NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft 1] - Communications Protocols Management

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Simone Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1526
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

[Draft 1] - Communications Protocols Management

Postby Simone Republic » Sat Feb 03, 2024 5:14 am

Motivation

This covers largely the functions of the ITU, ICANN, IETF, IANA, RfCs, the integrity of the DNS system, and other matters of concern to the netizens. It does not cover radio spectrum because that is covered by GAR 532. It also covers some "miscellaneous" things such as the safety of mobile phones and whether their batteries can explode.

Clause 3a is largely related to the assignment of IPv6 numbers as well as telephone numbers. Clause 3b deals with IETF, RfCs, etc. Clause 4a is a supplement to GAR 585.

Category: regulation/safety (follows GAR 532)

Draft 1
The World Assembly (WA),

Noting the rise in telecommunications between inhabitants of WA states;

Noting that some WA states employ telephone, mobile and Internet technologies that require common technical standards;

Desiring common standards for such protocols;

The WA hereby defines as follows:

  1. Definitions.
    1. "Authority" means an entity designated by an individual WA state to implement and enforce this resolution.
    2. "Protocols" means communications arrangements and standards commonly used by various WA states, such as Internet standards, domain names system, and mobile communications systems, as well as less advanced systems such as telegraphy.
  2. Declaration.
    1. The WA Communications Authority (WACA) is hereby established as an organ of the WA.
    2. WACA is to be paid for by the General Fund.
  3. Role of WACA. WACA is responsible for, in consultation with each and every WA state:
    1. Managing the registration and assignment of names, numbers, addresses, codes, identification strings, domains, and other necessary technical arrangements for the functioning of various protocols;
    2. Setting forth common technical standards based on open access technologies for inter-operability and compatibility between systems for different protocols used by different WA states, and to resolve any issues on compatibility;
    3. Setting minimum standards for the safety of any equipment used as part of the protocols, including both infrastructure and user-end equipment;
    4. Maintain compatibility with less advanced technologies such as telegraphy, as well as more advanced technologies accessible to some WA states but not necessarily others;
    5. Ensure that the technical infrastructure for implementing clauses (2)(a) to (2)(c) is operational for each and every WA state.
  4. Access to communications. WACA is also responsible for the following:
    1. Assist where required in the inter-operability and communications between the emergency broadcast and communications systems of different WA states (and with non-WA states), especially for states that are neighbors;
    2. Promote equitable, sustainable and affordable access to communication technologies across all WA states and between WA states, such as reducing mobile phone roaming charges, and providing fast Internet access to remote areas.
    3. Promote inter-operability and compatibility between systems using WACA standards and systems from non-WA states.
  5. Responsibilities of WA authorities. Each authority is responsible for:
    1. Ensuring that all of the telecommunications infrastructure in that WA state are at least inter-operable with standards set forth by WACA and inter-operable with the equipment of other WA states, subject to potential technological barriers in case that WA lacks access to certain technologies;
    2. Ensuing the security and privacy of all said infrastructure in accordance with WA laws and local regulations for particular WA states, subject to extant WA resolutions.
  6. Jurisdiction. Subject to extant resolutions, the Independent Adjudicative Office is responsible for any disputes between WA states on this resolution.


Char count: 3,096
Last edited by Simone Republic on Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:38 am, edited 15 times in total.
All posts OOC. (He/him). IC the "white bear" (it) is for jokes only.

User avatar
Tigrisia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Dec 22, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tigrisia » Sat Feb 03, 2024 6:52 am

OOC: Oh, oh, my hacker heart feels saddened by this proposal.

The Tigrisian delegation sees this document with concern, as it strengthens the control of governments over the internet. Governments, however often misuse this power and threaten the safety of the internet. We also believe that governments are not always the best candidate when it comes to choosing standards and technologies. Too much has gone wrong in the past when governments interfered in this process. There is a reason why some standards are implemented and others aren't. When it comes to the infrastructure, we believe that it is best to let those decide that have knowledge of the technology to decide what to implement and how standards are written.

