woggle wrote: > 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.
This could be neatly handled by defining the contract as implicitly imposing the duty, rather than having the rule impose it directly; compare R1688 paragraph 3, which I ended up writing that way at someone else's (Zefram?) suggestion. Note that, if R2143 is generalized as I suggested before, then this would need to be addressed there, (instead of/in addition) to the above.
