Hi, On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this: Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.” I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this. The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com