Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> Date:07/03/2014 1:49 PM (GMT-05:00) To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby 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.