On 8/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/28/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > If you now consent, you can arguably make the panel recuse itself > depending on the interpretation of R2157. In any case i (TTttPF) > consent to making the panel judging CFJ 1711a recuse itself.
I'm not particularly inclined to have the panel recuse itself without a good reason. -root
