Net Neutrality Act

[abc]

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

Hereby, the World Assembly:

Acknowledging the role of the internet in a consumer's daily life.

Concerned that ISP's (Internet Service Providers) hold the necessary resources to cheat, deceive, and influence consumers by altering, censoring, and blocking content they disagree with.

#1. Defines:
(a) An Internet Service Provider or ISP as a company that provides internet access to residential and/or commercial customers.
(b) Legal as allowed by the national or international community with international law taking precedence over national law
(c) The internet as an international network of data consisting of interconnected networks of devices as well as standardized protocols.
(d) Consumer as a user of the internet who pays monetary expense to receive access to it or receives access to it through someone else paying monetary expense for use by others

#2. Prohibits an ISP from:
(a) Blocking/censoring any internet content that is allowed by national and international law with international law taking precedence over national law
(b) Prohibiting consumers access to the internet for any reason with the exception of the doing so to prevent violation of international law
(c) Giving significantly less bandwidth then they say the give to their consumers, to the point where the difference in the real bandwidth and the advertised bandwidth noticeably affects the speed at which a consumer can access the internet

#3. Establishes the ISP Regulatory Committee

#4. Permits the ISP Regulatory Committee to:
(a) Initiate investigations of an ISP at the order of an official national or international court, consumer, or at its own discretion
(b) Place sensors with the capability to measure an ISP's bandwidth to make sure they give as much or about as much bandwidth as they say they do
(b) Require ISP's to pay all affected customers a percentage, specified by the ISP Regulatory Committee, of their net profit from those consumers as a penalty for not abiding by these terms

 

[Mall]

Category and Strength?

 

[abc]

Category and Strength?

Oops! Added.

 

[Mall]

So just looking at one clause for a moment, you would like the ISPs to be banned from blocking any content. So you want ISPs to be compelled to transmit child pornography if a user wants to transmit it?

 

[abc]

So just looking at one clause for a moment, you would like the ISPs to be banned from blocking any content. So you want ISPs to be compelled to transmit child pornography if a user wants to transmit it?

Fine. As permitted by law.

 

[Mall]

So just looking at one clause for a moment, you would like the ISPs to be banned from blocking any content. So you want ISPs to be compelled to transmit child pornography if a user wants to transmit it?

Fine. As permitted by law.

Law of nations? Law of the WA? Law of local municipalities? Law of nature?

 

[abc]

So just looking at one clause for a moment, you would like the ISPs to be banned from blocking any content. So you want ISPs to be compelled to transmit child pornography if a user wants to transmit it?

Fine. As permitted by law.

Law of nations? Law of the WA? Law of local municipalities? Law of nature?

As permitted by national and international law with national law taking precedence over international law.

 

[Mall]

So just looking at one clause for a moment, you would like the ISPs to be banned from blocking any content. So you want ISPs to be compelled to transmit child pornography if a user wants to transmit it?

Fine. As permitted by law.

Law of nations? Law of the WA? Law of local municipalities? Law of nature?

As permitted by national and international law with national law taking precedence over international law.

So ignoring for a moment the fact that this would then be a blatant violation of GAR #2, Rights and Duties, what that clause essentially says is that it is now illegal to do that which is illegal. Is that a fair summary of that clause?

 

[abc]

So just looking at one clause for a moment, you would like the ISPs to be banned from blocking any content. So you want ISPs to be compelled to transmit child pornography if a user wants to transmit it?

Fine. As permitted by law.

Law of nations? Law of the WA? Law of local municipalities? Law of nature?

As permitted by national and international law with national law taking precedence over international law.

So ignoring for a moment the fact that this would then be a blatant violation of GAR #2, Rights and Duties, what that clause essentially says is that it is now illegal to do that which is illegal. Is that a fair summary of that clause?

Please state that in a more clear way.

 

[Mall]

So just looking at one clause for a moment, you would like the ISPs to be banned from blocking any content. So you want ISPs to be compelled to transmit child pornography if a user wants to transmit it?

Fine. As permitted by law.

Law of nations? Law of the WA? Law of local municipalities? Law of nature?

As permitted by national and international law with national law taking precedence over international law.

So ignoring for a moment the fact that this would then be a blatant violation of GAR #2, Rights and Duties, what that clause essentially says is that it is now illegal to do that which is illegal. Is that a fair summary of that clause?

Please state that in a more clear way.

