In response to my email of September 24 regarding the 2001 ISDA Master Agreement Protocol, I received responses from only seven (7) institutions.
No clear indication resulted from those seven responses (four in favor of proceeding with the Protocol; three in favor of working on a new Master Agreement with no Protocol).
Before ISDA proceeds in either direction, it would be helpful to have wider market input.
I should point out that ISDA intends to work on a new 2002 or 2003 Master Agreement; timing is the only issue - whether the process begins imminently or nine months from now.
The benefits of proceeding with the Protocol is that it takes advantage of the considerable time and effort that has been invested in the initiative to date.
While the rate of adherence may be diminished somewhat given the continuing skepticism over certain annexes, the Protocol remains a convenient and effective way for institutions to amend their Master Agreements.
It also provides ISDA with some indication of the level of market interest in going forward with drafting a new Master Agreement and what provisions may be problematic.
On the other hand, dissension has been expressed with respect to some of the Protocol's annexes, namely, the expansion of the Default under Specified Transactions, the involuntary insolvency provisions and the Replacement Value concept.
In addition, there has been skepticism regarding the appropriateness of proceeding with the Protocol when the rate of adherence may not necessarily generate a new, widely-accepted standard for market practice.
To a lesser degree, those firms that amend their Master Agreements via the Protocol may encounter certain issues when the new Master Agreement is ultimately produced.
If you have not already contacted me with your response,  I would be grateful if you could let me know your institution's position as soon as possible.
Thank you in advance.

SDR - 2001 ISDA Master Agreement Protocol
