[PASSED] Internet Network Neutrality Act

[Misrahistan]

Title: Internet Network Neutrality Act
Category: Education & Creativity
Area of Effect: Free Press

The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the essential role of the Internet in fostering economic growth, spurring innovation, and in promoting free speech;

REALIZING that the Internet has historically operated as a free and open international market where developers and entrepreneurs have had access to potential consumers on an equal basis;

SHOCKED that Internet Service Providers may seek to increase their own profits by frustrating, impeding, or impairing, including through discriminatory pricing schemes, the right of consumers to access lawful Internet content, services, and applications;

DEFINES the Internet as the worldwide communications system that connects computers and networks of computers to each other;

FURTHER DEFINES Internet Service Provider as any person or entity that operates or resells and controls any facility used to provide Internet access directly to the public;

FURTHER DEFINES network discrimination as intentionally blocking, interfering with, discriminating against, impairing, or degrading the ability of any person to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service through the Internet or imposing a fee beyond the end user fees associated with providing the content, service, or application to the consumer.

HEREBY:

(1) REQUIRES member countries to take immediate steps to adopt conforming laws, rules, and regulations, prohibiting network discrimination by Internet Service Providers in regard to lawful content, services, and applications;

(2) REQUIRES member countries to report back to the General Assembly within one year of the passage of this Act on their progress in implementing this Act;

(3) ENCOURAGES member countries to adopt laws, rules, and regulations providing a greater level of consumer protection than those provided for in this Act;

(4) PROVIDES that nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting an Internet Service Provider from engaging in reasonable network management consistent with the principles of nondiscrimination and openness;

(5) FURTHER PROVIDES that nothing in this Act shall be construed as creating an affirmative obligation to provide Internet access or to limit the rights of member countries to enact laws regulating Internet content, applications, and services, including those relating to child pornography or laws limiting access to minors or persons under penal sanction, provided that such laws follow principles of network nondiscrimination and openness.

[Philimbesi]

(1) REQUIRES that within one year of the adoption of this Act that all member countries adopt conforming laws, rules, and regulations, prohibiting network discrimination by Internet Service Providers in regard to lawful content, services, and applications;

Yea, no timelines, compliance is mandatory and immediate.

[Freeoplis]

We would like to query what situations or circumstances would this proposal seek to remedy as having read through it on more than one occasion this delegation is not clear as to what such legislation provides.

[The Amazing Wasteland]

What does this have to do with free trade?

[The Masked Ambassador]

Aren't there cases in which Services Providers are forced to discriminate, when there isn't another solution? If it's right, then your proposal puts them in a dead-end, as any discrimination is against the law.

Also, I'm not sure about the category and strength.

[Misrahistan]

Our ambassador welcomes the opportunity to respond to these inquiries. This resolution would prohibit internet access providers from engaging in discriminatory practices such as purposely interfering with the free flow of content, application, and services. For instance, if an internet service provider was a phone company, it could purposely interfere with voice over internet protocol as a means of reducing competition with its own phone service. Similarly, in the absence of net neutrality, an internet access provider could charge higher prices for access to certain popular video-streaming sites. Regarding the one year implementation timeframe, it seemed reasonable to allow some time for member nations to pass conforming legislation. However, we could be persuaded to replace a set timeframe with some standard such as requiring that nations act "with all deliberate speed."

[Misrahistan]

In our view, the proposal would fall into one of two categories, "free trade" or "advancement of industry." I think the exact category depends on your viewpoint. For internet service providers, mostly cable and phone companies, the proposal would restrict their activities and thus could be seen as a free trade measure. For producers of internet content, applications, and services, this would promote their activities by allowing them to continue to operate in an open environment and thus could be seen as an advancement of industry. The strength category of "significant" seemed about right because it requires all nations to pass conforming legislation, albeit in a defined and specific area. The other alternative would be "mild." We welcome more comments and suggestions regarding category and strength.

We understand that there may be circumstances where internet service providers may need to take actions with regard to specific content or services. The resolution is limited to lawful content, applications, and services. Each member nation may decide what is lawful within its own jurisdiction provided that such restrictions are evenly applied across the spectrum, i.e., not favoring domestic versus foreign companies. The Act also contains an exemption with regard to network management, so the internet service provider is not required to accommodate harmful applications.

Upon further reflection, we adopted the suggestion of the ambassador from Philembesi and changed the language to require that member countries take immediate steps, rather than be provided a one year grace period. We also saw little need to establish another committee and changed the requirement in paragraph (2) to require direct reports to the General Assembly from member countries regarding their progress in implementing the Act.

[Bears Armed]

Imposing further regulation on any industry is not 'Free Trade'.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I feel that this draft could make the first use of the free press category. I would support the principle, basically, but would it affect the right of member states to shut down illegal content?

[Monocrat]

I feel that this draft could make the first use of the free press category. I would support the principle, basically, but would it affect the right of member states to shut down illegal content?

It appears that it would, especially if the state is a primary ISP or the state's ISPs have been nationalized. Monocrat can and will block or shut down subversive content, and this draft is a violation of our right to do so.

[Tarsas]

Yeah, and my state doesn't give criminals internet access and monitors everyone....so I wouldn't support this anyway.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yea, no timelines, compliance is mandatory and immediate.

OOC: Where in the rules is this? Edit: Specifically, where does it say that timelines aren't permissible?

