[PASSED] A Convention on Freshwater Shortages

[Bears Armed]

First comment: The current draft seems a bit too confused about whether it's about limiting people's use of water for the benefit of the environment, which would fit the designated category, or about ensuring drinking-water supplies for people...

[Zone 71]

First comment: The current draft seems a bit too confused about whether it's about limiting people's use of water for the benefit of the environment, which would fit the designated category, or about ensuring drinking-water supplies for people...

OOC: Could you explain where this confusion comes from so I can rectify it?

[Zone 71]

OOC: I hope to submit this proposal soon unless anyone would like to share any constructive criticism it objections to the proposal.

[Zone 71]

OOC: I will be submitting the proposal today, tomorrow, or the day after unless there are any more objections or criticism to be made. I've been having trouble with my API and until I get it fixed, I won't be able to submit my proposal.

Thank you all for helping me shape this proposal, and for taking the time to share your insightful tips and constructive criticism.

[Bears Armed]

First comment: The current draft seems a bit too confused about whether it's about limiting people's use of water for the benefit of the environment, which would fit the designated category, or about ensuring drinking-water supplies for people...

OOC: Could you explain where this confusion comes from so I can rectify it?

The current preamble is almost completely about shortages of clean drinking water for people, rather than about the environmental effects of people using too much water: There's one throw-away reference to "pollution", but even that seems to be in the context of reducing drinking-water quality rather than damage to the environment.

Operative clause 1: just a definition, so context not as relevant.
Operative clause 2: Doesn't actually explain which purpose member nations are to improve management of their freshwater supplies for.
Operative clause 3: Okay, that does fit the category.
Operative clause 4: rather vague on the the details of what the public are to be taught (see my comment on clause 2).
Operative clause 5: What is an "irrigated agricultural basin", and how would creating them in those member nations that currently don't practice artificial irrigation of agriculture at all help to prevent water shortages? (The rest of the clause could be about improving the environment as well as about improving drinking-water supplies, but nothing in the preamble really tells member nations that this is what they should be aiming at...)
Operative clause 6: Okay.
Operative clause 7: the 1st & 4th sub-clauses are explicitly about drinking-water supplies rather than environmental protection; the 2nd & 3rd sub-clause don't explain whether they're to help protect the environment or to help with drinking-water supplies.

Essentially you need to re-focus the preamble onto the environmental consequences of over-use of freshwater, rather than on its effects on the drinking-water supply, so that the member nations know that that is what they're supposed to be doing under the operative clauses.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I don't think it's ready for submission - the things Bears pointed out include some of the issues from earlier that still exist. I probably have my earlier critique somewhere in my sent TGs if you'd like me to reiterate those points?

Edit: My "brain not too melted to think NationStates" hours continue to be 1-3 daily due to RL weather persisting on the sweltering hot, so haven't been on a lot lately. Sorry about that.

[Zone 71]

OOC: I updated the draft. I'm hoping to submit this proposal soon. It has been in the works for several months, I feel confident of the current version, and I would like to be done with it rather than spend more weeks or months on it.

[Aclion]

Why does the the prohibition in clause 6 only apply to the business sector?

[Zone 71]

Why does the the prohibition in clause 6 only apply to the business sector?

I'll expand it to apply to the entire nation.

[Zone 71]

OOC: I'll likely submit the proposal tomorrow unless there are further edits to be made.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: It's still a lot more about protecting drinking-eater water supplies than about protecting the environment. I still don't see it as fitting into the 'Environmental' Category.

[Zone 71]

OOC: It's still a lot more about protecting drinking-eater water supplies than about protecting the environment. I still don't see it as fitting into the 'Environmental' Category.

OOC: Although the proposed legislation focuses moreover on human impact and behavior, the bill's subject matter is developed around the environmental issues of water pollution and scarcity.

[The Atlae Isles]

Did you take this into account? Since you didn't respond to it, it's not clear to me if you did or not.

Otherwise, the proposal looks pretty good to me.

[Araraukar]

OOC: As the co-author, I have asked Zone 71 to not submit until I have had a chance to go through it again, which might not happen before the weekend, given how my social calendar suddenly filled up. (Sorry, Zone 71, life happens sometimes.)

EDIT: Okay, so apparently the gods of karma are trying to delay me from combing through this, as I managed to hurt my back again (a recurring problem). This is on my ASAP list, though.

[Zone 71]

Bump

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 6, I would add ‘or any businesses contained wherein’ after ‘member nations’, to cover the possibility of non-governmental actions.”

[Zone 71]

“Clause 6, I would add ‘or any businesses contained wherein’ after ‘member nations’, to cover the possibility of non-governmental actions.”

"Thank you, ambassador, for your suggestion, and the generosity you have given overall throughout the drafting process of this proposal. It has been added."

[Zone 71]

OOC: As the co-author, I have asked Zone 71 to not submit until I have had a chance to go through it again, which might not happen before the weekend, given how my social calendar suddenly filled up. (Sorry, Zone 71, life happens sometimes.)

EDIT: Okay, so apparently the gods of karma are trying to delay me from combing through this, as I managed to hurt my back again (a recurring problem). This is on my ASAP list, though.

OOC: I received your telegram and made several edits based on your suggestions. But I know many of the comments and criticisms are based off of a previous draft. Would you like to review the latest draft? Otherwise, I'll look this proposal over a couple times, make some final edits, and then submit it.

[Araraukar]

But I know many of the comments and criticisms are based off of a previous draft. Would you like to review the latest draft?

OOC: A lot of the comments were apparently also ignored, and I'd like to know why. You want to continue this in TG or here? For a proper comb-through-rewrite-suggestion-frenzy you'll have to wait a day or two.

[Zone 71]

But I know many of the comments and criticisms are based off of a previous draft. Would you like to review the latest draft?

OOC: A lot of the comments were apparently also ignored, and I'd like to know why. You want to continue this in TG or here? For a proper comb-through-rewrite-suggestion-frenzy you'll have to wait a day or two.

Whatever you would prefer.

[Araraukar]

Whatever you would prefer.

OOC: Let's do TG to avoid cluttering the thread.

[Zone 71]

Whatever you would prefer.

OOC: Let's do TG to avoid cluttering the thread.

OOC: Alrighty.

[Zone 71]

After months of drafting, much needed and appreciated constructive criticism, and several drafts, I am confident that this proposal is ready for submission. Although it may be prudent to wait until September or October to submit it, once WA members become more active, because my Hel- school is starting very soon, and because I fear I will be too encumbered by schoolwork and other activities to focus on this proposal, I would strongly prefer to submit this sooner rather than later. And with that being said, I will submit this proposal under my alternative account, Rovikstead, two or three days from now, afterI transfer WA membership to that account and review the proposal a couple times over.

[Uan aa Boa]

While applauding the sentiment, and especially wishing to see effective measures similar to clause 6 enshrined in international law, we regret that we cannot support this. In terms of quality, clarity and fit to category we do not believe it is of the necessary standard.

[Rovikstead]

I, Zone 71's alternative account, just submitted the proposal here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1535035487

Thank you everyone, especially the very generous and talented co-authors, Araraukar and Kenmoria, for all of the help and support. I hope to see this passing quorum and the vote!