[Withdrawn] Maritime Vessel Registration Act

[Port Ember]

Ooc: will try to take another good pass on this tonight.

Much appreciated!

I'm certainly not against this passing, but it seems like something that is probably best handled locally, even with some of the changes it still sounds like it would put a lot of unnecessary international weight on domestic-only ships.

I would think if a vessel is “domestic only” that would simplify their options and burden, not increase them, as they would register in their own nation as a matter of course. It would also help with decreasing the “flag of convenience” issue, something our nation, being a maritime power, has always viewed as rather reprehensible.

"Thank you for your valued input Ambassador. You have phrased it nuch better than I ever could.

Now, I would like to adress your concern relating to this so called, 'Flags of Convenience'. In my view, this Act actually does combat this to a certain extent. If we study the content of Section 5 and its sub sections, vessels are unable to register with a non member state, in an effort to bypass the extant regulations established by the World Assembly. The general concern relating to the practice of Flags of Convenience has always been the fact that vessels register itself under the juristiction of nations where they lack significant regulations of importance, relating to health & safety regulations; labour laws; security regulations; communication procedures; marking & signals conventions and environmental regulations - where the lack of the enforcement of these is a threat to the overall wellbeing of workers, consumers, and the general public. By criminalising the act of being able to register with non member nations, this Act destroys the traditional Flags of Convenience risks.

However, it is true that this Act does not stop this practice in its entirety, as it allows vessels to 'Fly the Flag' of another Member State. However, we do not see this as a problem, seeing that all Member States are bound by the same high standard of the above mentioned legislation. Therefore, it does not matter what 'flag is flown', as the mariners, consumers and general public remains protected."

[Merni]

OOC:
This has apparently been submitted.

However, it is true that this Act does not stop this practice in its entirety, as it allows vessels to 'Fly the Flag' of another Member State. However, we do not see this as a problem, seeing that all Member States are bound by the same high standard of the above mentioned legislation. Therefore, it does not matter what 'flag is flown', as the mariners, consumers and general public remains protected."

This is not completely true. While WA law does provide a certain minimum standard of regulation, it is obvious that member nations will have their own laws, which will go to different extents over and above WA law. The concept of "flags of convenience" could then be conceivably used to register in a nation which follows the bare minimum extent of WA law, as opposed to one which requires a significantly higher standard than WA law.

[Port Ember]

OOC: I have not slept in about 35+ hours, so for some reason I decided to rush this and submitted. Its still needs to be polished Id say, so i withdrew it. Apologies

[Maowi]

OOC: I have not slept in about 35+ hours, so for some reason I decided to rush this and submitted. Its still needs to be polished Id say, so i withdrew it. Apologies

OOC: get some sleep if you can!!!

On a purely aesthetic front, the proposal would be a lot easier to parse using list code instead of manually writing out numberings - to put that into the proposal in its current form you can use the following code ...

Code: Select all

The World Assembly

Acknowledging that international waters are widely traveled for many purposes, and fulfills a vital economic service;

Accepting that extant laws regulate health & safety, security, communication, markings & signals, inspections, and labor concerns, which apply to member state vessels;

Concerned however, that no extant laws in existence compels a vessel to be registered under the jurisdiction of any nation, allowing these to bypass extant laws relating to matters mentioned above;

Believing that establishing international uniform standards will serve to protect public interest, mariner safety and safeguard commerce;

Hereby,

[list=1][*] Defines for the purposes of this legislation:

[list=a][*]A "vessel" as a non military craft designed to travel on or below the water surface, which employs a paid crew;[/list]


[*] Member states must establish and maintain a Ship Register, which must serve to document and license any merchant vessel who wishes to travel within international waters.


[*] Vessels appearing on a nation's registry are under that nation's jurisdiction. Member states must ensure registered crews and vessels adhere to all relevant regulations.


[*] Specifies that;

[list=a][*]A vessel may be registered on any member nation's Ship Register, whether the owner of the vessel is a citizen of said nation or not, with the authority of the registering nation;


[*]Any one vessel may only be registered on one nation's Ship Register at a time;


[*]A vessel may change its registration from one nation's Ship Register to another, with the consent of the new registering nation.[/list]


[*] Unregistered vessels may not travel in international waters if:

[list=a][*]The vessel in question is owned by a entity of a member nation, or;


[*]The vessel in question is captained or under control of a citizen of a member nation.[/list]


[*] Non compliance to this Act is to be treated as a criminal offence by member nations.