At the same time, we welcome that the proposals deals with the reduction of access barriers. These barriers are often not technological nature but rather administrative nature.

User avatar
Simone Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1526
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Sat Feb 03, 2024 9:10 am

Tigrisia wrote:OOC: Oh, oh, my hacker heart feels saddened by this proposal.

The Tigrisian delegation sees this document with concern, as it strengthens the control of governments over the internet. Governments, however often misuse this power and threaten the safety of the internet. We also believe that governments are not always the best candidate when it comes to choosing standards and technologies. Too much has gone wrong in the past when governments interfered in this process. There is a reason why some standards are implemented and others aren't. When it comes to the infrastructure, we believe that it is best to let those decide that have knowledge of the technology to decide what to implement and how standards are written.

At the same time, we welcome that the proposals deals with the reduction of access barriers. These barriers are often not technological nature but rather administrative nature.


I can look to devolve more responsibility to national authorities. I think I cannot specify the multi-stakeholder approach for WACA because GA rules prohibit specifying the composition of committees.
All posts OOC. (He/him). IC the "white bear" (it) is for jokes only.

User avatar
Tigrisia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Dec 22, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tigrisia » Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:13 am

Simone Republic wrote:I can look to devolve more responsibility to national authorities. I think I cannot specify the multi-stakeholder approach for WACA because GA rules prohibit specifying the composition of committees.


The Tigrisian Delegation believes that member states should not enforce standards or create them themselves. A better approach would be that member states should support the development and implementation of open standards, instead of mandating them. Issues like vendor lock-in should also be taken into consideration. We don't think that there is no need for regulation, but we think that member states should not regulate the protocols itself, as this creates unncessary buerocracy and also makes member states too powerful.

User avatar
Simone Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1526
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:37 am

Tigrisia wrote:
Simone Republic wrote:I can look to devolve more responsibility to national authorities. I think I cannot specify the multi-stakeholder approach for WACA because GA rules prohibit specifying the composition of committees.


The Tigrisian Delegation believes that member states should not enforce standards or create them themselves. A better approach would be that member states should support the development and implementation of open standards, instead of mandating them. Issues like vendor lock-in should also be taken into consideration. We don't think that there is no need for regulation, but we think that member states should not regulate the protocols itself, as this creates unncessary buerocracy and also makes member states too powerful.


I added the line "based on open access technologies". I generally don't say "vendor lock-in" due to complaints about "I am a corporatist state" or "I am a socialist state" etc. The member states are required to make the protocols now inter-operable but don't mention what kinds of standards they use.

Note that WACA is the one developing common standards.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
All posts OOC. (He/him). IC the "white bear" (it) is for jokes only.

User avatar
Tigrisia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Dec 22, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tigrisia » Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:32 am

Simone Republic wrote:I added the line "based on open access technologies".


We thank you for your changes. However, I recommend to simply write "open standards", because open access and open standards mean a totally different thing. Open standards mean that one is allowed to implement said standard, open access means that one can simply has access to said technologies.

Simone Republic wrote:Note that WACA is the one developing common standards.


Noted. However, we still fear of too much governmental influence. We believe that this could be avoided by mandating that the WACA shall work together with numerous stakeholders (industry, technological experts, non-governmental organizations, etc.).

User avatar
Bananaistan
Minister
 
Posts: 3474
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:00 pm

Definition of protocol is far too wide. As it stands it includes literally every form of communication one could possibly think of from smoke signals and sign language all the way through broadcasting, writing letters, speaking, to streams of 0s and 1s in a copper wire.

You'd also wonder about why the state should ensure that equipment in the state is "inter-operable" with equipment in other states. Particularly if the other state is one of the many thousand states that a member state likely has no interaction with whatsoever.

3d appears worrisomely expensive and potentially unfeasible.

Why is the General Fund paying for everything?

Also, it is impossible to ensure the security and privacy of any network.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads