POSITION OF STAFF. Staff reviewed the Agreement in light of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Under this section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection (a) if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a 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 concluded that the Agreement does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the Agreement and that the implementation of the Agreement would be consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. The Commission concurs with Staff's position. Concerning the implementation of the Agreement, Staff recommends that the Commission require Ameritech, within five (5) days from the date the Agreement is approved, to modify its tariffs to reference the negotiated Agreement for each service. Staff states that this requirement is consistent with the Commission’s Orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets and allows interested parties access to the Agreement. Staff recommends that such references be contained in the following section of Ameritech's tariffs: Agreements with Telecommunications Carriers (ICC No. 21, Section 19.15). Staff also recommends that the Commission require that Ameritech file a verified statement with the Chief Clerk of the Commission, within five (5) days from the date the Agreement is approved, that the approved Agreement is the same as the Agreement filed in this docket with the verified petition. Staff recommends that the Chief Clerk place the Agreement on the Commission's website under Interconnection Agreements. The Commission Staff’s recommendations regarding implementation of the Agreement are reasonable and should be adopted.
POSITION OF STAFF. Staff reviewed the Agreement in light of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Under this section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection (a) if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a 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 concluded that the Agreement does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the Agreement and that the implementation of the Agreement would be consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. The Commission concurs with Staff's position. Concerning the implementation of the Agreement, Staff recommends that the Commission require AT&T Illinois, within five (5) days from the date the Agreement is approved, to modify its tariffs to reference the adopted Agreement for each service. Staff states that this requirement is consistent with the Commission’s Orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets and allows interested parties access to the Agreement. Staff recommends that such references be contained in the following section of AT&T Illinois’ tariffs: Agreements with Telecommunications Carriers (ICC No. 16, Section 18). Staff also recommends that the Commission require that AT&T Illinois file a copy of the Agreement with the Chief Clerk of the Commission, within five (5) days from the date the Agreement is approved. Staff recommends that AT&T Illinois verify that the Agreement being filed is the same as the Agreement filed in this docket with the verified petition. Staff recommends that the Chief Clerk place the filed Agreement on the Commission's website under Interconnection Agreements. The Commission Staff’s recommendations regarding implementation of the Agreement are reasonable and should be adopted.
POSITION OF STAFF. 58. It is Staff’s position, and the Respondent concurs, that the 10 year term of the prohibition against Xxxxxxx acting as a director or officer of any issuer is only appropriate in the context of the serious circumstances of the facts as set out in Part III on the basis of Xxxxxxx’x age and the unlikelihood of Xxxxxxx returning to the capital markets in the capacity of a director or officer beyond the 10 year term.
POSITION OF STAFF a) Since May 25, 2005, Xxxxx Xxxxx has cooperated with the staff during the investigation and during the negotiation of the current settlement.
