[DEFEATED] Interference-Causing Equipment Standards Act

[Greater Cesnica]

If you want to make clauses that have exceptions built into them, put them in the same clause.

Make your lists from the list coding, or else you'll get graphical inconsistencies à la Promotion of Recycling.

Remove the portion at the bottom saying 'Hereby approves this resolution in order to safeguard consumers, business owners, workers, and the electronics industry'.

How do you think about interference at a border with a non-member state or at mixture of residential and non-residential equipment?

Removed the portion at the bottom.

I'm using list coding for the lettered definitions and regulations.

About interference between residential and non-residential equipment, as well as at the border, I added a regulation stipulating that all devices covered under the legislation must be sufficiently guarded against potential excessive interference from Class A and B devices. This would be regardless of whether this interference comes from a non-member state or not, and would also cover our bases by regulating that even if non-residential and residential use devices are in close proximity, both such classes of devices would be safe from interference.

It makes sense too, because these regulations regarding interference between residential and non-residential devices are found in the real world too. Meaning you can safely use your smartphone next to that 2 MW solar panel, or a 2 MW FM transmitter

[Greater Cesnica]

Decided to upgrade to last call status.

[Kenmoria]

“I’m unsure as to why you define class A and class B interference-causing devices separately, as they don’t seem to have differing mandates within the legislation.”

[Greater Cesnica]

“I’m unsure as to why you define class A and class B interference-causing devices separately, as they don’t seem to have differing mandates within the legislation.”

"In our research, we ascertained that national standards across the spectrum clearly defined a different class of devices. One for use in a residential setting, and one for use in places like factories, supermarkets, casinos, and the such. Alas, those devices used in non-residential settings tend to have a much higher capacity for harmful electromagnetic emissions, the two classes must be held to different standards.

For the sake of space management, and also for the sake of not throwing seemingly arbitrary numbers and unit-specific regulatory standards, we decided to emit the details of these differences. However, we decided to keep the classifications in to highlight that there is, in fact, a potential difference in interference levels between the two classes of devices." -Slick McCooley

OOC: Class A and B devices have different capacities for interference levels, and thus must be subjected to different levels of guarding and shielding. However, the proposal would be too complicated and arbitrarily difficult to comprehend if I just threw out seemingly random numbers to people. So I took those numbers and unit standards out, but left the classifications in to show that the two classes of devices would be held to different standards. I'll try to clarify.

[Greater Cesnica]

I made that clarification by explicitly stating that Class A devices require less shielding and guarding than Class B devices.

[The New Nordic Union]

I made that clarification by explicitly stating that Class A devices require less shielding and guarding than Class B devices.

OOC: This might be the case, but since you make no different mandates for those in your proposal, there is no need to differentiate between the two. That's what Kenmoria was saying, as well. If I write a proposal about apples, and define Redand Green Apples, but then always use the general term 'apples' or both together in 'Red and Green Apples', there is no need to include the definition in the first place, because simply using the general term is enough.

[Greater Cesnica]

I made that clarification by explicitly stating that Class A devices require less shielding and guarding than Class B devices.

OOC: This might be the case, but since you make no different mandates for those in your proposal, there is no need to differentiate between the two. That's what Kenmoria was saying, as well. If I write a proposal about apples, and define Redand Green Apples, but then always use the general term 'apples' or both together in 'Red and Green Apples', there is no need to include the definition in the first place, because simply using the general term is enough.

OOC: Did that. Class A and B is no more.

[Greater Cesnica]

Y'all got any more feedback?

[Merni]

OOC: This might be the case, but since you make no different mandates for those in your proposal, there is no need to differentiate between the two. That's what Kenmoria was saying, as well. If I write a proposal about apples, and define Redand Green Apples, but then always use the general term 'apples' or both together in 'Red and Green Apples', there is no need to include the definition in the first place, because simply using the general term is enough.

OOC: Did that. Class A and B is no more.

You missed 2(iv).

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: Did that. Class A and B is no more.

You missed 2(iv).

Woops. Thank you for pointing that out!

Class A and B are truly no more.

[Tinhampton]

A bit of rewording (of the text, not the category)... fuck about with this one as you please. I tried my best to clear up Article 6/4ii:

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the importance of interference-free radio communications, especially in relation to the use of certain digital devices which are now so highly prevalent as to be almost ubiquitous,

Aware that digital devices and information technology apparatuses which fail to properly contain radiocommunication emissions that may be used by digital devices may damage infrastructure that is critically important to our society, such as transportation systems and network systems,

Cognizant that devices that are not properly shielded against these emissions may malfunction badly enough to inflict catastrophic damage upon such systems and networks, and

Seeking to define standards for digital devices which may interfere with other devices to comply with, in order to prevent damage or severe disruption of critical infrastructure due to such interference,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. A digital device as an electronic device that can receive, store, process, create or send digital information,
   2. Radiocommunications as the transmission and detection of communication signals and other such information, in the form of electromagnetic waves, to initiate technological functions remotely or to enable direct communication between two or more radio transmitters or receivers, and
   3. An interference-causing device as a device that causes, or is capable of causing, interference to radiocommunications,
2. Enacts the following provisions regarding interfering-causing devices and radiocommunication devices:
   
   1. Interference-causing devices emitting a given frequency, expressed in megahertz MHz, must not exceed a corresponding electromagnetic field strength value, expressed in the unit of field intensity dBμV (since excess emissions and leakage of electromagnetic emissions, which may lead to adverse operation of similar digital devices, will result if this field strength value is exceeded),
   2. Interference-causing devices must not significantly interfere with radiocommunications of digital devices or essential machinery,
   3. All interference-causing devices that have the potential to expose other devices or machinery to interference levels which can damage them or inhibit their use must be sufficiently shielded against such excessive levels of interference, and
   4. All digital devices covered under the provisions of this resolution must be sufficiently shielded against potential excessive levels of interference from interference-causing devices,
3. Forbids the importation, exportation, and distribution of interference-causing devices that violate Article 2 within and between member states,
4. Prohibits the usage of such violating devices, where they are neither:
   
   1. Intended for use by the military, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, space agencies, and scientific research projects and organizations of member states that have the approval of the state they operate in, nor
   2. "Denial-of-service devices," or devices intended to prevent cellular and wireless network communication in public settings, when deployed by any entity and authorized for use by the state that said entity operates in, and
5. Encourages member states to establish further technical standards for digital devices in the spirit of this resolution.

[Greater Cesnica]

A bit of rewording (of the text, not the category)... fuck about with this one as you please. I tried my best to clear up Article 6/4ii:

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the importance of interference-free radio communications, especially in relation to the use of certain digital devices which are now so highly prevalent as to be almost ubiquitous,

Aware that digital devices and information technology apparatuses which fail to properly contain radiocommunication emissions that may be used by digital devices may damage infrastructure that is critically important to our society, such as transportation systems and network systems,

Cognizant that devices that are not properly shielded against these emissions may malfunction badly enough to inflict catastrophic damage upon such systems and networks, and

Seeking to define standards for digital devices which may interfere with other devices to comply with, in order to prevent damage or severe disruption of critical infrastructure due to such interference,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. A digital device as an electronic device that can receive, store, process, create or send digital information,
   2. Radiocommunications as the transmission and detection of communication signals and other such information, in the form of electromagnetic waves, to initiate technological functions remotely or to enable direct communication between two or more radio transmitters or receivers, and
   3. An interference-causing device as a device that causes, or is capable of causing, interference to radiocommunications,
2. Enacts the following provisions regarding interfering-causing devices and radiocommunication devices:
   
   1. Interference-causing devices emitting a given frequency, expressed in megahertz MHz, must not exceed a corresponding electromagnetic field strength value, expressed in the unit of field intensity dBμV (since excess emissions and leakage of electromagnetic emissions, which may lead to adverse operation of similar digital devices, will result if this field strength value is exceeded),
   2. Interference-causing devices must not significantly interfere with radiocommunications of digital devices or essential machinery,
   3. All interference-causing devices that have the potential to expose other devices or machinery to interference levels which can damage them or inhibit their use must be sufficiently shielded against such excessive levels of interference, and
   4. All digital devices covered under the provisions of this resolution must be sufficiently shielded against potential excessive levels of interference from interference-causing devices,
3. Forbids the importation, exportation, and distribution of interference-causing devices that violate Article 2 within and between member states,
4. Prohibits the usage of such violating devices, where they are neither:
   
   1. Intended for use by the military, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, space agencies, and scientific research projects and organizations of member states that have the approval of the state they operate in, nor
   2. "Denial-of-service devices," or devices intended to prevent cellular and wireless network communication in public settings, when deployed by any entity and authorized for use by the state that said entity operates in, and
5. Encourages member states to establish further technical standards for digital devices in the spirit of this resolution.

And to think I was gonna submit the previous version.

Thank you so much, this is actually a godsend. I can now see the vastly superior writing style when comparing the two versions. I guess it's a mark on my cognitive faculties, but I'm not really good at dumbing down language and terminology in a complicated field to a layperson's level.

[Greater Cesnica]

Co-author credit given to Tinhampton.

[Greater Cesnica]

Reverting to Last Call status.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I don't have any legality concerns, but there is a lot of profitable trimming that could be done here so voters' eyes glaze over more slowly. For example:

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the importance of interference-free radio communications, especially in relation to the use of certain personal digital devices which are now so highly prevalent as to be almost ubiquitous,

Aware that digital devices and information technology apparatuses which fail to properly contain radiocommunication emissions that may be used by digital devices signal leakage and other badly contained radio emissions may damage critical infrastructure that is critically important to our society, such as transportation systems and network systems,

Cognizant that improperly shielded devices that are not properly shielded against these emissions may malfunction badly enough to inflict catastrophic damage upon such systems and networks, and

Seeking to define standards for digital devices which may interfere with other devices to comply with, in order to prevent damage or severe disruption of critical infrastructure due to such interference,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. A digital device as an electronic device that can receive, store, process, create, or send digital information,
   2. Radiocommunications as the transmission and detection of communication signals and other such information, in the form of electromagnetic waves, to initiate technological functions remotely or to enable direct communication between two or more radio transmitters or receivers, and
   3. An interference-causing device as a device that causes, or is capable of causing, interference to radiocommunications,
2. Enacts the following provisions regarding interfering-causing devices and radiocommunication devices:
   
   1. Interference-causing devices emitting a given frequency, expressed in megahertz MHz, must not exceed a corresponding electromagnetic field strength value, expressed in the unit of field intensity dBμV (since excess emissions and leakage of electromagnetic emissions, which may lead to adverse operation of similar digital devices, will result if this field strength value is exceeded),
   2. Interference-causing devices must not significantly interfere with radiocommunications of digital devices or essential machinery,
   3. All interference-causing devices that have the potential to expose other devices or machinery to interference levels which can damage them or inhibit their use must be sufficiently shielded against such excessive levels of interference, and
   4. All digital devices covered under the provisions of this resolution must be sufficiently shielded against potential excessive levels of interference from interference-causing devices,
3. Forbids the importation, exportation, and distribution of interference-causing devices that violate Article 2 within and between member states,
4. Prohibits the usage of such violating non-compliant devices, where they are neither:
   
   1. Intended for use by member state the military, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, space agencies, and or scientific research projects and organizations of member states that have the approval of the state they operate in, nor
   2. "Denial-of-service devices," or devices intended to prevent cellular and wireless network communication in public settings, when deployed by any entity and authorized for use by the state that said entity operates in, and
5. Encourages member states to establish further technical standards for digital devices in the spirit of this resolution.

Co-authored by Tinhampton

[Greater Cesnica]

Applied the trims. Thank you SL!

