[DEFEATED] End Excessive Data Retention Act

[New-Brussels]

OOC: And it is dead. I hope it stays dead, as I think that the idea is unsalvageable. The entire thing was rushed.

OOC: What is sad is that there may have been a good piece of legislation on the subject, had it been more refined.

OOC: Sending telegram

[Avgrunden]

Unfortunately, EEDRA has failed to acquire the necessary votes to pass.

However, this does not mean that the mission of securing digital privacy rights has failed.

The Republic of Avgrunden is currently in talks with another nation to begin the process of a re-draft of EEDRA. With this second draft, we hope to address several important points, including:

Language and definitional issues.

Concerns regarding the ability of private parties to store data for excessive lengths of time, even in the absence of data retention laws.

This re-draft should be posted on the forum in about 2-3 weeks. We look forward to further debate and discussion on the issue.

Respectfully,

Ingmar Viklund
Executor
The Republic of Avgrunden

[Avgrunden]

”End Excessive Data Retention Act" was defeated 15,212 votes to 3,661.

OOC: And it is dead. I hope it stays dead, as I think that the idea is unsalvageable. The entire thing was rushed.

I'm still unsure of the source of your opposition to EEDRA.

Are you opposed to the general idea, the specific details, or simply the low amount of time the draft spent in the forum?

If you're opposed to the general idea, that's understandable - no one can force you to support an idea or principle that you disagree with. But if this is the case, I fail to see how repeatedly commenting on EEDRA's timeliness advances your point of view.

If you're opposed to the specific details, that's also understandable. But it might be helpful to point out what exact details of EEDRA you oppose. If you're answer is "all of them", see my above point.

It makes little sense to oppose a resolution purely because of it's timeliness. If you believe that the timeliness caused some specific issue in the proposal, that's reasonable. But you have failed to make such a point. If you're opposed to the idea as a whole, timeliness should be irrelevant - as you just noted, "the idea is unsalvageable".

[Frisbeeteria]

simply the low amount of time the draft spent in the forum?

"It's not soup until all of the other chefs have had a chance to pee in it. The GA has an awful lot of chefs, with an awful lot of pee. Next time, give the other chefs a shot at making changes, and actually listen to them. Some of those ideas may make the soup smell less like pee."

[Cute Puppies]

OOC: Why on earth has this been submitted already? It has had nowhere near enough time in the draft stage...

Again, I recognize that, as a general rule, it is better to let proposals simmer in the draft stage for a lengthier period of time.

That being said, what specific aspects of the proposal do you find premature?

I believe these above comments show exactly why this proposal failed as terribly as it did. After one day and only one comment (albeit one simply about formatting and not an opinion on the draft), you decided to submit the proposal and that's where you went wrong.

Proposals take weeks or even months to craft. Your decision was hasty and ill-advised and your acknowledgement of it being a "general rule" to draft a proposal after a fair length of time came by as simply arrogant and disingenuous.

It was honestly astonishing to see such a proposal reach quorum, but no surprise to see such overwhelming opposition towards it on the vote. I strongly doubt that any future redrafts will see the light of day in the World Assembly for such the unprofessional and brash impression you and this proposal made on the WA.

[Avgrunden]

Again, I recognize that, as a general rule, it is better to let proposals simmer in the draft stage for a lengthier period of time.

That being said, what specific aspects of the proposal do you find premature?

I believe these above comments show exactly why this proposal failed as terribly as it did. After one day and only one comment (albeit one simply about formatting and not an opinion on the draft), you decided to submit the proposal and that's where you went wrong.

Proposals take weeks or even months to craft. Your decision was hasty and ill-advised and your acknowledgement of it being a "general rule" to draft a proposal after a fair length of time came by as simply arrogant and disingenuous.

It was honestly astonishing to see such a proposal reach quorum, but no surprise to see such overwhelming opposition towards it on the vote. I strongly doubt that any future redrafts will see the light of day in the World Assembly for such the unprofessional and brash impression you and this proposal made on the WA.

And claiming to speak for the entire World Assembly isn't unprofessional and brash?

My premature submitting of EEDRA was the result of naivety. I had an idea, I thought it was good, and I ran with it. Naive? Sure. Arrogant? Hardly.

Much of the WA response was actually positive towards the general idea (protecting data privacy via data retention limitations), but opposed the specifics.

[Imperium Anglorum]

CP, a proposal’s novelty has little negative effect on its chances of passage. Academia and Disabled (or something like that) passed with no drafting period. Around a quarter of my resolutions have passed with no drafting period (including my first). WSA passed with a joke of a drafting period. Examples abound.

You can also get anything to quorum with a telegram campaign. It should be no surprise that this too got to quorum. The people to thank, or blame (if you want to be in with the WA conservatives), are the Delegates – including myself at the time – who stacked against the proposal.