Thank you for the question.
The Preparatory Commission is looking at a global approach, which is preparing the way for a multilateral diplomatic conference in 2014 on the idea of the negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention.
I had suggested that as well as having multilateral negotiations on the nuclear weapons convention, there will also need to be regional approaches in order to address the security concerns in those regions. It is why parallel initiatives will be required, such as the process for a Middle East zone that's free of weapons of mass destruction. That particular zone would be a way of, one, containing Iran, for example, and two, providing security assurances to Israel, which is so important. The other sites would also need them, but they are the two key players for what is required there.
Similarly, Northeast Asia, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan have particular security concerns that need to be met with a regional approach. Once that happens, they will also be able to join a global approach, but they have specific regional concerns that would need to be met.
The idea of starting this process of multilateral negotiations is not to say this is the one answer and you should rule out some of the other initiatives that are happening regionally. The regional initiatives have to happen, but they will reinforce each other. You'll be much more capable of ensuring that Iran complies with a regional Middle East approach if a multilateral approach is also happening, because they won't be able to use the rationale that we're only looking at them.
It's also particularly true of India. India has rejected the idea of a Southeast Asian nuclear-weapons-free zone. They say it points the finger at them, and what about their neighbour, China, etc.? Having the two together, the regional approach and the multilateral global approach, is very important.