Here is what I am considering submitting as a top 5:

(4) Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to
address concerns about potential conflicts of interest?

   [This would include complainant selection bias, panel selection
   bias, etc. Probably the top priority for us. ]

(5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be
promulgated?

   [there should be some way to de-accredit biased providers and 
    panelists, but this could cut both ways. Of course, most pro-
    civil liberties panelists have already been kicked out by 
    WIPO anyway.]

(8) Should the notice requirements be amended?

   [Some feel that the notice requirements are too short. Is this
    a top priority?]

(10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal
appellate review?

   [whether you agree or disagree with the appeal option, it 
    seems to be a high priority issue that needs to be resolved.]

(17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty
in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"?

    [there should be some deterrent to RDNH]


==== Here are some other worthy issues =====

(18) Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses?

(19) Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect?

(3) Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or
supplement their filings?

(13) Should the policy be amended to provide guidance regarding the
interpretation of "confusing similarity"?

(15) Should the policy address the question of whether "holding"
constitutes "use"?

(16) Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as
permissible evidence of bad faith?