This list was published and discussed on our constituency list but there was no formal vote. --MM (4) Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest? [This would include the problem of complainant selection of providers, panel selection bias by providers, etc. ] (5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be promulgated? [there should be some way to de-accredit biased providers and panelists] (8) Should the notice requirements be amended? [Some feel that the notice requirements are too short. ] (10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate review? [whether you agree or disagree with the appeal option, it seems to be a high priority issue that needs to be resolved.] (17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"? [there should be some deterrent to RDNH]