[PASSED] Repeal "Internet Neutrality Act"

[Auralia]

Repeal "Internet Neutrality Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #398

Recognizing the critical importance of internet access to international business, trade, education and communications,

Acknowledging the importance of limited international network neutrality regulation to prevent anti-competitive behaviour by internet service providers,

Commending GAR #398, "Internet Neutrality Act", for attempting to establish such regulation, while convinced that the target resolution's numerous flaws unfortunately warrant its repeal,

Concerned that the definition of "internet" used by the resolution is sufficiently vague so as to encompass telecommunications networks that are not publicly accessible, which should not be subject to a network neutrality mandate,

Alarmed that the target resolution's prohibition on throttling prohibits multiple forms of reasonable network management by internet service providers, including:

1. throttling users consuming large amounts of bandwidth when the network is congested in order to improve performance for others, and
2. prioritizing traffic with higher latency requirements than other traffic, such as video streaming or telemedicine over peer-to-peer file sharing,

Distressed by the vagueness of the target resolution's definition of "throttling", especially the confusion as to what constitutes the "maximum possible connection speed" for a particular link, which may cause the target resolution to prohibit standard industry practices such as oversubscribing the last mile,

Dismayed that the target resolution's absolute prohibition on internet service providers blocking content prevents them from providing internet filtering as a service to their customers on request, such as the case of a family, school or library requesting an ISP to block access to pornography on their connection,

Noting that prohibition on member states blocking content is meaningless, as member states can simply declare any content they wish to block illegal, rendering it unprotected by the target resolution,

Hoping that replacement legislation will soon be passed,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #398, "Internet Neutrality Act".

[Kad Loto Islands]

OOC: This is good. Hopefully the bill does not pass though, as it currently has no effect. The "lawful content" loophole is the biggest issue with it

[Bakhton]

Alarmed that the target resolution's prohibition on throttling does not exempt multiple forms of reasonable network management by ISPs, including:

1. throttling users consuming large amounts of bandwidth when the network is congested in order to improve performance for others, and
2. prioritizing traffic with higher latency requirements than other traffic, such as video streaming or telemedicine over peer-to-peer file sharing,

"That can be allowed through a liberal interpretation of 4. a. in my opinion, to 'Allow all digital devices to access the internet' can be used as reasoning for throttling bandwidth to improve performance of others. As well, I don't find your objection (b) all that cogent or necessary for enacting a repeal."

Dismayed that the target resolution's absolute prohibition on ISPs blocking content prevents them from blocking content at the request of their customers, such as the case of a family, school or library requesting an ISP to block access to pornography on their connection,

"Online blocking software can easily make up for that without requesting ISP blockage."

Noting that prohibition on member states blocking content is meaningless, as member states can simply declare any content they wish to block illegal, rendering it unprotected by the target resolution,

"No they can't, due to GAR #30 and #155 which protect the freedom of expression."

Concerned that the definition of "Internet" used by the resolution encompasses computer networks other than the public Internet, which should not be subject to a network neutrality mandate.

"We don't see a problem with this rule being place over private computer networks. At the moment we stand against, partly due to legitimate criticism of this repeal and partly out of frustration at the continuing pass/repeal cycle of this topic, if I am to be honest."

[Auralia]

"That can be allowed through a liberal interpretation of 4. a. in my opinion, to 'Allow all digital devices to access the internet' can be used as reasoning for throttling bandwidth to improve performance of others.

Resolutions should not be interpreted "liberally"; they should be interpreted as written, in accordance with the ordinary meanings of the terms used. ISPs are only permitted to throttle if congestion is preventing someone from accessing the Internet, not merely causing a slow connection.

As well, I don't find your objection (b) all that cogent or necessary for enacting a repeal."

Why not? Don't you support continued innovation and development on low latency Internet applications? That might not be possible unless ISPs can prioritize their traffic.

"Online blocking software can easily make up for that without requesting ISP blockage."

ISP-level blocking is more effective, as it's considerably more difficult to circumvent. It's completely legitimate for institutions to request this kind of blocking, and it's wrong for the target resolution to prevent them from doing so.

"No they can't, due to GAR #30 and #155 which protect the freedom of expression."

Even if other World Assembly resolutions protect freedom of expression, the provision is still meaningless as it does not provide any protection of its own.

"We don't see a problem with this rule being place over private computer networks.

What purpose does international regulation of throttling and content blocking serve in the context of private computer networks? What interests are being protected? As far as I can tell, the answer is none. We oppose pointless regulations, as should you.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Bakhton]

As well, I don't find your objection (b) all that cogent or necessary for enacting a repeal."

Why not? Don't you support continued innovation and development on low latency Internet applications? That might not be possible unless ISPs can prioritize their traffic.

Lara looks left than right. "Okay, I'm going to be honest I have no idea what that means. Jeffrey explain to me simply what that means."
Jeffrey proceeds to google for the next minute. "The time it takes to access data!"
"Yes, well... um... I don't see why extra 'latency' should go to certain projects rather than others...!"

[Auralia]

Why not? Don't you support continued innovation and development on low latency Internet applications? That might not be possible unless ISPs can prioritize their traffic.

Lara looks left than right. "Okay, I'm going to be honest I have no idea what that means. Jeffrey explain to me simply what that means."
Jeffrey proceeds to google for the next minute. "The time it takes to access data!"
"Yes, well... um... I don't see why extra 'latency' should go to certain projects rather than others...!"

Because some applications require lower latency than others in order to provide a good user experience.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: This is good. Hopefully the bill does not pass though, as it currently has no effect. The "lawful content" loophole is the biggest issue with it

OOC: That very loophole was put in place to exempt classified, private and sensitive data.

[Draconae]

OOC: If you're going to try to repeal my resolution, I'd add something like Bananaistan's point here:

"This is a disaster. Clause 2 prohibits a member state's government from prioritising internet access to especially important sections of the civil and public services. Indeed, it also forces such governments to permit all its employees to access any lawful content they may wish to access, even when they're using devices owned by the government. Now it suits me just grand to be able to access porn and gambling websites on my government issue devices, I'm sure that we would have good reason to prioritise the internet access of, say, the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Education over, say, the Department for the Improvement of the Young Lives of Tadpoles.

OOC: This is good. Hopefully the bill does not pass though, as it currently has no effect. The "lawful content" loophole is the biggest issue with it

"That really isn't a loophole, Ambassador, as I have explained a number of times in Internet Neutrality Act's drafting thread."

[Reversla]

OOC: Do we really need this to be drafted already? The Internet Neutrality Act isn't even official yet.

[Kalata]

OOC: Do we really need this to be drafted already? The Internet Neutrality Act isn't even official yet.

ooc: people like to be able to submit their repeals right on the heels of the last resolution, keeps the idea in the air and keeps the opposition mobilised

[Calladan]

OOC: Do we really need this to be drafted already? The Internet Neutrality Act isn't even official yet.

ooc: people like to be able to submit their repeals right on the heels of the last resolution, keeps the idea in the air and keeps the opposition mobilised

You don't think it makes a mockery of the entire World Assembly system and makes the concept of drafting, debating and submitting proposals entirely pointless?

[Ru-]

Fully in support of both this repeal and the proposed replacement resolution. We're hopeful these generate as much support as the target resolution and the previous, similar, resolution and it's associated repeal had. Hopefully this will result in us finally having a common sense network neutrality act for good and all.

[Asian Lands]

While I do support the current resolution, the reasons for the repeal of the yet to be passed resolution are reasonable. I'll have to give this a think and discuss this with the rest of the region WA members.

[Kad Loto Islands]

OOC: There is already a repeal proposal posted. Yours is better written though, so I will wait

[Bakhton]

Lara stumbles in from the bar drunkenly to her seat."Look -hiccup- if we keep passing resolutions and then repealing them we will start to look bad. Is the resolution perfect? No, but it accomplishes what it sets out to do in an understandable and ... reasonable manner with enough allowance for liberal interpretation. By the way, I find it funny that Auralia may lecture our nation on interpretation of law when they are openly non-compliant towards certain resolutions by their own admission."
"That's an ad hominem ma'am."
"I know it is, Jeffrey, I know it's an and hominid you don't need to tell me."
"Ma'am, you should head back to your office. I'll fill in for you." The two discuss this briefly and Lara sleepily walks away.
"Hello, I suppose you may call me Mr. Jeffrey as I'm not an Ambassador. We continue to support the original resolution, and will vote against any replacement in the interest of stabilizing internet relations. There have been so many passages and repeals, offices and organizations need time to catch up. We may reconsider if this issue is given time to cool down, but currently, we do not see the faults as so egregious as to necessitate immediate repeal."
"Can I be Ambassador next?" asked the typist.
"No."

