NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate]

[New Zepuha]

Thirded

fourthed + admin approval

Fifth

[Free South Califas]

So if we sent the Energy bills back to the Coffee Shop, this is the queue:

CURRENT QUEUE FOR LEGISLATION

1. Governmental Subdivision Creation Act...

Is it appropriate to discuss my issues with this Act here now, in the Coffee Shop, the Lobby, or somewhere else? (OOC: A question to the floor or whoever is the right person to ask)

[Regnum Dominae]

So if we sent the Energy bills back to the Coffee Shop, this is the queue:

CURRENT QUEUE FOR LEGISLATION

1. Governmental Subdivision Creation Act...

Is it appropriate to discuss my issues with this Act here now, in the Coffee Shop, the Lobby, or somewhere else? (OOC: A question to the floor or whoever is the right person to ask)

Yes.

[Free South Califas]

Am I right in thinking that this is next in line for debate?

Governmental Subdivision Creation Act

Yes, however I move to remove the National Judiciary Act:

1. It would contradict the Judicial Act.
2. The Judicial Act has already passed and we have a functioning judicial system.
3. It's a poor system, which was created to be a provisional system until we had a fully-functioning one. The Judicial Act provides a fully-functioning one.

I second this on the grounds of fundamental philosophical differences with the NJA.

Is it appropriate to discuss my issues with this Act here now, in the Coffee Shop, the Lobby, or somewhere else? (OOC: A question to the floor or whoever is the right person to ask)

Yes.

Thanks, the following summarizes my office's first published critique of the GSCA.

1. Govermental Subdivision Creation Act
-B. National Census Bureau Establishment Act

III. No one should be punished for merely failing to submit information. That is awfully authoritarian. If they decide not to participate in an NCB survey as such, NCB should find some other way to ascertain their information without violating their privacy, i.e. counting homes and vehicles by canvassing, etc. Additionally, NCB surveys may at any given time lack sufficient technology for people with particular speech disorders or cognitive differences to respond. They should hardly be discriminated against. If NCB fails to reach the people, I suspect that is not often enough the people's fault that we ought to make their lives more difficult with special punitive taxation (or as NCBEA says, 'fined').

C. Commerce Ministry Act

"MANDATES that the Ministry will work...
6.) The cooperation between the businesses and the government through the Ministry of Commerce."
Wait, what does this mean? The MoC can generate any work necessary to help the governnment "cooperate" with "the" businesses? How so? Which businesses?

"GRANTING ...
4.) ...2 weeks of paid vacation"
Per what amount of time? Year? Ever? This could be a loophole that keeps people from getting more than 2 weeks of vacation in their entire employment.

"7.) ...businesses can also be free to recognize or deny recognition of such groups, depending on the working environment of the establishment..."
To what end or degree? What does it entail to freely "deny recognition" to worker unions, associations, and cooperatives? Are private businesses considered separate from cooperative busiensses and allowed to in some meaningful sense "deny recognition" to them?

"ESTABLISHES ... the freedom of the free market from government involvement and control..."

I'm afraid this is ideological nonsense. The market is not and cannot be "free", we regulate it and license businesses to exploit the labor, for potentially unlimited profit, of people who have no choice but to sell it at such wages or embrace poverty. Free market? Pablum! Workers are hardly free to improvise their contributions to society, to charge interest for the labor they spend as they delay consumption opportunities for weeks, etc...

D.Act to Establish a Judicial System

"Defines The Supreme Court...highest Court... no other court of appeals ... Nine Justices ..."

Why merely nine judges to determine the fate of every act in this nation for all time? This was a fundamental flaw of the US system, and I'm disappointed it's being emulated. There ought to be more citizen involvement. The proposal is unacceptable to me based on that part, but I will address the rest if there is any chance that part can move in my direction.

[Urcea]

fourthed + admin approval

Fifth

Sixthed

[Maklohi Vai]

Fifth

Sixthed

Seventhed.

Sixthed

Seventh.

And admin approval here.

[Timsvill]

Sixthed

Seventhed.

Seventh.

And admin approval here.

8th!

[Lemanrussland]

III. No one should be punished for merely failing to submit information. That is awfully authoritarian. If they decide not to participate in an NCB survey as such, NCB should find some other way to ascertain their information without violating their privacy, i.e. counting homes and vehicles by canvassing, etc. Additionally, NCB surveys may at any given time lack sufficient technology for people with particular speech disorders or cognitive differences to respond. They should hardly be discriminated against. If NCB fails to reach the people, I suspect that is not often enough the people's fault that we ought to make their lives more difficult with special punitive taxation (or as NCBEA says, 'fined').

When I wrote the skeleton for the bill, I based it largely on current US census legislation. In the US, they're required, and quite serious. The reason census taking is such serious business there is because it's necessary for drawing the lines of Congressional districts, and to award House and Electoral College seats to states.

The seriousness of census taking might vary, depending on how our voting system works. If we use something like mixed member proportional representation, it might not be such a critical issue. If we're using something similar to the US voting system(s), it is a very critical issue.

I would not mind adjusting the legislation so that non-decennial censuses are voluntary, but the decennial censuses may or may not need to be mandatory, again, depending on how our voting system works or will work in the future, since it may be crucial to have accurate population counts.

[Free South Califas]

III. No one should be punished for merely failing to submit information. That is awfully authoritarian. If they decide not to participate in an NCB survey as such, NCB should find some other way to ascertain their information without violating their privacy, i.e. counting homes and vehicles by canvassing, etc. Additionally, NCB surveys may at any given time lack sufficient technology for people with particular speech disorders or cognitive differences to respond. They should hardly be discriminated against. If NCB fails to reach the people, I suspect that is not often enough the people's fault that we ought to make their lives more difficult with special punitive taxation (or as NCBEA says, 'fined').

When I wrote the skeleton for the bill, I based it largely on current US census legislation. In the US, they're required, and quite serious. The reason census taking is such serious business there is because it's necessary for drawing the lines of Congressional districts, and to award House and Electoral College seats to states.

Many thanks for responding to explain your rationale, Senator.

The seriousness of census taking might vary, depending on how our voting system works.

For the record, I suggest range voting with split-line districting...

If we use something like mixed member proportional representation, it might not be such a critical issue. If we're using something similar to the US voting system(s), it is a very critical issue.

For this and other reasons, I'm heavily inclined toward MMR.

I would not mind adjusting the legislation so that non-decennial censuses are voluntary, but the decennial censuses may or may not need to be mandatory, again, depending on how our voting system works or will work in the future, since it may be crucial to have accurate population counts.

How about simply encouraging the future Senate to periodically consider whether it is necessary to make a response mandatory? I worry that rushing into it will breed unnecessary contempt for the government and put public sector workers at risk. Also, if and when necessary, the punishment ought to be flexible, allowing for community service for example.

[Lemanrussland]

When I wrote the skeleton for the bill, I based it largely on current US census legislation. In the US, they're required, and quite serious. The reason census taking is such serious business there is because it's necessary for drawing the lines of Congressional districts, and to award House and Electoral College seats to states.

Many thanks for responding to explain your rationale, Senator.

The seriousness of census taking might vary, depending on how our voting system works.

For the record, I suggest range voting with split-line districting...

If we use something like mixed member proportional representation, it might not be such a critical issue. If we're using something similar to the US voting system(s), it is a very critical issue.

For this and other reasons, I'm heavily inclined toward MMR.

I would not mind adjusting the legislation so that non-decennial censuses are voluntary, but the decennial censuses may or may not need to be mandatory, again, depending on how our voting system works or will work in the future, since it may be crucial to have accurate population counts.

How about simply encouraging the future Senate to periodically consider whether it is necessary to make a response mandatory? I worry that rushing into it will breed unnecessary contempt for the government and put public sector workers at risk. Also, if and when necessary, the punishment ought to be flexible, allowing for community service for example.

In truth, I would prefer a more voluntary system. I've looked a bit into Canada's census system since writing the bill, in which only the population questions are mandatory (age, gender, DOB etc.), while the other questions (questions about economic situation, religion, crime etc.) are voluntary. At the provincial and national level, where sample sizes are large enough, it hasn't impacted the quality of the information, while on a municipal level, particularly in smaller communities, the quality of the information varies, for some quite small towns, it was pretty poor.

Besides the information quality issue, there is also some Senatorial issues with modifiying the bill too much. It may be rude if I don't include my co-writer in the development and modification process, if we change it too much, it would be slightly disingenuous to keep the co-sponsors' names on the bill. It may also be logistically difficult to continually update the bill and keep debate/voting focused on the newest version of the bill. It may also be confusing to some people. There is also no precedent for large changes for a bill which is already on the debate floor, I suspect for the previous reasons. Most of the large changes are done during the drafting phase.

I do not anticipate any large risk to public sector workers who carry out the census. Historically, most governments have carried out mandatory censuses without many problems. It's not that much to ask for, compared to conscription or taxation. I suppose we could create a system where the Senate decides whether or not a Census should be mandatory, though this could present a problem again, depending on how our voting system works (I tend to assume the worst case scenario when thinking about these things, that is, something similar to how the US handles voting)

[Costa Alegria]

So I'm assuming that my Transportation bill is satisfactory?

