Thanks @ottomorac.eth. Welcome to the ENS community from the W3C. You were savvy to hit on the exact issue here: accountability.
That’s also the key issue with the proposal in this thread. It installs a board that is exclusively selected by ENS Labs to oversee ENS Labs. The ENS DAO theoretically has power over the board, but the ENS DAO is now just ENS Labs. Do you see the problem here? How is this not total power with zero accountability?
Many people love ENS and have worked hard to see it succeed. However all the key metrics for ENS are failing for years. The DAO has it’s problems, but it’s a total mischaracterization to put the primary blame there. The DAO has approved over $50 million in funding requests, but the results are not being delivered.
The solution ENS needs is true accountability to outcomes. With that, all can be turned around. This solution is delivered through the counterproposal with broad community support. The key difference in this counterproposal is to elect a truly independent board of directors tasked to fairly apply universal standards of accountability on all funded teams.
I wonder why ENS Labs is so vigorously against an independent board that would fairly apply standards of accountability for outcomes? That’s an interesting question. Maybe someone could help me understand.