Verizon Change Management Meeting. Moderator: Susan Pistacchio July 10, :00 PM ET

Verizon Change Management Meeting Moderator: Susan Pistacchio July 10, 2007 2:00 PM ET Coordinator: Welcome and thank you for standing by. All lines will be open for the duration of the conference. If you can, please utilize your mute button or star-6 when you re not speaking. As a reminder, today s conference is being recorded, if you have any objections, you may disconnect at this time. I would now like to turn the call over to your host, Ms. Susan Pistacchio. Ma am, you may begin. Susan Pistacchio: Thank you very much. Good afternoon everyone. Everyone hear me okay? Yes. Susan Pistacchio: Okay. This is the Verizon Change Management meeting. I m going to start with the roll call. We have a lot to cover today. So we re going to get right in to the agenda. Page 1 of 130

You know, I just wanted to make sure. Is anybody aware of anybody that s on hold? The operator did say we had no one in hold. Anybody aware of anybody who is trying to get in? (Gloria Velez): Yeah. This is (Gloria Velez). I just got an IM. (Mary Halpin) is holding. Susan Pistacchio: Really? Okay. (Cathy), I saw that you got in okay, right? (Cathy): Yes. Susan Pistacchio: Okay. (Tina), how long (Mary) has been holding? (Tina): Now I know I was holding for probably about four minutes before she picked up. Susan Pistacchio: (Well you know), we re going to do, (Gloria), let s go through the roll call and then we ll see if (Mary) is (Gloria Velez): Okay. Susan Pistacchio: (able) to get in. All right. Customers, can you identify yourself? (We want to know) who s here. (Gloria) I heard you. (Amanda Silva): (Amanda Silva) with VCI Company. Susan Pistacchio: Hi, (Amanda). How are you doing? Page 2 of 130

(Amanda Foba): I m great. Thank you. (Stephanie Reynolds): (Stephanie Reynolds) with (Nation s) Line. Susan Pistacchio: I heard (Beth). (Beth) who? (Stephanie Reynolds): (Stephanie Reynolds) with (Nation s) Line. Susan Pistacchio: (Nation s Line), and you said it was (Stephanie)? (Stephanie Reynolds): Yes, ma am. Susan Pistacchio: Okay. Okay. And it s (Nationwide)? (Stephanie Reynolds): (Nation s) Line, L-I-N-E. Susan Pistacchio: (Nation s) Line, okay got you. (Joy Stewart): (Joy Stewart), (Broadview Network). Susan Pistacchio: And that was (Tracy Stewart)? (Joy Stewart): (Joy). Susan Pistacchio: Oh (Joy Stewart), I m sorry. Page 3 of 130

(Joy Stewart): That s okay. Susan Pistacchio: I m sorry. Okay. (Diane Fran): (Diane Fran) from Comcast. Susan Pistacchio: Hi, (Diane). How are you doing? (Diane Fran): Good. Susan Pistacchio: Okay. (Kelly Stagier): (Kelly Stagier), One Communications. Susan Pistacchio: (Kelly), One, okay. (Kim Isaac): (Kim Isaac), Eschelon. Susan Pistacchio: Hi, (Kim). How are you doing? (Kim Isaac): I m doing well. Thank you. Susan Pistacchio: Good. (Mary Halpin): (Mary Halpin), AT&T. Susan Pistacchio: (Mary), you made it. You are having a little trouble getting in? Page 4 of 130

(Mary Halpin): Just on hold a little bit, that s all. Susan Pistacchio: Anybody else? (Matek Setsamo): This is (Matek Setsamo) from Accenture. (Sure). Susan Pistacchio: What was your name again? I m sorry. (Matek Setsamo): (Matek Setsamo). Susan Pistacchio: Hi, (Matek). How are you doing? (Matek Setsamo): Good. (How about yourself)? Susan Pistacchio: Good. (Barry Queen): (Barry Queen), AT&T Texas. Susan Pistacchio: Hi, (Barry). How are you? (Barry Queen): (Fine). (Cathy Smite): (Cathy Smite), AT&T West. Page 5 of 130

Susan Pistacchio: And (Cathy). (Crystal): (Crystal) (Sandra Void): And (Sandra Void) with HTC. Susan Pistacchio: Okay. I got HTC. There was a gentleman speaking. (Carl Larson): (Carl Larson), Wisor. Susan Pistacchio: Wisor? (Carl Larson): W-I-S-O-R. Susan Pistacchio: And you said (Carl)? (Carl Larson): Yeah. Susan Pistacchio: Okay, got you. (Madison Barry): (Madison Barry), Frontier. Susan Pistacchio: Hey, (Madison) (Chris Gilpin): (Chris Gilpin), AT&T West. Page 6 of 130

Susan Pistacchio: Hey, (Chris). (Chris Gilpin): Good morning. Susan Pistacchio: And good morning. You re in California. You already went over (unintelligible). Good morning. Somebody else is speaking? (Annie Song): This is (Annie Song) from AT&T West. Susan Pistacchio: Hey, (Annie). How are you? (Annie Song): Hello. Susan Pistacchio: Anybody else? (Leo Demetrius): Yeah. This is (Leo Demetrius) from AT&T Services Inc., Consumer. Susan Pistacchio: (Leo), how are you? (Leo Demetrius): All right. Yourself? Susan Pistacchio: Good. Laurie Fredricksen: Laurie Fredricksen with Integra Telecom. Susan Pistacchio: Hi, Laurie. (Sherry): (Sherry) (unintelligible) from Neustar. Susan Pistacchio: Hi, (Sherry) and what - (Sherry) and (Lan), right? Page 7 of 130

