NationStates

Hello, Roylaii here. As promised, i have delivered a rubbish draft. Now this is my first attempt at a WA resolution so all feedback is greatly appreciated as this is a learning experience for me and by no means do i consider this complete (it is a very rough draft). Thankyou to Hulldom for maintaining the Ideas for General Assembly Proposals topic, where i of course got this idea from, and to The Forest of Aeneas for suggesting this in the aforementioned thread.
Now as much as I like the intentions of this resolution, I'd only be willing to make a replacement if if the general consensus requires it of me. Otherwise feel free to take a shot at replacing it if you feel its necessary. I am willing to fund a campaign if it is good enough to submit (biggest hurdle is probably going to be my grammar...).

Repeal: "Museums Of Musical Heritage"
Category: Repeal

---

General Assembly Resolution #86 "Museums of Musical Heritage" (Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Recognising and commending the objective of GAR #86 to preserve and promote the cultural and societal value of music throughout the member nations of this august body for the benefit of posterity, yet

Realising that said legislation executes its intention in a flawed and detrimental manner, namely for the following reasons:

1. The target resolution stipulates that "pecuniary compensation (if necessary) will be arranged by an impartial arbitrator". As a result, GAR #86 actively defeats its own intention of promoting the free donation of music, as both the overly liberal phrasing of this clause and the complete lack of criteria by which the impartial arbitrator is to judge the validity of the necessity for pecuniary compensation actively disincentivize entities seeking to make a submission to the MoMH from donating, as they can freely demand remuneration instead;
   
   
2. The lack of guidelines in GAR #86 instructing the impartial arbitrator under what conditions they may decline payment to the contributing entity, or how to evaluate what a fair amount of compensation would be for each submission, enables the arbitrator to formulate and generate their own criteria and conditions based solely and entirely upon their musical preferences for example, which would result in large sums for preferred musical contributors, while those less liked by the arbitrator would be at risk of meagre remuneration, if even deemed "necessary";
   
   
3. This grave oversight in "Museums of Musical Heritage" leads to an irresponsible spending of public money by the WA, where large sums disappear into the pockets of musical entities as an unintended and indirect form of subsidisation of the musical sector, without any oversight to prevent musical artists or their representatives to demand extortionate supranormal compensation rates, and while granting individual actors too broad and liberal a right to spend the WA's considerable but finite funds;

Hereby repeals GAR#86 "Museums of Musical Heritage".

Co-authored by Daarwyrth.

"Concerns over enforcement do not actually address the target resolution. Anyone can claim concern over limits to enforcing any particular resolution, but such concerns rarely have anything to do with their targets so much as they do the enforcement mechanisms that exist in other resolutions. I recommend leaving matters of enforcement out of your repeal. Otherwise, I think you make some rather damning arguments against the target. I would not write this repeal with the style you chose, but that is not a serious issue in this case. My office would likely support this proposal after it has been shaped for the proposal queue."

Wallenburg wrote:"Concerns over enforcement do not actually address the target resolution. Anyone can claim concern over limits to enforcing any particular resolution, but such concerns rarely have anything to do with their targets so much as they do the enforcement mechanisms that exist in other resolutions. I recommend leaving matters of enforcement out of your repeal. Otherwise, I think you make some rather damning arguments against the target. I would not write this repeal with the style you chose, but that is not a serious issue in this case. My office would likely support this proposal after it has been shaped for the proposal queue."

Understood, and the line has been removed. This is my first time authoring so I'm still sorting out a "style".
Also, I am looking to add more lines as i further develop my argument. Thankyou for the feedback.

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Let me be clear - we will continue to oppose attempts to repeal this proposal without a proper replacement, especially in this case where the arguments are that the resolution is not strong enough.

Representative Wentapelloven: "The delegation from Roylaii has reached out to my office in light of both our attempts to draft legislation to repeal the target resolution. As in my private reply to the good Ambassador from Roylaii, I'd like to confirm that we encourage their delegation to continue working on this draft and that we have no issue with them using arguments and comments made in and about our draft. Also, our delegation neither desires nor requires any credit or recognition being given to our effort. The delegation from Roylaii is free to use our draft concept however they please."

West Barack and East Obama wrote:Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Let me be clear - we will continue to oppose attempts to repeal this proposal without a proper replacement, especially in this case where the arguments are that the resolution is not strong enough.

While I don't believe every resolution needs a replacement I have mentioned that I am willing to author a replacement, and you are free to draft one yourself if you want too. I just feel that this resolution is rather lacklustre. Feel free to disagree.

Daarwyrth wrote:Representative Wentapelloven: "The delegation from Roylaii has reached out to my office in light of both our attempts to draft legislation to repeal the target resolution. As in my private reply to the good Ambassador from Roylaii, I'd like to confirm that we encourage their delegation to continue working on this draft and that we have no issue with them using arguments and comments made in and about our draft. Also, our delegation neither desires nor requires any credit or recognition being given to our effort. The delegation from Roylaii is free to use our draft concept however they please."

My eternal gratitude to Daarwyrth. If you ever change your mind or want to help, I would appreciate the help of a veteran author (I am still learning) and I am more than willing to credit you.

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: It would be illogical to argue that the resolution doesn't mandate that citizens have a right to access it, or that museums aren't required to take part, and then repeal the target which will result in even less access and contributions to the MoMH. I'm not saying you need to propose a replacement, but making sure one is ready before you repeal a resolution based on the arguments you've provided would be the best course of action.

“I concur with Dr. Obama that the idea of a repeal against this target soils the intentions of the repeal’s clauses, and feel that this problem should be addressed.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

"We support. I never cared for WA mandated fluff, and the target is very much that."

