[bisq-network/proposals] Decentralize and eliminate the Domain Name Owner and DNS Admin roles (#211)

[Chris Beams]

> _This is a Bisq Network proposal. Please familiarize yourself with the [submission and review process](https://docs.bisq.network/proposals.html)._

The [Domain Name Owner](bisq-network/roles#77) and [DNS Admin](bisq-network/roles#18) roles are problematic because they centralize control over most Bisq-related domain names. This approach was pragmatic in Bisq's early days, but is no longer appropriate today under the DAO. I propose that we eliminate these roles in favor of handing over ownership and control of each active domain to the operator of each respective web property. Doing so will allow operators to act with greater autonomy and will further general decentralization goals. It is also important to do this because @ManfredKarrer is currently paying for most of the domain renewals, and he has stepped away from the project. These domains should be owned by active contributors responsible for operating the respective web properties.

We are already taking this more decentralized approach with the bisq.wiki domain. @wiz is the current owner of the [Wiki Operator](bisq-network/roles#92) role, and as such he is responsible for paying for renewals of the domain name and managing its DNS (see https://github.com/bisq-network/wiki/issues/7).

Likewise, we have decentralized the ownership of Bisq explorer URLs. There is a lightweight redirect in place at markets.bisq.network that routes the user to, e.g. bsq.emzy.de, bsq.vante.me and other domains owned and operated by individual owners of the [BSQ Explorer Operator](bisq-network/roles#11) role.

The checklist below lays out how all active or once-active Bisq-related domains currently managed by the Domain Name Owner and DNS Admin roles should be transferred.

- [ ] bisq.network => Website Operator/Maintainer (bisq-network/roles#12)
- [ ] bitsquare.io => Website Operator/Maintainer
- [ ] bisq.io => Website Operator/Maintainer

The following is a list of domain names that were never active but were purchased in order to reserve them. It is less important to transfer these. These domains can continue to be owned by @ManfredKarrer if he so chooses. Perhaps certain among them can be let to expire, or perhaps some of them should be transfered, e.g. to the Website Operator/Maintainer. Feedback welcome on what we should do with these.

- bisq.co
- bisq.exchange
- bisq.foundation
- bisq.market
- bisq.org
- bitsquare.info

Also:

- [ ] @cbeams to make @m52go owner of Netlify bisq-network team so he is in full control of the platform that serves the bisq.network website, and @cbeams to remove @ManfredKarrer. @cbeams to remain a 2nd owner there as a secondary for @m52go.

Regarding bonding, the Domain Name Owner and DNS Admin roles do require bonding, but have never actually had bonds posted. That is indeed the impetus for my creating this proposal now. I own these roles, but I believe they should be eliminated, so I don't want to post bonds for them. I believe we can rely on existing bonds for existing operator roles, e.g. Website Operator/Maintainer role already has a 50K BSQ bond, and that bond can simply encompass the ownership of the domain names and DNS management.

When these actions are complete:

- [ ] Eliminate the Domain Name Owner role
- [ ] Eliminate the DNS Admin role

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/211
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20200414/0d4b5066/attachment.html>