[PASSED] Internet Neutrality Act

[Draconae]

A door in the wall opens, and Marcus Valorus walks in. The room is empty except for a podium and some chairs, but soon it will be positively swarming with delegates. He sets the text of the resolution on the podium, and enters into the record:

"Well, this is my first resolution. I wanted to get a jump on a replacement for Open Internet Order, as some ambassadors wanted a replacement drafted before they would agree to the repeal. Obviously, this will only be submitted if "Repeal 'Open Internet Order'" passes, otherwise, I will have to shelve it."

Internet Neutrality Act

---

| Category: Social Justice | Strength: Mild | Proposed By: Draconae |

The General Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that the Internet is a means of communication, collaboration, expression, and business for many;

BELIEVING that access to all lawful content on the Internet is fundamental to both freedom of expression and the growth of small businesses;

DISTURBED that WA nations or Internet Service Providers could arbitrarily restrict access to lawful content or the Internet itself;

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES
   
   1. “Internet” as a system of interconnected networks of digital devices used to transfer data between said devices and their networks,
   2. “Internet Service Provider” as an entity that provides the ability to access the Internet to businesses, residents, or other customers such as shops, schools, or libraries, excluding entities who only offer the ability to access the Internet as an additional benefit and not as a primary source of Internet access,
   3. “Bandwidth throttling” as the intentional act of decreasing the speed of a connection below the maximum possible connection speed,
2. PROHIBITS WA Nations from blocking access to or bandwidth throttling the Internet or specific lawful content, directly or indirectly, including content that is critical of the government or of other government interests,
3. PROHIBITS Internet Service Providers from blocking access to or bandwidth throttling the Internet or specific lawful content, unless allowed by Clause Four,
4. ALLOWS blocking access or bandwidth throttling by Internet Service Providers to
   
   1. Allow all digital devices to receive access to the Internet,
   2. Allow all digital devices access to necessary services in extreme situations, such as natural disasters, or
   3. As a result of a published scale of prices for connection speeds and data caps disclosed to all customers of the Internet Service Provider.

"I have a number of questions. First, does this go better in Social Justice, like Open Internet Order, or in Education and Creativity/Free Press like GA #89 'Internet Net Neutrality Act'? Second, should I use 'digital devices' without a definition, define them, or just use 'computers' instead? Third, does clause two duplicate GA #30 'Freedom of Expression'? I don't think it does on a technicality, but I'm not sure how that will be interpreted. Fourth, have I managed to resolve all of the criticisms explained in the repeal of Internet Net Neutrality Act? Finally, any other constructive feedback you can give me is appreciated."

[Draconae]

Internet Neutrality Act

---

| Category: Social Justice? | Strength: Mild? | Proposed By: Draconae |

The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the Internet as an essential means of communication, collaboration, and expression for many;

CONCERNED that Internet Service Providers could arbitrarily restrict access to lawful content or the Internet itself;

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES
   
   1. “Internet” as a system of interconnected networks of digital devices used to transfer data between said devices and their networks,
   2. “Internet Service Provider” as an entity that provides the ability to access the Internet to customers, whether paid or unpaid,
   3. “Throttling” as decreasing the speed of a connection below the maximum connection speed realistically possible,
   4. “Lawful content” as content that is allowed under the laws of the nation as well as WA resolutions,
2. PROHIBITS WA Nations from arbitrarily blocking access to or throttling lawful content, directly or indirectly, including content that is critical of the government or of other government interests,
3. PROHIBITS Internet Service Providers from arbitrarily blocking access to or throttling the Internet or specific lawful content,
4. EXPLICITLY ALLOWS throttling by Internet Service Providers to
   
   1. Allow all digital devices to receive access to the Internet or
   2. As a result of a published scale disclosed to all customers of the Internet Service Provider.

Internet Neutrality Act

---

| Category: Social Justice? | Strength: Mild? | Proposed By: Draconae |

The General Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that Internet is a means of communication, collaboration, expression, and business for many;

BELIEVING that access to all lawful content on the Internet is fundamental to both freedom of expression and the growth of small businesses;

DISTURBED that WA nations or Internet Service Providers could arbitrarily restrict access to lawful content or the Internet itself;

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES
   
   1. “Internet” as a system of interconnected networks of digital devices used to transfer data between said devices and their networks,
   2. “Internet Service Provider” as an entity that provides the ability to access the Internet to customers, whether paid or unpaid,
   3. “Bandwidth throttling” as the intentional act of decreasing the speed of a connection below the maximum possible connection speed,
   4. “Lawful content” as content that is allowed under the laws of the nation as well as WA resolutions,
2. PROHIBITS WA Nations from blocking access to or bandwidth throttling lawful content, directly or indirectly, including content that is critical of the government or of other government interests,
3. PROHIBITS Internet Service Providers from blocking access to or bandwidth throttling the Internet or specific lawful content, unless allowed by Clause Four,
4. ALLOWS bandwidth throttling by Internet Service Providers to
   
   1. Allow all digital devices to receive access to the Internet,
   2. Allow all digital devices access to necessary services in extreme situations, such as natural disasters, or
   3. As a result of a published scale of prices for connection speeds and data caps disclosed to all customers of the Internet Service Provider.

Internet Neutrality Act

---

| Category: Social Justice? | Strength: Mild? | Proposed By: Draconae |

The General Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that Internet is a means of communication, collaboration, expression, and business for many;

BELIEVING that access to all lawful content on the Internet is fundamental to both freedom of expression and the growth of small businesses;

DISTURBED that WA nations or Internet Service Providers could arbitrarily restrict access to lawful content or the Internet itself;

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES
   
   1. “Internet” as a system of interconnected networks of digital devices used to transfer data between said devices and their networks,
   2. “Internet Service Provider” as an entity that provides the ability to access the Internet to businesses, residents, or other customers such as shops, schools, or libraries, excluding entities who only offer the ability to access the Internet as an additional benefit and not as a primary source of Internet access,
   3. “Bandwidth throttling” as the intentional act of decreasing the speed of a connection below the maximum possible connection speed,
   4. “Lawful content” as content that is allowed under the laws of the nation as well as WA resolutions,
2. PROHIBITS WA Nations from blocking access to or bandwidth throttling the Internet or specific lawful content, directly or indirectly, including content that is critical of the government or of other government interests,
3. PROHIBITS Internet Service Providers from blocking access to or bandwidth throttling the Internet or specific lawful content, unless allowed by Clause Four,
4. ALLOWS blocking access or bandwidth throttling by Internet Service Providers to
   
   1. Allow all digital devices to receive access to the Internet,
   2. Allow all digital devices access to necessary services in extreme situations, such as natural disasters, or
   3. As a result of a published scale of prices for connection speeds and data caps disclosed to all customers of the Internet Service Provider.

[Imperium Anglorum]

We're happy to support this for the next week without any major reservations.

[Overthinkers]

Hall: "After a quick survey of the proposal, I find nothing distinctly wrong with it. Personally, however, I am confused by what Clause 4b is referring to, and would appreciate some clarification."

[OOC: To answer your questions:
1. I personally think Free Press would be better.
2. I would recommend defining "digital devices", but I'm also the type to define absolutely everything.
3. I don't think it duplicates, though I'm no expert.
4. Probably not...]

[Draconae]

Hall: "After a quick survey of the proposal, I find nothing distinctly wrong with it. Personally, however, I am confused by what Clause 4b is referring to, and would appreciate some clarification."

[OOC: To answer your questions:
1. I personally think Free Press would be better.
2. I would recommend defining "digital devices", but I'm also the type to define absolutely everything.
3. I don't think it duplicates, though I'm no expert.
4. Probably not...]

"Clause 4b is referring to the common ISP billing practice of charging a customer more for a higher connection speed. I wanted to carve out an exemption for that, as that was one of the criticisms of the original Internet Net Neutrality Act."

OOC: Thanks for answering my questions. Why specifically do you think Free Press would be better?

