ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-455

This page has been archived on the Web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.

PDF version

Ottawa, 24 August 2012

CISC Business Process Working Group – Consensus report (BPRE070b) and the updated Special MALI (BPAGSMALI1.1)

File number: 8621-C12-01/08

1. On 8 June 2012, the Business Process Working Group (BPWG) of the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) submitted the following consensus report and updated Special Master Agreement for Local Interconnection (Special MALI) for Commission approval:

2. The consensus report and updated Special MALI can be found in the “Reports” section of the BPWG page, which is available in the CISC section of the Commission’s website at

3. The above-referenced documents were submitted in order to reflect the Commission’s determinations in CISC Business Process Working Group – Consensus report BPRE070a regarding Type III and Type IV CLEC agreement requirements, Telecom Decision CRTC 2011-574, 8 September 2011.

4. However, the BPWG submitted that the definition of an “outsourcing CLEC”1 approved by the Commission in the above-noted decision could lead to confusion because it was only the outsourcing of interconnection functions that led to the creation of the Special MALI. Accordingly, the BPWG proposed the following revised definition:

“Outsourcing CLEC” means a CLEC that obtains interconnection arrangements with other local exchange carriers from another party.

5. The Commission is of the view that the proposed definition is appropriate for the purposes of the Special MALI, which deals solely with interconnection arrangements, rather than CLEC obligations in general.

6. The Commission has reviewed and approves the above-noted consensus report and the updated Special MALI.

Secretary General


[1] The Commission notes that although in past decisions it has used the term “ESLC sous-jacente” in the French version to reflect “outsourcing CLEC” in English, the Commission will use the term “ESLC ayant recours à l’externalisation” going forward.

Date modified: