OK. Dropping question 4, question 3 rephrased (following Milton),
any last-minute objections ASAP please:

(1) In follow-up to our question in Hyderabad, and with our new Compliance head
now assigned, we would like to revisit the concerns we raised in Hyderabad
and see what actions have been taken to mitigate the abuse we reported. How
might ICANN's complaint process be modified to a) create accountability for
the party filing the complaint, b) ensure registrants are notified and
allowed time and due process to respond to allegations brought to ICANN
against their domain names,  and c) create protections for Registrants who
might themselves be the target of harassment and abuse?

(2) What are your thoughts on increasing transparency in order to enhance
community understanding of decision-making at the Board level? In
particular the transparency subgroup has recommended a requirement that any
decisions to remove material from Board minutes must be grounded in one of
the exceptions in the DIDP, and that material removed from minutes should,
as far as possible, be scheduled for release after a particular period of
time (to be determined based on the specific sensitivity of the material).
Do these sound like reasonable proposals?

(3) As you know, specific PICs were accepted into the New gTLD
Agreements. Some of these PICs contradict and even set aside GNSO
policy processes and consensus policies. What can we do to mitigate
the problems of these PICs? How can we ensure that PICs do not move
ICANN policy outside of its narrow mission and does not override or
ignore consensus processes and the many hours of volunteer effort,
time, research, drafting, editing and reviewing spent creating it?

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen