Hi, Thanks. Does this mean you support the moratorium proposal personally? If so, can you explain why? Thanks "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Hi Avri > >I did not act "on behalf of the group". The main issue was the rough >consensus on the PDP, other details were not covered in its variations. >It is still time to make a statement with the reservations (based on >the language of the attached document). Please do it. > >w > > >________________________________ > >Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Avri Doria >Gesendet: Do 27.09.2012 08:22 >An: [log in to unmask] >Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by >September 26th > > >We agreed to the moratorium? >This its very very wrong. I thought it had been clear that we 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