[PASSED] Consumer Product Safety

[Knootoss]

Fine. I'll be hateful and specific then.

"Consumer Product Safety"
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Cool Egg Sandwich

ACKNOWLEDGING that a predominant role of this body is to promote the safety and security of its member nations and their citizens; (Comment: This really isn't a security proposal. Calling it such stretches the definition of 'security'.)

REALIZING that in many instances citizens of WA member nations are sustaining injury, illness, or even death directly related to unsafe consumer products;

RECOGNIZING the need for a regulatory body charged with maintaining safety standards of said consumer products;

The World Assembly,

ESTABLISHES a “Consumer Product Safety Council”, hereafter CPSC, to protect citizens within WA member nations and maintain international consumer product safety standards; (Comment: An organisation to protect citizens would be, say, the police. This is a regulatory committee.)

DEFINES a “consumer product” as any article, or component thereof, produced or distributed for a consumer to purchase, i.e. toys, automobiles, household chemicals, electronics etc.; however, exempts any article not customarily intended for use, enjoyment, or consumption, by a consumer.

DEFINES an “unsafe consumer product” as any consumer product that can pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure a consumer, even while used properly and according to age / training requirements;

PROHIBITS manufacturers or distributors in member countries from producing and/or distributing consumer products that do not meet the said safety standards in the current form;

CHARGES the CPSC with the investigation of consumer products on an international scale, in order to identify unsafe consumer products and remove them from the market or modify their safety; (Comment: removing from the market is a cannon to shoot at an elephant. And what does "modifying their safety" even mean? Is this committee going to set up factories to correct errors?)

ALLOWS the CPSC to issue a recall of any consumer product, produced within any WA member nation, given reasonable evidence of its “unsafe” qualities;

DEFINES “reasonable evidence” as evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a product is unsafe, as defined by this resolution; (Comment: Wow. Talk about a total absence of legal protections.)

FURTHER ALLOWS the CPSC to impose financial penalties on manufacturers and/or distributors in WA member nations guilty of repeatedly producing and/or distrbuting “unsafe consumer products”; (Comment: Because really, distributors should be punished for transporting and selling items they might have no idea were unsafe.)

STIPULATES that the amount and degree of the financial penalties will be at the sole discretion of the CPSC; however, (Comment: Again, yay sweeping powers with no accountability whatsoever.)

MANDATES that financial penalties may not be assessed by the CPSC on the first violation of consumer product safety standards;

FURTHER STIPULATES that funds received from CPSC violations will be placed in a ‘special’ fund, overseen by the WA, solely dedicated to providing benefits and/or reparations to citizens of WA member nations who have sustained injury, illness, or death from “unsafe consumer products”; (Comment: Because we really need to take the worst aspects of the RL. USA legal system, with it's ambulance chasers and 'hot coffee' litigators, and make them compulsory for all WA nations.)

This Assembly,

URGES individual WA member nations to provide funds, where applicable, to facilitate CPSC organizational efforts, but also;

ALLOWS for the CPSC to operate with funds from the WA General Fund; (Comment: Yay free money from the WA general fund, oh inexhaustible source of moolah for whatever we want to do.)

CONCLUDES that a CPSC will promote a higher level of consumer safety on an international level, leading to a decline in injuries and deaths associated with consumer products. (Comment: There is a difference between resolutions "applying to all nations" and being "on an international level". This resolution has nothing to do with trade or international issues. It just massively infringes on international sovereignty everywhere.)

[A mean old man]

"Consumer Product Safety"
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Cool Egg Sandwich



ACKNOWLEDGING that a predominant role of this body is to promote the safety and security of its member nations and their citizens;

REALIZING that in many instances citizens of WA member nations are sustaining injury, illness, or even death directly related to unsafe consumer products;

RECOGNIZING the need for a regulatory body charged with maintaining safety standards of said consumer products;

The World Assembly,

ESTABLISHES a “Consumer Product Safety Council”, hereafter CPSC, to protect citizens within WA member nations and maintain international consumer product safety standards;

DEFINES a “consumer product” as any article, or component thereof, produced or distributed for a consumer to purchase, i.e. toys, automobiles, household chemicals, electronics etc.; however, exempts any article not customarily intended for use, enjoyment, or consumption, by a consumer.

I'd remove the comma after consumption. Other than that, this looks strong.

DEFINES an “unsafe consumer product” as any consumer product that can pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure a consumer, even while used properly and according to age / training requirements;

PROHIBITS manufacturers or distributors in member countries from producing and/or distributing consumer products that do not meet the said safety standards in the current form;

I fail to see how the second clause here ties verbally to the clause before it.

"PROHIBITS manufacturers or distributors in member countries from producing and/or distributing consumer products that qualify as "unsafe consumer products" according to the terms of this legislation,"

Is that what you were trying to do?

CHARGES the CPSC with the investigation of consumer products on an international scale, in order to identify unsafe consumer products and remove them from the market or modify their safety;

This looks good. I'd kill that comma. "Modify their safety" seems like a clunky wording to me, and, according to the wording of this clause, it would be the CPSC modifying the product, not the producer.

"...or demand modification of said products which would nullify their status as "unsafe consumer products,"

There's an idea. Not sure I like my wording either, but that a variant of that might work more smoothly.

ALLOWS the CPSC to issue a recall of any consumer product, produced within any WA member nation, should the CPSC find reasonable evidence of the consumer product's “unsafe” qualities;

Some suggested edits.

DEFINES “reasonable evidence” as evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a product is unsafe, as defined by this resolution;

I'd just get rid of "reasonable" and then cut out this clause altogether. There's really no need for it.

FURTHER ALLOWS the CPSC to impose financial penalties on manufacturers and/or distributors in WA member nations guilty of repeatedly producing and/or distrbuting “unsafe consumer products”;

STIPULATES that the amount and degree of the financial penalties will be at the sole discretion of the CPSC; however,

MANDATES that financial penalties may not be assessed by the CPSC on the first violation of consumer product safety standards;

FURTHER STIPULATES that funds received from CPSC violations will be placed in a ‘special’ fund, overseen by the WA, solely dedicated to providing benefits and/or reparations to citizens of WA member nations who have sustained injury, illness, or death from “unsafe consumer products”;

I like the general idea of this, though undetermined fines collected by WA organizations have always been a dangerous thing. It might be best to leave the determination of fines up to the nations themselves, or remove this part altogether.

This Assembly,

URGES individual WA member nations to provide funds, where applicable, to facilitate CPSC organizational efforts, but also;

ALLOWS for the CPSC to operate with funds from the WA General Fund;

I doubt that the General Fund will ever be repealed, but I can't help but wonder if mentioning it is a violation. You might want to ask about this in the Moderation forum. Maybe I've already said something like this in another drafting thread and gotten my answer, but I don't remember.

CONCLUDES that a CPSC will promote a higher level of consumer safety on an international level, leading to a decline in injuries and deaths associated with consumer products.

Overall this looks decent. It doesn't look quite complete yet, but there's plenty of time for edits. The structure is kind of funny; usually one would put "The World Assembly," at the top rather than "This Assembly," in a sort of conclusion. I actually think that design is kind of interesting, though I think it would be best to place "This Assembly," or "The World Assembly," before the operative clauses rather than after them.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Ambassador from Knootoss, I will try to address each of your comments separately.

Firstly, you seem to be the only Ambassador to propose an objection to my altruistic statement, which this proposal begins with only to clarify why this proposal is being submitted. I’m not so sure you are going to ‘rally’ support against “promot[ing] safety and security of [WA] member nations and their citizens”.

As to your second point, regarding the purpose of the ‘CPSC’, you mention that it is merely a regulatory committee, and therefore it is not an organization to protect citizens. I will change the proposal to reflect this, as your suggestion makes more sense. Thanks.

You next comment was in regard to the CPSC ‘removing products from the market and/or modifying their safety’. I suppose this is vague, especially the bit about safety modification. Do you have any potential suggestion as to how I can clear up this aspect of the proposal? I was essentially just thinking that the ‘safety modification’ would be nothing more than measures associated with the recall and MANDATED ‘safe’ production of consumer goods.

As to your condemnation of the legal principle, for this resolution, of “reasonable evidence”, I am not so sure why a concept that is legitimate enough for RL legal systems should be so abruptly dismissed within the NationStates multiverse. I understand that we are trying to “improve” the legal code, but if you had a possible suggestion for clarifying how injury, related to “unsafe consumer products”, were legally determined, I would greatly appreciate that advice.

Your next comment was in reference to the punishment of distributors guilty of distributing unsafe consumer goods. If you actually followed this debate, you would then know that I added this clause to prevent a possibly loophole where WA manufacturers would outsource the manufacture of ‘unsafe consumer products’ to non-WA member nations, then appoint themselves domestic distributors, thereby circumventing the legislation entirely. I would appreciate in the future if you were actually versed on the pertinent arguments relating to this proposal. Thanks.

Your next comment was in regards to the ‘hot coffee litigators’ and the ‘ambulance chasers’, taking aspects of the USA legal system. It would appear that you were very tired and/or drunk, because earlier I stipulated that dispensation of funds, and the determination of whether injury was sustained due to ‘unsafe consumer products’, was at the ‘sole discretion’ of the CPSC. Seeing as you love to shit all over this proposal, I am wondering why your comments completely contradict one another. I established the fact that the CPSC has sole discretion precisely to avoid such ‘ambulance chasers’ as you labeled them. Next time, actually read my proposal and think about it before you stick your foot in your mouth.

As to your final point about this resolution sharply infringing on nat sov, but not actually dealing with ‘international’ issues. I would probably be inclined to agree with you on that note. I have received quite a few comments regarding this proposal and its scope within the area of ‘international commerce’. Many believe, as you noted, that this proposal should only apply to international commerce between WA member nations OR only deal with the export from / import to WA member nations. Any thoughts on this Knootoss?

While I am impervious to your hate, I still listen to your comments. In the midst of what was most likely a drunken rage taken out on my proposal, you managed a couple decent comments in there (that is, when you weren’t contradicting yourself, or crying about NatSov). Thanks for your comments regarding this proposal, as always I welcome your input.


Rgds.,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

FURTHER ALLOWS the CPSC to impose financial penalties on manufacturers in WA member nations guilty of repeatedly producing “unsafe consumer products”;

STIPULATES that the amount and degree of the financial penalties will be at the sole discretion of the CPSC; however,

MANDATES that financial penalties may not be assessed by the CPSC on the first violation of consumer product safety standards;

FURTHER STIPULATES that funds received from CPSC violations will be placed in a ‘special’ fund, overseen by the WA, solely dedicated to providing benefits and/or reparations to citizens of WA member nations who have sustained injury, illness, or death from “unsafe consumer products”;

CLARIFIES that the CPSC, jointly with the World Assembly, has sole discretion in determining whether specific citizens of WA member nations have sustained injury, illness, and/or death from “unsafe consumer products”;

The responsibility of all of this should be down to member states. Instead, we propose the following revision in place of the intrusive idea:

CALLS FOR member countries to impose financial penalties on their manufacturers if found guilty of repeated product safety violations;

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

@ Ambassador 'Mean old man'. I have read your post and I am recognizing a lot of your criticism of this proposal as valid. I will post a longer reply later on today, but I just wanted to thank you for your comments and let you know I am considering them.


Rgds.,

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

FURTHER ALLOWS the CPSC to impose financial penalties on manufacturers in WA member nations guilty of repeatedly producing “unsafe consumer products”;

STIPULATES that the amount and degree of the financial penalties will be at the sole discretion of the CPSC; however,

MANDATES that financial penalties may not be assessed by the CPSC on the first violation of consumer product safety standards;

FURTHER STIPULATES that funds received from CPSC violations will be placed in a ‘special’ fund, overseen by the WA, solely dedicated to providing benefits and/or reparations to citizens of WA member nations who have sustained injury, illness, or death from “unsafe consumer products”;

CLARIFIES that the CPSC, jointly with the World Assembly, has sole discretion in determining whether specific citizens of WA member nations have sustained injury, illness, and/or death from “unsafe consumer products”;

The responsibility of all of this should be down to member states. Instead, we propose the following revision in place of the intrusive idea:

CALLS FOR member countries to impose financial penalties on their manufacturers if found guilty of repeated product safety violations;

In regard to the comments made by the Ambassador of 'Mean old Man', I am considering *snipping* this section from the legislation. I will continue to deliberate these considerations throughout the day, and I will post another 'version', with your criticisms, sometime in the near future.


Rgds.,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper feels that it would be an idea to make the strength mild as the scale of product safety reforms mean safety standards normalisation, which makes customs a lot easier.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Ms. Harper feels that it would be an idea to make the strength mild as the scale of product safety reforms mean safety standards normalisation, which makes customs a lot easier.

Noted. I currently have this proposal in the 'Mod' forums, and the category / strength are being debated. I will let everyone know the result of the 'Mod' deliberation as soon as there is something to report.


Rgds.,

[Knootoss]

Ambassador from Knootoss, I will try to address each of your comments separately.

Firstly, you seem to be the only Ambassador to propose an objection to my altruistic statement, which this proposal begins with only to clarify why this proposal is being submitted. I’m not so sure you are going to ‘rally’ support against “promot[ing] safety and security of [WA] member nations and their citizens”.

As to your second point, regarding the purpose of the ‘CPSC’, you mention that it is merely a regulatory committee, and therefore it is not an organization to protect citizens. I will change the proposal to reflect this, as your suggestion makes more sense. Thanks.

You next comment was in regard to the CPSC ‘removing products from the market and/or modifying their safety’. I suppose this is vague, especially the bit about safety modification. Do you have any potential suggestion as to how I can clear up this aspect of the proposal? I was essentially just thinking that the ‘safety modification’ would be nothing more than measures associated with the recall and MANDATED ‘safe’ production of consumer goods.

As to your condemnation of the legal principle, for this resolution, of “reasonable evidence”, I am not so sure why a concept that is legitimate enough for RL legal systems should be so abruptly dismissed within the NationStates multiverse. I understand that we are trying to “improve” the legal code, but if you had a possible suggestion for clarifying how injury, related to “unsafe consumer products”, were legally determined, I would greatly appreciate that advice.

Your next comment was in reference to the punishment of distributors guilty of distributing unsafe consumer goods. If you actually followed this debate, you would then know that I added this clause to prevent a possibly loophole where WA manufacturers would outsource the manufacture of ‘unsafe consumer products’ to non-WA member nations, then appoint themselves domestic distributors, thereby circumventing the legislation entirely. I would appreciate in the future if you were actually versed on the pertinent arguments relating to this proposal. Thanks.

Your next comment was in regards to the ‘hot coffee litigators’ and the ‘ambulance chasers’, taking aspects of the USA legal system. It would appear that you were very tired and/or drunk, because earlier I stipulated that dispensation of funds, and the determination of whether injury was sustained due to ‘unsafe consumer products’, was at the ‘sole discretion’ of the CPSC. Seeing as you love to shit all over this proposal, I am wondering why your comments completely contradict one another. I established the fact that the CPSC has sole discretion precisely to avoid such ‘ambulance chasers’ as you labeled them. Next time, actually read my proposal and think about it before you stick your foot in your mouth.

As to your final point about this resolution sharply infringing on nat sov, but not actually dealing with ‘international’ issues. I would probably be inclined to agree with you on that note. I have received quite a few comments regarding this proposal and its scope within the area of ‘international commerce’. Many believe, as you noted, that this proposal should only apply to international commerce between WA member nations OR only deal with the export from / import to WA member nations. Any thoughts on this Knootoss?

While I am impervious to your hate, I still listen to your comments. In the midst of what was most likely a drunken rage taken out on my proposal, you managed a couple decent comments in there (that is, when you weren’t contradicting yourself, or crying about NatSov). Thanks for your comments regarding this proposal, as always I welcome your input.


Rgds.,

Claiming to promote a universally supported goal at the start of a lengthy resolution is a very common tactic. I also object to a statement of principle which does not conform to the rest of the resolution. Few would disagree with the provision of "safety and security". Many more would take issue with the specific goals of this resolution. I call upon the delegate from CES to be truthful in it's statement of purpose.

In answer to your query, the best way to remove confusion about the committee having the power to enact "safety modifications" would be to simply remove that clause.

As for all the other issues - the easiest way to make this proposal less of an offence against everything the Dutch Democratic Republic stands for, would be to do away with the committee playing judge entirely, and to simply give citizens of all foreign nations the right to seek justice with regards to the safety of consumer products, under the laws of the jurisdiction where the product was manufactured. Your committee could even offer to render assistance to citizens seeking compensation, or wanting to see a product recalled. This would promote legality in the international arena, rather than establishing a new High Court of the Gnomes.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Claiming to promote a universally supported goal at the start of a lengthy resolution is a very common tactic. I also object to a statement of principle which does not conform to the rest of the resolution. Few would disagree with the provision of "safety and security". Many more would take issue with the specific goals of this resolution. I call upon the delegate from CES to be truthful in it's statement of purpose.

In answer to your query, the best way to remove confusion about the committee having the power to enact "safety modifications" would be to simply remove that clause.

As for all the other issues - the easiest way to make this proposal less of an offence against everything the Dutch Democratic Republic stands for, would be to do away with the committee playing judge entirely, and to simply give citizens of all foreign nations the right to seek justice with regards to the safety of consumer products, under the laws of the jurisdiction where the product was manufactured. Your committee could even offer to render assistance to citizens seeking compensation, or wanting to see a product recalled. This would promote legality in the international arena, rather than establishing a new High Court of the Gnomes.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Thank you for making your comments / criticisms concise in this form, I will take your suggestions into consideration and hopefully make a more 'acceptable' piece of legislation. I hope you can forgive the animosity present in my previous post directed at you, Ambassador. I hope to build a diplomatic relationship with many nations in the WA, and I hope that we can find a 'common-ground' with this legislation.


Rgds.,

[Knootoss]

You are welcome. I am holding hopes that this may become a resolution that promotes trade, through the establishment of confidence across boundaries, rather than yet another mandate for the tyrannical High Courts of the Gnomes.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

You are welcome. I am holding hopes that this may become a resolution that promotes trade, through the establishment of confidence across boundaries, rather than yet another mandate for the tyrannical High Courts of the Gnomes.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Let me assure you my intention is the former, although I would be lying if I were to claim that this resolution isn't an 'obstacle' for industry. I thank you for expressing your willingness to come together on this proposal, I hope we can accommodate each other in a respectable manner (insert dirty joke here).


Rgds.,

[Bears Armed]

How are you going to establish a single set of safety standards that works for all Tech Levels, and for poor nations as well as rich ones?

That is not the matter of politicians to decide. That is for the scientists and policymakers who will be given crucial jobs by the proposal.

As distinct from the scientists and policymakers currently working in WA members' national consumer protection agencies who will lose their jobs because this WA agency replaces all of theirs? Bah!

In any case, when giving a committee a job it is advisable to ensure first that that job would actually be within its capabilities. (OOC: For example, as I recall, the Mods did not look kindly on a previous proposal that would have created a committee tasked with finding a cure for all forms of cancer within five years...) To re-phrase my question, then, how is this agency going to establish a single set of safety standards that works for all Tech Levels and for poor nations as well as rich ones?
Set these universal safety standards low enough for producers in low-tech & very poor countries to meet and you deny higher-tech nations the right to set higher standards that their own manufacturers could reach, which decreases rather than increases the general welfare as far as those nations are concerned; but set your universal standards at a level that would please the more advanced nations and you effectively put all producers in low-tech/very poor nations out of business which increases rather than decreases income inequalities between the nations at either end of the scale...

[Knootoss]

These significant problems would be bypassed, by endorsing my final suggestion.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

I am beginning to greatly consider limiting the scope of this proposal. I am continuing to debate the ideas, personally. I will post another version (with edits) in the near future. Comments from all Ambassadors are greatly appreciated.


Rgds.,

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Well, taking into account many of the suggestions I have received, I have decided to drastically limit the scope of this proposal in the attempt to gain a broader acceptance of the legislation.

In any event, I decided to cut back on the major Mandate present in the legislation, and only restrict international trade of consumer products. Furthermore, I decided to limit the authority of the CPSC, eliminating all their authority to impose financial penalties, recall products domestically, and oversee the funds taken from 'product safety violations'. I feel that this legislation gives much of the domestic authority back to the national governments, only regulating the international commerce regarding 'unsafe consumer products'. I hope this version of the proposal is a little more well received.

