Interesting, glad to see I’m not the only one that sees value in arbitration (of course I didn’t learn about it myself until last week, heh).
The reason I ask is because of another concept I have been tinkering with for about a year now. I have just recently started to do some initial research work on it, reading through basic law books, parsing & abstracting a community land trust charter. Clearly, if we’re going to use contract-based governance for RHU, we will need at least a document assembly solution–which is essentially what I’m building right now (though my prototype uses the .NET stack, it is overwhelmingly HTML5-based and could easily be ported to another server stack).
With a document assembler, new co-ops can just fill in some forms and not have to parse all the legal documents and adjust them as needed. With the more advanced version that I envision in the article, an open-source community could eventually develop a sort of Linux-like system of organizational “software”, modularized legal documents that are actively updated by an open-source community, substantially reducing the barriers to building diverse organizational structures and the risks they face from antagonistic parties.
And with arbitration, there is substantially less need to include the entire legal system, which makes this project well within reach. It looks like the allowed definitions of arbitration allow a nonspecific legal system, so something like “According to Lawtran Specification 1.0” would be suitable to work within the definition of a software system. @Iang, you certainly know more about it, is there anything that arbitration doesn’t cover?