Well, there's no question that it could capture a certain portion of the population who aren't rights holders but who would like to be rights holders. I don't think that data is irrelevant to the discussion, so I do think it could create some confusion and challenge to some traditional positions. But I don't think if it's truly the state of play politically, in terms of community individual positioning regarding language questions, that those are bad facts to have on the table, because deciding that we don't want to know that isn't constructive.
So I think you're approaching it correctly. Solving the policy questions that arise from that is a long-term project, but we're going to address those policy questions anyway, so why not do it with facts?