NationStates

LeaveAlone wrote:As it would appear The Star Empire of of Ainocra is unwilling to consider a fair and considerate approach to funding, the Principality of LeaveAlone is left with little choice but to vote against the initial repeal.

We are still open to change however, and will monitor this issue closely.

Thank you for your input Ambassador, in our view one of the main flaws with the original resolution was the funding method. I would be willing to consider a hybrid model, but I cannot in good faith retain the current funding model. If you can provide some language to consider I will happily review it.

Ainocra wrote:Thank you for your input Ambassador, in our view one of the main flaws with the original resolution was the funding method. I would be willing to consider a hybrid model, but I cannot in good faith retain the current funding model. If you can provide some language to consider I will happily review it.

The Prince of LeaveAlone takes a personal interest in this matter, he finds it already difficult to put food on his people's tables, and would like to suggest nations of a below average economy rating be granted exemption from any contributory levies the GAO may wish to impose as a direct result of this revised act.

LeaveAlone wrote:

Ainocra wrote:Thank you for your input Ambassador, in our view one of the main flaws with the original resolution was the funding method. I would be willing to consider a hybrid model, but I cannot in good faith retain the current funding model. If you can provide some language to consider I will happily review it.

The Prince of LeaveAlone takes a personal interest in this matter, he finds it already difficult to put food on his people's tables, and would like to suggest nations of a below average economy rating be granted exemption from any contributory levies the GAO may wish to impose as a direct result of this revised act.

I believe that under the terms of the General fund nations are generally not asked for more than they can afford to give.

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

So most nations should see little to no change in their donations. If we wished to address how nations deal with those donations then we should look into replacing GA#17.
I will see if I can tweak the replacement a little bit tomorrow morning sometime.

ooc:
i'd do it now but i'm pretty swamped IRL.

The Democratic Socialist Assembly has elected by a wide margin to support the repeal of GAR#92.
It is my opinion that the target resolution is unfit for the modern WA and while I find the replacement to be uninspiring, I do believe there is no harm in this repeal.

My thanks to you and your constituents for your support.

Ainocra wrote:

World Assembly Science Program

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational
Proposed by: Ainocra

We the collected nations of this assembly,
Understand that science is the pursuit of knowledge, and declaring that this knowledge should be used for the collective good of all sapient species. Noting that through the applied use of scientific knowledge we can shape a better existence for ourselves and our posterity. Believing that such knowledge should be freely shared so that all benefit from it, we do hereby establish the World Assembly Science Program. (Hereafter known as WASP)

Defines for the purposes of this act:
Scientific literature as comprising scientific publications such as journals or books that report or review original empirical and theoretical work or research in the natural and social sciences or within a given scientific field.

1) Hereby tasks the WASP with the following mandate;

(a) To collect and archive copies of any and all publicly available scientific literature with the aim of preserving and protecting it for use now and in the future excepting only that which is illegal under extant WA law.
(b) To disseminate to any citizen of any member nation of this assembly any of this literature upon request excepting only that which is illegal under extant national or sub national law.
(c) To provide an international forum for the free circulation of ideas. In order to accomplish this goal any new theorems and experimental data submitted to WASP shall be disseminated to all member nations for the purpose of unbiased peer review in order to facilitate the most up to date scientific record possible.
(e) To coordinate with the ULC in order to maintain multiple and redundant backup copies of this archive at various locations to prevent loss due to a disaster or other calamity.
(f) To work with the ULC to ensure that only relevant data necessary to the scientific process makes its way into the archive in order to prevent confusion and excess.

2) Directs the WASP to upon request; coordinate research activities between any national, sub national, corporate or individual entities within the WA by facilitating the establishment of a joint program to encourage, develop and assist in cooperative research and development activities in science and technology including but not limited to

(a) Coordinated joint research/development projects, studies, and investigations;
(b) Joint scientific courses, workshops, conferences and symposia;
(c) The free exchange of science, technology, information, and documentation;
(d) The free exchange of scientists, specialists, and researchers;
(e) The free exchanges or sharing of equipment, materials and facilities;
(f) All in the context of cooperative research activities in order to expand the boundaries of knowledge for all concerned.

3) Directs the GAO to provide the WASP with whatever resources are needed to accomplish these goals.

4) Forbids the utilization of the WASP for the deliberate bypassing of intellectual property laws.

We, the Principality of LeaveAlone, submit; Section 4 leaves room for exploitation, as the proposed does not define ownership of intellectual property rights, in the context of the WASP's findings, nor does it determine access in context of any Intellectual property the WASP may inevitably come to own. This leaves room for the WASP to fully and completely restrict access to any nation at it's own discretion.

We still express concerns over the funding method. The WASP may, under Subsection 2a, engage in privatized research at the sole benefit of the requesting nations, using the resources of every other WA member.

LeaveAlone wrote:

Ainocra wrote:
4) Forbids the utilization of the WASP for the deliberate bypassing of intellectual property laws.



We, the Principality of LeaveAlone, submit; Section 4 leaves room for exploitation, as the proposed does not define ownership of intellectual property rights, in the context of the WASP's findings, nor does it determine access in context of any Intellectual property the WASP may inevitably come to own. This leaves room for the WASP to fully and completely restrict access to any nation at it's own discretion.

We still express concerns over the funding method. The WASP may, under Subsection 2a, engage in privatized research at the sole benefit of the requesting nations, using the resources of every other WA member.

On the matter of funding I would refer his excellency to this thread

Estimate of the WAGF

wherein it is estimated that the WA general fund takes in far more money than it can ever reasonably hope to spend. I am not opposed to WASP taking donations should some philanthropic nation or entity wish to provide them with such. The old funding model is one of the main problems with the original resolution it was fraught with the potential for abuse. (OOC: I still haven't been able to sit down and tinker together something on that front, the wife claimed my entire weekend. I hope to be able to get to it sometime in the next few days.)

As for the matter of intellectual property law, I feel that to attempt to write such law into this proposal would be illegal. (category violation)
Such law is better served by it's own proposal in the proper category. The reason section 4 exists in the current draft at all is to prevent deliberate
misuse of WASP to bypass national and subnational laws regarding intellectual property. As for WASP itself restricting access to any of it's knowledge that is covered by Article 1 section b.

(b) To disseminate to any citizen of any member nation of this assembly any of this literature upon request excepting only that which is illegal under extant national or sub national law.

WASP cannot restrict access to it's archive except in cases where the requesting citizen is requesting something that is illegal where they are located. This section would also serve as a backstop for national and subnational intellectual property laws.

I hope this assuages your concerns.

Ainocra wrote:
On the matter of funding I would refer his excellency to this thread

Estimate of the WAGF

wherein it is estimated that the WA general fund takes in far more money than it can ever reasonably hope to spend. I am not opposed to WASP taking donations should some philanthropic nation or entity wish to provide them with such. The old funding model is one of the main problems with the original resolution it was fraught with the potential for abuse. (OOC: I still haven't been able to sit down and tinker together something on that front, the wife claimed my entire weekend. I hope to be able to get to it sometime in the next few days.)

As for the matter of intellectual property law, I feel that to attempt to write such law into this proposal would be illegal. (category violation)
Such law is better served by it's own proposal in the proper category. The reason section 4 exists in the current draft at all is to prevent deliberate
misuse of WASP to bypass national and subnational laws regarding intellectual property. As for WASP itself restricting access to any of it's knowledge that is covered by Article 1 section b.

(b) To disseminate to any citizen of any member nation of this assembly any of this literature upon request excepting only that which is illegal under extant national or sub national law.

WASP cannot restrict access to it's archive except in cases where the requesting citizen is requesting something that is illegal where they are located. This section would also serve as a backstop for national and subnational intellectual property laws.

I hope this assuages your concerns.

