Duplication & Lost Private Keys

I agree that these should be disqualified ASAP. There’s no reason to have duplicate teams on the governance page and it can potentially confuse ICONists who wish to vote for these teams. This would make for a good test run for P-Reps to organize and vote on disqualification.

Inactive Nodes

Depending on the rank of these teams, I can see why some of them may not choose to run a node if it’s not possible to break even. I think a disqualification should only apply to these teams if they are not engaging with the community, ignoring ICON team, and not running a node. If they are making some attempt to engage with the community and discussing why they do not have their node up, I don’t think they should be disqualified. P-Reps come from all over the world, and in some countries, it’s realistic for P-Reps to not be able to afford to run a node if they do not receive enough rewards to cover it. With that said, I don’t know much about any of these teams. Need to look into them more…

The last two categories I’m a little mixed on. It does bother me that ICXUltra and Symmetry SLC have put forth no effort in terms of sharing their proposal/plans. However, a proposal is not an on-chain requirement for P-Rep registration. I think no proposal is okay ONLY if the team is actively engaging with the community to share their plans. Again we’re coming back to the question about how to quantify “contribution”. I can see the argument that maintaining a node as a Top 22 P-Rep is “contributing”. I personally disagree with that, and see that as more of a baseline that shouldn’t be factored into what “contribution” is - at least for main P-Reps. Thoughts?