On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:04 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit a proposal, titled "Recordkeepors must recordkeep", with an > adoption index of 2: [snip] > "The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as such > by its backing document. If the recordkeepor is an office, that > office's report includes a list of all instances of that class and > their owners. This portion of that office's report is self-ratifying. > If the recordkeepor is a person, that person SHALL publish a list of > all instances of that class and their owners once per week. [snip]
You really should be much more careful about how you'd make the rules recognize contractually imposed duties, especially given how rich a source of scams that has been. With the text as you have it, a contract could assign a non-party person as recordkeepor of some nasty contractually-defined asset, thereby imposing a burdensome duty to track those assets on the non-party. -woggle
