Page 1 of 3

[DRAFT] Open Internet Order

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:08 pm
by Thailand Special Administrative Region
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).

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:48 pm
by Bakhton
Lara Qzu decides she should try something productive before wrapping up for the night. "Welcome to the drafting cycle. We can be harsh or critical, though for someone new to the drafting process, we are optimistic about your proposal. If given due diligence and proper editing and revision, this topic could be a passable resolution. The contents contained currently are a solid conceptual basis."

Thailand Special Administrative Region wrote:Summary: Open Internet Order further promotes freedom of expression, freedom of speech & free press by building upon existing resolutions that directly and/or indirectly promote each given example and by relying on multiple resolutions for authority. This order prohibits Internet Service Providers from arbitrarily blocking, hindering, restricting, impairing, throttling and prioritizing content.

"Usually, in resolutions and proposals, there isn't a summary but instead a direct addressing to the member nations of the World Assembly followed by clauses and mandates. Resolutions do not require a syllabus, so it may be better to disperse these stated intentions into preamble clauses. If you read the proposals you have provided for consideration you can see an example of the kind of format I am discussing. It's not mandatory that we all follow a formula, but most agree abiding by certain structural frameworks greatly improves a draft."
Prohibits Internet Service Providers from:
[• Blocking, hindering and restricting access to lawful content; allows reasonable network management

"The term 'lawful content' should be clarified by a few words limiting the definition to within a nation's jurisdiction in conjunction with international laws passed by this assembly, in order to be clearer. 'Blocking, hindering, and/or restricting access to lawful content as defined by one's own national and international laws.'"
• Impairing and throttling on the basis of content;

"Needs clarification."
allows reasonable network management
• Prioritizing certain content

"In what manner? Certain content prioritization may be more benign than others."
[i]Permits Internet Service Providers to employ, reasonable network managements controls.
Defines the following:

"These definitions should come before the clauses and mandates including them, I think, though that is a stylistic option."
"Internet Service Provider" as any entity that provides anyone access to the internet and other related services.
"Reasonable Network Management" allows Internet Service Providers to block, restrict and throttle access to lawful content on the basis of: avoiding network congestion (Demand vs Resources) and contractual obligations (Depending on the service plan).

"These final clauses should clarify specifically that this does not ban internet service providers from differing payment models as that was the main logic behind the repeal of GA #89."

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:56 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
First, define terms before using them.

Second, this proposal doesn't do anything. There are very many ideas for what 'reasonable network management' is. Many nations do not define something like the Internet as a utility, and rather, as a luxury. This means that cost discrimination for such services is certainly permissible. However, even if that isn't the case and this proposal does do something, in a low-bandwidth environment, prioritisation of certain content is good for the network. DNS calls and other things at the heart of the network infrastructure should be given priority.

Thailand Special Administrative Region wrote:
Open Internet Order



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


Summary: Open Internet Order further promotes freedom of expression, freedom of speech & free press by building upon existing resolutions that directly and/or indirectly promote each given example and by relying on multiple resolutions for authority. This order prohibits Internet Service Providers from arbitrarily blocking, hindering, restricting, impairing, throttling and prioritizing content.

Prohibits Internet Service Providers from:
    • Blocking, hindering and restricting access to lawful content; allows reasonable network management
    • Impairing and throttling on the basis of content; allows reasonable network management
    • Prioritizing certain content

Permits Internet Service Providers to employ, reasonable network managements controls.

Defines the following:
    "Internet Service Provider" as any entity that provides anyone access to the internet and other related services.
    "Reasonable Network Management" allows Internet Service Providers to block, restrict and throttle access to lawful content on the basis of: avoiding network congestion (Demand vs Resources) and contractual obligations (Depending on the service plan).

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:16 pm
by Thailand Special Administrative Region
Bakhton wrote:*snip*

Imperium Anglorum wrote:*snip*


Open Internet Order



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


Summary: Open Internet Order further promotes freedom of expression, freedom of speech & free press by building upon existing resolutions that directly and/or indirectly promote each given example and by relying on multiple resolutions for authority. This order prohibits Internet Service Providers from arbitrarily blocking, hindering, restricting, impairing, throttling and prioritizing content.

Defines the following:
    "Internet Service Provider" as any entity that provides anyone access to the internet and other related services.
    "Reasonable Network Management" allows Internet Service Providers to throttle access to lawful content on the basis of: avoiding network congestion (Demand vs Resources), contractual obligations (Depending on the service plan) and if applicable, due to their pricing structure.
    "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)

Prohibits Internet Service Providers from:
    • Blocking, hindering and restricting access to lawful content; allows reasonable network management
    • Impairing and throttling on the basis of content; allows reasonable network management
    • Prioritizing any content

Permits Internet Service Providers to employ, reasonable network managements controls.

Clarifies that Internet Service Providers have exclusive control over their pricing structure.


UPDATED

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:14 am
by Tinhampton
Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: I am in support (although I am admittedly also a supporter of net neutrality). The operative clauses are good, but the preamble has almost always been in small segments, as a quick read through the RexisQuexis* will confirm.

