I was going through the documents, pretty interesting read if you ask me
It appears, that there is a fairly strong case here, although common sense tells me that avoiding courts is always a good idea
I would vote:
1 - YES 2 - YES 3 - NO 4 - YES
There is no doubt that True Names is acting in the best interest of protocol. Frankly I don’t see how is this a problem, that it wasn’t disclosed sooner - so there was a situation, True Names was stuck within the process, what else is there to discuss. It is what it is.
Total cost comes to 1mUSD, but that is not unheard of in the industry and in fact, not the largest amount. Some precedents:
It appears, that it’s just cheaper to cover the cost and move on. In addition I think it’s a good thing that True Names made all this effort to fight the case. Let’s say they’ve choosen not to fight the case, and not to spend all this money - what do you think would’ve happened then? The circumstances could’ve been way worse.
In my opinion it is optimal to cover 1mUSD rather than fight the case and blow a couple of more millions on the air.
hmmm ok. i tried it and it works. not exactly intuitive or clear tho that this is an option. seems strange we’re doing a vote where voting “no to everything” is this unclear
RE litigation costs: I actually remember @khori.eth talking about costs associated with securing eth.link back in August (minutes here) as part of the Labs 2022 Financial Breakdown (linked here). Can’t imagine it’s been an easy process so I’m glad to see light at the end of a long tunnel here.
I am voting YES to reimburse labs for the legal cost. Getting to settlement has probably meant endless nights and hours spent on this case - kudos to Labs + legal counsel for getting to this result. I will be approving the settlement as well.
Continuing litigation at this stage will no doubt only lead to more hours + cost spent on this case, without a necessary guarantee of a better outcome for Labs.
To that end, my voting choices will be YES to 1, 2, and 4, and NO to 3.
I don’t think that manifold’s bad actor behaviour should be rewarded in this case. I do recognize that legal costs have gathered and at this point something needs to be done.
So I voted for:
Do you approve the proposed settlement? - No
Do you approve of offering a compromise amount? - Yes
Do you approve of continuing the litigation? - Yes
Do you approve reimbursing ENS labs for its legal expenses involved in pursuing this case? - Yes
To explain a bit. If the people who are involved in the litigation feel they can continue and there is a good chance of a positive outcome they should feel free to do it.
The settlement should not reward manifold for their behavior. If at all try to find a smaller compromise.
ENS Labs should be reimbursed for the costs they have so far covered from pocket in their fight for eth.link.
With regard to the aforementioned, I am concerned that agreeing to a settlement would set a bad precedent and embolden other litigious actors to file suit. I doubt this will be the last instance when ENS faces scrutiny or legal risk.
I recommend that Labs prepare by developing a strategy to deal with similar situations in the future. Litigation is not only a burden but also a distraction that diverts energy and resources away from pursuing worthwhile goals.
Optimally, they should promptly communicate this strategy, to the extent they deem necessary, while ensuring it does not prove disadvantageous to their approach.
This vote has now closed. Fire Eyes chose not to vote on this proposal as we believe it was incorrectly structured. Given the 3 dependencies (discussed in previous replies above) none of the votes mattered if the reimbursement wasn’t approved.
This is in addition to issues around the explicit wording of “options receive a majority (50%) of approving votes will be enacted”, when the voting framework made it very difficult to vote against any individual decision (multi-choice approval voting).
It’s our position that Labs should continue on whatever path they believe is best in this situation - hopefully settling with Manifold to re-acquire eth.link. The final legal costs can then be calculated and a proposal can be made about the reimbursement of labs for these legal costs, something Fire Eyes will fully support.
The legal defense of ENS, it’s technology, IP and assets is of huge importance and the Labs team are clearly in the best position to do this, however bringing this current case to light at the same time that decisions are posed to the DAO about asset acquisition and legal reimbursement combined into a convoluted proposal is not the ideal path forward.
These are unprecedented decisions that the DAO has to manage alongside Labs and after talking to multiple delegates we want to make sure we’re able to set things up in a purposeful and precedent-setting way.
I decided to abstain from voting because of the reasons mentioned before.
I would vote to approve the proposed settlement and reimbursement for ENS Labs. A lot has already been spent on the process, so it’s worth finishing it asap and accepting the offer. If this offer had no previous costs, I’d prefer not to reward bad actors.
I voted yes to all 4, basically Labs (with advice of counsel) is in the best position to make the best decision with respect to the litigation.
A little insight, over 90% of all litigation will result in settlement. Here in Florida I think it’s actually closer to 97% these days.
Settlement is a good thing, it allows the parties to save time, money and have a guaranteed outcome acceptable to all parties. As the saying goes anything can happen at trial.
For those concerned about “rewarding” bad behavior with a $300K settlement to Manifold, it may help to reframe it as follows…
Whether or not you think they did anything wrong, they acquired a domain name for ~$800K which anyone could have acquired. They are not a party to the current lawsuit, but they may have legal rights and a claim with respect to the domain which could potentially be brought against GoDaddy, ENS, or both. The actual parties to the case are ready to settle, but because of the issue of third-party rights they desire to secure a release (the “global settlement”).
I’d imagine if the shoe were on the other foot folks wouldn’t be as quick to waive their legal rights without adequate consideration.
$300K is a small price to pay considering a potential second lawsuit, and associated costs, hanging over Labs’ head like the Sword of Damocles.
I hope everyone can view this litigation as what it really is, historic and a good outcome. The reason we study history is so we can learn from it and hopefully avoid repeating mistakes of the past. It’s clear from the comments, one lesson learned by many is that litigation is time consuming, costly and should be avoided when possible, but some of the comments overlook the proposed global settlement applies this lesson by securing release from a non-party to the lawsuit avoiding the potential expense of future litigation which likely exceeds the proposed settlement amount.
