When I began working on my stand project for the CLS (somewhat on the back burner right now because of demands at work), I had modeled the speaker in our Finite Element Analysis program (COSMOS). There is some amount of deflection in the upper panel portion of the speaker, but it was actually less than .030". The biggest contributor with regards to sway at the top of the speaker when you consider the whole assembly of the panel and the electronics enclosure, is actually the deflection of the sheet metal on the bottom of the electronic enclosure. The sheet metal is only about .062 thick and there is a mechanical grounding point smack dab in the middle of it at the bottom where the rear spike attaches. As this point is fixed, the base of the enclosure deflects. When you consider that the base is now the anchor of a moment arm that extends upwards 58", it's easy to understand how this deflection translates into significant sway at the top of the speaker. The important thing to remember is not to interpret this "sway" as actual "deflection" of the panel as the panel itsel is fairly rigid as already stated above.
There are two factors to consider when designing a good base for the CLS.
(Edit - three actually, see comment about height below)
One is to either make that electronics box more rigid, or to remove it from the mechanical circuit altogether. This latter is what is done in both the Arcicci and Sound Anchor stands - as well as what CAP did with his great interpretation of the Arcicci design.
The second factor has to do with the removal of resonant vibration, and that is the function of the arms that you see in these designs. Even with the electronics box out of the equation you still need to deal with the resonant vibrations of a very large planar surface that, while somewhat rigid, is hardly inert. If it were truely inert it wouldn't function very well as a transducer, I mean it's really an incompatable set of requirements isn't it? We need the speaker to vibrate in order to generate sound, yet we need it to be rigid in order that it generate only those sounds that we want embodied in the music. Martin Logan did a pretty good job actually in their method of constraining the active portion of the speaker (the panel) in a nice rigid frame - it's both highly functional and very aesthetically pleasing; almost archetypal actually in a Jungian sense.
But there is still resonant vibration within the frame and if you doubt it simply walk up to a pair of them while they are playing and touch the top bar of the frame. It may be very slight, but it is present and since it is present it makes a contribution to all of the other vibrations in the room. I've talked here before about my thoughts on spurious vibration. Vibration can be dealt with in two ways basically. You can change the resonant frequency of a vibration to ultra sonic or sub sonic levels or you can reduce it's amplitude. Either can be accomplished by means of either mass loading or mechanical grounding or both. The use of some sort of rigidly attached arm to the planar surface of the frame on the CLS serves both of these purposes, but the
method of attachment may yield differing levels of effectiveness. I'm not quite ready to "spill the beans" on my proposed method yet - but hope to do so sometime in the fall when I can devote more time to it.
Edit - I forgot to mention
height. As you design and build your stands you'll discover that the best height will position the vertical center of the elcetrostatic panel (not the overal speaker as the frame is asymetrical in this axis), at the center of your ears. The problem here is that people and listening chairs come in all sizes. In my opinion, given my stature and the listening chair I have in my room the Arcicci and Sound Anchor stands are a little too tall. Check out some of Neil's posts recently about putting some blocks under his listening chair to deal specifically with this issue. Take the time to experiment with this because it will pay dividends.