NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Prohibiting the Sale of Genetic Data

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1215
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[DRAFT] Prohibiting the Sale of Genetic Data

Postby Daarwyrth » Mon May 03, 2021 4:30 am

OOC: In light of the failure of "Regulation on the Integrity of Genetic Data" to pass, and the valid points of feedback that the resolution proposal had received during its vote, I have received a tremendous amount of help from Tinhampton in redrafting the proposed resolution. Many thanks to Tinhampton for the effort put into this new draft, it is such a great improvement from what the proposal draft first was! As such, we decided to collaborate and co-author this resolution proposal.

CURRENT DRAFT:
Prohibiting the Sale of Genetic Data
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild

Believing that those who collect genetic material from others should not be entitled to distribute that material to others (for profit or otherwise) for no good reason whatsoever, the General Assembly hereby:

  1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. an "individual" as a natural person who is not deceased,

    2. "collected genetic data" as any genetic data that is collected from any individual by a testing entity for non-forensic, non-medical purposes, and

    3. a "testing entity" as any entity that collects genetic data from any individual for non-forensic, non-medical purposes,

  2. declares that no individual shall have any genetic data collected from them for non-forensic, non-medical purposes without their free and informed consent,

  3. forbids the distribution of collected genetic data by the testing entity or any other involved entity that has collected it, to any individual (or any other entity) for any reason without the free and informed consent of the individual from which that data was collected, except:

    1. to the testing entity itself and the individual from whom that genetic data was collected,

    2. to laboratories for the sole purpose of analysing that genetic data, or

    3. if required from a law enforcement agency by a legally-binding court order, where this is necessary to determine a suspect's guilt or involvement in a crime that is being investigated,

  4. requires that all collected genetic data distributed under Clauses 3a, 3b and 3c, or otherwise distributed with the free and informed consent of the individual it was collected from, be distributed free of charge,

  5. orders all entities to whom collected genetic data has been distributed under Clauses 3a, 3b or 3c not to distribute such data to any entity not listed in one of those three clauses, except where it is collected under Clause 3c and must be shown as evidence to a court,

  6. mandates that member states:

    1. establish and maintain a registry which all testing entities operating within their jurisdiction shall register themselves with, and to which those entities will report to four times per year proving their compliance with Clauses 2, 3 and 4, and

    2. notify those testing entities operating within their jurisdiction who refuse to comply with the provisions of Clauses 2, 3, and 4 about how to mitigate their failure to comply with such provisions, and

    3. punish said testing entities if, after receiving a notice under Clause 6b, they remain non-compliant with any of the aforementioned provisions, and

  7. reminds members that the contents of an individual's genome must not be used as grounds to discriminate against that sapient.

Co-authored with Tinhampton.
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Mon May 10, 2021 11:33 am, edited 14 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1215
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Mon May 03, 2021 4:30 am

DRAFT 3:
Prohibiting the Sale of Genetic Data
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild

Believing that those who collect genetic material from others should not be entitled to distribute that material to others (for profit or otherwise) for no good reason whatsoever, the General Assembly hereby:

  1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. an "individual" as a natural person who is not deceased,

    2. "collected genetic data" as any genetic data that is collected from any individual by a testing entity for non-forensic, non-medical purposes, and

    3. a "testing entity" as any entity that collects genetic data from any individual for non-forensic, non-medical purposes,

  2. declares that no individual shall have any genetic data collected from them for non-forensic, non-medical purposes without their free and informed consent,

  3. forbids the distribution of collected genetic data by the testing entity or any other involved entity that has collected it, to any individual (or any other entity) for any reason without an individual's free and informed consent, except:

    1. to the testing entity itself and the individual from whom that genetic data was collected,

    2. to laboratories for the sole purpose of analysing that genetic data, or

    3. if required from a law enforcement agency by a legally-binding court order, where this is necessary to determine a suspect's guilt or involvement in a crime that is being investigated,

  4. requires that all collected genetic data distributed under Clauses 3a, 3b and 3c, or otherwise distributed with the free and informed consent of the individual it was collected from, be distributed free of charge,

