Article XV - v0.3.0 Draft EOS.IO Constitution - Default Arbitration Forum Named

Purpose

Names the default arbitration forum for disputes not handled by an explicitly named arbitration forum.

Text of Article

All disputes arising from this Constitution or its related governing documents shall be resolved using the EOS Core Arbitration Forum.

Discussion

Every contract needs to name its default arbitration forum. Inasmuch as this Constitution is a contract, it too must name its default arbitration forum.

Disputes will only go to the default forum when the specific contract giving rise to the dispute don't name another forum, or if they name the same forum that the Constitution names.

The EOS Core Arbitration Forum is (as of this writing) being created as a to-be-independent, standalone entity designed to provide dispute resolution services to the EOS blockchain.

References

Design Goals of the EOS Core Arbitration Forum

If this was helpful, please UPVOTE. If not, please REPLY so I can improve.

Thomas Cox
blockchain governance expert - active in the EOSIO ecosystem
US: +1 503.516.3886

(all opinions are my own)

Comments

  • ThurgoodMarshallFanThurgoodMarshallFan Posts: 20 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    Shouldn't this include "unless the parties agree on an alternative forum" or something to that effect?

    This is only made clear in the discussion part, which may ultimately get lost if anyone in the future wants to enforce this.

  • thomasbcoxthomasbcox Posts: 148 Sr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    It should be implied in > @ThurgoodMarshallFan said:

    Shouldn't this include "unless the parties agree on an alternative forum" or something to that effect?

    This is only made clear in the discussion part, which may ultimately get lost if anyone in the future wants to enforce this.

    I'm torn on this.

    It should be clear from Article III as well as this one, and from the general understanding of all Arbitration clauses, that the clause is effective because the dispute wasn't handled by a prior arrangement.

    I'm trying not to spell out every implication in the text of the Constitution because I want the text to be short, and some things are (or in my head ought to be) clearly implied.

    If this was helpful, please UPVOTE. If not, please REPLY so I can improve.

    Thomas Cox
    blockchain governance expert - active in the EOSIO ecosystem
    US: +1 503.516.3886

    (all opinions are my own)

  • ThurgoodMarshallFanThurgoodMarshallFan Posts: 20 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens
    edited April 30

    @thomasbcox said:
    It should be implied in > @ThurgoodMarshallFan said:

    Shouldn't this include "unless the parties agree on an alternative forum" or something to that effect?

    This is only made clear in the discussion part, which may ultimately get lost if anyone in the future wants to enforce this.

    I'm torn on this.

    It should be clear from Article III as well as this one, and from the general understanding of all Arbitration clauses, that the clause is effective because the dispute wasn't handled by a prior arrangement.

    I'm trying not to spell out every implication in the text of the Constitution because I want the text to be short, and some things are (or in my head ought to be) clearly implied.

    If the only purpose of this clause is to name a default in case of the parties not choosing it, it conflicts with Article III in a possibly confusing way. Art III says you can choose, while this says "all [disputes]... shall ..."
    There is a legislative principle to read all parts of a code, constitution, or statute in a cohesive way that does not render other parts void or superfluous, but avoiding that initial confusion is optimal. Simply adding something like "notwithstanding Article III" or "In any dispute where no arbitral forum is specified" or something that makes it clear what this clause is doing without the additional explanation, or needing to delve into the legislative intent of the drafter. Alternatively eliminate this article entirely and add the default provision to Article III.

  • exploringeosexploringeos Posts: 20 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    @thomasbcox This seems like a difficult problem to me. If there is a single forum named then there is no competition for arbitration of constitutional cases. This could lead to corruption / monopoly behavior.

    I don't really have a solution for this. Maybe the two parties of the dispute must agree on an arbitrator. Or maybe an appeal process goes to outside forums?

    This is mostly an issues if a BP is behaving badly, I think. The BP or BPs could potentially work to stack the single forum where all their cases will end up.

Sign In or Register to comment.