Message-ID: <15761283.1075846392692.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:45:00 -0800 (PST)
From: paul.dawson@enron.com
To: steven.kean@enron.com
Subject: Re: WORKING GROUP PROGRESS
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Paul Dawson
X-To: Steven J Kean
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_Dec2000_1\Notes Folders\Working groups
X-Origin: KEAN-S
X-FileName: skean.nsf

I initiated the group earlier this year, with the attached terms of 
reference.  To kick the process off, I included some key documents on market 
structure issues we have been working on in England and Wales.  
Unfortunately, I got no response to my suggestions for the groups working 
methods nor any additional contributions on market structure issues from 
other group members.  As a result, although the group has not been 
terminated, I cannot really claim that it functioned as a group either.

I saw the deliverable from the group as exchanging information and ideas to 
use in our individual efforts.  I did not see the group as having concrete 
deliverables (eg, a global Enron position on X which would be unlikely to fit 
the unique circumstances of each of the markets that we find ourselves 
operating in).  The question is whether this information exchange needs to be 
achieved through a formal group with limited membership or through extension 
of our internal Govt Affairs network.  A valuable way in which this has been 
achieved is through group "get togethers" such as the conference, our UK 
offsite which some US colleagues attended and the Thailand effort - all of 
which provide a good way to meet our colleagues and establish contacts.  A 
formal group is always likely to suffer somewhat from conflicting, immediate 
priorities.   The challenge is to ensure that on those occasions where such 
exchange makes a real difference to the outcome of our regulatory efforts 
that we leverage our internal contacts and international experience 
appropriately.  I suspect that much of this work already gets done 
informally, eg, recent exchange of information notes on California, help from 
London on performance standards to support our Indian efforts etc. 

Paul






From: Steven J Kean@ENRON on 20/11/2000 10:12 CST
Sent by: Maureen McVicker@ENRON
To: Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Scott Bolton/Enron 
Communications@Enron Communications, Hap Boyd/EWC/Enron@Enron, Jeff 
Brown/NA/Enron@Enron, Ricardo Charvel/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Dawson/Govt. 
Affairs/LON/ECT@ECT, Joe Hillings/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Harry 
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Nicholas O'Day/AP/Enron@Enron, Richard 
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Schroeder/LON/ECT@ECT, Marcia A 
Linton/NA/Enron@Enron, Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron, Lora 
Sullivan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Rubena 
Buerger/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Tracy Cooper/Enron 
Communications@Enron Communications, Beverley Ashcroft/LON/ECT@ECT 

Subject: WORKING GROUP PROGRESS

Please provide me an update on the progress of the working group you have led 
this year.  There are several things I would like you to cover in this regard.

Did the working group function through the year or was it terminated (I 
recognize there may be good reasons for the latter, but would like to 
understand those reasons).

What did the group accomplish?

Would you recommend continuing it?   Any changes?

Are there other topics we should consider for working groups in the future?  
Any changes to the working group process itself?

Please provide input on the individuals you worked with.  You should be able 
to do this through the PEP system.  If you cannot, please provide the 
feedback by confidential e-mail to me.  Because the PRC is coming up soon, 
please provide the feedback by December 1.