a

[Untecna]

a

[Imperium Anglorum]

Amicus concilii, link to GA 506 'Public Access to Court Records'. viewtopic.php?p=37584168#p37584168

Noting that Clause 1 [allows] the unlimited reproduction of court documents... meaning that documents can not be taken off by the court due to needs for confidentiality...

The target resolution doesn't do that. See section 2. This is an honest mistake.

Seeing that while Clause 1 also states that the records are available on request, the documents are also online, making it essentially impossible for confidentiality and redaction of certain portions or all portions to be impossible,

This is factually untrue. Eg redactions in the Mueller report available at https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf.

The rest of the arguments are pretty unconvincing national sovereignty arguments. They fail collectively in establishing why the policy is bad, why the problem doesn't exist, or why the implementation is poor in any real terms.

---

Proposal copied because it may be deleted. (Edit: It was deleted. Spoiler tag removed. This was the first draft of the proposal. The submitted version can be found at http://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-proposal/untecna_1602769625/.)

The General Assembly, it's associates, and all other tied organizations,

Applauding the efforts of GAR#506 to allow the public to access court records and documents,

Noting that Clause 1 states that "No limitation may be enforced on the ability of member nation inhabitants to read or reproduce such documents; nor may any copyright be recognised or enforced over documents produced by member nation courts." allowing the unlimited reproduction of court documents, and with no copyright, meaning that documents can not be taken off by the court due to needs for confidentiality, and meaning all unsealed documents are in the public domain,

Seeing that while Clause 1 also states that the records are available on request, the documents are also online, making it essentially impossible for confidentiality and redaction of certain portions or all portions to be impossible,

Noting that because these documents are online, they can go from nation to nation, potentially creating legal issues between two or more governments,

Noting that Clause 2 states that all people have a right to court records, potentially interfering with the sovereignty of a nation, and forcing them to allow such documents to be accessed regardless of what the laws of the nation are,

Noting that Clause 3 states that all documents that are unsealed are to go to the Universal Library Coalition, potentially causing legal trouble in the likes of which are stated above,

Noting that Clause 1 enforces a no-fee policy, further infringing on a nation's choice, and destroying a way of extra revenue for the court to support itself,

Hereby repeals GAR#506 "Public Access To Court Records"

[Untecna]

Noting that Clause 1 [allows] the unlimited reproduction of court documents... meaning that documents can not be taken off by the court due to needs for confidentiality...

The target resolution doesn't do that. See section 2. This is an honest mistake.

---

Seeing that while Clause 1 also states that the records are available on request, the documents are also online, making it essentially impossible for confidentiality and redaction of certain portions or all portions to be impossible,

This is factually untrue. Eg redactions in the Mueller report available at https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf.

Once it's online, if not already redacted, the document will be copied and posted.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So redact it beforehand. Regardless, the claim that

documents are also online, making it essentially impossible for confidentiality and redaction of certain portions or all portions to be impossible,

is untrue.

[Untecna]

So redact it beforehand. Regardless, the claim that

documents are also online, making it essentially impossible for confidentiality and redaction of certain portions or all portions to be impossible,

is untrue.

Again, once put up, the original text will be somewhere. And what I said was IF a section or sections needed to be redacted, it would be impossible to do so without going bankrupt, unless they censored it, but there would need to be a cause for censorship.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Again, once put up, the original text will be somewhere. And what I said was IF a section or sections needed to be redacted, it would be impossible to do so without going bankrupt, unless they censored it, but there would need to be a cause for censorship.

Make that argument then. I wouldn't put in the portion about 'nations should be allowed to censor stuff even if they don't have a need or cause for censoring them'. That latter argument is pretty ridiculous.

[Untecna]

Again, once put up, the original text will be somewhere. And what I said was IF a section or sections needed to be redacted, it would be impossible to do so without going bankrupt, unless they censored it, but there would need to be a cause for censorship.

Make that argument then.

Read the first post, I just did.

[Untecna]

Make that argument then.

Read the first post, I just did.