[list=a][*]Vessels in contravention of this Act are to be impounded, alongside its cargo.


[*]The impounded vessel and its cargo is only to be released upon the payment of a fine by the owning entity.


[*]If a vessel is impounded by a nation foreign to the involved crewmembers, the government in question is to adhere to existing extradition legislation.


[*]Vessels belonging to the official Armed Services of a member nation are exempted from this Act.[/list][/list]

... which would then look like this:

The World Assembly

Acknowledging that international waters are widely traveled for many purposes, and fulfills a vital economic service;

Accepting that extant laws regulate health & safety, security, communication, markings & signals, inspections, and labor concerns, which apply to member state vessels;

Concerned however, that no extant laws in existence compels a vessel to be registered under the jurisdiction of any nation, allowing these to bypass extant laws relating to matters mentioned above;

Believing that establishing international uniform standards will serve to protect public interest, mariner safety and safeguard commerce;

Hereby,

1. Defines for the purposes of this legislation:
   
   
   1. A "vessel" as a non military craft designed to travel on or below the water surface, which employs a paid crew;
   
   
2. Member states must establish and maintain a Ship Register, which must serve to document and license any merchant vessel who wishes to travel within international waters.
   
   
3. Vessels appearing on a nation's registry are under that nation's jurisdiction. Member states must ensure registered crews and vessels adhere to all relevant regulations.
   
   
4. Specifies that;
   
   
   1. A vessel may be registered on any member nation's Ship Register, whether the owner of the vessel is a citizen of said nation or not, with the authority of the registering nation;
      
      
   2. Any one vessel may only be registered on one nation's Ship Register at a time;
      
      
   3. A vessel may change its registration from one nation's Ship Register to another, with the consent of the new registering nation.
   
   
5. Unregistered vessels may not travel in international waters if:
   
   
   1. The vessel in question is owned by a entity of a member nation, or;
      
      
   2. The vessel in question is captained or under control of a citizen of a member nation.
   
   
6. Non compliance to this Act is to be treated as a criminal offence by member nations.
   
   
   1. Vessels in contravention of this Act are to be impounded, alongside its cargo.
      
      
   2. The impounded vessel and its cargo is only to be released upon the payment of a fine by the owning entity.
      
      
   3. If a vessel is impounded by a nation foreign to the involved crewmembers, the government in question is to adhere to existing extradition legislation.
      
      
   4. Vessels belonging to the official Armed Services of a member nation are exempted from this Act.

I also have a couple of thoughts on the content.

---

"This seems like sensible policy to implement, overall.

Acknowledging that international waters are widely traveled for many purposes, and fulfills a vital economic service;

"A small grammatical nitpick, but "fulfills" here should read "fulfill", as the word is in reference to the plural noun "international waters".

1. Defines for the purposes of this legislation:

a. A "vessel" as a non military craft designed to travel on or below the water surface, which employs a paid crew;

"Having a new sub-clause here seems redundant, since there is only one - perhaps you could phrase this "Defines a "vessel", for the purposes of this legislation, as a non military craft ..." etc.

2. Member states must establish and maintain a Ship Register, which must serve to document and license any merchant vessel who wishes to travel within international waters.

"The phrasing of this clause is slightly ambiguous and could be problematic. Are member states required to license any merchant vessel which applies for registry? Or do they have the ability to refuse to document and license specific vessels that do not meet their desired criteria? Looking at clause 4.a. I imagine that the intention is for the latter to be the case, which I think could be made clearer in this clause.

5. Unregistered vessels may not travel in international waters if:

a. The vessel in question is owned by a entity of a member nation, or;

"Using the term "an entity of a member nation" seems slightly unclear to me. Maybe "an entity based in a member nation", or similar wording, could be used instead?

[Port Ember]

This is not completely true. While WA law does provide a certain minimum standard of regulation, it is obvious that member nations will have their own laws, which will go to different extents over and above WA law. The concept of "flags of convenience" could then be conceivably used to register in a nation which follows the bare minimum extent of WA law, as opposed to one which requires a significantly higher standard than WA law.

"Thank you for your input Ambassador.

Whilst I do agree with you, as you are technically correct, I am personally of the opinion that you are inflating the issue here, and making it sound a lot worse than it really is.

