[GA - Passed] Repeal "World Assembly Official Merchandise"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
magecastle_embassy_building_a5
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Repeal "World Assembly Official Merchandise"
Category: Repeal | GA #663
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic
Replacement: None​

Recognising that Article 1d of GA#663 precludes the WA Trust for Cultural Heritage (WATCH) from offering WA merchandise in any member which does not "meet [that member's] technological, cultural, social, and other requirements, norms and practices," which - given the inclusion of "other" standards - could allow member states to impose differential or even overly-rigorous requirements for WA merchandise compared to non-WA merchandise, effectively precluding its sale within their jurisdictions for as long as they persist,

Observing that it may be impossible for WATCH to meet its Article 1f requirement to "[a]rrange for retailing of WA merchandise... across all member states" if some of those member states impose such rules on the sale of WA merchandise above and beyond those necessary to provide for "the[ir] customary methods of retailing," thereby defeating the purpose and objective of offering WA merchandise at all,

Additionally unsure of the need to require that WATCH encourage members "to license (for valuable consideration)... items deemed significant to their culture for use as WA merchandise," as Article 1b does, when nothing is stopping those member states from selling and profiting from such items under their own banner and emphasising their links to their nation - rather than to the WA as a whole - and it is not made clear at all what benefit such licensing would have either to the WA (beyond fundraising as specified in Article 2) or the member state (beyond "valuable consideration," namely appropriate compensation resulting from such licensing, which may be less than the profit they would accrue from direct sales outside GA#663's scope),

Noting, in fact, that the resolution does not justify itself beyond arguing that the WA should sell branded merchandise to allow "citizens of member states and fans of the WA" to back up their support for it, as though the institution has no other means to financially support itself and its missions, when GA#17 "WA General Fund" already requires all members to make appropriate financial contributions to the WA every year while ensuring that the WA does not spend beyond its means, and

Believing that resolutions which do not adequately and appropriately facilitate the fulfilment of their goals, however lofty or beneficial to WA finances they may be, should not remain on the books...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#663 "World Assembly Official Merchandise."
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • 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.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
1701
 
Last edited:
Overview
The resolution proposal at hand seeks to repeal "World Assembly Official Merchandise", primarily citing the resolution's "encouragement" of licensing of items deemed significant to their culture as negatively impacting those member nations that can sell items themselves outside of the confines of the WA, and that the WA is already funded through mandatory contributions via the general fund (GAR17) and do not require the additional income source.

Recommendation
We believe the arguments do not stand up to close scrutiny. We note that participating in the licensing of items of significant cultural value is on a voluntary basis. In addition, as the official merchandise of the WA can be sold to citizens of non-member states, any income generated from such sales help to reduce the mandatory contributions required pursuant to GAR17 and thus beneficial to the WA as a whole.
For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly resolution at vote, Repeal "World Assembly Official Merchandise".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Present. I would vote for but for the Noting line; the target reduces the mandatory donations to the WA, that is not mutually exclusive with GA #17. I pointed this out on the drafting thread.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
Present. I would vote for but for the Noting line; the target reduces the mandatory donations to the WA, that is not mutually exclusive with GA #17. I pointed this out on the drafting thread.
Click to expand...
I believe that the burden on member states that would be alleviated through merchandise sales would be minimal enough that those sales would not make a substantiative difference to the situation. Doubly so when you consider proceeds must be prioritised "to fund the humanitarian activities of the WA" rather than to help reduce member state payments to the General Fund.
 
Tinhampton:
I believe that the burden on member states that would be alleviated through merchandise sales would be minimal enough that those sales would not make a substantiative difference to the situation. Doubly so when you consider proceeds must be prioritised "to fund the humanitarian activities of the WA" rather than to help reduce member state payments to the General Fund.
Click to expand...
If WAOM money is used for humanitarian activities, that necessarily reduces the burden the same activities would otherwise impose on member nations by mandatory donations.
 
Last edited:
Tinhampton:
I believe that the burden on member states that would be alleviated through merchandise sales would be minimal enough that those sales would not make a substantiative difference to the situation. Doubly so when you consider proceeds must be prioritised "to fund the humanitarian activities of the WA" rather than to help reduce member state payments to the General Fund.
Click to expand...

