NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, I noticed that there is another Global Library suggested reproposal, but this is one that my region has been working on a for a bit, so I thought I'd toss this out there to see what sort of response it gets. I'm not trying to steal anyone's idea or anything - honest, but I *think* that this is a slightly different way of working out the Global Library idea ... and comments or suggestions would be appreciated. I have heard from some that perhaps shortening up the proposal would help - thoughts? I think everything in here is important, but if there's something that can/should be excised, I'd certainly be willing to consider it.

Thanks so much for your thoughts and assistance, everyone! :)

Name: Global Library Coalition
Category: Signigicant Social Justice (reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare -- done by improving education)
Description:
NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#3 - Education for All, #28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,,

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Global Library Coalition (GLC). The Global Library provided by the GLC will be internet-based and will include all published forms of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals.

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and have a branch of the global library within their own nation, if they so choose. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the global library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Each participating nation will also have the option to construct a building within their borders to provide citizens with access to the global library. The cost of building and maintaining this physical library will be at no cost to the United Nations and must be fully funded by the individual member nation. Each participating nation will be a part of the GLC.

ALLOWS FOR INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION by giving each individual the opportunity to obtain access to the Global Library from their own computer terminal. If an individual's nation of residence is not a member of the GLC, they will be able to pay an annual fee and gain access to the global library.

ALLOWS for the creation of a GLC Executive Committee (GLCEC) consisting of 10 individuals from GLC member nations that are elected on a biannual basis. The GLCEC will set the annual fees that member nations and individual citizens will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the GLCEC will consult with other GLC member nations to manage any other legislative issues that may arise, pertaining specifically to the GLC.

DETAILS that the GLC will be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations, but will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. No taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution, as each participating nation will contribute an annual fee for the purposes of maintaining the global library and adding additional published works. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

Again, any constructive comments you have would be appreciated. I don't think I've overlooked any essential point, but then again, it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility.

Thanks!
~Lizzy Hall~
Monkey Island Delegate to the United Nations

NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#3 - Education for All, #28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,
Good references.

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,
You're confident that the repeal will pass. I like that.

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Global Library Coalition (GLC). The Global Library provided by the GLC will be internet-based and will include all published forms of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals.
Newspapers, magazines, and professional journals? How often would this be updated? Keep in mind the cost will be proportionate to the size and quantity of files transferred.

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and have a branch of the global library within their own nation, if they so choose. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the global library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Each participating nation will also have the option to construct a building within their borders to provide citizens with access to the global library. The cost of building and maintaining this physical library will be at no cost to the United Nations and must be fully funded by the individual member nation. Each participating nation will be a part of the GLC.
So the individual global libraries will serve as T-1 lines for the nation? Interesting idea, and one that would allow more security...I also like the idea that nations who want a physical library must pay for it.

ALLOWS FOR INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION by giving each individual the opportunity to obtain access to the Global Library from their own computer terminal. If an individual's nation of residence is not a member of the GLC, they will be able to pay an annual fee and gain access to the global library.
I assume they would then get slower service, otherwise the above idea is pointless.

ALLOWS for the creation of a GLC Executive Committee (GLCEC) consisting of 10 individuals from GLC member nations that are elected on a biannual basis. The GLCEC will set the annual fees that member nations and individual citizens will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the GLCEC will consult with other GLC member nations to manage any other legislative issues that may arise, pertaining specifically to the GLC.
No problems here.

DETAILS that the GLC will be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations, but will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. No taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution, as each participating nation will contribute an annual fee for the purposes of maintaining the global library and adding additional published works. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

Excellent, but put something in about the program being not-for profit.

Overall, I like it a lot. If Krioval, Asshelmetta, Pojonia, and Great Agnostica don't comment here, TG them saying Nargopia says to come take a look. I planned on authoring some clauses about the virtual library, but this takes care of a lot of that. We need to work on specific funding and costs, as well as energy needs, but other than that I love this. Bravo.

It's pretty good! Naturally, I have a few suggestions:

1. I think that the category should be Human Rights rather than Social Justice for the simple (metagame) reason that S.J. rules tend to imply a restriction of economic freedom (opposite "Free Trade") while Human Rights proposals tend to imply a restriction of morality (opposite "Moral Decency"). I guess I see any GL-type resolution as having an equal positive effect on trade to counter the national payments - individual nations' economies should actually strengthen when information is made freer, in my mind.

2. Where is the information stored? If it's nation-specific, how does the GLC deal with a country's server failing or worse, a country's withdrawal from the GLC? If there are centralized servers, where are they located?

[quote=ALLOWS for the creation of a GLC Executive Committee (GLCEC) consisting of 10 individuals from GLC member nations that are elected on a biannual basis. The GLCEC will set the annual fees that member nations and individual citizens will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the GLCEC will consult with other GLC member nations to manage any other legislative issues that may arise, pertaining specifically to the GLC.]

3. What "other legislative issues" do you have in mind? I just want to avoid a debacle like the fake Pretenama Panel that can manipulate a vague turn of phrase.

Other than that, I like it. It doesn't have my museums though (insert crying here).

Other than that, I like it. It doesn't have my museums though (insert crying here).
There, there. We'll get you your museums, I promise. Maybe you'll get lucky, and someone will come along proposing almost exactly what you want. Hey, it happened to me.

Yes! And.. Blast!

All of last night my mind was doing joyous backflips at the sudden realization that the common ground between the virtual and the physical is that the virtual would, pragmatically, have to be located inside the physical to ensure that the information submitted is secure and of merit. And, of course, I've already scrapped the central library concept, and the idea of creating additional libraries (instead, the proper solution is to influence their creation by providing benefits - libraries can't really be constructed all at once, instead, they grow). So what does that leave me?

This. Bah! And.. Whoo!

Excellent job, Mousebumples, I see no problems with this and it bravely avoids all of the problems associated with the larger projects we've been gunning down. One question: Is "Access" both submission and retrieval rights, or just the ability to receive information on a computer? If every individual who pays a fee can mess with the information, it creates the problem most commonly associated with internet information systems: bad information.

Well, that pretty much accomplishes all I set out to do *sob*. Should I attempt a new draft anyways, see if I can come up with anything better?

With a bit of clarification, we would support this proposal.

~UN Representative for Neo-Anarchists~

Name: Global Library Coalition
Category: Signigicant Social Justice (reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare -- done by improving education)

Fair enough. I don't understand the "Coalition" though.

Description:
NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#3 - Education for All, #28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,,

Double comma, furthermore it's a fine bunch of references.

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Global Library Coalition (GLC). The Global Library provided by the GLC will be internet-based and will include all published forms of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals.

That is a lot. And you don't mention how it is stored, where, etc. We don't need the complete building plan but a little more detail would be appreciated. Especially considering the amount of data you want to store. There are 125.000 nations, thousands of professional journals...

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and have a branch of the global library within their own nation, if they so choose. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the global library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Each participating nation will also have the option to construct a building within their borders to provide citizens with access to the global library. The cost of building and maintaining this physical library will be at no cost to the United Nations and must be fully funded by the individual member nation. Each participating nation will be a part of the GLC.

Excellent. Though I'd say "member" instead of "part", it's a coalition after all.

Some points though: you could shorten it by simply saying that access is granted, but that the implementation of a nation is at their own cost. They can use existing structures or new ones, but that's up to the nation. Furthermore, it might be worthwhile to make it mandatory for each nation to provide a "backup location" for their own national data, to release the pressure on the central global library.

ALLOWS FOR INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION by giving each individual the opportunity to obtain access to the Global Library from their own computer terminal. If an individual's nation of residence is not a member of the GLC, they will be able to pay an annual fee and gain access to the global library.

Individual or institution perhaps. And as said, there would have to be a difference to stimulate national participation.

ALLOWS for the creation of a GLC Executive Committee (GLCEC) consisting of 10 individuals from GLC member nations that are elected on a biannual basis. The GLCEC will set the annual fees that member nations and individual citizens will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the GLCEC will consult with other GLC member nations to manage any other legislative issues that may arise, pertaining specifically to the GLC.

10 per nation....that could be 1.250.000 people if everybody participates! Either let the UN appoint the GLCEC, or have some rotating system with a kind of parliament of 100 people (and that's already a lot, too many for really efficient steering), max 1 per nation, put in place for three years.

DETAILS that the GLC will be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations, but will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. No taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution, as each participating nation will contribute an annual fee for the purposes of maintaining the global library and adding additional published works. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

This does mean that it's more expensive for the first nations joining. But it'll probably work. The funding is a bit difficult though.

Good luck with this, hope you can use my comments, and my nation is always willing to help you out in the future to improve this resolution.

Okay, I just woke up, so hopefully I'm coherent enough to put together good responses to the points that were made. I'm going to try to hit the main points one-by-one, as there was some misunderstanding from my intentions, etc.

You're confident that the repeal will pass. I like that.
It's more the fact that I can't propose this resolution until the previous one is repealed, I don't think. My region was actually considering writing a repeal up, but we wanted to write up a follow-up proposal first. So while we were working on this, Pojonia wrote up a repeal that is (hopefully) going to pass. I'll definitely be keeping my fingers crossed ...

Newspapers, magazines, and professional journals? How often would this be updated? Keep in mind the cost will be proportionate to the size and quantity of files transferred.
I figured that a part of the cost paid in by each nation/individual member could go towards maintaining a central headquarters with an appropriate-sized staff to help update the information as needed. I wasn't sure how much detail I should go into in this, but that was one of the things I figured that the GLCEC could work out specifics on. My initial thought was that the GLC headquarters could be in the same building as the UN HQ, perhaps. And then I realized that would be a drain on UN resouces, and then there *would* be a cost to the UN. However, we have a pretty strong IT sector here in Mousebumples, along with plenty of open space. We would be willing to have the main system housed within our borders, if that is workable for everyone. Otherwise, we're certainly open to suggestions. Again, that's one thing I thought might be easier for the GLCEC to determine after the GLC is established.

So the individual global libraries will serve as T-1 lines for the nation? Interesting idea, and one that would allow more security...I also like the idea that nations who want a physical library must pay for it.
Something like that. Many nations already have physical libraries, I'd presume, so adding computer terminals with access to the GLC wouldn't be such a big deal, I don't think. But, if you have one central library building within a nation of a decent size, there will still be too many citizens for my liking that would not be able to have easy access to the information. That's why I also would like to have the information accessable from any internet terminal within the nation's borders - through IP address blocking/allowment, most likely.

I assume they would then get slower service, otherwise the above idea is pointless.
I could cut out the individual idea, I suppose. My initial thought was that some nations may not have the monetary resources to spend on joining the GLC initially, or they simply may not be interested. That's why I came up with the idea of the individual membership. Perhaps it should be removed, now that I think about it. (good point!)

Excellent, but put something in about the program being not-for profit.
Good idea. I'll definitely add that to the rewrite I'll be working on after I finish this long post here ...

1. I think that the category should be Human Rights rather than Social Justice for the simple (metagame) reason that S.J. rules tend to imply a restriction of economic freedom (opposite "Free Trade") while Human Rights proposals tend to imply a restriction of morality (opposite "Moral Decency"). I guess I see any GL-type resolution as having an equal positive effect on trade to counter the national payments - individual nations' economies should actually strengthen when information is made freer, in my mind.
Sounds good. I honestly don't have much experience writing proposals or completely understanding which proposals fit into what category. I'll happily change that then. :)

2. Where is the information stored? If it's nation-specific, how does the GLC deal with a country's server failing or worse, a country's withdrawal from the GLC? If there are centralized servers, where are they located? ...
3. What "other legislative issues" do you have in mind? I just want to avoid a debacle like the fake Pretenama Panel that can manipulate a vague turn of phrase.
This is a bit of a combination, I suppose. I was thinking of a centralized server hub somewhere. I figured that would be something that could/should be determined after it is known which nations are all going to be involved in the GLC initially. Which nations have the best IT sectors, for having a good (but small) workforce to update the information and keep it running effectively? True enough, if a nation chooses to withdraw from the GLC we could have problems in that regard. However, to my knowledge there is no neutral, nationless location within the NS world, so we'll run that risk no matter where we place the server. And I personally feel it's a lot more secure to have one central server, than to have a couple hundred thousand individual nation servers all over the world.

The "other legislative issues" was more to just deal with whatever issues might come up - copyright problems, location of the central servers, hiring qualified people to keep the GLC running and updated, etc. I thought it would be better to leave that open-ended, so that it would be more inclusive. By no means does the GLCEC have the right to revoke anyone's membership, unless they have not paid for their access to the GLC. I don't remember as much about the Preternama Panel as perhaps I should, so I'm not sure if that completely answers your question. If not, let me know, and I'll give it another try. :) And we'll see what we can't do about a follow-up proposal to get you your museums!

One question: Is "Access" both submission and retrieval rights, or just the ability to receive information on a computer? If every individual who pays a fee can mess with the information, it creates the problem most commonly associated with internet information systems: bad information.
In my mind "access" is simply retrival rights. I think that individual member nations should be able to submit information to the GLC staff and have it added to the library. Of course, if the staff doesn't think it's appropriate material for whatever reason (i.e. it breaks copyright laws, or it's a duplicate of a previous addition, or ... other reasons that are escaping me at the moment), then it won't be added. But I would like to see all published information of merit be included in the GLC.

Fair enough. I don't understand the "Coalition" though.
I wanted a way to separate this resolution from the previous one that is currently up for repeal. Since membership is voluntary, I thought that a Coalition would be a good term for it. If you disagree, I'm certainly open to suggestions. :)

That is a lot. And you don't mention how it is stored, where, etc. We don't need the complete building plan but a little more detail would be appreciated. Especially considering the amount of data you want to store. There are 125.000 nations, thousands of professional journals...
True enough. I've outlined some ideas that I had for storing the information on a central server above, so I won't go into that again here. Should I include that in the resolution? Since much of that (especially a specific location of the central servers) is indefinite and to be determined by the GLCEC, I wasn't sure if I should even go there. Thoughts?

Excellent. Though I'd say "member" instead of "part", it's a coalition after all.

Some points though: you could shorten it by simply saying that access is granted, but that the implementation of a nation is at their own cost. They can use existing structures or new ones, but that's up to the nation. Furthermore, it might be worthwhile to make it mandatory for each nation to provide a "backup location" for their own national data, to release the pressure on the central global library.
Ooooh, right. Thanks, I'll change that. :) Also, the points about having a backup information location isn't a bad idea at all. The drain on the central servers could (and probably would) be substantial. Also, it is always a good idea to have the information backed up somewhere, in case of a natural disaster, computer glitch or virus, etc. Smart - it'll be in the next version.

Individual or institution perhaps. And as said, there would have to be a difference to stimulate national participation.
The same thing was mentioned above, and now I'm definitely getting the feeling that I should cut out the option for individual membership. Will do, as that's obviously not the essential part of the proposal.

10 per nation....that could be 1.250.000 people if everybody participates! Either let the UN appoint the GLCEC, or have some rotating system with a kind of parliament of 100 people (and that's already a lot, too many for really efficient steering), max 1 per nation, put in place for three years.
That's a lack of precise wording on my part. I was thinking of having a GLCEC that consisted of 10 total members. The members would be individuals from the member nations and would serve two-year terms. They'd be elected by the leaders of each nation involved in the GLC, and we'd have a turnover of 5 members per year. I'm open to the idea of expanding the GLCEC size to 15 or so, or something else. My original proposal (not posted here) was to have 1 representative per nation ... but it was pointed out to be previously that that could grow to be a lot. Anyhow, you thoughts on what I *meant* would certainly be appreciated. And I'll see what I can do to clear up the wording a bit. Should I add in some of the other details I metnioned?

This does mean that it's more expensive for the first nations joining. But it'll probably work. The funding is a bit difficult though.
True enough. I could try to stick in a clause that does some to make up for that. i.e. Newly joining nations pay the annual fee, as well as a joining fee of $x or whatever. But I'm not sure if that would just make it too complicated. Thoughts on that would be appreciated as well. :)

Thanks so much for your help everyone. I need to run and stick my laundry in the dryers, but then I'll be back to rewrite this proposal, in light of the comments I've received thus far. :)

Just a thought: do we want to include "Global Library" in the title at all? The sheep voters might see that they just voted for a repeal, and see this as an attempt to reverse that decision. I guess we could try it with GL in the title and remove it if it's lacking support.

The "other legislative issues" was more to just deal with whatever issues might come up - copyright problems, location of the central servers, hiring qualified people to keep the GLC running and updated, etc. I thought it would be better to leave that open-ended, so that it would be more inclusive. By no means does the GLCEC have the right to revoke anyone's membership, unless they have not paid for their access to the GLC. I don't remember as much about the Preternama Panel as perhaps I should, so I'm not sure if that completely answers your question. If not, let me know, and I'll give it another try.

I'd say that a good way to deal with this is to list a few of the stipulations. Maybe something like:

ALLOWS for the creation of a GLC Executive Committee (GLCEC) consisting of 10 individuals from GLC member nations that are elected on a biannual basis. The GLCEC will set the annual fees that member nations and individual citizens will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the GLCEC will consult with other GLC member nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the GLC infrastructure that arise.

Would that help perhaps? All I've done is modify your original sentence to restrict the focus to "infrastructure" (which conceivably includes GLC staff). Also, do you see all matters as requiring a majority of votes or consensus (or something else)?

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

As for submissions, I am personally all for as few restrictions as possible. It's impossible to determine, fairly and consistently, what publications are "of merit" and which aren't. While I'm not averse to placing an advisory on a submission that indicates the presence of vulgarity (good luck, though, considering the differences between nations) or pornography, I'd leave it to each individual nation to determine what their population can or cannot view. I figure that a nation worried about vulgarity or pornography (read: NOT Krioval!) can install a network filter or blocker.

I still like the clause in my resolution that would index materials by author, title, nation of origin, and "selected keywords" (I could see either the submitter or the indexer adding these, within limits). At the end of the day, though, I am totally against censorship at the level of the GLC (or whatever we end up calling this creation).

Name: Global Library Coalition
Category: Strong/Significant (which?) Human Rights
Description:
NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#3 - Education for All, #28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Global Library Coalition (GLC). The Global Library provided by the GLC will be internet-based and will include all published forms of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals. All submissions that do not violate copyright laws will be accepted, with member nations having the option to provide content filters for their citizenry. The Global Library will be indexed by author, title, nation of origin, and keywords. Additionally, the Global Library will be sorted according to what type of resouce is desired - i.e. biographies, periodicals, science fiction novels, etc.

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and be a member of the GLC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the global library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Each participating nation may choose to construct a building within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will also maintain a backup of their own national data archived within the GLC.

(removed the section on individual participation)

ALLOWS for the creation of a GLC Executive Committee (GLCEC) consisting of 10 individuals from GLC member nations that are elected on a biannual basis. The GLCEC will set the annual fees that member nations and individual citizens will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the GLCEC will consult with other GLC member nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the GLC infrastructure that arise.

DETAILS that the GLC will be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations and will be a not-for-profit organization. Additionally, the GLC will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. Therefore, no taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution, as each participating nation will contribute an annual fee for the purposes of maintaining the global library and adding additional published works. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

***

Okay, I changed a few things, and what I *did* changed, I underlined, so hopefully that stuff will stand out more. Thanks, everyone, for all your suggestions and help so far. If some of the new wording is awkward, or unneeded, please feel free to speak up.

Additionally, Nargopia mentioned that perhaps we'd want to remove the name "Global Library" from the name of the proposal. I'm definitely open to that idea. But what else should it be called? Something about the global sharing of information, maybe? Otherwise, as suggested, we can try it with the "Global Library" name and then just see what kind of response it gets. Thoughts?

Thanks again, everyone!

Strong/Significant (which?) Human Rights

Significant. If "Education for All" is significant, I can't think that this would be strong. Some posters have suggested that mild would even be appropriate. I personally favor significant over both alternatives.

All submissions that do not violate copyright laws will be accepted

How will this work (you don't need to put it into the resolution right now - but I'd like to hear your ideas)?

Additionally, the Global Library will be sorted according to what type of resouce is desired - i.e. biographies, periodicals, science fiction novels, etc.

That's a pretty awkward phrase, from my perspective. How about "submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, periodical, or science fiction. The category will be determined by [X]."

I think it's important to say who assigns the category, but I'm not sure who [X] should be.

Each participating nation will also maintain a backup of their own national data archived within the GLC.

Good. Now we just have to deal with the thorny issue of where the central servers are located.

As for the name, I had toyed with "Universal Library" since not all UN members are Earthbound (myself included), and other options involve using "Global Library" in the resolution but making the title reflect the spirit, rather than the effect, of the GL ("The UN Literary Expansion Project", for example).

All submissions that do not violate copyright laws will be accepted, with member nations having the option to provide content filters for their citizenry.

That's a bit out of place here, perhaps better in:

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and [u]be a member of the GLC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the global library made available to all internet portals within that nation, with member nations having the option to provide content filters for their citizenry. Each participating nation may choose to construct a building within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will also maintain a backup of their own national data archived within the GLC.

Apart from the addition, no further comments on this.

ALLOWS for the creation of a GLC Executive Committee (GLCEC) consisting of 10 individuals, selected from GLC member nations, elected on a biannual basis.

Isn't that clearer since the committee consists of 10 people in total?

Nothing about the rest, except the mentioned question: where do we put the stuff? There should be the central cluster of servers where it's all at, then there's redundancy so we'd need two backup locations to be safe. That's for everything. Then each nation has their safety backup which could possibly be used for local access as well, reducing the load on the infrastructure.

But where's the central stuff going to be? I propose at least 1 location in the UN Headquarters.

Additionally, Nargopia mentioned that perhaps we'd want to remove the name "Global Library" from the name of the proposal. I'm definitely open to that idea. But what else should it be called? Something about the global sharing of information, maybe? Otherwise, as suggested, we can try it with the "Global Library" name and then just see what kind of response it gets. Thoughts?

The Information Exchange Act ? Or something like that perhaps.

Strong/Significant (which?)

The resolution is mild, but you can call it significant. It creates a system that nations CAN join, but don't necessarily have to. Since it has the capability to have no effect at all (Not actually going to happen) and doesn't enforce anything on any nation, it's mild.

This seems to be resolving itself quite nicely. I think I'm just going to a retreat for a bit while keeping active in the repeal process. I always somewhat detested forums in general, and in my attempts to draft a proposal I got a lot more caught up in the problem of such a system than I would have liked. I'll be back again some other day, hopefully with some new ideas and a ready resolution.

Strong/Significant (which?)
Mild, possibly significant.

Please justify how this could possibly be categorized as Human Rights?

In my mind, "Human Rights" is used to justify freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of behavior. It grants that those freedoms exist, but promises no funding for it.

Global Libraries may encourage freedom of thought, but they are a tangible service which must be paid for out of the pockets of somebody. In such instances, these proposals are actually about income redistribution. It's a mild form of perhaps Social Justice (egalitarian access and all that), but Social Justice nonetheless.

If you want to make a case for "Furtherment of Democracy", I'd listen with eager ears.

If "Education for All" is significant, I can't think that this would be strong. Some posters have suggested that mild would even be appropriate. I personally favor significant over both alternatives.
True enough. There's a very mild impact on those who don't choose to participate, and (I'd think) at least a significant impact on those who *do* going the GLC. Significant it is then. :) (most of this pretty much echoes what Pojonia already said, but anyhow ... )

How will this work (you don't need to put it into the resolution right now - but I'd like to hear your ideas)?
Not sure how feasible this is, but would it be possible for the subcommittee formed in Resolution #45 - UCPL, to review either *all* submissions prior to being archived, or even just to review those that the staff finds potentially questoinable?
4. An additional sub-agency be created to be informed of, and monitor all copyright/patent infringements. Reducing the need for the government to take the time to investigate the actions. A recommended course of action will then be reported, and a court of the nation of the offender make the ruling.

That's a pretty awkward phrase, from my perspective. How about "submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, periodical, or science fiction. The category will be determined by [X]."
The category will be determined by the author? That seems like the most logical choice. After all, say I write a book that gets added to the Global Library. I'd hopefully know what it was about and where it should fit - and there's no reason to make the archivists (or whatever) read every submission so they can determine in which category it fits.

Please justify how this could possibly be categorized as Human Rights? // In my mind, "Human Rights" is used to justify freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of behavior. It grants that those freedoms exist, but promises no funding for it. // Global Libraries may encourage freedom of thought, but they are a tangible service which must be paid for out of the pockets of somebody. In such instances, these proposals are actually about income redistribution. It's a mild form of perhaps Social Justice (egalitarian access and all that), but Social Justice nonetheless. // If you want to make a case for "Furtherment of Democracy", I'd listen with eager ears.
To be perfectly honest, my initial thought was Social Justice, but seeing as how I'm hardly an experienced proposal writer, I was more than willing to change the category as suggested by Krioval in his first response in this thread. Anyhow, I think I will probably change the category back to Social Justice - after all, the spread of information and resources should (theoretically) help reduce income inequality and improve basic welfare since people would hopefully become more educated and would be able to have more productive lives.

Other issues:
Central Server Location - Having the central servers at UN HQ is definitely an option. My only reservation is simply over resources. The servers would likely take up a lot of extra space and electricity. Is there enough free space in UN HQ to house the servers? And I suppose that the GLC could contribute money to the UN HQ for the electricity usage each month. If no one else thinks that the space problem is an issue, I think that NS UN HQ is probably our best bet, location wise.

What to call the resolution?
Universal Library, The UN Literary Expansion Project, and The Information Exchange Act have all been suggested thus far as alternatives. All are very workable names, and are definitely worth consideration.

A part of me almost does want to try it with the Global Library name, just because this resolution was inspired by the previous one. I loved the idea in theory, just not the implementation. Also, there is a note in the repeal that says, AND IN THE INTEREST OF establishing a new Global Library proposal of a practical and efficient nature.

Then again, the "sheep," as previously mentioned, might just decide to vote against the resolution because a global library proposal was just repealed. Hrm, I'm not sure what to do. I'll probably think on it a bit - and, of course, more comments and suggestions are appreciated.

A repost of the proposal, with the designated changes, will be coming soonish ...

Does the UN have a physical headquarters? I honestly don't know, and I don't think I've ever received an answer in the past. If so, then I see no problem with storing the data there. If not, then maybe orbital space stations or something...I'm really hard pressed to find an answer for the data storage issue.

Name: Global Library Coalition (still considering other titles)
Category: Significant Social Justice
Description:
NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#3 - Education for All, #28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Global Library Coalition (GLC). The Global Library provided by the GLC will be internet-based and will include all published forms of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals. All submissions that do not violate copyright laws will be accepted, with final decisions regarding copyright violations bring made by the subcommittee formed in Resolution #45 - UCPL.

PLACES the central server for the Global Library within the United Nations Headquarters. The library will be indexed by author, title, nation of origin, and keywords. Submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, periodical, or science fiction. The category will be determined by the author of the work.

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and be a member of the GLC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the global library made available to all internet portals within that nation, with member nations having the option to provide content filters for their citizenry. Each participating nation may choose to construct a building within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will also maintain a backup of their own national data archived within the GLC.

CREATES a GLC Executive Committee (GLCEC) consisting of 15 individuals selected from GLC member nations that are elected on a triannual basis. With a two-thirds majority vote, the GLCEC will set the annual fees that member nations will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the GLCEC will consult with other GLC member nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the GLC infrastructure that arise.

DETAILS that the GLC will be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations and will be a not-for-profit organization. Additionally, the GLC will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. Therefore, no taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution, as each participating nation will contribute an annual fee for the purposes of maintaining the global library and adding additional published works. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

***

Okay, I changed the number of individuals on the GLCEC to 15 so that a 2/3 majority would fit nicely. (it would be harder to arrange for a percentage greater than 50% to approve something with only a 10-member board) Anyhow, all the stuff I changed is in bold, so it should stand out. Comments, questions, concerns - let me know!

Thanks again for all your help, everyone!

Does the UN have a physical headquarters? I honestly don't know, and I don't think I've ever received an answer in the past. If so, then I see no problem with storing the data there. If not, then maybe orbital space stations or something...I'm really hard pressed to find an answer for the data storage issue.
Theoretically (I'd think) that we all meet to propose and vote on legislation. At least, I'd like to think that I, as the UN delegate for my region, have some *actual* contact with my fellow delegates for the purposes of discussing this sort of thing.

Now that I'm really thinking about the physical NS UN HQ, I really like the idea. I'd think it would be a pretty secure location, and likely pretty safe for the computer systems we'd need to have there. And money to offset costs incurred by the UN through storage of the central server could certainly be a part of the annual fee collected from each member nation. :)

Here's where I do my annoying "reversal" thing:

I think that the resolution should be "Social Justice: Mild" as suggested by several other (more experienced) people, primarily for the reasons they suggest. Anyway, that's it for "reversal" mode.

The category will be determined by the author of the work.

Excellent idea (would "submitter" fit better in place of "author"?). Could I suggest adding "Indexing will be verified by a GLC archivist, and if corrections are deemed necessary, the submitter will be notified"? I could see a potential problem if an author writes a "biography" that's riddled with exaggerations - I'd see the dispute ending up in the GLCEC (if pushed that far) as an issue "related to the maintenance and operation of the GLC infrastructure", which is conveniently already included in the resolution.

PLACES the central server for the Global Library within the United Nations Headquarters.

As Nargopia has indicated, I'm not sure whether the UN has a physical HQ. If it does, I like your sentence as it is. If not, we'll have to pick some other location to hold the primary servers (there will probably need to be more than one!). As a total aside (and ego trip at that), Krioval would be willing to host one of the total backup servers. I'd go into why we'd be a good choice, but I've already distracted from the main issue far enough (though it could become an issue eventually...).

The rest of the resolution is excellent, and I think it will pass readily.

Does the UN have a physical headquarters?
It used to be in the region Role Play University, as hosted by Wolfish and Stephistan ... but Wolfish recently shut down the University and the region is now defunct.

The Halls of the UN (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the_halls_of_the_un), (Founder: The Legislation-Changing, Proposal-Eating Little Freaks of The UN Gnomes) hosts at least one International Organization in addition to the Gnomes. I believe it's been offered up as a HQ site.

I like this proposal. I like the version of it in post #11 quite a bit.

I'm not going to fisk it, but I do have some thoughts/questions/ideas/drunken ramblings:

Regions should have a place in this. Why do resolutions always address nationstates and leave nothing for regions to do?

The emphasis on centralized servers in several posts seems misplaced to me.
There is no single central server for the internet. Distributed databases with multi-way replication will work just fine. Maybe each region has its own central server. Maybe each planet has a primary and a backup. Maybe the number and location of nodes on the central backbone end up being determined by which countries use the Global Libraries the most.

Universal Library is kewler than Global Library.

I don't need access to back issues of the Blood River Canyon Moon, or other vampire newpapers from one of the secondary worlds of DLE. Especially since they're all written in some space alien language my people can't read. Even if we had unicode fonts for DLE's pictograms. Maybe nationstates (heh, or regions) should be encouraged to include periodicals for internal consumption and the rest of us should have access based on something i haven't thought of yet.

While I'm on the subject of alien races, how can we give TilEnca access to this library? Not every country here has anything like an internet. I imagine TilEnca's elves and dragons kingdom is going to need some other transport mechanism.

p.s. i wrote that after reading the first page.

i somehow managed to completely miss the fact that there was a second page too.

While I'm on the subject of alien races, how can we give TilEnca access to this library? Not every country here has anything like an internet. I imagine TilEnca's elves and dragons kingdom is going to need some other transport mechanism.

First of all, why can't elves use the internet? I mean, if their president has a blog, surely the population should be able to read it?

Secondly, more to the point, nations could get access through the UN HQ. Though the location is a bit of a mystery, it must exist. We can't be dreaming this!?

I like the proposal as it is now; I'll take it to my region this weekend to see what they think of it (and importantly, what the Delegate thinks)

I may not be a delegate or such, but I thought it important enough to show my support for this resolution.

This is a more realistic and thought out plan than the other GL.

Free Land of Demortes

First another rewrite ...
Name: Global Library Coalition (still considering other titles)
Category: Social Justice Mild/Significant (up for debate)
Description:
NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#3 - Education for All, #28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Global Library Coalition (GLC). The Global Library provided by the GLC will be internet-based and will include all published forms of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals. All submissions that do not violate copyright laws will be accepted, with final decisions regarding copyright violations bring made by the subcommittee formed in Resolution #45 - UCPL.

PLACES the central server for the Global Library within the United Nations Headquarters. The library will be indexed by author, title, nation of origin, and keywords. Submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, periodical, or science fiction. The category will be determined by the author of the work/publisher. (which is better?)

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and be a member of the GLC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the global library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Regional founders, regional delegates, and member nations will all have the option to provide content filters for their citizenry. Each participating nation may choose to construct a building within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will also maintain a backup of their own national data archived within the GLC.

CREATES a GLC Executive Committee (GLCEC) consisting of 15 individuals selected from GLC member nations that are elected on a triannual basis. With a two-thirds majority vote, the GLCEC will set the annual fees that member nations will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the GLCEC will consult with other GLC member nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the GLC infrastructure that arise.

$$$$

DETAILS that the GLC will be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations and will be a not-for-profit organization. Additionally, the GLC will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. Therefore, no taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution, as each participating nation will contribute an annual fee for the purposes of maintaining the global library and adding additional published works. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

***

Discussion of other points made ...
Excellent idea (would "submitter" fit better in place of "author"?). Could I suggest adding "Indexing will be verified by a GLC archivist, and if corrections are deemed necessary, the submitter will be notified"? I could see a potential problem if an author writes a "biography" that's riddled with exaggerations - I'd see the dispute ending up in the GLCEC (if pushed that far) as an issue "related to the maintenance and operation of the GLC infrastructure", which is conveniently already included in the resolution.
What if I change that to "publisher"? I believe it's specified somewhere in the resolution that all works need to be published to be eligible for submission. I'm trying to think of who decides the classification for books now. (I know it's OOC and can't be used in the resolution, but using someone in the same role within the proposal would probably make the most sense) I'll wait on changing that for now, just because I prefer author to submitter, simply because I'm not planning to read all of the works Monkey Island publishes before I submit them. I will read them eventually, of course, but my delegate duties are my first priority.

The Halls of the UN, (Founder: The Legislation-Changing, Proposal-Eating Little Freaks of The UN Gnomes) hosts at least one International Organization in addition to the Gnomes. I believe it's been offered up as a HQ site.
Would we need to contact them before putting the UN HQ as the site of the central servers? Also, I'd prefer not to specify "at UN HQ at x location" within the proposal, just in case something happens so that the designated location no longer exists, and then the (theoretical) resolution (if it were to get quorum and pass) would be more suceptible to repeal. But still, it's good to know that we have a central location we can use.

Regions should have a place in this. Why do resolutions always address nationstates and leave nothing for regions to do?
Two options (in my mind), if consensus is that we want to include regions --
1) Allow for regional membership as well, with a different annual fee, also determined by the GLCEC.
2) Allow for regional submissions by the delegate and/or founder, even though all nations within a region may not be members.

I personally prefer the second (of the two), simply because it would allow us to include works from more nations as a regional leader can submit them on behalf of a region that is not a part of the United Nations.

The emphasis on centralized servers in several posts seems misplaced to me.
There is no single central server for the internet. Distributed databases with multi-way replication will work just fine. Maybe each region has its own central server. Maybe each planet has a primary and a backup. Maybe the number and location of nodes on the central backbone end up being determined by which countries use the Global Libraries the most.
While the internet does not have a central server, most websites have one (or have multiple ones in a single location, depending on the site of the website). For example, I have multiple websites of my own. They both share the same server since they're not *that* large, but they are all located on the same server.

In terms of a global library, I think that having a localized backup for each individual nation is a good thing, since their works are likely the ones that will be accessed more often by their citizens, so that should hopefully help decrease any service issues that could arise on the central servers. Also, if there ever is some downtime on the central server side, individual nations would still be able to access at least the information that they provided to the global library.

I think that having a central server for everything is the best, so that each nation will not have to be certain that they have a clear connection to each individual nation that is involved. If they have a line to their own servers and to the central server, that's all they need to access all the materials within the global library. Also, it would/should cut down on the problems with having the same material in multiple locations and potential linking problems, searching problems, etc.

While I'm on the subject of alien races, how can we give TilEnca access to this library? Not every country here has anything like an internet. I imagine TilEnca's elves and dragons kingdom is going to need some other transport mechanism.
I imagine that in extreme cases such as these, we could print out copies of certain resources or else we could work at providing TilEnca with wireless internet service, so that they could access the global library. Those are just two thoughts off the top of my head ... Also, there could be access to a theoretical museum, which I'll address in just a minute ...

***

Okay, I finally had time to do an *actual* read-through of the other global library post, started by Pojonia. Some good ideas were mentioned, many of which are already included in this resolution - either by other people pointing them out, or by the regions of Monkey Island and Texas (both of which have helped out with this to some extent). However, the museum idea was one that I was (more or less) unfamiliar with, except for Krioval's abstract references to it.

Depending, of course, on consensus opinion, here's something I wrote up that could be inserted into the above proposal where I typed the $$$$ ...

PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Library Museum (ULM). GLC members will provide rare or ancient works to the GLM on a temporary loan. The works will rotate every six (6) months. As GLC members may be on multiple planets, the works will be a part of a satellite-based museum that will dock at differing locations on the appropriate planets to allow citizens to view these works. A price will be paid for admission, with the remainder of the costs being covered by the annual membership fee.

Krioval, I don't know if I've completely massacred your idea or not, but these are just some ideas that I've found in a few different posts, so I thought I'd try to include them here. As this part wasn't my idea, I'm not as clear on how it needs to be phrased and what all needs to be included - let me know if you think of anything else, of course. :)

Next, the section where I reference the UCPL, I'm trying to decide if I should remove the reference. If the UCPL is ever repealed (which I doubt I'd ever be in favor of, but anyhow), then that point loses a fair amount of weight since said committee would no longer exist. Thoughts?

Also - last thing for now, I promise - since there are already two new proposals in queue, I'd think that (presuming the repeal is going to pass, which is what it looks like now), we could wait a few days before submitting any of the potential GL-replacement proposals. Even if it does reach quorum right away, it'll probably be almost 2 weeks before nations get to vote on it anyhow. Just a thought, since I figured it was best to be certain of what we all want and are getting here, than to rush through it and have to go through this same process again in another 3-4 months.

Comments, questions, and suggestions are more than welcome!

I must admit, it is a pleasure to deal with the delegate from the nation of Mousebumples. That my museum idea is still being considered is a nice surprise for me.

The category will be determined by the author of the work/publisher. (which is better?)

I still think the best word would be "submitter", though I like that the resolution stipulates that the works must be published (I could imagine anybody could self-publish a small run for the express purposes of getting into the library). I'd like there to be some GLC worker who validates the submission, even if it's based on cursory knowledge of the work. Librarians are usually well-versed in these matters, and I'd expect most of the submitters to be self-policing.

Allow for regional submissions by the delegate and/or founder, even though all nations within a region may not be members.

I like that idea. I guess I could imagine non-UN members being eligible for GLC access (but not for selection for the GLCEC or UN-specific benefits) if they pay the annual fee as well. But I don't feel strongly enough on that to ask it to be put into the resolution.

PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Library Museum (ULM). GLC members will provide rare or ancient works to the GLM on a temporary loan. The works will rotate every six (6) months. As GLC members may be on multiple planets, the works will be a part of a satellite-based museum that will dock at differing locations on the appropriate planets to allow citizens to view these works. A price will be paid for admission, with the remainder of the costs being covered by the annual membership fee.

Krioval, I don't know if I've completely massacred your idea or not, but these are just some ideas that I've found in a few different posts, so I thought I'd try to include them here. As this part wasn't my idea, I'm not as clear on how it needs to be phrased and what all needs to be included - let me know if you think of anything else, of course.

Well, my original idea was to make museum participation completely voluntary, and allow individual nations to run branches independently. The main objective was to get nations to be willing to lend materials to other countries for display, and to provide a connection between the virtual copy of a book and an example of the physical one, which I consider to be important. I see the potential for different planets (or even space stations) being involved, which is fine, but I imagined the museum to be decentralized, though under the auspices of the GLCEC if conflicts arise. I would assent to making the museums non-profit if the idea of profitting from this is bothersome. I'll post a bit more about this on the thread later this afternoon.

After all, we've got time now.

I must admit, it is a pleasure to deal with the delegate from the nation of Mousebumples. That my museum idea is still being considered is a nice surprise for me.
The original reason I didn't try to include it was because I didn't completely understand your "museum" idea. I thought that it might be best to do that in a separate proposal, but now I see how it is just so interconnected to the idea of the GLC that separating it out would likely just be more complicated and make it difficult to pass.

I still think the best word would be "submitter", though I like that the resolution stipulates that the works must be published (I could imagine anybody could self-publish a small run for the express purposes of getting into the library). I'd like there to be some GLC worker who validates the submission, even if it's based on cursory knowledge of the work. Librarians are usually well-versed in these matters, and I'd expect most of the submitters to be self-policing.
But couldn't that be classified as one of the issues pertaining to the "operation of the GLC infrastructure," so it would be addressed by the GLCEC? Add it originally, complaints are lodged about inaccuracies, and then the work is likely reclassified (as fiction, rather than nonfiction, for example), or in the most severe cases referred to the copyright committee for possible removal, if appropriate.

I like that idea. I guess I could imagine non-UN members being eligible for GLC access (but not for selection for the GLCEC or UN-specific benefits) if they pay the annual fee as well. But I don't feel strongly enough on that to ask it to be put into the resolution.
I agree with you there - that non-UN members probably shouldn't hold GLCEC positions. However, I'm trying to make this as concise as possible as there are a large amount of details included already. If someone makes it into an issue we can address, but I think it's simplest *not* to do so.

Well, my original idea was to make museum participation completely voluntary, and allow individual nations to run branches independently. The main objective was to get nations to be willing to lend materials to other countries for display, and to provide a connection between the virtual copy of a book and an example of the physical one, which I consider to be important. I see the potential for different planets (or even space stations) being involved, which is fine, but I imagined the museum to be decentralized, though under the auspices of the GLCEC if conflicts arise. I would assent to making the museums non-profit if the idea of profitting from this is bothersome. I'll post a bit more about this on the thread later this afternoon.
My main fear about individual museums are these --
1) Space considerations. If we have thousands of individual libraries, they'll either have an empty room for the moving library most of the time, or else they'll only have a few items at a time. Both are workable, but I also don't like to force interested nations to build new libraries if they don't have the resources/desire or to expand their old ones if they are interested. The optional bit though is something important that I should look into adding. They can *choose* to give items to the GLC on a temporary loan.
2) Safety/Security. The less movement back and forth that happens with my Ancient Mousebumplonian Scrolls, the better. I wouldn't mind letting other nations look at them - using special tools to help prevent degredation - but I wouldn't feel comfortable moving them from building to building around the world.

I agree with the non-profit bit. My comment about an admission fee is really to just help off-set the costs of the spaceship ... or whatever form this library takes. We could also just set up an intergalactic space station and have the physical global library exist there, with a biannual change in what's there. Some nations might not have space capabilities, but I'm sure that could be worked out with the help of other member nations. Still, that could be an arguing point in the future.

Thanks for you comments - I'm heading off to work shortly (and then I'll be heading out for the night), but I'll have a look before work tomorrow morning, at the very latest. :)

But couldn't that be classified as one of the issues pertaining to the "operation of the GLC infrastructure," so it would be addressed by the GLCEC? Add it originally, complaints are lodged about inaccuracies, and then the work is likely reclassified (as fiction, rather than nonfiction, for example), or in the most severe cases referred to the copyright committee for possible removal, if appropriate.

I like your concept better. Let the submission go through, and then the GLCEC can deal with problems. I guess that the GLCEC could even create an archival subcommittee (temporary or otherwise) to deal with long-term miscategorization problems - there's nothing that would prevent such an action. Thanks for finding the easier solution to the problem.

I agree with you there - that non-UN members probably shouldn't hold GLCEC positions. However, I'm trying to make this as concise as possible as there are a large amount of details included already. If someone makes it into an issue we can address, but I think it's simplest *not* to do so.

Fair enough, but then I'd suggest not making regions part of this proposal either.

Space considerations. If we have thousands of individual libraries, they'll either have an empty room for the moving library most of the time, or else they'll only have a few items at a time. Both are workable, but I also don't like to force interested nations to build new libraries if they don't have the resources/desire or to expand their old ones if they are interested. The optional bit though is something important that I should look into adding. They can *choose* to give items to the GLC on a temporary loan.

I see the museums as operating just like normal museums would. They would likely have a permanent collection, donated by private individuals or national governments, plus a series of temporary exhibits that would only involve the GLCEC if there was a problem. My drive for putting that into the resolution is simply that it links the physical and the virtual, and I envision that many nations would build an adjunct access point to the library next door to (or in the same building as) the literary museum to reinforce that connection. I can't imagine these buildings as being terribly huge to begin with, and any culture sufficiently interested in literature would make this a priority.

Safety/Security. The less movement back and forth that happens with my Ancient Mousebumplonian Scrolls, the better. I wouldn't mind letting other nations look at them - using special tools to help prevent degredation - but I wouldn't feel comfortable moving them from building to building around the world.

Keep in mind that not everything has to be ancient. I'm willing to bet that many people in the Universe (or the world, for that matter) have never seen a document written in Kriovalian script. I could imagine that even current or old-but-not-ancient literature could make up the bulk of the rotating collections. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the really fragile stuff would probably remain within the borders of that nation (in their museum) while more easily portable stuff would circle the globe (or cross the galaxy).

Again, the important aspect of this, to me, is the cultural impact. It's one thing to read a translation of a foreign work on the Internet, and it's another to see a copy of that same work in its original language and its original form. One is allowed to see the object even if it's too cost-prohibitive to engage the other senses directly. And if for no other reason, social studies classes would benefit tremendously, I would imagine. Though I pity the poor student who's forced to write a 1000-word essay on the nature of the Kriovalian Commandership.

I agree with the non-profit bit. My comment about an admission fee is really to just help off-set the costs of the spaceship ... or whatever form this library takes. We could also just set up an intergalactic space station and have the physical global library exist there, with a biannual change in what's there. Some nations might not have space capabilities, but I'm sure that could be worked out with the help of other member nations. Still, that could be an arguing point in the future.

My idea was simply to have nations build, if they wanted, individual museums and allow the museums to operate pretty much independently (based on national and international law), but to have a place to go to, namely the GLCEC, to arbitrate disputes should they arise. Most, if not all, of these libraries should be planetbound - it's easier that way. I can land a spacecraft or teleport in from orbit a lot easier than a MT nation can launch spacecraft into orbit.

I just have a few quick minutes here, so rather than reworking everything, I'm just going to try to rewrite the Museum addition bit ...

