Well I thought this subject is interesting enough to open it a topic of its own.
I find the discussion here important and would like to check the proposal of new priorities on two years of nominations: 2015 and 2016.
As a reminder here are the proposed priorities:

i) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties with no properties inscribed on the List;
ii) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties having up to 3 properties inscribed on the List,
iii) nominations of properties that have been previously excluded due to the annual limit of 25 nominations and the application of these priorities,
iv) nominations of properties for natural heritage,
v) nominations of properties for mixed heritage,
vi) nominations of transboundary/transnational properties,
vii) nominations from States Parties in Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean,
viii) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties having ratified the World Heritage Convention over during the last twenty years,
ix) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties that have not submitted nominations over the last five years or more

Additionally, it is suggested to cap each member state's annual limit to one proposal alone.
Let's check both possible scenarios, with and without this additional restriction on the number of annual nominations per state party.

In 2015 there were initially 40 nominations. Two were withdrawn/postponed (Delhi, Ur respectively) BEFORE the beginning of the evaluation so they should not count for the restrictions imposed on new nominations. From the 38 remaining nominations many would be dropped if the maximum per state would be restricted to one. Denmark and Germany would have to drop two each. Iran, Mongolia, Norway, France, Spain and Turkey would drop one each. Altogether, preferring transnational nominations, the total number would fall down from 38 to 28. This means only three nominations would the still have to be excluded.

Let's look at 2016: 33 nominations. If capped to one nomination a state and preferring transnational nominations, India and Germany would lose two each (together with Czech Rep.). Iran, Japan, Croatia, Montenegro, Canada and Russia would lose one each. The total number would then drop from 33 to 23 which is within the annual total limit of 25.

Looking at these two years we see that if the total number of nominations per member state is capped to one there is no actual need in the newly formed priorities. The number of complete proposals a year would be around 25 nominations anyway.

Let's now turn to see how the priorities would affect these years without the contested capping.

2015:

1) Singapore and Jamaica.
2) Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, Latvia+Iceland (Viking).
3) None additionally.
4) Sudan, South Africa, Vietnam, Thailand, Mongolia+Russia.
5) None additionally.
6) None additionally.
7) Uganda, Kenya.
8) Israel.
9) Norway, Romania, Georgia.

Total of 17 nominations. The 21 remaining sites would only have 9 slots so 13 would be out. Gaps should then be considered.

With this list of priorities, they actually say that it is more important that every country gets a chance to inscribe a few WHS, than to fill in the gaps or add more natural WHS. Which I find odd.

Gaps were mentioned as a criterion in previous discussions. Natural sites are still a criterion.
When considering gaps for the 2015 candidates Maymand (pastoralism, transhumance), Burkhan Khaldun (sacred natural sites, Buddhism), Hall (pre industrial revolution European technical properties), Hamburg (20th century) would then be added to the ones mentioned above. Total of 21 sites of 25 sites admitted. So for the remaining 17 candidates there would only be four vacant slots.

Forth Bridge is 19th C - construction commenced 1882 and it was opened 1890. I don't think it can be "stretched" as belonging to the 20th C in spirit - it is very much late Victorian in its over-engineering

Same exercise for 2016:

1) Antigua and Barbuda, Micronesia
2) Chad, Montengero, Montenegro+Bosnia (transnational), Kyrgyzstan (transnational), Moldova
3) None additionally.
4) Shennongjia (China), Lut Desert (Iran), Turkmenistan, Mistaken Point (Canada), two Russian modifications
5) Mexico, Pimachiowin Aki (Canada), Khangchendzonga (India)
6) Germany+Czech Rep., Le Corbusier
7) None additionally.
8) None additionally.
9) Iraq, Panama.
Gaps (additional): Seowon (non Christian religious sites), Francke Foundation (education), Frank Lloyd Wright (20th century), Pampulha (20th century)
Total: 24 sites - only one vacant slot for the remaining 9 nominations.

After reviewing the updated operational guidelines. There is only one exception to the 1 nominated property per year, and that is:

"d) the States Parties co-authors of a transboundary or transnational serial nomination can choose, amongst themselves and with a common understanding, the State Party which will be bearing this nomination; and this nomination can be registered exclusively within the ceiling of the bearing State Party.

Essentially this means Europe will still have a major advantage in submitting more than 1 nomination per year. For example, Germany can reasonably submit 3 nominations: Hydraulic Engineering and Hydropower - Augsburg (Germany) and Mining Cultural Landscape Erzgebirge/Krušnohoří (Germany, Czechia) and Great Spas of Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, Italy, UK), as long as Czechia and other nations come to "a common understanding" that the later nomination falls within their annual limit.

