[PASSED] Astronomical Data Repository Act

[Kranostav]

As for submission... Of the data that you interpret to fall under the definition per clause 1, you must submit. Of course, if you believe that something in there shouldn't be released then that could almost certainly be noted at submission so as to ensure the prevention of the release.

(OOC: That sounds like kind of a dangerous situations for really top-secret projects or military secrets or whatnot. You know, the kind of thing you'd want to keep secret from anyone except literally the top of the top in high command, and now also the people at an international astronomy body.

Aside from that, though, I understand that I can note things at submission which the body can take into account. I'm more concerned about what they have to do. If lodging a notice that something falls under clause 3a is enough to delay compliance with clause 6, then, okay. But my understanding is that ASTRO's hands are not tied in this matter. Are you saying that, as a matter of fact, ASTRO by this resolution absolutely cannot do any of the things I said, like release sensitive data before the request is granted?

An additional concern - what if some astronomical data can only be properly understood as prejudicial to integrity or security in the context of other undisclosed facts (eg this particular planet is the secret hiding world of the leadership, so releasing the data on this planet exposes the leadership to attack)? Must member nations submit all this confidential information to ASTRO to explain why certain astronomical data is sensitive, or can/will ASTRO just take the nations' word for it?

Apologies, but one final note - since there is no clause for deletion of submitted data, I'm going to assume that that is not a possibility under this resolution.)

---

(EDIT: On a backward search of previous posts, I found Kenmoria's statement that a WA body is infallible by nature; as much as I wonder about that, I'll accept it for now. I'll assume that to mean that even if ASTRO could do things like release sensitive data while a request is pending, they won't, because they're infallible. If that is correct, that resolves the first problem. But not the second and third. One might reasonably be concerned about the submission of even more confidential information on top of already allegedly confidential astronomical data, even to a purportedly infallible organisation. And wanting a deletion of data would not be absurd either, I feel.)

Cosmic cartography is an ever evolving science; a nation that is 'hiding' by simply existing on a planet alone isn't reasonable.

Furthermore, if your data is submitted, it would not necessarily have any identifiers attached to it, so it would be near useless for actual targeting or harm. Finally, human made structures can be reasonably ignored under the definition so you wouldn't need to submit it.

As for the request for evidence, that is necessary to prevent nations from locking private or foreign entities from donation. All evidence is totally confidential and will never be revealed, being viewed only for the objection. (Thus the infallible thing)

[Marxist Germany]

It's nice to see the WA doing stuff that's actually IC beneficial to it's membership instead of just ego tripping OOC bullshit or partisan asshattery.

OOC:I believe that you're exaggerating

[Iciaros]

Cosmic cartography is an ever evolving science; a nation that is 'hiding' by simply existing on a planet alone isn't reasonable.

(There are a lot of planets out there; it might be reasonable to expect a hiding place to succeed for a while, sort of like a needle in a haystack thing. It just becomes another planet no one's looked at yet. But I digress; that was just an example I thought up on the spot.)

Furthermore, if your data is submitted, it would not necessarily have any identifiers attached to it, so it would be near useless for actual targeting or harm. Finally, human made structures can be reasonably ignored under the definition so you wouldn't need to submit it.

(Yes, human-made structures need not be submitted, but there are many details about astronomical bodies that can point to the presence of life ,activity, or other modifications - like its atmosphere, for example, which I would think might fall under the definition for RAD, which could be affected by things like carbon emissions or planetary terraforming. Other data, like perhaps orbital periods and paths, stellar eclipses, and more, could betray modifications around the planet and system, like Death-Star-sized space stations or Dyson spheres or other things. This data could be used to infer the presence of artificial structures, and even if there are no identifiers attached, once you know something is of note, it just takes some looking in that direction to find out what you want to know, I would think.)

As for the request for evidence, that is necessary to prevent nations from locking private or foreign entities from donation. All evidence is totally confidential and will never be revealed, being viewed only for the objection. (Thus the infallible thing)

(Oh, no, I wasn't talking about clause 4a - I think that clause is perfectly reasonable and well-fleshed out. I meant to refer to 3a, in the sense that ASTRO must presumably decide, upon an application by a member nation, whether or not the data compromises the safety or integrity of the nation. My inquiry was on how ASTRO makes this determination, and how much deference it will have to member nations' assertions. Will ASTRO accept a member nation's assertion that the data is in fact compromising, or will they conduct their own inquiry? If they conduct their own inquiry, must all relevant information affecting whether something could be compromising or not be disclosed to them, even if said information might be confidential?

As just a final point, and I know you may not have the answer to this, so I apologise... are the WA bodies infallible OOCly or ICly? Because that would probably determine how worried I would be in-character for the potential harm that could be caused by WA committees and organisations.)

[Kranostav]

Cosmic cartography is an ever evolving science; a nation that is 'hiding' by simply existing on a planet alone isn't reasonable.

(There are a lot of planets out there; it might be reasonable to expect a hiding place to succeed for a while, sort of like a needle in a haystack thing. It just becomes another planet no one's looked at yet. But I digress; that was just an example I thought up on the spot.)

Furthermore, if your data is submitted, it would not necessarily have any identifiers attached to it, so it would be near useless for actual targeting or harm. Finally, human made structures can be reasonably ignored under the definition so you wouldn't need to submit it.

(Yes, human-made structures need not be submitted, but there are many details about astronomical bodies that can point to the presence of life ,activity, or other modifications - like its atmosphere, for example, which I would think might fall under the definition for RAD, which could be affected by things like carbon emissions or planetary terraforming. Other data, like perhaps orbital periods and paths, stellar eclipses, and more, could betray modifications around the planet and system, like Death-Star-sized space stations or Dyson spheres or other things. This data could be used to infer the presence of artificial structures, and even if there are no identifiers attached, once you know something is of note, it just takes some looking in that direction to find out what you want to know, I would think.)

As for the request for evidence, that is necessary to prevent nations from locking private or foreign entities from donation. All evidence is totally confidential and will never be revealed, being viewed only for the objection. (Thus the infallible thing)

(Oh, no, I wasn't talking about clause 4a - I think that clause is perfectly reasonable and well-fleshed out. I meant to refer to 3a, in the sense that ASTRO must presumably decide, upon an application by a member nation, whether or not the data compromises the safety or integrity of the nation. My inquiry was on how ASTRO makes this determination, and how much deference it will have to member nations' assertions. Will ASTRO accept a member nation's assertion that the data is in fact compromising, or will they conduct their own inquiry? If they conduct their own inquiry, must all relevant information affecting whether something could be compromising or not be disclosed to them, even if said information might be confidential?

As just a final point, and I know you may not have the answer to this, so I apologise... are the WA bodies infallible OOCly or ICly? Because that would probably determine how worried I would be in-character for the potential harm that could be caused by WA committees and organisations.)

(Apologies for the block replies as I am ok mobile)

And while I see your point as to changes in gravitational fields and such, why would it be harmful to submit? Without an identifier sure space faring nations could look up what's actually there, however assuming you are of similar or superior tech level (because you built a deathstar) you'd know they are looking.

This seems to be slightly stemming into whataboutism as building such a large object, you really cannot expect secrecy. Sure you can do somethings about that.... But the argument of 'there are tons of solar systems so I can have the expectation to be naturally hidden' is only good to a certain extent.

As for 3a, you don't need to prove it. If you say you don't want that data released, it won't be. Now of course that standard only applies to the data you submit.

And the GA is IC infallible. The WA cannot be corrupted by the legislatively mandated committees or actions. Unless, of course, those actions and committees are corrupt by creation

[Hijlistan Arg]

"A fine way to introduce sciences to our country. We vote FOR this proposal."

[Araraukar]

(OOC: The Administrative Compliance Act details continuos fines, with the possibility of sanctions, until compliance is reached.)

OOC: Unless you're noncompliant with that resolution, of course... I mean, for nations that prefer no interference from other WA nations, sanctions would be just perfect, and if you're noncompliant with ACA, you wouldn't pay the fines anyway...

ACA is about the only resolution that I completely ignore the existence of, because it doesn't make sense to me in Araraukar's IC (it's less about magical compliance and more about not-at-all-magical bureaucracy), and because the nation would be totally happy getting sanctions to ignore some other resolutions, and I'm not going to let them get away with it that easily.

And the GA is IC infallible. The WA cannot be corrupted by the legislatively mandated committees or actions.

