[ABANDONED] Dark Sky Preserve Creation Act

[Boston Castle]

OOC: A few quick notes.

1. Unsure about the category here. GA #460, where this legislation derives from (like two puzzle pieces in my opinion) is in the category as noted in the box, but there might be an Environmental category this fits in better. (Other ones that could work: Environmental-All Businesses-Strong; Regulation-Mild? Opinions welcome.)

2. Depending on how long drafting takes, there's a decent chance this could be submitted on my other main nation Hulldom, so...don't worry too much about if it ends up being submitted there.

3. Content-wise, unless someone can prove me wrong, I think this is about as far as I can go without potentially crossing into IRL-reference territory.

Dark Sky Preserve Creation Act

Category: Environment | Strength: All Businesses-Mild

Observing this august assembly’s efforts to compile astronomical data in [resolution=GA#460]Astronomical Data Repository[/resolution] and shocked that there have not been efforts to ensure that data compiled under the terms of this resolution can reasonably be obtained,

Further observing that only certain areas are suitable to undertake astronomical observations and that dark sky preserves are some of the most suitable areas to do so,

Noticing that areas without light pollution are helpful for a variety of species and other purposes other than astronomy, be it enacted as follows:

1. A multiversal system of dark sky preserves, defined as areas wherein stars of the highest magnitude observable by the eye are observable without equipment, will be set up under the auspices of the Astronomical Science and Technical Research Organization, hereafter referred to as ASTRO.
   
   1. Criteria for designation as a dark sky preserve shall be up to the discretion of ASTRO and will include factors including local light pollution conditions and observation conditions, local population, technology that has been and will be used to improve dark sky conditions through new or improved sources of illumination, disruption to local flora and fauna as a result of light pollution, and the development of a plan for user education on the preserve's purpose and goals.
   2. Designation as a dark sky preserve will only be completed on the request of a member state government or on the request of a land's owner or owners.
2. To offset the costs regarding accessibility and maintenance upgrades, ASTRO is authorised to provide funding for the following:
   
   1. Signage or guideposts to notify and educate the general public of the area, its features, and its general features.
   2. Lighting consistent with that which will allow an area to retain its dark sky designation.
   3. Scientific investigations in the area consistent with astronomical observation or conservation principles as stated in clause 3.
3. In addition to the protection of pristine observational conditions, the authorities who will be in charge of the day-to-day running of a dark sky preserve must also protect wildlife populations inside of the preserve and create a long-term plan for conservation in partnership with other World Assembly organisations whose prerogative it is to work in these areas.
   
   1. Member nations may undertake research on the conditions of flora and fauna in the area to determine the effects of an absence of electromagnetic stimuli on local wildlife.
4. ASTRO is required to keep a public registry of lands designated as dark sky preserves as well as a log of their accessibility and terms of usage of said lands.
   
5. De-recognition of a recognized dark sky preserve by ASTRO shall be on the basis of one of two scenarios:
   
   1. On the request of a member state government or land's owner or owners who previously requested recognition.
   2. If the conditions in the dark sky preserve, by land owner, member state government, or ASTRO report, have deteriorated to the point where the the conditions for designation are no longer met.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Uhh, naw, even I think it's a bit micromanage-y to say you can't build on this land merely because we'd like it to be dedicated to radio astronomy or something like that. There are lots of reasons for land development and a lot of them have far better impacts on society than forcing them to remain fallow because some lab coats want to gaze into the heavens. If governments really want to support telescopes or radio astronomy, they can choose to do so.

OOC: A few quick notes.

1. Unsure about the category here. GA #460, where this legislation derives from (like two puzzle pieces in my opinion) is in the category as noted in the box, but there might be an Environmental category this fits in better. (Other ones that could work: Environmental-All Businesses-Strong; Regulation-Mild? Opinions welcome.)

2. Depending on how long drafting takes, there's a decent chance this could be submitted on my other main nation Hulldom, so...don't worry too much about if it ends up being submitted there.

3. Content-wise, unless someone can prove me wrong, I think this is about as far as I can go without potentially crossing into IRL-reference territory.

(Image)

Dark Sky Preserve Creation Act

Category: Education | Strength: Educational

Observing this august assembly’s efforts to compile and divulge astronomical data in [resolution=GA#460]Astronomical Data Repository[/resolution] and shocked that there have not been efforts to ensure that data compiled under the terms of this resolution can reasonably be obtained, be it enacted as follows:

1. In this resolution:
   
   1. ”Light pollution” means any source of light which brightens the night sky and which hampers efforts at astronomical observations;
   2. ”Dark sky preserve” means any geographically area in which astronomical observations are not hampered by light pollution and can be accomplished with the aid of devices that are readily available to sapient beings;
   3. ”Public lands” means any area of land that is owned by the government and set aside for enjoyment by the populace of a nation.
2. Member nations must monitor and work to identify areas that are suitable to be designated as dark sky preserves.
   
   1. Criterion for designation as a dark sky preserve shall be up to the discretion of the Astronomical Science and Technical Research Organization, hereafter referred to as ASTRO, and will include factors such as light pollution and potential suitability for radio astronomy.
3. Upon report by the government of a member nation of a potential site that could be designated as a dark sky preserve and an investigation by ASTRO, ASTRO will have the final say over which areas submitted for scrutiny are identified as dark sky preserves.
   
4. Once an area is designated as a preserve, member nations are not required to delineate these lands with markers, but it must be maintained by the member state and its existence acknowledged until, and unless, an event as described in clause 7 or 8 occurs.
   
5. If nations, with the assent of ASTRO, identify non-public lands as dark sky preserves, they should either provide an above-market price for said lands as compensation for the previous owner, such that these become public lands in perpetuity or, failing sale of non-public dark sky preserves, nations must allow the owner of said lands to continue to control the lands as they had previously.
   
6. ASTRO is also required to keep a public registry of lands designated as dark sky preserves as well as a log of their accessibility and terms of usage, if any restrictions exist, on the usage of said lands.
   
7. In the event dark sky preserves no longer meet criteria as specified by ASTRO, member nations must provide evidence to ASTRO which shows that requirements are no longer fulfilled, especially in regards to light pollution.
   
   1. The removal of designation, especially when deteriorating observation conditions are the reason for the potential removal, may be challenged by ASTRO and ASTRO may investigate to determine if the designation should be removed.
8. In the event the land of a dark sky preserve is to be privatized or in some other way to be altered such that it no longer will fulfill requirements via intentional and sudden government action, member nations must inform ASTRO of such so that the designation may be removed.

[Boston Castle]

Uhh, naw, even I think it's a bit micromanage-y to say you can't build on this land merely because we'd like it to be dedicated to radio astronomy or something like that. There are lots of reasons for land development and a lot of them have far better impacts on society than forcing them to remain fallow because some lab coats want to gaze into the heavens. If governments really want to support telescopes or radio astronomy, they can choose to do so.

OOC: A few quick notes.

1. Unsure about the category here. GA #460, where this legislation derives from (like two puzzle pieces in my opinion) is in the category as noted in the box, but there might be an Environmental category this fits in better. (Other ones that could work: Environmental-All Businesses-Strong; Regulation-Mild? Opinions welcome.)

2. Depending on how long drafting takes, there's a decent chance this could be submitted on my other main nation Hulldom, so...don't worry too much about if it ends up being submitted there.

3. Content-wise, unless someone can prove me wrong, I think this is about as far as I can go without potentially crossing into IRL-reference territory.

