[DRAFT] Open Internet Order

[Thailand Special Administrative Region]

*snip*

Thanks! I will shorten the summary and make it similar to a "preamble".

[Araraukar]

Thanks! I will shorten the summary and make it similar to a "preamble".

OOC: You can look through the Passed Resolutions list to see how preamble is usually constructed.

[Thailand Special Administrative Region]

*snip*

UPDATED DRAFT

Open Internet Order

---

| Category: Education & Free Press | Area of Affect: Free Press | Proposed By: Thailand Special Administrative Region |

This Open Internet Order provides strong protections while implementing effective measures that prohibit Internet Service Providers from harming an Open Internet and therefore:

I: Defines the following:

• "Internet Service Provider" as any entity that provides anyone access to the internet.
• "Reasonable Network Management" allows Internet Service Providers to throttle access to lawful content on the basis of: avoiding network congestion (Demand vs Resources) or contractual obligations (Depending on the service plan).
• "Lawful" allowed by international law and/or national law (If international law and national law conflict, the Internet Service Provider may use their implied discretionary powers and choose which law to give preference).
• "Zero-rating" exempting any content from data caps.

II: Prohibits Internet Service Providers from:

• Blocking and throttling access to lawful content;
• Prioritizing any content on the basis of receiving payments (monetary or otherwise);
• Zero-rating any content on the basis of directly and/or indirectly receiving any gain (monetary or otherwise).

III: Requires Internet Service Providers to disclose:

• Any and all pricing information related to the service plan;
• Any and all fees related to the service plan;
• Any and all data caps related to the service plan as well as the consequences of exceeding the cap.

IV: Permits Internet Service Providers to employ, reasonable network management controls.

V: Clarifies that Internet Service Providers still have jurisdiction over their pricing structure and reiterates that is Open Internet Order doesn't require Internet Service Providers to expand their network (reach).

[Bears Armed]

Furthermore, the word 'Internet' should be capitalised (although its genericisation proceeds).

OOC: If it's capitalised (and its meaning within the NS multiverse isn't defined in the text) then it probably counts as a RL reference.

[Thailand Special Administrative Region]

Shall I submit this resolution to the General Assembly?

[Araraukar]

Shall I submit this resolution to the General Assembly?

You should not. It's not ready yet, neither in form nor content.

OOC: Also, capitalized i in Internet makes it a RL reference, like Bears said.

[Bakhton]

Shall I submit this resolution to the General Assembly?

You should not. It's not ready yet, neither in form nor content.

"I concur."

[Thailand Special Administrative Region]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

I disagree on the topic of capitalization and their "RL reference". Period! Also, please take note that all resolutions directly and/or indirectly make "assumptions" based on "RL reference".

[Araraukar]

I disagree on the topic of capitalization and their "RL reference". Period! Also, please take note that all resolutions directly and/or indirectly make "assumptions" based on "RL reference".

OOC: It's not the only issue, just one of many. But it's a valid one. "Internet" isn't just a generic reference to a global information network, it's a name. Just like your name or my name or the name of any real life thing. If you wrote a proposal about neutral ground for meetings about upkeep of polar icecaps, and named the place Iceland, it'd be a real life reference all the same, no matter what you wanted it to mean.

There's a simple solution around it and that has been pointed out to you before.

But, I repeat, it is not the only issue.

[Separatist Peoples]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

I disagree on the topic of capitalization and their "RL reference". Period! Also, please take note that all resolutions directly and/or indirectly make "assumptions" based on "RL reference".

OOC: You don't have to agree with it. That's the way the rules are.

[Thailand Special Administrative Region]

*snip*

*snip*

OOC: "It is not the only issue"? May I get clarification on this, please... Also, thanks for you feedback

[Thailand Special Administrative Region]

BUMP

[Araraukar]

BUMP

OOC: You don't really need to bump things on the first page on GA forum, unless you've added new material.

---

OOC: The author reminded me that this needed looking through. The last couple of weeks were so busy with real life stuff that I completely forgot about this.

