Thanks for the informative response. I hadn't really dug into the '3 year' rule for maintaining rights to property -- but I definitely like @dan's logic behind putting the onus on the property owner to put in the minimal effort to maintain their rights, rather than resting it on the community. I'd chalk that one up as a big win for the community at large, not because of whatever 'treasures' may get scored, but precisely because it's removing risk off of the communities shoulders, and placing it on individual property owners who must exercise due diligence.

As far as the naming / wording of the ICC / "EOS Core Arbitration Forum" stuff goes -- I've never been on to read too much in to names and the like -- but I deal pretty extensively with standardized construction contracts. One of the most appreciable parts of them is the "default" dispute resolution steps that must be followed if anything starts to go sideways -- so I think I can appreciate the intent of the system there.

As far as setting up a BP for EOS -- I don't see myself jumping in any time soon. The competition looks pretty vicious, hahaha.

But maybe if I start seeing some compelling dApps and the like, I might be interested in setting up a node of some kind.

Thanks again for the info!