(Image)

Dark Sky Preserve Creation Act

Category: Education | Strength: Educational

Observing this august assembly’s efforts to compile and divulge astronomical data in [resolution=GA#460]Astronomical Data Repository[/resolution] and shocked that there have not been efforts to ensure that data compiled under the terms of this resolution can reasonably be obtained, be it enacted as follows:

1. In this resolution:
   
   1. ”Light pollution” means any source of light which brightens the night sky and which hampers efforts at astronomical observations;
   2. ”Dark sky preserve” means any geographically area in which astronomical observations are not hampered by light pollution and can be accomplished with the aid of devices that are readily available to sapient beings;
   3. ”Public lands” means any area of land that is owned by the government and set aside for enjoyment by the populace of a nation.
2. Member nations must monitor and work to identify areas that are suitable to be designated as dark sky preserves.
   
   1. Criterion for designation as a dark sky preserve shall be up to the discretion of the Astronomical Science and Technical Research Organization, hereafter referred to as ASTRO, and will include factors such as light pollution and potential suitability for radio astronomy.
3. Upon report by the government of a member nation of a potential site that could be designated as a dark sky preserve and an investigation by ASTRO, ASTRO will have the final say over which areas submitted for scrutiny are identified as dark sky preserves.
   
4. Once an area is designated as a preserve, member nations are not required to delineate these lands with markers, but it must be maintained by the member state and its existence acknowledged until, and unless, an event as described in clause 7 or 8 occurs.
   
5. If nations, with the assent of ASTRO, identify non-public lands as dark sky preserves, they should either provide an above-market price for said lands as compensation for the previous owner, such that these become public lands in perpetuity or, failing sale of non-public dark sky preserves, nations must allow the owner of said lands to continue to control the lands as they had previously.
   
6. ASTRO is also required to keep a public registry of lands designated as dark sky preserves as well as a log of their accessibility and terms of usage, if any restrictions exist, on the usage of said lands.
   
7. In the event dark sky preserves no longer meet criteria as specified by ASTRO, member nations must provide evidence to ASTRO which shows that requirements are no longer fulfilled, especially in regards to light pollution.
   
   1. The removal of designation, especially when deteriorating observation conditions are the reason for the potential removal, may be challenged by ASTRO and ASTRO may investigate to determine if the designation should be removed.
8. In the event the land of a dark sky preserve is to be privatized or in some other way to be altered such that it no longer will fulfill requirements via intentional and sudden government action, member nations must inform ASTRO of such so that the designation may be removed.

"Respectfully, while there were requirements for nations to identify suitable areas, they aren't even required to work towards creating them. But I do think this legislation is necessary, light pollution is an issue which affects all of our nations, and I really don't think this imposes any undue burden on member nations other than to say "this is a good thing, if you have them, we'd like to confirm they exist and make note of them"."

OOC: Oop, I can't read. Reflects the reality now, but I don't see this as micromanage-y, IA.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Uhh, naw, even I think it's a bit micromanage-y to say you can't build on this land merely because we'd like it to be dedicated to radio astronomy or something like that. There are lots of reasons for land development and a lot of them have far better impacts on society than forcing them to remain fallow because some lab coats want to gaze into the heavens. If governments really want to support telescopes or radio astronomy, they can choose to do so.

OOC - oddly enough radio telescopes do not require dark skies. The name is the giveaway.

[Boston Castle]

Uhh, naw, even I think it's a bit micromanage-y to say you can't build on this land merely because we'd like it to be dedicated to radio astronomy or something like that. There are lots of reasons for land development and a lot of them have far better impacts on society than forcing them to remain fallow because some lab coats want to gaze into the heavens. If governments really want to support telescopes or radio astronomy, they can choose to do so.

OOC - oddly enough radio telescopes do not require dark skies. The name is the giveaway.

OOC: that's actually quite interesting! I live sort of near the Green Bank Observatory in WV when I'm at home (near the edge of the radio quiet zone there), and I'd sort of assumed that it was the dark skies that made that location perfect for observations. (Since Pocahontas County, WV has some of the clearest skies on the East Coast.)

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

OOC - oddly enough radio telescopes do not require dark skies. The name is the giveaway.