We are concerned with the spending venture not because of where it comes from, but where it goes to... it is why all our business is government or state owned. You may see research done for a nation, in private, which under current WASP regulations they would be obliged help fund and progress, whom have, or make, intellectual property claims against that research, which would then restrict the WASP from distributing that knowledge, even while they are obliged to continue working on said project... even if you delegate the role of project overseer to a committee that approves these projects, there is still room for a nation to try.

Category violations are in their namesake, when you proposed WASP, you created a category under that header, in this case, the creation of an international scientific committee. By defining how your proposed entity handles a given situation, you are creating a set of standards your proposed entity promises to uphold. In this case, I am asking you to define how the WASP handles the rights on Intellectual property that they either create, or that is provided to them. It should be clear to all involved parties that all intellectual properties rights for any and all research the WASP participates in, or otherwise aids, is forfeit to the WASP, which is then bound by category 1b to redistribute that information to any requesting party. This is not a Category violation, as defining how the WASP handles intellectual property does not make it something other than the WASP.

I understand this borders on, if not creates a rule within the category of Political Stability, but any and every Proposal must be able to stand on it's own, or face a House of Cards violation... OOC: I haven't been playing NationStates for long, at all. Reading over the regulations would suggest that creating a proposal under the Political Stability category, with the sole purpose of defining intellectual property rights for the WASP alone, would be a clear House of Cards violation. Unless defining the creation of intellectual property under the WASP alone (as in, does not affect any how Intellectual property applies to any other regulation) somehow violates or attempts to bypass a preexisting regulation, I feel there is simply no better way to go about it.

"It seems in order, at least it's not like a certain resolution where the Author repealed a resolution to merely be able to sell nuclear materials despite this going against a previous resolution they had wrote."

OOC: We all know who I'm talking about

"Well, this is going to pass by a huge margin. Given there are two queued proposals behind there's absolutely no need to hurry the replacement and we really do hope that the Ainocrans will reconsider rushing their shatteringly terrible legislative mess into queue the second the vote updates, so that it can be redrafted."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

I've brought the replacement to the top of the thread, I still want to work on it a bit before submitting it.

I want to thank everyone who voted for the Repeal, now let's make WASP even better than it was before.

The World Assembly Science Program has already been established, and not even by the resolution just repealed (the resolution that did establish it still exists). I think you'll have to drop the establishment part and simply "task" the existing WASP with additional duties the way a dozen resolutions already do/did.

Oh, and now I realize you'll probably have to rename the proposal too. Sorry about that.

EDIT AGAIN: Upon re-reading said resolution, the agency is actually called the "WA Scientific Programme": viewtopic.php?p=1821884#p1821884

I'll examine it in depth later tonight. looks like you're right though.

OOC: Forgive me if its been debated, my net is so flaky I don't want to try going back through 5 pages to check, but does this do enough to avoid a 'committee only' label?

We are concerned with the spending venture not because of where it comes from, but where it goes to... it is why all our business is government or state owned. You may see research done for a nation, in private, which under current WASP regulations they would be obliged help fund and progress, whom have, or make, intellectual property claims against that research, which would then restrict the WASP from distributing that knowledge, even while they are obliged to continue working on said project... even if you delegate the role of project overseer to a committee that approves these projects, there is still room for a nation to try.

Category violations are in their namesake, when you proposed WASP, you created a category under that header, in this case, the creation of an international scientific committee. By defining how your proposed entity handles a given situation, you are creating a set of standards your proposed entity promises to uphold. In this case, I am asking you to define how the WASP handles the rights on Intellectual property that they either create, or that is provided to them. It should be clear to all involved parties that all intellectual properties rights for any and all research the WASP participates in, or otherwise aids, is forfeit to the WASP, which is then bound by category 1b to redistribute that information to any requesting party. This is not a Category violation, as defining how the WASP handles intellectual property does not make it something other than the WASP.

