Subject: "Grant's Mailing Address - NIH".

Body: Thought you might like to have Grant's mailing address for card or note while he is in Bethesda for surgery. He really appreciates getting mail. We will be there from December 1st thru December 18th with Grant's surgery scheduled for the 6th of December. Grant Wilborn National Institutes of Health Building 10, BW Nursing Unit 10 Center Drive Bethesda, Maryland 20892

Subject: "Notes from the 6 ENW Meetings".

Body: Here are the notes from your four employee meetings and from the two Mark Frevert employee meetings. Call me if you have any questions or comments. Eric

Subject: "Admissability of tapes into evidence".

Body: The financial trading group has a recurring request by our conterparties to add a provision addressing the admissability of trader tapes into evidence in court or other proceedings. Our current language merely states: "Each party consents to the recording, at any time and from time to time, by the other party of any and all communications between officers or empoyees of the parties, and waives any further notice of such recording." Here are the facts and issues: 1. Our agreements provide for arbitration (most likely) or jurisdiction in specific courts or are silent as to jurisdiction. 2. ENA policy is to destroy trader tapes after 6 months. 3. If we are doing our job, a written and signed confirmation should exist in our files for each and every financial transaction. On occasion, we have not confirmation signed by ENA's counterparty. By agreeing to add "admissability" language, are we waiving the parol evidence rule? Do we always want the ability to introduce existing recordings? Can you provide us with language acceptable to ENA that we might propose to a counterparty (when asked)? Here's an example of a recent request: "Any such recordings may be submitted in evidence to any court or in any proceedings for the prupose of extablishing any matters pertinent to the [ISDA] Agreement."

Subject: "Financial Products in Japan".

Body:
It appears that we have now opened up our first Japan based financial product on EnronOnline, and I need to get some direction from you as to what restrictions, if any, we have on (1) counterparties located/incorporated in Japan trading Japan based financial products, and (2) counterparties not located in Japan trading Japan based financial products. Previously, the only Japanese financial product we had was weather, but it wasn't being sold by a Japan based Enron company, so my understanding was that I didn't have any particular restrictions under Japanese law for counterparties located in or outside Japan in trading this product. Now that the product is being sold by a Japan based company I am wondering was restrictions I might have to keep in mind when doing my daily online approvals. The only are Japan based direction I am getting is from the Broadband legal team (Robbi Rossi) which have told me Japanese counterparties can only trade US bandwidth segments. P.S. we do have a Japanese counterparty on the 9/26/00 list.