[Gorundu]

In clause 2i:

Interference-causing devices emitting a given frequency, expressed in megahertz MHz, must not exceed a corresponding electromagnetic field strength value, expressed in the unit of field intensity dBμV (since excess emissions and leakage of electromagnetic emissions, which may lead to adverse operation of similar digital devices, will result if this field strength value is exceeded),

I don't believe the specifications on units are necessary, and I think the part in brackets would be better served by placing it in the preamble

[Greater Cesnica]

In clause 2i:

Interference-causing devices emitting a given frequency, expressed in megahertz MHz, must not exceed a corresponding electromagnetic field strength value, expressed in the unit of field intensity dBμV (since excess emissions and leakage of electromagnetic emissions, which may lead to adverse operation of similar digital devices, will result if this field strength value is exceeded),

I don't believe the specifications on units are necessary, and I think the part in brackets would be better served by placing it in the preamble

I just applied the trim to the clause.

[Merni]

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. A digital device as an electronic device that can receive, store, process, create or send digital information,
   2. Radiocommunications as the transmission and detection of communication signals and other such information, in the form of electromagnetic waves, to initiate technological functions remotely or to enable direct communication between two or more radio transmitters or receivers, and

Wouldn't "radio waves" be better than "electromagnetic waves" here? It would be easier to understand at a glance and also exclude other electromagnetic waves (which are presumably not relevant here).

[Greater Cesnica]

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. A digital device as an electronic device that can receive, store, process, create or send digital information,
   2. Radiocommunications as the transmission and detection of communication signals and other such information, in the form of electromagnetic waves, to initiate technological functions remotely or to enable direct communication between two or more radio transmitters or receivers, and

Wouldn't "radio waves" be better than "electromagnetic waves" here? It would be easier to understand at a glance and also exclude other electromagnetic waves (which are presumably not relevant here).

I'm also covering infrared rays and microwave radiation, which are also used in electronic transmissions. Hence the blanket 'electromagnetic waves'.

[Greater Cesnica]

To clear things up definitively, I broadened the language throughout the resolution by removing specific mention of radiocommunications. This is because electronic communications for civilian use are covered by three mediums: radio waves, infrared waves, and microwave radiation.

[Greater Cesnica]

Per discussion with my regional delegate and others, I have submitted the draft.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1584297811

[Araraukar]

Per discussion with my regional delegate and others, I have submitted the draft.

OOC: My apologies for not getting to you sooner, but I suggest you withdraw it. Definition ii. has issues, and clause 2, subclause i. is still jargon. What electromagnetic field strength value? That of solar wind?

Also, clauses 3 and 4 disagree with one another. Or, rather, clause 3 makes clause 4 dysfunctional.

[Greater Cesnica]

Per discussion with my regional delegate and others, I have submitted the draft.

OOC: My apologies for not getting to you sooner, but I suggest you withdraw it. Definition ii. has issues, and clause 2, subclause i. is still jargon. What electromagnetic field strength value? That of solar wind?

Also, clauses 3 and 4 disagree with one another. Or, rather, clause 3 makes clause 4 dysfunctional.

Regarding clause 4, it is a discriminator catch-all that prohibits usage besides by the parties that clause 4 entails.

Regarding clause 3, 'within and between' means distribution from a member state to another member state, and vice-versa. As clause 4 is a catch-all, even though all parties would be prohibited from distributing to one another such violating devices,

A real life analogy for this would the following: automatic firearms must not be distributed, sold, manufactured, or used in the United States. However, this ATF regulation obviously does not apply to law enforcement or other authorized parties, as authorized parties may be freely designated as such without any need to specificy the such within the ATF regulations. Regarding the definition of electromagnetic field strength value: there's this neat tiny stub regarding it. This is the only applicable definition. Regarding this resolution, the signal strength actually carries wireless communications through vacuum and air. An excess of this field strength will cause interference.

Regarding definition ii:

Electronic communications as the transmission and detection of communication signals and other such information, in the form of electromagnetic waves, to initiate technological functions remotely or to enable direct communication between two or more electronic transmitters or receivers, and

This is objectively correct, as per universally accepted understandings of wireless communications, and use in government guidelines/regulations.

[Greifenburg]

"I applaud the idea of seeking international standards regarding electronics, but as it stands we are forced to vote against this proposal. In its current form this would ban the trade of defensive EM-weaponry, which could severly affect the security of nations who require, but cannot develop and produce, ECM-devices. While clause 4 makes an exception regarding the usage, im- and export would still be prohibitted."