Sixth Saint-Petersburg Model United Nations Conference which took place March 20-22, 2002 hosted a record number of international participants - those who come to St. Petersburg traditionally were added with numerous newcomers. Some delegations who came for the first time appeared to demonstrate outstanding performance (Qatar, Abu-Dabi, Mexico).
In general Sixth conference was marked by:
- very active participation of foreign guests,
- good preparation of the delegates (both Russian and foreign) for the basic steps of the conference including knowledge of parliamentary procedure,
- advanced level of the English language during discussions,
- cultural diversity of the participants,
- serious focus on global problems (terrorism),
- outstanding settings (flags, posters, banners, TV monitors, microphones, computers, Internet),
- well run "supplementary" activities (lunches were substantial and served in time; disco, which was extremely safe; shuttle-bus for the MUN Directors, busses for the students, mobile phones for the key student officers and Directors),
- excellent work of the conference admin staff.

This time the Opening Ceremony took place in Taurida Palace. An outstanding and well-coordinated work of President and his Vice-Presidents allowed to avoid problems with the time-limit referring both to the speeches themselves as well as the ceremony proper. The opening speeches were predominantly serious focusing on combating terrorism and poverty. The number of those who wanted to make replies for the speeches was also significant.
Lobbying was well organized. The delegates liked the fact that there were work places (tables and paper) prepared for every question discussed. So it was quite easy to find co-submitters. The work of MUN Directors in the Approval Panel was well thought. Each was scheduled to work for half an hour together with three or four directors from different schools. In practice, however, some MUN directors were able to read 3-4 resolution drafts and some - none. Almost simultaneous beginning of the Panel's work and the beginning of the lobbying can explain this. In is worth mentioning that in spite of hard work of the MUN directors during "the rush hour" of the lobbying when the resolutions appeared at the Panel almost simultaneously, there were no complaints and many non-scheduled Directors offered their help.
The work of the committees was complicated due to several moments. This time the committees were held in several different places far from each other. This was not an obstacle for the participants as the transportation for the foreign schools was provided. Besides a shuttle mini bus was available for the MUN Directors wishing to see the work of all committees, very few of them took this opportunity.
However next time it could be even better managed if besides the address the booklets will carry several other indications of where the committee sits: the nearest metro station, a mini map or other significant marker.
Also mentioning (both oral at the committee, which was not done by the chair and written in the booklet) that the session of the Security Council would be held in the University building was necessary twice - for both days. In that case it would not have happened that the SC delegates were all present in time March 21st and went to the place where the GA sat on the 22nd.
The GA and the Closing Ceremony were very well carried out.

In general Sixth Conference can be called a success. The level of St. Petersburg delegation's performance has grown. It is obvious that student officers have run all basic activities: delegation preparation, resolutions, badges, business correspondence, meeting of the delegations, general coordination. Hence, the responsibility of the students was great and they managed to carry it out well.
In order to even improve the conference our delegation would like to propose the following:
- it is a very precious experience when all MUN Directors have a chance to sit together and introduce themselves. It could be a good way to let the Directors make friendly and business contacts and to discuss the conference. That could have prevented the tensions that did arise due to the cultural diversity that was demonstrated. It was a very good experience that all MUN Directors were involved into the work of the Approval Panel but another activity that would bring all of the Directors together was necessary.
- it would be better if the guest schools had an opportunity to make their farewell speeches during the closing ceremony. The absence of them might be explained only by the lime limit.
- it was the first time when the hall of Taurida Palace was completely occupied by MUN participants. However size of the placards with the names of the countries remained the same which led to the fact that it was quite complicated for the chairs as well as President at the GA to see the names of the countries. So the delegates who were sitting at the end of the hall due to the alphabet were hardly recognized by the chairs as they simply did could not see whom they were supposed to recognize.
In general as you see, the evaluation of the work is extremely positive and the issues mentioned above are minor and cannot spoil excellent impression of the Conference.
We do hope however that our estimations will be taken into account which will be helpful in organizing Seventh International SPIMUN Conference which will be even better.
On our part we are eager to help you in all your ventures firs of all by bringing better delegates who will be carefully selected next time.

Thank you again. It was a real pleasure to be part of Sixth SPIMUN Conference.
Good luck!