NationStates Jolt Archive

20 May - Argh! It fell off the list again! Can somebody explain this to me? It was something like the 2nd proposal from the top out of those expiring Thu 20th. There are still loads of proposals on there now with the same expiration dater, but mine's disappeared! Anyway, I'll resubmit on Monday. Any suggestions?

Monday 17 - Apparently not, so I'm submitting this version:


Freedom of Information

A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: _Myopia_

Description: The United Nations,

REAFFIRMING its commitment to democratic systems of government,

RECOGNISING that openness and transparency in government is usually conducive to democracy (because it is important for citizens to be able to make informed decisions at the ballot box) and enhances citizens' freedom,

ALARMED by some governments' excessive secrecy,

RECOGNISING that governments must sometimes withold information from citizens for a variety of reasons, and that cases of access to information are therefore better handled on a case-by-case basis,

SEEKING to find a balance between citizens' democratic freedoms and the need for different solutions in different situations,

1)ENDORSES the following principle - that if the government of a UN Member wishes to keep certain information from their citizens, and their citizens request said information, the onus should be on the government to justify secrecy, rather than on the citizen to justify openness. This shall be in the same sense that in many justice systems, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor rather than the defender;
2)STRONGLY URGES all governments of UN members to follow this guiding principle when creating legislation on the matter of access to government-held information;
3)CALLS UPON non-UN member states to do the same.
4)EMPHASISES that this resolution only offers recommendations to nations (albeit ones which members are strongly pressured to follow), but also that it does not prohibit future resolutions that might mandate the adoption of laws which follow the principle set out in clause 1.

Thanks to Lancamore for inspiration.

Friday 14 - Right, any suggestions for improvements before I resubmit on Monday?

Thursday 13 May - My proposal has gone from being the top of the list of those due to expire at the end of today, to disappearing! All the others due to expire today are still there, why not mine?!

Anyway, unless the mods deleted for some reason and inform me why, I'll be resubmitting on Monday. It wasn't going to make it this time anyway.


Freedom of Information

Category: Furtherment of democracy
Strength: Significant

Description:
The United Nations,

REAFFIRMING its commitment to democratic systems of government,

RECOGNISING that openness and transparency in government is usually conducive to democracy (because it is important for citizens to be able to make informed decisions at the ballot box) and enhances citizens' freedom,

ALARMED by some governments' excessive secrecy,

RECOGNISING that governments must sometimes withold information from citizens for a variety of reasons, and that cases of access to information are therefore better handled on a case-by-case basis,

SEEKING to find a balance between citizens' democratic freedoms and the need for different solutions in different situations,

1)ENDORSES the following principle - that if the government of a UN Member wishes to keep certain information from their citizens, and their citizens request said information, the onus should be on the government to justify secrecy, rather than on the citizen to justify openness. This shall be in the same sense that in many justice systems, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor rather than the defender;
2)STRONGLY URGES all governments of UN members to follow this guiding principle when creating legislation on the matter of access to government-held information;
3)CALLS UPON non-UN member states to do the same.

Thanks to Lancamore for inspiration.

I thought I'd posted this last night but it doesn't appear to be here anymore. Apologies if somehow I've missed it and posted twice.

I'm trying to devise a form of proposal which encourages governments to adopt a principle - it therefore places pressure on them without obligating changes and allows nations to apply the idea in their own way. This, I hope, will satisfy national sovereignty campaigners. I think it should allow for future resolutions to actually mandate this approach if the UN sees fit in times to come - should this be made clear in the operative clauses? Also, should there be an operative clause supporting those nations which liberalise access to information in other ways?

If this method finds favour with other UN members, it could be applied to a number of issues.

Also, can anyone think of a better title, because this is probably too long and isn't very catchy.

This is alright, except for one line:

3)CALLS UPON non-UN member states to do the same.

These proposals cannot affect non-members in any way, shape, or form. I would probably approve this proposal if it were posted, so long as this line was removed. Good work!

I don't see the problem with it, given that it says "calls upon". It's just a suggestion to non-members to follow suit. There's no obligation involved - just as there is no obligation even to members, it's just that "calls upon" puts no pressure on non-members, whereas "strongly urges" places a good deal on members.

If you like I can ask a mod if it's ok.

The President of Sophista wishes to pass on his personal congratulations to the representative from Myopia for presenting such an important and well-presented resolution.

While it is unfortunate that the language of the resolution will likely skim right over the heads of many of the leaders who walk these halls, I have no problem whatsoever supporting your efforts.

The issue raised by Hersfold is more a technicality than anything else, but it would be best if you did seek a final judgement by our moderators. Better to get the question out of the way now than have people nitpicking later on down the road. This is the draft section, after all.

Thanks for your support. I have TG'd Enodia regarding the third clause.

Does anybody have any ideas or contributions regarding the questions I raised earlier? Namely:
- Should the proposal make it clear that it leaves the way open for future resolutions to make something obligatory, as long as it is along the same lines as the principle set out?
- Should the resolution offer support to all governments who seek to liberalise citizens' access to information they hold, even if they work along slightly different lines to this principle?
- Can anyone think of a better title? If, as Sophista suggests, many will not understand, then it needs a title which will catch the eyes of the sheep.
- Is this method (i.e. setting out a general principle and urging nations to follow it) one which people like?

This may not greatly affect the worst offenders, but it's good for the UN to lay down guiding principles. We are in favour.

The idea is that it will place pressure on governments, and perhaps reduce the political standing within the UN of governments that don't follow. That, at least, is how I imagine it would work in real life, and I'm hoping that we could pretend that this would translate. Admittedly, it isn't going to stop the worst ones, but it's actually very difficult to think up a set of rules on this issue that could be mandated universally without causing some serious problems, so as far as I can see this is the best that the UN can really do on this issue.

Free Access to Information

Category: Furtherment of democracy (?)
Strength: Significant (?)

Description:
The United Nations,

REAFFIRMING its commitment to democratic systems of government,

RECOGNISING that openness and transparency in government is usually conducive to democracy (because it is important for citizens to be able to make informed decisions at the ballot box) and enhances citizens' freedom,

ALARMED by some governments' excessive secrecy,

RECOGNISING that governments must sometimes withold information from citizens for a variety of reasons, and that cases of access to information are therefore better handled on a case-by-case basis,

SEEKING to find a balance between citizens' democratic freedoms and the need for different solutions in different situations,

1)ENDORSES the following principle - that if the government of a UN Member wishes to keep certain information from their citizens, and their citizens request said information, the onus should be on the government to justify secrecy, rather than on the citizen to justify openness. This shall be in the same sense that in many justice systems, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor rather than the defender;
2)STRONGLY URGES all governments of UN members to follow this guiding principle when creating legislation on the matter of access to government-held information;
3)CALLS UPON non-UN member states to do the same.

Thanks to Lancamore for inspiration.

Here, Here it's about time nations had freedom of information but part 3) is a bit of overkill on the proposal but still very solid and well written.

We support his proposal.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs

How about "Freedom of Information"?

We support his proposal.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs

Thanks (those are bloody good books :D. Who do you have as your leader?)

"Freedom of Information"

This is a definite sheep-magnet. What does everyone think? Does it convey what the proposal is trying to do well enough?

Any comments on my other questions?

"Thanks (those are bloody good books . Who do you have as your leader?)"

Ah, I've been sussed! Actually, Ecopoeia has no 'leader' as such. The executive is the elected Council of Speakers, which includes the aforementioned Maya Toitovna, plus the likes of Nadia Cherneshevsky, Michel Duval, Ann Clayborne...

DP

TP

Actually I spotted it a while ago but didn't mention it. There were a lot of very good ideas in the constitution from "The Martians" - _Myopia_ has nabbed the duma concept, but Robinson no doubt stole it from someone else before him.

Yeah, I'm looking at ways to adapt the constitution to suit an island nation that isn't on Mars(!). The red/green debate is tricky to work in as well. That said, Ecopoeia isn't a straight rehash, I'm just lifting a few names and ideas that happen to coincide with what I want in my nation.

The alcohol-soaked Speaker for t'Pub, Sam Smith, is very much not connected with the books...

DP again...

TP

QP

Damn server. Won't let me in to the thread, but quadruples your posts.

Seriously though, does anyone have any answers to my questions above? We should move discussion of the Mars trilogy to another thread.

BUMP

If nobody has any more feedback to offer regarding my questions, I'll assume all is well and submit the proposal when I have Enodia's approval.

BUMP does nobody really have anything at all to say?

I'm highly in favor of this proposal. The future peoples of the Jovian Worlds will lend whatever we can to pass this proposal.

g.e.
Spokesperson for the Future People of the Jovian Worlds

Thanks. I'll be submitting on Monday morning, and I'll probably telegram those who have posted on this thread and perhaps a few others. If you could tell delegates that you know, that would help me to avoid annoying people by spamming inboxes.

Still no word from Enodia

His Holiness the Governor-General objects to this proposal. It is entirely a national issue, ergo violates sovereignty.

This proposal has no place, in the opinion of His Holiness, in International Law.

[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan

Quite apart from the fact that freedom of information is a basic human right that should be guaranteed to all, this proposal is nothing more than a suggestion - therefore it doesn't violate anyone's national sovereignty, because all you are obliged to do is to consider the idea.

* Sipping his iced coffee mud-shake, The Rep of Komokom declares,

" Me like, me certainly do. "

* Sudden, with a bump his rubber stamp shoots down and,

{ PASS }

" Its got my big green rubber stamp of good, see. "

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)

Thanks! Will probably submit in the morning, tomorrow, possibly Tuesday. I might telegram some delegates but I hope that spamming won't be necessary. If supporters could tell other delegates they know that'd be very helpful!

Just submitted!

Freedom of Information

A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: _Myopia_

Description: The United Nations,

REAFFIRMING its commitment to democratic systems of government,

RECOGNISING that openness and transparency in government is usually conducive to democracy (because it is important for citizens to be able to make informed decisions at the ballot box) and enhances citizens' freedom,

ALARMED by some governments' excessive secrecy,

RECOGNISING that governments must sometimes withold information from citizens for a variety of reasons, and that cases of access to information are therefore better handled on a case-by-case basis,

SEEKING to find a balance between citizens' democratic freedoms and the need for different solutions in different situations,

1)ENDORSES the following principle - that if the government of a UN Member wishes to keep certain information from their citizens, and their citizens request said information, the onus should be on the government to justify secrecy, rather than on the citizen to justify openness. This shall be in the same sense that in many justice systems, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor rather than the defender;
2)STRONGLY URGES all governments of UN members to follow this guiding principle when creating legislation on the matter of access to government-held information;
3)CALLS UPON non-UN member states to do the same.

Thanks to Lancamore for inspiration.

Approvals: 1 (_Myopia_)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 151 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu May 13 2004

The Liberal not-quite-Utopia of _Myopia_ has approved this proposal. [Withdraw Approval]

Please, endorse it and tell other delegates to endorse it too! I may telegram delegates later in the week.

The government of Libertis lends its full support to this proposition, and will urge the regional delegate to support it so that it may become a fully-fledged resolution.

I agree that information that could benefit all of mankind should be without question free to everyone. and on that basis only would I agree to this proposal.

Information regarding matters of national security, wellfare, technologies that would provide economic benefit outside of the betterment of human life, and a nations population, should be the responsibility of the nation state and/or it's people.

I will not agree to the current proposal as it does not clearly define the distinctions between types of information that is to be made free for all, or the means a nation has to explain to it's citizens why certain information would not be available.

I do not wish to discourage the general idea of this proposal though, as I feel information that will better all mankind should absolutely be free for all. If this were the case here I would happily vote to pass this resolution.

The committee would like to point out to Wiggywazoo that the proposal allows each government to make case-by-case descisions on the secrecy of particular pieces of information and only says the government must prove there is reason to withold information, rather than the citizen needing to prove there is reason to allow free access to said information.
This proposal will strengthen democracy across the board, and for that reason alone, if not for any other, the Committee, on behalf of the Libertian people, would like to express its avid support for this cause.

Signed, Derik Braun, Chairman of the Committee for Preservation of Free Speech

The committee would like to point out to Wiggywazoo that the proposal allows each government to make case-by-case descisions on the secrecy of particular pieces of information and only says the government must prove there is reason to withold information, rather than the citizen needing to prove there is reason to allow free access to said information.
This proposal will strengthen democracy across the board, and for that reason alone, if not for any other, the Committee, on behalf of the Libertian people, would like to express its avid support for this cause.

Signed, Derik Braun, Chairman of the Committee for Preservation of Free Speech

Actually the wording is softer even than that. It simply says that, effectively, strong political pressure is placed on all nations to adopt the general principle enshrined in the text. Whilst future efforts might make this approach obligatory, for now this proposal only makes a suggestion, albiet a strong one. Nations who choose to follow the suggestion are free to implement in whatever way they see fit.

Effectively, if passed, this would be the United Nations saying "This is how you should handle the issue".

