Comments on ENS Foundation Director Nominees

Thanks for everyone who asked me to nominate myself, I just did.

Question: would it make sense to increase the numbers of directors on the board to 5? There are lots of great candidates here. Not sure if it would be useful thou.

1 Like


In my view, I would not visit the number of Directors until after the new Director has served and discussed with the other Directors whether it is needed.

In my view, you meet the minimum qualifications to serve. But it’s the community that chooses.

Good Luck!


For those that have put in their nominations, you might consider editing your nomination to comport with the new format, so that the community can more easily compare qualifications of the candidates.

1 Like

I was thinking of maybe making one position rotative. Possibly this new one Brantly would free up for one of you guys.
So each year we get to re-elect either the previous nominee or a new one, and Nick and Kevin keep their positions since they’re the ones most familiar with the process, unless reason comes up for the DAO to question their positions.

It will be nice to have at least one director who is not deeply rooted in ENS from the start. I am not entirely against the idea of increasing the number to 5 but I can also see why @berrios.eth is a little conservative on this suggestion due to his legal knowledge and subversions of leadership that could occur from a sudden change in the constitution when there is already a possibility of a leadership hole in shape of Brantly. Might I suggest a community Snapshot vote on this titled ‘Should ENS have 5 directors instead of 3’? Perhaps Brantly even gets to keep his Directorship assuming he has since come to terms with his responsibilities as a leader and pledge to make a change.

Thanks for this detailed explanation! From your nomination post:

Would you be willing to share what position you interviewed for, result of the interview, and any feedback you received?


I think you are fantastic candidate, I think the only reason to increase number of directors to increase degree of decentralisation, we should not be taking anyone on board, just to increase the number. There was a case of Tezos where someone was given legal authority that caused a lot of problems, if someone is a director of ENS foundation that means he is a rock solid well known person, who will not betray the trust of ENS.

The title was Governance Lead, there is a ENS Twitter post about it here:

I’m not sure it would be appropriate to share specifics but I did not receive an offer.

Also, please note I’ve withdrawn my nomination for Director.

Umm, thanks I suppose? :wink:

@AvsA so not only you meet minimum requirements, but you also have great sense of humour! :slight_smile: ENS foundation is in luck! :slight_smile:


Addendum: I only have one thing to add. I will be reducing my full-time (and well-paid) day job to half-time, if elected. I highly doubt that the position of Director of ENS will be equally remunerated but I am committing to it beforehand to show skin in the game. I intend to take the Directorship role seriously.

@AvsA with his background and unique set of skills is a great fit, further i disagree with the the no compensation for first year.

anyone working putting efforts and/or taking risk, shall be compensated in a clear manner, no matter he/she needs that particular income today or not but it is for the benefit of project success, position sovereignty and overall accountability,

We need to discuss (maybe in a separate thread) director compensation structure, salary/benefits adjusted annually as well as all relevant KPIs

Thank you for the time you spent providing this response.

I’d like to propose putting this up for vote on the 21st, including anyone who has nominated themselves in the relevant thread in a Snapshot vote. Any objections?


I would like to see an updated draft proposal before a Snapshot vote goes live. What are we actually voting on here?

There has been no DAO vote yet to remove Brantly from his ENS Foundation Director position, so first that must happen before we proceed to vote on nominees right? Or is this being lumped into one proposal, with one of the options being “none, keep Brantly”?

1 Like

On one hand, putting a Yes/No vote on removing Brantly would make it clearer if people want him removed or not.
But on the other hand, if we lump it up with other options and we don’t reach a quorum decision on which new director to hire, it implies Brantly keeps his position until we do.

Do you think there is some merit to splitting this into two proposals to vote on?

The “Council” is defined as the ENS Tokenholders not the DAO. Per paragraph 15 of The ENS Foundation Articles of Association, the Council has the power to appoint or remove a Director, exercisable by notice to the Foundation. There is no mechanism that the DAO must vote to remove Brantly, before a vote of the ENS Tokenholders. The vote, to be legitimate, must be a two vote process: 1) vote to remove Brantly and then 2) vote to appoint a Director.

Further, vote 1 and 2 should not take place at the same time, if the goal is to keep the Directors at 3, because until there is a result on vote 1, vote 2 should not take place, since there is no vacancy; otherwise, there is a scenario of keeping Brantly and voting for a fourth Director.


Using ranked choice voting, people can express their preferences correctly without the need for multiple votes.

A vote of the DAO is a vote of the ENS tokenholders.

Why do you believe that to be the case?


My answers are from the expressed language in the Foundation’s Articles, and being a legal document, it must be faithfully followed or changed as provided therein (see, paras. 24 and 78).

Rank voting is not referenced in the Articles and has not been voted on by the ENS Tokenholders, as the method of voting. The legal interpretation would be the plain meaning of “vote”, as it is not defined, and “ranked voting” is a special type that goes beyond the plain meaning and would have needed to be expressed in the Articles.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree, because the definition of Council says ENS Tokenholders and not a portion (i.e. DAO), opening up the vote to a challenge.

The language uses “appoint” and “remove” and not “replace.”

I hate to be hypertechnical [I know lawyers], but the ENS Tokenholders have not yet voted to remove Brantly, who has not resigned, so there is a possibility he may not be removed.

All of this can be changed by a vote by the ENS Tokenholders, under paragraph 78 of the Articles, to alter the Articles to address all of these issues.

@berrios.eth @nick.eth @serenae @KingZee

Glad to see a move on this. Since I am drafting the EP6 [Social] so far, I will suggest rewording the proposal to make it bi-functional i.e. EP6 [Constitution] [Social] Removal of a Director of ENS Foundation and the appointment of a substitution Director. It could potentially look something like this:

a) include the constitutional amendments to address the issue of “appoint” vs “replace” vs “remove” first to align with @berrios.eth’s hyper-technicality (although I would argue that remove + appoint = replace is an a fortiori argument). If one was being hyper-critical, without a constitutional amendment, it does seem like a two-vote scenario.

b) a single run-off vote with Brantly Millegan on the ballot along with the other nominees titled ‘Election of new Director to replace Brantly Millegan’. There is no need for a second vote if Brantly is on the ballot. If he garners more votes, he stays. If someone else pips him, they take his position.

Both Social and Constitutional proposals can/may be lumped together since both issue the exact same criteria for passing, although in the correct order. However – this is a big one – if Brantly keeps his role, it will also signal that the constitutional amendment has failed by association; the two results are tied together which is starting to sound weird now that I am typing this. In that case, if there is enough interest in still making that constitutional amendment afterwards, it could go up as a one-off independent constitutional proposal. I am afraid making it two votes trivialises the voting process in a DAO and unnecessary votes should be avoided wherever necessary. Just throwing an idea in there, which has sort of lost its appeal in these last two sentences.