[PASSED] Digital Network Defense

[Oakster]

Taking his seat in the World Assembly chamber, Maxwell Lucien, the newly appointed World Assembly Ambassador for Oakster, nervously looks around as he shuffles the Digital Network Defense proposal in his hands. Having read it several times, and looking around at the various other Nations he can't help but think that he has no idea what he is doing or what is going on.

Many Nations seem to walk in, read the proposal, vote and walk out without showing any sign that they have even read the damn thing, let alone considered it. He glances down one more time and looks at the conflict he thinks he sees...

"Is there an issue where the proposal defines a cyberattack as an unlawful act and yet goes on to mandate that Nations establish cyberattacks as unlawful? It seems a bit redundant, and what about those Nations that don't define cyberattacks as unlawful? Would that mean that the proposal is nullified before it even gets to the mandate part?"

Trying not to sound argumentative on purpose, he continues

"And is there any point to the law, when the mandate just asserts that Nations must prosecute for the offence and yet doesn't determine a punishment? This surely just allows for Nations to enact a law that will comply with the proposal without actually administering any purposeful or meaningful punishment. This means that there is no deterrence against the act of aggression that the proposal seeks to stop making it non effective?"

He jiggles his leg and straightens his tie, as the Nations of the World Assembly consider his words.

[Gwerncyned]

(This is my first post on the World assembly forum and so there may be errors in terms of facts and grammar but I would love to hear your feedback so that I can improve my posts as future issues arrive). THANKS

The people of the Colony of Gwerncyned have Numerous concerns with this bill. However if a few tweaks where made then this would gain my full support.

Firstly we have an issue with the requirement of nations to:

"Make a reasonable effort to secure networks against the threat of cyber attacks"

Should this not be a responsibility of the companies and organisations that run these networks? Governments at a national level stand no hope of organising a more secure network systems for their citizens as they have limited legal access to these systems and the smaller nations of the Assembly would probably not have the funds or skilled workforce to make this possible. I should know I represent a country of only 6 million people that has a weak economy valued at 185 billion Pounds a year. Also define a reasonable effort. Does this mean that I, or any other nation could attempt to improve network security for our citizens declare it a failure and then never bother with the issue again. This just seems to be a massive loophole in the whole proposal as it puts the rest of the points in the bill into doubt.

However My people have a particular problem and fear for their political freedom when it comes to this point in the proposal

"Reserves the right of member nations to monitor networks for digital security threats, should national law allow them to do so"

I understand that this bill is designed to improve national network defences but this puts the security of the entire population of the assembly nations at risk of being trapped in a big brother-like state where all citizens can be monitored online due to being loosely defined as a "digital security threat."

Therefore I reject this bill as a representative of my people as it is full of dangerous loopholes and puts pressure on the already strained economies of the smaller nation states. I will pass these above points onto my regional delegate, The Sovereign Kingdom of Westnesia who represents the communist Bloc and has control of 353 endorsements and so could swing this vote.

[Kahanistan]

"No, Ambassador, it could not. That would be an entirely unreasonable redefinition of 'violence'."

"One well within the wording of the draft resolution, however."

[Doxovia]

"A repressive regime could easily declare accessing a prohibited website unlawful access and thus a cyberattack and an act of violence to brand dissidents terrorists. The Free Republic must thus cast its vote against any WA resolution that might put a kosher stamp on violent repression."

"No, Ambassador, it could not. That would be an entirely unreasonable redefinition of 'violence'."

"According to the proposal at vote, it's not a matter of "reason." This proposal defines any "unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices" as an act of violence. Looking at lawfully prohibited content is no more violent than using a keylogger to steal a foreign diplomat's credentials, yet both would constitute "unlawful access to . . . numerical information stored on a digital device."

The Doxovite ambassador pauses to polish his monocle.

"If that seems absurd to you, then perhaps you should consider voting 'No' to this proposal."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Imperial Parliamentary Select Committee on Foreign Affairs

---

Due to my absence from the World Assembly to participate in the Parliamentary Elections and the referendum on our participation on the World Assembly, I am submitting this letter to note our position on the matter. We will offer our friends in Excidium Planetis our fullest support in this endeavour of theirs. Whilst we were, at some time in the past, concerned about more restrictive provisions that would have damaged the ability of the United Commonwealth to protect its national security, those concerns were quickly resolved. So far as no major issues are suddenly discovered that would jeopardise the national security of member nations, this government's vote will remain.

His Grace, the Duke of Geneva,

OOC: Finally finished the United Commonwealth (well, also the Democratic Empire) coat of arms. Trying to use them. Heheh.

[South Sacred Sauce]

We from SSS are still studying how this resolution may impact on our nation. We recognize excidium_planetis efforts on averting potential threats that may harm International Security, and even if we don't suffer from any kind of terrorism attack, we are a compassionate country, commited with pacifism and safety, and if we or any other nation show us a valid point to convince us otherwise, we will vote for...

[South Sacred Sauce]

However My people have a particular problem and fear for their political freedom when it comes to this point in the proposal

"Reserves the right of member nations to monitor networks for digital security threats, should national law allow them to do so"

I understand that this bill is designed to improve national network defences but this puts the security of the entire population of the assembly nations at risk of being trapped in a big brother-like state where all citizens can be monitored online due to being loosely defined as a "digital security threat."

We believe you should not fear this point of the resolution, but your own government. This point of the resolution, in our interpretation, just states it will not ban the right of your country to do what it says. Even if this resolution fails, your country would still be able to monitor networks for digital security threats... it depends of your nation laws...

[Excidium Planetis]

"cyberattack" as any act of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices. For the purposes of cooperation with other WA legislation, such acts are to be considered acts of violence.

"A repressive regime could easily declare accessing a prohibited website unlawful access and thus a cyberattack and an act of violence to brand dissidents terrorists. The Free Republic must thus cast its vote against any WA resolution that might put a kosher stamp on violent repression."

"That is a possible interpretation, however, please note that repressive regimes could do that before this resolution, and such prohibitions could still be banned by another resolution afterwards. It should not be a problem."

Taking his seat in the World Assembly chamber, Maxwell Lucien, the newly appointed World Assembly Ambassador for Oakster, nervously looks around as he shuffles the Digital Network Defense proposal in his hands. Having read it several times, and looking around at the various other Nations he can't help but think that he has no idea what he is doing or what is going on.

Many Nations seem to walk in, read the proposal, vote and walk out without showing any sign that they have even read the damn thing, let alone considered it. He glances down one more time and looks at the conflict he thinks he sees...

"Is there an issue where the proposal defines a cyberattack as an unlawful act and yet goes on to mandate that Nations establish cyberattacks as unlawful? It seems a bit redundant, and what about those Nations that don't define cyberattacks as unlawful? Would that mean that the proposal is nullified before it even gets to the mandate part?"

Trying not to sound argumentative on purpose, he continues

"And is there any point to the law, when the mandate just asserts that Nations must prosecute for the offence and yet doesn't determine a punishment? This surely just allows for Nations to enact a law that will comply with the proposal without actually administering any purposeful or meaningful punishment. This means that there is no deterrence against the act of aggression that the proposal seeks to stop making it non effective?"

He jiggles his leg and straightens his tie, as the Nations of the World Assembly consider his words.

Cornelia Schultz stands to respond to Ambassador Lucien. "I thank you for your careful consideration of this resolution. However, I would like to point out that this resolution defines cyberattacks as unlawful access or alteration, so there cannot be a case where nations 'don't define cyberattacks as unlawful'. For nations which do not determine any access or alteration within their nation as unlawful, cyberattacks in other nations are still illegal in those nations, so a nation would still be prohibited by this resolution from targeting those nations with cyberattacks.

"Finally, because of the vastly different judicial systems in member nations (some which may not even have a judicial system), the WA cannot specify punishments for violating its resolutions. If you have any way to resolve this problem, please say it, and we'll have a whole lot of resolutions to repeal and replace."

(This is my first post on the World assembly forum and so there may be errors in terms of facts and grammar but I would love to hear your feedback so that I can improve my posts as future issues arrive). THANKS

The people of the Colony of Gwerncyned have Numerous concerns with this bill. However if a few tweaks where made then this would gain my full support.

Firstly we have an issue with the requirement of nations to:

"Make a reasonable effort to secure networks against the threat of cyber attacks"

Should this not be a responsibility of the companies and organisations that run these networks? Governments at a national level stand no hope of organising a more secure network systems for their citizens as they have limited legal access to these systems and the smaller nations of the Assembly would probably not have the funds or skilled workforce to make this possible. I should know I represent a country of only 6 million people that has a weak economy valued at 185 billion Pounds a year. Also define a reasonable effort. Does this mean that I, or any other nation could attempt to improve network security for our citizens declare it a failure and then never bother with the issue again. This just seems to be a massive loophole in the whole proposal as it puts the rest of the points in the bill into doubt.

However My people have a particular problem and fear for their political freedom when it comes to this point in the proposal

"Reserves the right of member nations to monitor networks for digital security threats, should national law allow them to do so"

I understand that this bill is designed to improve national network defences but this puts the security of the entire population of the assembly nations at risk of being trapped in a big brother-like state where all citizens can be monitored online due to being loosely defined as a "digital security threat."

Therefore I reject this bill as a representative of my people as it is full of dangerous loopholes and puts pressure on the already strained economies of the smaller nation states. I will pass these above points onto my regional delegate, The Sovereign Kingdom of Westnesia who represents the communist Bloc and has control of 353 endorsements and so could swing this vote.

"You could already introduce a big brother state before this resolution, so I not sure why you are concerned about it."

[Saint Odoursburg]

Taking his seat in the World Assembly chamber, Maxwell Lucien, the newly appointed World Assembly Ambassador for Oakster, nervously looks around as he shuffles the Digital Network Defense proposal in his hands. Having read it several times, and looking around at the various other Nations he can't help but think that he has no idea what he is doing or what is going on.

Many Nations seem to walk in, read the proposal, vote and walk out without showing any sign that they have even read the damn thing, let alone considered it. He glances down one more time and looks at the conflict he thinks he sees...

"Is there an issue where the proposal defines a cyberattack as an unlawful act and yet goes on to mandate that Nations establish cyberattacks as unlawful? It seems a bit redundant, and what about those Nations that don't define cyberattacks as unlawful? Would that mean that the proposal is nullified before it even gets to the mandate part?"

Trying not to sound argumentative on purpose, he continues

"And is there any point to the law, when the mandate just asserts that Nations must prosecute for the offence and yet doesn't determine a punishment? This surely just allows for Nations to enact a law that will comply with the proposal without actually administering any purposeful or meaningful punishment. This means that there is no deterrence against the act of aggression that the proposal seeks to stop making it non effective?"

He jiggles his leg and straightens his tie, as the Nations of the World Assembly consider his words.

Hear, hear

[Gwerncyned]

Thomas Tolhurst representative of Gwerncyned stands in response to Cornelia Schultz

I understand your reply to my last point and I have taken it into consideration. However I feel that your point on the restriction of the military use of Cyber attacks is a fairly void.
The proposal will
"Prohibit member nations from engaging in cyber attacks themselves, with the exception that member nations may utilize cyber attacks against networks belonging to foreign combatants with which they are in conflict, or against government networks of nations they reasonably suspect pose a real threat to their nation."

This suggests that nations will have a mandate to use cyber attacks on a whim and may not even be at war with the target of the cyber attack. This poses a threat to the sovereignty of many of the smaller nations in the assembly who do not have the resources to defend themselves from such attacks. Perhaps this should be changed so that nations can perform cyber attacks on nations whom they are currently at war with, and those who are officially condemned by the security council, rather than putting the decision of who and who isn't a threat to national security down to the individual member states we fear that this wording would spark a wave of cyber attacks due to the subjective nature of the term "threat to the nation."

The amendment to allow cyber attacks only on foreign powers who one is in conflict with and the nations officially condememed by the security council would perhaps be enough to settle my peoples nerves. As our cyber security is not up to standard to defend against attacks from larger nations who may decide that we are a threat to their security.

Thomas Tolhurst retakes his seat awaiting a response from Cornelia Schultz

[Draconae]

Ambassador Marcus Valorus walks into the room, takes a breath, and declares, "The Triumviritic Republic of Draconae will support this bill. Although it does seem weird that cyberattacks are considered acts of violence, especially if the cyberattack in question is only to view data, I can understand the definition if it is required to create penalties for cyberterrorism. Is that the reason for the definition? Second, since websites are accessed via a network, Kahanistan has a good point. However, as repressive countries can do that anyway, we will vote for."

"If you would like us to more readily support this bill, I would suggest stating that "alteration of numerical information is to be considered an act of violence", as that is closer to cyberterrorism than just viewing information. Thank you."

[British North African colonies]

"The flawed defention of cyberterroism is nessecary for the goverment to aid major corporations in our nation.How will our economy grow otherwise?" Says one of the corrupt ministers convincing John marks,the WA member to vote against this.

[Phoemimus]

"We are all for instituting a defensive effort against acts of cyberterrorism." "After all, as long as a citizen has nothing to hide, they should have no problem with being monitored for the sake of safety." "However, should this not be an issue for individual nations to decide upon? Let everyone fend for themselves. If a governing body determines such an act to be necessary, then they can implement it on a national scale, just not a global one."

[AutomatedMessage]

Apologies if this has already been asked and sufficiently answered, because I haven't read all the comments.

I have no problem with the resolution except this part:

"member nations may utilize cyberattacks against ... government networks of nations they reasonably suspect pose a real threat to their nation"

Who gets to say that there is reasonable suspicion? If it is just left up to the nation that says it is under threat, it seems that the rule could encourage cyberattacks. I would only vote for this if there was at least a World Assembly committee that weighed in.

Thanks for reading.

- Automated Message

[Oakster]

Maxwell finishes his questions and nods in thanks and smiles at the Ambassador for Saint Odoursburg who expresses his agreement with the points he raised. Buoyed by this confirmation and acceptance of his place in the World Assembly, Maxwell listens intently as other Nations start to debate the proposal.

Fear then sets in when he realises that Cornelia Schultz has stood up to address the points he has made. With a dry throat and clammy hands he listens intently and prepares for the verbal tear down...

"I thank you for your careful consideration of this resolution. However, I would like to point out that this resolution defines cyberattacks as unlawful access or alteration, so there cannot be a case where nations 'don't define cyberattacks as unlawful'. For nations which do not determine any access or alteration within their nation as unlawful, cyberattacks in other nations are still illegal in those nations, so a nation would still be prohibited by this resolution from targeting those nations with cyberattacks.

He frowns as he thinks to himself that Cornelia has missed the point that it is entirely possible for a Nation to not define cyberattacks as unlawful as this proposal is one that is based on the prerequisite of cyberattacks being unlawful! Surely Schultz can see that this proposal is no way near adequate enough to create a definition of cyberattack AND to assert its unlawfulness on the Nations of the World!

"Finally, because of the vastly different judicial systems in member nations (some which may not even have a judicial system), the WA cannot specify punishments for violating its resolutions. If you have any way to resolve this problem, please say it, and we'll have a whole lot of resolutions to repeal and replace."

Nodding out of politeness Maxwell says,

"I think that you have missed my point Ambassador. Your proposal is one to stop a perceived act of unlawfulness. So if a Nation doesn't determine that the act is unlawful in the first place then your proposal is moot and if you are saying that this act also creates the assertion that cyberattacks are unlawful then, in my opinion, it is nowhere near adequate and would require a large section in itself, if not an entire proposal. One line in this proposal is not enough.

I do concede that it is outside of the scope of the World Assembly to set precise punishment levels for each individual country but by definition of being a World Assembly Nation, each Nation concedes some Sovereignty to the WA. I would have thought that if a proposal is one of deterrence then it must contain a level of deterrence or it is no more than words on a piece of paper."

As he finishes, other Nations also start the process of seeking clarification on the definition of cyberattacks, enforcing his view that this proposal is far too basic and broad to try and define the term cyberattacks, let alone go on and assert that it is unlawful.

He starts to come to the decision that although he can see what the proposal is trying to achieve, he feels that it is inadequate for that purpose. He opens up his email client and starts to write an email to Prime Minister William James.

Sir, Having started discussions regarding the WA proposal I am leaning towards voting No. The basic premise is good but its reaching too far and has a lot of assumptions and weak assertions. Other Nations are in agreement and I will keep you updated. Regards, Max.

[Excidium Planetis]

This suggests that nations will have a mandate to use cyber attacks on a whim and may not even be at war with the target of the cyber attack.

"Not on a whim, sir, but on reasonable suspicion of a real threat. There are three requirements here: One, that a nation suspects the target nation of being a threat. This is fairly easy to meet, I'll admit. Two, that the suspicion is reasonable. This harder to meet... attacking nations just because you have an irrational fear of them is not reasonable. You must be able to logically conclude that the nation is a threat. And finally, Three, that the threat is a real threat to your nation, not simply a possible threat. So, even if you argue convincingly that the target nation shares your least defended border and has a military larger than yours, you must actually suspect that they threaten your nation in a real way, not simply that they are a possible threat."

Perhaps this should be changed so that nations can perform cyber attacks on nations whom they are currently at war with, and those who are officially condemned by the security council,

"First of all, Condemned nation are not the only ones that pose a clear and present danger to other nations. In fact, some of the nations Condemned by the Security Council are not considered threats by my government (OmigodtheykilledKenny is not considered a threat despite being Condemned for exploiting loopholes and hating dolphins). Second, are you aware that the Security Council has Condemned only a handful of nations out of an Assembly of thousands?"

(Out of Character: The Security Council and the GA have almost nothing to do with each other. In fact, I believe mentioning the Security Council in a GA proposal is actually a rule violation.)

"The flawed defention of cyberterroism is nessecary for the goverment to aid major corporations in our nation.How will our economy grow otherwise?" Says one of the corrupt ministers convincing John marks,the WA member to vote against this.

"Your nation needs people to break its own laws to prosper? What?"

"I think that you have missed my point Ambassador. Your proposal is one to stop a perceived act of unlawfulness. So if a Nation doesn't determine that the act is unlawful in the first place then your proposal is moot and if you are saying that this act also creates the assertion that cyberattacks are unlawful then, in my opinion, it is nowhere near adequate and would require a large section in itself, if not an entire proposal. One line in this proposal is not enough.

"I think you misunderstand, Ambassador. If a nation determines that the act is not unlawful, then they have two problems: First, that they must accept that it is a legal action and must deal with the consequences of, and second, that they have no control over other nations and thus [i]cannot use cyberattacks against other nations because it is those nations which say it is unlawful.

"Let me make an example to illustrate. We have Nation A, Citizen A, and Nation B. Simple, right? Nation A says it is lawful to access data without permission, but unlawful to alter it without permission. Now, you may think that because they have not made unpermitted access to data illegal, Nation A is free to spy on networks at will. But, Nation B has made unpermitted access to data and alteration of data unlawful. So Nation A cannot spy on Nation B's networks, because that would be unlawful (Nation B having jurisdiction over their networks) and thus a cyberattack prohibited by this resolution. So Nation A cannot spy on Nation B. Nation A must also deal with the fact that Nation B can now spy on it, since unpermitted access to data is not unlawful in Nation A. Not only that, but Citizen A can spy on their own government, legally, because Nation A has declared that unpermitted access to data is not unlawful. Citizen A, however, cannot alter data without permission in either Nation A or B, because it both nations that is illegal and thus a cyberattack.

"Do you understand? Each nation determines what constitutes unlawful within its own jurisdiction. International cyberattacks inevitably are done by an attacking nation in the target nation's jurisdiction, so the target nation is the one that determines the cyberattack. Even if my nation completely legalized hacking, we can't hack your government networks if it is illegal in your nation."

I do concede that it is outside of the scope of the World Assembly to set precise punishment levels for each individual country but by definition of being a World Assembly Nation, each Nation concedes some Sovereignty to the WA. I would have thought that if a proposal is one of deterrence then it must contain a level of deterrence or it is no more than words on a piece of paper."[/i]

Cornelia Schultz smiles. "You appear to be new to the World Assembly, so I'll be gentle: There are nearly four hundred resolutions. Roughly one hundred to two hundred are still standing and are not repeals. Exactly zero have any kind of enforcement of their provisions. That includes the prohibitions on genocide, the restrictions on nuclear warfare, the ban on chemical weapons in offense, the ban on slavery, the ban on child labor, etc.

"Why? Because it's impossible. Firstly, GA#2 prohibits the creation of a WA police force or military to enforce the resolutions. Second, fees cannot be implemented because of the economic differences between nations. Some don't even use currency. Expulsion from the WA is not possible (OOC: Metagaming violation), same with automatic Condemnation. So tell me, how could you possibly make sure that nations are punished for cyberattacks?"

[Oakster]

To: Lucien, Maxwell (WA Ambassador)
From:Wellington, Samuel (Foreign Secretary)

Sir, I am just out of the morning meeting so apologies for not replying sooner. Good work on the discussions. I know that this appointment was quick and you felt that it was too much too soon, but keep at it and you'll make a fine WA Ambassador I am sure and continue to make Oakster proud. I have spoken to our Regional Delegate and I have asked him to introduce himself to make you feel at ease. Regards, Sam.

Maxwell closes the laptop as the pressure of being visited by the Regional Delegate slowly squashes him down into the size of a small boy, surrrounded by the big kids on his first day at school. He gulps. He takes a sip of water and turns to face Cornelia Schulz who had been replying to him as he was paying attention to the email.

"... their own government, legally, because Nation A has declared that unpermitted access to data is not unlawful. Citizen A, however, cannot alter data without permission in either Nation A or B, because it both nations that is illegal and thus a cyberattack.

"Do you understand? Each nation determines what constitutes unlawful within its own jurisdiction. International cyberattacks inevitably are done by an attacking nation in the target nation's jurisdiction, so the target nation is the one that determines the cyberattack. Even if my nation completely legalized hacking, we can't hack your government networks if it is illegal in your nation."

Feeling like he has lost the point, not only due to his inability to do two things at once causing him to miss god knows how much of Cornelia's reply, but also due to his inexperience, made worse with the impending visit by the Delegate, Max tries to concentrate as Cornelia continues.

"You appear to be new to the World Assembly, so I'll be gentle: There are nearly four hundred resolutions. Roughly one hundred to two hundred are still standing and are not repeals. Exactly zero have any kind of enforcement of their provisions. That includes the prohibitions on genocide, the restrictions on nuclear warfare, the ban on chemical weapons in offense, the ban on slavery, the ban on child labor, etc.

"Why? Because it's impossible. Firstly, GA#2 prohibits the creation of a WA police force or military to enforce the resolutions. Second, fees cannot be implemented because of the economic differences between nations. Some don't even use currency. Expulsion from the WA is not possible, same with automatic Condemnation. So tell me, how could you possibly make sure that nations are punished for cyberattacks?"

Steeling himself at the slight condescension by Cornelia, Max takes a breath and stands up, putting his hands on the desk to hide the nervous shaking and tries to defend his shrinking position.

"The point I am making is that the proposal doesn't seem to... It's just a bit... erm... I can't explain... I guess I am trying to say that it seems to be a bit wishy washy? It looks like its trying to outlaw the act of cyberattacks, a proposal which Oakster of course appreciates and supports, but at the same time allows for it to happen as long as the state in question deems it to be legal and can justify it. In effect nullifying the need for the proposal."

Sitting back down, embarrassed about getting tongue tied, Maxwell takes another sip of water and ticks off the last point he wanted to make regarding the proposal. 'That's it', he thinks to himself. 'All my points made, I look like an idiot, Ambassador Schultz thinks I'm out of my depth and the Regional Delegate might come over and say hello. All in all... what a disaster!'

[Excidium Planetis]

"The point I am making is that the proposal doesn't seem to... It's just a bit... erm... I can't explain... I guess I am trying to say that it seems to be a bit wishy washy? It looks like its trying to outlaw the act of cyberattacks, a proposal which Oakster of course appreciates and supports, but at the same time allows for it to happen as long as the state in question deems it to be legal and can justify it. In effect nullifying the need for the proposal."

