On Thu, 27 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > I believe eir analysis is correct: Nobody has to track it, > but if someone registers as Cuddlebeam other than the person who > previously registered as Cuddlebeam, they'll be in for a thrill.
Nice judgement! This last part isn't an issue though, it was discussed in CFJ 1520, which basically says that if a new entity comes along with the same name as an old (no-longer-existing) entity, the new entity doesn't pick up the old entity's traits (when it's clear from the evidence that the two entities are two different things). And actually, the overall situation was very similar to the current case! A Contest (legal document) was required to have a Contestmaster. The Contestmaster left the Contest, which was then found in CFJ 1517 to cause it to cease to be a Contest (there was no rules mechanism for it ceasing to be a Contest, it just no longer met the definition of contest because it had no Contestmaster). So that's 100% in line with your judgement. The Contest had been granted Rules authorization to make an award of some kind. So someone created a new contest with the same name, and tried to claim the Rules authorization to make the award. That was rejected in CFJ 1520. As an aside, the Contest was a sub-nomic being played on a separate mailing list. The sub-nomic's rules didn't require it to be an Agoran Contest to be a Nomic. So while Agoran law found it had "ceased to exist", it continued to function for a while as a separate nomic, no longer tied to Agora.
