[GA] Repeal: "Open Internet Order" [Complete]

General Assembly Resolution #395 “Open Internet Order” (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

This august World Assembly,

Restating, again that:

• one-size-fits-all legislation of this sort generally fails to adequately consider the specific situations in which nations may find themselves, thereby preventing them from applying relevant and situationally apt policy and
• it is impossible to amend legislation and patch these issues, thereby making repeal the only option,

Concerned that Open Internet Order imposes cumbersome regulations which, due to high transaction costs, cannot be worked around, thereby leading to delays in network expansion and access,

Believing that the resolution's definition of 'internet service provider' includes national governments, as many governments provide information services to their citizens so they can access information necessary for fulfilling and productive lives,

Extremely distressed by clause 6 in the resolution, empowering the Telecommunication(s) Regulatory Authority to issue fines and declaratory rulings against ISPs at its own discretion, which when combined with the general vagueness of the resolution, allows the World Assembly to use these discretionary powers to raise revenue against national governments,

Perturbed with the privacy and national security implications of permitting an international agency to examine ISP (and therefore, government) data, information, and services without any oversight, at its own discretion, allowing international bureaucrats to look into the finances of subscribers, trade secrets of domestic companies, and the security preparations of the government,

Laughing at the ineffectiveness of the resolution at actually fulfilling its goals, as its definition of 'reasonable network management' allows a massive loophole of undefined 'legal grounds', which can easily be expanded by national governments, meaning the author has created a terrifying regulatory agency which fails to actually expand access in any way, saddling the member nations with all the costs of regulation and none of the benefits,

Disappointed that the resolution provides a cut-out for governments to create unlawful content, thereby allowing them to censor information and render the benefits of creating an open Internet utterly meaningless, and

Suspecting that any consistent interpretation of the resolution is in an incredible double-bind, as either it:

• prevents internet providers from prioritising basic switching packets, thereby slowing down the entire network and restricting access for everyone, or
• falls into 'reasonable network management', which means that practically all traffic prioritisation schemes can be run through such a loophole, making the resolution meaningless,

Hereby repeals 395 GA 'Open Internet Order'.

Click to expand...

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Thailand:

Hello %NATION%. Recently, members opposed to Open Internet Order have begun their attempted repeal of this resolution. According to the final voting results, nearly 7,000 individual members and 3,450+ world assembly delegates voted FOR this resolution. I'm formally asking you to vote AGAINST this resolution shall it reach quorum. Why are they repealing it? Well, I'll answer that one, because Open Internet Order has "loopholes". My response to that is simple. Its Complexity. If the Open Internet Order had broad protections, it would be opposed. If the Open Internet Order had both (broad protections and exceptions), then it would be opposed because it has loopholes. If the Open Internet Order had very specific language (no loopholes), then it would be opposed because it would include every form of communication. It's a difficult process to accomplish what the repeal's language wants because everyone has different interpretations. Thanks again!
-----
Sincerely,
[nation=short]The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand[/nation]

Click to expand...

Imperium Anglorum:

From: Foreign Office, Greyhall
To: Foreign Secretary, %NATION%

Greetings,

We are proposing repeal of the recently passed Open Internet Order. We believe that net neutrality is a good thing in developed countries. In fact, we regard it as fundamental to any set of functioning consumer protection laws. But we must consider major practical concerns with the resolution so recently passed.

First, the resolution gives authority to a Telecommunication Regulatory Agency to issue fines on, declare rulings against, and investigate Internet service providers at its own discretion. This should be a good thing, but for the fact that the definition of ISP in the resolution includes most national governments. This means that the World Assembly is now given power to directly investigate national governments, issue rulings against them, and collect revenue from them by fining those governments.

The WA can now fine your country to raise revenue. The WA can now send investigators into your government and your domestic companies. Without any oversight, those international bureaucrats can look into the finances of subscribers, trade secrets of domestic companies, and the security preparations of the government.

