Appendix A

The following section disposes of all disputed contract language in the ICA between GNAPs and Pacific, which must be changed to conform to the outcomes in this decision:

· T&C § 1.1.3: Pacific's definition of "Access Compensation" shall be included in the ICA. It states that parties pay access compensation for originating or terminating intraLATA calls.

· T&C § 1.1.40: Pacific's proposed language is adopted. An "Exchange Area" is established and defined by the Commission.

· T&C § 1.1.56: GNAPs' proposed definition of "Foreign Exchange" is adopted, with modification. Pacific's definition would limit Foreign Exchange (FX) to the FX service purchased from a carrier's tariff. On the other hand, GNAPs' definition includes FX-like services, such as VNXX calls. VNXX calls are FX-like, and those within a particular LATA are to be treated as local calls for reciprocal compensation purposes. However, the interLATA FX service GNAPs lists as part of its definition would not be considered local in nature, and those calls are interLATA toll calls and would not be subject to reciprocal compensation provisions.

· T&C § 1.1.68: Pacific's proposed definition of "IntraLATA Toll Traffic" is adopted. Any traffic between the parties which is outside the "normal" local calling areas adopted by the Commission is considered intraLATA toll traffic, and that traffic is subject to access charges.

· T&C § 1.1.76: Pacific's definition of "Local Calls" is adopted, with modification. Local calls do not have to originate and terminate to customers physically located within the same local calling area. We have already determined that VNXX calls would be included within the definition of a local call, and in that case, the customers will not be physically located within the same local calling area.

· T&C § 1.1.83: Pacific's definition of "Meet Point Billing" is adopted. It describes the process to follow in a multi-bill environment.

· T&C § 1.2.8: Pacific's proposed language is adopted. Pacific allows for disparate routing and rating points within the same LATA, but makes it clear that the routing point is used to calculate mileage measurements for the distance-sensitive transport element. This is consistent with the Commission's determination in D.99-09-029. GNAPs' language would

allow the routing point to be anywhere in SBC's territory and goes beyond a simple definition of the term "routing point."

· Reciprocal Compensation § 6.2: Pacific's proposed language is adopted. It reflects the fact that when an end-user customer places a "non-local" call to an ISP, the call will be rated according to the terminating carrier's Exchange Access tariffs.

· NIM §§ 2-A, 2-B, 2-C: Sections 2-A, 2-B, and 2-C govern financial responsibility for calls transported within the same calling area as the POI and between different calling areas within the LATA. Pacific's proposed language is rejected. It is inconsistent with the determination that GNAPs cannot be required to pay for transport of local traffic on Pacific's side of the POI.

The following section disposes of all disputed contract language in the ICA between GNAPs and Verizon submitted to the Commission on May 29, 2002, which must be changed to conform to the outcomes in this decision:

· T&C Glossary § 2.56: Verizon's proposed definition for "Measured Internet Traffic" is adopted. Verizon's definition includes a reference to its local calling area.

· T&C Glossary § 2.75: Verizon's proposed language is adopted, with modification. The designation of traffic between the parties will be based on Verizon's local calling areas, which have been adopted by the Commission. Reciprocal compensation does apply to Foreign Exchange (FX)-type traffic that does not originate and terminate within the same Verizon local calling area. An FX-type call is rated as a local call, and reciprocal compensation should apply. Section 2.75 shall include GNAPs' language relating to changes in applicable law.

· T&C Glosssary § 2.91: Verizon's proposed definition of "Toll Traffic" is adopted. It is more precise, and eliminates GNAPs' requirement that toll traffic relate to whether or not the carrier imposes a toll charge.

· Interconnection § 2.1.1: GNAPs' proposed language is adopted with modification. GNAPs is entitled to have only one POI per LATA. However, GNAPs' final sentence is problematic because it states that each party is responsible for transporting "telecommunications traffic" originating on its network to the POI at its own cost. The two parties dispute the meaning of

the term "telecommunications traffic," and the term is not defined in the ICA. Therefore, the parties shall add a sentence to clarify that "telecommunications traffic" includes local traffic subject to reciprocal compensation provisions, but does not include "intraLATA traffic."

· Interconnection § 2.1.2: GNAPs' proposed language, which describes the relationship between the POI and Verizon's IPs, is adopted. GNAPs indicates that the IP will be located at the POI. This is appropriate since financial responsibility for reciprocal compensation traffic (which would be local traffic) passes from one carrier to the other at the POI.

· Interconnection § 6.2: Verizon's proposed language is adopted. It explains the use of Traffic Factors and deletes GNAPs' language related to its defined calling areas. The reference to applicable tariffs is appropriate. That tariff section explains the measurement of billing minutes for toll traffic.

· Interconnection § 7.2: GNAPs' proposed language is adopted. GNAPs will not be subject to additional charges for Verizon's transport of those calls which are subject to reciprocal compensation to the POI.

· Interconnection § 9.2.1: GNAPs' proposed language is adopted. GNAPs can designate the NPA/NXX to be served by a particular access tandem. It appears that Verizon's proposed language would preclude a VNXX arrangement.

(End of Appendix A)