IC: Alrighty then, let's have a looksee into the innards of this beastie. *pulls out the Proposal Scalpel^TM*

Category: Education & Free Press
Area of Affect: Free Press

I still contest this choice of category and area of effect as being unsuitable. This does nothing to raise educational budgets or support free press. Just because something similar was once passed in the category, does not make it the correct one. And that one was repealed partly due to its inconsistencies with the reality of network access costs, a mistake which this one seems to be intent on repeating.

This Open Internet Order provides strong protections while implementing effective measures that prohibit Internet Service Providers from harming an Open Internet and therefore:

I suggest writing a proper preamble and not a weird descriptive sentence like this. Resolutions are meant to be written as laws, with the preamble being there to convince the various member nations that the increased costs are a good idea internationally. You really need to work on this part.

I: Defines the following:

OOC: I suggest using the list code 1) properly and 2) to give the subclauses letters. It makes referring to them easier.

"Internet Service Provider" as any entity that provides anyone access to the internet.

This would make any burger joint that has wireless network free for use for their customer an "Internet Service Provider". I don't think that's what you meant by this. (OOC: Also, "Internet" is still a RL thing and thus makes this illegal.)

"Reasonable Network Management" allows Internet Service Providers to throttle access to lawful content on the basis of: avoiding network congestion (Demand vs Resources) or contractual obligations (Depending on the service plan).

Access to content or access to the network? Referring to congestion seems to refer to the latter. Also, what's with the random capitalization of the first letters of words?

"Lawful" allowed by international law and/or national law (If international law and national law conflict, the Internet Service Provider may use their implied discretionary powers and choose which law to give preference).

I don't think you need to define "lawful". You do need to define "lawful content", however. And are you really giving the ISPs the right to break national laws if they want? Because many nations may take WA resolutions as the minimum level and make national laws tighter. You're trying to empower the ISPs to break the possibly tighter regulations of national laws. (OOC: Think of hate speech restrictions. A WA resolution gives nations the right to restrict it further.) I really can't see any sane nation agreeing to this.

"Zero-rating" exempting any content from data caps.

I don't think I've ever heard of this term before. Can you further explain it to me?

II: Prohibits Internet Service Providers from:

OOC: Same thing about using the list code with letters goes for all the 3 lists of things. If you have trouble with the code, let me know.

Blocking and throttling access to lawful content;

What do you mean by "throttling access"?

Prioritizing any content on the basis of receiving payments (monetary or otherwise);

And this, "prioritizing"? Does it, for example, mean that they're not allowed to prioritize access to lawful content at the expense of unlawful? You use "any content" here, instead of "lawful content". That might be breaking national laws.

Zero-rating any content on the basis of directly and/or indirectly receiving any gain (monetary or otherwise).

Again this zero-rating nonsense. What if the nation has a law that requires that all mobile telephones must be allowed to call the emergency services, whether or not they use the mobile data or network data plans? If such calls were not excempt from any cap or whatever this zero-rating stuff is, the ISP would be breaking the national laws.

III: Requires Internet Service Providers to disclose:

Disclose to whom?

Any and all pricing information related to the service plan;
Any and all fees related to the service plan;

How are "fees" different from "pricing information"?

Any and all data caps related to the service plan as well as the consequences of exceeding the cap.

But I thought they weren't allowed to restrict access to lawful content? Why would they be allowed to set caps?

IV: Permits Internet Service Providers to employ, reasonable network management controls.

You should perhaps put this further up, but even then you're now self-contradicting. If you're allowed to set data caps and stop people from connecting to the net if it would make everyone else's connection crawl (congestion), then you can't be prohibited from "blocking and throttling access to lawful content".

V: Clarifies that Internet Service Providers still have jurisdiction over their pricing structure and reiterates that is Open Internet Order doesn't require Internet Service Providers to expand their network (reach).

This clause looks to be more self-contradiction and also it looks like it was a leftover from a previous draft that didn't get fully cleaned and spell-checked before being made public.