While there is nothing wrong with understanding why any constituency with enough interest in ICANN’s work might want to submit comments, there are two things to remember here. • First, comments need to be assessed on their merit, independent of their source. • Second, there are thousands of such constituency groups out there. As awareness around IC issues grows ICANN will likely hear from more of them. ICANN’s multistakeholder processes would be on a very slippery slope if it discredited or dismissed them, independent of their comments, without serious due cause. In Washington D.C. there are normally between 10 and 15 thousand registered lobbyists engaging the U.S. governance process. Those interests have the resources to hire lobbyists. There are additional hundreds of thousands who advocate on their own behalf, much as has been done by this association of Chiefs of Police. Consider the number of advocate groups who will turn up with comments, and possible engagement in ICANN policy discussions, when the stakes of Internet Governance are better understood by more residents of the Internet ecosystem. How to accommodate that is the challenge at hand, not how to discredit or dismiss them. Sam Lanfranco -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852