Go ahead.

First, I want to say that I can accept the voting procedure suggested by winterkjm and others, it certainly will result in a representative list.
However, I would prefer a voting with only one or two rounds, more voting options for each and, most important, a certain threshold of a minimum of votes to qualify for inclusion in the Top-list.
My major objection is, that we aim at 50 sites (or any other fixed number), which is rather arbitrary.

But as I said, I would agree with the suggested procedure. But I would also suggest not to persist in a fixed number in the future. For instance: it is likely that some sites on our list will be inscribed within the next years. In this case, we should not substitute these sites just to complete the list again to 50. In contrast, the charm of such a "missing list" is to see the list shrinking and whether the WHC "follow our suggestions".

And I would support the suggestion of Solivagant to establish a procedure to withdraw nominations from the list or to add new ones, without repeating the whole voting procedure.

In regards to this, perhaps we continue to vote in rounds of 10 until candidates no longer receive (3) or more votes. This would prevent sites with little consensus from being included. This could occur before or after 50, difficult to tell. Depends on how much people vote and how much consensus is indicated in our selections. For example, if we voted in Round 5 and only 6 sites had (3) or more votes. Then we would end at Top 46 Missing.

At this point I am perfectly happy to accept whatever Els feels works best. I've made suggestions that I think generally make sense, but there has been plenty of good ideas thrown around.

However I would like to include 11 sites rather than 8 if there is a tie. For example, after selecting 4 sites, if there is a tie between 8 sites, then it is better to include 12 sites to the list instead of 4.
In last round also we should not restrict to 50. We can see the previous list consists of 61 sites.(Now 3 sites are removed).

I assume Els is recently back or concluding her trip to Mexico as I post here.

Should we then move forward about selecting the New Top 50 Missing? Perhaps starting in February. We've had a fairly in-depth discussion about processes, procedures, and guidelines in regards to voting for the Top 50 missing. No universal agreement, but some consensus was established.

If there are no objections, perhaps we can continue (soon) on the general procedure loosely agreed upon. I would support Els and her judgment to select whichever voting framework or changes that she feels work best.

Looking forward to voting!

I'm happy to create the Survey Monkey bits once everything is finalised.

After this one is done perhaps we can raise to the challenge Els put forward in her recent reviews and come up with a top 50 to cull :)

I do believe this is the FINAL list as it stands.

***I have made the corrections/additions suggested below.

PLEASE DELETE THESE 2 SITES. Now we have 114 sites to vote for.

Who proposed Coron Island Natural Biotic Area? It was not in the previous list.

An interesting list. This is the first time really I have been able to study it as we were on the road during the last flurry of additions/consolidation. I was "pleased" to note that my "visited count" is 49! As for voting - I would still find it difficult to get much past around 30 which I consider really "special" and would probably stop at that during any voting procedure, based on my current knowledge. I still think that, whatever voting system is agreed any sites which just attract a few votes should just stay on the "nominated list" rather than join the agreed "Top 50 missing". But am not quite sure how this is achieved in the system proposed in later rounds if for instance very few take part - as I Indicated I possibly wouldn't want to vote past the top 30 or so. I wonder also if some way could be found of providing at least 1 link (e.g Wiki?) on either the list on this site or on the voting list as a "reminder"/description

Some of the earlier proposals weren't perhaps always clear but the following proposals did get a mention in early discussions and seem worthwhile to me compared with others on the potential list. As I haven't actually made any proposals yet during this second phase may I please claim the right to do so now?

South Georgia (Natural - eg Salisbury Plains and Cultural - Grytviken) http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=6&topic=150&pa ge=0#msg649

Torres del Paine http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=6&topic=59&pag e=0#msg180

Mammoth Bone Burials of Ukraine/Russia http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=6&topic=1737&p age=0#msg7073

I would also suggest
Mt Kailash. Possibly the most significant unrepresented historic pilgrimage route/site.

It would be better if we propose Mt Kailash as a mixed site due to its natural beauty (criteria 7) and cultural route.
Who proposed Coron Island Natural Biotic Area? It was not in the previous list.

I thought that the Taino Ceremonial site of Caguana (USA - Puerto Rico) had been suggested earlier too bearing in mind the dearth of indigenous "American" sites and the current non-representation of any Caribbean Island pre-Columbians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caguana_Ceremonial_Ball_Courts_Site
http://www.puertoricodaytrips.com/caguana-ceremonial-park/



Ok, though I suspect that IUCN wouldn't find it strong/"unique" enough? I think its greatest merit lies in its cultural role.

Oh - and what happened to Carnac and some of jonathonfr's other suggestions back in Dec (under the "old" subject heading). Did he withdraw them?

We can not take such a high number of nomination( may be 91) from anybody.
One has to submit only 3 sites as per the rule.

However you can suggest some of his sites & those will be added in this list after positive suggestion from 2 members.

Perfectly reasonable! I will have a quick look through his list and see if there are any I might wish to support

On another matter. Was there any debate about the inclusion of sites for no reason other than that they have had their OUV recognised but are otherwise "waiting"? For example is that the only reason the Triple Arch Gate of Dan is present or did someone really think it was "Top 50 missing" material? surely not?

Bojboj, suggested quite a few Philippines sites (including Coron), we generally decided not to include national sites from our home countries. He made these suggestions before that suggested guideline. There is also a large amount of sunken Japanese WWII ships, which are not (at this point) part of the nomination, but nonetheless very interesting.

For sake of inclusion (and worthiness), I decided to 2nd one of his nominations. Particularly, Coron because of its location on Palawan, which is one of the most beautiful places I've ever witnessed. There is also a high level of endemism in Palawan.

About Caguana it was not chosen as a specific suggestion only as a possible gap-filler (but not necessarily Top 50). I would support adding it at least to the voting list.

Carnac, I do not remember seeing this one. Is it really Top 50 or a suggestion? Dolmens are already inscribed on the list.

As far as Jonthanf's extensive list, it was informally used as a guideline. Users seconded many of his proposals. But the general rule stated by Els was 3 suggesstions (favorites). Khuft and I who seemed to be the unnoficial tally "people" did not include every site on the three extensive lists. Most, but not all, it depended on user support.

Assif, at first suggested some sites, based on their "demonstrated" OUV by ICOMOS. We were still in the early stages of this process. I personally had no idea if the site merited Top 50 discussions or not. Should I remove it? Any objections by Assif or others?