OOC: Slightly wrong. WA committees are "infallible" (quotes because I've been bitten by bureaucracy too many times to believe that) and staffed with incorruptible gnomes. The WA itself is made up of its member nations, and we all know that most nations are neither infallible nor incorruptible...

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The Administrative Compliance Act details continuos fines, with the possibility of sanctions, until compliance is reached.)

OOC: Unless you're noncompliant with that resolution, of course... I mean, for nations that prefer no interference from other WA nations, sanctions would be just perfect, and if you're noncompliant with ACA, you wouldn't pay the fines anyway...

ACA is about the only resolution that I completely ignore the existence of, because it doesn't make sense to me in Araraukar's IC (it's less about magical compliance and more about not-at-all-magical bureaucracy), and because the nation would be totally happy getting sanctions to ignore some other resolutions, and I'm not going to let them get away with it that easily.

(OOC: Of course, some nations could just ignore the ACA’s fines and sanctions, but I think that sort of defeats the purpose of them being in the World Assembly. Since the sanctions must cover all aspects of life, the nation couldn’t benefit from any WA programs and would be excluded from any non-WA programs hosted by WA nations. The cost-benefit analysis doesn’t work unless the nation just really likes the idea of being in an organisation.)

“In case anyone’s interested, there should be a ‘the’ before the list of responsibilities in clause 2, and clause 1 uses a derivative of the word being defined in the definition. These are all very minor issues, and I still support this, but they should probably be mentioned.”

[Araraukar]

(OOC: Of course, some nations could just ignore the ACA’s fines and sanctions, but I think that sort of defeats the purpose of them being in the World Assembly. Since the sanctions must cover all aspects of life, the nation couldn’t benefit from any WA programs and would be excluded from any non-WA programs hosted by WA nations. The cost-benefit analysis doesn’t work unless the nation just really likes the idea of being in an organisation.)

OOC: Point being, for nations that only voluntarily have anything to do with other WA nations (like being the only WA nation on their planet, or being a planet-wide nation or something similar, or just being xenophobic and isolationist and only in the WA because their leader told the bureaucrats to give it a try... ), having other nations keep their hands off would likely be preferable.

...I can't at a quick think of the existing resolutions think of a single one that would actually benefit Araraukar (which is the only WA nation on its planet), which is part of the problem. I may need to go back to posting on PPU and have that be in the WA instead, in IC.

[Kranostav]

(OOC: The Administrative Compliance Act details continuos fines, with the possibility of sanctions, until compliance is reached.)

OOC: Unless you're noncompliant with that resolution, of course... I mean, for nations that prefer no interference from other WA nations, sanctions would be just perfect, and if you're noncompliant with ACA, you wouldn't pay the fines anyway...

ACA is about the only resolution that I completely ignore the existence of, because it doesn't make sense to me in Araraukar's IC (it's less about magical compliance and more about not-at-all-magical bureaucracy), and because the nation would be totally happy getting sanctions to ignore some other resolutions, and I'm not going to let them get away with it that easily.

And the GA is IC infallible. The WA cannot be corrupted by the legislatively mandated committees or actions.

OOC: Slightly wrong. WA committees are "infallible" (quotes because I've been bitten by bureaucracy too many times to believe that) and staffed with incorruptible gnomes. The WA itself is made up of its member nations, and we all know that most nations are neither infallible nor incorruptible...

Okay fair. That's what I was trying to go for. And yes, I must mandate that all my committees are corrupt miniature gnomes.

[Aclion]

It's nice to see the WA doing stuff that's actually IC beneficial to it's membership instead of just ego tripping OOC bullshit or partisan asshattery.

OOC:I believe that you're exaggerating

Name the last time the WA did something that benefited the membership as a whole.

[Barbariax]

This proposal is a terrible idea because of item #6:

Declares that all data collected will be released by ASTRO for free

Why should any country invest in the collection of raw astronomical data if they can get it for free from other countries doing the work?

Why should any for-profit, private organization invest in the same collection if they must give up the product of their labor? The idea that they will be fairly compensated is a joke, it is the same poor economics of using eminent domain for property. This will likely make the desired data unprofitable because it destroys the market for said data and gives the World Assembly's super-government agency ASTRO monopoly buying power, so there will be little incentive to continue.

This nation does not stand against scientific advancement, and the concern noted here should not be misunderstood to imply that.

However, this is essentially communism of a valuable product.

If a totalitarian or communist nation is looking to take the work of others for free, it makes sense to support this act.
But it does not make sense for any pro-business, pro-market, pro-freedom, pro-private property nation to support this.

[Kranostav]

This proposal is a terrible idea because of item #6:

Declares that all data collected will be released by ASTRO for free

Why should any country invest in the collection of raw astronomical data if they can get it for free from other countries doing the work?

Why should any for-profit, private organization invest in the same collection if they must give up the product of their labor? The idea that they will be fairly compensated is a joke, it is the same poor economics of using eminent domain for property. This will likely make the desired data unprofitable because it destroys the market for said data and gives the World Assembly's super-government agency ASTRO monopoly buying power, so there will be little incentive to continue.

This nation does not stand against scientific advancement, and the concern noted here should not be misunderstood to imply that.

However, this is essentially communism of a valuable product.

If a totalitarian or communist nation is looking to take the work of others for free, it makes sense to support this act.
But it does not make sense for any pro-business, pro-market, pro-freedom, pro-private property nation to support this.

The raw data is near impossible to apply alone, and the data is released for free so that all nations can use it. There is plenty motivation to discover and your nation will need to collect data that would be relevant to you if you wish to use it, only unless someone else has done it.

The market applies in aggregation of the data and creating libraries/organization/value-added features since simple data collection really isn't all that profitable to begin with.

[Iciaros]

As for 3a, you don't need to prove it. If you say you don't want that data released, it won't be. Now of course that standard only applies to the data you submit.

(Ah, that does set my mind at ease, by which I mean it sets my leadership's mind at ease.)

And the GA is IC infallible. The WA cannot be corrupted by the legislatively mandated committees or actions. Unless, of course, those actions and committees are corrupt by creation

(Intriguing. Clearly the WA must have some kind of technique to ensure ICly that their gnomes are infallible. I wonder if I can build a nation on that technology and use that to justify 0 corruption...

Though, now that I think about it, what exactly does infallibility entail? Incorruptibility, certainly. Probably that they make no mistakes in discharging their duty. Does it also presume that the data they have is 100% secure? I wonder if the database is considered part of the committee. Presumably so, but such certainties ICly certainly open the door to a lot of interesting nation designs...)

---

(Just some side notes:)

And while I see your point as to changes in gravitational fields and such, why would it be harmful to submit? Without an identifier sure space faring nations could look up what's actually there, however assuming you are of similar or superior tech level (because you built a deathstar) you'd know they are looking.

(Hmm... I wonder if that's true. Observation is not always detectable or easily detected, I feel. But anyway.)

This seems to be slightly stemming into whataboutism as building such a large object, you really cannot expect secrecy. Sure you can do somethings about that.... But the argument of 'there are tons of solar systems so I can have the expectation to be naturally hidden' is only good to a certain extent.

(Is that what whataboutism means? In any case, even a planet- or star-sized object would be just one of many such similarly sized objects in the universe, and with the right planning it could be hidden in places where distant observational techniques can't find it - like, say, in Star Wars, where there was a military installation literally in the middle of a cluster of black holes. Or, for a more mundane example, just put it in the middle of a bunch of celestial objects, making it more difficult for others to see it because most of the time they'd be seeing that boring ice planet or the red dwarf or the planet where it rains molten glass sideways. All those astronomically uninteresting things. )

[Barbariax]

This proposal is a terrible idea because of item #6:



Why should any country invest in the collection of raw astronomical data if they can get it for free from other countries doing the work?

Why should any for-profit, private organization invest in the same collection if they must give up the product of their labor? The idea that they will be fairly compensated is a joke, it is the same poor economics of using eminent domain for property. This will likely make the desired data unprofitable because it destroys the market for said data and gives the World Assembly's super-government agency ASTRO monopoly buying power, so there will be little incentive to continue.

This nation does not stand against scientific advancement, and the concern noted here should not be misunderstood to imply that.

However, this is essentially communism of a valuable product.

If a totalitarian or communist nation is looking to take the work of others for free, it makes sense to support this act.
But it does not make sense for any pro-business, pro-market, pro-freedom, pro-private property nation to support this.

