At Vote: On Network Neutrality [Complete] [Complete]

Description: Recognizing the paramount importance of the Internet in education, industry and communications,

Aware that the Internet has no centralized governance, and that Internet access is largely provided by private sector entities in many World Assembly member nations,

Believing that limited international regulation of the Internet is necessary to prevent anti-competitive behaviour by Internet service providers,

The General Assembly,

Defines "the Internet" as the publicly accessible worldwide system of interconnected telecommunications networks using the Internet protocol suite to communicate with one another;

Further defines "Internet service provider" as any business or public entity that regularly offers access to the Internet;

Declares that member nations must require Internet service providers to:

allow authorized users of their network to access and use the legal Internet content, applications and services of their choice within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plan,

allow authorized users of their network to connect to the Internet using a legal device of their choice,

clearly inform authorized users of their network of any discrimination between legal Internet content, applications and services on their network, and

refrain from unjust discrimination between legal Internet content, and applications and services on their network, including but not limited to discrimination that has a substantial anti-competitive effect;

Further declares that member nations have the right to determine for themselves whether to adopt more restrictive network neutrality regulations, within the confines of this and previous World Assembly resolutions;

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution:

creates an affirmative obligation for Internet service providers to provide access to their networks or to refrain from charging for access to their networks,

requires Internet service providers to take any action or refrain from taking any action when doing so would endanger national security, law enforcement activities or the security or stability of the network, or

prohibits member nations from regulating Internet-enabled devices or Internet content, application and services.

Ministerial Review;

The act itself isn't overly invasive which is always good considering the author. There are a few nitpicks we have specifically the repeated use of the term "legal". The author states that their intent is not to engage in prohibition of censorship but to prevent content discrimination. Now this poses an interesting loophole that we feel the author may have overlooked. If this act allows for open content censorship then it stands to reason that any service provider could deem the likes of P2P sharing, as an illegal use per terms of service and therefore censor it rather than discriminate against it bandwidth wise. If this loophole is as large as it seems, it essentially renders the act moot.

Furthermore; On review of the act we've highlighted the issue with this clause at the end;

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution:
B: requires Internet service providers to take any action or refrain from taking any action when doing so would endanger national security, law enforcement activities or the security or stability of the network,.

Essentially this renders the entire enactment moot as any Internet Service Provider could argue that to make any changes to their currently existing network operations as endangering the stability of the network.

Ministerial Suggestion;

Considering the above, when coupled with the view that we do not essentially need the WA to be legislating for this the ministerial suggested vote here is Nay.

As always this is merely a suggested vote, please feel free to vote Yay, Nay or Abstain as desired below.

Aba this is really good analysis. I'll admit that this isn't really my area of expertise, and I totally missed that. Nice catch! (I was planning to be against anyhow, but this just seals it for me.)

Mousebumples:

Aba this is really good analysis. I'll admit that this isn't really my area of expertise, and I totally missed that. Nice catch! (I was planning to be against anyhow, but this just seals it for me.)

Click to expand...

Thanks Mouse, thats high praise coming from you

Yay

Olvern:

Yay

Click to expand...

I'm not allowed to influence your vote. So i'll just sit here and kick you instead.

Auralia wrote this.

Nay.

Sanctaria:

Auralia wrote this.

Nay.

Click to expand...

That was basically my initial train of thought. But Aba's insight can make me feel like I actually have a reason other than that for voting against.

Mousebumples:

Sanctaria:

Auralia wrote this.

Nay.

Click to expand...

That was basically my initial train of thought. But Aba's insight can make me feel like I actually have a reason other than that for voting against.

Click to expand...

Its alright, it was my thoughts too, but unlike you two I had to actually justify myself

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.