On July 4, 2014 1:51:46 AM Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> This is in marked contrast to how the commercial and government
> constituencies approach these issues. They maintain both early warning
> and early intervention systems.  As has been pointed out, business
> constituency lobbyists are already at work in the halls of government
> advancing their strategic interests in the IANA transition process.
> Their 360 degree assessment (environmental scan) assumes early and
> sustained intervention as ongoing process, one which by the way breeds
> familiarity and has benefits beyond the Policy-Mole at hand. This is the
> opposite of a Whack-a-Mole strategy. In the case of RC, they understood
> this and used their clout to act more like commercial stakeholder
> protagonists.

I don't think the difference in strategy is by choice. This difference in 
strategy is a result
of NCSG (and  not-for-profits, in general) not having the resources to 
continuously lobby
the powers-that-be.  The business-affiliated constituencies have the 
funding to do this.


Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com