(Sherry): (Okay). (Okay). Susan Pistacchio: Anyone else? (Tom Sebalken): (Tom Sebalken), (Connex). Susan Pistacchio: Hi, (Tom). How are you? (Tom Sebalken): I m good. Susan Pistacchio: Anybody else? Julia Whitfield: Julia Whitfield, Penn Telecom. Susan Pistacchio: Hi, Julia. Julia Whitfield: Hello. Susan Pistacchio: There was someone else I missed? Mike Clancy: Mike Clancy, Covad Communications. Susan Pistacchio: Hi, Mike. Get that man a Scotch. Page 8 of 130

Susan Pistacchio: All right. We know who that is. Anybody else? (Stephen Hay): All right. (Stephen Hay), (Optimal Global). Susan Pistacchio: Hey, (Stephen). How are you? (Stephen Hay): I m wondering who left the heat on. Susan Pistacchio: I had to put on a sweater. They have the air conditioning so turned up over here. Yeah. (I got to complain) who forgot to turn the heat on in about six months. Susan Pistacchio: Anybody else? (John Gusma): Hi. This is (John Gusma) with (Synchronous). Susan Pistacchio: (John), okay. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. This is who I have. I have Accenture. I have AT&T Local, AT&T New Jersey. I have AT&T Texas, AT&T California, AT&T West. I have Broadview - (Nation s) Line, sorry, out of sequence. I have (Nation s) Line, Comcast, Covad, Eschelon, (Frontier), HTC, Integra, (Neustar), One Communications, (Optimal Global), Penn Telecom, (Synchronous), VCI, Vonage, and (Winsor). Did I miss anybody? Page 9 of 130

(Okay). Susan Pistacchio: Oh cool. All right. With that we re going to get started. There is one addition I would like to make to the agenda in the (PWG) section. I wanted to provide a status of one of the Type 5 request. It s 47037, the 411 blocking. I will provide a status of where we are with that. That s just one addition. Going to get started with the departmental update, and we re going to start off with (PSEC). Currently all systems are working (ultimately) with no major issues. I do want to make note of some of the (post-journalist) activities and the temporary loss of functionality that our customers did experience. Like you I was keeping abreast of the situation with the daily WCCC notices and I did listen in on the post-release calls that (Tom Scanlon) hosted. I know that as of now, all of our June release issues have been a draft. The major loss of functionalities that was uncovered was fixed within a week. I know there were two defects and there s a lot of history on that. I think it was pretty much covered with the calls that (Tom) was having. But just as a - the change management representative, we were keeping an eye on it and doing our best to direct customers to the appropriate channels to get statuses. Page 10 of 130

So as it is right now, we have that all closed down and are reporting no open issues, no tickets, no more items of interest. I just wanted to make everybody aware that we were aware of that. We re tracking it. Does anybody have any questions related to the post-june release or PSCC tickets in general? (Matek Setsamo): Actually it s (Matek) from Accenture. Susan Pistacchio: Hi, (Matek). How are you doing? (Matek Setsamo): Good. We are having (preorder timeout) issues. Susan Pistacchio: You re having a what? (Matek Setsamo): Can you hear me? Susan Pistacchio: Yes, I can. (Matek Setsamo): Okay. There s a section issue that s currently going on that we have opened a ticket for. And it s a preorder timeout issue. Susan Pistacchio: Okay. So you have a (ticket) opened against it? (Matek Setsamo): Uh-huh. Susan Pistacchio: So you re working with the PSCC on this currently. (Matek Setsamo): We are, yeah. Page 11 of 130

Susan Pistacchio: Okay. Did - were you escalating or are you just looking for status or? (Matek Setsamo): I guess I m looking for status if that s possible. Susan Pistacchio: Do you want to - I know (Tom s) on, do you just want to take the ticket and follow up on it later, (Tom). (Tom Scanlon): (Let s take) - what s the ticket number? (Matek Setsamo): Ticket number is (unintelligible). Laurie Fredricksen: This is Laurie with Integra. And I know we are also experiencing those problems yesterday. We d not open a ticket, however. I don t know if that s still going on today or not. So I would like an update on that as well. Susan Pistacchio: Is that the way you preorder timeout? It is. Yeah. Yeah. Susan Pistacchio: Okay. (Matek Setsamo): (Unintelligible). I m looking for it (unintelligible). Page 12 of 130

Susan Pistacchio: While (unintelligible) is looking at that, does anybody have anything else that they need to bring up related to the (SEC) issues? (Matek Setsamo): Okay. The ticket number. Susan Pistacchio: Okay, go ahead, (Matek). (Matek Setsamo): It s A as in apple. Susan Pistacchio: Uh-huh. (Matek Setsamo): 0372890. Susan Pistacchio: 890. A0372890. (Matek Setsamo): Yeah. Susan Pistacchio: And in addition to you, (Matek), Laurie, you would like to get a status on that as well. Laurie Fredricksen: I would. Susan Pistacchio: Okay. We can take care of that. (Matek Setsamo): Thank you very much. Susan Pistacchio: No problem. Okay. Moving on to other departmental updates, from a (CTE) perspective, we have nothing to report. Page 13 of 130

