AIP: governance-voting - Referendum on Establishing Governance

AIP: governance-voting
Title: Referendum on Establishing Governance
Author: Amir Taaki <amir@dyne.org>
Status: Draft
Type: Process
Created: 2022-02-18

Summary

To begin the next phase of transferring power of AssangeDAO to the community, we should begin the first round of snapshot governance voting.

Details

The focus of the initial round will be on the core questions of:

  • Core mission and focus of the DAO. Whether it should expand focus to the wider cause of justice and liberation or stay a pure Assange DAO.
  • Clarifying the relation of the DAO with the consensus unit.
  • Operation and running of the communication channels.

Motivation

Many people feel that AssangeDAO has achieved a historic sense of purpose with raising $50 million for Assange’s legal case. But the big question of where the DAO wishes to head next remains.

One section believes that the cause of justice is defined above all else by Assange and the DAO must remained focused on this single issue.

Others believe the DAO has a big future fighting for truth and justice, having achieved a great victory with Assange’s case with many more prisoners of conscience and causes of justice remaining unaddressed.

Further there are calls for transparency for the consensus unit and feelings of unilateral decisions made without proper community consultation. There’s also calls for increased transparency and fairer moderation of communication channels.

Remaining Issues

This AIP does not address the important issues of:

  • Voting parameters & mechanisms which must be clarified.
  • Multisig governance and elections.

Proposed Questions

Here are the propsed snapshot questions.

Core Mission

Should the DAO only act to support the legal struggle of Assange or pursue other tactics to liberate Assange?

  • Legal only
  • Other avenues

Should the DAO also concern itself with other prisoners of conscience?

  • Expand mission to justice including Assange
  • Remain focused only on Assange

How much should the DAO remain focused on Assange?

  • Strong
  • Weak

Should the DAO rebrand to JusticeDAO?

  • Yes
  • No

Consensus Unit

What should the consensus unit be called?

  • Assange family
  • Consensus unit
  • Advisory council

What should be the role of the Assange family in the DAO?

  • Normal participants
  • Extended status / limited veto
  • Absolute veto

(In the event of #2 above, there will be another series of votes.
If #3 is voted on, then nothing changes about the current governance structure.)

Should the consensus unit include a quorum of non-family community members to avoid conflicts of interest?

  • Require consensus from a quorum
  • Leave the members of the consensus unit intact

(Method of selection for community members will have to be decided upon later.)

Should the DAO establish a direct line of communication with Assange through his lawyers given its substantial interest in his case?

  • Important requirement
  • Not necessary

Should the DAO request formal reports on the use of donated funds by the Wau Holland foundation?

  • Yes
  • No

Community Moderation

Should moderators be required to apply a system of time-outs, and warnings before being allowed to explicitly ban people?

  • Yes
  • No

Should the DAO adopt a code of conduct to evenly moderate speech in official channels?

  • Yes
  • No

Should all bans be removed upon adopting a code of conduct?

  • Yes
  • No

Should bans be limited in time?

  • Yes
  • No
10 Likes

agree!!+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

This voting needs to happen, and the ability to submit a proposal should be opened to all holders.

  • Whether to add the cancellation of additional issuance of tokens

Will there be too many people. There needs to be a boundary of rights

I think this chapter can temporarily answer your question

1 Like

What should be the role of the Assange family in the DAO?
Normal participants
Extended status / limited veto
Absolute veto

Would be good to clarify this a bit further, I think they merely want veto power only to strike down proposals going forward to avoid proposals which could be legally problematic for Julian. They do not want power to control the DAO, force any proposals, or control the treasury, or achieve personal financial gain in any way.

Also, if there are 3 options and
49% vote option 1
26% vote option 2
25% vote option 3

Since option 2 and 3 are to give power, and it is over 50%, how would that be dealt with?

As stated in the text, depending on the answer given here, there should be a further a round of voting.

Thx for the aip narodnik. Looks fine to me.

I just can imagine that some votings could give more accurate results, if it’d be possible to have more options to choose.

e.g.
Should the DAO only act to support the legal struggle of Assange or pursue other tactics to liberate Assange?

  • Legal only
  • Other avenues
  • Both

What do you think about an additional textbox, if somebody doesn’t agree with all given voting options? Than we could analyze this data for further rounds and get more specific. That would be a bit more work I guess, but also give more accurate data.

以下为中文翻译版本:

概括

将 AssangeDAO 的权力转移到社区,是时候要进入下一阶段了。为了达成这个目标,我们应该开始进行第一轮治理投票。

投票议题

第一轮的重点将放在以下核心问题上:

  • DAO 的核心使命和重点。是否应该将焦点扩大到更广泛的正义和解放事业,或者保持纯粹的阿桑奇 DAO。
  • 明确DAO与共识单元的关系。
  • 社区管理

为什么需要这个投票?

许多人认为,AssangeDAO 为阿桑奇的法律案件筹集了 5000 万美元,实现了历史使命感。但 DAO 下一步希望走向何方的大问题仍然存在。

有一部分认为,阿桑奇首先定义了正义事业,DAO 必须继续关注这一单一问题。

其他人认为,DAO 在争取真相和正义的斗争中有着广阔的未来,在阿桑奇案中取得了巨大的胜利,更多的为正义而奋斗但仍在监狱中的犯人和正义事业仍未得到解决。

此外,人们呼吁共识单位保持透明度,对没有适当社区协商的情况下做出单方面决定有强烈抵触情绪。还有人呼吁提高沟通渠道的透明度和更公平的管理。

其他尚待解决的问题

第一轮的重点将不会放在以下核心问题上:

  • 必须澄清的投票参数和机制。
  • 多重签名治理和选举。

核心投票议题

以下是本轮需要进行投票的核心问题。

核心使命

DAO 是否只应该支持通过法律途径解放阿桑奇,还是也支持采取其他策略来解放阿桑奇?

  • 仅支持法律途径
  • 其他途径也支持

DAO 是否也应该关心其他为了正义而奋斗但被关在监狱中的犯人

  • 扩大对正义的使命,除了解放阿桑奇外也解放其他人
  • 只关注阿桑奇

DAO 应该在多大程度上继续关注阿桑奇?

  • 强烈关注
  • 减少关注

DAO 是否应该更名为 JusticeDAO?

共识单元

共识单元应该叫什么?

  • 阿桑奇一家
  • 共识单元
  • 顾问委员会

阿桑奇家族在 DAO 中应该扮演什么角色?

  • 普通参与者
  • 扩展地位/有限否决权
  • 绝对否决权

(如果采用第二点,将会有另一系列的投票。如果采用第三点,那么当前的治理结构没有任何变化。)

共识单位是否应包括一定人数的非家庭社区成员以避免利益冲突?

  • 是的,需要法定人数的共识(社区成员的选择方法将稍后决定。)
  • 保持当前共识单元成员不变

DAO 是否应该通过他的律师与 Assange 建立直接的沟通渠道,因为大家对案子都很感兴趣?

  • 重要要求
  • 非必要要求

DAO 是否应该要求正式报告 Wau Holland 基金会捐赠资金的使用情况?

社区管理

管理团队在拉黑某个社区成员前,是否应该先通过禁言一段时间和警告予以告示。

DAO 是否应该采用行为准则来公平管理官方频道中的言论?

是否应该在通过行为准则后,取消之前所有的拉黑?

拉黑是否应该有时间限制范围?

2 Likes

Thank you so much for what you did and for uniting the entire community, you are the only reason we are still here and we trust in your leadership

1 Like

治理可以没有,必须有国库。宪法Dao并没有治理,依据市值Top1. 没有国库的治理等于没有面包的爱情,不长久。

除了中国世界上没有一个成功的共产主义国家,是否预示着中国最终要走向消亡?

确实是唯一成功的。毕竟徐州铁链女 这种连朝鲜都不会有。

To clarify on below. The consensus Unit was constituted in the formation of AssangeDAO, based on consultation with Lynn Ulbrickt in her role as part of FreeRossDAO(Advisory Council) and requested by Julian Assange himself.

Its only purpose is to review Assange Improvement Proposals(AIP) to ensure there is a ‘No Harm’ done to Julian Assange or his defense by any proposals that are put up for community vote.

Consensus Unit

What should the consensus unit be called?

  • Assange family
  • Consensus unit
  • Advisory council

What should be the role of the Assange family in the DAO?

  • Normal participants
  • Extended status / limited veto
  • Absolute veto
2 Likes

The Core Mission question is of supreme importance to the future of AssangeDAO and I believe should be put to the community immediately in the simplest form possible.

If AssangeDAO community choose to deviate from the core premise that AssangeDAO was constituted under ‘Free Assange By All Means Necessary’ then the questions on the Advisory Council/Consensus Unit become redundant.
As Julians family we are 100% focused on freeing Julian and we want to support a DAO that is aligned with our goals.

@narodnik can we work together to amend this AIP? and move forward with a clear question on Core Mission only as quickly as possible.

4 Likes

I agree. In my opinion, we can work more efficient as a collective, if we all bundle our power and focus on one common mission. After we finished the goal and Assange is free, than we can concentrate on other missions. Why cooking other soups, if we still didn’t finish the first one? Apart of that we still have the momentum of the Assange-Supporters and family. Let’s use the wind to sail into one common direction, instead of dispersing to several different directions.

As Nils Melzer stated in the article of Morning star: “Julian Assange would be free within days if the mass media ended its “deafening silence” over persecution of the Wikileaks founder”. I personally agree with Mr. Melzer totally. So lets not just get loud… But f*cking loud! :speaking_head::sound::loud_sound::boom:

1 Like

As Nils Melzer stated in the article of Morning star: “Julian Assange would be free within days if the mass media ended its “deafening silence” over persecution of the Wikileaks founder”. I personally agree with Mr. Melzer totally. So lets not just get loud… But f*cking loud!

Sure, but political lobbying brings along other problems, like for example the application of FARA, I need some time to do some research about this, but i encountered problems like this in the past when doing political activities with individuals in an internet collective (Make Your Laws PAC).

FARA is an acronym for the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq. (“FARA” or “the Act”). FARA requires the registration of, and disclosures by, an “agent of a foreign principal” who, either directly or through another person, within the United States (1) engages in “political activities” on behalf of a foreign principal; (2) acts as a foreign principal’s public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee, or political consultant; (3) solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of a foreign principal; or (4) represents the interests of the foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government. In addition, FARA requires agents to conspicuously label “informational materials” transmitted in the United States for or in the interest of a foreign principal. There are some exemptions to FARA’s registration and labeling requirements for specified categories of agents and activities.

FARA is an important tool to identify foreign influence in the United States and address threats to national security. The central purpose of FARA is to promote transparency with respect to foreign influence within the United States by ensuring that the United States government and the public know the source of certain information from foreign agents intended to influence American public opinion, policy, and laws, thereby facilitating informed evaluation of that information. FARA fosters transparency by requiring that persons who engage in specified activities within the United States on behalf of a foreign principal register with and disclose those activities to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is required to make such information publicly available.

WHAT IS THE EXEMPTION FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION?
The legal exemption is triggered once a person, qualified to practice law, engages or agrees to engage in the legal representation of a disclosed foreign principal before any court or agency of the Government of the United States. The exemption is not triggered by an agreement to provide legal representation to further political activities, as defined by FARA, to influence or persuade agency personnel or officials, other than in the course of either judicial proceedings; criminal or civil law enforcement inquiries, investigations, or proceedings; or other agency proceedings required by law to be conducted on the record. The scope of the exemption, once triggered, may include an attorney’s activities outside those proceedings so long as those activities do not go beyond the bounds of normal legal representation of a client within the scope of that matter.

If our attempt to influence the freedom of Assange falls under political lobbying and a possible persecution through FARA, than we all can go home and shut up, not sharing a single word about injustice. Expressing our opinion and demands is part of the first amendment, so how can our actions lead to problems with FARA, or did I misunderstand your reply?

Yes please propose any changes and we can edit the main text.

1 Like