[DRAFT #2] International Electric Standards Act

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

This is Draft 2 (a reversion from draft 2.5). In accordance with recent feedback, and in comparison with draft 2.5, the IESC is now no longer explicitly a professional organization. As always, all feedback is welcome!

Title: International Electric Standards Act
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Noting that technologies utilizing an electric current as an integral part of their operation are widely used by most member nations,

Concerned by the dearth of international standards concerning electric currents and the plugs and sockets which convey them,

Annoyed by the frequent need to bring travel adapters while traveling abroad, due to incompatible power plugs and/or sockets between different nations,

Worried at the potential of some technologies to be rendered unusable or unsafe in different nations, due to varying national standards concerning electrical currents and equipment, and of the ability of nations to engage in protectionism by intentionally setting those standards in a manner which discourages electrical equipment, technology, and other manufacturers from elsewhere from participating in their domestic market(s),

Alarmed by the fact that rapid changes in standards concerning electrical currents can suddenly leave essential technologies, and the facilities which rely on them, such as hospitals, biological laboratories, and governmental agencies, practically useless and/or dangerous,

Wishing to rectify this tourist, trade, and technologically unfriendly situation, and to avoid any apocalyptic scenarios,

Establishes the International Electrical Standards Commission (IESC) as an organ of the WA Scientific Program, and tasks it with the following:

1. developing uniform standards for electrical equipment (wires and wiring, resistors, motors, plugs and sockets, circuit breakers, etc.), taking into account how the standards relate to one another, including, but not limited to:


a. their purposes (residential, commercial, industrial, medical, etc.)

b. their maximum and minimum measures and types of current to be handled (amperage, voltage, wattage, alternating or direct, frequency, etc.),

c. the materials which they are composed of, in what quantities, and how the material(s) is/are arranged (i.e. their design), and

d. the manner in which equipment is colored to distinguish it from other equipment,
2. developing uniform standards for electrical current(s) (in the way of the maximum and minimum measures and types of current mentioned above), given certain electrical equipment and the standards with which it complies, and

3. annually conducting and publishing research into whether or not the any of the above standards should be adjusted, and whether or not a new standards or standards should be created, given an ever-changing technological landscape, and acting accordingly, and

Strongly Encourages all member nations and industries to adopt the standards set forth by the IESC, doing so as quickly as possible, and in the manner(s) they find most effective.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Previous Drafts:

Title: International Electric Standards Act
Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Safety

The World Assembly,

Noting that technologies utilizing an electric current as an integral part of their operation are widely used by most member nations,

Concerned by the dearth of international standards concerning electric currents and the plugs and sockets which convey them,

Annoyed by the frequent need to bring travel adapters while traveling abroad, due to incompatible power plugs and/or sockets between different nations,

Worried at the potential of some technologies to be rendered unusable or unsafe in different countries, due to varying national standards concerning electrical currents,

Alarmed by the fact that rapid changes in standards concerning electrical currents can suddenly leave essential technologies, and the facilities which rely on them, such as hospitals, biological laboratories, and governmental agencies, practically useless and/or dangerous,

Wishing to rectify this tourist and technologically unfriendly situation, and to avoid any apocalyptic scenarios,

Establishes the International Electrical Standards Commission (IESC) as an organ of the WA Scientific Program, and tasks it with the following:

1. developing uniform standards for electrical equipment (wires and wiring, resistors, motors, plugs and sockets, circuit breakers, etc.), taking into account how the standards relate to one another, including, but not limited to:


a. their purposes (residential, commercial, industrial, medical, etc.)

b. their maximum and minimum measures and types of current to be handled (amperage, voltage, wattage, alternating or direct, frequency, etc.),

c. the materials which they are composed of, in what quantities, and how the material(s) is/are arranged (i.e. their design), and

d. the manner in which equipment is colored to distinguish it from other equipment,
2. developing uniform standards for electrical current(s) (in the way of the maximum and minimum measures and types of current mentioned above), given certain electrical equipment and the standards with which it complies, and

3. annually conducting and publishing research into whether or not the any of the above standards should be adjusted, and whether or not a new standards or standards should be created, given an ever-changing technological landscape, and acting accordingly,

Requires that all member nations enforce the standards set forth by the IESC, doing so in the manner they find most effective, and

1. member nations may:


a. impose additional standards on electrical equipment and current(s), so long as they do not conflict with those set forth by the IESC, and

b. impose additional restrictions and/or prohibitions on electrical equipment and current(s),
2. member nations which do not enforce the IESC’s standards without confliction shall be fined in proportion with the estimated negative economic impact of their failure(s) of enforcement, unless it is due to a genuine lack of administrative capabilities, in which case:


a. the IESC shall provide funding to the member nation(s) in question equivalent to the cost of them developing these administrative capabilities within a reasonable period of time,

b. and once the member nation(s) in question do(es) so, they shall immediately begin enforcement of IESC standards, subject to the penalties stated above.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Opposed unless you can somehow hard code the proper type of plug and socket into the standards.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Does clause 2 do what your last draft did, that is forcing all the member nations to have a uniform grid?

