts to Eschelon or any other CLECs.

Randy Owen-Stated that usually there are no negative impacts by taking a date further. He added that extending the sunset date will not place any CLECs at an advantage or disadvantage.

Michael Buck-Explained that if there were no other questions about technical or functionality issues, that the group needed to address this CR from a procedural standpoint. He reviewed the area in the CMP Process document where it mentions the sunset date. He clarified that in order to deviate from that language it requires an Exception process. He mentioned that while it seems to be more of a formality, Qwest is interested in following the process.

Bonnie Johnson -Replied that she had no problem with that.

Randy Owen-Stated that out of CMP Process language comes the OSS release calendar, and that once Qwest publish that calendar any change to those dates would be an Exception

Terry Wicks - Stated the he agreed with that, and added that in this case, the CLECs and Qwest are only altering a timeline so it only requires a 2/3 vote.

Michael Buck-Clarified that the group addressed that during the WorldCom call on Wednesday and from a Qwest view, the timelines are the timeline graphs that are in the document. So whether this is a time line change is a gray area. He added that from his perspective though, this is more of a formality for this CR. He thought that the process should be a collaborative one but he thought that the group should keep it in line with the unanimous voting process that was used for similar situation with the Covad CR. He pointed out that in Section 8.0 of the CMP Process it states that Qwest will support the previous major Interconnect Mediated Access (IMA) EDI release for six (6) months after the subsequent major IMA EDI release has been implemented.

Bonnie Johnson-Reiterated that there is impact with the WorldCom CR on this and asked if there would be a vote on WorldCom before this would be decided.

Michael Buck-Explained that his dilemma as CMP Manager was the timing. If the group agrees that this is an Exception, then he proposed that the group work together on figuring out the right solution. One workable option is that Eschelon could resubmit it as an Exception. Then, upon receipt of the revised, exception request, Qwest could follow the process for an exception CR. He described the steps for following the process. Again, the concern is timing. If the exception request were submitted today, Qwest is obligated to send out the notice prior to resolution of the WorldCom CR. As we’ve discussed, until we have clarity on the WorldCom CR, it’s not clear how the wording of the exception CR and required notice would need to be structured. He stated that Qwest is very appreciative that Eschelon submitted this so early in order to allow Qwest to look at all options. Given that there is an adequate amount of time to address the request, he suggested that Eschelon still bring this forward as a regular walk-on CR in the September CMP meeting. He added that if the WorldCom CR is not successful then Eschelon can revise this CR and submit it as an Exception. Then Qwest can move forward with the required notices, etc. He said in this case he would anticipate a vote in the October meeting unless WorldCom had a burning desire to have an emergency exception call between the September and October monthly meetings. If the WorldCom CR is successful then the group can talk about it in the room as to what do we do with the Eschelon request to push out the IMA 10.0 sunset date.

Terry Wicks-Stated that he agreed with this. He referred to section 16.4.1 of the CMP Process document. He stated that if a CLEC or Qwest submits an exception request without a date, then it would require a 2/3 vote to pass. He added that if there is a specific date on the request, then the process would be for a unanimous vote in order to approve it. He noted that if a CLEC were to submit a CR to say, push it out as far as possible then you don’t need a unanimous vote to pass it.

Bonnie Johnson -Stated that she would agree with that because she didn’t want to be where the group was during the WorldCom call the previous day.

Michael Buck—Stated that Qwest was in 100% agreement with that. He added that if the participants remember the Covad CR, they had asked for a date beyond what Qwest could do. Qwest worked with Covad and they revised the CR. He noted that he would use the exact language that Terry suggested, push it out as far a possible.

Bonnie Johnson-Stated that she would like to use the language of ‘as far as possible’ so that she didn’t have to keep revising the CR.

Michael Buck-Mentioned that next Thursday (during the September monthly CMP meeting) if Bonnie had the revised CR ready to go, or if she wanted to send it to him the following Friday, Qwest could then either talk about it at October’s meeting, or if Bonnie wanted to meet before then Qwest can call an emergency meeting . He added that we are far enough in advance of the required date that we have time to work with this request.

Terry Wicks-Noted that since we’ve got the time he suggested doing it at the October CMP meeting.

Bonnie Johnson- Agreed

Terry Wicks-Added that that way we’ll get a good quorum.

Mark Routh-Asked Bonnie to clarify when she was going to re-submit this CR.

Bonnie Johnson-Stated that she would do it when she gets back from Denver (after the September CMP meeting) and then she would send it as an Exception.

Terry Wicks-Pointed out the fact that there is a whole section in the CMP process document for submitting an Exception CR.

Michael Buck-Confirmed that Terry was right. He recommended that Bonnie review that section and submit the exception request according to those guidelines. He asked her to please give him a call if she had any questions.

The call was ended at 9:25 a.m. Mountain Time.

