Hold on, Kieren
I wish you'd done a better a job of separating your opinions from a factual report. Unfortunately, they are intermingled in such a way that the article isn't really journalism.
"The most controversial aspect of the plan is to give ICANN full control of the IANA contract."
Well, actually, that isn't completely true. The 'numbers community' (i.e. the various regional Internet registry operators, who hand out address space) will be able to fire ICANN if they want. The 'protocol parameters community' (aka the IETF) will be able to fire ICANN if they want. The weak spot is that the 'names community' (aka the DNS top-level-domain registrars) have never actually formed a community independent of ICANN. So ICANN having only indirect control of the proposed new legal entity carrying out IANA's clerical functions, plus the creation of a new 'Customer Standing Committee' to evaluate those functions as far as top-level-domain stuff goes, is a new mechanism.
What is definitely missing, and here I agree with you, is an entity to review DNS root zone operations. My guess is that this will happen one way or another in the next year or two, because it's so obviously needed.
But don't blame ICANN or the ICG for the fact that the so-called names community has never got around to creating its own community organisation outside ICANN.