Search results

Abstain I will likely vote with the IFV.

For

That is fine, then if @Gorundu is not formally motioning.

As their self-nomination may not hold up, I will nominate @Rae Also, I will join those in also nominating @Vivanco

I will second the motion.

I already voted for Hulldom for Delegate and fully support their inclusion on the SC. Strong support.

I am sorry to hear that. I hope you have a swift and complete recovery.

Tentatively For as well

I was about to say something similar about the fourth clause, but you said it better than I could have. Against.

4

Thanks for the responses so far. Just an FYI - neither of those actions require citizenship. Citizenship has specific responsibilities and benefits, but the biggest ones are voting rights for the regional government as well as further involvement in managing/organizing ministries. Do you have...

I guess I will start it off - what made you decide to apply for citizenship in The North Pacific, @Japhan ? Also, do you have the means of applying for citizenship via a residential IP?

The proposal has been modified to include more unique text than the original version. It also pushed the specifics of individual programs to individual Member States while establishing a few minimum guidelines for each program. Comments and thoughts appreciated.

I do not need to be attributed. The language is not mine, I just pointed out logistical issues with the original in the previous thread here.

This is my first World Assembly proposal and, as such, is definitely a work in progress. I want to create a more detailed set of asbestos regulations than the existing GA asbestos ones while replacing inaccurate language about asbestos. Suggestions are, of course, appreciated. (EDIT by Simone...

Asbestos Safety Act Pre-Submission Proposal Discussion Category: Environmental | Strength: All Businesses - Mild Proposed by: Namwenia, | Onsite Topic Internal Voting Instructions: Vote Support if you personally support this proposal in its current form. Vote Oppose if you personally oppose...

For My comments on the previous version appear to be addressed.

I am sorry for being so negative. I'm not trying to be, you just happened to touch on a topic I genuinely know about IRL. I really am supportive of the intent, I just want this to be clear. Even if we have to kick certain parts of this proposal to individual member nations to ensure it covers...

Environmental engineer IRL here. Raising my hands on a few things. Section 1 - Most nations, including the United States, refer to something as hazardous if it poses a threat to either human health or the environment. Emphasizing that sentient creature health can also be the reason to classify...

That's fair. The way I read the language defining a patent existing for a "...limited time..." it could conceivably be taken as a prohibition of perpetual patents, depending on your definition of a "limited time" (which it also does not do). Either way, we both agree that we are in opposition...

Against This proposal does so very little except inadvertently prohibit perpetual patents and is, overall, not helpful.

For

For

387

22

Floor 9410: Office with no windows. No one goes in or out...

Thank you. I read it a couple times and had an issue with that section, but I couldn't quite put my finger on how to word it. Almost said "Abstain" myself, but I think most of the rest of the package is good and worthwhile.

For

Against

Against