Discussion at the September CMP meeting

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed the CR. She said that she will resubmit as an Exception CR and won’t make it date specific and would like the IMA 10.0 sunset date pushed out as far as possible. Terry Wicks/Allegiance said that Allegiance supports this CR as well. We are not planning to migrate to 11.0 so we need to maintain on 10.0 for a little longer. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that WorldCom's exception CR essentially asks for 2 of the CRs that have been prioritized for IMA 12.0 to be implemented by the end of 2002. Qwest indicated that to accomplish what WorldCom wanted would require a major release. In that case Qwest would need to support 10.0, 11.0, 12.0 and the new major release. As a result there would be 4 EDI platforms out there. Qwest indicated that was not an option and that they would have to get 10.0 off of the hardware platform to make room for another release. Jeff Thompson/Qwest said that’s basically correct. IMA 10.0 & 11.0 would retire much earlier than the current plan. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if it would be sooner than the May timeframe that Qwest has in place right now. Jeff Thompson/Qwest said that is correct. Terry Wicks/Allegiance — said that since this request changes the documented process this is required to be an exception CR. In the clarification call Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon indicated that she will re-submit it requesting a change without specifying a date. Mike Buck/Qwest thanked Eschelon for initiating the request far enough in advance so that the exception process can be fully used. Micki Jones/WorldCom—it’s my understanding that with 11.0, there are certain CR that are supporting the OBF LSOG 6 business rules, however there is the other layer of EDI version, so as you do LSOG version there is an equivalent EDI version that gets upgraded. In some other areas we’ve brought in some of the business rules of the upcoming LSOG releases without changing the EDI version. Is there any consideration for 11.0 bringing in the business rules without changing the EDI version underneath it? Connie Winston/Qwest — All the re-numbering and re-mapping for EDI is being done in IMA 11.0 based upon the outcome of the CLEC vote. When the CLEC vote indicated that an LSOG 6 change was wanted, that’s how the renumbering was done. Micki Jones/WorldCom —confirmed that IMA 10.0 is on EDI version 40/20 and IMA 11.0 is going to be on 40/30. So you are basically moving the EDI version to LSOG 6 and Qwest is a groundbreaker because they are the only one in the industry who is doing that. She asked whether or not it was a requirement, in order to do the LSOG 6 change requests, a CLEC must do the EDI, they can’t bring that in on the LSOG 5, the 4020 version of EDI, you must go to 4030 is what Qwest is saying? Connie Winston/Qwest said that it was voted by CMP to do it that way. Micki Jones/WorldCom — asked if everyone who voted on it that way understood that it was changing the EDI version as well as the business rules? Connie Winston/Qwest said yes.

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR062702-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Updates SOP edits to allow an order to be typed changing the class of service without removing the local service freeze. Develop an interim process that will allow the CLEC to send one LSR for the migration of a customer that is not changing local service providers.

Status History

Project Meetings

January 16, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR has been discussed in the past. The repository update checks will be performed sooner. IMA, upfront, will check the repository for updates. The repository updates very quickly and IMA checking upfront will result in LSRs not erroring due to the repository not being updated. There were no questions or comments.

September 6, 2002 Email from Bonnie Johnson to Peggy Esquibel-Reed and Jean Novak: Thanks so much Peggy. Jean, Could someone check the MCC and see if it indicates only one LSR is required for all products? Thanks! Bonnie

September 6, 2002 Email sent to Bonnie Johnson: Hi Bonnie, I'm sorry it took me so long to get this info for you. There was an MCC issued for the interim process. Issue Date: July 9, 2002, Effective Date: July 9, 2002, Topic: Local Service Freeze Workaround Peggy

September 3, 2002 Email from Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon: Hi Peggy, In the expected deliverables for this CR, I requested an interim process to send one LSR to migrate a customer from one product to another. Has that been documented yet. Eschelon is still sending two LSR's for the orders that are not provisioned in the Mpls Center. Thanks, Bonnie

July 18, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed this change request. Eschelon is requesting that the SOP edits be relaxed to allow CLEC migrations from one product to another when Local Service Freeze is on the account. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is suggesting that we change the title slightly. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that would be fine. Michael Buck/Qwest said that the ballot will reflect the change in title. The status of this change request will be changed to Pending Prioritization.

Clarification Meeting - July 8, 2002 Attendees: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Harriett Berry/Qwest, Bret Birkholz/Qwest, Birkley Loggie/Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest Reviewed CR description. Bonnie Johnson stated that the issue came up in the middle of converting their embedded base to UNE-P. The orders did go thru IMA but the [Minneapolis] Center is restricted from removing the FID. Eschelon is requesting that if the Local Service Provider is not changing, Qwest needs to allow the CLEC to change the product type without having to issue two LSRs. Bonnie stated that it is easiest to do in the SOP, or develop a process. Shouldn’t be forced to send 2 LSRs. Harriett Berry asked if Bonnie had any examples. Bonnie stated that the Minneapolis Center would have some. She has been working with Christine Siewert, Venessa Heilan, and Kathy Rein, in Minneapolis. Harriett asked if the problem was occurring in all regions. Bonnie stated that the Minneapolis Center would be able to tell her if it was across all regions. Bonnie stated that then the Center rejects the second order. Bonnie stated that she has a daily UNE-P status call and will ask for examples there. If she gets some she will forward to Peggy Esquibel-Reed at Qwest for distribution to the Qwest participants on the call. Harriett asked for examples with TN, PON, & LSR. Bonnie stated will check and see if has examples. Bonnie stated that this situation occurs about once per week. Bonnie stated that she would be happy to do a test order with Qwest. She can submit an order in each region so Qwest can process and see what happens. Harriett advised would let her know if test orders are needed. There were no other questions.

CenturyLink Response

July 9, 2002

RE: SCR062702-01 Relax necessary SOP edits to allow CLEC migrations from one product to another when local service freeze is on the account

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR062702-01). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held July 8,, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 900 to 1500 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 12.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR062702-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Change sort on the address validation drop down menu to always show most recent validated address first

Status History

Project Meetings

July 18, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed this change request. Eschelon is requesting that Qwest change the validate address pull down to show the most recent validation on the top of the pull down. There were no comments from other CMP participants. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that Qwest understands the request. The LOE is provided in the CR response and the CR is eligible for the 12.0 vote. The status of this change request will be changed to Pending Prioritization.

June 26, 2002 CLEC Meeting Notes - (from Kimberly Powers): Request that the pull down box with validated addresses have the most recently validated address at the top of the list. Currently the most recently validated address is at the bottom of the list and the first validated address is at the top.

CenturyLink Response

July 9, 2002

RE: SCR062702-02 Change validate address pull down to show most recent validation on the top of pull down

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR062702-03). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held June 26, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 650 to 1100 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 12.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR062702-03 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

IMA will autopopulate the LSO fields that is a required field on the LSR form in IMA and allow the APTCON and the LSO to be populated on the LSR.

Status History

Project Meetings

October 23, 2002 Attendees: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, John Gallegos/Qwest, Monica Manning/Qwest Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest recapped that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss, with Eschelon, a change to the approach for this request. Monica Manning/Qwest stated that the proposed change is based on IMA architecture and product functionality. Monica stated that the developers have indicated that it would be more compatible to move the function to the BPL in lieu of performing the function in the GUI. Monica stated that the autopopulate function would then occur after the LSR is submitted, it would not occur on-line in the GUI. Monica stated that the BPL would do the look up and would populate the LSO in the LSO field. Monica stated that this is a subtle change. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that if the edit was lifted would end up with the same result. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she was okay with the change in approach and had no problem with it. There were no other questions or comments.

July 18, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed this change request. There were no comments from other CMP participants. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that Qwest understands the request. The LOE is provided in the CR response and is eligible for the 12.0 vote. The status of this change request will be changed to Pending Prioritization.

July 9, 2002 Email from Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon: Please remove any reference on this CR to the LST field as we determined on the call that this field is rarely required. Thanks, Bonnie

Subsequent Clarification Meeting July 9, 2002: Attendees: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Berkley Loggie/Qwest, Bret Birkholz/Qwest, Monica Manning/Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest CR description was reviewed. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the LST & LSO are required fields except if the APTCON field is populated. Eschelon requests these fields to always autopopulate when has a validated address. Monica Manning/Qwest stated that the rules vary by product and asked if this was for all products? Monica stated that for 8 products, if have the LSO then don't need the APTCON. Bret Birkholz/Qwest stated that the LST is not returned on an address validation. Bonnie agreed and stated that wants it to autopopulate when it is required. Bret advised that the LST could not be populated on an address validation. Bonnie asked if it was required. Monica stated that the LST is not required, it is either optional or conditional. Bonnie advised that she woul revise this CR to remove the LST requirement from this request. Bret asked if the EU Form or the LSR Form was filled out first? Stated that if the LSR Form was filled out first that it would not populate the EU Form. Bonnie advised that the LSR Form was the form populated first. Bret advised that there is not a drop down to select validated address on the LSR Form, it is on the EU Form. Bonnie stated that Eschelon would establish an internal manual process to populate the EU Form first. Will not ask for the Form sequence to change, as does not want a high LOE that would need to be prioritized. Bret asked Bonnie if she was okay with filling out the EU Form first to get the drop down. Bonnie responded yes. Bonnie stated that when the APTCON is populated, the LSO gets pre-populated, then IMA doesn't want it. Monica stated that the rule is limited to products. If the LSO is populated, the APTCON does not need to be populated. Stated it could be translating to prohibit. Bret advised would look into requiring the APTCON when the LSO is populated but that the populated LSO not to require APTCON. No other questions were raised.

June 26, 2002 CLEC Meeting Notes - Initial Clarification Meeting: Request to auto populate LST/LSO from the address validation. - Currently when the validated address is selected from the drop down box the address fields are automatically populated. I believe that this is asking that in addition to the address fields being populated that the LSO and LST fields also be autopopulated. - A possible issue with this is that the address fields (and drop down box) are on the EUI form and the LST and LSO fields are on the LSR form. - Able to locate the LSO information on an address validation pre-order, but I don’t see anything labled LST. Need to determine whether this is returned on an address validation or not.

CenturyLink Response

July 9, 2002

RE: SCR062702-03 Autopopulate LST (local service termination) and LSO (local serving office) field in IMA and remove edit that prevents APTCON (appointment confermation) and LSO field to both be populated

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR062702-03). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held July 9, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1050 to 1750 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 12.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR070902-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

John Gallegos/Qwest stated that we validated with Network and that the majority of products will flow through. John said that there is some fallout with Hunting with DMS100. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon thanked John for the research and said that she does not think that the Hunting/DMS 100 scenario will change and is what it is. Bonnie said that if Qwest will include this information in the CR she will agree to withdraw this request. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that we will add the response to the CR and will withdraw the CR.

