Tiendo a pensar que el web3 es la prĆ³xima gran revoluciĆ³n tecnolĆ³gica y por eso estoy muy emocionado de poder formar parte de ese proyecto.Saludos.
3 Likes
Weāve made some minor tweaks to the language of the constitution to reflect some confusion weāve seen amongst delegates as to the intention of a couple of the articles:
- We changed the title of article I from āName ownership is an absolute rightā to āName ownership shall not be infringedā to clarify that this is a negatve right - the right not to have your name taken off you, not an entitlement to a name.
- We changed the title and some of the text of article II to clarify that it does not intend to enforce any particular fee system, but rather that fees (if any) should be used primarily to regulate name ownership.
- We changed mentions of ārenewā to āextendā to reflect the language ENS uses elsewhere.
You can see the edits by clicking the pencil icon in the top right of the post.
5 Likes
Yes, thatās right, 100% agree with above rules.
1 Like
My view on each section of the proposed ENS Constitution
I. Name ownership is an absolute rightļ¼Permissibleļ¼
II. Registration fees exist as an incentive mechanismļ¼Permissibleļ¼
III. Income funds ENS and other public goodsļ¼Permissibleļ¼
IV. ENS Integrates with the global namespaceļ¼Permissibleļ¼
V. Amendments to this constitution by majority voteļ¼Permissibleļ¼
1 Like
Yes, I agree with all above rules, 100% confirmed.
1 Like
Reposted at: ENS DAO Delegate Applications - #890 by nettra
GREETINGS FRENS
How incredible to see this new development in the ENS Ecosystem!
I see ENS as critical for efficient, equitable and enjoyable interactions in Web3 going forward.
What is great about Web3 is the ability for individuals to truly own their assets. Beyond financial assets, what is critical for p2p interaction is a clear, yet flexible identity protocol. ENS offers an invaluable service to the Web3 community. Having accessible, effective and prestigious pseudonymous identifiers will be critical to our interactions going forward.
These are my stances on the following points.
AGREE: # I. Name ownership shall not be infringed
Web3 marks a break from Web2 practices. Big Tech and even well-meaning governments try to impose some standardized link between IRL and URL identifiers. I believe that choice and design of ENS names and ENS domains shoudl be up to the individual. We need to continue to protect this choice and this right to our digital property/asset. It is essential that ENS defends this accessible, equitable public service and resists against purely profit-motivated identifiers.
AGREE: # II. Fees are primarily an incentive mechanism
We see this in Web2 and in some low-gas Web3 protocols. No fee leads to more noise and spam. ENS should continue to collect fees to guide the right kind of behaviors that we want to see on the platform. ENS should also be willing to reconsider their fee structure to enable the kinds of behaviors we want to see going forward. We may also want to (very carefully!) consider scholarship programs or their equivalent when necessary. That is what I understand with this phrasing āincentive mechanismā- that is tied to the behavior we want to see (more optimal); not a way to make our overall experience in Web3 less optimal. This is critical for ENS to pioneer as we have seen many Web2 (and even some Web3) companies become distracted by non-essential revenue streams and forget their key purpose.
AGREE: # III. Income funds ENS and other public goods
ENS understands what they do well and carefully considers any new additional services and features. I believe that this is the way. It would also be helpful to have an innovation/R&D/experimental set of activities that are funded by ENS in the spirit of developing necessary public goods. I am grateful for ENSā leadership in this space as we strive towards slaying Moloch.
AGREE: # IV. ENS Integrates with the global namespace
Despite ENSā great leadership in this space, it does not act alone and it is also not the oldest identifying system. This last point is critical in the ENS constitution because it prevents us from becoming too tunnel focused on ENSās dominance (read: āENS maxiā). As a public good provider, ENS must believe in a pluralistic world where different identifiers will exist. The goal of ENS is not to dominate the space but to improve the space as much as possible. If an existing protocol exists, it behooves ENS and the entire community to respect interoperability, rather than to refuse to cooperate. I particularly like this clause and agree with it wholeheartedly.
AGREE: # V. Amendments to this constitution by majority vote
Our community will evolve, as will the Web3 space. As forward-thinking as these clauses are; we may have forgotten something. This last clause is critical to ensure that the community has a way to alert builders on anything that they have overlooked/may be overlooking as we continue to create in this space.
My Web-3 Qualifications
- I understand the process through which new technology is commercialized is funded. I understand the threats that different revenue models and market pressures pose to community-driven goals.
It is my day job, received my PhD from Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and teach at Bayes Business School currently
I have supported different (crypto) ventures and venture accelerator programs, acting as a director and advisor (for startup), judge (for startup competitions) j
- I am excited about the possibility of Web3 to help us rebuild industries the way they should have been built the first time: that is, with inclusion and diversity as a key element.
In order to achieve the above, I hosted 19 consecutive episodes of Crypto Beyond Currency interviewing a pioneer in the crypto space (including Makoto Inoue/ENS, Jiho Zirlin/Axie, Jehan Chu/Kenetic, Alexandra Berto-Gilles/Aave and others).
I am currently working on my next thing, but you can see resources collected so far at crypto.nettra.club and cryptobeyondcurrency.club.
1 Like
I agree
DAO is the future, and the future means that new rules are needed to help DAO and Web3.0 achieve better.
