Issue Statement Currently no common guidelines exist supporting CLEC

Document Sample
Issue Statement Currently no common guidelines exist supporting CLEC Powered By Docstoc
					Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/16/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           cc                 05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved
Part A, Page 1


Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

Issue Statement: When a partial migration of an account (ATN level) occurs through a
migration activity and the telephone number that equals the ATN is removed, certain
Old Service Providers are requiring that the New Service Provider provide a substitute
ATN on the LSR. In addition, a new ATN may cause an incorrect Main Listing (ML) to be
published.


Impact of Other Issues or Procedures: NONE


Desired Results: 1) Guideline that provides an option to allow the Old Service Provider
to make a decision for the new ATN and subsequent listing treatment and/or 2) Provide
a new field(s) that would allow a new ATN to be given and to show impact on it‘s
associated Directory listing.


Committee Assignment: LSOP

Associated Committee: DSC, EDI-SOSC

Issue Champion: Alan Flanigan                    Company: Time Warner Telecom
                Mark Maynard

          Address: 5700 S. Quebec St.            Telephone: (303)566-5877
          Greenwood Village, CO 80111


Resolution: Developed the Migration Process Flows to clarify the provider interactions
necessary to migrate TNs between providers. These flows address specific migration
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                      1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/16/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           cc                 05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                  Resolved
Part A, Page 2


Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

scenarios using different service configurations. Provided the definitions for full and
partial migrations. Additional changes are identified in 1792soc.xls.




57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 1
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration


Status History:


11/06/98 - OBF#64 - Dallas, TX

Mr. Mark Maynard, Time Warner Telecom, introduced the Issue. Mr. Maynard displayed
the options proposed in this Issue for partial migration of an ATN.
The Issue was accepted with no objections.
Assigned 1792/O&P - Associates - TOR, DSC, EDI-SOSC


03/19/99 - Conference Call 11:00 AM - 1:30 PM ET.

Attendees: Linda Thurber, Sprint-NIS; Alan Flanigan, Time Warner Telecom; Bob
Bradford, MCI WorldCom; Jill Koski, GST Telecom; Pete Schmanski, GST Telecom; Sal
Candela, Bell Atlantic; Terry Fernandez, Bell Atlantic; Chris Cole, Bell Atlantic; Gloria
Velez, AT&T; Sharon Milesky, Bell Atlantic; Cindy Lewis, Sprint-LTD; Ray Keating, SNET
Wholesale; Kathy Fogler, O&P Committee Administrator, Beechwood.

      OBJECTIVE:
         To develop a straw proposal for AN, ATN, EAN, EATN, LATN, LEATN, LEAN
          and LAN to support partial migration and service rearrangement of the
          remaining account.

Mr. Alan Flanigan, Time Warner Telecom, Issue Champion, Conference Call Chair,
opened the meeting with introductions.


57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 2
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

1792/O&P LSOG-ATN Replacement for Partial Migration (Attachment 2)
The Participants discussed file 1792a1.doc, Ordering Scenarios Involving Partial
Migrations, which is a straw proposal for listings.

Mr. Flanigan asked the Participants if this Issue should be worked jointly with the
Directory Services Committee because of listing and process impact. The Participants
agreed that a single ―straw man‖ should be compiled, and later referred to DSC for
recommendations and concurrence.

Issue 1792‘s ―Desired Results‖ were reviewed:

      1) Guideline that provides an option to allow the Old Service Provider to make
      a decision for the new ATN and subsequent listing treatment and/or 2) Provide
      a new field(s) that would allow a new ATN to be given and to show impact on
      it‘s associated Directory listing.

Mr. Flanigan stated that the provider who owns the customer‘s numbers is responsible
for managing the lines. Mr. Sal Candela, Bell Atlantic, stated this is the current process
for Bell Atlantic. The following example was given: Every account in Bell Atlantic has a
listing, per se. A fax number does not have a listing, it will not appear in the DA
database or in the white/yellow pages, and Bell Atlantic would arrange for it to remain
the same. The customer will be charged for this number to remain as a non-published
or non-listed number. If 5 of 10 lines stayed with Bell Atlantic, the new LSP would issue
the appropriate orders for listing (advise the customer to contact the old LSP to set up
the directory listings).


57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 3
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

Mr. Bob Bradford, MCI WorldCom, stated that based on Bell Atlantic‘s example, the new
LSP has the responsibility to convey to the end user that they would need to contact the
old LSP regarding listing concerns. Mr. Bradford also stated that based on this, a hunt
group may need to be reconfigured. Sprint Local stated that they mirrored Bell
Atlantic‘s process.

The participants agreed that the new LSP should be held accountable for informing the
end user that on a partial migration, they will need to contact their old LSP for billing
and directory concerns. Mr. Bradford stated that the new LSP could do this with the
end user‘s authorization (to help with the directory and listing issues), however, it was
stated that this would be based on jurisdiction and company business decisions.
Outside of the LSR process, a company can work with the end user to reconfigure their
lines with the old LSP.

It was stated that the listing responsibility lies with the owner of the numbers (old or
new LSP). When the new LSP becomes associated with the numbers, they are
responsible for the listing, and will utilize their existing procedures. Mr. Bradford
recommended that as part of this Issue, on a partial migration, it should be documented
that the new LSP will have the responsibility of informing the end user to clear up, and
reconfigure, their remaining numbers with the old LSP. Mr. Candela stated that this
may not be possible because not every company has the same processes and
procedures. As an alternative to incorporating this step into this Issue, the Participants
agreed that it would be sufficient if it was noted in the Issue‘s Status History.

The scenarios depict how the LSR and the DSR are populated. The Participants stated
that there is confusion as to how the fields AN, ATN and EATN are used. Each company
uses these fields differently because they are defined incorrectly. Mr. Flanigan stated
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 4
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

that they are redundant, and possibly one or more can be removed, however, they
cannot be defined until the usage is clarified in the scenarios.

Scenario 1. Full Migration of End User’s Account:
This scenario is for facilities only, and only the EATN field was appropriate for a full
migration. It was stated that this was a recommendation from the CLEC community.
The participants agreed that this scenario is true and no changes were made.

Ms. Linda Thurber, Sprint-NIS, then raised the question of whether it is appropriate to
only use the EATN field. Ms. Thurber stated that the ATN would be the number she
would use on her account for resale. If companies are using the ATN and EATN fields
synonymously, then the definitions need to be modified, because the same value cannot
be entered in both fields. In a full migration, an ATN should not be populated, and is
not required in this situation. Mr. Flanigan stated that ―NR‖ will be added to this
scenario for those fields that are not required.

The Participants agreed that 2 additional scenarios, 1B and 1C, will be added for Full
Migration in reference to resale and platform environments.

Ms. Thurber stated that the AN is necessary for full migration, however, several
participants stated that they ignore the data contained in this field if it is sent. The
fields usage/definitions will need to be resolved prior to resolving this Issue.

An Action Item was developed with respect to Issue 1792:
     1. Develop definitions of the AN, ATN, EAN, EATN, LATN, LEATN, LEAN and LAN
        fields, and define how companies use them.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 5
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      2. Investigate what the original intent of the fields were, and revisit the Issues
         that developed them.
      Responsible: All                           Due: OBF#66

Scenario 2. Partial Migration of End User’s Account:
Mr. Candela referenced the terms ILEC and CLEC which are used throughout the
scenarios, and stated that they should be replaced with old and new LSP. Mr. Flanigan
stated that because this will not be a part of the documentation, he thought it would be
easier to understand. However, Mr. Flanigan agreed to replace all occurrences of ILEC
and CLEC with old and new LSP.

In this scenario, the listing will remain for ported number 323-4000, and the 323-4001
number, which was previously not listed, will now be listed with the old LSP. However,
it was noted that this may depend upon the jurisdiction. Sprint stated that they would
make this a non listed number in this scenario (would not be in DA database or listed).
It was stated that 323-4001 would need to have some kind of listing if it is the only
service at a given address (this would be the result of the migration). There would have
to be a listing type for this number.

Scenario 2B
The difference with this scenario, as opposed to scenario 2A, is that both numbers are
listed, and both will remain listed. These will be on 2 different accounts, one for the new
LSP and one for the old LSP. The question was raised regarding how the listing will be
established for 323-4001. It was agreed to defer further discussions of this scenario
until OBF#66.


57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 6
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

The Participants agreed that definition modifications will be made as part of this Issue
because further work cannot be completed until the fields are more clearly outlined. Mr.
Ray Keating, SNET Wholesale, stated that this should be a separate Issue because it
may impact all Practices. However, Mr. Bradford stated that if a new Issue is
introduced, it may delay the closure of Issue 1792. It was noted that this Issue may not
necessarily change the definitions, but merely clarify the usage. If the definitions are
modified, then all Practices will need to be visited. Ms. Thurber stated that all of the
Practices should be consistent in definition content. It was agreed that the issue of
changing definitions will need full committee review at OBF#66.

Mr. Flanigan stated that he will submit the updated attachment (1792a1) to Ms. Kathy
Fogler, O&P Committee Administrator, Beechwood, prior to April 9, 1999.

Mr. Alan Flanigan thanked the Conference Call Participants. These meeting notes were
submitted by Ms. Kathy Fogler, O&P Committee Administrator, and have been reviewed
and approved for distribution by:

Marybeth Degeorgis                                  Mary Semedo
O&P Committee Co-Leader                             O&P Committee Co-Leader
Bellcore                                            SNET America

Alan Flanigan
Conference Call Chair
Time Warner



57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 7
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

05/07/99 - OBF #66 - PITTSBURGH, PA

Due to time constraints, this Issue was not reviewed. Further discussions of this Issue
will take place during OBF#67.
This Issue Remains Open.

An Action Item was developed with respect to Issue 1792:
     1. Develop definitions of the AN, ATN, EAN, EATN, LATN, LEATN, LEAN and LAN
        fields, and define how companies use them.
     2. Investigate what the original intent of the fields were, and revisit the Issues
        that developed them.
     Responsible: All                           Due: OBF#66 67


8/13/99 – OBF #67 – SCOTTSDALE, AZ

Ms. Gloria Velez, AT&T, recapped the Issue.

It was stated that BellSouth needs both the AN and the ATN fields on the End User
Form, and will also need instruction on where to put that listing.

GTE does not support the ERL field for either partial or full migration for ported
numbers. The question was raised whether further discussions should be conducted
based on the debate regarding usage of the AN and ATN fields. Ms. Velez suggested
taking the four fields and giving them usage definitions to satisfy the Committee. Mr.
Leo Kress, Bell Atlantic, O&P Committee Co-Leader, suggested that Ms. Velez and other
O&P representatives meet off-line and see if some common ground can be reached and

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 8
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

then bring the issue back to the full committee. She agreed to meet off-line with several
companies to try to resolve the Issue.

An Action Item was developed with respect to Issue 1792:
     1. Develop definitions of the AN, ATN, EAN, EATN, LATN, LEATN, LEAN and LAN
        fields, and define how companies use them.
     2. Investigate what the original intent of the fields were, and revisit the Issues
        that developed them.
     Responsible: All                           Due: OBF#66 67 68

This Issue remains Open.


11/15/99 – OBF #68 – CHICAGO, IL

 Mr. Alan Flanigan, Time Warner Telecom, Issue Champion, recapped this Issue.
 It was stated that there is a need for a joint meeting with TOR and DSC to discuss
  the complexity of this Issue. Mr. Steve Moore, Sprint, stated that Reps need to verify
  the activity(ies) type(s) required for a partial migration. This is not the normal
  process used in ―new‖ or ―changed‖ orders.
 It was further stated that GTE does not used ATN or EAN‘s. Mr. Moore noted that
  Sprint‘s account number is the BAN.
 Mr. Flanigan requested an Interim Meeting to discuss this Issue. Ms. Mary Semedo,
  SNET America, O&P Committee Co-Leader, suggested that O&P members should
  participate in a Task Force Meeting not an Interim Meeting. Many of the Committee
  members expressed that a task force meeting would be more beneficial since this
  Issue is not close enough to a solution for a Full Joint Interim Meeting to be held.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 9
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

   Mr. Flanigan disagreed and stated that he has a need for a Full Joint Interim Meeting
   with TOR and DSC.
 A Task Force Meeting is to be held:
   Date:           January 18-21, 2000
   Host:           Time Warner Telecom
   Place:          Englewood, CO.
   Name:           Alan Flanigan
   Telephone:      303-566-5877
   E-mail: alan.flanigan@twtelecom.com
 The objective of the Task Force Meeting is, ―Review all possible scenarios for full &
   partial migration. Identify uses of ATN, AN, EATN, EAN, ERL, LEATN, LEAN, and
   MTN, with consideration to the BAN. (EDI ordering structure and impact on SOSC.)‖
Action Item Established:
1. Committee to review scenarios and data contained in 1792a1v2working.doc.
   Responsible: All Companies               Due: OBF #69
Following the discussion, consensus was reached that this Issue is to be held in
Open Issue Status. There were no objections.


01/20/00 - JOINT O&P/DSC ISSUE 1792 TASK FORCE MEETING – ENGELWOOD,
CO

AGENDA

SCHEDULE FOR O&P/DSC TASK FORCE MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2000      10:00AM - 5:00PM
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2000    8:00AM - 5:00PM
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                            OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                            Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                            Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                            Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                            Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                            Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 10
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2000                     8:00AM - 5:00PM

                                           AGENDA

   Welcome and Introductions
   Review of Administrative & Logistic Concerns
   Discussion /Working of Issue 1792
   Miscellaneous
   Meeting Highlights

Objectives: Review all possible scenarios for full & partial migration.
            Identify uses of ATN, AN, EATN, EAN, ERL, LEATN, LEAN, and MTN,
            with consideration to the BAN. (EDI ordering structure and impact
            on SOSC.)

INTRODUCTIONS AND HOUSEKEEPING

Mr. Alan Flanigan, Time Warner Telecommunications, introduced himself and
introductions were made around the room. Housekeeping issues regarding the
hotel and meeting logistics were addressed.

Tuesday, January 18, 2000

Mr. Flanigan discussed the scope of the task force meeting stating the scope of what the
task force will accomplish. Issue 1792 will be worked in the task force meeting. The
reason for Issue 1792 is the lack of standardized processes around migrations which
also result in a negative impact on directory.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 11
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration


The issue itself started out as partial migration. When we first started working the
issue, it was realized that the issue did not just pertain to partial migrations, but all
migrations. We tried to redefine the usage and the wording of the definitions, around
the affected fields, on the initial conference calls. This affects all migration scenarios.
The problem with the partial is primarily a directory listing issue. The BTN in the LEC‘s
system on a partial migration has caused Directory Assistance problems. Mr. Mark
Maynard, Time Warner Telecommunications, DSC Co-Leader, explained the three
scenarios around migration of LEC accounts: 1. Partial migration leaving the existing
BTN, 2. Partial Migration including migration of the BTN, and 3. Complete migration of
all telephone numbers on the account. Discussion ensued around who is responsible
for discussing with the customer what their remaining LEC account number should be.

There was some discussion around the problems from addressing facilities-based port
out/conversion, wholesale and retail scenarios all as one issue. From the conference
calls it was determined that the REQTYPs must be addressed in the scenarios one at a
time.

Before working the scenarios it was determined that we must review the necessary fields
and utilize these fields as the basis for all scenarios. Alan reviewed the data fields with
the group and changes were tracked on the file 1792a4.doc.

