3. Contributions to Resolution of Issues

Participation in this proceeding by TURN and UCAN meets the Commission's criteria for determining whether an intervenor has made a substantial contribution to a Commission decision, as discussed below.

3.1 Procedural Status of Settlement

In their opposition to the motion to withdraw the complaint, TURN and UCAN argued that withdrawal would leave the settlement in limbo without Rule 51 review. The ALJ Ruling agreed, adopting the recommendations of TURN and UCAN on the threshold matter of whether the Commission should consider details of the proposed settlement under Rule 51.

3.2 Limits on Participation

The proposed settlement required CISPA to withdraw its comments in a pending Section 271 proceeding and prohibited CISPA from participating in any further Commission proceedings that involve Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act or Pub. Util. Code §§ 709.2 or 851. TURN and UCAN objected to these limitations. The ALJ Ruling noted this opposition and required the parties to reexamine these provisions. In the subsequent settlement discussions, the provisions were substantially revised. The final decision acknowledges, with approval, the deletion of references to participation in unrelated Commission proceedings. (D.03-07-032, at 10.)

3.3 Limits on Related Claims

TURN and UCAN also objected to language in the proposed settlement that appeared to bind individual CISPA members with respect to claims brought on related matters. Among other things, TURN and UCAN argued that the proposed settlement compromised the Commission's own ability to investigate allegations against the settling parties by prohibiting CISPA or its members from discussing events involved in a complaint with Commission staff. Again, the ALJ Ruling acknowledged these objections and listed them in guidance on how the proposed settlement should be revised. The revised settlement amended these provisions, and the final decision notes that the revision "makes clear that parties are not prevented from complying with legal obligations to provide information to the Commission or to a third party in future proceedings." (D.03-07-032, at 10.)

3.4 Exemption for Packetized Voice

Despite substantial changes in the revised settlement, TURN and UCAN continued to oppose approval of the settlement, arguing that it did not resolve operational issues raised by some of the independent ISPs. Further, TURN and UCAN argued that the revised settlement contained unacceptable language on the provisioning of packetized voice. The proposed decision adopted the positions of TURN and UCAN and ordered the settling parties to delete the packetized voice restrictions from the agreement. The final decision maintained that order, and the settling parties complied in their final settlement.