In our "User Account" introduction Els has invited each of us to nominate a site which should become World Heritage. I am aware that any such nominations will inevitably contain "subjective elements" but, in my view, there is a bit too much "special pleading" for national interests among the sites mentioned to date!
However it could, I think, be interesting for the WHS enthusiasts who frequent this site to try to develop a list of the top sites which, in their opinion, the nomination and inscription process, with its (many?) known weaknesses has "missed" to date! Our collective experience of visiting a fairly high percentage of WHS should provide us with an excellent feeling for comparative worth.
There are of course a whole host of reasons why potentially valid sites may not to date have been inscribed or even proposed. Beyond government inertia, many of these are likely to revolve around lack of "adequate" (as required by IUCN/ICOMOS) Management Plans, Buffer Zones etc. I suggest we ignore these and try to identify "intrinsic worth" based on the Criteria.
For similar reasons I don't think we should limit our nominations to sites currently on the Tentative List – though that may well, for obvious reasons, provide a high percentage of our "Inscriptions". But, in addition, the Bhutans of this world should be able to get a "look in" with us!
A few rules will be required. I would suggest starting with
a. We should not recommend any site from our own countries! Though we can contribute to arguments where one has been "nominated"?
b. We should aim (at the beginning at least?) to limit the list to say the "Top 50 Missing Sites" which we can generally agree really ought to have been inscribed.
c. Mass votes/proposals/support (as per e.g. Rohtas!) will not be allowed if detected.
d. Proposals should be supported with reasons in terms of the established criteria.
e. Nominations should be made separately within a new "Top Missing Inscribed Sites" discussion forum each with its own heading as per the "Connections" discussions.
We will need a "process" and I am reluctant to load Els with any more work but there must be some "arbiter" and some point where a site is moved from "proposed" to our inscribed "Top 50 Missing" list! A reasonable length of time should be allowed for pros/cons and agreements/disagreements to emerge depending on the degree of support/opposition! Similarly if, even after the initial discussions have led to "inscription", someone can come up with good arguments for taking a site off, then this too should be possible. This only seems likely to happen as we reach the 50 sites limit and a site must be removed in order for another to be added. We could move on to 100 later but I feel a period of "pressure" when the only way to get a site on would be to take another off would stimulate quality in the justification and decision making! Els could either take on the role of "Judge" herself or allow a "vote" from registered users (but how to avoid the "Rohtas syndrome"???). I would suggest that in many cases the general view will be quite clear and that we cross that bridge when we come to it!
Any views out there?? | 
