Agree with everything in the original post. Excited to grow and learn with all of you!
1 Like
What are some examples of āother public goodsā? Iām trying to gain a better understanding of the ENS governance system.
1 Like
Totally agree. I will follow the target
dear brantly/ENS core team,
gratefully Iāve just seen a voting for assigning remained ENS tokens to part of community who missed 2x chance, hereby Iām asking for another offer/vote as well for those who registered their ENS after airdrop, since after such a big announcement thereās not been chance of hunting and these kind of community members are real users.
I agree with the constitution and welcome
1 Like
I agree with all the rules , new to the space ,but after reading everything i believe it will help the progress of ENS
I agree with all; think I did before but agreeing again
I also support 100 % to the rules and guidelines of our official Community.
Like my statusā¦ i start following this etherscan ans i start August 2017 and i always monitor my earn tokenā¦ but unfortunately still stuck and i cant transfer and withdraw my earning Commission until nowā¦ you can email me in my address.
leveriza_1622@yahoo.com
My user name: rodgz1622
I will check my account address hoping this is one of my lost account addressā¦
Thank you.
Best Regards everyone,
rodgz1622
Roger Leveriza
1 Like
Agreed to all the rules
1 Like
Wnating to learn more and benefits from this project. Very good work
1 Like
[quote=ājtnichol, post:54, topic:814, full:trueā]
- Name ownership is an absolute right: (Agree)
- Registration fees exist as an incentive mechanism: (Agree)
- Income funds ENS and other public goods: (Agree)
- ENS Integrates with the global namespace: (Agree)
[/quote] * Name ownership is an absolute right: (Agree) - Registration fees exist as an incentive mechanism: (Agree)
- Income funds ENS and other public goods: (Agree)
- ENS Integrates with the global namespace: (Agree)
2 Likes
I agree with all the rules
1 Like
I agree to all of these rules and support the DAO for
- Name ownership is an absolute right: (Agree)
- Registration fees exist as an incentive mechanism: (Agree)
- Income funds ENS and other public goods: (Agree/Disagree)
- ENS Integrates with the global namespace: (Agree)
2 Likes
- Name ownership is an absolute right: (Agree)
- Registration fees exist as an incentive mechanism: (Agree)
- Income funds ENS and other public goods: (Agree/Disagree)
- ENS Integrates with the global namespace: (Agree)
Excited to apart of this journey !!!
1 Like
I agree with these four rules.
1 Like
Unable to see any salient issues. Agree.
I disagree with Article IV unless it is amended to explicitly provide guidance to what incumbent rights an owner of example.com (as an example, not the specific case) has with respect to example.eth, especially if example.eth has already been registered.
I disagree and cannot support this article if it bestows icann (.com) domain owners with innate and superseding ownership rights to .eth domain names.
As interpretated, Article IV conflicts with Article I, by allowing for invalidating already attained .eth names and burning of valid smart contracts, to adversely descriminate in favor of corporate entities as a first class citizen to the individuals of a second class. Much of the community would not consider this outcome to be āfairā per Article I.
To allow this upends the tenets for decentralization and DAOs, and makes this governence a puppet-proxy to the federated icann policies and will result in the adoption and enforcement of external legal precedent that early adopters, users, and stakeholders were not informed of nor were they prohibited from investing in the purchase of naming rights that will now be subject to invalidation. Further, there would need to be a codified procedure to repay these early adopters for the usurpation of their property through this form of eminent domain.
If an asymmetrical legal imbalance takes form, where these aggrieved parties cannot seek legal action against this DAO for damages incurred due to the policy decisions by the DAO, yet legal tenets from outside the DAO have by-proxy standing to invalidate or take-back ownership of assets purchased in a procedurally valid manner before the policy changeā¦ 1) This is not effective governence 2) Community trust will be irrevocably damaged.
If parties may seek legal restitution, the endowment of this DAO and any value propositions and fiscal operating basis will need to account for future risks of debt derived from the procedural costs of litigation; and/or costs to resolve, or sponsor impartial arbitration of claims.
Further, this course of governence will erode the market price of current highly valued names, cast doubt onto the validity of current .eth name holders and perspective purchasers, and cause the abandonment of the eth domain by early adopters and stakeholders. The result will be an extension of icann and federated web/web2.0 interests and legacy legalities from a system with ingrained inequities poisoning this project and ecosystem.
5 Likes