Thank you all. Here's what the list of questions now looks like.
First three I've simply copied from Kathy and Michael, the last
one I based mainly on Milton's and Ed's comments. Comments still
welcome, but quickly please, we're already past the deadline,
I want this out today.


(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
without review or check (source: Alan Grogan in Hyderabad). 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? Does the
"New ICANN' no longer value consensus processes (and the many hours of
volunteer effort, time, research, drafting, editing and reviewing spent
creating it)?

(4) NCPH is in the process of electing its Board member. How do you
see the relationship between the Board member and NCPH? To what extent
does the fiduciary responsibility of the Board member allow any
special relationship with NCPH - would the Board member have any
responsibility to NCPH at all? If not, what's the purpose of having
NCPH elect a Board member?

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen