[PASSED] Open Internet Order

[Frisbeeteria]

Open Internet Order

---

| Category: Social Justice | Strength: Mild | Proposed By: The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand |

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the essential role of the Internet in areas such as economic, social, and political activity;

Concerned that Internet Service Providers hold all the tools necessary to deceive subscribers and block or otherwise degrade content;

HEREBY:

1. Defines the following:

(a) "Internet Service Provider" as an entity that directly controls and operates facilities that are used to provide Internet access.
(b) "Reasonable Network Management" allows Internet Service Providers to temporarily throttle access to the network on legal grounds such as avoiding network congestion or contractual obligations.
(c) "Lawful" allowed by international law and/or national law (If international law and national law conflict, international law takes precedence over national law).
(d) "Internet" refers to the collection of technical protocols that allows different devices on different platforms to communicate with each other.
(e) "Subscriber" refers to a person who pays to receive and/or access a service.

2. Prohibits Internet Service Providers from:

(a) Arbitrarily blocking access to lawful content and/or access to the network; subject to reasonable network management.
(b) Arbitrarily throttling access to lawful content and/or access to the network; subject to reasonable network management.

3. Requires Internet Service Providers to disclose to new and existing subscribers:

(a) Any and all pricing information related to the service plan.
(b) Any and all caps related to the service plan as well as the consequences of exceeding such cap.

4. Permits Internet Service Providers to employ reasonable network management controls.

5. Establishes the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority.

6. Empowers the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to issue fines, enforce provision(s) of this resolution and conduct investigations against Internet Service Providers. The Telecommunication Regulatory Authority may also issue declaratory rulings, at its discretion.

[center][/center]

The Telecommunication Regulatory Authority may issue fines, enforce provision(s) of this resolution and conduct investigations against Internet Service Providers. Due to confusion by member states, the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority may also issue declaratory rulings which resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: You can use the normal list tags as well. Makes it easier.

NORTH: If your proposal's purpose is to promote net neutrality... while giving companies a way to not do anything with it by simply getting some contract with another company to not uphold net neutrality... I don't see how it actually promotes net neutrality. Also, it still doesn't solve the issues with the fact that an ISP can be a government, and therefore, this would restrict governments from providing a basic information system without access to the entire Internet.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

*snip*

I understand your arguments. Let me clarify some things you mentioned...First of all, this Open Internet Order indirectly increases transparency by requiring the ISP to disclose details. Second of all, I have a question for you, how would this resolution "restrict governments from providing a basic information system"?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I understand your arguments. Let me clarify some things you mentioned...First of all, this Open Internet Order indirectly increases transparency by requiring the ISP to disclose details. Second of all, I have a question for you, how would this resolution "restrict governments from providing a basic information system"?

NORTH: If I run some country and think it's important that my people get weather, news, politics, etc. reports, but not live video streaming from Metube, I cannot arbitrarily restrict them. The only way around that is to build it such that it falls into 'reasonable network management'.

N: Second, it doesn't deal with my colleague Parsons' objection about how DNS and other more basic queries are not given precedence in networking. Third, your definition of 'Internet' is actually horrible. The exchange of information by any means includes things like reading and talking.

[Calladan]

(c) "Lawful" allowed by international law and/or national law (If international law and national law conflict, national law takes precedence over international law)

I am fairly sure that should be the other way round. If The World Assembly has ruled on something, that is considered to be a law above the law of member states - and member states must follow that law and change their laws to match it. So I am not certain your proposal can contradict that.

(d) "Internet" refers to the exchange of information by any means.

Talking? Exchanging bits of paper under the desk during lessons? Semaphore?

I would respectfully suggest "......exchange of electronic information........" as a possibly better definition?

(a) Arbitrarily blocking access to lawful content and/or access to the network; subject to reasonable network management.

Taking account about what I said previously in regard to the law (and which law takes precedence), I take it that "lawful content" would be applied at a national level? So that (for example) the age of consent for people to appear naked in pictures/films would be judged based on the nation you are in, not the nation the pictures/films are hosted? And that nations where the age is higher can block pictures from sites where the nation is lower without falling foul of this clause?

I have no problems with the rest of it - in principle - although the comma in Clause 4 seems somewhat out of place.

[Overthinkers]

(d) "Internet" refers to the exchange of information by any means.

Talking? Exchanging bits of paper under the desk during lessons? Semaphore?

I would respectfully suggest "......exchange of electronic information........" as a possibly better definition?

Hall: "That definition still includes text messages and other such forms of telecommunications not tied to that which is commonly implied by the term 'Internet'."
Ryder: "Then you try to define it." He smirks.
Hall ponders for a few minutes, but winds up glaring at Ryder. "Fine. I can't put my finger on a better one, but neither proposed wording can stand."