The raw data is near impossible to apply alone, and the data is released for free so that all nations can use it. There is plenty motivation to discover and your nation will need to collect data that would be relevant to you if you wish to use it, only unless someone else has done it.

The market applies in aggregation of the data and creating libraries/organization/value-added features since simple data collection really isn't all that profitable to begin with.

This is rationalization that does not really address the concerns. What this proposal does is tyrannical market corruption, the fact that there is a secondary market does not change this fact.

The proposal notes that there are possible exemptions, however they seem more to be only an attempt to appear fair rather than an effective settlements mechanism. As noted, as the market is destroyed via forced participation and $0 default compensation, there is little guarantee that agents with existing interests will be treated fairly.

That nature is the line of this objection, not whether the proposal may have a net positive effect.

Not to mention, what will the overhead cost be for this program? It cannot be free--will there be mandatory tax increases to pay for ASTRO? A cruel fate for those currently in the business who lose their livelihoods and now must pay tax towards those responsible.

And why this program specifically, and not shared pharmaceutical drugs discovery, oceanography, self-defense technologies, etc.? There does not seem to be any particular logic for why this program in particular should be created, imposed, and funded, as opposed to other potential alternative priorities. It should not be the business of the WA to go about making such bets.

[Kenmoria]

The raw data is near impossible to apply alone, and the data is released for free so that all nations can use it. There is plenty motivation to discover and your nation will need to collect data that would be relevant to you if you wish to use it, only unless someone else has done it.

The market applies in aggregation of the data and creating libraries/organization/value-added features since simple data collection really isn't all that profitable to begin with.

This is rationalization that does not really address the concerns. What this proposal does is tyrannical market corruption, the fact that there is a secondary market does not change this fact.

The proposal notes that there are possible exemptions, however they seem more to be only an attempt to appear fair rather than an effective settlements mechanism. As noted, as the market is destroyed via forced participation and $0 default compensation, there is little guarantee that agents with existing interests will be treated fairly.

That nature is the line of this objection, not whether the proposal may have a net positive effect.

(OOC: The proposal explicitly allows for amounts to be negotiated by private companies for the obtaining of their data. In addition, there is no mandate on any non-governmental operation to submit data, merely a reserved right for that to happen. Your concerns therefore only apply to governments, which should have aims and objectives that focus around non-financial goals, so would be met with this proposal.)

[Barbariax]

This is rationalization that does not really address the concerns. What this proposal does is tyrannical market corruption, the fact that there is a secondary market does not change this fact.

The proposal notes that there are possible exemptions, however they seem more to be only an attempt to appear fair rather than an effective settlements mechanism. As noted, as the market is destroyed via forced participation and $0 default compensation, there is little guarantee that agents with existing interests will be treated fairly.

That nature is the line of this objection, not whether the proposal may have a net positive effect.

(OOC: The proposal explicitly allows for amounts to be negotiated by private companies for the obtaining of their data. In addition, there is no mandate on any non-governmental operation to submit data, merely a reserved right for that to happen. Your concerns therefore only apply to governments, which should have aims and objectives that focus around non-financial goals, so would be met with this proposal.)

3. Mandates member states submit to ASTRO any relevant raw astronomical data they may possess,

The wording does not offer sufficient protections, it is easily conceivable that private data would be included in the overall submissions.

[Kranostav]

(OOC: The proposal explicitly allows for amounts to be negotiated by private companies for the obtaining of their data. In addition, there is no mandate on any non-governmental operation to submit data, merely a reserved right for that to happen. Your concerns therefore only apply to governments, which should have aims and objectives that focus around non-financial goals, so would be met with this proposal.)

3. Mandates member states submit to ASTRO any relevant raw astronomical data they may possess,

The wording does not offer sufficient protections, it is easily conceivable that private data would be included in the overall submissions.

That is totally incorrect. Private industry is not forced to donate. And if they do donate, they can negotiate for compensation. Im not going to micromanage that.

