Amendment to Legal Code 6.1, Clause 5

Cormac

Cormac

TNPer
TNP Nation
Cormactopia III
Discord
Cormac#0804
I've drafted this amendment to be consistent with what several seem to want the current Section 6.1, Clause 5 to do. I neither support nor oppose this, though I'll vote Aye if it goes to a vote, but more importantly I think we should have an honest debate about whether we want to empower the Vice Delegate to actually do this instead of masking it behind the euphemism of "security."

If we don't want the Vice Delegate to be able to do this, then I would suggest repealing Section 6.1, Clause 5, or including a provision that requires the Vice Delegate to actually demonstrate the nature of the security threat that the applicant poses.

I should note that the RA would still have to vote whether to uphold or overturn the Vice Delegate's rejection of an applicant. This only replaces the "security" language with language that is more honest in regard to how this is being used in practice.

Amendment to Legal Code 6.1 Clause 5:
1. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are compatible with the Regional Assembly community.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I'm usually all for rewriting laws to match how society actually expects them to be carried out. It was the reason I got my mod warning for trying to legislate away Gov's rights.

I support this change.

What are the other examples of where the VD rejection has been used?
 
That was probably somewhat more justifiable. Maybe. Actually it probably wasn't, and I'm probably still biased. :P

In any event, I'm not so much arguing that it's overused as that it seems several people in the community want it to be used for something the law doesn't say. If we want it used for that purpose, the law should say that rather than us interpreting "security" as a euphemism to mean whatever we want.
 
Perhaps a more explicit provision for the Vice Delegate to consult with the Security Council on the matter might be a better improvement. I don't believe DD did so in this instance.
 
That may be a good idea, provided the consultation takes place promptly. Given the activity levels of some of our Security Council members, I would not want to see this hanging around for ages waiting for a response.
 
I support the main premise of this bill, expanding the scope of the VD's power to block RA applicants. The original draft of the act that introduced this power did not make mention to "regional security"; it was added later as one of the many compromises that went into the drafting of that act.

I would suggest taking a further step in this direction and removing the part about "[compatibility] with the Regional Assembly community". Including that excerpt creates some fairly shaky grounds for judicial review. One could challenge the decision of the VD to block an applicant by claiming that the applicant is indeed "compatible", and then the court would need to determine what this "compatibility" entails.

Instead, the amended text should just state the ability of the VD to block RA applicants within three days, possibly with an explicit provision for consultation with the SC---I would have no problem with such a provision. The VD would still need to provide a valid reason for the block, in order to persuade the RA to approve their action in the subsequent vote. So we are not losing any safeguards from abuse by removing the compatibility text.

I wanted to discuss another, more substantive, change to this bill.

Currently, it takes a decision by the VD and a successful RA vote to block an applicant. Yet, it only takes a decision by the (potentially different) VD to undo such a block should the applicant come back afterwards. This is a large and inappropriate asymmetry. I propose changing the law to require that, should a previously blocked applicant reapply, the block cannot be lifted without another RA vote.

This would also clarify some uncertainty that appears to exist regarding the effect of the use of the word "applicant" in the current text of the law. Though "applicant" was used instead of "application" specifically for the purpose of preventing badgering with a stream of applications from the same applicant, it is unclear whether the terminology makes a block perpetual and impossible to lift. In addition to resolving this ambiguity, the change I propose provides a mechanism that is, I believe, better than either of the two possible interpretations of the current law.

Finally, credit should go where it is due: The above change was first proposed by several RA members duing a conversation in the regional IRC channel a few weeks ago.
 
I like leaving in the bit about Regional Security. It gives the RA a basis on which to make their decision, and keeps the VD block from turning into a test of whether or not the candidate is well-liked, which was not the intention of the original legislation, and antithetical to a healthy democratic society.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I like leaving in the bit about Regional Security. It gives the RA a basis on which to make their decision, and keeps the VD block from turning into a test of whether or not the candidate is well-liked, which was not the intention of the original legislation, and antithetical to a healthy democratic society.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
r3naissanc3r:
I wanted to discuss another, more substantive, change to this bill.

Currently, it takes a decision by the VD and a successful RA vote to block an applicant. Yet, it only takes a decision by the (potentially different) VD to undo such a block should the applicant come back afterwards. This is a large and inappropriate asymmetry. I propose changing the law to require that, should a previously blocked applicant reapply, the block cannot be lifted without another RA vote.

This would also clarify some uncertainty that appears to exist regarding the effect of the use of the word "applicant" in the current text of the law. Though "applicant" was used instead of "application" specifically for the purpose of preventing badgering with a stream of applications from the same applicant, it is unclear whether the terminology makes a block perpetual and impossible to lift. In addition to resolving this ambiguity, the change I propose provides a mechanism that is, I believe, better than either of the two possible interpretations of the current law.

Finally, credit should go where it is due: The above change was first proposed by several RA members duing a conversation in the regional IRC channel a few weeks ago.
Click to expand...
Looks like this point has already received some attention in the RA: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7159998/1/ .