1 Like
AgreeYes, I agree with all above rules, 100% confirmed
1 Like
I. Name ownership is an absolute rightļ¼Permissibleļ¼
II. Registration fees exist as an incentive mechanismļ¼Permissibleļ¼
III. Income funds ENS and other public goodsļ¼Permissibleļ¼
IV. ENS Integrates with the global namespaceļ¼Permissibleļ¼
V. Amendments to this constitution by majority voteļ¼Permissibleļ¼
1 Like
Thereās been an enormous amount of positive feedback and engagement here and on Twitter about the constitution, including a number of proposed changes from delegates.
Iād really like to see delegates have an opportunity to come to agreement on any changes to the constitution, or additional articles, and right after launch when the attention is the greatest is the best time for us to deliberately sit down and say what we think the spirit of our community is.
To facilitate this, Iāve amended article V, governing amendments, to require a quorum of 1% (formerly 5%). Iād like to see the DAO amend this back to a higher percentage (the exact value will probably depend on our experience with the early days of the DAO) once thereās a sense that the initial constitution is ālocked inā.
One last note: You donāt need to reply here to say you agree with the constitution. To keep this thread readable, Iām going to start deleting comments that are substanceless.
3 Likes
Even 5% consensus seems like a frighteningly low threshold for constitutional changes. Is there a way to integrate a polling/voting system that is more visible? (Some type of thread that ties in from the registrar &/or twitter poll) A banner notifying of changes could possibly have the same effect and enhance engagement.
2 Likes
Definitely - and I think the DAO should amend the threshold to be much higher once thereās a sense that the initial constitution is ādoneā. But I think itās important to give delegates an opportunity to debate what our community should look like in its early days before the bar is raised much higher to ensure its continuity.
Thereās also the issue that we donāt yet know what level of voting participation weāll get; 5% could be unattainably high, or far too low, for the long run.
4 Likes
I hope this not a naĆÆve question, what economic benefit would token holders receive?
If I understand Section III. Income funds ENS and other public goods then we would first use all funds to extend the longevity of the ENS system, and I am all for it.
Will there be opportunities to payout dividends to ENS DAO tokenholders with excess reserves? If so, would each dividend need to have a voting process in place? I am curious since I am interested in running a valuation analysis on ENS per token.
4 Likes
I understand, but it seems prudent to me that if we all do inherently believe this to be the building blocks of not only the DAO itself, but at some level contributing to an ETH based WEB3.0 overall scale wonāt be the issue.
I get itās temporary and Iām not a delegate or applying to be, but I think if thereās more engagement retained from the main app then that shouldnāt need to be touched.
I get there are other platforms for interested parties to engage in discussion and such regarding the project, but IMO for all 80 something applicants (at last look), there should be at least some other person replying to you on the internally hosted discussion forums that they wish to help construct. Especially with respect to the gravitas of your proposition.
3 Likes
ENS is intended to be a not-for-profit public good. Section III - and the Foundationās charter - prohibit it from paying out dividends to tokenholders.
4 Likes
I. Name ownership is an absolute rightļ¼Agreeļ¼
II. Registration fees exist as an incentive mechanismļ¼Agreeļ¼
III. Income funds ENS and other public goodsļ¼Agreeļ¼
IV. ENS Integrates with the global namespaceļ¼Agreeļ¼
Just agree all rulesmand hope web3 will change our Internet. Future is web3 and metaverse, and ENS is important with our vision!
2 Likes
As a newbie in this space, I have a question for IV. (Pardon my English as itās not native)
āENS governance should grant control of a top-level domain to its owner in the DNS system on request.ā
I hope I understand it correctly and I read this as in case a company owning letās say fb.com wasnāt early enough to register fb.eth. and it was taken by someone else, the DAO may grant ownership to fb.eth to the owner of fb.com upon request?
As there are numerous dns domains that could be owned by smaller companies with similar names, letās say fb.co.uk or fb.se was in fact not owned by the same owner as fb.com, how would the DAO decide/rule in a case where there is already legitimate ownership of fb.eth?
Right now, I think this rule is to vague and opens up a lot of questions.
I suggest a clarification of this rule with maybe a few requirements that needs to be verified in case a top domain owner in dns claims ownership to .eth.
I.e.
- The claim need to be documented with:
A. a proof of ownership of dns domain AND
B. a legitimate cause of ownership to ens domain - The registered owner of ens domain needs to provide proof of a legitimate cause of ownership by:
A. proof of registered company with ownership of a corresponding dns domain AND/OR
B. a legitimate cause of ownership to ens domain - The claim will be voted on by the delegates of the DAO after reviewing the proof from the two claiming parts
4 Likes
I believe itās referring to registrars. A top-level domain is the suffix in the legacy DNS. As in .com .net .app etc. My understanding of IV was that it will grant registrars the ability administer their already contracted regisitries via the IANA/ICANN.
I could be wrong though, so yes more clarification is in order.
4 Likes
This was my understanding as well but Iām seeing different interpretations here. Could we get clarification or better wording on IV?
5 Likes
The launch of ENS DAO will be a major move in history, which will promote the faster and better development of ETH and the ecosystem, and will have a positive and far-reaching impact on the future
3 Likes