Fans of the WA do not imply that they are citizens of a WA state. There are sales of merchandise to non-member states (IC), so theoretically, no matter how small the amount, any income from citizens of non-WA states buying WA merchandise via WAOM reduces the burden on the General Fund on humanitarian activities.

Selling a body pillow with a WA logo on it to a non-citizen helps reduce the burden on the General Fund.
 
Last edited:
Simone:
Fans of the WA do not imply that they are citizens of a WA state. There are sales of merchandise to non-member states (IC), so theoretically, no matter how small the amount, any income from citizens of non-WA states buying WA merchandise via WAOM reduces the burden on the General Fund on humanitarian activities.

Selling a body pillow with a WA logo on it to a non-citizen helps reduce the burden on the General Fund.
Click to expand...
I am not arguing that all "fans" are WA citizens. I do not even mention them besides a fair-use quotation of the target resolution.

I remain unconvinced that the scale of the donations accrued via merchandise sales will constitute such a substantial portion of WA revenue - and at so much potential regulatory cost - that they ought to be perpetuated.
 
Tinhampton:
I am not arguing that all "fans" are WA citizens. I do not even mention them besides a fair-use quotation of the target resolution.

I remain unconvinced that the scale of the donations accrued via merchandise sales will constitute such a substantial portion of WA revenue - and at so much potential regulatory cost - that they ought to be perpetuated.
Click to expand...

I don't really see why potential regulatory costs will be outweighed by income. Almost all professional sports teams, colleges etc sell plenty of merchandise and it's an important source of income. You said you went to University of Cambridge (I think that's what you said anyway) and they sell plenty of authorized merchandise.
 
Last edited:
Simone:
I don't really see why potential regulatory costs will be outweighed by income.
Click to expand...
I don't really see where Tinhampton claimed that they will.

You said you went to University of Cambridge (I think that's what you said anyway) and they sell plenty of authorized merchandise.
Click to expand...
What university someone has gone to in the past is not a very good gotchya, even though I disagree with the point Tinhampton is making in the quoted excerpt.

Anyway, this is now quorate.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
I don't really see where Tinhampton claimed that they will.


What university someone has gone to in the past is not a very good gotchya, even though I disagree with the point Tinhampton is making in the quoted excerpt.

Anyway, this is now quorate.
Click to expand...

I mean the "at so much regulatory cost" bit.

There's an argument that I made with Tin on Discord which mentions Cambridge, it's not a gotcha. I am no fan of gotchas.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
What point were you trying to make when bringing it up? Frankly, I cannot see it as anything other than a gotchya.
Click to expand...
I strongly protest against you making that statement. I had a separate discussion with Tin that mentioned universities and sports teams. I believe your comment was out of context. There was no intent on my part on making a gotcha statement and I must protest in the strongest terms about you calling that a gotcha when I had absolutely zero intention to do so.
 
Last edited:
Simone:
I strongly protest against you making that statement. I had a separate discussion with Tin that mentioned universities and sports teams. I believe your comment was out of context.
Click to expand...
Not to continue threadjacking this, but if you just mentioned generally that sports teams and universities and whatever other example entities sell merchandise I would not have interjected regarding it being a gotchya. Regardless of whether you intended to make one, I find it hard to interpret your original comment otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
Not to continue threadjacking this, but if you just mentioned generally that sports teams and universities and whatever other example entities sell merchandise I would not have interjected regarding it being a gotchya. Regardless of whether you intended to make one, I find it hard to interpret your original comment otherwise.
Click to expand...

I reiterate that there was no intent on my part on making a gotcha statement as there was a separate context and I must repeat my disapproval in the strongest terms about you calling that a gotcha when I had absolutely zero intention to do so. Obviously you have a right to call it a gotcha, I have a right to express my disapproval of that and I must express my resentment at your opinion in the strongest possible terms. I'd stop here.
 
Last edited:
I will reiterate the only thing I said in the aforementioned chat:

"GA#663 does the equivalent of telling the Russell Group to set up a committee to co-ordinate merchandise sales across its unis, then telling them they can set any sale restrictions they want, including but not limited to restricting the sale of RG-authorised merch. Then it asks unis to license their trademarks to the Russell Group for merch purposes in exchange for cash money. If you were the Vice-Chancellor of Boffins University, would you rather have this mess or sell authentic Boffins U merch exclusively through your own channels? :p"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top