I had not noticed this thread until now. I believe it is worth referencing it here for the purposes of this discussion.
 
The community itself and the security of that community are two different things. I do not see how the original wording is flawed in the sense that it needs to be changed.

The Regional Assembly is a mixture of different people and opinions. Some of the time there will even be conflict between said people and opinions. If someone is even extreme about it they may not be compatible with most of the current members of the Regional Assembly.

However, whether they are compatible with the community does not effect the security of the Regional Assembly or the North Pacific. Hence the Vice Delegate has the responsibility to determine if a person is capable of risking the security of the North Pacific as a whole.

I see no reason to change the bill at the current moment.
 
I agree with the idea that the VD be required to provide evidence of a potential security risk to the RA. I am a bit confused as to what is considered a security risk though. Would that be a risk defined by the Criminal Code, or some other test? A wink and a nudge from the VD isn't sufficient imho. I would say that actual evidence of a security concern (with context, and corroboration if possible), be a requirement for rejection of an RA applicant. However, unless I'm mistaken, such evidence would be grounds for an indictment. Some clarification of the language regarding a 'security risk' might be helpful.

At this point, I would favor an amendment to Section 6.1, Clause 5 that reads:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants, and verify that they are not using a proxy, are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty, or have been legally identified as a security risk to the Regional Assembly. Security checks will be performed by the Vice Delegate, in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with the Constitution.


The language may have to be tweaked, but it is my suggestion all evaluations should take place in the allotted 14 day time period (barring Admin or VD extended absence), rather than 14 + 3.
 
falapatorius:
I agree with the idea that the VD be required to provide evidence of a potential security risk to the RA. I am a bit confused as to what is considered a security risk though. Would that be a risk defined by the Criminal Code, or some other test? A wink and a nudge from the VD isn't sufficient imho. I would say that actual evidence of a security concern (with context, and corroboration if possible), be a requirement for rejection of an RA applicant. However, unless I'm mistaken, such evidence would be grounds for an indictment. Some clarification of the language regarding a 'security risk' might be helpful.

At this point, I would favor an amendment to Section 6.1, Clause 5 that reads:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants, and verify that they are not using a proxy, are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty, or have been legally identified as a security risk to the Regional Assembly. Security checks will be performed by the Vice Delegate, in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with the Constitution.


The language may have to be tweaked, but it is my suggestion all evaluations should take place in the allotted 14 day time period (barring Admin or VD extended absence), rather than 14 + 3.
Click to expand...
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants, and verify that they are not using a proxy, are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty, or have been legally identified as a security risk to the Regional Assembly. Security checks will be performed by the Vice Delegate, in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with the Constitution.
Click to expand...

This implies that it has to be forum administration to determine all four factors listed in the first sentence. That is not what is current practice, and it isn't, as far as I can tell, what is intended by this bill. Forum administration can handle the forum security and use of a proxy server (this would include verification of having only one forum account unless an exceptional need has been made for more than one which is vetted by forum administration). The following two elements however are not the responsibility of forum administration per se, although they will verify that an applicant hasn't been suspended or banned due to forum-related discipline independent of the courts. that is enforcement of the ToS or ToU by forum administration. The clause as drafted above is unclear as to who is responsible for these two elements:

are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty, or have been legally identified as a security risk to the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...

Since those are governmental actions, the appropriate government official needs to be identified with respect to them. It is not forum administration.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Since those are governmental actions, the appropriate government official needs to be identified with respect to them. It is not forum administration.
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
 
Here's a rewrite:



5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants, and verify that they
are not using a proxy, and are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty. Upon an applicants successful clearance of
forum administration checks, the Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the
applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and
in accordance with the Constitution.


The first sentence was the bill's original wording, so I left that as is.

Edit: I didn't like the wording of sentence two, so I redid it. I may have to dust off my copy Strunk and White. :blush:
 
falapatorius:
Upon an applicants successful clearance of forum administration checks, the Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant.
Click to expand...
This is less than ideal - someone could be stuck waiting 17 days under this, when waiting the full 14 is already considered inappropriately long. It is better to leave it as 3 days from the submission of an application.
 
SillyString:
This is less than ideal - someone could be stuck waiting 17 days under this, when waiting the full 14 is already considered inappropriately long. It is better to leave it as 3 days from the submission of an application.
Click to expand...
:agree: I assumed that forum admin checks had to be done first. I will edit soon.

Here's the edit:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants, and verify they are not using a proxy, and are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty. Upon submission of a Regional Assembly application, the Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with the Constitution.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Gracius Maximus:
Is forum administration now considered to be an IC construct?
Click to expand...
This.
Click to expand...
The Constitution recognizes the autonomous role of forum administration in representing and acting for the forum community.

