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