After much discussion about moving the MTN to the DSR level, it was decided to rename
it as a DATN (Directory Account Telephone number). It was decided that the MTN would
remain on the DL level, and that the Directory Services Committee (DSC) would address
whether or not a need existed for a DATN field on the DSR. Mr. Earl Boehm, Pacific
Bell, DSC Co-Leader, the Issue Champion of the issue that is to combine the DSR and
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                        1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 12
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

the LSR, stated that he might withdraw that issue. After working the combining of the
LSR and DSR, Earl found that it basically just creates a DSR segment in the LSR
because, many of the fields can not be merged with the LSR fields. Bell South stated
that either way they will not be using the DSR and will be using their own version of a
combined LSR/DLR form.

Ms. Susan Pistacchio, Bell Atlantic, presented a hierarchy picture for each field in the
discussion. The hierarchy that was agreed upon, was to serve as a basis for discussion.

FIELD(S)                          LEVEL
BAN                               CLEC Acct.
AN/ATN/EAN/EATN                   End User Acct.
No Field                          By Location
LEAN/LEATN/PTN/TN                 Line Level
MTN/LTN                           Listing Level

SCENARIOS: Prerequisites to Working

Scenarios that will be worked will include the following types of sub-scenarios:
1. LEC to CLEC migration.
2. CLEC to CLEC migration.
3. CLEC to LEC migration.

NOTE: FOR THE PURPOSES OF WORKING THE SCENARIOS IN ISSUE 1792
A. A field that is noted as N/A means that the field, whether required, conditional or
   optional, is Not Applicable for the specific scenario.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 13
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

B. A field that is noted as N/R means that the field could be applicable for a specific
   scenario, even though the field is not populated for the specific scenario. Use of the
   field is defined through trading partner agreements.
C. The fields shown in the scenarios for Issue 1792 are not representative of all fields
   needed for the scenario.
D. The usage column will explain the rationale why data is not populated in a field
   within the scenarios. Where populated with a value, no usage is indicated.

DEFINITIONS:

Platform: - Network combinations of the loop and the port where you bundle the loop
and the port; instead of ordering them separately, you order them together so they are
bundled. It is probably more of a billing difference than anything where one LEC/CLEC
is leasing them from another LEC/CLEC.

Differences and Similarities between Resale and Combination (REQTYP M) and
between Combination and UNE:
1. ILEC maintains E-911 records for PSAP with Resale, but not with Combination. This
   would become the CLEC‘s responsibility.
2. Detailed usage records are provided for Resale. With Combination, no detail usage
   records are provided, only EMR format. The CLEC must turn the EMR records into a
   detail bill for the EU (if applicable).
3. Even though Combination is considered UNE, it does not require a co-location
   arrangement, like UNE (port or loop) would require.
4. Different companies may have different requirements for forms, but of the companies
   in this Task Force that are doing Platform, only the Port form is required in addition
   to LSR, EU, and applicable directory forms. This differs from other UNE, where a
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 14
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

   port form would be required for port and a loop form for loop. (co-location
   arrangement).
5. One of the biggest differences in Resale and Combination (aka, Platform) is pricing.
   With Resale, the CLEC is getting a percent discount (as negotiated by trading
   partners) from a tariff rate. For Combination, the CLEC is paying for ―loop‖ and
   ―port‖ as negotiated by trading partners.
6. With Resale, the CLEC can only order what is ―packaged‖ by the ILEC‘s tariff, i.e.
   vertical features, Centrex packages, etc. With Combination, you can order ―ala carte‖
   by features that are available in that switch, not being restricted to features by
   package.

The scenario document used can be found in attachment file 1792a5.doc.

Scenario A1) - Full Migration of End User's Account from original Directory Service
Provider or ILEC. End user wishes to keep their TN.

Ms. Susan Pistacchio, Bell Atlantic, wanted to ensure the BAN was populated
as this is her account structure. The BAN field will be made optional based on
customer/supplier negotiations.       The ERL field was discussed and the
definition changed to read "Identifies the requested treatment of the end user's
listing(s) when changing Local Service Providers." It was determined that if the
ERL field equals "Y" in this scenario, then the DATN field is not applicable.

Scenario 1A) (Parking Lot Item) - LNP with migrating listings As-Is where the losing LEC
is not the DSP. i.e. CLEC to CLEC migration.

The LSR for porting of dial-tone/service goes from new CLEC to losing CLEC
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                       1792

                                           Date Submitted      10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted       11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure     10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure       05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 15
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

with a REQTYP of CB. Discussion arose and it was decided that to migrate the
listings from one CLEC to the new CLEC/LSP that an LSR with a REQTYP of
JB with an ERL of "Y" must be sent to the DSP (Directory Service Provider)
that maintains the listings.

Scenario A2) - Service Delivery Method:         Unbundled-- 2 TNs ported from
original Directory Service Provider or ILEC

A Full migration, ACT of V, listings that exist are not to be retained.
For a complete breakdown of this scenario see file 1792a5.doc.


Scenario A3) Service Delivery Method: Unbundled -- 2 TNs ported out from
original Directory Service Provider or ILEC. Listings: This scenario deals with
a port out scenario with changes to listings on the conversion.

Discussion arose around the DATN field. Bell Atlantic stated that they did not
believe the DATN field was necessary and that they could derive this
information from the ATN field. There was a question of the necessity of the
DATN field. Mr. Boehm suggested that the task force, leave the DATN field in
the issue for now, and that further discussion around the field could take
place in the full committees.

Bell Atlantic asked that in this scenario, the B1 and the BAN1 fields be added to the LSR
level.


57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 16
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

Mr. Boehm stated that while on the DSCR the LTN and other fields should also be
addressed, it would not be pertinent for our topic of conversation as in LSOG Version 5
the DSCR was going away as it would be combined with the DL.

SCENARIOS: Work In Progress

Scenario B1) Service Delivery Method: Resale - Assume that no features/services are
changing. Full Migration of End User's Account. Listings: Retain the listing(s) and
EATN.

Discussion on the ACT value of "W" is only applicable for REQTYP EB. Some companies
support ACT = W for all resale and combined loop and port. The question was asked
whether we need to change ACT field in this issue. It was decided to leave the ACT field
as currently defined. If someone wants to change the ACT field, they may bring in a new
issue.

The scenario was changed to clarify, full migration for Resale.

Discussion took place on what could be populated in the ATN field. Some ILECs have
noted that there are certain populated numbers that are only accepted by the ILEC. All
TN values used in the scenarios include the NPA/NXX.

After discussing the ACT value of "W" it was determined to leave the definition as it
exists in LSOG Version 4, and not redefine "W" to be restricted for resale only.

Discussion arose around the LEAN and LEATN fields and whether or not these fields are
valid for any scenario. No conclusion was reached, therefore an action item was created
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 17
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

to create a new scenario that captures the use of the LEAN & LEATN fields. Ms. Brenda
Wallace, Bell South, contributed an overhead showing her scenario that supported this
action item, but only in a partial migration scenario. The task force discussed Bell
South's contribution. Bell South is proposing additional ACT codes of ―P‖ & ―Q‖ that
they currently have implemented at Bell South. Bell South suggested that the suggested
ACT codes of ―P‖ and ―Q‖ are applicable for REQTYPs of: "B", "C", "E", "F", "M" & "N".
ACT = ‖P‖ would be used when the new CLEC receiving the lines does not have an
existing account number. ACT = ―Q‖ would be used when the new CLEC receiving the
lines already has an existing account number established.

There was a need to clearly differentiate between a partial migration and a full
migration. The definitions that were decided on are as follows:
1. Partial Migration: Occurs when the New LSP provides disposition for a portion of the
   services/lines on an existing end user account. At least one existing service/line
   remains on the existing end user account.
2. Full Migration: Occurs when the New LSP provides disposition for all services/lines
   on an existing end user account where no services/lines remain on the end user
   account with the Old LSP.

Alan Flanigan, Time Warner Telecommunications, committed to providing a new
scenario that would also show the correct use of the LEAN and LEATN fields.

Scenario C1) Service Delivery Method: UNE Platform" (Bundling of Loop and Port) Full
Migration of End User's Account
Listings: Retain the listing on the existing TN and the EATN


57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                       1792

                                           Date Submitted      10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted       11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure     10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure       05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                   Resolved


Part B, Page 18
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

Differences and Similarities between Resale and Combination (REQTYP M) and
between Combination and UNE:

1. ILEC maintains E-911 records for PSAP with Resale, but not with Combination. This
   would become the CLEC‘s responsibility.
2. Detailed usage records are provided for Resale. With Combination, no detail usage
   records are provided, only EMR format. The CLEC must turn the EMR records into a
   detail bill for the EU (if applicable).
3. Even though Combination is considered UNE, it does not require a co-location
   arrangement, like UNE (port or loop) would require.
4. Different companies may have different requirements for forms, but of the companies
   in this Task Force that are doing Platform, only the Port form is required in addition
   to LSR, EU, and applicable directory forms. This differs from other UNE, where a
   port form would be required for port and a loop form for loop. (co-location
   arrangement).
5. One of the biggest differences in Resale and Combination (aka, Platform) is pricing.
   With Resale, the CLEC is getting a percent discount (as negotiated by trading
   partners) from a tariff rate. For Combination, the CLEC is paying for ―loop‖ and
   ―port‖ as negotiated by trading partners.
6. With Resale, the CLEC can only order what is ―packaged‖ by the ILEC‘s tariff, i.e.
   vertical features, Centrex packages, etc. With Combination, you can order ―ala
   carte‖, by features that are available in that switch, not being restricted to features by
   package.

Scenario B2) Service Delivery Method: Resale
Full Migration of End User's Account. Listings only are changing from existing retail
service: Add an additional listing on an existing EATN.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 19
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration


Ms. Fila Sala, SBC, wanted a positive statement for this particular scenario showing
what is changing on the features. She wanted something because we are discussing an
activity of ―V‖ which is as specified but the listings are changing. Mr. Earl Boehm stated
that there is no current method for converting services/numbers as-is and at the same
time converting listings as specified.

Discussion ensued around converting the listings as specified. It was decided that the
easiest way to accomplish this is to have an ERL of ―Y‖ to convert all the listings as-is
followed by a subsequent DSR order with a REQTYP of ―JB‖ to change the listings to the
desired end state. OR the ERL can have a value of ―N‖ and the DSR can be issued.

Scenario D1) Service Delivery Method: Resale -- 5 TN's on existing end user account.
Telephone Number Ownership after migration: Three TN's to be migrated to new LSP
and two TN's remaining at old LSP.
Listing Treatment: Convert Listings as specified.

Miscellaneous/Contributions

1. Ms. Ellie Pribula, AT&T, developed a template scenario document that was reviewed
   and discussed. This contribution is to be a clean summary to be used as a template
   for pasting in all the scenarios so that they all have a standard view for working the
   issue in the full committee meetings. It is also to be used as a basis for how the final
   document will look. Ms. Pribula used Issue 1671 as the basis as to how the task
   force introduced the scenarios for the LSOG 070 Practice. Admin Note: Fields that
   are shown as grayed out indicate that the field is not to be populated in any scenario.
   If proposal is accepted, they will be removed from scenarios prior to initial closure.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted      10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted       11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure     10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure       05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 20
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

2. Mr. Alan Flanigan, Time Warner Telecommunications, created a working matrix for
   discussion only to number and describe the scenarios that were to be addressed.
3. Soft copies of file 1792a4.doc were passed out so that the task force members could
   see the revisions made to date and have an overall view of the information that each
   field contained for discussion purposes.

Action Items

1. DUE AT OBF #69 - Review the need for the valid entry of "N" in the AN/ATN fields.
   (Responsible: All Companies – Due: OBF #69)
2. Review the usage of the MTN field, based on the scenarios. (Responsible: DSC
   Committee – Due: OBF #70)
3. Further define the definition of AN & ATN fields. (Responsible: All Companies -
   Due: OBF #70)
4. Create a new scenario that captures the use of the LEAN & LEATN fields.
   (Responsible: Alan Flanigan - Due: Thursday 1/20/00; Brenda Wallace provided
   contribution from Bell South)
5. Investigate ACT "V" definition, e.g. why changed from "as Specified" between LSOG 1
   and LSOG 2. (Responsible: Sarah Blanks - Metasolv - Due: OBF #69)
6. Send Andy Fitzsimmons, AT&T, additional scenarios to his e-mail address at
   afitzsimmons@att.com and he will consolidate the scenarios into the task force
   scenario template. (Responsible: All – Due: 2/1/00). A conference call will take
   place to address all scenarios generated.

Conference Call Name: OBF 1792 Call

Start Time:      Feb. 24, 2000                11:00 AM       US Eastern
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted      10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted       11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure     10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure       05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 21
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

                 Start Date                   Start Time     Time Zone

Resources:       02:00 hours Duration

Dial-in Number(s): (517) 267-0146

Access codes: 366972
              Participant Code

Parking Lot Items

1. Add and Review CLEC to CLEC migration scenario(s).
2. Rework Introduction to document. Information to be incorporated: What information
   is contained within scenario. Identify the account hierarchy depicted.
3. Create Summary of change document. This is more for the presentation at OBF, i.e.
   how is the task force going to bring this back.
4. Validate removal of AN & ATN fields from all practices except LSR and DSR.
5. Change OLSP to Old LSP & NLSP to New LSP on all scenarios. (completed)
6. Evaluate the need for proposed new DATN field.
7. Need to clarify ERL field including definition, notes and valid entries.

Summary Of Changes

1. Validate Removal of AN & ATN fields from all practices except LSR & DSR.



57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 22
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

Closing & Summary

1. For task force of 1792 readout, 1. We met from January 18 - 20, 2000
2. We worked x number of scenarios,
3. We realized we needed more scenarios and had an action item to send Mr. Andy
   Fitzsimmons scenario suggestions. Andy will input the scenarios into the working
   template.
4. On Feb. 24 a conference call will be held from 11:00 am -1 00 pm EST to discuss the
   scenarios that have been developed,
5. A Task Force meeting to continue working Issue 1792 is scheduled for the week of
   March 6th in Plano, TX, hosted by Metasolv.


02/11/00 – OBF #69 – SAVANNAH, GA

 This Issue was deferred until OBF #70 per Mr. Alan Flanigan, Time Warner Telecom,
   Issue Champion‘s request.
Following the discussion, consensus was reached that this Issue is deferred and is
to be held in Open Issue Status. There were no objections.


05/26/00 – OBF #70 – ALBUQUERQUE, NM

 Mr. Alan Flanigan, Time Warner Telecom, Issue Champion, recapped this Issue.
 Mr. Flanigan stated that at the previous Task Force Meetings, the participants built
  migration scenarios and are attempting to take a look at all the scenarios at the next
  Task Force Meeting. It was also stated that the goal of the next meeting is to try to
  consolidate all the various scenarios and define the process.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 23
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

 Ms. Gail Grenier, WorldCom, stated that the commission in New York State is looking
  at mandating how this process is going to work. Ms. Grenier suggested that those
  who are interested should attend the working session in New York scheduled for
  June 1st. It was further suggested that a conference call be established between OBF
  #71 and the next Task Force Meeting to prioritize the topics which need to be covered
  and deliver this information to the New York State Commission to assist in driving
  this process on a forward path.
 Ms. Ellie Pribula, AT&T, stated that she agrees that the OBF needs to react to what is
  happening in New York State; however, she is concerned that Issue 1792 will become
  too large and therefore difficult to handle.
 Ms. Mary Fay, Bell Atlantic, stated that Bell Atlantic would like the OBF to come to a
  solution regarding Partial Migration. Ms. Fay further stated that this is a heated
  subject with the New York State Commission and Bell Atlantic has been trying to
  drive the commission towards the OBF. Ms. Fay also suggested participants to
  attend the working session taking place in New York.
 Ms. Fila Sala, SBC, stated that what is happening in New York should not be rolled
  into Issue 1792 and allow this Issue to go forward. However, Ms. Sala further added
  that since there is a recognized need for this information, a new Issue should be
  brought in to incorporate this need.
 Ms. Fay, Bell Atlantic, stated that instead of the partial migration information being
  brought to the OBF it was brought to the New York State Commission.
 Ms. Micki Jones, WorldCom, stated that she agrees with the concerns being
  addressed, however, the O&P committee needs to come together and move this Issue
  before going in front of the New York State Commission stating that OBF will care for
  this docket. Ms. Jones further stated that the committee can tell the commission
  that we have established an official meeting to address the concerns and incorporate
  the information into Issue 1792.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 24
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

 This Issue was deferred until the scheduled Task Force Meeting per Mr. Alan
   Flanigan, Time Warner Telecom, Issue Champion‘s request. This Issue will be
   worked at the following scheduled Task Force Meeting:
      Task Force Meeting
      Issue #:    1792
      Date: June 26 – 30, 2000
      Time: Monday – Thursday from 8:00am to 5:00pm
      Host: Time Warner Telecom
      Place: Somerset, NJ
      Name: Mr. Alan Flanigan
      Telephone: 303-566-5877
      E-mail: alan.flanigan@twtelecom.com
      Objective: Continue to work on the partial migration scenarios
Following the discussion, consensus was reached that this Issue is deferred and is
to be held in Open Issue Status. There were no objections.


08/25/00 – OBF #71 – SAN DIEGO, CA

OBF #71 - Readout given during the Joint O&P/TOR/DSC Session:
 Mr. Alan Flanigan, Time Warner Telecom, Issue Champion, recapped Issue 1792.
 Mr. Flanigan stated that more migration scenarios have been developed. Consensus
  was reached on all higher level migration scenarios by those participating in the
  scenario development. The team that has been focusing on this Issue is now moving
  towards the development of lower level migration scenarios.
 Ms. Ellie Pribula, AT&T, stated that in the CLEC to CLEC migration processes, the
  Issue 1792 Working Group is attempting to stay ahead of the NY Commission. Due
  to this reason, an aggressive timeline was developed for this Issue.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 25
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

 Mr. Flanigan stated that there are two scenarios which impact number portability.
 There was concern regarding not having the most recent updates made by the
  working group for Issue 1792 uploaded to the ATIS web site. Participants are
  concerned that not enough time is available to review Issue 1792 for Initial Closure
  by OBF #72. Mr. Flanigan requested from the Joint O&P/TOR/DSC Committee a
  Joint O&P/TOR/DSC Interim Meeting from October 2, 2000, to October 6, 2000, in
  Denver, Colorado. Ms. Mary Semedo, SBC/SNET, O&P Committee Co-Leader,
  reaffirmed that, due to this being a Joint Interim Meeting, new Issues will be
  accepted/reviewed. However, the purpose of this meeting is to concentrate on
  working Issue 1792, so that at OBF #72, it can be brought into Initial Closure.
  Consensus was reached and the Joint Interim Meeting was scheduled.

OBF #71 – O&P Session:
 Ms. Ellie Pribula, AT&T, recapped this Issue for the Issue Champion, Mr. Alan
  Flanigan, Time Warner Telecom.
 Mr. Pribula stated that the scope and approach to this Issue has been changed since
  OBF #70. Ms. Pribula stated that there were inconsistencies within the Issue which
  did not handle Directory correctly.
 Ms. Pribula stated that the team working on this Issue would like to bring this Issue
  to Initial Closure at OBF #72. An aggressive timeline to work this Issue has been
  developed to meet the promise the team made to the New York Commission that
  Issue 1792 will be placed into Initial Closure by OBF #72.
 Ms. Pribula reviewed the New York Commission Presentation that the team gave
  (Attachment 8 – file 1792a15.ppt).
 Ms. Pribula stated that service configuration was added to the CSR and that the
  scenarios are envisioned as being part of the LSR 070 Practice.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 26
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

Following the discussion, consensus was reached that this Issue is to be held in
Open Issue Status. There were no objections.


10/06/00 – JOINT O&P/TOR/DSC INTERIM MEETING
 Ms. Ellie Pribula, AT&T, recapped this Issue for Issue Champion, Mr. Alan Flanigan,
  Time Warner Telecom.
 Ms. Pribula reviewed the CLEC to CLEC migrations presented to the New York
  Commission.
 Mr. Arun Patel, Telcordia Technologies, questioned if the original intent of Issue will
  be addressed. Ms. Pribula replied that the original intent of the Issue will be
  addressed in a very generic form. There were some definition changes made for
  partial migration.
 Mr. Patel stated he was concerned that this Issue does not speak of CLEC to CLEC
  migration. Ms. Pribula explained that the Issue discusses migrations and that the
  Issue statement or desired results cannot be modified. It was further stated that Mr.
  Flanigan, as Issue Champion, did not get out of this Issue what he originally
  required, but due to regulatory pressures and other issues, found this is the
  approach needed. Another Issue to address ATNs during partial migrations may be
  brought in at a later time.
 This Issue did come to meet common business needs; it has the same business needs
  but not as far as the ATN is concerned. The bottom line is that this Issue is still
  customer/provider based.
 File 1792a10v4.doc:
   Section 1.4 – Mr. David Fitzgerald, MetaSolv Software, Inc., stated that the
     address validation is missing in the definitions, however, even if it is pre-order,
     there is no reference here (in definitions) and in the listed process flows.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 27
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

    Ms. Cora Jackson, SBC, stated that she does not understand the logic of adding
     this, there is already a new Issue to address. Ms. Jackson further stated that she
     is concerned with putting new definitions in this section and causing the Issue to
     be held from being placed into Initial Closure.
    Ms. Christine Cole, Verzion, Acting TOR Co-Leader, questioned if the address
     validation is defined in the LSOG 120 Practice. Ms. Pribula replied that address
     validation is defined there. Ms. Cole stated that it is not a huge task to pull in the
     definition and place it in this section. Ms. Brenda Wallace, BellSouth, stated that
     she has a concern with having definitions in more than one place, if one is
     updated and the same update is not carried over for all versions of the same
     definition. Ms. Pribula explained that the address validation is already contained
     within the LSOG 070 Practice, but it is not part of the definitions because it is a
     function already in two places, which is a concern. Ms. Gail Grenier, WorldCom,
     stated that the committees should not compound what is already known to a
     significant clean-up effort as part of the 070 Practice. Mr. Andy Fitzsimmons,
     AT&T, Acting DSC Co-Leader, suggested that since there is an Issue that is
     addressing the flows, which can fix this then, to leave this concern out of this
     Issue so this Issue can move forward.
    It was stated that the flows need to be updated for completion notification. It was
     decided not to go through this path because of all the major problems that would
     be encountered. If this were to be cared for, then this Issue would not be able to
     be completed on time. Therefore, this will not to be addressed at this time.
    Mr. Fitzgerald stated that, in terms of the flows, there is no supporting
     documentation regarding the definitions. Ms. Pribula suggested that in the flows
     perhaps boxes should be placed to reference where the definitions can be found
     (ex: practice number) to address Mr. Fitzgerald‘s concern. It was agreed this was
     the best approach and it can go forward without holding the issue up.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 28
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

    Full Migration – new definition was added.
    Migration – new definition was added to explicitly exclude loop migration with
     number portability.
    There are assumptions about the meaning of listing treatments, which the DSC
     Committee never really defined. It was recognized that listing treatments does
     need a definition, however, this definition creation does not belong here, in the
     Joint O&P/TOR/DSC Interim Meeting but in a DSC meeting.
    Ms. Jackson stated that every time there is a directory there is a listing treatment.
     Should it not be in the directory and not here in the flows? Ms. Grenier stated
     that the listing treatments provide a description as to what is occurring and it is
     not part of the Issue. Mr. Fitzsimmons further stated that the term is used
     generically in the DSC Committee. Mr. Fitzsimmons further stated that he would
     prefer that listing treatments not be defined and left as a generic term.
    Ms. Grenier stated that based on all the discussions that the Joint Committees
     are having at this time, what would happen if the Committees take the rest of the
     week addressing Mr. Fitzgerald‘s concern with Migration Activity? All this came
     out of a concern that Ms. Beth Welch, MetaSolv Software, Inc., had, who was
     looking at this Issue from a TOR perspective. It was decided to keep moving on
     with the Issue and make judgment calls as each concern is stated.
    Network Service Provider – NSP – new definition. Ms. Pribula suggested that the
     Committees adopt the structure that the Issue 2096 Working Group approached
     when they tackled the LSP definition. The NSP definition was modified to read, ―




57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 29
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      Network Service Provider – NSP

      The Network Service Provider (NSP) is the company whose network carries the dial
      tone, switched services and/or loop(s). In some cases the following more specific
      designations may be used:
         NSP-Switch – Carries the dial tone and switched services
         NSP-Loop – Provides the local loop to the end user premises or other mutually
          agreed upon point‖

    Mr. Fitzgerald asked to add to the list new and disconnect activity, and NPAC.
     Ms. Wallace stated that it had been decided that the LSOG is not a primer to
     telecommunications. Ms. Grenier stated that she believes many people agree with
     Ms. Wallace‘s statement and that is why we are putting this off because there is
     not agreement here for the extensive definition information needed.
    Partial Migration – new definition. Ms. Linda Thurber, Sprint Communications,
     questioned the term ―may not‖ in this definition. Does anybody support it? Ms.
     Jackson replied that this does not apply to scenarios that we put in. It was felt
     that it was important to put this in writing because there are companies that may
     be able to do partial migrations of these products. It was also noted that the lack
     of certain companies attending these meetings also led to ―may not‖ being placed
     within the definition.
    Service configuration – definition was updated. Ms. Jackson stated that she
     thinks this definition should come out, since it is really part of Pre-Order, that is
     where it should be defined. This is another function that is defined within Pre-
     Order. Ms. Mary Semedo, SBC/SNET, O&P Committee Co-Leader, stated that all
     of this should be cared for in another Issue not here. This is a 070 Practice clean-
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 30
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

     up Issue. It was agreed to leave service configuration in and come back at a
     future point.
    Unbundled Network Elements – Combination – new definition. Is UNE-P defined
     everywhere or is it embedded within here?         Mr. Leo Kress, Verizon, O&P
     Committee Co-Leader, answered that UNE came about as a subsequent order, he
     does not think it‘s appropriate here.
    A concern was raised that the first couple of hours of the meeting have not been
     spent working on the issue, we are off on a tangent. UNE-P is on every flow just
     explaining a little more. However, the Issue is not being worked; we are working
     other problems.
    The definition for Unbundled Network Elements – Combination was reworded to
     state, ―

      Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) – Combination

      Network combinations, where loop and port services are bundled, provide end-to-
      end service to the end user. This configuration is commonly known as UNE-
      Platform (UNE-P) or bundled network components.‖

    Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) / Unbundled Services – new definition.
    Ms. Jackson stated that Mr. Fitzgerald‘s questions cannot be answered until the
     flows are reviewed. We need to decide what are appropriate changes to make now
     and what will require a new Issue. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he thought that TOR
     was document quality. Ms. Grenier elaborated that this is not a win/lose
     situation, because we are spending so much time here. This is a legitimate
     concern and it is recognized. However, it is not within the scope of this Issue, so

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 31
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

     therefore the Committees need to move forward and note the concerns for future
     Issues.
    Another concern Mr. Fitzgerald has is with UNE-Loop. UNE-Loop is on the flows,
     but not in the definitions.
    Modified definition for UNE / Unbundled Services is to read, ―

      Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) / Unbundled Services

      Individual elements of the network as defined by the Federal Communications
      Commission (FCC) that incumbent local telephone companies must make
      available to competitors and that can be used to provide telephone service to an
      end user. Unbundled Services that can be ordered separately are; UNE-Port,
      UNE-Loop, Interim Number Portability (INP), listings, etc.‖

    It is implied that the sequence can be read into diagrams, but in actuality it
     cannot. Paragraphs 4 of the general description (Section 14.1) were modified to
     read, ―

      Where flows are numbered, the numbers are shown only to depict a logical
      sequence. Where flows are not numbered, placement sequence does not imply
      timing sequence.‖

      Therefore, instead of the statement being read implicitly it should be read
      explicitly to be more positive. Consensus was reached and the above statement
      was modified to note the change requested.

    Paragraphs 5 of the general description (Section 14.1) were modified to read, ―
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 32
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration


      Many terms contained in the flows are defined in the Glossary of Terms Section
      14.16 or the Definition section 1.4.‖

    There was a conscious decision made to refer the Glossary of Terms statement to
     Issue 2096, which will take care of this. This statement will not be removed from
     Section 14.1 in this Issue.
    Migration Process Flows were added as Section 14.18 – all numbered sections
     following Section 14.18 were updated.
    Ms. Pribula reviewed the introduction and general assumption for 14.18 –
     Migration Process Flows, which was added.
    Directory Assumptions: there was a concerned raised in regards to bullet three.
     Bullet number 3 was modified to state, ―

      3. When using migrate activity and the old NSP-Switch receiving the LNP order

          a. is the DSP, they will internally reconfigure the old account based on locally
             defined practices, or
          b. is also the old LSP and has to disconnect loops, listing treatment of the old
             account will be handled on the loop disconnect request, or
          c. does not meet the above criteria, use Directory Flow as depicted in Section
             18.14.15.‖

      Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that the concept is that you have all of these up-front
      flows and that box points to Section 14.18.15. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he had
      concern with ―or‖; it makes it sound like there are choices when in fact it‘s saying
      that if you do not have ―a‖ then go to ―b‖ (hierarchical working), but there is no
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 33
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

       choice to pick one. Goes down order leading to next condition. Mr. Kress stated
       that this order is confusing. In first case, the NSP is all of a sudden the DSP,
       there are two conditions on top of one condition. This needs to be real simple.
       Mr. Fitzsimmons took this offline to address the concerns stated – parking lot.
       Mr. Fitzsimmons also stated that outside of the DSC assumptions and going
       through the flows, there are 3 ways listing treatment is being handled. Listing
       treatment - DSCP internally reconfigures, handled on the loop disconnect, and the
       directory flow B.
      Ms. Cole suggested that bullet 5 under Directory Assumption be reworded since
       the way it stated is an assumption.          Bullet 5 was modified to state, ―One
       dominant DSP exists for a given service address.‖
      Ms. Jackson stated that bullet 6 is not partial, this statement is for partial and
       main migration; not specific, this is generic regarding listing treatment. The whole
       14.18 section is about migrations. Mr. Flanigan stated that this applies to new
       requests, listings only apply to what you are ordering or taking. Bullet 6 was
       modified to read, ―Requests for Resale and UNE-P must address listing treatment.‖
      Is NP, used for number portability, considered local? Ms. Semedo replied that
       companies use LNP. Mr. Fitzgerald questioned if LNP should be in the definition
       section or described in this section (Section 14)? Mary Semedo answered that it
       probably should be in this section for clarity sake. Ms. Jackson stated that the
       definition of LNP is in the Number Portability (NP) Practice, where it distinguishes
       between interim and local NPs. It was decided to place the full names for LNP and
       INP in the General Assumptions section including the NPAC and E911.
      Mr. Fitzgerald questioned what is the conceptual difference between Options A
       and B. Ms. Jackson stated that this was left the way it is intentionally, to let the
       NP Order come in and clear it out. Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out that as a group we
       have discussed this, but if you look at the documentation there is nothing stating
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 34
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      what flow A and B are. Ms. Jackson stated that it was decided to leave both in to
      allow NPO to be able to work through and is not clearly defined and there is a real
      problem with the definition. Does Note 1, following the table in Section 14.18
      need to be removed? If you read this note, there is nothing stating what Options A
      and B are. Ms. Grenier pointed out that this is temporary and that is why not a
      lot of wording was placed around it. It was to let people know that there are two
      references. Ms. Cole stated that there is a danger in leaving this note the way it
      is; message sent is that there is no need to go any further. Note 1 was updated to
      state, ―

