DRAFT: Child Internet Safety Accord

[Canogally]

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the danger a child could face whilst using the internet,

Understanding that minors do not have the same privacy privileges as an adult,

Clarifying the limits of a minor's internet privacy,

Noting that most minors are not completely aware of the dangers they could face on online networks,

Hereby,

Defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:

A “public place” as a widespread location that provides internet to the populace;

An "educator" as an instructor of a minor that uses internet while under the educator's watch;

"personal data" as data that can be used to identify an individual;

A "blacklisted site" as a website in conflict with national law or a website promoting or taking place in illegal activities or substances;

Forces Public Places to:
1. Provide the safety and security of minors when using:
a. Electronic mail
b. Chat rooms
c. Other forms of direct electronic communications
2. The ban of blacklisted sites
3. Examination of internet usage once per week

While in Public Places, Restricts:
1. Access to blacklisted sites on the Internet
2. Proxy sites that prohibit quick governmental and local view of internet usage
3. Use of personal data search engines

Allows Public Places to:
1. Monitor internet usage
2. Restrict chosen websites on internet

Prohibits Public Places to:
1. View telecommunications used on internet by users

[Tinhampton]

Full support. I have no doubt that a mandatory weekly test on ICT and the internet would be of great help for schoolchildren

[BlackLight Covenant]

A "blacklisted site" as a website either disapproved of by the government of the nation which the individual using the internet, or a website rendered permission from the government yet;

OOC: What does the second half of this sentence mean? The way it has been written makes it hard (for me, at least) to understand what you are trying to say there. As for the first half, "disapproved of by the government" seems incredibly broad. Perhaps try to incorporate an element where sites disapproved of by the government have to be sites that are in conflict with national law, leaving the option of banning, say, pornography that is officially legal up to individual schools and libraries. In its current state, this sentence could mean anything from sites selling illegal weapons to sites that simply display an opinion that contradict the general stance of the government.

Forces (libraries and schools, upon):
1. The safety and security of minors when using:
a. Electronic mail
b. Chat rooms
c. Other forms of direct electronic communications
2. Restricting minors' access to materials harmful to them
3. The ban of unlawful or blacklisted sites
4. Monitoring the use of wrongful sites
5. Examination of internet usage once per week

Restricts (whilst inside library or school environment):
1. Access by minors to blacklisted sites on the Internet
2. Unauthorized access, and other unlawful activities by minors online
3. Proxy sites that prohibit quick governmental and local view of internet usage
4. Use of personal data search engines

Allows (libraries and schools, to do):
1. Monitor internet usage
2. Restrict chosen websites on internet

Prohibits (libraries and schools, to do):
1. View telecommunications used on internet by users

So what do you mean by "materials harmful to them"? Sites about selling and/or promoting, say, illegal substances? Or just anything that the member nation, school, or library doesn't like? Don't try to micro definitions, of course, but try to set some kind of standard, perhaps related to things that happen to be illegal under a nation's legislature.

Perhaps remove that bit about unlawful sites, as the term "unlawful" suddenly just appears here in the proposal without any sort of introduction. This goes back to my criticism of the definition of blacklisted websites, as the term "unlawful" could probably be incorporated into that definition and removed from that "Forces" clause, solving two issues with one fell swoop.

What do you mean by "unauthorized access"? That sounds like a rather vague and incredibly broad term, seeing how there is no specific definition for its usage within your proposal. Perhaps try to come up with such a definition as to narrow down the potential meanings of unauthorized access.

On a last and somewhat different note, perhaps try to rewrite the things I've marked in red. In their current state, those sentences are fairly awkward to read due to the usage of ( ) in all of them. It interrupts the reading flow of these sentences, so to speak.

[Canogally]

A "blacklisted site" as a website either disapproved of by the government of the nation which the individual using the internet, or a website rendered permission from the government yet;

OOC: What does the second half of this sentence mean? The way it has been written makes it hard (for me, at least) to understand what you are trying to say there. As for the first half, "disapproved of by the government" seems incredibly broad. Perhaps try to incorporate an element where sites disapproved of by the government have to be sites that are in conflict with national law, leaving the option of banning, say, pornography that is officially legal up to individual schools and libraries. In its current state, this sentence could mean anything from sites selling illegal weapons to sites that simply display an opinion that contradict the general stance of the government.

Forces (libraries and schools, upon):
1. The safety and security of minors when using:
a. Electronic mail
b. Chat rooms
c. Other forms of direct electronic communications
2. Restricting minors' access to materials harmful to them
3. The ban of unlawful or blacklisted sites
4. Monitoring the use of wrongful sites
5. Examination of internet usage once per week

Restricts (whilst inside library or school environment):
1. Access by minors to blacklisted sites on the Internet
2. Unauthorized access, and other unlawful activities by minors online
3. Proxy sites that prohibit quick governmental and local view of internet usage
4. Use of personal data search engines

Allows (libraries and schools, to do):
1. Monitor internet usage
2. Restrict chosen websites on internet

Prohibits (libraries and schools, to do):
1. View telecommunications used on internet by users

So what do you mean by "materials harmful to them"? Sites about selling and/or promoting, say, illegal substances? Or just anything that the member nation, school, or library doesn't like? Don't try to micro definitions, of course, but try to set some kind of standard, perhaps related to things that happen to be illegal under a nation's legislature.

