ARCHIVED - Transcript / Transcription - Gatineau, Quebec - 2002-09-13
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Providing Content in Canada's Official Languages
Please note that the Official Languages Act requires that government publications be available in both official languages.
In order to meet some of the requirements under this Act, the Commission's transcripts will therefore be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of CRTC members and staff attending the hearings, and the table of contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the hearing.
TRANSCRIPT OF MEETINGS
FOR THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
TRANSCRIPTION DES RÉUNIONS DU
CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES
SUBJECT/SUJET:
CRTC INTERCONNECTION STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING/
COMITÉ DIRECTEUR DU CRTC SUR L'INTERCONNEXION
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Pontiac Room Salle Pontiac
Conference Centre Centre des Conférences
140 Promenade du Portage 140, promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec Hull (Québec)
September 13, 2002 13 septembre 2002
Transcripts In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of Contents. However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the public hearing. Transcription Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues officielles, les procès-verbaux pour le Conseil seront bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience publique ainsi que la table des matières. Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le participant à l'audience publique.
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
télécommunications canadiennes
Transcript / Transcription
CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee Meeting/
Comité directeur du CRTC sur l'interconnexion
PARTICIPANTS/PARTICIPANTS:
David Colville Chairperson
Shirley Soehn/ CRTC Staff
Paul Godin
Chaouki Dakdouki
Allan Rosenzveig
Claude Brault
Gino Grondin
Lori Pope
Gerald Bergin
Brenda Stevens
Brenda Jolicoeur
Joanne Paré
Lorne Abugov/ Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt
Kirsten Embree
Glenn Pilley/ CNA
Fiona Clegg
Bob Noakes Group Telecom
Ted Woodhead Rogers Wireless
Marcel Boucher Union des consomateurs
Philippa Lawson PIAC
Don Bowles/ Call-Net
Peter Lang
Alexander Adeyinka
Terry Connolly TELUS
Dennis Beland/ Microcell
Simon-Pierre Olivier
PARTICIPANTS/PARTICIPANTS: Karen O'Brien/ Bell Canada Richard Tropea Doug Kwong Chris Sprague/ Aliant Bruce Heggie Bob Gowenlock/ MTS Cliff MacLeod Brian Armstrong/ Sasktel Donna Lang Dave Farnes/ CWTA Keith McIntosh Mike Coltart/ Cogeco Cable Denis Chartier Suzanne Blackwell/ CCTA Michèle Beck Teresa Muir/ AT&T Canada Chris Schmitt Keith Stevens Execulink Michel Messier/ Vidéotron Louis Lamarre Patt Labatiuk Paula Kerr Doug Birdwise Mike Cawood HELD AT: TENUE À: Pontiac Room Salle Pontiac Conference Centre Centre des Conférences 140 Promenade du Portage 140, promenade du Portage Gatineau, Quebec Hull (Québec) September 13, 2002 13 septembre 2002
1
1 Gatineau, Quebec 2 --- La réunion débute le vendredi 13 septembre 2002 3 à 0930 / Upon commencing on Friday, September 13, 4 2002, at 0930 5 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. I 6 want to thank you all for coming to this CRTC 7 Interconnection steering committee meeting. For those 8 of you who may not know, my name is Dave Colville, 9 Vice-Chair of Telecommunications of the CRTC. I will 10 be chairing today's round table discussion. To my left 11 is our Telecom Executive Director, Shirley Soehn. To 12 her left is our general counsel, Telecom, Allan 13 Rosenzveig. To my right is Paul Godin, Director, 14 Competition and Technology. To his right is Chaouki 15 Dakdouki, Manager, Competition and the present Chair of 16 CISC. To his right is Claude Brault, CISC coordinator. 17 We have more CRTC staff behind me. 18 2 Translation is available today. So, 19 feel free to make your presentations or comments in the 20 language of your choice, provided that is French or 21 English. You are not allowed to swear at me. 22 3 In spite of our attempts to try and 23 make these things informal, there will be a transcript 24 of today's meeting so that if we have forgotten 25 anything, we can look it up and refer to it as we move
2
1 along and hopefully implement some changes in CISC to 2 improve it. If anyone wants copies of the transcript, 3 you may make arrangements with the transcription folks. 4 4 Again, as usual, at these sorts of 5 things, I just encourage you to use the microphone when 6 you are speaking. 7 5 Looking back over the six years of 8 the existence of CISC, it is clear that the 9 Interconnection steering committee has made a 10 tremendous contribution to the development of 11 competition in Canada, notwithstanding the fact that we 12 all recognize that there are a number of difficulties 13 facing us in successfully implementing all of the 14 aspects of competition that we might like to. For the 15 successes that we have had through CISC, we have to 16 thank all of those present at this meeting and other 17 experts from industry/consumer groups, consultants, 18 CRTC staff and others who have participated over the 19 past number of years in these meetings and various 20 working groups and task forces to resolve and deal with 21 the issues that have been facing us. 22 6 The committee is truly a cooperative 23 effort on the part of all stakeholders in the 24 telecommunications industry endeavouring to find 25 solutions to these problems. I must say I am impressed
3
1 by the amount of work that the various groups have 2 accomplished since 1996. 3 7 That being said, as I have suggested, 4 a difficult road lies ahead. The work must go on. I 5 don't know whether some people thought, when we had 6 created this, that we would resolve all these issues 7 and CISC would just sort of fade away, but I think we 8 all recognize now that there will be issues that will 9 require CISC to continue working. The focus of the 10 work will change over time. CISC may contract or 11 expand, as the case may be, but the work is going to 12 continue on. 13 8 For this to occur, CISC needs the 14 participation from all stakeholders. We need to find 15 ways to keep parties involved and active in the CISC 16 process. This is the forum where industry players are 17 allowed a hands-on role in developing regulations to 18 ensure a healthy telecommunications market in Canada. 19 9 On several occasions parties 20 expressed some concerns regarding the CISC process. 21 Today we are here to discuss those concerns and, most 22 importantly, listen to your proposed solutions. 23 10 Our real intent today is, after six 24 years to sort of step back, take a look at the whole 25 process, what works, what doesn't work, and, most
4
1 importantly, we want to try and keep us focused today 2 and focused on solutions and how we can make this 3 process work better. I don't think it will be 4 particularly productive if we spend a lot of time just 5 focusing on the problem but try to focus on how we can 6 recognize what the problems are and how we can improve 7 the operation at CISC. 8 11 With that, I don't want to spend a 9 lot of time on introductions. I want to move on and 10 deal with the issues. 11 12 We have had submissions from a number 12 of the parties which have identified a number of the 13 issues and proposed some solutions. Chaouki and others 14 have proposed an agenda for today, which captures a 15 number of the issues that have been raised, 16 specifically by those who filed submissions on this, 17 perhaps characterizes them in a little bit different 18 way and perhaps a few different headings, and suggested 19 an order to go through that. 20 13 But if folks think that priority 21 should be changed a bit, we can quickly review the 22 agenda and move on from there. I must say I have read 23 all of the submissions, and my sense was a little bit 24 different. We had a discussion about that internally, 25 but Chaouki and Claude and others here are a lot closer
5
1 to the day-to-day workings of CISC than I am. I 2 certainly take their judgment as to what the issues are 3 here. 4 14 Also, we have had a number of work 5 group reports that have been filed and posted on the 6 website. So, one of the things Chaouki has suggested 7 is whether there are any questions with regard to any 8 of those reports. If not, we are going to move right 9 to the discussion of the issues ahead of us. 10 15 Before we do that, I should say, our 11 work plan for today will be to focus on these issues. 12 We will provide a lunch, but I thought we would just 13 take a short break and grab a bite to eat and we can 14 come back to the table and make it a bit of a working 15 lunch. We will see if we can finish at a decent hour, 16 perhaps mid-afternoon this afternoon, because some of 17 you, including myself, have flights to catch. We will 18 try and make the best use of our time today. 19 16 Are there any questions on those 20 reports? 21 17 MR. CONNOLLY: David, Terry Connolly 22 from Telus. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Terry. 24 18 MR. CONNOLLY: Chaouki, with respect 25 to the format for reporting, I just notice that there
6
1 wasn't a common format on all the reports. I am sure 2 it will come up today. One of the things we want to do 3 is keep a common format for reporting because of the 4 prioritization. 5 19 MR. DAKDOUKI: Actually, we have a 6 common format for groups reports, but for specific 7 meetings, we wanted to give the chairs more liberty on 8 how to express themselves. So, we do have a common 9 format for CISC groups reports. 10 20 Does that answer your question? 11 21 MR. CONNOLLY: I guess we will get 12 into it a little later on, because the whole issue of 13 prioritization and what tasks are underway versus 14 completed. I looked at the reports. As David had 15 indicated, there has been a tremendous job done not 16 only over the last 12 months but over the last course 17 of three or four or five years. 18 22 I look at the number of activities 19 that are still underway. Your are averaging about 20 eight activities underway in each of those sub-working 21 groups. I know we are going to focus on those. The 22 question is: What are the priorities of those 23 activities associated not only within the working group 24 but across the working group. That was my point for 25 sort raising a common format. Then you get a feel for
7
1 that 2 23 MR. DAKDOUKI: As you can see from 3 the agenda, it is one of item of the agenda. So we 4 will discuss it then. 5 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks Terry. Any 6 comments on the capsulizing, if you will, of the issues 7 of the order of the agenda? Does anybody have any 8 problems with it as it was proposed? 9 25 If not, then perhaps we will go down 10 through in the order that was suggested. The first 11 one, I don't know whether this is the highest priority, 12 but I would certainly sense that, given the 13 difficulties that all the parties are facing in the 14 industry these days, the relative downturn in the 15 economy, in the telecommunications industry in 16 particular, one of the big issues for all the companies 17 is resources and, consequently, the ability of 18 companies to participate in the CISC process. 19 26 That raises, then, the issues to what 20 extent our resource and time constraints hamper the 21 ability of parties to participate in CISC and how is 22 this affecting the work of CISC and what possible 23 solutions could we have to deal with some of those 24 issues and the ability of a number of parties, perhaps 25 more the new entrants, some of the players I suppose
8
1 like Pippa, the consumer groups and so on, to be able 2 to participate in the work of CISC. 3 27 That has been captured under a) in 4 the agenda here. Chaouki, do you have any comments you 5 want to make before we open it up? 6 28 MR. DAKDOUKI: Sure. One of the 7 complaints that we are hearing when we contact people 8 as to why they don't send someone to a group, the 9 common answer is always: We don't have enough 10 resources. One of the troubles we are having right now 11 with the CISC is some groups don't have any 12 representatives from the CLEC side. 13 29 Specifically, in Numberings, they 14 have a problem with representation, and Billing and 15 Collection, for example, is one example that struck me. 16 We are talking about a lot of money and some parties 17 are not present at the table. That will affect each 18 single carrier in Canada. 19 30 What we wanted to hear from you today 20 is we know you have problems with resources, but are 21 there any solutions, anything we can help you with? I 22 am not sure, if we change the way we structure CISC 23 meetings is it going to help you? Could we, as a 24 Commission, maybe provide any type of assistance? I 25 think you should forget about money, but any other
9
1 assistance. 2 31 We leave it open to you. I would 3 suggest that we start with each group from my right, if 4 you have comments please feel free to let us know. 5 32 MR. LANG: Peter Lang, Chair of 6 Business Process from Call-Net. You are quite right 7 that we don't have sufficient participation from 8 particularly the competitors, the CLECs. There has 9 been an awful change over the past year and it is 10 certainly due to the demise of some of the companies. 11 But even the companies that are still there, 12 participation is very low. In the Billing and 13 Collections Task Team that we have underway right now, 14 there is only one active CLEC participating, and that 15 is not good, as Chaouki mentioned. 16 33 A lot of it has to do with time. The 17 other issue is money in terms of we find that the more 18 effective meetings are face-to-face meetings and the 19 participants are under very tight budget constraints. 20 As a result, we get a very low turn out, even at our 21 face-to-face meetings. We try and schedule them at the 22 back end or front end of weekends so that they can have 23 discounts on travel and that, but that still doesn't 24 work. 25 34 I don't have solutions for all of
10
1 these things. On the administrative side, this is one 2 area that would help a bit. What we find is within our 3 working group, in particular, there are about a half 4 dozen participants that do 99 per cent of the work in 5 terms of working on specific tasks, having ownership of 6 TIFs. We have a challenge every meeting to have a 7 minute taker, just someone to do the administrative 8 work of taking minutes and things of that nature. 9 Perhaps we can look at some of the administrative side 10 to see if there is anything we can do to alleviate that 11 burden a little bit. 12 35 I am sorry, I don't have answers for 13 some of the other, but it is a major issue. 14 36 THE CHAIRPERSON: Peter, when you say 15 we could use some help, I assume you are meaning from 16 us? 17 37 MR. LANG: Yes. 18 38 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Peter. 19 Anybody else down this side who wish to comment on this 20 issue? 21 39 MS SPRAGUE: Chris Sprague, Aliant 22 Telecom. 23 40 From our perspective, whether it is a 24 large ILEC, a small ILEC, a large CLEC or a small CLEC, 25 we are all faced with resourcing problems on what is
11
1 going on in the telecommunication industry. 2 41 A number of the work groups are 3 trying to utilize conference calls wherever possible, 4 but I have to reiterate what Peter Lang just mentioned. 5 Sometimes face-to-face meetings are the most productive 6 way of getting the work done, especially if you have 7 two days of heavy agenda items, it is the most 8 productive way of doing it. 9 42 We should still use the conference 10 calls as much as possible. Maybe that will help our 11 revenue pots as well if we do that. But it may also 12 help encourage some of the other companies then to send 13 some representation and be more steady participants 14 rather than just popping in and out when there is just 15 one specific issue that concerns them. 16 43 Another thing, if we can get things 17 out of the CISC arena that would allow us to work on 18 the process issues that are mainly affecting the work 19 groups themselves and have the other issues taken to a 20 different format or level to be dealt with so that we 21 can just get to the work items and prioritize what is 22 important to the industry and the work group and start 23 working from a priority down, and using that method to 24 help us organize and keep ahead of things. There is 25 just too much coming at us.
12
1 44 THE CHAIRPERSON: When you mention 2 about getting some of the things out of CISC, one 3 common thread I read through all of the submissions was 4 that there is too much attempt in a number of the CISC 5 groups to try and deal with policy issues, which 6 everybody seems to agree shouldn't be there. The 7 Commission should decide on the policy issues. Is that 8 what you were referring to? 9 45 MS SPRAGUE: It may take a little bit 10 of discussion at the various working groups sometimes 11 to finally come to the conclusion, as well, that it is 12 a policy issue and to turn it back. But once we reach 13 that point, then we should do that. If there is a 14 dispute like taking the dispute process out once it is 15 identified that we can't go any further, so we don't 16 spend our time spinning wheels and trying to resolve 17 something that is really not within our realm to do so. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Don. 19 46 MR. BOWLES: Don Bowles of Call-Net. 20 Given the number of people in this room and the fact 21 that I can't even get to the table, it is hard to think 22 we are talking about lack of participation. 23 47 David, just with respect to 24 solutions, obviously we don't want to talk about 25 problems too much, but the solutions to this problem
13
1 are really covered in the issues that we are going to 2 talk about following with respect to policy and all 3 these other items in here. That is where the solutions 4 are to be found to most of the problems with 5 participation. 6 48 MR. DAKDOUKI: Don, I agree with you. 7 However, if you don't send people to those meetings, 8 even if we fix the other issues, I am not sure how this 9 will help us. 10 49 MR. BOWLES: One of the problems, and 11 I think we are going to come up with it, you think of 12 some specific examples, there are some of these things 13 that go on year after year. Things like the remotes 14 are a perfect example. Frankly, what happens is you 15 sort of get frustrated and you see the process as a 16 process of being somewhat futile. People lose interest 17 naturally. 18 50 So I think if we solve some of those 19 other problems, if the issues are much more focused so 20 the objective is clearly defined, you will find that 21 participation will be facilitated. 22 51 MR. DAKDOUKI: I understand this. 23 However, the way I see it, when you send your people to 24 these working groups, your participants, your 25 representatives will tell the group, look, I don't want
14
1 to discuss this issue, that's a policy issue. 2 52 When we talk about resources, not 3 just being present and who will be present at those 4 meetings. Like, when you are talking about a few 5 issues, I not going to take a particular example, but 6 any issue that took for years actually I am puzzled why 7 your representatives there didn't stop the discussion 8 and say, the CISC guidelines are very clear, we don't 9 think we are going to get any solution out of this, we 10 are going to issue a dispute. You have the right to 11 issue a dispute. 12 53 MR. BOWLES: I take your point. 13 54 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I take your 14 point, Don, that some of the other issues that we deal 15 with through the day may help to focus the meetings 16 more, in which case it may generate more participation 17 in any event. 18 55 Continuing down this side. Teresa. 19 56 MS MUIR: Teresa Muir, AT&T Canada. 20 57 Actually I agree with Don. If we 21 talk to the structure as opposed to the resources, I 22 think it will address a lot of our problems in terms of 23 staffing. It is very hard to have somebody at every 24 meeting. Even though you are right, Chaouki, and I 25 totally I agree with you, and everybody who works with
15
1 me will say, I will repeatedly say stop talking about 2 something. For the individuals in the meeting it is 3 not quite as simple. That is why there is protracted 4 debate on certain issues. 5 58 Getting to the next issue and looking 6 at the structure and how many working groups would 7 probably focus how we end up resolving the resource 8 problem. 9 59 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks for that, 10 Teresa. Would I take it that most people probably 11 agree with that sense. Pippa. 12 60 MS LAWSON: Just to add a couple of 13 comments from the perspective of public interest and 14 consumer groups, obviously we are not interested in a 15 lot of the issues that are the subject of these 16 discussions, but we are interested in some, which I 17 think largely can be characterized as policy issues, 18 the ones we get involved in. They do tend to come up 19 within certain groups, Business Process in particular, 20 because it deals with customer transfer. 21 61 It has been helpful, first of all, 22 that the issues we are interested in do tend to be 23 concentrated in one or two groups. Inside Wiring is 24 another one. 25 62 But this is an issue -- I don't know
16
1 if other parties are in the same position -- where you 2 are really only interested in a few issues, not the 3 entire agenda and you only have limited resources. You 4 definitely don't have the resources or time to sit in 5 on long two-day meetings go through a variety of 6 issues, only some of which you are interested in. 7 63 I would say, though, the experience 8 has been fairly good. The people running the groups in 9 which we have been involved have accommodated us. 10 64 The other thing that has been very 11 helpful is that we don't have the resources to monitor, 12 and I think everyone agrees, like the last item on the 13 agenda is the website, so even if you do have the 14 resources to monitor, your monitoring is not going to 15 turn up the information that you are trying to get. 16 65 So, we rely on other parties to alert 17 us to issues of interest to consumers. That is how our 18 participation has happened over the past years. We 19 have been alerted either by industry members of 20 committees or by CRTC staff to particular issues being 21 discussed in committees, which we should get involved 22 in. I think that is the only way that we are going to 23 be able to continue to proceed. We have to rely on 24 other parties to let us know. 25 66 The other point is that just in a
17
1 general sense, on any given issue, the negotiation 2 process to a resolution is going to take longer than a 3 formal proceeding for any given party. That is an 4 ultimate resource problem that exists. Often you end 5 up with a better solution at the end of the day and 6 that the extra time was worth it, but I am not sure 7 that is always the case. It might be helpful to get 8 more process or guidance on how and when to turn an 9 issue into a dispute or over to the CRTC for a public 10 notice. 11 67 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Pippa. As 12 you say, I noted in your submission that you referred 13 to this issue of notice and keeping the website current 14 and so on in spite of the improvements that were done. 15 We will get to those issues a little later on in the 16 agenda. Anybody else across the back of the room then? 17 68 MR. STEVENS: Keith Stevens with 18 Execulink. We are one of the small ILECs in Ontario, 19 but I am here representing the OTA, which represents 20 small ILECs in Ontario. 21 69 I have a real concern. No matter how 22 much we streamline it, some of our members, there is no 23 way they can participate in the process. Through the 24 association we try to cover the bases, but all the 25 members have different needs and it affects them
18
1 differently. 2 70 Our concern is some way to protect 3 the non-participants. That is almost a backwards way 4 of looking at it. But everybody can't be there, 5 whether it is small ILECs or CLECs or IXCs. How do we 6 get the protection for those who can't be there? 7 Because if the only way to be protected is to be there, 8 then it becomes a very onerous job for the small 9 companies. 10 71 MR. DAKDOUKI: A few years ago we had 11 a discussion about all those issues. What we decided, 12 one way for parties who are unable to go to each 13 working group is to participate at the steering 14 committee level. At the steering committee we got all 15 the new TIFs, all reports, disputes. Everything has to 16 go through the steering committee. If your 17 organization or any other organization would like to 18 know what is going on, all they have to do is 19 participate in the steering committee meetings. We 20 hold those once a month or sometimes once every couple 21 of months. Usually these are conference calls an hour 22 or two hours every two months. 23 72 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Keith. 24 Coming up this side then. 25 73 MR. BELAND: Dennis Beland from
19
1 Microcell. 2 74 I would like to add to the voices 3 earlier. In my opinion lack of participation is a 4 symptom not a cause. So we will get to the heart of 5 that issue as we review the other items on the agenda. 6 75 It also has to be pointed out that it 7 is legitimate not to participate sometimes. Microcell 8 in particular, we are a wireless carriers, so, when 9 working groups begin to discuss local loops and risers, 10 we head for the hills. 11 76 The problem becomes a working group 12 like this -- 13 77 THE CHAIRPERSON: I would like to do 14 that once in a while myself. 15 78 MR. BELAND: The problem becomes with 16 a working group like Business Process, which is 17 dealing, and rightly so, with some very complex issues 18 related to things like local loops and risers, 19 Microcell is not interested in sending a person to sit 20 for half a day or three-quarters of a day listening to 21 that. 22 79 Rather than just complain, I would 23 like to point to where I think we are discovering some 24 successes, and I will point again to Business Process 25 and, in fact, a meeting that was held yesterday.