[Calladan]

Talking? Exchanging bits of paper under the desk during lessons? Semaphore?

I would respectfully suggest "......exchange of electronic information........" as a possibly better definition?

Hall: "That definition still includes text messages and other such forms of telecommunications not tied to that which is commonly implied by the term 'Internet'."
Ryder: "Then you try to define it." He smirks.
Hall ponders for a few minutes, but winds up glaring at Ryder. "Fine. I can't put my finger on a better one, but neither proposed wording can stand."

That is a good point........ hmmmm.

As a point of order, the internet isn't actually the exchange of information. It is the infrastructure that allows the information to be exchanged. Even if EVERYONE stopped using the internet right now, the internet would still exist. It would be pointless, but it would still exist.

So - what about trying to define it not by the information exchange but by the hardware that allows it. The internet is the hardware, not the data it carries. If you keep that in mind, defining it might be easier.

[Aclion]

I am fairly sure that should be the other way round. If The World Assembly has ruled on something, that is considered to be a law above the law of member states - and member states must follow that law and change their laws to match it. So I am not certain your proposal can contradict that.

Quite right.

Section III Article 9 § of Rights and Duties: "Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

Open Internet Order

---

| Category: Education & Free Press | Area of Affect: Free Press | Proposed By: The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand |

This Open Internet Order provides strong protections while implementing effective measures that prohibit Internet Service Providers from harming an Open Internet and therefore:

1. Defines the following:

(a) "Internet Service Provider" as any entity that provides access to the Internet.
(b) "Reasonable Network Management" allows Internet Service Providers to temporarily throttle access to the network on the basis of: avoiding network congestion and/or contractual obligations.
(c) "Lawful" allowed by international law and/or national law (If international law and national law conflict, international law takes precedence over national law)
(d) "Internet" refers to the infrastructure that allows high-speed data transmissions to be sent and/or received.

2. Prohibits Internet Service Providers from:

(a) Arbitrarily blocking access to lawful content and/or access to the network; subject to reasonable network management.
(b) Arbitrarily throttling access to lawful content and/or access to the network; subject to reasonable network management.

3. Requires Internet Service Providers to disclose to new and existing subscribers (a person who pays to receive and/or access a service):

(a) Any and all pricing information related to the service plan.
(b) Any and all caps related to the service plan as well as the consequences of exceeding such cap.

4. Permits Internet Service Providers to employ reasonable network management controls.

LEGEND: Changed

If their continues to be confusion over the definition, I am considering to add a clause that excludes specific types of communication (like calling and text messages)

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: So the Internet is now the wires and the fibre-optic cables. That isn't a good description of the Internet either. Your comment in the spoiler is probably even worse. There's nothing worse than 'defining' something and then carving out a myriad exceptions just because the definition was bad in the first place. Also, international law already takes precedent over national law in that 2 GA already states that.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

*snip*

Then, what should be the definition?

[Araraukar]

*snip*

Then, what should be the definition?

OOC: I suggest starting from here and putting it into your own words.

---

OOC: Alright, the promised look-see. Going to keep this post out-of-character because I need to refer to the rules and RL examples.

Category: Education & Free Press

No such category. The category name is "Education and Creativity".

Area of Affect: Free Press

It's "Area of Effect", not affect. Something that affects you, has an effect on you.

Proposed By: The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand

I suggest removing this as you don't want to leave it in by mistake, as that'd make this illegal for Branding.

This Open Internet Order provides strong protections while implementing effective measures that prohibit Internet Service Providers from harming an Open Internet and therefore:

I suggest deleting this part entirely, as you don't need a brief summary about what you're about to say anyway. Also I would suggest that you write a preamble, which is a few non-active clauses with which you try to demonstrate that there is a problem that requires international legislation to fix.

(a) "Internet Service Provider" as any entity that provides anyone access to the Internet.

That "any entity" is what I have trouble with, since this wording would make McDonald's an ISP as they have free WiFi for their customers and thus provide them access to the Internet. Also, as long as you keep writing "Internet" with a capital i, it's going to be a RL reference that makes the proposal illegal. Wikipedia defines an ISP as "an organization that provides services for accessing, using, or participating in the Internet". It's literally in the words: Service Provider. (And yes, you could probably still apply it on McDonald's, but at least it would need a longer leap.)

(b) "Reasonable Network Management" allows Internet Service Providers to temporarily throttle access to the network on the basis of: avoiding network congestion and/or contractual obligations.

"And/or" isn't something that should be in a legal text. Nor is "throttle", unless the law is about killing people with strangulation. You'd be better off rewording this as "allows Internet Service Providers to temporarily restrict access to the network on legal grounds such as avoiding network congestion or fulfilling contractual obligations".

