[PASSED] Repeal 'Open Internet Order'

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal 'Open Internet Order'
Category: Repeal

---

This august World Assembly,

Restating, again that:

1. one-size-fits-all legislation of this sort generally fails to adequately consider the specific situations in which nations may find themselves, thereby preventing them from applying relevant and situationally apt policy and
2. it is impossible to amend legislation and patch these issues, thereby making repeal the only option,

Concerned that Open Internet Order imposes cumbersome regulations which, due to high transaction costs, cannot be worked around, thereby leading to delays in network expansion and access,

Believing that the resolution's definition of 'internet service provider' includes national governments, as many governments provide information services to their citizens so they can access information necessary for fulfilling and productive lives,

Extremely distressed by clause 6 in the resolution, empowering the Telecommunication(s) Regulatory Authority to issue fines and declaratory rulings against ISPs at its own discretion, which when combined with the general vagueness of the resolution, allows the World Assembly to use these discretionary powers to raise revenue against national governments,

Perturbed with the privacy and national security implications of permitting an international agency to examine ISP (and therefore, government) data, information, and services without any oversight, at its own discretion, allowing international bureaucrats to look into the finances of subscribers, trade secrets of domestic companies, and the security preparations of the government,

Laughing at the ineffectiveness of the resolution at actually fulfilling its goals, as its definition of 'reasonable network management' allows a massive loophole of undefined 'legal grounds', which can easily be expanded by national governments, meaning the author has created a terrifying regulatory agency which fails to actually expand access in any way, saddling the member nations with all the costs of regulation and none of the benefits,

Disappointed that the resolution provides a cut-out for governments to create unlawful content, thereby allowing them to censor information and render the benefits of creating an open Internet utterly meaningless, and

Suspecting that any consistent interpretation of the resolution is in an incredible double-bind, as either it:

1. prevents internet providers from prioritising basic switching packets, thereby slowing down the entire network and restricting access for everyone, or
   
2. falls into 'reasonable network management', which means that practically all traffic prioritisation schemes can be run through such a loophole, making the resolution meaningless,

Hereby repeals 395 GA 'Open Internet Order'.

Promoted to the floor, 18 Mar 2017.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Reserved.

[Bakhton]

Believing that the resolution's definition of 'internet service provider' includes national governments,

"Here is the definition referred:"

(a) "Internet Service Provider" as an entity that directly controls and operates facilities that are used to provide Internet access.

"This is an incorrect understanding of this proposal's definition due to the fact that though a nation may regulate and provide internet access, in nearly all cases that would be done through a regulatory agency of the government, not the national government themselves."

Extremely distressed by clause 6 in the resolution, empowering the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to issue fines and declaratory rulings against ISPs at its own discretion, which when combined with the general vagueness of the resolution, allows the World Assembly to use these discretionary powers to raise revenue against national governments,

"For argument here is clause 6:"

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.

Since we've already discussed how it is absurd to equate a regulatory agency to the national government as a whole, I would also point out it is no more morally acceptable to rule out fines on private entities as public ones. Why should we be outraged about the resolution affecting regulatory bodies instead of a private entities? If one throttles the internet service, they are equally subject to regulation."

Perturbed with the privacy and national security implications of permitting an international agency to examine ISP data, information, and services without any oversight, and its own discretion,

"What possible national security hazards could arise of an agency knowing ISP data and how our ISPs work? Nowhere in the resolution does it say that this information will be made open for all nations to know, unless you're concerned with the legally neutral World Assembly sabotaging your ISPs?"

Laughing at the ineffectiveness of the resolution, as its definition of 'reasonable network management' allows a massive loophole of undefined 'legal grounds', which can easily be expanded by national governments, making it impossible for the resolution to fulfil its goals,

"And yet you wish to make us believe this new regulatory body is at once a threat and at once a non-entity? Choose one strategy, because this one argument is out of sync with the assertions made in the other."

Concerned about the aesthetic precedent of a resolution which fails to abide by sensible formatting conventions designed to ensure readability,

"This resolution is no more creatively formatted than Auralia's recent abomination, and æsthetic presentation is not proper grounds nor argument for repeal."

[Bananaistan]

"Opposed. The formatting of a resolution which does not negatively effect the reader's ability to comprehend the resolution is not a valid reason for repeal. Were that clause removed, we would be inclined to support."

- Brian

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"We note that Clause 1b) of the target resolution is constructed with a syntactical ambiguity that appears to permit national regulations to allow throttling of network traffic on grounds including 'avoiding... contractual obligations.' The World Assembly should not be in the business of encouraging entities within member states to abrogate contracts they signed in good faith."

[Bakhton]

"We note that Clause 1b) of the target resolution is constructed with a syntactical ambiguity that appears to permit national regulations to allow throttling of network traffic on grounds including 'avoiding... contractual obligations.' The World Assembly should not be in the business of encouraging entities within member states to abrogate contracts they signed in good faith."

