SIGH, the rules are virtually identical, but HFC will follow new HFC rules (which are basically a part of the HiFo bylaws) and not the old MCC rules anymore. So your whole point 2 is misleading and not to the point. For a name change Council wouldn't need a referendum.
Identical, except the highlighted parts plus additional stuff formerly simply not existing for MCC (like, for example, HFC and BoD both can call for an election of both entities in sync). Probably due to legal reasons the HiFo bylaw hasn't defined MCC and MCC's rules as HiFo's Council, but defined it anew under the term HFC with slightly changed name and basically identical rules. BoD already accepted MCC as their council in first meeting, so the crux of the matter is MCC becomes HFC now ("transforms into HFC"), while we try our very best to keep the spirit and rules like they always been since invention of MCC, just that we are moving our focus away from Nokia towards HiFo and claim all the new powers the Council has towards HiFo that it never had towards Nokia for obvious reasons. The 5/3 amendment is only a a minor matter we do since we're already at it.
Since one entity can't follow two concurrent rulesets defining this entity (even when they were 100% identical, not only 99.99%), we run this referendum to let our community transform us, the MCC, into the HFC. This gets accomplished by you voting that the suggested new HFC rules shall be the rules the Council will follow from now on.

What I'd want to get checked though is the binding of future HFC rule changes to a referendum, this needs to be kept for HFC rules (and probably for complete HiFo rules of which HFC rules are a subset). Haven't read the HiFo bylaws yet, regarding that.

Anyway I agree that the referendum text should more clearly mention this logical switch from MCC to HFC rules, since that is the essential meaning of this whole action. Likewise the wiki page should get augmented to include in the new version all the parts of HiFo bylaws relevant for council.

/j