OBJECTIVE • To review multi-service provider migration scenarios and to ensure the LSOG accommodates the successful execution of each scenario. Specifically, the Workshop will assess the adequacy of the current activity types, the existing product/service definitions, the LATI practice, and the LSP authorization process. Gaps will be identified, and a path forward to close those gaps will be developed.
ATTENDEES • Ellie Pribula - AT&T • Sherry Porter - BellSouth • Michelle Gee, Cox • Sarah Blanks - MetaSolv • Carol Zimmerman - Qwest • Cora Jackson, Monet Topps - SBC • Julie Jackson, Steve Moore, Mike Usry - Sprint • Cynthia Jackson - Telcordia • Chris Cole, Mary Fay, Becky Doerfler, Mark Collins, Jim Mahler - Verizon
DISCUSSION ITEMS • Reviewed NY PSC CLEC-to-CLEC migration guidelines • Reviewed Issues 2296 and 2297 • Discussed the differences between “migrations” and “conversions” and the application of the existing ACT types • Discussed the differences between “services” and “products” • Distributed the TX PUC CLEC-to-CLEC migration guidelines (dated 1999 and currently under review)
GAPS IDENTIFIED • Inconsistent use of the terms “migration” and “conversion” throughout the LSOG, particularly in the ACT and LNA fields • Unclear process for “conversion” (same-LSP) activity • Undocumented process when the intent is to re-use facilities in a CLEC-to-CLEC loop/loop with number portability migration scenarios (LSP Authorization for the reuse of the loop)
GAPS IDENTIFIED - CONT • Incorrect/incomplete process flows in the 070 Practice • Inconsistent use of the various ACT/LNA values across the industry • Enhancements needed to the CSI (122), LATI (124), POP (120) and PN (121) practices to accommodate changes in the telecommunications environment
PATH FORWARD • Request an official task force to continue the discussion of and development of resolutions to identified gaps in the LSR process in order to be included in LSOG 7 • New issue(s) will be introduced to: • Standardize the use of the term “migration” throughout the LSOG to indicate LSP-to-LSP activity; remove references to “conversion” where they do not now fit based on our agreement on the use of “migration.” (High priority) • Define “conversion” as same-LSP activity and introduce a new ACT/LNA value to indicate conversion activity. (High priority)
PATH FORWARD - CONT • Review the ACT and LNA fields to provide the OBF intent for the use of each valid entry (High priority) • Validate the existing process flows and add new scenarios to accommodate multi-service provider activity (Low priority) • Review/revise the CSI, LATI, POP and PN practices (Medium priority) • Reuse of facilities will be addressed in OBF Issue 2296