[Accelerator - GA] Dark Sky Preserve Creation Act

Westinor

Westinor

Registered
TNP Nation
Westinor
Discord
Westinor#2315
ga.jpg

Dark Sky Preserve Creation Act
Accelerator Draft Discussion and Review
Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild
Proposed by: Boston Castle | Onsite Topic​

Observing this august assembly’s efforts to compile astronomical data in [resolution=GA#460]Astronomical Data Repository[/resolution] and shocked that there have not been efforts to ensure that data compiled under the terms of this resolution can reasonably be obtained, be it enacted as follows:
  1. Member nations work to identify areas that are suitable to be designated as dark sky preserves.
    1. Criteria for designation as a dark sky preserve shall be up to the discretion of the Astronomical Science and Technical Research Organization, hereafter referred to as ASTRO, and will include factors such as light pollution and potential suitability for radio astronomy.
    2. Member nations may also work to create dark sky preserves should that be their wish.
  2. Upon report by the government of a member nation of a potential site that could be designated as a dark sky preserve and an investigation by ASTRO, ASTRO will have the final say over which areas submitted for scrutiny are identified as dark sky preserves.
    1. When government assent is communicated, ASTRO will investigate the site to determine if criteria determined by ASTRO are met.
    2. If the government of a member nation does not assent to an affirmative investigation, ASTRO will decline to designate the site as a dark sky preserve,
  3. Once an area is designated as a preserve, the designated space must be maintained by the member state and its existence acknowledged until, and unless, an event as described in clause 5 or 6 occurs.
  4. ASTRO is required to keep a public registry of lands designated as dark sky preserves as well as a log of their accessibility and terms of usage of said lands.
  5. In the event a dark sky preserve no longer meets the criteria as specified by ASTRO, member nations must provide evidence to ASTRO which shows that requirements are no longer fulfilled.
    1. The removal of designation may be challenged by ASTRO and ASTRO may investigate to determine if the designation should be removed.
  6. A member state may not undertake action to alter the conditions in a dark sky preserve such that it no longer fulfills criteria as set by ASTRO without giving ASTRO advance warning of such.
Click to expand...
Note: This is an internal discussion on a draft proposal accepted to the WA Accelerator Program. Please rip this draft apart and offer any comments you may have; the objective here is to help the author make this proposal better. If the author does not have access to this subforum, comments will be communicated to them by the Minister or an assigned Deputy. Detailed feedback is appreciated and encouraged!
Sponsorship Voting Instructions (Optional):
  • Vote Accept if you want the Ministry and Delegate to sponsor the proposal upon submission.
  • Vote Reject if you want the Ministry and Delegate to not sponsor the proposal upon submission.
Detailed opinions on whether to sponsor this proposal are likewise appreciated and encouraged!
Accept Reject
00
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm. Very interesting use of ASTRO, not how I originally intended it to be used but could be cool. My only issue is the purchasing of private land bit. I would prefer that the government's ability to eminent domain specific pieces of land exist outside the scope of this proposal.
 
Last edited:
Honeydewistan:
Does ASTRO take into consideration potential urban or commercial uses of the dark sky land?
Click to expand...
From my explicit creation of it in ADR, it does not. However that doesn't mean it couldn't reasonably be given those powers. But it was never created to do that. That being said ASTRO really only deals with my ADR bit. So from an IC standpoint they'd have the manpower to do more.
 
Boston Castle fortunately caught the point I mentioned on the WA forum, but to make it more clear; as is, the draft doesn't really do anything. It requires Member-States maintain dark-sky preserves indefinitely, but also allows them to be declassified arbitrarily. I can't imagine how one would be able to strike a balance between not unduly impacting development, and preservation of dark skies, which, by any imaginable standard, would be virtually anywhere there isn't significant development already. The draft can be read both to create a dramatically overbroad protection, or to do virtually no protection at all.

I encourage the author to figure it out, and I'll continue to offer observations along the way, but do be aware that this'll likely be a hard sell no matter how cleanly it comes out.
 
Tinfect:
Boston Castle fortunately caught the point I mentioned on the WA forum, but to make it more clear; as is, the draft doesn't really do anything. It requires Member-States maintain dark-sky preserves indefinitely, but also allows them to be declassified arbitrarily. I can't imagine how one would be able to strike a balance between not unduly impacting development, and preservation of dark skies, which, by any imaginable standard, would be virtually anywhere there isn't significant development already. The draft can be read both to create a dramatically overbroad protection, or to do virtually no protection at all.

I encourage the author to figure it out, and I'll continue to offer observations along the way, but do be aware that this'll likely be a hard sell no matter how cleanly it comes out.
Click to expand...
No worries at all, Tinfect. I'll keep everyone updated on this one, but this will definitely be slow-walked, relatively speaking. I agree with you that that's an issue, and it's potentially insurmountable, but not entirely sure as to how to resolve it yet.

Ditto to Honeydew's point as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top