D. Scope of the Proceeding

Pursuant to the discussion at the PHC, the issues to be decided in this proceeding are as follows:

1. Does ¶ 81 of the ISP Remand Order control here, so that AT&T is not obliged to compensate Pac-West for ISP-bound traffic originating with AT&T local exchange customers and terminated by Pac-West, but rather is required only to exchange such traffic with Pac-West on a bill-and-keep basis?

2. Under federal law, does ¶ 81 of the ISP Remand Order not apply to the situation here, in which two CLECs that indirectly exchange ISP-bound traffic have not entered into an interconnection agreement, but rather exchange the traffic pursuant to transit arrangements with an ILEC that has entered into separate interconnection agreements with each of them?

3. In the event the answer to Question 2 is that ¶ 81 of the ISP Remand Order does not control here, does the ISP Remand Order nonetheless preempt state regulation of the kind of traffic exchanges described in Question 2?  If so, what compensation, if any, is required to be paid to the CLEC that terminates the ISP-bound traffic?

4. If the ISP Remand Order does not preempt state regulation of the situation described in Question 2, what compensation, if any, does Commission precedent require to be paid to the CLEC that terminates the ISP-bound traffic?