"But it doesn't allow it to happen as long as the state deems it legal. The proposal was never meant to outlaw cyberattacks within nations... your own nation can do that on its own. International law is meant for international matters... and nation to nation cyberattacks are an international matter, and the primary concern of Digital Network Defense. As I pointed out, even if your nation deems it legal to hack computers, this resolution prohibits Oakster from hacking Excidian computers... because that's our jurisdiction, where hacking is unlawful and thus your hacks constitute an unlawful access and alteration of data, and thus, a cyberattack.

"Surely you recognize that without international law, there is nothing stopping nations from launching waves of cyberattacks against other nations, and so there is a necessity in this resolution?"

[Oakster]

"But it doesn't allow it to happen as long as the state deems it legal. The proposal was never meant to outlaw cyberattacks within nations... your own nation can do that on its own. International law is meant for Inter...

As Maxwell Lucien listens to Cornelia Schultz explain the proposal, he drifts off to a time in his mind when he was a younger man, eager to get on in the Nation of Oakster and wanting better for himself and his family. He remembers the anarchy that ensued with 12 years of leaderless existence, no purpose to the Nation, no protection from anything or anyone and how chaotic it all was. Something in these memories triggers a part of his brain that makes him see the point that the Proposal is trying to make. There needs to be these laws to help stop chaos between Nations.

He snaps out of the daydream.

"Surely you recognize that without international law, there is nothing stopping nations from launching waves of cyberattacks against other nations, and so there is a necessity in this resolution?"

"I do Ambassador and I concede the point and thank you for allowing me to debate the proposal with you.

Turning to the World Assembly as a whole he continues

"I would like to add that as you may all be aware, although my Nation is an old and experienced one, created not long after the NationStates world came to existence, I am a new Ambassador, new to the World Assembly and to the Government of Oakster and so my inexperience has let me down today. I am honoured to be in these hallowed halls with you all, debating new legislation crafted from the brightest minds the World has to offer, and may I hope to debate with you all for a long time to come. Thank you."

Sitting down, he checks his phone, tidies up his belongings and settles into his chair to see out the course of this discussion.

[Chenginese]

I'm a newcomer.
What's the effect of the act?

It's confusing.

[Oakster]

Maxwell looks to the other side of the room at the Ambassador for Chenginese and with a wry smile thinks to himself - 'Now that is a new Ambassador'. He avoids eye contact as he waits for Cornelia Shultz to acknowledge the newcomer.

[Chenginese]

Maxwell looks to the other side of the room at the Ambassador for Chenginese and with a wry smile thinks to himself - 'Now that is a new Ambassador'. He avoids eye contact as he waits for Cornelia Shultz to acknowledge the newcomer.

You have a great nation with creativity, Ambassador for Oakster.

[Oliveland]

Fiorenze Kaplan, representing The Sanctified Region of Oliveland and by its extent, His Holy Savior Vítor Oliveira, adresses this vote as one of the easiest ever with a clear "Vote FOR".

[The Galactic Triumvirate]

'In consultation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Legislative leaders within the Senate and Commons select committees on Foreign Affairs. As well as the Joint Congressional Committee on Intelligence and Cyber-security. To vote for this resolution. This was ratified by The Joint Triumvirate board including the President.'
- Dr Nancy Lyman, Consul General.

[Sovereign Order of St George]

Majesties, Lords and Ladies Leaders of the Free World,

As we know the World Assembly has begin to vote for criminalizing Cyberattack. We as nations of 21st Century World should recognize that Cyber Crime is a real threat in this digital age. I just want you to think and understand how danger this matter is if this resolution did not pass. It means that any of our nations will be vulnerable to cyber threat. They can hack our banking system that can destabilize our economy, the can brake to our secret archieves and use it against our interest and so on.

So, I do hope those among us who are eligable to caat a vote in WA to VOTE FOR this resolution. And those who already vote against to reconsider their decission and withdraw their vote, for the sake of The World in general.

Thank you very much.

Regards,

Michael V
Prince and Grand Master