NationStates Jolt Archive

Currently, the details surrounding the two resolutions have been all but ironed out. As the two proposals begin to resemble each other more and more and make good on a large portion of compromises, the issue remains: Which do you think should be introduced?

The other issue that both proposals have yet to decide upon is that of a Museum Structure as introduced by Krioval (in italics). Should it be included?

This is the resolution introduced by Pojonia:

Name: Universal Library Network
Category: Social Justice Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

RECALLING Resolution number 86, the Global Library, and its subsequent repeal,

NOTING previous resolutions passed for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#3 - Education for All, #28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative)

REAFFIRMING the idealistic strength of the concept of a global repository for knowledge,

and RECOGNIZING the pragmatic weaknesses of a physical storage house for all the worlds knowledge,

HEREBY ESTABLISHES the Universal Library Network

The Universal Library Network shall be established as follows:

1) Apportionment: All funds currently donated to The Global Library shall be reapportioned to the cause of establishing the Universal Library Network.

2) Designation: Any nation may designate a library, newly constructed or old, as a part of the Network. This library must fulfill three requirements before being admitted into the Network:
A) It must be capable of storing all relevant information and literature from the library on a national server,
B) It must have competent, capable librarians to manage that information, and
C) It must have free public access to any citizen of that nation.

3) Universal Library Network: Each designated library shall be connected via Internet to the others. Through this connection, librarians will establish
A) An online facility for storing and retrieving literature and information, allowing free access to all libraries in the network, and
B) A system allowing for other libraries to order or borrow from each others stock at a reasonable fee. The library ordering shall pay the cost of shipping and any additional prices. Under no circumstances is a library required to ship texts that are rare, original, or in short supply.

4) Rules and Regulations: Each library must follow the following guidelines:
A) Librarians shall scan and upload any information they deem relevant or of literary merit to the Network.
B) Librarians shall not censor information or literature unless it is proven of no literary or informational value.
C) Citizens may receive, but not upload, information from the Network, though they may submit information to the librarians for consideration.
D) All libraries shall be funded by their member nations, and any international costs that occur shall be equally shared by such libraries.

5) Additional Considerations and Provisions:
A) Donations of literature, subscriptions and money to the Network are accepted from any region, nation, or citizen.
B) Any excess funding shall be placed into the purchase of new literature for the Network.
C) Literature donated or purchased shall be provided to any library on request. Decisions on multiple claims of the same literature shall be based on the claimants current need, and will be sorted by the Network system established in Section 3, clause B.
D) Any nation that wishes may allow access to the Network from Internet portals within their nation. Member nations will all have the option to provide content filters for their citizenry.
E) Each member nation may ensure that information submitted by individual libraries is credible before submitting it into the network.
F) Any nation removing itself from the Network must donate their servers to another library or permit a back-up copy of that servers information to be moved.
G) U.N. members who wish to help fund their libraries through the project may submit any rare, ancient or historical works to the network with a schedule to display them within museums in other member nations. They may also determine admission fees to see such works, to be paid equally amongst the donators and the displaying museums. The works will return to their originating countries within a maximum of twenty-four months. Curators will be provided to ensure that the works are well protected, who shall be paid for by the displaying museums.

6) Recommendations: To maintain a strong and useful network of information, the U.N. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES that
A) Each member nation designate at least one library as a part of the Universal Library Network,
B) Each nation ensure that their librarians are well-paid and properly qualified, and
C) Each nation respect copyright laws and fair use agreements, and request permission from authors of a work if possible before submitting it into the network

This is the resolution introduced by Mousebumples:
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.


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.

Keep in mind that both of these proposals are still open to change and new drafts, which should be dealt with in their own, seperate threads.

For convenience's sake, here are the respective threads. Check out the latest threads in both to see the latest version of each proposal. :D

Global Library Coalition (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=398408) by Mousebumples
(the proposal is technically called the "Universal Library Coaltion" now, but anyhow ... )

The Global Library Network OR The New New Global Library (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=399378) by Pojonia
(the proposal is technically called the "Universal Library Network" now, but anyhow ... )

:D

... Which is technically called the "Universal Library Network" now, but anyhow... ;)
Excellent idea, Mousebumples. That should help a lot.

Polls are currently 50/50 for/against, although everyone is fully for Mousebumples museum and mine might perhaps be in need of a redraft. (or maybe current voters just don't like the addition) I don't think this should be the major influence on our decision, however, as I hold forum polls to be marvelously inaccurate.

By all means, don't be afraid to voice your opinion here now that a few of the votes are in. The floor is open for debate on the subject.

That being said, I think you're all pretty aware of my position on this. I'm eager to put forth the proposal I promised in my repeal myself, hopefully garnering the support of those who voted on the repeal and achieving a greater majority on the floor. I designed this proposal specifically to appeal to those persons, but in reality either one has a very high likelihood of passing. Mousebumples (or should I say Lizzy?) and I have developed very similar proposals, and I think the only major differences between them is organization, committees and fees.

OOC: Lizzy or Mousebumples works - no big difference.

IC: Mousebumples is co-lead by myself (Lizzy) and my twin sister Sasha. However, I am the UN Delegate for Monkey Island, as my sister doesn't have much interest in the administrative stuff.

And I've edited the post to reflect the change in name in your own proposal as well. :)

Can I vote for neither?

A vote for - Mousebumples Proposal, With Museum

Can I vote for neither?
Seconded.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Can I vote for neither?

I'd like to know why. What are your objections?

None of the above gets our vote.

The first proposition is silly and pointless. The fees required to ship a volume overseas to borrow it would only rarely make it a cheaper option than buying it outright. The exceptions would be the rare and exotic books that are exempted from this program. Cabinia fails to see how this is an improvement over local library sharing programs.

The second proposition does not respect intellectual property rights, and effectively destroys an industry.

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 appreciate you voicing your specific reasons for not supporting either of the proposals, and I hope that we can amend them as needed to address your concerns. I've cross-posted your complaint in the Global Library Coalition thread, along with my response if you'd like to check that out.
[ link to specific post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8269991&postcount=67) ]

We have the web. We have Project Anca Comalsa. We have an idea about a magic spell, but that is in its infancy at the moment.

The point is - one proposal puts a whole load of civil servants in charge, adding nothing but bureaucracy and still doesn't actually acomplish anything since it is totally voluntary, and 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.

What is the hell is the point?

TilEnca has the web?

TilEnca has the web?

Depends on your perspective :}

But what about nations who don't? The original resolution was repealed due to technological problems, and now the new proposals have exactly the same issues. So what is the point of voting them in when they are as worthless as the original resolution apparently was?

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.

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. Plus, there is what Cabinia said.

In effect, I vote for neither. They are unnecessary and not worth the cost.

At last, destructive criticism! I'll start tearing this apart immediately and restructuring it. Here's a look at what it might look like with teeth, and I don't think it would be terribly expensive to any nation - all you need is a building and an admittedly large server. And librarians, of course, which is sort of the central theme behind this particular proposal. Who better to ensure a stable and reliable network of information?

The Global Library Network

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

RECALLING Resolution number 86, the Global Library, and its subsequent repeal,

NOTING previous resolutions passed for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#3 - Education for All, #28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative)

REAFFIRMING the idealistic strength of the concept of a global repository for knowledge,

and RECOGNIZING the pragmatic weaknesses of a physical storage house for all the worlds knowledge,

HEREBY ESTABLISHES the Universal Library Network.

The Universal Library Network shall be established as follows:

1) Apportionment: All funds currently donated to The Global Library shall be reapportioned to the cause of establishing the Universal Library Network.

2) Designation: Each nation with the technology and economy available to do so must designate a library, newly constructed or old, as a part of the Network. This library must fulfill three requirements before being designated:
A) It must be capable of storing relevant information and literature regarding the nations history and culture from the library on a national server,
B) It must have competent, capable librarians to manage that information, and
C) It must have free public access to any citizen of that nation.
Special considerations will be taken for economically struggling nations.

3) Universal Library Network: Each designated library shall be connected via Internet to the others. Through this connection, librarians will establish
A) An online facility for storing and retrieving literature and information, allowing free access to all libraries in the network, and
B) A system allowing for other libraries to order or borrow from each others stock at a reasonable fee. Under no circumstances is a library required to ship texts that are rare, original, or in short supply, nor is it required to ship a text over a large distance.

4) Rules and Regulations: Each library must follow the following guidelines:
A) Librarians shall scan and upload any information they deem relevant or of literary merit to the Network under the restrictions of Resolution 45, International Copyright/Patent Law.
B) Librarians shall not censor information or literature unless it is proven of no literary or informational value.
C) Citizens may receive, but not upload, information from the Network, though they may submit information to the librarians for consideration.
D) All libraries shall be funded by their member nations, and any international costs that occur shall be equally shared by such libraries.

5) Additional Considerations and Provisions:
A) Donations of literature, subscriptions and money to the Network are accepted from any region, nation, or citizen.
B) Any excess funding shall be placed into the purchase of new literature for the Network.
C) Literature donated or purchased shall be provided to any library on request. Decisions on multiple claims of the same literature shall be based on the claimants current need, and will be sorted by the Network system established in Section 3, clause B.
D) Any nation that wishes may allow access to the Network from Internet portals within their nation at no additional cost. Member nations will have the option to provide content filters for their citizenry.
E) Each member nation may ensure that information submitted by individual libraries is credible before submitting it into the network.

6) The U.N. Literary Museum.
U.N. members who wish to help fund their libraries through the project may cooperate with nations as a part of the U.N. Literary Museum. These nations may submit any rare, ancient or historical works to the network with a schedule to display them within participating museums outside of their country. They may also determine admission fees to see such works, to be paid equally amongst the donators and the displaying museums. The works will return to their originating countries within a maximum of twenty-four months. Curators will be provided to ensure that the works are well protected, who shall be paid for by the displaying museums.

7) Recommendations: To maintain a strong and useful network of information, the U.N. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES that
A) Each nation ensure that their librarians are well-paid and properly qualified, and
B) Each nation respect their own fair use agreements in addition to resolution 45, and request permission from authors of a work if possible before submitting it into the network.
C) Any nation removing itself from the U.N. permit a back-up copy of that servers information to be created in another member nation.

1-4 is the "teeth", 5-7 are the more optional parts. All are open to change. Your thoughts?

I didn't say it was expensive. I said it was pointless. The internet can do the same thing without the additional cost, and in DLE that's what it does. It's not that difficult for modern nations to adapt their internets to the same task.

I didn't say it was expensive. I said it was pointless. The internet can do the same thing without the additional cost, and in DLE that's what it does. It's not that difficult for modern nations to adapt their internets to the same task.

No, it's not. That's why we're making the resolution through the avenue of an internet system. Modern nations can do it, so for the furtherment of education it makes some sense that they should.

No, it's not. That's why we're making the resolution through the avenue of an internet system. Modern nations can do it, so for the furtherment of education it makes some sense that they should.

Why? And what about non-modern nations?

Everyone educates their children under UN rules, but why should they be FORCED to pay to learn about another nation if they don't want to?

Why? And what about non-modern nations?

Everyone educates their children under UN rules, but why should they be FORCED to pay to learn about another nation if they don't want to?


Nobodies FORCED to learn anything. By the new proposal (which is not necessarily going to stay compulsory), they're required to create a library to store relevant information and literature. Nations aren't required to shove that information down someones throat. Instead, the resolution creates a library network that mimics a library on a larger scale, as it's supposed to. It makes a place where citizens are allowed free access to the thoughts and ideas of others, and it manages that information to maintain easier access and less actual censorship than a normal internet system. Is that bad?