True, some nations abides to the extant laws to the letter, whilst others goes above and beyond - that I will not argue. But, is the following of the laws to the letter such a bad thing? The existing laws are allready effective and strict, so the act of doing "the bare minimum", is effective in its own right.

This Act seeks to protect workers and the general public, whilst also promoting lucrative trade, and I believe this Act in its current form achieves this."

---

On a purely aesthetic front, the proposal would be a lot easier to parse using list code instead of manually writing out numberings - to put that into the proposal in its current form you can use the following code ... [snip]

Thank you kindly! I actually have it coded like that in the Docs document with which I am going to submit in the future. However, for the drafting process I prefer to number it manually, as it's just easier to keep track of things personally.

"A small grammatical nitpick, but "fulfills" here should read "fulfill", as the word is in reference to the plural noun "international waters".

"Thank you! This will be fixed in the upcoming draft."

"Having a new sub-clause here seems redundant, since there is only one - perhaps you could phrase this "Defines a "vessel", for the purposes of this legislation, as a non military craft ..." etc.

"Thank you Ambassador. This was an iversight, as the previous drafts had several definitions which was removed. This will be updated in the following draft."

"The phrasing of this clause is slightly ambiguous and could be problematic. Are member states required to license any merchant vessel which applies for registry? Or do they have the ability to refuse to document and license specific vessels that do not meet their desired criteria? Looking at clause 4.a. I imagine that the intention is for the latter to be the case, which I think could be made clearer in this clause.

"Well; I admit that you raise a thought provoking issue. The truth is, I considered it to be covered, due to the fact that this Act places a vessel and its crew under the jurisdiction of a nation - allowing said nation to enforce all its laws and regulations, thus forcing a vessel to comply to its criteria. However, if this is not clear, I will find a way to clarify this point in the next draft."

"Using the term "an entity of a member nation" seems slightly unclear to me. Maybe "an entity based in a member nation", or similar wording, could be used instead?

"I will try to find the appropriate term Ambassador, thank you for raising this."

In summary, I thank you humbly and kindly for your input. I will make work of it!

[Disembodied Voice]

A disembodied voice whispers behind the author's left ear: "This would seem to currently allow nations to register ships without the permission of the ship's owner or operator, as per clause 4.a., and thus claim jurisdiction over it as per clause 3. I doubt this was the intention, as it could be considered hijacking the vessel, so the wording perhaps needs some more attention."

[Port Ember]

A small grammatical nitpick, but "fulfills" here should read "fulfill", as the word is in reference to the plural noun "international waters.

"Ambassador, the grammatical error which you have identified, has been corrected in this latest draft."

Having a new sub-clause here seems redundant, since there is only one - perhaps you could phrase this "Defines a "vessel", for the purposes of this legislation, as a non military craft ..." etc.

"Ambassador, the redundant subclause has been removed, and integrated into Clause 1, upon your recommendation."

The phrasing of this clause is slightly ambiguous and could be problematic. Are member states required to license any merchant vessel which applies for registry? Or do they have the ability to refuse to document and license specific vessels that do not meet their desired criteria? Looking at clause 4.a. I imagine that the intention is for the latter to be the case, which I think could be made clearer in this clause.

"Ambassador, Subclause 2a has been added to the proposal, in an attempt to address this valid concern. Would you agree that the adressed problem has been solved in this matter?"

Using the term "an entity of a member nation" seems slightly unclear to me. Maybe "an entity based in a member nation", or similar wording, could be used instead?

"Ambassador, Subclause 5a has been amended according to your recommendation."

A disembodied voice whispers behind the author's left ear: "This would seem to currently allow nations to register ships without the permission of the ship's owner or operator, as per clause 4.a., and thus claim jurisdiction over it as per clause 3. I doubt this was the intention, as it could be considered hijacking the vessel, so the wording perhaps needs some more attention.

Ambassador Lilly Publican jerked her head violently as a unidentified disembodied voice violated her left ear. After calming down slightly from the shock of the events which have unfolded, she realised that this voice spoke sense. She was still unsure whether the voice was from an hidden
Ambassador, one of the many ghosts, spirits, demons and magic cloaked clad perverts - all known to stalk the halls of this assembly - or simply the figment of her own imagination. None the less, after following the advice of this phenomenon, she adressed it, to no one in particular, "I have updated Subclause 4a - based upon.. concerns.. from some..onething?"

