[SUBMITTED] Phone Home Act

[Gnejs]

Phone Home Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES that many WA member states operate with similar and compatible systems and infrastructure for wireless telecommunications,

RECOGNIZES that providers of wireless telecommunications networks - that are commercially accessible to the public - in different member states often enter into authentication, authorization and billing agreements, allowing users from different nations to continue using wireless communication devices seamlessly by connecting to foreign commercially accessible wireless telecommunications networks while in other member states,

REALISING that connecting to foreign commercially accessible wireless telecommunications networks often involves surcharges for non-domestic users for the services used while connected,

NOTES that there are substantial variations in said surcharges, causing financial unpredictability for users, especially for those of limited means,

BELIEVING nationals from member states, regardless of their socioeconomic status and financial resources, should have reasonable access to pursuing private long-distance communication through their own devices while visiting other member states without dreading unpredictable monetary consequences,

Hereby,

MANDATES that all providers of commercially accessible wireless telecommunications networks in member states refrain from adding surcharges for non-domestic users from other member-states connecting to their network via wireless communication devices, beyond the minimum transaction costs required to facilitate connectivity and service provision,

REQUIRES that all providers of commercially accessible wireless telecommunications networks in member states give notice, through appropriate channels and free of charge, to all non-domestic users from other member-states concerning the current rates of network services for said user upon connecting to their network,

DECREES that all member states shall greet visitors from other member states, upon entry, with a piece of cake or quick-bread, preferably scones.

Third draft:

Phone Home Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES that many WA member states operate with similar and compatible systems and infrastructure for wireless telecommunications,

RECOGNIZES that providers of publicly accessible wireless telecommunications networks in different member states often enter into authentication, authorization and billing agreements, allowing users from different nations to continue using wireless communication devices seamlessly by connecting to foreign publicly accessible wireless telecommunications networks while in other member states,

REALISING that connecting to foreign publicly accesible wireless telecommunications networks often involves surcharges for non-domestic users for the services used while connected,

NOTES that there are substantial variations in said surcharges, causing financial unpredictability for users, especially for those of limited means,

BELIEVING nationals from WA member states, regardless of their socioeconomic status and financial resources, should have reasonable access to pursuing private long-distance communication through their own devices while visiting other member states without dreading unpredictable monetary consequences,

Hereby,

MANDATES that all providers of publicly accessible wireless telecommunications networks in WA member states refrain from adding surcharges for non-domestic users from other member-states connecting to their network via wireless communication devices, beyond the minimum transaction costs required to facilitate connectivity and service provision,

REQUIRES that all providers of publicly accessible wireless telecommunications networks in WA member states give notice, through appropriate channels, to all non-domestic users from other member-states concerning the current rates of network services for said user upon connecting to their network.

Second draft

Phone Home Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES that many member states operate with similar telecommunications systems, allowing users from different nations to continue using their mobile phone devices seamlessly while outside their domestic telecommunications network and in other member states,

REALISING that telecommunications networks often operate with surcharges for non-domestic users for the tele- text and data services used while connected to their network,

NOTES that no international regulation exists covering this area and that there are substantial variations in said surcharges between nations and networks, causing financial unpredictability for users, especially for those of limited means,

BELIEVING nationals from WA member states, regardless of their socioeconomic status and financial resources, should have reasonable access to pursuing private long-distance communication while visiting other member states without dreading unpredictable monetary consequences,

Hereby,

MANDATES that all network owners/operators in WA member states refrain from adding surcharges for non-domestic users from other member states connecting to their network for the first 120 minutes of calling and 1 megabytes of data;

REQUIRES that all network owners/operators in WA member states give notice, through appropriate channels, to all non-domestic users from other member states concerning the current rates of network services for said user upon connecting to their network.

First draft (Called 'Fair Roaming Act', Free trade category)

Fair Roaming Act
A resolution to reduce barriers for free trade
Category: Free trade Strength: Mild Proposed by: Gnejs

Desciption: The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES the tremendous benefits that telecommunication and internet access have had, and continues to have, in enabling human interaction, connecting societies and strengthening enterprise and business.

COMITTED to the removal of obstacles to further free trade and shared markets between member states in areas appropriate.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, International Roaming as the technology that allows wireless communication devices to stay connected to a network, from here on "guest network", while traveling abroad and outside the area of coverage of the users standard domestic network; facilitating the possibility to seamlessly make and receive calls, send text messages and send or receive data.

Further DEFINES International Roaming Fees as extra charges made to the user for the tele- text- and data services used while connected to a guest network in another nation, and International Roaming Contracts as the legal frameworks between network owners/operators of different nations that:

1) governs the technical enabling of, and the billing procedures related to, users' seamless connection between networks, and thereby
2) determines International Roaming Fees

CONCERNED that no international regulation exists covering this area, resulting in the possibility of substantial variations in International Roaming Fees between nations and networks – dependent on the user's standard domestic network and its International Roaming Contracts – and also between domestic users of a network and "travelling/visiting" users.

WORRIED that the unpredictability for users of said variations while visiting different nations results in lowering the use of telecommunication and internet services on wireless communication devices, effectively hampering professional and private interaction and communication due to monetary concerns on the part of the "travelling/visiting" user.

CONVINCED that an abolishment of International Roaming Fees will achieve a greater predictability for users, and result in increasing use of network services while travelling/visiting abroad.

CONFIDENT that this will strengthen the maintaining of professional and private relationships through instant access to information at predictable prices.

ASSURED that, despite causing a short-term loss of revenue, network owners/operators will ultimately gain from the abolishment of International Roaming Fees due to increased usage of services by a larger pool of potential customers.

BELEIVING that this is case, as the abolishment of International Roaming Fees will enable domestic network owners/operators to compete for customers in new markets in other member states, at the discretion of the individual member state.

Therefore,

MANDATES that all network owners/operators in WA member nations, within their International Roaming Contracts, refrains from adding International Roaming Fees for non-domestic users, and solely operate with the user's networks domestic rates for all users connected to their network.

In closing, ASSERTS that it is the sole prerogative of the network owner/operator to determine the prices for services provided within their respective network, within the confines of national and international law and regulations.

[The Land of Beer]

*wanders in accompanied by two buxom beautiful redheads *

Sounds good here though not sure if its in the correct legalese as that stuff tends to put me to sleep .... we support to proposal ..... and now if youll pardon us its time for happy hour our work for the day is done here .....

[Wrapper]

OOC: Who let you in?

IC: Ah, welcome to the General Assembly!

Let's see, first off, before we comment on content, we'd like to point out that this is a couple hundred characters too long; three thousand, including spaces, is the limit. You do have quite a few perambulatory clauses that do absolutely nothing other than trying to make an argument. You really should cut down on all the fluff, and focus on the active clauses. Or in this case, clause, as you only have the single MANDATES clause. Which... is not Free Trade at all. Instead of reducing a barrier to free trade, you are enforcing a limit to what a corporation can charge. Instead it belongs in... hmmm. Not quite sure actually. Social Justice perhaps.

[Gnejs]

OOC: Who let you in?

OOC: The door was open, security around here is kind of lax

IC: Ah, welcome to the General Assembly!

Let's see, first off, before we comment on content, we'd like to point out that this is a couple hundred characters too long; three thousand, including spaces, is the limit. You do have quite a few perambulatory clauses that do absolutely nothing other than trying to make an argument. You really should cut down on all the fluff, and focus on the active clauses. Or in this case, clause, as you only have the single MANDATES clause. Which... is not Free Trade at all. Instead of reducing a barrier to free trade, you are enforcing a limit to what a corporation can charge. Instead it belongs in... hmmm. Not quite sure actually. Social Justice perhaps.

IC: Thank you, ambassador. I will admit that I initially was just writing to get the flow going, and there is indeed some fluff that can easily be removed. I will re-examine the proposal in this regard, and see if we can't get it within the character limit.

As for the other thing, I agree that the proposals placement in 'Free Trade' is not obvious, considering what it actually does. And I might very well be mistaken completely! The idea was that the lack of regulations securing standards and pricing predictability is the barrier, as it affects the users and contributes to them not using the services as much as they could. As the users can often be individuals acting in a business capacity this would in turn contribute to hampering them in conducting their business while abroad (communicating with the home office while travelling to negotiate, secure a contract, etc.). I'm not saying it's a very big barrier for free trade, but doing away with the extra charges could facilitate increased use of services that would benefit people engaged in multinational commerce. And then there is the idea that the extra charges are in themselves a "barrier" of sorts for competition, because it hinders companies seeking entry in other national markets. So forcing some standards could therefore actually promote free trade in the sense that consumers potentially gets more "freedom" to choose between different products.

(OOC: It's a stretch, I know, but basically I couldn't find any other category that fitted. So I tried thinking out how it could somehow fall under this one.)

