My intent is to debate the actual ideas and arguments so please do your best to refrain from personal insinuation. So: Since the wording of the Affirmation makes clear that there will have to be representatives of the different advisory committees and supporting organizations, the matter is not one of group structure but of who gets to pick the panelists. Under the Affirmation, that is the CEO of ICANN, sometimes the Chairman of ICANN, and the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee. I think those are good choices. If you had more people involved, you would have an entire political process in choosing the people who choose the people. What's more, the more political a selection process becomes, the more politicized the reviews become and the process becomes. That is not in anyone's interests. So the safeguard in the process is that the panelists will be put out to public review - that way it is possible for the community to indicate concern with any choices. Now this strikes me as a pretty elegant, pragmatic solution to getting review teams in place. What I took away from your analysis was that you didn't feel that way - that the review needed external advisers to put people in place. My response was intended to ask: well, who exactly? Are you against it being the CEO, Chairman and GAC chair who make panelist decisions - and then put them out for review? If so - who else is better qualified? My feeling is that one just has to accept that organizationally, it is the Chairman and CEO who get to decide these matters - that's why they are the Chairman and the CEO. As for the GAC chair -I think that's a good choice. The disadvantage of governments being less responsive and more conservative than other groups is that groups of governments are also much more stable and come with a greater degree of authority. Let's not forget, this is just the choosing of panellists here. A process of important guidance, but not the work itself. I think it's a good, workable and stable system. That's why I don't subscribe to your analysis: I don't see - nor do you propose - a better alternative. Again, please refrain from personal insinuation or attack if you choose to respond or I'll discuss these important matters with others elsewhere. Kieren McCarthy