[Misrahistan]

Thank you ambassadors for your continued and thoughtful consideration of this proposal. Upon further reflection, we have changed the category to "Advancement of Industry" and the strength category to "Mild." We believe that advancement of industry is a legitimate categorization for this proposal because it would have the effect of continuing to allow providers of internet content, applications, and services to have equal access to consumers without potential interference or discriminatory pricing from internet service providers. We also believe that it is appropriately categorized as a "mild" measure because its impact is specific to a narrow industry. We continue to welcome additional comments on the topic of category and strength.

In regard to the comments from the honored delegates from Monocrat and Tarsas, the proposal applies solely to lawful content, applications, and services. Lawfulness is determined in regard to the laws of the specific jurisdiction. Thus, if Monocrat or Tarsus, for example, wished to declare child pornography to be unlawful, this proposal would not prevent them from doing so, provided that such laws were applied in an even-handed manner, i.e., not giving preference to domestic versus foreign providers. If a government acts as the internet service provider for its nation, then it would be subject to this proposal to the same extent as if it were a private company.

[Flibbleites]

Advancement of Industry doesn't have strength, it has area of effect. And none of them, Environmental Deregulation, Labor Deregulation, Protective Tariffs, or Tort Reform, fit with this proposal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Misrahistan]

[ooc] I have asked the moderators if they could offer some guidance on the question of category and strength. It seems that this should fit into one of the existing categories or, alternatively, may require the creation of a new category (consumer protection?) I'll report back if I hear anything.

[Mousebumples]

[ooc] I have asked the moderators if they could offer some guidance on the question of category and strength. It seems that this should fit into one of the existing categories or, alternatively, may require the creation of a new category (consumer protection?) I'll report back if I hear anything.

Not sure how much luck you'll have. They've repeatedly said on these forums to "write the proposal to the category" - not the other way around.

And I wouldn't count on them creating a new category *just* for this proposal.

[Misrahistan]

[ooc] You might be right Moosebumples. Conceptually, net neutrality is the same as preventing private companies from setting up toll booths on international roadways. It seems that this should be a legitimate area of concern for the World Assembly.

I'm sorry Flibbleites I didn't quite understand your post, so I went back and reread the rules. You are correct that Advancement of Industry is not a category unto itself. I am back to calling this a free trade measure, unless there are other ideas. I don't know if this will fit into the category of free press, but I am open to suggestions.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Define the situation that you desire as people having a legal "right" to be treated equally by the ISPs, and therefore classify the proposal as 'Human Rights (Mild)'?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

If the proposal is to do with banning throttling techniques by ISPs then yes, Human Rights, Mild may be the best match because that would be the right to communicate like never before and the right to information, but another possible concern is that not all member states may have the internet at such a scale (OOC: compared to today, and in addition some nations may roleplay past-tech). Finally, we are really concerned that this resolution will allow prisoners serving time or probation for cybercrime to brag us for internet access.

Yours etc,

[Linux and the X]

We feel that free trade (of information) is the correct category for this.

[Cobdenia]

If the proposal is to do with banning throttling techniques by ISPs then yes, Human Rights, Mild may be the best match because that would be the right to communicate like never before and the right to information, but another possible concern is that not all member states may have the internet at such a scale (OOC: compared to today, and in addition some nations may roleplay past-tech). Finally, we are really concerned that this resolution will allow prisoners serving time or probation for cybercrime to brag us for internet access.

Yours etc,

I'm not sure how this would work in Cobdenia. Our internet is telegraph based (though we have recently upgraded our servers from steam to petrol)

[Poree]

[ooc] You might be right Moosebumples. Conceptually, net neutrality is the same as preventing private companies from setting up toll booths on international roadways.

OCC: I was unsure how I felt until I read this. In real life there are toll booths set up on roads and highways that cross boarders and we use them to help pay for roads etc. So why not in the fictional world of the NS?

IC: Poree will have to say no thank you to this proposal. while the spirit of a free internet sounds nice, in reality a place with no controls is called Chaos. You have forgotten that what maybe lawful in one Nation is not always lawful in all Nations. We will be forced to oppose this at any and all stages of progression.

Thank You

[Misrahistan]

I would like to thank the honored ambassadors, especially Bears Armed and Charlotte Ryberg, for their assistance. The category has been changed to "Human Rights" and the strength is "mild." In response to other comments, I have also added an additional clause clarifying that there is no affirmative obligation to provide Internet access to anyone, including prisoners. The proposal provides, however, that where internet access exists, that consumers have the right to access lawful content, application, and services without discriminatory pricing or network interference. The proposal also defines Internet, to clarify that telegraph wires for instance would not apply. Do the distinguished delegates feel that they could support this proposal in its current form?

[Poree]

Not as it is written. Poree could be in violation for blocking something that is not legal in Poree but maybe legal in another Nation as written.

Once you address that then we could support the proposal.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We don't see how "Human Rights" are promoted by this legislation. If anything, it should be considered a "Social Justice" resolution. "Human Rights" promotes individual liberty at the expense of the power of the State, whereas "Social Justice" promotes the general welfare at the expense of the power of private industry. It is private industry, in the person of ISPs, who are negatively affected here, not the State.

That said, we would not support this legislation. In our view it is a needless infringement on the right of Internet providers to provide content in the manner they choose. The Internet is a medium of private service, not a public utility. Free markets and fair competition provide all the guarantee of "neutrality" consumers need.