  5. orders all entities to whom collected genetic data has been distributed under Clauses 3a, 3b or 3c not to distribute such data to any entity not listed in one of those three clauses, except where it is collected under Clause 3c and must be shown as evidence to a court,

  6. mandates that member states:

    1. establish and maintain a registry which all testing entities operating within their jurisdiction shall register themselves with, and to which those entities will report to four times per year proving their compliance with Clauses 2, 3 and 4, and

    2. notify those testing entities operating within their jurisdiction who refuse to comply with the provisions of Clauses 2, 3, and 4 about how to mitigate their failure to comply with such provisions, and

    3. punish said testing entities if, after receiving a notice under Clause 6b, they remain non-compliant with any of the aforementioned provisions, and

  7. reminds members that the contents of an individual's genome must not be used as grounds to discriminate against that sapient.

Co-authored with Tinhampton.


DRAFT 2:
Prohibiting the Sale of Genetic Data
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild

Believing that those who collect genetic material from others should not be entitled to distribute that material to others (for profit or otherwise) for no good reason whatsoever, the General Assembly hereby:

  1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. a "sapient" as a sapient being who is not deceased,

    2. "collected genetic data" as any genetic data that is collected from any sapient by a testing entity for recreational, non-medical purposes, and

    3. a "testing entity" as any entity that collects genetic data from any sapient for recreational, non-medical purposes,

  2. declares that no sapient shall have any genetic data collected from them for recreational, non-medical purposes without their free and informed consent,

  3. forbids the distribution of collected genetic data by the testing entity that has collected it to any sapient (or any other entity) for any reason without that sapient's free and informed consent, except:

    1. to the testing entity itself and the sapient from whom that genetic data was collected,

    2. to laboratories for the sole purpose of analysing that genetic data, or

    3. if required from a law enforcement agency by a legally-binding court order, where this is necessary to determine a suspect's guilt or involvement in a crime that is being investigated,

  4. requires that all collected genetic data distributed under Clauses 3a, 3b and 3c, or otherwise distributed with the free and informed consent of the sapient it was collected from, be distributed free of charge,

  5. mandates that member states:

    1. notify those testing entities physically present within their jurisdiction who refuse to comply with the provisions of Clauses 2, 3, and 4 about how to mitigate their failure to comply with such provisions, and

    2. punish said testing entities if, after receiving a notice under Clause 5a, they remain non-compliant with any of the aforementioned provisions, and

  6. reminds members that the contents of a sapient's genome must not be used as grounds to discriminate against that sapient.

Co-authored with Tinhampton.


DRAFT 1:
Prohibition on the Sale of Genetic Data
Regulation | Consumer Protection

The General Assembly,

Aware that the genetic data of sapient beings spreads across the consumer market through commercially offered DNA tests;

Concerned that some entities like corporations or independent traders may treat the genetic data of consumers produced by these tests as a commodity to be bought and sold;

Convinced that through international cooperation between member states the purchase and sale of genetic data can be halted, and thus its integrity preserved;

Hereby,

  1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. 'commercial DNA test' as any sort of genetic test that is offered as a good or service, directly to consumers in the form of sapient beings, for recreational, non-medical purposes;

    2. 'commercial entity' as any entity that offers and distributes non-medical DNA tests as goods or services, directly to consumers, for recreational, non-medical purposes;

    3. 'third party' as any entity that is not the commercial entity, the laboratory conducting the DNA testing for the latter, or the consumer of commercial DNA tests;

  2. Prohibits commercial entities from sharing the genetic data that is produced by the commercial DNA tests that they offer to consumers with third parties, for monetary compensation or otherwise, without prior, explicit consent of the consumer in question;

  3. Clarifies that the prohibition under Clause 2 may be waived to the extent to which it obstructs judicial entities during criminal investigations, on the condition that those entities are in the possession of a legally valid court order, and substantive evidence of a suspect's guilt and/or involvement in the crime that is being investigated;

