[DRAFT] International Radio Act (take 2)

[Linux and the X]

Since this was repealed with the intention "to pursue more refined legislation" a while ago, and doesn't seem to have been replaced, I've made some edits to res. 75 to address the concerns brought up in its repeal.

CATEGORY: Free Trade
STRENGTH: Mild

RECOGNISING that radio signals cannot be made to respect national boundaries,

BELIEVING that international legislation is needed to ensure that radio systems will not cause international interference,

REALISING that standardisation of radio devices will promote international trade of the same, and

DISAPPOINTED that this area of international law has long gone neglected, despite this Assembly's stated intentions,

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY

ALLOWS unrestricted use of any radio power and frequency as necessary for the immediate protection of life or property in situations in which normal forms of communication are unavailable or ineffective, with the understanding that transmissions that by their nature cause harm to life or property cannot protect those things,

ALLOWS unlicensed use of low-power radio devices, so long as such use does not interfere with other uses, but allows such devices to be subject to inspection at the point of manufacture by the jurisdiction's regulatory agency,

REQUIRES that radio services include amateur, broadcast, experimental, personal communications, life and safety communications, radiolocation, governmental and military communications, and, in jurisdictions in which such services would be useful, business communications, aerocraft communications, spacecraft communications, and watercraft communications,

ESTABLISHES the International Radiocommunications Commission to set more detailed standards, including specific services and frequency allocations (including specific frequencies for emergency calls), with particular direction to incorporate pre-existing arrangements within those standards,

FORBIDS the International Radiocommunications Commission from setting content standards, or station ownership standards beyond those clearly implied by the intended purpose of a service,

CLARIFIES that the standards set by the International Radiocommunications Commission must be followed by all member nations, but

PERMITS nations to create additional radio services in portions of the spectrum not used under International Radiocommunications Commission standards.

[Kenmoria]

“This looks very good. You are missing a comma at the end of your ‘establishes’ clause, but that is the only criticism I can make.”

[Linux and the X]

“This looks very good. You are missing a comma at the end of your ‘establishes’ clause, but that is the only criticism I can make.”

Fixed.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

ALLOWS unrestricted use of any radio power and frequency as necessary for the immediate protection of life or property in situations in which normal forms of communication are unavailable or ineffective, with the understanding that transmissions that by their nature cause harm to life or property cannot protect those things,

Why? I mean, what's the idea behind the unrestrictedness in the first place? Also I don't think that far-FT nations should be allowed to fry ecospheres of inhabited planets for any excuse...

ALLOWS unlicensed use of low-power radio devices, so long as such use does not interfere with other uses, but allows such devices to be subject to inspection at the point of manufacture by the jurisdiction's regulatory agency,

Vagueness upon vagueness. Again, what's the point of this?

REQUIRES that radio services include amateur, broadcast, experimental, personal communications, life and safety communications, radiolocation, governmental and military communications, and, in jurisdictions in which such services would be useful, business communications, aerocraft communications, spacecraft communications, and watercraft communications,

...what? Is this supposed to be a definition?

ESTABLISHES the International Radiocommunications Commission to set more detailed standards, including specific services and frequency allocations (including specific frequencies for emergency calls), with particular direction to incorporate pre-existing arrangements within those standards,

What "specific services"? Emergency call channel does sound like a good idea, as does repurposing existing systems, but is this meant to be national or international? Because most nations have their own internal frequency for such, and there's usually a separate international one for air traffic and another for water traffic. I don't think internal ones should be mandated by a committee, if they're already in use and working fine. Also what happens if the committee designates a channel that's in use for something else by the neighbouring non-WA nation?

FORBIDS the International Radiocommunications Commission from setting content standards, or station ownership standards beyond those clearly implied by the intended purpose of a service,

Ah, these mystical specific services. Vagueness continues. Also, why should a committee have any say on how channels are assigned inside a nation, outside of the international emergency channels?

CLARIFIES that the standards set by the International Radiocommunications Commission must be followed by all member nations, but

This is like saying water is wet. Unnecessary.

PERMITS nations to create additional radio services in spectrum not used under International Radiocommunications Commission standards.

And what would these "additional radio services" be?

This may have made sense once upon a time, but it no longer does, so you'll need to sort out your definition (if it's meant to be one, or reword it if it's not), justify the use of the committee on purely internal stuff (or better yet, exclude purely internal stuff from the committee's doing), and fix the vagueness. This manages to be micromanagement and completely vague at the same time.

[Grays Harbor]

IC: “After a first read through, I like it. Sufficiently clear enough to allow basic guidelines to be established without micromanaging.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

I agree with GH.

[Linux and the X]

As this is just making small changes to a previously-adopted resolution, I expect the drafting period will be brief.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: In your final clause, should ‘spectrum’ be ‘spectrums’ or ‘spectra’?)

[Linux and the X]

(OOC: In your final clause, should ‘spectrum’ be ‘spectrums’ or ‘spectra’?)

No, but I can see why it might bother people. I've amended the language to read better.

[Linux and the X]

I intend to submit this within forty-eight hours.

[Araraukar]

OOC: On mobile device, so no detailed response yet.

Have you completely ignored my feedback simply because I do not agree with you?

[Linux and the X]

OOC: Sorry, I had hoped to submit this before having limited internet for a week, but clearly that didn't work out.

OOC: On mobile device, so no detailed response yet.

Have you completely ignored my feedback simply because I do not agree with you?

Your feedback has been noted. We disagree on the points about vagueness and micromanagement (which seems to be a matter of legislative philosophy that there's not much to argue about), but you do present a few questions we can answer.

...what? Is this supposed to be a definition?

It's a basic list of radio services that should be (the applicability restriction aside) universally available.

What "specific services"?

Probably none; the purpose of that is to give the IRC authority to establish radio services outside the basic list as necessary. (Similarly for the "additional services" of the final clause, since you also asked about those.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: Since you're answering questions finally, please answer this:

ALLOWS unrestricted use of any radio power and frequency as necessary for the immediate protection of life or property in situations in which normal forms of communication are unavailable or ineffective, with the understanding that transmissions that by their nature cause harm to life or property cannot protect those things,

Why? I mean, what's the idea behind the unrestrictedness in the first place?

And the requires clause still doesn't actually do anything.

[Linux and the X]

Why? I mean, what's the idea behind the unrestrictedness in the first place?

Because rules shouldn't stop people from using the last available option in an emergency.

And the requires clause still doesn't actually do anything.

It requires a basic set of services.

[Araraukar]

And the requires clause still doesn't actually do anything.

It requires a basic set of services.

OOC: No it doesn't, as written. I actually had to debate with myself on whether to let nonsense pass just to avoid having to do anything, but vague crap shouldn't get a pass even if I preferred a resolution not to do its thing.

Right now the language equals me writing a proposal where I required shirt colours to include blue, green and red, without requiring shirts of those colours to be made available, or even shirts in general to be made available.