Sure: that clause would violate GAR #2 since International law always trumps national law. But assuming we ignored that for a moment, the practical impact of saying that "ISPs may not prohibit any content allowed by national law" is that ISPs can only prohibit illegal content. Right?

 

[abc]

So just looking at one clause for a moment, you would like the ISPs to be banned from blocking any content. So you want ISPs to be compelled to transmit child pornography if a user wants to transmit it?

Fine. As permitted by law.

Law of nations? Law of the WA? Law of local municipalities? Law of nature?

As permitted by national and international law with national law taking precedence over international law.

So ignoring for a moment the fact that this would then be a blatant violation of GAR #2, Rights and Duties, what that clause essentially says is that it is now illegal to do that which is illegal. Is that a fair summary of that clause?

Please state that in a more clear way.

Sure: that clause would violate GAR #2 since International law always trumps national law. But assuming we ignored that for a moment, the practical impact of saying that "ISPs may not prohibit any content allowed by national law" is that ISPs can only prohibit illegal content. Right?

That is correct, I will fix the international - national law error.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

If it's illegal under WA law, it's illegal in every nation that is a WA member. You cannot specify that national law takes precedence over WA law.

Also...

Permits the ISP Regulatory Committee to:
(a) Issue fines for not abiding by these terms
(b) Suspend an ISP from providing services as a consequence for not abiding by these terms
(c) Initiate investigations of an ISP at the order of a court, consumer, or at its own discretion
(d) Require ISP's to provide monetary compensation to consumers if found guilty of not abiding by these terms

The WA having the authority to issue fines was one of the sticking points that lead to the repeal of Open Internet Order. I would even question whether the WA has the authority to issue such fines.

Mall, I'll research this myself, but if you have a quick answer on hand, can the WA do that?

 

[abc]

If it's illegal under WA law, it's illegal in every nation that is a WA member. You cannot specify that national law takes precedence over WA law.

Also...

Permits the ISP Regulatory Committee to:
(a) Issue fines for not abiding by these terms
(b) Suspend an ISP from providing services as a consequence for not abiding by these terms
(c) Initiate investigations of an ISP at the order of a court, consumer, or at its own discretion
(d) Require ISP's to provide monetary compensation to consumers if found guilty of not abiding by these terms

The WA having the authority to issue fines was one of the sticking points that lead to the repeal of Open Internet Order. I would even question whether the WA has the authority to issue such fines.

Mall, I'll research this myself, but if you have a quick answer on hand, can the WA do that?

Now that I think about it, I don't like the issuing fines part. I'll get rid of that.

 

[Mall]

Ok, time to pick this apart line by line.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

This has nothing to do with that category.

Acknowledging the role of the internet in a consumer's daily life.

Concerned that ISP's (Internet Service Providers) hold the necessary resources to cheat, deceive, and influence consumers by altering, censoring, and blocking content they disagree with.

I'm assuming we're now living in a world where nations are utterly incapable of dealing with this issue on their own. It is sad that we now apparently live in such a world/

Defines:
(a) An Internet Service Provider or ISP as an organization that manages and controls necessary devices responsible for providing internet access

So... computer manufacturers? Smart phone producers? Or the people who make the towers and satellites? Or the people who manage the flow of internet traffic? Or something else entirely?

(b) Legal as allowed by the national or international community with international law applicable to all WA nations and national law only applicable to the nation in which the law exists

We've discussed this issue above.

(c) The internet as a collection of overlapping networks allowing consumers, nation states, and organizations to share information

"Overlapping networks"? What does that mean? Networks of what? Social networks of people? Electronic networks?

(d) Consumer as a user of the internet who pays monetary expense to receive access to it

So people who access from a public library are not consumers of the internet?

Prohibits an ISP from:
(a) Blocking/censoring any internet content that is allowed by national and international law with international law taking precedence over international law

Clear typo there, you mean "national law" in the last bit.

(b) Prohibiting consumers access to the internet for any reason with the exception of not paying monetary expenses

What if it is necessary under international law for them to do so for some reason? You've just created a massive potential conflict of laws scenario. Additionally there is nothing in here that would prevent ISPs from simply refusing service to some members entirely, preventing them from paying in the first place. If they don't pay then they aren't consumers, if they aren't consumers then these protections don't apply.

(c) Not allowing consumers to publish any legal content

Redundant.

