A coherent, baseline platform that ratchets up in intensity every 5 years and forces the hand of domestic politics (rather than simply allowing them to block intnl agreements) seems like a positive, I'm not sure why everybody is so entirely cynical.
forces the hand of domestic politics
We've seen from Kyoto that promises, especially those not duly ratified, may not mean all that much. Most of these rulers have just pushed the issue beyond their tenure... or lifetimes.
Edit: s/to/too
>It's important when these things happen that there's a sense that the whole world is watching, and
but my reason for saying that every 5 years is too low a frequency, i.e. it should be more frequent, like once in 2 or 3 years, was because 1) a lot can be done in 2 or 3 years, and 2) more importantly, I'd think that reviewing progress (or regress) should not be left for as large a gap as 5 years - so as to be able to either hasten progress or slow/stop regress more often, if needed, considering the huge importance of the issue. Cf. recent live example - Chennai (and Tamil Nadu state) floods in India. Huge damage and loss.
I should mention that I am not a climate expert; saying the above as a layman.