Nigel, you could be cynical, or you could not be.
I would far rather we had had more time to do this process. But the powers that be have imposed a timeline on us. It is not self-created urgency in the slightest. It is urgency that comes from, among other places, ICANN itself; the United States Government; parts of the technical community who have wanted to be without the USG link for a very long time.
Please don't assert there's some kind of conspiracy here, because I don't know anyone who thinks that the timeframes for our work have been perfect.
The participants' best efforts, and the excellent legal advice we have had, gives me great confidence that the proposal we are fining up on will not have serious unintended consequences.
Taking another year would not mean an infinitely better proposal. The writing might end up more elegant, but the analysis and the project is the work already of years of reflection and debate by many groups.
I'll close with a quite dull procedural point - the documents that you are not getting much time to review for these calls are generally a) making tiny, incremental changes from previous versions, and b) have been substantially the same for weeks. Nothing is being "sprung" on anyone right now.
best
Jordan