Also, I allowed for non-modern nations within the proposal, and allowed for nations to make the choice as to whether or not to make it fully internet available. Are my drafts really so boring that you can't look at them first? The only current compulsion is that nations must create at least one access point that citizens can go to to "learn about other nations", in addition to the hundreds of other things that such a system can be used for. I said it had teeth, not fangs.

No, it's not. That's why we're making the resolution through the avenue of an internet system. Modern nations can do it, so for the furtherment of education it makes some sense that they should.

Then why not just make a resolution that asks people to put the information on the internet and stop there? That's all that is needed. The rest is just an unnecessary waste of money.

All of "the rest" is either optional or a part of ensuring that the information submitted is relevant and credible. You don't have to construct any more of a designated library than a server to hold information, which is necessary anyways, and credible people to regulate it, which should be necessary. Explain the "waste of money".

All of "the rest" is either optional or a part of ensuring that the information submitted is relevant and credible. You don't have to construct any more of a designated library than a server to hold information, which is necessary anyways, and credible people to regulate it, which should be necessary. Explain the "waste of money".

The credible people to regulate it are not even necessary. People need to learn discernment, and they're not going to do it if you present only accurate information. You can learn just as much from inaccuracy as you can from accuracy.

The rest of it is a waste of money because it is unnecessary. You wish to make this good? You don't even need governments to fund servers when private companies are more than willing to do it just for PR. The costs are not needed and the act itself is something a nation can do on their own. If they haven't done it in some form or another, then the people don't want it and you are wasting their tax dollars on something they probably won't even use.

The credible people to regulate it are not even necessary. People need to learn discernment, and they're not going to do it if you present only accurate information. You can learn just as much from inaccuracy as you can from accuracy.

Which is what the internet is for. But the ULC can provide an accurate, credible source of information and literature, and that's just as important, if not, as I would argue, more.


The rest of it is a waste of money because it is unnecessary. You wish to make this good? You don't even need governments to fund servers when private companies are more than willing to do it just for PR. The costs are not needed and the act itself is something a nation can do on their own. If they haven't done it in some form or another, then the people don't want it and you are wasting their tax dollars on something they probably won't even use.
I never said that the government had to fund the servers. I said that if they wanted to, there was an alternate method of funding. All the government has to do is designate the library, and if a private company wants to put in the server, that's perfectly all right. While this is something a nation can do on their own, this is a solid way to ensure there is a coordinated, serious effort.

Which is what the internet is for. But the ULC can provide an accurate, credible source of information and literature, and that's just as important, if not, as I would argue, more.

The problem is the issues of credibility. No credible scientist in DLE would ever attempt to suggest that humanity is capable of advancing far enough to develop civilization. A few go as far as to argue that humanity has the same place in nature as the chimpanzee and should be given the same treatment. Tell me: Is that a credible opinion in your nation?

The problem is the fact that credibility ranges as much as the information does. Also, credibility and accurate information are not always the same thing. Just because a person is credible doesn't mean they aren't feeding you a line of bull. That is a problem humanity and many others have faced for centuries.

I never said that the government had to fund the servers. I said that if they wanted to, there was an alternate method of funding. All the government has to do is designate the library, and if a private company wants to put in the server, that's perfectly all right. While this is something a nation can do on their own, this is a solid way to ensure there is a coordinated, serious effort.

I can't even get the top scientists in my nation to agree about whether or not humanity is a sentient species or a potential exhibit in zoos. And that's just one nation. Now you tell me how you plan to coordinate it across thousands when each one has different views of credibility.

This led into an argument I fully appreciate. I'll work on a better definition of "credible" within the proposal, or a different wording at the very least.

Which isn't to say, of course, that the Library doesn't still provide a useful system of information and research tool that would be preferable to the internet by itself, free of a lot of the clutter associated with the World Wide Web and managed by professionals. And, of course, it creates the benefit of setting up a sturdy system for actual physical libraries to exchange work, and deals with those donation funds that disappeared into the Global Library.

Let me preface this by pointing out that Education is chief among Cabinia's government priorities, and that commitment is reflected in today's UN report which ranks us in the bottom 93% of "Stupidest Citizens." (118,369/126,893)

That said, we still find that the Pojonian proposal has the flaws we pointed out previously. In addition, we wonder what, if anything, is intended to be accomplished by this effort.

If the goal here is to share knowledge and enlightenment with backwards nations, then we propose that this measure won't help. A backwards nation is so because of its government, and a government bent on keeping its people ignorant could comply with this resolution by placing their library on an offshore oil derrick or coastal uninhabitable island, like Alcatraz. Additionally, a single library in a populous city (nevermind nation) would be totally unable to meet the needs of its citizens.

If the goal here is to create a wealth of information for internet users, then there already exists such a repository, and it grows by the day on its own. Furthermore, we do not believe the Pojonian author fully understands the nature of the internet. A single server would simply not be enough to contain even a single nation's contributions to the world's libraries, and the costs for attached storage, network bandwidth, and the necessary servers to support the infrastructure (failover, security, system health monitoring, search functions and other applications, etc.) would immediately outstrip current estimates by orders of magnitude. We are talking about an enterprise solution here, and a single server would be like trying to read the world's libraries through a monacle.

If the goal here is to share knowledge and enlightenment with backwards nations, then we propose that this measure won't help. A backwards nation is so because of its government, and a government bent on keeping its people ignorant could comply with this resolution by placing their library on an offshore oil derrick or coastal uninhabitable island, like Alcatraz.
No, they couldn't. It's a requirement that it has to be free and open to the public, and if citizens had to pay to charter a boat to an island or offshore oil derrick, that would be a defiance of U.N. law. But really, this proposal isn't concerned with educating backward nations as much as creating a system that any nation CAN take advantage of.