[Auralia]

I really think you should tighten up your definitions before you submit this.

“Internet” as a system of interconnected networks of digital devices used to transfer data between said devices and their networks,

I think this definition is too broad. There are plenty of private networks that would meet this definition -- some even based on TCP/IP -- that aren't part of the public Internet and shouldn't be subject to a net neutrality mandate. One good example is IPTV.

“Throttling” as decreasing the speed of a connection below the maximum connection speed realistically possible,

This doesn't really clarify what throttling is because there's no obvious answer for what the "maximum...speed realistically possible" is for a particular connection. Often this depends on what you're connecting to, how many people are on the network at the same time, and how your packets are prioritized relative to theirs. Is oversubscribing the last mile "throttling"? Is prioritization of certain applications "throttling"?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Draconae]

I really think you should tighten up your definitions before you submit this.

“Internet” as a system of interconnected networks of digital devices used to transfer data between said devices and their networks,

I think this definition is too broad. There are plenty of private networks that would meet this definition -- some even based on TCP/IP -- that aren't part of the public Internet and shouldn't be subject to a net neutrality mandate. One good example is IPTV.

“Throttling” as decreasing the speed of a connection below the maximum connection speed realistically possible,

This doesn't really clarify what throttling is because there's no obvious answer for what the "maximum...speed realistically possible" is for a particular connection. Often this depends on what you're connecting to, how many people are on the network at the same time, and how your packets are prioritized relative to theirs. Is oversubscribing the last mile "throttling"? Is prioritization of certain applications "throttling"?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"You are quite correct, ambassador. The problem comes in when we consider how to define the 'Internet' as different from anything else. Your example, for instance, seems to mostly be delivered in conjunction with Internet Service or over Internet Protocols, and that is very similar to the internet. Shouldn't whoever is running that network have to deliver any content available on the network without undue throttling? What would you consider a better definition to be?"

"However, my definition of throttling can definitely use some work. My definition was created to allow for changes depending on connection or how many people are on the network, as you can see in Clause 4. However, it is a bit vague. Would "the intentional act of decreasing the speed of a connection below the maximum possible connection speed" work? As the maximum possible connection speed for a node already depends on the devices connecting to it and the type of node, these are not considered throttling. Any slowdowns created by the ISP or government would be throttling. However, Clause 4 allows for throttling in legitimate circumstances, so I don't think that's a problem. Under this definition, oversubscribing would not be throttling, but lead to a case of allowed throttling, while prioritization of certain applications (video, webpage, etc.) would not be allowed."

[Overthinkers]

Hall: "After a quick survey of the proposal, I find nothing distinctly wrong with it. Personally, however, I am confused by what Clause 4b is referring to, and would appreciate some clarification."

[OOC: To answer your questions:
1. I personally think Free Press would be better.
2. I would recommend defining "digital devices", but I'm also the type to define absolutely everything.
3. I don't think it duplicates, though I'm no expert.
4. Probably not...]

"Clause 4b is referring to the common ISP billing practice of charging a customer more for a higher connection speed. I wanted to carve out an exemption for that, as that was one of the criticisms of the original Internet Net Neutrality Act."

OOC: Thanks for answering my questions. Why specifically do you think Free Press would be better?

Hall: "As I figured. Thank you."

[OOC: Your proposal focuses mostly on the media on the internet, and media of nearly any kind falls under my definition of free press.]

[Draconae]

OOC: Okay, makes sense. Let's see what others say.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

OOC: Okay, makes sense. Let's see what others say.

I think your definition of

“Internet Service Provider” as an entity that provides the ability to access the Internet to customers, whether paid or unpaid"

includes coffee shops and every other establishments that offer Internet (this was a heavily-used argument against my resolution)

"scale"

what is a "scale" (again, this was a heavily-used argument against my resolution and everyone has different interpretations)

[Draconae]

"Well, here's Draft 2! I changed the wording of the preamble, the definition of throttling, and added another exemption for access to necessary services in situations like natural disasters."

