[PASSED] Open Internet Order

[Draconae]

"Draconae is currently voting against this resolution for many reasons, mostly revolving around the vagueness and miswordings of the resolution. The use of "directly controls and operates facilities that are used to provide Internet access" provides a loophole for ISPs and Governments to indirectly control content, "reasonable network management" is undefined, the Internet is not the collection of protocols but the system facilitated by those protocols, and "subscriber" is never used after it is defined. With this many problems with the resolution, we cannot support it, even though we currently favor net neutrality."

[Ghostopolis]

A small child drags his feet across the chamber floor, gradually drawing the attention of many nearby delegates, ambassadors and their assorted staff. He stops his march and lifts an arm, pointing a finger at the wall directly in front of him. As the growing crowd averts their gaze to match his pointing, Ambassador Geist rises from the ground behind them and begins speaking.

"Net neutrality is good. This resolution's definitions are bad. I tend to agree that any step toward enshrining net neutrality in international law is a step worth taking, but I fear the appeal to consensus has left the door to exploitation just cracked enough that any business or organization worth its salt can yank open that door and restrict the internet all it wants. The mind boggles at how badly "reasonable network management" can be used and abused for nefarious purposes. I echo the sentiment shared by several in this chamber and expect a swift repeal, one I am highly likely to support. As it happens, my region believes in the good this resolution hopes to do, and wishes to make a statement in support of the principle of net neutrality. As it is my sworn duty to let their will be known, I cast my vote in favor of this flawed, but well-meaning resolution."

As Ambassador Geist dissipates into charcoal smoke, those turning to the child are surprised to see he too has vanished.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Imperial Foreign Office, World Assembly Ministry
Delegate, His Grace the Duke of Geneva
Lieutenant Delegate, Lord Robert North

---

There are a number of problems with the current GA resolution, 'Open Internet Order'. They primarily stem from a misunderstanding of how Internet service is actually expanded. Failing to work within such a structure requires companies and governments to work around those regulations at great cost, delaying network expansion and access.

Foremost, the definition of 'internet service provider' (ISP) effectively includes everyone and everything related to the Internet. The actual Internet is so complicated and dependent on so many interlocking factors that without every single piece, it would break down. Without domain name servers, it would be impossible to connect to websites like Google and NationStates. Without internet protocols, it would be impossible to convey machine-comprehensible information to tell data where to go. Without your computer or phone, it would be impossible to show and render it. Unfortunately, this definition also includes governments, which in many countries, help to provide and expand access to their citizens.

To actually operate the massive set of interlocking routing switches that is the Internet, we also need a way to tell computers where to send data so a connection can actually be established. The resolution prevents ISPs from prioritising those basic routing protocols above things like HD video streams, meaning that basic functionality common to all requests is sacrificed for those who can pay for more bandwidth.

Next, there is considerable ambiguity about this Telecommunication(s) Regulatory Authority in clause 5 and 6 (as there is a typo in one of those clauses, the pluralisation of the committee is unclear). It is granted far-reaching discretionary powers to fine and investigate ISPs, which, as established above, includes national governments. Due to the vagueness of many of the definitions in the resolution, it would not be surprising that these fines turn into ways the World Assembly can raise revenue from member states.

Finally, the definition of 'reasonable network management' also is extremely vague. What are the 'legal grounds' spoken of in the proposal? If they are established by international law, where are they defined? They certainly are not defined in this proposal. And if they are in national law, does the proposal actually do anything?

This creates a double-bind. For the proposal to be effective, it must have narrow legal grounds. But in doing so, it creates clear issues which national governments would solve by massively expanding these 'legal grounds' with domestic legislation. When that occurs, the resolution basically becomes meaningless.

With that in mind, if the resolution is meaningless, vote against a useless resolution; and if it isn't meaningless, vote against an extremely flawed set of regulations which delay and restrict basic network access to those most in need. The author cannot have it both ways.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

Vote For Open Internet Order

⏱ March 13, 2017

Recently, members opposed to Open Internet Order have begun their attempted repeal of this resolution. According to the preliminary voting results, more than 5,500+ individual members and 3,450+ world assembly delegates voted FOR this resolution. Two specific individual members, Imperium Anglorum and Excidium Planetis, have spread and published false information. I will actively pursue all legal remedies and defend my proposed resolution. I formally ask all World Assembly Delegates and members to vote AGAINST resolutions that actively try to repeal this common-sense resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I will actively pursue all legal remedies

NORTH: What are you going to do? Invade us? We out-populate you by an order of magnitude. Our economic production is 91 times larger than yours. Our citizens are each 3 times richer than yours. Good luck. And if you think that there are legal remedies, I would remind you that per 22 GA, all diplomats to the World Assembly are granted diplomatic immunity, and all diplomats are given protections in international law as well.

OOC: Beyond the absurdity that is that entire post, its factual inaccuracies, and its huge lettering which makes it look like it was written by a 4-year old who just discovered WordArt, the greater concern is your refusal to recognise any faults or issues with your proposition. Barrelling ahead with your eyes shut and fingers in your ears isn't going to endear anyone.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

I will actively pursue all legal remedies

NORTH: What are you going to do? Invade us? We out-populate you by an order of magnitude. Our economic production is 91 times larger than yours. Our citizens are each 3 times richer than yours. Good luck. And if you think that there are legal remedies, I would remind you that per 22 GA, all diplomats to the World Assembly are granted diplomatic immunity, and all diplomats are given protections in international law as well.

OOC: Beyond the absurdity that is that entire post, its factual inaccuracies, and its huge lettering which makes it look like it was written by a 4-year old who just discovered WordArt, the greater concern is your refusal to recognise any faults or issues with your proposition. Barrelling ahead with your eyes shut and fingers in your ears isn't going to endear anyone.

"refusal to recognise any faults or issues with your proposition"? When did I say this?

[Shaktirajya]

We believe in the complete, uninhibited free Flow and Exchange of Information, and applaud any Legislation which seeks to restrain tyrannical Governments from interrupting the free Flow and Exchange of Same anywhere in the World. Wherefore, We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, through the Office of the Divine Empress of Empresses, Her Majesty Hypatia Sophia I, in Consultation with Her Most August Assembly, the Sisterhood of Huggy-Squeezables, Their Domain, and Its Constituents, hereby vote FOR this Resolution.

Samajavadinaha Hindoho Matrurajasya Shaktirajasya Vaktaha

[Excidium Planetis]

Two specific individual members, Imperium Anglorum and Excidium Planetis, have spread and published false information.

OOC:
The nefarious EP strikes again, spreading and publishing false information! Oooh!

Wait, what did I publish? What was false?

[Wallenburg]

Two specific individual members, Imperium Anglorum and Excidium Planetis, have spread and published false information.

OOC:
The nefarious EP strikes again, spreading and publishing false information! Oooh!

Wait, what did I publish? What was false?

OOC: Something something opinions differing from their own.

[Tzorsland]

NORTH: What are you going to do? Invade us? We out-populate you by an order of magnitude. Our economic production is 91 times larger than yours. Our citizens are each 3 times richer than yours. Good luck. And if you think that there are legal remedies, I would remind you that per 22 GA, all diplomats to the World Assembly are granted diplomatic immunity, and all diplomats are given protections in international law as well.

THE MASTER: Are the teenagers picking on the grade schoolers again? For the record, we have 5 times the population of your nation. Our economic production is 18 times larger than yours. Our arms manufacturing unit (Ranked 1,932 in the WORLD) is 53 times your current ability. Our resources are always available, if the price is right. And since we are not an official member of the WA we don't have to worry about the complications of existing GA resolutions. I really should set up a booth should anyone be interested in our resources.

OOC: Let's not make this a who has the oldest nation context. Besides I don't have a dog in this fight.

[Bears Armed]

Permits Internet Service Providers to employ reasonable network management controls.

In this particular scenario, how is the word "reasonable" defined? And how much control do they have over the network in order for them to "manage" it?

It is defined by the law-courts in the nations concerned, when cases are brought against the ISPs there, if the nation's government doesn't actually pass a specific law on the matter itself.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Two specific individual members, Imperium Anglorum and Excidium Planetis, have spread and published false information.

OOC:
The nefarious EP strikes again, spreading and publishing false information! Oooh!

Wait, what did I publish? What was false?

OOC: The idea that requests are binding, of course. Your refusal to accept otherwise has permanently killed any hope that a newbie might 'request' a nation to do something without being bombarded by legality arguments.

[Philjia]

This order does not ensure net neutrality, as it only bans arbitrary throttling. Thus, throttling according to a pay scale is perfectly legal.

Against.

[Araraukar]

Thus, throttling according to a pay scale is perfectly legal.

And that would be a bad thing because...? (OOC: That's how it is in the Real Life world, too. If you want a faster connection, you have to pay a higher price, and prepaid internet access is a real thing.)

[Tzorsland]

And that would be a bad thing because...?

I would assume it is because they want net neutrality, which considers throttling evil. However since the resolution doesn't mention "net neutrality" (It is the Open internet Order) who cares. On the other hand does this resolution actually do what the title says; make it "open." Again, who cares.

P.S. I hate Who, but that should be obvious by now.

[Virabhadran]

I feel like this idea gives too much power to the international level instead of more efficient ways, like giving it to the individual nations.

[Araraukar]

On the other hand does this resolution actually do what the title says; make it "open."

I think the "open" part is "out in the open", in the sense that the ISPs can't drop any hidden costs onto unsuspecting subscribers and cannot randomly restrict access to only, for example, to sites that Google a certain search function/advertizement service approves of, and not the others.

[Tzorsland]

I think the "open" part is "out in the open", in the sense that the ISPs can't drop any hidden costs onto unsuspecting subscribers and cannot randomly restrict access to only, for example, to sites that Google a certain search function/advertizement service approves of, and not the others.

I don't think it does that. Let's suppose you have a site that creates a list of web sites that are "real news" and "fake news." Let's assume that the ISP uses that list to filter out web sites. Is it "arbitrary?" Not from the ISP point of view, because it is using a solid rule to do that blocking or filtering.

Not that it matters because it has passed and has become WA law (81% margin, but you never know how the lemmings will vote on a repeal). Enjoy.

[Araraukar]

Not that it matters because it has passed and has become WA law (81% margin, but you never know how the lemmings will vote on a repeal). Enjoy.

OOC: Don't worry, the General Resolution Repeal Regiment (GRRR) seems to be working on wiping it out already.

[Kitzerland]

Not that it matters because it has passed and has become WA law (81% margin, but you never know how the lemmings will vote on a repeal). Enjoy.

OOC: Don't worry, the General Resolution Repeal Regiment (GRRR) seems to be working on wiping it out already.

Imperium Anglorum and a bunch of chairs?