20
1 80 It was a two-day meeting, in fact, 2 yesterday and the day before. I was interested in only 3 one item on the agenda. The agenda was sent out a week 4 in advance stating that the item I was interested in 5 would be discussed at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday. I 6 dialled in at 11:00 a.m. and the discussion was 7 beginning on schedule. 8 81 MR. DAKDOUKI: You are just lucky. 9 82 MR. BELAND: But that is an example 10 of what I consider to be extremely good chairmanship of 11 a group. Peter is modest and stated that it is the 12 timekeeper that was keeping him in line. I don't think 13 we are ever going to resolve the issue of our 14 face-to-face or phone-in meetings, which one is better. 15 It is inevitably going to be a hybrid. Chairs, like 16 Peter has demonstrated, who are sensitive to satisfying 17 both groups, that is inevitably the only way to go. 18 83 The only other point I would like to 19 make as an early plug, and it was a theme in our 20 submission here and in some other groups' submissions, 21 is the role of Commission staff in this regard and in 22 other regards. Within Microcell, when we discussed the 23 issues broadly, we repeatedly came back to the fact 24 that we believe Commission staff are underutilized 25 during CISC meetings. Sometimes I get the impression,
21
1 it reminds me of my school days when you went to class 2 not because you necessarily thought you were going to 3 learn anything but you had to know what was going to be 4 on the exam. Sometimes you get the impression that 5 Commission staff are there not because there is 6 necessarily going to be a useful discussion here, but 7 because they have to be there because there might be a 8 dispute later. 9 84 They should become more confident and 10 more active in helping to push working groups to become 11 more efficient, speaking up when they think the 12 discussion is becoming unproductive or speaking up when 13 they think it is leaning towards policy and maybe 14 shouldn't be discussed in CISC. 15 85 Commission staff is a resource that 16 is underutilized, I believe, during the CISC meetings. 17 86 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Dennis. I 18 appreciate your comment, particularly the last one. We 19 will get to that a little bit later. 20 87 One of the tensions or balancing, if 21 you will, that we have got to exercise in this is that 22 we don't want to take over CISC. It is meant to be an 23 industry process. We want it to stay that way. We 24 want to be able to help facilitate it in the best way 25 we can, but we don't want to end up with the CRTC just
22
1 taking it over and it ends up being another CRTC 2 process just with submissions from parties and so on. 3 88 We want to keep the dialogue among 4 the industry players and consumer groups going at the 5 same time. We have to be careful about that balance, 6 but I take your point about the participation that we 7 do have. 8 89 Anybody else along here on the first 9 issue about participation? 10 90 One thing that Shirley just noted to 11 me, Peter, you are probably going to get drafted, I 12 suppose, for chairing more groups, given the success 13 you have had. 14 91 You mentioned administrative stuff, 15 minute taking and whatnot, you all know that I am not 16 close to CISC in terms of day-to-day stuff, but one of 17 the points that Shirley raised is some of the 18 administrative stuff is do we need it all? For 19 example, do we need minutes of meetings? Can we just 20 make note of decisions taken or differences or 21 whatever? I don't know the extent to which minutes are 22 taken, how detailed they are, but I think that is maybe 23 one thing that the group could look at is the degree to 24 which we have detailed minutes and to what extent do we 25 really need that, do we really need just a note of
23
1 decisions taken or differences raised or whatever. 2 92 MR. LANG: If I just may make a brief 3 comment, certain participants certainly feel that 4 minutes are absolutely essential and, with no 5 disrespect, certainly request and require all detail of 6 basically everything that transpired during the 7 meeting. Other parties feel the opposite, that it 8 should be just a high-level summary of what was 9 discussed that refer to the reports and the TIFs in 10 terms of where the actual record keeping is. 11 93 There is a divergence of views in it, 12 within Business Process for sure. I believe it 13 probably should be somewhere in the middle. We do 14 rotate the minute taking as much as possible, and 15 certain people are very prolific in recording what 16 transpired, whereas other people are very, very 17 concise, almost to the point of not reporting what did 18 take place. 19 94 It is an interesting thing and it is 20 something that we should discuss further. 21 95 THE CHAIRPERSON: I suppose it is 22 always good to be able to go back to your boss and say, 23 see, the minutes show I fought for our position. 24 96 MS SPRAGUE: Chris Sprague. David, 25 in regard to minutes, it does serve as a very good tool
24
1 for the people who may normally be participating but 2 may not have been able to attend a particular meeting. 3 So, it helps them to keep up to date on it, know what 4 action items or requirements that the group is 5 expecting of them to bring back as well. They are a 6 good tool that way. I think it is just how detailed 7 they get or not is maybe the key, but I would hate to 8 see us go without them. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Michèle. 10 97 MS BECK: If we want to streamline 11 the process, there is a bit of repetition between 12 minute taking and filling in the activity log in each 13 of the -- I am just trying to recall now; I had a CISC, 14 meeting -- in the TIF. That is very repetitive. It 15 requires you to fill out various slots or bullets, 16 going throughout the meeting process. 17 98 I was in charge of several of the 18 TIFs, and it is very time consuming to have all of that 19 material, plus the minutes, delivered back to the group 20 in a timely manner. Most of the time I found that it 21 was exactly the same information. So, if we do want to 22 streamline it, perhaps we could eliminate some of the 23 information actually contained in the TIF and rely on 24 the minutes. 25 99 MR. DAKDOUKI: Actually, some groups
25
1 like the network group, what they do in their minutes 2 is they refer to the TIF minutes. So, they say we 3 discussed TIF 26. For more information go to the TIF. 4 So they don't repeat all the information in both. 5 100 THE CHAIRPERSON: With that, several 6 people have suggested moving on to the next item, which 7 is the CRTC structure that is listed in here or the 8 CISC structure. Several people have already mentioned 9 that. I appreciate that some of these issues are going 10 to overlap. I certainly got the feeling myself. As I 11 said at the outset, I went through all of the 12 submissions and I put together my own list. One of the 13 ones that was at the top of my list was it seemed to me 14 that the common thread through all this is CISC is 15 good, works reasonably well, we need to keep it going. 16 101 One of the things that seemed to be 17 mentioned by a lot of people was this notion that there 18 is too much policy discussed in CISC. 19 102 The second thing it seemed to me in 20 order of priority was the role of the CRTC staff and 21 how it could get characterized a number of different 22 ways. 23 103 Again, looking at the structure which 24 a couple of people have referenced here, some of these 25 issues may come up there just in terms of the role of
26
1 the staff. As somebody mentioned, maybe it was Dennis, 2 the Commission staff being somewhat more proactive in 3 the meetings, pushing issues along, perhaps identifying 4 earlier on, with the help of others, when an issue is 5 indeed a policy issue and it gets kicked out and saves 6 a lot of needless discussion within the group. 7 104 Just focusing on the structure 8 question, then, do people have comments about the 9 particular structure of CISC or how it could be 10 improved? Perhaps in that, if some people want to 11 discuss the relative role of the Commission staff 12 there, we could pick this up here as well. 13 105 Let me start on this side this time. 14 106 Karen, you are reaching for a 15 microphone. 16 107 MS O'BRIEN: Karen O'Brien from Bell 17 Canada. 18 108 It was very difficult in looking at 19 the issues that were identified here for the agenda 20 today to try and restrict your comments to the specific 21 issue without flowing over into the other areas that 22 were also raised. 23 109 If we are going to talk specifically 24 to the structure of CISC, I think that the working 25 groups that exist today are the ones that should
27
1 continue to exist. They provide the focus on the areas 2 that are going to continue to change. 3 110 As a group, we spent a fair amount of 4 time about I guess a year and a half ago, two years 5 ago, Chaouki, in terms of the guidelines. In 6 preparation for today's session, I did go back and read 7 those over. I would say that the guidelines themselves 8 offer us a great deal of opportunity in terms of 9 streamlining the process and improving the efficiency. 10 I would hazard that at times we have perhaps forgotten 11 some of the opportunities that exist within those 12 guidelines to improve the process itself. Some 13 comments have already come out with respect to reducing 14 the administrative burden in terms of where you capture 15 information, agendas and timelines that are kept to so 16 that those who want to participate only on a particular 17 item are able to do so. 18 111 I know this is the last item on the 19 agenda, but I will go there anyways. With respect to 20 the website, one of the items, when you go and look at 21 the Commission website, if it is in respect to a public 22 notice, generally speaking, any contributions, any 23 interrogatories, responses, comments, rely comments, 24 final comments, decision, et cetera, can all be found 25 with the particular PN itself.
28
1 112 Perhaps there is an opportunity for 2 those who can't necessarily participate at each one of 3 the working sessions or for all the issues, if it was 4 possible to structure the website such that 5 contributions, et cetera, relating to a particular TIF 6 were grouped together under the TIF so if you go in and 7 you look up TIF X, associated with that would be the 8 various contributions, the latest status report or 9 activities, and subsequently any either further process 10 that was referred to or a decision order from the 11 Commission relative to the consensus. 12 113 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks for that, 13 Karen. Other comments going down? 14 114 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just on the role of 15 the Commission staff, they certainly provide a very 16 valuable role. They should be more than just a silent 17 observer. Certainly they provide a role in coming to 18 the meetings prepared, researching some of the past 19 decisions to ensure that we don't get down the ratholes 20 we discussed before of policy issues and that. 21 115 From that, it would also help 22 streamline the process there. 23 116 The other concern is that using 24 industry chairs is a very valuable resource, rather 25 than having the CISC chair the working groups.
29
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Brian, your 2 last point again was? 3 117 MR. ARMSTRONG: The chairs of the 4 working groups feel that industry representatives chair 5 the working groups. My only concern there is that can 6 put quite a burden of the resources of the various 7 companies. 8 118 MR. ROSENZVEIG: What would you 9 propose? 10 119 MR. ARMSTRONG: We talked a bit about 11 minutes maybe can be done by the CISC group. That 12 would be one thing. Probably setting up of the 13 meetings is also another area that takes some time to 14 set up, the scheduling of the meetings. It would also 15 be helpful as well. 16 120 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, Brian, you are 17 not suggesting the CRTC should necessarily chair all of 18 the working groups. You are just saying we could 19 probably do more to help with some of the 20 administrative aspects of this which would free up the 21 chairs perhaps a little more? 22 121 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 23 122 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to 24 drop the first issue, if we shouldn't take as an action 25 item with Chaouki, you and perhaps the working group
30
1 chairs to take a look at some of the administrative 2 things, the minutes that we just discussed and see just 3 where perhaps that could be streamlined and improved. 4 Thanks for that, Brian. 5 123 Dennis. 6 124 MR. BELAND: Just a procedural point. 7 I personally don't know all the names around the table. 8 I would request that people identify the company they 9 are with when they take a comment. 10 125 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't either. I 11 am just picking up the names on the cards. 12 126 MR. ARMSTRONG: I apologize. Brian 13 Armstrong, Sasktel. 14 127 THE CHAIRPERSON: Anybody else down 15 here? 16 128 MS LAWSON: I take it we are now 17 talking role of CRTC staff. I just want to echo 18 Dennis' earlier comments. I agree entirely. For a 19 long time now I felt similarly that CRTC staff is 20 underutilized in this process. It could and should be 21 assisting more in two very different respects, one 22 which you have just discussed administratively. I 23 would add to the roles of chairing, where you don't 24 have an industry person that everyone in the group 25 supports doing minutes, but also maintaining the
31
1 website. We are going to come to that, I know, so I 2 won't get into the details of that issue. But I do 3 feel strongly that that is an appropriate role for CRTC 4 staff. 5 129 That is all administrative though. 6 You have talked a little bit about the other role, 7 which I think is perhaps more important which is the 8 facilitation role. The CRTC is the only neutral party 9 in this process. That is why in many cases it is 10 appropriate to use the CRTC person as a chair, I think. 11 130 But also I think the CRTC staff 12 should and could be facilitating the process so that it 13 moves along faster, so that we move things into a 14 dispute at the appropriate time and don't wait for a 15 year unnecessarily, don't drag out the negotiations 16 when they are going nowhere. 17 131 MR. DAKDOUKI: I agree with you, 18 Pippa. However, we have to strike a balance here. 19 From my observations during the last six years, it 20 depends who from the CRTC is there, how much experience 21 they have, how much credibility they have. So you 22 don't want to make it look like you are pushing for one 23 side and you lose your credibility on the other side. 24 132 On the other hand, again, I feel very 25 uncomfortable if all the parties, CLECs and ILECs are
32
1 agreeing to continue the discussion on one issue and 2 telling them, no, sorry, you have to send it back to 3 me. I did it several times. On several occasions, the 4 Password example is there, they start discussing it and 5 stop discussions, they send it to us. However, if we 6 all agree to discuss an issue, I am not sure, again, we 7 can do it, but I am not sure if you have to do it all 8 the time. 9 133 THE CHAIRPERSON: Again, having gone 10 through this and seeing this reference to the question 11 of policy, I agree with all of those who have suggested 12 here that -- and I think, Chaouki, whether they are 13 prepared to sit around and discuss it or not, that at 14 the end of the day it is up to the Commission to be 15 deciding on the policy issues. 16 134 It is my view right from the outset 17 of CISC that it would probably work best and indeed 18 does work best where there is a clear policy from the 19 Commission and the CISC process is to actually put in 20 place the technical or administrative framework that 21 will help implement that policy. 22 135 So, if it becomes evident to us in 23 particular sitting at a CISC meeting, even if the 24 parties are willing to discuss it, it suggests to me 25 that at some point in time that discussion is probably
33
1 going to go off the rail if in fact it is a policy 2 issue. 3 136 It seems to me the sooner a policy 4 issue gets identified and pulled out of CISC and gets 5 back to the Commission for a quick decision, my sense 6 is the better. To the extent that the CRTC staff who 7 are there can help facilitate that, I think the better 8 too. 9 137 Pippa. 10 138 MS LAWSON: I would like to make the 11 point that often policy issues come up where there is 12 consensus or consensus is reached among the parties. 13 Even then it is important that the matter go to the 14 Commission and sometimes be put out to the public in a 15 public notice because, as many people have said, not 16 all interested parties are around the table or on the 17 steering committee. 18 139 So, the policy issue doesn't just 19 come up with disputes. It comes up with consensus 20 items as well. 21 140 THE CHAIRPERSON: The other part of 22 this, of course, is that at the end of the day the 23 Commission has to agree with all of this stuff. I 24 mean, the consensus reports are dealing with the 25 disputes. I have been encouraged by the fact that,
34
1 over the years, a lot of the work has come to a 2 consensus, most of it has. Where there have been 3 disputes and we have dealt with them, I don't recall 4 that we have had an appeal of any of the decisions that 5 the Commission has rendered with respect to the 6 disputes. 7 141 Particularly, even if there is a 8 consensus around a policy issue, if that policy issue 9 comes back, there is no guarantee that the 10 Commissioners sitting around the table are going to 11 agree with the consensus that the parties around the 12 table did. Most likely we probably would if there is a 13 consensus around the table, but if it indeed is a 14 policy issue, there is no guarantee that that is going 15 to happen. So the sooner you get a blessing, if you 16 will, from the Commission, that is the Commission's 17 view on this policy, it seems to me the better. 18 142 MR. ADEYINKA: Alex Adeyinka from 19 Call-Net. 20 143 I would like to make a quick comment 21 on the structure. In terms of generally the structure 22 of CISC right now in terms of how the working groups 23 aren't totally aligned and there is a vertical 24 alignment between working groups and sub-working groups 25 and some ad hoc groups, that there may be an
35
1 opportunity for some improvement. 2 144 A good example is the remote 3 sub-working group that eventually it was decided that 4 because of the limited number of issues, the limited 5 number of participants and the overlapping of the 6 participants with the main CLG group, that there was no 7 need to continue to have a remote sub-working group 8 operating on its own and having meetings outside of the 9 general CLG meeting, and we were able to actually fold 10 that sub-working group into CLG. 11 145 I think that demonstrates that there 12 may be times where we really need to examine where that 13 is. There is some advantage to actually integrating 14 the difference of working groups or ad hoc working 15 groups into the main working group. 16 146 It also demonstrates that we can 17 basically maybe conserve resources or better use 18 resources that way because, more often than not, the 19 same individuals who attend the main working group are 20 also the ones who are attending the sub-working groups. 21 They physically go there to advocate or defend or 22 present the same views. Just an example of how I think 23 over the next perhaps few months we can take a look at 24 the way the working groups are structured, as well as 25 an opportunity for that kind of integration.
