The reference to the "genuine single market", imo, is absolutely equivalent in their (extremely unsubtle) language to creating internal energy markets. I don't think we should worry about it. Neither do I think we should be re-editing this text extensively now. We'll have work to do later on Energize Europe.
I don't think it makes sense to send in a correction to the Energy Directorate so late in the game, and after so many modifications. Adding a paragraph that's been lost in the shuffle is one thing, but we've been touching and retouching too much.
The edited text can still be circulated to others, but we have to be careful about not representing that the text is identical to that which was submitted to the consultation.
You did start this last document with "I know this is crazy but we only have 48 hours to do this". We all had other commitments: Jerome was travelling on Sunday, I had a family visit, DoDo was away. You've done the work and I've nitpicked from the sidelines. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
Of course, we can and should use the current text to circulate.
There was no implied criticism about people's availability in my remark. Just that my first attack diary on the Consultation was long ago, and the Open Letter two weeks ago, and stuff coming out now is a bit frustrating. Anyway, I really do think they use "genuine single market" as equivalent to "finishing the liberalisation of energy markets". Otherwise the following poll options make no sense.
I'm sorry I only got through reading stuff and trying to draft what, to my mind, should be a brief critique of the Green Paper, so late. It's also clear there was no advance consensus on whether it should have been a brief critique or a more detailed position paper. That complicated things when editing time was short.
BTW, there's a White Paper on Communication Open Consultation, closing date 30th Sept. Working group, anyone?
...That in this questionnaire the aim is for a common 'free' makret, and alternatives aren't even asked about, also reflects that the Commission is obliged to push that damned "Lisbon process".
I say if there was no feedback/note of receipt on the previous yet, trying to send the improved version won't be a problem even if they ignore it. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Is everyone in agreement on the text now?
Before circulating it, however, I think it needs some page formatting (the page breaks need attention, as Nomad said). Writeboard won't do it, as far as I can see. I can make a .doc file of it and format that.
Any other ideas, anyone?
The Open Letter was different, I think, it was from EU citizens.
He said we should send the latest version anyway. We can always claim we sent an old draft by mistake as opposed to calling it "errata".
We can always send version 13 which is exactly as our prevvious submission plus the new paragraph.
Version 14 and later already contain more and more substantial rewordings of other things.
Options:
I frankly don't believe it matters a whole lot with DG-TREN. Since the only consultation was IPM, they don't put up (unless I'm mistaken) a page with contributions as with the Biofuels Consultation. They may acknowledge receipt. I sent the e-mails return receipt, but that should go to etg@eurotrib.com, which only Jérôme has access to. So should any response they make.
They're not going to take any notice of what we say anyway, we know that ;)
Presentation of the WP, December 2006.