*wanders in accompanied by two buxom beautiful redheads *

Sounds good here though not sure if its in the correct legalese as that stuff tends to put me to sleep .... we support to proposal ..... and now if youll pardon us its time for happy hour our work for the day is done here .....

Well, eh, thank you. And enjoy happy hour.

[Kaboomlandia]

At first glance, it looks solid. I'll see if I can help with getting it down bolo the character limit.

[Separatist Peoples]

"There do exist times that international rates are justified. The cost of the arrangements that allow a provider to use the telecommunications infrastructure in another country cannot always be eaten by the company, and are often passed onto the consumer. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, and I struggle to see why we should be offering access to our telecommunications systems at cost."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...I agree that the proposals placement in 'Free Trade' is not obvious, considering what it actually does. And I might very well be mistaken completely! The idea was that the lack of regulations securing standards and pricing predictability is the barrier, as it affects the users and contributes to them not using the services as much as they could. As the users can often be individuals acting in a business capacity this would in turn contribute to hampering them in conducting their business while abroad (communicating with the home office while travelling to negotiate, secure a contract, etc.). I'm not saying it's a very big barrier for free trade, but doing away with the extra charges could facilitate increased use of services that would benefit people engaged in multinational commerce. And then there is the idea that the extra charges are in themselves a "barrier" of sorts for competition, because it hinders companies seeking entry in other national markets. So forcing some standards could therefore actually promote free trade in the sense that consumers potentially gets more "freedom" to choose between different products.

(OOC: It's a stretch, I know, but basically I couldn't find any other category that fitted. So I tried thinking out how it could somehow fall under this one.)

"The problem, ambassador, is that Free Trade proposals are designed to strike down government barriers to commerce, which are almost always regulatory barriers. Your attempted price control counts as just such a barrier. While roaming charges may be excessive, they are at root a cost of doing business - that is, of paying for a guest network's ability to route information to and from a device originating in another network or country. While there may be some profit-making going on, it's not an artificial or pointless charge, there is at bottom a legitimate business cost to supporting foreign devices."

"You have two options here. One, you could reframe this as a Social Justice proposal as Wad Ari suggests; since data access is now essential to living life, it should be treated as a public utility if not a sapient right. That argument is going to be pretty tough to make considering the people you're most concerned about here are travelers who are specifically sightseeing or getting paid to do business far away from their homes (and home networks). Helping them doesn't seem much like a dire social justice issue."

"Two, you could rewrite it as a real free trade proposal: mandate that WA nations open up their mobile network markets to all competitors. You can then put caveats on that to prevent price-gouging, cartel behavior, and other nasty consequences of deregulation, but that opening of markets is what will make this Free Trade (as well as viable at vote)."

"Best of luck, ambassador."

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I really don't see why a few more bucks for long-distance communication is all that unreasonable, nor do I see why it is such a major issue as to demand international action.

IC: "I don't understand, what is roaming? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Greetings. I've wanted to try out the 'GA experience' – i.e. presenting a rough draft on the forums and trying to refine it through the help (and/or ridicule) of experienced players

OOC: You're certainly going about it the right way, by posting a draft here rather than trying to submit rightaway. Also, we're certainly capable of ridiculing your draft while being helpful...

*snip* ...the idea came about when... *snip*

Put all that RL stuff into a spoiler named Where I got the idea. Right now your OP is cluttered with stuff that's not very helpful for your idea. Or at the very least put it all after your proposal, which should be the first thing anyone sees when coming to this thread.

IC: *Gnejsian ambassador Wilma Wijk stands up, and despite having been present in the WA for years, this marks her first address to the General Assembly*

Also, while this is a roleplay forum, all this IC fluff isn't needed in the opening post before your proposal text. Many authors post the first post as mainly OOC, and then respond mostly IC during the drafting.

IC: Alrighty then, let's see what this beast ate as its last meal. *pulls out the Proposal Scalpel*

Fair Roaming Act

I have to say, when I first read the title, I thought it was about the "right of way" or "everyman's rights" or whatever it's called in whichever country, which basically lets you walk around as long as you don't walk onto someone's lawn or cause trouble with crops or domesticated animals. Perhaps some other title would be more suitable?

Category: Free trade
Strength: Mild

As suggested by others, the category is probably wrong. All proper proposal writing should start with choosing a category - and possibly Area of Effect - and then writing with that category's demands in mind. Starting from a "bright idea" and then trying to shove it into a category, rarely works. (OOC: Separate the category and strength onto separate lines in the proposal draft, it makes them easier to read in one glance.)

