Joly, There are "skeptics" who view the DNS as less than necessary. Tim Berners-Lee is one. There are "skeptics" who view the policy development process as delegated rulemaking authority as problematic. Michael Froomkin is one. There are "skeptics" who view the specific policies that have been developed since 2004, in particular, the policy that no community, sponsored, municipal, or other experimantal registry shall exist unless registries which lack any discernable purpose other than brand infringment (.biz, .info, ...) or brand promotion (.brand) exist. I am one. I also agree with Michael, though not with Tim. Esther's comments deserve a longer rebuttal than I've time for today.

But aren't they trying to shut the barn door after the horse has bolted?

Not necessarily. There's the Beckstrom school of thought, reflected in his initial letter to the NTIA re: the IANA NOI, for which the ALAC offered entheusiastic support, and which Beau, Jacques and I took some pains to oppose, which I summarize here as "I own it", and which the DoC, and the DoJ, obviously declined to credit "I own it" as a necessary, or useful, construction of the the IANA Contract. Under the Beckstrom school of thought, his, and his predecessors', policy is not subject to the review of the United States. I wouldn't bet the farm on the 2012 DNS being a non-policied free-fire zone for the great and the greedy. I think the the lettuce has bolted, not the horses. YMMV, etc. Eric