I actually support this.
GA 17 is what I call a "meta-resolution": a resolution that handles how the WA operates rather than what it does. Other examples include the compliance resolutions and
GA 747 "Responsible Usage of World Assembly Funds' (which handles funding and what happens when funds are insufficient). Because it's so old, and having money is kind of important, 17's attained this mythical status as some super-important resolution that can't be repealed or we'll have no money and the WA would collapse.
This is very silly. Part of the reason it's silly is because of how many resolutions explicitly use the General Fund, including 747, which provides a far more comprehensive framework for WA funding, what it can be used for, proactive use, emergency funding, and transparent reporting. The General Fund would still be around on the same principle that committees cited in other resolutions are still around even if the one that initially created them gets repealed. The only thing 17 still contributes at this point is that WA members need to give "mandatory donations" to the General Fund, and that barely even matters. That's because the other part is that we need to make certain assumptions about how the WA operates or nothing makes sense. We need to assume some way of stimulating compliance existed prior to the compliance resolutions: was the WA just screaming impotently into the void for the first 439 resolutions (yes, that many)? We need to assume there's some way of winding down projects implemented by a repealed resolution instead of bridges suddenly stopping and cars falling down. And need to assume that the WA gets money from somewhere to pay for operations, including setting up the funding schemes defined by 17 and 747. This kind of assumption was an actual rule until extremely recently: authors needed to make assumptions about committees including that they have some way of being competently staffed and couldn't even legislate committee specifics themselves if they wanted to.
That's a long way of saying that these kinds of resolutions - funding, compliance, project wind-down so cars don't fall off half-finished bridges - should have some superadded benefit in the way the resolution handles the topic beyond just having something that says "here, we have money! Huzzah!" It's similar to how an author might choose to regulate a "normal" topic directly instead of tossing it to a committee because they think the way their direct regulations are written is a good way of doing things.
GA 440 "Administrative Compliance Act" and GA 747 actually do provide good frameworks for handling compliance and funding, respectively. GA 17 very much does not. It compromises the
entire WA's (not just the General Fund's) ability to operate by banning deficit spending. It provides a dishonest, barebones "mandatory donations" scheme that isn't even needed (see above re 747 and assumptions) and is rigid to the point of being potentially dangerous. It half-asses a problematic reporting requirement that 747 does much better anyway.
If GA 17 covered any other topic, it'd have been repealed by now. It's an obsolete labor resolution that at this point mainly does union-busting. It's an aid resolution that only handles medical facilities while requiring humanitarian organizations to make all their locations publicly known. 17 was on my list long before 747 existed. With 747, it's a better time than ever to finally put it to rest.
