Appreciate the detailed response, @mikemetagov.
On the Master Plan — point taken. My concern wasn’t with the concept, but with the risk of a standing design body that adds process before the process is validated. Your framing of it as a “clear threshold of accountability for all ENS stakeholders” is actually the stronger argument.
What I am advocating for, and what I think your co-creation proposal in the modification thread resolves, is the sequencing. The Master Plan shouldn’t be developed in a vacuum by the research team and handed to the DAO; it should be developed by the representative advisory body you’ve now proposed, informed by the research. That distinction matters for legitimacy.
On transparency infra and delegate accountability — agreed. The silos problem is real, and one I’ve explored in research elsewhere. The gap is that none of the existing tools are integrated or treated as canonical.
That’s a design problem an advisory body is primed to solve.