As currently written, the (beta) rules apparently allow free actions for dominated creatures (since dazed creatures get them). As nothing else is said, it seems to follow that the owner (not controller) determines if/what/how free actions are taken. E g
1) owner can use start of turn CP to relocate the piece before the controlling player gets his action
2) owner gets to shift the piece with mobile melee attack - attack that the controller made ... 
This is not good. Perhaps all free actions should be banned from dominated creatures?
High Cleric of Sune is immune dominated. What happens if she is confused and rolls control roll of 1-5? Is it then same as 11-20?
Suppose High Cleric of Sune gets superinfested by (demon) Rot Grub Swarm.
Is superinfest to be understood as 20 ongoing damage AND dominated(save ends both) or the other way round. The (somewhat obscure) note on Rot Grub Swarm "when target ends infestation" seems to imply that the ongoing damage is the end-determining part of this combo - either that or its a new type of condition "infestation".
There is no definition in rules for immune condition.
I suppose it means that creature can't gain the condition.
What happens if a creature somehow gains immunity when the condition is in effect? (E g Eberk & Warforged Captain)
Perhaps (ir?)relevant reference:
To my understanding resist X damage that is gained after getting that type of ongoing damage (even when amount smaller than X) does not remove the ongoing, even though it may prevent damage from occuring while resist persists.
There is no definition in rules for immune 
.
Can that creature be targeted by ranged? Can it be hit? Can it be missed?
Obviously it won't be affected by either hit or miss but if hit or miss can occur they may trigger other effects...
Wall question: if (due to e g portable wall) two wall squares meet corner to corner, are the free squares (that also join corner to corner) distance 1 from one another?
EDIT: The obvious answer is "No", but "Counting Distance" and "Adjacent Squares" on rules page 11 use circular argument in the definitions, so IMHO the rules don't truly answer this question
Can LoS or LoE be drawn through or start from this kind of corner?
Is the situation any different about LoS, LoE if the question is about wall corner to corner with elemental wall?
EDIT: got the answer to this (Rules Page 15: just touching touching the wall corner blocks LoS & LoE)
[1] The fact that a dazed creature can do free actions - there is still no rule permitting a dominated creature to do this. Did I miss something?
[2] 'As if dominated.' She is only immune to dominated. 'As if dominated' effects work on her.
[3] Condition ends. Will end the ongoing, since ongoing X cannot apply to a creature with immune/resist X or greater.
[4] Immune ranged: Cannot be targeted by ranged attacks.
No step in the ranged attack description applies, particularly anything that would trigger something.
Guildmaster Head of Organized Play
There is no explicit exclusion of free actions in the description for Dominated-condition. Reading the current rules only, they would thus be allowed, surely?
There is a hint that usually there would only be a single action in the sentence "The controller of the creature that last caused this condition chooses which action it takes on its turn."
Since this is usually true for dazed creatures too (free actions, if any can be made, are kind of extra) I find this single hint too weak grounds to say that dominated creatures can't take free actions - That limitation should be stated explicitly.
EDIT: If so, rules description of "As if dominated" needs to be revised: currently that description resorts to using "dominated" to explain the effect.
As concerns confused control roll 1-5 or superinfest, they talk about dominated - no as ifs there. So the question remains...
Rules say that having immune damage or resist X damage (X same or higher than ongoing damage amount) prevents gaining ongoing of that type.
Rules currently do not say that having immune damage or resist X damage ends any ongoing effect already in place. If this is desired, it should say so in rules.
The distinction can matter in cases where resists and immunities go on and off (Aspect of Lolth, Brass Samurai, Jarl, Galeb Duhr etc.).
Definition for Immune Condition would be welcome. In order to avoid real tricky questions about e g losing Confused-condition in the middle of an action, I suggest the following:
A creature with Immune Condition can't gain that condition.
If a creature with condition gains immunity to that condition, the condition ends at the end of current creature's turn.
There is a slightly peculiar consequence (nothing new, just reiterating a feature that has carried over from older rules):
A creature with immune stunned can act while helpless (or petrified by beholder) - except (wierdly enough) if it gains helpless while moving, in which case it is still not stunned but inactive nevertheless.
This is clear.
"May take unlimited free actions on its turn only."
This is a limitation of Dazed. It is not a special dispensation afforded to Dazed only.
Dominated is said to suffer the same limitations. One certainly gets the idea that unlimited free actions during a Dominated creature's turn are allowed.