OOC: Please note that I am aware of the lack of linebreaks in the current draft. My list code is misbehaving, and I dont have the proper reply for it atm. Please know that if this draft is to be submitted, it would be done so in its repaired form.

[Port Ember]

Apologies for the double post, but this will serve as a shameless bumpidy bump..

[Imperium Germaniae]

"The Delegation of Imperium Germaniae supports this proposal and believes this will ensure the interests of consumers, nations, the public, and workers will be protected by this proposal. It is dangerous to have unregistered vessels travelling through international laws as they may threaten the public interest. We therefore fully support this proposal and hope it is passed."

[Araraukar]

"Is clause 2 intentionally mandating each member nation to create a separate registry for every ship in the multiverse that wants to venture onto international waters, regardless of if they have anything to do with member nations in general, not to mention any particular member nation? How is that going to be even possible for nations that have not yet discovered how to travel of communicate between different star systems, not to mention universes?"

[Port Ember]

"The Delegation of Imperium Germaniae supports this proposal and believes this will ensure the interests of consumers, nations, the public, and workers will be protected by this proposal. It is dangerous to have unregistered vessels travelling through international laws as they may threaten the public interest. We therefore fully support this proposal and hope it is passed."

"We thank you for your support Ambassador."

"Is clause 2 intentionally mandating each member nation to create a separate registry for every ship in the multiverse that wants to venture onto international waters, regardless of if they have anything to do with member nations in general, not to mention any particular member nation? How is that going to be even possible for nations that have not yet discovered how to travel of communicate between different star systems, not to mention universes?"

"Ambassador, I do not think that I understand your concerns, or questions rather, completely, but I will attempt to answer them nontheless.

Firstly, each nation will maintain one single registry (database) of all vessels registered under its jurisdiction. Furthermore, one vessel may only be registered unto one nation's database at a time.

And if I understand you correctly Ambassador, your concerns of

[snip...] regardless of if they have anything to do with member nations in general, not to mention any particular member nation?"

- I would assume that you are referring to vessels belonging to a non member state? In that case, these are exluded with Section 5(a); (b).

As for,

How is that going to be even possible for nations that have not yet discovered how to travel of communicate between different star systems, not to mention universes?"

, I believe that Section 2a covers this concern."

[Port Ember]

Notice: This Proposal has now reached "Last Call" Status and is nearing submission

[Port Ember]

The 6th draft edition have been released, following a series of gramatical improvements. Note this draft remains in the Last Call format - and I plan to submit this very soon.

[Port Ember]

NOTICE

The Republic of Port Ember will submit the current draft of this Proposal for voting procedures on 01 March if no further objections arises.

[Scalizagasti]

"This resolution looks good to me."

[Port Ember]

"This resolution looks good to me."

"Thank you Ambassador, I hope we will be able to count on your support when this goes to vote."

[Port Ember]

NOTICE: This proposal has been submitted. This delegation humbly wishes to garner support from all Delegates.

[Port Ember]

Notice:

This proposal has reached Quorum, and will now be taken to the floor upon the finalisation of the current vote.

The Port Emberian Ambassador wishes to humbly thank all Delegates for their support.

[Junitaki-cho]

I'm concerned particularly about section 5. A ship owned by a citizen of nation A but captained by a citizen of nation B is under the jurisdiction of both, and that seems very quickly problematic. Furthermore, this clause uses the term "ship" rather than "vessel," applying an entirely different standard and affecting seacraft well beyond the established scope of the proposal. 6(b) also uses "ship" terminology, to similar effect. This on its own is bad, but I believe it also raises legality questions: without a definition of what a "ship" is, section 5 would apply to boats of non-WA nations who meet one of those criteria.

Beyond this, I have a few qualms with the remainder of the proposal. From the start, it defines vessel but then qualifies it in only some later clauses with "merchant vessel." Even if the section 5 issues are fixed, it will still apply to private vessels who do no commerce but employ a crew for recreational use. I think the definition up top should have only concerned merchant vessels and that should carry all the way through, so as to avoid overextending its reach. 2(a) also has no conditions on licensure, allowing nations to set unreasonable barriers or otherwise employ corrupt or nepotistic practices and then impound those who can't qualify.

