Proposed ENS Constitution

I. Name ownership is an absolute right(Agree)
II. Registration fees exist as an incentive mechanism(Agree)
III. Income funds ENS and other public goods(Agree)
IV. ENS Integrates with the global namespace(Agree)

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 it’s not native)

“ENS governance should grant control of a top-level domain to its owner in the DNS system on request.”

I hope I understand it correctly and I read this as in case a company owning let’s say fb.com wasn’t 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, let’s 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.

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. The claim will be voted on by the delegates of the DAO after reviewing the proof from the two claiming parts
3 Likes

I believe it’s 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.

3 Likes

This was my understanding as well but I’m seeing different interpretations here. Could we get clarification or better wording on IV?

6 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

Agree with all 4 rules. I also really like the idea around ENS reinvesting back into the community for the development of other necessary public goods.

3 Likes

NO>

That goes against the original vision of #crypto.

Not your keys not your Crypto.

We don’t want ENS naming become like WWW naming.

As in centralized.

3 Likes

No doubt, that ENS and the DAO space have developed enough that now is the right time to award ENS governance over to the community via the creation of a DAO and the $ENS governance token. The only DAO governance is right solution at this time.
Transparency is key of blockchain compare to traditional web domain.
Its fair enough that majority vote amedment to this constitution.
I find those 4 rules is accaptble for present. I Agreed

3 Likes

What will be the future application scenarios of ENS?

2 Likes

I agree with four items. It is not necessary to give incentives to the community and developers in order to work with interest. However, the fact that the token value has risen too much and a large amount of money is required to change the domain is a mess. I think that it is a function that will definitely be required in web3.0, so I think that many people will be interested in it. It is important to get more people interested in the price setting that is easy to enter.

2 Likes
  • Name ownership shall not be infringed: (Agree)
  • Fees are primarily an incentive mechanism: (Agree)
  • Income funds ENS and other public goods: (Agree)
  • ENS Integrates with the global namespace: (Agree)
1 Like

I agree ,it’s so strong

1 Like

I would like to propose following discussion points:
a. sub domain levels. e.g., how many levels of subs can exist.
b. sub domain transaction anonymity. e.g. whether some sub domain transactions can be anonymous.
c. define a funding range (target, limit) on ENS integration to global namespace.

Not having any specific ideas or directions on these, but just thought these points would be worth discussing in the future and maybe come into written down format.

Thank you. Love ETH.

2 Likes

First of all, thanks for an airdrop and all!

Just claimed my token and saw for the first time the Constitution. Stucked at " III. Income funds ENS and other public goods" and ended up rejecting it. Not sure where to start the discussion so I’ll write here.

First of all and most important it sounds contradicting itself: first it says: “Funds <…> may be used to fund other public goods within web3 <…>” and later: " Permissible : ENS governance may offer grant funding for a public good unrelated to ENS or Ethereum".

So what it this, within web3 and unrelated to Ethereum (or ENS) at the same time? As ENS is an Ethereum Name System, and a smart-contract on Ethereum, this sounds contradicting.

And second I think that “grant funding for a public good unrelated to ENS or Ethereum” is dangerous. Why should this be possible? I mean what is the purpose of such possability? To be able to fund something unrelated? It could be an ok paragrath for voting but looks like too specificially permissive for the fist legal document (and then the description should be reworded).

I think that wording in the description is ok, but this “Permissible” example just brings contradictions and highly controversal an it own.

2 Likes

I agree with these four rules.
I look forward to the reliable expansion of the ENS ecosystem.

1 Like

I agree with the applicable provisions I hope that ENS is more advanced and develops rapidly compared to the others I have read everything and I really agree and I am happy about it

2 Likes

Community governance is very important, and our own problems also need to be solved

2 Likes

I agree with the above rules and hope ENS will become more and more powerful :heart_eyes:

2 Likes

I. Name ownership is an absolute right(Permissible)
II. Registration fees exist as an incentive mechanism(Permissible)
III. Income funds ENS and other public goods(Permissible)
IV. ENS Integrates with the global namespace(Permissible)
V. Amendments to this constitution by majority vote(Permissible)

I support the joining conditions of all DAO members that I have seen so far, because the prerequisite for choosing ENS and blockchain is to have absolute consensus and trust.
I applied to become a member of the DAO because of unconditional trust and consensus in the blockchain. At the same time, our community also has to learn and make more interesting blockchain links to support liquidity and more charity and feedback in real life

2 Likes
  1. Name ownership is an absolute right: (Agree)
  2. Registration fees exist as an incentive mechanism: (Agree)
    
  3. Income funds ENS and other public goods: (Agree)
    
  4. ENS Integrates with the global namespace: (Agree)
1 Like