Makes it Necessary for ISP's to disclose to all consumers:
(a) Any hidden monetary expenses or use limits (bandwidth)

Assuming we live in a world where nations are unable to handle this themselves, then that doesn't seem entirely absurd.

(b) Any changes in policy, terms, or agreement of any type

See above.

(c) Any potentials glitches or outages that the ISP is aware of

Totally absurd. ISPs must disclose ANY POTENTIAL GLITCHES OR OUTAGES that the ISP is AWARE of? ISPs are presumably aware of the potential outage that would be caused by an alien attack. Should they be forced to disclose that? Etc.

Establishes the ISP Regulatory Committee

Oh good, no fluff resolution is complete without a committee.

Permits the ISP Regulatory Committee to:
(a) Issue fines for not abiding by these terms

Yay unfettered discretion!

(b) Suspend an ISP from providing services as a consequence for not abiding by these terms

So now the consumers get no internet at all? Rough.

(c) Initiate investigations of an ISP at the order of a court, consumer, or at its own discretion

What Courts? National? International? Municipality? Courts of religious tribunal founded upon sects of breakaway religions based in distant desert colonies of backwater nations?

(d) Require ISP's to provide monetary compensation to consumers if found guilty of not abiding by these terms

Yay unfettered discretion!

So says we, the World Assembly.

Strange way to end the resolution. Generally they start with "The World Assembly." then rolls into the preamble.

 

[Mall]

Mall, I'll research this myself, but if you have a quick answer on hand, can the WA do that?

It is a novel question as far as I know, I can't recall a resolution seeking to impose fines directly from a committee.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Mall! I was expecting more! Something like, "Well, if you're asking me then you don't really intend on doing the research now, do you?"

I'll start looking at past resolutions and see if there's something similar.

 

[abc]

Ok, time to pick this apart line by line.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

This has nothing to do with that category.

Acknowledging the role of the internet in a consumer's daily life.

Concerned that ISP's (Internet Service Providers) hold the necessary resources to cheat, deceive, and influence consumers by altering, censoring, and blocking content they disagree with.

I'm assuming we're now living in a world where nations are utterly incapable of dealing with this issue on their own. It is sad that we now apparently live in such a world/

Defines:
(a) An Internet Service Provider or ISP as an organization that manages and controls necessary devices responsible for providing internet access

So... computer manufacturers? Smart phone producers? Or the people who make the towers and satellites? Or the people who manage the flow of internet traffic? Or something else entirely?

(b) Legal as allowed by the national or international community with international law applicable to all WA nations and national law only applicable to the nation in which the law exists

We've discussed this issue above.

(c) The internet as a collection of overlapping networks allowing consumers, nation states, and organizations to share information

"Overlapping networks"? What does that mean? Networks of what? Social networks of people? Electronic networks?

(d) Consumer as a user of the internet who pays monetary expense to receive access to it

So people who access from a public library are not consumers of the internet?

Prohibits an ISP from:
(a) Blocking/censoring any internet content that is allowed by national and international law with international law taking precedence over international law

Clear typo there, you mean "national law" in the last bit.

(b) Prohibiting consumers access to the internet for any reason with the exception of not paying monetary expenses

What if it is necessary under international law for them to do so for some reason? You've just created a massive potential conflict of laws scenario. Additionally there is nothing in here that would prevent ISPs from simply refusing service to some members entirely, preventing them from paying in the first place. If they don't pay then they aren't consumers, if they aren't consumers then these protections don't apply.

(c) Not allowing consumers to publish any legal content

Redundant.

Makes it Necessary for ISP's to disclose to all consumers:
(a) Any hidden monetary expenses or use limits (bandwidth)

Assuming we live in a world where nations are unable to handle this themselves, then that doesn't seem entirely absurd.

(b) Any changes in policy, terms, or agreement of any type

See above.

(c) Any potentials glitches or outages that the ISP is aware of

Totally absurd. ISPs must disclose ANY POTENTIAL GLITCHES OR OUTAGES that the ISP is AWARE of? ISPs are presumably aware of the potential outage that would be caused by an alien attack. Should they be forced to disclose that? Etc.

Establishes the ISP Regulatory Committee

Oh good, no fluff resolution is complete without a committee.

Permits the ISP Regulatory Committee to:
(a) Issue fines for not abiding by these terms

Yay unfettered discretion!

(b) Suspend an ISP from providing services as a consequence for not abiding by these terms

So now the consumers get no internet at all? Rough.