36
1 147 THE CHAIRPERSON: Alex, do I hear you 2 saying it is just a question of making a conscious 3 effort within the existing structure to take a look at 4 that and make those decisions? 5 148 MR. ADEYINKA: I think that would be 6 one way to make some improvements. Again, the remotes 7 working group demonstrated that. We basically had a 8 meeting. We conversed amongst ourselves whether it is 9 necessary to continue to have a sub-working group 10 operating on its own or whether we are better served to 11 have it rolled into the larger CLG. We were all in 12 agreement that, given the number of issues that remain 13 on our plate and the number of participants, we should 14 actually just continue to pursue our issues within the 15 larger CLG group. 16 149 So, maybe one of the ways from here 17 would be for the chairs of the main working group to 18 look at their sub-working groups and see whether, based 19 on the number of issues remaining and the nature of the 20 participants and the number of participants compared to 21 the constitution of the main working group, whether it 22 could be at least suggested that the sub-working group 23 be actually folded into the main working group. 24 150 THE CHAIRPERSON: Chaouki. 25 151 MR. DAKDOUKI: The issue here, again,
37
1 we go back to the resources, to the party's commitment 2 to one particular task team or one particular group. 3 152 We are having an issue, people say it 4 is huge, we cannot discuss it within the main working 5 group, we need to have a task team on it. All parties 6 agree that we are going to create a task team. We 7 create a task team. We don't want to create a working 8 group because we know it will end in a few months. 9 Then no one will show up at the task team. 10 153 That brings the issue back to the 11 working group. We have the parties saying, I am not 12 interested in this specific issue. It is going to take 13 us a huge amount of time to discuss it. Why you don't 14 keep it that way or keep it for the next day, et 15 cetera, et cetera. 16 154 I hear you. I agree in part with 17 what you said. But, again, the problem is again an act 18 of balance. Some groups become very overworked like 19 the Business Process working group. I think we are at 20 the thirtieth or thirty-fourth meeting this year. And 21 other groups don't have enough participation. But we 22 will look into this. 23 155 THE CHAIRPERSON: My sense would be 24 it is probably something that should be regularly 25 reviewed just among the working group chairs and
38
1 perhaps the steering committee just to see if the 2 balance is right in terms of, as you say, it might 3 facilitate more participation depending on where that 4 task group is. 5 156 MR. CONNOLLY: Terry Connolly, Telus. 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: A change from 7 Willie Grieve. 8 157 MR. CONNOLLY: I was going to say 9 that I am a new improved Willie, and he does send his 10 regrets but he has other things that came up as a 11 priority. I am the next best thing. 12 158 I have been in the CISC process since 13 1996 or 1997, so I am one of the relics around the 14 table. I think the structure has worked very well, if 15 we think about where we came from and what we had to do 16 to put that structure in place. Today, I look around 17 the table and look at the negotiating skills that 18 people have acquired during that process, whether you 19 are a CLEC or an ILEC or a consultant or a CRTC 20 participant. I think we have come a really long way. 21 What we are really doing here is finetuning. 22 159 I don't see the CISC structure 23 needing to be finetuned a great deal. We have to be 24 aware of the activities that are a priority and make 25 sure that they are being addressed in an appropriate
39
1 structure. There will be other activities in the 2 regulatory framework that will need to be structured as 3 a sub-working group. 4 160 I do have some concerns about how we 5 administer ad hoc groups and whether they really are 6 doing the job that we expect and do follow the 7 administrative guidelines. That is one area that I 8 would look at. 9 161 In terms of the CRTC facilitating, I 10 think they have done a good job. If you think about 11 the technical and administrative challenges we have 12 had, the things that we, as participants, have had to 13 bring to the table and you have a CRTC spokesman there 14 that you expect them to have an answer, I think the 15 area that could be improved, as it could be improved 16 for all of us, is recognize when it really is an 17 implementation issue versus a policy issue. 18 162 As Pippa and others have said, 19 whether you are an ILEC or a CLEC, I think that is an 20 important issue. That will help our resource issue. 21 It will not eliminate the resource issue, but we 22 somehow have to get smarter to recognize that let's not 23 go down this route, it is a policy issue; it does 24 address a new regulatory framework; it is not mandated 25 in 97-8; we can't go any further. We have to recognize
40
1 that. 2 163 But the problem is in the CISC 3 working group, even on that issue, you have parties 4 saying no, it is an implementation issue; you have 5 parties saying it is a policy issue. 6 164 We can look at Access to Remotes. We 7 can look at Centrex Interworking. All of those issues 8 are fall into that gray area. So we really do have to 9 come to grips with that. 10 165 The other one area that hasn't really 11 been mentioned and we need to sort of think about it, 12 when I read all of the submissions, and I am not in a 13 sub-working group today as I was in previous years, I 14 am a little bit more removed, but as a CISC steering 15 committee member, I was somewhat surprised to look at 16 all of the issues that came up, and a lot of them were 17 common, that we really haven't addressed at the 18 steering committee level. If we have addressed it, it 19 certainly has gone over my head. Because the issue of 20 resources, if it did come to the steering committee, I 21 mean, if we couldn't have resolved issue, then we 22 should have punted it. If it hadn't been punted by a 23 CRTC spokesperson, then it should have gone to the 24 CISC, back to the CRTC. 25 166 The same with whether an issue is
41
1 implementation versus policy. Again, I don't think we 2 have really grappled with that at the steering 3 committee. So, I would also think that we should 4 really look at what our mandate is as a steering 5 committee and that we are, in fact, fulfilling that, 6 and that we are testing that the sub-working groups are 7 actually operating based on the administrative 8 guidelines. Are they prioritizing; are the reports 9 prioritizing the items? 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks for that, 11 Terry. That last point you made certainly was one that 12 struck me as I read through. 13 167 On your first point, I must say that 14 I, as I said earlier, got a sense that people around 15 this table and people involved in this who aren't here 16 are certainly supportive of the CISC process. I took 17 this as most of the comments were really finetuning, 18 that there is not major problems here that really need 19 to be dealt with. I would characterize most of it as 20 finetuning. I certainly didn't take whatever here was 21 any major criticism of it. God knows, I am used to 22 major criticism with the Commission in general and to 23 some decisions, in particular. So, that is no problem. 24 168 But, the last point you made in terms 25 of the steering committee perhaps also being in a
42
1 position to recognize when some of these issues are (a) 2 priority and (b) when some of these issues are policy 3 rather than implementation issues and punt them back, 4 to use your term, to the Commission. 5 169 Teresa. 6 170 MS MUIR: Teresa Muir, AT&T Canada. 7 171 I guess maybe where I differ let's 8 say from Terry is just on that very point of 9 negotiation skills, not that everybody hasn't developed 10 great skills, they probably have. My issue is much 11 more the duration of the negotiation process. 12 Actually, the two examples that he points to, Centrex 13 Interworking and Access to Remotes, are both issues, in 14 my view, and I agree they are gray, they should never 15 have gotten there in the first place. 16 172 No matter how great you are at 17 negotiating, and obviously some people are better than 18 others, once you realize you are not reaching 19 agreement, it cannot be discussed any longer. In a lot 20 of cases, delay actually harms certain parties more 21 than other parties. Certain parties actually have more 22 of an incentive to continue negotiating because they 23 are less impacted by what happens through the 24 negotiation process. 25 173 I could think of a lot of specific
43
1 examples where an implementation or changes to prices 2 for services or structures of tariffs make a huge 3 difference to competitors. I think really, frankly, 4 less of a difference to the incumbents. So, it is 5 really essential, and I am not saying competitors won't 6 discuss it, they will, it is just essential to get 7 those issues out of there very quickly. That is why we 8 found that, and did actually recommend changes, and I 9 will admit readily. I am not a CISC participant, never 10 have been except on the steering committee, so I am not 11 in it day-to-day, I don't follow the guidelines to a T. 12 At the best of times, I don't follow the guidelines. 13 174 It is a process where just the 14 guidelines themselves take a long time to follow 15 through a dispute. We found it more effective recently 16 to come to where we do have a consensus on certain 17 aspects of an issue to just put them on the table so 18 you can isolate a very, very small part, which is 19 generally the case, and send that back to the steering 20 committee and then the Commission, as opposed to try to 21 resolve the issue in its entirety. 22 175 They were, which I found odd, I will 23 admit, non-consensus reports. But frankly I found that 24 the most effective way of just getting to a point where 25 we agree with 1, 2, 3, 4; number 5, number 6 the
44
1 parties have differing views, let's get it out of here 2 now. 3 176 I really would prefer, or we would 4 prefer, if the guidelines could be streamlined to that 5 point, and maybe it fits into the process. I don't 6 know, but certainly, we would like to see that. 7 177 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, Teresa, I take 8 it you are agreeing on the policy, but even where it is 9 not a policy issue, perhaps from time to time, too much 10 time is spent trying to reach a consensus when it 11 becomes evident it is just not going to happen. 12 178 MS MUIR: Yes. The interests to have 13 parties involved, rightly or wrongly, they are never 14 going to meet on a certain aspect of an issue. It is 15 generally not the whole process involved. It is 16 generally just certain elements of the process, but 17 they are not going to agree. 18 179 After you have discussed it two or 19 three times it becomes a little more evident, you need 20 an arbitrator. 21 180 MR. DAKDOUKI: I hate to do this, but 22 I have a copy of the Centrex Interworking TIF. I am 23 going to read the first bullet on the task activity 24 diary. It was 18 July, 2000. 25 "Telus (George Hearn) stated
45
1 that their position is that 2 Centrex interworking is a policy 3 issue and is beyond the scope of 4 CISC." 5 181 A few paragraphs later: 6 "AT&T Canada reiterated its (and 7 VTL's) position that the 8 interworking functionality being 9 addressed by the TIF is basic 10 call setup..." 11 182 MS MUIR: Chaouki, I am not actually 12 suggesting that it is not sometimes my company. I am 13 suggesting it could be often my company. I don't want 14 it to happen. 15 183 THE CHAIRPERSON: I didn't want to 16 get into specific issues today, but I take your point, 17 Teresa, that it said that even when it isn't clearly an 18 implementation sort of an issue, we have to make sure 19 that within the group someone, whether it is the CRTC 20 staff person or whether it is the chair of the group, 21 early on recognizes when this is just going to keep 22 going on forever. 23 184 We recognize, certainly I do, that 24 one of the reasons for setting CISC up in the first 25 place was we didn't have the expertise inside the
46
1 Commission to deal with these kinds of conditions. We 2 didn't have the technical expertise, nor the knowledge 3 or understanding of the administrative processes that 4 go on within your companies to be able to sit down and 5 work out and resolve these kinds of issues. The 6 expertise lies within you or within the other people 7 within your companies. The only way to be able to deal 8 with these issues effectively is to bring you together 9 to deal with it. 10 185 So, we wanted to be in a position to 11 help facilitate that sharing of information and 12 resolution of those kinds of issues. But we recognize 13 also that there is going to be times when parties just 14 aren't going to agree. We understand that these issues 15 have got to be resolved quickly if we are going to 16 succeed in implementing a competitive framework in this 17 country. So, the quicker it becomes evident that we 18 are not going to be able to get a resolution to this 19 thing within this group and it gets punted, recognizing 20 that just like with all these things, there is going to 21 be a balance between, well, we don't want to boot them 22 out too quickly because maybe a little bit more 23 discussion would get it resolved. 24 186 It is going to be incumbent upon 25 group chairs, committee chairs, task force chairs and
47
1 with the help of CRTC staff to be able to make that 2 kind of identification. 3 187 MR. DAKDOUKI: Don't get me wrong. I 4 am not picking on you. I agreed with your staff. It 5 is a technical issue first. What they were doing is 6 they were testing to see if it works first. If it 7 works, then they are going to ask for it. 8 188 This is just one example. The 9 Centrex Interworking is a very good example why it took 10 all this time, because they were testing it and trying 11 to find if it works. If it is a policy issue, I agree 12 it is a policy issue. If you came to the Commission 13 and said, we need Centrex Interworking. Is the 14 Commission going to say yes or no? I think the answer 15 would be from the other party, this doesn't work; you 16 cannot make it work. So, your people wanted to try to 17 demonstrate it is working first before they go to the 18 policy section and should it be mandated or not. 19 189 THE CHAIRPERSON: One of the key 20 issues here, the sense I would have, and I am not 21 intimately familiar with the guidelines here, is that 22 there is probably not a requirement to change the 23 guidelines in terms of how -- and I am open to comments 24 from folks around the table on this -- best to deal 25 with this. I suspect it is going to be a judgment call
48
1 on the part of the parties around the table at some 2 point in time to be able to make that point. But, 3 Teresa, do you think there should be? 4 190 MS MUIR: Actually, I am not familiar 5 enough, David, with the guidelines to make that 6 statement. I am assuming the dispute process, which is 7 the process we find it too protracted, could be 8 shortened. But I would have to actually sit down and 9 look through the guidelines personally to know. 10 191 Just on Centrex Interworking, it is 11 not why I am saying that. I just don't want everybody 12 to think this is all emanating from some unhappiness 13 with this particular task and working group, not at 14 all. I can probably go through every process that has 15 gone through there, through every working group, and 16 pick one or two things that have not worked well 17 because there has been a protracted discussion. 18 192 It is not a particular issue. I was 19 only mentioning that issue because Terry had just 20 mentioned that it was a little gray. We would have to 21 actually look at the guidelines. It is really just the 22 dispute resolution or any resolution where the interest 23 of the parties are so divergent, and I agree with you, 24 it only comes to light after our discussion. It is not 25 necessarily obvious once a decision is immediately
49
1 issued that everybody will not agree. 2 193 To Chaouki's point of what comes 3 first, you ask for a policy solution or look at the 4 technical feasibility of something, again, it is a 5 judgment call. 6 194 Perhaps there is a maybe misguided 7 feeling on the part of some people in the competitive 8 area that if something works, we can figure out a way 9 to make it appear that the policy supports it or we 10 think the policy supports it but the other parties 11 don't think that. Once you get to that point, in my 12 own opinion, it doesn't really matter what I think or 13 what the other side thinks. It is really a question of 14 having the issue resolved at a different level. That 15 is all I am referring to here. 16 195 THE CHAIRPERSON: Dennis and Terry 17 and Alex. 18 196 MR. ADEYINKA: David, you asked 19 whether or not there is a need to change the existing 20 guidelines. While I think the existing guidelines 21 actually provide well for dispute escalation to the 22 Commission, that is in the context of an issue that is 23 properly within CISC. So if there is a technical 24 implementation issue and a dispute relating to that, 25 there is a process to take that on to the Commission.
50
1 Because the context of the entire process is to 2 encourage resolution, there is naturally a tendency 3 among the participants to at least try to work towards 4 a consensus before they put the matter to the 5 Commission. 6 197 Depending on how quickly they 7 identify that there is a dispute, that could take any 8 number of weeks or months. But I think there is a need 9 to isolate policy-related disputes, and that is where 10 in this meeting today we need to make some kind of 11 recommendation as to how vigilant the presiding staff 12 has to be and how quickly they have to identify that 13 and how soon they have to bring it to the Commission. 14 198 I don't think we can use the same 15 process, the same dispute identification and escalation 16 process that we have in the guidelines for 17 policy-related disputes because it doesn't lend itself 18 to quick resolution. The old idea of let's try to work 19 it out, it's a technical matter, it's an operational 20 matter, if at the end of the day we don't get to where 21 we want to, then let's take it to the Commission. 22 199 But policy dispute is a fundamental 23 one. It actually defines everything around the 24 endeavour or the initiative within that group. To 25 answer your question, there may be a need to actually
51
1 begin to think about a separate process for that. 2 200 THE CHAIRPERSON: For dealing with 3 the policy issue? 4 201 MR. ADEYINKA: Yes. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Dennis. 6 202 MR. BELAND: Dennis Beland of 7 Microcell again. 8 203 Personally I would hate to enter into 9 a rewriting of the guidelines. I am not sure it would 10 be a productive exercise, particularly because I think 11 the mechanisms are already there; we are just not 12 making use of them. 13 204 One of the mechanisms in particular, 14 I think Terry touched on it, was the use of the 15 steering committee more effectively. At present, the 16 steering committee is supposed to approve all TIFs. 17 Admittedly, that mechanism is new. It didn't exist at 18 the time of the 2000 introduction of the TIF that 19 Chaouki referred to, I don't believe. But 20 nevertheless, under the present guidelines, the 21 steering committee approves all TIFs. To me, that is a 22 perfect place to have the debate about whether a 23 particular task should or should not be undertaken, 24 whether a particular task is policy-related or not 25 policy-related.
52
1 205 One of the mechanisms we have 2 underutilized is to have a healthy debate at steering 3 committee about the tasks that are coming by, the new 4 tasks that are coming by. 5 206 I personally can recall I think one 6 example where we actually debated whether a task was 7 appropriate. Part of the problem is not just what the 8 task entails, but also the drafting of the task 9 description. Again, I come back to the Commission 10 staff. Here is a good facilitative point of 11 intervention for Commission staff is when a working 12 group is drafting a task statement, if it is stated in 13 a biased manner, if it is too vague, if it is policy 14 related, point it out. Don't take the pen and draft it 15 yourself but just point it out. Give the group a 16 little push. 17 207 If we go back five or six years, I 18 can remember TIFs being drafted that began with 19 sentences along the lines of: "Task: To convince the 20 nasty ILECs to." Thankfully we have gotten away from 21 that, but we have still not made enough progress where 22 all of our TIFs are concise and clearly related to 23 tasks that belong in CISC. 24 208 THE CHAIRPERSON: So now you draw a 25 line through ILEC and put in CRTC. So it has improved.
