Verizon Internal January 11, 2005 Confirmation #

Transcription

1 Verizon Internal January 11, 2005 Confirmation # Operator: If you are planning on putting the call on hold please use star, six. That will actually mute you through the bridge. Ms. Derrig, just a moment - actually I m opening there we are, everybody is open, and Ms. Derrig you may begin. Thank you. All right, I ll start this again. Good morning to everyone and happy New Year to everyone. This is our first meeting in 2005 and I just want to apologize for any typos of 2004 versus 2005 we may have in the material. I did find one. It s that whole year change thing. We actually have a full room and we are also having conference phone issues at this room, so I m going to ask everyone, at least in this room, to speak up and if someone on the bridge can t hear if you could just ask us to repeat it that would be great. I m going to start here and go round the room and let everyone introduce themselves. So I m Jean Derrig. OK, start with Beth. Nick Umrani: Catherine: Lisa Provenzo: Catherine: Amy Kowalchik: Annmarie Sturtz: Andrea: Linda Dorsey: Peggy Rubino: Nicole Amosa: Beth Cohen, Verizon. Nick Umrani, Verizon. Catherine (inaudible) MCI. Lisa Provenzo, MCI Catherine (inaudible), Verizon. Amy Kowalchik, Verizon. Annmarie Sturtz, Choice One. John Boshier, Covad. Andrea (inaudible), Conversant Linda Dorsey, PSC. Peggy Rubino, Z-Tel. Nicole Amosa, Verizon.

2 Carol Yozzo: Carol Yozzo, Verizon. OK, that s who we have in the room presently, and I don t know if we re expecting anyone else to show up. If we could start on the bridge with the CLECs announcing themselves first, that would be great. Paula Bulloch: Carol Frike: Sherry Lichtenberg: Richard Handley: Amy Kwak: Teressa Castro: Paula Bulloch, Info Highway. Carol Frike, Sprint. Sherry Lichtenberg, MCI. Richard Handley, Intelos. Amy Kwak, CTSI. Teressa Castro, Vartec. Ninfa Bennet: Ninfa Bennet & Gayle Gissendanner for Cox Communications. Janice Ziegele: Jennifer Kuhnz: Loriann Ercan: Alex Kuhner: Melanie Desmarais: Brandy Katz: Ray DiGestetner: Lan Nguyen: Janice Johnson: Rebecca Baldwin: Bennie Almis: Michelle Barnes: Janice Ziegele, Broadview. Jennifer Kuhnz, Broadview. Loriann Ercan, XO. Alex Kuhner, ATX. Melanie Desmarais, CTC Communications. Brandy Katz, Xchange Telecom. Ray DiGestetner, Xchange Telecom. Lan Nguyen, Wisor Telecom Janice Johnson, Accenture. Rebecca Baldwin, Telcove. Bennie Almis with Neustar. Michelle Barnes, Communications Plus. Mary Halpin: Mary Halpin, AT & T.

3 Gloria Velez: Gloria Velez, AT & T. Dok Matthews: Amy Brown: Bruce Holley: Cindy Forry: that would be great. Ed Amato: Rose Clayton: Michele Wallace: Stephen Cuttle: Jan Tanzer: Dan Duris: Sue Pistacchio: coming. Patricia Russell: Jim Parks: Paul Haven: Dok Matthews, Penn Telecom. Amy Brown, Time Warner Telecom. Bruce Holley, Optimum Global, OPGC. Cindy Forry, Concretio. If Verizon personnel could announce themselves now Good morning, Ed Amato here. Rose Clayton. Michele Wallace. Good morning, Stephen Cuttle. Jan Tanzer. Dan Duris. Sue Pistacchio here and Beth I apologize for not OK Sue. Patricia Russell. Jim Parks. Paul Haven. OK, to get the meeting started, I believe I heard Dan announce himself. The first item is an ongoing agenda item, CABS consolidation and I believe Dan will give you an update. Dan Duris: Good morning everyone, and happy New Year. The CABS billing for New Jersey was migrated over New Year s weekend from CABS South to CABS East as planned. CABS East, I don t know if I ve been calling it CABS East in these meetings but CABS East is our new name for the CABS-2 billing system, which traditionally has handled our territory in the Northeast

4 United States. And the conversion went pretty well for a project that was as large as it is. Speaker: Dan Duris: Sorry, what was that? I m sorry? Go ahead Dan. Dan Duris: My team and others within Verizon have been very busy ever since the consolidation. We have been validating as much billing as possible. Bills are sent out and we have not found any large issues where the bill has been, was changed incorrectly. So that s good news. Everyone should expect to receive their January New Jersey bills from the CABS East system. It will carry a different billing account number, a different BAN number, than the previous account carried. All the accounts receivable were carried over to the new CABS East account, credits and debits. As far as the consolidation of the other mid-atlantic States we really want to analyze at least a full month s billing before we start talking about a target for the rest of the consolidation. So, you know, we re busy analyzing and making sure that we have not moved billing over incorrectly, and we really need a full month of data before we can even start talking about what the target might be for the rest of this project. Are there any questions that I might be able to answer at this point, or any concerns? Dok Matthews: Dan this is Dok at Penn Telecom. What other States are you planning on consolidating? Dan Duris: It will be all of the Mid-Atlantic States that were handled, or traditionally have been handled, out of what we call CABS South, so that would be Pennsylvania, Delaware and then Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington, DC. Dok Matthews: OK, and are you trying I mean as you said you don t have a firm date, but are you planning on doing this throughout the calendar year then? Dan Duris: Right now for planning purposes, and again this is only for planning purposes because we really need to see at least one month of billing data to make sure that this went as well as we think it went, but for planning purposes you could plan on the rest going maybe in the second quarter