Second, the resolution does not actually protect consumers. Consumers want consistent services and fair dealing from their service providers. This resolution has a huge loophole. ISPs can basically do whatever they want as long as they bill it as 'reasonable network management', which can include avoiding network congestion ... and 'contractual obligations'. That means that ISPs only need to put a clause in a service contract to continue throttling or blocking access.

Furthermore, ISPs cannot block content ... unless that content is illegal ... something they already do. And when an ISP throttles or blocks some connection, they are doing so because the consumer signed a contract allowing that ISP to do so. If it were not in the contract, they would be sued. And when it is in the contract, this resolution doesn't do anything.

Third, the resolution does not actually protect net neutrality. It only creates protections against arbitrary throttling and arbitrary denials of access. That only prohibits companies from doing so without reason. Making people pay more for some content is a non-arbitrary reason, so the resolution does absolutely nothing for net neutrality too.

This resolution tries to achieve a righteous goal of consumer protection. The issue is that it utterly fails provide any protections to consumers. It fails to uphold net neutrality in any way. It fails to stop ISPs from throttling or denying access to content. It fails to stop governments from censoring the Internet.

It does so whilst giving the WA unconstrained power with no oversight or accountability. We need to repeal a resolution which makes nations bear all the costs and none of the benefits. As we cannot amend legislation in the World Assembly, I pray you support my repeal of this fatally flawed resolution:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=imperium_anglorum_1489638177

Respectfully yours,

Cyril Parsons

Permanent Representative to the World Assembly for [nation=short]Imperium_Anglorum[/nation]
Delegate for Europe

Click to expand...

Imperium Anglorum:

From: Foreign Office, Greyhall
To: Foreign Secretary, %NATION%

Greetings,

The author's counter-campaign against repeal notes two major factors: (1) the popularity of his proposal and (2) the difficulty of passing specific legislation. Having already passed 13 General Assembly resolutions, I can assure you that specific legislation is not hard to pass. I have done it multiple times over. More popular resolutions have been repealed; less popular resolutions still remain.

However that is, none of what was said in the counter-campaign addresses anything in the original telegram I sent out. The author speaks vaguely of loopholes, but it does not change that:

1. Open Internet Order gives the World Assembly's unelected bureaucrats discretionary authority to directly investigate national governments, issue rulings against those governments, and collect revenue from them by fining those governments. This is because of (a) the bad definition of Internet service provider in the target resolution, which includes national governments, and (b) the granting of discretionary authority in the last clause of the resolution.

In doing so, Open Internet Order allows WA bureaucrats into your government and domestic companies. With no oversight, those international bureaucrats can look into the finances of subscribers, trade secrets of domestic companies, and the security preparations of the government. This is a massive breach of privacy rights and dangerous to national security.

2. Under Open Internet Order, ISPs can basically do whatever they want as long as they call it 'reasonable network management' or 'contractual obligations'. As long as ISPs put a clause into their fine print, consumers are not protected by this resolution.

3. Finally, Open Internet Order only creates protections against arbitrary throttling and arbitrary denials of access. Net neutrality means that people do not have to pay more for certain content, that certain types of information are not throttled, that all information is treated the same. Paying more for certain content is non-arbitrary. Paying more to avoid throttling is non-arbitrary. Favourable treatment to partner content providers is non-arbitrary. This resolution simply does not protect net neutrality.

This resolution hands the WA unlimited regulatory powers without any oversight or accountability. It does not protect consumers. It does not protect net neutrality. It may be easier to pass vague legislation, but is that what we want? As past legislation will block future replacement attempts, the question is, do you want real protections and oversight or to leave bad policies on the books simply because the author didn't have the courage to achieve real reform?

We think the choice is clear. And as (1) we cannot amend legislation in the World Assembly and (2) future attempts will be blocked by this resolution, the only way to get that oversight and those real protections for consumers is to repeal this resolution. With that in mind, I ask you to approve here:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=imperium_anglorum_1489638177

Respectfully yours,

Cyril Parsons

Permanent Representative for [nation=short]Imperium_Anglorum[/nation]
Delegate for Europe

Click to expand...