Kieren, Of course this analysis is "rushed," it came out the same day as the announcement. But it's better than yours! As I noted, this is a big step away from U.S. unilateral oversight and the Obama admin really deserves credit for taking that step, and Beckstrom and PDT get credit for negotiating it. Kieren, I hope you would see this as more than a PR exercise in which you are paid to defend in a the "ICANN position" and to throw up flak against anyone who seems to make even the most deliberative and careful critical analysis. This is a matter of institution-building, law and political science, not PR games. It is really odd that you accuse me of calling for a "single authoritative group that can tell everyone else what to do." That is precisely the opposite of our approach, and there is more of that approach in the current arrangement (Chair of the GAC and ICANN are given centralized power to choose reviewers). I, and I think everyone at IGP, is looking for rule by law, not by men. That phrase is right in the article. I honestly don't know what you're talking about when you talk about "the lack of inclusion of a non-existent group." Possibly you are arguing against some preconceived idea about governmental oversight that was not advanced in this piece. The point is not WHO is on the panel, the point is WHAT rules and criteria are applied. Hope that distinction is now clear to you. I also note that you don't seem to "get" our concerns about second-guessing or reversing the bottom up process. Since ICANN has a long history of doing that (remember the IRT?) one must greet the addition of a new layer of review by essentially the same people with some concern.