STATE OF WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Re: Petitions for Enforcement of Interconnection Agreements WAC480-09-530 ) ) ) Docket No. A-970591 Comments of WorldCom Technologies, Inc. on the Proposed Rule I. Introduction These comments are submitted on behalf of WorldCom Technologies, Inc. (A WorldCom@) through undersigned counsel and pursuant to the Commission=s July 22, 1998 Notice allowing interested persons to comment on the proposed rule. The purpose of these comments is to encourage the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to adopt the proposed rule, with certain amendments. II. WorldCom Supports the Concept of Establishing a Separate Procedure to Address Disputes Concerning the Implementation of Interconnection Agreements. As WorldCom noted in its previous comments in this matter, the proposed rule is necessary, and the Commission should be commended for proceeding with its adoption. The proper and timely implementation of the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement is pivotal to the ability of a competitive local exchange carrier (ACLEC@) to enter and remain viable in a competitive market. As interconnection agreements are critical to CLEC operations, it is important that a quick, efficient and flexible mechanism for resolving disputes be established. This rule is necessary because the presently available procedural options are insufficient to resolve disputes concerning the implementation of interconnection agreements, especially those that are already operational, in a timely manner. Only a streamlined procedure, with expedited decisions, can adequately address the needs of CLECs. WorldCom agrees with the Staff and other commenters that the procedures set forth in the proposed rule comport with the requirements of due process and are not precluded by ADR provisions in interconnection agreements. III. WorldCom Supports Certain Changes the Staff Proposes. The proposal now includes a clarified notice procedure, in which certain designated persons must be served ('(1)(b)). WorldCom agrees that the procedure set forth in the proposal is an improvement, and WorldCom supports it. WorldCom further suggests, in the event of service by mail, that the fax or hand-delivered copies be required to be sent to all those persons on whom service by mail will be made. The language presently is unclear. Section (3) has been added to allow for the amendment of pleadings in certain, limited circumstances. WorldCom supports the inclusion of the section, both in the additional flexibility it gives participants to be fairly heard and in the limitations thereon, by allowing the presiding officer the discretion to determine whether such amendment is necessary. Likewise, WorldCom supports the allowance of discovery in ' (4)(c), together with the limits thereon. IV. WorldCom Disagrees with Certain Changes the Staff Proposes. The Staff has included a new notice requirement that the petitioner notify the respondent at least ten days in advance of the filing of a petition. Interconnection agreements generally require that an aggrieved party must notify the other party of any dispute under the interconnection agreement in writing. The agreement usually sets forth a procedure for negotiation and dispute resolution prior to resorting to legal and administrative remedies. Although there is often a time parameter for those negotiations, the interconnection agreement usually mitigates that time parameter with language such as, Aunless the circumstances require otherwise.@ WorldCom is concerned for two reasons. It appears unnecessary to notify respondents of a potential petition, when they have been made aware, in writing, of the petitioner=s position that there is a serious dispute. At most, it will result in the rule=s notification requirement being met at the time (and every time) a dispute is declared. A petitioner would be remiss in not A starting the clock@ as soon as the potential for a petition arises. However, the near availability of a formal procedure, and voicing the threat to use it, may chill the informal resolution process. WorldCom believes that resolution of disputes without resorting to the courts or the Commission is in everyone=s best interest; the proposal should assiduously avoid requiring the parties to engage in behavior that dampens the informal process. The required notice delivered before or (worse yet) during the negotiations may seriously impair the relationship necessary to accomplishing an informal resolution. WorldCom=s second concern is that the imposition of a rigid notice period does not take into account that the circumstances may warrant immediately filing a petition. The Parties may have recognized, in the Commission-approved contract between them, that circumstances may warrant immediate resort to legal or administrative remedies. The rule should encompass such a flexible approach, especially in those cases in which the interconnection agreement under dispute is so flexible. V. WorldCom Remains Concerned about Issues the Staff has not Addressed. As was noted in its initial comments in this matter, the Agood faith showing@ required of both parties in '(1)(a)(i) presents some difficulties. Many disputes occur because one party is not acting in good faith; disputes escalate when one party does not negotiate in good faith. At worst, the rule as written purports to bar from use of this dispute resolution process a petitioner who cannot get a respondent to negotiate with it. At best, it requires a petitioner to attest, on the record, that the respondent has negotiated in good faith (which may or may not be true). Either way, the requirement serves no useful purpose and can be deleted without damaging the structure or intent of the rule. Section (1)(a)(i) can be re-written as proposed in our previous comments or as follows: AA statement demonstrating that the petitioning party has engaged in good faith attempts to negotiate a resolution to the disagreement, including specific dates and substance of contact with the responding party and the dates and substance of that party=s responses, and that despite those efforts, the parties have failed to resolve the disagreement.@ If the language were so altered, the petitioner would only be certifying its own actions, without being called upon to say whether the respondent=s actions were in good or bad faith. WorldCom understands and supports the requirement that parties engage in good faith negotiations prior to resorting to this procedure; as noted above, WorldCom finds such negotiated resolution preferable, if not always possible. Finally, WorldCom remains concerned about the lack of a deadline by which a decision must be rendered. As was noted in the previous comments, parties could prolong the process by making additional submissions to the record, which can push the whole decision and order schedule back. WorldCom reiterates its request that the presiding officers=s recommended decision be issued within 75 days after the petition was filed. At the very least, WorldCom requests that the word Amandated@ be inserted before the word Asubmission,@ so that the phrase reads Aor 21 days after the last hearing session or mandated submission, whichever is later.@ This way, only submissions ordered by the presiding officer will alter the time line. VI. Conclusion WorldCom supports the adoption of the proposed rule. It is in the public interest, because it enables competitive entrants to resolve disputes between them and the service providers on which they rely in an expeditious and streamlined manner that is not now available. In addition, incumbent carriers suffering from activities in contravention of Commission-approved interconnection agreements can also obtain relief. Such dispute resolution alternatives support and enhance competition in the telecommunications industry. WorldCom thanks the Commission for the opportunity to comment in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Colleen M. Dale Regulatory Manager WorldCom Technologies, Inc. One Brooks Center Parkway Town and Country, Missouri 63017-5810