5 of this year. And it might be done in two additional phases or we might do it all in one additional phase. Again that remains to be seen. If we do it in two additional phases we would do Pennsylvania and Delaware together and then we would do Maryland, DC, Virginia and West Virginia together. Dok Matthews: OK, thank you sir. Dan Duris: Thank you. Are there any other questions or concerns I might be able to answer right now? OK, of course I am always available or someone from my team is always available if you do have any concerns or questions. My office telephone number is and my address is daniel.g.duris@verizon.com. OK, and I believe we will have Dan on the agenda again next month and so he will be able to give a readout of his one month analysis and maybe he ll I can t speak for him but maybe he will have a proposed schedule at that time. Thank you Dan. Dan Duris: Thank you, have a good day. All right, next on the agenda is a new topic. It s a migration of CAFE to the South, replacing EXACT. These are actually backend systems on the ASR side, and Cindy Vaughn is here to speak to it. It s just a heads up right now. You should come over here or move the telephone down there. Cindy Vaughn: This is just a very rough (inaudible) are going to be changing our ordering system but the same it covers exactly the same states that Dan just mentioned, what we consider our CABS, I mean our South part, and it will go, it is dependent first of all let me say it is dependent on the CABS- 2 conversion that Dan was just speaking of, on that being implemented. In other words when he said second quarter, if that doesn t go second quarter it will affect our implementation schedule. What we are looking at doing is replacing the EXACT ordering system with CAFE, or which we are now calling ACORD, for access ordering. If you do business in the northern regions it s the exact same platform that we have there. There will be the exact same platform there. The impacts that it will have to you as a customer are that there may be some error messages that will change. What we re doing is we re trying to standardize between the North and the South. So some of your error messages may change; if you have error messages hard coded into your system to look for certain numbers or verbiage, that may change, or probably will change. Some of your Fatals may change; some of the Fatal errors may change.

6 Like in classic Fatals you understand what I m talking about. The errors that we won t even if you have this error we won t even let the ASR into the platform. Cindy Vaughn: Well edit engines will still be there and they will still come through edit engines just like they do today but it will be the platform on the LSR side of the editing. Cindy Vaughn: Yes we will. Our understanding is that 73 day notification is what you need and today we are looking at a July 29 th first implementation, and that will be for the we re going to follow the same implementation schedule that CABS followed. We re going to convert the New Jersey State first, then we will do the PA, Delaware and then we will do what we call C & T or Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, DC area. Cindy Vaughn: We don t yet. We re still working on requirement. The requirements are not going to be submitted until February 4 th so once we have that, probably in the month of February, we will come up with a list of our new errors and all that. But you definitely will get that as part of your customer notification. Cindy Vaughn: Yes. Well we won t wait till 73 days. If we know it in advance we will give you that. The only thing is we hate to send out too early is things sometimes change and we hate to keep bombarding you with additional well we were going to do it July 29 th, now we re going to do it You know, after the 29 th. Cindy Vaughn: Lisa Provenzo: It s a Verizon system. Right I know that but (inaudible) industry standards. Cindy Vaughn: Oh we will be using the industry yes we will be. We ve already run this system in the North. Lisa Provenzo: Right but you also implement outside of the industry standard upgrade. to know that part of the industry upgrade (inaudible) outside of that window.

7 Cindy Vaughn: The Verizon release is outside of the ASOG window, yes. The ASOG window is, I think, March and September. Is that correct? Lisa Provenzo: Cindy Vaughn: Lisa Provenzo: Yes that s the problem. Yes, if we have anything big or whatever. Cindy Vaughn: You will. They will be on the web where we (inaudible) notification letters. So the edits, the major changes that I think for you will be your edits, you may have new edits or some of the existing ones may change. Some of your Fatal edits may change. In other words what we re trying basically to do is we re trying to use as much of the North processing as we can because it seems to be working much better. So we will probably be, you may be used to seeing these in the North, yes. So that may change. What else may change? Well some of your response time, your file response time, and I can t really speak to that right now because the meeting for that is tomorrow, but I do understand that there are different response times between what EXACT can send back and what CAFE can send back, or it will be called ACORD in the future. So if you re used to getting an immediate response back with EXACT, it may be an hour tomorrow or a 45 minute response back. I know that we have different bulking of messages and sending those files back, so that could change or it could be deferred response times. Some of your batch I don t know if you send something in batch that get certain hours of the day, we will probably be conforming to whatever the hours are in the North, so if you re doing business in the North that would probably be what we will go to for the South region. Other than that I don t think that there will be that much change for you. I mean there will be a tremendous amount of change of course on our side but as far as our interaction with you, you ll still come through AVE, you ll still come through CNG if that s what you re doing, your front end edits. So mainly your file formats will follow the North; your error messages, your Fatals being part of the errors. In other words you may get some additional Fatal sights. Oh auto queries; you may get some additional auto queries back. The North may do more auto queries than the South currently does, so you may get some additional auto queries back but they should be similar to the ones that you see in the North. Those will also be, you know, they ll be listed too. And then your response times may be different.