  4. Further clarifies that the prohibition under Clause 2 applies to the genetic data that is produced by recreational, non-medical genetic testing conducted on sapient beings, and does not pertain to non-sapient beings such as animals or pets, nor should it impede upon the processes of scientific research;

  5. Requires commercial entities offering commercial DNA tests to consumers to register with a database that is to be overseen and administrated by the WACC, and instructs the WACC with the following:

    1. Investigating any commercial entity around which signs and signals have emerged that they are non-compliant with the articles of this resolution;

    2. Issuing guidelines to those commercial entities that find themselves in a state of non-compliance with the articles of this resolution, on how to mitigate that state;

    3. Imposing sanctions and/or other punitive measures on non-compliant commercial entities, after earlier attempts at eliciting rectification have failed;

  6. Instructs member states to enact any rectifying or punitive actions that are imposed by the WACC unilaterally, on any commercial entity, that remains in a state of non-compliance.
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Mon May 10, 2021 11:32 am, edited 4 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8228
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon May 03, 2021 10:36 am

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: I am pleased to have worked together with Maria vyn Nysen, my colleague from Daarwyrth, on this second draft that satisfies many of our delegation's concerns, and should continue to allay the well-documented fears of others as well. We will further our co-operation on this proposal as and when feedback comes in.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading 21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1215
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sat May 08, 2021 4:46 am

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: I am pleased to have worked together with Maria vyn Nysen, my colleague from Daarwyrth, on this second draft that satisfies many of our delegation's concerns, and should continue to allay the well-documented fears of others as well. We will further our co-operation on this proposal as and when feedback comes in.

Vyn Nysen: "It has indeed been a pleasure to work together with my esteemed colleague Alexander Smith, the Delegate-Ambassador of Tinhampton, to improve upon the ideas and intents of "Regulation on the Integrity of Genetic Data", and reforge it into something that addresses the flaws and concerns expressed during the vote in the General Assembly. We'd be more than glad to take any feedback that still arises in light of the redrafted version of the proposal, and work with our dear colleagues from Tinhampton's delegation to implement them into the resolution proposal."
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Junitaki-cho
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 64
Founded: Sep 21, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Junitaki-cho » Sat May 08, 2021 6:43 pm

A few thoughts:

- Your definition of "sapient in 1(a) is tautological and generally a bit silly.
- I'm not sure the other definitions gain anything from using the term "recreational." Every word you include there opens up an opportunity for a loophole.
- Be mindful that your definition of "testing entity" has become considerably broader, and may now encompass law enforcement entities doing forensic investigation. You'll need to look at the text through that lens and make sure you're not unduly hindering the ability of LEO to perform such analysis, possibly by adding "non-forensic" as a qualifier here and there.
- At the risk of being pedantic, there doesn't seem to be any provision in here preventing other entities, such as the laboratories, from further sharing that genetic data.
- Could you clarify what clause 4 is going for?
- One of the big missing components here is oversight. There's still no requirement for testing entities to identify themselves to either a national or international regulatory unit, meaning member states are wholly responsible for monitoring for applicable companies. I don't know if this should be overseen by the WA or left to national governments, that part is up to you, but I think you need a structure in place and a stronger disciplinary action than just "punish[ing]" non-compliant entities.
Refugia Councillor of World Assembly Affairs

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8228
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sat May 08, 2021 7:25 pm

Speaking in my capacity as co-author only.

Junitaki-cho wrote:- Your definition of "sapient["] in 1(a) is tautological and generally a bit silly.

I was thinking of bullet point 4 of Ara's post here when I suggested that.

Junitaki-cho wrote:- I'm not sure the other definitions gain anything from using the term "recreational." Every word you include there opens up an opportunity for a loophole.
- Be mindful that your definition of "testing entity" has become considerably broader, and may now encompass law enforcement entities doing forensic investigation. You'll need to look at the text through that lens and make sure you're not unduly hindering the ability of LEO to perform such analysis, possibly by adding "non-forensic" as a qualifier here and there.

I will likely suggest to Daarwyrth, the actual author of this proposal, that he replace references to "recreational" with references to "non-forensic."

