[Passed] - Identity documents issuance

[Goobergunchia]

Update

Draft 6 is the new draft; draft 4 involved a significant re-writing and incorporating portions of a draft from IA, and IA is now credited as a co-author. Draft 5 was also a re-write but Draft 6 was done to comply with the Gensec ruling. (That one primarily involved inserting clause 3(b)).

Purpose of the law

1. The purpose is making it more convenient for domestic transactions (such as cashing cheques or borrowing payday loans etc., or when receiving welfare). As the poor usually are the least able to afford ID fees, this is an indirect (if justified) form of relief for the poor."
   
2. There is no longer any mentioning of passports as I adopted IA's wording regarding "domestic affairs". There is also no longer a requirement for another WA state to recognize another state's IDs, other than for WA agencies itself.
   
3. IDs are in plural as some countries require multiple IDs (Japan for example). Some countries require an address, some countries do not. Definition 3(c) is meant to give examples - so if your asexual blob in Uranus does not have an address because it's just a large rock anyway, you don't need "address".
   
4. There is a clause that says a WA state may not deny issuance of ID on the grounds that certain matters concerning the individual are unknown due to reasonable circumstances. This is due to a discussion over missing birth certificates on WA discord - not an Obama joke but actually quite important for anyone born into war or turmoil or as an orphan.
   
5. The preamble also summarizes the point that (1) it should not cost money for someone to acquire the documentation necessary simply to prove who they are, and that (2) many governments make payments contingent on the proof of eligibility of the recipient, which is contingent on that recipient’s proof of identity and so it happens to be the most vulnerable people who can't afford ID fees. (If ID fees are deemed a tax, then GA#17 would not apply anyone due to previous arguments on the discrimination sub-clause). Both of these points draw from IA.
   
6. I yanked the whole reference to the Passport Organization to avoid the issue on the GESTAPO name as well as the entire issue regarding compatibility between states.
   
7. Also this cleans up an issue regarding refugees not getting the correct papers by requiring that IDs be issued to anyone physically there and "inhabit" in that state, regardless of citizenship. It also catches any statelessness.

Submitted version

Category: civil rights/mild

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting that some WA states require the use of documents to identify individuals, in routine domestic transactions such as those with a government or with financial institutions (to decide on eligibility for payments, applying for bank accounts, cashing cheques, employment and other matters);

Concerned that such documents may require a fee for issuance, which disadvantages those least able to afford such fees, and impede their access to government payments and services that may require such documents;

1. Hereby defines:
   
   1. ”Inhabitant(s)” to mean anyone who is:
      
      1. physically in a WA state, and;
      2. who also meets at least one of the criteria below:
         
         1. a citizen of the WA state;
         2. a resident or long-term visitor of the WA state, permanently or temporarily, pursuant to the laws of that WA state;
         3. an applicant for asylum or refugee or protected status, or anyone holding such status;
         4. anyone who purports to be stateless; or
         5. anyone else entitled to IDs pursuant to that WA state’s laws;
   2. "IDs" to mean one or more documents stating an inhabitant’s identity such as, merely as examples, identity cards and household registrations, provided that:
      
      1. such IDs must contain such information routinely needed for an inhabitant to handle the domestic affairs of that WA state, such as, merely as examples, the following:
         
         1. the full legal name;
         2. date and place of birth;
         3. residency and/or citizenship status;
         4. full residential address;
         5. full likeness of the inhabitant;
      2. such IDs may be in physical, electronic or other forms depending on the technology levels of that WA state;
         
      3. the sole requirement for issuing such IDs is for anyone to meet the criteria of being an inhabitant of that WA state;
2. Hereby requires, subject to extant WA resolutions:
   
   1. A competent authority of a WA state is to provide IDs to all inhabitants of that WA state upon request by that inhabitant for free, as soon as reasonably practicable, and may not charge any fee(s) for:
      
      1. applying for;
      2. verifying;
      3. processing;
      4. issuing;
      5. replacing such IDs, including those lost, stolen or damaged; or
      6. delivery of such IDs;
   2. IDs may be issued by a competent authority at the national level of government of a WA state, or at sub-national levels, or delegated to any entit(ies) that the said WA state deems fit;
   3. IDs validly issued by a WA state must be deemed valid and sufficient for all domestic affairs of that WA state, where proof of identity is required, including (but not limited to) all governmental, financial or business affairs;
   4. A WA state may not deny issuing IDs to an inhabitant on the grounds that some information, such as, merely as examples, date of birth or place of birth, may not be verifiable due to circumstances beyond the reasonable control of that inhabitant;
   5. A WA state shall make it as convenient as reasonably practicable for an individual to obtain IDs, and without separately charging for such means, for individuals that may be disadvantaged for any reason, such as, merely as examples:
      
      1. lacking literacy and/or language skills;
      2. physical limitations;
      3. mental acuity and/or capacity, subject to clause 2(f);
   6. A legal parent and/or legal guardian may, voluntarily, apply for and receive IDs on behalf of an inhabitant below the age of majority or lacking the mental capacity and/or legal competence to make such an application;
   7. A WA state may not deny issuing IDs to an inhabitant of that WA state on the grounds of that inhabitant holding IDs from another WA state, or other similar instruments from a non-WA state;
   8. IDs validly issued by a WA state must be deemed valid and sufficient for identification purposes by all agencies and committees of the WA;
3. Hereby clarifies that this resolution does not interfere with a WA state's rights and qualifications, subject to extant WA resolutions, in:
   
   1. formulating its own citizenship and immigration policies;
   2. domestic affairs reserved as the prerogative of individual WA states;
   3. controlling its borders;
   4. issuing documents other than IDs, such as driving licenses;
   5. making it an offence for fraudulent applications and use of IDs (including fraudulent reporting of loss or stolen IDs), or imposing penalties for such offences if convicted.

Co-author: Imperium Anglorum

Char count: 4,480

[The Ice States]

"Section 3 should apply to the World Assembly in general, rather than only the committee established by GA #76."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the ice States.

[Simone Republic]

"Section 3 should apply to the World Assembly in general, rather than only the committee established by GA #76."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the ice States.

Don't think it's really necessary (because no other WA organ deals with this issue) but I changed it anyway just in case.

[Goobergunchia]

We are broadly supportive of the aims of the draft proposal but have a number of quibbles that we would like to see addressed.

First, a member nation may reasonably wish to prevent a certain citizen from traveling abroad (due to, say, said citizen awaiting trial). It should be possible for such a nation to refuse to grant such citizen a passport.

Second, it may be desirable to impose some kind of reasonable limitation on issuance of replacement passports in case somebody wishes to claim that they lose their passport every single day.

Third, as this draft proposal is currently written, it is not clear to us that member states would be able to deny issuance of any document classed by the first clause 1 as an "identity document" to any individual. As a driver's license is so classed, this would make it impossible for nations to condition driver licensing on demonstrated competence behind the wheel.

Again, we fully support requiring any member state that provides identity documents to some citizens to provide appropriate identity documents, without a fee, to all citizens. We are just concerned about potential unintended consequences.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Tinhampton]

Support in principle. But why is the "WA PO" specifically mentioned when it's only referred to in a context involving all WA agencies (including those not enumerated)?

[Simone Republic]

All answers in one go.

We are broadly supportive of the aims of the draft proposal but have a number of quibbles that we would like to see addressed.

First, a member nation may reasonably wish to prevent a certain citizen from traveling abroad (due to, say, said citizen awaiting trial). It should be possible for such a nation to refuse to grant such citizen a passport.

Many thanks for the comments.

I added to subclause (a) "the right to entry to, or exit from, the said member state, subject to due process, and;" - on the assumption that having a passport does not mean (1) mean an individual can legally leave, say if an individual is on trial and is out on bail (2) I mean obviously they can leave through non legal means.

Second, it may be desirable to impose some kind of reasonable limitation on issuance of replacement passports in case somebody wishes to claim that they lose their passport every single day.

Third, as this draft proposal is currently written, it is not clear to us that member states would be able to deny issuance of any document classed by the first clause 1 as an "identity document" to any individual. As a driver's license is so classed, this would make it impossible for nations to condition driver licensing on demonstrated competence behind the wheel.

Again, we fully support requiring any member state that provides identity documents to some citizens to provide appropriate identity documents, without a fee, to all citizens. We are just concerned about potential unintended consequences.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

I took out the words "driver's license". Forgot about the driving skills bit altogether when I drafted this even though I actually made this point myself earlier. Thanks for spotting that.

I kind of think that it would be pretty unusual (and likely to be due to fraudulent sales of passports) if someone claims that they lose their passport every day. They are probably going to get into enough trouble on their own without having us having to mention that explicitly.

Support in principle. But why is the "WA PO" specifically mentioned when it's only referred to in a context involving all WA agencies (including those not enumerated)?

I forgot to cut that bit because Magecastle suggested saying "all WA agencies" rather than just WA PO and I just edited that line out.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Just a couple of quick comments (need to head out the door soon): the fees specification could be shortened to "all expenses", and also in clause one "an individual as an applicant" could likely be shortened to "an applicant".

Also, I have a membership card for a grocery store chain. They use that to identify me as an individual. I don't think this should apply to private businesses. (Card replacement fee is only a few euros.)

[Simone Republic]

OOC: Just a couple of quick comments (need to head out the door soon): the fees specification could be shortened to "all expenses", and also in clause one "an individual as an applicant" could likely be shortened to "an applicant".

Also, I have a membership card for a grocery store chain. They use that to identify me as an individual. I don't think this should apply to private businesses. (Card replacement fee is only a few euros.)

Fixed. It now says "government" and has a definition of what constitutes a "government".

[Apatosaurus]

A member state's government may not charge a fee for applying, and for issuing, identity documents and passports, including for replacements for lost or stolen identity documents and passports;

Is this supposed to say "for" after "applying"? It is probably also worth changing "and" before "for issuing" to "or".

A member state's government is required make it as convenient as reasonable practicable for an individual to obtain identity documents and passports, based on the technological levels of the member state, including providing reasonably convenient means for individuals that may be disadvantaged for any physical and/or mental capacity reason(s);

Is "reasonable practicable" meant to read "reasonably practicable"?

Each member state is responsible for interpreting the requirements of this resolution within its own jurisdiction.

What policy goal is this provision intended to achieve?

[Simone Republic]

A member state's government may not charge a fee for applying, and for issuing, identity documents and passports, including for replacements for lost or stolen identity documents and passports;

Is this supposed to say "for" after "applying"? It is probably also worth changing "and" before "for issuing" to "or".

Amended

A member state's government is required make it as convenient as reasonable practicable for an individual to obtain identity documents and passports, based on the technological levels of the member state, including providing reasonably convenient means for individuals that may be disadvantaged for any physical and/or mental capacity reason(s); Is "reasonable practicable" meant to read "reasonably practicable"?

Amended

Each member state is responsible for interpreting the requirements of this resolution within its own jurisdiction.

What policy goal is this provision intended to achieve?[/quote]

It's now "In case of conflicting rulings between member states, the Independent Adjudicative Office". This is really meant to only cover dual citizenship cases (without explicitly mentioning that) as per GA#76.

(In character)

The Bear rolls out a fleet of nuclear-armed submarines, frigates, bombers and tanks upon seeing that dinosaur before realizing that the dinosaur over on the horizon is now on the same side, and makes sure the entire Simonian "Right to Bear Arms" army do not shoot unless the dinosaur starts to attack.

[Simone Republic]

First bump. Since this seems quite uncontroversial, if there are no particular comments this will probably hit the queue towards the end of May.

[Jeltronian WA Mission]

We acknowledge the intention of the author to promote the accessibility of important documents such as identity documents for the populace.

However, we cannot support removing from governments the discretion to levy fees for the processing (i.e. filing of applications) and production of all identity documents that are issued by them. Not all WA member-states have the same financial resources to make this sustainable. Unless it is the intention to have the WA subsidize this, (which we should not), then governments should have the leeway to determine if charging fees is appropriate in certain instances or not.

We are open to encouraging governments to waive fees or at least reduce the amount for qualifying indigent applicants. As such, we propose a rewording of the relevant substantive paragraph:

1.) A WA state's government are encouraged to waive fees for (i) applying, (ii) verifying, (iii) issuing and/or (iv) replacing, identity documents, including those lost, stolen and/or damaged beyond use, by applicants who qualify as indigents, or significantly reduce the amount of fees for such applicants, with a view to make said documents affordable for all citizens of the state.

Michel Badour
Permanent Representative

[Simone Republic]

We acknowledge the intention of the author to promote the accessibility of important documents such as identity documents for the populace.

However, we cannot support removing from governments the discretion to levy fees for the processing (i.e. filing of applications) and production of all identity documents that are issued by them. Not all WA member-states have the same financial resources to make this sustainable. Unless it is the intention to have the WA subsidize this, (which we should not), then governments should have the leeway to determine if charging fees is appropriate in certain instances or not.

