Dear Cheryl and Steve (ladies first, of course), We have received a request from staff to ask questions to the external legal advisors regarding some of the work of the stress test work party. Staff's comment was: "The stress-test work party is asking for external legal advice on mechanisms/community powers to 'remedy' Board inaction. Specifically whether, for example, if consensus advice from an AC is not acted on by the Board might this 'trigger' a mechanism? ST-WP particularly asks if the external legal advisory could review Stress test 17, and provided an MP3 clip of the relevant part of discussions of their last call, and supporting email from Jonathan Zuck." If staff's comments are a fair reflection of your request, could you formulate these into questions we can put to lawyers? Some suggested wording for the questions could be along “Considering the different mechanisms that have already been analyzed: Which would be the requisites to trigger community action against Board inaction? Do this requisites or situations need to be specified in some document i.e. bylaws?” I would welcome your feedback on this suggested wording. Would you also like us to forward the document "Applying Stress Tests [Draft v9]" https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents> to the laywers to have read in anticipation of future questions from the ST-WP? Best regards, León