RE: Enron GLConnect Agreement ,
 I am fine with this language.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Lakho, Shahnaz  
Sent:	Tuesday, July 10, 2001 10:38 AM
To:	Nemec, Gerald
Subject:	FW: Enron GLConnect Agreement

    Gerald:

   This is in response to the language you added to Great Lake's  EBB agreement, they would like to revise it.  Please let me know if you approve.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Mackey, Tina M." <tmackey@glgt.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Mackey+2C+20Tina+20M+2E+22+20+3Ctmackey+40glgt+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, July 10, 2001 10:12 AM
To:	'slakho@enron.com'
Subject:	FW: Enron GLConnect Agreement

Shane,

Below you will see what our attorney suggested be added to the GLConnect
agreement instead of the language which your attorney proposed.  If your
attorney agrees, let me know and I will revise the agreement and fax it to
you.  Call me if you have any questions.

Tina Mackey
Great Lakes Gas
(248) 205-7581
(248) 205-7571  fax


> I am okay with the intent behind the language suggested by Enron on p.2 of
> 4 of the GLConnect User Agreement, but not with the proposed language.  I
> would propose instead:
>
> "provided that, commencing 24 hours after Great Lakes' receipt of
> Subscriber's written notification to terminate or limit access of any
> previously Authorized Person, Subscriber shall bear no liability for any
> action taken by such previously Authorized Person to the extent such
> action relies upon access terminated by Subscriber's notification.
> Subscriber shall remain liable for access gained by previously Authorized
> Persons by other means, including use of USERIDs and passwords not
> terminated or limited by Subscriber."
>
>
shahnaz.lakho@enron.com