We are open to encouraging governments to waive fees or at least reduce the amount for qualifying indigent applicants. As such, we propose a rewording of the relevant substantive paragraph:

1.) A WA state's government are encouraged to waive fees for (i) applying, (ii) verifying, (iii) issuing and/or (iv) replacing, identity documents, including those lost, stolen and/or damaged beyond use, by applicants who qualify as indigents, or significantly reduce the amount of fees for such applicants, with a view to make said documents affordable for all citizens of the state.

Michel Badour
Permanent Representative

This is a backdoor way to get voter ID laws in place due to the blocker in GA#579. I don't dismiss passports IRL are expensive to produce (and increasingly costly), say about US$100 each, I am open to take out the word "passport" and in favour of purely saying "identity documents" and fudge this point if there's a consensus.

[Araraukar]

OOC: What's the point of removing all fees entirely? Make the IDs "affordable" and then it's the member nation's headache to decide either nationally or on a case by case basis what counts as affordable.

If an individual cannot afford to get one, then it's obviously not affordable.

EDIT: Also, too early in the morning to bother to look up the wording for that blocker. Sorry.

[Simone Republic]

OOC: What's the point of removing all fees entirely? Make the IDs "affordable" and then it's the member nation's headache to decide either nationally or on a case by case basis what counts as affordable.

If an individual cannot afford to get one, then it's obviously not affordable.

EDIT: Also, too early in the morning to bother to look up the wording for that blocker. Sorry.

This is really influenced by the GA#579 clause 5 blocker, but the GA#579 clause 2d is also important.

Clause 2d:
No person shall be disallowed from casting a vote due to some immutable characteristic such as race, biological sex, gender, disability, or any other class which may be protected under national or international law.

Clause 5:
However, individual member states are reserved the right to set all further regulations pertaining to elections.

I am going absolutist in that IDs are free or else, because otherwise too many possibilities for wiggle room in terms of the cost of ID. Is US$10 affordable? US$100? US$300? (This is passport territory). US$1,000?

Also actually because I managed to pass GA#661, technically a case can be made that if a citizen does not pay the fee, that does not change the right for that person to vote. But if a government throws someone in jail for failing to pay a fee, it's going to have to rely on GA#661 and arguments over what constitutes "immutable" and whether anything "immutable" can be temporary or permanent.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Very nice. I'll send you portions of a draft I made with UM (years ago, in fact before he decided to fly off the rails,) that between procrastination and general UM-related drama will go nowhere; see Discord. If you find any text useful there you can use it.

[Simone Republic]

Draft 2 is below. Draft 3 is in working stage and will be revised soon.

Category: civil rights/mild

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting its efforts to ease international travel and identification through previous resolutions (GA#76, GA#386);

Noting that the issuance of identity documents and passports may attract a fee, which may be unaffordable to some individuals and thus discouraging travel between WA states, as well as the use of identity documents and passports within WA states (if a WA state requires their use for any purpose);

Hereby defines:

1. "Fees" to include all fees, expenses, and charges payable by an individual as an applicant for identity documents and passports;
   
2. "Government" to include all national and sub-national levels of government within a WA state;
   
3. Identity documents to include any document related to an individual's identity issued pursuant to the legislation(s) and/or regulation(s) of a WA state, including, as examples, identity cards, passports, birth certificates, household registration certificates, as well as military service records (if any), certificate(s) of criminal records (if any), and other records relevant to the identity of the said individual, and in physical, electronic or other forms depending on the technology levels of the WA state;
   
4. WA state means an individual member state of the WA;

Hereby requires:

1. A WA state's government may not charge a fee for (i) applying, (ii) verifying, (iii) issuing and/or (iv) replacing, identity documents, including those lost, stolen and/or damaged beyond use;
   
2. A WA state's government may not deny or impede any individual within its borders from being issued identity documents, regardless of whether that individual is a citizen of the WA state;
   
3. No committee of the WA may charge a fee for identity documents and passports issued to individuals belonging to a WA state;
   
4. A WA state's government is required make it as convenient as reasonably practicable for an individual to obtain identity documents, based on the technological levels of the WA state, including providing convenient means for individuals that may be disadvantaged for any physical and/or mental capacity reason(s);
   
5. Clarifies that this resolution does not interfere with a WA state's rights on:
   
   1. formulating its own citizenship and migration policies;
   2. affirming or denying the right to entry to, or exit from, the said WA state, subject to due process, and;
   3. making it an offence for fraudulent use of identity documents (including fraudulent reporting of loss or stolen identity documents);
   4. imposing any penalties for the offences as stated in the preceding clause;
6. In case of conflicting rulings between different WA states, the Independent Adjudicative Office shall adjudicate on matters of law.

[Jeltronian WA Mission]

We acknowledge the intention of the author to promote the accessibility of important documents such as identity documents for the populace.

However, we cannot support removing from governments the discretion to levy fees for the processing (i.e. filing of applications) and production of all identity documents that are issued by them. Not all WA member-states have the same financial resources to make this sustainable. Unless it is the intention to have the WA subsidize this, (which we should not), then governments should have the leeway to determine if charging fees is appropriate in certain instances or not.

We are open to encouraging governments to waive fees or at least reduce the amount for qualifying indigent applicants. As such, we propose a rewording of the relevant substantive paragraph:

1.) A WA state's government are encouraged to waive fees for (i) applying, (ii) verifying, (iii) issuing and/or (iv) replacing, identity documents, including those lost, stolen and/or damaged beyond use, by applicants who qualify as indigents, or significantly reduce the amount of fees for such applicants, with a view to make said documents affordable for all citizens of the state.

Michel Badour
Permanent Representative

This is a backdoor way to get voter ID laws in place due to the blocker in GA#579. I don't dismiss passports IRL are expensive to produce (and increasingly costly), say about US$100 each, I am open to take out the word "passport" and in favour of purely saying "identity documents" and fudge this point if there's a consensus.

Though we appreciate your consideration of distinguishing passports and treating them separately, our point still stands that this will be an expensive, if not unaffordable order on WA members. We maintain it would be better to make a distinction between individuals legitimately financially incapable of paying the minimum fees and those who can. Such a policy would still further the goal you contemplated, indirectly enforcing voter ID laws.