Proposed by: Gnejs

Nix that. You don't want to forget it into your proposal text and get dinged for branding later on, if you get to the submission state. Also, we can all see who's proposing it. (OOC: Putting it in if the writer/submitter was someone else than who posted it, would be appropriate.)

Desciption:The World Assembly,

Same as above. Also, and this is by no means a violation but more like the standard form of procedure, the pre-amble - the text that tries to convince people why the active clauses are a good idea - generally ends with -ing verbs. Acknowleding, defining, etc. Like I said, not a violation. Also, ending the preamble clauses with a comma instead of a period lets it all flow into one (OOC: usually insanely long and convoluted) sentence, before you get into the active clauses.

ACKNOWLEDGES the tremendous benefits that telecommunication and internet access have had, and continues to have, in enabling human interaction between individuals, connecting societies and strengthening enterprise and business.

Not all WA nations are inhabited by humans, so it's common courtesy to not use the word "human" when meaning a "sapient individual". Again, not a violation as such, but you'll likely get more nods of approval with species-neutral language. Suggested change. This bit, instead, will likely need to change if you're moving from one category to the other.

COMITTED to the removal of obstacles to further free trade and shared markets between member states

...it is? I thought the WA was committed to making it as difficult as possible for the member nations to not to drown in bureaucracy. (OOC: Sometimes it honestly looks like that!)

in areas appropriate.

What is this about?

DEFINES

This normally precedes the action clauses, meaning the end of pre-amble, so put this in with your mandates.

for the purpose of this resolution, International Roaming as the technology that allows wireless communication devices to stay connected to a network, from here on "guest network", while traveling abroad and outside the area of coverage of the users standard domestic network; facilitating the possibility to seamlessly make and receive calls, send text messages and send or receive data.

Considering the multitudous realities of the various member nations, I don't think that's possible. (OOC: Remember, not all member nations exist in the same universe as the others, WAHQ notwithstanding, and some are tiny island while others span several galaxies! "NS =/= RL" is a shorthand "phrase" meaning that Real Life is not directly applicable to NationStates. This is one such instance, as this idea might work on a single planet.) Some nations use faster-than-light communications, others communicate telepathically, many haven't developed the technology to have portable devices capable of any sort of radiowave communication (OOC: that is to say, there are tech levels of all sorts in here) and yet others might use means "beyond the ken of mere mortals", as the saying goes.

"One size fits all" rarely fits anyone at all.

Further DEFINES International Roaming Fees as extra charges made to the user for the tele- text- and data services used while connected to a guest network in another nation,

You'll want to separate this from the next part...

and International Roaming Contracts as the legal frameworks between network owners/operators of different nations that:

...because this looks to me like what you're actually wanting to do is create a committee. Because you have these "contracts" determining fees, aka payments, aka money, which most people aren't willing to part with easily. Having some impartial gnome committee (OOC: because nations don't sit in committees, they're staffed with "WA gnomes" who do all the in-WA bureaucracy work, the poor bastards, and Kenny uses them for target practice when they enter his country to change his laws) decide it might go down better. Also, "contract" can mean either contracts between nations or contracts between different info carrier businesses or contracts between the individual and info carrier... Pretty much needs a better definition, or a committee.

1) governs the technical enabling of, and the billing procedures related to, users' seamless connection between networks,

As mentioned above, any seamless connection between the multitudous networks is likely to be impossible.

2) determines International Roaming Fees

This also poses a currency problem. Since there is no WA-wide currency (OOC: both due to rule reasons and because it is a nightmarishly difficult thing to achieve within the rules), and different nations have differently valued currencies, a single numerary fee would likely mean small change in one nation and a year's wages for a high-earning person in another. And some nations (OOC: including my own WA puppet) have very strange currencies, or no currency at all. How would you pay the fee in a barter economy?

A small piece of advice, by the way; if you ever travel to Wrapper, get bubblegum packets prior to traveling there.

CONCERNED that no international regulation exists covering this area

Possibly because it's not really an international issue, and because of the aforementioned difficulties. "And why is this an international issue?" is the most common phrase directed to proposals like this. And currently it's not convincing me that it actually is. (OOC: I'm helping because you're new and had the sense to post the draft here, not because I thought this had a snowball's chance in Sahara at mid-day.) Also, you've slipped right back into preamble. The defining clauses should come after this fluff.

resulting in the possibility of substantial variations in International Roaming Fees between nations and networks – dependent on the user's standard domestic network and its International Roaming Contracts – and also between domestic users of a network and "travelling/visiting" users.

