Following up on what I said on one of the calls, and consistent with Greg Shatan's comments (an agreement that I think should probably be noted as significant in itself), I don't think the staff categorizations have worked. If the ultimate point is to get feedback on potential fixes that have been raised, and we don't want to spend a lot more time on this, then I would say we may need to pass on the proposals as non-consensus proposals for community feedback. As Greg did, I supported proposals for comment that I am presently unlikely to support for adoption; based on other comments, I suspect many of us did so--which means that any staff-prepared summary of objections received is also going to be unrepresentative of the full range of arguments against a particular proposal unless we spend a lot more time on it. One specific thing: the charter asks if the URS is fit for purpose. If you agree that the charge allows the answer "no," then one recommendation for a fix is "make it the UDRP," if you think the game isn't worth the candle. That proposal is thus clearly within scope. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759