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

OOC: Does clause 2 do what your last draft did, that is forcing all the member nations to have a uniform grid?

Neither draft does that. The previous draft established a commission to set standards for grids, with an emphasis on reliability (think of the NERC), and did not establish a uniform grid or grid operator. This draft establishes a commission to set standards for electrical equipment and currents, similar to the IEEE SA, but with actual enforcement powers. As such, grids' equipment, among other electrical equipment, would be subject to the standards set forth by that commission, but does not impact grids in any other way (no grid design/construction, reliability, rates, etc. regulations/standards).

OOC: Opposed unless you can somehow hard code the proper type of plug and socket into the standards.

Like they always say, toddlers never get electrocuted in the British Empire! Though directly referencing the plug/socket would be meta-gaming, and delineating the standard in the proposal would be cumbersome... let's just hope that the IESC likes children!

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Opposed unless you can somehow hard code the proper type of plug and socket into the standards.

Like they always say, toddlers never get electrocuted in the British Empire! Though directly referencing the plug/socket would be meta-gaming, and delineating the standard in the proposal would be cumbersome... let's just hope that the IESC likes children!

OOC: I wasn't being particularly serious there but it does demonstrate the point that IRL there are a multitude of different standards. One could assume it's the same here. Changing out every single plug and socket in every member nation would be prohibitively expensive. Individuals and governments have far better things to be spending their money on.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

OOC: I wasn't being particularly serious there but it does demonstrate the point that IRL there are a multitude of different standards. One could assume it's the same here. Changing out every single plug and socket in every member nation would be prohibitively expensive. Individuals and governments have far better things to be spending their money on.

I see your point. However, I believe the ROI that would come standardization (equipment manufacturers not needing to have multiple assembly lines for different nations, tech spreading faster, etc.) would, in the long run, greatly outweigh the initial cost of changing out equipment already "in the wild". How about funding the replacement of old equipment with a trust fund, paid into by a tax on the sale of electrical equipment and fines from violating member nations, and having a transition period for standards to be implemented?

[Araraukar]

OOC: What's the point of this? Like, the international function? The bit about tourists needing transformers is kinda pointless because most things you plug in, need that. Electricity is transferred as alternating current to reduce loss, but electronics require non-alternating current to work, and the voltage and amperage also require changing to not fry the machines. So you're not really doing anything but forcing a single standard on everyone at astronomical cost, no savings or safety is gained.

(As for the British plug thing, which video was educational, thanks, the more regular round versions used at least here (USA too?) often have similar safety features, though that's possibly a new thing, from 2000's. Slightly different mechanism but same effect. They don't land spikes upwards though. )

[Bears Armed]

How about funding the replacement of old equipment with a trust fund, paid into by a tax on the sale of electrical equipment and fines from violating member nations, and having a transition period for standards to be implemented?

OOC: The WA is barred, by GAR#17, from either imposing taxes inside member nations or interfering with the details of member nations' internal taxation.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

OOC: What's the point of this? Like, the international function? The bit about tourists needing transformers is kinda pointless because most things you plug in, need that. Electricity is transferred as alternating current to reduce loss, but electronics require non-alternating current to work, and the voltage and amperage also require changing to not fry the machines. So you're not really doing anything but forcing a single standard on everyone at astronomical cost, no savings or safety is gained.

(As for the British plug thing, which video was educational, thanks, the more regular round versions used at least here (USA too?) often have similar safety features, though that's possibly a new thing, from 2000's. Slightly different mechanism but same effect. They don't land spikes upwards though. )

OOC: The WA is barred, by GAR#17, from either imposing taxes inside member nations or interfering with the details of member nations' internal taxation.

I see what you guys are saying. How about changing the proposal's category to free trade and setting the strength to mild, along with making all standards set by the IESC voluntary, but encouraging member nations and industry to implement them? After all, differing standards are a barrier to free trade to an extent, making it harder for a manufacturer in one nation to sell their equipment in another.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: What's the point of this? Like, the international function? The bit about tourists needing transformers is kinda pointless because most things you plug in, need that. Electricity is transferred as alternating current to reduce loss, but electronics require non-alternating current to work, and the voltage and amperage also require changing to not fry the machines. So you're not really doing anything but forcing a single standard on everyone at astronomical cost, no savings or safety is gained.

