I just want to fully support and emphasis Sam's notion:

"The wider lesson here is that the NCSG needs not only broader and 
deeper stakeholder engagement. It needs an internal strategy that goes 
beyond Whack-a-Mole and better matches with on-going strategies used by 
commercial and government protagonists, at least within the domain of 
ICANN’s remit. NCSG directly, or via its members, can only do this in 
collaboration with others, across the full scope of the Internet 
ecosystem. This is an area that needs development, possibly within 
ICANN, and certainly beyond ICANN."

We need to strengthen the work of the NCSG and we need to do this by 
tackling the problem by the root and the way to do this starts with 
broadening non commercial internet users Ig awareness, value proposal 
and engagement. NPOC with a number of multi sector partners from inside 
and outside the ICANN ecosystem, is currently finalizing the preparation 
of a number of global activities that will be implemented throughout the 
next month. We will inform the broader NCSG and invited partizipation, 
as soon as the planning is finalized. Until then let's chase and whack 
the moles as this is important, but let's remember at the same time that 
we equally need to work on our foundations. I am happy that NPOC has 
decided to tackle the moles and the foundation building as two 
activities that are interdependent.

Yours

Klaus


  On 7/3/2014 6:49 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> This RC domain names issue points back to a bigger issue for NCSG, the 
> non-commercial/not-for-profit society constituencies, and civil 
> society in general. It is almost as though the civil society 
> stakeholders take a Whack-a-Mole strategy, mobilizing to Whack at a 
> policy issue when it surfaces, often to then go on to other areas when 
> another Policy-Mole sticks sit head up in ICANN’s policy remit.
>
> 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.
>
> The wider lesson here is that the NCSG needs not only broader and 
> deeper stakeholder engagement. It needs an internal strategy that goes 
> beyond Whack-a-Mole and better matches with on-going strategies used 
> by commercial and government protagonists, at least within the domain 
> of ICANN’s remit. NCSG directly, or via its members, can only do this 
> in collaboration with others, across the full scope of the Internet 
> ecosystem. This is an area that needs development, possibly within 
> ICANN, and certainly beyond ICANN.
>
> Sam L.
>