*The archive of General Assembly resolutions

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:24 am
by The United Royal Islands of Euramathania
Thailand Special Administrative Region wrote:Prohibits Internet Service Providers from:
    • Blocking, hindering and restricting access to lawful content; allows reasonable network management
    • Impairing and throttling on the basis of content; allows reasonable network management
    • Prioritizing any content

A Meridian: We are concerned d here by the prohibits/allows language contained within the same clause. Generally it is considered wise to list one's prohibitions together and then clarify or list permissions or limits to those prohibitions. Overall we support the ideas of free open internet, however this current draft seems to miss the mark.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:59 am
by Thailand Special Administrative Region
Tinhampton wrote:*snip*

The United Royal Islands of Euramathania wrote:*snip*



Open Internet Order



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


Summary: Open Internet Order further promotes freedom of expression, freedom of speech & free press by building upon existing resolutions that directly and/or indirectly promote each given example and by relying on multiple resolutions for authority. This order prohibits Internet Service Providers from arbitrarily blocking, hindering, restricting, throttling and prioritizing content.

Defines the following:
    "Internet Service Provider" as any entity that provides anyone access to the internet and other related services.
    "Reasonable Network Management" allows Internet Service Providers to throttle access to lawful content on the basis of: avoiding network congestion (Demand vs Resources) and 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)

Prohibits Internet Service Providers from:
    • Blocking, hindering, throttling and restricting access to lawful content;
    • Prioritizing any content on the basis of receiving payments (monetary or otherwise)

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

Clarifies that Internet Service Providers have exclusive control over their pricing structure.

Further Clarifies that this 'Open Internet Order' doesn't require Internet Service Providers to expand their network.


UPDATED

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:02 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
If it is the case that ISPs have exclusive control over their pricing structure, it becomes impossible for government to regulate that pricing structure.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:26 pm
by Thailand Special Administrative Region
Should I proceed and send this draft to the General Assembly?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:50 pm
by Bakhton
Thailand Special Administrative Region wrote:Should I proceed and send this draft to the General Assembly?

"No you should keep revising."

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:51 pm
by Thailand Special Administrative Region
Bakhton wrote:*snip*


Do you have anymore suggestions?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:12 pm
by Araraukar
Thailand Special Administrative Region wrote:Do you have anymore suggestions?

Could you explain to me why this is an international issue?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:17 pm
by Thailand Special Administrative Region
Araraukar wrote:
Thailand Special Administrative Region wrote:Do you have anymore suggestions?

Could you explain to me why this is an international issue?


Due to previous precedents.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:02 am
by Tinfect
Thailand Special Administrative Region wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Could you explain to me why this is an international issue?


Due to previous precedents.


OOC:
A previous precedent that was repealed.
I can't imagine how you could still consider it valid.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:54 am
by Aclion
Araraukar wrote:
Thailand Special Administrative Region wrote:Do you have anymore suggestions?

Could you explain to me why this is an international issue?

I think that's clear in the summary. freedom of expression, freedom of speech, free press, blah blah blah

Tinfect wrote:
Thailand Special Administrative Region wrote:
Due to previous precedents.


OOC:
A previous precedent that was repealed.
I can't imagine how you could still consider it valid.

The repeal makes no mention of whether this is an international issue. Only that the resolution had unintended negative consequences.
I'm not sure how you even could repeal the precedent. Either we've legislated on this topic and there is precedent, or we haven't and it's up for debate.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:04 am
by Bakhton
Aclion wrote:The repeal makes no mention of whether this is an international issue. Only that the resolution had unintended negative consequences. I'm not sure how you even could repeal the precedent. Either we've legislated on this topic and there is precedent, or we haven't and it's up for debate.

OOC: I don't think you know what precedent is. When a law has been repealed, that law is null and void, including any precedent created by legislating in that area.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:16 am
by Aclion
Bakhton wrote:
Aclion wrote:The repeal makes no mention of whether this is an international issue. Only that the resolution had unintended negative consequences. I'm not sure how you even could repeal the precedent. Either we've legislated on this topic and there is precedent, or we haven't and it's up for debate.

OOC: I don't think you know what precedent is. When a law has been repealed, that law is null and void, including any precedent created by legislating in that area.

No, precedent is the concept that something done earlier can be used as a guide in later cases. IE: we've passed legislation on this topic before, therefore it's within our purview and we can pass legislation on it now.
But while we're being condescending. I don't think you understand how repeals work. Repeals remove a resolution from the books, freeing us from the resolutions obligations and allowing us to write new legislation that topic. They are not blockers.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:26 am
by Imperium Anglorum
OOC: I think what Aclion is arguing is that if there was an argument for having this legislation established in the original resolution on the topic, the fact that the repeal does not meaningfully refute that argument for having this legislation means that argument still stands in the eyes of the World Assembly. One must simply divorce resolutions from their motives and the arguments for or against them.