OOC: that's actually quite interesting! I live sort of near the Green Bank Observatory in WV when I'm at home (near the edge of the radio quiet zone there), and I'd sort of assumed that it was the dark skies that made that location perfect for observations. (Since Pocahontas County, WV has some of the clearest skies on the East Coast.)

OOC - different parts of the e-m spectrum have different requirements. Green Bank requires a radio quiet zone to stop them picking up microwave ovens as ET (an exaggeration, but you get my drift), while optical astronomers require dark, clear skies. This is why the big observatories are built high up on mountains or deserts e.g. Mauna Kea or Atacama or Mt Teide.

Dark sky reserves are most important to us amateur astronomers, providing us with a place to go to, to carry out observations and photography under pristine conditions.

[Cretox State]

1. Unsure about the category here. GA #460, where this legislation derives from (like two puzzle pieces in my opinion) is in the category as noted in the box, but there might be an Environmental category this fits in better. (Other ones that could work: Environmental-All Businesses-Strong; Regulation-Mild? Opinions welcome.)

Environmental | All Businesses - Mild is a safe choice.

Observing this august assembly’s efforts to compile and divulge astronomical data in [resolution=GA#460]Astronomical Data Repository[/resolution] and shocked that there have not been efforts to ensure that data compiled under the terms of this resolution can reasonably be obtained, be it enacted as follows:

Could be worded more clearly. This could easily be interpreted as referring to ASTRO's data, not data being fed to ASTRO.

”Light pollution” means any source of light which brightens the night sky and which hampers efforts at astronomical observations;

Mind the smart-quotes.

”Dark sky preserve” means any geographically area in which astronomical observations are not hampered by light pollution and can be accomplished with the aid of devices that are readily available to sapient beings; [emphasis mine]

Grammar. Also an errant space between "hampered" and "by."

”Public lands” means any area of land that is owned by the government and set aside for enjoyment by the populace of a nation.

Is the second part of this necessary?

Member nations must monitor and work to identify areas that are suitable to be designated as dark sky preserves.

You're defining a dark sky preserve as an area with specific characteristics. Now you're instructing members to designate areas as dark sky preserves. It just doesn't sit well with me.

Criterion for designation as a dark sky preserve shall be up to the discretion of the Astronomical Science and Technical Research Organization, hereafter referred to as ASTRO, and will include factors such as light pollution and potential suitability for radio astronomy. [emphasis mine]

Criteria is plural. Criterion is singular. Again, you're concretely defining dark sky preserves, then saying that the criteria for dark sky preserves are up to ASTRO. This is contradictory.

Upon report by the government of a member nation of a potential site that could be designated as a dark sky preserve and an investigation by ASTRO, ASTRO will have the final say over which areas submitted for scrutiny are identified as dark sky preserves.

What is the nature of this investigation?

Once an area is designated as a preserve, member nations are not required to delineate these lands with markers, but it must be maintained by the member state and its existence acknowledged until, and unless, an event as described in clause 7 or 8 occurs.

I don't see the purpose of the markers part.

If nations, with the assent of ASTRO, identify non-public lands as dark sky preserves, they should either provide an above-market price for said lands as compensation for the previous owner, such that these become public lands in perpetuity or, failing sale of non-public dark sky preserves, nations must allow the owner of said lands to continue to control the lands as they had previously.

"In perpetuity"? I'm not sure how I feel about a light pollution proposal legislating on eminent domain.

ASTRO is also required to keep a public registry of lands designated as dark sky preserves as well as a log of their accessibility and terms of usage, if any restrictions exist, on the usage of said lands.

Wait a minute... nations don't actually have to let people use these lands?

In the event a dark sky preserve no longer meets the criteria as specified by ASTRO, member nations must provide evidence to ASTRO which shows that requirements are no longer fulfilled, especially in regards to light pollution.

What if requirements are still met, but nations want to remove designation for another reason? Also, how are nations supposed to definitively know that criteria are no longer met prior to ASTRO's decision, considering that ASTRO has sole jurisdiction over the matter? This can be handled with more finesse.

