These are sites which have been judged incomplete or have been referred but have not been submitted anew yet. Any knowledge of any of them seeking inscription soon?

Okavango (Botswana)
Parati (Brazil)
Zadar (Croatia)
Cienaga de Zapata (Cuba)
Stevns Klint (Denmark)
Parque del Este (Dominican Rep.)
Jebel Qatrani (Egypt)
Minkebe (Gabon)
Tenzug (Ghana)
Rajastan (India)
Majuli (India)
Tel Dan (Israel)
Northern Marshall Islands Atoll (Marshalls)
Sinaloa (Mexico)
Centla and Terminos (Mexico)
Yapese money sites (Palau and Micronesia)
Surame (Nigeria)
Harappa (Pakistan)
Mehgarh (Pakistan)
Rehman Dheri (Pakistan)
Hiran Minar (Pakistan)
Batanes (Philippines)
Hamiguitan (Philippines)
Al Zubarah (Qatar)
Kremlins (Russia)
Devil's Town (Serbia)
Mt. Sara (Serbia)
Seruwila (Sri Lanka)
Slave and Ivory Route (Tanzania)
Termiz (Uzbekistan)
Bakhrum Mausoleum (Uzbekistan)
Rabati Malik (Uzbekistan)
Sarmisshay (Uzbekistan)
Can Tien NP (Vietnam)
Barotse (Zambia)

I will add what we already know:
Rajastan will probably seek inscription in 2013. Tel Dan is probably out due to political intricacies.

Majuli (I presume this is what was meant by "Assam"?) claims to still be trying - According to the following 2 snippets from Indian newspapers earlier this year (c April/May) it should have hit a Sept 30 deadline for a revised dossier -but I haven't been able to find anything confirming that it did!
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/assam-renews-bid-for-majuli-heritage-tag/948896
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-18/guwahati/31361096_1_cultural-l andscape-dossier-river-island

Now the Operational guidelines identify Sep 30 as the "Voluntary deadline for receipt of draft nominations from States Parties by the Secretariat." In turn by Nov1 "Secretariat to respond to the nominating State Party concerning the completeness of the draft nomination, and, if incomplete, to indicate the missing information required to make the nomination complete"
And all this before the Feb 1 deadline by which time complete dossiers must have been provided.
So, it would appear that Majuli could have been aiming at Feb 2013 for a complete (and vetted!) revised dossier for consideration at the 2014 WHC?

But the details reported in the 2 news items don't really give much hope for a satisfactory piece of work - a shame as we hope to visit Majuli next Feb during a trip to NE India!!

Golconda and Gt Himalayan NP had submitted complete dossiers by the deadline (as reported at the St Petersburg WHC) and are in the middle of their evaluation process for the 2013 WHC . This newspaper article refers
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-26/india/33401746_1_world-heritag e-sites-abode-of-nobel-laureate-unesco-panel

Okavango seems on track for submitting an improved dossier in Feb 2013 for consideration in 2014. This quote is typical of many from local sources " In February 2012, the Dossier for the nomination was submitted in triplicate to UNESCO. unfortunately the World Heritage Center came back with requests for additional maps and information, thus delaying the nomination until February 2013. After the nomination next year, the UNESCO Site Selection Committee will visit the Okavango Delta towards the middle of the year in preparation for declaration as a Natural World Heritage Site in February 2014. " (Though they are wrong with Feb 2014 -presumably the 2014 WHC will, as always recently, be in the summer?))
and this from National Geographic
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/11/12/did-you-know-the-okavango-delta-is -not-a-unesco-world-heritage-site/

I think that Hiran Minar(pakistan) is never nominated
If I am wrong then tell me the year of referal

The info is on this site -
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/t1281.html

hiran minar is incomplete submission not referal

No one ever said it was a referral. Can you tell me where anyone said this?
YOU asked "I think Hiran Minar is never nominated" . It was but it was withdrawn The subject of this Section is "Incomplete submissions and referred sites that have not been completed yet".
Haran Minar is clearly correctly listed by Assif above! The purpose being to identify sites which were still "outstanding" for some action by a States party following decisions from earlier WHCs
And what I said is that the info about what DID happen to the Haran Minar nomination was on the page of this site whose link I provided - as it is!

Now we know that Hamiguitan (Philippines) and probably Rajastan (India) are seeking inscription in 2013 and Steven Klint (Denmark), Barotse (Zambia), Okavango (Botswana), Majuli (India), Tenzug (Ghana), Can Tien (Vietnam) and Kremlins (Russia) are seeking inscription in 2014.

http://www.world-heritage-tour.org/ is not working.
Does anybody know the reason?

Can Tien (Vietnam) seek inscription in 2013 but now it is unlikely after iucn evaluation

An updated version with some sites missing before. Proposed sites for 2013 and 2014 are bold.