Without a committee to mediate things, I don't really see any way to realize what you're wanting to do, as you'd basically have to have every single info carrier in every single WA nation make this roaming contract with every other info carrier in every other WA nation.

WORRIED that the unpredictability for users of said variations while visiting different nations results in lowering the use of telecommunication and internet services on wireless communication devices

I fail to see why this is a bad thing. (OOC: Araraukar is not a WA nation and likes keeping any visitors on a short leash.)

effectively hampering professional and private interaction and communication due to monetary concerns on the part of the "travelling/visiting" user.

I would think that anyone traveling professionally who needed telecommunication ability in a foreign country, would get a suitable device and data contract in that country, unless they were just passing through, in which case they'd be unlikely to be there for professional needs. As for tourists... well, I still don't believe that whatever device they arrived with, would have a substantial chance of working even on the right frequency, not to mention other communication obstacles, when they entered an alien (OOC: not only meaning "foreign" in the WA context) country, anyway.

CONVINCED that an abolishment of International Roaming Fees will achieve a greater predictability for users,

Now you're contradicting yourself; earlier you wanted to establish the roaming fees, now you want them abolished?

and result in increasing use of network services while travelling/visiting abroad.

Again, why is it a good idea to let tourists clutter your data services in an unlimited manner? Not all countries let even their own citizens to do that. And some nations around here are so hardcore capitalistic opportunists that you'd be hard-pressed to get them to let go of any chance to suck the tourists' wallets dry.

CONFIDENT that this will strengthen the maintaining of professional and private relationships through instant access to information at predictable prices.

You've basically said this already. Also, since your "defining" clauses, this all is preamble fluff.

ASSURED that, despite causing a short-term loss of revenue, network owners/operators will ultimately gain from the abolishment of International Roaming Fees due to increased usage of services by a larger pool of potential customers.

More unnecessary fluff. Nix this, it's implied elsewhere.

BELEIVING that this is case, as the abolishment of International Roaming Fees will enable domestic network owners/operators to compete for customers in new markets in other member states, at the discretion of the individual member state.

Again with the abolishment when you earlier on in your weirdly constructed defining clauses established the fees.

Therefore,

Again, a stylistic issue, but usually we use "Hereby" - just don't typo it as Herby (OOC: technically branding violation, as there's a nation by that name ).

MANDATES that all network owners/operators in WA member nations, within their International Roaming Contracts, refrains from adding International Roaming Fees for non-domestic users, and solely operate with the user's networks domestic rates for all users connected to their network.

You need to group your defining clauses with your lonely mandate. And remember, if you go via the committee route, you must mandate something for the nations to do that's completely separate from what the committee does. (OOC: I know it sounds silly, but that's how the rules count the "committee only" violation.)

In closing, ASSERTS that it is the sole prerogative of the network owner/operator to determine the prices for services provided within their respective network, within the confines of national and international law and regulations.

More fluff for the dustbin.

All in all, I don't see much hope for this proposal. It'll depend entirely on how and if you rewrite it. (OOC: If you decide to abandon it, change the thread title to read [ABANDONED] instead of [DRAFT].)

OOC: The door was open, security around here is kind of lax

OOC: That's because they'll close the door after you and rob you blind... Don't worry, it'll only cost you the last shreds of your sanity.

Also, if you quote this post as a single block, for gods' sake put it in a spoiler!

nth EDIT: Coding and typo correction now that my brain's properly awake.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

I can't claim to know enough about telecommunications to help you, but I can tell you that the title Fair Roaming Act sound more like the title to a right of way bill then anything related to telecom.

[Grays Harbor]

"Bloody Hell. I want the entire Harberian Security Detachment that was on duty when this Reprobate Ambassador wandered in put on report."

[Gnejs]

"Thank you for the comments everybody. Things do move fast here. A lot to take in and read properly. I'll do that when time allows me to. Initial feedback suggests few are convinced this is a theme worthy of international action. I of course understand and respect that stance, and I recognize chances of getting this very far in the official process (submission/voting) are slim, to say the least. That's fine, but it wouldn't be much of a proper attempt if I didn't even try to make it more appealing/appropriate/legal. After so many of you deemed this a category violation, it would probably be silly of me to try and challenge that further. I suppose 'Social Justice' could be an alternative, but I think I would feel mighty silly trying to argue this in that category. Will return when I've had a chance to read all the replies in full."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Who let you in?

IC: Ah, welcome to the General Assembly!

Let's see, first off, before we comment on content, we'd like to point out that this is a couple hundred characters too long; three thousand, including spaces, is the limit. You do have quite a few perambulatory clauses that do absolutely nothing other than trying to make an argument. You really should cut down on all the fluff, and focus on the active clauses. Or in this case, clause, as you only have the single MANDATES clause. Which... is not Free Trade at all. Instead of reducing a barrier to free trade, you are enforcing a limit to what a corporation can charge. Instead it belongs in... hmmm. Not quite sure actually. Social Justice perhaps.

Isn't it 3500?

[Wrapper]

OOC: Who let you in?

IC: Ah, welcome to the General Assembly!

Let's see, first off, before we comment on content, we'd like to point out that this is a couple hundred characters too long; three thousand, including spaces, is the limit. You do have quite a few perambulatory clauses that do absolutely nothing other than trying to make an argument. You really should cut down on all the fluff, and focus on the active clauses. Or in this case, clause, as you only have the single MANDATES clause. Which... is not Free Trade at all. Instead of reducing a barrier to free trade, you are enforcing a limit to what a corporation can charge. Instead it belongs in... hmmm. Not quite sure actually. Social Justice perhaps.

Isn't it 3500?

AHUME: Told you.

ARI: Shut up.

(OOC: I am way off my game lately....)

[Tinfect]

'To begin, the Imperium suggests the removal of the vast majority of the Preamble, it is entirely unnecessary, and drowns the lone operative clause of the Draft."

MANDATES that all network owners/operators in WA member nations, within their International Roaming Contracts, refrains from adding International Roaming Fees for non-domestic users, and solely operate with the user's networks domestic rates for all users connected to their network.

"While this is not a problem for the Imperium, and my own knowledge of international telecommunications is limited, I must point out that this displays an alarming misunderstanding of how exactly such systems operate. This draft appears to assume an equally developed, equally advanced, and entirely compatible communications network to exist in all Member States. This is untrue.

The Imperium utilizes a method of Information Transmission across vast regions of space that does not facilitate live, or, 'streamed' information transfer and communication. All such devices are controlled by the Imperium, and the network is not accessible to International sources without prior, specific authorization. Expenses incurred in acquiring and maintaining this authorization may result in higher operative costs for a telecommunications business attempting to maintain contact with its users during their stay in the Imperium. Further, in the event of Private communications businesses in other Member States, they may incur higher costs due to gaining access to the networks used by another Member State, in that said Member State may institute a Tax on such communications, or may not have a fully developed telecommunications system, or that the Business may have to pay for access to another business' Networks if their own does not extend to said Member State. These costs may make it difficult, or impossible, for a business to maintain profitable operation with a customer using 'domestic rates'."

[Araraukar]

The Imperium utilizes a method of Information Transmission across vast regions of space that does not facilitate live, or, 'streamed' information transfer and communication. All such devices are controlled by the Imperium, and the network is not accessible to International sources without prior, specific authorization.

OOC: That reminds me that you owe me a reply in Strangers' Bar.

[Tinfect]

The Imperium utilizes a method of Information Transmission across vast regions of space that does not facilitate live, or, 'streamed' information transfer and communication. All such devices are controlled by the Imperium, and the network is not accessible to International sources without prior, specific authorization.

OOC: That reminds me that you owe me a reply in Strangers' Bar.

OOC:
I uh...
Sort of forgot the bar existed for a while there...

[Christian Democrats]

It's always good to see someone new in this forum, so I'll offer some advice even though, in all likelihood, I'll ultimately oppose this proposal.

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES the tremendous benefits that telecommunications and internet access have had, and continues to have, in enabling human interaction, connecting societies and strengthening enterprise and business.

Some ambassadors (unreasonably) oppose references to humans as "speciesist," so I would change "human" to "personal."

Also, it's more common to end clauses with commas or semicolons than with periods.

COMMITTED to the removal of obstacles to further free trade and shared markets between member states in areas appropriate.

You might want to use "among" instead of "between," and I think "appropriate areas" would sound better than "areas appropriate."

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, International Roaming as the technology that allows wireless communication devices to stay connected to a network, from here on "guest network", while traveling abroad and outside the area of coverage of the users standard domestic network; facilitating the possibility to seamlessly make and receive calls, send text messages and send or receive data.

You should use a comma rather than a semicolon here, and you've split the infinitive.

Further DEFINES International Roaming Fees as extra charges made to the user for the tele- text- and data services used while connected to a guest network in another nation, and International Roaming Contracts as the legal frameworks between network owners/operators of different nations that:

If you're going to capitalize "defines," then you ought to do the same for "further."

Also, I think the word "surcharge" would be more succinct than "extra charge."

WORRIED that the unpredictability for users of said variations while visiting different nations results in lowering the use of telecommunications and internet services on wireless communication devices, effectively hampering professional and private interaction and communication due to monetary concerns on the part of the "travelling/visiting" user.

CONVINCED that an abolishment of International Roaming Fees will achieve a greater predictability for users, and result in increasing use of network services while travelling/visiting abroad.

"Abolition" is usually the preferred noun for the verb "abolish."

CONFIDENT that this will strengthen the maintaining of professional and private relationships through instant access to information at predictable prices.

In my opinion, the noun "maintenance" would be clearer than "maintaining."

ASSURED that, despite causing a short-term loss of revenue, network owners/operators will ultimately gain from the abolishment of International Roaming Fees due to increased usage of services by a larger pool of potential customers.

Abolition.

BELEIVING that this is case, as the abolishment of International Roaming Fees will enable domestic network owners/operators to compete for customers in new markets in other member states, at the discretion of the individual member state.

I before E except after C. And, again, abolition.

MANDATES that all network owners/operators in WA member nations, within their International Roaming Contracts, refrains from adding International Roaming Fees for non-domestic users, and solely operate with the user's networks domestic rates for all users connected to their network.

In closing, ASSERTS that it is the sole prerogative of the network owner/operator to determine the prices for services provided within their respective network, within the confines of national and international law and regulations.

This proposal, in my view, unreasonably infringes on the rights of businesses. Why should a telecommunications company be legally required to charge foreigners than same rates as its own customers, especially when it has no obligation to provide such services to domestic residents who have contracts with competitors? Perhaps, there should be limits; but I find an outright prohibition to be objectionable because added costs are incurred by companies when they provide services to non-customers, not to mention the fact that the network becomes slower for customers when non-customers are using it.

[Gnejs]

OOC: Thank you, Christian Democrats, much appreciated that you took the time to review this.

Apologies for the lack of replies to all who have commented. When I initially said I'd be slow in responding, I didn't intend for it to be this slow. A combination of work and family obligations has left me with little time for this endeavor. Maybe I'll have something up during the weekend, we'll see.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...you've split the infinitive.

OOC: English does that sometimes (being Not Latin). Feature, not a bug.

In all other ways these fixes are extremely well-advised. But the more basic category problem remains.

[Gnejs]

As suggested to me by Araraukar via TG, I've renamed this thread to include "on hold", as I'm currently not able to do much work on it. Shouldn't be too long though.

[Imperium Anglorum]

...you've split the infinitive.

OOC: English does that sometimes (being Not Latin). Feature, not a bug.

OOC: Yes, but quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

[Gnejs]

*The ambassador from Gnejs stands, after having been seemingly immobile for months*

"Ambassadors, I have read the transcripts of your input to our proposal. We recognize that our initial draft spurred little enthusiasm, and the reasons for your opposition have been put forth most eloquently. Alas, we would like to try this again, but from another perspective. Based on the feedback received here we have reframed our proposal. The new version tries to fit it into the category 'Social Justice', and we have taken a step back from demanding the complete abolition of surcharges. Instead, the proposal calls for network owners/operators to refrain from adding surcharges for a set amount of data and active calling minutes, starting when a non-domestic user from another WA-member connects to their network. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter."

OOC: I always intended to try to refit this, but I never intended it to take so long. Not that I've been working intensely with this since February, quite the opposite. But I finally found some time to sit down and try to rewrite this whole thing from a 'Social Justice' perspective. Not sure if it fits this category either, but the only way to learn stuff is trying, I feel. My ambitions are fairly modest. I'd like to produce a reasonably coherent proposal that is legal. If I can achieve that, then I feel this has been worthwhile and with the experience gained I might try something new a later point, if I can come up with an idea (it's really hard finding a topic for these things.). My timing in posting this is, however, terrible, because I'm about to go on a trip next week and won't have much internet access until august. But since I had the new version all typed out, I thought I'd might as well post it here and hopefully collect some feedback that I can bring with me and mull over while in the hammock.

