[LAST CALL] Drone Regulation Act

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador James Lewis hands forth a note, which contains suggested improvements to clause two in red pen. “I’ve made some corrections, most of which are grammatical in nature.”

2. Mandates all member nations to initiate a national plan, of no more than two calendar years of this resolution’s passing, that:

1. Introduces registration on all UAVs, subject to national laws and regulations, prior to their use by the civilian population;
2. Establishes no-fly zones through geofencing on all open civilian airports and heliports with a continuous presence of civilian aircraft;
3. Establishes no-fly zones through geo-fencing on key military installations and sensitive government buildings, in the interest of national security and public order; and
4. Compels all civilian UAVs to comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations, or any national equivalent of civil aviation authority for air safety;

[Youssath]

Ambassador James Lewis hands forth a note, which contains suggested improvements to clause two in red pen. “I’ve made some corrections, most of which are grammatical in nature.”

2. Mandates all member nations to initiate a national plan, of no more than two calendar years of this resolution’s passing, that:

1. Introduces registration on all UAVs, subject to national laws and regulations, prior to their use by the civilian population;
2. Establishes no-fly zones through geofencing on all open civilian airports and heliports with a continuous presence of civilian aircraft;
3. Establishes no-fly zones through geo-fencing on key military installations and sensitive government buildings, in the interest of national security and public order; and
4. Compels all civilian UAVs to comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations, or any national equivalent of civil aviation authority for air safety;

"The following amendments have been made, ambassador. We thank you for your insightful feedback."

[East Meranopirus]

I still see quite a few of the original problems within this new draft.

Firstly, now instead of requiring registrations for drones of a certain size, it requires all drones to be registered. So, even the cheap ones you buy from the shops? This is like requiring all bicycles to be registered. Impractical.

Secondly, this still very much legislates on many national issues and contains redundant clauses. For example, clause 2d and clause 5 are just common sense things for national governments to do. Are there any government that doesn't want to protect its national security and public safety? And of course 2c still prevents UAVs from operating out of airports, which is pretty ridiculous given that they are aircraft after all. Clause 8 also strikes me as unnecessary because companies will have to follow ITSC regulations anyway, which would presumably include reliability.

Thirdly, the entire clause 4 seems confusing to me. Is it trying to say governments can ask for flight plans if they want, but only for areas designated no-fly zones? So does that mean those no-fly zones aren't really no-fly zones?

Fourthly, 3c seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to me, and ill-defined. What counts as "official approval"? Is it for a particular model, or for an individual UAV, or for every operation? If it's approval for a particular model, then it seems fair enough, but it's poorly worded so I can't really tell.

That's all I have for now.

[Youssath]

I still see quite a few of the original problems within this new draft.

Firstly, now instead of requiring registrations for drones of a certain size, it requires all drones to be registered. So, even the cheap ones you buy from the shops? This is like requiring all bicycles to be registered. Impractical.

Secondly, this still very much legislates on many national issues and contains redundant clauses. For example, clause 2d and clause 5 are just common sense things for national governments to do. Are there any government that doesn't want to protect its national security and public safety? And of course 2c still prevents UAVs from operating out of airports, which is pretty ridiculous given that they are aircraft after all. Clause 8 also strikes me as unnecessary because companies will have to follow ITSC regulations anyway, which would presumably include reliability.

Thirdly, the entire clause 4 seems confusing to me. Is it trying to say governments can ask for flight plans if they want, but only for areas designated no-fly zones? So does that mean those no-fly zones aren't really no-fly zones?

Fourthly, 3c seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to me, and ill-defined. What counts as "official approval"? Is it for a particular model, or for an individual UAV, or for every operation? If it's approval for a particular model, then it seems fair enough, but it's poorly worded so I can't really tell.

That's all I have for now.

On the points and issues that you have raised:

Registration of drones on all sizes: I believe that you have misinterpreted clause 2(a), ambassador. As stated explicitly under this drafted resolution, "subject to national laws and regulations" was added so as to provide more leeway and autonomy for member nations to decide what category or classification of the drones should be required for mandatory registration. I removed the 300g requirement because it was ridiculous in nature to give an arbitrary value to determine what is "right" and "wrong" for all scenarios, and that it is in blatant disregard of the fact that not all nations use the metric system (since the imperial system may still exist) for their measurements. I hope that you can understand this and by giving you more leeway to decide, there shouldn't be any issues with differing aviation standards across member nations.

Clause 2(d), 5 and 8 redundancy: Aye, but sometimes to over-clarify is better than under-clarify, is it not? While this may seem obvious in Reasonable Nation Theory, I don't think it hurts to mention these clauses explicitly.

Clause 2(c) invasive nature and possible "aircraft" definition: Yes, but clause 2(c) can be used in conjunction with clause 4 and to a smaller extent, clause 9(a). Clause 4 effectively guarantees the use of UAVs within no-fly zones without violating clause 2(c) in nature, and I have also yet again left it up to member nations to decide on the effective regulations and rulebooks as to how they would want to govern the approval and use of UAVs within these areas. Again, I have received countless feedback that this resolution was "micromanaging way too much", hence I have decided to take the appropriate step back and leave most of the legislation up to WA member nations.

Clause 4 nature: I will break it down simply for you. "Without in any way derogating from the force and effect of clause 2(b) and (c)" means that this clause, not intending to violate clause 2(b) and (c) as the context of this clause, will consider and give leeway to the possibility of civilian use of UAVs within the no-fly zones, since the use and benefits of UAVs cannot be ignored in its practicality (and that airports provide some of the best infrastructure for aircrafts). This clause is, again, provided with Clause 9, which also allows national jurisdiction to take up the appropriate measures where necessary.

Clause 3c confusion and bureaucratic nature: If it pleases you, ambassador, I can make the following amendments such that 'the UAV is built primarily for such operations' be the only main criteria for this clause. I initially placed in "official approval" since this will stop civilian UAVs from discharging substances whenever they like even if the UAV is built for such operations, but given clause 3 was built as a recommendation and not a mandate, this part could be redundant since it is optional in nature However, I must inform you that clause 3 is also covered by clause 9, which provide exemption if in contradiction to national laws.

[East Meranopirus]

Registration of drones on all sizes: I believe that you have misinterpreted clause 2(a), ambassador. As stated explicitly under this drafted resolution, "subject to national laws and regulations" was added so as to provide more leeway and autonomy for member nations to decide what category or classification of the drones should be required for mandatory registration. I removed the 300g requirement because it was ridiculous in nature to give an arbitrary value to determine what is "right" and "wrong" for all scenarios, and that it is in blatant disregard of the fact that not all nations use the metric system (since the imperial system may still exist) for their measurements. I hope that you can understand this and by giving you more leeway to decide, there shouldn't be any issues with differing aviation standards across member nations.

This is what the clause says

Introduce registration of all UAVs, subject to national laws and regulations, prior to its use by the civilian population;

I've bolded "all UAVs", because that suggests to me everything that fits under the definition has to be registered, and that takes precedence over national law, and national law only affects the manner which they are registered. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I'm reading it.

Clause 2(d), 5 and 8 redundancy: Aye, but sometimes to over-clarify is better than under-clarify, is it not?

Concise. That's the word. You're not missing out anything by not writing those clauses. Any sensible nation would do so.

Clause 2(c) invasive nature and possible "aircraft" definition: Yes, but clause 2(c) can be used in conjunction with clause 4 and to a smaller extent, clause 9(a). Clause 4 effectively guarantees the use of UAVs within no-fly zones without violating clause 2(c) in nature, and I have also yet again left it up to member nations to decide on the effective regulations and rulebooks as to how they would want to govern the approval and use of UAVs within these areas. Again, I have received countless feedback that this resolution was "micromanaging way too much", hence I have decided to take the appropriate step back and leave most of the legislation up to WA member nations.

That seems like a very complicated way of structuring it then. Why can't you just say they are no-fly zones, "unless...", in the same clause?

Clause 4 nature: I will break it down simply for you. "Without in any way derogating from the force and effect of clause 2(b) and (c)" means that this clause, not intending to violate clause 2(b) and (c) as the context of this clause, will consider and give leeway to the possibility of civilian use of UAVs within the no-fly zones, since the use and benefits of UAVs cannot be ignored in its practicality (and that airports provide some of the best infrastructure for aircrafts). This clause is, again, provided with Clause 9, which also allows national jurisdiction to take up the appropriate measures where necessary.

See above.

Clause 3c confusion and bureaucratic nature: If it pleases you, ambassador, I can make the following amendments such that 'the UAV is built primarily for such operations' be the only main criteria for this clause. I initially placed in "official approval" since this will stop civilian UAVs from discharging substances whenever they like even if the UAV is built for such operations, but given clause 3 was built as a recommendation and not a mandate, this part could be redundant since it is optional in nature However, I must inform you that clause 3 is also covered by clause 9, which provide exemption if in contradiction to national laws.

TBH, 9b seems completely redundant to me. And yes, I would prefer that amendment.

[Youssath]

-snip-

Clause 2(a) clarity - registration of all drones on all sizes: Yes, and followed by that, it states here accordingly:

Introduce registration of all UAVs, subject to national laws and regulations, prior to its use by the civilian population;

These bolded words mean that the registration of all UAVs is subject to national laws and regulations. What this literally means is that mandatory registration is a requirement, but the criteria of mandatory registration are up to the national laws and regulations of the stated nation. If I were to remove that bolded part of the statement, it would literally mean what you have just said: "the compulsory registration of all drones".

---

Clause 2(d), 5 and 8 redundancy: True, concise would be something good to address in a resolution - but given such circumstances, I would rather explicitly mention the obvious things out than to leave a black hole which may lead to possible grounds for a repeal.

---

Clause 2(c) invasive nature and possible "aircraft" definition & Clause 4 nature: Let me bring you to a quote raised by Araraukar on Draft 3 of this resolution:

4. Suggests that if a civilian UAV's flight plan involves flying over no-fly zones:
You define no-fly zone as one where "civilian UAVs are not permitted to fly", so you're directly contradicting the definition with this entire clause.

The following corrections were made in honour of this statement that he has raised, which is certainly validated by the fact that it does contradict (and why I have been asking everyone to give me some time to craft out a better one). Yet, the clauses raised in clause 4 of Draft 3 are still necessary, and hence I have decided to take this approach to at least clarify the stance of this proposal in particular.

---

Clause 3c confusion and bureaucratic nature: Clause 9(b) is not redundant, ambassador. It provides exemptions where member nations see fit if it violates their own national laws. And sure, I will make the following amendments necessary.

[East Meranopirus]

Clause 2(a) clarity - registration of all drones on all sizes: Yes, and followed by that, it states here accordingly:

Introduce registration of all UAVs, subject to national laws and regulations, prior to its use by the civilian population;

These bolded words mean that the registration of all UAVs is subject to national laws and regulations. What this literally means is that mandatory registration is a requirement, but the criteria of mandatory registration are up to the national laws and regulations of the stated nation. If I were to remove that bolded part of the statement, it would literally mean what you have just said: "the compulsory registration of all drones".

Then it's a useless clause, because nations can choose not to require any UAVs at all, or they can choose to register all of them, but this clause wouldn't matter anyway because it's the nation's own laws.

---

Clause 2(d), 5 and 8 redundancy: True, concise would be something good to address in a resolution - but given such circumstances, I would rather explicitly mention the obvious things out than to leave a black hole which may lead to possible grounds for a repeal.

Can you explain how a "black hole" would exist in this case?

---

Clause 2(c) invasive nature and possible "aircraft" definition & Clause 4 nature: Let me bring you to a quote raised by Araraukar on Draft 3 of this resolution:

4. Suggests that if a civilian UAV's flight plan involves flying over no-fly zones:
You define no-fly zone as one where "civilian UAVs are not permitted to fly", so you're directly contradicting the definition with this entire clause.

The following corrections were made in honour of this statement that he has raised, which is certainly validated by the fact that it does contradict (and why I have been asking everyone to give me some time to craft out a better one). Yet, the clauses raised in clause 4 of Draft 3 are still necessary, and hence I have decided to take this approach to at least clarify the stance of this proposal in particular.

Clause 4 would be better just integrated into clause 2b and 2c with simpler wording. For example, 2b can be changed into:

Establish a no-fly zone through geo-fencing on all open civilian airports and heliports with a continuous presence of civilian aircraft, unless the operation has gained prior approval from relevant authorities

---

Clause 3c confusion and bureaucratic nature: Clause 9(b) is not redundant, ambassador. It provides exemptions where member nations see fit if it violates their own national laws. And sure, I will make the following amendments necessary.

The two clauses that 9b apply to do not mandate nations to do anything (clause 3 is recommendations, while clause 4 is just something optional, so it's not conferring any rights automatically), so there's no reason to create exemptions.

Overall, the draft still has too many unnecessary clauses, and too much fluff when it can be worded much simpler.

[WayNeacTia]

Compels all civilian UAVs to comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations, or any national equivalent of civil aviation authority for air safety;

The WA has zero authority over citizens. It only has the authority to force nations to adopt laws.

[East Meranopirus]

Compels all civilian UAVs to comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations, or any national equivalent of civil aviation authority for air safety;

The WA has zero authority over citizens. It only has the authority to force nations to adopt laws.

Read the full clause with context please:

Mandates all member nations to initiate a national plan, of no more than two calendar years of this resolution's passing, that:
Compels all civilian UAVs to comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations, or any national equivalent of civil aviation authority for air safety;

The part I have highlighted in italics might have what you're looking for.

[WayNeacTia]

Compels all civilian UAVs to comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations, or any national equivalent of civil aviation authority for air safety;

The WA has zero authority over citizens. It only has the authority to force nations to adopt laws.

Read the full clause with context please:

Mandates all member nations to initiate a national plan, of no more than two calendar years of this resolution's passing, that:
Compels all civilian UAVs to comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations, or any national equivalent of civil aviation authority for air safety;

The part I have highlighted in italics might have what you're looking for.

Compels all civilian UAVs to comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations, or any national equivalent of civil aviation authority for air safety;

This clause is completely superfluous then, and could be seen as trying to legislate directly on civilians even of non-member nations which would make this whole shit show illegal. Not that this has a remote chance of passing anyway, considering the authors residency.

[Kenmoria]

Read the full clause with context please:

The part I have highlighted in italics might have what you're looking for.

Compels all civilian UAVs to comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations, or any national equivalent of civil aviation authority for air safety;

This clause is completely superfluous then, and could be seen as trying to legislate directly on civilians even of non-member nations which would make this whole shit show illegal. Not that this has a remote chance of passing anyway, considering the authors residency.

(OOC: I don’t think that the clause is trying to legislate on non-members, since the first part of it mentions member nations exclusively, but it’s an easy fix if there is an issue. Although having the clause there isn’t the most common format, I don’t think it at all rises to superfluousness. The author’s residency should be irrelevant.)

[WayNeacTia]

Compels all civilian UAVs to comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations, or any national equivalent of civil aviation authority for air safety;

This clause is completely superfluous then, and could be seen as trying to legislate directly on civilians even of non-member nations which would make this whole shit show illegal. Not that this has a remote chance of passing anyway, considering the authors residency.

(OOC: I don’t think that the clause is trying to legislate on non-members, since the first part of it mentions member nations exclusively, but it’s an easy fix if there is an issue. Although having the clause there isn’t the most common format, I don’t think it at all rises to superfluousness. The author’s residency should be irrelevant.)

Call it as you will. Don't say people didn't try to tell you. The fact that you are propping up a resolution coming out of the authors region, makes it all the more likely I will oppose anything you put forth in the future as well. I don't say this to be an asshole, I say this to prevent you from being dragged into a quagmire you may not want to be a part of. Gameplay diplomacy is an actual thing and it has a habit of biting people in the ass.

