"The Executive Council resolution *was* mentioned by Bishop Douglas. It was thought by him and his two co-sponsors (whose identities I forget at the moment) to place TEC's presence at the next meeting of the ACC at risk, hence that "not No" options."
That is a comment by Bishop Daniel Martins in response to Mark Harris at Preludium drawing attention to two different high level motions about the Covenant being drafted up ahead of the TEC General Convention coming up in July. The ACC meeting referred to is the meeting occurring in November here in Auckland, New Zealand. The "Executive Council resolution", if agreed, would reject the Covenant in toto. The (let's call it) Douglas motion (+Ian Douglas is on ACC), if agreed, would not reject the Covenant entirely, hence the "not No" description in the comment above.
So far, so TEC's own business.
But here is the thing about our church, ACANZP: if our GS rejects the Covenant, as many pundits believe should be the case, because of episcopal unit voting to date, then it is going to be a tad embarrassing to be hosting the ACC as a member church which has rejected the Covenant circulated around the Communion by the ACC.
So, will some moral pressure be brought to bear in our GS debate not to reject the Covenant completely. Easy to do: "refer for further study" ... "await the outcome of debates in partner churches in Oceania" ... "assure the ACC of our great love of Sections 1-3 and plead with ACC to reconsider the possibility of revising Section 4."
Sir Humphrey Appleton, where are you when we need you.
Point of clarity: my own view is that we should make our decision with reference to the content and purpose of the Covenant, not to whether any embarrassment attends whatever decision we make. I would be very concerned to learn that any moral pressure was brought to bear on the course of the debate at GS.