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