I will make two remarks with respect to that. It is an example I gave of something being outside the scope of Carter, and so not mandated. I think it is best left to a committee like this to hear expert testimony from others.
I'll use this as an opportunity to say that my suggestion is that a five-year review is simply too long a time period, that it should be a shorter period of review, and that a review clause can specify certain topics that must be reviewed and considered. Perhaps a review clause would mandate that the issue of mature minors, for example, would necessarily, as a matter of law, be considered.