Mike, that is a perfect example.

The only way this is going to be decided is when they eventually rewrite it they say whether it's a change or a clarif'n.

Disagree, since it's clear to all but one now.

I concur with mbryon. 'and no change of possession' is clear.

That part is clear. The words you left out, "has been" are what make it unclear. See the "PKS" (PSK) conditions thread for how the rule could have been written in a way that would have made this clear if they meant what you think they meant.

Robert