***

PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Global Literary Exchange Network (GLEN). GLC members will have the oppportunity to provide rare or ancient works to the GLEN on a temporary loan. The works will return to the originating country within a maximum of twelve (12) months. During these months, the works would move to various existing museums within GLC member nations that would like to participate. Pieces of literature will spend a maximum of one (1) month in a particular nation at a particular point in time. Participating in the GLEN is completely optional to GLC members and available at no extra cost to them.

***

Is that better? Worse? Also, I was thinking that I might need to rename everything "Universal" whatever, simply because not all interested nations may be a part of the globe, and would therefore be excluded from the proposal in the literal sense of all the words. I'll rework that tomorrow morning as well.

I could put in information about security and stuff if people think it's necessary. Or if I screwed up details to some extent, Kriova, let me know. The Literary Exchange is more or less your baby, and I don't want to change it beyond recognition. As long as it's workable and feasible, I'd like to have it be a part of this proposal. :) Thanks for your help and suggestions so far.

I'm not much good with the official UN terminology, so here are my basic thoughts on the museums:

1. Any GLC subscribing nation can designate one.

2. Any museum can establish a permanent collection of works from individual or governmental sources.

3. Any museum can have temporary exhibits of works lent by individuals or governments for a set period of time.

4. Musuems will be run independently of one another, though it's encouraged that they are in proximity to a GL branch in order to connect the virtual works on the network to actual physical works of literature.

5. The GLCEC can intervene if problems arise.

-----------

That's the basic idea, anyway. I'm sure further refinement is needed, as this is only the third modification I've made to the idea.

PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Library Museum (ULM). GLC members will provide rare or ancient works to the GLM on a temporary loan. The works will rotate every six (6) months. As GLC members may be on multiple planets, the works will be a part of a satellite-based museum that will dock at differing locations on the appropriate planets to allow citizens to view these works. A price will be paid for admission, with the remainder of the costs being covered by the annual membership fee.

No! Not the museum! Please! Don't try to put everything in one resolution! it's going to introduce *so* many new problems in terms of cost, space and organisation! Start by working on the Global Library Coalition under whatever title, get that to perfection, and get it passed. If that works, you or someone else can make a resolution about a museum.

Or, more specific: as long as the museum is in this resolution I will not support it, as my nation considers that impossible, too big to get organized within this resolution, and too much a seperate issue. Please take it out, because I like the principle of a global library too much to see it *** up again.

No! Not the museum! Please! Don't try to put everything in one resolution! it's going to introduce *so* many new problems in terms of cost, space and organisation! Start by working on the Global Library Coalition under whatever title, get that to perfection, and get it passed. If that works, you or someone else can make a resolution about a museum.

Or, more specific: as long as the museum is in this resolution I will not support it, as my nation considers that impossible, too big to get organized within this resolution, and too much a seperate issue. Please take it out, because I like the principle of a global library too much to see it *** up again.

Krioval is forced to wonder whether the representative from Groot Gouda has read our proposal on what the museum would or would not entail. Further, the museum concept would be completely voluntary as I've been writing it for the past week. While I am not wedded completely to the idea of having the two ideas united, I feel that they are linked and would appreciate a coherent argument to the contrary.

The primary reason I've included the museum concept within this resolution is that I'd like it to be overseen by the same executive committee that oversees the virtual library. Also, I see the museum as complementary to the library - one lets people access all forms of literature by network, and the other respresents the tangible pieces of literature that one might wish to access. The arguments of Groot Gouda currently are insufficient to dissuade me from adding a few lines of additional text to the proposal, especially if the other foundational members of this proposal are receptive.

In closing, I would also appreciate if there could be a little discernment between the now-repealed Resolution 86 and a voluntary museum project. I think my proposal is nowhere near as convoluted as "holographic technology", and I certainly don't like being told that my addendum will "*** up [the GL] again". A little respect goes a long way.

Name: Universal Library Coalition
Category: Social Justice Mild/Significant (up for debate)
Description:
NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#3 - Education for All, #28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Universal Library Coalition (ULC). The Universal Library provided by the ULC will be internet-based and will include all published forms of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals. All submissions that do not violate copyright laws will be accepted. (Removed reference to subcommittee formed by the UCPL resolution ... )

PLACES the central server for the Universal Library within the United Nations Headquarters. The library will be indexed by author, title, nation of origin, and keywords. Submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, periodical, or science fiction. The category will be determined by the author of the work. (final decision)

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and be a member of the ULC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the Universal Library made available to all internet portals within that nation. (Removed the comments about regions) Member nations will all have the option to provide content filters for their citizenry. Each participating nation may choose to construct a physical library within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will also maintain a backup of their own national data archived within the ULC.

CREATES a ULC Executive Committee (ULCEC) consisting of 15 individuals selected from ULC member nations that are elected on a triannual basis. With a two-thirds majority vote, the ULCEC will set the annual fees that member nations will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the ULCEC will consult with other ULC member nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the ULC infrastructure that arise.

(the following section is still up for discussion as to inclusion or exclusion from the proposal)
PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Literary Exchange Network (ULEN). Any ULC member nation may designate a section of a physical library or museum to house a rotating collection of rare or ancient literary works. These works will be provided voluntarily to the ULEN by ULC on a temporary basis. The works will return to the originating country within a maximum of twelve (12) months. Pieces of literature will spend a maximum of two (2) months in a particular nation at a particular point in time. The ULCEC will arrange for particular works to be moved from one ULC member nation to another. There will be no additional charge to any nation who wishes to become involved in the ULEN, presuming that those who request visiting works are also willing to lend out works of their own.

DETAILS that the ULC will be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations and will be a not-for-profit organization. Additionally, the ULC will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. Therefore, no taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution, as each participating nation will contribute an annual fee for the purposes of maintaining the global library and adding additional published works. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

***

My apologies for the lateness in the promised rewrite. My internet has been acting up lately, grrr. Anyhow, I'm not sure if I like this version of the museum any better, but thoughts are certainly welcome ... I also thought that changing all the "global" mentions to "universal" might be a better approach since there are NS nations that are not a part of this "globe."

As always, anything is debateable and up for considered revision. Just let me know what you think. :)

Nice. The only suggestions I have are minor. First, I'd say make 12 months become 24 months for maximum duration a work can be out of its country of origin. Second, I'd strike the section about frequency of rotating the collections altogether. Some museums might want to switch collections every two months, but some might be content to do so every four months (or six, or a year...) and would thus save money to ship works. I'm conflicted as to who should foot the bill for rotating the collection, mainly because I worry someone might get upset over the cost to the UN (and therefore, their nation). "Universal" is a definite improvement to us spacefarers! Thanks for the hard work.

I support this version 100%. You have done some fine work, and I can foresee this easily passing.

Well, considering that the repeal did better than my best predictions would have guessed (I think it was 70% for!)...

Krioval is forced to wonder whether the representative from Groot Gouda has read our proposal on what the museum would or would not entail.

Something with books journeying the world for a few thousand years so everyone can see them (if all nations join the coalition, of course). It is too unrelated to this proposal to bother about, as nations (or rather, institutions in those nations) are perfectly capable to organize exhibitions for themselves.

Further, the museum concept would be completely voluntary as I've been writing it for the past week. While I am not wedded completely to the idea of having the two ideas united, I feel that they are linked and would appreciate a coherent argument to the contrary.

This resolution is about creating a new global library. Not a museum. It creates all sorts of extra issues that you simply don't want to bother about when this goes up for vote. What is the problem with separating those two things and adding the museum later?

The fact that there is some sort of link does not matter. I could have put a Sex Museum in the Sex Industry Worker Act, but it would be just as silly.

The primary reason I've included the museum concept within this resolution is that I'd like it to be overseen by the same executive committee that oversees the virtual library.

But nothing stops you from doing that later. And better, because you could devote a whole resolution to the museum, rather than one simple paragraph.

Also, I see the museum as complementary to the library - one lets people access all forms of literature by network, and the other respresents the tangible pieces of literature that one might wish to access. The arguments of Groot Gouda currently are insufficient to dissuade me from adding a few lines of additional text to the proposal, especially if the other foundational members of this proposal are receptive.

Just because some people here are receptive doesn't mean it'll work when the proposal becomes a resolution. The Sex Industry Worker Act got a lot of positive comment in the draft period, but was still hell to defend later on.

In closing, I would also appreciate if there could be a little discernment between the now-repealed Resolution 86 and a voluntary museum project. I think my proposal is nowhere near as convoluted as "holographic technology", and I certainly don't like being told that my addendum will "*** up [the GL] again". A little respect goes a long way.

It's just that I've been trying my best to help making this a good proposal, as have others. It would be a shame to see that effort go to waste because of over-enthousiasm. It's not the introduction of made-up technology, but it's still adding stuff to it that makes the whole proposal less plausible to make it work.

Take my advise, and go for the museum bit later on. It'll take too much time to work out the details, the cost, etc, which is better spent at the actual global library coalition. Just because two issues are related doesn't mean they should be covered by the same resolution.

I don't mind the criticism, but I am left to wonder if my reasons for including the Literary Museum project in the ULC proposal have been considered at all. As I've said, the whole point is to connect the physical and the virtual in some way. My other consideration is that the museum, from my perspective, doesn't warrant an entire resolution devoted to it. It's a simple concept and I feel it ties in very well with the UL.

While there are good points made by the representative from Groot Gouda, I remind said respresentative that the ULC proposal and the Sex Industry Worker Act are not directly comparable. Prostitution is an enormously contentious act. A voluntary information and cultural exchange program is not. I continue to find that the ULC and the ULEN go well together as a SJ/Mild or SJ/Significant resolution.

Finally, the existence of a physical museum is meant to appeal to those signing on early in the project who thought a physical structure with real books was the way to go. I want to include those people in this proposal with what I consider an acceptable compromise; the museum houses examples of international literature on display, and the library allows citizens to access those works in a virtual format. Looking at Mousebumples's proposal, I find that the museum fits nicely into a single paragraph while encompassing all the details I would like to see included.

If you need a place for the main server the left foot would be honored to house them in our capital city. We also plan to support this bill 100%. If necessary we will alter our constitution to state we may never leave the International, Global, or whatever the final name will be library. Then again Un proposals cannot single out nations so I am not sure what to do? Maybe do it like the Olympics? Different nations would bid and create the facilities. It would make a good tourist attraction.

If you need a place for the main server the left foot would be honored to house them in our capital city.
Thanks, but it turns out that the UN actually does have a headquarters, so I believe the current plan is to house it there.

I was under the impression that the UN did not have a clear headquarters at all. Do you think that a resolution to make a Neutral UN headquarters is required? Or do you think that it is okay to skip that?

I was under the impression that the UN did not have a clear headquarters at all. Do you think that a resolution to make a Neutral UN headquarters is required? Or do you think that it is okay to skip that?
See this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8227488&postcount=21) for information from a mod with regards to a UN HQ. I don't know how official it is, but I believe that it is the generally accepted location for the UN HQ. Thanks for offering though. :)

Just a few things in response. I'm not absolutely determined to include the museum idea, so I appreciate your comments. Anyhow, here goes ...

Something with books journeying the world for a few thousand years so everyone can see them (if all nations join the coalition, of course). It is too unrelated to this proposal to bother about, as nations (or rather, institutions in those nations) are perfectly capable to organize exhibitions for themselves.
In the resolution, at the moment, it sets a limit for how long particular works can be away from the lending country. It would be absurd, I agree, to expect nations to part with works that they find to be rare or ancient for an indefinite period of time.

I do agree however that nations are (or at least should be) able to organize exhibitions for themselves. However, I think that exhibitions might be easier to organize within the ULC network, simply because it's already known that all involved nations have an interest in universal literacy as well as a likely appreciation of universal literature.

This resolution is about creating a new global library. Not a museum. It creates all sorts of extra issues that you simply don't want to bother about when this goes up for vote. What is the problem with separating those two things and adding the museum later? ... You could devote a whole resolution to the museum, rather than one simple paragraph.
That was my original thought too, I admit. I thought it would be simpler that way, but I'm honestly not sure if a universal literary exchange would have enough support to pass on its own. Additionally, I don't know how many details we need to specifically lay out that haven't already been included. Yes, it still needs some revision, but there are some specifics that I think are unnecessary for a/the proposal.

It's not the introduction of made-up technology, but it's still adding stuff to it that makes the whole proposal less plausible to make it work.
Good point. I had some problems initially, trying to plan how to tie the ULEN into the ULC, but I think I've got it figured out. It might be easier to have a completely separate organizing committee for such an idea.

Go for the museum bit later on. It'll take too much time to work out the details, the cost, etc, which is better spent at the actual global library coalition. Just because two issues are related doesn't mean they should be covered by the same resolution.
Again, a good point. That's the main reason why this isn't set in stone yet. I like the idea of the ULEN, and it is related to the ULC. The question is, though, whether we'd be better off leaving it for a separate proposal or not.

The whole point is to connect the physical and the virtual in some way. My other consideration is that the museum, from my perspective, doesn't warrant an entire resolution devoted to it. It's a simple concept and I feel it ties in very well with the UL.
That is addressed to some extent in the proposal by giving the member nations the option to have physical libraries. It's optional, as the ULEN would be, so that much is similar. I'm not saying that because we have one, we don't need the other, but the connection is still there, to some extent - no matter where this debate/discussion ends up.

The existence of a physical museum is meant to appeal to those signing on early in the project who thought a physical structure with real books was the way to go. I want to include those people in this proposal with what I consider an acceptable compromise; the museum houses examples of international literature on display, and the library allows citizens to access those works in a virtual format. Looking at Mousebumples's proposal, I find that the museum fits nicely into a single paragraph while encompassing all the details I would like to see included.
It is a nice method of compromise, I agree. There's a number of different proposal versions floating around, some wanting only a physical structure, and others wanting only a techology-based library. I have my own feasibility disagreements with the idae of a single physical structure (too unaccessable to too many people), but I think that the GLEN is a good alternative.

Like you said previously, people can view works written in a language they've never seen before. Sure, they could probably see the same thing on a computer screen, but I've always felt that seeing something in person, actually written on paper/parchment, is a lot more ... enjoyable. It's almost like a viewpoint into a different world - whether you can read the language in question or not.

Anyhow, I do appreciate both of you sharing your thuoghts, and I'd also like to get some feedback from other people. The ULEN is something that I would like to see established eventually ... the question, really, is just whether the two ideas would be better suited together or apart?

I'm off to dinner now, with Pharmaceutical Calculations studying to follow. I'll try to post another edit later tonight. :)

Name: Universal Library Coalition
Category: Social Justice (mild if only the ULC, significant if the ULEN is included as well)
Description:
NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#3 - Education for All, #28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Universal Library Coalition (ULC). The Universal Library provided by the ULC will be internet-based and will include all published forms of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals. All submissions that do not violate copyright laws will be accepted.

PLACES the central server for the Universal Library within the United Nations Headquarters. The library will be indexed by author, title, nation of origin, and keywords. Submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, periodical, or science fiction. The category will be determined by the author of the work.

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and be a member of the ULC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the Universal Library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Member nations will all have the option to provide content filters for their citizenry. Each participating nation may choose to construct a physical library within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will also maintain a backup of their own national data archived within the ULC.

CREATES a ULC Executive Committee (ULCEC) consisting of fifteen (15) individuals selected from ULC member nations that are elected on a triannual basis. With a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote, the ULCEC will set the annual fees that member nations will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the ULCEC will consult with other ULC member nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the ULC infrastructure that arise.

(the following section is still up for discussion as to inclusion or exclusion from the proposal)
PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Literary Exchange Network (ULEN). Any ULC member nation may designate a section of a physical library or museum to house a rotating collection of rare or ancient literary works. These works will be provided voluntarily to the ULEN by ULC on a temporary basis. The works will return to the originating country within a maximum of twenty-four (24) months. The ULCEC will arrange for particular works to be moved from one ULC member nation to another. There will be no additional charge to any nation who wishes to become involved in the ULEN, presuming that those who request visiting works are also willing to lend out works of their own.

