[Passed]Repeal and Replace GA#92

[Ainocra]

ok I have updated the repeal draft, and tweaked a clause in the replacement to avoid the capture of sensitive data.

(a) To collect and store copies of any and all publicly available scientific knowledge with the aim of preserving and protecting it for use now and in the future excepting only that which is illegal under extant WA law.

After some reflection I would think that as far as patents go we would need an entirely different resolution.
I am willing to entertain suggestions on language to address this concern, but I have no desire to delve into patent law as that's not the thrust of this resolution.

[Unibot III]

OOC: Are we sure the replacement isn't a committee violation?

Here's a tricky idea...

If you repeal a committee, it still continues to exist if the committee is used in other resolutions (like WASP) - see "A committee continues to exist when its Resolution is repealed if it has been used in another Resolution". So there's no need to re-establish WASP in the replacement draft. You're just adding to its mandate. And since you wouldn't be just creating a committee, the proposal wouldn't run afoul of the committee violation, because the proposal doesn't just create a committee, it doesn't create a committee at all!

[Ardchoilleans]

... Here's a tricky idea... the proposal wouldn't run afoul of the committee violation, because the proposal doesn't just create a committee, it doesn't create a committee at all!

Uni, please, just take two aspirin and lie down until the notion goes away.

A committee violation lies in a proposal not doing anything but create a committee.
A proposal at risk of a committee violation presumably has nothing but committee-related clauses.
Now you take away the committee.
Nothing's left!

On second thoughts, give me the aspirin. I can see I'm gonna need 'em.

[Ainocra]

exactly, it already exists

[Ainocra]

tweaked the format a little bit on both drafts. it looks a little better to my eye.

Thoughts? additions? thrown vegetables?

[Hampsonia]

Whilst I applaud the intentions of the proposal, furthering the scientific knowledge of the world is an admirable goal, I'm afraid I must take issue with a number of areas.

Firstly, military technology must be exempt from this 'data harvesting'. If we collect this in a publicly available repository we fundamentally undermine a nations ability to defend itself and give open access to terrorist organisations to information which, I hope we all agree, they should not have access to.

Secondly, the instruction to provide any and all necessary funding and resources is a) potentially financially crippling and b) actually runs the risk of politicising research, something this proposal was, I believe, trying to avoid.  The WA is not going to want to fund two, three, four programmes of the same nature in different nations, it's inefficient and overly costly, so who decides which nation will get the resources.

Finally, I believe this proposal has the potentially to be severely detrimental to the economic growth of smaller nations.   If small nation A invents a new technology that it would have been able to manufacture and export globally, thereby growing and expanding its economy, that now becomes impossible all as nations will simply be able to acquire that technology freely.  Nations with the capability to manufacture the technology themselves will do so, removing a potential market. Meanwhile the larger nations, with more established industrial bases, will be able to manufacture it cheaper than the discovering nation and so nations without the capability to manufacture it themselves will buy from the larger nation rather than the smaller discovering nation.

For these reasons I do not think I'd be able to support this proposal, good intentioned though it may be.

-----------
P.S. Apologies if, as a civilian, I'm not supposed to post here, I'm new and still learning all the protocols.

[Ainocra]

Oh no you are welcome here.
Let me take a moment to address your concerns.

To your first point under article 1, section a, WASP only gathers publicly available data. So under this act so anything that is protected by local law as propitiatory or classified would not be taken in unless a government or some other authorized entity were to release it.

As for the funding, the GAO would have no choice but to provide the resources necessary. The initial start up for any project is going to be the most costly part. However working with WASP would make coordinating multiple research partners much easier, in fact the coordination of research is one of the primary goals of WASP. So these multiple groups wouldn't have to compete, but would pool their resources to work together for everyone's benefit.

As far as this being detrimental to a local economy please review my first point, WASP only collects publicly available data. So if nation A invents something great and begins to build it then so long as they don't release their data to the public then there is no conflict.


WASP is envisioned to help those nations that are not as advanced, I believe that as written this new mandate would raise the quality of life for many members of this assembly.

Hopefully I have adequately addressed your concerns.

OOC:

Welcome to the festering snakepit

[Hampsonia]

My apologies, I misread the original proposal and did not register that it stipulated only public research as opposed to all research.

[Ainocra]

No apology is necessary, I am glad to be able to assuage your concern.


Looking around the room the Marshal continues. "Anyone else?"

