I still, after all these years, find it difficult fully to differentiate the impact of a referral as opposed to a deferral on what has to be done to "improve" a nomination. Why do you think that a deferral would have a worse effect on the nomination's future than a referral - the supposed "logic" stated by ICOMOS for not inscribing would also need to be changed. But.... to what???
Buffer zones?
Different selection?
Better identification of FLW's wider place in 20C?
Or ...????
Which requirement would be the "killer"?

We should look into the success rate after a deferral or referral: how many sites try again, and are succesful?
One would say that because a deferral involves a more substantial rethinking & another visit from ICOMOS/IUCN, it would be less often followed through by state parties.

P.S.: I'll do a search in my database (for: success rate after a deferral or referral)

The surprising results:
- 163 out of 327 deferrals lead to an inscribed WHS (50%)
- 29 out of 121 referrals lead to an inscribed WHS (24%)

So there's still hope, winterkjm!

I think the Montenegrins made a mistake highlighting the national values this town has for them. They should have focused more on a European or at least regional context (add some 'fusion', architectural styles).
Their comparative analysis was also weak. They seem to have been blinded by their own knowledge and fondness of the former capital, and spoke too much from an inside-out perspective. The thoroughness of the nomination file gets a lot of criticism from (a rather harsh I think) ICOMOS.

It would be interesting (to me at least!) to peruse the raw data for this. Particularly which sites have hit the buffers after a de/referral (some of course may still be trying). How did you handle "withdrawals" - some of which occur after such recommendations.
Could you put up a spreadsheet of the raw data?

Here it is: http://www.worldheritagesite.org/danger_sites.xlsx

(somehow it shows a login screen while downloading, but you can just click that away via Cancel)

Proposed updates to the Danger list: all current WHS labelled 'In Danger' are retained on the list.
A number of them will be evaluated in the next batch published by UNESCO (next week?), as their documentation was late. But this mainly concerns sites in Yemen and Syria, of which there is no doubt about future status.

New ones:
- Dja Faunal Reserve (poaching, encroachment, Industrial and mining activities)
- Nan Madol
- Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex (illegal logging of Siamese Rosewood)

The following WHS are put on the watchlist for a possible Danger status in 2017:
- Ohrid (infra projects, ski centre)
- Cerrado Protected Areas (protection & border zones of Chapada dos Veadeiros NP)
- Golden Mountains of Altai (gas pipeline)
- Wrangel Island (oil exploration, increased human presence)

In the papers or Agenda I haven't seen any reference to any "emergency nomination" proposals by Palestine. Whether this means that there won't be any or not I don't know. Does anyone else know the latest on this?

Its not that I doubt the US could re-submit under Deferral and be successful. But there are several individuals who could easily decide this world heritage tag is not worth the effort, and conceivably the nomination may expand or decrease, so some of these stakeholders may have just wasted their time (in their view), or the nomination will become even more complex. Consider the breadth of this nomination already covers 7 states which distance would span all of Europe in comparison. Referral has the appearance of near success (recognizing OUV), while Deferral is perceived as more of a roadblock. I am not saying this is actually true, because re-worked nominations can be very successful, but US budgets for the world heritage program are not huge, nor are the workings of UNESCO and ICOMOS common knowledge.

In my communications with a NPS staff who helped oversee US nominations, it was often stated how difficult this nomination was in organization and getting all owners together, to agree on the nominated components, and to get buy in from all stakeholders involved. I just searched old posts and we first had rumor of a FLW nomination in January 2012, with inscription for 2013. I have emails from 2013, where NPS staff expected to submit the nomination in 2014 as well. This nomination was delayed, pushed back, a couple times before it was finally ready for the 2016 WHC. That's ignoring the sites extended history, when Taliesin aimed for inscription more than two decades ago.

Does this include former TWHS?

Yes

I don't think this has been officially withdrawn. At least it is not marked that way in the UNESCO documents http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2016/whc16-40com-8B-en.pdf

Similar to Japan, if Phu Phrabat have to be withdrawn, Thailand Cabinet has to approve. After read ICOMOS report, I think it is better for Thailand not to withdraw. After absent for too long to nominate cultural site, Thailand seems to lack of understanding on site nomination, while ICOMOS see potential of Sema Stone Culture, the nomination dossier really bad drafting to show OUV, ICOMOS assistance is necessary, and that can happen only after WHC adopt the resolution. According to the news, ten years of drafting really lack of theme focus, they change committee too often and each committee has different idea on the site's value, too sad that this potential site become a victim of bad system of governing. I cannot imagine, if Chiang Mai has to face similar fate by similar government attitude.

Canada's 1st mixed site. Pimachiowin Aki (about the size of Belgium)". Yes, you heard that right!

This article highlights a truly unique site. So pleased to see a positive recommendation. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/unesco-recommends-canadas-first-mixed-wo rld-heritage-site/article30194121/

Some of the documents for this year's session are still missing. Notably, the gap report (9) and the proposals for new operational guidelines (11-12) are absent.

This will be an addition to our list of very difficult places to visit....
"The area can only be reached by live-aboard. There are no hotels in on most the islands no place where you could get off the boat and walk around. Liveaboard boats sail out of Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. The journey is 24-28 hours each way, and can be rough, so take sea sickness precautions. "