[Separatist Peoples]

(OOC: I don’t think that the clause is trying to legislate on non-members, since the first part of it mentions member nations exclusively, but it’s an easy fix if there is an issue. Although having the clause there isn’t the most common format, I don’t think it at all rises to superfluousness. The author’s residency should be irrelevant.)

Call it as you will. Don't say people didn't try to tell you. The fact that you are propping up a resolution coming out of the authors region, makes it all the more likely I will oppose anything you put forth in the future as well. I don't say this to be an asshole, I say this to prevent you from being dragged into a quagmire you may not want to be a part of. Gameplay diplomacy is an actual thing and it has a habit of biting people in the ass.

OOC: Boy, this is right out of the UFoC playbook right here.

[Youssath]

-snip-

Clause 2(a) clarity: I understand where you are coming from. I can definitely impose a mandatory registration of all UAVs 300 grams and above, but many nations have expressed their disapproval on this matter at hand - calling it "micromanagement" of national affairs and advocating for the member nations to determine what should be required to be considered in for "registration". There are nations that don't use UAVs at all, and I will still have to consider them in as well since asking them to do legislation on something that is never used before in their nations is quite pointless, isn't it?

Your points are certainly validated that this clause can be improved. I would certainly appreciate if you can provide at least some draft of what you envision for clause 2(a), but until then I shall leave it up to member states to determine what is right for them.

---

Clause 2(d), 5, 8 redundancy: "It's a metaphor, ambassador. I meant that if I don't clarify the stance of the obvious, many nations will call for a repeal of the entire resolution."

---

Clause 2(c) and 4 invasive nature: "Hmm, that is certainly an easier way to do this. I will redraft this as soon as I can, although I must ask whether do you think that clause 4 should be annulled in its entirety or not? It does bring clarification to the table at hand here."

---

Clause 3(c) confusion: "I understand where you are coming from, ambassador. However, as you can see from the Wayneactian delegation, some people are just in blatant violation of GAR #122. It's reasons like this why I will need to explicitly mention the obvious."

This clause is completely superfluous then, and could be seen as trying to legislate directly on civilians even of non-member nations which would make this whole shit show illegal. Not that this has a remote chance of passing anyway, considering the authors residency.

I can certainly clarify the clause to make it more obvious. Will I do it though? No, I don't think I will. I don't see any validated arguments from the rest of the GA regulars on this matter, and hence I don't think it's worth my time to be amending little things that state the obvious facts.

[Refuge Isle]

Call it as you will. Don't say people didn't try to tell you. The fact that you are propping up a resolution coming out of the authors region, makes it all the more likely I will oppose anything you put forth in the future as well. I don't say this to be an asshole, I say this to prevent you from being dragged into a quagmire you may not want to be a part of. Gameplay diplomacy is an actual thing and it has a habit of biting people in the ass.

Kenmoria helps almost everyone who drafts in this forum, that's a highly positive thing. I'd much prefer to debate someone's ideas and policies than who they are as authors or what their RP is. I don't like every person I've met on NationStates, but how convincing would I be to dismiss someone and skip the discourse instead of taking the opportunity to debate my position [and come out ahead]?

[Kenmoria]

“As all of your other clauses end with semicolons, barring the last one, clauses 1a to 1c should do so as well.”

[Youssath]

“As all of your other clauses end with semicolons, barring the last one, clauses 1a to 1c should do so as well.”

"The following amendments has been made at your inquiry, ambassador. Consider it done."

"This resolution will be kept up to vote until the 17th of October, at which everything shall be finalized and submitted to the World Assembly and any pending enquiry or request shall be annulled. If you have any further questions or proposals, now is the time to raise them up now."

[Araraukar]

OOC post. I'm okay with coauthorship, but I'm still not okay with random vagueness and other silliness.

