[governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis

[Robert Guerra]

On 16-Oct-05, at 8:43 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>
>
>
>> The open paragraph is 61.  I don't know which govt supported or not.
>>

Para's 60-62 were dealt with the working/drafting group chaired by  
Canada if i'm not mistaken.

Members of Drafting group: At least ones that I can remember -  
Norway, Australia, EU, US, Iran, China, Brazil, there were more..

Rusia and the EU were the two battling things out. US intervened  
often as well.

The text was almost agreed to on the 2nd session. Rusia and the EU,  
well - re-opened things...


>
> I think it's because the Russian delegate in the room was unsure about
> whether he had orders from Moscow not to accept the deletion of
> references to some specific UN GA resolutions, or whether he was
> authorized to do so. So he insisted he wanted the para to be reserved.
>
> Again, I don't think there is room for any substantive change in that
> part. Don't want to sound negative but... I'd rather focus on the  
> parts
> where actual points have still to be decided.



Para 61 was the most problematic, as on the 2 or 3 session new people  
from Iran and China came into the room. They didn't seem to have an  
idea of what their (own govt) collegues had said and in a way re- 
opened the text. This caused the EU to also re-open text...suffice it  
to say, it was pretty well para 61 that caused the session to last 4  
days!

As for the UN GA reference  - yup, it was the Russians .

In summary - For as much as i'd like to say otherwise, I agree with  
Vittorio on this being a para that is pretty well closed (agreed to).  
To get it re-opened, i would suggest suggesting text that would  
remove the brackets and make the para shorter. Should the IG caucus  
want to suggest text here - I would suggest :

- para 61 : it's kind of agreed to. That being said, i would suggest  
two possible options:

a. Reject the para all together : Make a statement - CS does not  
agree with the spirit of the para. then, suggest anything we want
b. Try to be constructive:  shorter, not longer. Remove references to  
things we don't like, but don't add anything new. To add something  
new, would be to have our suggestion not looked at .


regards

Robert





_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance