I wonder about 3 points concerning this new session which is approaching:

No "Palestinian" site in danger this year ...? Astonishing that Palestine does not accentuate its attempts with the departure of Israel and the United States.

Does our community believe that Naumburg Cathedral and the burial sites and memorials of the First World War will be inscribed through strong lobbying? The cemeteries proposed concern many countries, they will support the nomination. Maybe 2 sites that we'll be able to add to our connection "controversial at inscription".

Do you think that the Shakhrisyabz site (Uzbekistan) will be the third site struck off the list following an unfavorable draft decision? I hope no.

Yes, hoping one day that pre-Columbian sites are proposed for this country (Caracol, Lamanai, Lubaantun...).

If additions to a tentative list will help Belize protect its pre-Columbian sites from being destroyed in order to build roads, I'm all for it!

As for jonathanfr's points:

1. I'm glad Palestine didn't press its luck with another "emergency" nomination. I'm very much in favor of them submitting through the normal process.
2. I wouldn't be surprised to see the WWI funeral and memorial sites added to the list this year since it is a multinational nomination; I suspect the time for reflection on the precedence this sets will get shuffled off to next year with the Normandy nomination. And then, if the WWI nomination goes through, I wonder if Australia and New Zealand will look to extend the sites to Gallipoli (say in coordination with the 100th anniversary of the establishment of Anzac Day as a national holiday in ether country). As for Naumburg and Khor Dubai? I could see the latter overturned, but I'm not sure about the former.
3. I hope not either.

Thank you for your answer Colvin.

Rosia Montana wthdrawn according to Romanian media
https://www.g4media.ro/exclusiv-guvernul-dancila-a-stopat-procedura-de-includere-a-ro siei-montane-in-patrimoniul-unesco.html?utm_source=foter_ro&utm_medium=link&utm_campa ign=foter_ro_201806

Bad news but it was predictable. I would like to sign the petition but I can't find it.

I doubt that we could make up a "Connection" for "Withdrawn by State Party after recommendation to inscribe by Advisory Body"!!
Unique??

Maybe a connection "Recommended by Advisory Body to register but not transformed in an inscription".
With Tel Dan, Israel

Pimachiowin Aki was recommended for inscription in 2016, which Canada then pushed for referral instead. Maybe the connection is "Recommendation to inscribe by Advisory Body overruled by state party" or words to that effect?

Thanks - perhaps we had better "hold our horses" however to see what finally emerges at the WHC re Rosia Montana. There can only be a genuine "Connection" of course if the site eventually got inscribed -nevertheless it is interesting to identify if, and in what circumstances this has already happened before. States Parties put so much effort into gaining inscription that it is amazing to find one of them actually "rejecting" it.

With changes of government come changes in policy of course and hence a new government can find itself in the position of wanting to withdraw a nomination - but it really is ridiculously "late" for the Romanian government to do so. Their logic for not wanting it inscribed is understandable - they obviously "hoped" it would get rejected, referred etc in order to get them "off the hook" of having to be seen publicly to make the decision!!

jonathanfr We have to wait for the next election, I'm quite sure that a conservative-liberal government will nominate RM again.

It looks Shakhrisyabz (Uzbekistan) will be deleted from WHS in this session.
You can find here the draft of the decission: http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3769/

Seems reasonably justified from what I have heard.

More Arabian Oryx Sanctuary than Central Dresden.

And I will have "lost" ticks from all 3!!!
I still feel that there is an "element" of "punishment" in the recommendation/"decision" - is there not still enough left at Shakhrisyabz with "OUV" and worth conserving? What really gets UNESCO etc is the fact that Uzbekistan didn't "do the necessary" to preserve the rest - even if it wasn't the "best". It couldn't be allowed to establish such a precedent.

I think Naumburg stands no chance. It would be too obvious. On the contrary, the WWI sites could well be regarded as justified. I think they are likely to be inscribed.

I agree this might be the reasoning behind delisting and yet I find it reasonably justified. The question is rather whether such unwanted behaviour is consequently sanctioned throughout. The Great Barrier Reef then comes to mind.