The current discussion on the "Exclusive use" area on Chajnantor is clear for the 6x6 inner region, but open to more uncertainties for the 14 km array because of the two options. If we can manage with Chile to keep the two options open for slightly longer, this is fine. However, we may have in the course of the negociations to give up some option, or in a more general way to relax our request. Here are some arguments in favor of the Y+ configuration: 1) more continous reconfiguration, which gives more flexibility and less time lost in non-optimal hybrid configurations. 2) less roads, so cheaper 3) less roads, so shorter reconfiguration time 4) shorter fibers, so probably better phase stability 5) better expandability towards even longer baselines 6) more flexibility in re-weighting (tapering and/or uniform) data to adjust angular resolution 7) possibly less pads, because no complex hybrid between the 5 km Gaussian and the 14 km array is needed. Arguments in favor of the ring configuration (14 km ring) are: A) Slightly better resolution B) Better astrometric performance Apart for argument 7), which will always result in some tradeoff of cost vs imaging quality, for the Y+ configuration, argument 2 is probably the weakest. The costs of the roads will be smaller, but as pointed out by John Conway, we nay need to place antennas at the bottom of some quebrada, where pads could be significantly more expensive. For the 14-km ring, neithe A) or B) are decisive, since an proper choice of the Y+ configuration can produce the same angular resolution (but not exactly the same astrometric capabilities because of the different distribution of baselines). Moreover, argument 5) indicates we could ultimately (if needed) get even better result with a Y++ configuration. The current project thinking is to negociate more land for the Y+(+) configuration, rather than to keep the 2 options (Y+ and ring) open. We would like to ASAC to provide us with a written recommendation concerning this approach. Stephane Guilloteau