Я поддерживаю конституцию.
1 Like
I support these four rules.
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!
I agree with the above rules and hope ENS will become more and more powerful
I totally agree with this proposal it gives significance to the legacy of DNS naming system for owning in terms of naming system. Without tsactificing the decentralization of ENS
1 Like
I also agree, and I think it is a good idea
1 Like
I support the constitution.
Decentralized web3 naming is an important effort worth upholding
2 Likes
This is a relatively good development
2 Likes
Tiendo a pensar que el web3 es la próxima gran revolución tecnológica y por eso estoy muy emocionado de poder formar parte de ese proyecto.Saludos.
3 Likes
We’ve made some minor tweaks to the language of the constitution to reflect some confusion we’ve seen amongst delegates as to the intention of a couple of the articles:
- We changed the title of article I from “Name ownership is an absolute right” to “Name ownership shall not be infringed” 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 “renew” to “extend” 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, that’s right, 100% agree with above rules.
1 Like
My view on each section of the proposed ENS Constitution
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）
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 “incentive mechanism”- 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 ENS’ leadership in this space as we strive towards slaying Moloch.
AGREE: # IV. ENS Integrates with the global namespace
Despite ENS’ 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 ENS’s dominance (read: “ENS maxi”). 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 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）
1 Like
There’s been an enormous amount of positive feedback and engagement here and on Twitter about the constitution, including a number of proposed changes from delegates.
I’d 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, I’ve amended article V, governing amendments, to require a quorum of 1% (formerly 5%). I’d 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 there’s a sense that the initial constitution is ‘locked in’.
One last note: You don’t need to reply here to say you agree with the constitution. To keep this thread readable, I’m 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 there’s a sense that the initial constitution is “done”. But I think it’s 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.
There’s also the issue that we don’t yet know what level of voting participation we’ll get; 5% could be unattainably high, or far too low, for the long run.
4 Likes