[Divair]

What are we doing right now?

[Costa Alegria]

What are we doing right now?

Currently using tax-payer funded government laptops to download some....err...gentlemen's literature. I'm assuming we've entered the debate stage for the government subdivision omnibus or whatever it is.

[Free South Califas]

Government subdivision is next on the queue.

There's a bit of shuffling around of items lower down the queue.

Some things have been added.

I have criticized 3/4 of the bills in the omnibus package which is next on queue, and Wolfmanne has separately suggested removing one of those since it's made redundant by the JA, which I've seconded.

Other than that, we have a large number of Senators with connection problems today.

OOC: A lot have trollnaming bans, so things will be quiet for a sec.

[Byzantium Imperial]

More bans? Fun!

[Phing Phong]

More bans? Fun!

Which senators are currently banned from debate?

[Jetan]

More bans? Fun!

Which senators are currently banned from debate?

Most likely they are not banned from debate, but banned from NS.

[Oneracon]

In truth, I would prefer a more voluntary system. I've looked a bit into Canada's census system since writing the bill, in which only the population questions are mandatory (age, gender, DOB etc.), while the other questions (questions about economic situation, religion, crime etc.) are voluntary. At the provincial and national level, where sample sizes are large enough, it hasn't impacted the quality of the information, while on a municipal level, particularly in smaller communities, the quality of the information varies, for some quite small towns, it was pretty poor.

Senator, please don't consider basing anything off the sham of Canada's "National Household Survey".

As will become apparent if the long-form census is not restored in that nation, response bias will taint the results and make any products produced by a national statistics agency much more unreliable.

[Shrillland]

I move to end the debate on the Energy bills and call for a vote.

[Ainin]

Many thanks for responding to explain your rationale, Senator.

For the record, I suggest range voting with split-line districting...

For this and other reasons, I'm heavily inclined toward MMR.


How about simply encouraging the future Senate to periodically consider whether it is necessary to make a response mandatory? I worry that rushing into it will breed unnecessary contempt for the government and put public sector workers at risk. Also, if and when necessary, the punishment ought to be flexible, allowing for community service for example.

In truth, I would prefer a more voluntary system. I've looked a bit into Canada's census system since writing the bill, in which only the population questions are mandatory (age, gender, DOB etc.), while the other questions (questions about economic situation, religion, crime etc.) are voluntary. At the provincial and national level, where sample sizes are large enough, it hasn't impacted the quality of the information, while on a municipal level, particularly in smaller communities, the quality of the information varies, for some quite small towns, it was pretty poor.

Besides the information quality issue, there is also some Senatorial issues with modifiying the bill too much. It may be rude if I don't include my co-writer in the development and modification process, if we change it too much, it would be slightly disingenuous to keep the co-sponsors' names on the bill. It may also be logistically difficult to continually update the bill and keep debate/voting focused on the newest version of the bill. It may also be confusing to some people. There is also no precedent for large changes for a bill which is already on the debate floor, I suspect for the previous reasons. Most of the large changes are done during the drafting phase.

I do not anticipate any large risk to public sector workers who carry out the census. Historically, most governments have carried out mandatory censuses without many problems. It's not that much to ask for, compared to conscription or taxation. I suppose we could create a system where the Senate decides whether or not a Census should be mandatory, though this could present a problem again, depending on how our voting system works (I tend to assume the worst case scenario when thinking about these things, that is, something similar to how the US handles voting)

That was a massive disaster in 2011. The introduction of the short census form led to the lack of almost all statistics, as no one bothered to fill out the extended forms.

[Yanalia]

I move to end the debate on the Energy bills and call for a vote.

I think the Energy bills were thrown back to the drafting board so that one bill could be created. I'll get to that when I get back to proper Internet.

[Oneracon]

If I may interject, Senators, I move that the Internet Registration Act (InteRAct) be added to the queue.

Internet Registration Act
Urgency: Moderate

Author: Oneracon [RG]
Co-sponsors: Ainin [TR], Potenco [RG], Quebec and Atlantic Canada [RG], Byzantium Imperial [NIFP], Phing Phong [RG]

RECOGNISING that most self-governing entities in the world today have their own Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) within the Domain Name System of the Internet.

ASSERTING that, as an independent nation, Aurentina must offer its citizens and businesses access to a ccTLD.

RECOGNISING that .an is the former ccTLD of the Netherlands Antilles, an entity which has not existed since 2010, and will shortly be removed from the Domain Name System by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

DECLARING that it is easier to claim the .an ccTLD as former Netherlands Antilles users transfer to new ccTLDs than it is to request IANA to add further new ccTLDs to the Domain Name System.

HEREBY declares .an to be the ccTLD of the Aurentine Commonwealth.

