[blml] 2007 laws

[Wayne Burrows]

On 17/10/2007, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2007, at 4:43 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote:
>
> > +=+ Ah, yes! This reminds me of the further content of my first
> > undelivered message to BLML from Shanghai.  'Convention(al)'
> > is no longer an issue under the 2007 Laws. The word appears in
> > 2007 Law 40B1(b) but the reason for its presence is to provide
> > default cover for situations in which RAs continue to use the word
> > in regulations - perhaps through inertia. If they do use the word it
> > is for them to define it.  So far as the 2007 Laws are concerned
> > partnership understandings fall into one of two categories - the one
> > (a) where they are 'special partnership understandings', and stated
> > to be such by the RA, the other (b) containing those that the RA
> > does not include in the (a) category.  By design we have extended
> > considerably the RA's power to determine what matters of system
> > it will regulate.
>
> ISTM that "extended considerably" is a rather misleading
> understatement.  I believe the phrase Grattan is looking for is more
> along the lines of "absolute total power with no constraint,
> restriction or oversight".
>

Significantly it appears there has been some consultation or at least
communication with National Organizations about these changes.  My
national organization has been quoting or alluding to these changes
for some time.  On the other hand there has been no attempt that I am
aware of to get feedback on the laws and appropriate changes from
ordinary players.

Many National Organizations have been abusing their restricted power
under the 1997 laws probably for the entire ten years of those laws
existence.  The punishment, whoops I mean reward for that abuse of
power is that they now have "absolute total power with no constraint,
restriction or oversight" as Eric points out or that their powers have
been "extended considerably" as Grattan would prefer to state.

Wayne