Junitaki-cho wrote:- At the risk of being pedantic, there doesn't seem to be any provision in here preventing other entities, such as the laboratories, from further sharing that genetic data.

Again, I'll talk to Daarwyrth about that.

Junitaki-cho wrote:- Could you clarify what clause 4 is going for?

To ensure that the sale of genetic data is, in fact, prohibited. :P

Junitaki-cho wrote:- One of the big missing components here is oversight. There's still no requirement for testing entities to identify themselves to either a national or international regulatory unit, meaning member states are wholly responsible for monitoring for applicable companies. I don't know if this should be overseen by the WA or left to national governments, that part is up to you, but I think you need a structure in place and a stronger disciplinary action than just "punish[ing]" non-compliant entities.

Had Daarwyrth rejected Article 5 of my original draft (i.e. of the current draft :P), I would have suggested that a national registry of testing entities - rather than an international WAGDOA-style registry - be set up as a compromise. Yet again, I'll bring that compromise up with Daarwyrth.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading 21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10403
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun May 09, 2021 4:42 am

Please excise the word "sapient" from your proposal and use "individual" or "natural person" instead.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1215
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sun May 09, 2021 6:45 am

Junitaki-cho wrote:A few thoughts:

- Your definition of "sapient in 1(a) is tautological and generally a bit silly.
- I'm not sure the other definitions gain anything from using the term "recreational." Every word you include there opens up an opportunity for a loophole.
- Be mindful that your definition of "testing entity" has become considerably broader, and may now encompass law enforcement entities doing forensic investigation. You'll need to look at the text through that lens and make sure you're not unduly hindering the ability of LEO to perform such analysis, possibly by adding "non-forensic" as a qualifier here and there.
- At the risk of being pedantic, there doesn't seem to be any provision in here preventing other entities, such as the laboratories, from further sharing that genetic data.
- Could you clarify what clause 4 is going for?
- One of the big missing components here is oversight. There's still no requirement for testing entities to identify themselves to either a national or international regulatory unit, meaning member states are wholly responsible for monitoring for applicable companies. I don't know if this should be overseen by the WA or left to national governments, that part is up to you, but I think you need a structure in place and a stronger disciplinary action than just "punish[ing]" non-compliant entities.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Please excise the word "sapient" from your proposal and use "individual" or "natural person" instead.

Vyn Nysen: "In close consultation with our colleagues from the Tinhamptonian delegation, we have worked your commentary and feedback into the newest draft version of the proposal. We would love to hear what you think of the changes and amendments."
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Junitaki-cho
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 64
Founded: Sep 21, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Junitaki-cho » Sun May 09, 2021 10:39 am

Definitely looking better. I still think 6(c) should be more specific than "punish" so more lax member governments can't issue a fine and look the other way, but otherwise I'm liking this more. I'll give it another look in a couple days.

3. forbids the distribution of collected genetic data by the testing entity or any other involved entity, that has collected it to any individual (or any other entity) for any reason without that individual's free and informed consent, except:


Also, it's just occurred to me that this is written such that it forbids distributing genetic data to third parties unless those third parties consent, or at least it can be credibly read that way. It needs clearer language that specifies it's the client's decision.
Refugia Councillor of World Assembly Affairs

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 556
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sun May 09, 2021 12:40 pm

Junitaki-cho wrote:Definitely looking better. I still think 6(c) should be more specific than "punish" so more lax member governments can't issue a fine and look the other way, but otherwise I'm liking this more. I'll give it another look in a couple days.

OOC: Even if 6c wasn't there, member nations would have to make non-compliance expensive enough for legal individuals within their jurisdiction so that it is clear the government is doing its best trying to make everyone comply with WA laws because these laws don't just apply to member governments but also natural and legal individuals within their jurisdiction. You know, good faith and all that.
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1215
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sun May 09, 2021 12:53 pm

Ardiveds wrote:
Junitaki-cho wrote:Definitely looking better. I still think 6(c) should be more specific than "punish" so more lax member governments can't issue a fine and look the other way, but otherwise I'm liking this more. I'll give it another look in a couple days.

