Bruce,
You have realized by these counter statement's that your logic relating to GPI is misleading.
Any inappropriate use of GPI as an excuse to counter balance the CCWG Accountability transparency is also unacceptable .
On the one hand ,you said there is no clear description of GPI other than those vague reference in the Article of Incorporation and thus the potential definition /description of GPI is a matter yet to be examined and agreed upon in future, and ,on the other hand, you associate any subject that the Board may not like to GPI..
That does not work at all.
Even if, and only if, the GPI would be described/defined in future, that I am doubtful about such outcome, still one can not use such item as an excuse to veto / reject other transparency mechanism.
In view of that above, I am not convinced neither by logic nor substance of your argument and thus you need to further reflect on the way you wish to reach a compromise with CCWG.
I am looking forward to hear more relevant and convincing arguments with solid logics and legal support and common sense in regard with the subject under consideration
Happy Christmas
Kavouss