And it still is a sort of work in progress. There will be changes made, then I'l make a new topic for this.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Okay, establish then, why the resolution's failure to allow courts to censor documents without cause is good.

And it still is a sort of work in progress. There will be changes made, then I'l make a new topic for this.

One proposal, one drafting thread. Exception applies for defeated proposals.

[Untecna]

The General Assembly, it's associates, and all other tied organizations,

Applauding the efforts of GAR#506 to allow the public to access court records and documents,

Noting that Clause 1 states that "No limitation may be enforced on the ability of member nation inhabitants to read or reproduce such documents; nor may any copyright be recognised or enforced over documents produced by member nation courts." allowing the unlimited reproduction of court documents, and with no copyright, meaning that documents can not be taken off by the court due to needs for confidentiality, and meaning all unsealed documents are in the public domain,

Seeing that while Clause 1 also states that the records are available on request, the documents are also online, making it essentially impossible for confidentiality and redaction of certain portions or all portions after publication to be impossible without the court(s) or nation(s) going bankrupt, and falling, unless the publication and all copies are ordered to be censored, but only with cause, therefore allowing courts and nations to go around the resolution in question as long as there is a viable reason, which they can make up,

Noting that because these documents are online, they can go from nation to nation, potentially creating legal issues between two or more governments,

Noting that Clause 2 states that all people have a right to court records, potentially interfering with the sovereignty of a nation, and forcing them to allow such documents to be accessed regardless of what the laws of the nation are,

Noting that Clause 3 states that all documents that are unsealed are to go to the Universal Library Coalition, potentially causing legal trouble in the likes of which are stated above,

Noting that Clause 1 enforces a no-fee policy, further infringing on a nation's choice, and destroying a way of extra revenue for the court to support itself,

Hereby repeals GAR#506 "Public Access To Court Records"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Put your most current draft in the OP.

[Attempted Socialism]

If you don't understand a resolution, don't write a repeal based on your current misunderstanding. You can ask the author or check with other GA regulars what the proposal does, and if your understanding of the resolution is correct.
You can read through the drafting and voting thread, to perhaps sort out any preliminary questions and understand how the final draft came to be.

Also, if your earlier drafts were criticised for not correctly analysing policy, or making poor policies, and if several people gave you applicable advice, it might be sound to take that criticism and advice into account.

[WayNeacTia]

I see zero reason to repeal this.

[Cretox State]

I understand your enthusiasm; I really do. However, scraping together this many drafts at this stage of your WA development won't do you any favors. Pick one problem. Spend a week (or longer) doing research. Take your time. Spending three months passing your first proposal will serve you better than flooding the forum with a hundred rushed drafts in the same timeframe.

[Separatist Peoples]

I understand your enthusiasm; I really do. However, scraping together this many drafts at this stage of your WA development won't do you any favors. Pick one problem. Spend a week (or longer) doing research. Take your time. Spending three months passing your first proposal will serve you better than flooding the forum with a hundred rushed drafts in the same timeframe.

Ooc: even better is to take some time debating other people's proposals beforre trying to draft.

[Honeydewistania]

I think requiring all nations to make documents easily accessible for free was the point. Allowing a paywall for these documents is a no-go for me, sorry.

[The New Nordic Union]

All OOC:

Seeing that while Clause 1 also states that the records are available on request, the documents are also online, making it essentially impossible for confidentiality and redaction of certain portions or all portions after publication to be impossible without the court(s) or nation(s) going bankrupt

'Making it impossible [...] to be impossible [...]' So, the resolution works just fine?

and falling, unless the publication and all copies are ordered to be censored, but only with cause, therefore allowing courts and nations to go around the resolution in question as long as there is a viable reason, which they can make up,

What?

Noting that because these documents are online, they can go from nation to nation, potentially creating legal issues between two or more governments,

How? Which issues could arise? Why is this furthered by the documents being available online?

Noting that Clause 2 states that all people have a right to court records, potentially interfering with the sovereignty of a nation, and forcing them to allow such documents to be accessed regardless of what the laws of the nation are,

This was, indeed, the purpose of the resolution, I believe.