(As for the British plug thing, which video was educational, thanks, the more regular round versions used at least here (USA too?) often have similar safety features, though that's possibly a new thing, from 2000's. Slightly different mechanism but same effect. They don't land spikes upwards though. )

OOC: The WA is barred, by GAR#17, from either imposing taxes inside member nations or interfering with the details of member nations' internal taxation.

I see what you guys are saying. How about changing the proposal's category to free trade and setting the strength to mild, along with making all standards set by the IESC voluntary, but encouraging member nations and industry to implement them? After all, differing standards are a barrier to free trade to an extent, making it harder for a manufacturer in one nation to sell their equipment in another.

OOC: That looks good to me.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Draft 2 is up now. Thank you all for your feedback thus far, especially from Bears Armed and Bananaistan! The draft is really starting to look good now, but if any of you have any other suggestions, please post them.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Bump.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I dislike proposals that are "committee committee committee, member nations please consider doing what committee says". It's a legal format for Mild strength, but they still feel so pointless. In IC objecting to such proposals makes even more sense, because the committee actions are going to be paid for by ALL member nations via General Fund, yet if nothing needs to happen, then the committee's effort and money used is essentially wasted.

I continue to ask what the point of this is?

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

OOC: I dislike proposals that are "committee committee committee, member nations please consider doing what committee says". It's a legal format for Mild strength, but they still feel so pointless. In IC objecting to such proposals makes even more sense, because the committee actions are going to be paid for by ALL member nations via General Fund, yet if nothing needs to happen, then the committee's effort and money used is essentially wasted.

I continue to ask what the point of this is?

The point would be to create uniform standards in order to make trade involving electrical materials and electronics easier. As for your concern about funding, I think I took care of that in draft 2.5, as the IESC will now be a professional organization, funded by fees charged on members.

[Tinhampton]

You (general you, not just CHS) cannot define any aspect of committee membership in your proposal.

Where is Draft 2.5 or have I just read the title incorrectly?

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

It's up right now, but a valid point! Besides that, what do you think of the proposal?

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Why the fees? I thought WA committees are finded by the WA itself which is ultimately also taken from members only.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

OOC: Why the fees? I thought WA committees are finded by the WA itself which is ultimately also taken from members only.

In draft 2.5 of the proposal, the fees were to be imposed on the professionals (engineers and scientists, and the like) that were members of the IESC (as it would be a professional organization). However, in response to recent feedback, and to maintain legality, I this will no longer be explicitly mentioned in the proposal (a reversal to draft 2).

[Araraukar]

The point would be to create uniform standards in order to make trade involving electrical materials and electronics easier.

OOC: Maybe have a look at how RL deals with it currently? Manufacturers make their electronics that are exported, to fit the electric systems of the receiving nation, where they are to be sold. Or they add transformers (for fine electronics like smartphones) that fit the target nation's systems. If you think about it, in RL we're at least confined to a single planet, but in WA there's multiple planets, multiple universes, even, and you'd be wanting the same system to work both for self-contained space habitats powered by fusion reactors, as well as Victorian Era past tech nations who have just figured out that you might want to have some insulation on the electric wire. I know you just recommend rather than mandate, but that, again, brings up the "then what's the point?" issue.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: If you think about it, in RL we're at least confined to a single planet, but in WA there's multiple planets, multiple universes, even, and you'd be wanting the same system to work both for self-contained space habitats powered by fusion reactors, as well as Victorian Era past tech nations who have just figured out that you might want to have some insulation on the electric wire. I know you just recommend rather than mandate, but that, again, brings up the "then what's the point?" issue.

OOC: Pre-GenSec Modly opinion was that authors could reasonably presume a majority of member nations to be 'Modern-Tech' & on [an] Earth.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Pre-GenSec Modly opinion was that authors could reasonably presume a majority of member nations to be 'Modern-Tech' & on [an] Earth.

OOC: I never said they couldn't? (Pretend this is an Araraukar post.) Just pointing out that from RL modern-tech Earth's POV the issue is a no-go (given the current system works, where the manufacturers sort out the electric system based on where they intent to market their things), and from IC roleplay POV the issue is much more complex.

Watching Eurovision 2021 (and simply blown away by the positive feminism), so if the above makes no sense, my apologies, but NS is not getting my full attention currently.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This sort of does nothing. What's the point of a committee going off making a pile of standards that nobody's going to pay a blind bit of attention to?

If enforcing universal standards on everyone doesn't make sense, then drawing up universal standards doesn't make sense.