|
|
Enron Mail |
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.
|