<html><head/><body><html><head></head><body>Hi,<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Does this mean you support the moratorium proposal personally?<br>
If so, can you explain why?<br>
<br>
Thanks<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word; font-family: sans-serif; margin-top: 0px">Hi Avri<br /><br />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.<br /><br />w<br /><br /><br /><hr /><br /><br />Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Avri Doria<br />Gesendet: Do 27.09.2012 08:22<br />An: NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br />Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th<br /><br /><br />We agreed to the moratorium?<br />This its very very wrong. I thought it had been clear that we defected that!<br /><br />This its a real mistake.<br /><br /><br />"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE> wrote: <br /><br /> <br /> Hi friends<br /> <br /> I was the only one from the NCUC/NC!
SG who
participated in tonights conference call of the Drafting Team on IOC/RC. <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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 !<br /> the PDP,<br /> if we get one, woöö be mainly for a second round, so some "temporary measures" has to be taken for round 1. <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> As said above there was a rough consensus, however some constituencies had minor reservations which will be documented.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Best wishes<br /> <br /> wolfgang<br /><br /><br />Avri Doria <br /><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
Avri Doria</body></html></body></html>