International Broadband Network (IBN)

[GeneralHaNor]

The Internet Neutrality Act actually renders most of this proposal illegal

Including 4, and 6

[James Bluntus]

The Internet Neutrality Act actually renders most of this proposal illegal

Including 4, and 6

You weren't kidding when you said you have read every single resolution.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Category & Strength?

It could have fitted under Free Trade, Mild, in our opinion.

[GeneralHaNor]

The Internet Neutrality Act actually renders most of this proposal illegal

Including 4, and 6

You weren't kidding when you said you have read every single resolution.

Indeed
If I'm going to be bound by laws that violate my national sovereignty, I should at least know what they are.

[James Bluntus]

The Internet Neutrality Act actually renders most of this proposal illegal

Including 4, and 6

You weren't kidding when you said you have read every single resolution.

Indeed
If I'm going to be bound by laws that violate my national sovereignty, I should at least know what they are.

You aren't affected by past resolutions before you joined.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The Internet Neutrality Act actually renders most of this proposal illegal

Including 4, and 6

You weren't kidding when you said you have read every single resolution.

Indeed
If I'm going to be bound by laws that violate my national sovereignty, I should at least know what they are.

You aren't affected by past resolutions before you joined.

Technically it is up to member states to ratify resolutions that passed while not being a member, but that's not what we need to worry about this draft. The problem is that it runs in conflict with the provisions of internet neutrality, and member states that do not want the internet (there may be some).

[GeneralHaNor]

The Internet Neutrality Act actually renders most of this proposal illegal

Including 4, and 6

You weren't kidding when you said you have read every single resolution.

Indeed
If I'm going to be bound by laws that violate my national sovereignty, I should at least know what they are.

You aren't affected by past resolutions before you joined.

I believe that is the ban of ex post facto laws

however, if I were to claim my join date made me immune to the Charter of Civil Rights
I'd be laughed right out of the assembly

Compliance is retro-active, the previous resolutions will be enforced by the ministry of compliance.
I'm pretty sure you haven't found some great loophole, otherwise I could just leave, and come back everytime a law was passed

[Enn]

The Internet Neutrality Act actually renders most of this proposal illegal

Including 4, and 6

You weren't kidding when you said you have read every single resolution.

Indeed
If I'm going to be bound by laws that violate my national sovereignty, I should at least know what they are.

You aren't affected by past resolutions before you joined.

In terms of game stats, no, you aren't affected. (There may be something that happens when such a resolution is repealed, but that's a technical matter I'm not sure about). But it's assumed, at least for the purposes of the GA forum, that a WA member is in compliance with every passed resolution during their time as a member, unless they are specifically RPing non-compliance (and even then, there ain't much leeway).

[Embolalia]

In terms of game stats, no, you aren't affected. (There may be something that happens when such a resolution is repealed, but that's a technical matter I'm not sure about). But it's assumed, at least for the purposes of the GA forum, that a WA member is in compliance with every passed resolution during their time as a member, unless they are specifically RPing non-compliance (and even then, there ain't much leeway).

That is true about game stats. But I've always thought everyone is bound by all resolutions passed. (Of course, only to the extent that one is bound to any of the resolutions. RPing non-compliance is okay, but obnoxious.) It's not ex post facto to be currently in compliance with a law that was passed before you joined, only to retroactively apply that law to before you joined.

[Glen-Rhodes]

But I've always thought everyone is bound by all resolutions passed.

In roleplaying, yes. When you join the World Assembly, you are bound by all the resolutions, including the ones passed before you joined.

As for repealing, I'm 99% sure there's no stat effect.

Again, lots of leeway. The 'buoys, lighthouses or mark systems' could easily go from anything from basic signal fires to GPS beacons.

I don't feel like responding anymore to this argument, since the World Assembly has been the way I describe it -- distinctly modern -- without my help, and it will continue being that way, and it's not like you're going to change your mind in any case. I think it's completely disingenuous to suggest that the World Assembly has paid any special attention to making our resolutions work across the time spectrum, when it's self-evident to anybody who reads all the resolutions, or who has participated in their debates, that we don't. There's not much to argue, in my opinion, so why argue?

