In my extreme example, I was trying to convey that the hypothetical HI owners had all either elected for points or used/rented their interval and therefore no owners' weeks were deposited into II in any given year. I'm not sure how you can conclude that this is impossible. Improbable yes, impossible no, because at the time that Marriott originally rolled out DCP, there were no restrictions on which Marriott weeks could be enrolled and once you are enrolled there is nothing limiting your ability to elect for points, that's what worries me.
I truly believe that if more owners had understood how the program works and that the buy in would be much more costly in the future, then they would have paid the enrollment fee, even if they didn't intend to elect points every year, or at all for that matter, if they owned a few l/off weeks they like to trade in II. It's just my hunch, but from reading how many folks here have bought weeks/points directly from Marriott to get into DC, I'm pretty confident in my assumption. Now that it's ten years later, I think even more people would be game to enroll quickly, if Marriott offered enrollment without a purchase.
I bought a Maui week, to be able to go there if I choose. I think we know that's really all we are guaranteed. Although I bought a week where I like to go, I also bought some weeks strictly for trading. I consciously bought Marriott with the hope that other Marriott owners would want to try out other Marriotts and deposit their unit for trade. I think most who bought Marriott with the hope of trading would say that having Marriott trading priority is relatively important, same I'm sure with owners of Vistana and Hyatt. It's even more important for those who have paid a premium to trade within an internal system as opposed to II where units from all different developers are traded. My SIL owns Hyatt and already struggles to get her desired trades within Hyatt's internal system. She recently purchased whatever the Hyatt equivalent of DC points is, with the promise that it would make her trades easier. I'm sure she doesn't want more competition from Marriott owners such as myself and I appreciate that as a valid concern knowing that she paid a premium to get those points. The thought that I will potentially be forced to purchase a lot more points so that I will have an equal chance to book a night that might otherwise be taken by someone who acquired a ton of SVV for cheap on eBay, doesn't make me happy. I don't really want to acquire Vistana weeks, just to hedge my bets based on rumors and speculation nor do I want to feel like I missed out once again, if I don't, like what happened when DC was announced. At this point, I just want to stick with the status quo, so I can move forward with confidence and not trepidation.
FWIW, it seems to me that the more valuable points wise your week is, the better the incentive to have it enrolled rather than gamble with II, because otherwise you're more likely trading down, especially owners in high maintenance places like HI and the Caribbean. With II, I could trade for a 2bd in Palm Springs with my studio but with points I can get much more than 7 days and a whole lot more if I opt for a smaller unit. I wouldn't want to trade from Hawaii for a studio in the desert through II because I would feel I wasn't getting an equitable trade. Personally, I don't see any reason why someone with a HI week wouldn't enroll if the original offer came around again, unless the owner never trades and only goes to their home resort.