The answer is so clear that attempts to deny the relevance of this policy MUST give rise to questions about interest and compromise. I suppose one should question the more aggressive discussants about their financial position relative to any benefit that might accrue to them, their clients or their employers from higher internet access fees and lower internet access and reliability for the majority of the poor and people of color in the geographic regions affected. Or, it may simply be a cultural issue. If your income is higher than the income for the average human being living on earth today, you might be in a privileged (compromised ) position financially, and thus unable to fully understand the impact this proposed policy will have. (Note that I fall into that category. My experience and perspective simply gives me an awareness that others, apparently, lack.)
Calls for "proof" are an old trick, since there is no proof that would suffice for those requesting it. The request for proof is itself irrelevant, since the question does not concern what policy stance ICANN should take relative to NN, but, rather, a rational recognition that, according to the stated goals of the organization, this FCC policy WILL have an impact. The honest thing to do is to describe and prepare for that impact is it relates to the broader social (access, diversity, income) goals of the organization, not to retreat behind a narrow interpretation of the duties and obligations of this organization.