Additionally, a single library in a populous city (nevermind nation) would be totally unable to meet the needs of its citizens.
Sure. But there's no limit to the number of libraries you can designate, and there only has to be one National Server. In addition, nations have the option of making this information fully available to all internet users, and there's no restrictions on libraries that are not a part of the network.


If the goal here is to create a wealth of information for internet users, then there already exists such a repository, and it grows by the day on its own.

What are you referring to, specifically? The Internet by itself?

Furthermore, we do not believe the Pojonian author fully understands the nature of the internet. A single server would simply not be enough to contain even a single nation's contributions to the world's libraries, and the costs for attached storage, network bandwidth, and the necessary servers to support the infrastructure (failover, security, system health monitoring, search functions and other applications, etc.) would immediately outstrip current estimates by orders of magnitude. We are talking about an enterprise solution here, and a single server would be like trying to read the world's libraries through a monacle.
"National Server" is a statement meant to imply that exact system without getting into too much detail. I understand that its substantially more expensive than a small server, but it's still not a terribly huge and expensive threat to an economy.

Finally, keep in mind that this resolution talks about a wealth of other beneficial subjects as well, introduced under the same initiative. It's not just about the internet data system which you so vehemently oppose on the grounds of redundancy.

Perhaps a little clarification will be needed in the proposal to ensure that your quarrels are appeased. I'll put some work into another draft tomorrow evening.

Wow. the poll is almost dead even.

Pojonia, didn't you tell me when I created the Physical Global Library Poll that polls won't ever tell you anything useful?

Wow. the poll is almost dead even.

Pojonia, didn't you tell me when I created the Physical Global Library Poll that polls won't ever tell you anything useful?

Yup, but I got a debate started and I'm finally getting some new opinions. Polls don't tell me anything useful. These people do.

Yup, but I got a debate started and I'm finally getting some new opinions. Polls don't tell me anything useful. These people do.
Touche. (sp?)

SP? What's SP?

Which isn't to say, of course, that the Library doesn't still provide a useful system of information and research tool that would be preferable to the internet by itself, free of a lot of the clutter associated with the World Wide Web and managed by professionals. And, of course, it creates the benefit of setting up a sturdy system for actual physical libraries to exchange work, and deals with those donation funds that disappeared into the Global Library.

What donation funds? At last count, the Global Library had $2.35, four toilets, eight pairs of shoes, and a partridge in a pear tree donated to it. And that's before the greedy people in charge of fund distributions took their cuts. Which is pretty good for a UN program.

The problem with trying to be rid it of clutter is that every piece of clutter is a piece of information that is particularly helpful to someone, somewhere. Who are we to say an advertisement on the price of Wheaties won't be of historical importance in the future?

No, they couldn't. It's a requirement that it has to be free and open to the public, and if citizens had to pay to charter a boat to an island or offshore oil derrick, that would be a defiance of U.N. law. But really, this proposal isn't concerned with educating backward nations as much as creating a system that any nation CAN take advantage of.

It says the library has to be free and open to the public. I never saw anything about transportation to the library.

What donation funds? At last count, the Global Library had $2.35, four toilets, eight pairs of shoes, and a partridge in a pear tree donated to it. And that's before the greedy people in charge of fund distributions took their cuts. Which is pretty good for a UN program.

Maybe. You tend to present some pretty fascinating made-up facts, and I don't think they serve as truly valid arguments. But there were a lot of moronic nations that submitted donations to the library, I'm sure, without realizing the idiocy of the ceiling price. Either way, it's not really a problem.


The problem with trying to be rid it of clutter is that every piece of clutter is a piece of information that is particularly helpful to someone, somewhere. Who are we to say an advertisement on the price of Wheaties won't be of historical importance in the future?

Well then, by all means, it will be included in the future when it is important. We're not ditching all other forms of information sharing, just creating a new one.


It says the library has to be free and open to the public. I never saw anything about transportation to the library.
Nit-picking, and not worth anyones time. If you really want to make it an issue - It's like I said before, Nations still have a good portion of choice in the matter.

Maybe. You tend to present some pretty fascinating made-up facts, and I don't think they serve as truly valid arguments. But there were a lot of moronic nations that submitted donations to the library, I'm sure, without realizing the idiocy of the ceiling price. Either way, it's not really a problem.

Actually, I think two of the items I listed actually were donated to the Global Library on this forum. I know I donated one of the toilets. Look it up sometime.

The list was meant as a joke. I don't warn about when I'm posting humor because I leave it up to others to figure it out.

Well then, by all means, it will be included in the future when it is important. We're not ditching all other forms of information sharing, just creating a new one.

No, you're not. All you're doing is taking one that already exists, changing the packaging, throwing in a bunch of unneeded extras, and calling it a new product. It's no more a new product than when Nintendo came out with a platinum Gamecube.

Nit-picking, and not worth anyones time. If you really want to make it an issue - It's like I said before, Nations still have a good portion of choice in the matter.

Just pointing out where your arguement was flawed.

Actually, I think two of the items I listed actually were donated to the Global Library on this forum. I know I donated one of the toilets. Look it up sometime.

The list was meant as a joke. I don't warn about when I'm posting humor because I leave it up to others to figure it out.

Didn't say it wasn't funny. Said it wasn't relevant. None of this post was.


No, you're not. All you're doing is taking one that already exists, changing the packaging, throwing in a bunch of unneeded extras, and calling it a new product. It's no more a new product than when Nintendo came out with a platinum Gamecube.

You can keep telling yourself that, but the resolution creates a good portion of new things that you haven't talked about at all in addition to the network - and the network itself is, to many nations, a new thing. I certainly don't have one yet (ha! I can make up pointless facts too!).

Just pointing out where your arguement was flawed.
'Tisn't flawed. 'Tis worthless nitpicking. Like I said.

SP? What's SP?
spelling (as in I'm not sure if that's how you spell it)

That is how you spell it, accenty thing on the E.

Didn't say it wasn't funny. Said it wasn't relevant. None of this post was.

In that case, neither have been most of your replies on this page. I have yet to see anything of relevance that actually deals with the challenges created.

You can keep telling yourself that, but the resolution creates a good portion of new things that you haven't talked about at all in addition to the network - and the network itself is, to many nations, a new thing. I certainly don't have one yet (ha! I can make up pointless facts too!).

What new things? A library connected to the internet? Please. You might as well create a rubber disk, roll it down a hill, and say you've discovered the wheel. I have yet to see anything new actually in it that hasn't been discovered by at least half the UN already.

'Tisn't flawed. 'Tis worthless nitpicking. Like I said.

No, you're not paying attention. Context is everything. Let me show you the context and see if you can be bothered to work it out.

If the goal here is to share knowledge and enlightenment with backwards nations, then we propose that this measure won't help. A backwards nation is so because of its government, and a government bent on keeping its people ignorant could comply with this resolution by placing their library on an offshore oil derrick or coastal uninhabitable island, like Alcatraz.

No, they couldn't. It's a requirement that it has to be free and open to the public, and if citizens had to pay to charter a boat to an island or offshore oil derrick, that would be a defiance of U.N. law. But really, this proposal isn't concerned with educating backward nations as much as creating a system that any nation CAN take advantage of.

It says the library has to be free and open to the public. I never saw anything about transportation to the library.

I hope I don't have to point out the obvious.

No, they couldn't. It's a requirement that it has to be free and open to the public, and if citizens had to pay to charter a boat to an island or offshore oil derrick, that would be a defiance of U.N. law. But really, this proposal isn't concerned with educating backward nations as much as creating a system that any nation CAN take advantage of.

I'm afraid DLE is right in this matter, and she made my point for me quite well. A library on an offshore oil derrick could be open to the public and free of charge, and that's all that your resolution requires. It doesn't have to be accessible at all.

Sure. But there's no limit to the number of libraries you can designate, and there only has to be one National Server. In addition, nations have the option of making this information fully available to all internet users, and there's no restrictions on libraries that are not a part of the network.

You're assuming that national governments and/or non-government entities have an active interest in exploiting the Universal Library for the benefit of its citizens. This would be the case in a place like Cabinia. But Cabinia doesn't have a problem with sharing knowledge, so we're not one of the nations you're trying to help. The ones you're trying to help will not get behind this program, and will only support this measure to the minimum levels required... a single library, and a single national server.

What are you referring to, specifically? The Internet by itself?

Correct.

"National Server" is a statement meant to imply that exact system without getting into too much detail. I understand that its substantially more expensive than a small server, but it's still not a terribly huge and expensive threat to an economy.

We just wanted to make it clear at the outset that we're talking about equipment, software, and personnel costs in the neighborhood of millions of dollars per site.

Finally, keep in mind that this resolution talks about a wealth of other beneficial subjects as well, introduced under the same initiative. It's not just about the internet data system which you so vehemently oppose on the grounds of redundancy.

Our interpretation is that this measure brings three changes:

1) Sharing of physical books across national boundaries, which we have argued against from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.
2) Internet publishing, which we have argued against from a standpoint of redundancy, conflict with the free market, and intellectual property rights (to tie in the arguments elsewhere with Mousebumple, which also apply here).
3) The museum addendum, which we haven't bothered to argue about on the basis that if 1 and 2 don't fly, the museum doesn't happen either.

We interpret the theme of Pojonia's arguments of support for this measure to center around freedom of choice, particularly a government and a people's choice to exploit this initiative if they so choose. But this is in direct conflict with the nature of the United Nations, which forces compliance with all resolutions. And, indeed, this measure does not allow for nations to opt out. It does allow loopholes for nations to skirt the requirements and violate the spirit of the law without violating the letter of it. But given the choice, Cabinia would simply allow the Internet to continue to grow and provide all the things this resolution attempts to achieve.

In addition, there has been mention of the fact that some nations are not technologically advanced and have not joined the Internet. To them I say that doing so would be infinitely more cost-effective than participating in the UL scheme, for two reasons. First, they would have to have some sort of national network anyway in order to fully exploit the UL. Secondly, it would not have to be paid for by government funds. Cabinia is one of many nations with a robust information technology sector which would be happy to open for business in other lands. In this scenario, the companies of Cabinia would readily provide the initial capital necessary to bring those nations up to speed.

I'm afraid DLE is right in this matter, and she made my point for me quite well. A library on an offshore oil derrick could be open to the public and free of charge, and that's all that your resolution requires. It doesn't have to be accessible at all.

I told you this isn't an issue, that it's a worthless technicality, but you didn't believe me. Fine.

Firstly:
Public:not private; open to or concerning the people as a whole. (Princeton Wordnet)
In order for a library to be open to or concerning the people as a whole AND ALSO be free, the people would have to be able to access it if they felt the need. That's why I chose the word "public". If it's on an offshore oil rig, they'd have to get a boat, and the people as a whole cannot always afford one of those.

Secondly:
The U.N. doesn't have to worry about the enforcement of a resolution. Nations are required to take care of that themselves, no dodging allowed except when there actually is a gaping hole. No one would believe a U.N. member was upholding the resolution if that nation said "Well, It said the library had to be free, not access to the location. It doesn't work that way, you're just trying to tear the proposal apart on a triviality.


You're assuming that national governments and/or non-government entities have an active interest in exploiting the Universal Library for the benefit of its citizens. This would be the case in a place like Cabinia. But Cabinia doesn't have a problem with sharing knowledge, so we're not one of the nations you're trying to help. The ones you're trying to help will not get behind this program, and will only support this measure to the minimum levels required... a single library, and a single national server.

Which leads me to "Thirdly:"
This isn't some benevolent father-knows-best program that requires nations to get behind it 100 percent. It's beneficial to nations and people who want to use it. It's not about forcing nations to educate, it's about creating a library so that people who wish to can educate themselves. It's not just about people who have "problems" with education, it's about the betterment of education in general. And this program has a lot of benefits because it's specifically laid out as opposed to created in a nations head. Roleplay has its limits, you can't say you have a credible Internet database connecting all nations if you don't have it organized with those other nations.

Which brings me back to the Internet as a source of knowledge. I'm not trying to compete with the internet here, rather I'm using the Internet as the basis to establish the resolution. You talk about how the Internet is a continually growing wealth of information. I don't have any reason to refute this, as I'm talking about making that source of knowledge GROW, faster and with a somewhat appalling lack of spam advertisements.

We just wanted to make it clear at the outset that we're talking about equipment, software, and personnel costs in the neighborhood of millions of dollars per site.

That's fine, if by "per site" you mean the national server. Nations don't have to build a new server for every library, just the capability to store on that singular national server. Also, most nations already have a lot of this stuff. It's still not that expensive, and we do make exceptions for nations that can't afford it.


Our interpretation is that this measure brings three changes:

1) Sharing of physical books across national boundaries, which we have argued against from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.

Not required, sometimes cost-effective, a good way to share information. From just a cost-effectiveness standpoint, this still works.

2) Internet publishing, which we have argued against from a standpoint of redundancy, conflict with the free market, and intellectual property rights (to tie in the arguments elsewhere with Mousebumple, which also apply here).

Copyright Laws (the Universal Copyright/Patent Laws, to be precise) are upheld, as are fair use agreements. Because of this, it doesn't conflict with a free market. As a matter of fact, a free market would never imply any restrictions on internet publishing.

3) The museum addendum, which we haven't bothered to argue about on the basis that if 1 and 2 don't fly, the museum doesn't happen either.

The Museum's a full side-project, it's not dependent upon 1 and 2 at all.

Finally, the ULN is also devoted to a bit more than the straw man you're setting up. It's about spreading both literature and information, not just "Internet Publishing".

We interpret the theme of Pojonia's arguments of support for this measure to center around freedom of choice, particularly a government and a people's choice to exploit this initiative if they so choose.
Exploit? No, utilize. But yes, freedom of choice is important.

But this is in direct conflict with the nature of the United Nations, which forces compliance with all resolutions.
It's not in conflict with the nature of the U.N., and saying that doesn't mean that it's a bad resolution. This forces compliance in creating an Internet system that everyone has the option of using. It's not a conflict, and just because it ALLOWS for national sovereignty doesn't mean it's in conflict with the U.N. See "The National Sovereignty Coalition" for more opinions on this.

And, indeed, this measure does not allow for nations to opt out. It does allow loopholes for nations to skirt the requirements and violate the spirit of the law without violating the letter of it. But given the choice, Cabinia would simply allow the Internet to continue to grow and provide all the things this resolution attempts to achieve.
Again, this resolution is using the Internet and contributing to its growth, not opposing it, and the "loopholes" you say are there are either purposeful or non-existent.

In addition, there has been mention of the fact that some nations are not technologically advanced and have not joined the Internet. To them I say that doing so would be infinitely more cost-effective than participating in the UL scheme, for two reasons. First, they would have to have some sort of national network anyway in order to fully exploit the UL. Secondly, it would not have to be paid for by government funds. Cabinia is one of many nations with a robust information technology sector which would be happy to open for business in other lands. In this scenario, the companies of Cabinia would readily provide the initial capital necessary to bring those nations up to speed.
If you're willing to do that, you can certainly fund another nations informational servers. I placed no restrictions on where the national server had to be located, or who had to fund it. Again, it's not "infinitely more cost-effective" than using the Internet, because it is using the Internet.

I told you this isn't an issue, that it's a worthless technicality, but you didn't believe me. Fine.

Firstly:
Public:not private; open to or concerning the people as a whole. (Princeton Wordnet)
In order for a library to be open to or concerning the people as a whole AND ALSO be free, the people would have to be able to access it if they felt the need. That's why I chose the word "public". If it's on an offshore oil rig, they'd have to get a boat, and the people as a whole cannot always afford one of those.

If you want to draw someone into a semantics debate, then you should avoid the first sin of semantics: equivocation. You provided the definion of the adjective form of the word (ie. public library) but you used it in noun form in the resolution ("the public"). The definition of "public" as you used it is: "1: people in general considered as a whole". If the people in general as a whole are not barred from entering, then the place is "open to the public."

Secondly:
The U.N. doesn't have to worry about the enforcement of a resolution. Nations are required to take care of that themselves, no dodging allowed except when there actually is a gaping hole. No one would believe a U.N. member was upholding the resolution if that nation said "Well, It said the library had to be free, not access to the location. It doesn't work that way, you're just trying to tear the proposal apart on a triviality.

People are not charged a fee for entering, so it is free. People are not barred from entering during working hours, so it is open to the public. The letter of the law is obeyed. I don't understand the difficulty with this concept; it seems pretty straightforward to me.


Which leads me to "Thirdly:"
This isn't some benevolent father-knows-best program that requires nations to get behind it 100 percent. It's beneficial to nations and people who want to use it. It's not about forcing nations to educate, it's about creating a library so that people who wish to can educate themselves. It's not just about people who have "problems" with education, it's about the betterment of education in general.

Like-minded nations could voluntarily build such a thing without involving the UN. With UN involvement, no nation has the opportunity to opt out.

And this program has a lot of benefits because it's specifically laid out as opposed to created in a nations head. Roleplay has its limits, you can't say you have a credible Internet database connecting all nations if you don't have it organized with those other nations.

The Internet is not organized, and that's one of its great strengths.

Which brings me back to the Internet as a source of knowledge. I'm not trying to compete with the internet here, rather I'm using the Internet as the basis to establish the resolution. You talk about how the Internet is a continually growing wealth of information. I don't have any reason to refute this, as I'm talking about making that source of knowledge GROW, faster and with a somewhat appalling lack of spam advertisements.

Advertisements make the Internet grow, because they provide a business value for providing content. You propose to provide content without a revenue stream to accompany it. You're devaluing the Internet from a business perspective, and discouraging it from growth.

That's fine, if by "per site" you mean the national server. Nations don't have to build a new server for every library, just the capability to store on that singular national server. Also, most nations already have a lot of this stuff. It's still not that expensive, and we do make exceptions for nations that can't afford it.

But, once again, we're still talking about a single national site. And if you intend that nations should truly exploit this opportunity, then a single site isn't going to cut it.

I've given the matter to our technology advisors to see what it would take if we wanted to really take advantage of this. Speculation on the amount of storage it would require to provide all the material produced in Cabinia alone was impossible to estimate, but the word "exabytes" was used. One thing that could be estimated, however, was the bandwidth that it would require. Assuming a T3 connection to the national system, which is the fastest connection that is readily available/affordable, assuming that all the books or what have you have been broken down into chapter-sized chunks, and that there are no pictures, so the files average 5k, then the network traffic would max out at 9000 hits per second. Cabinia's population is a highly-educated, Internet-connected body of nearly 2 billion people. A national resource such as this, if it caught on and gained popularity as the first place people go for information, could easily have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people trying to use it at the same time during peak hours. And this is just within our own borders.

We do not believe we are exceptional in this situation.


Not required, sometimes cost-effective, a good way to share information. From just a cost-effectiveness standpoint, this still works.

Copyright Laws (the Universal Copyright/Patent Laws, to be precise) are upheld, as are fair use agreements. Because of this, it doesn't conflict with a free market. As a matter of fact, a free market would never imply any restrictions on internet publishing.

etc.

I feel like I'm in Monty Python's argument clinic sketch. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, not the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. In other words, make your case.

If you're willing to do that, you can certainly fund another nations informational servers. I placed no restrictions on where the national server had to be located, or who had to fund it. Again, it's not "infinitely more cost-effective" than using the Internet, because it is using the Internet.

It looks like Cabinia would have all it can do to afford its own servers for the UL. But the Internet costs us nothing but our own access fees and the costs to host and publish our own government information.

If you want to draw someone into a semantics debate, then you should avoid the first sin of semantics: equivocation. You provided the definion of the adjective form of the word (ie. public library) but you used it in noun form in the resolution ("the public"). The definition of "public" as you used it is: "1: people in general considered as a whole". If the people in general as a whole are not barred from entering, then the place is "open to the public."

People are not charged a fee for entering, so it is free. People are not barred from entering during working hours, so it is open to the public. The letter of the law is obeyed. I don't understand the difficulty with this concept; it seems pretty straightforward to me.

It's used as an adjective in the resolution. Maybe if you read it, you'd have a better time arguing its detriments.




Like-minded nations could voluntarily build such a thing without involving the UN. With UN involvement, no nation has the opportunity to opt out.

A) Such a thing wouldn't be as involved with other nations and wouldn't cover as large a scope of information and literature.
B) Nations do have the option to opt out, the requirement is that they provide input and one access point.
C) The resolution is doing what like-minded nations can do. It brings it to the table, gives it importance, and does it properly. Like I said, roleplay has limits.


The Internet is not organized, and that's one of its great strengths.

This resolution is an organized extension of the internet, and that's one of it's great strengths.


Advertisements make the Internet grow, because they provide a business value for providing content. You propose to provide content without a revenue stream to accompany it. You're devaluing the Internet from a business perspective, and discouraging it from growth.

Nonsense. This isn't competing with the internet, it's supporting the Internet by buying content space. We're not trying to get rid of spam advertisements, we're just creating a place where people can get information without it. This isn't going to discourage the growth of the Internet. It's not that strong a resolution.

But, once again, we're still talking about a single national site. And if you intend that nations should truly exploit this opportunity, then a single site isn't going to cut it.

Which is why you can desingnate more than one, or just allow internet access from any citizen portal. The library is an input node, a place to store literature contained within it.


I've given the matter to our technology advisors to see what it would take if we wanted to really take advantage of this. Speculation on the amount of storage it would require to provide all the material produced in Cabinia alone was impossible to estimate, but the word "exabytes" was used. One thing that could be estimated, however, was the bandwidth that it would require. Assuming a T3 connection to the national system, which is the fastest connection that is readily available/affordable, assuming that all the books or what have you have been broken down into chapter-sized chunks, and that there are no pictures, so the files average 5k, then the network traffic would max out at 9000 hits per second. Cabinia's population is a highly-educated, Internet-connected body of nearly 2 billion people. A national resource such as this, if it caught on and gained popularity as the first place people go for information, could easily have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people trying to use it at the same time during peak hours. And this is just within our own borders.

We do not believe we are exceptional in this situation.

Keep in mind that you're sharing servers with 37,000 other nations as a part of a network, and that "all the material produced in Cabinia" is not required or wanted.

That being said, you've got a pretty good point here about that part of the resolution. I'll think this over. Would you have any suggestions as to how to reduce such a problem?


I feel like I'm in Monty Python's argument clinic sketch. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, not the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. In other words, make your case.

I made it. Copyright laws are upheld, the resolutions still a pretty decent idea.

