The new restrictions are in the CFW declarations and DVC Membership Agreement and DVC Resort Agreement. As to be enforceable against pre-CFW DVC members, there are serious doubts they can be applied to such members. The new restrictions created are not in the prior POS's, and could require an amendment to the prior declarations that would require the actual vote of the members.
Under the prior declarations, the restriction was limited to a commercial purpose, which could be found if there were a pattern of rental activity that the association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. Commercial enterprise is a legal term that means being in the business of doing something.
DVD could argue that the new listed restrictions simply conform with the prior restriction, but there is a major problem with the new terms. Under the prior POS's, any decision made by the association (or possibly DVCM) had to be "reasonable," i.e., the members could challenge whether the decision was correct.
The new terms take away all of the member's rights to challenge a decision by declaring the association (or DVCM) "shall be the sole determiner of any use or activity that does not constitute personal use or constitutes commercial use." Declarations §12.1.3. Thus, for example, the association or DVCM could find, under the new terms, that making three reservations in a year for persons other than family members is a violation, and the member could not challenge it, even with evidence that the reservations were made for friends of the member who paid no rent to the member.
Such absolute power clauses in contracts are not favored by courts, and a court could easily find that the new rules make a material change to rights of pre-CFW members, which change can only be made via an actual vote of the members.