[DRAFT] Phone Home Act
#1

So I finally got around to re-writing this thing from a "social justice" perspective. Basically just a "stream of consciousness" way of writing it, so it's not very well thought out, but I thought I'd post it here anyways. Initial responses from when I posted the version labelled "Second Draft" here on the forums were, in short, "not an international issue of note" and "try social justice, but I still won't support it." My ambition as of now is very modest: I'd like to write a proposal that is legal and reasonably well-argued. I don't really care about getting it to vote or passing. Practice run, more or less. Comments would be appriciated nontheless.

Quote: Phone Home Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES that many WA member states operate with similar and compatible systems and infrastructure for wireless telecommunications,

RECOGNIZES that providers of wireless telecommunications networks - that are commercially accessible to the public - in different member states often enter into authentication, authorization and billing agreements, allowing users from different nations to continue using wireless communication devices seamlessly by connecting to foreign commercially accessible wireless telecommunications networks while in other member states,

REALISING that connecting to foreign commercially accessible wireless telecommunications networks often involves surcharges for non-domestic users for the services used while connected,

NOTES that there are substantial variations in said surcharges, causing financial unpredictability for users, especially for those of limited means,

BELIEVING nationals from member states, regardless of their socioeconomic status and financial resources, should have reasonable access to pursuing private long-distance communication through their own devices while visiting other member states without dreading unpredictable monetary consequences,

Hereby,

MANDATES that all providers of commercially accessible wireless telecommunications networks in member states refrain from adding surcharges for non-domestic users from other member-states connecting to their network via wireless communication devices, beyond the minimum transaction costs required to facilitate connectivity and service provision,

REQUIRES that all providers of commercially accessible wireless telecommunications networks in member states give notice, through appropriate channels and free of charge, to all non-domestic users from other member-states concerning the current rates of network services for said user upon connecting to their network,

DECREES that all member states shall greet visitors from other member states, upon entry, with a piece of cake or quick-bread, preferably scones.[/quote]

Old drafts
Spoiler: click to togglePhone Home Act

Category: Social Justice Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES that many member states operate with similar telecommunications systems, allowing users from different nations to continue using their mobile phone devices seamlessly while outside their domestic telecommunications network and in other member states,

REALISING that telecommunications networks often operate with surcharges for non-domestic users for the tele- text and data services used while connected to their network,

NOTES that no international regulation exists covering this area and that there are substantial variations in said surcharges between nations and networks, causing financial unpredictability for users, especially for those of limited means,

BELIEVING nationals from WA member states, regardless of their socioeconomic status and financial resources, should have reasonable access to pursuing private long-distance communication while visiting other member states without dreading unpredictable monetary consequences,

Hereby,

MANDATES that all network owners/operators in WA member states refrain from adding surcharges for non-domestic users from other member states connecting to their network for the first 120 minutes of calling and 1 megabytes of data;

REQUIRES that all network owners/operators in WA member states give notice, through appropriate channels, to all non-domestic users from other member states concerning the current rates of network services for said user upon connecting to their network.

Spoiler: click to toggleSecond draft. I've tried making this a "free trade" proposal. Any feedback would be much appreciated. I'll take this to the NS forums at some point, not sure when, it might be a while until I have the time for it. But I would be very glad to get some comments from our more experienced players before that time. I've gathered that being torn apart on the forums is sort of standard procedure for the WA. But, you know, anything we can do to lessen the need for being torn would be nice.

Fair Roaming Act
A resolution to reduce barriers for free trade
Category: Free trade Strength: Strong Proposed by: Gnejs

Desciption: The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES the tremendous benefits that telecommunication and internet access have had, and continues to have, in enabling human interaction, connecting societies and strengthening enterprise and business.

COMITTED to the removal of obstacles to further free trade and shared markets between member states in areas appropriate.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, International Roaming as the technology that allows wireless communication devices to stay connected to a network, from here on "guest network", while traveling abroad and outside the area of coverage of the users standard domestic network; facilitating the possibility to seamlessly make and receive calls, send text messages and send or receive data.

Further DEFINES International Roaming Fees as extra charges made to the user for the tele- text- and data services used while connected to a guest network in another nation, and International Roaming Contracts as the legal frameworks between network owners/operators of different nations that:

1)governs the technical enabling of, and the billing procedures related to, users' seamless connection between networks, and thereby
2)determines International Roaming Fees

CONCERNED that no international regulation exists covering this area, resulting in the possibility of substantial variations in International Roaming Fees between nations and networks ? dependent on the user's standard domestic network and its International Roaming Contracts ? and also between domestic users of a network and "travelling/visiting" users.