8 And again this is just to let you know it s coming. It s very, really very early for me to be here talking to you about it because I don t have final details. I ll be back on the agenda probably next month and I should have more explanation, or either it may be in March. Our current implementation schedule is set for July for the New Jersey region, August for the Pennsylvania, Delaware region, and then September for the Maryland, Virginia region. Oh, this was a big thing I forgot to tell you about. We are also implementing by product types. Specials will implement first, so when I say July implementation that will be just the special services direct Type M and correct Type S, S and E and BATI (sp?). That will go with your, with the first phase and we are rolling that out in, you know, July/August/September for the three different regions and then we will start October/November/December, repeat those same regions for switched. So you will have switched New Jersey scheduled for October; switched PA, Delaware scheduled for November; and switched Maryland, Virginia, all those others, scheduled for December. And then of course we will be back here again next year with the West region, of the former GTE region. Lisa Provenzo: That will be different! Cindy Vaughn: This is just a heads up but you know its coming. As I said I will probably be back on the February agenda and hopefully will have a lot more specifics for you then. But 73 day notification is my understanding, that is correct right? Well I think that what we will do here is we will follow the same kind of conversion/transition process that we have been implementing with everything else that has converted, so Cindy you will end up working with Carol Yozzo to make sure that we have the appropriate documentation; that we have, that there could be training that s needed. If there s anything that needs to go out to this group Carol will make sure that you are aware of the appropriate timeframes and try to get it actually as early if you have it we will try to get it out. The 73 day is kind of like the last drop dead. We try very hard to do it as much in advance of that as we possibly can. Cindy Vaughn: Carol Yozzo: Cindy Vaughn: OK. Carol how do you spell your last name? Y-o-z-z-o. Y-o-z-z-o.

9 Carol Yozzo: So I ll touch base with you after this meeting. Are you going to be here for the whole meeting? Cindy Vaughn: Carol Yozzo: No I m going to leave after I m done. All right. Cindy Vaughn: I m actually on 2636 in that (inaudible) if you want to come down there or if you want to call me let me give you my phone number. Carol Yozzo: Or we can touch base after. The other thing that I was going to say is that it s very possible now that what we try to do is we try to keep the subjects where we are having a system conversion, try to keep subjects on the agenda. Cindy Vaughn: That s fine. So until we actually complete, even if there s you know, no information to give just so that it s kind of in front of people and we know, you know that it s still out there. Cindy Vaughn: (inaudible). I agree, that s a good way to go. So you know you will probably be on our list of folks Cindy Vaughn: Do you typically schedule your meeting like the second Tuesday of the month? Operator: Operator: there? Several: Hello? Are you there operator? I believe I got it. All right, thanks Ben. Thank you. Sorry folks for the interference. Is everyone still out Yes.

10 Thank you. All right, and we will keep rolling then and we will probably piggyback right off of Dan because he will be on the agenda for CABS consolidation, and - since there is a dependency there. All right, any questions for Cindy before she leaves? Cindy Vaughn: Anything that we need to make sure that we are, or anything else you think might impact you at all. Cindy Vaughn: Right, thank you Cindy. Very good. Thanks a lot Carol. All right, moving on to the Carol you can t go too far we re going to (inaudible) again. Next on the agenda, as Carol like scurries out of the room, is LSOG 5 and 6 sunset and LSOG 9. As you know this has been an ongoing agenda item, I believe since either October or November I ve lost track of time, and Sue and Carol were going to speak to any updates. Because of the holidays we probably don t have as much of an update as we probably would have preferred to have coming in to this meeting but actually the way this meeting fell it seems like it s right after the holidays! So that s kind of where we are. Sue I m going to ask you to start, because Carol is not in the room. Sue Pistacchio: At this point in time I don t have any updates. We were still investigating an action item that had to do with the technical specifications and what we are doing is we re finalizing some documentation for LSOG 9 which is the real detail analysis of what the expected changes would be. So we are working towards being able to present that to the CLECs. We don t have a timeframe but that s our next milestone. I think we were aiming to do that some time in the February timeframe. Right, and I believe the one major outstanding question is around the EDI and how the EDI specs are going to coincide with our proposal of the one LSOG. That came out on December 8 th. Sue Pistacchio: Right, there was someone who was looking into that and we did get some information but I haven t had a chance to look through it in detail, so I would probably have more information on that at the next CMP meeting. Carol Yozzo: Yes I do. Just briefly on LSOG 5 sunset, regardless of what the plans are for LSOG 9 implementation, I just want to remind everybody to go ahead with moving from LSOG 5 to LSOG 6 and if anybody needs any assistance with that they can contact me through change management, but you really should be getting off of LSOG 5 and going to 6. At