From a Web (unintelligible) - does anybody have any questions from a (CTE) perspective? Okay. And last but not least, for Web updates, we did the (unintelligible) today (unintelligible) the list of all the Web enhancements that are - have been posted. Some of the highlights to share with people. We did retire the LSOG six order samples. Of note, they ve made a lot of changes to taking the word platform down and replacing it with wholesale advantage. And I think that s something you might want to flag if you do search (his), you know, they really changed that a lot. So you might want to - instead of looking up things for platform, you utilize wholesale advantage. They knew that change in numerous places. The other thing of interests there are several workshops that are (becoming) available that you folks might be interested in. If you remember at the last (CMP) meeting, we had someone that was on talking about some of the enhancements that will be coming for the (unintelligible) service tool. And they had said that they were going to be doing a workshop and that is coming up this week on Thursday. There will a workshop for (LSITA) later in the month. Related to access, there s a (VTAG) workshop coming and access ordering workshop. Both of those in the July time frame and then coming in August, (CSG). Page 14 of 130

So try to afford the opportunity to participate in one of those workshops if you can. Are there any questions on any of the Web update? (Gloria Velez): Sue, this is (Gloria Velez). (Gloria Velez): I didn t get a chance to say something to the previous item when you ask if there were any questions relative to (CTE). Susan Pistacchio: Okay, go ahead. (Gloria Velez): And I just wanted to alert the folks associated with (CMP) that we had learned as a result of some of the June release problems that perhaps some of the - perhaps the (CTE) environment was not as robust as it could have been or should be because these problems were not uncovered within the (CTE) environment. They kind of popped up within the product environment. So I would just like to make the (CMP) team aware that perhaps some folks go back and look at the details behind the (CTE) environment and why it could not have been caught within (CTE). Susan Pistacchio: Well my understanding is that s something that they did investigate, (Gloria), and from what - the information that I was provided, I wasn t uncovered because you needed to - this problem wouldn t have occurred unless you were in a true production volume situation. Page 15 of 130

So they do their best to do the amount of testing and I think they do have very robust testing in both our Q&A and (CT) environments. But when it comes to an issue that s caused by the type of volume that you would only see in production, that s kind of why we didn t catch this in testing. So they did find and I know that they have taken some corrective actions. But I don t think it s really reflective of a problem with (CTE). But it was something that looked at why didn t we see this in test and that was the reason why. Okay. From our perspective, we kind of really don t agree because the (CTE) is supposed to reflect your production environment. (Gloria), this is (Gloria Velez): And that we were taking, you know, there was - that we would - there was a lot of results, negative results as a result of that. So, we just - I mean we just don t under - we just don t accept that the (CTE) environment would not have caught it. That really should reflect what your production environment is like. Susan Pistacchio: (Unintelligible), you wanted to say something? Well the (CTE) is a production like environment. It is there to test the codes of the individual test cases. It is not - it was never created for testing of volumes. Page 16 of 130

This was as Sue had mentioned and as I have mentioned on previous calls that I d have with you folks that this was uncovered in productive volumes. We would not have those volumes in (CTE). (CTE) is there to help you with your (EDI) and (core book) coding, not for volumes. So I don t feel that this is a (CTE), you know, (CTE) was not there for volumes. I don t feel that, you know, saying that (CTE) is not production like is not a correct statement. It is for the code (itself) of coding for the field. That s what it was set up for and that s what we re maintaining. Well maybe there should be some work then to investigate or to potentially change that, because it - (you know), we will - you know, then we were out of business for quite some time. Right. And we did discuss that, too. Let s be clear about this, because we actually went through this exec discussion when we went through the entire 271 process with this, where (CTE) came from. And we had (CTE) as it exists today was used by (commissions) as a good way for customers to test functionality and it was known then that it was not a replica of production that would have - I believe as (Cathleen) testified is we replicated production in a (CTE) environment, it would take up five (unintelligible) aircraft carriers to hold the entire amount of systems that would be required to do that. Page 17 of 130

So, I believe that (CTE) is actually fairly robust and is accepted by the industry as a robust test environment for customers to test their (unintelligible) (spaces) with us to make sure that functionality works. This was not a result of that. And the test environment can t replicate the issue that (unintelligible). So is Verizon looking at any other alternatives so that this doesn t happen again because I believe that the last (unintelligible) problem that happened in the October release about two years ago, from what I can gather talking with the Verizon people, it was different set of circumstances but the net result to us was, you know, losing (funds), waiting a long time for responses, having to reissue funds, again, having due date problems. Verizon always looked at every situation when something was (unintelligible) to see what it is that they can enhance or do better to make sure that doesn t happen again. So will Verizon And yes, there are - there may come another situation, another condition that would trigger something very different. Systems are not perfect. And I think that we are doing what it is that we need to do in order to assure that the system - that the problem that happened this time won t happen again. So will you be able to tell us exactly what you will put in place to test volumes going forward? Page 18 of 130

Verizon tests volumes. Internally, we don t do it through (CCE), but the test organization does test volumes. We ve actually had this conversation several times in change management. So, you know, I think that the IT is looking at what they need to do that would potentially trigger a situation like this in the future and (if it volume) (unintelligible) they may come up with more volumes. It s not clear what they re going to do but they will come up with a way to make sure that this particular situation doesn t occur again. So when do you think we would the feedback from the You just got it. from the IT people that You ve got the information. Verizon s internal folks are doing what they need to do to make sure that our customers are served appropriately and that this situation won t happen again. So no further communication will be provided to us? I believe that Verizon does - has provided the communication that (it s got to) provide. Okay. Page 19 of 130

