- The CSDF discussed the revised report of the Citizenship Commission. Like the CDS itself, the faction has the full range of opinions on this issue: at least three members in are favor of landless citizenship, and at least five against it. This division in our membersâ€™ opinion makes it hard to find a position for the faction and negotiate with it.
But more importantly, where Citizenship Commission chair Bromo sees a sizeable number of landless citizenship supporters (but not a majority) as a sign to work on a new citizenship definition -- there CSDF representatives Patroklus Murakami and Jon Seattle disagree with Bromoâ€™s analysis (see Patroklusâ€™ different analysis) and also see the outcome as: not a clear choice for major change.
At the meeting, the CSDF members voted on the motion that that: â€œwhile the citizens are divided, pushing for a solution is wasting time on endless discussion.â€ A majority of members supported the motion, even when they favored landless citizenship, because of reasons like: the expected difficulties of negotiations, the long time it will take to implement a compromise proposal (if it includes LLâ€™s IDV, or property protection) and because of previous experiences how contested subjects (franchulates, judiciary) have totally derailed other issues.
The CSDF wants to keep their eyes on the ball, which is not this important but contested issue with no clear mandate for a big change, but the other things that need to get done, such as: facilitating the 3rd sim, working out how IP rights for sim content should be handled, implementing a new Web Portal, all points from our election manifesto and the inevitable things that pop up like Sudaneâ€™s recent proposed change for land sales.
- Two competing solutions/directions to solve this problem were discussed. The first being: to create a RL legal entity, like a non profit organisation, to be able to take part in RL contracts (like being granted a license to use a building for the CDS with certain extra options) The second being: not creating a RL legal entity, because the CDS already is, or can function as a one. A great number of pro's and cons were mentioned.
A notable argument in favor of 'OPTION 1' is that it clearly allows to pursue or defend legal claims in a RL court. A notable argument against it is that defining the CDS as a RL org., does in fact come down to turning all or some of the CDS government into role-play, meaning failure of a very interesting aspect of the project.
One notable argument in favor of 'OPTON 2', according to proponents, is that licenses for SL objects can work just fine, without adopting a RL definition of the CDS in some radical way. A notable argument against this was posed as a question: Who sues or gets sued on behalf of 'The CDS'?
This needs further discussion and some careful listening to the CDS lawyers.