I'm seeing many talking about "democracy", even @LoreZyra, who did that wonderful review. Now, try opening the draft PDF and do a simple search for "democracy".
  I found 0 (zero) occurrences of the word throughout all the document. If you shorten the search term to "democr" (like to include "democrat", "democratic", "democracies", etc.) you'll can find 1 (one) occurrence, at pag. 15, chap. 5, art. 16, sub. 5: "State bodies and officials may not intervene in elections, put pressure on citizens or falsify elections during democratic procedures." this may mean there will be some kind of "democratic procedure" at least (even if I may prefer to see some "democratic result" instead).

  This could mean we'll not take part into "a democracy"... in fact we're going to take part into a monarchy, Asgardia is going to be a reign, exactly as into the Norse mithology. Odin was "the God King". We'll have Igor as a king (maybe a decree will establish him as a "God" too... this may explain why no reference to religions).

  No doubt why "[Asgardia] has no place for political parties": there will be just one "political party", our king's one who, by decree, will establish the political directions for the year to come (by any chance, those directions will be mandatory).

  Another point worth noting is I read in no part of this wonderful Constitution who is the State body in charge to "make laws"... yes... there is an evanescent reference (art. 34, sub. 12, lett. a) to the Parliament, which should "adopting Asgardian law", which doesn't seem to me it will "make", or "create", or "write", or "vote for" laws: just "adopting". So, I've to imagine, the laws will be written by someone else (let me guess: the king? maybe helped by the Real Court and the Real Council of Supreme Values).
  This is not something new, for us, as we're used to receive (mandatory) decrees, even if someone tells "that's not mandatory: it's a proposal" (ref. the Calendar).

  @LoreZyra, as others, noted we spent many efforts to give suggestions while not even full constitutions, to the suggestions gathering thread, the same as we did for the Unity document. Now we're seeing a Unity document which is nearly exactly the same as the one we received to comment (and, hopefully, amend). I did a rapid check with an online Diff utility: the two documents, apart very small differences in grammar and punctuation, are exactly the same (do it yourself: the results will be amazing to see).
  And, despite all the suggestions I read, about the Constitution, I found in no part any reference to a "monarchy". So this is the exact degree in which our suggestions are held... I would not like to think the degree in which we'll be taken in the future, then, with the king busy in writing all the laws, promanating all the decrees... collecting all the taxes.

  I thought we was treated a little "marginally" as we are users (so guests, legally speaking) but our status would be improved, after becoming citizens, but now I'm seeing how things will get worse, not better.

  It's not a secret I'm from Italy: despite the fact we, like the great majority of the people around the world, came from a monarchy, we left it behind more than 70 years ago (1946) and it's likely not coming back. I born free, not having to bow to any "king": my President is "one of us", a citizen like many others, with a special degree in constitutional law, but it's clear that I pay for his bread (and butter), not that him is paying for mine.
  I can believe that, for many in this forum, is not that great burden to stay under a monarchy, as they're even out of Asgardia (yes, even if it's 2017, monarchies are still around).
  That said, I'm not ready to become a subject, not by my will at least.

  As a last consideration, I was very curious to see how a company could have become a State: now I know it.

  Have to thank @LoreZyra for his fantastic review, which helped me into understanding some obscure parts of the text, @Scarbs, @ekampp and @bluecloud to have expressed my exact feelings, leaving me free to add something few than the tons of things I was writing.
  I've to tell @petrv that there is no need to delay the constitutional referendum: one month is more than enough to digest (AKA "to take note") the fact you'll vote for this one, the same as you'll vote for the exact Document of Unity we received in March.
  There is a company, AIRC, which is striving to become a State, a CEO which is striving to become a king... and kings need subjects to pay taxes. Are we going to see some kind of Robyn Hood riding a rocket to flee from king's tax collectors, into Sherwood's asteroid belt? Will the main colony's module be named Nottingham? ;-)

@petrv
Absolutely!

You (and all we) have to undestand we're essentially speaking of a company... with some (but not that much) candies here and there.
If you ask to yourself if you can disagree with your company's CEO (assuming you're not self employed ;-)), you'll have the answer about Asgardia as well.
If you ask to yourself who is in charge in defining your company's policy and guidelines for the future, you'll have the answer about Asgardia as well.
Try thinking if you, by any chance, can make your CEO to leave his own company, if you don't agree with his policy: far better to be realistic and just leave.

AIRC is not running Asgardia. Asgardia NGO is composing Asgardia and a single person (the head of state) is (currently) running an empty nation (with 0 citizens). That's a fact.

@nihylum
That could be a fact if we had any detailed information about NGO Asgardia (as someone told they had to give us "in a few").
But maybe I missed the details' announcement: if you have more detailed informations feel free to share them and enlight me.

I am sorry, I am forced to not disclose the information that I have no matter under what condition. That fact I did publish in the previous reply is simple logic: None of us got a certificate of citizenship yet. We are not at that stage, this will happen when we voted on the acceptance and agreement to the final document. That fact that there is currently only one citizenship given (to the head of nation) is based on the information that he has announced and agreed as the head of the nation in the past.

The fact that I am not allowed to disclose any information is based on common rights which protect private communication for being exposed to the public. It's also common sense.

So a fact with no evidence... some kind of faith-reated one.
This will go to the pile of "behind the scenes" built things, like nearly all others.

Just to think we'll have to vote on things built "behind the scenes": when it happens in my country someone will resign his political career and, sometimes, newspapers writes he was taken into jail also.

What I can expose is the person who has created this topic and observes this topic from the Officials is actually the CEO of NGO Asgardia.

Evidence can be found here: https://asgardia.space/en/page/chronicles/Lena-de-winne-presentation-in-montreal

So, now you have some Information about NGO Asgardia. Deal with it.

Yes, but I am not sure if all those information are required for this concrete topic. It's a fact that this topic is about the constitution and our feedback to the current state (no matter what is missing or was proposed before). I see a lot of lack of ability to handle a concrete situation as it is. Active "enrage" about the general information politics of the Asgardia Officials is the current direction of this topic. And i don't think that some of you want to change that.

To me: you make a complex issue from a simple request. If this continues in future requests, we are about to experience an age of tortures.

At this topic, clearly on the side of the officials. I don't CnD. I respect laws, don't know if you know what that means.

I am not from my point of view, the government of the involved states probably. What I know is less dramatic as you think and would actually not change a bit here. This does not change a clear fact that you are about to force me to ignore laws.

Anyway, to add something good to this topic, may i ask why you (intentionally) don't want a monarchy?

The issue with a constitutional monarchy (particularly the one proposed in the draft) is best summed up by paraphrasing George Orwell:

All are equal, but some are more equal than others.

This board and any mail traffic are protected by laws of the country where the servers are hosted. Relevance roots in the eye of the observer. What I know do not change anything on this topic but might change your point of view regarding the communication strategy of Asgardia. Taken aside the laws I do respect, I am not open to enlight people who decide to abuse topics for general purposes and who don't see the opportunity they got to make adjustments of the primary document we do use in the future.

In the meantime, i've read the draft once again: Additional to my suggestions a few pages before I want to recommend to normalize the purpose of the document to a real constitution. I see no relevance for placing deadlines (which are temporary contracts) at the constitution level. Compared to other primary documents of other states, the wording of the constitution should also be more law-centric instead of sounding like a conceptual summary of a coming age.

I also recommend providing additional documents who do properly explain the meaning and intention of concrete parts of the constitution. I also stand up for the orbiting request (from here and facebook) to extend the deadline in which we are able to provide feedback for this document and to postpone the voting. We should also formalize laws who secure elections and referendums before starting to vote on something.

The major tone of the replies also claims to explain before engage, so proper explanations of how the voting and staging of this document is intended are recommended.

I strongly object to constitutional monarchy as a form of government.  This is an antiquated form of government, and old and obsolete technology.  This makes me question the leadership of the people who created this draft.  Rubbish.  

Ok since we're going in circles saying we don't want something we didn't ask for let me suggest a alternative trying to come with off the top if my head and let's see if it's better and gets some changes

First let's have something like a prime directive basically a main goal of Asgardia broad enough to cover all the ideas we have but just specific enough yo give us meaning: something like to protect and ensure of growth of intelligent life in the universe. Broad enough to include any additional intellect life we either develop (AI) or discover (ET) but specific enough for next parts.  

Next let's have 13 basic "rights" indivudals have that fit into prime directive rights that are needed to ensure we follow the prime directive , health , means of financial ability, access to education etc. 

Now the 12 ministries we have let them all have directives that work to meet the goal of the prime directive ie health ministry to ensure the health and well being of all intelligent life. Minstties focus on working to ensure those goals and by extend the prime directive , make then head of nation into a ministry that ensures the rest of the ministries work towards the prime directive 

Now we focus on who runs ministries make it a technocray/metirocracy where the person with the most experience in field along with the drive and know how run the ministry. Now have people use direct voting to set goals for projects , not methods , goals like "% of people with access to x level education" . The voting determines the goal , then have people submit methods and work to prove them then let ministries decide the best and help the best develope to meet goals.

2:15 am , little fustrated but maybe this makes sense and sounds more like what people wanted to see in a constitution