That Okay. (It doesn t) - I just want to make sure that I m clear, because I m walking away with I don t (feel). I don t understand that exactly what Verizon is going to do in the future. So all you just told me is that you were looking at - all you just tell me was actually we re looking at it and your IT people has figured out what kind of went wrong and they re going to take steps. But you didn t really tell me like when those steps are going to be taken and when they would be completed by. And I think, Laurie, those steps are already been taken. And I think one of the reasons why it - you re asking for more of a technical discussion and no one here is a technical (unintelligible) that could speak to what exactly - and the IT group is going to do to make sure this doesn t happen again. But I - you know, Verizon has looked at the situation and has taken the corrective action to make sure that it won t happen again. And I know one of the things that you can afford (it). I was suggesting, if you do need a more robust discussion that you might want to escalate this up Page 20 of 130

through (Tom Scanlon s) group and swing back with the PSCC, they might be the ones that can maybe provide you a more detailed response. I m not sure that you would get anything more because, again, you re getting in to technical IT stuff, which, you know, I think it s just we ve corrected it. We ve looked at it. We re going to make sure it doesn t happen again. Okay thank you. No problem. Susan Pistacchio: All right. With that being said, we ve covered the (CTE) and we ve covered the Web stuff. I don t think we have any other issues there. (Matek Setsamo): Sue? This is (Matek). Susan Pistacchio: Hi, (Matek). How are you doing? (Matek Setsamo): Good. Sorry to interrupt again, but (Unintelligible). (Matek Setsamo): So, (Tom), another ticket number as well. There were two tickets Page 21 of 130

Susan Pistacchio: I get one per call. (I m kidding). (Matek Setsamo): (Unintelligible). Go ahead, (Matek). (Matek Setsamo): It s (U388253). 88? (Matek Setsamo): 253. And your - and how can I contact, (Matek)? (Matek Setsamo): I can shoot you an email. I can (unintelligible) (a draft). Okay. (Matek Setsamo): Okay. (Thanks). Susan Pistacchio: All right. With that, I m going to jump in to the items by release, and if everybody can pull up that documentation. Start up with the items in June. We are showing the first item on Page 1, to remove the requirement to populate LSOG version. That s (CRC052238). That is being completed with no deficiencies. Page 22 of 130

No (unintelligible) edit modification, (CRC1329), also completed and working at 100%. Update service address, the (E91) (purpose) (unintelligible). (DR31513) on Page 3. From a systems perspective, this is working at 100%. We did have an issue that happened. I believe it was last week. I was on vacation last week. So it might have been a week before that. But we did provide a commitment to our customers that they could continue to use the former process through the October release. And there was a miscommunication with the NMC and (unintelligible) ticket was opened on that. That issue has been resolved and the NMC is fully up to speed with allowing the use of the (customer) process to update the service address records. So as of right now, I am showing no remaining issues with this project. So we have that as completed. And for the final June project, we have some (unintelligible) LSOG6, (CR314) - (65). Also shown as completed with no deficiencies. That covers all of the June items. Currently as I stated before, we are tracking no deficiencies for the June release. The next one to talk about is on Page 6. This is a new item for the October release. It s a candidate for October, directory formatting standardization. Page 23 of 130

(Bobbie), I believe you said, you wanted to have the opportunity to share this. (Bobbie): Well I did, but did you want to cover the August 1? Susan Pistacchio: We already covered that one (Bobbie): Okay. Susan Pistacchio: There s no changes to that when we covered it last month. (Bobbie): All right. Susan Pistacchio: Yeah. (Bobbie): Thank you, Sue. Susan Pistacchio: (Okay). (Bobbie): All right. We have a new one. It s for (CR31052). And it is called direct reformatting standardization. And the purpose of this is to assist the (unintelligible) in formatting (their) credential and business directory listing. This is going to include changes for numeric, Roman numerals, hyphens, and listing prefixes. This is going to cover both the East and the West and this is, again, for directory listing. Page 24 of 130

And basically what we re going to be doing here is we re going to be changing items that deal with the LNLN, which is the listed name last name and the LNFN, which is the listed name first name. And what we re going to be doing on those two fields is working on the abbreviations for (Mount), the (MT4FT) and (Sync FT). So for those three abbreviations, you re not going to be allowed to use periods and also it s going to be required that a second word must be used in the same field. So on the LNLN, if you use (Mount), you need a second word to go with that in that same field. The exception to this is going to be if you have two of these abbreviations such as Mount St. Helens, so you would not have to have two words if you were doing the abbreviation of Mount St. Helens. So if you use Mount St. Helens, our example would be LNLN would just have Mount and then St. Helens would be in the LNFN field. Also dealing with the entire - on hyphenations, if you put in a hyphenated word, you need to spell out the entire hyphenated word in that field. So if you have a hyphenated word in the LNLN field, you would need to put out the entire hyphenated word. And the same thing on the LNFN. And then the last change dealing with numeric are Roman numeral numbers, if you have any of that in the LNLN or LNFN field then we re going to require that you populate the PLA, (Price Listing As) field. And we re asking to have that done so that we make sure that we get this placed in the listings correctly for you. So an example would be if you had a Page 25 of 130

Roman numeral of IV (star restaurant), that in the (Price Listings) that you would spell that out as four-star restaurant so that we would make sure that we get that in there correctly for you. So these are the type of changes that we re implementing on the direct reformat standardization. (Bobbie): Are there any questions? (Leo): Yeah. This is (Leo) (unintelligible). How are you? (Bobbie): I m doing great. How are you, (Leo)? (Leo): Terrific. Actually I m looking for maybe a word description where you had this described, let s say in the document. I know it s not finalized at this point (Bobbie): Right. We re still - yeah, right, for October we re still trying to finalize, you know, all the detailed requirements and if obviously there ll be any (edits) and stuff, which all of that will be detailed out at the (73)-day notification. (Leo): Okay. I was looking to get at least maybe some of the detailed information you just describing. I was trying to write all that down, but you re going too fast. Page 26 of 130

(Bobbie): Okay I m sorry. (Leo): (I mean), you don t have to say that (unintelligible). Would it be possible to get that information at least (unintelligible) all about this (unintelligible)? (Bobbie): Yeah. (Leo): With the (Bobbie): You mean just at this high level (Leo): Yeah. (Bobbie): That I just provided the three abbreviations that we re working on and then the high-level at the hyphenated and then the number and the Roman numeral numbers? (Leo): Yeah. (Bobbie): Yeah. Susan Pistacchio: As long as I know, put draft all over it. (Bobbie): Yeah, yeah. (Leo): Yeah, that s Page 27 of 130

(Leo): We (Bobbie): Don t hold me to something could change since this is really a high level. But I want to make sure everybody did understand that we re just basically talking, you know, these are the items that we re looking at changing, the three abbreviations at this time. And that was dealing with the fact that this is coming obviously from direct with company to try - these are the heavy hitter problems that we re having in all these. So we need to standardize and make sure that we can get these things in to the directory correctly for you. (Leo): Uh-huh. (Unintelligible) abbreviations, hyphenations and what else? (Bobbie): And the other had to do with numbers and Roman numeral numbers. (Leo): Those numbers in Roman (unintelligible). (Bobbie): Right. Susan Pistacchio: Yes, (Bobbie), if you can get that to us, he can get one out to (Leo) and just (unintelligible) that when (Bobbie) (unintelligible) that we would have that level of detail in it, which would come a little bit later in the cycle, but we ll get you out just basically what (Bobbie) shared today. Page 28 of 130

Laurie Fredricksen: This is Laurie with Integra. I would like a copy of that draft as well, please. (Kelly Stagier): And this is (Kelly Stagier) with One Communications. I d like a copy as well. everybody. (Diane Fran): Yeah, (Diane) from Comcast. I d also like (unintelligible). Sue, how about we just send it out to the distribution? Susan Pistacchio: Good idea. Sure. good idea. Susan Pistacchio: We ll send it out to the participants (unintelligible). Well okay, that would be good. Susan Pistacchio: Okay. (Pam): This is (Pam) from (VSCI). Page 29 of 130

I just have a question on the (Bobbie): Yes, ma am. (Pam): where you said, we needed to spell it out on (Price Listing As). Now if we just left the four-star restaurant, it would go at the beginning of the L for listing under the number. If we spelled it F-O-U-R, it would go in to the F section, is that correct? (Bobbie): Yeah. (Pam): Okay. And if you spelled it out as IV, it would go on to the I. (Bobbie): Correct. (Pam): Okay. All right. (Bobbie), I have a question. (Bobbie): Yes, Laurie. Page 30 of 130

Laurie Fredricksen: Since the title of this is direct reformatting standardization, we seemed to be having a problem with listing that have a comma, like a business listing, like bank incorporated, like B-A-N-K, I-N-C, period. And I think (unintelligible) a little bit of an issue between within the (east) between the jurisdiction, the north and the south. And would you be able to cover this? Yeah. Laurie Fredricksen: under this initiative? I m Laurie Fredricksen: No, no, not at this time. Not with this one. But I think that I actually saw another directory initiative that was out there that we re talking about looking at items that we re dealing with commas and issues that we had with that. So I think that in the directory group they are actually looking at some other issues dealing with commas and items that deal with the names. So I think we have some other stuff that we are actually looking at to try to see some other problems that they have. These were standardizations that they re trying to do between not only with us on the wholesale side but also on the retail side as well. Page 31 of 130

So these are standardizations across the entire Verizon footprint we re trying to implement. So I think we have some other issues as well dealing with the commas and I think we re looking in to those. So it won t be with this one, possibly with another one coming down the line in the future. Susan Pistacchio: Laurie, can you give that example again? You said Bank Laurie Fredricksen: It seems like, you know, so many business names have, you know, incorporated or Inc. after it and usually you put a comma before the Inc., and I ve actually looked in the phone book and I have seen like I m in the south district. So I had seen that the commas are listed and I seem to be not sure Susan Pistacchio: How you would format it? Laurie Fredricksen: How we would format it, because I - we re getting rejects and all that I ve come up with so far that there seems to be a disparity between the north and the south. Susan Pistacchio: So if example was Bank of America, Inc., how would you format it for the north, how would you format it for the south? Laurie Fredricksen: Right. Susan Pistacchio: I can take that back Page 32 of 130

Laurie Fredricksen: I think we already have an email from you. Am I correct on that, (Gloria)? (Gloria Velez): I think so. I was dealing with some other people and I can t remember (unintelligible) and Laurie Fredricksen: Right. And I think that we are Laurie Fredricksen: working on that now for you on the email that you ve sent to us. (Gloria Velez): Okay. Laurie Fredricksen: Yeah. So if you ll give us a little bit of time to make sure Okay. Laurie Fredricksen: that we go through all of that and send you back a response on your email. Okay. And then I ll also reach out to you on (PLA) because we have an issue with (PLA) on certain listings. Laurie Fredricksen: Okay. Okay. If you ll put that together and send that over to us Okay. Page 33 of 130

Laurie Fredricksen: we ll also look at that as well. Thank you. (Kelly Stagier): (Kelly Stagier) from One Communications. And we recently - actually it was just yesterday, encountered a problem where we re trying to enter listing for 911, for example, in to like a caption listing where the fire department wants a list underneath their caption Emergency Services 911, we had to open up a trouble ticket because the error we re getting is that it s not validating in the (unintelligible) database. And the response that we received back was that as of LSOG9, we could no longer create listings for 911. Is that true because I hadn t been able to locate that documentation anywhere in any of the LSOG9 or change information updates? You re saying that you re getting an error message back that says you cannot create a listing. (Kelly Stagier): The error message that we received was that the (FTN LTN) was not validating in the (Chris) database, which usually have to do with the customer service record. Uh-huh. (Kelly Stagier): So we did open a systems ticket with the (PSTC) and the reply that we received from them was that as of LSOG9, we can no longer create listings Page 34 of 130

with 911 as the listed phone number. And that s why we were receiving that error. Susan Pistacchio: (So that) - we would have to investigate that. Do you have like a PON or ticket that you can give us or, you know, it d be best, (Kelly), if you can submit that issue to change management, we can investigate it. And definitely provide us the PON and/or the trouble ticket number. We can (Kelly Stagier): Okay. Because I didn t think that in any of the change management calls or any of the documentation that was ever something that came up for directory listing where we were eliminating the ability to list 911. Susan Pistacchio: Right. (Kelly Stagier): Okay. (That was leaving) my mind. Susan Pistacchio: (Unintelligible) with (EMI). (Kelly Stagier): Okay. (Kelly Stagier): I ll send that over then. Page 35 of 130

Okay that will be great. Susan Pistacchio: Anything else on directory? No, don t say that, Sue. Anything else on this initiative. Yeah, yeah, that s true. Thanks, Sue. (Barry Queen): This is (Barry) at AT&T Texas. Yes, (Barry). (Barry Queen): question. Are you (floating)? (Barry Queen): I m sorry. Are you (floating) in Texas? (Barry Queen): Why do you say that? All the rains. Page 36 of 130

(Barry Queen): Oh, I tell you - we re staying on high ground. Okay. (Barry Queen): No, it s not so bad, I tell you. You kind of get used to that (unintelligible) yourself. Those things happen and you just roll with the (patches). But I had a question here. I noticed that this was a Verizon initiated item that was (unintelligible) to 2 in March of 07, what progress is being made with some of the top 10 issues that were rated to five by the CLEC? Is it possible to get a readout on those? Sue? Susan Pistacchio: Yeah. We do look at the Type 5 request for feasibility and I would have to look at the top - you re saying like the top five to see what the statuses of them. There are some that are being worked on. There are some that as we discussed previously are not being entertained. So it s just looking at (Barry Queen): Not necessarily the top five. Susan Pistacchio: Right. (Barry Queen): (Well), you know, at the time we (unintelligible) about going to a single, an LSOG, we looked at having possibly some commitment to addressing some of the top 10 Page 37 of 130

Uh-huh. (Barry Queen): rated (not) five Right. (Barry Queen): issues. And, you know, for example, we have one that s - we re very interested in seeing about Greenfield addresses. Uh-huh. (Barry Queen): I think it s Number 17 and, you know, here s an issue that Verizon initiated, was rated to two by the CLEC. And in less than four months, it s gone from being discussed, rated and implemented and, you know, we re glad that you can move with that kind of speed, but Well - and that when that was part of a corporate initiative. So that was something that the corporation needed to do and it will have enormous benefit to the customers because we re just trying to resolve some of the issues that we incur with listings. And the feeling is if we have better defined rules on how to format it, it will just benefit everybody. So that s just part of where that one is coming from. When it comes to like the other - the Type 5s, I know just being new to this group coming in, one of the first things that I m doing is just looking at the Type 5s and we are actually doing new feasibility studies on some of them. Page 38 of 130

So there are some Type 5s that will probably never get done. We are really looking at the ones that we want to target for some of the next releases. So we are going through that process on a continuous basis. (Barry Queen): (Well), you know, all I can say is we feel we went to the single LSOG and, you know, with a little bit of a commitment and we too feel that some of these other items that had been rated, we feel a CLEC, you know, and I don t - certainly don t want to speak for anybody else but we feel that those are a value to us, to help us server our customers in a better manner and would be advantageous and it would be nice to get a readout of maybe those top 10, top 20 to kind of better understand at what stage they are at and what expectation we could have in the future for them. Okay. Just to provide the historical component here. First of all, when we did the single LSOG and we actually reviewed all of the lists of Type 5 (at that point CWG) and came up with the top 10, I know that a number of them have been implemented. And there are - there were a couple of them, which fell together in categories, which we had several meetings about to try to, number one, understand the issues and determine what, if anything, was possible to address the couple of more provisioning type of issues that were coming up. And I know that I think the last effort that we had was a - I believe we did a workshop or a readout for those customers who are interested of (EWPCS) because either the (PCS) was able to address some or a bit of some - of what folks were interested in. Page 39 of 130