Second, we also have a question on clause 2.):

2.) A WA state's government may not deny or impede any individual physically within its borders from being issued ID documents, regardless of whether that individual is a citizen of the WA state;

This is somewhat qualified by clause 7.):

7.)Clarifies that this resolution does not interfere with a WA state's rights on:
a.formulating its own citizenship and migration policies;
b.affirming or denying the right to entry to, or exit from, the said WA state, subject to due process, and;
c.making it an offence for fraudulent use of ID documents (including fraudulent reporting of loss or stolen ID documents);
d.imposing any penalties for the offences as stated in the preceding sub-clause.

We understand that subclause 7.b was inserted to address, in part, an earlier observation that governments reasonably need the discretion to be abe to deny one of their citizens of travelling for security considerations, for example. Yet, clause 7 as worded, seemingly only provides a very exhaustive enumeration of exemptions which do not cover other equally reasonable reasons for denial of issuance, a few examples being: Incomplete information; lack of required supporting documents, criminal background or pending charges, or non-compliance with legal requirements non related to citizenship and migration policies and fraudulent use of ID documents. Would you consider amending the wording of the exemption or admitting more grounds, including some of those we mentioned?

May we also know the intention of compelling WA members to issue identity documents to any individual physically within their borders. The current phrasing of clause 2 may mean that even tourists would have a right to be issued documents by the host government. Aside from the financial burden this would place on members, and the added burden of entertaining applicants they would not even need to process in the first place, governments may be compelled to write regulations just to create new types of identity documents that would need to be issued to non-citizens or residents.

[Simone Republic]

Update

Draft 4 is now incorporating certain comments from IA as well as an earlier draft from IA and IA is now credited as a co-author. The answers below have been considerably changed.

Draft 3 has been dumped here.

Purpose of the law

1. As I believe it is not possible to regulate voter ID laws without getting around the blocker in GA#579 clause 5, the simpler solution appears to simply write an ID law that requires that all IDs passports be free and make it relatively easy for anyone to obtain ID for any purpose (not just voting). The language "identification documents and passports" carry over from GA#386. (I mean, if you forgot to bring your ID to vote, and your state requires it, I can't help you).
   
2. There is some wiggle room in that GA#76 "MANDATES that all citizens carry a Passport issued by a relevant nation in which they hold citizenship or other nationality status, when travelling abroad, except where deemed unnecessary through the existence of bilateral and multilateral border control agreement, or when unilaterally declared unnecessary by the receiving nation" but does not actually specify that a "relevant nation" must issue a passport. This proposal (quasi) patches this as well.
   
3. There is now a "domestic use" requirement for identity documents to carry such information as domestic laws require. (Some countries require an address, some countries do not. Definition 3(c) is meant to give examples (and specified as such) - so if your blob in Uranus does not have an address because it's just a large rock anyway, you don't need "address".) I have also added a clause that says a WA state may not deny issuance of ID on the grounds that certain matters concerning the individual are in dispute. (This catches issues such as gender fluiditiy, as well as homelessness. Also if date of birth records are missing etc etc.)
   
4. Also this cleans up an issue regarding refugees not getting the correct papers by requiring that IDs be issued to anyone physically there, regardless of citizenship. It also catches any statelessness.

[Draft 3]

Category: civil rights/mild

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting that many states in the WA require the use of identity documents for identification, financial transactions (salaries, welfare, or general business transactions), and/or for transactions within a WA government (at national or local levels);

Further noting that the issuance of identity documents may attract a fee, which may be unaffordable to some individuals and thus impede their ability to use identity documents for their domestic purpose within WA states (if a WA state requires their use for any purpose) and for international travel;

Also acknowledging that the WA has been committed to efforts to ease international travel and identification through previous resolutions (GA#76, GA#386);

Hereby defines:

1. "Fees" to include all fees, expenses, and charges payable by an individual as an applicant for identity documents and passports;
   
2. "Government" to include all national and sub-national levels of government within a WA state;
   
3. "ID documents" to include:
   
   1. any identity document(s) related to an individual's identity issued pursuant to the legislation(s) and/or regulation(s) of a WA state, including (but not limited to) identity cards, passports, birth certificates, household registration certificates, as well as military service records (if any), certificate(s) of criminal records (if any), and other records relevant to the identity of the said individual;
   2. and that such documents may be in physical, electronic or other forms depending on the technology levels of the WA state;
   3. and that such documents must include details on the said individual that, depending on the unique circumstances of each WA state, are relevant to that state's domestic affairs - merely as examples, such details being frequently required in some WA states may include full legal name, date of birth, place of birth, legal gender, and current physical residential address;
4. "WA state" means an individual member state of the WA;

Hereby requires:

1. A WA state's government may not charge a fee for (i) applying, (ii) verifying, (iii) issuing and/or (iv) replacing, ID documents, including those lost, stolen and/or damaged beyond use;
   
2. A WA state's government may not deny or impede any individual physically within its borders from being issued ID documents, regardless of whether that individual is a citizen of the WA state;
   
3. A WA state that uses ID documents in the ordinary domestic lives of an individual residing in that WA state must mandate that the ID documents issued by the WA state's government suffices for the purpose of:
   
   1. any transactions with the WA state's government (or any sub-national governments);
   2. any transactions of a commercial nature, including employment and financial services;
4. No agency or committee of the WA may charge a fee for ID issued to individuals belonging (due to citizenship, physical presence or other reasonable grounds) to a WA state;
   
5. A WA state's government may not penalize an individual for the veracity of any information provided for the purpose of applying for an ID document, as long as it is/was submitted in good faith by the said individual;
   
6. A WA state's government is required make it as convenient as reasonably practicable for an individual to obtain ID documents, based on the technological levels of the WA state, including providing convenient means for individuals that may be disadvantaged for any physical and/or mental capacity reason(s);
   
7. Clarifies that this resolution does not interfere with a WA state's rights on:
   
   1. formulating its own citizenship and migration policies;
   2. affirming or denying the right to entry to, or exit from, the said WA state, subject to due process, and;
   3. making it an offence for fraudulent use of ID documents (including fraudulent reporting of loss or stolen ID documents);
   4. imposing any penalties for the offences as stated in the preceding sub-clause.

Co-author: Imperium Anglorum

This is a backdoor way to get voter ID laws in place due to the blocker in GA#579. I don't dismiss passports IRL are expensive to produce (and increasingly costly), say about US$100 each, I am open to take out the word "passport" and in favour of purely saying "identity documents" and fudge this point if there's a consensus.