Perhaps remove that bit about unlawful sites, as the term "unlawful" suddenly just appears here in the proposal without any sort of introduction. This goes back to my criticism of the definition of blacklisted websites, as the term "unlawful" could probably be incorporated into that definition and removed from that "Forces" clause, solving two issues with one fell swoop.

What do you mean by "unauthorized access"? That sounds like a rather vague and incredibly broad term, seeing how there is no specific definition for its usage within your proposal. Perhaps try to come up with such a definition as to narrow down the potential meanings of unauthorized access.

On a last and somewhat different note, perhaps try to rewrite the things I've marked in red. In their current state, those sentences are fairly awkward to read due to the usage of ( ) in all of them. It interrupts the reading flow of these sentences, so to speak.

Thank you SO much! Those were some really helpful tips!
Here is my New draft:

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the danger a child could face whilst using the internet,

Understanding that minors do not have the same privacy privileges as an adult,

Clarifying the limits of a minor's internet privacy,

Noting that most minors are not completely aware of the dangers they could face on online networks,

Hereby,

Defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:

A “public place” as a widespread location that provides internet to the populace;

An "educator" as an instructor of a minor that uses internet while under the educator's watch;

"personal data" as data that can be used to identify an individual;

A "blacklisted site" as a website in conflict with national law or a website promoting or taking place in illegal activities or substances;

Forces Public Places to:
1. Provide the safety and security of minors when using:
a. Electronic mail
b. Chat rooms
c. Other forms of direct electronic communications
2. The ban of blacklisted sites
3. Examination of internet usage once per week

While in Public Places, Restricts:
1. Access to blacklisted sites on the Internet
2. Proxy sites that prohibit quick governmental and local view of internet usage
3. Use of personal data search engines

Allows Public Places to:
1. Monitor internet usage
2. Restrict chosen websites on internet

Prohibits Public Places to:
1. View telecommunications used on internet by users


Can you possibly give me some more help with grammar and with making it proposal ready? (The mods are pretty made at me for producing so many illegal proposals ):)

Thanks so much,

Canogally

[Denathor]

Some quick recommendations. Add the text in blue, subtract the text in red. Also a few notes that came to mind.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the danger a child could face whilst using the internet,

Understanding that minors do not have the same privacy privileges as an adult,

Clarifying the limits of a minor's internet privacy,
(OOC note: What do these above two mean? How do minors not have the same privileges as an adult?)

Noting that most minors are not completely aware of the dangers they could face on online networks,

Hereby,

1. Defines, the following for the purpose of this resolution:
   
   1. a “public place” as a widespread location that provides internet services to the general populace,
   2. an "educator" as an instructor of a minor that uses internet while under the educator's watch who has access to the internet,
   3. "personal data" as data gained from an individual's Internet usage that can be used to identify an said individual,
   4. a "blacklisted site" as a website in conflict with national or international law or a website promoting or taking place in illegal activities or substances,
2. Forces Requires public places to:
   
   1. Provide the safety and security of minors when using:
      
      1. Electronic mail
      2. Chat rooms
      3. Other forms of direct electronic communications
   2. The Ban access to of blacklisted sites
   3. Examination of Examine internet usage once per week,
   (OCC note: This seems to contradict clause 5, which prohibits public place from viewing communications over the internet)
   
   
3. Prohibits, while in public places:
   
   1. Access to blacklisted sites on the internet
   2. The use of proxy sites that prohibit quick governmental and local view of internet usage
      (OOC note: This again might run counter to clause 5, but I might be misreading it. It depends on what you mean by "internet usage.")
   3. The use of personal data search engines
4. Allows public places to:
   
   1. Monitor internet usage
      (OOC note: At this point, you should probably define what "internet usage" is. I can’t tell if this is a contradiction or not.)
   2. Restrict chosen access to websites on internet at their discretion,
5. Prohibits public places to view from viewing telecommunications used on internet by users records from internet users.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Worth reading: GA #155, GA #234, GA #378, GA #407 and GA #436.

Also worth reading are the repeals of previous internet-related resolutions: GA #273 repealing GA #89, GA #396 repealing GA #395 and GA #406 repealing GA #398.

[Excidium Planetis]

Cornelia Schultz, as always on the run from the Excidian authorities intent on dragging her back to the Home Fleet on unjust charges of treason, yet nevertheless for some inexplicable reason drawn to debating World Assembly proposals she no longer has any influence on, enters the drafting chamber.

