All, We are getting ahead of ourselves. Meanwhile, we're not doing the things we should be doing, which will only slow us down in the end. In particular, the discussions of possible "remedies", such as "immunity" or alternative structures for ICANN are, at best, premature, and need to be set aside. We need to focus the subgroup on problems first, consistent with our work plan. Problems will lead to remedies, just as diagnosis leads to treatment. Specifically, the subgroup needs to concentrate on taking suggestions for possible problems arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction" from participants, really discussing these suggestions in the subgroup, and determining as a subgroup whether these suggestions are in fact problems that should be included in our analysis. I'm specifically using "problems" and not "issues", based on a very good suggestion from Phil Corwin: "*Rather than issues, I believe we should be focus on on demonstrable problems. Issues can just consists of debating points absent real world evidence of something broken or substantially sub-optimal requiring a remedy.*" "Problems" conveys much better that we are look for concrete, specific items arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction," particularly with regard to the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms (as stated in Annex 12). After that is done, and the subgroup has an agreed list of problems, we will then turn our focus to considering specific possible remedies for specific problems. Discussions of remedies should be held until that time. Discussing remedies now will only delay the proper discussion of remedies by the subgroup. This has also distracted us from resolving issues with the questionnaire. On Tuesday, I sent out a follow-up email on the questionnaire under the Subject "Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED." So far, there have been very few responses. Please read and respond to that email. We need to see if there is a compromise regarding Question 4 that will garner broad support in the subgroup and satisfy most (if not all) objections raised in the subgroup. Thank you. Greg