NationStates Jolt Archive

As it seems the UCPL resolution will pass, and as The Most Serene Republic of Lubria continues to have serious doubts over the legality and specificity of said resolution, we humbly submit the following proposed resolution before public debate, so that it might be refined before submittal before the delegates for approval. While Lubria currently lacks the endorsements needed to submit this proposal ourselves, we welcome any sponsor who would submit the proposal for the delegate’s consideration, should we still lack the endorsements when the time comes.

First, we understand that the repeal of previous resolutions is an unprecedented event, but our proposed resolution goes beyond the mere repeal of a vague and discriminatory law, but the resolution's appeal is a necessary step in that process.

This proposed resolution is a draft, We encourage all member states to offer their opinions regarding its improvement.

Finally, we would like to state again that we do not wholly object to the consideration of the Anward's ideas regarding intellectual property rights, our primary objection has always been the lack of a statement of what those rights were to be in his resolution; However, we have decided not to include a proposed set of intellectual property rights laws in our resolution because we do not feel there is a clear consensus among the member states, whether authoritarian or libertarian, and also because Lubria's position on this matter has always been unclear. Thus, we have only included a statement that the UN shall continue to explore a global integration of IP laws. What form that integration, if any, will take is up to future proposals.

----------------------------------------------------------------

A Resolution to Repeal the UCPL of 2004

Be it noted to the Assembly and the Delegates that this resolution was brought to a public debate before its submittal to the delegate approval committee.

Whereas The UCPL Resolution is unenforceable, and

Whereas It is in violation of UN policy regarding the formation of international agencies, and

Whereas There is no unified global opinion on how intellectual property rights should be handled, and

Whereas It undercuts the ability of member states to compete with non-member states in a global market, and

Whereas it violates the sovereign right of nation states to establish reasonable laws within their own borders

Therefore Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the United Nations that it is repealed as of this date, and

Be it further resolved that the UN shall continue to explore viable and fair methods for the global integration of intellectual property rights among member states, and

Be it further resolved that all intellectual property laws declared null and void by the UCPL be reenacted by this resolution, and

Be it further resolved that all rights regarding the issuing, policing, and regulation of intellectual property rights be returned to the member states by this resolution.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The floor is open for debate…

First, we understand that the repeal of previous resolutions is an unprecedented event, but our proposed resolution goes beyond the mere repeal of a vague and discriminatory law, but the resolution's appeal is a necessary step in that process.

It is unprecedented because it is against the rules.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Delegate, 8 June 2003 - 28 November 2003

MSL is willing to table the proposal as written.

I fail to see how a governing body can function without a process for repeal. I'm afraid I do not see the difficulty in removing whatever code may be added by the UCPL (I doubt very much any would be added).

I see no reason why my proposal should be dismissed on technical reasons, it does not make a change to game mechanics, the category and description will match, and the issue of IP has already been shown suitable for UN consideration.

All my resolution will do is reset IP laws to what they were before the passing of the UCPL, its intention is not to state that Anward's position is fundamentally flawed, only that its execution was inadequate.

Repeal is a necessary (and I believe, tacitly incorporated) part of the UN. There was (the use of the past tense is in assumption of the passage of the UCPL) a UN position on IP before the UCPL, and that position will be repealed because of the UCPL. All I have done is state that a specific part of my proposal is the repeal of the UCPL, and I have done this only in the sense of honesty.

The UCPL is flawed; it should never have been approved for vote. This proposal gives everyone a second chance at creating a specific set of IP laws, but there is as yet no consensus on what those laws should be, so why should the UN suffer under the UCPL until such a time?

I fail to see ...
I see no reason ...

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of the UN Member Nations would LOVE to have a resolution repeal process in place. There isn't one. The members of the UN cannot pass resolutions to put one into effect. This must be done through a channel different than the UN.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

I fail to see how a governing body can function without a process for repeal. I'm afraid I do not see the difficulty in removing whatever code may be added by the UCPL (I doubt very much any would be added).

