[PASSED] Convention on Internet Neutrality

[Auralia]

I've spent a significant amount of effort trying to craft appropriate definitions of "the Internet" and "Internet service provider", and I think I've arrived at the following:

the Internet

Defines "the internet", for the purposes of this resolution, as any system of interconnected telecommunications networks using a packet-switched, end-to-end protocol to communicate between endpoints that is:

1. generally accessible to the public, and
2. intended to be used by the public to publish, distribute, and use content, applications, and services;

This definition is sufficiently generic that it will survive a GenSec challenge on "real-life reference" grounds, as it uses lower-case lettering and does not explicitly reference the Internet protocol suite or suggest that there is only "one" Internet.

However, it is sufficiently narrowly defined such that it only applies to what we know as the public Internet. For example, it intentionally excludes:

• telecommunications networks that are not packet-switched, end-to-end networks, such as radio or telephone networks or really anything that isn't IP-based
• private networks; they are not generally accessible to the public, so they are not covered
• semi-public networks that are still not part of the public Internet, such as IPTV networks; the general public can access them but are not intended to "publish [and] distribute" content on them, so they are not covered

Internet service provider

Further defines "internet service provider" as any entity that provides access to the internet as a service to the general public, for free or in exchange for compensation, but only if the service can reasonably be used in a residence or workplace,

This definition was particularly difficult to come up with, but I think it ensures that the primary source of Internet access for most people will be covered by the provisions of this proposal while excluding the likes of libraries, restaurants, parents, and others who shouldn't be considered "Internet service providers".

This definition intentionally includes:

• private for-profit wired Internet service providers ((OOC: like Comcast)) that provide wired Internet access to residences and businesses
• private for-profit wireless Internet service providers ((OOC: like T-Mobile or Sprint)) that provide wireless Internet access to individuals or businesses using technologies like GSM and CDMA; the service is not provided directly to a residence or workplace but is still covered because it can reasonably be used in a residence or workplace
• non-profit or public Internet service providers that provide Internet access in the manner described above, since this seemed to be a key sticking point for many people

This definition intentionally excludes:

• public or non-profit Internet service providers that provide service exclusively to be used in public, such as a library; since the service is not available in a residence or workplace, it is not covered
• private or for-profit Internet service providers that provide service to be used in public, such as a coffee shop or airplane; since the service is not available in a residence or workplace, it is not covered
• workplaces providing access to their employees; since the service is not made available to the general public, it is not covered
• parents providing access to their children; since the service is not made available to the general public, it is not covered

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

You use "the internet", which ought to be capitalized. Other Internets are lowercase. That could, however, fix the situation. You could modify the proposal to refer to generic internets, rather than the Internet specifically.

I really don't want to reference multiple "internets". As far as I'm concerned, there is only one Internet that everybody uses, which is why it's worth regulating in the first place. The demotion of "Internet" to a common noun is just a concession I'm making for legality.

The Nessunan nods, and ponders for a moment. "It's interesting that you mention a library. What if a library has pay-by-the-hour computers? Now, don't scoff at that notion, if you think about it, we used to have coin-operated televisions in our airports, I'm sure there's some library somewhere in the world that does the same to prevent overuse of their network connections. If a library charges, for example, a couple euros for a ten- or fifteen-minute interval, it sounds like you are implying that they cannot block objectionable material from children. Would that be correct?"

The changes I've made to the definition of Internet service provider should address this concern. To the extent that a government or public entity makes available access to the Internet that is not reasonably available for use in a home or workplace, it is not covered by this proposal. This includes computers with Internet access or Wi-Fi-based Internet access in a library, regardless of whether a fee is charged for access.

How are you ensuring net neutrality on any entity which does not fall under your definition of isp? Asking in specific to a member nation which provides access and does not require compensation. Does your net neutrality proposal not affect these member nations?

The definitions have now been changed to cover this case.

I'd recommend changing "mobile consumers" to "personal consumers" since not everything an isp can provide to is only residential, business, and mobile. That is unless this was intentional. For example, a public, internet accessible via an entity, government owned/maintained kiosk would not fall under providing to residential, business, or mobile.

This was intentional. Most people's primary source of Internet access would not be a public kiosk, and operators of a public kiosk (or other sources of Internet access for use in public) should be free to block or limit access to content inappropriate for public viewing, such as pornography.

But we would appreciate that the new resolution "encourages nations to ensure access capability to all citizens".

That doesn't really fall within the scope of this proposal. If you'd like to create a separate proposal promoting access to the Internet, feel free to do so.

"This is now a much better definition. The only problem is that, like you noticed about my resolution, your resolution still applies to IPTV in any situation where it applies to the internet. If the internet is publicly accessible (in the sense that you can sign up for it at a number of service providers) than IPTV is also publicly accessible, and both use a packet-switched, end-to-end protocol."

This is a good point, and one that has hopefully been addressed by the new set of definitions.

"This definition still does not apply to nonprofits or governments (unless a 'public entity' is a government) who do not take compensation for internet access.Really, governments are my primary concern. This will allow governments to block or degrade access to websites without any indication or law. I do not believe that governments should be allowed to do that."

Again, this has hopefully been addressed by the new set of definitions.

"Your repeal of my resolution does not rely upon or mention any of these, despite my lack of similar clauses. I believe these assurances are unnecessary."

Perhaps, but they certainly don't hurt. I'd still like to keep them.

Can you explain why this is Free Trade? The resolution it's to replace is Social Justice.

The preamble explains why it's free trade. Monopolistic and anti-competitive behaviour by ISPs is a non-governmental barrier to trade, which this proposal seeks to remove.

So if a service provider doesn't receive compensation for providing Internet access then this proposal wouldn't apply to them?

It does now under the new definitions.

What if a nation provides free internet to all its citizens and there is no compensation? Does the entire law not affect that nation?

This is no longer the case due to the new definitions.

((OOC: Haven't forgotten about this! Further comments coming shortly.))

Well, you should probably hurry up with it, it's been a while since the repeal, and most voted for on the idea that it would be replaced sooner rather than later.

Coming up with good definitions takes a while. Failure to do so is why all previous attempts at net neutrality regulation in the World Assembly have been repealed.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

Oh, one other thing...

Please define "telemedicine" as it appears in the resolution.

The word "telemedicine", like the phrase "secret treaty", appears nowhere in the proposal and need not be defined.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

((OOC: Are there any further comments on this before I submit?))

[Wallenburg]

You use "the internet", which ought to be capitalized. Other Internets are lowercase. That could, however, fix the situation. You could modify the proposal to refer to generic internets, rather than the Internet specifically.

I really don't want to reference multiple "internets". As far as I'm concerned, there is only one Internet that everybody uses, which is why it's worth regulating in the first place. The demotion of "Internet" to a common noun is just a concession I'm making for legality.

I'm sure that foreign intelligence services will be glad to hear that the Auralian internet is the same one that the Separatists, the Wrapperians, the Bananaistanis, the Glorians, the (future) Wallenburgians, the Excidians, and the Tinfectians all use. It should make for a lot easier work once they realize that every WA member state regardless of species, time period, or universe uses TCP/IP.

[Auralia]

This has now reached quorum.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Fauxia]

"Good luck! Let's pass this!"

[Ragnaria]

NET NEUTRALITY IS in fact not enemy of people, it prevents the rampant abuse of the People by the uncontrolled greed of the Capitalist classes.

[Qlerb]

We think the changes are about as good as they are going to get. We are concerned about 6b "or the security or stability of the network" which we personally feel nullifies the whole resolution, but we hope the intent is to be taken in good faith.

Qlerb will support this. Good luck!

[Otaku Stratus]

I just want to say how amazed I am that someone managed to come up with a net neutrality accord that actually sounds sane and rational let alone so good

[Smilidonia]

This resolution infringes upon the sovereignty of every nation, imposing the will of some upon the nations of all. Free enterprise and capitalism created the internet in the first place and to restrict it in the interest of an intangible like 'fairness' is ludicrous. We have all manner of ISP's in Smilidonia and even free internet can be had by all so long as you agree to targeted advertising and tiered access to non-ISP sites. Our government does nothing to restrict our citizens access to any content they wish to view but I see nothing wrong with citizen free access to content provided to them by a company at no charge. This will leave millions of Smilidonians without access to the internet and force them to spend more of their hard earned money on a service our companies willingly provided for free. I must implore you to vote this resolution down for the good of the poor and less fortunate. A completely unrestricted internet is still available for anyone who wished to purchase it so it;s not like they don;t already have this choice, those who use the free internet provided by our ISP's just do not deem the extra content worthy of purchase.

[Deropia]

This resolution infringes upon the sovereignty of every nation, imposing the will of some upon the nations of all.

"That is literally how the WA works, arguing national sovereignty is pointless, you ceded some of your national sovereignty the minute you joined the WA."

Our government does nothing to restrict our citizens access to any content they wish to view but I see nothing wrong with citizen free access to content provided to them by a company at no charge.

"That's nice. But what of ISPs that bottleneck bandwidth to specific websites? Where is this argument going, anyways? I don't see how this resolution has anything to do with access to free internet."

This will leave millions of Smilidonians without access to the internet and force them to spend more of their hard earned money on a service our companies willingly provided for free.

"Again, how? Nothing in this resolution forces ISPs to charge money. At all. It literally states, in section three, if you even bothered to read it."

Declares that member nations must require internet service providers to:

allow authorized users of their network to access and use the legal internet content, applications, and services of their choice within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plan,

"So no, we will certainly not be changing our vote."

[Albrenia]

"Albrenia supports this motion, finding it both well written and measured. Complements to the authors of this motion as well, one which many others could learn from."

[Fauxia]

This resolution infringes upon the sovereignty of every nation, imposing the will of some upon the nations of all. Free enterprise and capitalism created the internet in the first place and to restrict it in the interest of an intangible like 'fairness' is ludicrous. We have all manner of ISP's in Smilidonia and even free internet can be had by all so long as you agree to targeted advertising and tiered access to non-ISP sites. Our government does nothing to restrict our citizens access to any content they wish to view but I see nothing wrong with citizen free access to content provided to them by a company at no charge. This will leave millions of Smilidonians without access to the internet and force them to spend more of their hard earned money on a service our companies willingly provided for free. I must implore you to vote this resolution down for the good of the poor and less fortunate. A completely unrestricted internet is still available for anyone who wished to purchase it so it;s not like they don;t already have this choice, those who use the free internet provided by our ISP's just do not deem the extra content worthy of purchase.

The entire purpose of the GA is a breach on natural sovereignty. Once again, good luck convincing globalists that this is an overreach

[Europe and Oceania]

We voted against this.

[Fauxia]

We voted against this.

Why? You'll need to give a better explanation, or at least say something funny

[States of Glory WA Office]

We voted against this.

Why? You'll need to give a better explanation, or at least say something funny

OOC: They never give any explanation beyond 'we voted for this' and 'we voted against this'. I wouldn't suggest wasting your time.

[Wallenburg]

Damn you, Auralia, you broke my AGAINST streak!

[Fauxia]

Damn you, Auralia, you broke my AGAINST streak!

Against everything or against Auralia?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Damn you, Auralia, you broke my AGAINST streak!

OOC: The solutions are clearly more patent resolutions and lower unemployment amongst barristers.

[Europe and Oceania]

We voted against this.

Why? You'll need to give a better explanation, or at least say something funny

Because we should have more room for regulation.

I don't think we need to be protected from over-regulation.

[Wallenburg]

Damn you, Auralia, you broke my AGAINST streak!

Against everything or against Auralia?

Against everything. I was going five against votes in a row.

[Imperial Polk County]

This resolution infringes upon the sovereignty of every nation, imposing the will of some upon the nations of all. Free enterprise and capitalism created the internet in the first place and to restrict it in the interest of an intangible like 'fairness' is ludicrous. We have all manner of ISP's in Smilidonia and even free internet can be had by all so long as you agree to targeted advertising and tiered access to non-ISP sites. Our government does nothing to restrict our citizens access to any content they wish to view but I see nothing wrong with citizen free access to content provided to them by a company at no charge. This will leave millions of Smilidonians without access to the internet and force them to spend more of their hard earned money on a service our companies willingly provided for free. I must implore you to vote this resolution down for the good of the poor and less fortunate. A completely unrestricted internet is still available for anyone who wished to purchase it so it;s not like they don;t already have this choice, those who use the free internet provided by our ISP's just do not deem the extra content worthy of purchase.

"Did you even read the proposal? One, nothing in this proposal prevents your citizens from still getting free internet, and two, clause 3d encourages, not infringes, free enterprise, by reducing 'substantial, anti-competitive' practices. This is capitalism at its finest, so, this gets my vote."

[New Ericland]

this is quite a good policy one of the few I've seen that upholds free market. up vote please

[Fauxia]

Why? You'll need to give a better explanation, or at least say something funny

Because we should have more room for regulation.

I don't think we need to be protected from over-regulation.

What in the resolution are you referencing here?