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