I've been waiting to read a good critical analysis of the affirmation after the general good feeling of the JPA ending. Unfortunately this isn't it. The Affirmation is a vote of confidence in an open model of decision-making. Part of that confidence is that you don't need to go to outside groups or individuals to figure out the way forward for the organization. Those that wish to review ICANN are encouraged to get involved in ICANN - that's the whole point - that's the model that ICANN represents under this Affirmation. This insiders world is one that existed in part because of the JPA. It is a part of the old ICANN, part of the system that will be left behind as ICANN matures and progresses. You'll be left behind too if don't grasp that. In that sense, this analysis is rushed: it doesn't consider the inevitable changes that the affirmation will cause. Certainly there is plenty of work to be done in planning how to do the reviews, but if you look at who will be on the panel, it is representatives from across the model. The whole process is a self-strengthening exercise. There is no single body or group so insightful, so brilliant, so authoritative that they can grasp what makes this model work - and be in a position to tell everyone else what to do. So why argue that the lack of inclusion of a non-existent group is a weakness? Like the Internet itself, ICANN's strength is drawn from there not being someone in charge, from there not being a single authoritative voice. The less control each individual has, the stronger the model becomes. That realization was what was memorialized in the Affirmation of Commitments today. Kieren McCarthy General manager of public participation, ICANN