I have five legal questions for the Court related to the forum.


First: 

If the regional forum became unavailable to reach at thesouthpacific.x10.mx/index.php would the Cabinet be authorized to establish a replacement Regional Forum?

Second:

Are the administrators banned from performing maintenance-related actions which may result in The South Pacific no longer being available at thesouthpacific.x10.mx/index.php?

Third:

Can severe, although temporary down-times which prevent the use of the forum constitute "permanently unavailable"? In the sense, especially, that the forum is permanently unavailable at times. 

Fourth:

Must the entire forum be "permanently unavailable," or could simply areas or significant features be permanently unavailable? For example, parts of the Admin CP are now "permanently unavailable". It appears to me as though the law is ambiguous whether access to the entire forum need be permanently unavailable for Section 2 to apply.

Fifth:

In relation to Section 3; does the "creation of a new Regional Forum" also include the creation of a new address for the forum? That is to say, a new regional address can only be created by the Assembly? An alternative interpretation here might suggest that Article 1 is totally descriptive, not normative and admins still have the right to change the address of the forum when maintenance is required. 

Quote:1. The Coalition's official Regional Forum is located at http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/index.php.
2. Should the Regional Forum cease to exist or otherwise become permanently unavailable then the Cabinet is authorized to establish a replacement Regional Forum.
3. Barring circumstances outlined in Section 2 the Assembly reserves the sole right to authorize the creation of a new Regional Forum.

As we've had quite a few questions in a short space of time, I thought it would be worthwhile posting just to acknowledge that the question has been seen.

Due to the nature of our current circumstances - I'd just suggest to the courts that these questions might be of a high priority - because we may need to take action if the forums go down more.

The court has unanimously agreed to dismiss the legal question as the Court has determined that the questions have no basis, contradict the relevant sections of the charter, or both.

So... if the forum goes unavailable, the court has no solid opinion on what Article 10 says the cabinet can and can't do? This seems a bit reckless?

(04-08-2015, 03:29 AM)Unibot Wrote: So... if the forum goes unavailable, the court has no solid opinion on what Article 10 says the cabinet can and can't do? This seems a bit reckless?

The unanimous opinion of this court was that Article 10.2 already states exactly what would happen, and as was unambiguously stated such that it did not warrant a legal question response. 

Quote:2. Should the Regional Forum cease to exist or otherwise become permanently unavailable then the Cabinet is authorized to establish a replacement Regional Forum.