Proposed amendment to NL 5-9

[Patroklus Murakami]

I'd like to propose the following amendment to the Group Land Ownership Act and am grateful to Sudane for working up this proposal.

This proposal aims to provide a clear mechanism for the group ownership of land and consquent identification of citizens; clarity that one citizen=one SL avatar=one RL person and clarity on what happens if/when individuals default on their payments.

This proposal retains the provision that 'all members must be citizens before joining the group' for reasons I have outlined elsewhere.

---------------------------------------
Amendment to NL5-9 Group Land Ownership Act

Replace 2 with the following and renumber:

Residents of SL receive citizenship in the CDS by owning land in one of the sims administered by the CDS, and by agreeing to comply with the laws and covenants of the community. The citizen, who shall be a RL person presenting themself as a single SL avatar, may hold land either through individual ownership (in which their name is displayed on the "About Land" page of their parcel), or through membership in a group (in which the group name is displayed as "owner" on the "About Land" page of their parcel). The group shall own, compliant with the covenants regarding maximum ownership by any single citizen, at least 128 sq meters of land for each individual whose citizenship is qualified by that land.
 
Furthermore, each citizen shall be required to pay their monthly fee for land ownership, in person, each month, at the sim location established for this purpose. Individual owners shall pay the entire cost of their parcels in this manner. Group members shall allocate among themselves each member's share of the fee for land owned by their group, with the minimum amount of L$100 allocated to any one person. A group representative shall provide to the Treasurer, in a timely fashion, the list of citizen members, and their respective allocations.
 
In the course of time, should it happen that an individual does not pay their monthly fee (according to schedules established by the Chancellor and the Treasurer), that person shall be liable to lose their citizenship. Should that citizen be a citizen by virtue of membership in a land owning group, other group members will NOT risk losing their parcel and thus their citizenship. Rather, at the point that the Chancellor/Treasurer shall determine that person to be delinquent, and thus ineligible for further citizenship, the remaining members of that group shall be required to re-allocate their monthly amounts in order that 100% of the monthly fee be paid. If the resulting reduction in membership should cause the group to exceed its maximum land-owning allowance (as per the covenants), the group will be required to divest excess land.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Michel has made the following comments on this proposal in another thread [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 6:299ugsyt]here[/url:299ugsyt].

[quote="Michel Manen":299ugsyt]As for the pending legislation, under the guise of opening up citizenship rules, the RA will tighten them up further and intervene even more in the private lives of its citizens. In stating that couples could jointly own land and derive their citizenship therefrom, the RA passes a value judgement. What is a couple? And why just a couple, as long as the lot in question could entitle 3 , 4 or more people to become citizens? What if a repressed minority wished to join and buy a larger parcel? What if a number of individuals having a different conception of personal relationships wishes to join? What if a group of business partners wished to join? All would be preculded from doing so on the basis of this new legislation. So there is noting open, or forward-looking, or immigrant friendly about these bills. To the contrary, they remain just as exclusive and restricting - in addition to departing, now, from the objective criteria of 128 m2 per person to introducing the dangerous concept of "a couple" in our legislation.[/quote:299ugsyt]There is nothing in the proposed legislation that would preclude any of the prospective citizens in the scenarios you describe from joining our community. Whether people are part of couples, triples or any size of group they have the option, as the do now, of joining as individuals and then forming a group of like-minded citizens to hold land in common and derive citizenship from joint ownership of that land. The RA agreed at its last meeting to extend this option to couples as well as individuals. That is an extension not a restriction. Why is the concept of a 'couple' so dangerous? It's a recognition of the reality that many SL residents form partnerships and that some in established partnerships may want to join us together rather than individually. What's wrong with trying to enable that?

You may well feel that it doesn't go far enough and that groups should be able to join en masse. Fine. What limits would you place on that though? Would you be happy, for example, for a group of 70 prospective citizens to join en masse if a suitably large piece of land became free?

[quote:299ugsyt]In addition, the proposed legislation intends to limit even more the right of entry into our community by stipulating that each parcel, independently of its size, could only be the source of citizenship for a very limited number of individuals - like, for example, 4.[/quote:299ugsyt]It doesn't say that. You are confusing my/Sudane's proposal with other suggestions that have been made.

