<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 11, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Carlos Raul <<a href="mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com" class="">carlosraulg@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><p dir="ltr" class="">Good point Rubens:</p><p dir="ltr" class="">We have to stress test even the " non-structural " proposals for consistency. So much for time savings.</p><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>I would say that there are no scenarios that with no structural changes; even the scenario with no membership or designator is a significant structural change from current ICANN, due to the removal of NTIA. It's also just as untested as any of the incarnations of the CCWG proposed models... </div><div><br class=""></div><div>... but I was pleased to see that Chris Disspain refrained from making such arguments, so let's hope that Board keeps arguing in this more constructive way. The "ICANN will die" FUD is what usually comes along with labelling the changes "structural". </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>