WORRIED that the unpredictability for users of said variations while visiting different nations, and the difference in charging between domestic and "travelling/visiting" users, results in lowering the use of telecommunication and internet services on wireless communication devices, effectively hampering professional and private interaction and communication due to monetary concerns on the part of the "travelling/visiting" user.

CONVINCED that an abolishment of International Roaming Fees will achieve a greater predictability for users, and result in increasing use of network services while travelling/visiting abroad.

CONFIDENT that this will strengthen the maintaining of professional and private relationships through instant access to information at predictable prices.

CONVINCED that, despite causing a short-term loss of revenue, network owners/operators will ultimately gain from the abolishment of International Roaming Fees due to increased usage of services by a larger pool of potential customers.

Further ASSURED that this is case, as the abolishment of International Roaming Fees will enable domestic network owners/operators to compete for customers in new markets in other member states.

Therefore,

MANDATES that all network owners/operators in WA member nations, within their International Roaming Contracts, refrains from adding International Roaming Fees for non-domestic users, and solely operate with their domestic rates for all users connected to their network.

Further MANDATES that all network owners/operators in WA member nations gives notice, through appropriate channels, hereunder text message, to all "travelling/visiting" users, upon connecting to a "guest network", concerning the current rates of network services for said user.

In closing, ASSERTS that it is the sole prerogative of the network owner/operator to determine the prices for services provided within their respective network, within the confines of national and international law and regulations.[spoiler/]


First Draft:
Spoiler: click to toggleAs suggested a month ago or so, here is an attempt at a proposal covering "roaming" while travelling abroad in other WA-member states.

I had two drafts going on, one more radical that calls for the abolishment of all roaming fees in member states, and another one that is slightly (or maybe significantly) less ambitious, namely one that mandates that roaming fees can only be set a certain % higher than domestic rates (I have no idea what this % should be though, suggestions are very welcome). The one posted here is nr. 2. Mainly because I finished writing this one first, but maybe this one would also stand a greater chance in the WA?

I would really appreciate some feedback/comments/suggestions. Do you think this is a good idea to put in front of the WA? Is it "legal" (I'm not very familiar with these legality rules)? What category should this be in, and what strenght? Are there any loop holes, is it written clearly enough, what is it lacking, etc. etc.

Fair Roaming Act
A resolution to ?
Category: ? Strength: ? Proposed by: Gnejs

Desciption: The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES the tremendous benefits that telecommunication and internet access have had, and continues to have, in enabling human interaction, connecting societies and strengthening enterprise and business.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, International Roaming as the technology that allows wireless communication devices to stay connected to a network, from here on "guest network", while traveling abroad and outside the area of coverage of the users standard domestic network; facilitating the possibility to seamlessly make and receive calls, send text messages and send or receive data.

Further DEFINES International Roaming Fees as charges made to the user for the tele- text- and data services used while connected to a guest network in another nation, and International Roaming Contracts as the legal frameworks between network owners/operators of different nations that 1.) governs the technical enabling of, and the billing procedures related to, users seamless connection between networks and thereby 2.) determines International Roaming Fees.

CONCERNED that no international regulation exists covering this area, resulting in the possibility of substantial variations in International Roaming Fees between nations and networks - dependent on the users standard domestic network and its International Roaming Contracts - and also between domestic users of a network and "travelling/visiting" users.

WORRIED that the unpredictability for users of said variations, and the difference in charging between domestic and "travelling/visiting" users, results in lowering the use of telecommunication and internet services on wireless communication devices, effectively hampering private and professional interaction and communication due to monetary concerns on the part of the "travelling/visiting" user.

ASSERTS that it is the sole prerogative of the network owner/operator to determine the prices for services provided within their respective network for their own domestic users, within the confines of national and international law and regulations.

RECOGNIZING the legitimacy of network owners/operators to differentiate charges between domestic and "travelling/visiting" user to cover potential expenses connected to International Roaming.

However, CONVINCED that an international standard regulating the levels of International Roaming Fees will achieve a greater predictability for users, and result in increasing use of network services while travelling/visiting abroad, further strengthening the maintaining of private and professional relationships through instant access to information at predictable prices.

Therefore,

MANDATES that all network owners/operators in WA member nations, within their International Roaming Contracts, must not set International Roaming Fees for non-domestic users higher than X % of their domestic rates.

Further MANDATES that all network owners/operators in WA member nations gives notice through appropriate channels, hereunder text messages, to all "travelling/visiting" users, upon connecting to a "guest network", concerning the current rates for network services for said user.

ASSERTS that this resolution does not prohibit WA member nations from going further and setting lower maximum International Roaming Fee rates for network owners/operators within in their nation, or deciding on the abolishment of said fees.[spoiler/]
Reply
#2

I did have some notes on this which I will try to share when I have more time. Looks an interesting start.
Reply
#3

That sounds great, thanks.
Reply
#4

Concerning categories, I'm thinking this could be developed towards fitting into "reducing barriers for free trade". That would take some thought and work though.
Reply
#5

Second draft posted.
Reply
#6

Even though I don't see myself promoting this in the GA anytime soon, I would still very much appreciate any feedback or comments more experinced players might have to offer.

Thank you in advance.
Reply
#7

Updated, would you believe. See OP.
Reply
#8

Quote: BELIEVING citizens from WA member states, regardless of their socioeconomic status and financial resources, should have reasonable access to pursuing private long-distance communication while visiting other member states without dreading unpredictable monetary consequences,
Hereby,[/quote]
Say "nationals" rather than "citizens", to cover those cases where the legal status of 'citizenship' is more restricted than that of 'nationality'?
A blank line between the clause itself and the "Hereby"?

:Bear:
Reply
#9

Thanks!
Reply
#10

I like this. My only quibbles are stylistic and grammatical. Should be "Mandates that all network owners/operators in WA member states refrain" rather than "refrains." Similarly, it should be "REQUIRES that all network owners/operators in WA member states give notice" rather than "gives." The last clause should end in a period and, conventionally, operative clauses are separated by semi-colons rather than commas. I know for a fact you will face some NatSov resistance on the forums, but note that the GA forum is in no way representative of how the WA will vote on your proposal. You'll also probably face some resistance on the specificity in the mandates clause.

Other than that, I think this looks good! Convincing preamble and an appropriate issue.
Reply
#11

SciongradJun 26 2016, 06:14:31 PMI like this. My only quibbles are stylistic and grammatical. Should be "Mandates that all network owners/operators in WA member states refrain" rather than "refrains." Similarly, it should be "REQUIRES that all network owners/operators in WA member states give notice" rather than "gives." The last clause should end in a period and, conventionally, operative clauses are separated by semi-colons rather than commas. I know for a fact you will face some NatSov resistance on the forums, but note that the GA forum is in no way representative of how the WA will vote on your proposal. You'll also probably face some resistance on the specificity in the mandates clause.

Other than that, I think this looks good! Convincing preamble and an appropriate issue.[/quote]Thanks! Much appreciated. I'm sure you're correct with regards to how many of the regulars will react. It'll be fun and interesting posting it there nonetheless. I've got one week of work left before I go on holiday, so I probably won't have the time to take it to the forums before august. Anyways, thanks again!
Reply
#12

I decided to post it to the forums now, instead of waiting until august. I made it clear that I'll be going away for a while, so as to not make people wonder why I'm not very active. The idea was that I could think over any potential feedback given now while I'm lounging in the sun, and then return refreshed in august Smile We'll see how it goes.
Reply
#13

In the spirit of revitalizing our drafting room, I thought I'd update my little project. I submitted this and got a legal stamp from the secretariat. So that was nice, my main ambition was basically writing a legal and reasonably coherent proposal.

Now when that's done, I'm thinking I'll probably try and submit this again and campaign this time. Any thoughts? The last clause is partly because it makes me laugh, and partly because I'm unsure whether a social justice proposal actually must require some spending on the part of the member state.
Reply
#14

GnejsSep 11 2017, 08:44:54 PMIn the spirit of revitalizing our drafting room, I thought I'd update my little project. I submitted this and got a legal stamp from the secretariat. So that was nice, my main ambition was basically writing a legal and reasonably coherent proposal.

Now when that's done, I'm thinking I'll probably try and submit this again and campaign this time. Any thoughts? The last clause is partly because it makes me laugh, and partly because I'm unsure whether a social justice proposal actually must require some spending on the part of the member state. [/quote]The "funny" clause might put some voters off, going by what happened to the religious freedom proposal at vote recently.
Whether 'Social Justice' proposals need actual government spending, or can just rely on indirect effects instead, is a point that I've seen argued both ways but for which I can't remember a decisive ruling: Does anybody else here remember one to which they can point me?

:Bear:
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)