I agree, but we'll have to wait for Admin to add a separate repeal function to the UN.

This has been an OOC post.

Your point is conceded Greenspoint. My inability to see how a government can function without repeal methods is irrelevant.

I shall leave this resolution up for any further debate, while I pursue proving that either a) the act of repeal has already been carried out through resolutions in the past, or b) that such a method must be included to facilitate a more realistic, and better functioning, game.

Thus far, after much searching through past resolutions, I have found no example of repeal, either through deliberate or tacit means. The closest case is the second Education For All resolution, which could be shown to repeal the previous one in some form, but I hardly think this to be the most clear cut example.

I could easily reword my proposal to skirt the issue of repeal, but I believe the inclusion of repeal ability is more important.

I am not asking for a coded function of repeal, only the ability of future resolutions to nullify past ones, which is a necessary part of any legislation. Without it, there is not reason to change laws at all.

In addition, I am not proposing a resolution to create a repeal function; I believe it already exists in some form.

This is all, I suppose, more from a sense of frustration than anything else. If the delegate approval process were perfect, there would be no need to repeal proposals in this manner. All proposals that were approved would be structurally sound, and the only room for debate would be on the merits of the proposals position. The UCPL is structurally unsound, so a debate on its merits is pointless.

I do not believe a separate ability is required Goobergunchia. I do not believe any additional coding it required, so I do not see this as a technical issue.

The ability to repeal past legislation is as valid a part of governing as the ability to enact new legislation. The inclusion of a line nullifying conflicting previous conflicting laws is included in every form of official legislation I have seen. It is included even when there has been no apparent previous position on an issue that could conflict.

It would not require any searching or deletion of conflicting resolutions, only the understanding that any old law that can be shown to conflict with the new is not valid.

MSL is in agreement with Lubria, when drafting a law the power is available to repeal portions of another law, but it could also be tabled as an ammedment to the previous bill cancelling portions and replacing them with new text. It is perfectly legal to do this, and would fix the issues many of us have with the UCPL as it is now written.

Unless their are any complaints against this proposal not stemming frrom ideological grounds (questioning the legal basis for IP law) or belief that the legal system we have in place is not suitable for repealing flawed legislation, MSL will be tabling this proposal shortly as it was proposed by Lubria.

And the Protectorate of the Deathseekers will support all who attempt to repeal this vile law. Not only does it impose heavy financial burdens on our fuedal society WHICH HAS NO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, it disgraces our honor to have others think that we would steal that which belongs to others. We hold honor in the highest regard here in the Protectorate and we will not take such an affront to our honor lightly. This proposal (the UCPL) is highly offensive. We will not take this lying down.

-High Shogun Rayeth
Leader of the Protectorate of the Deathseekers

And the Protectorate of the Deathseekers will support all who attempt to repeal this vile law. Not only does it impose heavy financial burdens on our fuedal society WHICH HAS NO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, it disgraces our honor to have others think that we would steal that which belongs to others. We hold honor in the highest regard here in the Protectorate and we will not take such an affront to our honor lightly. This proposal (the UCPL) is highly offensive. We will not take this lying down.

-High Shogun Rayeth
Leader of the Protectorate of the Deathseekers

Proposal for repeal submitted.

It is perfectly legal to do this, and would fix the issues many of us have with the UCPL as it is now written.
[OOC]Actually, it's not. We've asked. Repeatedly. It will most likely be deleted by mods.

The basic problem involves two factors: One, there is no physical way to remove a resolution from the [UN Resolutions Throughout History (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions)]. An act to Repeal a law should remove the offending passage, and it can't.

Second, the NationStates who were members at the time the original resolution was passed were the ones effected by the proposal. They are the ones who should receive the offsetting benefits of repeal, but there is no physical way to give redress to the people who were damaged. I think that is why it's been denied, and will stay denied.


I agree that we ought to be able to introduce a counter-proposal, and to heck with the effects from the previous one. I use as an example the Amendments to the Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html) of the US. Article 18 was repealed by Article 21, but could not redress the effects of the crime wave that accompanied Prohibition. Some citizens suffered disproportionaltely, but in the end the repeal restored rights to everyone without prejudice. Both Amendments remain as part of the document as witrness to the historical changes they caused.

