First off, I would like to commend Yuta on the efforts and the intent behind this first update to the community-approved Constitution. I respect the efforts to reduce ambiguity and to improve on what has been created so far. However, I am unable to support this proposed update at this time. Article VIII Section 1 states that the Constitution “should be treated as a living document” and the community “encouraged to periodically review and debate its provisions” and while this has been done to some degree so far , I feel that it falls short in “coming together in such forums that the community deem appropriate, to propose amendments to this Constitution”. The proposer has gone to decent lengths to ensure a wide range of community feedback, regularly updating their proposed document over multiple iterations as feedback has been provided. However, the wider Cardano community doesn’t exist solely on X and Google Docs and when viewed in retrospect to the lengths taken during the creation of the first Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution, I feel that it still currently falls short on community engagement and that further socialisation is required through workshops and other community forums. That is not to say that we need another global workshop series and a Convention like before, but a greater level of socialisation is needed to ensure legitimacy of a Constitution that represents the community. I also feel that it is too soon to be proposing such changes. The community-ratified Constitution has been on-chain for almost 8 months. Great time and effort was put in to reach the result achieved at the Convention in December 2024 and it almost feels as though making such sweeping amendments, orchestrated by a small group, so soon could almost be seen as a discredit to the efforts of so many who participated in the global workshops and their elected delegates and of those at the Convention in Buenos Aires and Nairobi. As an outgoing member of the ICC I have seen firsthand the evolving quality of governance action proposals over the past year, from Interim Constitution to the community-ratified Constitution. On-chain governance has been a learning curve for all involved and after some initial misunderstandings and frustrations, the quality of proposals has really begun to pick up recently as the community and proposers have come to understand the standards required for constitutionality. With 15 info actions (5 general, 4 NCL, 6 budget), 3 protocol parameter update actions, 1 update constitution, 1 hard fork, 42 treasury withdrawal actions and 1 update constitutional committee action prior to this proposal, there has now been established a good wealth of precedents of proposals in light of the current Constitution. My concern with updating the Constitution at this point in time would be more confusion regarding proposal expectations and a drop in quality of proposals as a result of this confusion as proposers get to grips with a changing ruleset regarding constitutionality without a greater socialisation of its intended amendments. In summary, I believe that the current Constitution still needs more time so that the community can produce more learnings of the on-chain governance experience and to give the Constitution creation process more legitimacy by increasing the socialisation of any proposed amendments. It has been encouraging to see the level of community engagement so far and I would just like to note a recent post by Jane on X which I felt made some valid contributions also (https://x.com/Jane14457995/status/1954933866432434185). I encourage these efforts to continue until such a time that enough of the global community has had a chance to have their say through local workshops and other such forums in order to achieve a sufficient level of socialisation and legitimacy of representation of the global Cardano community.