      Note 1: There are two ordering approaches defined within the industry:
       Option A – New LSP coordinating local number portability
           Option B – New NSP coordinating local number portability

      Differences between options A and B are indicated in bold italics on the
      associated flows.‖

     Ms. Grenier stated that this makes it appear that they are valid today when they
     are essentially not. Ms. Jackson stated companies are finding that the LSPs are
     not doing what they are supposed to do at an untimely manner and are stuck.
     Currently, Option A is the way the OBF supports it. Ms. Brenda Wallace,
     BellSouth, stated that BellSouth does not support Option A as stated multiple
     times in the working of this Issue. BellSouth does support option B.
    Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he thought that the company names were going to be
     removed from the flows. Ms. Pribula stated that it was decided that having
     company names embedded in the flows leads to better interpretation of the flows
     opposed to leaving the company names out.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 35
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

    Ms. Pribula stated that with the administrative note the description will be
     removed from the PowerPoint scenarios in file 1792a14v2.ppt and then
     incorporated into file 1792a10v4.doc following the descriptions for each scenarios,
     respectively, when incorporated into the LSOG.
    Scenario 14.18.1:
    Describing migration scenarios and when this is done, bringing one NSP to
     another.
    Mr. Kress stated that the committees present need to see the words and pictures
     together to fully understand the concept of the scenarios and ensure their
     accuracy. Ms. Pribula emphasized that we need to stay within the context of the
     scenario we are covering. Mr. Kress stated that the problem with old and new is
     that it defines a business relationship between A and B. Ms. Karen Harrison,
     Sprint-LTD, stated that she thinks the matrix is a good idea to use instead of the
     description at the beginning of each scenario. Mr. Kress stated that, if it is
     unclear, then we need to update the wording, not create more work (matrix).
    Left to right = initiator; right to left = response. E911 in dotted box because there
     is a serious timing issue. Under negotiation, why dotted, because not sure who
     will be responsible.
    Mr. Kress questioned Ms. Wallace if she is concerned that two different parties can
     unlock E911 on the same line. Might be helpful to have a note that only one party
     can unlock E911. It was stated that the note that is there needs to be expanded
     to represent that idea. It was further stated that perhaps this should be reflected
     in the General Assumption section and not here (based on customer/provider
     negotiations). Mr. Kress further added that anything can be done on a specific
     contract basis. Bullet 7 was created under General Assumptions and states, ―For
     E911 service, duplicate migrate or unlock entries indicate an either/or option
     based on contracts/negotiations/tariffs.‖ Mr. Fitzgerald stated that either one will
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 36
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

     get the customer service query with the customer service configuration on it or
     receive the service. Mr. Kress stated that if you get the service configuration then
     you will not receive the CSI. If you do not get the service configuration then you
     will receive the CSI. Assumptions are strictly for the scenarios.
    Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he is strictly looking for consistency within documents,
     if we are going to make it consistent then we need to put the practice abbreviation
     and the number. Ms. Cole made the point that the new Issue accepted (2188) will
     be replacing this Issue. Ms. Grenier supported Ms. Cole‘s statement. Ms. Thurber
     stated that these scenarios demonstrate the process we want. Ms. Jackson stated
     that we should just place the LSOG practice and number and move on since that
     is what was agreed on this morning. Anything further that needs to be addressed
     should be deferred to the new Issue 2188. Ms. Grenier stated that this is
     becoming a larger problem, we are just adding ―fluff‖ that is not necessary. Ms.
     Jackson stated to Mr. Fitzgerald, ―We agreed to do this to satisfy your need for the
     definitions missing. If this is left alone, we are hoping that your Issue 2188, NPO
     and Issue 2096 can address this at the end instead of here – can we make sure
     this happens in the end instead of here?‖. The steps in the scenarios need to be
     evaluated and ensured that they are correct. Ms. Harrison questioned what was
     the full intent of this Issue when it was brought in. It was stated that there is
     nothing stopping us from putting action items on Issue 2188 to make sure it
     addresses the issues coming out of here. Issue 2188 addresses the formatting
     and presentation, not the process, the process is done here in this Issue. Can we
     go forward with the flows without adding practice numbers and having the
     definition section expanded? Ms. Pribula stated that it is only when we approach
     Pre-Order that the references back are needed. Ms. Grenier suggested that the
     Pre-Order be named up-front. It was decided to leave it as is here. Ms. Harrison
     stated that the committees should move forward with what is being done and
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 37
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

     when Issue 2188 is worked, to address the concerns then. Ms. Fay added that
     people that deal with LSR and Pre-Order know where to go. Ms. Jackson
     elaborated that no more definitions are being placed into the 070 Practice with
     this Issue.
    Mr. Fitzgerald stated that these definition concerns will be addressed in his Issue
     2188 (E911, Listing Treatment, Migration Activity, New Activity, DISC Activity,
     NPAC).
    The description for Scenario 14.18.1 was updated to read, ―

      14.18.1: UNE-P to Number Portability and Loop

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) which are the old NSP-– Switch
      (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using on a UNE-P service. The end
      user wishes to retain the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is porting the TNs from the old
      NSP-Switch (Verizon) and ordering a new loop. The old NSP-Switch (Verizon) will
      port out the TNs. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using UNE-P from Verizon

      New LSP: AT&T using UNE-Loop from Verizon and will port in TNs

      Note 1: For E911 service, duplicate migrate or unlock entries indicate an
      either/or option based on contracts/negotiations/tariffs.‖

    Scenario 14.18.2:
    Mr. Fitzgerald made the point that the table up front was talking about UNE-Loop
     but this is not what the title is saying. The title was adjusted to read, ―14.18.2:
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 38
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

     UNE-Loop to Number Portability and UNE-Loop‖. ONSP should be consistently
     used based on the LATI Practice, where there is a field for the service provider
     name.
    Ms. Wallace stated that she has a problem with looking at the LATI Practice. The
     Service Type is at the account level, therefore, we need to depict two things and
     only have one depicted. What does the number of times/iterations on that
     practice have to do with this scenario? Mr. Fitzgerald stated that if on the account
     you have a mixture of services that were handled differently, then there is the
     possibility that there will be a mixture of services for a given customer instead of
     one service that branches out. The SPI is not a field for the LATI practice and that
     has been translated.
    Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that in this example the DSP and ONSP-switch are
     different. The listing treatment is being handled by the Old LSP. Consequently,
     the one down below is what is left over.
    The description for Scenario 14.18.2 was updated to read, ―

      14.18.2: UNE-Loop to Number Portability and UNE-Loop

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-Switch
      (WorldCom) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using on a UNE-Loop
      arrangement from the old NSP-Loop (Verizon). The end user wishes to retain the
      TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is porting the TNs from the old NSP-Switch (WorldCom)
      and ordering a loop from the new NSP-Loop (Verizon). The old LSP (WorldCom)
      will be disconnecting the end user‘s service. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using UNE-Loop from Verizon, WorldCom TNs

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 39
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      New LSP: AT&T using UNE-Loop from Verizon and will port in the TNs

      Note 1: The NSP-Loop provider will not reassign the loop to the new LSP, nor will
      the DSP rearrange the listings, unless a disconnect LSR for the UNE-Loop and the
      directory listing is received from the old LSP.‖

    Scenario 14.18.3:
    In this section, it looks as if we are going to have Option A and immediately
     following is Option B. There is no unique description for Option B, this
     description is for Option A only. Ms. Jackson stated that this description is for
     both Option B and A. Ms. Pribula stated that in both instances, the number is
     being ported in and the question is who is doing it. Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out
     that the New LSPs will port in the number, which is true of Option A and not of B.
    There is no implied flow to these pictures hence the new issue that came in (Issue
     2188) was created to assist with this.
    Mr. Flanigan elaborated that WorldCom, upon reporting a number, would know
     that they are losing the loop, hence the disconnect would be sent to Verizon.
    Normally when Option A and B are being done, then you would just do Delta.
     Was this considered here? Ms. Pribula responded yes, but the companies working
     together on this Issue could not determine a way to do this cleanly.
    It‘s confusing to see transition information and not knowing what AT&T does with
     it since AT&T does not need the information. Ms. Pribula stated that there is a
     need to go out and tell what number to port since it drives NPI. Only showing
     information which is, in fact, triggering points. Does the Loop Provider = Verizon
     trigger some action in AT&T in this flow? Mr. Steve Moore, Sprint
     Communications, stated that AT&T is not concerned with this – this scenario has
     no clout on what AT&T does with it. Ms. Grenier elaborated that we are seeing the
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 40
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

     result of the action, but the result is based on the information and the information
     is needed to know what action needs to be taken. Ms. Pribula stated that it is the
     obligation of WorldCom to provide the information whether it is or is not being
     used. It was decided that the loop be left in.
    The description for Scenario 14.18.3 was updated to read, ―

      14.18.3: UNE-Loop to Resale and Number Portability

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-Switch
      (WorldCom) TNs that old LSP (WorldCom) was using as a UNE-Loop arrangement
      from the old NSP-Loop (Verizon). The end user wishes to retain the TNs. The new
      LSP (AT&T) is ordering Resale from the new NSP-Switch and Loop (Verizon). The
      TNs need to be ported from the old NSP (WorldCom) to the new NSP (Verizon).
      WorldCom will port out the TNs. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using UNE-Loop from Verizon and WorldCom TNs

      New LSP: AT&T using Resale from Verizon. TNs will be ported from WorldCom

      Note 1: There are two ordering approaches defined within the industry:

         Option A – New LSP coordinating local number portability
           Option B – New NSP coordinating local number portability

      Differences between options A and B are indicated in bold italics on the
      associated flows.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 41
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      Note 2: The NSP-Loop provider will not reassign the loop to the new LSP, nor will
      the DSP rearrange the listings, unless a disconnect LSR for the UNE-Loop and the
      directory listings is received from the old LSP.

    Scenario 14.18.4 (Option A):
    ―Will be disconnecting…‖, do we mean by that an LSR Order? It is whatever is
     done internally from the end user‘s view, not from an ordering view. Ms. Jackson
     added that there is no disconnect here, the loop is transparent. Ms. Jackson
     further stated that she is OK with that sentence, as long as it is understood that
     you will not see that activity within this flow. Ms. Grenier stated that she thinks
     service is correct because you are talking about the end user provider. 1) Time
     Warner brings down its reseller agreement or 2) does WorldCom do internal
     operations and disconnects? Ms. Pribula stated that since this sentence is
     causing so much confusion, we should delete the sentence. It was agreed to
     remove the sentence.
    Why would AT&T need E-911? Ms. Pribula stated that discussion regarding E-
     911 was needed on the UNE-Platform and thought that it was needed in resale. It
     was stated that E-911 was needed for resale because it was needed for UNE-
     Platform. In Resale, is the NSP-Switch responsible for E-911 (question directed to
     Ms. Wallace, BellSouth)? Ms. Wallace responded that the E-911 on the resale is
     transparent. It is a function that has to take place but it is transparent – the
     function is done by the NSP not the LSP, in a resale environment. It was noted
     that E-911 would not be reflected for the LSPs.
    Scenario 14.18.15 is the Directory Flow B. Is the ―if necessary‖ statement
     needed? Under the Directory Assumptions…as the DSP you do not provide
     service, you have to be told by the reseller the loss notification.            Resale
     arrangement, so the NSP is acting as the reseller at the request of the LSP. If the
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 42
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

       field is inherent on the Form, then we can do away with the entire sentence –
       consensus was reached.        Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that a DSP requires a full
       disconnect from an LSP.
      Listing treatment – it was stated that it was agreed that the listing treatment was
       vague, which says there is something on the listing being changed. It was decided
       to change and remove the listing treatment from the full account migration.
      Ms. Pribula stated that there is a need to create a scenario description for DSC in
       the 070 practice for this picture; she was unsure how it should be depicted. Mr.
       Fitzsimmons added that it is not a separate scenario, but in fact part of scenarios
       4, 8, 9 and 12. It was an extra explanation for these scenarios – further
       description.
      Ms. Jackson stated that on each of these flows we have a box that refers to Flow
       B. Ms. Pribula explained that it was decided after extensive discussion that Flow
       B should really be 14.18.15; to lift the information from the slide and place it in
       attachment 10, so the structure is consistent. Ms. Semedo suggested that it
       should be stated which flows this applies to. Ms. Pribula stated that we should
       define that this is not a stand-alone flow and is a sub-flow for standing scenarios.
       ―This flow is used in conjunction with scenarios in 14.18.‖ Ms. Fay suggested that
       this wording should be placed in the beginning under Directory Assumptions (Mr.
       Fitzsimmons to take this offline and clean-up the Directory Assumptions).
      Scenario14.18.4 (Option B):
      This scenario was reviewed. Reminder: the flows are not in sequence, hence the
       new Issue 2188.
      The description for Scenario 14.18.4 (Option A and B) was updated to read, ―

       14.18.4: Resale to Resale and New NSP

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                      1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 43
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Switch and Loop
      (Time Warner) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using in a Resale
      arrangement. The end user wishes to retain the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is
      ordering Resale from the new NSP-Switch and Loop (SBC). The TNs need to be
      ported out from the old NSP (Time Warner) and the new NSP (SBC) will port in the
      TNs. The DSP is SBC.


      Old LSP: WorldCom using Resale from Time Warner

      New LSP: AT&T using Resale from SBC. TNs will be ported from SBC.

      Note 1: There are two ordering approaches defined within the industry:

         Option A – New LSP coordinating local number portability
           Option B – New NSP coordinating local number portability

      Differences between options A and B are indicated in bold italics on the
      associated flows.

    Scenario 14.18.5:
    If porting is not involved, then there is no Option A and B. It was noted that the
     E-911 note would also be moved to the scenario description page instead of
     placing it on all scenario pages.
    The description for Scenario 14.18.5 was updated to read, ―

      14.18.5: Resale to Resale with same NSP
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 44
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration


      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Switch and Loop
      (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using in a Resale arrangement.
      The end user is retaining the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is ordering Resale from
      the new NSP–Loop and Switch (Verizon). Verizon will migrate the end user‘s
      account from the old LSP (WorldCom) to the new LSP (AT&T), retaining the same
      TNs. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using Resale from Verizon

      New LSP: AT&T using Resale from Verizon, end user keeps TNs (no porting
      required)

      Note 1: As long as there is no change to the end user‘s service address, there is no
      need to update the E911 database.‖

    Scenario14.18.6:
    It is known that there is a coordination problem with all the flows. The approach
     taken was to put a ―stake in the ground‖ to secure the flows with the assumptions
     defined up front. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that since sending J order as new, that
     means that those current listings cannot be owned by anybody, especially since it
     is ―piggy backed‖ on top of the loop. Then those listings could not be handled
     until the disconnect happens.       Mr. Grenier stated that then there is no
     reassignment of that loop. That is not taking place here, the loop is going away.
     Ms. Pribula stated that once the loop is freed then it is unknown where it is going.
     Ms. Fay elaborated that AT&T is providing their own loop and SBC would not be
     reassigning that loop, therefore, there is nothing to reassign. Mr. Jim Mahlor,
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 45
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

     Verizon, stated that the loop is covered in the assumptions. The assumption in
     these flows are that they are attached.
    The description for Scenario 14.18.6 was updated to read, ―

      14.18.6: UNE-Loop to Retail using Number Portability

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-Switch
      (WorldCom) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using as a UNE-Loop
      arrangement from the old NSP-Loop (Verizon). The end user wishes to retain the
      TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) will port in the TNs from the old NSP-Switch
      (WorldCom). The old LSP (WorldCom) will port out the TNs and disconnect the
      end user‘s service. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using UNE-Loop from Verizon with WorldCom TNs

      New LSP: AT&T using AT&T owned facilities and porting TNs

      Note 1: The DSP will not rearrange the listings unless a disconnect LSR for the
      directory listings is received from the old LSP.‖

    Scenario 14.18.7:
    All steps are optional in Pre-Order.
    Regarding E-911 – for all UNE-P: Note 7 from General Assumptions will be added
     to specific slides.
    The description for Scenario 14.18.7 was updated to read, ―


57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 46
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      14.18.7: UNE-P to Retail using Number Portability

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Switch and Loop
      (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using in a UNE-P arrangement.
      The telephone numbers are Verizon TNs. The end user is retaining the TNs. The
      new LSP (AT&T) is a facility based service provider (new NSP-Switch and Loop) and
      is porting the TNs from the old NSP-Switch (Verizon). The old NSP–Switch
      (Verizon) will port out the TNs. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using UNE-P from Verizon

      New LSP: AT&T using AT&T owned facilities and porting TNs

      Note 1: For E911 service, duplicate migrate or unlock entries indicate an
      either/or option based on contracts/negotiations/tariffs.‖

    Scenario 14.18.8:
    Ms. Fay questioned why would AT&T do an address validation when WorldCom
     has already done an address validation with Verizon? Ms. Pribula stated that it
     depends how fastidious those LSRs will be. Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that he
     thought that there was one company who needed an address on that order,
     therefore, it was left in. Ms. Jackson stated that going back to the definition of
     retail, it is saying that the service provider is the same as the network provider,
     therefore, it does not need to state NSP-Switch and NSP-Loop for World-Com. It
     was decided to leave the scenario as outlined.
    The description for Scenario 14.18.8 was updated to read, ―

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 47
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      14.18.8: Retail to UNE-Loop and Number Portability

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-Switch
      (WorldCom) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was providing as a facility based
      provider (old NSP–Switch and Loop). The end user is retaining the TNs. The new
      LSP (AT&T) is ordering a UNE-Loop from the new NSP–Loop (Verizon) and the new
      NSP-Switch (AT&T) is porting numbers from the old NSP-Switch (WorldCom). The
      old NSP–Switch (WorldCom) will port out the TNs. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using WorldCom owned facilities and TNs

      New LSP: AT&T using UNE-Loop from Verizon and porting TNs from WorldCom‖

    Scenario 14.18.9 (Option A):
    Mr. Flanigan questioned if this happened to be a partial migration, what would
     happen regarding directory? Mr. Fitzsimmons replied that the assumption out of
     Dallas drives us to handle directory a certain way in the flows, subsequently, it
     needs to be updated as seen appropriate. DSPs are consistent, there are two
     separate processes; reflecting one way because of the approach taken in Dallas.
    Scenario 14.18.9 (Option B):
    This scenario was reviewed.
    The description for Scenario 14.18.9 (Options A and B) was updated to read, ―

      14.18.9: Retail to UNE-P and Number Portability

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-Switch (AT&T)
      TNs that the old LSP (AT&T) was providing as a facility based provider (old NSP–
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 48
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      Switch and Loop). The end user is retaining the TNs. The new LSP (WorldCom) is
      ordering a UNE-P from the new NSP–Switch and Loop (Verizon) and porting
      numbers from the old NSP–switch (AT&T). The DSP is Verizon

      Old LSP: AT&T using AT&T owned facilities, AT&T TNs

      New LSP: WorldCom using UNE-P from Verizon & porting TNs

      Note 1: There are two ordering approaches defined within the industry:

         Option A – New LSP coordinating local number portability
           Option B – New NSP coordinating local number portability

      Differences between options A and B are indicated in bold italics on the
      associated flows.

      Note 2: For E911 service, duplicate migrate or unlock entries indicate an
      either/or option based on contracts/negotiations/tariffs.‖

    Scenario 14.18.10:
    This scenario was reviewed.
    The description for Scenario 14.18.10 was updated to read, ―

      14.18.10: Resale to UNE-Loop with Number Portability

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Switch and Loop
      (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using in a Resale arrangement.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 49
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      The end user is retaining the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is migrating the TNs to the
      new NSP–Switch (AT&T) using a loop from the new NSP–Loop (Verizon). The old
      NSP (Verizon) will port out the TNs. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using Resale from Verizon

      New LSP: AT&T using UNE-Loop from Verizon and porting in TNs‖

    Scenario 14.18.11:
    This scenario was reviewed.
    The description for Scenario 14.18.11 was updated to read, ―

      14.18.11: Resale to UNE-P

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Switch and Loop
      (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using in a Resale arrangement.
      The end user is retaining the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is ordering UNE-P service
      from the new NSP–Switch and Loop (Verizon). Verizon will migrate the end user‘s
      account. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using Resale from Verizon

      New LSP: AT&T using UNE-P from Verizon. End user keeps TNs (no porting
      required)

      Note 1: As long as there is no change to the end user‘s service address, there is no
      need to update the E911 database.‖
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 50
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration


    Scenario 14.18.12 (Option A):
    Mr. Kress asked if AT&T has done the address validation, the service provider and
     configuration are known, and then you go to SBC, why do you need to query for
     address validation on the LSR? Why do you need to do it again if it is brand new?
     To validate that it is an address and that it is in a valid address format; need to
     make sure that the LSR is address validated. The only interaction that we have
     today is with the database in the MSAG records - behind the scenes, connected to
     directory. Another point made, is to make sure that the LSR is not rejected.
    Scenario 14.18.12 (Option B):
    Ms. Harrison questioned why the order in this scenario is different from Option A.
     Ms. Jackson responded that these scenarios do not show a logical sequence.
     (Issue 2188 will be taking care of the logical sequence.) Ms. Grenier noted that
     the accepted NPO Issue (Issue 2189) will eliminate scenarios with Options A and
     B, and merge them into one scenario, which will lessen the confusion.
    The description for Scenario 14.18.12 (Options A and B) was updated to read, ―

      14.18.12: Resale to UNE-P with a New NSP

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Switch and Loop
      (Time Warner) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using on a Resale
      arrangement. The end user wishes to retain the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is
      ordering UNE-P service from the new NSP–Switch and Loop (SBC)and retaining
      the old NSP-Switch (Time Warner) TNs. The TNs need to be ported from the old
      NSP (Time Warner) to the new NSP (SBC). The DSP is SBC.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using Resale from Time Warner
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 51
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration


      New LSP: AT&T using UNE-P from SBC and porting TNs

      Note 1: There are two ordering approaches defined within the industry:

             Option A – New LSP coordinating local number portability
             Option B – New NSP coordinating local number portability

      Differences between options A and B are indicated in bold italics on the
      associated flows.

      Note 2: For E911 service, duplicate migrate or unlock entries indicate an
      either/or option based on contracts/negotiations/tariffs.‖

    Scenario 14.18.13:
    Mr. Kress stated that you cannot block an NPAC (NPAC, when done, initiates
     completion) move, so completion has a different meaning in this scenario.
     Completion here is more of a record‘s order.
    The description for Scenario 14.18.13 was updated to read, ―

      14.18.13: Resale to Retail using Number Portability

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Switch and Loop
      (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using on a Resale arrangement.
      The end user is retaining the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is a facility based service
      provider (new NSP–Switch and Loop) and is porting the TNs from the old NSP-

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 52
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      Switch (Verizon). The old NSP–Switch (Verizon) will port out the TNs. The DSP is
      Verizon.


      Old LSP: WorldCom using Resale from Verizon

      New LSP: AT&T using AT&T owned facilities and porting TNs‖

    Scenario 14.18.14 (option A):
    ECCKT was removed from LSR (from AT&T to Verizon), there is no need for it in
     this situation.
    Questioning regarding the double lines. Decided that anywhere in the scenarios,
     where there is an order transition to pre-order, there will be a double line to
     separate the two (essentially 3 sets of double lines). Note: second pre-order is for
     the address validation section – when this validation is needed it goes back to pre-
     order.
    Ms. Jackson explained that there is an actual disconnect associated with loss
     notification because there is a loop involved, in the previous scenarios there is no
     loop involved. Mr. Kress stated that you cannot complete an order because the
     LSP does not give up a loop.
    Scenario 14.18.14 (option B):
    ECCKT was removed from here also.
    Ms. Wallace clarified that the NPI of C tells Verizon to port and it relays what the
     telephone number is. Ms. Wallace further stated that it is difficult to interpret the
     sequence of these scenarios, however, she understands that this is how these
     scenarios were set up and that Issue 2188 will be taking care of the sequencing
     concern.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 53
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

    NPAC creates a message – really creating SV (Subscription Version).
    Ms. Jackson reminded people that earlier in the meeting it was stated that the
     NPAC and E911 are out of our realm. Ms. Jackson further stated that SV means
     nothing to us in OBF where message means something. Ms. Cole stated that SV is
     not defined in the OBF and that it had been agreed that we were not going to
     define NPO definitions. Mr. Flanigan stated that we are denoting something,
     creating NPAC; and in fact, we are not creating a message, we are creating a
     transaction. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that while we are not showing NPAC here with
     strictly NANC flows, we are showing the communications with them. Create
     message came from the NANC flow – Inter-Service Provider LNP Operations Flows
     Provisioning.
    Ms. Pribula stated that our intent is not to share this Issue (1792) with another
     industry forum, however, the new NPO Issue (2189) will be shared with another
     industry forum.
    Mr. Flanigan stated that Time Warner‘s position is that the NPAC ―create message‖
     is incorrect where Subscription Version (SV) - accepted transaction type for NPAC
     - is correct. However, Time Warner is willing to let this go for the purpose of this
     Issue.
    The description for Scenario 14.18.14 (Options A and B) was updated to read, ―

      14.18.14: UNE-Loop to UNE-P

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-Switch
      (WorldCom) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using as a UNE-Loop
      arrangement from the old NSP-Loop (Verizon). The end user wishes to retain the
      TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is ordering UNE-P from the new NSP–Switch and Loop
      (Verizon), retaining the old LSP (WorldCom) TNs. The TNs are to be ported from
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 54
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      the old NSP (WorldCom) to the new NSP (Verizon).              WorldCom will be
      disconnecting the end user‘s service. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using UNE-Loop from Verizon and WorldCom TNs

      New LSP: AT&T using UNE-P from Verizon and porting in TNs

      Note 1: There are two ordering approaches defined within the industry:

             Option A – New LSP coordinating local number portability
             Option B – New NSP coordinating local number portability

      Differences between options A and B are indicated in bold italics on the
      associated flows.

      Note 2: For E911 service, duplicate migrate or unlock entries indicate an
      either/or option based on contracts/negotiations/tariffs.

      Note 3: The NSP-Loop provider will not reassign the loop to the new LSP, nor will
      the DSP rearrange the listings, unless a disconnect LSR for the UNE-Loop and the
      directory listings is received from the old LSP.‖

    Scenario 14.18.15:
    The description for Scenario 14.18.15 was updated to read, ―

      14.18.15: Directory Flow

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 55
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      Action that MAY be taken by Old NSP-Switch

      When the old NSP-Switch receives an order porting out TNs, it serves as an
      ‗indirect Loss Notification‘. The old NSP-Switch disconnects the ported out TNs via
      a stand alone directory order to the DSP. The old NSP-Switch is still responsible
      for the remaining TNs that were not ported.‖

 File 1792a17v1.doc:
   MI field:
      Mr. Fitzgerald made the point that for a full migration you can have a full
        migration to a new account or an existing account, if you want full migration to
        go to an existing account created; noted as good suggestion. It was stated that
        some CLECs were not bothering to distinguish if the partial and full migration
        were coming to a new or an existing account. Why should we not have a full
        migration to a new or existing? Should migration in this case be capitalized? –
        it was changed to lowercase. Mr. Mahlor stated that there are fields on the LSR
        today that would give the CLEC the ability to give the provider the information
        whether its being migrated to a new or an existing account. If I/you have an
        MI field, I must have a ―V‖ on the ACT of the LSR, which is on this form. The
        usage note is what needs to be edited. Order level activity dependency,
        therefore, on the usage strip that would need to be reflected. It was stated that
        based on which TN is required, at the national level there cannot be an
        agreement.
      Valid entry ―C‖ was modified to equal, ―Full migration converting
        lines/numbers to a new account‖.
      Valid entry ―D‖ was added and equals, ―Full migration converting
        lines/numbers to an existing account‖.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                      1792

                                           Date Submitted      10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted       11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure     10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure       05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                  Resolved


Part B, Page 56
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

       If you are using this to identify if this is a full or partial migration, then you
        need to be able to use this field to be able to do both migrations. On ―W‖, it is a
        full migration. When analyzing the usage strip, this is not workable because of
        ―W‖. Therefore, a valid entry Note 2 which states, ―Valid entries of ―A‖ and ―B‖
        are prohibited when the ACT field is ―W‖‖ was added. Because that is where
        you can program it. If a note affects the conditional use of the field, then it is a
        usage note, otherwise it remains a valid entry note. It was decided to leave it
        as a valid entry note.
       The usage strip was updated to reflect the following:
          N C D M T R V W S B L Y H

           P   P   P   P   P   P   O O     P   P   P   P   P

      Usage Note 1 was modified to read, ―Optional when the ACT field is ―V‖ or ―W‖,
        otherwise prohibited.‖
      This field was numbered 24A.
 File 1792a18v1.doc:
   ELT field:
      Fundamental problem – cannot reach agreement whether this field is
        referencing the account, where the listings are coming from and where the
        listings are going to.
      Valid entries ―A‖ and ―B‖ would not have DL changes whereas ―C‖ will have DL
        changes. In ―A‖, will not send DL Form; in ―B‖, may send DL Form pending if
        REQTYP = ―S‖, ―E‖ or ―M‖, and in C, must send DL form.
      When the DL Form comes in, what other entries would be different versus ―A‖
        and ―B‖? Mr. Fitzsimmons responded that at the listing level activity, the
        changes would be occurring for ―C‖.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 57
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

       Option, change usage so that it does not require it or add another value, when
        it is required it will care for the DL issue. Ms. Pribula stated that in terms of
        the valid entries, there is no consistency. End-User – ―B‖; End-User Listings –
        ―C‖.
       When you say prohibit and it is required then you cannot send a DL form.
       Mr. Fitzgerald explained that in valid entry Note 1, it did not include ―B‖
        because it was never clear where in the account the order is on a partial
        migration.
       Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that ―W‖ was only applicable to resale and means as is.
        ELT (ERL previously) has historically not applied the ACT field because ―W‖ has
        served that purpose. Serves as a treatment when it is ―W‖ at the ACT level.
       If your business needs do not support a valid entry then you do not open it up
        for use. Ms. Kathleen Massey, BellSouth, stated that the ―Y‖ is currently being
        used in BellSouth and so is the ―N‖. However, she is concerned that
        BellSouth‘s business needs cannot support valid entry ―C‖. Ms. Jackson
        questioned Ms. Massey if with the old ERL field, on a partial migration is ―C‖
        prohibited. Ms. Massey responded yes. ―C‖ is what you would use for partial
        migration. Ms. Massey stated that she does not know at this time if BellSouth
        supports the valid entry of ―C‖ and is not sure if they will be opening up to
        that.
       The valid entries section of this field was modified as follows:

                A    =   Retain end user listings ―as is‖ in both directory
                         and/or directory assistance
                B    =   Do not retain end user listings
                C    =   Change end user listings

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 58
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration


            NOTE 1:     A valid entry of ―A‖ prohibits the use of the DL
                        Form.

            NOTE 2:     A valid entry of ‖B‖ is prohibited when the REQTYP
                        field on the LSR Form is ―E‖ or ―M‖.

            NOTE 3:     A valid entry of ―C‖ requires the use of the DL
                        Form.

            NOTE 4:
                  A valid entry of ―A‖ is prohibited when the MI field
                  on the LSR Form is ―A‖ or ―B‖.
 The example was modified to:

          EXAMPLE:        A

 File 1792a19v1:
   SVCCFG field:
      Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he thought INP was not addressed on the scenarios‘
        assumption section.
      Does the definition need to be synced up with the 070? Ms. Pribula responded
        yes. Therefore, the definition was updated to read, ―Identifies how existing
        service is provided to the end user.‖
      Ordering process would not change if previously imported from another
        provider. For what order would someone send across and establish an SVCCFG
        of ―D‖? Ms. Pribula answered that when I am acting as an NSP and LSP.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted       10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted        11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure      10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure        05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                  Resolved


Part B, Page 59
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

        Would it still be the retail…to port out to me you would have to use a REQTYP
        of ―C‖ and have to use NPAC.
      Where in the LSOG would one find a description of the rules for the ordering
        process? Retail bundled is defined in the definition section.
      This is an entirely different practice and how these fields are used is described
        in the general section of that practice.
      This field was numbered to 12A.
 Mr. Andy Fitzsimmons reviewed the updated Directory Assumptions pertaining to the
  flows. The updates are as follows:

   Directory Assumptions:


   1. The old LSP will provide access to listing information.

   2. One dominant DSP exists for a given service address.

   3. Requests for Resale and UNE-P must address listing treatment.

   4. In flows where the DSP, old NSP-Switch and old LSP are three separate parties,
      the old NSP-Switch interacts with the DSP as an agent for the old LSP for listing
      treatment.

   5. On partial migrations, the DSP may find it necessary to reorganize the TNs
      (listings) remaining with the old LSP based on locally defined practices. When the
      old LSP receives a Loss Notification, the old LSP may choose to override the listing
      assignment, performed by the DSP, by sending stand alone DL orders.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 60
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration


   6. When using a migrate activity and the old NSP-Switch receiving the NP order is
      the DSP, they will internally reconfigure the old LSP‘s account based on locally
      defined practices.

   7. When using a migrate activity and the old NSP-Switch receiving the NP order is
      not the DSP, the listing treatment, on behalf of the old LSP, may be handled in
      two ways :

         When the old LSP has a UNE-Loop service configuration, the old LSP may issue
          an order to address listing treatment.

         When the old LSP has a Resale service configuration, the old NSP-Switch may
          issue an order to address listing treatment as defined in the Directory flow.

 There was a concern raised by Ms. Cole regarding the scenarios and the respective
  descriptions being in two separate attachments. She is concerned that when this
  information is incorporated into LSOGv6, it will not be incorporated correctly. TOR
  stated that they would not put this Issue into Initial Closure unless the diagrams and
  descriptions are in one attachment. The final outcome, Ms. Grenier went off-line and
  incorporated the scenarios into file 179210v4.doc. This updated file was reviewed for
  a third time to ensure that it was correct.
 Both Ms. Cole and Ms. Harrison stated that they are concerned with the number of
  clean-up issues that have been identified within this Issue. They are concerned with
  the committees relying heavily on Issue 2188 to address these concerns.


57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                      1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 61
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

 Ms. Jackson noted that the O&P Committee will have to review this Issue in its
   entirety between Initial Closure and Final Closure; before it can be placed readily into
   Final Closure.
 Ms. Wallace stated that Resale with Number Portability is a product.
 Currently, Issue 2096 has the following Administrative Note in its documentation:
   ―Issue 2096 Section 14.1 in 070 Practice has reference to Glossary, which needs to
   be removed.‖ How is this being handled? It will be referred over to Issue 2096 and
   Ms. Thurber agreed that she will be at the December Meeting for Issue 2096 and
   make sure that this is taken care of.
 The following terms were incorporated into the scenarios and the group reached
   consensus not to place these terms in the definitions for Issue 1792: Listing
   Treatment, Migration Activity, New Activity and DISC Activity. It was stated that
   anyone who reviews this Issue between its Initial and Final Closure status and
   disagrees with what is there, then they can bring in a new Issue to address their
   concerns.
 Ms. Harrison stated that there are inconsistencies with Options A and B, and the
   listing of the companies. Ms. Grenier responded that this will be addressed in Issue
   2189 (NPO).
Following the discussion, consensus was reached to move this Issue to Initial
Closure Status. There were no objections.


11/10/00 – OBF #72 – ASHEVILLE, NC

OBF #72 - Readout given during the Joint O&P/TOR/DSC Session:
Due to the short time frame between the Joint Interim Meeting and OBF #72, the
meeting notes have not been posted. There was no readout given.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 62
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

OBF #72 – O&P COMMITTEE SESSION:
 Ms. Leo Kress, Verizon, recapped this Issue for the Issue Champion, Mr. Alan
  Flanigan, Time Warner Telecom. Mr. Kress further stated that since placing this
  Issue into Initial Closure at the October Joint Interim Meeting, this Issue did not
  meet the 42 day posting criteria for the Industry to view and therefore, this Issue
  could not be moved from Initial Closure at this OBF.
 Ms. Brenda Wallace, BellSouth, stated that the she is making the following statement
  on behalf of BellSouth, ―BellSouth will not delay the closure of Issue 1792. However,
  BellSouth currently supports migrations to UNE Loop and from UNE Loops and will
  continue to support this functionality (UNE-P to UNE Loop, Resale to UNE Loop, UNE
  Loop to Resale, and Line Share to Line Share). Additionally, the CLECs participating
  in our CCP have prioritized an issue as "High" which would provide the electronic
  capability to allow UNE to UNE migrations. Furthermore, BellSouth has been
  working in a collaborative environment with several of our DLECs who endorse UNE
  Line Share migrations.‖
 Loops at this time are not migratable. A new Issue will need to be brought forth to
  define the process since this will be the next logical step.
 Ms. Mary Fay, Verizon, stated that the NY PUC is looking towards loop migration.
  Ms. Fay stated that the NY PUC was told that loop migration may not be the way to
  go since the industry at this time does not agree with that approach. Ms. Gail
  Grenier, WorldCom, Ms. Linda Thurber, Sprint Communications, and Mr. Alan
  Flanigan, Time Warner Telecom, were present during this discussion with NY PUC.
 The NY PUC is very concerned with the end user; however, as the provider we have
  concerns with the customer. The NY PUC is not 100% set on the path of loop
  migration; however, Ms. Fay stated that the hope is to have the NY PUC work with
  the OBF when working the migration issues.
 Is anyone walking in an Issue to address loop migration? No one responded.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 63
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

 As we go forward with large Issues, we should not be allowed to close these Issues
   unless addressing the first order, from CLEC to CLEC, etc. By doing piece-mail
   Issues, the industry is being hurt.
 An Issue needs to be brought forth to address the new migration concerns. From
   there, Issue Champions can build from it. The plan is to do the right thing from
   beginning to end.
Following the discussion, consensus was reached to keep this Issue to Initial
Closure Status. There were no objections.

OBF #72 – TOR COMMITTEE SESSION:
The following pertinent points were brought forth during the discussion:
   At a previous Interim meeting, it was agreed to move this Issue into Initial Closure
      with the compromise that a review of the final pages of the Issue would occur.
   Ms. Ellie Pribula, AT&T, stated that there are word (.doc) and power point (.ppt)
      files. Concerns were raised regarding the appearance of the files (.ppt) once they
      are inserted into the final document as a visio file. These concerns cover more
      than only the format conversion.
   It was suggested to review the files before they are incorporated into the working
      draft to ensure the veracity of the scenarios. There were mixed feelings of whether
      the files should be reviewed by the participants, prior to placing the Issue into
      Final Closure. MetaSolv would like to review the Issue before it is placed into Final
      Closure. Sprint agreed with MetaSolv.
   The objective of Issue 1792 is to place the Issue into Final Closure at OBF #73.
      What is needed is to: 1) Convert the power point files into Visio and 2) TOR would
      review the Issue. Ms. Ellie Pribula, AT&T, asked would the scenarios be the only
      files reviewed? The response was ―No‖. She also felt that if the commitment
      surrounding this Issue were not met, then this would be a black eye for the OBF.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 64
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

       It was stated that the commitment had been met and if changes were required,
       then a new clean up Issue must be submitted to address any discrepancies.
      After a lengthy pathforward discussion, the following options were developed:
      Option 1: Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (CGE&Y) would revise the
                        Issue, and it would be reviewed during a Joint Virtual Meeting
                        conference call.
      Option 2: CGE&Y would revise the Issue and the participants
                        would review at OBF #73.
      Option 3: Incorporate the Issue into the working draft and move
                        the Issue into Final Closure at OBF #73.
      Option 4: Schedule a TOR Virtual Meeting and review the Issue
                        at OBF #73.
      Option 5: Place the Issue into Final Closure and submit new
                        cleanup Issue after the review. Both in LSOGv6.
      As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the following meeting was
       scheduled:

TOR INTERIM MEETING:
       ADMIN SUPPORT REQUIRED
Date:            November 28 – 29, 2000
Time:            Tuesday (8:00am - 7:00pm) –
                 Wednesday (8:00am – 12:00 noon)
Host:            MetaSolv
Place:           Plano, TX
Name:            Ms. Beth Welch
Telephone:       972-403-8459
E-mail:          bwelch@metasolv.com
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 65
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

Objective:          To review Issue 1792


TOR: November 28-29, 2000 Plano, TX Interim Meeting:
LSOG-ATN Replacement for Partial Migration
As agreed upon during the OBF #72 General Session, the TOR committee reviewed the
Issue and the following pertinent points were brought forth:
     File 1792a2.doc (EATN/ATN Usage Requirements For Partial Migrations) was
   reviewed. The importance of this file is to ensure that the rules are incorporated
   correctly into Usage Notes and strips.
     File 1792a6.zip is an archive.
     File 1792a7.doc is a BellSouth contribution for partial migrations.
     During the review of file 1792a10v4.doc – 1.4 Definitions (renamed 1792a10v5) it
   was determined that all occurrences of Completion Notice should be changed to
   Completion Notification.
            Address Validation, E911 and NPAC definitions were not defined in Issue
         1792. It was stated that the aforementioned definition and any other pertinent
         discrepancies would be cared for in Issue 2188 (O&P/LSOG: Update Process
         Flows).
            The Directory Service Provider (DSP) was modified to read ―The DSP is
         responsible for the implementation of the LSP‘s requirement to provide
         directory assistance/directory listing services for the end user.
       The Full Migration definition was modified to read ―Occurs when the new LSP
         provides for all services/lines on an existing end user account where no
         services/lines remain on the end user account with the old LSP. In this case,
         the old LSP will no longer produce a bill to the end user.
            (LA) was added to Loss Alert.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 66
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

            The Migration definition was modified to read ―Migration occurs when an
          end user changes to a new LSP and at least one of the following conditions
          exists:
              The end user‘s telephone number is being ported
              The current service delivery method is Retail, Resale, or UNE-P and the
                 new service delivery method will be Retail, Resale or UNE-P
         The Partial Migration definition was modified to read ―Partial migration occurs
          when the new LSP provides for a portion of the services or lines on an existing
          end user account. One or more services or lines will remain with the old LSP
          on the existing end user account. The old LSP is responsible for the remaining
          services/lines. Partial migrations may not apply to complex services such as
          CENTREX, ISDN services, PBX and DID.
         The following 14.1 GENERAL verbiage was modified to read ― Many terms
          contained in the flows are defined in the Definition Section 1.4.
            It was stated when scenarios (with TAGs) are utilized the TAGs should be
          defined within the documentation.
         The Process Flows glossary was modified to house the following 14.18
          MIGRATION PROCESS FLOWS information:
              UNE-P TO UNE-LOOP WITH NUMBER PORTABILITY 14.18.1
              UNE-LOOP TO NUMBER PORTABILITY AND UNE-LOOP 14.18.2
              UNE-LOOP TO RESALE AND NUMBER PORTABILITY 14.18.3
              RESALE TO RESALE AND NEW NSP 14.18.4
              RESALE TO RESALE WITH SAME NSP 14.18.5
              UNE-LOOP TO RETAIL USING NUMBER PORTABILITY 14.18.6
              UNE-P TO RETAIL USING NUMBER PORTABILITY 14.18.7
              RETAIL TO UNE-LOOP AND NUMBER PORTABILITY 14.18.8
              RETAIL TO UNE-P AND NUMBER PORTABILITY 14.18.9
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 67
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

              RESALE TO UNE-LOOP WITH NUMBER PORTABILITY 14.18.10
              RESALE TO UNE-P 14.18.11
              RESALE TO UNE-P WITH A NEW NSP 14.18.12
              RESALE TO RETAIL USING NUMBER PORTABILITY 14.18.13
              UNE-LOOP TO UNE-P 14.18.14
              DIRECTORY ACCOUNT MIGRATION 14.18.15
            The following modifications were performed within the process flows
          associated with Issue 1792:
            14.18.15 was changed from Directory Flow to Directory Account Migration.
                    The NSP – of the loop will not reassign the loop to a new LSP unless a
                 disconnect LSR for the UNE-Loop is received from the old LSP. (TOR
                 11/00 Comment: This is the NSP (Network Service Provider of the Loop)
                    Appearance of Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) and
                 Enhanced 911 (E911) functions in the scenarios identify process flows
                 that are outside the scope of OBF and are not detailed in these flows.
                 (TOR 11/00 Comment): The NPAC flows are inconsistent, and they would
                 like to adopt the OBF scenarios.
                  MetaSolv will submit a proposal for describing flows (Issue 2188 in a
                     consistent and clear manner. This will be presented during the
                     upcoming San Ramon, CA meeting scheduled the week of January 8,
                     2001.
            During the review of 1) Requests for Resale and UNE-P must
          address listing treatment and 5) On partial migrations, the DSP may find it
          necessary to reorganize the TN‘s (listings) remaining with the old LSP based on
          locally defined practices. When the old LSP receives a Loss Notification, the old
          LSP may choose to override the listing assignment, performed by the DSP, by
          sending stand- alone DL orders clarification was required for the usage of
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                      1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                  Resolved


Part B, Page 68
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

          listing/assignment treatment.        The 102 practice (Directory Listing) was
          searched for the aforementioned requirement; clarification was unsuccessful.
          It was further stated that listing treatment is referenced within the DSR, but it
          relates to expediting. Listing treatment is used generically and there could be
          many activity codes against a listing. It applies to partial migration and the old
          listings. Listing treatment utilized in a scenario is a specific order (new or
          migration).
             During the discussion of the following verbiage (#7), it was stated that the
          old NSP-Switch could not issue an order. The provider issues the order:
                   When using a migrate activity and the old NSP-Switch receiving the
                 NP order is not the DSP, the listing treatment, on behalf of the old LSP,
                 may be handled in two ways:
                   The following was modified to read ―When the old LSP has a Resale
                 service configuration, the old NSP-Switch owner may issue an order to
                 address listing treatment as defined in the Directory Account Migration
                 flow.‖
      14.18.1: UNE-P to Number Portability and Loop was modified to read UNE-P to
       UNE-Loop with Number Portability.
                   Note 1 was modified to read ―For E911 service, a duplication of
                 migrate or unlock entries indicate an either/or option based on
                 contracts/negotiations/tariffs.
                   An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.1 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                 FOLLOWING GRAPHIC 11/28/00 was placed on the graphic.
             14.18.2: UNE-Loop to Number Portability and UNE-Loop was modified to
          read UNE-Loop to UNE-Loop with Number Portability .
                   An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.2 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                 FOLLOWING GRAPHIC 11/28/00 was placed on the graphic.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 69
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