MSL will be tabling this proposal shortly as it was proposed by Lubria.
Just for reference, MSL, to table a resolution means "to postpone the discussion of (a proposal, legislative bill, or the like)". What you want to do is introduce or submit a proposal.

MSL will be tabling this proposal shortly as it was proposed by Lubria.
Just for reference, MSL, to table a resolution means "to postpone the discussion of (a proposal, legislative bill, or the like)". What you want to do is introduce or submit a proposal.

OOC -

Just for clarification, you are probably both right, MSL certainly is.

In the UK a 'Bill' (what a proto-statute is called as it passes through the legislative process) is physicaly laid on a table when it is presented to Parliament. Hence we have 'The Table Office' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/a-z_of_parliament/t-z/82013.stm - An institution much in need here :wink:

EG. 'The Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, John McDonnell, has tabled a bill to set up a Ministry of Peace.' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/3190810.stm

I suspect the alternate meaning is US based.

[OOC]Given that the US definition has overtones of "to bury where it can never be found", perhaps we should stick with Propose or Submit. :)

Frisbeeteria, thank you for your insight. I agree with your statments, thats what my proposal was to be, a simple repeal, with no redressing of wrongs. I don't expect that, as that would require additional coding.

MLS, I didn't really want the proposal submitted now, as I wanted this chance for public debate. Though I appreciate your enthusiasam, reel it in a pit. Hastiness is what got the UCPL passed in the first place.

The UN passed a resolution at one time provided free education for all those under 16, then a second resolution raised the age to 18, I see little difference between that case and this.

I realized I postd it in too much haste, probably should have waited until after the UCPL had passed, but it is submitted and now we must convince our delegates to support it. I feel the proposal as written will remove the UCPL, giving us a chance to table another IP protection bill if needed (one hopefully with a grandfather clause for old IP, and time limits we can all work with).

Speaking from a purely game-mechanics-related perspective, I would like to make it abundantly clear for what must be the umpteenth time that Repealing of Resolutions is impossible under current game mechanics. Yes, it would be nice if we could do it. Yes, it could probably be done very easily. No, it cannot be done at the moment and submitting proposals claiming that it should be isn't going to progress the cause of humanity to any degree.
The rules are made clear in the sticky which I have written at the top of this forum and to which players are referred when proposing things at the UN. Neither ignorace of the rule nor the faculty to argue against it are viewed as valid excuses.

Thanks for pointing that out Enodia.

MLS, that's why I didn't want it submitted yet, because it wouldn't do any good. There's no reason to support a resolution that can't be passed.

We of the Grand Atoll share the concern of the smaller, less able nations of our world concerning this regrettable legislation. We are sure that our larger sister nations will look favorably upon us in the spirit of mutual respect and mutual care that birthed the UN in the first place.

While we understand that a proposal, once passed, cannot br repealed, and we of the Grand Atoll recognize that rules are in place to protect us from anarchy (our sincere apologies to the anarchist nations in this UN). Our question for our reasonable and compassionate UN is this:

Can a proposal be submitted that, if passed, will neutralize an earlier proposal? Or if not, can a proposal be submitted that, if passed, will at least provide protections that an earlier proposal may have inadvertently compromised? This may solve our potential impasse.

We of the Grand Atoll wait in respect and friendship for an answer.

and perhaps I don't, as I am very new here.
Proposals don't actually have their intended effect.
For example, this proposal UCPL will effect our trade levels, giving all un members a boost in their economies.
However, in reality, this resolution would be horrible for small underdeveloped nations like myself, and beneficial only for those few nations with large exports of IP (for example, the united states in the real world).
Therefore, while "repeal" is impossible under "current game mechanics" that shouldn't be an issue, since, in actuality, the "effect" of this resolution is also impossible.
Since it's all a basic application of "bonuses" as it were, could not we right a proposal that was "Repeal of" or "Amendment to" the UCPL, and rather than have some moderator remove it because it was "impossible" simply let it go through and have it take effect in the IDENTICAL manner to how the first one took effect.

What I am trying to say is there needn't be, to my understanding, a specific repeal "function," since the actual wording of the resolution doesn't have an effect on the individual nations, there is no reason that another resolution could not be passed with wording that strikes down previous wordings.

That is just my two cents.

and perhaps I don't, as I am very new here.
Proposals don't actually have their intended effect.
For example, this proposal UCPL will effect our trade levels, giving all un members a boost in their economies.
However, in reality, this resolution would be horrible for small underdeveloped nations like myself, and beneficial only for those few nations with large exports of IP (for example, the united states in the real world).
Therefore, while "repeal" is impossible under "current game mechanics" that shouldn't be an issue, since, in actuality, the "effect" of this resolution is also impossible.
Since it's all a basic application of "bonuses" as it were, could not we right a proposal that was "Repeal of" or "Amendment to" the UCPL, and rather than have some moderator remove it because it was "impossible" simply let it go through and have it take effect in the IDENTICAL manner to how the first one took effect.

What I am trying to say is there needn't be, to my understanding, a specific repeal "function," since the actual wording of the resolution doesn't have an effect on the individual nations, there is no reason that another resolution could not be passed with wording that strikes down previous wordings.

That is just my two cents.

(OOC) You've got a point. If the game mechanics only give an across-the-board increase to economy for all member nations, then there's no problem. But the controversy has made for some pretty good roleplay. :)

I support either repeal or ammendment... if at all possible.

Alternatively, I encourage all of you who have not voted to vote against this proposal. It would be impossible to enforce. It attempts to fix a problem by making it an administrative nightmare. There appear to be more than enough people who haven't voted to kill this one, assuming they are all active. And those of you who have voted in support of it, I implore you to change your vote! We may not need to make new rules if we put this to rest legally.

(OOC)

Indeed, this proposal has created a "tempest in a teapot" because its text describes something that cannot be translated into the game mechanics in a manner that reflects what it claims to do. The problem is that the game mechanics, as they stand now, simply aren't complex enough to handle what this proposal sets forth. Its current characterization as "increase free trade" is at best a poor match, and can easily be argued to be completely wrong. Ideally and in my opinion, this means that the proposal should have been barred entirely for misrepresentating its effect -- what it sets out to do in its text is not consistent with how it has been categorized.

I've actually read parts of the Berne Convention, as well as some of the other statutes and treaties that relate to intellectual property rights, as part of taking Intellectual Property in law school and in doing research into intellectual property law, both domestic and international, for various purposes before and since. The proposal as offered is totally incapable of serving as the foundation of an international organization in the vein of the real-world World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (does the original proposer even know that this this organization exists?). But it does stir the passions of those us of who have been involved in the ongoing battle over where the lines should be drawn in these matters.

On the game mechanics issue: Should proposals which cannot be readily aligned with the categories enforced by the game mechanics simply be forbidden? Is it munchkinism for me to vote for (or against) the proposal because I like (or dislike) the game effect it causes, even though the proposal text describes something which is repugnant (or desirable) to the vision that I try to hold when playing in context as the leader of my country?

This discussion probably belongs somewhere else, and I may restart it in the appropriate forum. Don't let me drag this thread down with a long OOC discussion of game mechanics and the need (IMO) for stricter moderation of UN proposals for compliance with game mechanics.

(OOC)

On the game mechanics issue: Should proposals which cannot be readily aligned with the categories enforced by the game mechanics simply be forbidden? Is it munchkinism for me to vote for (or against) the proposal because I like (or dislike) the game effect it causes, even though the proposal text describes something which is repugnant (or desirable) to the vision that I try to hold when playing in context as the leader of my country?

(still OOC)

It's not _really_ munchkinism, as long as you can think up an in-character rationale for your nation favoring a proposal counterintuitively. Perhaps your small state has an extensive economic tie to some larger states. If they succeed with their manipulation of copyright law, you will reap an indirect economic benefit ... or whatever. ;)

But it might make for more fun roleplay to oppose _any_ issue that your nation would not like, even if it means a net decrease in your nation's stats. I don't think any issue or resolution will raise/lower your stats by more than one level anyway, so go for it! :)

I support either repeal or ammendment... if at all possible.

Alternatively, I encourage all of you who have not voted to vote against this proposal. It would be impossible to enforce. It attempts to fix a problem by making it an administrative nightmare. There appear to be more than enough people who haven't voted to kill this one, assuming they are all active. And those of you who have voted in support of it, I implore you to change your vote! We may not need to make new rules if we put this to rest legally.

We of the Grand Atoll are encouraged by your statements, Kramzeland. Your nation is not small, and is very accomplished in the field of InfoTech. If you can see the potential difficulties tied to this proposal, maybe our larger sister nations will also.

To those larger nations, we would like to say that even if we vote down UCPL at this time, we _can_ revisit this issue, and maybe vote in a proposal that will include both protections for our small, less able nations, while allowing larger nations to enjoy their benefits as well. While the UCPL is _not_ a win-win policy, we can dismiss it and vote in a proposal that is.

While we understand that a proposal, once passed, cannot br repealed, and we of the Grand Atoll recognize that rules are in place to protect us from anarchy (our sincere apologies to the anarchist nations in this UN).

OOC-

I believe you mean Chaos not Anarchy :wink:

No need for appologies then :)

Good, solid, sensible post otherwise though Grand Atol.

Why I'm against it: hegemony by the most powerful does not make it right, nor make it work.

First of all, I don't think such a law will do much for trade -- if the proposal had set out some stipulations or criteria then I could better judge this, but overall I think the originator's reasoning is pretty naive, to link copyright law with better trade. How do they figure that?

in my OOC life, I have a friend who works for a NGO (non-government organization) that has observer status at the UN. She attended a conference on copyright a couple years ago, and her statement about human resources was extraordinary. The U.S. showed up at the conference with 200-300 lawyers, plus support staff. Clearly they were prepared to take on the issue and make their points known. This demonstration of human resources was in huge contrast to most of the developing nations, who on average sent _one_ representative each -- the person was sometimes a Minister from that country who also had a law background, if indeed they did, and some were that country's Minister of Justice. In other words, in most countries in the world, they do not currently have the human resources to either develop, defend or enforce any kind of copyright law. This leaves the vision of the richest countries, who, if their vision prevails, will reap the most benefit -- although such laws would be virtually unenforceable, thus fairly pointless.

I don't want a world where the countries with the most lawyers 'wins' the right to form the laws of what should be a global issue -- who gets to decide what is fair?

As our world's richest countries are in actuality sending small armies of their corporate and intellectual property legal elite in order to impose their way, I don't think it would be much different in NationStates if the proposal at stake is passed. The issue is complex, and cannot have a simplistic answer -- some order must be imposed, but not decreed. And so I don't think much of this UN proposal.
That is my reasoning.

salutations,

Freelander

(cross-posted elsewhere in this forum and on the Monkey Island regional board)

My country needs free trade to grow if you restrict it i may be forced to resign from the UN at first signs of a falling economy

While we understand that a proposal, once passed, cannot br repealed, and we of the Grand Atoll recognize that rules are in place to protect us from anarchy (our sincere apologies to the anarchist nations in this UN).

OOC-

I believe you mean Chaos not Anarchy :wink:

No need for appologies then :)

Good, solid, sensible post otherwise though Grand Atol.

Yes, "Chaos" - much better word. And thank you! :)

After reading this, I am changing my vote from yes to no, in the hopes that all fellow nations follow. While I firmly believe in open and free intellectual competition, this law does nothing to achieve that but create a meaningless (and likely expensive) organization for the sake of enforcing laws which haven't yet been agreed upon. I would have no trouble enacting a universal copyright system, that is not what this proposal does.