53
1 209 Terry. 2 210 MR. CONNOLLY: Technical versus 3 policy, I think it should be a principle. If it is not 4 in our guidelines, it should be a red flag to us all 5 that where we are mixing a policy implementation and 6 embarking on a trial where we have a lot of debate in a 7 sub-working group that it is a policy issue, I don't 8 think sub-working groups should be the place to do 9 field trials, technical trials. I go back to L&P days, 10 we had technical trials, but we had the processes, the 11 implementation, the policy all established. 12 211 If there's a Commission guideline at 13 the sub-working group, I know the Commission staff were 14 asked about what should we do, and I think there were 15 pros and cons. But I also know how many times my rep 16 came back and said, now we're talking about a field 17 trial and, on the other side, we are saying no, it 18 should be a policy. How can you do a field trial 19 before you even have the policy in place? So, that 20 should be a red flag to us where we could really cut 21 down some of the issues of resourcing and time around 22 that issue. 23 212 THE CHAIRPERSON: Bob. 24 213 MR. NOAKES: Bob Noakes, Group 25 Telecom.
54
1 214 Just to pick up on what Alex as 2 saying a few moments ago about policy disputes, our 3 position would be if it is a policy issue it should be 4 punted right out of CISC. It should be back before the 5 Commission. You have other procedures to follow, a 6 paper proceeding or whatever. But get it out of CISC. 7 We will discuss that probably more this afternoon, but 8 I don't think it even needs to be here. Get it out. 9 And I don't think it even needs to go to steering 10 committee. If it is identified as they are working on 11 something that it looks like policy, there is some sort 12 of an agreement, if there is a dispute on whether or 13 not is it is policy, staff should be more proactive and 14 maybe say, time out on this issue, let's go back and 15 discuss it amongst ourselves back at the Commission and 16 determine whether it is policy or not. 17 215 A lot of time gets spent, a lot of 18 meetings later, we are still just trying to determine 19 if it is policy or not. It should just be given some 20 sort of time out, deal with it quickly, is it in or 21 not, and then go ahead. 22 216 We don't have a lot of resources to 23 meet. When we do, it has to be those issues that we 24 clearly have a consensus on that they should be in 25 CISC.
55
1 217 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Bob. I 2 agree with that. As I said earlier, my reading of this 3 is that this was one of the big themes that ran through 4 all the submissions. By the way, I am not particularly 5 stuck on a particular layout of the agenda that we had 6 for today. You said we will be talking about this this 7 afternoon. It seems to me we are into it now, we might 8 as well deal with it now. 9 218 Picking up on that point, as Dennis 10 suggested, there is scope within the guidelines for the 11 CISC steering committee. If there is some doubt in 12 looking at the TIFs and whatnot, to be identifying 13 whether or not this is a policy issue and then getting 14 it referred back to the Commission. 15 219 Picking up Terry and Dennis' point, 16 the guidelines provide for it. We just have to be more 17 mindful and watchful for it. I suppose this is again 18 where some of the CRTC staff, perhaps more familiar 19 with the decisions than the policy issues, should be 20 earlier putting up a red flag and saying, no, this is 21 really a policy issue. 22 220 Pippa and then Karen. 23 221 MS LAWSON: Just to follow up on 24 that, I am looking at the guidelines right now, and I 25 agree entirely with what everyone has been saying.
56
1 Dennis, I do think the guidelines need to be revised. 2 I don't think it is opening up the whole guidelines and 3 a huge process that everyone needs to be worried about. 4 It is minor revisions in order to clarify the process 5 that you are suggesting and I agree with, which is that 6 before a working group takes on a task, it goes to the 7 steering committee or when a group does, it goes to the 8 steering committee, the steering committee vets it to 9 make sure that it is not a policy issue that should be 10 dealt with through a different process. 11 222 So, I would support revising the 12 guidelines to accommodate the very process that Dennis 13 I think thinks is in there already, but I don't think 14 it is. 15 223 MR. DAKDOUKI: I think under the 16 current guidelines, all TIFs have to be approved by the 17 steering committee. That is why all your TIFs go to 18 the steering committee. 19 224 MS LAWSON: I must have an older 20 version. Sorry. 21 225 THE CHAIRPERSON: Karen and then Bob. 22 226 MS O'BRIEN: Some comments and maybe 23 even some questions. 24 227 It seems to me that sometimes it is 25 apparent right up front that an issue is policy. I
57
1 don't want to go down that road, but Centrex 2 Interworking is perhaps one of the ones where, from our 3 perspective, we felt that way. 4 228 But there are other issues that end 5 up in discussion in CISC that the policy issue or the 6 fact that there is a policy issue doesn't necessarily 7 come out until you are part way through the 8 discussions. Teresa's comment about the use of 9 non-consensus, consensus reports or partial consensus 10 reports, whatever, is a useful tool, at least in terms 11 of providing the Commission with some information 12 relative to those areas where the industry can agree 13 with respect to a certain direction and those areas 14 where the industry is just saying, no, I'm playing 15 baseball and you're playing football. 16 229 The Commission's role then, I think, 17 is to take that and obviously if it is something that 18 they feel is fairly narrow and can be dealt with in the 19 context of what is on the record, fine, provide a 20 decision. If it is broader than that, then there are 21 other processes that are available to the Commission. 22 230 There has always been, even with CISC 23 going on and parties have exercised it, that there is 24 nothing to stop a participant from deciding that they 25 want to launch a dispute at any particular point in
58
1 time relative to an issue. The other thing is that you 2 could always file a Part VII, if you felt that the 3 issue was dragging on. 4 231 So, I think we all equally share in 5 the responsibility to ensure that the issues are 6 addressed in a timely manner. 7 232 I am just not totally sure that I 8 understand if we identify an issue up front as policy 9 related, then what would we perceive to be the next 10 steps? That, I think, is where I am tripping a little 11 bit. I think you know in the context of we are going 12 to have local competition, okay, we are going to have a 13 public notice. 14 233 I am not sure I totally understand 15 what the expectation would be in terms of next step, if 16 at a TIF we said that's policy, so then what? 17 234 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I would say it 18 comes back to the Commission. 19 235 MS O'BRIEN: To? 20 236 THE CHAIRPERSON: In what form, 21 Shirley is whispering in my ear. In what form? 22 237 MS O'BRIEN: It is fine to say that 23 we need to get these things escalated quicker, and I 24 agree. But how do we see that coming back? To 25 Teresa's point, there was some benefit in having a
59
1 report filed that said, we agree on these three items 2 and not on these two. I am not sure that that is 3 covered in the guidelines, Chaouki, in the context of 4 if you identify an issue as a policy up front, then 5 where? 6 238 MR. DAKDOUKI: It won't be considered 7 at CISC, so I think it is up to the party to choose 8 which way they wanted to go, Part VII, whatever they 9 wanted to do. But it won't be considered at CISC. 10 239 MR. CONNOLLY: Which party? 11 240 THE CHAIRPERSON: Usually there is 12 somebody that wants something. 13 241 MR. DAKDOUKI: The only concern I may 14 have with this is that parties will use it to not 15 discuss issues. Every time we bring a new task to the 16 table, someone will say it is policy, we are not going 17 to discuss it, one side or the other. We have 18 different interests in some activities and some parties 19 say, you know, by the way, it is policy. 20 242 It is difficult in some cases to 21 differentiate between policy and implementation. 22 243 THE CHAIRPERSON: Alex, I will come 23 to you after Bob. He has been trying to get in for a 24 bit. 25 244 MR. GOWENLOCK: I am Bob Gowenlock.
60
1 I am from MTS. 2 245 I would like to agree and reiterate 3 what Karen has said. I don't think, taking off from 4 what Teresa has said, that a protracted discussion 5 necessarily means that there is something wrong with 6 the CISC structure or the way things are done at CISC. 7 246 The issue is that many of the issues 8 that come before the CISC are actually highly technical 9 and very intricate matters. They have to be fully 10 understood before it is really appreciated that there 11 is a policy issue or an issue to be arbitrated. So I 12 think it would be wrong to try and short cut that 13 process by saying we have to have a method to take it 14 back to the Commission. 15 247 My real fear is that an issue will 16 come that will be a very highly technical issue and may 17 be an issue of whether or not you can do something. If 18 it goes back to the Commission without being fully 19 developed, without having a chance to mature with the 20 discussion that takes place in the CISC, then the 21 Commission is going to be working with what you might 22 call a half baked notion. That does not lead to what 23 we all want around here, clear and precise Commission 24 decisions. 25 248 So, the CISC has a role. There is no
61
1 clear dividing line between implementation and policy. 2 They talk across that border to each other. If it 3 takes more discussion in CISC, then we have to be 4 content with that. It doesn't prevent at any time any 5 party from taking a dispute to the Commission. They 6 can do it with a Part VII. If they are totally unhappy 7 with what is going on, they can shortcircuit the 8 system. It may not be well advised, but they can do 9 it. 10 249 I don't think that whatever has been 11 said around here actually indicates any structure with 12 the CISC or the content of issues that come before the 13 CISC. They are not all clear policy or implementation 14 issues. Many of them are both or have aspects of both 15 and you have to tease them apart before you can have 16 real clarification on them. 17 250 THE CHAIRPERSON: I should say I 18 agree with that, Bob. In fact, one of the things I 19 wrote on a number of the submissions is how do we 20 identify whether in fact it is policy or not, because 21 it is not always clear, as you suggest. 22 251 One of the things there is that it is 23 another area where the Commission staff, it seems to 24 me, could be helpful early on by taking a look at it, 25 perhaps bringing it back at the staff level in house.
62
1 We are struggling with this in this working group, and 2 staff perhaps providing an opinion as to whether it is 3 or not, which might help move it along. 4 252 I have Alex and then Lorne and Pippa 5 again. 6 253 MR. ADEYINKA: I was just going to 7 say that one of the points that Call-Net was trying to 8 put forward is the possibility of actually looking at a 9 different process for reserving these type of policy 10 disputes that come from CISC. I think we have asked in 11 this meeting that we consider something other than a 12 Part VII or a PN to resolve these matters because they 13 are of such a nature that it needs expeditious 14 disposition. 15 254 So, some of my colleagues here say, 16 well, anybody can initiate a Part VII if they are not 17 happy with how affairs are going. But the fact that 18 things drag on without invoking Part VII, that hasn't 19 been considered to be potentially a proper way to have 20 a quick disposition of the issues. 21 255 I would suggest that at some point, 22 as we discuss these issues here today, where we give 23 some thoughts to whether there may be a mini process to 24 deal with policy issues within CISC and are taken to 25 the Commission. We have recommended that perhaps the
63
1 Commission considers maybe making, I don't know, a 2 practice, if possible, to look at these issues and 3 dispose of them within 60 days of receiving them. 4 Again, I don't have details as to how we can do that. 5 But that is something that maybe we can begin to look 6 at here. 7 256 Again, I am sorry to be repeating 8 myself, but when a policy dispute arises, it arises 9 within a process that has possibly already gone further 10 down the road and people are already feeling that, and 11 there has been a lot of resources and time committed to 12 getting that far. And then to have another parallel 13 proceeding that can take months would just not be to 14 the benefit of getting things done efficiently and 15 productively in my opinion. 16 257 THE CHAIRPERSON: Lorne. 17 258 MR. ABUGOV: Thanks, David. My name 18 is Lorne Abugov. I am with Osler Hoskin and Harcourt. 19 I am here today representing myself. 20 259 THE CHAIRPERSON: A slow day, Lorne? 21 260 MR. ABUGOV: No, I just happen to be 22 cursed. I guess I am a policy or a process junky, and 23 I have had experiences on CISC with two of the legal 24 sub-working groups. I think I am the only actual 25 survivor.
64
1 261 I have also participated from time to 2 time on some of the technical groups on behalf of 3 clients. 911 is an example where I saw early that it 4 was a nice sub-working group to visit, but I wouldn't 5 want to live there. So, I have a lot of respect for 6 Dennis and I tend to agree with much of what he says. 7 262 I have been listening to this 8 discussion, and I don't know enough about the steering 9 group and its mandate to know for certain whether the 10 appropriate place to take this notion or matter of a 11 policy issue versus an implementation issue, whether it 12 is to take it to the steering group. But I think the 13 point that Karen made is a valid point. 14 263 There are policy issues big and there 15 are policy issues small. There are policy issues that 16 identify themselves at the outset of a proceeding or 17 even before the outset, even before a matter is given 18 over to CISC, and then there are policy matters that 19 arise in the course of discussion. In the course of 20 discussion, there are some policy matters that really 21 do put the brakes on any fruitful discussion that can 22 take place at the working group. I have been involved 23 in situations where your ability to move forward 24 depends on the determination of a policy issue. Other 25 policy issues are not central; they don't impede the
65
1 functioning of the group. 2 264 Sometimes, I have to say, despite the 3 fact that CISC has been a phenomenal process and the 4 CRTC deserves tremendous credit for initiating it and 5 the industry deserves credit for making it work, I do 6 believe that occasionally the Commission itself will 7 refer an item to CISC, and I appreciate this may not be 8 the cental issue you are discussing, but a matter may 9 be referred to CISC that is itself so laden and rich in 10 potential policy and potential policy disputes that it 11 probably should not have gone to CISC in the first 12 place. 13 265 My own sense of process is you can 14 design a wonderful process like CISC and you can 15 undermine it and subvert it by sending the wrong issues 16 to CISC or by dwelling on the wrong issues within CISC 17 once the matter has gotten to CISC. It isn't a fault 18 of the process itself, which I think is an excellent 19 process, and I do think that we are here to finetune 20 it. 21 266 I wondered myself whether it might 22 not be possible at the outset -- I refer to Karen's 23 comment. I think you just mentioned the fact that 24 sometimes there are policy issues that need to be 25 resolved at the outset. I think that is clear. I
66
1 think there are policy issues that need to be resolved 2 at the outset that can in fact be identified at the 3 outset. 4 267 Where I am going to is this. It is 5 inevitable that during the course of an extended CISC 6 process you are going to get policy issues that will 7 arise from time to time. I believe as those policy 8 issues get identified, I think it is incumbent upon the 9 CRTC staff at that point in time to take an active 10 role. So I agree with Alex. These are the ones in 11 midstream. 12 268 The first meeting there could be a 13 discussion of an issue. No one may yet have twigged to 14 the fact that this may be an issue where one party 15 might think it is policy, the other might think it is 16 implementation. By the second meeting, same issue, I 17 would expect that someone is going to identify this as 18 a log jam that may relate to the fact that it is policy 19 versus implementation. 20 269 I would think that if it goes to a 21 third meeting and you are still looking at this, I 22 believe the staff should go back to the Commission and 23 come back perhaps for the fourth meeting and identify 24 this as one that we are going to take back to the 25 Commission. I am just making up timelines as to how I
67
1 think these issues might arise. Those are issues that 2 arise during the course of the meeting. I don't think 3 they should have to go to a steering group and I 4 personally don't think they should have to be 5 identified and handled through a Part VII. I believe 6 that CRTC would be doing a tremendous job of 7 facilitating the activity if they approached it in that 8 way. 9 270 I just want to make one other 10 comment. For those policy issues that are sometimes 11 identified or identifiable at the outset of a 12 proceeding, it may be that the CRTC makes a policy 13 decision and decides to refer the matter to CISC. In 14 those cases, I have seen several decisions that come 15 down from the Commission and they indicate that this 16 particular issue will be assigned to CISC. I guess I 17 wondered whether, instead of doing that, it might not 18 be possible, say, when the Commission makes a policy 19 decision, to instead say that the following issues 20 suggest to the Commission, based on the record we have 21 had, that these may be issues that are best addressed 22 by CISC, and then get the industry's view on that as 23 opposed to simply sending the matter to CISC. I wonder 24 whether it might be helpful to ask the industry their 25 views on whether an issue is appropriately sent to
68
1 CISC, and maybe even in the proceeding that leads to 2 the policy decision, to ask parties, as part of your 3 initial public notice, whether issues that you have 4 identified as one you want to address in your policy 5 proceeding are issues that may or may not be 6 appropriate for CISC. 7 271 Early identification of policy issues 8 are terribly important because I think sometimes a CISC 9 group is really consigned to a dismal and extended 10 future merely by virtue of the fact that they have been 11 unfortunately saddled with an issue, not necessarily by 12 the Commission, but they have unfortunately been 13 saddled by an issue that they should never have been 14 saddled with in the first place. 15 272 To bottom line it, I do believe there 16 should be some thought given to coming up with 17 processes that might differ between those policy issues 18 that can be identified as big policy issues at the 19 outset, that may go to the question as to whether this 20 is an appropriate matter or not for CISC on the one 21 hand and those policy issues that arise in the course 22 of a process, which is a CISC process, in relation to 23 issues that clearly should be in front of CISC. I just 24 sometimes think that by discussing policy and using the 25 word "policy," we lose sight of the fact that there are
69
1 different kinds of policy, there are large and small 2 and they arise at different times. That is my comment. 3 273 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Lorne. I 4 agree with you and I think that touches on perhaps the 5 point that Bob was making too: You can identify it 6 early on; perhaps it is a fairly big issue, other times 7 it doesn't get identified until later on; sometimes it 8 is hard to identify is it really policy or not. 9 274 I was flipping through the 10 submissions as you were talking because I thought I 11 recalled somebody having mentioned that if, by the 12 second meeting -- I mean, you talked about one or two 13 or three -- and then by the fourth meeting and somebody 14 said by the second meeting if it is becoming evident 15 that it is a policy issue, then perhaps it is time the 16 CRTC staff jumped in and look a look at it and 17 attempted to make a determination as to whether in fact 18 it is or not. 19 275 Pippa. 20 276 MS LAWSON: Thanks. I would like to 21 build on the comments Lorne has made. I have some 22 discussions both in terms of developing criteria for 23 deciding when an issue is appropriately dealt with by 24 CISC. That would be helpful, in addition to or as part 25 of the guidelines, to develop clearer criteria for
70
1 that, that determination. Secondly, the process itself 2 for identifying and dealing with policy issues. 3 277 The key criteria here, the question 4 that needs to be asked, whenever a task comes before a 5 group, a working group or a steering committee or 6 whatever, is: Is the negotiation process likely to 7 achieve a better resolution to this issue than would a 8 formal public process and is it likely to achieve that 9 better resolution in a timely fashion and without undue 10 effort on the part of the stakeholders. 11 278 A further criterion would be: Do you 12 have buy in from all key stakeholders to using this 13 process to resolve that issue? 14 279 It would be helpful to work on those 15 issues and make them explicit in a guidelines document. 16 280 In terms of the process itself, I 17 totally agree with Lorne that we need to parse the 18 issue here. We have two different forums. You have 19 the steering committee and you have the working groups. 20 Policy issues are going to be potentially identified in 21 the first instance by either of those groups. So, the 22 process needs to address both of those instances. 23 281 I don't think it does address the 24 instance when the working group finds that there is a 25 policy issue that the steering committee didn't
71
1 appreciate in the first place. 2 282 When matters come before the steering 3 committee, first of all, it is still quite possible 4 that a task that is presented to the steering committee 5 clearly presents a policy issue that parties agree 6 should be dealt with through a different process. So, 7 that is a possibility and that is why it is still 8 valuable to use the steering committee funnel or 9 screening process in the first instance to try to 10 identify policy issues. 11 283 There are three possibilities. One 12 is that the whole thing is a policy issue that should 13 be dealt with separately. Two is that the issue 14 involves both implementation and policy aspects and 15 maybe those should be divided up and dealt with 16 separately. The third one is that there is a policy 17 issue involved here, but that everyone agrees that that 18 particular policy issue can benefit from negotiation 19 through the CISC possess. 20 284 While I agree with everyone that, in 21 general, policy issues shouldn't be dealt with through 22 CISC, I think it is possible that in some instances 23 there are certain types of policy issues that can 24 benefit from that kind of discussion rather than a 25 formal adversarial process when parties aren't trying
72
1 to understand each other's positions as much as they 2 are during the negotiation process. 3 285 There, again, it is extremely 4 important that you have the right criteria and that you 5 apply them and that involves, again, having buy in from 6 all key stakeholders to use the CISC process for that 7 purpose. 8 286 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Pippa. 9 287 Peter. 10 288 MR. LANG: I echo quite a bit of what 11 Pippa said. I would just like to expand on a couple of 12 items. 13 289 One is in terms of if, in the review 14 of the TIF initially -- and someone made a comment 15 earlier, I believe it was Dennis, that we have to be 16 much more explicit in how we write up the TIFs in terms 17 of how we describe it so that everybody understands at 18 the outset what is the issue at hand, what are you 19 addressing. 20 290 I am just going to jump out of that 21 for one second because we do have a process in place 22 now where TIFs are approved by CISC, but one of our 23 issues from a Business Process perspective is that CISC 24 meets too infrequently and sometimes we are already 25 halfway down the path on a particular issue before we
73
1 realize that maybe we shouldn't even be addressing it. 2 In terms of frequency of meetings and in terms of what 3 we discuss at the meetings, we should spend more time 4 reviewing the TIF at the meeting. Basically all we do 5 at the meetings today is introduce a new TIF and say we 6 have a new TIF on this subject, period. In my 7 experience over the last two years, there has very 8 little, if any, discussion at all on the TIF and the 9 merits of it and it just gets approved and off we go. 10 We have to take some more time at the outset before we 11 begin the whole process. 12 291 Actually at our Business Process 13 meeting yesterday, we came up with a consensus report 14 on a particular issue. There was one item at the tail 15 end, that came up right near the very end, that we 16 determined was a policy issue and shouldn't be in the 17 report per se because we couldn't address it. What we 18 did do is, as a further activity on the final page of 19 the report, we itemized that there is this one issue 20 that was not addressed and not resolved and that the 21 Commission should deal with. That was the first time 22 we had ever done that. That is something we should 23 look at doing on an ongoing basis. 24 292 Lorne mentioned that sometimes you 25 don't discover an issue until you are halfway through
74
1 the thing and you don't want to stop because you have 2 done some good work, you have started defining a 3 process and everything else and all of a sudden there 4 is something. 5 293 There should be a way that the 6 Commission can get involved right at that point in 7 time, make a quick decision, and this is one of the 8 issues in terms of making decisions anyways, is the 9 timing involved, but making a quick decision on that 10 particular policy item so we can proceed. Otherwise 11 you get things hung up. We will defer items. If a 12 company puts in a Part VII, then we will decide, well, 13 we better not address that and wait until that gets 14 resolved. That can take a considerable amount of time. 15 294 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 16 Chaouki, do you want to make any comments on what you 17 have heard? 18 295 MR. DAKDOUKI: I agree with all of 19 them. Sometimes we need first to define what is a 20 policy issue. We establish the mechanisms that all of 21 this should go to the steering committee. Staff should 22 play the same role. However, also, all party 23 representatives should play the same role. 24 296 I would think that if a company 25 thinks that the time taken to resolve an issue is too
75
1 long, they should tell their representative, issue a 2 Part VII. We saw this in the past. 3 297 We have to play a major role as a 4 steering committee, a better role, I would say, 5 reviewing all the TIFs. Right now we are just rubber 6 stamping them. Actually some of them we send them by 7 e-mails. Then at the staff level maybe we play a 8 better role of reviewing those from time to time and 9 check if there is any policy issue we need to take out 10 of the CISC. 11 298 THE CHAIRPERSON: Peter, I am struck 12 by a comment you made. The process that you have just 13 taken on to identify here's where we have agreed -- and 14 I think this goes back to something Teresa said earlier 15 on -- and yet, here is what we think is a separate 16 policy issue that the Commission must address and we 17 are mindful that we have to be more efficient on how we 18 deal with some of these issues. 19 299 It doesn't strike me, from hearing 20 the discussion, that we need major changes in terms of 21 guidelines or whatever. It is more a question of 22 perhaps being more vigilant with guidelines that we 23 have, the steering committee perhaps taking a more 24 careful look at the TIFs that are identified as they 25 come along.
