Distinguished Committee members, 

Four proposals were introduced during your meeting on Saturday. You then agreed on the following:

One, that there is no disagreement on the recommended 61 percent threshold for the first round of voting on the proposals to be presented to the LPDF, and a simple majority for the two proposals that proceed to the second round. I trust that this is a decision we can now lock in so that it is not reopened for discussion by this Committee.

Two, you decided that the sponsors of the four proposals that were introduced during the session would use the rest of Saturday and Sunday for further negotiations, including with other Committee members, in order to try one more time to agree on one or two proposals only that would be presented to the LPDF. You indicated that these negotiations would include exploring the possibility of merging some of the four proposals that were introduced during the session.

Three, you also agreed that all proposals would be further developed so that they are presented in the form of articles with specific legal formulations along the lines of the Legal Committee’s proposal.

Four, we requested members of the Committee to indicate, on the Committee’s Whatsapp group, their respective positions on whether or not there should be a minimum number of endorsements for each proposal, so as to reduce the number of proposals that go to the LPDF.

So far, only one submission recommends a minimum number of endorsements.

We have noted that, despite the negotiations held on Saturday and Sunday, there are still four proposals. This means that the efforts to reach compromise and to merge some of the proposals did not achieve the desired outcomes.

In addition, there is no agreement indicated on the Whatsapp group to apply a minimum number of endorsements to each proposal.

We further noted that the four full-fledged proposals re-submitted yesterday and this morning are substantially the same as those introduced on Saturday.

We therefore would like to hear from you on what the next step should be.

You started with one proposal from the Legal Committee in May, followed by one proposal from the Advisory Committee in Geneva. From Geneva there emerged three new proposals which were extensively debated. 

At your first meeting after Geneva, on 16 July, you undertook to negotiate a compromise and to discuss it after the Eid holidays.

On 27 July, after the Eid holidays, you asked for more time to develop a reduced number of proposals and gave yourselves a deadline of 29 July. 

On 29 July you submitted four proposals, some of which were detailed, and they were introduced on Saturday.

On Saturday, you indicated again that more time was need for further negotiation.

And, as I have indicated earlier, the negotiations still left us with the same four proposals.

We have therefore moved from one proposal in May, three proposals in July, to four proposals in August.

We are now at decision-making point and the question is, are these four proposals what you would like to be presented to the LPDF for a vote?

Let me conclude by reminding all of us that three committees have been previously assigned to carry out this task: The House of Representatives-High Council of State Committee that met in Hurghada whose proposal was not considered by the HoR, the Legal Committee whose proposal the LPDF members were unable to complete in May, and the Advisory Committee whose proposal could not be agreed by the LPDF in Geneva. 

This Committee is the fourth. It is our hope that this Committee will present its proposals to the LPDF in a timely manner along with the agreed voting mechanism.

We are ready to hear your views on the next step; that is, what do you want to do with the four proposals before you?

Thank you.