            14.18.3: UNE-Loop to Resale and Number Portability
                   An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.3 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                FOLLOWING GRAPHIC AND LEAVE Option A (WITHOUT PARENTHESIS)
                CENTERED 11/28/00 was placed on the graphic.
                   An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.3 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                FOLLOWING GRAPHIC AND LEAVE Option B (WITHOUT PARENTHESIS)
                CENTERED 11/28/00 was placed on the graphic.
            14.18.4: Resale to Resale and New NSP
                   An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.4 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                FOLLOWING GRAPHIC AND LEAVE Option A (WITHOUT PARENTHESIS)
                CENTERED 11/28/00 was placed on the graphic.
                   An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.4 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                FOLLOWING GRAPHIC AND LEAVE Option B (WITHOUT PARENTHESIS)
                CENTERED 11/28/00 was placed on the graphic.
            14.18.5: Resale to Resale with same NSP
                   The following verbiage was modified to read ―This scenario depicts
                telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Switch and NSP-Loop
                (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using in a Resale
                arrangement. The end user is retaining the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is
                ordering Resale from the new NSP Switch and NSP Loop (Verizon).
                Verizon will migrate the end user‘s account from the old LSP (WorldCom)
                to the new LSP (AT&T), retaining the same TNs. The DSP is Verizon.
                   An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.5 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                FOLLOWING GRAPHIC 11/28/00 was placed on the graphic.
         14.18.6: UNE-Loop to Retail using Number Portability
                   An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.6 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                FOLLOWING GRAPHIC 11/28/00 was placed on the graphic.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 70
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

         14.18.7: UNE-P to Retail using Number Portability
                  This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–
                Switch and NSP-Loop (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was
                using in a
                UNE-P arrangement. The telephone numbers are Verizon TNs. The end
                user is retaining the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is a facility based service
                provider (new NSP-Switch and NSP-Loop) and is porting the TNs from the
                old NSP-Switch (Verizon). The old NSP–Switch (Verizon) will port out the
                TNs. The DSP is Verizon.
                  Note 1 was modified to read ―For E911 service, a duplication of
                migrate or unlock entries indicate an either/or option based on
                contracts/negotiations/tariffs.
                  An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.7 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                FOLLOWING GRAPHIC 11/28/00 was placed on the graphic.
            14.18.8: Retail to UNE-Loop and Number Portability
                  This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-
                Switch (WorldCom) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was providing as a
                facility based provider (old NSP–Switch and NSP-Loop). The end user is
                retaining the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is ordering a UNE-Loop from the
                new NSP–Loop (Verizon) and the new NSP-Switch (AT&T) is porting
                numbers from old NSP-Switch (WorldCom).            The old NSP–Switch
                (WorldCom) will port out the TNs. The DSP is Verizon.
                  An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.8 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                FOLLOWING GRAPHIC 11/28/00 was placed on the graphic.
            14.18.9: Retail to UNE-P and Number Portability
              This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-Switch
                (AT&T) TNs that the old LSP (AT&T) was providing as a facility based
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 71
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

                provider (old NSP–Switch and NSP-Loop). The end user is retaining the
                TNs. The new LSP (WorldCom) is ordering a UNE-P from the new NSP–
                Switch and NSP-Loop (Verizon) and porting numbers from the old NSP–
                Switch (AT&T). The DSP is Verizon.
                  Note 2 was modified to read ―For E911 service, a duplication of
                migrate or unlock entries indicate an either/or option based on
                contracts/negotiations/tariffs.
                  An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.9 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                FOLLOWING GRAPHIC AND LEAVE Option A (WITHOUT PARENTHESIS)
                CENTERED 11/28/00) was placed on the graphic.
                  An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.9 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                FOLLOWING GRAPHIC AND LEAVE Option B (WITHOUT PARENTHESIS)
                CENTERED 11/28/00) was placed on the graphic.
            14.18.10: Resale to UNE-Loop with Number Portability
                  This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–
                Switch and NSP-Loop (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was
                using in a Resale arrangement. The end user is retaining the TNs. The
                new LSP (AT&T) is migrating the TNs to the new NSP–Switch (AT&T)
                using a loop from the new NSP–Loop (Verizon). The old NSP (Verizon) will
                port out the TNs. The DSP is Verizon.
                  An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.10 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                FOLLOWING GRAPHIC 11/28/00) was placed on the graphic.
            14.18.11: Resale to UNE-P
                  This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–
                Switch and NSP-Loop (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was
                using in a Resale arrangement. The end user is retaining the TNs. The
                new LSP (AT&T) is ordering UNE-P service from the new NSP–Switch and
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 72
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

                 NSP-Loop (Verizon). Verizon will migrate the end user‘s account. The
                 DSP is Verizon.
                     An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.11 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                 FOLLOWING GRAPHIC 11/28/00) was placed on the graphic.
             14.18.12: Resale to UNE-P with a New NSP
                     This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–
                 Switch and NSP-Loop (Time Warner) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom)
                 was using on a Resale arrangement. The end user wishes to retain the
                 TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is ordering UNE-P service from the new NSP–
                 Switch and NSP-Loop (SBC) and retaining the old NSP-Switch (Time
                 Warner) TNs. The TNs need to be ported from the old NSP (Time Warner)
                 to the new NSP (SBC). The DSP is SBC.
                     Note 2: For E911 service, a duplication of migrate or unlock entries
                 indicate an either/or option based on contracts/negotiations/tariffs.
               An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.12 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                 FOLLOWING GRAPHIC AND LEAVE Option A (WITHOUT PARENTHESIS)
                 CENTERED 11/28/00) was placed on the graphic.
               An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.12 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                 FOLLOWING GRAPHIC AND LEAVE Option B (WITHOUT PARENTHESIS)
                 CENTERED 11/28/00) was placed on the graphic.
             14.18.13: Resale to Retail using Number Portability
             This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Switch and
              NSP-Loop (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using on a Resale
              arrangement. The end user is retaining the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is a
              facility based service provider (new NSP–Switch and NSP-Loop) and is
              porting the TNs from the old NSP-Switch (Verizon). The old NSP–Switch
              (Verizon) will port out the TNs. The DSP is Verizon.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 73
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

            An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.13 HEADER INFO FROM THE FOLLOWING
             GRAPHIC 11/28/00) was placed on the graphic.
         14.18.14: UNE-Loop to UNE-P
           This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-Switch
             (WorldCom) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using as a UNE-Loop
             arrangement from the old NSP-Loop (Verizon). The end user wishes to
             retain the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is ordering UNE-P from the new NSP–
             Switch and NSP-Loop (Verizon), retaining the old LSP (WorldCom) TNs. The
             TNs are to be ported from the old NSP (WorldCom) to the new NSP (Verizon).
             WorldCom will be disconnecting the end user‘s service. The DSP is Verizon.
           Note 2: For E911 service, a duplication of migrate or unlock entries indicate
             an either/or option based on contracts/negotiations/tariffs.
           An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.14 HEADER INFO FROM THE FOLLOWING
             GRAPHIC AND LEAVE Option A (WITHOUT PARENTHESIS) CENTERED
             11/28/00) was placed on the graphic.
           An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.14 HEADER INFO FROM THE FOLLOWING
             GRAPHIC AND LEAVE Option B (WITHOUT PARENTHESIS) CENTERED
             11/28/00) was placed on the graphic.
         14.18.15: Directory Account Migration was modified to be consistent
          throughout the contribution.
           Clarification was requested for ―indirect Loss Notification‖ referenced in the
             following verbiage ―When the old NSP-Switch receives an order porting out
             TNs, it serves as an ‗indirect Loss Notification‘. The old NSP-Switch
             disconnects the ported out TNs via a stand-alone directory order to the DSP.
             The old NSP-Switch is still responsible for the remaining TNs that were not
             ported.‖ It was stated that ported numbers are an indirect Loss Notification.
           The following Options were added to this section:
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 74
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

                         Option A – Partial Account Migration
                         Option B – Full Account Migration
                   An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.15 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                 FOLLOWING GRAPHIC. REMOVE THE SECOND DIAGRAM. CENTER
                 PARTIAL ACCOUNT MIGRATION AND ADD OPTION A BENEATH IT
                 11/28/00) was added to the graphic.
                   An Admin Note: REMOVE 14.18.15 HEADER INFO FROM THE
                 FOLLOWING GRAPHIC. REMOVE THE FIRST DIAGRAM. CENTER
                 PARTIAL ACCOUNT MIGRATION AND ADD OPTION A BENEATH IT
                 11/28/00) was placed on the graphic.
                   The Glossary of Terms verbiage following the graphics was deleted
                 because information is already contained within the 1.4 DEFINITION
                 section.
            File 1792a11.doc information will be not included in the LSOG document.
            File 1792a14v2.ppt will become historical data only. This information is
          housed in file 1792a10v5.doc.
            File 1792a15.ppt (Industry Forum Overview: Ordering & Billing Forum
          (OBF) CLEC to CLEC Migration Overview of Key Concepts) is archived
          information.
            File 1792a17v1.doc was renamed to 1792a17v2.doc because the
          appropriate practice number was placed on the contribution.
            File 1792a18v1.doc was renamed to 1792a18v2.doc because the
          appropriate practice number was placed on the contribution.
            File 1792a20v1.doc was renamed to 1792a20v2.doc because the text box on
          the LSR Requests forms (numbered and camera ready) was modified to read
          ―MI Field (one byte) will become number 24A; following the ACT field.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 75
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

           The 1792soc.xls file was modified to become consistent with the appropriate
         contributions.
AGREEMENT REACHED: THIS ISSUE WAS REFERRED BACK TO THE O&P
COMMITTEE WITH THE REFERRAL FORM STATING ―File 1792a12.doc, TOR
cannot tell if this file is to be incorporated into the LSOG document. If so, which
practice or should it be removed from Issue. If incorporated with 1792, SOC needs
to be updated.       Files 1792a19v2.doc and 1792a13v2.doc, is SVCCFG being
restricted to INP and not allow for long term portability. (Valid entries B & C). If
not restricting to INP only, TOR feels there should be 2 additional entries for INP
and retain B&C for long term portability. Ensure SOC is updated to reflect any
changes. Check file 1792a10v5, paragraph 14.18 under General Assumptions #3.
Does not agree with 1792a13v2.doc and 1792a19v2. File 1792a10v5.doc should
14.8 and 14.9 (Option A and B) show old NSP Loop in diagram?


01/26/01 – OBF #73 – NEW ORLEANS, LA

1792 TOR INTERIM MEETING READOUT:
 This discussion is covered in the notes for the issue, located under the initial closure
  heading.

DISCUSSION OF ISSUE:
OBF #73 – LSOP COMMITTEE NOTES:
 Ms. Ellie Pribula, AT&T, recapped this Issue for Issue Champion, Mr. Alan Flanigan,
  Time Warner.
 Ms. Pribula stated that during TOR‘s November Interim meeting, some file
  maintenance issues were discovered. Proposed changes are indicated on several
  attachments in this Issue, which now needs to be reviewed.
 The LSOP Committee Co-Leaders and the DSC Committee Co-Leaders agreed to have
  the two committees meet jointly to complete the discussion of this Issue.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                     1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 76
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

 This Issue had been referred from TOR to the new LSOP Committee with the following
  statement, ―File 1792a12.doc, TOR cannot tell if this file is to be incorporated into the
  LSOG document. If so, which practice or should it be removed from Issue. If
  incorporated with 1792, SOC needs to be updated. Files 1792a19v2.doc and
  1792a13v2.doc, SVCCFG being restricted to INP and not allow for long term
  portability. (Valid entries B & C). If not restricting to INP only, TOR feels there
  should be 2 additional entries for INP and retains the B&C entries for long term
  portability. Ensure SOC is updated to reflect any changes. Check file 1792a10v5,
  paragraph 14.18 under General Assumptions #3.                   Does not agree with
  1792a13v2.doc and 1792a19v2. File 1792a10v5.doc should 14.8 and 14.9 (Option A
  and B) show old NSP Loop in diagram?‖
   LSOP‘s response to the above referral is, ―The file 1792a12.doc was removed from
      the Issue. LNP would not affect the order process and does not need a unique
      SVCCFG valid value.‖
 The following files were archived: 1792a2.doc, 1792a7.doc, 1792a8.doc, 1792a9.doc,
  1792a11v1.doc, 1792a12.doc, 1792a14v3.ppt and 1792a15v1.ppt. These files now
  reside in 1792a6_archived.zip as historical information for this Issue.
 Ms. Pribula pointed out that Option B should be removed from the Flows since it is
  not expected for Issue 2189 (LSOG - Refine Migration Process Flows in a Number
  Portability and Multi-NSP Environment) to go into LSOGv6 due to the outcome of the
  January Task Force Meeting. All references and process flows containing Option B
  were removed from the Issue.
 In file 1792a13v2, Service Configuration facilitates Service Migration. There is no
  difference in the ordering process, whether previous ported number or resident
  number.


57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                      1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                  Resolved


Part B, Page 77
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

   In the SVCCFG field, you need to use two different ordering processes and valid
      entries ‗B‘ and ‗C‘ allows for this. This lead to the rationale for constructing Inter
      Number Portability (INP).
   It was also noted that LNP would not affect the order process and does not need a
      unique SVCCFG value.
 File 1792a10v6.doc:
   The LSOP Committee agreed with minor modification made to the definition of
      DSP by the TOR Committee.
   Mr. Flanigan stated that he disagrees with the removal of the word ―disposition‖
      from the definition of full migration. Mr. Flanigan further stated that disposition
      means that the new LSP is trying to decide what to do with the account with all
      parts of the service. By removing disposition from the definition of full migration,
      the intent of the definition changes. Ms. Pribula stated that she agrees with Mr.
      Flanigan. However, Ms. Monet Topps, SBC, stated her concern that people do not
      understand the meaning of disposition. The definition was modified to read,
      ―Occurs when the new LSP provides disposition for all services/lines on an
      existing end user account where no services/lines remain on the end user account
      with the old LSP. In this case, the old LSP will no longer produce a bill to the end
      user.‖
   Disposition was added back into the definition of partial migration also. The
      definition now reads, ―Partial migration occurs when the new LSP provides the
      disposition for a portion of the services or lines on an existing end user account.
      One or more services or lines will remain with the old LSP on the existing end user
      account.     The old LSP is responsible for the disposition of the remaining
      services/lines. Partial migrations may not apply to complex services such as
      CENTREX, ISDN services, PBX and DID.‖

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                            OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                            Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                            Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                            Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                            Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                            Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 78
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

    Ms. Cora Jackson, SBC, noted that the Glossary of Terms should be removed from
     this Issue since Issue 2096 does away with it. Agreement was reached to remove
     the Glossary of Terms from this Issue.
    The table of contents for the Process Flows were updated to reflect the correct
     titles for each flow, as follows:

       MIGRATION PROCESS FLOWS                                     14.18

              UNE-P TO UNE-LOOP WITH NUMBER                       14.18.1
              PORTABILITY

              UNE-LOOP TO NUMBER PORTABILITY                      14.18.2
              AND UNE-LOOP

              UNE-LOOP TO RESALE AND NUMBER                       14.18.3
              PORTABILITY

              RESALE TO RESALE WITH NEW NSP                       14.18.4

              RESALE TO RESALE WITH SAME NSP                      14.18.5

              UNE-LOOP TO RETAIL WITH NUMBER                      14.18.6
              PORTABILITY

              UNE-P TO RETAIL              WITH   NUMBER          14.18.7
              PORTABILITY

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                      1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                  Resolved