11 this point we re not, I guess we don t have our sunset date cast in concrete anymore. It s really dependent on the ultimate decision for LSOG 9 implementation, and since I missed that I don t know what was just said, OK. for transition from 5 to 6. Speaker: Carol Yozzo: Speaker: So again we re here for any kind of support needed And who is this speaking? Carol Yozzo. OK, thanks. Carol Yozzo: We can provide some information on that. Carol Yozzo: Yes, right now we are still in the process of looking at who is doing what in which LSOG, so it s a little bit premature and depending on where you are in the process of transitioning you, we re not going to provide snapshots early in any particular CLEC s process. You know it s more of a cleanup type of thing if you need to, whatever transition or cancel and then resubmit orders. We can provide some information on that. But it s really more after you ve done the transition, after you ve really been doing kind of your initial cleanup on your own. Bruce Holley: Carol Yozzo: Bruce Holley: Carol Yozzo: May ask a question please? Yes. Hi, this is Bruce from Optimum Global, how are you? Good, how are you? Bruce Holley: Good thank you. I just was wondering can we still consider making a transition right from LSOG 5 to LSOG 9, because that was presented at one point and I m not sure if that s still a possibility based on what you re saying. Carol Yozzo: Well at this point LSOG 9, until LSOG 9 implementation is really, I guess solidified, I can t answer that let s say. If you re was anything said in terms of (inaudible) because I m working a little in the dark here.

12 In prior conversations we got a lot of flak on even asking CLECs to that would be a flash cut to go from LSOG 5 to LSOG 9, so you really need to consider. If you want we can take this offline and I can discuss the pros and cons of that plan, but a couple of months ago we had a lot of pushback on the possibility that the CLECs would be required to flash cut. Carol Yozzo: Or want to, exactly. You loose any kind of overlap and there, so why don t we take it offline because from my understanding most people are not only not interested in doing that, but vehemently opposed to doing that. Bruce Holley: OK, and what was your phone number please? Carol Yozzo: Bruce Holley: Carol Yozzo: Bruce Holley: And this is Carol? Carol. OK, thank you. Gloria Velez: Carol this is Gloria Velez. So based upon what you just said are you saying that the idea of flash cutting in the future after LSOG 9 is off the table? Carol Yozzo: No I didn t say that. In fact it still has not been determined how we will handle LSOG implementation. So I know we had a discussion a few months ago in which there was a lot of objection to a single LSOG and the necessity then to flash cut from one version to the next. So no, nothing is off the table at this point. Right now we are looking at going from LSOG 5 to LSOG 6, which is not a flash cut, and then ultimately going from 6 to 9. Sue Pistacchio: Yes Gloria, this is Sue Pistacchio. The implementation of LSOG 9 would be a very, very different matter than the implementation of LSOG 10, particularly since 9 does include LSOG 7 and 8 changes, so up to LSOG 9 what we re having with LSOG releases is much more comprehensive. Not to the point of even when we did 6, it s not as much as that but its really when we start to look at LSOG 10 and when we proceed to implement that where you re really dealing with a handful of changes, so its really apples and oranges going from 9, or what we would do from 9 and then what we would do with 10.

13 to your next (inaudible). Any other questions for Carol? OK. Carol moving on Carol Yozzo: My other favorite topic is end user listings and I think last month, and possibly even as early as November, we talked about the fact that the North conversion, which was originally slated to go at the end of last year, was postponed. At this point we are looking at starting the beta as early as March. I can t be any more vague than that. It is still not absolutely determined that we will start in March but we are targeting that mid-march for the start of the beta, and we do have a couple of beta CLECs that I have been in contact with and will follow up contact with. As far as the rest of the companies go, customers go, you re probably looking at mid 2005 at the earliest. And again once these dates get solidified I will give you more information, but at this point that s the extent of the detail that I have. Any questions on end user listing? Elliott Goldberg: Carol that s a change to the February release documentation, which sort of implies on page 46 that it s going to Elliott you need to speak up. Elliott Goldberg: I m a little confused by the reference on page 46 of the latest release of the February release documentation, which says that the, I thought that because it was included in the appendix of the February release documentation that meant that (inaudible). Elliott? That s the release overview that you re looking at Elliott Goldberg: Yes it s the release overview. Verizon East release overview of February 2005 release, publication 12/9/04, version Sue Pistacchio: Sue can you help us with that reference? I m pulling up page 46, hold on. Thanks. Sue Pistacchio: Yes in this one yes, but basically we are saying that the beta trial for the North was getting postponed by another month. We did say on this, this was included in something in the section where it wasn t really CLEC impact but we were notifying you about it because once we start the beta rollout the only CLECs that will be impacted are those CLECs that participate in the beta

