-------- 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.