Talk:Developing nations bring technology transfer on agenda against resistance of Canada, Japan and US

Original reporting notes
I was there in the morning session from around 11 o clock (begin was scheduled for 10) (all times local), till when it closed at 12:45. I briefly looked into the session at about 4 o clock (afternoon session began at 3), but it was more or less checking off of the items of the agenda (as far as I can discern), so I thought not so interesting and left again soon. On an ofchance I checked in again at around 7 or 7:30, and only really wanted to stroll through on the way to somewhere else, when it started to get (in my opine) exciting. I then left very shortly before the session was closed (just after the item "tech transfer" had been concluded to be precise.

When I'm finished with the article, I might put up my notes (made on paper unfortunately, so maybe not).Sean Heron 15:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

morning session notes
Got the morning session digitally after all (not that its very legable :D):

Chair has heavy discussion with Pakistan on wheter ot not (hmm, I seem to left a way a critical part of the sentence...)

China: he does not think that a proposal has to be made by the chair, as the COP has decided already. He therefore wishes the Chair to withdraw the proposal.

Chair: He is not going against decision of the COP.

12:05, since an hour and a half he has been discussing the agenda item.

Pakistan: becoming frustrated. He thinks

China and Chairman goes backwards and forwards. China saying the agenda item has already been taken up, the Chair saying that it has not been

Portugal (for EU). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Heron (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

afternoon session notes
''Please note, all statements not verbatim. If you wish to insert verbatim quotes (and some sure would lend themeselves to spicing up the article a bit), try to find them in the webcast archive (see above).''

Nigeria: Almost derailed the Bali negotiations throught ?? words this morning. Support contact group as suggested by South africa. Further delay means that those with a responsibility have no intent to achieve ...

Saudi Arabia: Due to delay in work of SBI and of ... Flexibility, agreed to talks till 21:00 although 18:00 had been agreed upon. i hope that with the closing of this important item, the session will be closed. As we are all very tiered and translations are missing. Im afraid we need to continue tommorow.

Chair: not last item, Im afraid this is not...

Japan: I have heard that I recieved the fossil award and wanted to say thank you for that. I would like to say that I have insomnia and we ccan continue till tomorrow morning... And I think that we have to finish the scedule. Although we thin that the contact group should not be set up, we will go along

Canada -> bring it up in SBI 28 (2008)

USA -> same as Canada

Brazil -> very much in favor of establishing contact group.

Egypt -> Concerns on continuing without translations (there were no longer translations into the official UN languages, everybody needed to speak and understand english). p lease free a time slot tomorrow

Iran-> contact group

Nigeria -> regarding US + Japan he was hoping for comitments, but none have been made. So if it takes till 2008 to set up the contact group, how long will it take for decision?

Uganda .... He now sees whz it was discussed so long this morning. It has been discussed for 9 zears. We need to establish cotact group. Ghana -> we still need to discuss. Just establish contact group.

Chair -> also velieves contact group needs to be established. Which can discuss what is to be the scope —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Heron (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC) still chair: We need Co-chairs for the contact group -> Annex I and one from non Annex I.

Ghana: so and so should be co chair

Chair: We think Contact group needs to be implementsd by conract group (eh?) assuming the others waiting for the floor ( all developing nations) agree with the chair of G77 + china therefore would like to establish, need names.

Tanzania, on point of order: Why need consensus, when otherwise (on other items) it has been practice to establish without us all agreeing?

Chair: because (actually he said a lot more :D)

Tanzania: It is in your power to establish the contact group and declare the co chairs.

(Chair calls short recess (on behalf of canada) for Annex I nations to discuss who is to be "their" co chair)

Canada: Thank you, listen to EU

Portugal (for the EU): Yuka from Finland! poor Yuka. burdened him with so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Heron (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding on the article
Check out the unfccc.int website, you should find live video streams (realmedia unfortunately), and when your there, there will also be the archive. Cant tell you whether the videos have been put up yet, as the website is strangely not accessable from here at the moment, but a good warmup should be one of I think three consecutive Chinese statements made at about 10 am which went along the lines of (I'm trying to be verbatim): (with regards to the discussions on whether or not tech transfer had already been put on the agenda through the decision of a higher body) This is humiliating to me. You have bullied our ancestors, and now you (seem to be trying?) to bully us.

Otherwise see the times I stated above, they are the ones of interest with regard to the article. Sean Heron 15:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

apologies
I guess its a bit hard to get an idea of what this means with no comments by anybody. Im very sorry (for myself the most) that I didnt manage to get some comments on how different nations saw this outcome, I think that would have been a major contribution to the article. If Im lucky I might get some on the morrow, but i think it more likely Im going to sleep in. Sean Heron 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Feedback
Title change is better like this, sounds cooler indeed. Publish is ok.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)