Enron Mail

From:lara.leibman@enron.com
To:sue.nord@enron.com, mona.petrochko@enron.com, john.neslage@enron.com,stephen.burns@enron.com, allison.navin@enron.com, scott.bolton@enron.com, eric.benson@enron.com, margo.reyna@enron.com, marchris.robinson@enron.com, barbara.hueter@enron.com, kerry
Subject:NAAG
Cc:richard.shapiro@enron.com, linda.robertson@enron.com
Bcc:richard.shapiro@enron.com, linda.robertson@enron.com
Date:Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:03:00 -0700 (PDT)

Everyone,

I finally touched base with Emily Meyers, my contact at the National
Association of Attorneys General ("NAAG") regarding their involvement on the
telecom side, specifically with regard to Section 271 authorizations.

According to Emily, there is no group effort that exists (i.e., a telecom
committee or an individual AG taking the lead on telecom issues). Individual
AGs get involved, but that is all. For example, MA AG Tom Reilley recently
opposed Verizon's application for 271 authority, but the FCC still granted
Verizon's petition.

Emily recommends that we use the AGs as much as possible. For example, if we
believe that local competition is non-existent and we have evidence to that
effect, we should certainly convey that information to the individual AG and
have him/her weigh in on our behalf. Emily recognizes that Enron is
pro-competitive and that typically the AGs would be in agreement with our
positions - so it's something for us to keep in mind as we move forward.
There's no guarantee that the FCC will listen to the AGs, but it may be worth
a try.

If anyone has any thoughts or comments, please let me know. Thanks.

Lara