The removal of designation, especially when deteriorating observation conditions are the reason for the potential removal, may be challenged by ASTRO and ASTRO may investigate to determine if the designation should be removed.

Why do you need the "especially" part? Same question applies to the preceding clause.

In the event the land of a dark sky preserve is to be privatized or in some other way to be altered such that it no longer will fulfill requirements via intentional and sudden government action, member nations must inform ASTRO of such so that the designation may be removed.

So... nations can just override ASTRO whenever they please? What's the point, then?

[Kranostav]

I feel that I should give my two cents here since I authored ADR after all.

Very interesting use of ASTRO, not how I originally intended it to be used but could be cool. My only issue is the purchasing of private land bit. I would prefer that the government's ability to eminent domain specific pieces of land exist outside the scope of this proposal.

Does ASTRO have the capability to do what you're asking of it? From an IC point maybe? Seems like an out of the box use but applicable nonetheless.

[Boston Castle]

Edits post [thanks Cretox State for the advice/feedback].

Edits 7: Made Maowi's suggested changes.

Edits 6: radio astronomy bit in clause 1(a) eliminated with new language in clause 1(a).

Edits 5: Language in 1(a) changed slightly to accommodate new clause 4, clause 4 and sub-clauses 4(a) and 4(b) added, old clause 4 removed.

Once an area is designated as a preserve, the designated space must be maintained by the member state and its existence acknowledged until, and unless, an event as described in clause 6 or 7 occurs.

Edits 4: "undertake astronomical observations" changed to "do so" in intro clause 2.

Edits 3: added a second introductory clause, 1(a) amended to be a bit more specific in terms of criteria to be considered, 1(b) amended to say "identify potential dark sky preserves".

Edits 2: introductory definitions clause deleted, both for parsimony's sake and because it was no longer needed; " in regards to light pollution" removed from clause 6; ", when deteriorating observation conditions are the reason for the potential removal," removed from clause 6(a).

Edits 1: "and divulge" removed from introductory clause; definition of "dark sky preserve" removed; "and set aside for enjoyment by the populace of a nation." removed from definition of public lands; "monitor" removed from clause 2; clause 2(b) added; clause 3(a) and 3(b) added; "markers" bit removed from clause 4; ", if any restrictions exist, on the usage" removed from clause 5; clause 6 [see below] removed; Clause 8 (in first draft) [see below] altered.

If nations, with the assent of ASTRO, identify non-public lands as dark sky preserves, they should either provide an above-market price for said lands as compensation for the previous owner, such that these become public lands in perpetuity or, failing sale of non-public dark sky preserves, nations must allow the owner of said lands to continue to control the lands as they had previously.

In the event the land of a dark sky preserve is to be privatized or in some other way to be altered such that it no longer will fulfill requirements via intentional and sudden government action, member nations must inform ASTRO of such so that the designation may be removed.

[Boston Castle]

I feel that I should give my two cents here since I authored ADR after all.

Very interesting use of ASTRO, not how I originally intended it to be used but could be cool. My only issue is the purchasing of private land bit. I would prefer that the government's ability to eminent domain specific pieces of land exist outside the scope of this proposal.

Does ASTRO have the capability to do what you're asking of it? From an IC point maybe? Seems like an out of the box use but applicable nonetheless.

Thanks Tlomz. Actually worked on that as you were reading over everything. The altered draft should be up in a second.

[Tinfect]

"This legislation proposes almost no measures to protect any such 'dark sky preserves', nor do we see why any legislation on the subject is remotely necessary. This is not an issue of international import, or, even national import, even if it were to effectively serve its purpose. The Imperium is opposed."

[Boston Castle]

"This legislation proposes almost no measures to protect any such 'dark sky preserves', nor do we see why any legislation on the subject is remotely necessary. This is not an issue of international import, or, even national import, even if it were to effectively serve its purpose. The Imperium is opposed."

