That’s great! I think the DAO or Labs should use a professional polling service to take the pulse of the community on this very important topic. Has this been done before? What would the process look like?
Nobody’s current ownership is being infringed but what about future ownership. Why would the DAO interfere with future ownership? Every person and organization should have an equal opportunity to own the name they want.
Bumping this in response to this weeks L2 Interop call.
I queried ‘in an ideal world’ the timeline over which we would implement such functionality so as to execute on allowing the DAO to give l2.eth to the interop effort.
@0xtiti stated 2 weeks ideally. I noted that EthCC is on the cards, but noting a number of executables are being discussed for execution soon I think that if the appetite exists for this to be voted on, we should move it forward.
See this post for specific discussion:
Personally, if this happens, I’d like to see this as a separate controller noting:
The separation of concerns also provides executable audit independence with other proposals that have registrar controller related considerations e.g. [Executable] Enable L2 Reverse Registrars and new .eth registrar controller
I really don’t see any reason to create a controller that simply forwards calls and emits events for them. The registry already emits events when a name is created.
I agree that this is not a standard registration flow. A dedicated controller for the DAO would isolate the special purpose logic and provide transparent event visibility for observers and indexers. Rather than requiring custom tweaking to detect DAO actions, indexers can rely on controller events directly.
This approach leaves the current registry contract code unchanged and preserves the existing registration workflow while the DAO controller manages special name issuances in a separate scope.
As the DAO’s requirements keep evolving, we can update the specialized controller to emit new events or add features without modifying the core registry.