Fifth
Advertisement
by New Zepuha » Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:56 pm
[13:31] <Koyro> I want to be cremated, my ashes put into a howitzer shell and fired at the White House.
by Free South Califas » Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:41 pm
Fulflood wrote: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...
by Regnum Dominae » Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:42 pm
Free South Califas wrote:Fulflood wrote: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)
by Free South Califas » Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:43 pm
Wolfmanne wrote:Britanno wrote: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.
by Urcea » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:32 pm
by Maklohi Vai » Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:55 pm
by Lemanrussland » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:12 am
Free South Califas wrote: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').
by Free South Califas » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:45 am
Lemanrussland wrote:Free South Califas wrote: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.
For the record, I suggest range voting with split-line districting...The seriousness of census taking might vary, depending on how our voting system works.
For this and other reasons, I'm heavily inclined toward MMR.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.
by Lemanrussland » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:27 am
Free South Califas wrote:Lemanrussland wrote: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.For the record, I suggest range voting with split-line districting...The seriousness of census taking might vary, depending on how our voting system works.For this and other reasons, I'm heavily inclined toward MMR.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.
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.
by Costa Alegria » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:34 am
by Costa Alegria » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:37 am
Divair wrote:What are we doing right now?
by Free South Califas » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:38 am
by Byzantium Imperial » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:14 am
by Phing Phong » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:21 am
Byzantium Imperial wrote:More bans? Fun!
by Jetan » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:32 am
by Oneracon » Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:53 am
Lemanrussland wrote: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.
Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
Pro: | LGBTQ+ rights, basic income, secularism, gun control, internet freedom, civic nationalism, non-military national service, independent Scotland, antifa |
Anti: | Social conservatism, laissez-faire capitalism, NuAtheism, PETA, capital punishment, Putin, SWERF, TERF, GamerGate, "Alt-right" & neo-Nazism, Drumpf, ethnic nationalism, "anti-PC", pineapple on pizza |
by Shrillland » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:06 pm
by Ainin » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:08 pm
Lemanrussland wrote:Free South Califas wrote: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)
by Yanalia » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:17 pm
Shrillland wrote:I move to end the debate on the Energy bills and call for a vote.
Free South Califas wrote:Dammit Byzantium, stop spraying your ignorance on everyone.
by Oneracon » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:34 pm
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
- 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.
- Registrants of .an domains must be:
AurNIC Membership
- Citizens of the Aurentine Commonwealth; OR
- Corporations or other entities as defined by Aurentine law that maintain a physical presence in the Aurentine Commonwealth
- All registrants of .an domains shall be members of AurNIC, with membership occurring automatically 15 days from the time of registration
- Registrants have the right to refuse or rescind membership at any time without giving up their registered domain name
AurNIC as an Aurentine Entity- 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- 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.
- The Minister of Research and Astronomy, or a designated delegate, shall hold the permanent non-voting seat on the AurNIC Board.
- Directors on the AurNIC Board shall consist only of Aurentine citizens.
- Directors on the AurNIC Board shall be elected for two-year terms.
- There shall be no maximum number of terms for Directors.
- All decisions of the AurNIC Board shall require a simple majority (51%) to pass.
First AurNIC Board- The first AurNIC Board shall be appointed by a Senate committee chaired by the Minister of Research and Astronomy.
- 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- AurNIC shall provide the following services:
Future Representation
- 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
- 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- 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.
- 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.
- There shall be no set limit on the number of registrars.
AurNIC as a Registrar- To ensure smooth operation AurNIC shall operate as a registrar for 1 year following its formation.
- Extending this service beyond the first year of operation shall require approval of the AurNIC Board.
Registrants and Applicants- Applicant for .an domains shall be granted any acceptable and available names if they meet appropriate criteria.
- There shall be no limit to the number of names an applicant may register.
- 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.
- 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
- The aforementioned domains may be registered as subdomains, such as: example.com.an
Domains for Government Use- The following domains are reserved for government use, registration of subdomains on these domains must be approved by the Minister of Research and Astronomy.
Fees
- gov.an - Aurentine government
- sen.an - Aurentine Senate
- mil.an - National Defense Force
- npf.an - National Police Force
- AurNIC shall set fees for the registration and renewal of .an domains.
- AurNIC shall review its fee structure on an annual basis and require approval from the AurNIC Board to implement changes.
AurNIC Autonomy- The AurNIC Board shall make regulations covering aspects of ccTLD governance not given in this act.
Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
Pro: | LGBTQ+ rights, basic income, secularism, gun control, internet freedom, civic nationalism, non-military national service, independent Scotland, antifa |
Anti: | Social conservatism, laissez-faire capitalism, NuAtheism, PETA, capital punishment, Putin, SWERF, TERF, GamerGate, "Alt-right" & neo-Nazism, Drumpf, ethnic nationalism, "anti-PC", pineapple on pizza |
by Great Nepal » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:56 pm
by Lemonius » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:59 pm
Great Nepal wrote:Voting out business management without holding shares is stupid idea and illegal has enough sponsors to be added to queue.
by Welsh Cowboy » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:59 pm
Lemonius wrote:Great Nepal wrote: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
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement