ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8638-C12-46/01 - 24 May 2001 BillManagement Tools (BMT) committee meeting,

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.


File No. 8638-C12-46/01

Ottawa, 22 June 2001

To: BMT committee members list

By e-mail only.

Dear Committee members,

At the 24 May 2001 Bill Management Tools (BMT) committee meeting, Bell Canada stated that it had a number of concerns about the summary of the 2 April 2001 meeting. Accordingly, Committee co-ordinator asked parties to review April 2nd summary and to send comments by June 1th.

PIAC sent an e-mail to the Committee co-ordinator stating that PIAC did not wish to file amendments.

Bell Canada filed comments 1 June 2001.

Committee Co-ordinator's amendments to the summary:

At the outset, the Committee Co-ordinator notes that all agreements reached at 2 April 2001 meeting were merely to collect data or to clarify policies. There was no consensus reached that involved a change in the ILEC's policies or practices.

Bell's comments are divided in two sections: an introductory paragraph and three (3) specific comments.

  1. The introductory paragraph

Bell indicated that:

  • Any account of meetings should simply state position of parties;
  • Assertions or conclusions should be attributed to parties;
  • Agreement or consensus should be identified when explicitly sought.

Actions taken:

a) The Committee Co-ordinator notes that the document provided is a summary of the 2 April meeting (not minutes). In this summary, unattributed comments or positions are those of Commission's staff or Commissioners. The summary has been amended accordingly.

b) The Committee Co-ordinator also notes that agreements were explicitly sought: The Co-ordinator did not ask for formal votes but asked parties to raise objections to agreements.

c) In response to Bell's concerns, and as commenced at the 24th May meeting, formal agreement will be sought in future by canvassing each participants.

d) Future meetings (commencing with the may 24th) will be reported in minutes, simply stating the position of parties.

2. Bell's specific comments

I. Bell raised concern with regards to paragraph 2 of April 2nd meeting summary.

Bell stated:

" .the Company would expect that to the extent the summary sets out what was said by the Commission at the meeting regarding an item for discussion, the summary would, as well, set out what was said by other participants on the same subject."

Actions taken:

a) The summary has been amended to attribute paragraph 2 as solely a reference to Commission's view.

b) Commission staff's written notes contain no reference to the position of any participants with regards to the "low take rate" of the BMTs, other that those made by Commissioner Cram and by Chairman Colvile.

c) Bell also stated " that the meeting was opened by presentations made by Commissioners. To the extent that the summary drafters choose to include some of these remarks, the account of the remarks should be complete "

Accordingly, the summary has been amended to include all the opening remarks made by Commissioner Cram and by Chairman Colville.

II. Bell stated :

"In paragraph 5, the summary indicates ".there are no initiatives in place to reach those persons without telephone service". The Company submits that to the extent such a statement was made at the meeting, it should be attributed and represented as the view of its author(s)."

Actions taken

Paragraph 5 was amended to address Bell's concern.

III. Bell stated:

"In paragraphs 23 and 31, the summary indicates that agreement was reached among all Committee participants on a number of items. Bell Canada does not recall that agreement was reached on these items, particularly with respect to the usefulness of examination of the BMT take rates, nor does the Company recall that agreement was sought from the participants."

Actions taken

Paragraphs 23 and 31 have been amended to reflect the way by which agreement was reached. Paragraph 23 and 31 were modified to capture the spirit of the agreement, which was not reflected in the first version.

Philippe Tousignant
22 June 2001

Date modified: