[Bears Armed]

This one got to quorum verry quickly _


Quote: Internet Net Neutrality Act
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Free Press
Proposed by:? Misrahistan


Description: The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the essential role of the Internet in fostering economic growth, spurring innovation, and in promoting free speech;

REALIZING that the Internet has historically operated as a free and open international market where developers and entrepreneurs have had access to potential consumers on an equal basis;

SHOCKED that Internet Service Providers may seek to increase their own profits by frustrating, impeding, or impairing, including through discriminatory pricing schemes, the right of consumers to access lawful Internet content, services, and applications;

DEFINES the Internet as the worldwide communications system that connects computers and networks of computers to each other;

FURTHER DEFINES Internet Service Provider as any person or entity that operates or resells and controls any facility used to provide Internet access directly to the public;

FURTHER DEFINES network discrimination as intentionally blocking, interfering with, discriminating against, impairing, or degrading the ability of any person to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service through the Internet or imposing a fee beyond the end user fees associated with providing the content, service, or application to the consumer.

HEREBY:

(1) REQUIRES member countries to take immediate steps to adopt conforming laws, rules, and regulations, prohibiting network discrimination by Internet Service Providers in regard to lawful content, services, and applications;

(2) REQUIRES member countries to report back to the General Assembly within one year of the passage of this Act on their progress in implementing this Act;

(3) ENCOURAGES member countries to adopt laws, rules, and regulations providing a greater level of consumer protection than those provided for in this Act;

(4) PROVIDES that nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting an Internet Service Provider from engaging in reasonable network management consistent with the principles of nondiscrimination and openness;

(5) FURTHER PROVIDES that nothing in this Act shall be construed as creating an affirmative obligation to provide Internet access or to limit the rights of member countries to enact laws regulating Internet content, applications, and services, including those relating to child pornography or laws limiting access to minors or persons under penal sanction, provided that such laws follow principles of network nondiscrimination and openness.


Votes For: 2,072
Votes Against: 457
Voting Ends: in 3 days, 4 hours

Your Regional WA Delegate, Bears Armed Mission, has not voted on this resolution.[/quote]

IC, the Bears don't really have much to do with the internet yet -- and therefore dispute the preambulatory clause about how important it is.
OOC, I'm not happy about the category (because I think that 'Free Press' is supposed to be about freedom from government control, not the impostion of more government regulation), I think that the "report back" clause is of dubious legality, and then there's Tzorland's argument in the GA forum that some uses do need to be given priority...

If you don't collectively cast a strong vote in one direction or the other then I'll probably abstain but might actually vote against...


:Bear:

[Jade Tigers]

Likewise, the Ohn have little to do with the internet. However, despite an overall 'meh' from us, we don't see any particular issues with the bill, so count us in for a 'yes' vote

[Jagera]

Unlike the others who have posted so far, Jagera does have widespread internet access. That said, I must agree with Bear's comments on the reporting back and priority usage. Further, while I recognize the importance of the issue (especially IRL), I feel this matter is too dubious to go forward. Using the WA to attack such an issue is too heavy handed. Regulating the censorship of content I could agree with more. But the technicality of strangling internet connections is not really a matter of "world" importance.

EDIT: And while I didn't read all of the posts in Jolt, I see Bears at least hinting at another interesting idea: that ISPs could have a valid commercial reason for providing different levels of access to different users and for different uses.

[Bears Armed]

JageraApr 15 2010, 11:50 PM EDIT: And while I didn't read all of the posts in Jolt, I see Bears at least hinting at another interesting idea: that ISPs could have a valid commercial reason for providing different levels of access to different users and for different uses. [/quote]
The example that Tzorland suggested was "urgent" medical data being given a higher priority for transmission than people's film downloads.

One might also consider the possibility that in some nations the only ISP might, rather than being a commercial enterprise, be a network of universities or a government department or whatever that runs the local net primarily for its own purposes but then also allows ordinary people to use any spare capacity that it might happen to contain...


Considering the poll results, I decided to abstain from voting on this measure... but it passed, anyway.