Message-ID: <30500348.1075854456127.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 02:38:00 -0700 (PDT) From: david.delainey@enron.com To: marty.sunde@enron.com Subject: Re: GE Plastics Facts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: David W Delainey X-To: Marty Sunde X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \David_Delainey_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Discussion threads X-Origin: Delainey-D X-FileName: ddelain.nsf Marty, no agenda on this one at all. Given, the change in Enron Industrial Markets towards building the paper and steel commodity markets and less so on the outsourcing product, I just wanted your opinion on whether this is a deal we should do especially given the sales cycle is largely completed. I believe that Rodney and his team want to finish this deal but given other priorities they would like to transition the deal to EES. Ultimately, the value (TCV, earnings, up-sell, resume) would benefit Enron more in EES than ENA. Regards Delainey ---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 10/16/2000 09:11 AM --------------------------- From: Marty Sunde@EES on 10/15/2000 09:07 AM To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: GE Plastics Facts Dave, On a more private note, what was the motivation for this note, especially copying Frevert and Pai? Are we (EES) being uncooerative and your purpose was to raise visibility? Can you help me with what your thinking is what you would view as a desirable outcome?