Though we appreciate your consideration of distinguishing passports and treating them separately, our point still stands that this will be an expensive, if not unaffordable order on WA members. We maintain it would be better to make a distinction between individuals legitimately financially incapable of paying the minimum fees and those who can. Such a policy would still further the goal you contemplated, indirectly enforcing voter ID laws.

Edit: updated - as of draft 4 I've cut the bit on passports.

Second, we also have a question on clause 2.):

2.) A WA state's government may not deny or impede any individual physically within its borders from being issued ID documents, regardless of whether that individual is a citizen of the WA state;

This is somewhat qualified by clause 7.):

7.)Clarifies that this resolution does not interfere with a WA state's rights on:
a.formulating its own citizenship and migration policies;
b.affirming or denying the right to entry to, or exit from, the said WA state, subject to due process, and;
c.making it an offence for fraudulent use of ID documents (including fraudulent reporting of loss or stolen ID documents);
d.imposing any penalties for the offences as stated in the preceding sub-clause.

We understand that subclause 7.b was inserted to address, in part, an earlier observation that governments reasonably need the discretion to be abe to deny one of their citizens of travelling for security considerations, for example. Yet, clause 7 as worded, seemingly only provides a very exhaustive enumeration of exemptions which do not cover other equally reasonable reasons for denial of issuance, a few examples being: Incomplete information; lack of required supporting documents, criminal background or pending charges, or non-compliance with legal requirements non related to citizenship and migration policies and fraudulent use of ID documents. Would you consider amending the wording of the exemption or admitting more grounds, including some of those we mentioned?

"Subject to due process" usually being used as a convenient short hand for "RNT" and the examples you cited "incomplete information; lack of required supporting documents, criminal background or pending charges, or non-compliance with legal requirements".

I will definitely not insert anything regarding past records of fraudulent use of IDs as that's asking for the same trouble as Millenhaal's last attempt at voting rights as that involved an exemption for "voting fraud" which caused that resolution to falter.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=528829

May we also know the intention of compelling WA members to issue identity documents to any individual physically within their borders. The current phrasing of clause 2 may mean that even tourists would have a right to be issued documents by the host government. Aside from the financial burden this would place on members, and the added burden of entertaining applicants they would not even need to process in the first place, governments may be compelled to write regulations just to create new types of identity documents that would need to be issued to non-citizens or residents.

There isn't anything that compels someone to apply for any ID in the first place. Draft 4 has been amended to introduce the concept of inhabitants plus asylum seekers and refugees, plus residents (permanent or temporary). (Also there's actually no prohibition on charging for tourist visas, or residency visas.)

I mean strictly speaking, if you regularly travelling between different parts of St Gellen, Switzerland and drive into Liechtenstein for 10mins Liechtenstein, maybe you can ask for a Liechtenstein ID but I don't think anyone would bother.

There is now a requirement for a government to issue IDs and for foreign governments to recognize each other's IDs, provided they are compatible in terms of information and/or technology. (So a RP government in 18th century would not be able to understand an electronic ID, and a 21st century government may require biometric details (or even DNA) and that would not be available to a 19th century one, or that another government may consider that too intrusive under their own laws.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Noting that many states in the WA require the use of identity documents for identification, financial transactions (salaries, welfare, or general business transactions), and/or for transactions within a WA government (at national or local levels);

Neville: 'Do you mean to say 'transactions with a WA government'? As things stand, the final item is superfluous.'

Further noting that the issuance of identity documents may attract a fee, which may be unaffordable to some individuals and thus impede their ability to use identity documents for their domestic purpose within WA states (if a WA state requires their use for any purpose) and for international travel;

Neville: 'Ambassador, perhaps you hail from a nation where bureaucrats are able to magic identity documents out of thin air, but for most nations, the production and issuance of identity documents costs money that a government ought to be able to recover through the imposition of fees. We may be persuaded to support a proposal that forbids member states to charge more for identity documents than they cost to produce, but we cannot endorse a pointless money-sink.'

Also acknowledging that the WA has been committed to efforts to ease international travel and identification through previous resolutions (GA#76, GA#386);

Neville: 'In what way does this proposal aid in that aim? As far as I can tell, nothing here actually requires member states to issue passports, or indeed identity documents of any kind.'

"Fees" to include all fees, expenses, and charges payable by an individual as an applicant for identity documents and passports;

Neville: 'Would this include postage fees? Would this proposal require us to waive all postage fees if postage is due for an application for identity documents? Also, why are passports counted separately from identity documents in this definition?'

"WA state" means an individual member state of the WA;

Neville: 'Why is this definition necessary? You may as well define the terms 'state' and 'WA'.'

A WA state's government may not charge a fee for (i) applying, (ii) verifying, (iii) issuing and/or (iv) replacing, ID documents, including those lost, stolen and/or damaged beyond use;

Neville: 'Opposed for the reasons already mentioned.'

A WA state's government may not deny or impede any individual physically within its borders from being issued ID documents, regardless of whether that individual is a citizen of the WA state;

Neville: 'Why should member states be obliged to issue identity documents to tourists on demand? Also, this would seem as written to prohibit any form of discrimination in issuing ID documents, whether it's making the issuance of a driving license contingent on passing a standardised test, making the issuance of a voter card contingent on being a adult or making the issuance of a passport contingent on holding the required nationality.'

A WA state that uses ID documents in the ordinary domestic lives of an individual residing in that WA state must mandate that the ID documents issued by the WA state's government suffices for the purpose of:

1. any transactions with the WA state's government (or any sub-national governments);
2. any transactions of a commercial nature, including employment and financial services;

Neville: 'As written, this is too general as it applies to all ID documents with no differentiation between them. If we use some ID documents to regulate the ordinary domestic lives of our citizens then it should not necessarily follow that all ID documents ought to suffice for these purposes. If we issue national identity cards then why should birth certificates also suffice for these purposes?'

A WA state's government may not penalize an individual for the veracity of any information provided for the purpose of applying for an ID document, as long as it is/was submitted in good faith by the said individual;

Neville: 'Our delegation agrees that financial penalties for incorrect information that is submitted in good faith would be harsh, but even the non-issuance of a document constitutes a penalty. Clearly, the World Assembly should not be prohibiting member states from refusing to issue ID documents on the basis of false information.'

Clarifies that this resolution does not interfere with a WA state's rights on:

1. formulating its own citizenship and migration policies;
2. affirming or denying the right to entry to, or exit from, the said WA state, subject to due process, and;
3. making it an offence for fraudulent use of ID documents (including fraudulent reporting of loss or stolen ID documents);
4. imposing any penalties for the offences as stated in the preceding sub-clause.

Neville: 'Ambassador, the proposal may claim all it likes that it does not interfere with a WA state's right to formulate its own citizenship policy, but it clearly does do so given the member states are required to issue passports to non-citizens. If a proposal mandates the single transferable vote in all elections then "clarifies" that it does not interfere with a member state's right to decide their own electoral laws, such a "clarification" isn't worth the paper it's written on.

'Overall, without a serious rewrite that addresses our concerns as well as those of other delegations, we stand opposed to this proposal. If voter ID laws are such an important topic for you then perhaps you would be better off repealing the blocker using the argument that voter ID laws ought to be regulated by the World Assembly, instead of trying to sneak such regulations in through the backdoor using a poorly-written omnibus resolution.'

[Simone Republic]

Draft 4 incorporates far more content from IA.

Noting that many states in the WA require the use of identity documents for identification, financial transactions (salaries, welfare, or general business transactions), and/or for transactions within a WA government (at national or local levels);

Neville: 'Do you mean to say 'transactions with a WA government'? As things stand, the final item is superfluous.'

Changed.

Further noting that the issuance of identity documents may attract a fee, which may be unaffordable to some individuals and thus impede their ability to use identity documents for their domestic purpose within WA states (if a WA state requires their use for any purpose) and for international travel;

Neville: 'Ambassador, perhaps you hail from a nation where bureaucrats are able to magic identity documents out of thin air, but for most nations, the production and issuance of identity documents costs money that a government ought to be able to recover through the imposition of fees. We may be persuaded to support a proposal that forbids member states to charge more for identity documents than they cost to produce, but we cannot endorse a pointless money-sink.'

*snip*

Though we appreciate your consideration of distinguishing passports and treating them separately, our point still stands that this will be an expensive, if not unaffordable order on WA members. We maintain it would be better to make a distinction between individuals legitimately financially incapable of paying the minimum fees and those who can. Such a policy would still further the goal you contemplated, indirectly enforcing voter ID laws.

That is a hard no, I don't want to change the principle of IDs being free despite being libertarian personally. Also very likely to be vetoed within TNP due to discrimination grounds. The WA is giving people free government socialist healthcare and STD treatment anyway, among other things (which I consider to be bigger money sinks). I took out passports though to focus on "domestic affairs". The cost of a new card is merely a few dollars IRL. So it hopefully stops the argument about biometric passports being expensive.

Also acknowledging that the WA has been committed to efforts to ease international travel and identification through previous resolutions (GA#76, GA#386);

Neville: 'In what way does this proposal aid in that aim? As far as I can tell, nothing here actually requires member states to issue passports, or indeed identity documents of any kind.'

You cannot now deny issuing one if requested. I changed the wording slightly. Even if it's on velum or whatever RP that you're in.

"Fees" to include all fees, expenses, and charges payable by an individual as an applicant for identity documents and passports;

Neville: 'Would this include postage fees? Would this proposal require us to waive all postage fees if postage is due for an application for identity documents? Also, why are passports counted separately from identity documents in this definition?'

Passports are dropped because IA's draft was more focused on domestic affairs and the language has been changed to reflect that. Postal fees are not specified as some jurisdictions do not allow IDs to be sent by post anyway and require picking up in person.

A WA state's government may not deny or impede any individual physically within its borders from being issued ID documents, regardless of whether that individual is a citizen of the WA state;

Neville: 'Why should member states be obliged to issue identity documents to tourists on demand? Also, this would seem as written to prohibit any form of discrimination in issuing ID documents, whether it's making the issuance of a driving license contingent on passing a standardised test, making the issuance of a voter card contingent on being a adult or making the issuance of a passport contingent on holding the required nationality.'

This new draft adopts the "inhabitants" standard so it includes anyone physically there either as citizens, residents (no matter for how long), asylum seekers, refugees, and anyone stateless. If you are just driving through Belgium for 10mins, it should not count.

A WA state that uses ID documents in the ordinary domestic lives of an individual residing in that WA state must mandate that the ID documents issued by the WA state's government suffices for the purpose of:

1. any transactions with the WA state's government (or any sub-national governments);
2. any transactions of a commercial nature, including employment and financial services;

Neville: 'As written, this is too general as it applies to all ID documents with no differentiation between them. If we use some ID documents to regulate the ordinary domestic lives of our citizens then it should not necessarily follow that all ID documents ought to suffice for these purposes. If we issue national identity cards then why should birth certificates also suffice for these purposes?'

I changed it to "one or multiple" to reflect the real-life situation that some jurisdictions (such as Japan) require two (family registration, known as koseki plus ID). Also not all jurisdictions accept driving licenses. (And all 50 states issue identity cards if someone requires but is not qualified to drive, such as due to disability anyway).

A WA state's government may not penalize an individual for the veracity of any information provided for the purpose of applying for an ID document, as long as it is/was submitted in good faith by the said individual;

Neville: 'Our delegation agrees that financial penalties for incorrect information that is submitted in good faith would be harsh, but even the non-issuance of a document constitutes a penalty. Clearly, the World Assembly should not be prohibiting member states from refusing to issue ID documents on the basis of false information.'

They can sue for fraud later but cannot deny issuing an ID in the first place if they verified that the information is prima facie correct. I would not accept that point because it would trigger the same objections over "prisoners' voting rights" (the original Millenhaal one) within TNP.

Clarifies that this resolution does not interfere with a WA state's rights on:
'Overall, without a serious rewrite that addresses our concerns as well as those of other delegations, we stand opposed to this proposal. If voter ID laws are such an important topic for you then perhaps you would be better off repealing the blocker using the argument that voter ID laws ought to be regulated by the World Assembly, instead of trying to sneak such regulations in through the backdoor using a poorly-written omnibus resolution.'

I don't feel I have the votes to repeal the blocker.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Concerned that such IDs may require a fee for issuance, which disadvantages those least able to afford such fees, and impede their access to government services that may require IDs, such as tax, welfare payments and health care;

Neville: 'I note that the resolution avoids mentioning the very issue which it was drafted to address! Would I be right in assuming that this is for political reasons?'

"Fees" to include all fees and charges payable by an individual as an applicant for IDs;

Neville: 'Whilst we appreciate that not all member states utilise post in issuing IDs, the fact remains that some do. We ask again: Is this clause intended to mandate that all postage fees be waived?'

”Inhabitants” include anyone who is physically in a WA state, and satisfies at least one of the criteria below:

1. a citizen of the WA state, or;
2. a resident of the WA state, whether permanently or temporarily and subject to the laws of that WA state, or;
3. an applicant for asylum or refugee status, or under the protection of the said WA state, or;
4. a person who appears to be stateless, or;
5. anyone else entitled to an ID pursuant to that WA state’s laws.

Neville: 'We are now satisfied with this qualification.'

Hereby defines "IDs" to mean one or more documents stating an inhabitant’s identity such as, merely as examples, identity cards and household registration certificates, provided that:

1. that such IDs must contain such information on the inhabitant as routinely required for the domestic affairs of an inhabitant of a WA state, such as, not to be an exhaustive list but merely as examples:
   
   1. the full legal name;
   2. date of birth;
   3. place of birth;
   4. residency and/or citizenship status,
   5. full residential address,
   6. full likeness of the inhabitant,
2. that such documents may be in physical, electronic or other forms depending on the technology levels of the WA state;
3. and that “IDs” as used in this resolution exclude anything for which an inhabitant is required by law to voluntarily submit to additional qualifications requirements, such as driver's licenses, military service certificates and occupational permits;

Neville: 'Ambassador, you are surely aware that passports are routinely required in many nations for domestic affairs. It is true that their main purpose is in facilitating international travel, but their utility as an identity document means that they are often used for domestic purposes as well. Thus, even the revised definition does not exclude them and we would still be required to issue passports to non-citizens.

'Furthermore, Clause 2c is ripe for loophole abuse. Firstly, how exactly can one be legally required to submit "voluntarily" to additional qualifications requirements? Surely, the fact that they are legal requirements means that they are not voluntary, no?

'Secondly, and more importantly, what is stopping a member state from implementing a minimum income level as a mandatory qualification for a voter ID card while still technically issuing such cards free of charge? Because Clause 2c is written so as to exclude IDs that have such requirements from regulation under this resolution, a member state could easily introduce a new "free" voter ID card that requires a minimum income level and claim legitimately that none of the remainder of this resolution applies to them as such cards do not come under the definition of 'IDs' as defined by this resolution.'

A WA state government (at a national, or, if the WA state desires, at a sub-national level) is required to provide all its inhabitants free IDs upon request, as soon as reasonably practicable, and may not charge a fee for (i) applying, (ii) verifying (on a prima facie basis), (iii) issuing and/or (iv) replacing, such IDs, including those lost, stolen and/or damaged;

Neville: 'Ambassador, would this force member states that do not routinely issue national ID cards to begin issuing them forthwith? You must realise that some governments view national ID laws as an unacceptable authoritarian interference in the lives of their citizens.'

An ID validly issued is deemed valid and sufficient for all domestic affairs of the said WA state, where proof of identity is required, including all governmental, financial or business affairs;

Neville: 'Ambassador, should private businesses not be allowed to have their own requirements for what constitutes valid ID? Not to mention that this is still too broad. A Senior Railcard that provides discounts on rail travel, for instance, would qualify as ID under this proposal, and where rail services are nationalised, the act of purchasing a train ticket would constitute a transaction with a government body, yet this proposal would require that all forms of ID would be valid for claiming any such discounts.'

A WA state may not deny issuing an ID to an inhabitant on the grounds that some information, such as (for example) date of birth or place of birth information, may not be verifiable by the inhabitant;

Neville: 'How far ought this to be taken? The purpose of ID is to be able to identify someone; if their documentation does not contain the proper information required to validate their identity then such documentation is worthless.

'Our conclusion remains the same: This is a proposal that is designed to place restrictions on voter ID laws yet which is forced to resort to this mess of overly broad provisions in order to avoid contradicting an existing blocker resolution on this topic. We would advise the Ambassador that if there is no political will in this Assembly to repeal said blocker in order to allow for international restrictions on voter ID laws, perhaps they ought to take that as a hint that the member states that make up this organisation have no interest in ceding any of their sovereignty over this matter.'

[Simone Republic]

*snip
'

All answers in one go otherwise it looks too complex with the nested quotes.

1. The definition of inhabitants has been changed. It now explicitly defines "inhabiting" (see below);

2. 2c has gone from "and that “IDs” as used in this resolution exclude anything for which an inhabitant is required by law to voluntarily submit to additional qualifications requirements, such as driver's licenses, military service certificates and occupational permits" to a new clause 2(c) "that the sole requirement for issuing such "IDs" is for anyone to meet the criteria of "inhabiting" a WA state" - I agree with your point about the old 2(c) having a loophole so I slightly re-defined IDs, and make it a sole criteria for IDs to be issued to be "inhabiting a WA state";

3. On a related note, because of the slight redefinition of IDs, "driving licenses" are no longer deemed IDs for the purpose of this resolution, hence 5(c) reads "issuing documents other than IDs, such as driving licenses or occupation permits" - there is nothing to prevent governments from combining driving licenses with IDs but I am not specifying that because I'd also get RP issues over "ha, AI drive our cars" or "we live on a gas planet on Uranus and don't need cars";

3. 1(b)(ii) also covers long-term visitors if the WA state wants to, 1(b)(v) covers undocumented immigrants if the WA state wants to do so (also it includes the reverse of the scenario you mentioned, namely that if a WA state specifically wants to issue tourists with an ID because they feel like it, they can);

4. 3(a) now includes "delegated to any organization it deems fit" to cover the case of the UK PASS scheme - given your comment about Senior Railcard below, I assume you are familiar with the UK scrapping its ID scheme in 2011, which I consider a mistake - and the UK PASS scheme for verifying age to be buying a cop-out;

5. "Neville: 'Ambassador, would this force member states that do not routinely issue national ID cards to begin issuing them forthwith? You must realise that some governments view national ID laws as an unacceptable authoritarian interference in the lives of their citizens.'" <- That's, as far as I am aware, includes the UK only amongst major developed countries since they ended up with PASS instead. Also, please name one major jurisdiction where NS draws its audience from where an ID scheme of some kind is not in place, counting the UK PASS scheme and the New Zealand Kiwi Access Card scheme - note that applying for an ID is voluntary - this is specifically counting state/provincial level schemes such as Australia, Canada and the US;

6. The preamble refers to "domestic affairs" in general so it's no longer strictly solely about voter ID laws - that's drawn from my co-author;

7. Postage paid to send the IDs to someone is paid by the government (or whichever agency), I suppose the way I define fees mean a government that allows the ID to be applied for must use a Freepost service of some kind to allow an ID application to be sent for free (or dropped off at a box like postal voting in the US) - I am not going to specifically mention this because of RP issues because once I specify postage, I'd be facing RP issues from both Middle Ages folks about "I don't have a postal system" and the sci-fi folks about "we are all electronic, haha";

[Tinhampton]

To be sure, PASS is completely independent of the Identity Documents Acts of 2006 or 2010. This Internet Archive snapshot of the CitizenCard website would suggest that PASS was in operation no later than 2002. There's a link from this 2006 snapshot to an article called "Government funds PASS as under 21 message spreads to pubs," which indicates that the PASS consortium was lobbying for government funding by 2004 or so.

