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.