Thanks, Chair.
Most of my questions have been answered. This is just to ensure that on the record we have proportionality versus reasonableness, similar to the conversation we had surrounding G-1.
Just because “proportionate” isn't in the language, there is the expectation of proportionality if a charter circumstance were to arise, even if it's not understood in the context of a circumstance that we may face today. Reasonableness language, if I am properly interpreting your explanation from G-1, doesn't exclude that from the possible charter implications of proportionality in the future.
Do you agree with that? I'm wondering if you have any further comment. I think it's been pretty clearly articulated, but I just want to confirm that this is in fact the case.