1a: this defines "fees," a term that never appears in the plural and only once in the singular, to clarify (in Article 3a) that fees for ID-related functions are barred. Can this not be removed?

1c: The "WA Passport Organisation" is not WA PO's actual full name.

4b: while we're on the subject of WA PO, why do they need to issue "standardized templates for IDs" when IDs can come in many different forms and you tacitly accept, in 2a, that they need only contain "information routinely needed for an inhabit [sic] to handle the domestic affairs of WA state [also sic]" without you requiring all IDs to contain such-and-such necessary information?

4a: Suppose that Tinhampton allows the use of all active Simone Republic IDs as proof of age because they contain security features equivalent to Tinhampton IDs. Now imagine that the leader of Simone Republic visits a pub in Tinhampton and is asked to show proof of age to buy drinks. (Spending money on something is a financial affair.) He shows his SR ID and its validity is confirmed by the server of drinks without the server either passing on any details to the Tinhamptonian government or asking SR's leader if he'd be fine with having his personal copy of his ID Tinhampton-verified.
Is this a permissible exchange under 4a? Or is the requirement that "the holder of such IDs consents to a WA state checking with the issuing state as to the validity of such an ID" fulfilled by X-stan when it makes a broad statement saying that Y-land IDs are accepted for its purposes, but Z-ia IDs are not?

3b: "IDs validly issued is" should be "IDs validly issued must be"

5d: "to impose" should be "imposing"

[States of Glory WA Office]

Noting that many WA states require the use of identity documents (“ID” or “IDs”) to identify individuals, in routine domestic transactions such as those with a government and/or with financial institutions (to decide on eligibility for payments, salaries and other matters);

Concerned that such IDs may require a fee for issuance, which disadvantages those least able to afford such fees, and impede their access to government payments and services that may require IDs;

Neville: 'Does 'IDs' in these clauses refer to identity documents in general or only to those identity documents that fulfil the definition of 'IDs' provided in this proposal? If it is the former then most such identity documents have already been excluded from this resolution and are thus still subject to fees, rendering this proposal ineffective in its stated goals. If it is the latter then perhaps that ought to be made more clear as it would be unfortunate if those delegations that cast their vote based solely on the preamble come under the misapprehension that this proposal seeks to abolish fees for passports, driving licences, concessionary railcards and the like. In truth, given that the definition of 'IDs' in this proposal is now so narrow as to refer solely to national ID cards, at least as far as we can tell, we do not see why you shouldn't make it official and call them 'national ID cards' or something to that effect rather than simply 'IDs'.'

”Inhabitants” to mean anyone who is "inhabiting"" in a WA state, and "inhabiting" is defined as anyone physically in a WA state who also meets at least one of the criteria below:

Neville: 'I don't think people inhabit in places, Ambassador. Also, with your definition of 'inhabiting', you appear to be defining either a verb or an adjective with reference to a noun. The grammar here needs some cleaning up.'

Hereby requires:

1. A WA state government (at a national, or, if the WA state desires, at a sub-national level, or, if it desires, delegated to any organization it deems fit) is required to provide all its inhabitants free IDs upon request, as soon as reasonably practicable, and may not charge a fee for (i) applying, (ii) verifying (on a prima facie basis), (iii) issuing and/or (iv) replacing, such IDs, including those lost, stolen and/or damaged;
2. IDs validly issued is deemed valid and sufficient for all domestic affairs of the said WA state, where proof of identity is required, including (but not limited) all governmental, financial or business affairs;
3. A WA state may not deny issuing IDs to an inhabitant on the grounds that some information, such as (for example) date of birth or place of birth information, may not be verifiable due to circumstances beyond the control of the inhabitant;
4. A WA state shall it as convenient as reasonably practicable for an individual to obtain IDs, based on the technological levels of the WA state, including providing convenient means without charge for individuals that may be disadvantaged for any physical and/or mental capacity reason(s) to apply for and to receive IDs;
5. A legal parent and/or legal guardian of a minor may, voluntarily, apply for and receive IDs on behalf of an inhabitant below the age of majority or lacking the mental competence to make such an application;

Neville: 'Upon further inspection, it would appear that nothing in this clause would require member states to mandate the possession of any such IDs, which was our primary concern. We apologise for any misunderstanding that may have arisen as a result of this accidental misreading.

'However, the sub-clauses do not mesh well with the operative clause grammatically. 'Requires...a WA state government...is required', 'requires...IDs validly issued is deemed valid', 'requires...a WA state may not deny issuing IDs' and 'requires...a legal parent and/or legal guardian of a minor may...apply for and receive IDs' do not make any sense. Also, what is 'A WA state shall it as convenient as reasonably practicable for an individual to obtain IDs' even supposed to mean? This entire section requires copy editing.'

Hereby further requires:

1. All WA states to accept, where compatible in terms of information contained, and technology, IDs issued by another WA state (“issuing state”) as valid proof of identity for their own domestic affairs, provided that the holder of such IDs consents to a WA state checking with the issuing state as to the validity of such an ID;

Neville: 'If there is a good reason to mandate this then I am unaware of it. Why is it a matter of great importance that we be required to recognise national ID cards from other member states even if they do comply with our own regulations?

'In conclusion, this is certainly a much-improved draft, but there is one question we have. If the purpose of this proposal is to ensure that voter ID laws do not disproportionately impact the poor by mandating that national ID cards be provided free of charge, what about nations that do not require any form of ID to vote*? Why should they be forced to provide IDs free of charge in the first place if the rationale for doing so is not present?'

*OOC: As was the case here in Great Britain until very recently, as you might be aware.

1c: The "WA Passport Organisation" is not WA PO's actual full name.

OOC: I mean, can you blame people for not wanting to use the (frankly tasteless) full name of said committee in their proposal?