Why is the CWG spending time on the rather arcane detail of whether the PTI should be a limited liability company (LLC) or a corporation? MM: Because it's not an "arcane detail;" it is a critical aspect of the governance arrangement. This seems to me to be the kind of detail that is routinely handled by the technicians, i.e. people who are attorneys by training, but whose role is to be technical specialists in setting up business. Further, for the purposes we're talking about, there isn't even much of a difference, MM: There is a big difference, and the lawyers have been advising us about and analyzing those differences for the past two months. It seems to me the relevant factors for this group are the scope of the PTI's responsibilities, the scope of the board's responsibilities, and how board members are appointed. Deciding on the form of legal entity really is just a detail, and this seems like a fairly awkward venue for sorting out these details. MM: Since we have been discussing this for the past two months, and it has been the primary subject of several conference calls, I think it's puzzling that you have chosen to make this intervention now. Would you like to explain where the prompting to do this came from?