He urges that the Global South stays united and that it should not be driven by a northern agenda. I take this to mean that the likes of Minns and Sugden should not be running the show according to what can be called a 'New Puritan ' agenda.
He also fears that GAFCON might take decisions that actually divides the Global South. He is very concerned for its unity and its meeting in 2009.
He further wants what he calls northern orthodox to stay with southern orthodox. Again one infers that there is a danger of the Global South going it alone. He sees that northern orthodox bishops might affiliate with the south - very GAFCON and potentially against the principle of geographical monopoly. There could be parallel processes for building unity among those loyal to the biblical historic faith and ethics in both the South and the North. He clearly is troubled by his interpretation of doctrinal observance in the United States and Canada.
He also sees that the Covenant may be the non-starter that rejection by some Churches implies:
If there is no prospect of a Covenant that safeguards orthodoxy and unhindered mission within a reasonable timescale, then the possibility of adopting a "holding covenant" may need to be considered. I urge you all to consider participating in the Lambeth Conference.
Such could, of course, come from GAFCON. It might come from the whole Global South in 2009. He thinks the GAFCON people should go to Lambeth.
He makes the assumption that people in the pews may be confused or misled, and have less understanding about controversial issues. I can suggest people in the pews are not baahing sheep but are well capable of understanding the coming division and that a minority in the north, who could never get their way otherwise, are hitiching a ride on some literalist, supernaturalist and magic relating African provinces, to drive their own agenda. In other words: yes, some in the north are driving this, and doing it via GAFCON. The Global South will either have to follow along or, indeed, there could be further division.
One wonders what Mouneer Anis will achieve in addressing face to face and face to face in a method of meeting with no resolution, with people he thinks should not be there (who started the crisis, he claims) in a part-adaptation of the Indaba participatory meeting. Of course there is Bishop Sulheil Dawani in the diocese where GAFCON meets in June and he is opposed to GAFCON and has good relationships with The Episcopal Church.