NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal has been put forward on behalf of the region of Corinth, and reads as follows:

Concerned about the potential devastation wrought by nuclear disasters,

Noting that these disasters will inevitably have consequences beyond the borders of the nation where the disaster occurs,

Recognising, however, the reliance of many nations on nuclear-power,


The UN hereby establishes the International Nuclear Assessment Agency (INAA).

This body will be given the power to inspect the nuclear facilities of all member states for the purpose of ensuring sound practices within these facilities, and the reliability of the facilities themselves. Member states will be informed of inspections two weeks in advance.

The INAA will have the following powers:

- to access any nuclear facility of a member state after giving two weeks notice
- to conduct a thorough inspection of said facility, its staff, and any documentation pertaining to its operation
- to make recommendations to the member state and/ or operator of the facility regarding any aspect of the facility’s operation
- to make a full post-investigation report on the safety or otherwise of a facility, the contents of which will be made freely available to the public

The INAA will NOT have the power to suspend or terminate operations at a facility, though it may recommend this. The hope is that the International community will secure compliance with INAA recommendations by other diplomatic or economic means in the event of a member state possessing an unreliable nuclear facility.

We believe this will contribute to world security without hampering energy production significantly. The idea is for the INAA to act as a tool for the creation of a transparent International nuclear energy industry, and not an enforcement agency in its own right.

A good idea, I think. It could do with a bit of UN-ification with the wording perhaps, but this is certainly an issue that transcends national boundaries. Well worth the effort, in my view

As builders of a burgeoning nuclear industry, we are supportive of this proposal and think that it would definitely assist in the generation of safe, clean power. We would like to suggest that in addition to that which has been written above, a department of this agency be responsible for the safe disposal of dangerous radioactive waste. What do you think of that idea?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

This is a brilliant idea. I agree that it should be expanded so that the agency also examines waste processing and disposal. One other thing - when you say "nuclear facilities" it doesn't differentiate between power plants and nuclear warhead storage/production/launching facilities. I think this ought to be about power plants (if we want weapons inspectors, that's a matter to be dealt with separately) - and so I'd recommend talking about "power plants obtaining usable energy via fission or fusion" (usable energy rather than electricity because some nations role-playing different technologies might run on something else, and because it would be feasible to use a nuclear power plant simply to heat water and then, rather than generating electricity by having the resultant steam drive a turbine, instead use the steam for a heating system for something).

As builders of a burgeoning nuclear industry, we are supportive of this proposal and think that it would definitely assist in the generation of safe, clean power. We would like to suggest that in addition to that which has been written above, a department of this agency be responsible for the safe disposal of dangerous radioactive waste. What do you think of that idea?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

This is an excellent suggestion, and one I wish I'd thought of earlier. Unfortunately I was distracted by the urge to keep the Bill as short and concise as possible, but this would have been easy to attach and would have enhanced the proposal greatly.

In any case, the proposal seems destined to fail for lack of support, so perhaps it can be re-written to include this suggestion at a future date.

Thanks to all for the insightful comments.

If/when you do redraft, post a copy of the forum before you submit, so other nations can offer advice and constructive criticism. It's one of the best ways to refine a proposal.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel really like this proposal as it seems to us the best way to avoid future tchernobyl like events. We approved it

If the proposition doesn't reach quorum this time, we hope the author will resubmit it again.

The RunnyNose Tribe, maybe you know the following already, but i prefer to say it, as i myself made the error not so long ago:
The best timing of the day to submit a proposition is soon after 9AM GMT, once you are sure that the server had been updated (proposition deleted, UN rankings updated)
=> your proposition will get the maximum of available hours to reach quorum and also will be displayed 24 hours on the 1st proposal page

ps: just a question by curiosity, i will support your proposition in both cases:
Are nuclear reactors powering nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines included?

Are nuclear reactors powering nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines included?
I would hope not.

It will probably cause some complexities to the text, but a distinction should be made regarding nuclear reactors used as power sources on military crafts.

On the other hand, civilian ships using nuclear reactors should fall within the mandate of the INAA.

The original remit of the INAA was to cover only the operations of large civil reactors used for nations' main energy production.

However, other good suggestions have included a power to inspect procedures for the disposal of dangerous radioactive waste, and now generators used in civil carriers.

My personal feeling is that broadening the remit to include military reactors would reduce support significantly, meaning no agency whatsoever.

Better to get the civil agency established, and then if desirable look at something for the military, bearing in mind that this would be a much harder, more sensitive round of negotiations.