[The Dark Star Republic]

As far as this being detrimental to a local economy please review my first point, WASP only collects publicly available data. So if nation A invents something great and begins to build it then so long as they don't release their data to the public then there is no conflict.

"You do understand that disclosure is a basic requirement for granting of a patent?

"At this stage I am really begging you to consider this whole misbegotten effort. Your replacement is stunningly ill-considered and nothing less than a total rewrite from scratch will save it."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Ainocra]

As I have said, patents are not the thrust of this resolution. I feel that patent law would require it's own resolution. I do not want to put in language that could hinder such an endeavor in the future.
I am willing to entertain suggestions though.

[Ainocra]

I am considering submission this Friday.

I am not in any real hurry though so if someone has an objection or an amendment we can work it out.

Suggestions?

[The Dark Star Republic]

I do not want to put in language that could hinder such an endeavor in the future.

"Well congratulations, because your proposal does exactly that! As written, the moment anyone tried to disclose an invention for the purpose of procuring a patent that information would then be "distributed" around the entire WA.

"But you seem totally unwilling to listen to criticism on this point, or indeed in general."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Ainocra]

If it concerns you that much then perhaps you should write a patent resolution.
Any future patent resolution passed by this assembly would surely be able to easily address such issues.


ooc

I can't think of any way to phrase lines addressing patents without doing more harm than good. So in all seriousness
make a suggestion.

[Ainocra]

Updated the draft of the repeal significantly.

The replacement still needs more work.

[Alkanost (Ancient)]

I will have to side with my fellow from The Dark Star Republic here in regards to the protection of intellectual property. You would be risking the protection of individuals and corporations to develop and provide commercial progress without the risk of espionage from fellow corporations and nation states or their actors.

Furthermore

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

is way to vague and leaves as already mentioned the risk of politicization of this entity. The risks for unchecked costs and politically motivated research is just not worth it for any WA Member Nation.

[Ainocra]

I will have to side with my fellow from The Dark Star Republic here in regards to the protection of intellectual property. You would be risking the protection of individuals and corporations to develop and provide commercial progress without the risk of espionage from fellow corporations and nation states or their actors.

Considering that only publicly available data would be collected I fail to see how a corporation could have fear of espionage.
As for intellectual property protection I am open to suggestions on how to phrase it. My only concern is that it not damage any future attempt at patent law.

Furthermore

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

is way to vague and leaves as already mentioned the risk of politicization of this entity. The risks for unchecked costs and politically motivated research is just not worth it for any WA Member Nation.

I fail to see how this leaves anything politicized, by obtaining funding from the WA directly; the WASP would cut out potential politicization of funding.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"The easiest fix remains simply to rewrite it. At the very least, strike Article 1 entirely. Otherwise, I would continue to recommend using the ULC to set up a public library of science, and perhaps requiring that recipients of WASP grants commit to open access publishing. There is so much good you can do without the needless and bizarre diktats you're hamstringing yourself with."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Ainocra]

Upon reflection it occurs to me that your concerns have already been addressed under existing WA law in the form of
GA 232 Foreign Copyright Recognition

So as it is currently written it does no harm to copyrights. Since there is a rather robust copyright law on the books at present, any language I add addressing it could potentially be a HoC violation.

I knew that was bugging me for a reason but I just couldn't put my finger on it.

ooc:

First time I've been able to sit down and do a little searching on the subject

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Copyrights and patents are two completely different kinds of intellectual property right. No dice."

~ Ms. Chinmusic

[Ainocra]

Well then I suggest a revival of the old patent charter as the best way to address your concern in a complete and robust manner.
That would be far better than trying to shoehorn something into this resolution which is concerned with science.

[Ainocra]

Ok i have added a new clause to the replacement to try and make sure that patents and the like are respected, though the phrasing on it is a bit rough.

I would like suggestions on how to phrase it better

[Ainocra]

Ok I've tweaked it again, and I think that might do it. take a look

[The Dark Star Republic]

To collect and store copies of any and all publicly available scientific knowledge

"So long as this remains in the draft there is no version of this proposal irrespective of incremental edits that we will ever support.

"I asked you flat out before and you were evasive so I will ask again: is there any way you are willing to consider rewriting the proposal from the beginning?"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Ainocra]

I don't particularly want to rewrite the entire thing, and given that I have addressed your concerns on the topic of intellectual property I fail to see the issue.

Why do you oppose the preservation of knowledge?