Okavango (Botswana)
Parati (Brazil)
Juan Fernandez NP (Chile)
Zadar (Croatia)
Cienaga de Zapata (Cuba)
Stevns Klint (Denmark)
Parque del Este (Dominican Rep.)
Jebel Qatrani (Egypt)
Levuka (Fiji)
Chauvet Pont d'Arc (France)
Burgundy Vineyards (France)
Minkebe (Gabon)
Tenzug (Ghana)
Rajastan (India)
Majuli (India)
Golconda Fort (India)
Great Himalyan NP (India)
Tel Dan (Israel)
Jerash (Jordan)
Mt Kenya Extension (Kenya)
Kaesong (North Korea)
Sehlabethebe (Lesotho)
Northern Marshall Islands Atoll (Marshalls)
Sinaloa (Mexico)
Centla and Terminos (Mexico)
Yapese money sites (Palau and Micronesia)
Surame (Nigeria)
Harappa (Pakistan)
Mehgarh (Pakistan)
Rehman Dheri (Pakistan)
Hiran Minar (Pakistan)
Batanes (Philippines)
Hamiguitan (Philippines)
Bialovieza extension (Poland, Belorussia)
Coimbra (Portugal)
Al Zubarah (Qatar)
Kremlins (Russia)
Bolgar (Russia)
Devil's Town (Serbia)
Mt. Sara (Serbia)
Seruwila (Sri Lanka)
Northern Santiago route extension (Spain)
Dongola (Sudan)
Slave and Ivory Route (Tanzania)
Termiz (Uzbekistan)
Bakhrum Mausoleum (Uzbekistan)
Rabati Malik (Uzbekistan)
Sarmisshay (Uzbekistan)
Can Tien NP (Vietnam)
Barotse (Zambia)

Assif, I have taken the liberty of adding the dates at which these various sites were def/ref etc and added such easy info as is avail on why. It is interesting I think to see
a. What sort of problems occur
b. Which sites repeat problems across several years
c. How quickly sites are renominated
d. Which sites seem to be moribund

Okavango (Botswana) -2013 Incompl
Parati (Brazil) -2009 Def, 2012 Incompl, 2013 Incompl
Juan Fernandez NP (Chile) – 1995 Ref (Protection concerns)
Zadar (Croatia) – 2012 - Ref (AB wanted Def)
Cienaga de Zapata (Cuba) 2005 - Incompl
Stevns Klint (Denmark) - 2013 Incompl
Parque del Este (Dominican Rep.) 2003 Ref (survey program needed etc)
Jebel Qatrani (Egypt) – 2008 Incompl
Levuka (Fiji) -2012 Incompl
Chauvet Pont d'Arc (France) – 2012 Req not exam, 2013 Incompl
Burgundy Vineyards (France) – 2013 Incompl
Minkebe (Gabon) – 2005 Ref (Better doc, protection + transboundary nom encompassing the Baka community)
Tenzug (Ghana) – 2013 Incompl
Rajastan (India) -2012 Ref (AB wanted "reject" for lack of coverage)
Majuli (India) -2006 Ref , 2008 Def , 2012 - Incompl
Golconda Fort (India) – 2012 Incompl
Great Himalyan NP (India) – 2012 Incompl
Tel Dan (Israel) – 2006 (Withdrawn) , 2008 (AB wanted inscript – WHC wanted legal info) , 2009 (Info lacking), 2010 - Postponed
Jerash (Jordan) – 1985 Def (Boundaries/Man Plan) , 1986 Def, 1995 Ref (Buff zone, festival)
Mt Kenya Extension (Kenya) – 2011 Incompl
Kaesong (North Korea)- 2008 Def (Reconsid sites) , 2012 Incompl
Sehlabethebe (Lesotho) – 2011 incompl, 2012 incompl
Northern Marshall Islands Atoll (Marshalls) - 2010 Incompl
Sinaloa (Mexico) -2008 Incompl, 2009 Incompl
Centla and Terminos (Mexico) -2010 incompl
Yapese money sites (Palau and Micronesia) – 2010 Incompl
Surame (Nigeria) – 2012 Incompl
Harappa (Pakistan) – 1980 Rej, 2008 Incompl
Mehgarh (Pakistan) – 2008 with Harappa
Rehman Dheri (Pakistan) –2008 with Harappa
Hiran Minar (Pakistan) – 2011 Incompl
Batanes (Philippines) – 2007 Ref (More info and addit islands)
Hamiguitan (Philippines) - 2012 Incompl
Bialovieza extension (Poland, Belorussia) – 2013 Incompl
Coimbra (Portugal) – 2012 Incompl
Al Zubarah (Qatar) – 2012 Ref (AB wanted Def)
Kremlins (Russia) -2011 Incompl, 2012 Ref (AB wanted non inscr)
Bolgar (Russia) – 2000 Def (info on reconstr, industry, compar eval ) 2011 Incompl, 2012 Incompl
Devil's Town (Serbia) – 2010 Incompl
Mt. Sara (Serbia) 2008 incompl
Seruwila (Sri Lanka) – 2008 Incompl
Northern Santiago route extension (Spain) – 2013 Incompl
Dongola (Sudan) – 1993 Ref (bigger area needed)
Slave and Ivory Route (Tanzania) – 2010 Incompl, 2011 Incompl, 2012 Incompl
Termiz (Uzbekistan) – 2012 Incompl, 2013 Incompl
Bakhrum Mausoleum (Uzbekistan) – 2012 Incompl
Rabati Malik (Uzbekistan) – 2012 Incompl
Sarmisshay (Uzbekistan) – 2012 Incompl, 2013 Incompl
Can Tien NP (Vietnam) – 2010 Incompl
Barotse (Zambia) – 2013 Incompl

