EOS - State of the constitution

With so many disputes about the validity of the EOS constitution and discussions if it is binding or not binding, i wanted to find out how things really are. Especially with so many half-truths repeated, again and again, i wanted answer to some critical questions.

1. Is the current constitution binding? (Regardless of being interim or not, because that wouldn't make it less binding for the time being)

2. Has ECAF authority to perform arbitration on the current EOS blockchain.

Luckily, wading through the EOSGov Telegram posts this weekend I've got a few answers to my questions that had remained unanswered until now.

1) Is the current constitution binding?

The first published BP call on June 19 featured @Dan Larimer who gave a few important in-depth explanations:

So to sum up the most important message, the constitution, is referenced in each transaction and, by using the chain you technically agree to arbitration.

Josh from @eos-canada seems to have a bit different understanding of it, but the outcome is quite similar, namely that the constitution is binding, more on a formal principle than a technical one:

2) Has ECAF authority to perform arbitration on the current EOS blockchain.

Well as it is mentioned in Paragraph 9 of the constitution, which will remain binding until there is a referendum, it seems to be valid. But the question arose is the ECAF in its current state and composition properly representing what is mentioned in the constitution.

Here again a few recent statements help out:

So the ECAF and personell associated, have the explicit support of Thomas Cox, who in the end drafted the EOS constitution.
More importantly, if you have followed the development of the constitution, you might know, that the default arbtration forum has changed several times shortly before the mainnet launch. Originally, it was intended to be ECAF, but was then changed to ICC just a week before, and then back to ECAF again with the following reasoning:

What I (Thomas) think now
As of this writing on 07-Jun-2018, I now believe:
ECAF is quite far along in its development and will be more than adequate to handle the arbitration needs of the community
ICC is far less acceptable as a 'placeholder' forum for reasons described below
Changing the default arbitration forum is actually very likely to be quite difficult and could "strand" many cases between the two systems

So the ECAF had formed just before, it is clear, given the history of changes, that the body mentioned in the constiution, is the one, that had formed just beforehand, and it has the b1 backing.

You might argue, that you didn't vote for them, just as you didn't actually for the constitution, but it is the proposed blockchain by b1, and just as the eos.io code,this was available at the launch, and the beauty of it, is the community can change that at will.
So if the majority of holders decide, they don't care for governance or arbitration, this will just drop from the to be ratified constitution.

Quite likely that after the referendum, we will see a fork, with one mainchain, and a side chain, one of which will be governance-heavy, the other rather lightly-governed, and then they can compete with each other...

Whats your stance on the matter?