On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> I appreciate that; I apologize and withdraw my pledge on the matter.
Thank you. Now let's get back to arguing about the case. :)
Actually, I believe the existing without-15-objections mechanism is
subtly broken: Rule 105 takes precedence over Rule 1728, and says:
Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
as part of its effect,
...
This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can
become a rule or cease to be a rule.
Accordingly, I believe it would go like this:
- Rule 1728 asks, what would hypothetically happen if Contract A were a rule?
--> Rule 105 would allow it and the new rule would be successfully created.
- So Rule 1728 authorizes me to cause Contract A to create the new rule.
- But C.A. isn't actually an instrument, so Rule 105 forbids it and
takes precedence.
However, I believe it can be salvaged fairly easily. Instead of
following through with w/o 15 objections, I'll amend it to allow me to
(with support) cause an existing Power-1 rule (say, R2105) to create
the new rule.*
In this case,
- Rule 1728 asks, what would hypothetically happen if Contract A were a rule?
--> Rule 105 would allow me to cause R2105 to create a new rule
because it would be permitted by Contract A.
- So Rule 1728 authorizes me to cause R2105 to create the new rule.
- Rule 2105 is an instrument, so that's okay. "Where permitted by
other rules" is satisfied because Rule 1728 is permitting it.
Rule 2105 is not an entity whose existence depends on the contract,
but it's not being altered, just used as a "catalyst".
*Note that this wouldn't require a new R101 (iv) waiting period as the
actual Rule Change would be the same.
--
-c.