Even Transboundary/Transnational nominations have some priority!

c) the following order of priorities will be applied in case the overall annual limit of 35
nominations is exceeded:

i) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties with no properties inscribed on the
List;
ii) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties having up to 3 properties inscribed
on the List,
iii) nominations of properties that have been previously excluded due to the annual limit of 45
35 nominations and the application of these priorities,
iv) nominations of properties for natural heritage,
v) nominations of properties for mixed heritage,
vi) nominations of transboundary/transnational properties,
vii) nominations from States Parties in Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean,
viii) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties having ratified the World Heritage
Convention during the last ten twenty years,
ix) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties that have not submitted
nominations for ten five years or more,
x) nominations of States Parties, former Members of the Committee, who accepted on
a voluntary basis not to have a nomination reviewed by the Committee during their
mandate. This priority will be applied for 4 years after the end of their mandate on the
Committee,
xi) when applying this priority system, date of receipt of full and complete nominations by the
World Heritage Centre shall be used as a secondary factor to determine the priority between
those nominations that would not be designated by the previous points.

Even with the 1 Nomination Rule in place:
Germany 3 Nominations
France 2 Nominations
Czechia 2 Nominations
Italy 2 Nominations

Simply stated, this will only add to the over-representation of Europe.

With the 1 Nomination Rule in place who cannot submit 2 nominations:
Myanmar
South Korea
Japan

Iran and China will also be severely restricted.

The composition of the Ad-hoc Working Group who worked on para 61 regarding the restrictions on nominations.
(Countries: 6 Europe, 3 Latin America, 3 Asia, 3 Africa, 3 Arab States)

Finland, Netherlands, Turkey, Poland, Croatia, Serbia; Jamaica, Peru, Colombia, Philippines,
Republic of Korea, China, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Senegal, Lebanon, Tunisia and Palestine.

The annual limit was reduced to 25. This means that most chances are that nominations of overrepresented countries (excluding transnational ones) will be left out annually. This could lead to a better balance.
South Korea, Japan, China and Iran are well represented, so restricting them to one nomination a year is not bad in my opinion.

Is it 25 nominations? This document says 35.

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2016/whc16-40com-13A-en.pdf

None of these countries are as well represented as Germany, Spain, Italy, and France. The later benefit from the EU and historical connections of Europe that make transnational nominations relatively common. Korea, Japan, China, and Iran have potential transnational sites (Silk Road), but not nearly as many.

It would be more fair to limit all European countries to 1 nomination per year while the rest of the world keeps the current nomination restrictions of 1 natural, 1 cultural. Let's be realistic here for a moment. Italy had 10 inscriptions in 1997! Europe had years to progress nominations through a less rigorous evaluation system and no limit on nominations. It only makes sense to limit Europe (at least for a while) in regards to nominations, in order for other regions to create a more balanced list. no?

Using the new operational guidelines for 2019, is it fair that Germany may get 3 inscriptions?

You are right, winterkjm. I didn't notice the change compared to the draft. With this change I agree with you not much will change because no real capping will take place.

I completely agree.

Taking this over from the WHC 2019 post:

Hmm, strange. That seems to be the outcome of a working group. It's labelled as a Draft Decision.

This one shows a Draft Decision written by the WHC, for 25 per year.

So which one was adopted?

I just listened to the discussions at the video stream (Session of Wednesday 26 October, 9h-13h : around 1h56 into the session).
Consensus about 35!

Having a closer look at the new Guidelines (triggered by S Korea planning to nominate 2 sites for 2019), I believe they will become effective in 2020 and not 2019.

"This decision will be implemented on a trial basis for 4 years and takes effect on 2 February 2018."
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2016/whc16-40com-19-en.pdf

The date of 2 Feb is significant, as 1 Feb is the date before which new nominations have to be submitted. So until 1 Feb 2018 they will play by the old rules (ending at the WHC of 2019), and from then on they will follow the new rules of 35 etc (so effectively before 1 Feb 2019 and ending at the WHC of 2020).

Am I right?

"Decides that the impact of the proposed amendments will be evaluated at the 46th
session of the Committee in 2022" - Operational Guidelines

"This decision will be implemented on a trial basis for 4 years" - Operational Guidelines

2019
2020
2021
2022

What about this?