Constitution 2.0 | Variable Cleanup

[cimplylimited]

Primary Issue

Variables are undefined in ratified version in english. Request for comment in English Constitution.

Also an issue in Constitution 2.0A located at Spanish Constitution

Location

Line 83 https://github.com/lexDAO/LexDAO-Constitution/blob/master/Translation/Spanish/LexDAO-Constitution%20v02_Spanish.md

[drllau]

(d) ”LexDAO Platform” means any website, platform, social media account, DAO interface, [insert others] [owned or controlled] by or on behalf of LexDAO.

So is the issue around the square brackets? Firstly Joshua Ma was invovled in OpenLaw.io, there if you look at their markdown variation, variables are defined using double square brackets. Hence if it is only single, then I suspect it would be either normal markdown (missing the link) or standard legal editorial meaning it was inserted but not part of the original text. Since there are no links at all in the constitution, it is more likely the latter.

• website is well defined HTML + HTTP(S) protocol
• platform is a generalisation which includes omnichannel (mobile etc)
• social media account refers to something like discord which has its own software and heavily uses JSON but not necessarily uniquely pointed to by a URL ... I point out that the discord invite is a randon hash so it is not a real address, so the alternative is to refer to the powers and capabilities of the "owner" which makes the by or on behalf of LexDAO sensible as either direct or principle-agent relationship.
• DAO interface is not really a common phrase, if I had to guess this would be referring to the 3D cryptovoxel metaversal interface Scott was playing around with, Removing the DAO and just leaving interface would be too vague.
• so the [insert others] was probably a late editorial insertion that got overlooked in the final draft.

For textual analysis we need to refer back to where the LexDAO platform is referenced in the main text. There are 5 instances

1. §1.3 - No reader, user, or browser of any LexDAO Platform or LexDAO service should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
2. §1.3 Use of, and access to, LexDAO, any LexDAO Platform or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship
3. §1.3 between the reader, user, or browser and LexDAO Platform authors, contributors, contributing law firms, or committee members and their respective employers.
4. §2.3 By accepting and retaining membership each applicant shall agree to use the services or Platforms of LexDAO on at least an occasional basis.
5. §2.3 If you are engaging with LexDAO Platforms, you consent to contact and agree to become legally bound by this Agreement as both a LexDAO participant and a "LexDAO Member".

The net effect is to attempt to define a boundary between what is "LexDAO" vs what is not-LexDAO. The words by or on behalf of LexDAO is a legal statement of direct or indirect (via agent) whilst [owned or controlled] limits the relationship. So the meaning of the combination is stipulate the context where legal advice, attorney-client establishment, is disclaimed, and origination or transactional space ("use"/"engage") as well the powers are exercised (cf copyright consented & notice).

We can look at this 3 examples

1. @drllau | Le⚔DAO (domestic with legal bindings and internal ADR)
2. @drllau | LexDAO (foreign - I can cross-talk with members)
3. @drllau | Le✂DAO (alien) - not acting for/behalf but some affiliation)

so if we correctly resolve everything it just indicates the domains where internal vs external ADR rulesets are applied.

[cimplylimited]

@trtius can you take a look at the areas with square brackets in the constitution? Maybe this is something we could ask Fortunado to review? '[ ]'