What about a per name, dedicated, WNS permissions contract?
Unclear if this would work elegantly, but if you transferred control to contract that could manage all this, the implications would be on the UX.
It's also pretty low stakes to iterate on this, as you could use a model where there would be several flavours of this contract.
Eg.
- Non-opinionated permissioned system
- Time-of-deployment (Immutable) permissioned system
- Opinionated / use-case specific permissioned system
Yes, I think that makes sense. This could be deployed as a singleton instance of ownership delegation code that works by allowing users to set that as the operator for their 721 NameNFT domain, and then allowing it to pull and execute discrete permissions on the fly. Checks, guards and other limits could be placed, but a lot of mileage to start just from doing this as an initial demonstration around allowing someone else to revoke a subdomain for you, or fulfill the other archetypical management role (of a single owner right that can be spent, or used at leisure (if set to uint max)).
Related to my other comment on granular controls through flash permits, https://holders.vote/h/wns.wei/p/36850ebc-7519-4f4d-92b8-89bdeb2e02a7?comment=cec350e6-5544-42ca-b2cb-5cd6e86ea8d5