76
1 300 Dennis. 2 301 MR. BELAND: My reaction to the 3 discussion is that there seems to be a lot of consensus 4 around a couple of points, like you just mentioned. 5 302 The one that is still hanging out 6 there is this mid stream policy issue that arises and 7 Call-Net's suggestion, in particular, that some 8 mechanism be developed for more quickly identifying and 9 resolving those mid-stream policy issues. There is one 10 camp that is of the view, do a Part VII, launch a 11 dispute, and there is another camp which Call-Net is 12 clearly of the view and I tend to be of the view as 13 well, we should maybe be looking for some sort of more 14 efficient mechanism for these relatively modest 15 mid-stream policy issues that arise. I am wondering if 16 the Commission itself has any ideas of what is possible 17 there. 18 303 THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought the kind 19 of thing that Peter talked about in fact speaks to 20 that, where the group has identified a policy issue, 21 noted that separately. That seems to me can be 22 referred through Commission staff. 23 304 MR. BELAND: I think we are still 24 missing what happens after. Maybe we have the 25 mechanism to identify it. Maybe I can ask Call-Net
77
1 directly. Are you thinking along the lines of a staff 2 opinion kind of thing or something more formal? 3 305 MR. ADEYINKA: No, actually we would 4 stay away from staff opinions. With due respect, what 5 I mean is by identifying it as a policy issue, what 6 that means is you really wouldn't need a binding 7 pronouncement on it, and we know by definition staff 8 opinion is not binding. So, why waste time getting a 9 staff opinion on it, and somebody will come back in the 10 next meeting and say, oh, by the way, it is not 11 binding, we are not obligated. 12 306 What we were thinking of is a 13 situation in which either the industry members 14 themselves, ie. the ILECs and the CLECs and whoever 15 else is participating or the staff that is presiding in 16 the particular sub-working group would be far more 17 vigilant and more proactive in assessing and 18 identifying again whether there is a policy issue. It 19 may not even be a dispute yet, and I am sorry to 20 digress here. I heard Pippa say earlier on that there 21 is a third category of policy issues, the ones that 22 parties may agree on. Those are actually, in my 23 opinion, the most dangerous types of policy issues. 24 307 If you look at the history of 25 remotes, there was a Part VII filed which, by
78
1 definition, means it has been escalated as a policy 2 issue. The Part VII was then withdrawn because parties 3 agreed that, we may agree on the policy; it is a good 4 policy to provide access to competitors' remotes. Two 5 years down the road, parties are saying, well, they are 6 not mandated to provide it. 7 308 That is one of the most dangerous 8 types of policy issues, the one that looks like, oh, 9 people can easily agree to it. I am sorry I am citing 10 a specific example. We are not supposed to do that. 11 But, again, just to facilitate the discussion. 12 309 Back to the point, what Call-Net 13 would be urging the Commission to do is to encourage 14 the staff that is presiding in any working group to be 15 vigilant on this issue. As we say in our submission, 16 after the second or third meeting, it is usually 17 apparent that there is some policy issue that needs to 18 be either verified or confirmed or at least agreed to 19 by the parties. If that is the case, we don't even 20 have to wait for Call-Net or AT&T or even Bell to say, 21 I am going to the Commission, I want to write up a 22 dispute and take it to the Commission. Staff can 23 articulate the issue, the policy issue at stake with 24 input from all the members and say, okay, this is the 25 policy issue as we see it; we have written it up, it is
79
1 five pages, whatever it is, and then take that to the 2 Commission. Then we invoke this new process that we 3 are urging the Commission to adopt, which, again, we 4 are saying it should not be the traditional Part VII or 5 the traditional PN. 6 310 It should be a new process. Staff 7 will be the one that actually has carriage of that 8 particular issue and that particular file. They take 9 it to the Commission, this new process, as a vote and 10 then the issue is dealt with. 11 311 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am going to ask 12 Allan to comment. But I am smiling here thinking of 13 Chaouki actually bringing a Part VII before the 14 Commission. 15 312 MR. DAKDOUKI: Actually I was going 16 to pick on him, but the Chair ordered me not to do so. 17 313 There is this process, it does exist. 18 For example, this non-consensus report right now, and 19 the Password example there, where the group agrees, we 20 need some directives from the Commission to move on, 21 and they send their report to the Commission telling 22 them, look, that's what we think, we don't agree on 23 this, we need your directives on it. It is not a 24 dispute; it is not a Part VII; it is a non-consensus 25 report. The Commission dealt with it without a PN. We
80
1 had the participants' comments and we issued an order 2 on it. 3 314 MR. ADEYINKA: My concern with that 4 is, again, that is an issue that is properly within 5 CISC. If it is an implementation issue, an operational 6 issue, a Business Process issue and there is a dispute, 7 you can use the existing guidelines and existing 8 processes. 9 315 When it is a fundamental policy 10 issue, I still believe that we need to look at an 11 alternative process for resolving that, for dealing 12 with it. 13 316 MR. DAKDOUKI: Allan, do you want to 14 say something on this? 15 317 MR. ROSENZVEIG: Lorne has already 16 suggested that if you have this mid-course policy thing 17 that arises, maybe it should not be necessary to have a 18 Part VII. I think you have said the same thing, that 19 maybe no individual party should have to come in and 20 apply. The consensus of the group is it is not 21 working. It needs a quick Commission determination. 22 Don't require a party to trigger a proceeding and a 23 traditional proceeding which takes longer. 24 318 So the question is: What sort of 25 process do we run? Certainly the Commission can
81
1 initiate its own proceedings, and maybe in some cases 2 you don't actually need a proceeding. If everybody who 3 is an effective and interested party was at the table 4 and had an opportunity to file submissions, you may not 5 need a process. But, generally speaking, we are going 6 to need a process either because the positions of the 7 parties aren't clear and in writing and available on a 8 public record or because not all the players were at 9 the party. 10 319 The question then becomes: How does 11 one trigger, assuming we need a process, a process? 12 Does the Commission say all parties file submissions 13 and reply submissions, you have three days or two days, 14 whatever. That becomes the question. Do people have 15 ideas? I mean, obviously one size won't fit all, but 16 if you do have a policy matter that is impeding CISC 17 and it shouldn't be there and it is identified and 18 staff is involved, et cetera, how do we then run a 19 proceeding, assuming we need one? What do you need to 20 start with and what process is appropriate? 21 320 MR. ADEYINKA: I don't mean to 22 monopolize the meeting. I was just going to say that 23 our suggestion is the staff should take a leadership 24 role once a policy issue is identified. It becomes 25 your file. You are more familiar with the issues and
82
1 more familiar with the positions taken by the adverse 2 parties within that working group, and you are also 3 more familiar than anybody as to the urgency of the 4 matter. It should be staff that would recommend to the 5 Commission that, let's have a mini-proceeding, five 6 days to file comments, get the parties together in 7 Ottawa for half a day, if necessary, or get a reply 8 stage that is like a bridge to ten days, or whatever 9 the process may be. 10 321 But it shouldn't be the traditional 11 Part VII. Staff has to take a decisive leadership role 12 in moving things along once that issue is identified 13 and getting it resolved as quickly as possible. That 14 is the crux of what we are suggesting. 15 322 THE CHAIRPERSON: Karen, go ahead, 16 and then Teresa. 17 323 MS O'BRIEN: I don't think that we 18 need yet another process. I think we have the 19 processes available to us and we just have to choose 20 which one is appropriate. 21 324 We started this discussion by talking 22 about participation and the ability to participate 23 fully in any particular task that might be facing CISC. 24 Certainly, we would be uncomfortable with a process 25 that fast tracked a Commission decision, a binding
83
1 Commission decision on a policy issue where there has 2 not necessarily been opportunity for everybody to 3 participate fully and to have their comments and their 4 positions reflected. 5 325 I also think that there are policy 6 issues that are perhaps smaller in nature or maybe they 7 are not even really policy. Really what they are is 8 that the working group is looking for the Commission to 9 arbitrate. We have had a situation like that recently 10 where there was general consensus with respect to the 11 issue itself, but there was a desire to have the 12 Commission put the stamp of approval in terms of the 13 direction that the industry was proposing. 14 326 It is really dangerous to create yet 15 another process that could potentially exclude 16 participation of other parties. The small ILECs are 17 here today and certainly Pippa from a public policy 18 perspective. 19 327 It is also very difficult, without 20 having provided people an opportunity to participate, 21 to be sure that you have in fact framed the appropriate 22 policy issue and that you have considered all of the 23 items that need to be considered within the context of 24 that. 25 328 The processes are there from the CISC
84
1 perspective, whether it is non-consensus or a dispute. 2 The processes are there in terms of the more formal 3 Commission process, whether it be a Part VII or a 4 request to initiate a PN. I am not sure why we would 5 want to create yet another process that tries to short 6 cut either of the processes that exist. 7 329 THE CHAIRPERSON: Picking up on your 8 point there, again, I am not familiar with all the 9 details of the guidelines either. I hear what you are 10 saying, Alex, but I think there is something in what 11 Karen has said. I know, Teresa, you want to speak and 12 others do too. 13 330 We do have an avenue for the 14 Commission to deal with consensus, and we do. I know 15 there has been some criticism in here about delay in 16 getting answers back from the Commission. But I can 17 tell you that we have something we refer to as 18 walkarounds in the Commission or ad hoc committee 19 meetings where we have the Telecom committee. I can 20 tell you that these consensus things get dealt with as 21 an e-mail. Once we have at least three Commissioners, 22 then that is a quorum for the Telecom committee who 23 have agreed to it. Boom, it is done. It may take a 24 little while to get the decision written and out the 25 door, but that is another story.