[Victoriaans Nederlands]

We're in full support of this well. It is great to see Science getting the head-on once again!
- Foresittend Marcus Alan Ariel Maximillian Swifty Felix Prometheus Revlin Lynx Artyom Lichtenstein C. Talon Haydn Taal Reynolds Fang Wu Ying

OOC: I also want to say that while I don't really do drafting or writing proposals for GA or SC, I really love your attitude towards the feedback and the fact that you take every single one of them with value. So there's no doubt that this not only got accepted, but garnered a lot of supports (even without the telegram, I think it will still net you a lot).

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The proposal explicitly allows for amounts to be negotiated by private companies for the obtaining of their data. In addition, there is no mandate on any non-governmental operation to submit data, merely a reserved right for that to happen. Your concerns therefore only apply to governments, which should have aims and objectives that focus around non-financial goals, so would be met with this proposal.)

3. Mandates member states submit to ASTRO any relevant raw astronomical data they may possess,

The wording does not offer sufficient protections, it is easily conceivable that private data would be included in the overall submissions.

(OOC: Member states, note member states not member nations, would not have data belonging to private companies. A state is a government ruling over a given area, whereas a nation is a group of people sharing a national identity. Although it could be argued that clause 3 makes member states submit data belonging to private companies, it could also be argued, in my opinion more successfully, that it only applies to governmental data.

Where there are two competing interpretations, it is up to the individual nation to decide which one to follow.)

[Kranostav]

We're in full support of this well. It is great to see Science getting the head-on once again!
- Foresittend Marcus Alan Ariel Maximillian Swifty Felix Prometheus Revlin Lynx Artyom Lichtenstein C. Talon Haydn Taal Reynolds Fang Wu Ying

OOC: I also want to say that while I don't really do drafting or writing proposals for GA or SC, I really love your attitude towards the feedback and the fact that you take every single one of them with value. So there's no doubt that this not only got accepted, but garnered a lot of supports (even without the telegram, I think it will still net you a lot).

Thank you! I appreciate the sentiment!

[Barbariax]

The wording does not offer sufficient protections, it is easily conceivable that private data would be included in the overall submissions.

(OOC: Member states, note member states not member nations, would not have data belonging to private companies. A state is a government ruling over a given area, whereas a nation is a group of people sharing a national identity. Although it could be argued that clause 3 makes member states submit data belonging to private companies, it could also be argued, in my opinion more successfully, that it only applies to governmental data.

Where there are two competing interpretations, it is up to the individual nation to decide which one to follow.)

Your reply does not really address the concern: what if the member state happens to hold the private data for whatever reason, e.g. research partnership or contract? The wording in the proposal is far too unrefined.

The issues around funding / taxation, and why the WA feels the need to support this particular cause and not other, similar causes are not addressed.

[Kranostav]

(OOC: Member states, note member states not member nations, would not have data belonging to private companies. A state is a government ruling over a given area, whereas a nation is a group of people sharing a national identity. Although it could be argued that clause 3 makes member states submit data belonging to private companies, it could also be argued, in my opinion more successfully, that it only applies to governmental data.

Where there are two competing interpretations, it is up to the individual nation to decide which one to follow.)

Your reply does not really address the concern: what if the member state happens to hold the private data for whatever reason, e.g. research partnership or contract? The wording in the proposal is far too unrefined.

The issues around funding / taxation, and why the WA feels the need to support this particular cause and not other, similar causes are not addressed.

If the government is allowed to possess the rights to items created by a private company, that seems like an issue between them and better left unaddressed by the WA. If you are talking subsidies, then I really don't see how can make that argument. Look at modern day automotive companies, just because they receive a kick back from the government doesn't mean the cars are the property of the government.

[Barbariax]

Your reply does not really address the concern: what if the member state happens to hold the private data for whatever reason, e.g. research partnership or contract? The wording in the proposal is far too unrefined.

The issues around funding / taxation, and why the WA feels the need to support this particular cause and not other, similar causes are not addressed.

If the government is allowed to possess the rights to items created by a private company, that seems like an issue between them and better left unaddressed by the WA. If you are talking subsidies, then I really don't see how can make that argument. Look at modern day automotive companies, just because they receive a kick back from the government doesn't mean the cars are the property of the government.

What if a nation's government (i.e. state) has an agency (e.g. NASA) which has contracted with a private company (e.g. SpaceX) to license some data? Very common type of agreement. Then the state is in "possession" and is required to submit it to ASTRO per this mandatory requirement. The scope is far too wide. It should be opt-in rather than relying to opt-out based only on tenuous exemptions.