So I don t think that there s been any stopping on our efforts to try to address the items that the industry wants, but what we also recognized is when we did that exercise of reprioritizing what were the top 10, that we didn t have - I would say, we - there were things on the list that we didn t have a lot of volume for and that would be very expensive to do and that, you know, there - as Sue said, there are some things we re not going to do because they re very costly and they really don t have a lot of impact to the community. So I think we are still pursuing, you know, what we can do, what would give both the industry and Verizon positive results. But I don t want anybody to think that we didn t do anything as a result of the single LSOG because we did. We actually did quite a bit. Okay. Well, (yes), I appreciate what you say but anyhow. I ve said (unintelligible) I m going to say (unintelligible). (Mike): Yeah. I think - this is (Mike) (unintelligible). I think that (Barry) - (Barry s) request is a valid request, and it might be helpful for - just for the participants on these calls that there is a readout on what happens with the (CRs) that was prioritized by the CLEC, which ones Page 40 of 130

were related to like the jeopardy ones where the jeopardy information is in (WPPS). So perhaps a readout on, A, were this - these were responded to with the systems that already exists in this workshop. And if anyone missed the workshop, that might give them an opportunity to check one off. And if there were ones that had low volume like the ones that have low volumes could be also explained. I think it s making a valid request to get a readout on - okay this is what - the industry decided was the top 10 and this was the outcome and this is still being looked at. Susan Pistacchio: Right. I know like just coming on, (Mike), I'm looking at all of them to see is there anything that we have done that (will honor it), like you and I talked about your - now the line station transfer we have something in the work. So just to kind of do an audit, there are a lot of Type 5 so to go through them all. And in a lot of cases, to look at the history and to really understand what the customer is looking for and, you know, looking at is there a volume to (warn it). So that activity has taken place and we did look at the jeopardy ones to see what is being accomplished with (unintelligible). We haven't finished that analysis. So, you know, it s a type of thing that we re working on going. And, (Mike), you and I talked to - and maybe in some way you and I can partner to see how we can communicate a little bit better the statuses of the Type 5s. But definitely that s something that we are looking at. Page 41 of 130

I know just looking at the list right now, there is one that we are looking at based on a pilot that we re running on notifications. And that is one that was put out by AT&T. It s Number 4 that we re going to try to see if we can re-look at that. So we are looking at them and looking for any opportunity to implement some of the things that you guys are looking for. So are we okay, (Barry)? Enough said? (Barry Queen): (Yeah). We appreciate that. I'm looking at that Number 4. I see that that was one discussed in 2003. Susan Pistacchio: Yeah. We re actually doing some interesting stuff with notification. So we re kind of looking back at a lot of the (CRs) that are dealing with notification just to, you know - I think, (Gloria), we re tagging you as the person to reach out to because I'm - I think it was (Sheryl Peterson s) no longer around. So, we felt that was a good one to look at. Again, there are so many of them. You have to kind of stop and say which one would be the biggest bang for the buck, but we are trying to do what we can for you. (Doc): Sue, this is (Doc). Susan Pistacchio: Uh-huh. (Doc): I know you came in after (Stephen) was involved with this but, you know, the thing that s out there is that the CLEC re-rated the call or the Susan Pistacchio: I have that list. Page 42 of 130

(Doc): Okay. And there was a top 10. I believe that the (CFA), (CCEA) for specials was one of the top 10. And I haven't heard anything on that at all and that s an issue that, you know, obviously is of interest to me. I would second (Perry s) motion and (Mike s) motion that we like to see a readout and - on where things stand to review it a little bit more because I'm not entirely (fuzzed) by - with where things - I have regressed to at this point in time. Susan Pistacchio: All right. (Doc): Thank you. Susan Pistacchio: (Yeah). (Lori Ann): This is (Lori Ann) at (Excel). And we agree with (Doc), especially on that (CFA) one. That was brought up at the (AS North) summit and it went in the (unintelligible) as well, but Susan Pistacchio: Okay. Right. I've taken that as an action. Is there anything else that we had on the items by release or can we jump in to PWG? All right. And for PWG, again, I did add an agenda item or we will - I will provide a status of the 47037 (allow) 411 blocking. To recap what happened last month, we did have a Type 4 that we deferred. It is on the agenda for this Page 43 of 130

week. And then we also withdrew C022797 on direct prelisting (USACs) and that s one of the activities that we re doing is as we re reviewing the Type 5, particularly some of them that are very old, they re no longer meaningful, so we investigate them and review them. And it s good if we can get those out of the pocket, then we can focus on some of the ones that would provide, you know, the benefits that you're looking for. Moving on to the agenda for today on Page 5, we have four initiatives to talk about. We re going to start off with the deferred Type 4, the 31217. (Bobbie), you were going to take us through that one. (Bobbie): Okay. Thank you, Sue. Susan Pistacchio: Uh-huh. (Bobbie): All right. I think you (haven t) heard this one a couple of different times. So this is new for me, but here we go. Okay, this is CR31217. This is to modify the SUP field usage to reduce manual intervention. And basically this one is to stop having - SUPs coming in on the current due date or a due date that is past the current due date. And I know that we've talked about this before. We want to do this from a Verizon perspective because of the manual work that is involved in the centers for us, as well as the manual work that is involved from your perspective as well. Page 44 of 130