(c) "Lawful" allowed by international law and/or national law (If international law and national law conflict, national law takes precedence over international law)

International law in the WA setting goes above national law, so that part of this would be infactual and most likely making this illegal for contradiction. I would instead make it "allowed by international and national laws". That requires it to check both.

(d) "Internet" refers to the exchange of information by any means.

No. Bad definition. Me having a chat with someone while waiting for the bus would be "Internet" according to this.

2. Prohibits Internet Service Providers from:

(a) Arbitrarily blocking access to lawful content and/or access to the network; subject to reasonable network management.
(b) Arbitrarily throttling access to lawful content and/or access to the network; subject to reasonable network management.

I'd make this instead "Prohibits ISPs from blocking or restricting access to lawful content in a manner that does not fall under reasonable network management."

3. Requires Internet Service Providers to disclose to new and existing subscribers (a person who pays to receive and/or access a service):

(a) Any and all pricing information related to the service plan.
(b) Any and all caps related to the service plan as well as the consequences of exceeding such cap.

You might want to add the definition of a subscriber to your definitions list rather than trying to do it mid-sentence here. Otherwise no objections.

4. Permits Internet Service Providers to employ, reasonable network management controls.

You already said this with the combination of your definition (b) and clause 2. At least if you make the changes I suggested.

Now... I honestly cannot even with the best of my imagination see how this isn't a category/AoE failure. Your proposal literally does nothing to help educational and creative rights. And just because GA #89 passed, doesn't mean this objection wouldn't apply.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

Open Internet Order

---

| Category: Education & Creativity | Area of Effect: Free Press | Proposed By: The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand |

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the essential role of the Internet in areas such as economic, social, and political activity;

Concerned that Internet Service Providers hold all the tools necessary to deceive subscribers and block or otherwise degrade content;

HEREBY:

1. Defines the following:

(a) "Internet Service Provider" as an entity that directly controls and operates facilities that are used to provide Internet access.
(b) "Reasonable Network Management" allows Internet Service Providers to temporarily throttle access to the network on legal grounds such as avoiding network congestion or contractual obligations.
(c) "Lawful" allowed by international law and/or national law (If international law and national law conflict, international law takes precedence over national law).
(d) "Internet" refers to the collection of technical protocols that allows different devices on different platforms to communicate with each other.
(e) "Subscribers" refers to a person who pays to receive and/or access a service.

2. Prohibits Internet Service Providers from:

(a) Arbitrarily blocking access to lawful content and/or access to the network; subject to reasonable network management.
(b) Arbitrarily throttling access to lawful content and/or access to the network; subject to reasonable network management.

3. Requires Internet Service Providers to disclose to new and existing subscribers:

(a) Any and all pricing information related to the service plan.
(b) Any and all caps related to the service plan as well as the consequences of exceeding such cap.

4. Permits Internet Service Providers to employ reasonable network management controls.

LEGEND: Changed and/or Added

Let me clarify, first of all I know that. But the wording allows national law to preempt international law IF the General Assembly hasn't addressed it. If I directly stated "allowed by international law", this would create a state of ambiguity because ISP will have a hard time knowing what's legal or illegal if the General Assembly hasn't addressed it. Let's hypothetically say the General Assembly doesn't have a resolution regarding the topic of pornography but national law allows people over 18 to view pornography. Now, under this loophole, ISP will hold the ultimate decision and allow anyone regardless of age to view porn because international law doesn't address this topic or otherwise make it illegal. Under the "and/or" doctrine, if international law does in fact address it and clashes with national law, then international law will take precedent over national law but if they is a national law in place and no international law, then the ISP will have to follow national law.

the Internet is 26,592 of different things to 26,592 of different people, and the definition that I get from or give to any particular member of the World Assembly or precisely the General Assembly when I ask or tell them what it is will always be slightly different. And even if I could get or give an answer that is all things to all people, that answer would change almost immediately.

"Without Net Neutrality, ISPs would be able to devise new schemes to charge users more for access and services, making it harder for us to communicate online — and easier for companies to censor our speech [also known as free press which is the area of effect of this resolution]. The Internet could come to resemble cable TV, where gatekeepers exert control over where you go and what you see."

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

OOC: I'm OFFICIALLY asking the Secretariat's Council to clarify if this 'Open Internet Order' belongs under Education & Creativity?

Would this resolution be a "category/AoE failure"? Would this resolution be illegal for RL reference*?

