I never made a claim that Nick violated the rules. Your post is a distraction from the real debate.
Does might make right?
According to your logic, ENS is best served if its governance is determined by “might makes right” of a single person / company so long as that “might” was fairly achieved (it has been). By your logic, it’s ok to break with ENS’s historical soul, branding, and narratives of decentralized / independent governance because this total power was fairly achieved and now the outcome is what it is.
What’s best for ENS?
ENS is best served if its governance continues to be decentralized / independent. This doesn’t have to mean status quo. There’s already community consensus for key reforms, including to form a new accountability layer for ENS through a truly independent board of directors staffed exclusively by highly-accomplished industry leaders who support the vision of ENS as foundational internet infrastructure.
The question is, why is @nick.eth and @katherine.eth so ferociously opposed to ENS Labs having real accountability? It would be helpful if they could explain.