Milton, I agee completely with your insight that "the other three areas constitute policy domains. That is, they pertain to ICANN’s outputs rather than its process. It is not clear what function these “reviews” of policy outputs serve. Are they intended to allow review panels to second-guess the policies made by ICANN? Or are they intended to make judgments about the process followed in the making of its policies?" This is symptomatic of a longstanding, chronic problem: ICANN has never shown any ability or willingness to distinguish substantive from procedural issues or complaints. The erroneous assumption implicit in ICANN's pattern of action has been that a that a good-faith belief by ICANN staff or other insider decision-makers in the merits of the *outcome* is sufficient to justify any defects in the *process* by which that outcome was or is reached. No progress will be made on this as long as ICANN continues to munge substantive reconsideration of the merits wof decisions with due process and review of compliance with procedural rules. The AoC completely fails to address this need.