2.1 Interim Arbitration
No signed agreements were filed by March 27, 2000, in response to the rulings issued on January 31, 2000, and February 25, 2000. Rather, requests for arbitration with proposed direct testimony were filed and served on March 27, 2000, by Pacific, GTE, Joint Petitioners,4 Covad Communications Company (Covad), and SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (ASI). Responses to the requests, including proposed rebuttal testimony, were filed and served on April 5, 2000, by Pacific, GTE, Joint Petitioners, and Covad. On April 5, 2000, ASI filed and served supplemental direct testimony. Marked up, dueling clause agreements were served by Pacific, GTE, Covad, and Joint Petitioners. An All Parties Issues Matrix identifying 38 issues was served on April 6, 2000, and updated on April 10, 14, and 17, 2000.
Arbitration conferences and arbitration hearings were held from April 11 through April 14, 2000. Opening briefs were filed and served on April 21, 2000, and reply briefs were filed and served on April 26, 2000.
The Draft Arbitrator's Report (DAR) was filed and served on May 8, 2000. A ruling was simultaneously filed and served requiring parties to meet and confer for the purpose of developing one jointly proposed appendix for Pacific, and amendment for GTE, that conformed with the decisions in the DAR, to be filed with comments on the DAR by May 15, 2000. Parties were allowed to submit dueling clauses if they were unable to agree on jointly proposed language. The ruling also provided that parties and members of the public could file reply comments by May 17, 2000.
On May 15, 2000, comments on the DAR were filed and served by Pacific, GTE, Joint Petitioners,5 AT&T, WorldCom, Covad, New Edge, and NorthPoint. Comments were also filed by the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), and The Utility Reform Network (TURN).6 Parties were unable by May 15, 2000 to develop a jointly proposed appendix for Pacific, and amendment for GTE, that conformed to the decisions in the DAR. Parties individually filed proposed appendices and amendments. On May 17, 2000, reply comments were filed by Pacific, GTE, Joint Petitioners, AT&T, WorldCom, Covad, New Edge, NorthPoint, ORA, and TURN. On May 18, 2000, after consultation with other parties, Pacific filed a conformed Joint xDSL Appendix, and GTE filed a conformed Line Sharing Amendment, with dueling clauses.7
4 Joint Petitioners are AT&T Communications of California, Inc. (AT&T), FirstWorld Communications, Inc. (FirstWorld), ICG Telecom Group, Inc. (ICG), MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc. (WorldCom), New Edge Network, Inc., d/b/a New Edge Networks (New Edge), NorthPoint Communications, Inc. (NorthPoint), Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. (Pac-West), Rhythms Links, Inc. (Rhythms), and Sprint Communications, Inc. 5 Joint Petitioners for opening comments are FirstWorld, ICG, New Edge, Pac-West, and Rhythms. Joint Petitioners for reply comments are FirstWorld, ICG, Pac-West, and Rhythms. 6 Any member of the public may file comments on the DAR. (Resolution ALJ-178, Rule 3.18.) 7 CLCs joining Pacific in the Joint xDSL Appendix were NorthPoint, Covad, Rhythms, and New Edge.