85
1 331 There is an avenue there right now 2 through the CISC process for the Commission to deal 3 with consensus reports. There is also an avenue for 4 the Commission to deal with disputes, and we do. It 5 seems to me, without having thought this through any 6 more than the last hour or two, that these sorts of 7 issues could be dealt with just the same way as a 8 dispute. In effect, it is we have agreed or we don't, 9 as the case may be, but somebody has identified this as 10 a policy issue and the Commission is going to have to 11 deal with it, just like we have reached an impasse 12 here, we have a dispute, and the Commission is going to 13 have to deal with it. It seems to me the avenue may 14 already be there for us to be able to deal with it. 15 332 I don't know that it is necessarily 16 fast track. I think we try to be fairly flexible at 17 the Commission anyway in terms of what is the nature of 18 the process that we are going to have to deal with here 19 in terms of dealing with a given issue, depending on 20 the information that we may or may not have in front of 21 us to give us enough information with which to render a 22 decision. That will kind of define the process that we 23 go through, whether we do a written process or an oral 24 public hearing. Based on what has gone on around this 25 table or a working group table, is there enough
86
1 information for the Commission to make a decision? 2 That has happened in some of the disputes that we have 3 dealt with. 4 333 We haven't had a lot of disputes to 5 deal with over the last short while, it seems to me, 6 but I can recall several years ago there was enough 7 information based on what CISC did for us to be able to 8 decide one way or another which way we are going to go 9 with this. Sometimes it requires a public notice and 10 so on. 11 334 I am not sure it requires a new 12 process as much as identifying early on in the process 13 that it is, clearly writing up what it is, and it gets 14 back to us and can be dealt with just the same way a 15 dispute would be. It is a policy issue and now we need 16 the Commission to deal with it. 17 335 Having said that, Teresa, you wanted 18 to speak and then Bob. 19 336 MS MUIR: Thanks. Teresa Muir, AT&T 20 Canada. Actually, you said most of what I was going to 21 say. That was pretty good. 22 337 I just wanted to respond to Karen. I 23 don't think it is a new process. I think if it is a 24 full blown policy issue, it is not fast tracked anyway. 25 In fact, from where I am sitting, not too much is fast
87
1 tracked. 2 338 In the cases that we had, we used 3 that non-consensus or partial consensus. In two of 4 those cases, the non-consenting parties filed the Part 5 VII simultaneously. In fact, that whole process came 6 as a result of a recommendation from Commission staff 7 at that very meeting. 8 339 I really don't think it is anything 9 new. It is really identification as opposed to 10 developing something different. 11 340 THE CHAIRPERSON: Bob. 12 341 MR. GOWENLOCK: I am going to agree 13 actually, especially with Karen. There is no need for 14 a new process. The range of process in the existing 15 structure is extremely wide. It goes right from the 16 CISC actually itself creating policy when there is a 17 determination of, for example, a particular type of 18 access has not been contemplated by a decision but the 19 ILECs, for example, agree that it is something that 20 maybe should be done. We have a record. We have done 21 that. 22 342 That is a policy decision, I guess, 23 made at CISC. So, there is no real Chinese wall 24 between the Commission and CISC, in my view. 25 343 You also have a bigger role, I think
88
1 we have talked about, and I think there is consensus on 2 that, that at some points in discussion the staff may 3 have an opportunity for a role to maybe facilitate the 4 discussion and maybe get a resolution without going to 5 the Commission. But even if a dispute is taken to the 6 Commission or the Commission initiates it, the 7 Commission has a wide range of options. It can issue a 8 full public notice or we can go through a Part V, which 9 could have interrogatories, could just be comments, 10 could be abbreviated procedure, could be extended 11 procedure. So, there is a large range of possibilities 12 in the existing structure, without actually changing 13 anything. 14 344 The last point I would like to make 15 is a formal proceeding may, in a lot of circumstances, 16 be quicker, it may not be better. It would be better 17 to the degree that the CISC is functioning and these 18 things can be worked out on the basis of negotiation. 19 It might be better for all around without involving the 20 Commission. We know there are Commission decisions 21 that were revisited within two years because there 22 wasn't a full enough understanding and the decision was 23 too narrow or whatever. That is not a criticism of the 24 Commission. That is just a plain fact that the 25 Commission, like anyone else around this table, does
89
1 not know everything about an issue. All of these 2 issues tend to be complicated; they tend to be new 3 ones, then the understanding takes a while to achieve. 4 345 We should appreciate what we have, 5 without making necessarily structural changes with what 6 we have here. 7 346 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Bob. I am 8 happy to admit that we don't know it all. That is why 9 we created this structure in the first place. 10 347 Lorne. 11 348 MR. ABUGOV: Thank you. Again, a 12 comment I will make now may reflect very clearly my 13 lack of knowledge of the mandate of the steering 14 committee. But as I understood it, the steering 15 committee has to approve all TIFs at the outset. I 16 don't know whether or not we have had situations where 17 the steering committee has actually rejected a TIF. I 18 don't know. 19 349 I don't know if the steering 20 committee has ever really looked at particular TIFs 21 with a set of policy eyeglasses on to try to ascertain 22 whether the TIF is really a policy item that is perhaps 23 dressed up as an implementational issue. 24 350 But it struck me, and I am only now 25 referring to the disputes or issues relating to policy
90
1 implementation that might arise mid stream in the 2 course of an existing CISC meeting, and I am thinking 3 back to Peter's comment where he said sometimes in the 4 course of CISC the committee and the chairman will 5 identify an issue and they can't really wait around 6 while it gets brought to the steering committee, et 7 cetera. 8 351 I guess I sometimes wondered whether, 9 instead of the sub-working group going to the steering 10 committee, I wondered if the steering committee ought 11 more properly go to the sub-working group. 12 352 I come from the approach that there 13 are not all that many of these cases where the group is 14 going along and suddenly an issue arises and there is a 15 dispute or debate as to whether it is policy or not. 16 If I am correct that this doesn't arise 100 times a 17 year, but is a relatively infrequent issue, but an 18 important issue, then just as the CRTC, David, has 19 walkaround and e-mails and ad hocs, I wonder if it 20 wouldn't be very helpful to the chairperson of the 21 working group, if it wouldn't take a lot of pressure 22 off the CRTC staffer to simply say, okay, we have 23 talked about this for three meetings. What I will do 24 is I will put a request to the steering group to hold 25 an ad hoc conference call with us and, in effect, what
91
1 you will be doing then is you will simply be taking the 2 whole that the steering committee would play at the 3 start of a TIF by looking to see if it is policy or 4 not, you would be injecting them back into the CISC at 5 a given process, recognizing that the steering group 6 doesn't have to solve the issue. 7 353 We can't lose sight of the fact that 8 we are talking about two different processes here. The 9 first process is simply finding a way to kick the issue 10 out of CISC. It is not to make a decision on it. That 11 is the second issue. That is the issue you raise, 12 Allan, and correctly so. 13 354 Personally, I don't think you need 14 new processes for either of those. I think that the 15 second issue, once it gets out of CISC, I am sure the 16 Commission has ample processes to slot it in. If you 17 do need another process or two, again, I could have 18 lunch with Chaouki, I will give him ten. 19 355 But in terms of kicking it out in the 20 first place, I just wonder whether it might not be the 21 easiest way, instead of getting a junior staffer or a 22 senior staffer and dispatching them back to the 23 Commission to try to find out if it is or isn't or we 24 should or we shouldn't. Maybe you simply hold an ad 25 hoc steering committee just with that sub-working group
92
1 and say, hey, here's the issue. It could be a case 2 where everybody agrees it is a policy issue and it just 3 needs some kind of mechanism to get it out, or it could 4 be one where one party says it is and another party 5 says it isn't and maybe -- again, I don't know your 6 mandate -- but maybe that would be appropriate for an 7 ad hoc steering group. 8 356 THE CHAIRPERSON: Lorne, this picks 9 up a point that Peter made, was that the process is 10 there. Sometimes the steering committee, if it is only 11 meeting every month or every two months or sometimes 12 every quarter, then it is not there regularly enough to 13 deal with that sort of thing. So, an ad hoc steering 14 committee meeting to be able to deal with that sort of 15 issue seems to me to be a way to perhaps speed up that 16 process in terms of identifying that and getting the 17 issue to the proper place to get it resolved. 18 357 As you say, it is not necessarily 19 incumbent upon either the working group or the steering 20 committee to resolve the issue. 21 358 Pippa. 22 359 MS LAWSON: That is an excellent idea 23 that Lorne raised. 24 360 Just one further point. 25 361 MR. ABUGOV: I am going to leave now,
93
1 if that is okay. 2 362 MS. LAWSON: Obviously we have enough 3 processes for dealing with issues. What we might not 4 have, though, is an adequate process for invoking the 5 right process. Yes, there is always the Part VII 6 application out there for parties to use. That is a 7 bit of a problem. 8 363 Let me just explain, from my 9 perspective, I sense that in some cases, the Commission 10 and others view Part VII applications as requests for 11 favours or special relief by parties. That is what it 12 sounds like sometimes in decisions that come out of 13 Part VII applications, when in fact parties are just 14 being forced to use the Part VII application in order 15 to get an issue on the table, something that I would 16 have thought would be more appropriately invoked 17 through a CRTC-initiated process. 18 364 I am wondering if, at a minimum, 19 let's say we have this process Lorne is talking about, 20 the steering committee recommends to the Commission 21 that it invoke some kind of process to deal with a 22 policy issue. At a minimum, it would be helpful to get 23 a clear answer back from the Commission about whether 24 it is going to invoke such a process or not so that 25 parties know that their only option is through a Part
94
1 VII. 2 365 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't think the 3 only option is to do a Part VII, Pippa. As I said, it 4 seems to me that we already have a process where the 5 Commission can deal with disputes that arise within the 6 CISC process. It seems to me that this identification, 7 either it is a dispute whether or not it is a policy 8 issue or there is an agreement that it is a policy 9 issue, could be sent to the Commission through the same 10 kind of process that a dispute gets there, and then we 11 can deal with it. I don't think we need a new process 12 to do that, unless I am missing something here. It is 13 quite possible. 14 366 MS LAWSON: I felt we were talking 15 about matters that wouldn't have come up through the 16 internal CISC dispute process. 17 367 THE CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me that 18 same sort of avenue can be used here for us to be able 19 to deal with it. I think we can easily get the message 20 back, the Commission thinks this is a legitimate policy 21 issue and we will run a proceeding on it, just as we 22 would have if it was a dispute, we would take the 23 dispute and run a proceeding to deal with it or we 24 would say, no, we don't think it is, go back and deal 25 with it.
95
1 368 More than likely, we are going to 2 deal with it because 99 and 44/100ths per cent of the 3 time we would probably agree it was a policy issue, 4 especially if the parties around the table had agreed 5 that it was. 6 369 Don. 7 370 MR. BOWLES: David, I would agree 8 with you. I would be a bit concerned that the process 9 that Lorne was suggesting is layering another process 10 on, when the problem really is getting these things to 11 the Commission. Putting another process in between the 12 working group and the Commission I am not sure is 13 constructive. 14 371 The working groups are mature enough 15 that they can deal with these issues and identify these 16 issues themselves. I am not sure another layer is 17 going to be useful. 18 372 MS LAWSON: The one advantage of the 19 other layer, if I can just jump in, is that there will 20 be parties in the steering committee who won't be 21 members of the working group and might not be aware of 22 the issue but might be interested at this level. 23 373 THE CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, 24 I am sure I am missing something that Lorne had said, 25 but as I understand it, there is already the avenue for
96
1 the steering committee to sign off on TIFs and be 2 satisfied that it is indeed a TIF that should be dealt 3 with. 4 374 The suggestion, as I took it here, 5 was really it is just a question of perhaps having more 6 frequent ad hoc meetings. If a working group 7 identifies we have a problem here, we better run it by 8 the steering committee, we are more quickly doing that 9 perhaps through a conference call or whatever in the 10 interval between what would otherwise have been two 11 regular steering committee meetings just to kind of 12 sign off, if you will, on that. It seems to me it 13 makes sense to provide that opportunity to be able to 14 deal with those sorts of issues so they can be more 15 quickly dealt with. 16 375 If the committee has just met, a 17 steering committee meets today, a working group meets 18 in two day's time and they identify this and the 19 steering committee is not meeting for another two 20 months, then we have two months lost. If they could 21 agree, look, we want to boot this back to the steering 22 committee, they have a conference call next week and 23 agree, no, that is a policy issue, we better send that 24 to the Commission. 25 376 MR. DAKDOUKI: Two points. First on
97
1 the mechanism that Lorne proposed. All working group 2 chairs have to report monthly to the steering committee 3 on their activities. In theory, this report should be 4 presented to the steering committee at each meeting. 5 So, the steering committee parties could review the 6 work and the delays, if there are any, and if there are 7 any policy issues. 8 377 The other issue is the steering 9 committee, on several occasions, had ad hoc committees. 10 We had a request from a chair, a specific chair, who 11 asked for an ad hoc, and we had it. So, it is already 12 done. 13 378 MS CALDER: I am Janet Calder. I 14 chair the Emergency Services working group for the last 15 six months after Dennis finally stepped down. 16 379 THE CHAIRPERSON: That sounds like a 17 good thing. 18 380 MS CALDER: It was amazing. He 19 stayed for five and a half years. 20 381 Listening to the discussions here, I 21 would like to urge you not to introduce another level 22 of process. Our committee is unique amongst the groups 23 now. We have civilians on the committee. I don't work 24 for a phone company; I am not a lawyer, which I think 25 makes me pretty much alone here.
98
1 382 Our committee has worked pretty well. 2 I don't know what a Part VII is. We don't have the 3 resources to involve lawyers and make this a really 4 formal and long proceeding by putting everything in 5 writing, going through the Commission and all this. 6 383 "Working group" is the operative 7 words. We have tended to work things out. The one 8 time we did have a major disagreement, as Dennis listed 9 in his report, the Commission came up with a proposed 10 solution that was really ugly and we all hated it and 11 it united us to come up with our own answer. 12 384 THE CHAIRPERSON: So it worked. 13 385 MS CALDER: It worked. Until I read 14 Dennis' report, I thought, oh, that's why David Meadows 15 did that to us. It was a face-to-face where people 16 actually showed up, as well, which was part of the 17 problem. 18 386 I really don't think we need another 19 process. We have a procedure. We have a process. We 20 have a way of getting things done. Reporting to the 21 steering committee once a month is a good idea. I 22 don't know whether the steering committee could really 23 discuss some of our TIFs at length and figure out is it 24 important, it's a 911 emergency services issue. 25 Likewise, I don't really want to sit and talk about, I
99
1 don't know what a remote is, I'm sorry. Anyway, I am 2 sure it is important. 3 387 THE CHAIRPERSON: Remotely, because 4 if 911 won't work off it, it is important. 5 388 MS CALDER: We have very specific 6 issues. Thank you. 7 389 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Janet. 8 Lorne, there's another potential client. 9 390 MR. ABUGOV: I can tell you what a 10 Part VII is. 11 391 THE CHAIRPERSON: But it will cost 12 you a lot of money. 13 392 MR. ABUGOV: I am not going to win 14 this. 15 393 THE CHAIRPERSON: No. I get the last 16 say, Lorne. 17 394 MR. ABUGOV: Can I just make one 18 point. It seems to me that if there is an issue that 19 is at committee or at a sub-working group, I am not 20 certain that by having the chairman or the CRTC staff 21 or the whole group determine that they would like to 22 have a conference call with the steering committee on 23 an ad hoc basis, personally I kind of recoil at people 24 referring to that suggestion. It is just a suggestion; 25 it may or may not be a good or bad one, I don't know,
100
1 but I don't see it as a process. It isn't a process. 2 395 There is already a process in place 3 at the outset where the steering group seems to be the 4 party that people are saying, in approving a TIF at the 5 first stage, will be responsible for looking also at 6 the question of whether it has policy issues or not. 7 396 I do think you have to help the 8 process by identifying a particular group or mechanism 9 within CISC that should be kind of prime on the 10 question of determining whether something is policy or 11 implementation and getting it out of the working 12 committees. 13 397 That is why I thought, on a one-call 14 basis, it doesn't even have to involve the entire 15 committee; it can involve the chairman and the two main 16 proponents or whatever sitting on a call with the 17 steering group on an ad hoc basis. I think you also 18 get the benefit of Pippa's point, which is you have 19 people who will be coming to this with a fresh 20 perspective on the issue and maybe no particular axes 21 to grind. If that group is already going to make a 22 decision on the same issue at the outset, then they 23 should be the one that should agree and tell the chair, 24 look, in our view it is this and, therefore, at least 25 the chair knows, the parties know that that is the view
101
1 of the steering committee and then on they go. They 2 slide right into the existing process, whether it is 3 non-consensus, dispute, whatever. 4 398 I don't particularly see it as a 5 process. I see it as a sanity check as much as 6 anything. 7 399 THE CHAIRPERSON: Lorne, I think I am 8 agreeing with you. It fits within the existing 9 guidelines, it seems to me. It is just a question of 10 frequency of meeting and being prepared to deal with 11 it. 12 400 I take Chaouki's point, but having 13 been involved in a number of organizations where you 14 have a main board and a number of sub-committees or 15 whatever, well, they don't always conveniently meet the 16 day before the board meeting so that they can submit 17 their reports to the board that day. In fact, many of 18 them meet the day after or two days after the board has 19 met so their reports don't get filed until the next 20 meeting and so on. If something pops up in the 21 interval that needs the attention of the steering 22 committee and it is not going to meet for another 23 quarter, it seems to me there should be an opportunity 24 there for it to be able to deal with that sort of 25 thing.
102
1 401 I am looking at the clock on the 2 wall. It is 20 after 12:00 by that clock. I am 3 suggesting we might want to take our lunch break now. 4 What I would like to suggest is we take a break for 5 about 15 minutes or so, gather lunch, and then come 6 back to the table by let's say 12:45. We will just 7 continue on dealing with some of the other issues. 8 402 We have had a good discussion about 9 this policy issue. I suspect we may well have picked 10 up a few of the others, but there is at least one other 11 one that a lot of people dealt with, and that is the 12 question of the website and information and so on. I 13 know there are a few others and we will go down through 14 them just to be sure that nobody has anything else. We 15 may well have picked up some of the others along the 16 way. 17 403 Let's take our lunch break now but 18 let's look to reconvene at quarter to 1:00. 19 --- Upon recessing at 12:20 p.m. 20 --- Upon resuming at 1:00 p.m. 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will resume now. 22 By the way, I gather there was some discussion or 23 wondering on the part of a few folks as to what happens 24 after this meeting in terms of the issues that we are 25 discussing here today.