6/17/04 Systems CMP Meeting

John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the open issue is associated with Centrex products and downtime. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon was told by Qwest that any conversion where the line from a CTX 21 environment won’t flow through the switch and will fall out to manual. Bonnie stated that is what this CR was requesting and that Qwest needs to automate this process. Bonnie said that Qwest advised that work had been done that prevented this from happening. Bonnie said that Qwest said that anything from CTX would fall out and that the orders do not flow through to the switch. Bonnie said that if you are converting to another product (i.e. UNE-P POTS) all the orders would need manual attention in the switch and RCMAC. Bonnie said that when the order falls to manual it could cause significant downtime. Kit Thomte/Qwest asked if Susie Wells/Qwest needed to do additional research on the issue. Susie Wells/Qwest stated that she had a different understanding and would like to research the issue further for clarification. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that we need to get Network involved.

5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that at the switch level there is a brief period of downtime. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she understood that there is downtime. Bonnie said that those that fall out to manual at the switch causes additional down time. John Gallegos/Qwest asked when this occurs. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said this occurs with anything that exists in a Centrex environment. Bonnie said that the action item is to determine what falls out to manual in the Centrex environment 6/1/04 Revision to Minutes from MCI - Liz Balvin/MCI stated that the downtime can be significant and that Qwest should have audits and controls to minimize downtime. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that an action item will be created to determine what falls out to manual in the Centrex environment and determine how they are handled from a process perspective.

4/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this request was deployed last August and that there was backend system work done to allow for flow through. 5/3/04 - Revisions to Minutes from Eschelon

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated the problems may not have been switch related but that the end result was it allowed flow through to the switch.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that this CR was switch related and Eschelon was told that all lines being removed from a Centrex environment fell out of the Qwest switch is an auto switch update so that they will not fall out of the switch. Bonnie said that CTX, Centron, and CTX 21 act differently.

Connie Winston/Qwest stated she will check to see if this has been implemented and that if Centrex can’t be mechanized, we will communicate that to you.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that when Connie looked at this the fixes Qwest did the problems may not have been switch related but that the end result was it allowed flow through to the switch.

This CR remains open.

3/20/03 March CMP Meeting Connie Winston/Qwest stated that when we went through the analysis, we determined that IMA is currently sending the information to a back end system Therefore, this CR will be removed from the 14.0 vote We are looking at getting the work scheduled and are looking at a targeted date in August. We started to define this after the 13.0 vote and found this is part of the service order creation system. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said this is great news. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if this will remain part of the 14.0 vote. Connie Winston/Qwest said that no, the interface is ‘Other’ and that it’s downstream from IMA. Kit Thomte/Qwest asked if there were any other questions. No other questions.

8/22/02 Systems CMP Meeting

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon essentially we are just looking for more flow through, as Qwest is as well. We want our orders to go through without human intervention, decreasing the chance for error. On the call we discussed the main areas of concern. The orders that flow through depends a lot on the platform it’s coming from, rather than the one it’s going to. She reviewed the discussion on the clarification call. Connie Winston/Qwest noted that the flow through matrix, included in the package, pointed out what is designed to flow through, noting that if anything is wrong, it will still stop if there is an edit condition. They are broken out by products, so she noted that some products are not designed yet to flow through, she believes this CR is to address some products that are not designed to flow through. She pointed out that when this is voted for a release, we need to have one additional clarification meeting, to make sure that those not designed to flow through are what you want with this CR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon it looks like on conversions for 1FB/ UNE-P POTS, most should flow through. Connie Winston/Qwest and that went in with 10.01 Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon not designed to flow through causes the order to it flow through to the SOP but it needs to be corrected? Is that what this is saying? Connie Winston/Qwestyes Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon- so it still requires manual intervention? Connie Winston/Qwest yes, FIDs for the features need to be validated before the order goes downstream, but the flow through engine does create most of the order. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon is this one that could be a candidate for 13.0? Connie Winston/Qwest yes, to address these products for flow through, and you can certainly validate that this is what you are interested in. We also need to look at what went into 10.01. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon I don’t know what you want to do with status on this. Michael Buck/Qwest the status will be updated to ‘pending prioritization’ and the CR is eligible for prioritization for IMA 13.0. If you later decide to withdraw the CR because your needs have been meet based on existing functionality, you can certainly do that.

7/29/02 e-mail received from Bonnie Johnson

Hi Lynne, The title should read "Eschelon is requesting true flow through on requests where the service was 1FB/CCMS and CTX21 and converting to UNE-P POTS. The current title sounds like I want flow through for orders going to 1FB/CCMS and CTX21.

Does that make sense?