Thanks for your additions, Solivagant.
These sites are all either incomplete or referred, not deferred. I thought it was interesting to specifically list those sites because deferred or rejected sites (as well as withdrawn, which are usually such sites that were recommended to be rejected or deferred) require a substantial revision for a resubmission. On the other hand, referred and incomplete sites require smaller modification for the sites to be inscribed or evaluated respectively.
As we can see from the list, many such sites indeed get resubmitted (19 out of 49 in the next two years' sessions). Some countries haven't had the time to revise their nominations. What I'm interested in is to realise why sites that were referred or deemed incomplete more than five years ago haven't been resubmitted. These sites are:

Juan Fernandez NP (Chile) – 1995 Ref (Protection concerns)
Cienaga de Zapata (Cuba) 2005 - Incompl
Parque del Este (Dominican Rep.) 2003 Ref (survey program needed etc)
Jebel Qatrani (Egypt) – 2008 Incompl
Minkebe (Gabon) – 2005 Ref (Better doc, protection + transboundary nom encompassing the Baka community)
Jerash (Jordan) – 1985 Def (Boundaries/Man Plan) , 1986 Def, 1995 Ref (Buff zone, festival)
Batanes (Philippines) – 2007 Ref (More info and addit islands)
Mt. Sara (Serbia) 2008 incompl
Seruwila (Sri Lanka) – 2008 Incompl
Dongola (Sudan) – 1993 Ref (bigger area needed)


If anyone knows what happens with these nominations it would be interesting to know.

By the way, for many deferred sites the member state decides not to pursue the nominated further. This is due to the fact that the changes required for the nomination to be resubmitted are too costly or for protection issues. This is also understandable since deferred is similar to asking a new nomination, although recognising there is OUV at hand. This, however, cannot be said neither of referred sites nor for incomplete nominations.

I have followed up on these 2 -
Seruwila (Incomplete in 2008)
I think it very likely that Sri Lanka has decided upon a different strategy. In 2010 it added the following site to its T List "Seruwila to Sri Pada (Sacred Foot Print Shrine), Ancient pilgrim route along the Mahaweli river in Sri Lanka". As the title implies, this includes the Seruwila Mangala Raja Maha Vihara. I found this report of a Training workshop held in 2010 on the Manaegment and Conservaton of WHS. Within it is a section (pages 29-31) on this potential site http://www.icomos.org/~fleblanc/projects/2007-FLB/p_flb_2010_UNITAR_Hiroshima.pdf
A lot is made of the pilgrimage sites invovling 4 major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam) e.g "The convergence of different ethnicities that belong to four major religions in the world to a single place for veneration exhibits common principles of traditions, beliefs and religious tolerance with an exceptional spirit of humanity and therefore, it could be exploited for fostering peace through conservation of sites with multi-cultural representations throughout history since ancient times". All "good stuff"!!
I wonder if Sri Lanka has decided that just another Buddhist Vihara by itself is not going to cut it!

Minkebe (Referred 2005)
Minkebe has been and clearly still is the recipient of a vast amount of effort by organisations such as WWF, IUCN etc with project expenditure provided by foreign governments. The following documents show WH inscription as an objective but really only as a target after the necessary conservation/managment work has been done
See - http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/partners-donors/the-actions/culture/central-afric a-world-heritage-forest-initiative-cawhfi/ - "The aim of the programme is to improve the sustainable management of these ecological landscapes, including protected areas that could be proposed as World Heritage sites."
Thus Sangha Trinational (inscribed in 2012) was one element of this initiative and the equivalent for Minkebe is the Tri-National Dja-Odzala-Minkebe or TriDOM. (Nb This includes the currently inscribed WHS of Dja Faunal Reserve)
See this "Project Brief" - undated but covering the period 2004-2010 http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/gef_prj_docs/GEFProjectDocuments/Bio diversity/Regional%20-%20Conservation%20of%20Transboundary%20Biodiversity-%20%20Minke be%20zone/4-9-04%20Project%20Brief%20TRIDOM%20v60404.pdf
See Para 80
"First, it will seek to secure a common vision for the TRIDOM project area and to determine a mechanism for its coordination. Ideally, the outcome should be something like a "Peace Park" or a Trans-boundary Biosphere Reserve (UNESCO) or a World Heritage Site. Commitment to an international category would demonstrate political will and significantly improve the chances of successful implementation. This would bring global recognition of the initiative, and would also provide a template of actions and institutional arrangements that would be necessary. Such a categorization would also bring financial and technical assistance to management, as well as development of ecotourism"
According to the WWF Web site the project was indeed due to end in 2010 but I have (so far) been unable to discover an up to date report but recent web pages still talk of it in the present tense which implies it is ongoing. It would seem very complex.
The implication of all this is that, as the 2005 referral indicated, IUCN will work hard to get a 3 nation nomination ready at an appropriate time and will support it when it comes -- but not before!