"That's completely fair, we thank the Imperium for their honest opinion."

OOC: yeah, this is something that's kinda been bugging me about this whole thing. Protecting them is not going to be easy, but going rigorous on the protective measures will throw this one all sorts of weird places. That's why I've decided to keep it where it's at in terms of "these will now be registered by ASTRO". I personally would rather keep it there for now, because I think doing as you're asking (nothing wrong with it) would result in some kind of weird legislation which really only deals with eminent domain and uses that as a means to an end. I don't think that could, to put it frankly, ever fly.

[Boston Castle]

[Not really bumping it so much as saying for people who'd like to read over things that I'd be open to working on a way to add in protective measures a la Tinfect's criticism.]

[Maowi]

Observing this august assembly’s efforts to compile astronomical data in [resolution=GA#460]Astronomical Data Repository[/resolution] and shocked that there have not been efforts to ensure that data compiled under the terms of this resolution can reasonably be obtained, be it enacted as follows:

OOC: In practice preambles don't really matter all that much, but you could expand on this one to really emphasise & explain the benefits of (what I perceive to be) the intention of this proposal, i.e. to collect and centralise information on dark sky preserves, rather than enforce certain environmental regulations on them.

1. Member nations work to identify areas that are suitable to be designated as dark sky preserves.
   
   1. Criteria for designation as a dark sky preserve shall be up to the discretion of the Astronomical Science and Technical Research Organization, hereafter referred to as ASTRO, and will include factors such as light pollution and potential suitability for radio astronomy.
   2. Member nations may also work to create dark sky preserves should that be their wish.

OOC: I think greater precision in your language could be beneficial. If an area is designated as a dark sky preserve, must visible light pollution be restricted within that area, or also radio spectrum pollution? Why the mention of radio astronomy specifically? Can/should ASTRO also take into account e.g. the effects of light pollution on wildlife in the area?

In the main clause 1 you are missing a verb - "Member nations must work"? "Member nations may work"? I would personally rephrase that whole sentence, though - it kind of sends out a slightly different message to 1.b. and I think you could clarify that.

In 1.b. I would also replace "create dark sky preserves" with "identify potential dark sky preserves", in light of the mechanism you set up in clause 2.

[Boston Castle]

Observing this august assembly’s efforts to compile astronomical data in [resolution=GA#460]Astronomical Data Repository[/resolution] and shocked that there have not been efforts to ensure that data compiled under the terms of this resolution can reasonably be obtained, be it enacted as follows:

OOC: In practice preambles don't really matter all that much, but you could expand on this one to really emphasise & explain the benefits of (what I perceive to be) the intention of this proposal, i.e. to collect and centralise information on dark sky preserves, rather than enforce certain environmental regulations on them.

1. Member nations work to identify areas that are suitable to be designated as dark sky preserves.
   
   1. Criteria for designation as a dark sky preserve shall be up to the discretion of the Astronomical Science and Technical Research Organization, hereafter referred to as ASTRO, and will include factors such as light pollution and potential suitability for radio astronomy.
   2. Member nations may also work to create dark sky preserves should that be their wish.

OOC: I think greater precision in your language could be beneficial. If an area is designated as a dark sky preserve, must visible light pollution be restricted within that area, or also radio spectrum pollution? Why the mention of radio astronomy specifically? Can/should ASTRO also take into account e.g. the effects of light pollution on wildlife in the area?

In the main clause 1 you are missing a verb - "Member nations must work"? "Member nations may work"? I would personally rephrase that whole sentence, though - it kind of sends out a slightly different message to 1.b. and I think you could clarify that.

In 1.b. I would also replace "create dark sky preserves" with "identify potential dark sky preserves", in light of the mechanism you set up in clause 2.

OOC: Thanks for the feedback, Maowi, I always appreciate it!

Ambassador Rosenborg: "I have amended some things in this draft and I hope it is better in the eyes of the Maowese delegation as a result."

