OK, I'll add half a page too those 100+ pages about the definition of virtual citizenship. When you said 100 pages my first thought was that you guys were crazy, but now I think of it, this problem probably has some philosophical aspects. Not only philosophical but also social aspects (What kind of voting is suitable for a virtual democracy and what kind of democracy is considered fair?) I'm not sure if I'm in your group of thinkers, Dianne. To me the problem seems more fundamentally related to how the CDS wants to implement citizenship.
[b:1pln94vs](A) If you don't consider each avatar as autonomous [/b:1pln94vs] (with each one it's set of rights), as I suspect most people do, you've got a problem. The problem is that some of us (like me) don't want their SL avie connected to real life. If you allow this anonymity, it's harder to verify if 1 real life autonomous person (or computer or bonobo) controls 1 or more avies. Fake identities exist in real life too, so it's not exclusive to SL, but it's harder to fake: for example, our faces are on our passports and most of us don't have a subscription to the plastic surgeon. But a compromise could be made: e.g. a digital signature that's connected to one's real life ID, so that a RL person could only use 1 avie with a verifiable signature and thus is allowed to vote. Like websites [in fact I think almost exactly like websites]they could be verified by some organisation without revealing the persons identity to the person who does the query. But who will implement this? Flyingroc? 
Do do we want even more of our real life ID info stored in LL's and the CIA's computers?
Orrrr .. You look at it from a whole different angle:
[b:1pln94vs](B) If you do consider each avatar as autonomous[/b:1pln94vs], then we either need to :
1. Ignore whole of real life and not whine if the CDS gets a nice dicator.
2. Introduce "greater flexibility in managing [...] identities" (quoting the recently lecturing David Orban) Where e.g. the more verified identies could access more 'sensitive' gov't roles.
3. Introduce a different voting system, one that is less susceptible to sock puppet faking (>1 avie per autonomous person). One example that would get us in the right direction is voting power relative to the avie's merit to society (credits: D. Orban again). Although this would probably have drawbacks too, at least it would be harder to fake 2, 5 or even 10 fake avies (controlled by 1 autonomous person) that are indeed active in SL-society. But I doubt this is practical in the CDS: We have many inactive citizens, so it's still non-transparent or unfair (probably said many times before). But Dianne is right in the sense that creative thinking would at least get it more in the right direction, towards a virtual society less susceptible to faking. But we can only go for these solutions if there's a majority willing to accept (B), like B (2) or B (3).
If we don't choose (B), that means we choose (A) and either need to make a 'hard' link to real life ID's, or stay stuck in the same situation.
[color=blue:1pln94vs]Answering the virtual citizenship question is possible [/color:1pln94vs](A or B? Or perhaps even C or D and implement/legislate a version of it),
[color=blue:1pln94vs]we could do it, perhaps even should do it: in a great "What is the mission and goal of our CDS?" referendum.[/color:1pln94vs]
[i:1pln94vs]In my 2,5 months in the CDS I've seen different people arguing that this "mission/goal"-question needs to be answered (like Ashcroft and Michel respectively to the Judiciary which is also very important) It has probably been coined many times before (UZ-gate? )
I'm really in favour of the CDS figuring out it's mission and entrenching that a bit in the constitution, allowing for change only every, say, 18 months.[/i:1pln94vs]
- - - -
Edit: Oh, mistake B-2 is probably more something like A-2, a linking-with-RL thing.
)
