Kerim Aydin on Thu, 21 May 2009 16:09:12 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Notary] Report (null)

On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 08:48 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Umm... does act-on-behalf even work in B? Agoran precedent is that it
>>> does, but I see no rules reason to allow it here.
>> It's inherent in the R101 rights of partnerships.  Or something.
> I was never convinced, yet never managed to get the precedent
> overturned.

I was never convinced either:

- In 2000 it was explicitly allowed and regulated in the ruleset
  (there was a Rule governing how to grant and revoke powers of
  attorney, and it was pretty strict, with PoAs not permitted to
  last more than a few weeks for example).  I think it was adopted 
  in 1998) 

- That rule was repealed in 2005.  Everyone at the time assumed
  PoA thereafter didn't work at all, and no one tried it as
  far as I can tell, until:

- In 2007, Zefram (returned after a long deregistration) argued
  that it was a "natural" thing to allow contracts to do and it
  was part of old tradition (back in the early to mid 90's). This 
  was right after partnerships had been decided to be "natural"
  persons so there was a trend to allow "natural" contracting
  instruments to work even if not explicitly allowed.  But the
  ancient natural tradition was at odds with the 2001-2007 
  idea that it was not possible if it wasn't in the ruleset.

- It doesn't really have anything to do with R101; it has to
  do with whether partnerships that "devolve responsibilities"
  can be "naturally" made to grant these powers.  I guess it
  could be argued that the R101 "participation in fora" has
  something to do with the ability to delegate someone else to
  be your communications medium, but that's a stretch IMO.


spoon-discuss mailing list