As it stands, I can't support this proposal unless it's withdrawn and amended to clear up these issues, and will recommend against if it goes to vote in its current form.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Who drafted this? The operative clauses keep changing between UN and statute style. The two styles don't mesh properly. Semicolons don't follow a sentence like 'Specifies that'. There's no subject for 'Specifies that' regardless: the sentence with the World Assembly as the subject ended in section 1.

The World Assembly

Acknowledging that international waters are widely traveled for many purposes and fulfill a vital economic service;

Noting that extant laws regulate health & safety, security, communication, markings & signals, inspections, and labor concerns, which apply to member state vessels;

Concerned that no extant laws in existence compels a vessel to be registered under the jurisdiction of any nation, allowing nations to bypass those laws;

Believing that international uniform standards will serve to protect public interest, mariner safety and safeguard commerce;

Hereby,

1. Defines a "vessel" as a non military craft designed to travel on or below the water surface and which employs a paid crew, for the purposes of this legislation.
   
2. Member states must establish and maintain a ship register, which must serve to document and license any merchant vessel who wishes to travel within international waters.
   
   
   1. Member states may establish their own registration requirements and prerequisites.
3. Member states must consider vessels registered to their state as under their jurisdiction, and must ensure that crews of registered vessels adhere to all applicable regulations.
   
4. Specifies that;
   
   
   1. A vessel may be registered on any member nation's Ship Register, whether the owner of the vessel is a citizen of said nation or not, with the authority of the registering nation, and upon the completion of the registration process by both parties;
      
   2. Members must not register a vessel currently registered with another state unless currently transferring the vessel to a new jurisdiction.
5. Member states must apply jurisdiction for the purposes of civil liability over any unregistered ship that is:
   
   
   1. Owned, entirely or in major part, by a person or entity domiciled within their jurisdiction, or
      
   2. Captained or substantially controlled by a person domiciled within their jurisdiction.
6. Non compliance to this Act is to be treated as a criminal offence by member nations.
   
   
   1. Member states must impound any vessel violating this act until the vessel complies or the owner pays outstanding fines or penalties.
      
   2. Member states must extradite any foreign crewmembers of an impounded ship per extant World Assembly law.
      
   3. Member states may not construe anything in this resolution to apply to military vessels.

Please place your current draft at the top of the OP and not buried under a change log and previous drafts. If you want to keep old drafts, put them as spoilers under a reserved post or something similar. Also put the change log there. The current format makes it difficult to quote a specific provision without digging through lots of irrelevant cruft.

---

I don't think this line does what you think you want it to do. Then again, I'm not sure what it is supposed to do in the first place. Regardless, extradition is something requested by one jurisdiction to another and only under specific circumstances in which someone is accused of a crime. Prisoners are not rendered or repatriated to other jurisdictions as a matter of course.

Member states must extradite any foreign crewmembers of an impounded ship per extant World Assembly law.

Even if the clause means exactly what it says, 'must extradite' under WA law does vanishingly little. viewtopic.php?p=5466479#p5466479. It's also debatable as to whether Extradition Right's provision which allows 'the nation from which extradition is requested [to] refuse to extradite for other reasons, insofar as such refusal does not contradict existing World Assembly resolutions' permits future exceptions. I think the Secretariat should resolve that ambiguity. And if there is no contradiction due to the 'per extant...', then the entire clause does literally nothing: Extradition Rights already establishes that people under a member state's jurisdiction are availed the rights granted in that resolution.

The following subsection does not bind the World Assembly. It should have been written as the resolution itself not applying to military vessels.

Member states may not construe anything in this resolution to apply to military vessels.

Moreover, if an ocean liner is contracted into the service of the navy, would that vessel still apply? If no, what if the ocean liner is impressed as an armoured cruiser a la an auxiliary cruiser? If yes, what if the ocean liner is simply transporting military equipment under contract? What makes something a 'military vessel'? Applying the definition in section 1 makes it military 'non-military craft', which doesn't make any sense at all.

Addendum. I also would highly recommend grouping the registration and jurisdictional portions together instead of intermixing them. The whole resolution really could be three overarching sections – definition, registration, and jurisdiction – instead of whatever this current mess is.

[Cretox State]

To the author: I've been in your position before, and I'm sorry for all the sudden criticism you're getting. Apparently a lot of people have been sleepwalking through the GA recently. My recommendation is that you pull the proposal to fix its problems. Should the proposal's issues be fixed, I will personally help you campaign for the revised version.

