Having had a good Chew over this matter, this is the basis on which the South East Asian Anglicans have signed up to the Communion Covenant, and expect all others to do the same. George Conger, over the Moon, seems to be having a lot of Vun reporting this, or at least is having a Bolly good time. Mr Poon's opinion isn't given (well, this is a statement of authority not thought).
The province noted that “our accession” to the covenant was based on the understanding "that those who accede” to the agreement “will unequivocally abide by Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 in its spirit and intent," and would honour the moratorium on gay bishops and blessings.
Churches that accede to the covenant should also "bear authentic witness to the orthodox faith by an unequivocal commitment to the standards of moral and ethical holiness as set by Biblical norms in all aspects of their communal life."
In other words, the purpose of signing on and up to this thing is to narrow the boundaries: not to be inclusive, not to be theologically broad (like Poon, really).
To paraphrase the Archbishop of Canterbury in a re-issued statement recently, On the whole I'd be against this. It does seem a little severe to those with a different point of view, or outlook, and might even make pastoral intervention unwanted. It seeks to fill up an "ecclesiastical deficit" with the Communion looking more of a Worldwide Church.
The Tobias Hallas view (as on Thinking Anglicans), to also sign up to this thing while opposing what it stands for, is a recipe for further conflict and bad faith, giving the other side the documentation and structures they seek in demanding conformity. The proper answer, surely, is to kill the thing before it becomes a rope around the neck (on the whole).