(c) Initiate investigations of an ISP at the order of a court, consumer, or at its own discretion

What Courts? National? International? Municipality? Courts of religious tribunal founded upon sects of breakaway religions based in distant desert colonies of backwater nations?

(d) Require ISP's to provide monetary compensation to consumers if found guilty of not abiding by these terms

Yay unfettered discretion!

So says we, the World Assembly.

Strange way to end the resolution. Generally they start with "The World Assembly." then rolls into the preamble.

Fixed it. Need a little help with category though.

 

[Mall]

Mall! I was expecting more! Something like, "Well, if you're asking me then you don't really intend on doing the research now, do you?"

I'll start looking at past resolutions and see if there's something similar.

You aren't the author so I won't be as critical of your laziness. I don't see why it would be illegal, obviously this is not a legality ruling of any type for official NS purposes, but as far as I can tell there is nothing in international law that restricts the WA from levying fines like this through committees. There is a prohibition on directly taxing individuals through the WA, but I think there is a distinction between a fine and a tax, though one could certainly make an argument that there isn't such a distinction.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Mall, I'll research this myself, but if you have a quick answer on hand, can the WA do that?

It is a novel question as far as I know, I can't recall a resolution seeking to impose fines directly from a committee.

And here's our answer:

Resolution #113 (Repealed - #331)
WA Commitee issuing fines directly

The Gem Trading Accord

The WA hereby founds the International Gemological Agency (IGA) and International Gemological Laboratory (IGL).

h) Trade in gems not certified by IGA accredited laboratories is hereby outlawed; those found to have illicitly traded non-certified gems shall be punished with fines, penalties, or forfeits proportionate to the magnitude of their crime.

Resolution #145 (Repealed - #191)
Source of fines ambiguous and optional

Animal Cruelty Prevention

(4) Mistreatment of domesticated animals, livestock and wild animals by means of abuse, torture, training for sport fighting and the act of sport fighting is expressly prohibited.

VIOLATION of this resolution shall incur a suitable punishment based on the severity of the offense and may include fines, imprisonment, forfeiture of said animals and prohibition from owning animals in the future....

---

Added bonus...

Resolution #248 (Repealed - #269)
Mandates member nations issue fines

Against Corruption

Mandates all member states make the act of bribery an illegal action for a business, citizen, or non-state organization or entity to participate in, with heavy fines for organizations found to be in violation,...

 

[Mall]

There is an old piece of GA wisdom that is bandied about that says that one should pick a category and then write to that, rather than writing a proposal and attempting to shoehorn it into a category. Old timers love to say it to new authors who are in your position, trying to find a category that will fit. In reality, that advice is utter bullshit though and the old timers themselves don't follow it. They write the proposal, shoehorn it as best they can, and only make edits when absolutely necessary to make it fit.

Here you seem to be either implementing a "Moral Decency" category since you prohibit certain actions, thereby decreasing the civil liberties of ISP owners, but more likely I think you are in the "Social Justice" category, seeking to throw up barriers to Free Trade by imposing regulations on the market.

I'm heading to bed, none of the above (or anything I post on this forum, for that matter) is an official ruling from an NS mod.

 

[abc]

There is an old piece of GA wisdom that is bandied about that says that one should pick a category and then write to that, rather than writing a proposal and attempting to shoehorn it into a category. Old timers love to say it to new authors who are in your position, trying to find a category that will fit. In reality, that advice is utter bullshit though and the old timers themselves don't follow it. They write the proposal, shoehorn it as best they can, and only make edits when absolutely necessary to make it fit.

Here you seem to be either implementing a "Moral Decency" category since you prohibit certain actions, thereby decreasing the civil liberties of ISP owners, but more likely I think you are in the "Social Justice" category, seeking to throw up barriers to Free Trade by imposing regulations on the market.

I'm heading to bed, none of the above (or anything I post on this forum, for that matter) is an official ruling from an NS mod.

I'll go with social justice.

 

[Chancellor Erichthonius]

First, I think that without some type of "enforcement bite" to this, it could go ignored. Fines imposed by the WA/Regulatory Committee created by this legislation would do just...fine.

That brings me to my next point: Cool, the committee is established but who is on it? How many seats? Who/what provides oversight? (I'm fairly new to participation in the Regional and World Assemblies so bare with me if this is "common knowledge".)

 

[abc]

Please don't grave-dig.

Thread locked.