DETAILS that the ULC will be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations and will both be not-for-profit organizations. Additionally, the ULC and ULEN will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. Therefore, no taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution, as each participating nation will contribute an annual fee for the purposes of maintaining the global library and adding additional published works. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

***

Everything is really starting to clear itself up more, with each revision - yay. As always, changed items are in bold - minus some numbers that I edited to the number (#) format. Any and all comments are welcomed, and I'd especially love to hear more opinions as to whether or not the GLEN should be included in this proposal. I tied funding to the GLEN to that of the GLC (or at least participating GLC members), so that hopefully won't be an issue with UN delegates/members. Thoughts?

That being said, I apologize profusely in advance for any typos. My brain is about to short-circuit from too much studying and not enough sleep. I'll reply to comments and such sometime tomorrow ...
~Lizzy Hall~

Perfect. I knew you'd find a way to make me go in for a "significant" classification. :D

First of all, I would very much like to applaud this resolution, it does seem to really be coming together, and Foglorn has always supported the idea of information exchange. There is one thing that we must protest though.

That is the idea of the ULEN. I'm sure there are those that love to have a physical copy of certain things: Art, books, newspaper clippings, etc. However, there is a reason that certain pieces are not moved, and any wishing to view the piece are asked to visit the site, rather than have the site brought to them. This is the concern of Foglorn.

We feel that, by moving these historical documents around, there is far too great a risk of damage. The wear and tear of transporting a document could possibly cause it to deteriate, and the world could lose access to physical viewing because of this. We also fear that having a piece gone for such a long time is dangerous. It provides rogues an extended chance to grab these important documents while they are not in their natural protection. How much would you enjoy paying a ransom on your constitution because you felt it was wise to put it on a tour?

On the same note of theft, a transport, filed with precious documents, all worth billions to the right people... how could anyone resist the chance to grab just a few of them? It is just not a choice we should let nations make. Foglorn is very happy to display its national treasures, securely, in the nation where those treasures are most beloved: their own.

Krioval appreciates the concerns of Foglorn. To that end, the ULEN would be:

1. Completely voluntary. Participating in the ULC does not require that a nation participate in the ULEN.

2. Restricted only to materials an individual country is willing to loan. Museums do this all the time, with the appropriate level of security. Further, the goal is to simply show off examples of foreign literature - it doesn't have to be one-of-a-kind if security concerns are sufficient to warrant loans of old but readily available literature or even replicas of ancient works.

Krioval would be unwilling to allow our original constitution to leave the country, and we certainly wouldn't request such precious documents from anybody else! At the same time, a sixty-year-old book of poetry, noted for its unusual script, would be ideal for transport, especially if the book weren't necessarily unique. Yet other cultures would be exposed to primary-source Kriovalian literature. Similarly, citizens of Krioval would be able to see the works of other nations in their original forms, to connect the physical copies mentally to the virtual (usually translated) copies provided by the UL. Ultimately, as the driving force behind the ULEN, Krioval would like to see its inclusion in this proposal, and we are willing to explain and clarify any aspects of its mandate.

Any ULC member nation may designate a section of a physical library or museum to house a rotating collection of rare or ancient literary works. These works will be provided voluntarily to the ULEN by ULC on a temporary basis. The works will return to the originating country within a maximum of twenty-four (24) months.

While the resolution specifies rare or ancient works, I don't see this as a final requirement, and since the museums are pretty much independent entities, I see each museum as setting the standards for what will or will not be transported. Personally, Krioval would likely risk a few of our treasures to expose other cultures to our own, especially given the strong capabilities of Kriovalian security personnel.

Enough with the global library! This new upstart kingdom is already sick of hearing about it! I will reject all global library resolutions.

If we are so concerned with the spreading of information, I think we should be looking into a different direction. Libraries, after all, are outdated. Sad, I know. But true. Instead let's focus on widespread internet access. Requiring that all nations have a cyber cafe, of sorts, in a to be determined number of square miles throughout the country. That way, people will have access to all the information that could be had in a library. Not to mentioned libraries are limited in what they can store in between their walls. The internet, is not.

Enough with the global library! This new upstart kingdom is already sick of hearing about it! I will reject all global library resolutions.

If we are so concerned with the spreading of information, I think we should be looking into a different direction. Libraries, after all, are outdated. Sad, I know. But true. Instead let's focus on widespread internet access. Requiring that all nations have a cyber cafe, of sorts, in a to be determined number of square miles throughout the country. That way, people will have access to all the information that could be had in a library. Not to mentioned libraries are limited in what they can store in between their walls. The internet, is not.
Read the text of the proposal, please. I find it much more entertaining nuking a nation when it has its foot in its mouth.

PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Literary Exchange Network (ULEN). Any ULC member nation may designate a section of a physical library or museum to house a rotating collection of (removal of "rare or ancient" ... perhaps insert "original" or some other similar adjective instead?) literary works provided by other ULC member nations. These works will be provided voluntarily to the ULEN by ULC on a temporary basis. The works will return to the originating country within a maximum of twenty-four (24) months. The ULCEC will arrange for particular works to be moved from one ULC member nation to another. There will be no additional charge to any ULC member nation who wishes to become involved in the ULEN, presuming that those who request visiting works are also willing to lend out works of their own.

***

I only updated this part since this is the only bit that has really been commented on thus far - which is good since it's the newest section and probably needs the most work.

I'm not sure if I should add in a clause about security ... part of me thinks that's getting too detailed, but another part of me thinks that it's almost necessary to allay some of the fears that some people have about *voluntarily* moving some of their documents all over the universe. Just a thought.

And Krioval, I figured that that distinction between the two "strength" levels would be a good way to do it. After all, the addition of the ULEN should *hopefully* have a strong effect on Social Justice than just the ULC alone. :)

We understand that the ULEN is completely voluntary. It should be readily obvious that Foglorn would not be participating in this aspect of the Universal Information Exchange should it pass. What we are concerned about is other nations that feel they can loan out their works, and then to have them kidnapped. It would be distressing equally for all members of the UN, we would hope, should any of her nations have works stolen. It is to that end that we feel the ULEN is unwarrented.

Enough with the global library! This new upstart kingdom is already sick of hearing about it! I will reject all global library resolutions.

If we are so concerned with the spreading of information, I think we should be looking into a different direction. Libraries, after all, are outdated. Sad, I know. But true. Instead let's focus on widespread internet access. Requiring that all nations have a cyber cafe, of sorts, in a to be determined number of square miles throughout the country. That way, people will have access to all the information that could be had in a library. Not to mentioned libraries are limited in what they can store in between their walls. The internet, is not.

We are saddened that you have choosen to not read the proposed resolution, which is obvious by some of your comments. The internet is filled with information, this is true, but it is even more filled with mis-information and dis-information. It is to this end that the Information Exchange is addressing. By striping away all of the non-information, we can gain a greater perspective of the universe, and open borders that have been closed for so long due to culture walls. A nation's works are truely the key to understanding their culture.

We understand that the ULEN is completely voluntary. It should be readily obvious that Foglorn would not be participating in this aspect of the Universal Information Exchange should it pass. What we are concerned about is other nations that feel they can loan out their works, and then to have them kidnapped. It would be distressing equally for all members of the UN, we would hope, should any of her nations have works stolen. It is to that end that we feel the ULEN is unwarrented.

While I don't want to force any nation to feel as if they must participate in (or support, for that matter) in the ULEN, I wonder why my suggestion of replicating a work and offering up the copy, rather than the original, for display is unacceptable to the delegate from Foglorn. Krioval would most certainly not give out irreplaceable works or works considered sentimental to the nation, but we would endeavor to replicate those works or give out other original work whose loss, while unfortunate, would not be disastrous.

While I don't want to force any nation to feel as if they must participate in (or support, for that matter) in the ULEN, I wonder why my suggestion of replicating a work and offering up the copy, rather than the original, for display is unacceptable to the delegate from Foglorn. Krioval would most certainly not give out irreplaceable works or works considered sentimental to the nation, but we would endeavor to replicate those works or give out other original work whose loss, while unfortunate, would not be disastrous.

We feel, as implied, but not specifically stated, in former statements, that a national treasure can not be appreciated in a setting in which it does not apply. A copy or not, a poetry book writen in Foglorn, and reflecting on the troubles of a local citizen, will not have the same meaning in a different nation, such as Krioval.

This is not to say that citizens of Krioval would not be able to connect with the work, or appreciate it equally as much as those in Foglorn, but simply that we feel it would be an injustice to the author to have her work not represented correctly. We feel it impratical to include a full cultural immersion for each treasure that could travel in the ULEN, but at the same time feel a full cultural immersion is the best way to truely appreciate any work which could be lent out.

Foglorn would much rather seen a system proposed to allow unrestricted travel between nations willing to participate, so as to create this full cultural immersion, along with visits to the treasures put in the system. We also feel that such a system would work much better as a completely new resolution once the Information Exchange passes.

I know you've asked me to go over this several times, so I'll see what I can do...
Name: Universal Library Coalition
Category: Social Justice (mild if only the ULC, significant if the ULEN is included as well)
Description:
NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#3 - Education for All, #28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,

Perhaps "Freedom of the Press" is stretching it just a bit. Good, though.

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Universal Library Coalition (ULC). The Universal Library provided by the ULC will be internet-based and will include all published forms of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals. All submissions that do not violate copyright laws will be accepted.

I still have a problem with the phrase "all published forms of the written word", which was an issue we had in the original resolution (though in that case, it was "all human knowledge". Declaring that you will store it all is akin to setting an impossible goal and can also be abused. Also, which copyright laws are you referring to?


PLACES the central server for the Universal Library within the United Nations Headquarters. The library will be indexed by author, title, nation of origin, and keywords. Submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, periodical, or science fiction. The category will be determined by the author of the work.

I'm not sure that we have a central headquarters, since we communicate entirely online anyways. I could have sworn I saw something about not having one somewhere. Also, what happens if that server is damaged? That's a lot of information and money put down the drain. Finally, the author of the work choosing the category might not be the best choice, as a porno mag might list itself as "historical fiction" to snag a few librarians into reading it or some other such nonsense.


ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and be a member of the ULC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the Universal Library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Member nations will all have the option to provide content filters for their citizenry. Each participating nation may choose to construct a physical library within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will also maintain a backup of their own national data archived within the ULC.

Ah, here's the backup, my apologies. But, wow. That's a lot of data that they'll have to store. 37,000 nations (well, a little less), each with culturally unique works of literature, news subscriptions, periodicals, all stored on one server... maybe that's plausible. What is this annual fee? The more abstract you are, the more dangerous it seems to me. Ooh, content filters, excellent idea (steals for 5D). I had it completely wrong when it was mentioned in my own thread.


CREATES a ULC Executive Committee (ULCEC) consisting of fifteen (15) individuals selected from ULC member nations that are elected on a triannual basis. With a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote, the ULCEC will set the annual fees that member nations will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the ULCEC will consult with other ULC member nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the ULC infrastructure that arise.

Who elects these fifteen, and why triannually? I don't think the political spectrum shifts all that much in a third of a year. This creates a lot of excess beauracracy just to set a simple fee. Also, elections often aren't based on the qualifications of a person to do a non-political job. Some of the fifteen could be excellent politicians but not have the slightest clue how to maintain the ULC, which is going to be excessively large. What do they get paid? Who pays them? This really kind of seems like one of those points where the resolution gets too worked up in the details.

(the following section is still up for discussion as to inclusion or exclusion from the proposal)
PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Literary Exchange Network (ULEN). Any ULC member nation may designate a section of a physical library or museum to house a rotating collection of rare or ancient literary works. These works will be provided voluntarily to the ULEN by ULC on a temporary basis. The works will return to the originating country within a maximum of twenty-four (24) months. The ULCEC will arrange for particular works to be moved from one ULC member nation to another. There will be no additional charge to any nation who wishes to become involved in the ULEN, presuming that those who request visiting works are also willing to lend out works of their own.

No quarrel with Kriovals bit, you have enough of that on your hands already.


DETAILS that the ULC will be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations and will both be not-for-profit organizations. Additionally, the ULC and ULEN will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. Therefore, no taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution, as each participating nation will contribute an annual fee for the purposes of maintaining the global library and adding additional published works. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

not-for-profit = non-profit, sounds better that way. This clause seems fine, although anyone can jump you on it for adding too many details. I don't think the "no taxing authority" clause is necessary at all.
***


Everything is really starting to clear itself up more, with each revision - yay. As always, changed items are in bold - minus some numbers that I edited to the number (#) format. Any and all comments are welcomed, and I'd especially love to hear more opinions as to whether or not the GLEN should be included in this proposal. I tied funding to the GLEN to that of the GLC (or at least participating GLC members), so that hopefully won't be an issue with UN delegates/members. Thoughts?

That being said, I apologize profusely in advance for any typos. My brain is about to short-circuit from too much studying and not enough sleep. I'll reply to comments and such sometime tomorrow ...
~Lizzy Hall~
I'm impressed. You speak very much like me (on my nicer days), and one of the only differences between our ideas on the network or coalition of libraries is that you got there first (shakes fist). Yours is a smoother, flowing type of proposal, which I originally worked with and switched after encountering problems. I think it is a bit more likely to lose the full attention of the duller U.N. members due to the absence of pretty, pretty bullet points and organization, but then, that's probably just shameless self-promotion.

Overall, both of these proposals would and could work, with a little more drafting. Now it's just a matter of deciding which. Perhaps Wednesday would be a good deadline to submit, we'd catch weekenders on the approvals while still taking a good portion of the weekday governments. Wednesday or Friday, methinks.

As a note, I'm not *ignoring* the ULEN debate that's going on between Krioval and Foghorn. I just don't have much of substance to add, so I'm just leaving it alone. I can see both sides, so rather than take a side, I'll just sit here all pretty-like until I get more of a specific idea of what changes (if any) need to be made.

Perhaps "Freedom of the Press" is stretching it just a bit. Good, though.
I included the Freedom of the Press resolution for a few reasons. The biggest one is the fact that all published forms are included without censorship on an international level. Of course, filters are allows on a nation-by-nation basis, so there is the ability to minimize the freedom of the press aspect. I can cut it out, as I'm not terribly attached to it, but anyhow ... I'll probably end up cutting out the reference to resolution #3 since I believe that that's up for repeal shortly anyhow.

I still have a problem with the phrase "all published forms of the written word", which was an issue we had in the original resolution (though in that case, it was "all human knowledge". Declaring that you will store it all is akin to setting an impossible goal and can also be abused. Also, which copyright laws are you referring to?
In my mind, and in my nation, "published forms of the written word" are different than just anything that's written within the nation. And, if you don't include "all forms," where do you make the distinction without being accused of censorship? I know on the last resolution, a number of people were annoyed/mad/frustrated that ... biographies, I believe (?) weren't included within the global library.

The copyright law reference was in a previous version - UCPL, Resolution 45. I even once designated the subcommittee formed by that resolution reviewing any alleged copyright violations. However, that was far too detailed, so I cut that out. Besides, if the UCPL ever gets repealed (presuming for a moment that this version is passed), then this would be easier to repeal since the copyright basis would be nonexistent.

I'm not sure that we have a central headquarters, since we communicate entirely online anyways. I could have sworn I saw something about not having one somewhere. Also, what happens if that server is damaged? That's a lot of information and money put down the drain. Finally, the author of the work choosing the category might not be the best choice, as a porno mag might list itself as "historical fiction" to snag a few librarians into reading it or some other such nonsense.
First off - regarding the physical location of the central HQ, see this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8227488&postcount=21) for information from a mod with regards to a UN HQ. I don't know how official it is, but I believe that it is the generally accepted location for the UN HQ. It was something we were worried about until Frisbeeteria cleared it up for us.

