Unconference constitution discussion Seoul 22 July 2018
Below a summary of our talks on the Constitution during the Unconference in Seoul 22 July 2018
We took as point of departure that it wasn’t ours to make a decision on the constitution. We investigated the main pros and contras of the current constitution and B1’s proposal. In order to enable the community to decide.
Is the constitution in play?
We don’t know. The BPs are bound by it. But It is not clear how many tokenholders entered into an agreement that has the constitution in it. Since the constitution is modelled as a multi party contract to answer that question one must check each applicable jurisdiction.
If someone uploads illegal content, e.g. copyrighted material without consent of the rightowner, the victim might not be an EOS member. Question raised was if the victim should be able to commence arbitration against the infringing EOS member. Legally technically it is doable to compel an EOS member to accept arbitration in these cases.
Principles to choose from
EOS can go two ways with its governance:
- an own legal ecosystem where all kinds of disputes may be resolved (broad) or
- a very specific conflict resolution system where only some critical issues are dealt with (narrow).
The former will have less specific terms in it. It may deal with terms such as good faith, honesty or property. The latter will focus on measurable criteria. An example of the first one is the current constitution, an example of the second B1’s proposal.
Pros and cons
Less arbitration. ECAF or any other company that provides the arbitration to EOS will have less scaling problems.
Focus on core business at the BP side.
For the dApp devs that can offer additional services (such as insurance or account retrieval).
Companies that offer services to the public can use their own terms and conditions with arbitration in it. Those docs are widely used anyway, so this should be a natural thing to do.
It defines how EOS wants to work together: no vote buying allowed, no lying. Without that anything goes.
One worldwide rule set for all businesses and users. Dispute resolution as an additional EOS service.
Keeps out old world courts more.
“Intent of contract” is often reason for disputes. Often a member will not know if there is an ECAF solution or he has to go to an off chain court. Will lead to costs and confusion.
Rules are not clear. It will have to be mandatory and that’s against the spirit of arbitration. Better solve issues with bonds and insurances.
A constitution should have clear definitions. The current one fails at that.
We should ensure governance is adopted in all languages.
One of the participants suggest to start with a simple and limited constitution 2.0 and built on that basis further rules that practice shows are needed. Just one document. No attachments. A document that includes prioritisation and ways to add topics thereto in an orderly way.