NationStates

Kenmoria wrote:“You have a duplication of ‘a’ in clause 3a.”

Kaschovia wrote:1. Defines commercial spaceflight activity as any action taken by any persons or organisation in any member nation to conduct international space travel for profit outside of national borders and territories, which may or may not involve passengers;

2. Confirms the right of member states to prohibit commercial space activity within their borders;

Kaschovia wrote:I intend to continue working on this proposal, so if anyone has any thoughts on this that have not been brought up, or any feedback, that would be greatly appreciated.

Araraukar wrote:Also there are curiosities, like ... how, no matter where the windows face that your ambassador gets defenestrated from, they'll always land harmlessly in the Reflecting Pool that's never deep enough to actually drown in or shallow enough to actually get hurt.

Maowi wrote:

Kaschovia wrote:1. Defines commercial spaceflight activity as any action taken by any persons or organisation in any member nation to conduct international space travel for profit outside of national borders and territories, which may or may not involve passengers;

2. Confirms the right of member states to prohibit commercial space activity within their borders;

"I'd like some clarification on these clauses. As written, you define 'commercial spaceflight activity' so that it has to take place within the borders of any member nation, but it has to be for the purpose of conducting space travel outside of national borders. I acknowledge it's a rather literal reading, but I would say it's a reasonable one to take. Perhaps reword it to something along the lines of 'Defines commercial spaceflight activity as any action taken by any persons or organisation based in a any member nation to conduct international space travel for profit outside of said nation's national borders and territories, which may or may not involve passengers' - and after that you'd also need to alter clause 2, because as far as I can tell, at least, you are not trying to allow nations to ban commercial spaceflight activity within their borders (which, as defined, I believe would encompass any planning towards the actual space travel), but to ban international space travel for profit within their borders. I'd also recommend changing it so that member nations are permitted to "prohibit or regulate" international space travel within their borders, so they can for example prohibit it for organisations from nations other than their own."

OOC: I mean, that's all I can really think of to comment on. I'm extremely far from being anywhere near an expert on this subject, so for all I know there could be something grievously wrong with it, but personally if this got submitted fairly soon maybe with some of the edits I've suggested I'd be in support

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Perhaps instead of a donut, the building is shaped like so:
The Reflecting pool is rectangular, and the WAHQ is inside the Reflecting pool (so that the pool wraps around the outside of the building)? Or it could be the reverse, the HQ could be rectangular with a large courtyard in the middle where the Reflecting pool is.

Also I'm surprised SL remembered that I wrote in a spacecraft landing strip, I had actually forgotten about that.

Araraukar wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Perhaps instead of a donut, the building is shaped like so:
The Reflecting pool is rectangular, and the WAHQ is inside the Reflecting pool (so that the pool wraps around the outside of the building)? Or it could be the reverse, the HQ could be rectangular with a large courtyard in the middle where the Reflecting pool is.

Also I'm surprised SL remembered that I wrote in a spacecraft landing strip, I had actually forgotten about that.

OOC: I'm fairly sure an inner courtyard has been mentioned before, but to my knowledge it has a garden (in early days of PPU, I'm fairly sure I referenced it in an IC post too), and the reflecting pool is on the outside. Or pools.

Also, didn't you also have a dropship or something take off from the top of the building? There are helicopter landing pads there at least, but fairly sure more than one ambassador has come in in a small dropship there too.

And also, there have to be any number of landing strips for planes and spacecraft both, as well as docks both oceanic and freshwater, and presumably some people arrive by train or car (or horse as I remember one case) or foot as well, so basically the building being on the tip of a peninsula would make the most sense. Dealing with it all as there being "portals" or at least "conjoined spaces" connecting the various worlds to it, makes the most sense to me at least.

IC: "Is it intentional that a nation that's only starting on their spaceflight activities, is excempt of clause 3, yet banned from starting without complying with it by clause 4? You can't have ongoing activities if you're just starting out, so you can't be compliant with clause 3, yet clause 4 bans you from doing anything if you're not compliant with it."

Kaschovia wrote:"Good catch. Perhaps changing the clause to '... all member nations in which there is commercial spaceflight activity:' might solve that?"

Araraukar wrote:

Kaschovia wrote:"Good catch. Perhaps changing the clause to '... all member nations in which there is commercial spaceflight activity:' might solve that?"

"Sounds acceptable. The word "ongoing" was creating the problem there."

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Clause five should have ‘; and,’ rather than ‘, and;’. The semicolon should be before the ‘and’, and the comma after it.)

Kenmoria wrote:“Mandate 2e might be seen as unreasonable for nations who are at war with their neighbours.”

Kaschovia wrote:Is there still room for this or has it already been addressed by another proposal since the thread went inactive? This is very much a proposal I'd still like to work on if the former is true.

Hulldom wrote:I actually quite like this. In terms of “if more needs to be added”, well, there’s not likely to be much truth be told given that this area of law is relatively undeveloped IRL.