"Kuwait doesn't want to be part of a Committee which has lost its integrity - which is why it is submitting an amendment for INSCRIPTION"
LOL. Are these people self-reflective at all? Precisely this behavior is denigrating the integrity of the process. Maybe they should redesign the process if they are so unhappy about it's outcome. But constantly overriding the AB simply means the AB is irrelevant.
Spain - ok we are asked to be quick - BUT we (Spain) have been asked to withdraw nominations in the past - but we did so . Now we are faced with a request to inscribe a non inscribe recommendation. Everyone should play on a level playing field!!!
Truth be told, European countries should be held to a higher standard as they are already dotted with sites.
Tanzania - congratulates the SP for all their efforts and patience across the years on this nomination ...............etc etc!!! "Whatever was done by design or by default was done in good faith"....... "What harm would be done to the WH list or to the site or to the international community if a site finds its way onto the list either by default, error etc". Interesting point - would it really contribute to the degradation of the List. Is Sheki really any worse than many other sites which have scraped their way through??
I would concur if the statement was limited to countries with zero to no WHS. However, Portugal has plenty and Mafra is simply lacking in OUV. As is Augsburg to me.
Any of the sites with a proposal distinct than "Inscribe" have kept the draft recommendation during this session?
My impression is it doesn't matter if AB recommends defer, refer or not inscribe, because finally all are inscribed. I understand the complains of some SP for this.
Right about so. Simply ignore the AB feedback and go for the WHC. They certainly will pass everything.
Hopefully, the changes done (new whs per country) will help somewhat. But I am really questioning where the WHS train is going. Eventually it will be a pointless honor.