"We could see ourselves supporting this."

Alright, a fair point is made of how I sound in my intent to repeal and I'll fix that soon...ish.
I like the intent of the resolution, I just feel like its not particularly useful. After all it doesn't actually mandate anything, just suggests stuff. That means your museums will still be able to collect musical heritage as they please, you will still be able to study the cultural impact of music etc. The intent is noble, no doubt in my mind about it, but there is nothing in this that museums can't do on their own already. If i was to make a replacement, i would prefer a resolution to help fund museums as they go about collecting and to encourage the collection of music for the enjoyment of future generations. Course that's my idea and could suffer from the same problems as GA#363, as history does indeed never end. Even better would be to make a resolution like GA#78 but for music. GA#287 is wonderful, but its a shame that the "visual, verbal, and literary works" (which could pertain to songs) requires that they must "pertain to culturally relevant sites". Finally, I don't really think this resolution in particular warrants a replacement.

Roylaii wrote:Abhorring, that the resolution lacks any ability to prevent nations from barring access to both MoMH and especially MoMHD,

Why would full denial of access to these institutions be desirable for any member state - especially given that the rest of your resolution laments the fact that museums in member states (including those who might want to deny access to those institutions) are not required to donate to them?

Tinhampton wrote:

Roylaii wrote:Abhorring, that the resolution lacks any ability to prevent nations from barring access to both MoMH and especially MoMHD,

Why would full denial of access to these institutions be desirable for any member state - especially given that the rest of your resolution laments the fact that museums in member states (including those who might want to deny access to those institutions) are not required to donate to them?

This is probably a mistake on my behalf (I'm still working on it), but the reason is that in the resolution the aforementioned institutions (most relevantly, MoMHD) entail "musical recordings, sheet music, and documents regarding music can be easily accessed by interested parties, be they in government, academia, or otherwise interested in music" that the chief reason to block it would be to prevent its citizens from accessing such a database which may contain songs with anti-government lyrics, or revolution songs that the government doesn't want its citizens listening to. Which i think is like, totally not cool.

New Draft bump, courtesy of massive contribution from Daarwyrth. The help is greatly appreciated, especially in formatting (i could barely link to the target). While i had a general idea on repeal (there is alot to have at in this resolution), the contributions from my co-author and the individual commenters have really made this possible for me. Oh yeah, and as promised I fixed how i sound in my intent to repeal by taking a dig at it in a way that doesn't make it sound like it needs a repeal : )
And as always, further feedback is always appreciated

I will comment on the substance of your new draft later but on quick look it appears a substantial improvement. I am still working on the replacement framework we discussed.

OOC. Re format, I think you should adopt perhaps something of a "The World Assembly finds ... sentences ... hereby repeals" format if you want to use full sentences. To me it seems jarring to stick with the "traditional" format while also interspersing sentences. As to the arguments...

Gaius Marcius Blythe takes a look at the matter. "The argument about the fair amount being unclear we think is apt. We are, however, unsure as to the impact of paragraph with the 'utter and complete lack of guidelines' incipit. The impact there seems perhaps a bit exaggerated. You may want to focus also on the possibility that the persons to be compensated may try to extort the World Assembly for a supranormal compensation rate".

Princess Madelyne Zylkoven, WA Representative of Daarwyrth: "I'm pleased to inform you that a new draft has been released that hopefully addresses the concerns raised in light of the previous version. Both our delegations are eagerly awaiting any further commentary and feedback."

"Good luck. We will vote for this if it reaches vote."

Zylkoven: "While my delegation would have preferred to give the resolution draft more time before submission, the decision was made to proceed to submission with the new version of the resolution text that was produced in light of the commentary and feedback that was given so far. As such, we implore all Delegates of the World Assembly to approve of Repeal: “Museums Of Musical Heritage”."

While the people of Oclade care deeply about museums and music, we find the current law too easily exploitable by would-be musical con-men. We'll vote to repeal "Museums of Musical Heritage", but we hope to see a replacement drafted sooner than later.

Claire Angele Marais, Representative of the Entity of Nova Universo to the World Assembly: 'The Entity of Nova Universo, in behalf of the Union and of its member nations, votes FOR the motion repealing Resolution 86 'Museums of Musical Heritage'. We agree that the issues raised by the repeal proposal are reasonable and in need of addressing. The Entity and the Union wishes for a partial repeal with replacement, with a proposed resolution that fixes the oversights and errors of the resolution in question.'

Zylkoven: "As the resolution has been moved to a vote, we urge everyone to vote in favour of the repeal, so the gaping hole in the WA's funds can be closed.

Ask yourselves, Ambassadors: should the WA be indirectly subsidising the musical industry by allowing extortionate demands for pecuniary compensation under the text of the target resolution? Is that how we want our nations' contribution to the WA to be spent?

I understand that the current target resolution feels good, and leaves a "feel good" feeling. Yet, such emotions can't stand in the way of having reasonable and practical legislation on the books. Therefore, we urge everyone to listen to their mind rather than their heart, and not rely on gut feelings. The target resolution has good intentions, but executes those poorly. It is time to unburden the WA from this flawed resolution."

Ask yourselves, Ambassadors: should the WA be indirectly subsidising the musical industry

Yes.

by allowing extortionate demands for pecuniary compensation under the text of the target resolution?

What's stopping an arbitrator who isn't biased from being hired? A knowingly biased arbitrator wouldn't have their job for long, especially if the WA is the one arranging for them to mediate. The 'waste of money' is either negligible compared to whatever else the WA is doing or just nonexistent.

Is that how we want our nations' contribution to the WA to be spent?

Yes.

Why you did away with the flawed but promising first draft in favor of this is beyond me. Opposed.