*A GA Secretariat stated "OOC: If it's capitalised (and its meaning within the NS multiverse isn't defined in the text) then it probably counts as a RL reference" but under this resolution complies with that because I defined it so would it still be illegal?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I'm OFFICIALLY asking the Secretariat's Council to clarify if this 'Open Internet Order' belongs under Education & Creativity?

Would this resolution be a "category/AoE failure"? Would this resolution be illegal for RL reference*?

*A GA Secretariat stated "OOC: If it's capitalised (and its meaning within the NS multiverse isn't defined in the text) then it probably counts as a RL reference" but under this resolution complies with that because I defined it so would it still be illegal?

Ooc: this isn't written to benefit education at all. It's more written as a social Justice proposal. It's part Human Rights in that it prevents arbitrary blocking, but focuses on consumer protection. SJ would be the better fit.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

Ooc: this isn't written to benefit education at all. It's more written as a social Justice proposal. It's part Human Rights in that it prevents arbitrary blocking, but focuses on consumer protection. SJ would be the better fit.

OOC: Would the strength be Mild?

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: this isn't written to benefit education at all. It's more written as a social Justice proposal. It's part Human Rights in that it prevents arbitrary blocking, but focuses on consumer protection. SJ would be the better fit.

OOC: Would the strength be Mild?

OOC: For such a narrow topic? Probably.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

Is my World Assembly resolution ready to be submitted?

[Araraukar]

Is my World Assembly resolution ready to be submitted?

OOC: You still have it up as Educational, so, no.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

Is my World Assembly resolution ready to be submitted?

OOC: You still have it up as Educational, so, no.

OOC: I haven't changed the wording but I will soon. Other than this minor change, is there any more comments?

[Araraukar]

OOC: I haven't changed the wording but I will soon. Other than this minor change, is there any more comments?

OOC: Your preamble needs something more. Remember that a lot of RL nations block access to certain sites (often hosted by certain nations) that they deem to be bad influence on their people, so I'm fairly sure that's true in NS as well, and as such you need to properly convince people that not doing so is necessary for the welfare of their people.

Also, you still have the "and/or" and "throttling" things in. Those should go away.

Additionally, what is your clause 4 doing right now, other than repeating what clause 2 has already (clumsily, you'll want to avoid repetition) said? You should make clause 4 the new clause 2 and move the other clauses down a number, so that you can refer to the rights of the ISPs you've already set, rather than repeating the part about the network management.

Further, what is missing entirely, is the mechanism for people to either get compensation for the ISP failing to keep up its part of the contract in the long term (like, if they were offered, say 24M speed, but can't get higher than 12M because of so many users in the same area) or when the network completely breaks down. I don't mean you micromanaging this all into the proposal, but some way to lessen the ISP's full control of the contract should be in there, especially with the category change.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

Additionally, what is your clause 4 doing right now, other than repeating what clause 2 has already (clumsily, you'll want to avoid repetition) said? You should make clause 4 the new clause 2 and move the other clauses down a number, so that you can refer to the rights of the ISPs you've already set, rather than repeating the part about the network management.

I'm going to keep it the same.

Further, what is missing entirely, is the mechanism for people to either get compensation for the ISP failing to keep up its part of the contract in the long term (like, if they were offered, say 24M speed, but can't get higher than 12M because of so many users in the same area) or when the network completely breaks down. I don't mean you micromanaging this all into the proposal, but some way to lessen the ISP's full control of the contract should be in there, especially with the category change.

I've added this to the resolution. Is it bueno?

5. Establishes the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority.

6. Empowers the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to issue fines, enforce provision(s) of this resolution and conduct investigations against Internet Service Providers. The Telecommunication Regulatory Authority may also issue declaratory rulings, at it discretion.

[Imperium Anglorum]

6. Empowers the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to issue fines, enforce provision(s) of this resolution and conduct investigations against Internet Service Providers. The Telecommunication Regulatory Authority may also issue declaratory rulings, at its discretion.

Grammar error bolded, etc. Also, the question of an independent authority which has the power to issue fines and conduct investigations, along with discretionary 'rulings' of an unknown nature, is certainly a hot-button issue which will get many people up in arms.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

6. Empowers the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to issue fines, enforce provision(s) of this resolution and conduct investigations against Internet Service Providers. The Telecommunication Regulatory Authority may also issue declaratory rulings, at its discretion.

Grammar error bolded, etc. Also, the question of an independent authority which has the power to issue fines and conduct investigations, along with discretionary 'rulings' of an unknown nature, is certainly a hot-button issue which will get many people up in arms.

OOC: I'll accept a loss. If the people reject it, it'll show that democracy is vibrant here. No need to worry

P.S. Thanks for the grammar fix!

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

SUBMITTED

OOC: [CAMPAIGN] Vote For & Approve 'Open Internet Order'