Noting that Clause 3 states that all documents that are unsealed are to go to the Universal Library Coalition, potentially causing legal trouble in the likes of which are stated above,

Again, how is this creating 'legal trouble', whatever this is?

Noting that Clause 1 enforces a no-fee policy, further infringing on a nation's choice, and destroying a way of extra revenue for the court to support itself,

This is, again, the purpose. As an aside, courts shouldn't have to generate revenue to support themselves in the first place.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This was submitted. https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1602769625

[Honeydewistania]

Submitted version is oddly written. Putting the null and void bit, putting -ing clauses after "The World Assembly finds as follows:", putting "The World Assembly[...]" twice, and putting ‘Noting’ so many times is really bad. Also, content is poor and feedback wasn’t taken. I suggest a withdrawal

[Attempted Socialism]

The first two clauses read as honest mistakes to me, though perhaps they're instead just so incomprehensible that I don't understand how they address the original resolution.
I can't see what in the feedback through this thread made the author think submission was warranted.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I've marked this illegal due to honest mistake. I agree with Attempted Socialism that the first two clauses are incomprehensible but within those clause I was able to pick out at least this: "... impossible without the court(s) or nation(s) going bankrupt ...".

Whatever the base of the argument is, this is an honest mistake. Section1 of the target specifically states that "member nation court systems must to the best of their ability ...". If doing something makes you bankrupt, it's beyond the best of your ability to do it.

[Untecna]

OOC: I've marked this illegal due to honest mistake. I agree with Attempted Socialism that the first two clauses are incomprehensible but within those clause I was able to pick out at least this: "... impossible without the court(s) or nation(s) going bankrupt ...".

Whatever the base of the argument is, this is an honest mistake. Section1 of the target specifically states that "member nation court systems must to the best of their ability ...". If doing something makes you bankrupt, it's beyond the best of your ability to do it.

All of you, corrupt, swelled with power nations, go **** yourselves.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I've marked this illegal due to honest mistake. I agree with Attempted Socialism that the first two clauses are incomprehensible but within those clause I was able to pick out at least this: "... impossible without the court(s) or nation(s) going bankrupt ...".

Whatever the base of the argument is, this is an honest mistake. Section1 of the target specifically states that "member nation court systems must to the best of their ability ...". If doing something makes you bankrupt, it's beyond the best of your ability to do it.

All of you, corrupt, swelled with power nations, go **** yourselves.

Ooc: it isn't corruption to enforce the rules. You don't get special treatment for being new.

[Untecna]

All of you, corrupt, swelled with power nations, go **** yourselves.

Ooc: it isn't corruption to enforce the rules. You don't get special treatment for being new.

OOC: Did I say it was? You all are powerful nations in the WA, not only that, but you being the only ones actually responding just means you're influencing the opinions of other nations. THAT'S corruption. Power isn't something I want, I just want to do something for the community. All you're doing is making sure I don't, that I don't have a chance to do so. As long as I don't make anything "good" by YOUR standards, you stay powerful and corrupt in the WA. If I'm offending you, you can go ahead and kiss my a**.

[The Archregimancy]

OOC: I've marked this illegal due to honest mistake. I agree with Attempted Socialism that the first two clauses are incomprehensible but within those clause I was able to pick out at least this: "... impossible without the court(s) or nation(s) going bankrupt ...".

Whatever the base of the argument is, this is an honest mistake. Section1 of the target specifically states that "member nation court systems must to the best of their ability ...". If doing something makes you bankrupt, it's beyond the best of your ability to do it.

All of you, corrupt, swelled with power nations, go **** yourselves.

Let's be careful here, please.

I'm sparing you a warning because you've used OOC tags in other posts, and your sig clearly states that your ambassador is temperamental - but the division between OOC and IC isn't necessarily as clear here as we might like, especially since your next post - clearly tagged OOC - tells people to 'go ahead and kiss my a**'.

There are more established nations here trying to offer you good faith advice; let's try and make the distinction between your temperamental ambassador and your actual opinions a little more clear-cut, please.