“Consumer Product Safety”
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Cool Egg Sandwich


ACKNOWLEDGING that a predominant role of this body is to promote and protect the general welfare of the citizens of its member nations;

REALIZING that in many instances citizens of WA member nations are sustaining injury, illness, or even death directly related to unsafe consumer products;

RECOGNIZING the need for a regulatory body charged with maintaining safety standards of said consumer products;

The World Assembly,

ESTABLISHES a “Consumer Product Safety Council”, hereafter CPSC, to maintain international consumer product safety standards;

DEFINES a “consumer product” as any article, or component thereof, produced or distributed for a consumer to purchase, i.e. toys, automobiles, household chemicals, electronics etc.; however, exempts any article not customarily intended for use, enjoyment, or consumption by a consumer.

DEFINES an “unsafe consumer product” as any consumer product that can pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure a consumer, even while used properly and according to age / training requirements;

PROHIBITS the import to and export from WA member nations of consumer products that qualify as “unsafe consumer products” according to the terms of this legislation;

CHARGES the CPSC with the investigation of consumer products on an international scale in order to identify “unsafe consumer products” and prevent their import to and export from WA member nations;

FURTHER CHARGES the CPSC with assisting citizens of WA member nations seeking financial compensation, legal recourse, or product recall associated with “unsafe consumer products”;

STRONGLY URGES member nations to impose financial penalties on manufacturers and/or distributors guilty of producing and/or distributing “unsafe consumer products”;

URGES individual WA member nations to provide funds, where applicable, to facilitate CPSC organizational efforts, but also;

ALLOWS for the CPSC to operate with funds from the WA General Fund;

CONCLUDES that a CPSC will promote a higher level of consumer safety on an international level, leading to a decline in injuries and deaths associated with consumer products.

I look forward to your thoughts, Ambassadors.


Rgds.,

[Knootoss]

This proposal just moved from the "ARRGH!!!" to the "Hn." category of Knootian one word political evaluation.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

This proposal just moved from the "ARRGH!!!" to the "Hn." category of Knootian one word political evaluation.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Lol, Hn. ?

[Knootoss]

OOC: Urban Dictionary definition.

A word often used by anime characters. (Usually the anti-social/ broody/ cold/ tortured types. Ex. Hiei from Yu Yu Hakusho.)

It is a universal bitchy answer to anything anyone says. The character says it when they could care less, or when they are being a jerk. Which is probably all the time. (Can even be used as a greeting, it's pretty versatile. Like grunting to communicate.)

--
Aram is not a nice person IC

[Intellect and the Arts]

I believe a category shift is in order, as this no longer fits under Social Justice. It might be better placed under Advancement of Industry - Protective Tariffs as it appears now to primarily focus on trade regulation, but I admit to a degree of uncertainty on the matter. Either way, Social Justice appears to no longer be the most appropriate placement.

In general, I agree that this is a more satisfactory draft than what came before. Provided a more suitable categorization can be implemented, I would approve of and vote for this proposal should it reach the general floor.

[Knootoss]

I agree. Doing so would change my perception of this proposal from "Hn." to "..."

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Regarding the comments from both Ambassadors, I have submitted the updated version into my 'Mod' thread for a category-ruling. So there should be something definitive in the near future. Although, the mods have been taking their damn time in the first place, so who knows?


Rgds.,

[Knootoss]

The MODS will judge your proposal in good time. It is then that you shall know if it is found wanting.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Intellect and the Arts]

Why, Ambassador Aram, I do believe that's the closest expression to a sincere statement of approval I've witnessed from you since my return to this Assembly! Granted, I really haven't been paying much attention, but still...

Ambassador Darke, patience is the most advisable method of approach where the Secretariat is involved. After all, the office of the Secretariat is oft frequented and mired with requests. A collective thus occupied must be met with understanding if a favorable reception on your part is to be acquired. As far as I am able to discern, this matter is far from pressed for time, and as such it may be freely spent. All things may yet come to those bearing the wisdom to wait.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

ALLOWS for the CPSC to operate with funds from the WA General Fund;

I don't think this is needed at all. One key element to make resolution last longer is not to specify the funding in this case. It automatically comes from the General Fund anyway.