103
1 404 What we plan to do is we are going to 2 take all of the information and suggestions that have 3 come up today and take them back and go through them 4 amongst ourselves. A number of the issues and 5 initiative will be things that we can and should and 6 likely will do, and others perhaps will be suggestions 7 or recommendations that the steering committee or CISC 8 might do or adopt. 9 405 Staff will get together and meet with 10 me, and then we will put together a report that will 11 reflect what we have undertaken to do and 12 recommendations that come out, and then get back to you 13 fairly quickly after this day is done. 14 406 That would be our intention for 15 follow up after this. 16 407 We have had a good discussion this 17 morning about the structure and issues and this whole 18 question of policy and a number of good suggestions to 19 consider on how to move forward with identifying policy 20 issues and hopefully speeding up that process so that 21 it doesn't get kind of stalemated in endless debate 22 about an issue that indeed is a policy question. 23 408 One of the items that was on the list 24 under the issue of CISC structure in the second bullet 25 was really the question of what has been characterized
104
1 as CISC-like groups, where the Commission has referred 2 things to, I use the term loosely, the industry, if you 3 will, to take a look at and/or come to grips with the 4 resolution of. 5 409 One of those groups was this Bill 6 Management Tools committee. One of the things that we 7 have been wondering is whether that Bill Management 8 Tool group wouldn't more appropriately fit within CISC 9 and really I guess the structures and guidelines that 10 fit within there. I just wonder whether anybody has 11 any comment on that issue before we move on. 12 410 Pippa. 13 411 MS LAWSON: We have addressed this 14 issue in the BMT committee. The resolution to date has 15 been to try to come up with its own processes, which 16 are not the same as the CISC ones but somewhat similar 17 and less intensive in terms of administration and forms 18 and documentation and so forth. 19 412 My view right now, and I am still not 20 sure about the right answer to this question, is first 21 of all, I am not sure that all of the issues before 22 that committee meet the criteria. I said it before: 23 Are those issues really amenable to negotiation and are 24 they best resolved through negotiation? Can we come up 25 with a better result that way, or are they better dealt
105
1 with through a formal proceeding? 2 413 I am not sure about that. But let's 3 assume that we agree that there is value in discussing 4 these issues, in trying to come up with a consensus 5 result, then I think it probably would be worth using a 6 CISC process for a number of reasons, as long as it is 7 working, that it offers transparency if it is working 8 and that is where the whole website issue comes up. 9 But assuming we improve the publication of the 10 documentation and the timeliness of that, then it has 11 transparency. It has a way for clarifying the issues 12 and a way for moving the process along. 13 414 It would be helpful to have a similar 14 process to identify issues, to crystallize disputes and 15 consensus and to document the tasks, the contributions 16 of parties and the consensus or dispute reports. 17 415 My only hesitation is that, as 18 someone down here said earlier, doing up those reports 19 according to the CISC guidelines is time intensive. I 20 know that when I was involved at that level a few years 21 ago, there were times when I felt it was a little too 22 much form, given the substance. So, I will leave it at 23 that. 24 416 The disadvantage with the route we 25 are going right now, which is a third type of process
106
1 for this special committee, is that it is just another 2 process that people aren't familiar with. If people 3 are familiar with the CISC process, the CISC 4 documentation, then it might be easier for us to use 5 that framework in that format for other groups like BMT 6 committee. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: While I take the 8 point you have raised, you referenced the term "more 9 formal process." As far as we are concerned, certainly 10 as far as I am certain concerned, CISC is a formal 11 process. The question really becomes: Are there 12 relevant parties participating or do we need some sort 13 of wider public notice kind of process? The sense the 14 Commission had was the parties that are participating 15 in Bill Management Tools is largely the appropriate 16 parties and we consider that to be formal and the 17 process that works through here to be formal. It is 18 perhaps a little different than a wider public notice, 19 but it is no less formal in our view. 20 417 MS LAWSON: I should have probably 21 used the term adversarial versus consensus based. That 22 is the difference in process that I am talking about. 23 It may be the case that some of the issues coming 24 before this BMT committee which, for people who aren't 25 familiar with it, that stands for Bill Management Tools
107
1 and it is really about access to phone service by lower 2 income residential subscribers. The idea is to try to 3 improve the situation for those people. 4 418 My point is that it may be that some 5 of the issues that we are bringing to that committee 6 are so adversarial in nature, so controversial in 7 nature, amongst the parties that they are better dealt 8 with through an adversarial process. So far the BMT 9 committee process has actually been characterized as 10 fairly adversarial interventions, I would say, compared 11 to the type of discussion and negotiation that occurs 12 in CISC groups 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Any other comments 14 on this issue, then, because I don't propose to deal 15 with this too much here. 16 419 MR. TROPEA: Richard Tropea from Bell 17 Canada. 18 420 Being involved in co-location groups 19 and some of these other special groups on a limited 20 basis, it seems to me that we have to allow some 21 flexibility for special groups where maybe the nature 22 of the issues are slightly different for them to 23 formulate their own processes. I note that in the BMT 24 they bode very heavily from a lot of the CISC-like 25 processes. They don't have to be exactly the same, but
108
1 they have adopted what suits them best. Certainly, if 2 it is inadequate, they will probably make proposed 3 changes and make recommendations. 4 421 There has to be some recognition that 5 not every group that gets set up has to follow the CISC 6 letter of the law 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: The next item that 8 was on the list on our agenda was time taken to resolve 9 issues. It struck me that, again, reading through the 10 submissions that we got, it seemed that a lot of 11 parties were acknowledging that it took a lot of time 12 to resolve issues but largely a lot of the time was 13 spent spinning wheels because the issues were policy 14 issues. We have had a lot of discussion about that 15 this morning and a lot of suggestions about how to move 16 some of those issues along. We can take that and deal 17 with it. 18 422 Does anybody else want to make a 19 particular comment on that issue? Alex. 20 423 MR. ADEYINKA: One of the issues that 21 we brought up is the possibility that when a TIF is 22 identified and sent to a specific working group, that 23 perhaps a time line should be attached to the 24 performance of that task within the relevant group. 25 424 We realize that it is not going to be
109
1 an exact science to be able to predict how long it is 2 going to take for issues to be resolved, but 3 anticipating a specific time line gives the working 4 group a target to aim at. If it looks like the target 5 is going to be missed, the working group can advise the 6 steering committee to that effect and again speculate 7 again that maybe they need one or two more months to 8 get to the task. I guess the steering committee may 9 actually look at some other alternatives, like maybe 10 encouraging the working group to meet more frequently 11 if the resources permit them to do that. 12 425 From our perspective, it is 13 imperative that we give some concentration to attaching 14 a time line to a specific task that goes to CISC. 15 Otherwise, again, we will be working in a vacuum. We 16 will be working with the high expectation that parties 17 can resolve issues, and a lot of issues will not get 18 resolved. There will be a lot of wheels spinning, as 19 we have seen in the last few years. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: My understanding is 21 time lines are attached to these. Is it a question 22 really of being more vigilant to maintain the time 23 lines and when they start falling off the rails, to 24 making sure it gets back on? 25 426 Terry
110
1 427 MR. CONNOLLY: Going back to my 2 earlier point on the reports, from a steering committee 3 point of view, if we just have an understanding as to 4 when the TIF was actually dated and then we can look at 5 what the date is today and how long has it been in the 6 hopper and if it, in fact, has a target date for 7 completion. If you have missed the target date or you 8 are beyond the target date, then you can at least 9 assess it. 10 428 I know on some of the reports that we 11 get today for the steering committee, we don't really 12 focus on that, and, therefore, we don't really 13 necessarily focus on how long was that item in the 14 hopper. 15 429 I think we could improve our time 16 line documentation 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Karen. 18 430 MS O'BRIEN: I don't disagree with 19 you that it would be nice to have tighter time lines on 20 some of the tasks. But the key priority is to identify 21 a priority related to an issue. I sure wouldn't want 22 to see us modify the process that says this item has to 23 be done in two months and, therefore, some other item 24 that might be of a higher priority ends up taking 25 longer.
111
1 431 It is a balance that has to be 2 achieved by the working group itself in terms of 3 defining the priorities, which items are first up. 4 Yes, there are items, Terry, you are right, that have 5 been on that list for two, two and a half years. As 6 long as the industry says that's okay, why not? Every 7 task that goes in doesn't have to necessarily come out 8 within a predefined time line. Certainly, over the 9 past five, six years, we have seen issues go into the 10 working group. They have been worked. They are set 11 aside in deference of other higher priority items. 12 When something arises that creates a requirement for 13 that issue to be resolved, it has always been 14 interesting to note that the working group seems to 15 always come through. 16 432 In the context of monitoring the 17 activities that are going on, I agree, but I don't 18 think you can state simply because something has been 19 there for two or three years, why is it still sitting 20 there? There can sometimes be valid reasons for it. 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Peter. 22 433 MR. LANG: One of the things that we 23 experienced, we have, I think, 35 open tasks at the 24 moment. It is just a matter of balancing. When a 25 directive comes from the Commission for us to work on
112
1 something, we would like some prioritization of that 2 and the Commission also to recognize that we do have a 3 work load. We just deferred four more items yesterday 4 to the first of the year because we just won't have a 5 chance to get at them due to the heavy work load we 6 have at the moment. 7 434 Requesting a date on when you would 8 like something would be first. Secondly, the 9 Commission has to bear in mind, though, all of the 10 other things we do have on the plate, and if they feel 11 that a particular item that they are directing us to 12 look at is top priority, then state that. Then we can, 13 as a group, reorganize things so that we can address 14 the issue. 15 435 But to Karen's point, we do discuss, 16 we do reprioritize within the group. In some cases, I 17 see nothing wrong with leaving them there for a 18 substantial period. At some point in time we will get 19 to it. Every once in a while we will look at an item 20 and say, well, do we really need to address that? We 21 discussed that with one item yesterday. Do we really 22 need to address that or should we just drop it? We 23 decided to defer it again, but we will keep it on the 24 table. 25 436 MS SPRAGUE: Chris Sprague.
113
1 437 In just adding to Peter, when the 2 Commission does come to us and say, in your eyes, that 3 this is a very high priority and you need us to deal 4 with it, you do have to bear in mind that maybe the 5 priority you gave us last month or three months ago is 6 either going to drop, be put in abeyance or whatever 7 because we can't do it all at once. We want to work 8 back and forth with the Commission between the working 9 groups and the Commission to come up with those 10 priorities and say, yes, this is really important to us 11 because this is to run our business, where the one you 12 have on the platter for us is not as important for us. 13 There may take some give and take and discussion on 14 that to make it happen 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Anybody else on 16 this one? Chris. 17 438 MR. SCHMITT: Chris Schmitt from 18 AT&T. I don't think two years or a lengthy period of 19 time like that is a valid time period to have an issue 20 sit in CISC. There needs to be a little bit more 21 structure behind an issue progressing. What we have 22 suggested is that a non-consensus report or consensus 23 report is put forth at some point in time. It might be 24 after a finite period of time. Perhaps it is after 25 there has been a sequence of contributions from the
114
1 various parties that has occurred and people have had 2 their chance to present their sides. 3 439 But at some point in time the parties 4 need to sit down or the company that is running with 5 the TIF needs to sit down and get some sort of report 6 together to see where all the parties stand. 7 440 In my experience, when you sit down 8 and you try to itemize where everybody is, it really 9 brings out the fact that there is adversarial issues 10 perhaps or policy issues might really come to the table 11 at that point in time. A consensus report or some sort 12 of report means that everybody has to agree to that. 13 At that point in time, everything that goes into that 14 report has reached agreement by the parties, even if it 15 is agreement to disagree. But at least at that point 16 in time there is some sort of progress that is made and 17 some sort of a status report, at which time you can 18 decide that there are policy issues that need to be 19 resolved outside of the group. Perhaps there may be 20 other times where it is worth it for the group to 21 continue discussion. But it is really bringing things 22 to some sort of a progression. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Doug. 24 441 MR. KWONG: Doug Kwong from Bell 25 Canada.
115
1 442 I would like to speak a little bit on 2 behalf of the Network working group. We have TIFs that 3 are out there, maybe more than some people would like 4 to see, for over a year or two years. But I think they 5 are important issues because of the complex technical 6 nature of those things. As an example, and I won't 7 pick on Centrex Interworking, but I will pick on 8 Spectrum Management. There are people out there 9 testing it. Testing those things takes time. It is 10 not something you can do in two or three or four 11 months. We are still talking about that as to the 12 testing configuration. A couple of carriers 13 volunteered to do some testing on behalf of the 14 industry or for the benefit of the industry. Until 15 those results come out, and it takes time for the 16 testing results to come out, it also takes time to 17 analyze the result as to what is appropriate action to 18 be taken. 19 443 To put any time line, maybe six 20 months or a year, it may be true for other groups but I 21 think for the Network working group, because of the 22 technical nature of it, I don't think this is 23 appropriate. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: I take your point, 25 Doug. What I am hearing in the latter part of this
116
1 morning and this afternoon, I am getting a sense it is 2 going to be more and more incumbent upon the steering 3 committee to be kind of vigilant about dealing with 4 priorities within the working groups and acknowledging 5 that some of those things that Doug has talked about 6 maybe aren't that high a priority and it is not a 7 problem. On the other hand, we talked already about 8 the steering committee being more vigilant about 9 looking at the TIFs that come back and recognizing that 10 some of them are policy issues and need to be dealt 11 with, recognizing the timing on some of these things 12 and perhaps prodding people to move them along or, 13 indeed, recognizing some of them may be not as high a 14 priority and need field testing or whatever and it 15 isn't that important that they get resolved soon. 16 444 It seems to me that, as I say, it is 17 going to be more incumbent upon the steering committee 18 to be perhaps a little more vigilant in addressing some 19 of these issues. It sounds like the framework is 20 already there and the guidelines. It is just a matter 21 of actually doing it. 22 445 The next item on the list was the 23 policy issues and CISC work groups. We have had a lot 24 of discussion on that. I don't think we need to focus 25 on that any more.
117
1 446 The next one is overlap of 2 processes/interworking. As it is characterized here, I 3 think we have had a discussion about a lot of those 4 sorts of issues already. 5 447 Alex. 6 448 MR. ADEYINKA: There was a point 7 about whether support structure should have its own 8 sub-working group on the agenda. I think we might have 9 missed it. It is the 11:00 o'clock item under CISC 10 structure. Is there a need for a working group to deal 11 with issues related to support structures? Maybe we 12 just don't think it is proper to discuss that. 13 449 I don't have a point to make. I just 14 wanted to say that maybe we missed it inadvertently. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: I used Bill 16 Management Tool as the one example that I raised in 17 that sub-bullet there under "CISC Structure." I don't 18 know whether there are any others. Support structures 19 is another possible one. I don't know whether the 20 parties around the table think that is the case or not. 21 450 MR. TROPEA: On support structures 22 specifically, I don't know whether if there is a 23 problem of access. The Commission went through a very 24 lengthy process with the industry over the last two 25 years on working out arrangements for support
118
1 structures access. 2 451 If there is not a problem, why set up 3 a group to deal with it? If there is a problem, let 4 the person who wants to initiate that articular the 5 problem, and we will take it on and see what it is. 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Unless anybody has 7 anything on d) or e), but as I say, I think we have 8 covered off a lot of that, including the role of the 9 Commission staff. Is there anything else in this whole 10 issue, role of the Commission staff, beyond what we 11 have already discussed that anybody wants to raise? 12 452 One of the things I was thinking of 13 over lunch hour is that I don't think we can build 14 tight rules around this question about the staff being 15 necessarily in a position to make a determination at a 16 meeting whether an issue is a policy issue or not. In 17 some instances, they may be able to based on their own 18 experience with a decision and so on. In other cases, 19 it may mean coming back and meeting with other 20 Commission staff or Shirley or some of the legal branch 21 or, indeed, it may mean coming back and meeting with 22 the Commission to get a resolution. 23 453 Those kinds of things are just going 24 to have to be played by ear. But we recognize that we 25 are going to have to be a little bit more proactive in
119
1 terms of recognizing and then dealing with issues that 2 apparently are policy issues or issues that seem to be 3 bogging down some of the groups. To the extent we can 4 facilitate that a little more, we will. 5 454 MR. DAKDOUKI: Just to add to this, 6 we agree maybe staff should play a more aggressive 7 role, but I have to point out that we expect also all 8 of the parties to play their roles. 9 455 MS SPRAGUE: Chaouki, I think some of 10 us are aggressive enough as is, which leads us to 11 another problem. For the participants at the working 12 groups, there is an onus on each and every one of us to 13 be accountable and responsible and raise the challenge 14 on a lot of these issues. 15 456 For some individuals that are just 16 new, coming and joining those work groups, it can be a 17 very intimidating situation and difficult for them -- I 18 see some heads nodding -- difficult for them when they 19 come up against somebody like a Chris Sprague who can 20 be opinionated or a few other people, to stand up and 21 say, well, I don't agree or I really question whether 22 this should be here or anything like that. 23 457 There is sort of an onus on the rest 24 of us to help bring those people along. Also, if they 25 are not comfortable bringing it up at that table, going
120
1 back to their respective regulatory groups or whatever 2 and talking to them about it and helping them work 3 through it. There has to be support within our 4 organizations to help people, their representative to 5 go back and do those types of things. Each and every 6 one of us have to challenge the Chaoukis and challenge 7 the Chris Spragues and things like that. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: I agree with that, 9 Chris. At the same time, we recognize, as people 10 change within the Commission, except me, and people 11 change within your companies, that new people come 12 along who may not be all that familiar with the 13 guidelines or what has gone on before with this 14 particular issue or whatever, that it is incumbent upon 15 the company, too, to bring their own person up to 16 speed, because it can slow down the whole process of 17 the group, if the group now has to educate the new 18 person as to what has gone on, you don't understand, we 19 already agreed on that at the last meeting or the one 20 before. 21 458 I take your point but there has to be 22 a lot of give and take on that. 23 459 Pippa. 24 460 MS LAWSON: I just want to make sure 25 that we didn't lose a couple of comments that have been
121
1 made earlier about the role of Commission staff. 2 461 David, you have obviously heard on 3 the facilitation role. But I think there are other 4 suggestions that staff could be doing more on the 5 administration side. I certainly made a suggestion 6 earlier that I really appreciate the role staff has 7 been playing in alerting me as a kind of outside party 8 who is unable to monitor all CISC working groups to 9 issues that are of interest to my constituency. 10 462 I sort of see three different roles 11 there. One is administrative. Second is facilitating 12 the group. Third is making sure that all key 13 stakeholders are around the table or at least are aware 14 of the process. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to 16 leave the impression that some of these things that 17 perhaps I haven't mentioned are going to get lost. We 18 do have a transcript and everybody is taking notes 19 here. As I said, we are going to go back and sift 20 through all of what we have heard today and report back 21 on what we will take on and do and what we will 22 recommend that the group do. Hopefully, we can cover 23 off the suggestions that have been made. 24 463 Having said that, as I said at the 25 outset this morning, this whole process is intended to
122
1 involve everybody collectively working together here. 2 It is a CRTC Interconnection steering committee. It 3 was not meant for us to be driving and running and 4 chairing all the committees. It was to be a 5 collaborative effort among all of us. 6 464 I want to make sure that we maintain 7 a balance here of that, and we don't end up doing all 8 the work either. We will do what we can to try and 9 help facilitate it. Maybe there is more efficiency 10 things that we can do. We talked earlier this morning 11 with respect to minutes and that sort of thing. So, we 12 will look at that as well. 13 465 Priority, we have talked about that 14 sort of issue as well. I don't know whether anybody 15 wants to raise anything about that. It seems to me 16 largely we are coming down to the issue of public 17 participation and dissemination of documents on the 18 website, which I had sort of capsuled in my own reading 19 of the documents as the website and notice information 20 and so on. 21 466 It seems to me largely the issues 22 that were raised there was that it was incumbent upon 23 us to try and keep the website as up to date as we can. 24 If I can take it as a criticism, that there seemed to 25 be a bit of a delay in getting some information on the
123
1 website. It is kind of a bit of a two-sided thing, 2 that it is incumbent upon the working group leaders to 3 make sure that the information gets to us quick enough 4 so that we, in turn, can get it on there. 5 467 The sense I have from reading this is 6 not so much a question of the structure of the website 7 as it was the speed with which we get information on 8 there and make it available and keep the website up to 9 date. 10 468 I just say that by way of opening 11 this issue up because a lot of people seemed to raise 12 some concerns about this whole question of the website, 13 notice and so on. 14 469 I open it up to the floor for any 15 questions or comments or whatever on that. Bob. 16 470 MR. NOAKES: Karen made a suggestion 17 this morning about possible regrouping with a 18 particular TIF and then the contributions related to 19 that TIF or disputes, whatever. I hadn't really 20 thought of that before this meeting. I think it is 21 something worth pursuing though, because often there is 22 a really targeted issue that a CLEC or interested 23 parties want to delve into. If they are not familiar, 24 it is quite time consuming to try and back track and 25 get all of the relevant documentation on that TIF.
