NationStates

"My delegation happily presents this idea to the World Assembly. We are unsure as to whether or not this will garner your support, but we hope you will at least consider the idea."

International Broadcasting Consortium

Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Free Press

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the need for international jurisdiction in order to regulate, and keep pace with the dramatic changes occurring in the telecommunications sphere,

Noticing that while such a body exists for transmissions on the radio spectrum, telecommunications are not yet in the World Assembly’s remit,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. In this resolution, the subsequent terms are defined as follows:
   
   1. “Broadcaster” refers to any company, independent organization, or group, who sends out an audiovisual signal for consumption in member states.
   2. “Broadcasting regulatory authority” refers to a state-sanctioned or private body which has legal authority to enforce standards relating to telecommunications.
   3. “Standards” refers to legal norms or rules which govern an area or which limit the prerogative of an actor to act independently to determine their own legal norms or rules in an area.
   4. "Modality" refers to the form of a telecommunications signal.
2. Member states with the requisite technology are required to create a broadcasting regulatory authority with powers over: spectrum or frequency allocations, content regulation such as the establishment of safe harbor periods, television advertising and sponsorship regulation, the creation of emergency broadcast systems or other similar means of notifying the public of dangerous situations, minority language programming, the creation and regulation of the modality of broadcast signals, and appropriate broadcasted content standards.
   
3. The International Broadcasting Consortium, hereafter referred to as the IBC, is hereby created and shall have powers over the following broader policy areas relating to telecommunications.
   
   1. The mitigation, or resolution, of disputes between broadcasters, or prospective broadcasters, in member states.
   2. The guaranteeing of political impartiality in the frequency allocation, broadcasting license, and content moderation processes by member states.
   3. The formulation, and promulgation to member states, of emergency broadcasting standards.
4. The IBC shall also have the power to craft and disseminate suggest standards over the following subjects in the telecommunications policy remit:
   
   1. The creation of international standards regarding broadcasts in minority languages, such as duration, content, and if applicable, settlement of disputes over the quantity, quality, or frequency of minority language broadcasts.
   2. The regulation of the modality of broadcast signals.
   3. Content standards, including the creation of safe harbor times.
5. Nothing in this resolution requires a member state to begin, or halt, the transmission of a telecommunications signal.

Hulldom wrote:The NOT IC Intro

<3

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Firstly, how will Article 2 affect the possibility and scope of future World Assembly legislation on "advertisement... regulation?" And secondly, why should member states - never mind an International Broadcasting Consortium - seek to take control over the "content moderation processes" of social media websites?

"This is an unwanted novel extension of international authority.

"Member states are well capable of dealing with all this themselves. Perhaps the only area worthy of the WA's attention would be some sort of dispute resolution mechanism relating to signal overspill between neighbouring member states.

"We certainly don't need the WA setting the appropriate time for the watershed, if that's what "safe harbor periods" refer to."

Bananaistan wrote:"This is an unwanted novel extension of international authority.

"Member states are well capable of dealing with all this themselves. Perhaps the only area worthy of the WA's attention would be some sort of dispute resolution mechanism relating to signal overspill between neighbouring member states.

"We certainly don't need the WA setting the appropriate time for the watershed, if that's what "safe harbor periods" refer to."

“More guidelines for what can and can’t be shown, as broad as possible, sir. None of us want to sully young eyes with horrible images. But duly noted in terms of the dispute resolution mechanism.”

Hulldom wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:"This is an unwanted novel extension of international authority.

"Member states are well capable of dealing with all this themselves. Perhaps the only area worthy of the WA's attention would be some sort of dispute resolution mechanism relating to signal overspill between neighbouring member states.

"We certainly don't need the WA setting the appropriate time for the watershed, if that's what "safe harbor periods" refer to."

“More guidelines for what can and can’t be shown, as broad as possible, sir. None of us want to sully young eyes with horrible images. But duly noted in terms of the dispute resolution mechanism.”

"Not one person in Bananaistan cares what's shown on TV to children in other countries. This is entirely culture and nation dependent and absolutely does not require a one size fits nobody policy."

Tinhampton wrote:

Hulldom wrote:The NOT IC Intro

<3

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Firstly, how will Article 2 affect the possibility and scope of future World Assembly legislation on "advertisement... regulation?" And secondly, why should member states - never mind an International Broadcasting Consortium - seek to take control over the "content moderation processes" of social media websites?

“Okay have not formulated an opinion on your first point and will ponder it with our fine legal minds in the Hulldomian delegation. As for social media websites, If I need to make it clear I can, but this resolution only is meant to cover telecommunications, not internet regulations.”

“Hulldom is not renowned as a place of loons so I don’t believe any of us need worry about social media content internationally. His Eminence the Prime Minister is unlikely to go spouting off on the Twitter about ‘fire and fury’ as some leaders in the RealLife game have taken to doing.”

OOC: It's an interesting idea. I guess I'm just wondering why the WA should get involved in this. What's causing the "need for international jurisdiction"? To be clear, I'm not opposed; just want to understand it a little more.

Pland Adanna wrote:OOC: It's an interesting idea. I guess I'm just wondering why the WA should get involved in this. What's causing the "need for international jurisdiction"? To be clear, I'm not opposed; just want to understand it a little more.

OOC: because people in here want to turn the GA into the ISO.

Pland Adanna wrote:OOC: It's an interesting idea. I guess I'm just wondering why the WA should get involved in this. What's causing the "need for international jurisdiction"? To be clear, I'm not opposed; just want to understand it a little more.

I think it’s a novel extension of the WA’s powers and I’m a tad surprised, when I was researching this, that there was nothing to model it on-simply a 12 year old guide on regulatory law put out by UNESCO. The closest thing would be OFCOM and the FCC. In terms of a pressing need, I think, as a personal note, that regulatory harmony is something we should strive for and I think this could help us achieve it—both IC and OOC if it were ever created.

It’s no secret I’m not a Nat Sov guy, I’ve never been. While there are some times I’ve been put into that position as a result of poor argumentation, my IC orientation, as it is OOC, is fairly hardline (perhaps more so IC) in the realm of international federalism. When we can formulate novel, even if not pressing, ways to further integrate our nations in ways that are not actively harmful, I see no reason to not do it. This is an example of that.

Opposed. Nations are perfectly capable of resolving disputes and whatnot themselves. They don't need the WA for this, and the WA doesn't need to get involved in this either.

OOC: Depending on the rest of GenSec's opinion, this might be illegal under the rules on WA committees because it specifies the proposed IBC's membership.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: Depending on the rest of GenSec's opinion, this might be illegal under the rules on WA committees because it specifies the proposed IBC's membership.

Banana mentioned as much in the WA Discord. That’s going to be in the next round of edits.

Bump.

OOC: It isn't a "Consortium" within the proper meaning of that term, especially now that the broadcasters' specific representation in its governance has [correctly, under the rules] been removed... "Commission", perhaps?

"Is there a particular reason why member states a required to set up a sprawling bureaucracy for issues that they might well not wish to deal with it at all or can be dealt with through legislation and/or standard civil servants?"

Bananaistan wrote:"Is there a particular reason why member states a required to set up a sprawling bureaucracy for issues that they might well not wish to deal with it at all or can be dealt with through legislation and/or standard civil servants?"

"Notwithstanding our Delegation's focus on international cooperation in any, if not all, matter, we believe that something like this simply harmonizes approaches in regulation for all member nations."

OOC: As mentioned earlier, I'm pursuing this because I think it's a novel idea we haven't necessarily seen looked at it in quite this way before. We can role-play a legislature, one dealing with weighty international issues, and pursue things that might not otherwise be possible. The mere fact of something we want to pursue's impossibility is not something, in my estimation, which should preclude us from attempting it. There are no consequences for failure beyond a bruised ego here.

Hulldom wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:"Is there a particular reason why member states a required to set up a sprawling bureaucracy for issues that they might well not wish to deal with it at all or can be dealt with through legislation and/or standard civil servants?"

"Notwithstanding our Delegation's focus on international cooperation in any, if not all, matter, we believe that something like this simply harmonizes approaches in regulation for all member nations."

OOC: As mentioned earlier, I'm pursuing this because I think it's a novel idea we haven't necessarily seen looked at it in quite this way before. We can role-play a legislature, one dealing with weighty international issues, and pursue things that might not otherwise be possible. The mere fact of something we want to pursue's impossibility is not something, in my estimation, which should preclude us from attempting it. There are no consequences for failure beyond a bruised ego here.

OOC: We're supposed to be an IC association of nations. No realistic government hands over power other than for a very good reason, such as benefiting trade. No realistic NS government hands over power for any reason beyond feel good liberal nonsense. This has neither feel good liberal nonsense nor any hard headed trade benefit. It is merely regulation for regulation's sake with no reason beyond this is something that the WA can do. I think you'll need a much stronger and less verbal diarrhoea justification if this is going to fly.

Bananaistan wrote:No realistic government hands over power for no good reason such as benefiting trade.

Is this for real? Or are you trying to say the opposite?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:No realistic government hands over power for no good reason such as benefiting trade.

Is this for real? Or are you trying to say the opposite?

The opposite. Benefiting trade is supposed to an example of a good reason.

(since this seems to be draft for putting it out informally) OOC:

*From a real world case scenario, The McBride Commission Report had a similar intentions but implementation required a form of inevitable subjugation for both the Global South and World Powers. The opening up of most Private Southern Economies just continued (in cases increasing) Asymmetrical Broadcast.
*Most Nations pursue Telecom Policies vastly different from each other with respect to matters of decentralization, commercialization, privatization and (now) digitization. The duties and functions of a Nation's Communications Departments (Ministry) and its Regulatory Authorities would clash with the aims of an International Regulation.
*What say does this Body have on Ad Policies and Revenue? Does it propose Nations to comply to changes on matters concerning Advertisement?
*What is this Body's position on the formation and proliferation of Global Media Conglomeration?

Bananaistan wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Is this for real? Or are you trying to say the opposite?

The opposite. Benefiting trade is supposed to an example of a good reason.

I think there's an argument to be made, I have no idea how much water it holds (I'm not an expert in anything really, especially not the parts needed for transmission of a television signal) that 3(b) could stop disputes between two member states in the event that a broadcaster in one member state chooses to try to operate in another-especially in an over the air setting, thus eliminating a potential avenue of dispute for allocation of those signals. (France 24, for instance, broadcasts over the air in the US in certain markets-sorry you'll have to click some buttons, there's no way to get the exact link showing it I don't think.) Additionally, the possibility of suggested guidelines in 4(b) for the modality of signals could simplify the process of telecom equipment creation, maintenance, and repair (given that states could be recommended, say, digital signals over analog or vice versa. Additionally, the IBC could also work to create standards for 4K broadcasting).

Bump. I think the main justification here, as I noted, is just the opportunity to try something new. However, surely it would be more efficient in any case to have a mediating body in the telecoms industry to settle interstate disputes, no?

OOC: Don't articles 3b, 3c and 4b overlap somewhat with the remit of the International Radiocommunications Authority under resolution 532?

Hulldom wrote:Bump. I think the main justification here, as I noted, is just the opportunity to try something new. However, surely it would be more efficient in any case to have a mediating body in the telecoms industry to settle interstate disputes, no?

Except for the fact that such a high proportion of the states out there are not WA members and thus would be outside this body's jurisdiction...
And, indeed, wouldn't the existence of this body hinder member nation's attempts at negotiating arrangements about such matters with their non-WA neighbours?

Bears Armed wrote:

Hulldom wrote:Bump. I think the main justification here, as I noted, is just the opportunity to try something new. However, surely it would be more efficient in any case to have a mediating body in the telecoms industry to settle interstate disputes, no?

Except for the fact that such a high proportion of the states out there are not WA members and thus would be outside this body's jurisdiction...
And, indeed, wouldn't the existence of this body hinder member nation's attempts at negotiating arrangements about such matters with their non-WA neighbours?

The problem with any attempt at international arbitration bodies made by this body is going to be that. I can reword it to only deal with arbitration/dispute settlement between member states though (which I'm rather surprised I didn't anyways).

Merni wrote:OOC: Don't articles 3b, 3c and 4b overlap somewhat with the remit of the International Radiocommunications Authority under resolution 532?

At a glance, I think I could understand where one got that impression, but I don't think so, no. 3b says nothing about actually allocating parts of the spectrum, merely that they'll guarantee the political impartiality of the allocation process (so the IBC wouldn't actually be doing the allocating). I see nothing regarding emergency broadcasting at all, much less talking about standards for that like in 3c. 4b I can maybe see, but that being said, I think the distinction in what's actually meant (in this case--analog v. digital) that I think it's a non-problem.