Hi

On Jul 9, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Horacio T. Cadiz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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.

I couldn’t agree more.  I don’t think we have less influence because we lack strategic vision or intestinal fortitude, or that the "Whack-a-Mole” characterization does justice to the hard work that people have put in on Council and off over the past fifteen years.  We’ve done what we can with the resources we have, i.e. volunteer labor and a bit of madness, and it has mattered.

Bill