[quote:299ugsyt]Finally, the new legislation would require each individual to pay personally a percentage of the tier fee of the group to which he/she belongs, under penalty of loss of citizenship and possible reajustment of lands owned by the group in question.[/quote:299ugsyt]Why shouldn't each citizen pay their way? That's been one of the defining characteristics of citizens up until now; they contribute to the cost of maintaining server space for our sims by a monthly payment. To allow non-contributing citizens to remain on the rolls and have their fees met by others is very dangerous. It allows people to 'buy up the electorate' by paying fees for paper 'citizens' who never have to set foot in the CDS (except to vote for their benefactor at election time, of course).

[quote:299ugsyt]As an aside, the proposed legislation totally fails to deal with the issue of non-land based citizenship, which has been raised before by a number of individuals on repeated occasions, and which would indeed represent a great step forward for our democracy.[/quote:299ugsyt]We've been around the issue of non-land based citizenship several times. I think it's a very bad idea but I won't rehearse the arguments here.

[Beathan]

Michel --

As I see it, there is a good reason why we are looking to allow citizenship through land purchase by partners. SL and LL recognize partners. As part of Avatar identity and profile, av's can have "partners" -- and this information is part of the av's profile. This creates a unique bond between avs which is different in kind and in effect from all other SL associations.

Avs can be a member of multiple groups -- but can only have 1 "partner."

Avs can divorce at the will of either one of them -- and cannot be constrained by the other from doing so.

These strike me as meaningful differences in form and function from other types of voluntary (friends) or formal (groups) associations in SL. Further, there is no moral judgment involved in recognizing SL partnerships -- unless there is a moral judgment made by LL in choosing to recognize partners which is then incorporated second-hand into our rules.

I do not oppose widening citizenship to other forms of association. However, there is legitimate concern about such an expansion. In the face of that concern, I am willing to move incrementally -- testing the concept out in the partner context before making sweeping changes to include other associations as a basis of citizenship.

Again, this is a step in your direction. I think it is a good step. I think it will prove that association-based citizenship is workable and right in the CDS. Given that, I remain mystified by your opposition and your resignation.

The only reason I see for your opposition is that you want to load the electorate with inactive Avs, who show up only to vote for you. If this is the case, then Pat's fear is fully justified. If this is not the case, your position makes no sense.

Beathan

[Sleazy_Writer]

I'm glad the RA is working on this Pat-Sudane amendment. Two remarks:

(1) Claude and Justice: The first sentence of this amendment could be phrased more franchulate-friendly:
[quote:2f67fuws]Residents of SL receive citizenship in the CDS by owning land in one of the [color=blue:2f67fuws]areas[/color:2f67fuws] administered by the CDS ... INSTEAD OF
Residents of SL receive citizenship in the CDS by owning land in one of the [color=red:2f67fuws]sims[/color:2f67fuws] administered by the CDS[/quote:2f67fuws]
(2) Please shorten it a bit. It can be. For those of us who aren't legislative athletes

[michelmanen]

I note that out of more than 70 CDS citizens, 3 people are involved in drafting these amandments, another 5 participated in the forums discussions, and two more would be involved in approving such amendments.

In effect, in small community of some 70 citizens, just over 14 per cent of its members would participate in any way in debating and reaching such significantt deicisions as the conception of CDS citizenship, its relationship to land ownership, barriers to new citizens joining the CDS, and so on.

This is utterly unacceptable, from a democratic standpoint, for a community the size of CDS, on a matter of such importance for our future. CARE has called for the establishment of a Citizenship Commission designed to provide citizens with information about various choices regarding the definition of CDS citizenship and the implications of each such definition, allowing for a month-long debate and consultation process, and submission of draft legilsation to the RA based on the results of such wide popular consultation.

Any less inclusive, public, and participative method of amending our existing citizenship definitions will violate basic rules of democracy, openness, civic participation, and public accountablility, and therefore lack any legitimacy in our cummunity.

CARE renews its call for opening up the democratic process of consultation, drafting, and decision-making on such a vital topics for our community's future, as described above.

[Dnate Mars]

[quote="michelmanen":1aohoonk]I note that out of more than 70 CDS citizens, 3 people are involved in drafting these amandments, another 5 participated in the forums discussions, and two more would be involved in approving such amendments.

In effect, in small community of some 70 citizens, just over 14 per cent of its members would participate in any way in debating and reaching such significantt deicisions as the conception of CDS citizenship, its relationship to land ownership, barriers to new citizens joining the CDS, and so on.