EDIT: Okay, so I was going to post a vivisection, but then I lost the draft (my own carelessness), so screw that, this is a rewrittal. Reasoning to be added later. There's some clumsiness still (and I'm especially waffling between using "would" or "could" in clause 3), but things from original draft that aren't in this one were removed for a good reason so don't put them back just because they were there before.

The World Assembly,

Aware of the recent developments in aerial drone technologies in many member nations, enabling their use for activities such as delivery runs and aerial photography,

Noting the lack of international legislation on the topic,

Acknowledging that many member nations may already have national laws concerning aerial drones,

Wishing to create a set of minimum regulations to ensure the safety of all inhabitants of member nations,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. a "drone" as an unmanned aerial vehicle, which is an aircraft that is either remotely operated or which works autonomously by a pre-progammred set of algorithms,
2. a "drone pilot" as a civilian who is responsible for the drone's whereabouts and actions, whether or not they are in direct control of it,
3. a "non-free flying zone" as a zone where drones are forbidden to fly without explicit permission,

2. Requires, within two years of the passing of this resolution, member nations to set up registration of drones likely to cause severe damage or loss of life upon severe malfunctions or pilot errors, prior to allowing the drones to start operating,

3. Mandates that member nations establish non-free flying zones where operating drones would endanger bystanders or property or national security, or would be used to violate previously passed World Assembly resolutions; and to make this information freely and easily available to all drone pilots,

4. Requires member nations to set up clear requirements for drone flight plans into non-free flying areas, and to make it a criminal offence to fly a drone into non-free flying zone without pre-approved flight plan and explicit permission to do so,

5. Encourages member nations to require drone pilots to display some skill with piloting a drone and awareness of air traffic laws and regulations, prior to being allowed to pilot a drone outside of private property,

6. Further encourages member nations to create further laws detailing the rights and responsibilities of drone pilots, especially if their drones are involved in an accident causing damages or injuries,

7. Clarifies that member nations may choose to register all drones and declare further areas or even all of their territority as non-free flying zone, this resolution merely decrees the bare minimum.

Co-authored by Kenmoria and Araraukar

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Oh, good. Drafting since I last looked made this toothless.

[Kenmoria]

OOC post. I'm okay with coauthorship, but I'm still not okay with random vagueness and other silliness.

EDIT: Okay, so I was going to post a vivisection, but then I lost the draft (my own carelessness), so screw that, this is a rewrittal. Reasoning to be added later. There's some clumsiness still (and I'm especially waffling between using "would" or "could" in clause 3), but things from original draft that aren't in this one were removed for a good reason so don't put them back just because they were there before.

The World Assembly,

Aware of the recent developments in aerial drone technologies in many member nations, enabling their use for activities such as delivery runs and aerial photography,

Noting the lack of international legislation on the topic,

Acknowledging that many member nations may already have national laws concerning aerial drones,

Wishing to create a set of minimum regulations to ensure the safety of all inhabitants of member nations,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. a "drone" as an unmanned aerial vehicle, which is an aircraft that is either remotely operated or which works autonomously by a pre-progammred set of algorithms,
2. a "drone pilot" as a civilian who is responsible for the drone's whereabouts and actions, whether or not they are in direct control of it,
3. a "non-free flying zone" as a zone where drones are forbidden to fly without explicit permission,

2. Requires, within two years of the passing of this resolution, member nations to set up registration of drones likely to cause severe damage or loss of life upon severe malfunctions or pilot errors, prior to allowing the drones to start operating,

3. Mandates that member nations establish non-free flying zones where operating drones would endanger bystanders or property or national security, or would be used to violate previously passed World Assembly resolutions; and to make this information freely and easily available to all drone pilots,

4. Requires member nations to set up clear requirements for drone flight plans into non-free flying areas, and to make it a criminal offence to fly a drone into non-free flying zone without pre-approved flight plan and explicit permission to do so,

5. Encourages member nations to require drone pilots to display some skill with piloting a drone and awareness of air traffic laws and regulations, prior to being allowed to pilot a drone outside of private property,

6. Further encourages member nations to create further laws detailing the rights and responsibilities of drone pilots, especially if their drones are involved in an accident causing damages or injuries,

7. Clarifies that member nations may choose to register all drones and declare further areas or even all of their territority as non-free flying zone, this resolution merely decrees the bare minimum.