[Imperium Anglorum]

There are compelling commercial reasons to have surcharges with foreign connections. Telecom companies are not a monolith, they have contracts with one another, being different entities, and they have contracts which specify charges for communications between telecom companies. Companies have to negotiate these kinds of contracts with all other companies before they can sell them as an 'international' plan, which is how most of them are done. This significantly increases transaction charges, since those charges are always expensive, especially since international boundaries have the issue of restricting the availability of information interchange between different telecom networks. I don't see this really as anything requiring WA regulation.

While most economists can agree that the restrictive entry and exit barriers to telecom industries (and the huge network externality that the industry is based on) means that competition is minimised, there are significantly better ways to solve this issue (e.g. introducing competition, unifying the network and changing the role of the telecom company from a network-building one to a service providing one, or having a nation build market power by negotiating as a bloc regarding international communications) than simply setting out a price ceiling for calls. And if one really needs to make an international call, I doubt the police or your consulate would deny you that call (well, in most nations, at least, and if you're in some hellscape, phoning home is the least of your problems).

[Gnejs]

There are compelling commercial reasons to have surcharges with foreign connections. Telecom companies are not a monolith, they have contracts with one another, being different entities, and they have contracts which specify charges for communications between telecom companies. Companies have to negotiate these kinds of contracts with all other companies before they can sell them as an 'international' plan, which is how most of them are done. This significantly increases transaction charges, since those charges are always expensive, especially since international boundaries have the issue of restricting the availability of information interchange between different telecom networks. I don't see this really as anything requiring WA regulation.

"Yes, this has been brought up earlier in the debate, and we don't wish to deny the legitimacy of these businesses wanting to cover transaction costs by adding surcharges. This is why we have dropped our initial suggestion to have them do away with them completely. We recognize that this was perhaps a bit draconian, all things considered.

But this is primarily looking at it from the businesses point of view, whereas our proposal tries to look at it from the users perspective. With different telecom companies from different member states negotiating their own specific agreements, you're bound to end up with different results and different billing schemes and rates dependent on your domestic network and their partners in different member states. This might not be problematic from the business side of things, because it's the outcome of their concrete negotiations, but, basically, it's potentially unpredictable and confusing for the users, and you might end up paying heavy fees for making a few phone calls and checking your email on your phone while abroad.

So, while there might very well not be anything requiring WA-regulation from the businesses point of view, we humbly suggest that it could be from the users perspective. Based on this our proposal suggests a trade-off between the two interests. That is you won't have to pay anything extra for first so-and-so many minutes and data upon having connected to the network – allowing you some leeway and reasonable access to using your phone while abroad without dreading unpredictable consequences – but after having used up that "quota" your use will be billed according to the rules and rates stipulated in the agreements between your domestic network and their "partner-network" in whatever member state you find yourself in. It favours the users, but that is also the intention of the proposal.

While most economists can agree that the restrictive entry and exit barriers to telecom industries (and the huge network externality that the industry is based on) means that competition is minimised, there are significantly better ways to solve this issue (e.g. introducing competition, unifying the network and changing the role of the telecom company from a network-building one to a service providing one, or having a nation build market power by negotiating as a bloc regarding international communications) than simply setting out a price ceiling for calls. And if one really needs to make an international call, I doubt the police or your consulate would deny you that call (well, in most nations, at least, and if you're in some hellscape, phoning home is the least of your problems).

"I'll admit from the get-go that I am no economist. My studies mostly concerned early Scionite painting and the mating rituals of mallards. So I have no ground to state categorically that our proposal here makes the most sense seen from an economists perspective. It probably doesn't. But since you first stated that you don't see the need for WA-regulation, and then listed potentials for better ways of dealing with this issue, I'm assuming you mean that these are ways which individual nations could solve these problems, as opposed to the WA legislating on them? But still, I feel like leaving all that up to individual nations and telecommunications companies puts the users at a disadvantage. It is therefore we have proposed some minimum standards (a temporary price ceiling, I guess you could call it?). We're not opposed to visiting other potential ways of achieving the aims of this proposal, but what we have presented was the solution we came up with. If there are other suggestions, we will of course welcome those and judge if we are capable of writing such a proposal.

And while I don't doubt the local police or your consulate would grant you a phone call, it does seem a rather old-fashioned and intricate way of doing things, don't you think? I'll also freely admit that the concrete numbers of minutes and amount of data we have listed in our proposal are fairly arbitrarily chosen, and we are not opposed to changing them should people disagree with that operationalization of 'reasonable access to pursuing private long-distance communication (…)'."