Since a problem a few years ago with a government minister's access to IP information, it was deemed necessary to limit those functions to forum administrators, exclusively, thus, the law does have to make reference to them as such on some matters. My concern with the earlier drafts of the rewrite pf this clause by falapatorius was to clear up what role and tasks are appropriate for forum administration. As an Admin, I don't have any particular concern about the remainder of the proposal; my concern was to make sure our role is properly reflected in the draft language.
 
falapatorius:
Edit: I didn't like the wording of sentence two, so I redid it. I may have to dust off my copy Strunk and White. :blush:
Click to expand...
Or the MLA Style Sheet, or the one that originated from the University of Chicago, or even the Associated Press. At least this doesn't involve the Blue Book.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
At least this doesn't involve the Blue Book.
Click to expand...
Yeegads, thankful for that. I'm Canadian, and was in the engineering faculty (ages ago). Strunk and White was recommended by the tech comm professors. :shrug:
 
falapatorius:
Grosseschnauzer:
At least this doesn't involve the Blue Book.
Click to expand...
Yeegads, thankful for that. I'm Canadian, and was in the engineering faculty (ages ago). Strunk and White was recommended by the tech comm professors. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I apologize for their recommendation. :P
 
falapatorius:
SillyString:
This is less than ideal - someone could be stuck waiting 17 days under this, when waiting the full 14 is already considered inappropriately long. It is better to leave it as 3 days from the submission of an application.
Click to expand...
:agree: I assumed that forum admin checks had to be done first. I will edit soon.

Here's the edit:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants, and verify they are not using a proxy, and are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty. Upon submission of a Regional Assembly application, the Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I am generally in favor of this, The VD has to talk to the security council and demonstrate a credible risk to be able to block someone; then submit that evidence to the RA for the RA to vote to uphold the block or veto it.

but i feel a clarification should be mentioned as to what a "security risk" entails. Is a security risk that the VD or security council just finds the applicant annoying? I am new, so Im probably seen as an outsider but I am eager to participate. So I am generally okay with this amendment but I'd be more comfortable with a subsection that clearly defines what a security risk is. So there is more transparancy in the process and in the possible future there cant be a margin for impropiety such as the chance for a VD and Security council to be in cahoots to block someones application. (Though Id hope if that were the case and upon a vote on the block the council and VD didnt bring supporting evidence the RA would veto the block and admit the applicant)

Still Id be more comfortable if it was in writing what constitutes a security risk.
 
The concept hasn't been specifically defined because the circumstances under which a security risk can arise can vary greatly from situation to situation.

It has rarely happened under the current set-up, and in any event, there is a right to have the R.A. vote to override a V.D.'s determination that there is a security risk that leads to a rejection of the application. Since this allows the R.A. to review the matter, it also allows an explanation from the V.D. for the rejection and that includes the perceived security risk. Since we just had a vote that did override the Vice Delegate's decision, that shows that the system as currently designed is working as intended.
 
Im not opposed to voting on this with flapatorius's recent edited language. It makes the provision more appealing to read and i see no problem with how it is written. If this went to a vote id support it.

What exactly is a 'security assesment' anyway, I mean what does the process entail? Or is it classifed information?
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Im not opposed to voting on this with flapatorius's recent edited language. It makes the provision more appealing to read and i see no problem with how it is written. If this went to a vote id support it.

What exactly is a 'security assesment' anyway, I mean what does the process entail? Or is it classifed information?
Click to expand...
I would tell you, but then I'd have to.. :fish: . Tbh, I don't really know, but I'm sure it's something.

What's the procedure for moving this to a vote? Does the OP or the Speaker have to do it?
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
I think the procedure is the person proposing the change has to call for a vote and someone else has to 2nd it.
Click to expand...
In that case, Cormac made the initial proposal. I just added my :2c: (Sorry, but I like the smilies here)
 
falapatorius:
What's the procedure for moving this to a vote? Does the OP or the Speaker have to do it?
Click to expand...
As this is a legislative proposal, it is moved to vote by whomever introduced it, namely Cormac, after which there will be 5 days of formal debate, then a vote will be scheduled.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
As this is a legislative proposal, it is moved to vote by whomever introduced it, namely Cormac, after which there will be 5 days of formal debate, then a vote will be scheduled.
Click to expand...
Okey Dokey.
 
I agree with Grosse that the system is working fine.

The problem is when we have an applicant the VD wishes to reject, that is not a "security risk" per se. In order to exercise his power the VD would essentially have to mislead the RA into suggesting the applicant was in some way a security risk.

It's better for VD not to mislead, it's better for the RA not to be misled. Misdirection is damaging for trust in the political process, which is, from a certain point of view, damaging for democracy and is a "security risk" for the region.

Therefore, simply rewording to allow the VD to reject on compatibility grounds rather than just security, is a welcome amendment, I would think.
 
Chasmanthe:
Therefore, simply rewording to allow the VD to reject on compatibility grounds rather than just security, is a welcome amendment, I would think.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. However, 'compatibility' could mean anything. We'd need to narrow the definition, or be more precise with the language.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top