My personal feeling is that broadening the remit to include military reactors would reduce support significantly, meaning no agency whatsoever.

Better to get the civil agency established, and then if desirable look at something for the military, bearing in mind that this would be a much harder, more sensitive round of negotiations.

you make a good point, i fully agree with you

I agree, but this stuff needs to be set out clearly in the proposal.

How about giving the INAA jurisdiction over the following:

"1. Nuclear power plants, which obtain usable energy via fission or fusion, of the following types:
- those intended to remain fixed in one place
- those built in non-military vehicles
2. Facilities and vehicles for the transport, processing, and disposal of radioactive waste products from nuclear reactors"

One other issue occurs to me. What about spacecraft fitted with nuclear reactors? Obviously, we want to inspect these where practical, and the INAA will need some power to insist that a craft remains "in port" while they inspect it, and possibly to call in craft for regular check-ups (much like cars have to be taken for regular checks to ensure they comply with safety regulations, at least in the UK). On the other hand, there are some craft for which this is impractical. Craft undergoing long-term journeys, or one way colonisation trips, cannot be called in at the INAA's whim. I'd suggest qualifying the right to hold inspections with some kind of restriction concerning vehicles, but I'm not sure how to phrase this.

My personal feeling is that broadening the remit to include military reactors would reduce support significantly, meaning no agency whatsoever.

Better to get the civil agency established, and then if desirable look at something for the military, bearing in mind that this would be a much harder, more sensitive round of negotiations.
If this was meant as a reply to me, then I must clarify that I wasn't suggesting that this proposal should cover military reactors. Rather, my point was that military use of nuclear power should be excluded from the terms of this proposal, exactly as you said. The proposal draft you initially posted lacked such a definition.

- Myopia; I agree that these points should be set out clearly. I think we'll get the chance to do this as the proposal (as it now stands) looks set to fail for lack of support.

Like you, I've also been thinking about how to legislate for inspections on ships and other civil carriers without disrupting their journeys, and therefore their business. One way would be to set a standard for inspections, for example once every 3rd year of operation. That way businesses would be able to figure the inspections into the vessel's schedule beforehand.

- Tavast-Carelia; We're thinking along the same lines. My answer was in response to Love and esterel's query about nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. I hadn't considered the application of the proposal to the military before, so I was just wondering out loud.

From the quality of responses we should be able to put together a comprehensive, coherent Proposal. I only wonder about getting the necessary number of supporters; I'm hoping that Regional Delegates are holding back until the proposal is re-written, but maybe the support just isn't there.

- Myopia; I agree that these points should be set out clearly. I think we'll get the chance to do this as the proposal (as it now stands) looks set to fail for lack of support.

Like you, I've also been thinking about how to legislate for inspections on ships and other civil carriers without disrupting their journeys, and therefore their business. One way would be to set a standard for inspections, for example once every 3rd year of operation. That way businesses would be able to figure the inspections into the vessel's schedule beforehand.

- Tavast-Carelia; We're thinking along the same lines. My answer was in response to Love and esterel's query about nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. I hadn't considered the application of the proposal to the military before, so I was just wondering out loud.

From the quality of responses we should be able to put together a comprehensive, coherent Proposal. I only wonder about getting the necessary number of supporters; I'm hoping that Regional Delegates are holding back until the proposal is re-written, but maybe the support just isn't there.

When your proposal is polished enough that _Myopia_ is willing to support it fully, then just contact me and I'll give you some tips on arranging for more Delegate support.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

The RunnyNose Tribe, one thing important you can do is to save a html page before you proposition is deleted
=> you will be able to send a polite telegram to all those delegate who approved it the first time to inform them when you will have resubmit it

Good idea! Thanks.

As one of the biggest users and exporters of uranium in the world, LA Ice fully supports this proposal.

- Myopia; I agree that these points should be set out clearly. I think we'll get the chance to do this as the proposal (as it now stands) looks set to fail for lack of support.

Like you, I've also been thinking about how to legislate for inspections on ships and other civil carriers without disrupting their journeys, and therefore their business. One way would be to set a standard for inspections, for example once every 3rd year of operation. That way businesses would be able to figure the inspections into the vessel's schedule beforehand.

Setting one regular time period may not really be the best bet. For starters, different types of reactors would probably need different levels of attention - very small ones with little radioactive material and little potential destructive force (I don't know if any nations are RPing mini nuclear reactor technology) would need less attention since they pose less of a threat, and more advanced reactor technology might be deemed to be much safer and in less need of regular checks. Additionally, you'd want to take into account the fact that different vessels have different trip lengths. For instance, nobody who had not devised faster-than-light travel could ever reach another solar system if their nuclear powered exploration or colony ship had to return to a base with an INAA presence every 3 years.

