USA: We believe its acceptable. I think Iran would like to maintain OP6bis? We include language on human rights, national sovereignty … as my Canadian colleague pointed out. The suggestion of the distinguished delegation from China will stay. And then the suggestion from Venezuela, will stay as well. And then we still need to discuss the title… So maybe we should start at the top and I might ask my colleagues to confirm.
Iran: Capitals made some proposals on the title and I know we don’t have time – those proposals are controversial so we can go along with it as is for the sake of compromise.
Chair: Okay, so we go along with the whole package.
PP2, PP2 bis and PP5
Chair: Agreed in CoW.
OP15, 16, 16 bis, 17
Secretariat: Mr Chair, we’d like to draw the attention of the room to 14. This seems to be a publication of 16 bis so we just want to make sure we delete this, so we have no surprises later.
Chair: Yes, thank you. Now I turn to the USA to discuss the title.
USA: So we’re talking about how to incorporate the title throughout the text, correct?
USA: We left off considering this:
USA: We hope we are at a stage to agree. I believe the thinking is to take the “diversion, nonfederal chemicals” up until the end where “a designer precursors” – that portion of the title to be reflected throughout the text, recognizing that does include (…) So we may need small wordsmithing just to ensure that it makes grammatical sense.
Iran: We have witnessed how much time has been spent on making a compromise on this title. So I would like to respect the efforts of colleagues on this issue and I will not bring up the proposal which I have received from capital. And so we can go along with version as it is. Thank you.
Chair: Can we consider the title to be agreed upon? Seems to be the case. Okay, back to the USA now to see how we include the title in the text.
USA: Let me also express my gratitude and sincere appreciation to all but in particular, our distinguished colleagues for fine up on the progress we made in agreeing to a title I think that’s a really positive achievement… And I think what we would like to reflect throughout the text is where we start with the” diversion of designer precursors”, and perhaps it makes sense to copy that language and then maybe slowly go one by one. I do believe that for PP6 believe we are quoting the INCB annual report directly, so there is no need to alter the text. At PP21, we can make the same replacement. Regarding OP1, we can add the same and delete the end of the paragraph – if that is acceptable? Great.
In PP12, we can use a clean replacement as well. In PP13, we would like to note that we lost the key verb “to combat” on the second line.
Russia: On this paragraph, there were proposals form our delegation to replace “combat” with “prevent” and “address”.
China: For the sake of consistency, we would suggest deleting “prevent” but we are flexible.
USA: I did make an error when I first reflected on this paragraph. I neglected to see “prevent” and “address”. I apologize, we are ready to go along with those.
Chair: Regarding the Chinese proposal?
China: We can accept the US proposal and respect the sponsors´ suggestion.
USA: We are happy to go with “address” only if that is preferrable to others, we are flexible.
Chair: I see no more comments on this paragraph.
USA: …in 15, I also see a need to update and then at the end of 16… the last paragraph we need to amend is 16 bis.
Chair: I see no further comments. Congratulations – we have agrred on L7!