On 8/28/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > >Arguably, removing an obligation does not count as satisfying it. > > Indeed it does not. But it does mean that there is no longer an > unsatisfied obligation. Precedent is pretty clear that there is no > obligation unless the rules currently impose one.
Just playing devil's advocate here: a failure to satisfy an obligation before it is removed is still a failure to satisfy that obligation. In any other circumstance there would be no issue because we would not consider a removed, unsatisfied obligation to have been violated. But Rule 2157 appears to impose a stricter requirement: a panel's obligations SHALL ultimately be satisfied -- any other outcome is a violation of Rule 2157. -root