Co-authored by Kenmoria and Araraukar

(OOC: There should be an ‘a’ before ‘pre-approved flight plan’ in clause 4, and there should be either a colon, full stop, dash or semicolon instead of a comma in the middle of clause 7. Personally, I think a semicolon would work best here. Lastly, the first ‘or’ in clause 3 could be replaced with a comma to reduce the repetition. Otherwise, this looks good.)

[East Meranopirus]

I feel like at this point Ara should be the actual author, not a co-author. Anyway, a few things that I would like clarified:

In clause 5, would it be better to do so only in areas where there is a risk of causing injury to others, rather than just anywhere outside private property?
Clause 6, I feel, should be mandatory rather than "encouraging". Any reason why you decided to make this an "encouraging"?
Lastly, there's no mention of ITSC, specifically mandating the ITSC to create safety guidelines. Any reason why?

[Araraukar]

I feel like at this point Ara should be the actual author, not a co-author.

OOC: Not how authorship works.

[why]

Had hoped to get reasoning posted last night, but sleep conspired otherwise. Now need to be out the door in 10 minutes (and still need to brush my teeth and get dressed), so I'll get to these later. I also need to add "or resume operating" to the registration clause nor am I sure why it should be 2 years, wouldn't 1 year be enough? Tackling the lack of committee now, as having it in the way it was included, never made any sense to me.

Lastly, there's no mention of ITSC, specifically mandating the ITSC to create safety guidelines. Any reason why?

Because the mere mention wasn't doing anything, like I pointed out three or four times. Just saying X does Y does not actually make Y happen, unless you spell Y out. The effect is still there in #5, it just doesn't mention the committee by name. Even before the regulations only applied to the drones themselves, not the drone users, which doesn't make much sense. Part of the effect is shared with #4, which is mandatory, in that the flight plan requirements etc. are now enforced with criminality for ignoring them. Precedent suggests that the flight plans would have to follow existing laws (both national and international) to be viable.

It's also possible that the resolution that established the committee and its guidelines (EDIT: Do the guidelines actually exist? What resolution creates them?) was repealed, in which case this one would be left with a tyrannical committee free to decide whatever it wanted as guidelines, and many people (myself included) detest such use of committees. So as the committee was doing more harm than good, any mentions of it were removed without removing the main effects.

There's also GA #342 to cope with.

[Youssath]

I feel like at this point Ara should be the actual author, not a co-author. Anyway, a few things that I would like clarified:

I've read the draft he has posted. There was a good reason why I appreciated his insightful feedback in helping out with the draft.

The new draft looks way cleaner than the previous one, I will have to admit, even though I may not fully agree with the removal of some of the mandates in the prior draft. I will be adding in Kenmoria's grammatical corrections to the draft itself.

In clause 5, would it be better to do so only in areas where there is a risk of causing injury to others, rather than just anywhere outside private property?

Not really. Areas such as private property are perfect training grounds for the individual to at least learn how to fly a drone. Imagine this as driving a car, if you are already required to have some skill with manoeuvring a car in areas where there is a risk of causing injury to others, then that would also include training grounds and centers, which all do pose a risk of causing injury to another at any given point in time.

[Marxist Germany]

(OOC: I don’t think that the clause is trying to legislate on non-members, since the first part of it mentions member nations exclusively, but it’s an easy fix if there is an issue. Although having the clause there isn’t the most common format, I don’t think it at all rises to superfluousness. The author’s residency should be irrelevant.)

Call it as you will. Don't say people didn't try to tell you. The fact that you are propping up a resolution coming out of the authors region, makes it all the more likely I will oppose anything you put forth in the future as well. I don't say this to be an asshole, I say this to prevent you from being dragged into a quagmire you may not want to be a part of. Gameplay diplomacy is an actual thing and it has a habit of biting people in the ass.

