I don't think that will solve anything. Submitters are already not allowed to participate in the decisions concerning their own sites.
Not sitting on the committee would have no additional impact - they would anyway lobby friendly committee members to act on their behalf (see France and Italy this year!)
I think the quid pro quo right now is immediate. You are nice to my submission (where I cant vote), I am nice to yours (where you cant vote). If you were banned from the WHC altogether, e.g. for 2 years, the opportunities for quid pro quos would be gone. And then lobby as much as you want, but without promising your own vote as a benefit. I wouldn't consider any voting mechanism that is set up this way to be good governance.
Uganda believes IUCN may be inconsistent and too hard on Gabon, and believes that any issues are minor and can be resolved after inscription.
Feels like my first flat I rented. Yeah, we sure are going to fix this, this and this. If you submit you put in the work. Or it goes directly to in danger as protective mesure.
We are still looking for them in NL! Maybe we need to plant one in one of the polders
Happy to provide a seedling.