This is utterly unacceptable, from a democratic standpoint, for a community the size of CDS, on a matter of such importance for our future. CARE has called for the establishment of a Citizenship Commission designed to provide citizens with information about various choices regarding the definition of CDS citizenship and the implications of each such definition, allowing for a month-long debate and consultation process, and submission of draft legilsation to the RA based on the results of such wide popular consultation.

Any less inclusive, public, and participative method of amending our existing citizenship definitions will violate basic rules of democracy, openness, civic participation, and public accountablility, and therefore lack any legitimacy in our cummunity.

CARE renews its call for opening up the democratic process of consultation, drafting, and decision-making on such a vital topics for our community's future, as described above.[/quote:1aohoonk]

The problem, as I see it, is that the current people that were elected do not see it your way, and you assume that everyone else disagrees with these people, but agree with you. I would question if many of these people that aren't talking even really care about this. I would bet that at least some of these 70 are only here because the like the people and or land that they are renting. They don't care about the CDS or the rules that they pass.

[michelmanen]

[quote:2su02sek]The problem, as I see it, is that the current people that were elected do not see it your way, and you assume that everyone else disagrees with these people, but agree with you. I would question if many of these people that aren't talking even really care about this. I would bet that at least some of these 70 are only here because the like the people and or land that they are renting. They don't care about the CDS or the rules that they pass.[/quote:2su02sek]

I agree that the other members of the RA do not share my point of view. However, I do not assume "that everyone else disagrees with these people, but agree with [me]". It may well me that some, or most, of those other 86 % of citizens of CDS don't care about the CDS or th rules the RA passes; but if that's the case, CDS itself as an attempt at being a democratic experiment in Second Life has failed, since it replicates all the problems or RL political systems and fails to be innovative and creative enough to solve any of these problems.

However, I do not believe this is the case. My working hypothesis is as follows: people would be more involved, and would participate more, especially in communities as small as ours, if they felt they would be truly listened to, their opinions and needs valued, and their points of view taken into account. In short, given a more open, participative, coopertive, accountable and -yes!- caring environment, a significant part of the 86 % of CDS citizens who basically are shut out of our political process except at the six-monthly voting rituals would choose to be more involved in the life of our community.

Well, the only way to find out whether my working hypothesis is correct, or whether your point of view better represents reality, is to put it to the test. This is why CARE has proposed setting up 4 Commissions on 4 issues vital to the future of our community - Commissions which would be open-eneded, ie which would both educate citizens as to the entire spectrum of available choices, and give them enough latitude to take part in the process and come up with their own ideas and proposals, and then draft legilsation based on such wide popular consultation as opposed to letting it be drafted by 2 or 3 people behind the closed doors of forums most of these 86% of our citizens never consult or contribute to.

Why is there such an oppostion to opening up the political process? Why such utter refusal to allow citizens t participate? Why are there no attempts made to draw back into the process all those citizens who feel excluded, their voices unheard, their needs and opinons ignored? These are the fundamental questions CARE is asking, and seeking answers to. If we truly believe in democracy as more than a ritual exercise in voting once every six months, if we truly want to be a creative, innovative community eager to try to improve the current shortrcomings and failures of RL political systems as opposed to simply copying them here and replicating all their pitfalls and anachronisms, then we will have the courage to take the steps CARE is proposing, deviate from the "pensee unique" (monolithic group-think) that there is only one way to "do democracy" and try to think and act differently -more openly, creatively, innovating, experimenting, embracing "la differance" (radical re-thinking of accepted norms and values) - in short, "penser la democratie autrement" (conceptualising a qualitatively different kind of democracy). For me, for CARE, this type of bold experimentation is what SL is all about. What do we have to lose if we try - as opposed to what we would gain if we were to succeed?

[Dnate Mars]

I don't disagree with trying to open up the process more, but we already have so many open seats in parts of the government (SC) that would need to be filled, why do we want more thing for people to commit to? It seems that the problem is that only a few people want to be part of the government.

[Patroklus Murakami]

I think the idea of a Citizenship Commission has merit. We have held Commission's on matters on at least two issues which I can recall - the Judiciary and the Regional Masterplan. The first was not entirely successful (despite the co-chairs best efforts ) as the issue had deeply polarised opinion in the CDS and positions were well-entrenched by that point. The second produced a good discussion of the major issues involved and resulted in our first Estate Plan. I think the second Commission worked well because the issue was less 'political' and we had a lot of expert advice and help from Moon and others.