[Flibbleites]

As for repealing, I'm 99% sure there's no stat effect.

Well then, I'm 100% sure that you're wrong.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2 ... ml#repeals

If a repeal is passed by the full UN, the original resolution is stricken from the record and no longer binding on UN member nations. In practical terms, this has an effect on UN member nations similar to the original resolution, but in reverse and milder.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Well then, I'm 100% sure that you're wrong.

I've never really noticed any change in stats when a resolution is repealed. Maybe the 'mild' effect is pretty negligible, compared to the number of new resolutions and the amount of issues you answer.

How does that work, I wonder? If you repeal a Human Rights resolution, is the effect like a Moral Decency resolution? Not much is explained in that news post.

[Enn]

Again, lots of leeway. The 'buoys, lighthouses or mark systems' could easily go from anything from basic signal fires to GPS beacons.

I don't feel like responding anymore to this argument, since the World Assembly has been the way I describe it -- distinctly modern -- without my help, and it will continue being that way, and it's not like you're going to change your mind in any case. I think it's completely disingenuous to suggest that the World Assembly has paid any special attention to making our resolutions work across the time spectrum, when it's self-evident to anybody who reads all the resolutions, or who has participated in their debates, that we don't. There's not much to argue, in my opinion, so why argue?

If it was self-evident, we wouldn't be having this argument. You've made assumptions about the way the WA works that aren't backed up by the data cited. Each of the resolutions cited gives leeway for different technology levels, whether this was intended or not.

To my mind, a resolution allowing for different technology levels is far, far stronger than one that mandates specific technology. That's my point. That you completely fail to understand this is extremely worrying about your grasp of the way resolution writing goes on here.

One thing in particular-
"I think it's completely disingenuous to suggest that the World Assembly has paid any special attention to making our resolutions work across the time spectrum,"
I think it's completely disingenuous to assume anything about time periods, or authors intent. A stronger resolution is one that allows for individual application. One-size-fits-all doesn't work for the WA. This isn't a world government, it's an assembly of nations.

I am also concerned that you haven't addressed several of my other points, such as talking about author's intent, or branding. Perhaps you realised that your points were less than effective?

[edit] fixing tags

[Unibot]

If it was self-evident, we wouldn't be having this argument. You've made assumptions about the way the WA works that aren't backed up by the data cited. Each of the resolutions cited gives leeway for different technology levels, whether this was intended or not.

It was intended with the Nautical Pilotage act, but I also wrote the Protection of Outer Space, which just assumed that nations who were technologically below RL space travel activity, would have a dahm easy time to comply to the resolution, and would benefit from less space junk falling from the sky at them.

Thing is we already have resolutions like the Net Neutrality proposal that acknowledge the existence of the Internet.

An example of a bad technological resolution, however, was Stem Cells for Greater Health, which promoted one medical technology which could be outdated in many future tech nations.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I am also concerned that you haven't addressed several of my other points, such as talking about author's intent, or branding. Perhaps you realised that your points were less than effective?

I said why I have not continued the argument. I don't think it's an important one to have. The body of resolutions speak for themselves. If you choose to think that they were all written with PT and FT compatibility in mind, that's your decision. I can tell you for certain that four of them were not, and I could very well rebut all of your points, but, as I said, I don't think this is an important discussion. The World Assembly will continue on the same course it always has. To you, that's authors taking into account the entire time spectrum; to me, it's authors typically writing from a modern-era point of view. It's not like we're arguing for a change here.

[Elouera]

International Broadband Network (IBN) is a great idea. Everyone could have internet usage at once. There is one problem though, if the main generator went down, the whole world would be it a definitive internet blackout

[Sanctaria]

This may have gotten overlooked in all the discussion, but if you really feel the need to write a resolution, like I said, the below may be a good idea. Now I have gone back and looked over previous resolutions, and as far as I can tell, although again I may be mistaken, this should be legal.

I really can't be bothered to check if there's previous legislation regarding this, but in light of the various technology levels of the many, many nations in the World Assembly, perhaps the author may draft a proposal on the Standards of Communication or the like? It would then be easier, hopefully, to encompass the technology level of all of the WA nations rather than a select few.

Yours.,