How is ASTRO going to maintain this database of raw astronomical data? Who are the staff going to be? How are they going to be paid? How are private companies going to be compensated for their "voluntary" submissions? As previously noted, such compensation is not going to be fairly negotiated because it is impossible once the market is corrupted. None of these things are spelled out. This being the case, and the proposal likely being financially net negative, the proposal should be rejected on these grounds alone until they are properly addressed clearly within the text itself.

Fundamentally, why should the WA support ASTRO in the first place? Astronomical research is not a bad thing, but this seems like the author's pet project, i.e. excessive "government pork" policy. Why not a similar policy for pharmaceuticals research? Or ocean mapping? Or self-defense technologies? Etc. (All of these examples were previously given.) There is nothing particularly special about this field compared to other fields, so there is no reason to unequally support it with this proposal.

The WA should keep out of such affairs and leave it entirely to member states to engage freely without coercing all members. It is questionable to this state what subsidies a government should give to a favored industry (e.g. automotives), so it is therefore fundamentally the same questionability as to whether a super-governmental body (i.e. the WA) should essentially meddle similarly in a specific field, to an even more extreme and monolithic way as written in this proposal.

[Kranostav]

If the government is allowed to possess the rights to items created by a private company, that seems like an issue between them and better left unaddressed by the WA. If you are talking subsidies, then I really don't see how can make that argument. Look at modern day automotive companies, just because they receive a kick back from the government doesn't mean the cars are the property of the government.

What if a nation's government (i.e. state) has an agency (e.g. NASA) which has contracted with a private company (e.g. SpaceX) to license some data? Very common type of agreement. Then the state is in "possession" and is required to submit it to ASTRO per this mandatory requirement. The scope is far too wide. It should be opt-in rather than relying to opt-out based only on tenuous exemptions.

How is ASTRO going to maintain this database of raw astronomical data? Who are the staff going to be? How are they going to be paid? How are private companies going to be compensated for their "voluntary" submissions? As previously noted, such compensation is not going to be fairly negotiated because it is impossible once the market is corrupted. None of these things are spelled out. This being the case, and the proposal likely being financially net negative, the proposal should be rejected on these grounds alone until they are properly addressed clearly within the text itself.

Fundamentally, why should the WA support ASTRO in the first place? Astronomical research is not a bad thing, but this seems like the author's pet project, i.e. excessive "government pork" policy. Why not a similar policy for pharmaceuticals research? Or ocean mapping? Or self-defense technologies? Etc. (All of these examples were previously given.) There is nothing particularly special about this field compared to other fields, so there is no reason to unequally support it with this proposal.

The WA should keep out of such affairs and leave it entirely to member states to engage freely without coercing all members. It is questionable to this state what subsidies a government should give to a favored industry (e.g. automotives), so it is therefore fundamentally the same questionability as to whether a super-governmental body (i.e. the WA) should essentially meddle similarly in a specific field, to an even more extreme and monolithic way as written in this proposal.

Okay I see you are very new to NS. For starters, we do not set things like workers, salaries, market impact, etc for committees, they are implied and not part of the WA. Furthermore, I could happily work on proposals regarding cartography of other spaces.

Secondly, research contractors for NASA is far more complex than you apparently realize, with possession of said data being spelled out in contracts far before this. I'm very sure a private entity could write in a stipulation mandating that they retain full rights to the data they collect if working in conjunction with a government entity. But again this is stemming into a whataboutism argument very quickly. I'll humor it for just a sentence or two tho. In laymans terms, 'space mapping' is not profitable, especially when dealing with raw data. These companies make money is the aggregation and organization of data, which is not at all touched by this resolution. If you want the raw data you can have it. Let me give you an example. Raw data is the equivalent of a dictionary or a string of consecutive words. Pretty useless without an application huh. Where money is made and applied would be in the use of those words to create a book, that you can sell. That book organizes words into chapters, then paragraphs, then sentences. It gives that 'raw data', an easy to use structure. Look at things like law libraries or meteorological data, its useless when you have nothing to guide you.

Also ffr don't use the NatSov argument. It makes you look bad.

[Hugolandia mayora]

I mildly support this proposal.