"scale"

what is a "scale" (again, this was a heavily-used argument against my resolution and everyone has different interpretations)

"I clarified this in the second draft. It's a scale of prices for speeds and data caps."

I think your definition of

“Internet Service Provider” as an entity that provides the ability to access the Internet to customers, whether paid or unpaid"

includes coffee shops and every other establishments that offer Internet (this was a heavily-used argument against my resolution)

OOC: I searched your thread for 'Internet Service Provider' and that actually didn't come up very much. Besides, why should an establishment who offers Internet access have the right to block things they don't like? They will probably contract the duty of providing that service to another organization or entity, anyway.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I searched your thread for 'Internet Service Provider' and that actually didn't come up very much.

OOC: Search with "ISP" and "ISPs".

[Aclion]

OOC: I searched your thread for 'Internet Service Provider' and that actually didn't come up very much. Besides, why should an establishment who offers Internet access have the right to block things they don't like?

Should schools not be allowed to block pornography? Or employers social media? Their are plenty of legitimate reasons why such establishments should not be regulated as ISPs, chief among them being that they are not ISPs

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

As the operator of the world's largest telecommunication company, would the operator be in a violation?

To minimize capacity issues and degradation in network performance, we prioritize talk, texts & data for customers who choose 'TELNOS Unlimited Plus' over calls, texts & data for customers who choose 'TELNOS Unlimited'. (QoS) Customers who exceed 1GB of data usage will experience reduced speeds for the remainder of their cycle.

- Source: Company "Terms & Conditions"

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "The Greater Siriusian Domain believes that this proposal is a suitable replacement for the current legislation. Supported"

As the operator of the world's largest telecommunication company, would the operator be in a violation?

To minimize capacity issues and degradation in network performance, we prioritize talk, texts & data for customers who choose 'TELNOS Unlimited Plus' over calls, texts & data for customers who choose 'TELNOS Unlimited'. (QoS) Customers who exceed 1GB of data usage will experience reduced speeds for the remainder of their cycle.

- Source: Company "Terms & Conditions"

OOC: If the TELNOS Unlimited plan is otherwise identical to the TELNOS Unlimited Plus plan apart from pricing, I could see a case being made for either compliance or non-compliance. Depends on how one wishes to interpret clause 4.c.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

Teran Saber: "The Greater Siriusian Domain believes that this proposal is a suitable replacement for the current legislation. Supported"

As the operator of the world's largest telecommunication company, would the operator be in a violation?

OOC: If the TELNOS Unlimited plan is otherwise identical to the TELNOS Unlimited Plus plan apart from pricing, I could see a case being made for either compliance or non-compliance. Depends on how one wishes to interpret clause 4.c.

OOC: What if my carrier refuses to implement the legislation, who would force us to comply with this resolution? This harms my business!

[Bears Armed]

Teran Saber: "The Greater Siriusian Domain believes that this proposal is a suitable replacement for the current legislation. Supported"



OOC: If the TELNOS Unlimited plan is otherwise identical to the TELNOS Unlimited Plus plan apart from pricing, I could see a case being made for either compliance or non-compliance. Depends on how one wishes to interpret clause 4.c.

OOC: What if my carrier refuses to implement the legislation, who would force us to comply with this resolution? This harms my business!

OOC; If this passes then it becomes a part of your nation's own laws... and so your own law-courts could & should hear any complaints made by customers about the carrier's non-compliance.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: What if my carrier refuses to implement the legislation, who would force us to comply with this resolution? This harms my business!

OOC; If this passes then it becomes a part of your nation's own laws... and so your own law-courts could & should hear any complaints made by customers about the carrier's non-compliance.

OOC: To add to this, one could role-play non-compliance, but I'm pretty sure there are consequences for that.

[Araraukar]

OOC: To add to this, one could role-play non-compliance, but I'm pretty sure there are consequences for that.

OOC: Yeah, EP will debate you dead.

[Draconae]

"Draft 3 is up. I clarified the definition of 'Internet Service Provider' and allowed blocking access in Clause Four."

OOC: I searched your thread for 'Internet Service Provider' and that actually didn't come up very much. Besides, why should an establishment who offers Internet access have the right to block things they don't like?