As to the author bit, that's my mistake. I meant to select "publisher," as we originally were deciding between the two, and when I posted the rewrite late last night, I chose the wrong one. Ooops. That fear of misclassification (i.e. a biography that would fit better under "fiction" than "non-fiction") was one that we were working on awhile back. And, also, any complaints about classification can be taken to the ULCEC to be recategorized, if needed.

Ah, here's the backup, my apologies. But, wow. That's a lot of data that they'll have to store. 37,000 nations (well, a little less), each with culturally unique works of literature, news subscriptions, periodicals, all stored on one server... maybe that's plausible. What is this annual fee? The more abstract you are, the more dangerous it seems to me. Ooh, content filters, excellent idea (steals for 5D). I had it completely wrong when it was mentioned in my own thread.
Yeah, it's a lot of data. However, I'd think that there are some works that are available worldwide - just in different translations. And depending on how the data is organized and what sorts of file types are used, I think it's completely manageable. Perhaps we'll need more than one specific server, but who's to say that there can't be 2 central servers with the information? Assuming that each individual nation will have the appropriate character sets on their computer for reading the different languages, the files shouldn't get *too* big, comparitively speaking. The servers will definitely take up less space than a central, physical global library. (the idea for which has been scrapped for good reason ... but just referencing on an improvement on the original GL resolution)

The annual fee is likely to be an even distribution of costs for the upcoming year. Staff maintainance of the servers, bandwidth costs, necessary upgrades, etc. It will understandably be more expensive at the outset, but once everything is up and running maintainance should be a bit less expensive.

I didn't specify a specific cost for a couple reasons. One - the cost will change, depending on how many nations are involved and what stage of the establishment process is happening. I personally think it's easier to just *not* take the money from nations originally, than to have to worry about redistributing it later. Two - there's been talk that perhaps nations that join later and miss some of the start-up costs should have to pay a higher amount for their first year of membership. That's something the ULCEC could work out and formalize after it is created.

Who elects these fifteen, and why triannually? I don't think the political spectrum shifts all that much in a third of a year. This creates a lot of excess beauracracy just to set a simple fee. Also, elections often aren't based on the qualifications of a person to do a non-political job. Some of the fifteen could be excellent politicians but not have the slightest clue how to maintain the ULC, which is going to be excessively large. What do they get paid? Who pays them? This really kind of seems like one of those points where the resolution gets too worked up in the details.
The 15 are elected by the ULC member nations. When I said triannually, I meant every 3 years, but that's probably an unclear word - and I probably used it incorrectly. I'll change that later. I figure that way there would be some turnaround every year, but a minimal amount.

As for being paid, my thoughts were that it would be a minimal stipend - enough to sustain them, but not enough to make them really rich or powerful or anything. And, I suppose I'm probably being too idealistic, but I was thinking that those who would express an interest in holding these positions would be those who have an innate love for the written word.

Additionally, they don't *maintain* the ULC themselves. They hire the appropriate staff to add/edit content, etc., but they do oversee everything. If a staffer is behaving unappropriately, they have the power to fire him/her. If a submitted work is suspected of violating copyright laws, they submit the article to the UCPL subcommittee for verification before taking action. All that is related to the ULC infrastructure.

not-for-profit = non-profit, sounds better that way. This clause seems fine, although anyone can jump you on it for adding too many details. I don't think the "no taxing authority" clause is necessary at all.
I'll happy change the "non-profit" bit. I like the no taxing authority simply because it's a detail that I think *should* be obvious by reading the rest of the resolution, but it's still an important bit that is worth saying.

I'm impressed. You speak very much like me (on my nicer days), and one of the only differences between our ideas on the network or coalition of libraries is that you got there first (shakes fist). Yours is a smoother, flowing type of proposal, which I originally worked with and switched after encountering problems. I think it is a bit more likely to lose the full attention of the duller U.N. members due to the absence of pretty, pretty bullet points and organization, but then, that's probably just shameless self-promotion.
That's mainly just a matter of opinion, I think. I personally prefer reading this style of proposal, while your style just seems to cramped together. However, that's just a completely asthetic comment and has little to do with the actual content at all. After all, I'm not going to approve a proposal just because it's styled like mine; nor am I going to automatically dismiss a proposal that is styled like yours. :)

Overall, both of these proposals would and could work, with a little more drafting. Now it's just a matter of deciding which. Perhaps Wednesday would be a good deadline to submit, we'd catch weekenders on the approvals while still taking a good portion of the weekday governments. Wednesday or Friday, methinks.
I'm heading out of town this weekend - leaving Friday afternoon and I'll be gone until Sunday afternoon. I've had luck reaching quorum with proposals submitted by me and my fellow region members in the past when submitting on Mondays, but that doesn't matter *too* much. The question is whether or not we can reach a final consensus by Wednesday. Friday would certainly work to submit as well, as you said, but then my availablility for TG'ing would be a bit more limited. Not that I'm necessary to the success of whatever proposal we choose. Just that I'd feel bad for missing out on another TG campaign. :(

Name: Universal Library Coalition
Category: Social Justice (mild if only the ULC, significant if the ULEN is included as well)
Description:
NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide ([removal of resolution #3, for which a repeal has reached quorum with very legitimate and logical arguments] #28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Universal Library Coalition (ULC). The Universal Library provided by the ULC will be internet-based and will include all published forms of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals. All submissions that do not violate copyright laws will be accepted.

PLACES the central server for the Universal Library within the United Nations Headquarters. The library will be indexed by author, title, nation of origin, and keywords. Submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, periodical, or science fiction. The category will be determined by the publisher of the work.

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and be a member of the ULC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the Universal Library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Member nations will all have the option to provide content filters for their citizenry. Each participating nation may choose to construct a physical library within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will also maintain a backup of their own national data archived within the ULC.

CREATES a ULC Executive Committee (ULCEC) consisting of fifteen (15) individuals selected from ULC member nations that are elected every three (3) years. With a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote, the ULCEC will set the annual fees that member nations will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the ULCEC will consult with other ULC member nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the ULC infrastructure that arise.

(the following section is still up for discussion as to inclusion or exclusion from the proposal)
PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Literary Exchange Network (ULEN). Any ULC member nation may designate a section of a physical library or museum to house a rotating collection of (perhaps insert "original" or some other similar adjective here?) literary works provided by other ULC member nations. These works will be provided voluntarily to the ULEN by ULC on a temporary basis. The works will return to the originating country within a maximum of twenty-four (24) months. The ULCEC will arrange for particular works to be moved from one ULC member nation to another. There will be no additional charge to any ULC member nation who wishes to become involved in the ULEN, presuming that those who request visiting works are also willing to lend out works of their own.

DETAILS that the ULC will be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations and will be a non-profit organization. Additionally, the ULC and ULEN will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. Therefore, no taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution, as each participating nation will contribute an annual fee for the purposes of maintaining the global library and adding additional published works. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

***

I think I caught all the big problems from last time - thanks for Pojonia for pointing some of them out. Krioval/Foghorn ... any specific changes I can make to the "universal library" concept to help resolve you differences? If so, just let me know. :)

As always, comments and critiques, etc. are more than welcome! :D

I'm heading out of town this weekend - leaving Friday afternoon and I'll be gone until Sunday afternoon. I've had luck reaching quorum with proposals submitted by me and my fellow region members in the past when submitting on Mondays, but that doesn't matter *too* much. The question is whether or not we can reach a final consensus by Wednesday. Friday would certainly work to submit as well, as you said, but then my availablility for TG'ing would be a bit more limited. Not that I'm necessary to the success of whatever proposal we choose. Just that I'd feel bad for missing out on another TG campaign. :(


If we keep waiting around for a consensus, we might not ever have a chance to introduce this. Keeping in mind that proposals often die in the first run (even my repeal failed to reach queue the first time around), I've decided on a plan. What about this:

On Wednesday or Thursday morning, when all the old and bad proposals have just been deleted, I'll submit my proposal as a test-run - cannon fodder, so to speak, although I'm certainly hoping it will prove invulnerable to such cannon shot. If something goes wrong and it fails, we'll be able to discover exactly where the problem is, since mine is divided into segments specifically for that purpose. Then, since your proposal runs along the same reasoning as my own, we can make the changes to your proposal and submit it.

I'm saying this because I think you should be present when your proposal hits the floor. It's important to see the person who created the proposal stand beside it when it becomes open to attack. I'm also saying this because these proposals have been sitting still for a bit and I think that's going to start affecting the interest of other nations. I'm getting anxious to give it a shot, and I see no reason not to try it out soon. And, of course, I'm also saying this because I want to see my proposal given at least a fighting chance and am confident it can pass by a huge margin ;)

Well, that's the plan. All I need to do is regather my two endorsements thanks to my untimely ejection (Anyone looking for a change of scenery?) and I'm working on that as we speak, trying to rouse Ski Nation from his 12 day sleep for one and scrambling to get a friend to create a U.N. nation for another. If anyone has a serious objection, by all means state it.

Why would we submit a proposal that we would then hope wouldn't reach quorum? That seems to be unnecessary.

A couple things to note ... First off, there's already one proposal (actually a repeal) in the queue. I agree that when one of these proposals goes up for a vote, the author should be present to counter any arguments that may be made against it. However, I've submitted a few resolutions in the past - some of which have made it to queue, but were later deleted for various reasons - and while I've gotten *some* comments during the approval-needed process, it was never anything all that excessive.

That being said, there is already one proposal in the queue, and since resolutions spend abuot 5-6 days getting voted on, any proposal submitted on Wednesday likely wouldn't go before the UN until Tuesday anyhow. And I will be around on Tuesday and available to answer questions. Will I be refreshing the board 24/7? Of course not. However, I will certainly be available at a computer for that vital portion of the debate process.

I'm not against you submitting your proposal, however, your reasons for submitting yours first that you listed here are - in my opinion - flawed and not substantial enough to really sway me. We both feel that our own is the superior proposal - for obvious reasons of course. Since the poll was just posted today (and we're currently tied, more or less ... although polls can be inaccurate, certainly), I'd like to wait another day or so before making a decision as to who will post their resolution first, on the first try. The biggest benefit I can see to mine, over yours, is that I think mine does a better job of tying in the Museum idea (which is actually the Literary Exchange Network portion). I know that there are some people who are adamantly against the ULEN, while there are others who desperately want that to be a part of the resolution.

Honestly, if we do end up submitting your proposal, I'd prefer that it be without the Museum portion - at least how it was most recently written. That bit, I feel clutters up the proposal and is more or less superfluous. So really, I think the matter of whether or not we want to include the museum idea will help us decide best which proposal to submit initially.

Why would we submit a proposal that we would then hope wouldn't reach quorum? That seems to be unnecessary.
Agreed, Krioval ....

That being said, I'm off to bed ... :D

Well, I didn't say I hoped it wouldn't reach quorum - just that if it didn't, there wouldn't be any real harm done and we'd still be able to work on it.

Mousebumples, you do have a point about the repeal. Fine, fine, I'll quiet down for a bit.

Mild, possibly significant.

Please justify how this could possibly be categorized as Human Rights?

In my mind, "Human Rights" is used to justify freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of behavior. It grants that those freedoms exist, but promises no funding for it.

Global Libraries may encourage freedom of thought, but they are a tangible service which must be paid for out of the pockets of somebody. In such instances, these proposals are actually about income redistribution. It's a mild form of perhaps Social Justice (egalitarian access and all that), but Social Justice nonetheless.

If you want to make a case for "Furtherment of Democracy", I'd listen with eager ears.

The Borgoan government would certainly support this motion. I believe a high level of support could be found in Scandinavia region for this move. The vast majority of our nations who commented during the repeal resolution were against the repeal.

Well, I didn't say I hoped it wouldn't reach quorum - just that if it didn't, there wouldn't be any real harm done and we'd still be able to work on it.

Mousebumples, you do have a point about the repeal. Fine, fine, I'll quiet down for a bit.

I'm compelled to ask this anyway, so what would happen if your proposal did reach quorum, and then passed? It seems that we wouldn't really be able to compare the different resolutions any more if that happened.

I'm compelled to ask this anyway, so what would happen if your proposal did reach quorum, and then passed? It seems that we wouldn't really be able to compare the different resolutions any more if that happened.

Nope, we wouldn't. To which I respond, "So what?". In that case, we'd have passed a proposal with no sincere flaws that was well liked by the U.N. Delegates. Why would we need to compare them at that point?

I'm still looking for your opinion on the museum segment I added, by the way - Mousebumples wants it without, I think a change in wording would do.

from the polling thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8269688&postcount=9)

None of the above gets our vote.

The second proposition does not respect intellectual property rights, and effectively destroys an industry.
This a valid argument, and one that hasn't been argued yet. I included "All submissions that do not violate copyright laws will be accepted." in order to try to preserve intellectual property rights, so I'm not quite sure how the proposal disrespects them. Municipal libraries already offer access to a wide range of published texts, and I have yet to see the publishing industry be destroyed because of it within Mousebumples.

Personally, I frequent the National Library of Mousebumples and often find myself later purchasing books that I first encounter there. I'm often hesitant to spend my money on new, unfamiliar books without reading them first, but when I find new pieces of literature that I enjoy, I find myself supporting the industry. Granted, perhaps not everyone would act in the same way I would.

Of course, if I'm misinterpreting your argument, please do feel free to set me straight. I'd like to address all of your possible disagreements as best as I can, and perhaps edit the proposal to fix your complaint.

I'm still looking for your opinion on the museum segment I added, by the way - Mousebumples wants it without, I think a change in wording would do.
A change in wording might work. Just as it is, it doesn't seem to follow the style of the rest of the proposal (for one), which makes it seem like an awkward addition. Also, the wording itself seemed repetative - at least on the latest version I saw. I have to run off to class and then work, but I'll see if I can't take another look at it later tonight ....

Alright, I'll take a shot at that in my next draft. I seperated it out to fit a little better in my current one, in addition to trying something new/old - making a small part of the resolution compulsory so as to ensure that it isn't just a waste of time. I'm starting to move away from your resolution now, so we can start some healthy competition to get one of them ready.

The relevant text from the Mousebumples proposal is:

The Universal Library provided by the ULC will be internet-based and will include all published forms of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals. All submissions that do not violate copyright laws will be accepted.

There appears to be a dichotomy here. You say that all published forms of the written word will be valid, but if you intend to protect intellectual property rights (and we're not convinced that last sentence does an adequate job), then you have, in effect, negated your opportunities to publish a massive amount of material. Because except for constitutions and laws, and any works whose copyrights have expired (which I believe takes 30 years unless renewed), everything is covered by copyright law. Certainly, writers and/or publishers may choose to release their work and publish it for free online... but that already happens without a Universal Library. Periodicals in particular choose to publish their content online without charge, but they do this because they have chosen to acquire a revenue stream via online advertising. The Universal Library would effectively cut off that revenue stream and eliminate the benefits they might have by providing their content for free. The end result is LESS free, online content, instead of more.

Additionally, we do not feel that the analogy of the physical library applies to the virtual world. When the good representative of Mousebumples goes to the library to examine a book without charge, you are missing the fact that the library paid for that book, and thus the writer and publisher have been compensated. A book in high demand might cause the library to purchase multiple copies. And though it is practical for libraries within a small area to share books, demand might be sufficient for each to carry their own copies. Sharing over a wider area is impractical from a shipping cost standpoint, so the publisher can be sure that many libraries throughout the country have purchased copies that will be shared out.

This scenario is very different from the virtual world, where the entire world can view a book for free from a single library, and that library hasn't had to purchase a single copy. Why buy the book when it can be viewed for free online, or printed to view later? This question is already on the minds of publishers all over the world as they watch the progress of this bill, and the answer is they will be forced, for business reasons, to protect their copyrights and disallow publication on the Universal Library, with exceptions made where an individual writer feels a political point needs to be made which is worth forgoing all potential capital gains.

Cabinia, your point is well-taken. But how, other than jettisoning the proposal outright, could these problems be addressed?

Personally, I would jettison the entire thing, because the Internet appears to be doing a pretty good job of developing this sort of thing on its own. But, since you asked, here's how I could see a Universal Library scenario as possibly working.

There would have to be a partnership with the publishing industry, probably best managed at the national level. So, Cabinia's publishers could make arrangements that are satisfactory to them with the Cabinian libraries, and those libraries would publish that information on its servers so it would be available to all. Potential agreements could be, but aren't limited to:

1) Subscription fees.
2) Charges per MB.
3) Shared advertising revenues. Publishers would be willing to accept a smaller portion of advertising revenues because they would be effectively receiving free server and data hosting. The remainder of the revenues could be retained by the library to help offset operating costs.

My apologies for taking so long to reply. RL got a bit crazy these past few days, and I'm heading away for the weekend tomorrow as well. Terrible timing. Anyhow, here are my responses to comments made thus far.

Personally, I would jettison the entire thing, because the Internet appears to be doing a pretty good job of developing this sort of thing on its own. But, since you asked, here's how I could see a Universal Library scenario as possibly working.
Understandable. My main problem with the internet is that it's hard to determine which are reputable sites and which are not. If one of my citizens needs to do a research project, they may do an internet search and find a number of false sources. However, if they were to access a library (such as the Universal Library), works would be specifically classified into the appropriate section (i.e. fiction) to help said student choose the appropraite resources.

There would have to be a partnership with the publishing industry, probably best managed at the national level. So, Cabinia's publishers could make arrangements that are satisfactory to them with the Cabinian libraries, and those libraries would publish that information on its servers so it would be available to all.
Good point. I didn't really think that through, completely, but I believe it woudl fit in with the whole "having nations submit published works to the ULC." Obviously further clarification would be needed, to be elaborate on the fact that arrangements were made with the specific authors/publishers.

1) Subscription fees.
2) Charges per MB.
The ULC members are paying membership dues already. This could be expanded to include subscription fees as well. Bandwidth will also be covered within the dues, and I'm hesitant to add in a specific clause about paying specific publishers for each page view, or whatever. It could be a known fact, so to speak, on the boards, but I almost think that's too much detail to be inserting into the proposal itself. If you could come up with a concise way to word it, I could probably be convinced, but nothing comes to mind - for me - at this moment.

3) Shared advertising revenues. Publishers would be willing to accept a smaller portion of advertising revenues because they would be effectively receiving free server and data hosting. The remainder of the revenues could be retained by the library to help offset operating costs.
I agree that perhaps links to a publishers and/or author's home page should be provided on the appropriate ULC page. Again, however, my question is how much of this needs to be explicitly written out in the proposal? I am going to do a rewrite and reword a few things to hopefully make this a better proposal in your eyes. Of course, further critiques are more than welcome, as your point is on that I never fully considered. Shows you how knowledgable I am about the administrative work of librarians, I suppose.

Now on to address a few other comments made in the poll thread and then do a quick rewrite before it's back to the books ....

Other Post #1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8270083&postcount=11)
the other proposal is equally voluntary and requires nations to censor and assumes that nations have access to the internet, otherwise they don't get to join and don't get any benifit.

Most nations are capable of doing all of this on their own, and both systems cost lots of money, don't overcome any technology issues (which was part of the original, now repealed, resolution) and don't actually demand any action on that part of anyone.
I don't believe that my proposal *requires* nations to censor. If that's the impression you got, I can check the wording on that. I put that clause in to serve as a potential content filter for nations who wanted one, but it isn't mandatory for ULC usage at all.

One of the reasons that I made the proposal voluntary was for the reasons you just outlined. Some nations don't have the internet in their country. Of course, my IT sector would be more than willing to help set up an internet portal at one location within X nation in order to allow them to join the ULC, should they so desire. However, I also understand that not all nations *want* their people to have internet access.

I realize that you are against the idea of an internet universal library for the reasons you just stated. However, I don't see how any non-technology-based universal library is feasible either. I suppose we could just scrap the universal library idea completely, but I very much like the idea of allowing all nations to have a free exchange of literature and ideas. I think a universal/global library is a very good idea, in theory, and I don't expect *everyone* to agree that a particular proposal is perfect. However, I would like to see a universal library proposal that is workable. Do you have any suggestions for amendments/additions/deletions that can be made to make this proposal more acceptable? I'm not expecting to have you be a staunch supporter of this proposal by any means, but is there something that could improve it, to some extent, in your mind? Really, any thoughts or suggestions you have, I'd like to hear them. :D

Other Post #2 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8271922&postcount=14)
The second one makes mention of a UN charter, making it illegal by having it reference a real-life document that doesn't exist in NS.
I wasn't aware that there was not a NS UN Charter. Rather, the UN charter in question was something I'd seen referenced in a previously passed resolution, which caused me to believe that it actually *did* exist. (#50 UN Space Consortium - ... The U.N.S.C. shall be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations ... If the UN Charter referenced *is* a real life document (and therefore illegal), I'll happily cut it out of the proposal. I just thought it was a good way to word the formation of the ULC. Anyone know for sure?

So this is basically like the regular internet, only my citizens have to pay for it? I'm already against.

The first one, while nice, has no teeth and, thus, is interesting to read but not worthy of consideration. Attempts to give it teeth with be opposed due to the fact this is a pointless cost.
I suppose that technically your citizens will pay for it (likely through taxes or something like that), although in this proposal, not individually. Your nation, should you choose to participiate (which is optional since I thought there might be some, such as yourself, that opposed such an idea/payment), would pay annual dues to provide access to the Universal Library to your citizens.

Also, I presume that you've read my comments with my regards to how the internet can be an unreliable reference source earlier in this post, with response to TilEnca. :)

I doubt that there's much of a way to change your mind on this matter, but I thought that your point was worth addressing all the same. Thanks for sharing your comments/criticism. :D

Name: Universal Library Coalition
Category: Social Justice (mild if only the ULC, significant if the ULEN is included as well)
Description:
NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Universal Library Coalition (ULC). The Universal Library provided by the ULC will be internet-based and may archive any published form of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals.

ALLOWS FOR SUBMISSIONS from individual member nations on the condition that permission has been granted by the publisher and/or author to archive the work within the Universal Library. Authors of archived material within the Universal Library will receive an annual subscription payment from the ULC in return for allowing wide access to their work. Any Submissions that violate copyright laws will be rejected.

PLACES the central server for the Universal Library within the United Nations Headquarters. The library will be indexed by author, title, nation of origin, and keywords. Submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, periodical, or science fiction. The category will be determined by the publisher of the work.

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and be a member of the ULC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the Universal Library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Member nations will all have the option to provide content filters for their citizenry. Each participating nation may choose to construct a physical library within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will also maintain a backup of their own national data archived within the ULC.

CREATES a ULC Executive Committee (ULCEC) consisting of fifteen (15) individuals selected from ULC member nations that are elected every three (3) years. With a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote, the ULCEC will set the annual fees that member nations will pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the ULCEC will consult with other ULC member nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the ULC infrastructure that arise.

(the following section is still up for discussion as to inclusion or exclusion from the proposal)
PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Literary Exchange Network (ULEN). Any ULC member nation may designate a section of a physical library or museum to house a rotating collection of (perhaps insert "original" or some other similar adjective here?) literary works provided by other ULC member nations. These works will be provided voluntarily to the ULEN by ULC on a temporary basis. The works will return to the originating country within a maximum of twenty-four (24) months. The ULCEC will arrange for particular works to be moved from one ULC member nation to another. There will be no additional charge to any ULC member nation who wishes to become involved in the ULEN, presuming that those who request visiting works are also willing to lend out works of their own.

DETAILS that the ULC will be incorporated as a non-profit organization. (Removal of mention of the non-existent NS UN Charter) Additionally, the ULC and ULEN will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. Therefore, no taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution, as each participating nation will contribute an annual fee for the purposes of maintaining the global library and adding additional published works. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

***

Thoughts? Comments? I realize that the added section is a bit awkward and could probably use some revising. And, of course, Cabinia, if that doesn't accomplish what you were thinking *at all*, don't hesitate to say so. All the same, thanks so much for your helpful comments.

Constructive criticism and feedback is welcomed. :D

I think that your proposal is about the only salvageable one for the UL in existence right now, and the modifications make it stronger in my eyes. That said, I'd like the thing to develop some forward motion. When would it be possible for you to submit this over the next several days?

I wasn't aware that there was not a NS UN Charter. Rather, the UN charter in question was something I'd seen referenced in a previously passed resolution, which caused me to believe that it actually *did* exist. (#50 UN Space Consortium - ... The U.N.S.C. shall be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations ... If the UN Charter referenced *is* a real life document (and therefore illegal), I'll happily cut it out of the proposal. I just thought it was a good way to word the formation of the ULC. Anyone know for sure?

The NSUN doesn't have a charter. That one resolution has been in error for years. It's actually one of several in direct violation of UN rules.

I suppose that technically your citizens will pay for it (likely through taxes or something like that), although in this proposal, not individually. Your nation, should you choose to participiate (which is optional since I thought there might be some, such as yourself, that opposed such an idea/payment), would pay annual dues to provide access to the Universal Library to your citizens.

Which is what gives it no teeth and may lose it support, but stick with that path.

Also, I presume that you've read my comments with my regards to how the internet can be an unreliable reference source earlier in this post, with response to TilEnca. :)

The internet teaches discernment. That's an important survival skill.

I doubt that there's much of a way to change your mind on this matter, but I thought that your point was worth addressing all the same. Thanks for sharing your comments/criticism. :D

It's a case of something I get no benefit from, despite whatever benefits it may hold. Thus, the reason behind opposing it.

I think that your proposal is about the only salvageable one for the UL in existence right now, and the modifications make it stronger in my eyes. That said, I'd like the thing to develop some forward motion. When would it be possible for you to submit this over the next several days?
I could submit it tomorrow before I leave, but I'd like to be around early on for TG'ing purposes. I could submit either Sunday or Monday though, if there are no terribly huge objections remaining. I'd also like to hear back from Cabinia again before I submit, just to be certain that all the essential points of his argument were addressed.

So, realistically, probably Sunday or Monday. Thoughts/TG campaign volunteers?

The NSUN doesn't have a charter. That one resolution has been in error for years. It's actually one of several in direct violation of UN rules.
Okay, good to know - thanks. I'll cut that out then and do a quick edit of the above revision.

Which is what gives it no teeth and may lose it support, but stick with that path.
True enough. And I will stick with that way then. :)

The internet teaches discernment. That's an important survival skill.
Very good point. However, I know that when I personally do research, I don't like having to sift through documents, wondering what's accurate and what isn't. I usually head to a library of some sort, and I'd like to be able to provide a similar, more universal resource, for others who feel the same way.

It's a case of something I get no benefit from, despite whatever benefits it may hold. Thus, the reason behind opposing it.
I can understand that. Thanks again for sharing your opinion. :D

What time on Sunday?

What time on Sunday?
As you can see by this comment, I'm looking to submit the proposal to the UN for its consideration when I return from my trip on Sunday - likely around noon or so, Chicago-time. I'd also like to coordinate a telegram-campaign to help get the needed number of approvals on the proposal to reach quorum.

Thanks to any and all who are able to volunteer even a little bit of their time. :)

I've made a couple wording revisions, more or less for the sake of trying to condense things as much as possible. Comments and constructive critiques are more than welcome! :D

Name: Universal Library Coalition
Category: Social Justice Significant
Description:
NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Universal Library Coalition (ULC). The Universal Library provided by the ULC will be internet-based and may archive any published form of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals.

ALLOWS FOR SUBMISSIONS from individual member nations on the condition that permission has been granted by the publisher and/or author to archive the work within the Universal Library. Authors of archived material within the Universal Library will receive an annual subscription payment from the ULC in return for allowing wide access to their work. Any submissions that violate copyright laws will be rejected.

PLACES the central server for the Universal Library within the United Nations Headquarters. The library will be indexed by author, title, nation of origin, and keywords. Submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, periodical, or science fiction. The category will be determined by the publisher of the work.

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and be a member of the ULC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the Universal Library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Member nations will also have the option to provide content filters for their citizenry. Each participating nation may choose to construct a physical library within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will also maintain a backup of their own national data archived within the ULC.

CREATES a ULC Executive Committee (ULCEC) consisting of fifteen (15) individuals selected from ULC member nations that are elected every three (3) years. With a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote, the ULCEC will set the annual fees that member nations pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the ULCEC will consult with other ULC member nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the ULC infrastructure that arise.

PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Literary Exchange Network (ULEN). Any ULC member nation may designate a section of a physical library or museum to house a rotating collection of literary works provided by other ULC nations. These works will be provided voluntarily to the ULEN by ULC for no more than twenty-four (24) months at a time. The ULCEC will arrange for particular works to be moved from one ULC member nation to another. There will be no additional charge to any ULC member nation who wishes to become involved in the ULEN, presuming that those who request visiting works are also willing to lend out works of their own.

DETAILS that the ULC and ULEN will be incorporated as a non-profit organizations. Additionally, the ULC and ULEN will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. Therefore, no taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

***

Last chance for revisions. I'll be submitting this in a few hours (when the new NS "day" starts), so if you have anything that you would like specifically changed - wording wise, speak now ... or else wait to see if the proposal reaches quorum.

Also, any TG volunteers would be greatly appreciated. I'm going to work on doing a fair amount myself today and tomorrow, but the more people we have working on this, the more likely we are to reach quorum. :)

Lastly, I'd like to include something about coauthor credit for certain leaders that have been especially helpful throughout this process. However, I'm not quite sure how to go about wording that or inserting that or ... anything like that. Suggestions and such would be much appreciated.

I say don't worry about coauthor credit at this point. There's just too many of us who worked on it. We know who we are and what our contributions were. I figure that Pojonia got the credit (well-deserved) for the repeal and proposing a revamp of the original. I figure that you get the credit (also well-deserved) for coming through with a decent proposal. Let me know about any TG campaign. Oh, I'm leaving town on Saturday until next Tuesday, so I'll likely miss a good deal of the vote if it gets quorum on the first try. But put it through anyway.

Good luck!

Campaign sign-up sheet:

Nargopia
Mousebumples
Krioval

Please volunteer people, TGing 500 delegates is much easier when it's split up! I can provide the letter and the delegate list.

I'm out, actually. I've had it out with some good authorities in the "Which Library?" thread that have convinced me that a central network of any sort is a bit of a fruitless endeavor. I'll stick with my own libraries, smaller networks between nations, and the Internet. Sorry.

Personally, I would jettison the entire thing, because the Internet appears to be doing a pretty good job of developing this sort of thing on its own. But, since you asked, here's how I could see a Universal Library scenario as possibly working.

There would have to be a partnership with the publishing industry, probably best managed at the national level. So, Cabinia's publishers could make arrangements that are satisfactory to them with the Cabinian libraries, and those libraries would publish that information on its servers so it would be available to all. Potential agreements could be, but aren't limited to:

1) Subscription fees.
2) Charges per MB.
3) Shared advertising revenues. Publishers would be willing to accept a smaller portion of advertising revenues because they would be effectively receiving free server and data hosting. The remainder of the revenues could be retained by the library to help offset operating costs.
Your objection is a very strong one.

I see any kind of charge per download as being contrary to the aim of the library.

I don't see how making it a subscription fee would help either - the cost of the subscription would have to be high enough to offset the publisher's and author's lost revenue.

Perhaps a universal electronic library isn't the obviously good thing I thought it was.

Or perhaps it just means that the universal library wouldn't carry current titles. It might get newspapers a day late, periodicals after the next issue is published, books after their first printing run. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Your objection is a very strong one.

I see any kind of charge per download as being contrary to the aim of the library.

I don't see how making it a subscription fee would help either - the cost of the subscription would have to be high enough to offset the publisher's and author's lost revenue.

