Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>We agreed to the moratorium?
>This its very very wrong. I thought it had been clear that we defected

Rejected not defected

>that!
>
>This its a real mistake.
>
>"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> 
>>Hi friends
>> 
>>I was the only one from the NCUC/NCSG who participated in tonights
>>conference call of the Drafting Team on IOC/RC.  
>>
>>The final outcome can be seen in the revised text of the draft
>>recommendation. There will be some minor changes (in particular to the
>>"maybe" of the temporary measures/ 3b). However there was a "rough
>>consensus" to move forward on the basis of the text towards a comment
>>period and the plan to initiative a PDP. 
>> 
>>Among the questions discussed was the issue whether there should be
>one
>>or two PDPs and whether IOC and RC should be seperated. I summarized
>>our discussions in the NCUC/NCSG and supported the idea of ONE PDP and
>>expressed also our position that within the one PDP process there
>>should be a seperate treatement of Red Cross, IOC, IGOs and IOs.
>>Another issue was timing. People understand, that then lurcome of the
>>PDP, if we get one, woöö be mainly for a second round, so some
>>"temporary measures" has to be taken for round 1. 
>> 
>>The constellation is a little bit complex because we address this both
>>to the GAC and the GNSO Council. There will be a special meeting
>>between the GAC and ther DT in Toronto before the GNSO Council
>meeting.
>>With other words we have to be very careful not to come with an
>>inconsistent position to the GAC meeting or to pre-decide what only
>the
>>GNSO Council can decide. 
>> 
>>As said above there was a rough consensus, however some constituencies
>>had minor reservations which will be documented.
>> 
>>If we have serious reservations to the attached text, please let me
>>know as soon as possible so that we can attach it to the final
>package.
>>
>> 
>>Best wishes
>> 
>>wolfgang
>
>Avri Doria

Avri Doria