HEREBY incorporates the Aurentina Network Information Centre (AurNIC) as a non-profit corporation, overseen by the Ministry of Research and Astronomy, charged with the maintenance and registration of Aurentine domain names.

HEREBY MANDATES the following;

.an ccTLD Registration Requirements

1. AurNIC shall act at all times to preserve the .an domain name as an Aurentine resource operated and managed by citizens of the Aurentine Commonwealth.
2. Registrants of .an domains must be:
   • Citizens of the Aurentine Commonwealth; OR
   • Corporations or other entities as defined by Aurentine law that maintain a physical presence in the Aurentine Commonwealth
   AurNIC Membership
3. All registrants of .an domains shall be members of AurNIC, with membership occurring automatically 15 days from the time of registration
4. Registrants have the right to refuse or rescind membership at any time without giving up their registered domain name
   
   AurNIC as an Aurentine Entity
5. AurNIC shall always be an entity defined by Aurentine law and have both a majority of its operations and its primary name server physically located in the Aurentine Commonwealth.
   
   AurNIC Board
6. AurNIC shall be managed by the AurNIC Board, a Board of Directors consisting of 7 Directors elected annually by the members of the corporation and 1 permanent non-voting Director.
7. The Minister of Research and Astronomy, or a designated delegate, shall hold the permanent non-voting seat on the AurNIC Board.
8. Directors on the AurNIC Board shall consist only of Aurentine citizens.
9. Directors on the AurNIC Board shall be elected for two-year terms.
10. There shall be no maximum number of terms for Directors.
11. All decisions of the AurNIC Board shall require a simple majority (51%) to pass.
    
    First AurNIC Board
12. The first AurNIC Board shall be appointed by a Senate committee chaired by the Minister of Research and Astronomy.
13. Half of the appointed directors, chosen by random drawing, are to be nominated for a one-year term to ensure future elections maintain a combination of rotation and continuity.
    
    AurNIC Services
14. AurNIC shall provide the following services:
    • Maintenance of the Aurentine name database within the Domain Name System
    • Services for registrars to register and maintain domain names in the AurNIC name database
    • Online electronic query services for said name database
    • Domain name resolution services for .an domains
    Future Representation
15. As the governance of the Internet evolves, it may become necessary for AurNIC to participate in various international forums. If these events occur AurNIC shall be the designated representative of the Aurentine Commonwealth to these forums.
    
    Registrar System
16. Any corporate entity, such as an Internet Service Provider, or individual can be charged with registering .an domain names with AurNIC on behalf of consumers.
17. Registrars must pay an annual fee (to be determined by the AurNIC Board), show adequate financial stability, and demonstrate adequate technical capacity to obtain and maintain AurNIC approved registrar status.
18. There shall be no set limit on the number of registrars.
    
    AurNIC as a Registrar
19. To ensure smooth operation AurNIC shall operate as a registrar for 1 year following its formation.
20. Extending this service beyond the first year of operation shall require approval of the AurNIC Board.
    
    Registrants and Applicants
21. Applicant for .an domains shall be granted any acceptable and available names if they meet appropriate criteria.
22. There shall be no limit to the number of names an applicant may register.
23. AurNIC shall maintain a list of restricted domain names that are not available for public registration. This list shall be updated regularly by the AurNIC Board.
24. Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) shall be reserved by AurNIC and not available for public registration. This includes, but is not limited to: .com.an, .edu.an, .net.an, .org.an
25. The aforementioned domains may be registered as subdomains, such as: example.com.an
    
    Domains for Government Use
26. The following domains are reserved for government use, registration of subdomains on these domains must be approved by the Minister of Research and Astronomy.
    
    • gov.an - Aurentine government
    • sen.an - Aurentine Senate
    • mil.an - National Defense Force
    • npf.an - National Police Force
    Fees
27. AurNIC shall set fees for the registration and renewal of .an domains.
28. AurNIC shall review its fee structure on an annual basis and require approval from the AurNIC Board to implement changes.
    
    AurNIC Autonomy
29. The AurNIC Board shall make regulations covering aspects of ccTLD governance not given in this act.

[Great Nepal]

Voting out business management without holding shares is stupid idea and illegal has enough sponsors to be added to queue.

[Lemonius]

Voting out business management without holding shares is stupid idea and illegal has enough sponsors to be added to queue.

I move that the bill be removed from the queue until such time as the bill has an appropriate title for a legislative act

[Welsh Cowboy]

Voting out business management without holding shares is stupid idea and illegal has enough sponsors to be added to queue.

I move that the bill be removed from the queue until such time as the bill has an appropriate title for a legislative act

With all due respect Senator, is there any law requiring this?