Perhaps a universal electronic library isn't the obviously good thing I thought it was.

Or perhaps it just means that the universal library wouldn't carry current titles. It might get newspapers a day late, periodicals after the next issue is published, books after their first printing run. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Your suggestions are good - I admit I forgot about that objection when I cried "perfect" when perhaps an "I like the current format of the resolution and will support it" would have better summed up my view. Your last suggestion, in particular, is one I like.

I see any kind of charge per download as being contrary to the aim of the library.
I agree. It's standard for people to "pay" for library resources through taxes and the like, but to pay upon admittance of the library just doesn't fit my view of a library.

I don't see how making it a subscription fee would help either - the cost of the subscription would have to be high enough to offset the publisher's and author's lost revenue.
That's a point worth considering.

perhaps it just means that the universal library wouldn't carry current titles. It might get newspapers a day late, periodicals after the next issue is published, books after their first printing run. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Perhaps something to try for a second run around. Since Krioval is leaving for a trip soon, I'd like to get this submitted while he's still around, just to see what happens. If it doesn't make quorum and/or pass, a number of revisions should be made ... Including, of course, consideration of trashing the proposal completely.

Thanks very much for your thoughts. I'll be waking up early this morning to submit it. So, Nargopia, if you read this and would like to post/TG out your suggestions and directions for TG'ing delegates, that would be great. I'm sure I'll be wide awake when I'm up at 4am, so I'll do some of my TG'ing then, and probably a fair amount later on Monday then.

After I submit it, we can still work on rewriting it, if you think it's worth the effort. Or, else, we can just wait and see what happens and go from there, and rewrite if needed. I'm open to suggestions, as always. :)

Now, if you don't feel like rushing it, that's also acceptable. I'd like to be around for some of the voting, so I can cast my vote (likely "for"). I'll be around briefly Saturday morning, and then not until Saturday afternoon (Pacific time). Do what you think is the best thing to do - it's your baby at this point.

Your suggestions are good - I admit I forgot about that objection when I cried "perfect" when perhaps an "I like the current format of the resolution and will support it" would have better summed up my view. Your last suggestion, in particular, is one I like.

I'm not sure the proposal needs to be changed for that. Maybe some wording about only stocking works with low subscription fees.

I don't like that there's one central library. There is no reason not to run it like the internet domain servers - multiple masters, and updates to any one get propagated to the others, with automated resolution of conflicts.

I don't like that the contents will only be searchable by index and keywords. I would suggest "at a minimum" be inserted into that clause. I would want contents to be searchable like google does it. I would want contents to be searchable by references. When somebody figures out a way, I would want audio components searchable by sounds or chords, and I would want pictures searchable by... uh, something?

All that said, I think Asshelmetta will support this proposal.

I'm not sure the proposal needs to be changed for that. Maybe some wording about only stocking works with low subscription fees.
I think that's too detailed, personally. Then again, I liked the idea, but I just couldn't find a good spot to place it without making it sound too in-depth. If you have a suggestion, please share it. :)

I don't like that there's one central library. There is no reason not to run it like the internet domain servers - multiple masters, and updates to any one get propagated to the others, with automated resolution of conflicts.
Understandable. The thing is how to go about explaining that. Many people don't understand how the web and websites work, so adding in all those details would probably only serve to confuse them and make them want to vote against such a proposal/resolution. I do want to have a central server of information, if only so that there's a hard-copy backup of everything. And I think I mentioned before that I like the idea of having nation-specific contributions archived on that nation's server for easier reference. Does that fulfill that well enough, or do we need more details?

I don't like that the contents will only be searchable by index and keywords. I would suggest "at a minimum" be inserted into that clause. I would want contents to be searchable like google does it. I would want contents to be searchable by references. When somebody figures out a way, I would want audio components searchable by sounds or chords, and I would want pictures searchable by... uh, something?
Good point. Pictures could also be searchable by keywords, photographer, subject, file type, file size, etc. I don't want to write that all in, but I will definitely specify the "at minimum" bit.

All that said, I think Asshelmetta will support this proposal.
Glad to hear it. Thanks for the support. :D

***

Name: Universal Library Coalition
Category: Social Justice Significant
Description:
NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press, which encourages all UN member nations to increase the knowledge, and the truth of said knowledge, within their borders through the sharing of information with other nations,

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Universal Library Coalition (ULC). The Universal Library provided by the ULC will be internet-based and may archive any published form of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals.

ALLOWS FOR SUBMISSIONS from individual member nations on the condition that permission has been granted by the publisher and/or author to archive the work within the Universal Library. Authors of archived material within the Universal Library will receive an annual subscription payment from the ULC in return for allowing wide access to their work. Any submissions that violate copyright laws will be rejected.

PLACES the central server for the Universal Library within the United Nations Headquarters. The library will be indexed at minimum by author, title, nation of origin, and keywords. Submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, periodical, or science fiction. The category will be determined by the publisher of the work.

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and be a member of the ULC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the Universal Library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Member nations will also have the option to provide content filters for their citizenry. Each participating nation may choose to construct a physical library within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will also maintain a backup of their own national data archived within the ULC.

CREATES a ULC Executive Committee (ULCEC) consisting of fifteen (15) individuals selected from ULC member nations that are elected every three (3) years. With a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote, the ULCEC will set the annual fees that member nations pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the ULCEC will consult with other ULC member nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the ULC infrastructure that arise.

PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Literary Exchange Network (ULEN). Any ULC member nation may designate a section of a physical library or museum to house a rotating collection of literary works provided by other ULC nations. These works will be provided voluntarily to the ULEN by ULC for no more than twenty-four (24) months at a time. The ULCEC will arrange for particular works to be moved from one ULC member nation to another. There will be no additional charge to any ULC member nation who wishes to become involved in the ULEN, presuming that those who request visiting works are also willing to lend out works of their own.

DETAILS that the ULC and ULEN will be incorporated as a non-profit organizations. Additionally, the ULC and ULEN will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. Therefore, no taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution. Non-participating members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

***

Now, if you don't feel like rushing it, that's also acceptable. I'd like to be around for some of the voting, so I can cast my vote (likely "for"). I'll be around briefly Saturday morning, and then not until Saturday afternoon (Pacific time). Do what you think is the best thing to do - it's your baby at this point.
I think I'm going to submit it. Mondays are a good time for submission anyhow, and I'd like to see what happens - what responses I get, etc. If anything, submitting it will hopefully generate more comments and feedback for future proposal versions, if need be.

Also, if I don't do it now, and I wait, then things get tricky. I have Spring Break in two weeks or so, so then my computer time will be limited. My family's planning on going to NYC, so I won't have internet access at all, likely, during that time, which is definitely not a good idea when it comes to having a resolution up for a vote.

If it doesn't pass now, we'll work on it later. Still, I'd like to get it through now. And I will check and review this thread again before posting it later today. So, seriously, if there's anything else you want added/amended/removed, say it now. (and, *please* be as specific as possible - if you have a complaint, try to suggest how it could be fixed by giving a specific statement or generalized statement that could be added, if possible)

Thanks so much to all of you, for all your help. I really do appreciate it. :D
~Lizzy~

Honestly, I'm glad that our proposals and your region's work happened to coincide. Party in my capital (pass or fail)!

Well, it's posted - proposal 76 at the moment.

[ exact link (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/22877/page=UN_proposal/start=76) ]

I had to cut down a few different parts of it because initially it was 368 characters too long. Anyhow, it works now - and I hope I didn't cut out anything too vital. (largely just stuff from the preamble bit, but I hope it still makes sense ... )

Here's a quick repost --

UNIVERSAL LIBRARY COALITION
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild (it's all optional, so I went with mild instead ... you all finally talked me down from "significant" - although I don't know if anyone was still actively advocating for mild anymore ... )
Proposed by: Mousebumples
Description: NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#28, #54, #79) (lots cut out here)

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Universal Library Coalition (ULC). The Universal Library provided by the ULC will be internet-based and may archive any published form of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals.

ALLOWS FOR SUBMISSIONS from individual member nations on the condition that permission has been granted by the publisher and/or author to archive the work within the Universal Library. Authors of archived material within the Universal Library will receive an annual subscription payment from the ULC in return for allowing wide access to their work. Any submissions that violate copyright laws will be rejected.

PLACES the central server for the Universal Library within the United Nations Headquarters. The library will be indexed at minimum by author, title, nation of origin, and keywords. Submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, or periodical. The category will be determined by the works’ publisher.

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and be a member of the ULC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the Universal Library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Member nations may also choose to provide content filters for their citizenry. Each participating nation may build a physical library within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will maintain a backup of their national data archived within the ULC.

CREATES a ULC Executive Committee (ULCEC) consisting of fifteen (15) individuals selected from ULC member nations that are elected every three (3) years. With a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote, they will set annual fees that nations pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the ULCEC will consult with other ULC nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the ULC infrastructure that arise.

PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Literary Exchange Network (ULEN). Any ULC member nation may designate a section of a physical library or museum to house a rotating collection of literary works provided by other ULC nations. These works will be provided voluntarily to the ULEN for no more than twenty-four (24) months at a time. The ULCEC will arrange for works to be moved from one ULC member nation to another. There will be no additional charge to any ULC member nation who wishes to become involved in the ULEN, presuming that those who request foreign works are willing to lend out works of their own.

DETAILS that the ULC and ULEN will be incorporated as non-profit organizations. Additionally, the ULC and ULEN will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. Thus, no taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution. Non-members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

***

I'd appreciate comments on this version. I am going to do some TG'ing now - more just delegates that are known to be friendly to my region - but I'll try to save the hard-cord no-stop stuff until later, until I hear more feedback from others, to make sure that I haven't submitted a nonsensical proposal, after my revisions.

Thanks! :D

See the See "Submitted: GLC" thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8348708) for updates on what's been happening recently (and why this proposal disappeared from the approval queue!).

Universal Library Coalition
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mousebumples
Description: NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#28, #54, #79)

UNDERSTANDING the limitations of the previous Global Library resolution (#86), which was repealed,

THE UNITED NATIONS -
CALLS for the formation of a Universal Library Coalition (ULC). The Universal Library provided by the ULC will be internet-based and may archive any published form of the written word including, but not limited to, fiction and nonfiction books, constitutions and laws from around the world, newspapers, magazines, and professional journals.

ALLOWS FOR SUBMISSIONS from individual member nations on the condition that permission has been granted by the publisher and/or author to archive the work within the Universal Library. Authors or publishers of copyrighted, archived material within the Universal Library will receive an annual subscription payment from the ULC in return for allowing wide access to their work. Any submissions that violate copyright laws will be rejected.

PLACES the central server for the Universal Library within the United Nations Headquarters. The library will be indexed at minimum by author, title, nation of origin, and keywords. Submissions will be further indexed by category, such as biography, or periodical. The category will be determined by the works’ publisher.

ALLOWS FOR NATIONAL PARTICIPATION by giving each UN member nation and non-UN member nation the opportunity to participate and be a member of the ULC. If a nation opts to participate, they will pay an annual fee to have the Universal Library made available to all internet portals within that nation. Member nations may also choose to provide content filters for their citizenry. Each participating nation may build a physical library within their borders, at their own cost. Each participating nation will maintain a backup of their national data archived within the ULC.

CREATES a ULC Executive Committee (ULCEC) consisting of fifteen (15) individuals selected from ULC member nations that are elected every three (3) years. With a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote, they will set annual fees that nations pay to gain access to the global library. Additionally, the ULCEC will consult with other ULC nations to manage any issues related to the maintenance and operation of the ULC infrastructure that arise.

PROMOTES cultural awareness by permitting the creation of the Universal Literary Exchange Network (ULEN). Any ULC member nation may designate a section of a physical library or museum to house a rotating collection of literary works provided by other ULC nations. These works will be provided voluntarily to the ULEN for no more than twenty-four (24) months at a time. The ULCEC will arrange for works to be moved from one ULC member nation to another. There will be no additional charge to any ULC member nation who wishes to become involved in the ULEN, presuming that those who request foreign works are willing to lend out works of their own.

DETAILS that the ULC and ULEN will be incorporated as non-profit organizations. Additionally, the ULC and ULEN will be entirely funded by participating nations, regardless of their membership in the United Nations. Thus, no taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution. Non-members are free to form their own libraries within their own borders and are in no way restricted from sharing information with other nations around the world.

***

Changed two things (see in bold above) from the previous submission, as pointed out by _Myopia_ after submission last time. It leaves the same general idea in there, just with more detail to hopefully address that nation's concerns.

Thoughts, comments, and suggestions are welcome. Also - when should this be resubmitted?
~Lizzy Hall~

First, a repetition. Sorry for not finishing all of my telegrams. I got about two-thirds through. Honestly, I don't think I handle that volume and deal with my day job and other RL issues. For that I apologize.

Second, I think that next Monday or Tuesday would be a good time to try again. I won't be around a computer until late Tuesday if that influences your decision, but the "big crunch" shouldn't fall on a Saturday or Sunday, when many delegates are away. That said, feel free to try again before then if you'd like - you can always resubmit if it falls through again.

Finally, congratulations are in order for even crafting this proposal. It's good to see the product of several weeks of teamwork and dedication.

First, a repetition. Sorry for not finishing all of my telegrams. I got about two-thirds through. Honestly, I don't think I handle that volume and deal with my day job and other RL issues. For that I apologize.

Second, I think that next Monday or Tuesday would be a good time to try again. I won't be around a computer until late Tuesday if that influences your decision, but the "big crunch" shouldn't fall on a Saturday or Sunday, when many delegates are away. That said, feel free to try again before then if you'd like - you can always resubmit if it falls through again.

Finally, congratulations are in order for even crafting this proposal. It's good to see the product of several weeks of teamwork and dedication.
I think I'll try again Monday morning before class. I do have a test again on Wednesday, but I should be able to get a fair amount of the TG'ing done during study breaks and such. I might even take over some of yours, depending on when I get my own done. :)

And, honestly, no worries about not getting them done. We were about 40 or so short when I went to bed. I just wish I had c/p'd the names of those that had approved it before it disappeared. :(

And, yes! Go team go! We all did a great job here, and thank you all very much for your support and help! :D

And getting your proposal to page 1 of the UN Proposal List on the last day of consideration always helps.

And getting your proposal to page 1 of the UN Proposal List on the last day of consideration always helps.
Very true. The key is in timing it right so that it does spend the last day on the first page. I think I'll aim for about 8 am CST submission time next time - in accordance with Frisbeeteria's advice in the other thread ...

***

Cross-posted from this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8350770#post8350770) ...
1. we can see some nations passing the subscription on to the people, either in the form of taxation, or forcing them to pay for the privelage.
Why is that wrong? Where else would the money come from? The concept of printing more money to participate in the ULC isn't really the smartest thing to do from an economic standpoint. Of course, taxation is by no means obligatory, but I think that's a decison that should be left up to the individual member nations.

2. except on the count of ficticious articles, this knowledge should be free for all. any factual documentation should be available for people to be used as resources. in the case of fictious articles, it is agree that the authors should recieve due payment. this would also include biographies and 'based on true' stories.
This was addressed previously in the other thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8269991&postcount=67). Rather, this bit was inserted in response to a comment that intellectual property needs to be respected in order for new research and nonfiction books to be written. As it was previous stated by ... someone (I forget who), if anyone can read something via the ULC with no payment made to the author/publisher, what motivation would there be for them to create future literary works? There are some cases in which monetary compensation is unnecessary, largely when it comes to works that are not copyrighted.

I agree that forcing citizens to pay per page view or something seems silly. If we get this proposal passed, my nation will take the money needed for the annual fee from the people's taxes, so that free access will be available on demand year round. But this method may not work for other nations. Why should I force my method of doing things on others? Should your own nation choose to join, you're free to handle things as you see fit, in accordance with the requirements for membership.

Thanks for the comments though. :)