AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Thanks.

Does this mean you support the moratorium proposal personally?
If so, can you explain why?

Thanks

"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE> 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: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>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"
><wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120927/65697ee8/attachment.html>