Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th

[Avri Doria]

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 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"
><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
>From From:         =?iso-8859-1?Q?"Kleinwächter,_Wolfgang"?= Thu Sep 27 10:24:44 EEST 2012
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Date:         Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:24:44 +0200
Reply-To:     =?iso-8859-1?Q?"Kleinwächter,_Wolfgang"?              <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE>
Sender:       NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
From:         =?iso-8859-1?Q?"Kleinwächter,_Wolfgang"?              <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE>
Subject:      AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by
              September 26th
X-To:         avri at acm.org
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD389 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

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