<!DOCTYPE html>
<html><head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head><body><blockquote type="cite"><p>Good morning:</p></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><p>Allow me to respond to and comment on our recent thread. Much of what I have to contribute today has already been mentioned in recent PDP and WT5 conference calls and related Chats.<br>The general position is motivated by three fundamental considerations:<br><br>- the right to use a geographical name pertains in the first instance to the people who live there, and have often done so for hundreds of years. It is a matter of identity, and to qualify those rights as a fantasy would appear to many people to be quite frivolous.<br><br>- the entities exercising those rights need not be central governments, who may yet do so by default. I would prefer to see a system based on subsidiarity and devolution</p></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><p>- whatever régime is finally adopted, it should be future-proof. These issues today are not what they were 20 years ago. Nor are they what they will become in 20 years time.</p></blockquote><p>These considerations are set out in more detail in the attached paper, which I shall copy to the List in a separate posting.</p><p>Regards</p><p>Christopher Wilkinson</p></body></html>