Bonnie

-Original Message-- From:Lynn Stecklein [SMTP:lsteckl@qwest.com] Sent:Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:34 PM To:bjjohnson@eschelon.com Subject:SCR070902-01 Provide True Flow CTX 21 and 1FB CCMS

Hi Bonnie, I have attached a copy of the CR that we clarified yesterday. Please take a look at the revision I made to the Title and Description of The CR based on our clarification call. Let me know if you have any questions, concerns, or if I have forgotten anything. Thanks! (See attached file: SCR070902-01.rtf) << File: SCR070902-01 7/24/02 Clarification Meeting

Attendees: Bonnie Johnson,-Eschelon, Connie Winston-Qwest, Kelly Ellingson - Qwest, Bret Birkholz- Qwest, Shon Higer - Qwest

Introductions of the participants on the Conference Call were made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that Eschelon submitted SCR100201-1 (Provide 'true' flow through for UNE-P resale LSRs) on Oct 2,2001 and was closed by Eschelon on 4/22/02. Eschelon requested that the CR be re-opened. Qwest issued SCR070902-01 on behalf of Eschelon.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed this CR. Eschelon would like true flow through on everything. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon specifically noted Centrex 21 and 1FB CCMS. Eschelon wants true flow through without exception on UNE-P. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon also said that it seems like the only thing flowing through is 1FB POTS and 1FR Connie Winston/Qwest said that a CTX full conversion will flow through. When you have a partial conversion (only part of the #'s are converting) more logic is required. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if it would be better is Eschelon narrowed the scope to request flow throught on 1FB & Centrex 21. Shon Higer/Qwest said that they will be changes in 10.01 associated with Centrex 21 conversions to UNE-P POTS. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that Kathy Rein/Qwest in the Minnesota Center is involved in migration process of 1FB CCMS. She has examples of where the problems exist. Shon Higer said that he would contact Kathy Rein/Qwest to clarify the USOCs associated with CCMS. (e.g. MVP, MVP11) Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked about the process on CTX to Unbundled conversions. Connie Winston/Qwest believes that these conversions flow through. Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Centrex 21 & 1FB/CCMS Confirm Right Personnel Involved Kathy Rein will be involved on the discussions associated with 1FB/CCMS Identify any Dependent Change Requests Centrex 21 conversion to UNE-P POTS with 10.01 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Qwest will contact Kathy Rein/Qwest to determine USOCs associated with 1FB/CCMS. Eschelon will present this CR in the August CMP Systems Meeting. Lynn Stecklein will revise the title of this CR.

CenturyLink Response

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR070902-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held July 24, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1000-1800 hours for this IMA Change Request.

At the next Monthly Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Any clarifications and/or modifications identified at that time will be incorporated into Qwest's further evaluation of this Change Request. 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 SCR070902-01.

Sincerely,

Qwest

Archived System CR SCR091202-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

The BillMate SOACTVTY files will show the prorated amount for each USOC separately.

Status History

Project Meetings

October 31, 2002 Email sent to Kathy Stichter/Eschelon: Thanks for the prompt reply. I have forwarded your decision on to IT. The reason option #1 was determined to be a very large effort is because this systematic change would need to be made for all CLECs and even though Eschelon is only asking about 5 states, the change would be required in all 14 Qwest states; so as to keep our processing consistent across all CRIS billing regions. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CRPM -- Systems

October 30, 2002 Email from Kathy Stichter/Eschelon: Peggy, While I can understand why Western (Oregon and Washington) could be a large effort to change because it encompasses resale, unbundled loop and UNE-P I can not understand why Central (Arizona, Colorado and Utah) would be a large effort because only our resale and UNE-P bills show the fraction lumped for more than one USOC. The unbundled loop, as far as I can tell, does not lump the USOCs together to determine the fractional charge. We will try option 2. Thanks Kathy Stichter Senior Invoice Validation Analyst Eschelon Telecom, Inc 612-436-6022 klstichter@eschelon.com

October 29, 2002 Solution Options Meeting - Attendees: Kathy Stichter/Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Sue Kriebel/Qwest, Jud McDonald/Qwest, Doug Warren/Qwest, Alan Zimmerman/Qwest Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest recapped the 2 options in the 10/25/02 Draft Qwest Response. Option 1) Qwest to provide a new column on the BillMate SOACTVTY file to provide prorated amount for each separate USOC. This option would require an estimated Level of Effort of Extra Large. Option 2) Qwest to provide a means, most likely an EXCEL Spreadsheet, that will perform the calculation function. This spreadsheet will be provided to a CLEC upon request. Requests for this spreadsheet can be made via email to azimmer@qwest.com. The estimated Level of Effort for Option 2 is 24 hours. Alan Zimmerman/Qwest stated that option 2 would be an EXCEL Macro that could be either in EXCEL or Access. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that she did send the options to Bill Markert (Eschelon) and has not heard back from him. Kathy does not want to make a final decision withought his input. Kathy stated that the initial thought could be for option 1 but needs to discuss with Bill (Markert) before a decision is made. Kathy asked if for option 2, would it need to be requested each month? Alan Zimmerman/Qwest responded that no, a CLEC would only need to request it once and would get it every month. It will take about 30-seconds to run. Alan Zimmerman/Qwest stated that option 1 would be an extra large effort due to the rounding differences issue. Qwest would need to change how OCCs are calculated and is a huge effort for a penny difference due to rounding problem. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon asked if the macro would also give these penny differences each month. Alan Zimmerman/Qwest stated that the amounts would be given with 6 or 7 decimal places and the CLEC could use their rounding process and round up or down. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated to please keep in mind that option 2 could be delivered a lot sooner than option 1 due to the difference in the level of efforts. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that she will discuss with Bill (Markert) and will send Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest an email with their decision.