From a customer perspective, you have to place the phone calls when we can't process these orders then for you to stop. And it also causes problems for your end user as well. You have to notify them. There's a lot of manual work from both perspective, both ours and yours as well. With that being said, I looked at the transcripts that took place on the meeting, I think a couple of months ago and looked at what some of the concerns and issues were that you had. And I think the first issue that took up - quite - I think quite a bit of time in discussion didn t really do with so much this issue of modifying the SUP field. But I found out with the whole LR process and the (WAS) and when you could turn in a SUP coming in and whether or not an LR had been processed or not. And after reviewing that and looking at what was taking place in the (unintelligible) to see why we had any discrepancies that might be there and why this had become such a big discussion regarding this, I went back and again, reviewed everything and came back. And what I want to say is that in the East when the LSR comes in the door and the SUP is on that LSR, they're not looking and reviewing or we re not looking and reviewing whether or not the LRs actually been confirmed back. We re going to have and processing those SUP request. So looking at what's happening in the (WAS) with this particular initiative, we will change that current process that we have and we can go ahead and allow for SUPs to come in even if the LR has not been confirmed back. Page 45 of 130

And that way we re matching the same process. We re going to go across the Verizon footprint and provide back same service to you as the customer so that you don t have to worry, am I East, am I West, do I have to look for an LR confirmation, don t I look for one and make this an easier SUP process for you as the customer. So all of the issues and concerns that you had regarding the issues on, do I have a SUP, is there an LR confirmation and all of that should be removed from this. So before I move any further, I want to know if you have any questions regarding that. (All right), (Clancy). (Bobbie): Yes, (unintelligible). There is a difference in process to the East and the West. (Bobbie): There is. Yeah. And I just (presented a) - your - too late to get it on the agenda today, but one issue is if we submit a SUP in Verizon West (Bobbie): Yeah. we mistakenly put the same version number on as a previous one, you don t get a region. Page 46 of 130

Susan Pistacchio: We've just got that one in, (Bobbie), and I don't - it probably just got forwarded to your team for assessment. Yeah. I'm - but I'm bringing it up because it s related to this. If I put in a SUP and I think I have a valid SUP because I didn't get a reject and that SUP is for due date change. And on the due date, I found out that, oh no, it wasn t a valid SUP before - the version was the same as the previous version. And Verizon didn t automatically reject that as it does via an edit in the East. (Bobbie): Uh-huh. Then I'm going to have a problem on the due date. (Bobbie): Okay. So the process isn't the same in the East. (Bobbie): Oh I didn t say they were the same. Oh I m - well it s distinctly different that make this one problematic. (Bobbie): Okay. And we can look at that as well because what we want to do is we want to go out there to make sure that when you SUP your order that we don't have an LR issue Page 47 of 130

Uh-huh. (Bobbie): whether or not an LR has been confirmed back. Yes. (Bobbie): And I will make sure that we verify on the version as well and that we should be verifying the version and that you shouldn't be able to SUP off of the same version. Well I'm not able to SUP, but I don t get a reject saying that I tried to. (Bobbie): Yes, but you should be. So I will find out why you're not. And if not, we can fix that with this as well. Okay great. (Bobbie): Okay? I ll make it a five then. (Bobbie): Huh? You re going to fix both, I ll make it a five. (Bobbie): You ll make this a five? (Unintelligible), did you just get a Type 5 add it in to a Type 4 and got it moved through? Page 48 of 130

I don't know. (You dog). I don't know but if I can change this to a Type 5, then we don t need to rate it and I can move on. And I d love that. Okay. I ll certainly check in to that and make sure that we get that fixed as well because you really shouldn't be able to do that. So I agree with you there. Okay. Okay now, moving beyond that issue, I want to get over to what this really is, is to be able to reduce the problems that we have and it is not just a Verizon problem. This is a customer problem as well. Not just a customer you, but also your end user customer as well. So with this being said, the other issue that I had been asked to check in to and I think, (Gloria), you're the one that wanted me to make sure I verify this and this was to go back and find out what was actually happening in the East. To come back and tell you exactly what the East process was. And so I did go back to find out exactly what the East process was. What's happening in the East is that when the LSR comes in the door, they re actually bringing the LSR through, so you're not getting like an upfront reject. However, when they bring the LSR through the door and process it downstream, you are getting a LR confirmation back. And on that confirmation in the remarks, you're receiving a message on that remarks that says, We are unable to process this request. SUP received on the due date. Page 49 of 130

And so with you getting that remark back, it s telling you we actually aren t processing your request. Even though we didn't reject you upfront, we are telling you we are not processing your SUP request. We are allowing port out to come through, and we are processing. So if you send us in the East a SUP on the due date, we are processing those for the port out request. However, we are not processing them for the others. We are giving you an LR back and then the remarks we re telling you we were unable to process your request. So what we re trying to do with this is basically the same thing except instead of processing it through and returning it on the LR, we are wanting to do this upfront with a reject up at the beginning with an error message and a reject, so that you don't have to wait all the way through for an LR. Now, the reason that we re having to process it through in the East and not return it back to you until you get an LR is because originally, we actually did have an error code and an error message in the East that was rejecting this. But unfortunately that was causing a backend problem with the confirmation notifiers for the provisioning and billing completion notices. And those were all dropping down to manual and having some manual problem getting those out to you in a timely manner. So because of that, that caused us to remove the error code and message and in turn had a - change the process to do it back on an LR confirmation back to you. Page 50 of 130