OOC: GP does not belong here.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Okay, the reasoning, as promised.

Overall I cut out tons and tons of unnecessary crap that slid way into micromanagement territory and made no sense to use international legislation for. So I shifted the focus to fit better into the category/AoE, namely regulations to keep people safe. That was getting lost in the previous attempts, that slid more into air traffic control territory.

I also tried to make it clear that international law is used to establish minimum requirements, which the various nations can then add on, if they'd like stricter requirements.

I used "drone" instead of "UAV" throughout to both match the title and to have a proper word rather than shorthand. Given the removing of unnecessary material, it doesn't cause issues with length.

On the definitions, I guess the "unmanned aerial vehicle" could be removed from the drone definition, now that I look at it, as UAV is no longer used in the proposal. A drone pilot was defined as a civilian, so that the word "civilian" doesn't need to keep being repeated later on. And renaming "no-fly zone", because it's not no-fly zone if you can fly in it after filing a flight plan.

Clause 2, the problem with the definition of drones that need to be registered - again, going to the category/AoE, the wording "likely to cause severe damage or loss of life (if an accident happens)" sounded like a sensible way to put it. Whether it's a heavy camera drone that can cut someone's neck arteries or a high-flying drone getting sucked into jet engines, if the nation thinks a certain kind of drone can be dangerous in the hands of civilians, it needs to be registered. Not sure of why the original idea had two-year time on it, as it could be done away with entirely, and also I notice that the change "to start or resume operations" needs to be made.

Clause 3, rather than mandating what areas must be made no-fly zones, leaving it up to nations to decide what they want to close off from drones. Also added the "or would be used to violate (resolutions)" because I can think of a few ways to do just that, beyond anything to do with air traffic, so that should catch most loopholing. Also, making the information "freely and easily available" means that it's up to the drone pilot to make sure they're not breaking the laws, rather than seller or manufacturer or whatnot. Just like it is when you go cycling in RL; it's up to you to make sure your bicycle has all the bits law says it must have, and that you obey the traffic laws and regulations, which are freely and easily available. Ignorance of the law is no defence here.

Clause 4, this is the compression of the fifty billion regulations that had nothing to do with the safety of people and veered very far into air traffic stuff. Criminalizing it may sound a bit harsh at first, but remember that this also covers the "flying drones into jet engines" thing. It's definitely not too strong. Also makes it clear that you need to have had your flight plan approved AND a permission to enter the air space. But as the airspace is not "no-fly zone", but rather "non-free flying zone", there's no reason to set up tons of heavy-handed international regulations. Nations tend to be able to fine-tune much easier than WA, and the nations can even decide to hand the fine-tuning to smaller units, like, say, the municipality, or national air traffic control or city traffic control, or whatever they feel is appropriate.

Clause 5 could be made mandatory, yes, but given that flying them around other uninvolved people would likely make that area fit #3 (like, say, city streets), I think the mandatory protections are sorted by reasonable nation theory, and if some nation decides not to defend their population from untried drone pilots' machines, then that's their decision.

Clause 6 could also be mandatory except that I left it as an encouragement because not all nations are on par with real life, so mandating a medieval past tech nation make laws about drone flying, sounds quite unnecessary. Now they'll just need to glare at the proposal, shrug, tell kids to not fly their kites into any windows, and be done with it. Nations where such drone use is daily life, most likely already have such laws in place, so again mandating they make such laws would be just duplication/unnecessary. And the rights and responsibilities are not themselves important for actual safety of the general public.

Clause 7 is just a clarification that the proposal is meant to be the minimum scaffolding, onto which nations can add their own laws and regulations that can be much tighter, if they want.

In IC Araraukar would in its entirety be "non-free flying zone", aside from certain park areas and former (no airports on mainland Araraukar) airfields that have been dedicated to the hobbyists and practicing professionals. That doesn't mean there weren't drones in all the cities, coming and going, photographing, collecting data and making deliveries; it just means that they are all operated by licenced drone pilots, who have very specific regulations concerning their activities.