Citizenship is such a central concept to a democracy like ours that it seems only right and proper that we should attempt to involve our citizens as much as possible in decision-making. I don't think we should have commissions about everything! But citizenship has to be a pretty good candidate for this approach. And there's a *lot* to discuss; we've been discussing some of the issues at our weekly CSDF meetings (Thursdays 3pm in The Red House, Neufreistadt - all welcome) but they've barely been touched on here on the forums.

The question then is, how urgently do we need to tackle the current issues with citizenship? The bill Sudane and I have worked on could be put on ice for a month while the Commission gets to work but that means delay. Personally, I'd rather discuss, amend and pass the bill next week and then get to work on the Commission if the RA decides to back the idea; the Commission can always propose legislation to change things. But this could be seen as prejudging the outcomes of the Commission! How urgently do we want to tackle this issue? Do others agree that a Commission is worthwhile?

[michelmanen]

[quote:15bsi95m]The question then is, how urgently do we need to tackle the current issues with citizenship? The bill Sudane and I have worked on could be put on ice for a month while the Commission gets to work but that means delay. Personally, I'd rather discuss, amend and pass the bill next week and then get to work on the Commission if the RA decides to back the idea; the Commission can always propose legislation to change things. But this could be seen as prejudging the outcomes of the Commission! How urgently do we want to tackle this issue? Do others agree that a Commission is worthwhile?[/quote:15bsi95m]

Given the fact that the RA has been dealing with the citizenship issue for some weeks now, there clearly is a perception that this matter needs to be tackled as a matter of priority. However, suspending the Pat/Sudane amendments until the Commission would report back to the RA, so as not to prejudge the outcome, doesn't seem to create any clear and present danger to the CDS that would outweigh the real benefits of an open-ended and truly impartial public consultation on this critical issue for the future of our community.

CARE therefore enthusiastically suppports suspending an RA vote on the citizenship bill being currently drafted, the creation of a Citizenship Commission educating citizens about key issues, choices and consequences, conducting public and open hearings and debates, and reporting its findings back to the RA. In light of the Citizenship Commission Report, the RA would then draft and submit to a vote a new Citizenship Bill, well before the next elections.

[Leon]

[quote="Dnate Mars":10g2khkd]The problem, as I see it, is that the current people that were elected do not see it your way, and you assume that everyone else disagrees with these people, but agree with you. I would question if many of these people that aren't talking even really care about this. I would bet that at least some of these 70 are only here because the like the people and or land that they are renting. They don't care about the CDS or the rules that they pass.[/quote:10g2khkd]

FWIW, I care about this proposal amendment and support it.

I haven't felt the need to say anything as my representatives are getting on with what I elected them to do.

Thanks
Leon

[Patroklus Murakami]

At the last RA I was tasked with drafting a revision to enable couples to join the CDS together rather than individually. I've added one line to the bill that I submitted (and Sudane largely drafted) at the last meeting. The additional text is in italics.

-------------------------------------------
[b:2800bpor]Amendment to NL5-9 Group Land Ownership Act [/b:2800bpor]

Replace 2 with the following and renumber:

Residents of SL receive citizenship in the CDS by owning land in one of the sims administered by the CDS, and by agreeing to comply with the laws and covenants of the community. The citizen, who shall be a RL person presenting themself as a single SL avatar, may hold land either through individual ownership (in which their name is displayed on the "About Land" page of their parcel), or through membership in a group (in which the group name is displayed as "owner" on the "About Land" page of their parcel). The group shall own, compliant with the covenants regarding maximum ownership by any single citizen, at least 128 sq meters of land for each individual whose citizenship is qualified by that land.

[i:2800bpor]Couples who wish to become citizens in the CDS may do so through the joint purchase of a plot of land in one of the CDS sims. [/i:2800bpor]

Furthermore, each citizen shall be required to pay their monthly fee for land ownership, in person, each month, at the sim location established for this purpose. Individual owners shall pay the entire cost of their parcels in this manner. Group members shall allocate among themselves each member's share of the fee for land owned by their group, with the minimum amount of L$100 allocated to any one person. A group representative shall provide to the Treasurer, in a timely fashion, the list of citizen members, and their respective allocations.

