Zimmerwald, what are these "factors" you mention? What do you mean by "a political factor that can be the basis for principled agreement."?
Curious as to meaning and emphasis by your delegate, trying to think how the Librarian may respond to this but it reads very vague. Though such vaguery may lie in my own plate as well due to the lack of knowing the identity of all delegate nations or where they might lie geographically.
I never did create a timeline or factbook for my country because classes eat all my time. My plan was to try and get something up after exams, during winter break. As far as geography goes, though, I do have a spot on the new map; by the way, what was the impetus behind creating a new map?
By a "political factor," Ely meant a preexisting commitment to the principles animating the original call for the Conference. AFAIK, the Conference was not the product of preparatory discussions, and the participant countries were contacted out of the blue. Which means that if there was any commitment to a principle animating their selection, it was identified by Khem itself. The idea is that if Khem contacted countries with which it thought it could work, then those countries ought to know why Khem held this opinion. We all seem quite different. What convinced our hosts otherwise?
But Oz has hit on the deeper meaning already in his last IC paragraph. If there
was no such criterion for selection, and the societies of the represented countries really do represent opposing poles the way they seem to, then how can we be sure we share any principles at all?
