Ian Kelly wrote: >By way of arguments, Telescope refers to CFJ 1361 and notes that for >an action to be effective, there should be a clear indication of who >is performing the action, which was not provided when WALRUS first >attempted to register.
Murphy's judgement is based on the argument that "WALRUS" clearly referred to a partnership. I think this is not obvious. For pikhq's registration of WALRUS to be possible, it could instead have been the case that "WALRUS" was the nickname of a human who had given pikhq authorisation to act on eir behalf. (Actually the precedents don't go as far as making that definitively valid, but it's a distinct possibility.) In any case, redefining words until an action becomes valid seems a dangerous approach to interpreting public messages. -zefram