Should schools not be allowed to block pornography? Or employers social media? Their are plenty of legitimate reasons why such establishments should not be regulated as ISPs, chief among them being that they are not ISPs

OOC: You make a good point. Is the definition in Draft 3 acceptable?

As the operator of the world's largest telecommunication company, would the operator be in a violation?

To minimize capacity issues and degradation in network performance, we prioritize talk, texts & data for customers who choose 'TELNOS Unlimited Plus' over calls, texts & data for customers who choose 'TELNOS Unlimited'. (QoS) Customers who exceed 1GB of data usage will experience reduced speeds for the remainder of their cycle.

- Source: Company "Terms & Conditions"

OOC: The part about reducing speeds for the remainder of the cycle would be allowed under Clause 4c, as long as the provider had disclosed the plan to all customers and specified the speed reduction. However, I am actually not sure about the TELNOS Unlimited Plus plan because this does not outline a scale for speeds, just prioritization. I do not believe it would be allowed currently.

[States of Glory WA Office]

PROHIBITS WA Nations from blocking access to...lawful content, directly or indirectly, including content that is critical of the government or of other government interests,

Barbera: As written, this clause is not specifically limited to content that is on the Internet. Was this intentional?

Fairburn: Also, how does this not duplicate GA #30 a.k.a Freedom of Expression?

Requires member states to respect and uphold [the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal] in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

OOC: To add to this, one could role-play non-compliance, but I'm pretty sure there are consequences for that.

OOC: Yeah, EP will debate you dead.

Never, under any circumstances, request member states to perform a certain action.

[Imperium Anglorum]

PROHIBITS WA Nations from blocking access to...lawful content, directly or indirectly, including content that is critical of the government or of other government interests,

Barbera: As written, this clause is not specifically limited to content that is on the Internet. Was this intentional?

NORTH: All any nation which wants to block anything only needs to create some lèse-majesté laws, and then utilise the lawful content loophole with impunity.

[Draconae]

PROHIBITS WA Nations from blocking access to...lawful content, directly or indirectly, including content that is critical of the government or of other government interests,

Barbera: As written, this clause is not specifically limited to content that is on the Internet. Was this intentional?

"No, it was not. I will fix that shortly."

Fairburn: Also, how does this not duplicate GA #30 a.k.a Freedom of Expression?

Requires member states to respect and uphold [the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal] in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

"I asked that when opening debate. I believe that, while Freedom of Expression requires member states to uphold the right of all people to express views in all media, it does not require member states to allow anyone else to see those views. However, I also understand why you believe it contradicts, and would be interested in hearing your reply."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: As written, this clause is not specifically limited to content that is on the Internet. Was this intentional?

NORTH: All any nation which wants to block anything only needs to create some lèse-majesté laws, and then utilise the lawful content loophole with impunity.

Barbera: On the contrary, violation of majesty is not listed as an exception in GA #30, so provided that the insult is not defamatory, an incitement to lawlessness or an unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information, it is protected speech. In fact, government institutions and political leaders are exempted from GA #30's definition of defamation, so even that argument is doubtful.

Fairburn: Just to be clear, we do not endorse defamation of government officials.

Fairburn: Also, how does this not duplicate GA #30 a.k.a Freedom of Expression?

"I asked that when opening debate. I believe that, while Freedom of Expression requires member states to uphold the right of all people to express views in all media, it does not require member states to allow anyone else to see those views. However, I also understand why you believe it contradicts, and would be interested in hearing your reply."

Fairburn: Fair enough.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

OOC: What if my carrier refuses to implement the legislation, who would force us to comply with this resolution? This harms my business!

OOC; If this passes then it becomes a part of your nation's own laws... and so your own law-courts could & should hear any complaints made by customers about the carrier's non-compliance.

But what if the owner of the company is the government and the government's political status is a dictator? Who would force us to comply if this resolution doesn't have any regulatory powers (like my resolution was like the FCC)? This statement was heavily used for the legality challenge.