Is this because v2 is a long way off, or because v1 support will always be necessary, and these are important changes?
What would this look like? msg.sender = specific address = no cost, can pass in arbitrary registration length, done?
My immediate gut reaction to this was no. The eth.eth situation is suboptimal, but there is a lot of subjectivity to this. The DAO in principle can do this already with an accounting exercise, but the optics are really important here IMO. I don’t think a smart contract method should allow any group to have preferential access to expiring names.
Yes but.
First thing that came to mind was gTLD Sunrise periods. I think your zk.eth example highlights the obvious concern here. Why should ZK Email get zk.eth over ZK Sync (as an example)? There needs to be a process here. I don’t think you were suggesting that there would not be a process, but it does need further serious discussion/consideration IMO.
But adds an optics headache IMO.
Hmm. Are you thinking, using zk.eth as an example, that potential applicants express interest/submit a proposal and then delegates vote to choose who gets it?
I guess this crosses over to the various legal conversations going on but I imagine that if the DAO allocates a name to an entity, and another entity has an abundance of trademarks on that acronym there could be legal surface area because delegates have actively assigned a name rather than leaving it to the system.
This is an example where IMO the DAO needs to define what it wants/needs - clearly Namehash resource has been inefficiently used (through no fault of their own) here because of a lack of clarity on if we want a referral program and who is going to do it.
And this of course. I’m averse to these changes going to proposal until it is clarified who is doing the referral programs. We’ve just given Namehash lots of money to do this…?? 
TBH I am more aligned with this approach because it is rules based rather than opinionated.
But also most corporate boards XD.
Agreed but we need to take the time to answer the high level questions. If we assign l2.eth to the interop effort they need the confidence that there are no take backs. We also need the clarity that nothing is going to cause us to want to take it back, e.g. legal surface area.
This definitely needs clarity because @jrudolf would probably be annoyed if the DAO broke interop by changing its mind 
Same issue.
This is both the pro and the con, and exactly the reason we need to do this right or not at all.
Don’t spread yourselves too thin.
Yes. Given this, I think these two scenarios should be considered separately.
Yes ! x100
Now that the DAO is better resourced we could research ways of appropriately auctioning names learning from the experiences of the 2017 Vickrey auctions…