Repository files navigation

Draft spec, please provide feedback in the form of pull requests and issues to github.com/allinbits/carmel.

• Both parties agree on a moderator.
• Both parties agree to keep discussions where the moderator suggests.
• Both parties agree to mutual non-disparagement for reasonable scope.

• Both parties choose 7 key claims each to discuss.
• If there was a court filing, the majority of key claims must be from filings.
• The moderator must prune spurious allegations, after requesting and reviewing initial evidence.
• The moderator can strike less than half the key points from the original 7.
• The moderator must give good justifications for each strike.
• The moderator can also select up to 4 additional points from filings.
• The moderator can also add 1 point not necessarily from any filings.

• The plaintiff of each key point implicitly starts with the topic point.
• The defendant replies, or the court filing's replies are used (if present).
• Then plaintiff replies, then defendant replies, and so on until the moderator terminates the debate.
• The medium of communication will be via email.
• After termination, the moderator can make a final statement.
• The moderator may also interject at any time.
• Each reply is expected to take some time to complete.
• The parties agree that the entire process will complete in 2 months.
• The moderator can allow 1 month additional time if they find it necessary.
• If the moderator determines that extraordinary circumstances permit, the moderator can allow additional 1 month extensions, subject to the condition that the total amount of time will not exceed 6 months

• Sealing implies authenticated encryption.
• Once you have the sealer's key, you can decrypt the data. (encrypted)
• Once unsealed, you know that the sealer sealed the data. (authentic)
• Each party and the moderator propose portions of the conversation (and files) to seal, or black out, before publishing.
• The reason for each sealing is also recorded and sealed separately.
• The moderator decides in accordance with jurisdiction of choice.

• Both parties attempt to make a joint statement publicly.
• Ideally both parties make concessions, but may also express dissent.
• Uses similar process as step 2 with moderator.
• The moderator decides which portions to strike, perhaps all.
• Some joint statement is made publicly.
• If a joint statement cannot be agreed upon, the moderator makes one.

• Either party can incentivize for the other party to participate.
• Incentives may include clawback clauses if the moderator determines appropriate.
• Both parties (optionally?) agree to release the other from all known and unknown legal claims in exchange for agreeing to this process.

• If a false statement is made, punishable up to 2x the reward.
• At any time, either party can create a platform for, or run, a bountyprogram for whistleblowers to testify about false statements made.
• The moderator decides the rules needed to preserve privacy where appropriate.
• Whistleblower statements will be reviewed by a system approved by the moderator to enforce penalties of this agreement.
• Both parties have the right to publish moderator redacted portions ofwhistleblower material contributed to the aforementioned bounty program.
• Both parties agree to indemnify such whistleblowers to the full extent

• All contributed processes and information belong to their respective original owners.

• https://twitter.com/jaekwon/status/1676530097308966912?s=20