14 trial. When we put together the documentation we were looking to February. Carol is kind of managing that rollout and it is getting deferred to March. But as for impact to the overall CLEC community, there is none. It s really working with the beta CLECs and establishing when the beta trial will actually start. But we did notify, when we set up the documents we were looking at February and the documentation did go out. Elliott Goldberg: that document? Just that a question, are there any other changes to Sue Pistacchio: At this point in time no. Again on that one Elliott, because it wasn t viewed as CLEC impacting it was more of a timeline where we were able to more negotiate, so I know Carol has been in communication with the beta CLECS. But I know I ve gone through the document when we did the 45 day milestone, I think it was last week, and we didn t have any changes. I think we just added the Q & A section and we have gone through it so no, there are no other changes at this point in time. Elliott Goldberg: OK, thank you. I was just confused because this was last week s version and I sort of assumed it was the definitive one, but. All right, and then at some point, just to restate a point that was made a couple of months ago of the CLEC involvement and they would get back to us and give us feedback on their experience. Carol Yozzo: Yes, I believe (inaudible) we did the same thing. listings? Any other questions for Carol on the end user Gloria Velez: Yes Carol this is Gloria. Could you tell me again what States would be involved for your targeted mid 2005? Carol Yozzo: And targeted starting mid 2005, because let me caution you, we are talking close to a million listings and this process is going on for many months. The North includes New York and all the New England States, and really it s not going to be on a state by state basis, it s going to be on a CLEC by CLEC basis. So if one CLEC does business only in Rhode Island they may be scheduled around the same time with another CLEC that does New Hampshire and Vermont and so forth. So it s really not on a state basis. What I try to do in laying out a target schedule is to optimize each conversion run to get the most activity in any given run.

15 Hello, you re speaking into the phone. We can hear you about PO boxes. Star, six, please. Carol Yozzo: So as I was saying, with the schedule its set up such as, so as to maximize the number of listings we can convert in any given run and minimize the impact to any CLEC so that they are not spread over a 12 or a 14 month conversion period. So as we get to, I guess finalizing the schedule, and as we get close, within say 2 months of a given CLEC's conversion date, I will be in contact with you and give you kind of the low down on what you can expect for timing and how long it will take and you know, if there s a preference to approach it on a certain state basis within a CLEC, we can look at that. Gloria Velez: in (inaudible)? will there be any states that are excluded Carol Yozzo: No. All listings in New York and the New England States will be included. All eligible listings I should say, and there are some ineligibles, the same as there were in the South. We had toll frees; any cross referenced and associated listings without telephone numbers. There may be, you know, assorted other reasons why a listing would not be eligible for conversion, but the biggest one is it s a listing that is duplicate, and that s usually caused as the result of a migration when an old listing has not been cared for. So we are only going after the ones that are initially eligible and we still have about a million to address in that pool. Gloria Velez: And then Carol I know you finished with the MDVW states. Could you refresh my memory where things are for New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware? Carol Yozzo: We ve completed the initial conversions in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware as well. We still have not gone back and done the cleanup again with the duplicates, both for MDVW and NPD still need to be addressed. But we ve gone through our full initial conversion so any listings that were eligible at the time of conversion and the other category of non-eligible listings that would be temporarily non-eligible or any that there s a pending order against, so we went through several iterations of an MDVW and NPD to catch any listings that had orders pending against them. If you go back and try a few months later you catch some of those ones that now don t have pending orders. So I guess for all practical purposes our initial run through those two jurisdictions are complete, is complete. Gloria Velez: With that clean up is it a possibility that you ll have rejects for BAN required (inaudible) the MDVW (inaudible) Delaware?

16 Carol Yozzo: attempt? Is it possible they would rejects in another conversion Carol Yozzo: Well based on the experience we ve had so far in conversion yes, there could always be fallout, and you know we will keep going through that to clean it up to, you know, within reason. You know, we re going to get, we will have to get those numbers down because we still have I d say about 25% of the original listings, the original count of listings, were ineligible for one reason or another. Any other questions on end user listings? That will be on the agenda for the next two years. Carol Yozzo: for me. I don t see any of these (inaudible). Several months anyway. OK, moving on to actually a new agenda item new Moving to the CMP document, we did send out a notice on, I believe it was Friday, I can t tell you what time, with additional materials for this meeting. I hope they have been posted by now. We actually had a little problem with our posting software to the website, but however we sent out the change management documents with some proposed changes that we would like to talk about now. It s also, for the people in the room, at the end of the bound document, the last item in there. So basically what I did is I took the latest version that s out on the website, which is Version 2.1 from April of 2001, and made I believe its actually only three changes, four changes, represented in two different areas. The first area is on page 19 and it s Section XI - Versioning of LSR Preorder and Order Application-to-Application Interfaces. Someone has put us on hold.