October 17, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kathy Stichter/Eschelon presented CR and stated that the CR is Evaluation status. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that the response indicates that Qwest is researching the request. Jeff Thompson/Qwest stated that Qwest is looking at this CR and what it would take. We have had clarification meeting and we will be scheduling a follow up meeting to discuss what we’ve discovered and what options we think we can provide to you.

-- Clarification Meeting September 30, 2002 Attendees: Kathy Stichter/Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Carl Sear/Qwest, Doug Warren/Qwest, and Jean Novak/Qwest CR Description of Change was reviewed: Currently on the BillMate SOACTVTY file, when service order activity takes place, Qwest combines the rates for some or all of the USOCs on a given service order before calculating the prorated charge. This makes it difficult to validate each charge. Eschelon asks Qwest to show the prorated calculations and charges for each USOC separately on the BillMate SOACTVTY file. This affects the states of AZ, CO, OR, UT, and WA for Resale & UNE-P. For Unbundled Loop it affects the states of OR & WA. There was no additional comment or information. Products impacted: Centrex, Resale, UBL, UNE-P. CLEC Expectation/ Expected Deliverable: The BillMate SOACTVTY files will show the prorated amount for each USOC separately. Discussion: Carl Sear/Qwest stated that the paper bill shows the same as ASCII, at the line level. If there are multiple TNs, they are combined; WTN is at line level line level is prorated. Jean Novak/Qwest/ stated that this information was provided to Bill Markert (Eschelon) by Carl Sear & Alan Zimmerman at the last CLEC Forum. Carl Sear/Qwest stated that for this request, functionality may need to be changed and that could be quite a bit bigger LOE. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon asked why this works in some states and not in others. Carl Sear/Qwest stated that it could be due to regional differences. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon provided some examples and Carl Sear/Qwest looked at them and provided explanations for each, i.e. 1 circuit only so does show separate information. Carl Sear/Qwest stated that on the ASCII bill, it can be determined which USOCs are associated to each line item. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that she could that but it takes more time. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon provided a MN example, USOCs are separate, not combined. Carl Sear/Qwest stated that he would need to check into how Eastern region functions for UNE accounts. Western & Central functionality differs. Carl will look at regional differences on how fractionalizing is done. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated that USOCs are combined in Western and not in Central & Eastern Carl Sear/Qwest stated that in Western are combined for single and multiple lines. Central are separate on single lines and multiple lines by TN. Eastern will be checked into. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon stated would like to know if the functionality can be changed, what will be changed, and if cannot change functionality, why. There were no other questions or comments.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR091202-01 (Show prorated calculations and charges per USOC on BillMate SOACTVTY file (Work will be delivered via an EXCEL Macro in lieu of a BillMate change, with Eschelon's concurrence)

Qwest will deliver the agreed upon EXCEL Macro in two phases; an interim phase and the long term solution phase. The EXCEL Macro is currently in development. The macro will be made available to all CLECs. - Phase 1: EXCEL Macro will be available for use by the CLECs, targeted implementation date is January 17, 2003. This interim process is to request the EXCEL Macro via an emailed request to azimmer@qwest.com. - Phase 2: The long term solution has a targeted implementation date of February 28, 2003. The EXCEL Macro will then become available via the web; details are currently being defined. A job aid/user guide will also be made available. The notification process will be followed.

Sincerely, Qwest

Revised Draft Response

October 25, 2002

RE: SCR091202-01 (Show prorated calculations and charges per USOC on BillMate SOACTVTY file)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR091202-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held on September 30, 2002), Qwest is providing the following options:

Option 1) Qwest to provide a new column on the BillMate SOACTVTY file to provide prorated amount for each separate USOC. This option would require an estimated Level of Effort of Extra Large.

Option 2) Qwest to provide a means, most likely an EXCEL Spreadsheet, that will perform the calculation function. This spreadsheet will be provided to a CLEC upon request. Requests for this spreadsheet can be made via email to azimmer@qwest.com. The estimated Level of Effort for Option 2 is 24 hours.

This change request is currently in 'Evaluation' status.

Sincerely, Qwest

Draft Response

October 7, 2002

RE: SCR091202-01 (Show prorated calculations and charges per USOC on BillMate SOACTVTY file)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR091202-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held September 30, 2002) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the November Systems CMP Meeting.

At the October 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 SCR093002-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will change the criteria of the loss report to omit outward activity generated by the CLEC

Status History

Project Meetings

June 19, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the infrastructure is changing around editing. Connie stated that this is at the order level and will be class of service to features. Connie stated that this is to ensure is done accurately for residence or business match. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR will deploy at the end of the month and noted that the notice was sent. There were no questions or additional comments.

May 22, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the targeted implementation for this CR is June 30, 2003.