I have to admit, I find it quite disheartening to see that the biggest uproar/debate/disagreement that i have seen in these UN forums so far is over a vanity project. If such efforts were put towards proposals to alleviate global poverty and suffering I believe we would now be living in a better world.

If we must have a global library, can we just do it already? Virtual, physical, imaginary, subterrranean, ephereal or in leaflet form, I don't care anymore

Stop squabbling. Stop trying to steal the spotlight. Just hurry up and do something worthwhile.

And now that I have annoyed enough people, I shall retire. Good night.

It's used as an adjective in the resolution. Maybe if you read it, you'd have a better time arguing its detriments.

A definition of the word:

Main Entry: 1pub·lic
Pronunciation: 'p&-blik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English publique, from Middle French, from Latin publicus; akin to Latin populus the people
1 a : exposed to general view : OPEN b : WELL-KNOWN, PROMINENT c : PERCEPTIBLE, MATERIAL
2 a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law> b : of or relating to a government c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation
3 a : of or relating to people in general : UNIVERSAL b : GENERAL, POPULAR
4 : of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : SOCIAL
5 : devoted to the general or national welfare : HUMANITARIAN
6 a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community b : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market -- often used with go
- pub·lic·ness noun

Even the one that agrees with you includes an "or" in it. I have yet to see you have a case on your definition of "public." It would help if you used a bit of knowledge of words when making your arguement.

A) Such a thing wouldn't be as involved with other nations and wouldn't cover as large a scope of information and literature.
B) Nations do have the option to opt out, the requirement is that they provide input and one access point.
C) The resolution is doing what like-minded nations can do. It brings it to the table, gives it importance, and does it properly. Like I said, roleplay has limits.

If it does it properly, then why are you having problems getting support from it? Keep in mind I argued on the last one as well.

This resolution is an organized extension of the internet, and that's one of it's great strengths.

Those are called "websites" in some countries. Those are also easier to use. Try establishing one of them instead of wasting all of the time and money your proposal does.

It's used as an adjective in the resolution. Maybe if you read it, you'd have a better time arguing its detriments.

And yet, you explained the requirement in this way: "It's a requirement that it has to be free and open to the public." See post 28. Don't expect me to go back and catch you whenever you misquote yourself.

Nonsense. This isn't competing with the internet, it's supporting the Internet by buying content space. We're not trying to get rid of spam advertisements, we're just creating a place where people can get information without it. This isn't going to discourage the growth of the Internet. It's not that strong a resolution.

Keep in mind that you're sharing servers with 37,000 other nations as a part of a network, and that "all the material produced in Cabinia" is not required or wanted.

If you don't want the material, and you're not superceding a huge portion of Internet content, then please explain how that attitude is consistent with your implied purpose ("RECOGNIZING the pragmatic weaknesses of a physical storage house for all the worlds knowledge,"), and your partner's stated purpose ("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.") of building a massive, all-inclusive repository for knowledge.

That being said, you've got a pretty good point here about that part of the resolution. I'll think this over. Would you have any suggestions as to how to reduce such a problem?

The best solution is the one I've supported all along: let the Internet work this out for itself. The only way to make the UL fly from a technological standpoint would be to make it a distributed system, with a site in every major city (and some not so major ones). We estimate it would require a hundred sites in Cabinia to make it the success you hope for in your best-case scenario, and remember previous cost estimates of $1-2M per site per year.

I made it. Copyright laws are upheld, the resolutions still a pretty decent idea.

No it isn't.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
.. ad nauseam

If you don't want the material, and you're not superceding a huge portion of Internet content, then please explain how that attitude is consistent with your implied purpose ("RECOGNIZING the pragmatic weaknesses of a physical storage house for all the worlds knowledge,"),

Are you paying any attention at all? That clause specifically recognizes that you can't store all the worlds knowledge. It doesn't state my implied purpose.


No it isn't.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
.. ad nauseam
I specifically cited, in the resolution, that libraries had to respect universal copyright law, and suggested that they uphold fair use agreements. I don't see how "No it isn't" has any grounds to step on.

That being said, I'm still considering your point.

Doing a bit of research on bandwidth costs, I'd say you have me buggered. Letting this work itself out without a resolution does seem a fine solution - something we're moving towards anyways - and I've already explored most of the other "Global Library" options. Plus, I don't think I can massively restructure this thing again without killing it. Apparently, "the interest of establishing a new global library proposal" is dead.

If I find another way of doing this, I'll let everyone know, but I think those who want to hold to the project would better spend their time moving the interest to the Literary Museum and a few of the other side clauses - a central structure or organization just fails pragmatically no matter how you try it, and nations next to each other who want to have the other benefits can go ahead and do it themselves. The U.N. doesn't need to be involved at all.

Cabinia, DemonLordEnigma, thank you for your additional correspondence and criticism. I only wish it had come earlier. I think I need to retreat from the forums for now, they serve as a devastating waste of time for me.



Oh, yes. One more thing.

Graaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahSUCKAGE!

I feel slightly better now. Slightly.

Stick around. One bad proposal idea isn't enough to get a bad opinion of you. It happens. At least with the forums, you can get the idea worked on and dealt with before you evert submit it.

I know it's been awhile since the posts relevant to my potential proposal were posted, but I'm going to do some gravedigging and bring them up again anyhow. However, for the sake of continuity, I've cross-posted them, as well, to the Global/Universal Library Coalition thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=398408). The specific thread with my responses to TilEnca and DLE can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8291607&postcount=74). Thanks so much to both of you for your constructive comments. Anything you (or anyone else) has to share is greatly appreciated. :D

Though I've not weighed in, my government would like to compliament the governments that are actively involved in this process. Running polls and working together is exactly what the UN is about, and for that your governments are highly thought of in the Confederated City States.