I too like #4, #5, #1-or-#3.
My only concern is that it is easy to put a spin on #4 that sounds good 
but says nothing.
If that happened we could press on with #5, etc.

Sam

On 16/06/2015 4:55 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> makes a lot of sense to me.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 16-Jun-15 10:20, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Vinciane’s message prompted me to go back and reread the thread in
>> which we discussed the topics.  Based on prior experience, I’m
>> inclined to think five questions is more than we’re going to be able
>> to have meaningful exchanges on, so it might be worth paring things
>> down; and that broadly framed questions can lead to uninspired
>> responses and discussions.
>>
>>    * Q 1 on naming policy programs outside of the new gTLD program: I
>>      was with those who thought this is a bit broad, so I’m not
>>      surprised by the Board’s request for clarification.  Would like to
>>      hear from those who advocated it.
>>    * Q2 on IANA: this will be discussed all week and in the Public
>>      Forum, so do we need it again here?
>>    * Q3 on fiduciary: again, would like to hear from the advocates what
>>      we’re looking for here.
>>    * Q4 on Public Interest Commitments: this seems like it offers
>>      multiple angles for conversation, so I’d suggest it be the lead
>>      question and main focus.  The Board didn’t ask for clarification
>>      of this one.
>>    * Q5 on auction proceeds: we will have discussed this the day prior
>>      in the High Interest Topic session but it’ll have been SOACSGCRALO
>>      chairs on stage, so seeking the Board’s reactions would be timely.
>>      The Board didn’t ask for clarification of this one.
>>
>> So my suggestion would be to lead with 4, then do 5, and then maybe 3
>> or 1 in whatever time is left…?
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bill