[Proposal] AIP-XX: Vote on the Future of the Consensus Unit Veto Power

General
1

1. Summary

This proposal asks the AssangeDAO community to decide whether the Consensus Unit veto power should remain, be modified, or be removed. The veto was originally established to protect Julian Assange’s interests and ensure that the DAO’s actions remained aligned with his values.

Since Julian Assange has now regained his freedom, community members have differing views on whether this veto mechanism is still necessary. This proposal provides the community with three voting options to determine the future governance structure regarding the veto.

2. Context & Motivation

The veto power was introduced at the formation of AssangeDAO to:

  • Safeguard Julian Assange’s safety, reputation, and legal situation.

  • Ensure that the DAO’s proposals and decisions remain aligned with his values.

Today, the community holds differing opinions:

  1. Some believe the veto was only necessary while Julian was imprisoned.

  2. Others think the veto remains an important safeguard against mission drift.

  3. Some believe only Julian himself ,not family members should hold veto authority.

A clear community decision is now required to define whether the veto mechanism should continue, be modified, or be fully removed.

3. Proposal Details

Voting Options (select one):

Option Description
Option 1: Keep veto power unchanged The current Consensus Unit veto remains as is.
Option 2: Remove family veto power, keep Assange veto Only Julian Assange may exercise veto power; family members cannot exercise veto.
Option 3: Remove veto power entirely No individual or group holds veto rights; Snapshot votes become final authority.

Implementation Notes:

  • Option 1: No changes; governance remains as currently structured.

  • Option 2: Update governance documents to reflect Julian-only veto; establish verification process for Julian’s authorization if needed.

  • Option 3: Remove veto references from governance documents; Snapshot votes become binding.

4. Risks & Mitigation

Risk Mitigation
Mission drift if veto removed Strengthen the DAO mission statement; establish a non-veto Values Steward group to provide guidance.
Centralization if veto kept Require public transparency and explanation whenever veto is exercised.

5. Alignment with Mission

This proposal does not alter AssangeDAO’s mission or values. It ensures that governance structure regarding veto rights is clearly defined, aligned with current community sentiment, and continues to support Julian’s principles.

6. Governance Notes

  • The proposal does not affect the DAO’s broader governance mechanisms beyond veto power.

  • The Consensus Unit retains its role where applicable; any future adjustments to veto rights must be made via separate Snapshot proposal.

  • Ensures continuity and clarity in DAO decision-making processes.

2

Now what we need is not further discussion, but to implement the consensus we’ve built over the past six months.

Special thanks to proactive contributors like Zylo and Logan within the team

great job! Talk is cheap,Keep driving forward with this positive action.

3

Good, we should also clarify the members (Just Gabriel and Stella, Assange’s wife I believe).

Also we must clarify if we choose that sole veto power rests with Assange himself, that in case he is incapacitated (Severe illness, imprisoned or passes away) that the veto power moves to Stella and Gabriel (until another community vote to remove it).

And we should not put this up for vote until the mission has been clarified. For example if the DAO chooses to move away from Assange focused mission, it makes sense to absolutely remove the consensus unit entirely. Or if the DAO remains Assange focused + Assange value focused, it may make sense (to me at least), to change the veto power to be solely on Assange.

4

The proposal is excellent. This has been a focus of attention for months. G has been elected by the community as Assange’s DAO’s multiple signatory and has entered the core of community building. The previous consensus unit was established in the context of rescuing Mr. Assange. Now that Mr. Assange is free and the community’s mission has been accomplished, the consensus unit should be dissolved, which is beneficial to the community’s development. We should move forward.