<p dir="ltr">Sorry Milton, was it S-A that weighed the implementation cost of both models? because I don't know where the word "massive" was used in the Accountability/bylaw model legal statement made by S-A.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I think the fact that we may not have determined and agreed on what we want to achieve is probably one of the challenge we have in the CWG.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 9 Apr 2015 22:46, "Milton L Mueller" <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
><br>
> That's what I thought, too. I also predict heat death of the universe prior to<br>
> successful conclusion of work on such a model, which is why it didn't even<br>
> occur to me that it's what could be meant.<br>
<br>
Come on, Andrew. That model is no more complicated than either the hybrid (legal separation) or the internal. People keep overlooking the massive internal bylaw changes that have to occur to make the internal models acceptable and workable.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</blockquote></div>