OOC: Even if 6c wasn't there, member nations would have to make non-compliance expensive enough for legal individuals within their jurisdiction so that it is clear the government is doing its best trying to make everyone comply with WA laws because these laws don't just apply to member governments but also natural and legal individuals within their jurisdiction. You know, good faith and all that.

OOC: I was thinking along the same lines. It's a little like the conversations about how WA compliance fines and such would look like for member nations. The fines wouldn't be just a slap on the wrist, they'd be significant enough to entice compliance. So, I am somewhat hesitant to try to create greater punishments, when the WA already metes out heavy punishment (from my perspective).
Junitaki-cho wrote:Definitely looking better. I still think 6(c) should be more specific than "punish" so more lax member governments can't issue a fine and look the other way, but otherwise I'm liking this more. I'll give it another look in a couple days.

3. forbids the distribution of collected genetic data by the testing entity or any other involved entity, that has collected it to any individual (or any other entity) for any reason without that individual's free and informed consent, except:


Also, it's just occurred to me that this is written such that it forbids distributing genetic data to third parties unless those third parties consent, or at least it can be credibly read that way. It needs clearer language that specifies it's the client's decision.

OOC: I admit I am not sure whether I see the same thing. The Clause specifically refers to 'individual', so unless the individual gives their consent, the data can't be distributed. Could you perhaps elaborate a little? Perhaps I'll see what you mean then :)
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Sun May 09, 2021 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Junitaki-cho
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 64
Founded: Sep 21, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Junitaki-cho » Sun May 09, 2021 3:53 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:OOC: I admit I am not sure whether I see the same thing. The Clause specifically refers to 'individual', so unless the individual gives their consent, the data can't be distributed. Could you perhaps elaborate a little? Perhaps I'll see what you mean then :)

You use "individual" in two different non-distinct ways in that clause: the second time it refers to the individual from whom the genetic data was collected, but the first time it's in reference to third party persons who should not be permitted access. Because the term is the same, it's unclear that you're changing subjects midway and so seems to pertain entirely to those third parties.
Refugia Councillor of World Assembly Affairs

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1215
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sun May 09, 2021 4:28 pm

Junitaki-cho wrote:
Daarwyrth wrote:OOC: I admit I am not sure whether I see the same thing. The Clause specifically refers to 'individual', so unless the individual gives their consent, the data can't be distributed. Could you perhaps elaborate a little? Perhaps I'll see what you mean then :)

You use "individual" in two different non-distinct ways in that clause: the second time it refers to the individual from whom the genetic data was collected, but the first time it's in reference to third party persons who should not be permitted access. Because the term is the same, it's unclear that you're changing subjects midway and so seems to pertain entirely to those third parties.

OOC: The first 'individual' refers to any individual, it doesn't refer to the testing entities mentioned earlier. It states that the testing entities can't distribute any genetic data to individuals or entities, without an individual's consent for it to be distributed. I'm trying to see what you're saying in the text, but I feel I'm coming up short. I'll confer with Tinhampton on this and perhaps that'll make the coin drop for me :)

EDIT: I have changed the sentence structure the tiniest bit in Clause 3, does that remedy the issue?
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Sun May 09, 2021 4:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1215
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Mon May 10, 2021 11:34 am

Junitaki-cho wrote:
Daarwyrth wrote:OOC: I admit I am not sure whether I see the same thing. The Clause specifically refers to 'individual', so unless the individual gives their consent, the data can't be distributed. Could you perhaps elaborate a little? Perhaps I'll see what you mean then :)

You use "individual" in two different non-distinct ways in that clause: the second time it refers to the individual from whom the genetic data was collected, but the first time it's in reference to third party persons who should not be permitted access. Because the term is the same, it's unclear that you're changing subjects midway and so seems to pertain entirely to those third parties.

OOC: Tinhampton devised a new approach to Clause 3, which I implemented into the current draft! Does it address the concern you had about the wording? :)
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech



Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Desmosthenes and Burke, Godular

Advertisement

Remove ads