December 19, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that since we are moving into definition and development on this, we wanted to make sure that everyone understood what the report would reflect. The way this CR is written, we will no longer show the Internal Loss and all that will be shown is the External. She wanted to know if that met everyone’s expectation. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that is exactly what we asked for. Connie Winston/Qwest asked if all other CLECs agreed. Everyone agreed. John Berard/Covad asked what is the definition of internal vs. external loss. Connie Winston/Qwest said that the definition of internal is when you have a CLEC moving from one product to another product, so it appears that there is a loss to the one product. External is when CLEC A writes a conversion against CLEC Bs account, we need to let CLEC B know that they have lost the account. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if the new external only loss report will still show a disconnect. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that you are issuing a D and N order. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that they aren’t but Qwest is internally issuing a D and N order. Connie Winston/Qwest said that she would have to validate that and make sure it’s in there. We do relate those orders and so the external loss will be on the report. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that it would be populated if you are losing that end user. Connie Winston/Qwest said yes. John Berard/Covad asked if you are losing a customer on your voice side, and we have DSL on that order, we would get a loss on that. He also stated that they will not hear from them but we will see it on this report. Connie Winston/Qwest said yes. Kit Thomte/Qwest noted that this action item could be closed.

November 21, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was Presented in the October CMP Meeting. The Level og Effort is estimated at 300 - 600 hours and is pending scheduling. CR status remains at 'Presented'

October 17, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: This CR was requested to be a walk on at the October meeting. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon presented the CR and stated that she and Connie (Winston) talked about this last month and that the CR was submitted under duress. Bonnie stated that requested to walk this CR on because someone alluded that there was an existing UR to do this. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest had already started on some business definition and has done some research, knowing this was coming. Connie stated that the person who mentioned the UR viewed the Clarification call as a status call. Connie apologized for the confusion. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there is no implementation date yet. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the SDC’s seem to have a misunderstanding on external vs. internal loss. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that is true and that new M&Ps have gone out to restate and clarify. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he was not aware that there was an SDC manual process. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the SDCs believed that they were using the correct codes. That has been corrected. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that a system change is also being made. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the system change will help flowthrough but where the order is manually typed, it will not. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if this was the same issue where we were going to have a meeting to define internal vs. external losses Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the meeting was held prior to the August or September CMP Meeting. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if there was somewhere that she could go to identify internal vs. external losses. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Bonnie’s CR explains what we will be doing. If generated by a CLEC and it’s their own account, it’s considered internal. If it’s done by someone other than the CLEC and they would want to know about it then it’s considered external. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked that since we’ve got the human intervention side, on the manually typed orders, do you want those examples? Connie Winston/Qwest stated that yes, we are trying to find a way internally to help the typists, they a have a lot to get on the order. We would like examples. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if the new M&Ps were out. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that yes but we are clarifying them. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if the M&Ps would be in InfoBuddy. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the initial ones went out and another one is being sent to make clearer. Will be out with the system change or maybe a little sooner.

CLARIFICATION MEETING - October 9, 2002 ATTENDEES: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Joan Pfeffer/Qwest, Donna Svendgaard/Qwest, Kerri Waldner/Qwest REVIEWED CR DESCRIPTION: Currently the loss reports includes any TN that had outward activity and was not migrating from one product to another at the request of the CLEC. Eschelon requests that the criteria for the loss report be changed to exclude any activity requested by the CLEC itself. The loss report is used to identify those customers that have left our service and did not contact Eschelon to disconnect all or some of their services. As a result, Eschelon continues to bill the customer for service it is not providing. The end user is upset and the losing CLEC has little chance of collecting legitimate charges due from the customer. In addition, Eschelon currently has to analyze the loss report to determine which TN’s are actually a loss to Eschelon without our knowledge. This causes Eschelon additional resources and generates a significant number of calls to the Qwest CSIE for clarification. DISCUSSION: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she submitted this CR under duress, feels like Qwest forced her to submit it and feels like this request was already made in a previous CMP CR, 5522887, submitted on April 27, 2001 with a description of "CLECs need clear loss information, particularly with respect to resale customers. If loss information is not communicated effectively, two providers may bill one customer at the same time. To prevent such problems and ensure accuracy, Qwest should provide loss and completion information in a more organized, clear manner. Currently, Qwest includes all activity on a CLEC account that has outward action of a line or loop on a service order. For example, a migration from resale to loops appears as a loss, even though the customer has not changed providers. A loss should be limited to lines leaving the CLEC to go to another provider. The loss report should only reflect information of those customers that have changed to a different local service provider. The completion report should include order activity initiated by the CLEC, regardless of the activity type requested". Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the submission under duress would be noted. Peggy stated that would like to proceed with this CR Clarification to ensure complete understanding of the request. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Qwest has previously defined that an internal loss is due to migrations and the CLEC losing revenue. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that an Internal Loss should only include any service order activity that a CLEC generates. An External Loss are those lines that are lost that are not as a result of an LSR being submitted itself. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that her real wish is that if a CLEC initiates an LSR, the order would not be on the Loss Report at all. The order should be on the Completions Report only. Donna Svendgaard/Qwest asked to confirm that on the Loss Report, Eschelon only wants to see a line loss if not CLEC initiated. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon state that she wants a redefinition of internal & external. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the criteria to determine internal or external is driven off the service order disconnect code, and defined so only the the internal loss is due to a migration. Bonnie wants anything that is generated from an LSR, even a disconnect, as an internal loss. Bonnie does not want external to be only for a loss of revenue to a CLEC. A CLEC has to disconnect accounts for a customer and for resale UNE-P, you only know by the loss report if you have lost a customer. Donna Svendgaard/Qwest stated that this is confusing, and the reason that it confuses is is currently, there are 2 things that drive an internal loss. The first thing is a product migration and the second thing is CLEC authorized, and an LSR is submitted. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that that is not how Qwest has defined internal losses in the past. Donna Svendgaard/Qwest state that for CLEC authorized, currently the product migration DCR is used in the interim. CLEC authorized is currently pending implementation and is UR3595. It has not yet completed. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that it sounds like the wheels are already turning and this CR may not even be needed. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that Qwest will certainly look into this request and stated that this CR is due for discussion at the November Systems CMP Meeting. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that due to the confusion and submission under duress, she would like to discuss this CR at the October CMP Meeting. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest advised that this CR will be include in the walk-on section of the October distribution package, for discussion at the October Systems CMP Meeting. There were no other questions or comments.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR093002-01 Change loss report to include only external losses. Omit any requests the CLEC initiated