Thanks for your support, and remember that if you would prefer something stronger, this lays some good groundwork for it.

The committee stands corrected on its earlier stated interpretation of the proposal.

Signed, Derik Braun

I guess my problem or misunderstanding of the way this will work, is how and to whom does a nation prove the necessity of a secret it wishes to keep? can you give me an example that would clarify this?

They can do it however they like, perhaps nations might choose to pass laws saying that citizens unsatisfied with the explanation offered could go to court and a judge might decide. Or they might have an elected or appointed committee who decides the validity of the government's explanation. Or at the very loosest interpretation of the resolution's spirit a government might simply say "this is our reason. If you don't like it, tough." Obviously, this would usually be seen as contrary to the spirit of the resolution, and the UN would disapprove.

To be honest, I'm not an expert on this issue and how it is handled in reality. I'm actually basing this on a policy of the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK, and I'm not sure how they plan to implement it - I will try and research it for you when I have a moment, but i have to go now.

They can do it however they like, perhaps nations might choose to pass laws saying that citizens unsatisfied with the explanation offered could go to court and a judge might decide. Or they might have an elected or appointed committee who decides the validity of the government's explanation. Or at the very loosest interpretation of the resolution's spirit a government might simply say "this is our reason. If you don't like it, tough." Obviously, this would usually be seen as contrary to the spirit of the resolution, and the UN would disapprove.

To be honest, I'm not an expert on this issue and how it is handled in reality. I'm actually basing this on a policy of the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK, and I'm not sure how they plan to implement it - I will try and research it for you when I have a moment, but i have to go now.

The UFE and FWS unanimously rejects this resolution, it will not be enforced within our borders.

ok.. I will vote for this if matters of national security are excluded, and in those instances where a reason must be given for withholding information, a statement reflecting such is all the proof that would be required or expected. If this can be written in, I'm in.

ok.. I will vote for this if matters of national security are excluded, and in those instances where a reason must be given for withholding information, a statement reflecting such is all the proof that would be required or expected. If this can be written in, I'm in.

ok.. I will vote for this if matters of national security are excluded, and in those instances where a reason must be given for withholding information, a statement reflecting such is all the proof that would be required or expected. If this can be written in, I'm in.

Well I can't write that in because it's already submitted, but it's unnecessary. The fact that this is only a recommendation means that you can set your own requirements, or you can totally ignore it if you want. This resolution puts forward a guiding principle that legislators are encouraged to follow, so you can leave it or you can take it to whatever length you want.

I said earlier the idea was from a Lib Dem Party policy, but it looks like I remembered it wrongly. The whole, presumption in favour of the citizen thign was actually about personal privacy and government needing to justify invasion of it. However I think my idea still stands, and I urge you all to support the proposal.

We still support the proposal and perhaps the idea of protecting civillian privacy also merits a UN resolution. We will likely support such a poposal if it is brought up.

Derik Braun

Thanks for your support. I haven't gotten round to telegramming delegates, and this is definitely going to fail (only 14 approvals so far!). I will be redrafting over the weekend if anyone has any input they'd like to offer, then I'll resubmit on Monday and hopefully this time I'll get round to rallying support. Anybody got any advice on how to pick delegates to telegram? I don't want to waste my time on those who regularly approve proposals, because they will probably see anything submitted anyway in the course of regular checks.

EDIT: At some point I might do something on privacy in the same vein as this - setting out a principle of assumption in favour of the citizen.

It's shot up to 31 approvals, and after the update it will be on the front page of proposals right underneath the two that have reached quorum. (Still won't reach quorum though).

The proposal seems to have disappeared on its last day of voting (see edited first post). Sorry if the name change threw anyone, I thought it better if people can search the proposal list with the name given at the top of the thread.

Anyway, like i said, I'll be resubmitting monday morning UK time.

I'm thinking of adding the following fourth clause:

4. EMPHASISES that this resolution only offers recommendations to nations (albeit ones which members are strongly pressured to follow), but also that it does not prohibit future resolutions that might mandate the adoption of laws which follow the principle set out in clause 1.

Hopefully, this should clarify the approach.

Ok I'm resubmitting with the 4th clause included.

i agreed with these proporsal.

BUMP

About 24 hours left to vote until the Friday update when this expires! 31 Approvals so far.

See first post.

Ok redrafting again, any suggestions?

Actually, I'm going to leave this for a while. I have exams, so I won't be able to devote the time it needs to promoting it, so I will take this up again in a month or so.