CLEC Support Requirement. Staff complains that Section 23.1 of the Agreement’s General Terms and Conditions provides that the parties are required to “support” their negotiated agreement. Section 23.1 reads as: The Parties understand and agree that this Agreement and any amendment or modification hereto will be filed with the Commission for approval in accordance with Section 252 of the Act and may thereafter be filed with the FCC. The Parties believe in good faith and agree that the services to be provided under this Agreement are in the public interest. Each party covenants and agrees to fully support approval of this Agreement by the Commission or the FCC under section 252 of the Act without modification. While seemingly innocuous, Xxxxx is concerned that the provision appears to gag Xxxxxx from making statements or taking positions that are contradictory to Ameritech’s position in any way during the negotiated agreement proceeding. Staff fears that even testimony from a CLEC related to the formation of the agreement may be held by Ameritech to be contrary to this provision, if used by the Commission to reject a provision of a negotiated agreement. Staff claims that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rejected this provision and urges the Commission to do so as well. (See In the Matter of the Application by Info-Tel Communications, Inc. for Approval of Agreement for Service Resale under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 252(e), MPUC Docket No. P-5298, 421/M-97-32, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 1997 Minn. PUC LEXIS 66 at 4 (April 14, 1997)) Ameritech counters Staff’s position with what it believes are four sound reasons to reject Staff’s proposal. First, Xxxxxxxxx argues that it is perfectly reasonable for parties to a negotiated interconnection agreement to promise each other that they will support approval of the agreement. Second, rejection of Section 23.1 would be a meaningless act, according to Ameritech, because the provision will be of no effect once this proceeding concludes. It applies, by its terms, only during the proceeding to approve or reject the agreement. Third, Ameritech maintains that the Commission should not assume, as Staff does, that the Commission should perform an in loco parentis function for CLECs to save them from themselves. Fourth, Ameritech asserts that Staff’s statement that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rejected this provision is incorrect. Xxxxxxxxx states that the provision that the Minnesota commissio...