Part B, Page 79
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

              RETAIL TO UNE-LOOP AND NUMBER                        14.18.8
              PORTABILITY

              RETAIL TO         UNE-P      AND    NUMBER           14.18.9
              PORTABILITY
                                                                  14.18.10
              RESALE TO UNE-LOOP WITH NUMBER
              PORTABILITY
                                                                  14.18.11
              RESALE TO UNE-P
                                                                  14.18.12
              RESALE TO UNE-P WITH A NEW NSP
                                                                  14.18.13
              RESALE TO RETAIL             WITH   NUMBER
              PORTABILITY
                                                                  14.18.14
              UNE-LOOP TO UNE-P
                                                                  14.18.15
              DIRECTORY
              SUB-FLOW

      The DSC Committee did not agree with the name ―Directory Account Migration‖
      for the process flow 14.18.15. Ms. Jackson noted that this flow is the exception to
      the way that the other flows are done, therefore, since it is an additional flow, does
      it need to be noted in the title? It was decided to change the name to ―Directory
      Sub-Flow‖.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted      10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted       11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure     10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure       05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 80
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

    #2 under General Assumptions was modified to state, ―Only data elements
     considered trigger points (e.g. REQTYP, etc.) for action are reflected in the
     scenarios. When included, TNs reflect the line level.‖
    #5 under General Assumptions was modified to state, ―The NSP-Loop will not
     reassign the loop to a new LSP unless a disconnect LSR for the UNE-Loop is
     received from the old LSP.‖
    Bullet #2 under Directory Assumptions #7 was updated to read, ―When the old
     LSP has a Resale service configuration, the old NSP-Switch may issue an order to
     address listing treatment as defined in the Directory Sub-flow.‖
    The table following the Directory Assumptions was updated as follows:

                        End State
        Section       Configuration
           #       Old LSP New LSP          LNP     Notes
        14.18.1    UNE-P    UNE-            Yes
                            Loop
        14.18.2    UNE-     UNE-            Yes
                   Loop     Loop
        14.18.3    UNE-     Resale          Yes
                   Loop
        14.18.4    Resale   Resale          Yes     Different Old & New NSPs
        14.18.5    Resale   Resale          No      Same NSPs
        14.18.6    UNE-     Retail          Yes
                   Loop
        14.18.7    UNE-P    Retail          Yes
        14.18.8    Retail   UNE-            Yes
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted      10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted       11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure     10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure       05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                 Resolved


Part B, Page 81
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

                               Loop
        14.18.9    Retail      UNE-P        Yes
       14.18.10    Resale      UNE-         Yes
                               Loop
       14.18.11    Resale      UNE-P        No      Same NSPs
       14.18.12    Resale      UNE-P        Yes     Different Old & New NSPs

       14.18.13    Resale      Retail       Yes
       14.18.14    UNE-        UNE-P        Yes
                   Loop

       14.18.15    Directory Sub-flow

     The Notes following the above table were removed.
    It was decided that the administrative notes to remove the header information
     from the graphic was not needed since it has been customary to have the headers
     included within the graphics.

    14.18.2 – Since this scenario depicts two separate orders being issued to a
     provider it was decided to update the title for this scenario to, ―UNE-Loop to
     Number Portability and UNE-Loop‖.

    14.18.3 was updated as follows:

       UNE-Loop to Resale and Number Portability

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 82
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

       This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-Switch
       (WorldCom) TNs that old LSP (WorldCom) was using as a UNE-Loop arrangement
       from the old NSP-Loop (Verizon). The end user wishes to retain the TNs. The new
       LSP (AT&T) is ordering Resale from the new NSP-Loop and Switch (Verizon). The
       TNs need to be ported from the old NSP (WorldCom) to the new NSP (Verizon).
       WorldCom will port out the TNs. The DSP is Verizon.

       Old LSP: WorldCom using UNE-Loop from Verizon and WorldCom TNs

       New LSP: AT&T using Resale from Verizon, TNs will be ported from WorldCom

       Note 1: The NSP-Loop will not reassign the loop to the new LSP, nor will the DSP
       rearrange the listings, unless a disconnect LSR for the UNE-Loop and the
       directory listings is received from the old LSP.

    14.18.4 was updated as follows:

       Resale to Resale with New NSP

       This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Loop and Switch
       (Time Warner) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using in a Resale
       arrangement. The end user wishes to retain the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is
       ordering Resale from the new NSP-Loop and Switch (SBC). The TNs need to be
       ported out from the old NSP (Time Warner) and the new NSP (SBC) will port in the
       TNs. The DSP is SBC.

       Old LSP: WorldCom using Resale from Time Warner
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 83
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration


       New LSP: AT&T using Resale from SBC, TNs will be ported from Time Warner

    14.18.5 was updated as follows:

      Resale to Resale with same NSP

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP– Loop and Switch
      (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using in a Resale arrangement.
      The end user is retaining the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is ordering Resale from
      the new NSP Loop and Switch (Verizon). Verizon will migrate the end user‘s
      account from the old LSP (WorldCom) to the new LSP (AT&T), retaining the same
      TNs. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using Resale from Verizon

      New LSP: AT&T using Resale from Verizon, end user keeps TNs (no porting
      required).

      Note 1: As long as there is no change to the end user‘s service address, there is no
      need to update the E911 database.

                   Regarding when a company is the NSP-Loop or the NSP-Switch, it was
                 noted that this information is available in the Definitions section.

    14.18.6 – the title for this scenario was updated to read, ―UNE-Loop to Retail with
     Number Portability‖.
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 84
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration


    14.18.7 was updated as follows:

      UNE-P to Retail with Number Portability

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Loop and Switch
      (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using in a UNE-P arrangement.
      The telephone numbers are Verizon TNs. The end user is retaining the TNs. The
      new LSP (AT&T) is a facility based service provider (new NSP-Loop and Switch) and
      is porting the TNs from the old NSP-Switch (Verizon). The old NSP–Switch
      (Verizon) will port out the TNs. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using UNE-P from Verizon

      New LSP: AT&T using AT&T owned facilities and porting TNs

      Note 1: For E911 service, a duplication of migrate or unlock entries indicate an
      either/or option based on contracts/negotiations/tariffs.

    14.18.8 – the scenario description was updated to read, ―This scenario depicts
     telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-Switch (WorldCom) TNs that the old
     LSP (WorldCom) was providing as a facility based provider (old NSP–Loop and
     Switch). The end user is retaining the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is ordering a
     UNE-Loop from the new NSP–Loop (Verizon) and the new NSP-Switch (AT&T) is
     porting numbers from old NSP-Switch (WorldCom).          The old NSP–Switch
     (WorldCom) will port out the TNs. The DSP is Verizon.‖

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 85
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

    14.18.9 was updated as follows:

      Retail to UNE-P and Number Portability

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-Switch (AT&T)
      TNs that the old LSP (AT&T) was providing as a facility based provider (old NSP–
      Loop and Switch). The end user is retaining the TNs. The new LSP (WorldCom) is
      ordering a UNE-P from the new NSP–Loop and Switch (Verizon) and porting
      numbers from the old NSP–Switch (AT&T). The DSP is Verizon

      Old LSP: AT&T using AT&T owned facilities, AT&T TNs

      New LSP: WorldCom using UNE-P from Verizon & porting TNs

      Note 1: For E911 service, a duplication of migrate or unlock entries indicate an
      either/or option based on contracts/negotiations/tariffs.

    14.18.10 – the scenario description was updated to read, ―This scenario depicts
     telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Loop and Switch (Verizon) TNs that the
     old LSP (WorldCom) was using in a Resale arrangement. The end user is retaining
     the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is migrating the TNs to the new NSP–Switch (AT&T)
     using a loop from the new NSP–Loop (Verizon). The old NSP (Verizon) will port out
     the TNs. The DSP is Verizon.‖

    14.18.11 – the scenario description was updated to read, ―This scenario depicts
     telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Loop and Switch (Verizon) TNs that the
     old LSP (WorldCom) was using in a Resale arrangement. The end user is retaining
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 86
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is ordering UNE-P service from the new NSP–Loop
      and Switch (Verizon). Verizon will migrate the end user‘s account. The DSP is
      Verizon.‖

    14.18.12 was updated as follows:

      Resale to UNE-P with a New NSP

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Loop and Switch
      (Time Warner) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using on a Resale
      arrangement. The end user wishes to retain the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is
      ordering UNE-P service from the new NSP–Loop and Switch (SBC)and retaining
      the old NSP-Switch (Time Warner) TNs. The TNs need to be ported from the old
      NSP (Time Warner) to the new NSP (SBC). The DSP is SBC.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using Resale from Time Warner

      New LSP: AT&T using UNE-P from SBC and porting TNs

      Note 1: For E911 service, a duplication of migrate or unlock entries indicate an
      either/or option based on contracts/negotiations/tariffs.

    14.18.13 was updated as follows:

      Resale to Retail with Number Portability



57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 87
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP–Loop and Switch
      (Verizon) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using on a Resale arrangement.
      The end user is retaining the TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is a facility based service
      provider (new NSP–Loop and Switch) and is porting the TNs from the old NSP-
      Switch (Verizon). The old NSP–Switch (Verizon) will port out the TNs. The DSP is
      Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using Resale from Verizon

      New LSP: AT&T using AT&T owned facilities and porting TNs

    14.18.14 was updated as follows:

      UNE-Loop to UNE-P

      This scenario depicts telephone numbers (TNs) that are old NSP-Switch
      (WorldCom) TNs that the old LSP (WorldCom) was using as a UNE-Loop
      arrangement from the old NSP-Loop (Verizon). The end user wishes to retain the
      TNs. The new LSP (AT&T) is ordering UNE-P from the new NSP–Loop and Switch
      (Verizon), retaining the old LSP (WorldCom) TNs. The TNs are to be ported from
      the old NSP (WorldCom) to the new NSP (Verizon).           WorldCom will be
      disconnecting the end user‘s service. The DSP is Verizon.

      Old LSP: WorldCom using UNE-Loop from Verizon and WorldCom TNs

      New LSP: AT&T using UNE-P from Verizon and porting in TNs

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                    1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 88
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

      Note 1: For E911 service, a duplication of migrate or unlock entries indicate an
      either/or option based on contracts/negotiations/tariffs.

      Note 2: The NSP-Loop will not reassign the loop to the new LSP, nor will the DSP
      rearrange the listings, unless a disconnect LSR for the UNE-Loop and the
      directory listings is received from the old LSP.

    14.18.15 was updated as follows:

      14.18.15: Directory Sub-flow

      Action that MAY be taken by Old NSP-Switch

      When the old NSP-Switch receives an order porting out TNs, it serves as an
      ‗indirect Loss Notification‘. The old NSP-Switch disconnects the ported out TNs via
      a stand-alone directory order to the DSP. The old NSP-Switch is still responsible
      for the remaining TNs that were not ported.

           Option A – Partial Account Migration
         Option B – Full Account Migration

 The following updates were done off line, with consensus of the LSOP Committee, by
  Ms. Pribula, Ms. Elizabeth Froshe, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, LSOP SME, and Ms.
  Marina T. Souza, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, LSOP Administrator:
   ITA Updates
   Remove notes referring to Options A & B
   Remove Option B scenarios from Issue
57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 89
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration

     Remove the phrase ―Option A‖ from scenarios
     Change italics/bold in diagrams to regular print
     Remove the first heading above each diagram
     Make certain that ―NSP-Loop and Switch‖ is reflected in descriptions and
      diagrams
    Change ―Directory Account Migration‖ to ― Directory Sub-Flow‖ (verify all are done)
    Make certain all ―extra‖ periods have been removed
    Make certain all glossary and forms are included in this Issue
    Make certain field numbers and numbers on forms match
    Table of contents match scenario titles
 After completing the review of this Issue, the LSOP and DSC Committees agreed to
   hold this Issue in Initial Closure.
 The Resolution Statement states, ―Developed the Migration Process Flows to clarify
   the provider interactions necessary to migrate TNs between providers. These flows
   address specific migration scenarios using different service configurations. Provided
   the definitions for full and partial migrations. Additional changes are identified in
   1792soc.xls.‖
Following the discussion, consensus was reached to hold this issue in initial
closure status. There were no objections.

OBF #73 – DSC COMMITTEE NOTES:
In preparation for a joint meeting between DSC and LSOP, on Wednesday morning,
January 24, 2001, Mr. Fitzsimmons reminded DSC participants that Issue 1792 had
been held in Initial Closure because of proposed revisions made by the TOR Committee
at OBF #72. Mr. Fitzsimmons displayed overheads of the proposed revisions that
impacted directory with participants so that DSC could come to a consensus position on
these changes prior to the joint meeting.

57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Ordering and Billing Forum
Issue Identification Form
                                           OBF Issue Number                   1792

                                           Date Submitted     10/12/98

                                           Date Accepted      11/06/98 at OBF #64

                                           Initial Closure    10/06/00 at OBF IM

                                           Final Closure      05/11/01 at OBF #74

                                           Issue Category                Resolved


Part B, Page 90
(Committee Use Only)

Issue Title: LSOG—ATN Replacement for Partial Migration


DSC met jointly with the LSOP Committee as an associated committee for Issue 1792 on
Wednesday, January 24, 2001, at 10:00 AM. In that joint meeting, DSC reviewed the
post-Initial-Closure revisions made to this issue by the TOR Committee and accepted or
rejected those directory-impacting revisions, as needed.

AGREEMENT: The LSOP Committee returned this issue to Initial Closure status after
this joint meeting, with DSC concurrence.


05/11/01 – OBF #74 – NORFOLK, VA

 Ms. Ellie Pribula, AT&T, recapped this Issue for Issue Champion, Mr. Alan Flanigan,
   Time Warner.
 The Resolution Statement states, ―Developed the Migration Process Flows to clarify
   the provider interactions necessary to migrate TNs between providers. These flows
   address specific migration scenarios using different service configurations. Provided
   the definitions for full and partial migrations. Additional changes are identified in
   1792soc.xls.‖
Following the discussion, consensus was reached to move this Issue to Final
Closure Status. There were no objections.




57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc
Option 1—on LSR page

ATNREP ñ ATN Replacement Indicator

Provides directions for the ATN when a partial migration affects the end user‘s current
ATN
and indicates that OSP should determine the new ATN and listing impact for the
remaining service


VALID ENTRIES:
     Y or N

USAGE:       This field is required when the DISC# or PORTED# are equal to the ATN.

 N       C    D     M     T     R     V    W      S     B     L      Y       H
 C       C    C     C     C     C     C    C      C     C     C      C       C

DATA CHARACTERISTICS:         1 alpha character

EXAMPLE:

     Y

     N




57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc                          11/06/98       91
Option 2—
on LSR page

NEWATN ñ New Account Telephone Number

Supplies a new ATN whenever a partial migration affects the current ATN

      NOTE 1: This field can only be used when the DISC# or PORTED# are equal to
the ATN

USAGE:       This field is optional.

 N       C       D       M       T        R        V       W   S   B    L      Y       H
 O       O       O       O       O        O        O       O   O   O    O      O       O


DATA CHARACTERISTICS:                    12 numeric characters
                                         (including 2 preprinted hyphens)

EXAMPLE:

     2   0   1   -   5       5   5   -     1   2       1   2

On DSR page

MLIND ñ Main Listing Indicator

Provides directions for the main listing on the remaining service when a partial
migration affects the end user‘s current ATN
and indicates that OSP/Directory Publisher should either list the ATN or leave it non-
published.

VALID ENTRIES:
     Y or N

USAGE:       This field is required when the NEWATN field is populated.

 N       C       D       M       T        R        V       W   S   B    L      Y       H
 C       C       C       C       C        C        C       C   C   C    C      C       C

DATA CHARACTERISTICS:                    1 alpha character

EXAMPLE:

     Y




57e2a49e-adbd-4803-9205-0c5a71b24052.doc                                    11/06/98       92