17 Either they figured it out or Ben took care of it. They wanted free advertising. What would this meeting be without our little, you know. Operator: Just a moment I m going to clear that up for you. Thank you. OK, thanks. All right, back to our regular scheduled meeting. I m assuming people are still there. One person can answer me. Several: Yes, we re here. All right. I don t know what you heard before the interruption but basically we were talking about the CMP proposed changes from the Verizon side, the first one being Section XI, Versioning of LSR Preorder and Order Application-to-Application Interfaces. Obviously this, we were talking about the single LSOG version, a proposal that Verizon has put on the table and we are still working out, but obviously one of the hurdles to get there was the CMP document. So we are putting in our proposal for additional wording. It s in the second paragraph in that section under Verizon Practice. Previously it stated (page 19). Previously it stated: Verizon s practice will be to maintain two versions of LSOG preordering order interfaces. And what we are proposing is adding to that sentence or maintain only one (1) version when concurrence is obtained by the TCs which is the telecom communication company. That s the first change in this section. The second change is actually on page 20 where we are just eliminating the paragraph around the one time exemption for the implementation of LSOG 5. It s a past event; we figure let s just clean it up while we can while we are opening the document. So that s what we re proposing. I think, I don t know if you want me to talk about the other changes or just debate this one first. Let s get the other one out on the table as well. OK. The second change is on page 22. It s actually in Section XV under Escalation Process, and the change is under the Cycle portion of the document where it talks about the time periods in which Verizon has to respond to an escalation as well as the telecommunication companies. You go down to the third bullet. It previously read Within 5 business days of receipt (4 from acknowledgement), Verizon Change Management appropriate executive (Level 1-Director or Level 2-Vice President) will reply through Verizon Change Management with Verizon s position and explanation for that position. This five (5) day period is reduced to 1 day in the case of a Type 1 Change

18 Request and the addition that we are proposing is and reduced to 3 days in the case of a Type 2 Change Request. And then in addition to that, the next bullet says The escalating TC should respond to Verizon within 5 days as to whether escalation will continue or the Verizon response has been accepted as closure to the item. This five (5) day period is reduced to 1 day in the case of a Type 1 Change Request and the new proposal is to continue that to say and reduced to 3 days in the case of a Type 2 Change Request. document as of today. So that s the only proposed changes we show in this Now before we actually start discussing the content of what we ve proposed here I want to actually time box this, because I think, I don t know if this will be a discussion that will, that we will be able to complete today, and so if not, if it needs to have more discussion then I want to be able to put a timeframe around it and continue the discussion. So I think that this portion of the meeting is supposed to go until 11. What time is it now, quarter of? Quarter of; well lets see where we get in 15 minutes and then take a check back and determine then what our next steps are, OK. A question - John Boshier, Covad. You know, other changes to this document in the past 18 months, where are they? I think that there were, we really had gotten down to two changes at the last meeting that we had, which I think was in June. And one we believe, which is the Type 2 definition change, is really superceded by the New York PSC order which really clarifies the definition for Type 2. It s very (inaudible) about what Type 2s need to be and Verizon has every intention of following the definition as described in the New York PSC order. The other component was, I believe, the beta testing section, which is actually language that we had agreed upon. I m certainly willing to bring that back to the table if folks want to bring it back to the table. I will say that one of the pieces around that was that, I think it was last month that we actually asked for beta CLECs for the FTP migration and we didn t get any takers so I want to, you know, make sure that if we are going to discuss, we re going to put back the beta testing component, that you know, we need to I think address how is it really going to work? Are the CLECs really willing to take on some of the obligations that were included in that language? But I think, you know, we can certainly talk about whether to bring that back or not. Going back for a moment to the Type 2 definition changes (inaudible) by the Bureau of Public Service Commission, we ve been

19 expecting some sort of return language from Verizon that, I guess, encompasses those, that clarity and we haven t seen anything so That was not clear that that was an expectation and I think that, you know, that Verizon really believes that the PSC basically said that the language as it is, is clear. They have even used some words I think in their order that define what those words actually mean, so I think that Verizon really believes that the language as it is, is the language that should be there and that the understanding of it has been made very clear by the PSC and that there isn t the need for any additional language changes. Just to go around the table then, everybody else. Maybe I m the only one to expect that response. Is anybody else in agreement with that? Elliott Goldberg: I thought that we would get a full response to our proposed language. Maybe I was possibly misinformed, but I thought that even the two years of development Dok Matthews: Please speak up Elliott. Elliott Goldberg: I thought that given the two years of development that I put into the (inaudible) there would be a formal response incorporating the New York language and incorporating some of the CLEC issues, language that we could all agree on hopefully. And as far as that goes I don t necessarily think that the Verizon proposed changes are bad changes, in fact I probably even agree with them on occasion, but I would suggest that they be discussed after the older items are put to bed. I thought I still don t believe that the current language reflecting those sections of the CLEC proposed modification is complete, is totally desirable and I do realize that there may be a difference here but I would have hoped that this would be language incorporating, at the very minimum, incorporating the PSC language which I thought reiterated much more closely the CLEC position than the current language, having read the current language and the PSC order thoroughly. I don t know if anybody else agrees or disagrees with that. Peggy Rubino: Speaker: I think that can you guys hear me? Can you hear Peggy now? Just barely Peggy, speak up. Peggy Rubino: I think that there are really two issues. The CLECs had, many months ago, proposed some changes to the Type 2 definition and

20 then we also, somebody had filed a complaint or however that process played out, and the New York PSC clarified what they thought the existing definition meant. So I think I m actually in agreement with Verizon that the PSC was not asking Verizon propose new language around the Type 2 definition but that they were just interpreting the language that was there. And maybe somebody can speak (inaudible) is agreeing with this. Speaker: the language that was there. Peggy Rubino: OK, so I guess we are still, in some sense, expecting to have a dialog with Verizon about the proposed changes that we would like to see made to this document, but not as a result of the Commission order. And then Verizon is proposing a couple of changes in here that one is the result of the Commission order, the reduction from 5 to 3 days, and then the other changes to facilitate the LSOG implementation. So I m not sure that we re ready to discuss it today but we can get back to you. That s just my view. If you guys have a different view of the Type 2 language Dok Matthews: Peggy, wouldn t you expect I just kind of expected to see that the Commission s language would be reflected in the document now. I think that what we have responded to is in the language that we have presented in the escalation section is, that is what the order actually, what to change that language, to reduce the timeline for the escalation process for a Type 2. Peggy Rubino: So Beth I don t know if you re foreclosing the discussion for other proposed changes such as for beta testing. Not at all, no. Peggy Rubino: So I guess we can respond, we can take your language back and get back to you with language. I think that one of the other things that was in the Commission s statement, in the filing I guess it was called. They call it an order but I guess there s just like one (inaudible) that you ordered in the discussion part of the document. It does say that if there are things that we need to talk about to facilitate the appropriate (inaudible) of change management process, then we d need to address those things. So there are, you know, language changes or discussions that we need to have because we are not able to approach things appropriately in the change management process, those are language changes that are appropriate for us to this time.

21 Peggy Rubino: OK, now I am sensitive to the fact that you need to respond to the order so I think if we can come to an agreement on the 5 days, the 3 days, that would probably help Verizon be in compliance with the order. I have no objection to that. I don t know if you guys do. Not hearing any. We can agree to that and I think we can agree to take out the LSOG 5 language, because that has no meaning. I m not quite ready to agree to I understand the concept I just think we might want to play with the language a little bit to define what concurrence is and Sherry Lichtenberg: Yes I would agree with that this is Sherry. Verizon do you have a definition of how you would obtain concurrence and what concurrence means? Yes, actually we talked about it. I think it s really what we do now in terms of getting concurrence. If we re going to implement something in a shorter time period then the appropriate notification is a requirement, which is number one, we discuss it at this meeting and then if there is concurrence around this table we send out a notice to the rest of the industry asking if there are any concerns, questions or folks out there who have a problem with what this body has actually concurred or consensed on, and if there is then we don t do it. Sherry Lichtenberg: So if a single CLEC were to object, that would Yes we would probably work with that CLEC to find out what the objections were, see if we could you know, work through it. If not then yes, that would keep it from moving forward. Sherry Lichtenberg: Hi and I can t hear you. They said they were all looking for consensus. I think you know I m not sure what the right definition is, but I thought consensus was that it didn t have to be 100%. I thought concurrence was that it really needed to be everybody. Dok Matthews: Monte Banash: That s correct. Could it be unanimous? Elliott Goldberg: In practice in the (inaudible) that s the way you want to define it. In practice, in the Carrier Working Group, consensus means everybody.

22 OK, I m willing I think that the concept here is that we re not going to cut anybody out of this. That it s, you know, if there s somebody who really has really got a real concern and we can t work through that concern, then that s a legitimate reason. Monte Banash: unanimous? Sherry Lichtenberg: This is Monte from IDT. Could the language be MCI would support that. Again I ll be happy to take the word back. You know I m sitting in the position here of not necessarily being able to accept Elliott Goldberg: what (inaudible). Beth, how about you just prepare a footnote defining OK. Elliott Goldberg: Is that a reasonable compromise and then we can lay it on the table, and then in 18 months when we come back to develop (inaudible) here again Speaker: defining concurrence. Elliott Goldberg: everything. We know what the definition was. OK, that s fine. We will come back with a footnote Yes I started of as an analyst (inaudible) documenting OK that s fine. I don t have a problem with that, but what I m hearing though is I m not hearing any objection to the concept of this language, given that we can come to, you know, a definition of concurrence. Is that a correct read here? Mary Halpin: Beth this is Mary Halpin from AT & T. I think that we re going to take this back and review the proposal and we will probably have some questions, so at this point I don t think we are ready to weigh in with a yes. OK. Elliott Goldberg: Well you know, we wouldn t, it s all in how we define (inaudible) we wouldn t concur to flash cut. We might concur if there s a 12 month phase over type of thing. OK.