124
1 That would be a really good suggestion. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Chaouki. 3 471 MR. DAKDOUKI: Just to be clear, 4 right now on each TIF, at the end of the TIF we have a 5 list of contributions related to the specific TIF. Are 6 you suggesting that TIFs should be followed on the 7 website by those contributions? 8 472 MS O'BRIEN: What I had suggested 9 this morning, Chaouki, was that each TIF be structured 10 on the website in the same way you would structure a PN 11 and its associated documents. So, associated with the 12 TIF would be the contributions, the activity log, any 13 consensus or reports that were forwarded to the 14 steering committee and then subsequently any Commission 15 decision or order supporting that. 16 473 Then that way anybody who goes in who 17 is looking just to understand issue A doesn't have to 18 go in to seven or eight different spots. They just go 19 to that particular issue and everything is there. It 20 is really nice the way you structure it on the PN. So 21 it seemed to me that CISC lent itself that way. 22 474 MR. ROSENZVEIG: As I understood your 23 suggestion this morning, all documents related to a 24 particular TIF be structured under the TIF, everything. 25 I am wondering is there any reason why that it can't be
125
1 done? It sounds like a great idea if it is possible. 2 475 MR. DAKDOUKI: It would be difficult 3 from an operational point of view. However, I think it 4 is feasible. We can do it. The fact that we have a 5 list of contributions within the TIF and we have a 6 specific section for the contributions, you print the 7 TIF and you have all the contributions, you go and 8 print them. 9 476 I am not sure how much it will add to 10 the facility of understanding an issue, but if the 11 industry is agreeing that the best way to present those 12 TIFs and the contributions, we should be able to do it. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Dennis. 14 477 MR. BELAND: I am leaning a bit on 15 where Chaouki is leaning. I would place a high 16 priority on the more consistent writing and maintenance 17 of the TIF document. From experience, chairing one 18 working group for quite a while, that is something I 19 tried very consciously to do. My approach was to think 20 of a TIF basically as a document for posterity. So, 21 five years from now I might need to refer to this TIF. 22 So, what should it have. It should have a clear 23 statement of what was intended, the discussion under 24 that TIF should be recorded in the TIF, not in the 25 minutes of July 23, 1997, but in the TIF as diary entry
126
1 number 6. All of the contributions related to that TIF 2 should be referenced in the TIF document, and the 3 report that emerged from that TIF should be referenced 4 in the TIF document, and even the report number should 5 be the same number as the TIF number. So report number 6 23 from the Emergency Services working group is a 7 report on TIF number 23. 8 478 What is required is a much more 9 consistent, perhaps with some Commission staff 10 enforcement, consistent approach to the drafting and 11 maintenance of TIFs. 12 479 This issue arose earlier and I didn't 13 want to get into this minutia at the beginning of our 14 discussion, but I think maybe it is the time to get 15 into this minutia. The reference was made earlier to 16 what is the approach to minutes. I very strongly 17 believe that minutes of working groups should be little 18 more than a listing of which TIFs were discussed on 19 that date. Please refer to the TIFs, which reports 20 were approved on that date, please refer to the reports 21 and perhaps an action register, but no more. 22 480 Again, if you take the perspective of 23 this being some record for posterity, five years from 24 now, if I want to see what is the record for a 25 particular discussion on a particular subject in a
127
1 particular working group, to read the last 23 meeting 2 minutes from Business Process is not the way to go. To 3 read the TIF that addresses the issue is the way to go. 4 481 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is the way our 5 minutes are at the Commission. Members discussed item 6 whatever. Members agreed or took a vote and here are 7 the results of the vote by majority or whatever. There 8 are no details of the discussion for a lot of good 9 reasons. 10 482 MR. BELAND: If I can just add one 11 more point. Regardless of whether you take the 12 approach of recording discussion in the TIF or, 13 conversely, if some people support the approach of 14 recording discussion minutes, either way, it should be 15 as brief as possible, in my opinion. If someone has a 16 view on a subject that they want to pronounce for 17 posterity, put in a written contribution. But don't 18 expect to have a 12-page set of meeting minutes that 19 record all your opinions. If your opinions are 20 important enough to be recorded, then put them in the 21 contribution. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Dennis. 23 483 Pippa and then Peter. 24 484 MS LAWSON: A further point 25 supporting Dennis' comments. In negotiation processes,
128
1 it actually can assist the process if all parties are 2 aware that their comments are not being recorded in 3 minutes. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Peter. 5 485 MR. LANG: In principle, I support 6 Dennis' comments as well. Even within Business 7 Process, we seem to be inconsistent with that in terms 8 of some TIFs are much more detailed than others and you 9 do have to leap back and forth. What I would like to 10 do, though, is make sure that everybody does it the 11 same way so that we have consistency because right now 12 we certainly don't, not even within our own working 13 group. But when you go on to other working group 14 sites, again, it is inconsistent. 15 486 The real issue is if you are trying 16 to find something from two years ago, where do you go? 17 If we do adapt the approach that all the detail will be 18 in the TIF itself, then that might alleviate a lot of 19 these issues. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: It sounds like a 21 good suggestion to me and one that we could make coming 22 into this and that the steering committee could take 23 and move on. 24 487 Chaouki. 25 488 MR. DAKDOUKI: Actually, that is the
129
1 way it is described in the main guidelines, that all 2 the documents related to the TIF should be mentioned. 3 489 I agree with what you have said. 4 Some groups may follow those, some they don't. Maybe 5 we should keep an eye on those groups at the staff 6 level. Those who don't follow the main guidelines, as 7 they should, maybe we should just contact the chair and 8 tell them, sir, you have to update this TIF. 9 490 Again, I have to go back to the 10 resources issue because sometimes you ask people to 11 update the TIF, but they don't have enough resources to 12 update them. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because they are 14 busy writing minutes. 15 491 MR. DAKDOUKI: In one particular 16 group, I think we don't have any TIFs right now or some 17 of them just mention the minutes. So, the fact the 18 chairs are volunteering to do the job and the TIF 19 honours are volunteering to take care of the TIFs, I am 20 not sure how much pressure we can put on them. 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have had some 22 good suggestions around this minutes thing. As I say, 23 we can address it and put out a recommendation. 24 492 MS LANG: It is Donna Lang from 25 Sasktel.
130
1 493 I would like to make one comment 2 about the amount of information that perhaps is 3 recorded particular to issues where we find midstream 4 that this isn't an implementation issue, that this is a 5 policy issue. There would be some concern in terms of 6 how much information was actually put on public record, 7 so that if information was sent back to the Commission, 8 they wouldn't have to do a lot of back tracking, and a 9 lot of rediscussion that might have take a year or two 10 years to get to that point, to come to that 11 understanding. 12 494 If it is implementation issues, it 13 probably works quite well, because you are working on 14 tasks, whereas if you are working through a lot of the 15 policy issues, it is valid to have some information on 16 record. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: I take your point, 18 but I would hope after the discussion we have had 19 today, if something is still a year or two years and it 20 is ending up being a policy issue, we have a problem. 21 495 Going back to the website, then, 22 beyond the kind of things we have discussed about 23 timeliness, perhaps picking up on Karen's suggestion 24 from this morning, other suggestions you might have 25 there?
131
1 496 Suzanne and then Pippa. 2 497 MS BLACKWELL: Perhaps something 3 could be done with a search tool so that it would 4 search specific to CISC or even the working groups 5 within CISC. 6 498 MR. DAKDOUKI: Yes. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will have to 8 take that under advisement. 9 499 Pippa. 10 500 MS LAWSON: I would like to make a 11 further suggestion that takes it a step further beyond 12 the idea of having task specific web pages, I guess. 13 501 What would be really useful, and we 14 have come across this in problem in some instances in 15 Business Process and I have in other proceedings too, 16 is to have someone at the CRTC dig up the relevant past 17 decisions so you have on that web page not just the 18 record of the contributions and reports and TIF from 19 CISC and any subsequent CRTC rulings, but you have the 20 previous relevant CRTC rulings as well. 21 502 An example I can give you that just 22 arose in yesterday's meeting, it went back to reseller 23 equal access. It goes back to decisions in 1995 or 24 1998, a letter decision of the Commission which was 25 then revised through another letter decision and so
132
1 forth. It is really impossible for anyone who isn't 2 extremely familiar with CRTC process to track all that. 3 Most people are probably going to find a letter 4 decision and they will think, oh, that is it, when in 5 fact that is not it. It was later revised. 6 503 It would be extremely useful, when 7 you are looking at an issue, to have a consolidated 8 up-to-date set or statement of the rule. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you think we 10 know? Lorne, you have another client. 11 504 MR. DAKDOUKI: To be fair, we tried 12 to do this with local competition. As you know, we 13 have a table on the CISC website with all the 14 decisions, orders, CISC documents that relate to local 15 competition. It is really difficult. It is very hard 16 to keep those up to date and at one time it would be so 17 lengthy to have all the decisions related to one 18 specific issue kept together. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: You have raised a 20 good point, Pippa, and we can attempt to do that sort 21 of thing. But I think one has to recognize it is not 22 going to be complete all the time, depending on the 23 issue. 24 505 We can and we do in many of our 25 decisions refer to related documents and so on. But I
133
1 think we also have to recognize in many cases it is 2 going to be almost impossible to connect all the dots. 3 506 MS LAWSON: Sorry, I didn't mean to 4 suggest comprehensive or complete or anything. There 5 are some cases on specific issues where you are talking 6 about, say, three letters that went out. It would be 7 nice to have those three letters in with the TIF 8 contributions. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is what I am 10 saying, I am agreeing with you. We will take a look at 11 it. I am just acknowledging that we are not going to 12 be able to necessarily have all the references unless 13 we hire Lorne to do it for us. 14 507 MR. ABUGOV: David, I was just going 15 ask if it might be okay to add interrogatory responses 16 as well. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is what I was 18 afraid of. Any other suggestions? 19 508 MS SPRAGUE: I am going to be the 20 bold one of the group and venture out on a limb to see 21 who cuts it off first. 22 509 I have been involved in this process 23 since 1997. There are many times that I don't know am 24 I looking for a PN, am I looking for a letter decision, 25 am I looking for whatever else you want to call them,
134
1 Part VIIs and all the things that go with it. 2 510 For someone who is just new coming 3 into it, whether they are going to be a new participant 4 or an interested party or private individual trying to 5 find something, it is very, very difficult to find it. 6 I don't have the answers of how the website should be 7 redesigned, and maybe I am not even saying that it 8 should be redesigned, but what I am saying is around 9 this table you have a number of companies that, within 10 those companies and including the Commission, there are 11 some experts in web design. Maybe there should be a 12 group that gets together and tries to figure out what 13 is the best way to do this. 14 511 Our website probably is no better 15 than the FCCs in the States. They probably have the 16 same problem. But it is a very unique website because 17 there is so much information that is required on it. 18 It doesn't really fit into the websites where people go 19 all the time to get other pieces of information. This 20 is just full of data that is regulating an industry, 21 assisting an industry. It becomes far more critical 22 for this website to be more user friendly and adaptable 23 as an every day tool. 24 512 We are missing that and we need to 25 draw on the experts within the industry to help us do
135
1 that. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Chris, that is an 3 excellent suggestion. As we were discussing this 4 earlier, I was wondering, and then I thought, given all 5 the discussions about not creating new guidelines and 6 so on, create another committee. But it might well be 7 a good idea to have an ad hoc group just to take a look 8 at the website. As you say, there is a lot of 9 expertise. 10 513 MS SPRAGUE: Did I bring that one up 11 the way you wanted me to, David? 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: You're not supposed 13 to do that. 14 514 Chaouki. 15 515 MR. DAKDOUKI: Actually, I understand 16 your comments to be general, not just about the CISC, 17 about the CRTC website. We have a committee at the 18 Commission right now working on the website for the 19 Commission. The CISC is part of their mandate. It is 20 to update it. 21 516 It is not as easy as you think. I 22 know we have some experts and we hired those experts. 23 However, the problem especially with the search engine, 24 to go back to Suzanne's remarks, is you have to take 25 each document, each single document and create some key
136
1 word that the search engine should look into those key 2 words to find those documents. So you need someone to 3 sit down, read those decisions, choose which key word, 4 create a treasury with those key words and use them. 5 We are doing it right now. In December we hired a few 6 students to work on it. We hope we are going to get 7 good results. 8 517 However, I cannot guarantee the 9 results because, again, the decisions sometimes are 10 complex to understand. So, it is really complex to 11 choose the right key words, and they didn't touch the 12 CISC documents yet. So it will take a while before we 13 can improve at least the search capability at the CISC 14 site. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: What Chaouki was 16 saying is it is a good idea. 17 518 MS SPRAGUE: I think he needs to 18 conduct a focus group with some people that don't know 19 the stuff. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: We would welcome an 21 opportunity to get a few folks to kick some ideas 22 around because we could use that either just within the 23 CISC portion of the website or, indeed, to the extent 24 that we might take that and pass it on to our folks who 25 are working with the overall CRTC website, perhaps
137
1 input some changes there too. This whole notion of 2 websites, as I am sure you are all familiar with in 3 your own companies, is something that is evolving all 4 the time. 5 519 As they grow in terms of volume of 6 information that they are trying to digest and make 7 workable, it becomes increasingly difficult to deal 8 with it and index it and access it and so on. I think 9 we could probably use some advice from you folks just 10 in terms of how we might improve it. After all, it is 11 there for you and others to use. So, the more we can 12 make it user friendly and workable, the better. 13 520 MR. DAKDOUKI: That is a good idea. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Brian. 15 521 MR. ARMSTRONG: I was just going to 16 agree with you. As somebody new to the broadcast side, 17 having worked with the telecommunications side for a 18 number of years, now moving over to broadcast, the same 19 is on that side too, to try to sort anything through. 20 So, not just the CISC. Look at the whole site. 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have gone 22 through the issues that were on the list here. Does 23 anybody else have anything else that I want to raise 24 here today? 25 522 Brian.
138
1 523 MR. ARMSTRONG: I would like to just 2 back up a little bit to the public participation and 3 back to something that Pippa referred to earlier, the 4 Business Management Tools or BMT committee. If that 5 was rolled in under CISC, it could take away from the 6 public process or some of the people that may get 7 involved that would look upon it more as an industry 8 type of a committee. I just wanted to make that 9 comment. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: I take your point 11 on that, although just the last phrase you threw in, we 12 want this not just to be seen to be industry too. The 13 mere fact Pippa is here, it is intended to involve, 14 depending on the issue, the relevant groups. If the 15 particular issue was just involving the industry, but 16 if it involves consumers or equipment manufacturers or 17 whoever, then the idea was let's structure that 18 particular group to include those folks who would be 19 keenly involved in the issue. 20 524 I am not here today to push this BMT 21 issue one way or another. I just wanted to pick up on 22 that point that this is not to be just an inclusive 23 group that doesn't include consumer groups or others. 24 But I take your point. 25 525 Pippa.
139
1 526 MS LAWSON: Before we leave, I just 2 wasn't sure where you were going to head after all the 3 discussion we had this morning on how to deal with 4 policy issues. 5 527 I just wanted to make it clear, it is 6 my view that the CISC admin guidelines don't need to be 7 completely opened up and revisited and so forth, but 8 they do need to address this issue. We can do it quite 9 simply and quickly, just another statement in the 10 principle section about clarifying the mandate of CISC 11 with respect to policy and then a new section in there 12 entitled "Policy Issues" and then we would set out the 13 kinds of things we discussed this morning, how the 14 steering committee should deal with it when it comes 15 before it and how working groups should deal with them. 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. 17 I didn't want to suggest that, as I said, just because 18 I didn't pick up on it that anybody's suggestion this 19 morning is lost. We are going to take all of the 20 suggestions that have been made today and take them 21 away and think about them, take a look at the 22 guidelines and see what may or may not need to be 23 adjusted. We will come back with a report, indicating, 24 based on the meeting, what we will do as a result of 25 this and some recommendations as to what the steering
140
1 committee or other committees perhaps in our view 2 should do. That will be open for discussion. 3 528 Anything else? Peter. 4 529 MR. LANG: I would like to make one 5 brief comment regarding timing of things. I alluded to 6 an issue in terms of the steering committee and the 7 frequency of their meetings. But as we want to move 8 things along as quickly as we can, that is one piece of 9 it. 10 530 The other piece is when we do go to 11 Commission, either asking staff to do some research for 12 us or to give us an opinion if we do have a policy 13 issue item, we need to get an expeditious response to 14 that. I just wanted to reiterate that. We are trying 15 to get these things done as quickly as possible, but 16 these protracted delays just don't wash any more. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that 18 reminder. 19 531 Alex. 20 532 MR. ADEYINKA: I was just going to 21 parrot what Peter just said. In addition, perhaps have 22 the Commission consider whether they can make a 23 commitment to us that when these issues do come to 24 them, in consideration of the fact that there is always 25 an urgency of some sort surrounding these policy
141
1 issues, perhaps there may be some commitment that 2 things will be turned around within, I don't know, 3 maybe 60 days or something that short. I am sorry, I 4 am not trying to put the staff on -- 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. The 6 reason I am smiling is, as you all know, we put in 7 service standards on the Telecom side just within the 8 last number of months and I think our first board 9 suggested we didn't meet one of the standards. 10 533 There is no doubt in my mind everyone 11 here around the table can make the same comment that 12 Peter and Alex have just made. We are cognizant of is 13 problems in terms of the timeliness of our decisions 14 and work, and Shirley is attempting to make a number of 15 adjustments within the Telecom group to address the 16 whole question of more timely decisions in terms of the 17 staff analysis and getting to the Commission and then 18 in terms of getting that decision out on the street. 19 We are doing our best. It is probably not a good way 20 to put it. We are working hard to try and improve the 21 process within the Commission as well. 22 534 Suzanne. 23 535 MS BLACKWELL: Just one thought that. 24 I know that when parties file tariffs with the 25 Commission, there is a requirement that if it is not
142
1 dealt with in 45 business days, they get a nice little 2 letter from the Commission saying, we haven't dealt 3 with it yet, but it is part of a public notice or it is 4 part of something. Whether that would be a feasible 5 process for these items or disputes that have gone 6 forward from CISC. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: To send a letter 8 out to say we won't have it done in 60 days? 9 536 MS BLACKWELL: Well, whether it has 10 been delayed because it has been caught up in some 11 other process so the parties understand where that 12 dispute is in terms of being processed by the 13 Commission and getting a response back. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. That is a 15 good suggestion. 16 537 I want to thank you all for coming 17 today. This was particularly helpful I think for all 18 of us, as was abundantly clear to me in reading through 19 this. Just from discussion that I have from time to 20 time with all of the folks, people seem to think that 21 CISC is working quite well. Actually, it got a huge 22 amount of recognition from different countries around 23 the world about how this process works. A lot of 24 people have spoken to me and others at the Commission 25 and have wanted to model this sort of thing in other
143
1 countries to be able to deal with these kinds of 2 issues. 3 538 As several people said this morning, 4 we are not talking about a fundamental restructuring 5 here. We are talking about finetuning. It is easy to 6 get preoccupied in these kind of meetings and tend to 7 think there are a lot of problems here. On balance, 8 this thing seems to be working quite well. 9 539 Having said that, from time to time 10 we need to step back and take a look at it and see 11 where we can finetune it or improve it, and that was 12 the purpose of today's exercise and the written 13 submissions that you put in. 14 540 We will take the written submissions 15 and the discussion we have had today and sit down and 16 quickly address these and get back to you, indicating, 17 as I said earlier, what we will do and making some 18 recommendations as to what CISC in general can do. 19 541 Again, thank you very much for your 20 participation and your suggestions today and, indeed, 21 for your work in CISC. I think the work that all of 22 you have done and others back at your companies has 23 just been tremendous to move us to where we are. 24 Hopefully through this process and responding to other 25 issues that are in front of us, we can help move this
144
1 competitive agenda along. 2 542 Again, thank you very much. Enjoy 3 your weekend. 4 --- Whereupon the meeting concluded at 1400 / 5 La réunion se termine à 1400 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
- Date modified: