Message-ID: <7071939.1075845904932.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 01:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: reagan.rorschach@enron.com
To: kay.mann@enron.com, david.fairley@enron.com, heather.kroll@enron.com, 
	tom.may@enron.com, kayne.coulter@enron.com
Subject: RE: ILA/ESMA conflicts
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Reagan Rorschach
X-To: Kay Mann, David Fairley, Heather Kroll, Tom May, Kayne Coulter
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_3\Notes Folders\Notes inbox
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

Kay, note the discrepencies and we will deal with on a case-by-case basis.  I 
think the definition for Ancillary Services in the ESMA is the correct one; 
however, they are pretty close.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay  
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:25 AM
To: Rorschach, Reagan; Fairley, David; Kroll, Heather; May, Tom; Coulter, 
Kayne
Subject: ILA/ESMA conflicts

What is your preference when there is a  conflict between the interim 
agreement and the last draft (v23) of the ESMA.  (For instance, the 
definition of ancillary services.)  Shall I just ignore the ILA, or does it 
represent the customers' expectations?

Kay