[Chus Kruthe]

Lara stumbles in from the bar drunkenly to her seat."Look -hiccup- if we keep passing resolutions and then repealing them we will start to look bad. Is the resolution perfect? No, but it accomplishes what it sets out to do in an understandable and ... reasonable manner with enough allowance for liberal interpretation. By the way, I find it funny that Auralia may lecture our nation on interpretation of law when they are openly non-compliant towards certain resolutions by their own admission."
"That's an ad hominem ma'am."
"I know it is, Jeffrey, I know it's an and hominid you don't need to tell me."
"Ma'am, you should head back to your office. I'll fill in for you." The two discuss this briefly and Lara sleepily walks away.
"Hello, I suppose you may call me Mr. Jeffrey as I'm not an Ambassador. We continue to support the original resolution, and will vote against any replacement in the interest of stabilizing internet relations. There have been so many passages and repeals, offices and organizations need time to catch up. We may reconsider if this issue is given time to cool down, but currently, we do not see the faults as so egregious as to necessitate immediate repeal."
"Can I be Ambassador next?" asked the typist.
"No."

(New Ambassador Samuel Willis stands at his podium the fear of his first speech to the Assembly so obvious on his face)
"The Grand Duchy of Chus Kruthe agrees with the point made by the Drunken Ambassador from Bakhton that it will reflect poorly on this Assembly if we continue to repeal and enact legislation on this issue and likewise agrees that time is needed to cool down on this issue before addressing it. However Chus Kruthe feels strongly that we ought to first repeal this legislation and then debate what comes next, we can not debate what should be done while a resolution that is so very flawed and may damage one of the worlds fastest growing industries continues to stand. Chus Kruthe endorses the repeal effort in hopes that we can find a lasting solution to this issue that does not hurt businesses such as ISP's."

[Calladan]

I think that the "lawful content" is the strongest part of the resolution. If it had permitted The World Assembly to define what was and wasn't lawful content (instead of leaving it up to the member states) then there would have been an outcry from nearly every nation here.

It is not up to The World Assembly to define what Calladan considers to be legal in my nation, especially when it comes to content that potentially can be communicated from other nations (where - for example - the ages of majority and consent might be lower than they are in my nation). That would be the end of national sovereignty as a concept and possibly the end of civilisation.

It is also not for The ISP to block content to specific users -- the user should do that in their own home or place of business. Just because Helena Hoity-Toity-Face of The Society For Moral Improvement believes pornography is un-Calladanian doesn't mean it actually is, and does not mean the ISP should block it for everybody. If she doesn't want it, then let her either develop enough self-restraint not to watch it, or invest in some "net-nanny" software to prevent it from being accessed on her computers. (It's what my wife and I did and indeed still do to prevent my children from accessing things we do not believe they are ready to see).

I literally cannot find any merit in this repeal.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

I think that the "lawful content" is the strongest part of the resolution. If it had permitted The World Assembly to define what was and wasn't lawful content (instead of leaving it up to the member states) then there would have been an outcry from nearly every nation here.

It is not up to The World Assembly to define what Calladan considers to be legal in my nation, especially when it comes to content that potentially can be communicated from other nations (where - for example - the ages of majority and consent might be lower than they are in my nation). That would be the end of national sovereignty as a concept and possibly the end of civilisation.

It is also not for The ISP to block content to specific users -- the user should do that in their own home or place of business. Just because Helena Hoity-Toity-Face of The Society For Moral Improvement believes pornography is un-Calladanian doesn't mean it actually is, and does not mean the ISP should block it for everybody. If she doesn't want it, then let her either develop enough self-restraint not to watch it, or invest in some "net-nanny" software to prevent it from being accessed on her computers. (It's what my wife and I did and indeed still do to prevent my children from accessing things we do not believe they are ready to see).

I literally cannot find any merit in this repeal.

Teran Saber: "The Greater Siriusian Domain is of this same opinion."

[Auralia]

I think that the "lawful content" is the strongest part of the resolution. If it had permitted The World Assembly to define what was and wasn't lawful content (instead of leaving it up to the member states) then there would have been an outcry from nearly every nation here.

It is not up to The World Assembly to define what Calladan considers to be legal in my nation, especially when it comes to content that potentially can be communicated from other nations (where - for example - the ages of majority and consent might be lower than they are in my nation). That would be the end of national sovereignty as a concept and possibly the end of civilisation.

I think you're missing the point. Prohibiting member states from blocking "content that is critical of the government or of other government interests" is meaningless so long as the prohibition applies only to "lawful content". Member states can -- to the extent permitted by Freedom of Expression -- simply ban "content that is critical of the government or of other government interests" and that provision will cease to apply.

It is also not for The ISP to block content to specific users -- the user should do that in their own home or place of business. Just because Helena Hoity-Toity-Face of The Society For Moral Improvement believes pornography is un-Calladanian doesn't mean it actually is, and does not mean the ISP should block it for everybody. If she doesn't want it, then let her either develop enough self-restraint not to watch it, or invest in some "net-nanny" software to prevent it from being accessed on her computers. (It's what my wife and I did and indeed still do to prevent my children from accessing things we do not believe they are ready to see).

Again, I'm not sure if we are on the same page. Local blocking using parental control software is relatively easy to circumvent. ISP-level blocking is somewhat harder to circumvent. It seems clear to me that there is at least some added value associated with ISP-level filtering, which is why ISPs should be permitted to offer it as a service to customers who want it. This has nothing to do with whether ISPs should block pornography or other content across their entire network, which is what you seem to be arguing against...?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Calladan]

I think that the "lawful content" is the strongest part of the resolution. If it had permitted The World Assembly to define what was and wasn't lawful content (instead of leaving it up to the member states) then there would have been an outcry from nearly every nation here.

It is not up to The World Assembly to define what Calladan considers to be legal in my nation, especially when it comes to content that potentially can be communicated from other nations (where - for example - the ages of majority and consent might be lower than they are in my nation). That would be the end of national sovereignty as a concept and possibly the end of civilisation.

I think you're missing the point. Prohibiting member states from blocking "content that is critical of the government or of other government interests" is meaningless so long as the prohibition applies only to "lawful content". Member states can -- to the extent permitted by Freedom of Expression -- simply ban "content that is critical of the government or of other government interests" and that provision will cease to apply.

The exact wording is :- "PROHIBITS WA Nations from blocking access to or bandwidth throttling the Internet or specific lawful content, directly or indirectly, including content that is critical of the government or of other government interests"

I take this to mean I can't stop people looking at stuff that is legal, and I can't stop people looking at stuff that is critical of the government. So even if I make stuff that is critical of the government illegal in Calladan, they are still able to look at it, because it comes outside the "lawful content" provision.

Or have I misinterpreted it?

As for what is legal and not legal - I am not having The WA define that for me. That would be the end of civilisation as we know it!

It is also not for The ISP to block content to specific users -- the user should do that in their own home or place of business. Just because Helena Hoity-Toity-Face of The Society For Moral Improvement believes pornography is un-Calladanian doesn't mean it actually is, and does not mean the ISP should block it for everybody. If she doesn't want it, then let her either develop enough self-restraint not to watch it, or invest in some "net-nanny" software to prevent it from being accessed on her computers. (It's what my wife and I did and indeed still do to prevent my children from accessing things we do not believe they are ready to see).

Again, I'm not sure if we are on the same page. Local blocking using parental control software is relatively easy to circumvent. ISP-level blocking is somewhat harder to circumvent. It seems clear to me that there is at least some added value associated with ISP-level filtering, which is why ISPs should be permitted to offer it as a service to customers who want it. This has nothing to do with whether ISPs should block pornography or other content across their entire network, which is what you seem to be arguing against...?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Yeah - we are not on the same page. I thought you were talking about the ISP doing wholesale blocking to ALL customers, not allowing Helena Hoity-Toity-Face to request porn to be blocked to her IP address(es).

Assuming that it is done on request of a single customer and that it only affects that customer, I have no problem with the ISP filtering out sites and/or materials.

I was just worried about ISP being able to filter out content for ALL their customers because one customer requested it. That would be wrong and something I would take issue with

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'd say that both interpretations of the 'lawful content' clause above are reasonable. Laws and WA resolutions do not need to have one interpretation and a repeal only need be based off of one reasonable interpretation out of the all reasonable interpretations.

[Dobrobyt]

We oppose. The internet should be a place of free speech, and allowing restrictions like you want would lead to abuse of it.

[Auralia]

The exact wording is :- "PROHIBITS WA Nations from blocking access to or bandwidth throttling the Internet or specific lawful content, directly or indirectly, including content that is critical of the government or of other government interests"

I take this to mean I can't stop people looking at stuff that is legal, and I can't stop people looking at stuff that is critical of the government. So even if I make stuff that is critical of the government illegal in Calladan, they are still able to look at it, because it comes outside the "lawful content" provision.

I agree with IA that this is a plausible interpretation. But I think my reading is plausible too, and that's a problem since member states who want to ban content will simply use the interpretation that allows them to do so.

Assuming that it is done on request of a single customer and that it only affects that customer, I have no problem with the ISP filtering out sites and/or materials.

Exactly. The repeal argues that the target resolution bans this practice for no reason.

If there are no further comments, we intend to submit this proposal sometime today or tomorrow.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Fauxia]

Repeal "Internet Neutrality Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #398

Recognizing the critical importance of the Internet to international business, trade, education and communications,

Acknowledging the importance of limited international network neutrality regulation to prevent anti-competitive behaviour by Internet service providers (ISPs),

Commending GAR #398, "Internet Neutrality Act", for attempting to establish such regulation, while convinced that the target resolution's numerous flaws unfortunately warrant its repeal,

Concerned that the definition of "Internet" used by the resolution is sufficiently vague so as to encompass computer networks other than the public Internet, such as home networks and corporate intranets,

Emphasizing that subjecting private networks to a network neutrality mandate prohibits commonplace activities such as parents blocking access to pornography at home and businesses throttling or limiting access to non-work related Internet content in the workplace,

Alarmed that the target resolution's prohibition on throttling prohibits multiple forms of reasonable network management by ISPs, including:

1. throttling users consuming large amounts of bandwidth when the network is congested in order to improve performance for others, and
2. prioritizing traffic with higher latency requirements than other traffic, such as video streaming or telemedicine over peer-to-peer file sharing,

Distressed by the vagueness of the target resolution's definition of "throttling", especially the confusion as to what constitutes the "maximum possible connection speed" for a particular link, which may cause the target resolution to prohibit standard industry practices such as oversubscribing the last mile,

Dismayed that the target resolution's absolute prohibition on ISPs blocking content prevents them from providing Internet filtering as a service to their customers on request, such as the case of a family, school or library requesting an ISP to block access to pornography on their connection,

Noting that prohibition on member states blocking content is meaningless, as member states can simply declare any content they wish to block illegal, rendering it unprotected by the target resolution,

Hoping that replacement legislation will soon be passed,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #398, "Internet Neutrality Act".

"The original WA legislation is fine. We will instruct our satellite state to vote against should this come to vote."

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

58 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Honest Mistake (The "emphasizing" clause in this repeal proposal should be removed, because the target resolution limits only the actions of governments [section 2] and internet service providers [section 3] not parents and businesses); and either RL reference ("the Internet", with an upper-case 'I', being the internet that exists in RL) or Meta-gaming (You RP that there's only one internet known to all the NS nations, and are trying to make that RP canonical for everybody).

10 hours ago: Christian Democrats: Illegal — Honest Mistake -- the "emphasizing" clause in this repeal proposal should be removed because the target resolution limits only the actions of governments (section 2) and internet service providers (section 3), not parents and businesses.

Following non-precedential GenSec rulings by Christian Democrats and Bears Armed, I've removed the Emphasizing clause, as some of the examples it uses may indeed not actually apply. I'm not sure I agree that the parent example is invalid, as parents may indeed constitute Internet service providers for the purposes of clause 1(b) of the target resolution. When a parent operates a local area network providing access to the Internet for their children, they constitute "an entity that provides the ability to access the Internet to...residents". However, it is questionable whether the resolution requires residents to pay for access to the network in order to be protected, given the use of the term "other customers". I've decided to simply remove the entire clause as a result.

I've also adjusted the proposal's wording such that it no longer implies the existence of a single public Internet, in order to avoid violating the Metagaming and/or Real-Life Reference rules. Personally, I think this is wrong -- the only reason why the Internet should be internationally regulated is precisely because it is a single network accessible to all member states -- but I don't really feel like challenging my own proposal to get GenSec to rule on this issue as a whole.