The new Asgardia brochure (https://asgardia.space/files/Asgardia_Brochure_English.pdf) has a chart showing figures for 2021 and projected figures for 2030. On that chart there is a distinction made between resident and citizen. It shows that in 2021 there are 1000 citizens and 10,000 residents. Granted these may have been wishful projections when the brochure was designed as there are only 1700+ residents as I write this - however that is not my point. What is the difference between citizen and resident? Who are the 1000 citizens (or whatever portion of 1000 is correct)? How do we become citizens as opposed to residents? I have searched the web site and documents and I can not find anything on how to become a citizen as opposed to a resident. I did note there is a lot of relatively ambiguous wording used to describe citizen and resident in the citizenship law (https://asgardia.space/storage/page/publication/attach/a5/97/a597b4fdd6dc1d352c3f4a6fdbf6c4a83f93523329dd2ea8857c5528c87e7835.pdf). This wording appears to imply that there could be a difference between citizen and resident, although there are places where the two terms appear to be interchangeable. I also noticed there are an awful lot of typo's in that document. This is unacceptable for a legal or regulatory document defining Asgardia. It cannot be stressed enough if there are to be any regulatory declarations they must be vetted and edited by first language speakers. Documents must be accurate and absolutely correct in both grammar and spelling. The meaning must be completely clear and absolutely unambiguous in what ever language they are written in. Failure to adhere to these basic principles will lead to the peers Asgardia is trying to gain recognition from seeing Asgardia as a group of fringe dwelling amatuers.

I have not read every submission on this forum however i have tried to go through as many as possible of the suggestions. So I appologise if i step on someone's toes, it is not intentional. I feel a constitution should be more about the fundamental principles and how they are enacted, rather than the detail of the legal and governmental system. It is true that some countries have their constitution spread over laws and articles etc however it seems that a simple short constitution covering the principles of: (a) what defines the nation with a statement of purpose and goals (b) what defines membership of the nation (c) what defines government of the nation (d) definition of the rule of law with some statement of the limits of power (e) some definition of how positions of government are allocated/gained (f) some statement of how finances are to be handled by govt. Possibly these parts contain the basis of a constitution. My reasoning expands from 2 thoughts: (1) The more detail that is placed in the over-riding principles the more human nature tends to find ways around them. This seems to lead to the problems surrounding most of our current legal systems bringing us to the litigious situation we have in many countries these days. (2) A constitution should be simple, compact and easily read, understood and remembered by all living under it. It should not be cumbersome or contain the minutia of the law. Please don't think I'm saying there doesn't need to be detailed laws. These can be handled in by-laws and articles of law which can and should be drafted and voted on in whatever manner of ratification we finally settle on. I am saying, rather than a lot of detailed laws within the constitution i feel we should set out the PRINCIPLES by which we are to live and govern. I guess it might even be appropriate to codify the principles and sentiment encapsulated by the founder with the addition of the statements of limits of power, as if you look carefully at the statements that have come out from "head office" (so to speak) most of the content principle is there. Having said all the above here are some thoughts to be critically analysed by all and sundry: (a) Certainly our fundamental principles should include neutrality, equality and freedom to practice lifestyles/culture that don't hinder, impede or harm others. (b) Perhaps we should put some thought into how govt is selected. Maybe govt positions are selected from the pool of citizens without elections. In other words everyone who has not disqualified themselves must serve and are appointed by random selection. I understand there are problems with this approach, however it would certainly remove the even bigger problems with the 3 main forms of govt selection currently being used on earth. This would also require proper education of all citizens and solid, enforceable rules of conduct and limitation on power. (c) Perhaps our by-laws could follow a compact principle arrangement as well. Perhaps something like (not being religious) the 10 commandments - which most countries kind of follow in their laws anyway. My point is not to follow a religion, however the principles encoded in at least 7 of those statements cover life in general and give a framework of principles that all subsequent law must stem from. I understand that it's possible my approach leaves room for moralising etc, I guess this is why we are all putting forth ideas for discussion rather than putting forth our own version of the constitution :-)