---
# System prepended metadata

title: ENS Article 0 statement of intent

---

# ENS Article 0 statement of intent


Goals:

* to capture the existing spirit and social consensus around the type of community ENS is trying to be, and articulate the relationship the new mechanisms being introduced have to that, even beyond any specifical mechanical process for how to implement them.
* to articulate some difference between tokens as a method of expressing community consensus and as a way of defining it
* to provide improved legitimacy to actions the community may need to take in future to protect the existing mechanisms from things like hostile takeovers
* to remind people to be excellent to each other


### *One draft*


#### 0. The token is not the community

Although tokens are used to *express* the ENS community consensus, it is not the intent of this constitution to allow arbitrary changes by the highest bidder. All ENS community members are called on to prevent such an outcome and to maintain the spirit of collaboration and goodwill that cannot be encoded or enforced by these articles.

*upside: hits the main point, with a small reminder to be excellent*
*downside: very limited in scope*

### *A different approach*


#### 0. The token is not the community

The articles listed here, even as eventually amended, can neither embody nor enforce the entire consensus around what ENS already is, or what it should continue to be and become. Instead it is the responsibility of every ENS community member, and especially those granted higher powers and responsibilities by this constitution, to protect:
* the predictability, legitimacy, and legibility of the consensus around how ENS names work;
* the good and credible neutrality of the ENS architecture and system in how users and stakeholders are treated;
* and the positive social trust and goodwill which exists among the present and future set of ENS stakeholders.

It is not the intent of this constitution, or any amended version of it, to confuse the mechanisms by which the ENS community *expresses* its consensus for a *definition* of that consensus itself. Only the active, considerate, and collaborative actions of the broader ENS community can maintain, grow, and improve the ENS system throughout the coming years.


*upside: captures more of the intangibles*
*downside: kinda wordy, more things for people to pick apart and disagree on*