She reads over the proposal before her.

Defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:

A “public place” as a widespread location that provides internet to the populace;

"That's a rather odd definition of public place, as it excludes most places that would commonly be considered a public space. And what is a widespread location anyways? I don't think you're using the word 'widespread' correctly here."

An "educator" as an instructor of a minor that uses internet while under the educator's watch;

"Using the defined word in the definition leads to a recursive definition. Try replacing each instance of the word 'educator' with your definition of the word 'educator' and you run into an infinitely long and nonsensical proposal."

"personal data" as data that can be used to identify an individual;

"I suggest you use 'personally identifiable information' instead of 'personal data' and 'information' instead of 'data'. Something can be personal without being able to be used to identify you. Like my top secret diary, for example."

A "blacklisted site" as a website in conflict with national law or a website promoting or taking place in illegal activities or substances;

"A ... what? A 'website taking place in illegal substances'? Just what illegal substances assisted in the writing of this definition?"

Forces Public Places to:
1. Provide the safety and security of minors when using:
a. Electronic mail
b. Chat rooms

"Why did we go to the trouble of defining 'public places' but then just assume that nations would know what chat rooms are?"

2. The ban of blacklisted sites

"No need for 'the' here. Doesn't make sense as a continuation of the sentence 'Forces public places to'."

3. Examination of internet usage once per week

"Arbitrary period of time. I suggest replacing it with 'on a reasonable and regular basis'."

While in Public Places, Restricts:
1. Access to blacklisted sites on the Internet
2. Proxy sites that prohibit quick governmental and local view of internet usage
3. Use of personal data search engines

"Gross overreach of WA power. If nations wish to use personal data search engines in a public space, such as, perhaps, a police station, they should be able to do so. And proxy sites are there to protect citizen's privacy from government overreach."

Allows Public Places to:
1. Monitor internet usage
2. Restrict chosen websites on internet

"Isn't there something about Net Neutrality? Or was that repealed? I can't keep all these resolutions straight."

[Joshii]

A "blacklisted site" as a website in conflict with national law or a website promoting or taking place in illegal activities or substances

Many nations will have have various opinions of what websites are in conflict of their national law. I think it needs to specify what sites are these

[Araraukar]

A "blacklisted site" as a website in conflict with national law or a website promoting or taking place in illegal activities or substances

Many nations will have have various opinions of what websites are in conflict of their national law. I think it needs to specify what sites are these

OOC: Araraukar for example would consider anything to do with hunting wildlife to be promoting illegal activities.

[Canogally]

Many nations will have have various opinions of what websites are in conflict of their national law. I think it needs to specify what sites are these

OOC: Araraukar for example would consider anything to do with hunting wildlife to be promoting illegal activities.

Ok, so then they couldn't look up hunting wildlife. I don't understand your logic here.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Araraukar for example would consider anything to do with hunting wildlife to be promoting illegal activities.

Ok, so then they couldn't look up hunting wildlife. I don't understand your logic here.

OOC: It's not illegal in most nations, nor are the websites blacklisted by the state. So who's doing the blacklisting for your proposal?

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This was submitted. I note the version submitted is not that which is on the OP. I remind the author that legal is not automatically equal to good. I recommend withdrawal and significant further drafting, perhaps completely reassess what your aim is.

Atm you have a clause that is impossible to implement, clause 2b: it is not possible for any person or organisation to be aware of all websites promoting illegal activities or substances. If they're not aware, they can't ban them. Clause 2a s meaningless. What does "provides the safety ..." mean? Clause 3 is also meaningless. Who restricts and by how much? Clause 5 contradicts 2a and 4a.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the danger an individual could face whilst using the internet,

Clarifying the limits of public internet privacy,

Noting that many individuals are not completely aware of the dangers they could face on online networks,

Hereby,

Defines for this resolution:

A “public place” as a location that provides internet services to the general populace;

An "educator" as an instructor of a minor who has access to the internet;

"personal data" as data gained from an individual’s internet usage that can be used to identify an individual;

A "blacklisted site" as a website in conflict with national or international law or a website promoting illegal activities or substances;

Requires Public Places to:

Provides the safety and security of minors when using direct electronic communications

Ban access to blacklisted sites

Examine internet usage on a reasonable and regular basis

While in Public Places, Restricts:

Access to blacklisted sites on the Internet

Proxy sites that prohibit quick governmental and local view of internet usage

Use of personal data search engines

Allows Public Places to:

Monitor internet usage

Restrict chosen websites on internet

Prohibits Public Places from viewing telecommunication records of users

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:
author, while I'm glad you took my advice on some points, I would have appreciated it if you decided to, you know, discuss the proposal prior to just submitting it.

The WA is much like the parable of the Tortoise and the Hare. People who rush off to submit a proposal are rarely the ones who get them passed. It's the people who take their time on them that get badges.