OOC: Can't that be construed as an honest mistake?

(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.

The reasonable interpretation is not to believe this is saying ISPs may ignore contractual obligations, instead that they can throttle access due to contractual obligations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

There can be multiple reasonable interpretations.

[Auralia]

There can be multiple reasonable interpretations.

((OOC: With that said, I think it's clear that the "avoiding" qualifier applies to congestion, not contractual obligations.))

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

There can be multiple reasonable interpretations.

((OOC: With that said, I think it's clear that the "avoiding" qualifier applies to congestion, not contractual obligations.))

OOC: Correct Auralia *For anyone opposing my resolution, be wise and careful on your wording as I will probably use it against you*. EX: In this attempted repeal, he states "the resolution's definition of 'internet service provider' includes national governments". But wait, some members are opposing my resolution because this doesn't include national governments and therefore, that could be used as a loophole. Weird right that members opposing my resolution can't even agree on my interpretation of ISP. Why?

[New Dukaine]

Support all of your claims, along with a separate claim of a category violation of the targeted resolution.

[Bakhton]

Jeffrey appears behind Lara with her coffee. "Ma'am. Why are we getting behind a vague and hardly operable resolution?"
"Why Jeff," she takes the coffee. "That's the point. Vague resolutions are wonderful solutions to long contested proposals in the World Assembly. Sadly, one of my favorites, the one on patents was gotten rid of, but that doesn't mean we can't make more and pretend to care about them with the veracity of honest people."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Concerned about the aesthetic precedent of a resolution which fails to abide by sensible formatting conventions designed to ensure readability,

Fairburn: We fully support this aesthetic precedent and will therefore oppose this repeal.

[Araraukar]

Concerned about the aesthetic precedent of a resolution which fails to abide by sensible formatting conventions designed to ensure readability,

Fairburn: We fully support this aesthetic precedent and will therefore oppose this repeal.

OOC: ^Same reason for opposing, though not the same reason for supporting the target.

[United City States of Oceania]

We are completely against this repeal because of the many reasons stated above.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Three edits: (1) a change in the text clarifying exactly what is meant by the Laughing clause, to avoid Bakton's interpretation of inconsistency, (2) addition of a pro-subsidiarity clause, (3) clarification edits to the second Concerned clause.

Support all of your claims, along with a separate claim of a category violation of the targeted resolution.

If you believe that, you should make a legality challenge of the targeted resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Submitted. Approve here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1489638177

[Bananaistan]

"Support. We agree with every clause listed."

- Brian

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "The Greater Siriusian Domain will only support this provided there is a replacement proposal to the resolution this seeks to repeal. We believe that protecting the right to free speech, as net neutrality legislation does, is incredibly important. Remember, without the right to free speech, people wouldn't even be able to discuss other issues."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Well, you took out your pet peeve clause, so no objections from me OOCly or ICly. I'll probably vote against the repeal, but only because of the category the target is in.

[Draconae]

"Support. We agree with every one of your reasons."

Teran Saber: "The Greater Siriusian Domain will only support this provided there is a replacement proposal to the resolution this seeks to repeal. We believe that protecting the right to free speech, as net neutrality legislation does, is incredibly important. Remember, without the right to free speech, people wouldn't even be able to discuss other issues."

"We understand your concerns, ambassador. In fact, we are working on a replacement, if you'd like to look at it."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

"Support. We agree with every one of your reasons."

Teran Saber: "The Greater Siriusian Domain will only support this provided there is a replacement proposal to the resolution this seeks to repeal. We believe that protecting the right to free speech, as net neutrality legislation does, is incredibly important. Remember, without the right to free speech, people wouldn't even be able to discuss other issues."

"We understand your concerns, ambassador. In fact, we are working on a replacement, if you'd like to look at it."

Teran Saber: "I wish to see this replacement proposal."

[Bakhton]

"In a stunning change of heart the Supreme Court of Bakhton has changed its vote on this after previously approving it. The justices cited inconsistencies, and vague wording as the major culprit of their decision."

[Emmetz]

It worries me how this resolution was originally passed by a large majority and now looks set to be repealed by a large majority. Where was this first time round? These forums aren't obvious enough.

[United City States of Oceania]

It worries me how this resolution was originally passed by a large majority and now looks set to be repealed by a large majority. Where was this first time round? These forums aren't obvious enough.

Watch a replacement also get passed by a large majority...

[Wallenburg]

It worries me how this resolution was originally passed by a large majority and now looks set to be repealed by a large majority. Where was this first time round? These forums aren't obvious enough.

They are incredibly obvious. The WA mainpage even links directly to this forum. The issue is that next to nobody bothers doing their research.