ENS name:
adamscochran.eth
My reasons for wanting to be a delegate:
I strongly believe that the success of web3 is contingent, long term, on open, user owned, public goods protocols.
I think far to often in this space this is conflated with user-profiting protocols, and that it becomes a slippery slope for any DAO to over optimize its behaviors to be ones that benefit the near-term value captured by voters rather than protecting the long-term integrity of a protocol.
For this reason, protocols need delegates who passionately and philosophically believe in the merits of the system and its goals, who have the capacity to be involved, and who have the understanding of process and governance to carry the responsibility of those delegated votes.
As someone with deep passion for the web3 space, CCNA networking academy experience and an all around governance addict, I believe I can well represent the overall goals of the ENS system on the basis of its principles rather than any short term agenda that may be pursued by a tyranny of the majority.
My view on each section of the proposed ENS Constitution
- Name ownership is an absolute right: (Agree/Disagree/Comment)
Agreed.
Anyone should have the absolute and inalienable right to buy and use an ENS name and there should not be restrictions ever enacted upon the use and exercise of that domain name, nor any changes that target specific holders.
The only exceptions I could see existing would be in the case of anything that creates a risk to the system or results in criminal actions or abuse.
I am also do not see diverse pricing models infringing on this right, as I believe the right is to own a name space the represents you, your company, your DAO etc. I think inverse scaled pricing that increases the price on a curve if you own 50+ names could be a way to end long term squatting without harming the ownership rights of individuals or entities, and ensuring namespaces are still economically acessible.
- Registration fees exist as an incentive mechanism: (Agree/Disagree/Comment)
Somewhat agree.
While I agree that the primary goal of registrations fees is as an incentive, and that ENS should strictly be a non-profit public good, I do not think that such a harsh stance on income fees should be taken.
Being a core and critical component of web3 infrastructure the DAO should not simply have the bare minimal revenue to maintain funding, but needs to have sufficient reserve capital for unseen and unexpected circumstances, as well as to remain competitive in attracting and retaining critical talent.
I think any fee generating activity should be limited in scope and scale but that revenue generation that is for the health, security and longevity of the system is acceptable.
This must be balanced with considerations for equal access to those in regions without robust economic access, as web3 should not discriminate nor create economic fast-lanes.
- Income funds ENS and other public goods: (Agree/Disagree/Comment)
Strongly agree.
The ENS funds are wholly public goods. They should not be used for anyone’s personal enrichment.
ENS fund allocation should primarily be to:
-ENS itself.
-Other non-profits/public goods in time of excess.
I can see an argument that there may be rare exceptional cases wherein a grant going to a private entity (such as security audits) or a key integration may be merited when it encourages the adoption of ENS or helps preserve the health, security or longevity of the protocol.
In any such case, the specific spending of those funds must solely be allocated to endeavors that represent and reinforce the values of ENS, should be publicly auditable and should be voted on separately from any standard funding.
- ENS Integrates with the global namespace: (Agree/Disagree/Comment)
Strongly agree.
This is a critical long term component for the broader adoption of the .eth namespace and for web3 in general and it is paramount that ENS is a respectful player in the global namespace.
I also agree with the view that ENS should not create new namespaces unless granted them by DNS naming authorities. However, I strongly believe that ENS should directly and proactively pursue this authority, as I believe the current model of name registrar administration is highly broken and simply a value extraction layer ontop of ICANN that is entirely unnecessary.
My web3 qualifications / skills:
- CCNA Networking academy with [outdated] experience in IT, deeply familiar with DNS and classic namespace.
- Decent at Solidity and made an unmaintained friendly fork of ENS, so I know how the technical system works from top to bottom.
- Experienced crypto/web3 investor, involved in the space since 2013.
- Gitcoin DAO delegate.
- Undergrad Philosophy (which has only ever been relevant in protocol governance discussions), MBA and now an adjunct professor focused on business analysis and information science.
- Experience in policy and lobbying.
- Spend my full time involved in protocols because this is what I love.
)