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR093002-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held October 9, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 300 to 600 hours for this Loss and Completion Report 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 SCR093002-01.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR093002-02 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will make changes to allow a CLEC to view the available times for any given day. If the date and time is not available the CLEC have the ability to either select OVERRIDE as an option or back out of the scheduler without selecting anything so the LSR can be populated with OVERRIDE.

Status History

Project Meetings

November 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: 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: Qwest will make changes to allow a CLEC to view the available times for any given day. If the date and time is not available the CLEC have the ability to either select OVERRIDE as an option or back out of the scheduler without selecting anything so the LSR can be populated with OVERRIDE.

Products: Unbundled Loop and Unbundled Loop with NP

Forms Impacted: Pre-Order Appointment Response

Fields Impacted: New ‘Return Appointment’ button in Conformation Tab on the Appointment screen

ACTs: N/A

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.

March 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion Regarding IMA 14.0 Prioritization: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that this is already available in EDI so the CR is for IMA GUI. Bonnie stated that this is also important to Qwest because Eschelon overrides everything. Connie Winston/Qwest stated yes, we would prefer you not use override as your workaround and stated that Qwest supports this CR.

December 19, 2002 Systems cMP Meeting Discussion: Kit Thomte/Qwest reviewed the prioritization process as defined in the CMP document. She noted that December 30th, 2002 is the due date for submitted votes. Judy Schultz/Qwest noted that the due date would be included in the instructions in the notification that goes out with the ballot. Kit Thomte/Qwest reviewed the sample prioritization form. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed the request. She noted that this is the one that we’d talked to Qwest about earlier and until it is implemented we will mark to override Appointment scheduler every time. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that this is only GUI. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that she believed so. Wendy Green/Qwest said that in the GUI the integration greys out the field. In EDI, there is no integration by Qwest, so the EDI customer can go in and type 'override' and in the GUI, they can’t. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that having said that is there a change in LOE. Connie Winston/Qwest said that she doesn’t believe so because the complex part of this is in the GUI and asked how passionate are you around this. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that they are passionate about this. We are hoping to convert to EDI, but I think it’s not a nice to have, for any CLEC that uses the GUI to submit unbundled loop and coordinated hot cuts would be a high priority. Stephanie Prull/McLeod said that she agrees.

November 21, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed the CR Description. The Level of Efforth for this request is 1475 - 2450 hours and is eligible for the 13.0 vote.

Clarification Call - October 7, 2002 Attendees Introduced - Bonnie Johnson, Kim Isaacs from Eschelon. Peggy Esquibel-Reed, John Gallegos, Berkley Loggie, Joan Pfeffer, Russ Urevig from Qwest Reviewed CR: Currently when you attempt to select an appointment for UBL with CHC, if the appointment you require is not available, IMA selects the next available appointment. Once that appointment is populated, the CLEC is required to open an escalation ticket with the CSIE and have the appointment removed so OVERRIDE can be entered when the date and time needed is not available. This cause additional time and steps for the CLEC and Qwest particularly since the appointments available are only on the hour. Expected Deliverable: Qwest will make changes to allow a CLEC to view the available times for any given day. If the date and time is not available the CLEC have the ability to either select OVERRIDE as an option or back out of the scheduler without selecting anything so the LSR can be populated with OVERRIDE. Confirmed Impacted Interface - IMA EDI & GUI Confirmed Impacted Product(s) - Unbundled Loop Discussion - Joan Pfeffer/Qwest asked that when an appointment is scheduled and the appointment is not available, what does Eschelon do? Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that it just gives the next available date & time; you can't back out to OVERRIDE. One is forced to take an appointment, then has to open a ticket to delete it. Joan Pfeffer/Qwest stated that this functionality is currently available in EDI and will be available for GUI with the 12.0 Release. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked for a description of the functionality that will be available with 12.0 Joan Pfeffer/Qwest advised that if have a due date change, a supp is to be issued and the original appointment gets canceled. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the due date supp is different than this CR request. This request is for an original LSR, not a supp or due date change. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that Qwest will investigate request regarding an original LSR and will respond accordingly. Russ Urevig/Qwest advised that there are no concerns or questions, from Process. There were no additional comments or questions.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR093002-02 Change IMA so when a CLEC goes to check availability of a date and time for CHC in appointment scheduler, the CLEC can input OVERRIDE if the appointment needed is not available or make OVERRIDE one of the options for appointments.

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR093002-02). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held October 7, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1475 to 2450 hours for this IMA Change Request.

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

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 13.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

Archived System CR SCR093002-03 Detail