TL;DR The temp check has the incoming Executive Director draft a detailed conflict-of-interest policy within the Foundation's first 90 days — for the Board's own approval. This amendment changes one thing: who signs off on that policy once it's drafted. The DAO ratifies the actual text by vote, instead of the Board approving its own constraints. Same drafting schedule the temp check already proposes; different approval body. PROBLEM / DIAGNOSIS If the Foundation is meant to be ENS's voice at ICANN, the floor for its own governance should be at least as high as what it's holding others to — and the temp check's current process has the board approve its own conflict-of-interest rules, on a text nobody outside the board sees ratified by a DAO vote. A policy is only a real constraint if the body it constrains isn't also the body that signed off on it. PROPOSED MECHANISM The DAO ratifies the actual COI policy text, not just the timeline for writing it. The Executive Director still drafts the detailed COI policy within the first 90 days, exactly as the temp check already proposes. What changes is the approval step: instead of the Board approving its own policy internally, the DAO votes on the actual drafted text before it takes effect. WHY AMEND RATHER THAN LEAVE AS WRITTEN This adds no delay to the Foundation's formation and no new drafting burden — the ED drafts on the same 90-day schedule either way. It changes exactly one thing: who has final sign-off on the rules the board is supposed to operate under. GUARDRAILS, RED-LINES, REVERSIBILITY The COI policy text is published in full before the DAO vote — no summary or placeholder language. If the DAO rejects the drafted text, the Board operates under disclose-and-recuse defaults until a revised text is ratified, rather than the original board-approved draft taking effect by default. Drafting responsibility and the 90-day schedule are unchanged from the temp check as written. OPEN QUESTIONS THIS AMENDMENT ANSWERS 1. Who should approve the Foundation's own conflict-of-interest policy? The DAO, by vote on the actual text — not the Board approving its own constraints. THE ASK This is submitted as an amendment to the temp check's conflict-of-interest clause specifically — not a change to the Foundation's board size, mandate, or treasury terms. The ask is for DAO ratification of the actual COI policy text to replace Board self-approval before the temp check goes to a binding vote.