Common use of STAFF’S POSITION Clause in Contracts

STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the Amendment based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection: if it finds that (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Amendment, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ averred that it meets the standards set forth in the Act and that it is consistent with the public interest. Staff concluded that, since similarly-situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, it should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Staff concluded that the Amendment does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the Agreement and that the implementation of the Amendment would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff also recommended that the Commission require Verizon to modify its tariffs to reference the Amendment for each service affected. Also, the Chief Clerk should place the Amendment on the Commission's web site under "Interconnection Agreements." Staff's recommendations are reasonable and they should be adopted. Staff further notes, for the sake of accuracy, that the correct name of Madison River’s d/b/a is not on the Petition or on the Amendment. At the hearing, Staff requested that the Administrative Law Judge include in this Order the fact that the correct d/b/a for Madison River Communications LLC is Gallatin River Integrated Communications Solutions. This request is reasonable and it was granted.

STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the Amendment based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) 21.1 of the ActAgreement’s General Terms and Conditions (“Intervening Law” provision) provides that Ameritech does not waive its legal rights, etc., vis-à-vis various court and FCC decisions. Under Staff states that the Intervening Law provision differs from Section 21.1 of the earlier version of the Ameritech standard negotiated agreement in that the earlier version contained the following additional sentence: The parties further acknowledge and agree that by executing this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, neither Party waives any of its rights, remedies or arguments with respect to such decisions or proceedings or any portion remands thereof, adopted by negotiation including its right to seek legal review or a stay pending appeal of such decisions and its rights under subsection: if it finds this Intervening Law paragraph. Staff is concerned that (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party absence of this sentence in the Agreement at issue here implies that Easton is waiving its rights relative to the agreement; or (ii) court and FCC decisions because an express reservation of said rights was not included. During the implementation course of such agreementdiscovery, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended reports that the Commission approve the Amendment, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ averred refused to answer Staff’s Data Request related to this provision, although its argument implies that it meets the standards set forth there is no such waiver. Staff fears that Ameritech might change its mind in the Act future and argue that it the CLEC is consistent with waiving its legal rights vis-à-vis intervening law changes. Because the boilerplate contract language is likely – indeed, virtually certain – to repeatedly appear in future negotiated agreements, Staff insists that the issue of waiver under Section 21.1 should be formally and officially resolved in this proceeding. Staff contends that the public interestinterest is not served if, subsequently, a dispute arises concerning the CLEC’s waiver of rights under this standard provision of Ameritech’s negotiated agreements. Likewise, Staff continues, the public interest is not served if the Commission and its Staff have to inquire into this issue in every Ameritech negotiated agreement wherein the language appears. Staff concluded that, since similarly-situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, it should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Staff concluded that the Amendment does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the Agreement and that the implementation of the Amendment would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff also recommended recommends that the Commission require Verizon to modify its tariffs to reference the Amendment for each service affected. Also, the Chief Clerk should place the Amendment on the Commission's web site under "Interconnection Agreements." Staff's recommendations are reasonable and they should be adopted. Staff further notes, for the sake of accuracy, rule that the correct name absence of Madison River’s d/b/a is the mention of the reservation of legal rights of the CLEC under Section 21.1 of this Agreement does not on constitute waiver of rights by the Petition or on the Amendment. At the hearing, Staff requested that the Administrative Law Judge include in this Order the fact that the correct d/b/a for Madison River Communications LLC is Gallatin River Integrated Communications Solutions. This request is reasonable and it was grantedCLEC.

STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the Amendment based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) 21.1 of the ActAgreement’s General Terms and Conditions (“Intervening Law” provision) provides that Ameritech does not waive its legal rights, etc., vis-à-vis various court and FCC decisions. Under Staff states that the Intervening Law provision differs from Section 21.1 of the earlier version of the Ameritech standard negotiated agreement in that the earlier version contained the following additional sentence: The parties further acknowledge and agree that by executing this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, neither Party waives any of its rights, remedies or arguments with respect to such decisions or proceedings or any portion remands thereof, adopted by negotiation including its right to seek legal review or a stay pending appeal of such decisions and its rights under subsection: if it finds this Intervening Law paragraph. Staff is concerned that (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party absence of this sentence in the Agreement at issue here implies that Royal is waiving its rights relative to the agreement; or (ii) court and FCC decisions because an express reservation of said rights was not included. During the implementation course of such agreementdiscovery, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended reports that the Commission approve the Amendment, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ averred refused to answer Staff’s Data Request related to this provision, although its argument implies that it meets the standards set forth there is no such waiver. Staff fears that Ameritech might change its mind in the Act future and argue that it the CLEC is consistent with waiving its legal rights vis-à-vis intervening law changes. Because the boilerplate contract language is likely – indeed, virtually certain – to repeatedly appear in future negotiated agreements, Staff insists that the issue of waiver under Section 21.1 should be formally and officially resolved in this proceeding. Staff contends that the public interestinterest is not served if, subsequently, a dispute arises concerning the CLEC’s waiver of rights under this standard provision of Ameritech’s negotiated agreements. Likewise, Staff continues, the public interest is not served if the Commission and its Staff have to inquire into this issue in every Ameritech negotiated agreement wherein the language appears. Staff concluded that, since similarly-situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, it should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Staff concluded that the Amendment does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the Agreement and that the implementation of the Amendment would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff also recommended recommends that the Commission require Verizon to modify its tariffs to reference the Amendment for each service affected. Also, the Chief Clerk should place the Amendment on the Commission's web site under "Interconnection Agreements." Staff's recommendations are reasonable and they should be adopted. Staff further notes, for the sake of accuracy, rule that the correct name absence of Madison River’s d/b/a is the mention of the reservation of legal rights of the CLEC under Section 21.1 of this Agreement does not on constitute waiver of rights by the Petition or on the Amendment. At the hearing, Staff requested that the Administrative Law Judge include in this Order the fact that the correct d/b/a for Madison River Communications LLC is Gallatin River Integrated Communications Solutions. This request is reasonable and it was grantedCLEC.