Yes - it has already started!!
I therefore start a new topic for our comments and "news" on the actual meeting as in previous years.
"State of Conservation" today and tomorrow. Discussion of this year's Nominations isn't scheduled until Friday. Provisional timetable here -
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2017/whc17-41com-3B-en.pdf

English version of Livestream here -
http://whc.unesco.org/include/tool_stream.cfm?streamlanguage=en
and French here
http://whc.unesco.org/include/tool_stream.cfm?streamlanguage=fr

Oh that cught me off guard, I hadn't realised it was this week.

Inscription discussion is due to start at 9:45 Friday (CET) going through to Sunday evening.

Hopefully there won't be an attempted coup this year to disrupt things.

Comoé (Ivory Coast) and Simien (Ethiopia) no longer in danger.

How did you "read" the discussions on this?
Unfortunately i wasn't able to give my full attention to those about Simien but i got the impression that all parties (including ICOMOS) were agreed to give Cote d'Ivoire credit for great efforts AND results on all relevant matters whilst ICOMOS were not really very happy about Ethiopia and really wanted Simien to stay on the "In Danger" list. The African countries however seemed to want to give Ethiopia credit for "trying" and having good intentions to carry on doing so and got support on this - ICOMOS just went along rather than fight a losing cause!
Did you see it differently?

Liverpool and UK were getting a "roasting" from everyone when I had to break off - "Does the State Party really WANT to avoid Liverpool being delisted". I can't say i thought much of the defense being offered - among which was "Following the recent election we now have a new Minister of Culture who is determined to get this sorted out........."!!!! (Mind you I believe that ICOMOS is "wrong" on this matter and that Liverpool is being castigated/threatened unjustifiably!)

Here's a really good write-up of today's discussion in regards to Liverpool. It's my understanding that the UK has got one year to turn around.

https://www.engageliverpool.com/news/unless-big-changes-liverpool-next-year-says-unes co/

Yes - I know what was finally AGREED and has been published by UNESCO - I was interested in what you might remember about what was actually said and who agreed/disagreed! As I said - I don't think that ICOMOS was exactly pleased with the Simien decision

At the end of the day I stumbled at the discussion regarding yet another controversial resolution about Jerusalem (which passed). Israel once again argued with the holocaust, saying that while in Poland no decision should be met which criticizes Israeli policies in Jerusalem (the links between the Jewish people and Jerusalem). Following, Israel called for a one minute stand-still in memory of the Jewish victims of the holocaust. Cuba then expressed its dismay claiming that it was Israel which was politicizing the world heritage and that it had no right to call for a stand-still, something reserved for the chairperson. It went as far as to call for a juxtaposed stand-still in memory of the Palestinian victims (albeit again with no permission granted by the chairperson). It was obvious many of the representatives present felt uneasy about the entire situation and found it difficult to call the decisions on the run whether to stand still or remain seated.

Sorry I couldn't listen the live I was at work.

Having just returned from Dresden I do find some consolation in the English making their utmost effort to follow the German lead in being delisted....

Really don't understand why it's so hard to get to an understanding here.

Interesting discussion on Shakrisabz.
It appears that Uzbekistan has demolished vast "swathes" (their word!!) of the inscribed area even taking away several archaeological layers of earth/stone etc - the OUV of these areas is now irreplaceable. Apparently this was only discovered at the time of a Reactive Monitoring mission.
So - delist for lack of OUV or reduce the inscribed area to the relatively small area of "value" still remaining?

Amazing comment from Lebanon - "the State party was doing what it thought was good - where was the Committee at this time?" presumably he means the "Centre". What a load of "cobblers"! Every State Party knows that it shouldn't make major (or even minor) changes to its WHS without discussing it with the Centre!!

Finland makes a significant point along the lines of - here we have objective and irrefutable examples of the destruction of OUV and we seem reluctant to act - on the other hand we have examples of WHS threatened with delisting simply because of the "subjective" view that there has been visual impact arising from developments. How can we act on the latter and not the former (Could he be thinking of Liverpool???) Also if every States Party think that all they have to do is destroy a large part of a site and then change the boundaries where does that leave us!!!

There seems again to be the "divide" between developing countries and others on the WHC - the former want to lean over backwards not to disadvantage another of their ilk and instead want to blame the "Centre" for what has happened.

The Centre fights back with a direct quote from the Operational Guidelines pointing out that state Parties sign up to the paragraph (172???) which says they have to report ALL intentions to change ANYTHING about their sites! Applause from the floor of support on this comment!!!

Lebanon wants a change to the draft decision to mention the "Shortcomings" of the process for discussing site developments etc. Good old Jamaica picks up on the word "Shortcomings" because it seems to place ALL the blame on the Centre and its processes without suggesting that the State Parties has ANY responsibility in this matter!!!!

The original draft decision regarding Shakrisbz is passed with the Lebanese amendment - unfortunately I don't have access to it and can't read it on the screen in Poland so am not entirely clear what it was - worth looking at later - has it been agreed that Shakrisabz must be removed or has the Uzbek proposal for a change in boundaries been accepted??

I visited Shakhrisabz recently and although it was the least interesting of Uzbekistan's WHS, I would still argue it has a place on the list (with changed boundaries).

I saw pictures of what has been destroyed and what remains and to me the OUV lies on the remaining Timurid structures and not on what has been demolished. On the whole Uzbekistan really needs to change its mentality in this regard, not only not to demolish inscribed areas but mostly not to carelessly damage incredible sites like the Registan for example with unfaithful restoration/reconstruction.

Delisting Shakhrisabz would certainly not help the local population who already receive less tourists than other inscribed areas in Uzbekistan, increase the number of tourists staying in the already crowded WHS and not address other serious issues on other major sites like Registan. UNESCO would be much more effective in the long run if they were to place Samarkand on the WHS in danger than by delisting Shakrisabz. Samarkand too has modern buildings included in the inscription, yet nobody from UNESCO seems to protest on how these sites are protected or promoted. Practically, Registan is crumbling down to pieces ... and the most ashaming part of it all is that the recent restoration works are crumbling NOT the century old bricks and tiles! Metal frames are being drilled OVER older ones and reinforced with concrete and new colourful big tiles with modified geometric signs without Koranic script are wrecklessly being ''glued'' over the smaller and older brick ones, causing some parts of the structure to collapse or tilt. Now that is a real DISGRACE as slowly but surely we are losing one of the best WHS on the list (even if it doesn't get delisted!).

I would say they also refer to Dresden. I think it is rediculous the only site delisted due to lack of conservation was in Germany. Dresden is general very well preserved and many countries (e.g., China) change much more of their WHSs with no threat of delisting. The Great Barrier Reef is not even on the In Danger list, mind you. I still lament the delisting of Dresden. I don"t think it ws justified or that it effectively contributed to preservation elsewhere.

I haven't been able to follow anything today, but I see that Vienna has been put on the list in Danger.

I'm only catching up from twitter updates, but it seems that the Lebanese delegates have somewhat changed track from yesterday in supporting the measure. Seems logical; bulldozing through historic buildings is the responsibility of the World Heritage Centre so should be sanction free, but contemplating a tall building in the outskirts is a serious threat to integrity and the state party should be held accountable.

Apparently, the Great Barrier Reef also escaped from the in-danger list.

UNESCO believes the Great Barrier Reef will disappear by 2100, and while the state party can improve management and protections on the local level, Australia should not be held responsible for Climate Change, which is the ultimate reason for the Reefs decline.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-the-great-barrier-reef-can-be-doomed- and-not-in-danger/8685532