Steve,

After the Napa meeting last December, I headed up a  working group to look at 
coordinating EBS issues Internationally.  Initially I spoke with most of the 
people who signed up for the group, and began gathering comments and 
suggestions for improved coordination.   However, much of the need for a 
working group was reduced for two reasons; first, the addition of Donald 
Lassere provided a person within our group to focus exclusively on 
international coordination, and secondly, the Global Public Affairs 
reorganizations this year solved many of the jurisdictional questions that 
were highlighted by many in my working group.  After the re-org, we saw 
little reason to continue the working group.  

The group did serve as a good sounding board for people to comment on 
communications strategies and  better coordination within Government/Public 
Affairs.  Many of these strategies (particularly more relationship building 
internally) were implemented.  Additionally, the experience was a good one 
simply because it offered an opportunity to better educate other group 
members on EBS and telecommunications in general.

I would not recommend re-forming the group at this time.  I think many of the 
goals the group was initially formed for are actually being achieved now 
through better organizational structures and closer collaboration between EBS 
support personnel and International group members.

Many of the EBS related topics that deserve a collaborative, cross-functional 
process are being examined through informal, ad-hoc working groups now.  For 
instance, based on concerns raised at a recent EBS/Government Affairs 
off-site, we now have an international regulatory/tax/legal working group.  
This group is comprised of participants from Rick Shapiro's group, Mark 
Schroeder's group and EBS commercial support organizations.    

I am a little unclear on what personal feedback you want on group members.  
Please advise what format I should address this in, since I am not a reviewer 
for almost anyone who was in my group.  Suffice to say, everyone was helpful 
during the brief time the working group was in effect.   But I can give more 
detail on individuals if you would like.

Thanks for the opportunity to lead a working group (even for such a short 
time!) and please let me know if I can provide any additional information.  

Best, Scott





	Steven J Kean@ENRON
	Sent by: Maureen McVicker@ENRON
	11/20/00 08:12 AM
		 
		 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.