On the other hand, I see no reason why international regulations are required. Many nations have nationally controlled Internet infrastructures. Such systems would then be prevented from prioritising traffic intended for defence or security purposes. Similarly, there are compelling reasons to provide for Internet base protocols to have priority over video streams. There are also arguments against some of the provisions in detail. But the idea of 'net neutrality' isn't a sound one given (1) there isn't enough bandwidth for everyone and (2) certain pieces of information are more important than other pieces of information.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:37 am
by Bakhton
Aclion wrote:
Bakhton wrote:OOC: I don't think you know what precedent is. When a law has been repealed, that law is null and void, including any precedent created by legislating in that area.

No, precedent is the concept that something done earlier can be used as a guide in later cases. IE: we've passed legislation on this topic before, therefore it's within our purview and we can pass legislation on it now.
But while we're being condescending. I don't think you understand how repeals work. Repeals remove a resolution from the books, freeing us from the resolutions obligations and allowing us to write new legislation [on] that topic. They are not blockers.

OOC: I never said they were, but repealed resolutions are legally null and void and cannot be substantively referenced for argument in my opinion. You still have to provide for the burden of arguing why a proposal is necessary without the justification of previous repealed legislation.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:43 am
by Aclion
Bakhton wrote:
Aclion wrote:No, precedent is the concept that something done earlier can be used as a guide in later cases. IE: we've passed legislation on this topic before, therefore it's within our purview and we can pass legislation on it now.
But while we're being condescending. I don't think you understand how repeals work. Repeals remove a resolution from the books, freeing us from the resolutions obligations and allowing us to write new legislation [on] that topic. They are not blockers.

OOC: I never said they were, but repealed resolutions are legally null and void and cannot be substantively referenced for argument in my opinion. You still have to provide for the burden of arguing why a proposal is necessary without the justification of previous repealed legislation.

the post you responded to wrote:I think that's clear in the summary. freedom of expression, freedom of speech, free press, blah blah blah

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:51 am
by Bakhton
the post you responded to wrote:I think that's clear in the summary. freedom of expression, freedom of speech, free press, blah blah blah

OOC: I'm aware. The topic at hand has diverted away from the proposal.
"I believe the summary should be expanded in order to have a proper preamble where the argument for the purpose of this legislation and its necessity to international law may clearly be set forth for mutual understanding."

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:08 am
by Aclion
Bakhton wrote:
the post you responded to wrote:I think that's clear in the summary. freedom of expression, freedom of speech, free press, blah blah blah

OOC: I'm aware. The topic at hand has diverted away from the proposal.
"I believe the summary should be expanded in order to have a proper preamble where the argument for the purpose of this legislation and its necessity to international law may clearly be set forth for mutual understanding."

That seems like a rather arbitrary demand. What's your precedent?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:52 am
by Kitzerland
Aclion wrote:
Bakhton wrote:OOC: I'm aware. The topic at hand has diverted away from the proposal.
"I believe the summary should be expanded in order to have a proper preamble where the argument for the purpose of this legislation and its necessity to international law may clearly be set forth for mutual understanding."

That seems like a rather arbitrary demand. What's your precedent?

"Well, almost all previously passed resolutions share this format, or a majority do anyway. How's that for a precedent?"

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:56 am
by Aclion
Kitzerland wrote:
Aclion wrote:That seems like a rather arbitrary demand. What's your precedent?

"Well, almost all previously passed resolutions share this format, or a majority do anyway. How's that for a precedent?"

Do they? I'd be most interested to see a resolution that includes an argument as to why the resolution's subject is within the proper scope of international law.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:27 pm
by Bakhton
Aclion wrote:
Kitzerland wrote:"Well, almost all previously passed resolutions share this format, or a majority do anyway. How's that for a precedent?"

Do they? I don't see anything in other resolution's preambles that's not included in this one.

"The format and structure of many preambles are a series of separate clauses built to work to a logical argument's conclusion to justify mandatory legal clauses. What has been used in this proposal seems much more like a briefing argument or a summation of what should be a preamble. This can be seen in really any resolution passed by this Assembly. Please don't interpret my tone as condescending as its not intended to be." Lara Qzu says smiling. 'I could be more condescending if I wish to be,' she thinks.

Jeffrey ends a phone call in the backroom and approaches Lara, "We got a problem."
"Do we have a problem or do you have a problem?"
"Lara this is serious," he lowers his voice. "Our probe on Justice Zaitsu was caught."
"Caught? Caught doing what?"
"Y'know... spying."
"Jesus!" Lara yells quietly. "When I told you to find out dirt on Justice Zaitsu I never told you to spy on his wife!"
"How did you think I got that information?"
"Okay, okay. Has he talked yet?"
"No." Jeffrey shakes his head sweating.
"We haven't been implicated yet?"
"No."
"Okay good. Here's my home key, Jeff, inside underneath my bed you'll find a safe." Lara writes out a code on a napkin, "Take a picture of the money inside and go to the prison to talk to him. Offer him this money if he stays quiet, if he refuses, well... Jeff. Get a team together to look through this guy's history, his contacts, get the dirt on him, if he talks and mentions us we flip the script and call him crazy. Be discreet, goddammit."
"Got it." Jeffrey leaves quickly whipping up his jacket from his chair. Lara holds her head in her hands and groans.