I am not dazzled by the celebrity status of either Natelson or Michael Farris. It is the states by their delegate commissions that define the limits of the convention, not the applications.
Farris/Natleson's position adds an extra requirement to the clear wording of Article V, which serves to stymie the right of the Sovereign People to meet via their states. Congress doesn't need help that regard. Let's not pretend it will ever call a convention, for a convention recognizes a higher power than the Uniparty.
Here is a youtube of Michael Farris on C-Span from August 17th, 2015. Between 1:30 and 3:00 minutes, he says that over four hundred applications have been submitted to congress.
He also states that the convention can discuss whatever topics it wishes. If the convention is only limited by the commissions of the delegates, why must applications be single topic? It doesn't make sense.
You seem to be fearful of a convention. There needn't be a collective "reason" to meet anymore than an individual needs a reason to own a gun. Article V is the societal right of a nation to self-defense just as the 2A is an individual right to self-defense.
I am not fearful of an Article V COS. Indeed, I deeply, deeply desire one.
What I AM fearful of is Congress finding reasons not to CALL one. And the easiest excuse for them not to do so is to declare that there are not 34 state applications that can be aggregated together to reach the Article V threshold of 34 states on the basis of similar or identical subject matter.
Here's an historical list of Article V petitions from the states, for the calling of a COS by subject matter, in historical order. As to subject matter, these petitions are all over the lot. I haven't been through the entire list; but suspect there are not 34 petitions sufficiently "alike" as to subject matter to be recognized by Congress as "aggregatable" for the purpose of establishing the 34-state threshold — without which Congress will not issue a CALL.
Even though Article V is silent about the details of the qualification criteria of state applications, there is ample historical and legal precedent WRT the aggregation rule. It also conforms with plain common sense.
You ask, "why must applications be single topic?" A single topic can be remarkably broad in its effect. For instance, the "single topic," "Recovering and Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Powers of the Several States" would cover most if not all of Mark Levin's list of amendment desiderata in one swell foop. Each of Levin's items would be completely valid at the COS, because each is within the meaning and scope of the controlling "single topic." Each would be referred to the relevant committee for debate, to be voted on separately in that committee by a simple majority of that committee's commissioners. If passed out of committee, then each state delegation, each having one vote, yea or nay, will vote the measure. If it passes, it is eligible as a stand-alone proposed Amendment that can then be submitted for ratification.
So, a "single topic" doesn't necessarily mean only a single amendment can result. A "single topic" can result in multiple proposed Amendments, each of which would be subject to ratification separately.
If you want to call a convention just for the purpose of having one, without any structure or common purpose, you will likely end up with a three-ring circus that produces nothing. But Congress would likely never CALL such a convention. We need to be realistic about our prospects, which, as a practical matter, means never letting Congress use the excuse that the 34-state threshold has not been met. If there were 34 state applications using more or less identical language, Congress MUST aggregate them, and therefore could not find any constitutional or legal pretext to refuse to CALL the Article V COS.
The best idea I heard today was from the link that Hostage gave in his last to me. I do not have the name of the person who proposed this, but he said that what was needed is a "pre-convention of the States" to flesh out the issues, define the mission, and try to get everybody on the same page. Indeed, the ALEC Conference which developed proposed COS rules was actually a kind of "pre-convention convention" already. What ALEC did (so brilliantly, IMHO) with the rules should be the model of another "pre-convention convention," convened to flesh out the question, "What will be the subject matter of the COS?" and to articulate the state applications language in as uniform language as possible.
Then, I do believe, we will have our best chance to convene an Article V COS.
Just some thoughts, FWTW.
Thanks so much for writing, Jacquerie!