23 Dok Matthews: Beth I d say that it s safe to say when we visit this thing next month we may be able to flesh it out and finish it off. OK. So I think that first of all Verizon has the action now to flesh out the language on the one version, getting to one version. So that s Section XI, page 19 of the current document. I think we if I, do I have concurrence - I don t know what the right word is here. Can we remove the one time exception language which is on page 20 for the implementation of LSOG 5? Is there anyone who disagrees with removing that language. Dok Matthews: Penn Telecom approves. Anybody opposed? OK. And then in terms of the escalation process on page 22, which is the language that we actually this is in order to comply with the New York, this is the specific compliance component of the New York order to reduce the escalation process time for Type 2s to 3 days. Is there concurrence in this body for that language? Hearing no objection I think that I have heard concurrence. And again we will send this out to the body at large to say here s what this group came to. Now, how do you want I think I heard Peggy say that you want to take back the, to discuss the other language proposals that we have on the table before we stopped our discussion processes back in June. (inaudible). And then we began the whole process of the order No actually I think that Verizon s language was the last. I think it was at the June, I think it was the June meeting because that was actually when we learned that there was a complaint filed and I at that point said you know, we can t go any further. Elliott Goldberg: Why don t we just take a look and come back to that next time? Make it an agenda item. We will put it on the agenda and we will bring back up whatever the last proposed version of language was, and we will send it out with the meeting materials

24 In fact I was looking back in my notes here. It s Dan McGonagall (sp)? I found it (inaudible) proceeding in Denver and Pennsylvania and it stated that there would be an update provided by Verizon, and then send out a clarification (inaudible) January, that was (inaudible) because I originally thought that maybe we were discussing it at this meeting in December which of course didn t occur. I did not know by the way that you said that we would be putting out another version. That was not a piece of information that I gave out. Elliott Goldberg: discussed. Well all your statements are binding! Yes you ve got (inaudible) guidelines matter being Discussed, discussed. OK. Director Beth Cohen was away in Arizona. Beth advised me on her return when I called about her (inaudible) activity related to the issue arising from the October release prevented Verizon's (inaudible) Type 2 matters November and December meetings and can expect to have it on the agenda in January (inaudible) Right, and the Type, you know, when we were talking about it, it was really to address the PSC order. That s, when we were talking about Type 2 issues it was to address the PSC order. Elliott Goldberg: unpunished. I m sorry. That will teach you that no good deed goes The recent documentation, the monthly materials that have been sent out do not seem to be including Type 2s anymore, or Types 1 to 3 for that matter. And given that there is a, therefore the only way the CLECs find out about them is if the people in this room also read the release documentation, which in the past has tended to go directly to the systems people who have to do it. That s changed by the way, because in the past Type 1, 2 and 3 information has been included in the items by release documentation in other parts of the carrier meeting materials.

25 Let me stop you right there, OK. First of all Type 2s and Type 3s, there aren t any, which is why they are not included in the IBR. You ve got a Type 2 in the release documentation? Elliott Goldberg: No, there are some just checking! Elliott Goldberg: If it s there, there will be somebody s head! I m just checking. In terms of Type 1s I think we did have this discussion in December and we agreed that we would take back the whole look at documentation, look at the release overview versus the IBR and try to come up with what it was that was going to be the most effective way to meet our obligations and give you information, and we re not there yet. Elliott Goldberg: OK. status quo answer. And Type 1s are in that mix, OK? Elliott Goldberg: Met Tel would prefer the status quo (inaudible) where everything (inaudible). I don t know how other CLECs feel, but that s where we are. We ve thought about it in the intervening months and given that, given the change in the rules (inaudible) we feel that all of it should be in (inaudible) as it was before. Yes we know. We know that there are Type 1s that are in the release overview document. Type 2s and 3s are a whole different story. I want you all to know that Type 2s are, if anybody comes across, internally, with a Type 2 in Verizon, they come up against the witness stand. Because it is, you know, just so that you know it is being very highly scrutinized.

26 Elliott Goldberg: changes again. Dok Matthews: Next year. OK, we will revisit the change management document Beth this is Dok. Yes, does someone have a question? Dok Matthews: Quick question Beth. The last item that we approved to change the end 3 days in the case of Type 2 change requests for the TC. That doesn t preclude a TC if they didn t make it within that time, if they have new information, to come back and reopen the issue, correct? what you re saying. Dok Matthews: To kind of start the escalation process again, I think is Yes. Yes you could do that. Dok Matthews: OK. I mean it s just internally it s considered closed and then say 5 or 6 days later something else comes up with additional information, you could start the escalation process again. Dok Matthews: I don t think there s anything in here that says Just checking, just checking, OK. Thanks. OK, and this will be an ongoing agenda item so the whole first section of the agenda will be repeated next month, and continuing on. Right, moving on to the next area of the agenda, departmental discussion; the first agenda item is WCCC with Nick Umrani. I don t know if he is planning on just a WCCC update and then we will go into the line loss issues or what. Nick Umrani: Thank you Jean. Let me begin by wishing everyone a very happy New Year. Having said that Nick Umrani: No, there are a couple of points that I wanted some feedback on. We introduced a couple of new processes since the last release.