I will pass on an observation from an ICANN-watcher regarding the style of ICANN legal as a "defender." This person is very familiar with how legal departments deal with shareholders and other stakeholders. This person remarked to me that the style of ICANN legal in dealing with the ICANN community often tends to resemble the way US corporations deal with "dissident shareholders."
Dissident shareholders are usually "outsiders" seeking to shake up a corporation, particularly board and senior management -- sometimes they are "crackpots" with small shareholdings who like to submit motions that seek significant changes that have no chance of success, and sometimes they are major shareholders (often newer investors) who seek to wield their power to make significant changes that may well have a chance of success (the second type also gets called "activist shareholders"). Both types make organizations feel as if they are under attack, and they respond with that mindset. (They may even call in lawyers who specialize in "dealing with" dissident shareholders, to augment their regular counsel.)
Of course, the stakeholder community is not analogous to dissident shareholders -- which makes this comparison more jarring. The new role of the global multistakeholder community as the oversight/accountability mechanism for ICANN underscores the potential concerns (dangers, even) of a continuing an approach that bears any resemblance to one used to wrangle dissident shareholders.
Against this background, putting the Complaints Officer under ICANN legal bears careful review.
Greg