I understand this borders on, if not creates a rule within the category of Political Stability, but any and every Proposal must be able to stand on it's own, or face a House of Cards violation... OOC: I haven't been playing NationStates for long, at all. Reading over the regulations would suggest that creating a proposal under the Political Stability category, with the sole purpose of defining intellectual property rights for the WASP alone, would be a clear House of Cards violation. Unless defining the creation of intellectual property under the WASP alone (as in, does not affect any how Intellectual property applies to any other regulation) somehow violates or attempts to bypass a preexisting regulation, I feel there is simply no better way to go about it.

Unfortunately intellectual property law is far too broad a subject, and the category for this proposal is education. If I attempt to write extensive laws regarding intellectual property into this proposal it will be illegal for going outside it's category. You have the right of it mostly with HoC violations btw.

I have updated the thread, and changed the title and tinkered with the language a little bit.
I've added a bit about funding but i'm not done with it yet.

still needs some work


ooc:

yeah Norm, it's not just AUC

Ainocra wrote:Unfortunately intellectual property law is far too broad a subject, and the category for this proposal is education. If I attempt to write extensive laws regarding intellectual property into this proposal it will be illegal for going outside it's category. You have the right of it mostly with HoC violations btw.

I have updated the thread, and changed the title and tinkered with the language a little bit.
I've added a bit about funding but i'm not done with it yet.

still needs some work


ooc:

yeah Norm, it's not just AUC

We believe there is a misunderstanding, we would like to define ownership of Intellectual property the WASP deals with, and that alone. a single regulation would fulfill this request.

We would like to point out that resolution #87 defines no duties to the WASP other than managing all of it's agencies, and this draft resolution then tasks the WASP with creating an agency for every header under the sun. (OOC ok, now my head is starting to hurt, didn't expect this, but it only changes my attack angle slightly, thankfully.)


Resolution #87 contains almost the exact wording we would like to see in this resolution, however, it applies to a sub agency, instead of the whole WASP.

Subsection 3:

3. Strongly urges all WA members to cooperate with the IMO by supplying it with all of the relevant information that they possess;

We would ask this be made non optional, and assigned to WASP in general (Strongly urges changed to Requires, IMO to WASP).

Yeah I was misunderstanding you, you'd like to see something like this added then?

Requires all WA members to cooperate with the WASP by supplying it with all data relevant to it's mandate within extant national and subnational law.

That's doable I think, ill see if I can pretty it up a bit more and find a place to put it in.

ooc:

I'm still terribly swamped irl, couple of people at work had to take some time off so i'm trying to cover more than normal this week.
With luck it should die down a bit by friday

Any more comments?

Ainocra wrote:Yeah I was misunderstanding you, you'd like to see something like this added then?

Requires all WA members to cooperate with the WASP by supplying it with all data relevant to it's mandate within extant national and subnational law.

That's doable I think, ill see if I can pretty it up a bit more and find a place to put it in.

ooc:

I'm still terribly swamped irl, couple of people at work had to take some time off so i'm trying to cover more than normal this week.
With luck it should die down a bit by friday

(Sorry I'm a bit late on this reply) Yes, that should suffice, thank you!

added it

Alright, last call for suggestions

I'd like to try and send this through this weekend.

1.) Peer review works. And it works without the need for WA involvement. That mandate is unnecessary.
2.) Check your grammar: "We the collected nations of this assembly [...] defines"

Submitted, topic updated.

and we're off!

Ainocra wrote:Submitted, topic updated.

and we're off!

Why do we need to replace this?

I liked the original, but felt it suffered from a poorly defined mandate, and I did say I would replace it.

ooc:

because science!

The section of which it states member nations are required to share information of all of their scientific discoveries and knowledge should be cancelled. For one, that would be a complete invasion of privacy, and I strongly uphold the idea of nations owning a little privacy. To add, information could fall into the wrong hands and cause international catastrophes. I do, however, believe that the amount of privacy should be limited to which certain information should and shouldn't be shared for the protection of nations from both the public and foreign and domestic enemies.

Sincerely,

-King BIL of Xtoshtia
-Issued March Twenty-Sixth, Two-Thousand and Fifteen