Another amendment in favor of an inscription:
Settlement and Artificial Mummification of the Chinchorro Culture in the Arica and Parinacota Region

Knossos alone is probably still considered to be too compromitted by controversial "restorations". But I agree that the proposal of Minoan palatial centres should be an autoinclude in the List, actually with Phaistos as the centerpiece (because of conservation issues). Surprising it's not there already! Spinalonga was really a wanting nomination.

Can I ask some enlightenment about the amendments? I'm a little bit confused about how they work and who can make a proposal about what.

Concerning Nice, rename the property in english "Winter Resort Town of the Riviera" sounds better than in french "ville de la villégiature d'hiver de
riviera". I don't know what jonathanfr thinks about it, but for me this alliteration in "v" is ugly. They could make an effort ;)

Any committee members can submit amendments to the draft decisions (ie the decision paper that was circulated before the Conference). Other state parties cannot. These draft decisions cover everything that is discussed at the conference - states of conservations, new inscriptions, acceptance of other reports, budget - and are based on the recommendations by the advisory bodies. The amendments are debated by the committee when that decision is discussed. Sometimes they wrangle a bit about the wording (Norway is the "bad guy" this year, at least with regards to the states of conservation discussions, wanting to side with the advisory bodies and the original decision proposal, while most other countries want to water down the decisions).Committee members cannot vote on or amend decisions that concern themselves, so they usually get another committee member to amend on their behalf. Since other states cannot amend either, they too look for a friendly state. Eg Uganda and Ethiopia (if I remember correctly) pushed the amendment to have DR Congo's Salonga reserve removed from the list in danger.

Astraftis
Clearly the idea was to (finally) get a WHS to Crete, which is quite a gap in the list. It's just that Greece decided to waste the effort and went with a very weak candidate, from a very overepresented category and tried to disguise that under a very unnatural racionalization in the nomination, which of course ICOMOS didn't buy.
However, as you said and we all in this forum know, the real potential in getting a tick for Crete would be in the Minoan palaces, even with the authenticity issues that Knossos has, the other palaces suffice for an inscription. And if they wanted to, they could even incorporate a reason under some criteria, regarding the influence that archaeological interpretations from the late XIX-early XX century had on the views on Minoan civilization, which would justify including Knossos .

I think it's a tourism decision. Knossos doesn't need much extra promotion as it's already so popular although Spinalonga wasn't exactly deserted when I visited: your groups with guides, many individuals. Could be that the boat trip entices them lol

Agree with you, it's not a nice title in French. Let's wait and see the final result.

Regarding the authenticity of Knossos, it's a bit like Babylon before its inscription, but these names are so mythical that not having them on the list is not an option.

Question to Knossos in general: Would it be possible to remove the "restorations" without damaging too much of the "original structures" surronding? Atm I would also say "No" to an inscription of Knossos, if I were a member of the WHC. But the "restorations" were really the only reason for doing so.

Thanks very much for that whole run down Khuft.
Very useful, even if it is something I just relearn each year.

Session will restart in 2 minutes. Let's see where they're at. Still discussing State of Conservation reports probably. Maybe a danger listing or two will be averted.

Mr. Tian says we're running late

Turkey and Greece have to say something about the Istanbul discussion of yesterday. As observers (non-WHC members) they are allowed to speak but it will not have any impact.

Next one: Trang An (Vietnam). Thailand has written an amendment that overload of visitors isn't a problem anymore, as due to Covid the town's inhabitants suffers enormously from lack of tourists (and it is insensitive to talk strongly about it as a problem). WHC and ICOMOS, IUCN have no objection against endorsing the amendment.

Next: Great Barrier Reef. Should it be in danger? Could be secret ballot material as well