EOS Amsterdam - EOS Telegram - EOS Arbitration Public Chat Summary - Sep 21st
EOS Arbitration Public Chat 21 September
Previously, Sun Tzu started a conversation about ECAF and the need to add the forums:
“I see that you are saying that an award can only be processed if it is volunteered by both the parties, and contract (inc. consent) is established on chain. That helps, but it is much easier to say that than to deliver it. Identity, we haven't got. Consent, a minefield. One way to solve this is to go through ECAF which will do the appropriate due diligence. Which I'd be more comfortable with because they are getting quite good at this precise issue.
Adding or absorbing EMAC was done with little fuss - so we have at least one process or option. I'd rather explore constitutional or RDR language that describes and authorises that process; until then I personally would ignore implementation.
Kevin Rose - EOS New York answers him with points:
“1. So use ECAF if that’s what you’re most comfortable with. But if you do have identity involved or you feel comfortable with another forum, use that.
- Where are foreign courts mentioned? Allowing for direct enforcement of arbitral awards from the forum through the claimant to BPs is what we’re proposing. State level actors are not involved here.
3a. You don’t know that.
3b. Due diligence? If all the boxes are checked for valid components then you’re good to go. Enforce away!
- The filtering step is don’t use them if you don’t think they’re good!
How do you analyze any new business? Go do those things and if you aren’t satisfied then don’t use them.”
Tanish EOSMetal also replied to Sun Tzu:
“Yes, will it be possible to opt arbitrator from a list (priority order) by parties and in case of claims the common arbitrator forum in the list or default get chosen for dispute resolution?
Example - Alice develops dApp X with 5 mentioned arbitration forums with default as ECAF, Bob the dApplication user opt-in 5 arbs himself, in case of any dispute among parties(alice and Bob) the top priority arbitrator from the list gets chosen?”
Kevin Rose - EOS New York finishes with:
“You just need a contract that points to one forum/arbitrator as well as the RDR (jurisdiction)”.
Eva introduces new point:
“Regarding arbitration, I tried to explain at the beginning of ECAF something about documenting case and also privacy of arbitrators ... Only recently people start to understand what I was speaking about. And we have to adjust to the actual situation in EOS - which (again as I predicted for months before launch) nobody could predict in advance 😉. Again, I did not read the proposal (looking forward to it) - but when I consider that a huge amount of the cases that were so far filed with ECAF are about some kind of "fraud" of accounts, I think that this could lead to single point of failures, if specific accounts or anything the like are registered "with the C". These will not be any accounts they will be accounts that will have a lot of enemies and a lot of interest to be broken in. And the qualifications of those who manage arbitration or even do arbitration is not necessarily about protecting against hacks. It's about making good judgement and the like”.
She then goes in the direction of on-chains:
“On-chain is way too limiting. In a lot of situations things are not on-chain. A huge amount of the current cases have their "contract" element outside of EOS. And when there are a relevant amount of dapps the landscape will change again. It's likely that contracts will be part on chain part off chain. .... and that consensus will be a dispute before arbitration for something. Or the like. But that does is not necessarily contradiction a general idea to have some specific and streamlined information registered on chain. However we have to be VERY careful about what that should be regarding arbitration. As there can be so many reasons why something has to be kept private in single cases. And be it because of possible conflicts with the local law people are acting in. Just as an example, anybody who offers service in EU is falling under GDPR. Which more or less means that any information that is related to a person in general has to e able to be deleted. As long as there is no overwhelming and continued (public) interest for the presence of the information.... So enforcing specific ways of enduring public registration on some persons can be an issue. (and this kind of privacy questions at the same time do not fall under what (at least some) EU citizens can agree to arbitrate. So registering persons should be considered on another level than registering forums and registering keys to the forum, which may or may not point to a person. The RDR would require some transparency about who is acting in the documentation of the cases. It's these cases that count at the end. Not keys. If there is a ruling that references to a case, it should be sufficient if the forum sanctions it as valid. At least as long as there is no specific challenge for the specific situation So I would prefer registration of cases to registration of people.”
Sun Tzu summarizes:
“What’s in discussion is (1) how to select forum, and (2) how to choose arbitrator. Latter is generally fixed by “follow the rules of former. Then, “v2” dispenses with base layer arbitration, folds the power back into BPs until they outsource it back to arbitration. During which period, Constitution has no effective enforcement - BPs too busy for quibbles. In case of Dapp layer, it’s all replaced by Dapp <—> user contract. Only question is can it be enforced on chain. Answer: via ECAF”