DRAFT_*Call for Referendum/ToS negotiation*

Changes in Italics 

Linden Lab have recently used the SL Forums for resident-feedback concerning their future plans about Mainland Zoning and later Ad-farms. While this new use of the forums in itself is very much wanted and supported, we are of the belief that merely feedback from residents, without any force on LL to listen to it and use it, is not sufficient resident input in the process of governance of SL. As stated in our documents, we want that "future contract changes will be negotiated" as well as a "change of the pretext of the Terms of Service regarding change of contract to enable this" In accordance with our belief that resident-governance should be created on all levels (local, federal and global) of governance and control over SL and its users, we call for meaningfull infusion of resident-governance in this feedback process using the forums -and- in general on future changes to the LL ToS and SL governance, eg. negotiation with SL community regarding ToS changes. For this purpose, we propose that *before* LL implements the final policy on Mainland Zoning and Ad-farms (and future ToS/Policy changes), which should have incorporated the resident feedback, they initiate a (binding) referendum on the final text, on the final change to the ToS. A referendum open to everyone (paying and non-paying, landowner or not) and sufficiently announced through multiple venues (inworld, website, email). With the changes clearly stated, together with the SL Forum feedback thread, this will allow for the much needed resident control on LL and will create transparency and accountability into the process of LL Governance on SL.

Draft Rewrite (by smoke)

-Call for ToS Negotiation and Referendum-
by SL Democratic Movement

Over the last months, Linden Lab has used the SL Forums for resident-feedback concerning their future plans about Mainland Zoning, Ad-farms and most recently around the OpenSpace issue. While this new use of the forums in itself is very much wanted and supported, we are of the belief that merely feedback from residents, without any force on LL to listen to it and use it, is not sufficient resident input in the process of governance of SL.

As stated in our documents, we want that "future contract changes will be negotiated" as well as a "change of the pretext of the Terms of Service regarding change of contract to enable this".

In accordance with our belief that resident-governance should be created on all levels (local, federal and global) of governance and control over and in SL, we call for meaningful infusion of resident-governance in the feedback process using the forums -and- in general on future changes to the LL ToS and SL governance, i.e. negotiation with SL community regarding ToS changes.

For this purpose, we propose to demand that LL communicates to the SL userbase their plans for policy changes well before new policies are implemented -and- that before LL implements the final (changes to) policy, which should incorporate the resident feedback given through the forums (or other applicable structures/venues), LL initiates a (binding) referendum on the final text, ie. on the final change to the ToS.
A referendum open to everyone (paying and non-paying, landowner or not) and sufficiently announced through multiple venues (inworld, website, email).
With the changes in policy clearly stated (and previous versions of the ToS archived), together with the SL Forum feedback, this will allow for the much needed resident control on LL and will create transparency and accountability into the process of LL Governance on SL.

To make LL accountable and responsible to the SL Userbase and force them to acknowledge the userbase as the essential constituent of the SL world, as said, we need to also force change in the pretext of the LL ToS, which states that LL can change the contract at any time in their sole discretion. This should change towards a clause that incorporates the right of the SL userbase to be a significant and decisive part of decisions on policy changes that concern SL as a whole.

An important note is that for a meaningful voting procedure some additional changes/conditions are necessary:
1. alt/bot identification and exclusion;
2. a secure, open source software/system for voting;
3. a trusted, independent organisation to handle the voting process.