In the course of time, should it happen that an individual does not pay their monthly fee (according to schedules established by the Chancellor and the Treasurer), that person shall be liable to lose their citizenship. Should that citizen be a citizen by virtue of membership in a land owning group, other group members will NOT risk losing their parcel and thus their citizenship. Rather, at the point that the Chancellor/Treasurer shall determine that person to be delinquent, and thus ineligible for further citizenship, the remaining members of that group shall be required to re-allocate their monthly amounts in order that 100% of the monthly fee be paid. If the resulting reduction in membership should cause the group to exceed its maximum land-owning allowance (as per the covenants), the group will be required to divest excess land.

[Rose Springvale]

all i can say is.. huh?

I suppose being a member of two groups that hold land in CN,I probably pay more each month than anyone in CDS. Yet, i don't quite reach my limit of allowed land holding, even if you count each square meter as mine, and none to my partners.

I guess i don't understand what you are so afraid of. Why on earth would i dilute my financial holdings to "stack" an election? What can possibly be gained?

I'm going out on a limb here and guess that you are more concerned about my friend Michel's motives, which some see as threatening. Well, we've held group land for a few months now, and i've never seen any attempt to abuse the system. We did try to bring in new people... one in fact. Frankly we needed help.

I'm really really surprised about this bookkeeping nightmare that is proposed. My understanding is that Linden Labs requires one avi to own the "island".. and it is up to that person to pay the tier each month. If individual lot holders dont' pay, the tier is still due. And it is paid. Collection from the member is done however the Paying person sees fit.. .whether that be forbearance or eviction. But the tier is still due.

Why would you make it different for those of us who own group land? Have you thought of the logistic issues? Let me pick on Jeremy and i for a moment, because i don't think either of us 'threaten'.... frankly you couldn't PAY me enough money to serve on the RA. No offense intended!

But here is a situation we will be looking at soon. We both travel for extended periods. In the next few months, independently, we will cover a good portion of North and south america and the UK. I know when Jeremy travels, he doesnt' even take his laptop, let alone hook into SL. I, on the other hand, always HAVE my computer, but in some of the parts of the world where i will be going i cannot a) connect to the internet, or b) connect to sl.(and sometimes even c) have electicity!/

So... we cover for each other. Generally we take turns. Requiring us each to pay monthly is a burden that i really don't see as warranted.

Now here is another situation for you to consider. I've hired an associate, Griffon Upshaw, who wants to learn some things about the practice of law from the "old timers." He's ambitious and has a lot of ideas, but no capital. A traditional law firm would let him earn his equity, and that is my plan for Griffon. If he sticks around, we will offer him partnership. (some of you know that Jeremy and i won't charge fees for legal work in SL because i think it an ethics violation, but all that means is that no matter how many people i "see".. i make no money in sl. Other lawyers feel differently ) Until that time, i won't expect Griffon to pick up any portion of the costs of maintaining the office. Do you not want him to be a "citizen".. contributing and working toward the betterment of CDS in the meantime? (as a side note, he came to us via the ABA article, has made friends with Ashcroft, and still is interested in being in CDS..even expressing interest in the archive position!)

I understand the issue about "partners" but would suggest that the legislation as presently worded would allow someone with a 128 m plot and a partner to have two votes in an election, and someoene with 8000 mand no partners (some of us don't believe in THAT) to have one. I am not suggesting that votes be tied to meters, but surely you don't mean to penalize people who invest financially in the sim ?

The issue becomes relevant to me in one major way... and that concerns what i'll call "taxation".... at the point when the RA decides to raise our fees, based on the need to fund some program or another, i don't think it is fair to have that partnership with the 128 m telling the people who are already paying higher tier that they need to pay more. That would include, i think, buying new sims.

No, these thoughts aren't well developed, but in light of the preoccupation with "abuse of elections for personal gain".... shouldn't we discuss them?

May i respectfully request that you consider some other qualifications for citizenship? What about a "meaningful nexus" test... which would let employees and tenants actually working and living in the sims to have some say in the operations? That could eliminate your "friends and family" issue... if they don't live in CDS, don't work in CDS, ..why should they vote in CDS? And is it possible to distinguish matters for the good of the republic from matters of the purse? You all may have noticed a certain amount of animosity directed at, for want of a better term, large landowners. What exactly IS the rationale for that attitude? Do we deserve it? and if so why? specifically?

Can't we work on a model that is more streamlined and effective rather than one that require us to read and read and read and then still not be sure we can do what we want to do? Can't we make this system easy for everyone to access?

[Sudane Erato]

I see I may have made a slight error in substance in my original drafting of this bill. I had subsequently passed this along to Patroklus, who then tweaked it into legislative form, and offered it as proposed legislation. I apologize for this confusion.

I seem to have inadvertantly combined issues of public policy ( the definition of citizenship ) with issues of administration ( the efficient collection of monthly fees ). By way of remedy, let me restructure the wording somewhat in the proposed bill. I hope this provides some clarification.

[quote:1nn6n1jq]The Proposed Bill

Residents of SL receive citizenship in the CDS by owning land in one of the sims administered by the CDS, and by agreeing to comply with the laws and covenants of the community. The citizen, who shall be a RL person presenting themself as a single SL avatar, may hold land either through individual ownership (in which their name is displayed on the "About Land" page of their parcel), or through membership in a group (in which the group name is displayed as "owner" on the "About Land" page of their parcel). The group shall own, compliant with the covenants regarding maximum ownership by any single citizen, at least 128 sq meters of land for each individual whose citizenship is qualified by that land.

Couples who wish to become citizens in the CDS may do so through the joint purchase of a plot of land in one of the CDS sims.

Group member citizens shall allocate among themselves each member's share of the fee for land owned by their group, with the minimum amount of L$100 allocated to any one person. A group representative shall provide to the Treasurer, in a timely fashion, the list of citizen members, and their respective allocations.

In the course of time, should it happen that an individual does not pay their monthly fee (according to schedules established by the Chancellor and the Treasurer), that person shall be liable to lose their citizenship. Should that citizen be a citizen by virtue of membership in a land owning group, other group members will NOT risk losing their parcel and thus their citizenship. Rather, at the point that the Chancellor/Treasurer shall determine that person to be delinquent, and thus ineligible for further citizenship, the remaining members of that group shall be required to re-allocate their monthly amounts in order that 100% of the monthly fee be paid. If the resulting reduction in membership should cause the group to exceed its maximum land-owning allowance (as per the covenants), the group will be required to divest excess land.[/quote:1nn6n1jq]

[quote:1nn6n1jq]The Planned Administrative Changes

Each citizen shall be required to pay their monthly fee for land ownership, in person, each month, at the sim location established for this purpose. [/quote:1nn6n1jq]

This adminsitrative change has already been announced ( http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... ight=#6472 ). I might further add to that post, reflecting Rose's concern that people without access to the internet not be penalized, that is has been my plan to request that someone, knowing they will not be in world and able to pay their fee during the required period (which will be from the 21st of the prior month to the 8th of the month being paid for) simply register with me the fact of their absence, and on what date they expect to make payment.

This payment system I have announced, and intend to put in place within the next month or so, when it is fully tested in other sims which I administer. I am taking this step for the reasons outlined in the above post. At risk of repeating explanations offerred there, let me just say this. Citizenship in our community has always been based on some ownership of land, and as Treasurer, I keep both land records (who owns each parcel of land) and citizenship rolls (when each person joined our community and which months they have paid for). With the increasing disconnection between "citizen" and "land"... in which a given citizen may own land as an individual and/or as a member of a group, and may indeed pay the fees for certain groups one month and other groups the next month, AND may prepay for some variable number of months, during which group land ownership configurations may change... my simple system has gotten impossible to administer on the spreadsheet I have used. The "confinement" of the planned system is intended to impose a simple grid structure on payments, which is my only hope to achieve order in this system. I suspect that the only alternative is a sophisticated software system establishing citizen accounts (which... notably... would still be "citizen-based"). This has been discussed, and is indeed a planned extension of our land management software system ( http://land.neufreistadt.info/ ), a complex application which even now is not live because of bug tracking, the extended illness of one of the participants in the project, and the hopelessly tiny amount of money which we have to invest in it.

I hope this provides some clarification on these two rather separate subjects. As I mentioned in the post, noted above, I was concerned that the administrative change *might* have some bearing on citizenship definition changes, but it can surely be implemented without any such changes, and indeed will be.

Please direct any questions regarding the admin changes to me, and any concerns questions or opinions to this thread, which is really intended for proposed legislation.

Sudane.....

[Claude Desmoulins]

This bit:
[quote:15mud8ye]
The citizen, who shall be a RL person presenting themself as a single SL avatar,[/quote:15mud8ye]

doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution that I can find. Even though we've always taken it as a given, as we put it into writing, do we need to do so via constitutional amendment? And does that notion of a definition of citizenship need to be constitutional rather than legislative?