[Maowi]

OOC: I think those things work now! Only (very minor) thing I'd say is your addition to the preamble could be phrased a bit more nicely:

Further observing that only certain areas are suitable to undertake astronomical observations and that dark sky preserves are some of the most suitable areas to undertake astronomical observationsdo so, be it enacted as follows:

[Boston Castle]

OOC: I think those things work now! Only (very minor) thing I'd say is your addition to the preamble could be phrased a bit more nicely:

Further observing that only certain areas are suitable to undertake astronomical observations and that dark sky preserves are some of the most suitable areas to undertake astronomical observationsdo so, be it enacted as follows:

And done!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ambassador, you might do well to increase the emphasis on, and protections for, nocturnal animals who depend on starlight, true darkness, or even electromagnetic calm for their feeding and migration behavior. As technological civilization spreads across a planet, areas suitable for such species grow smaller at an even higher rate than for diurnal species, due to the extended reach of light sources within an atmosphere, beyond what you might call 'the city limits.' ASTRO simply 'taking these things into account' is kind of weak. Give it some teeth, man!"



OOC: Would help justify the Environmental category, too.

[Boston Castle]

"Ambassador, you might do well to increase the emphasis on, and protections for, nocturnal animals who depend on starlight, true darkness, or even electromagnetic calm for their feeding and migration behavior. As technological civilization spreads across a planet, areas suitable for such species grow smaller at an even higher rate than for diurnal species, due to the extended reach of light sources within an atmosphere, beyond what you might call 'the city limits.' ASTRO simply 'taking these things into account' is kind of weak. Give it some teeth, man!"



OOC: Would help justify the Environmental category, too.

"Thank you for the feedback, Ambassador! Will get around to it, shortly."

OOC: Yep. Makes perfect sense. The reason for the category issue at first was my desire to put it in the same one as 462, but clear it needs to be in a different one.

[Boston Castle]

Have added a clause discussing protecting wildlife in the area of the preserve. Hopefully it helps.

Also, side note, as noted here, this will likely be submitted on Hulldom if it's ready soon.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

OOC: you’re still conflating radio quiet areas with dark skies. This is unnecessary - you can carry out radio astronomy in broad daylight, under heavy cloud etc. You do not need dark skies for that, but you do need it for optical astronomy.

[Hulldom]

OOC: you’re still conflating radio quiet areas with dark skies. This is unnecessary - you can carry out radio astronomy in broad daylight, under heavy cloud etc. You do not need dark skies for that, but you do need it for optical astronomy.

I think this is a bit of a problem overall in that there seems to be an appetite/desire to extend this to cover radio astronomy. Not entirely sure how to deal with that, but still thinking.

Will probably cut out the radio astronomy areas of the res for now and see how that goes.

[Boston Castle]

Bumping this with some of the changes made recently.

[Boston Castle]

No comments?

I'll extend this another week, but if there seems to be no further qualms (I'm sure there are some!), I'll be submitting next Monday.

[Maowi]

1. Member nations must work to identify areas that are suitable to be designated as dark sky preserves.
   
   1. Criteria for designation as a dark sky preserve shall be up to the discretion of the Astronomical Science and Technical Research Organization, hereafter referred to as ASTRO, and will include factors including local light pollution conditions, technology used to improve dark sky conditions through new or improved sources of illumination, and the development of a plan for user education on the preserve's purpose and goals.

"The factors listed that must be included in ASTRO's criteria seem ambiguously worded to me. Should an area be designated as a dark sky preserve because technology is already being used to improve dark sky conditions there? Or should technologies be used to improve dark sky conditions there after it has been designated a dark sky preserve, in order to keep it suitable for that purpose? The wording makes it sound like the former, and I am not sure that makes full sense. Likewise with the plan for user education.

"Given that you later add a requirement for investigation and protection of wildlife in dark sky preserves, I believe it would be sensible to add criteria related to the presence of and potential disruption to wildlife in the area."