Defines a "vessel" as a non military craft designed to travel on or below the water surface and which employs a paid crew, for the purposes of this legislation.

This definition is ambiguous. What's a "non military craft"? Do civilian ships contracted for military service count as vessels? How about impressed civilian ships? How about civilian ships transporting military goods? Also, this entire proposal minus clause 2 deals with just vessels, not merchant vessels. Why the distinction?

Member states must establish and maintain a ship register, which must serve to document and license any merchant vessel who wishes to travel within international waters.

First, this clause specifies merchant vessels, terminology that isn't used anywhere else in the proposal for... some reason. Second, any vessel "who" wishes to travel? Third, what does this even mean? The wording suggests that any merchant vessel "who wishes" to travel in international waters must be documented and licensed. This is at odds with the rest of the proposal, especially clause 4, which pretty clearly makes out registration to be an optional process. An alternative interpretation (which is at odds with the wording of the clause) suggests that the registry must be open to any merchant vessel. In which case... okay, but the clause becomes completely redundant, and mildly contradicts its own subclause. Fourth, what if there's already a registry that fills this role? Fifth, what does "document and license" even mean here? What licenses? What documentation? It's never brought up again. Also note that this clause doesn't actually mention registration.

Member states may establish their own registration requirements and prerequisites.

This subclause allows any barriers to registration that member nations can cook up. It allows for corrupt rules and processes for maintaining registration as well as gaining it in the first place. Also, why does this clause talk about registration when its parent clause talks about documentation and licensing?

Specifies that... [a] vessel may be registered on any member nation's Ship Register, whether the owner of the vessel is a citizen of said nation or not, with the authority of the registering nation, and upon the completion of the registration process by both parties;

Why is "Ship Register" capitalized here and nowhere else? What does "with the authority of the registering nation" mean? "[A]nd upon the completion of the registration process by both parties"- aka the process solely up to member nations with no regulation.

Specifies that... [m]embers must not register a vessel currently registered with another state unless currently transferring the vessel to a new jurisdiction.

The formatting's messy. The subject here isn't even the WA, since there's a period at the end of clause 1. This clause doesn't actually specify that "register" applies to the ship register. Also, you would need to register the vessel in a new registry to complete this transfer of jurisdiction. You can't transfer jurisdiction without transferring to another registry. This raises another problem: what if a vessel isn't travelling internationally anymore? What if a vessel's in a member's territorial waters? The proposal implies that the vessel would remain under the jurisdiction of whatever nation it's registered with. Why should a foreign nation be charged with enforcement of my nation's "regulations" in my nation's territorial waters?

Member states must apply jurisdiction for the purposes of civil liability over any unregistered ship that is... [owned], entirely or in major part, by a person or entity domiciled within their jurisdiction, or... [captained] or substantially controlled by a person domiciled within their jurisdiction.

This section doesn't use the defined term of "vessel"- it uses "ship". What's a ship? Why is this section establishing ships as being under the jurisdiction of potentially multiple members? What does "in major part" mean? What does "substantially controlled" mean?

Non compliance to this Act is to be treated as a criminal offence by member nations.

1. Member states must impound any vessel violating this act until the vessel complies or the owner pays outstanding fines or penalties.
2. Member states must extradite any foreign crewmembers of an impounded ship per extant World Assembly law.
3. Member states may not construe anything in this resolution to apply to military vessels.

Subclause 1 refers to the impounding of vessels. Subclause 2 refers to the impounding of ships. Impounding is also a terrible one-size-fits-all solution. What if a ship is found to not meet construction regulations? Does it get impounded indefinitely by a member? What if the vessel's leaking chemicals in violation of regulations? Subclause 2 is utterly pointless. Extradition is a process carried out by request from one state to another for perpetrators of crimes. "[Per] extant" renders this subclause entirely subservient to prior WA law. Subclause 3... what exactly is a military non military craft? Clause 1's definition of "vessel" still applies here. This also isn't what "construe" means.

[Port Ember]

This has been withdrawn from Queue. Thanks to all for the last minute input. This has been a good 3 month run.

[Junitaki-cho]

Thanks for understanding. I know it's frustrating to get this at the last minute. I'll keep an eye on this thread and try to provide timely feedback on the next draft.