Goethe wrote: > On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >>>> ============================== CFJ 2247 ============================== >>>> >>>> The Notary SHALL publish the fact that ais523 owns a Pain called >>>> "xyzzy" as part of eir weekly report. >>>> >>>> ======================================================================== > > [Actually, Murphy, I don't thing R2166 is as clear as you think it might > be. I wouldn't be offended by appeal if you disagree].
IIRC, ehird's "You don't" was in direct response to ais523 when e initiated this case, implying a trivial FALSE (even if the Notary is required to publish Pain holdings, e isn't required to publish holdings that don't actually exist). > Now R2166 states: > The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as > such by its backing document. That entity's report includes a > list of all instances of that class and their owners. > but it's important to note that the Assets report here is not specific > to Officers and offices. In fact, it's specific to entities; and > while entities may hold Offices, Offices are not entities, but rather > roles tied to entities (this is an important point). Rule 1006: "The holder of an office ... may be referred to by the name of the office." Thus, when a rule assigns duties to an office, it (normally) refers to that office's holder and assigns those duties to that holder. > If we construe the "report" in R2166 to apply Asset Reports to "part > of" an Officer's report as defined in R2143, this (a) creates > requirements that aren't there, (b) would vary as recordkeepors change, > depending on whether the recordkeepor was an officer, and (c) generally > does not tie to the rules defining particular reports; the whole of a > particular report consists of what the rules define as being for that > report (d) leads to inappropriate results due to the confusion of > "office" and "entity holding the office"; for example, if I am a > contestmaster, and a contest says "Goethe is the recordkeepor of X", > and I am also the Herald, does the fact that I am an entity holding > the office and the entity that is the contestmaster make the asset > part of the Herald's report? This double-indirection is inappropriate > and not directly supported by the Rules in question (even accidentally). The whole point of the relevant clauses of Rules 2166 and 2143 was to refactor several instances of the old form "the <office>'s report includes <asset> holdings" while preserving the duty. This should work as intended if the recordkeepor is defined by a rule, or even a contract to which the officer is a party. The case of a contract to which the officer is not a party is troublesome, but that shouldn't be resolved by ditching the transitivity completely; it should be resolved by extending Rule 101 (iii) to prevent contracts from obligating non-parties indirectly (e.g. by laddering up through rules like 2166 and 2143). Side note: The Note Exchange doesn't define a recordkeepor, which means it falls to the Accountor by Rule 2181. I noticed this while constructing a hypothetical example: "The recordkeepor of Credits and Markers is the Conductor if e is a party, or Warrigal otherwise."