I reckon what we need is a brainstorm. If everyone thinks about the different reactors that might need inspection, and suggests any issues they can think of, then we can get a good handle on how many different situations need dealing with. If there are lots of situations, it might be easiest to lay down a general principle or tell the INAA to set regulations within certain basic limitations. If there are only a couple of problematic scenarios, we could lay out specifics for each.

As for support, as TH says there are good ways to gain delegate support for a proposal - and advice will be available.

Here's a list of scenarios so far:

- fixed position reactors in easily accessible places

- remote or inaccessible fixed position reactors, e.g. on lunar/martian colonies or space stations (thinking in terms of very near-future tech here) - if built here then transported, they can be inspected first - if built in situ, then I guess parts and plans can be inspected and we may have to trust that nations will adhere to plans agreed in advance. Maybe requirements that nuclear safety experts be on hand (e.g. one or two of the colonists have to be trained in reactor maintenance)

- reactors on craft which can easily be inspected regularly

- reactors on craft on one-way trips - again, perhaps just inspect before launch and require that some of the crew be trained?

- reactors on craft on long trips - they could be inspected regularly, but not frequently?

- reactors on craft on long trips - they could be inspected regularly, but not frequently?
A possible regulation for this could be along the lines of "every three years, or for crafts unreachable for a period of more than three years, when-ever an inspection is possible."

"Setting one regular time period may not really be the best bet"

-The 3-year-standard is just an arbitrary example. The general point was that static reactors can be subject to inspection at any time (after notice). Mobile reactors will need more flexible rules which take into account journey times, accessibility, and size/ output of the reactor.

On the other hand, I don't think operators should be given too much leeway due to their craft being used for long journeys. The main issue is the output of the reactor, which as you said goes to the scale of the potential disaster. One way round the inconvenience to long-journey vessels might be to offer a window rather than a set date, i.e. "every craft must be made available for inspection every _th year between the months of _ and _".

"it might be easiest to lay down a general principle or tell the INAA to set regulations within certain basic limitations."

-I think this is best. Two or three very general categories plus authorisation for the INAA to create new categories as new nuclear technologies emerge.

Perhaps the following?

The INAA gets the power to inspect fixed plants whenever they feel appropriate, as long as they are able to send inspectors (the nation doesn't have to provide transport but can't obstruct access either?) and they don't disrupt the legitimate running of the plant.

Reactors which are to be sent on one-way journeys to inaccessible places (e.g. space colonies, colony spacecraft) are to be inspected before leaving, as will plans for their maintenance, and must be accompanied by a sufficient number (as agreed by the INAA and the nation of origin) of individuals able to maintain the reactor.

The INAA will recruit nuclear safety experts to consult with the governments of nations where nuclear-powered non-military vehicles are used and agreements will be reached concerning the appropriate regimes of regular mandatory inspections for various types of vehicle. Vehicles of a similar type and with similar usage patterns must be subject to similar inspection regimes throughout the UN.

If you need any help in a TG campaign of UN delegates, just contact me and I'll be willing to help advertise this proposal.

Thanks CR.

-Myopia; the space issue is interesting and I confess I hadn't considered it before. Your suggestion for one-way journeys is sound. More difficult would be nuclear-powered space-craft returning to Earth's atmosphere! Imagine; space-shuttle disaster + chernobyl !! It wouldn't really be feasible to have craft wait in orbit for an inspection. Probably we could build on your idea of requiring experts on these craft; these people could be required to do safety checks before re-entry, and submit these records to the INAA on landing.

Remember, some nations are very technologically advanced - for them, launch and re-entry for nuclear spacecraft might be as mundane as pulling our cars out of their drives is for us.

When I did Open Skies (which never reached quorum), I got round the problem of inspection by specifying that interplanetary commercial craft (so not private or military) must undergo a full inspection before take off and after landing.

The only issue, to me, is where technology is so advanced that interplanetary hops are equivalent to going to the next town - we'd never require that cargo lorries pass a safety inspection before every single trip between warehouse and shop.

On the other hand, very thorough inspections are performed in for instance modern railroad locomotives before every trip, regardless of the lenght. Admittedly, those inspections are carried out by the trains staff themselves... which brings up the point, could the resolution give spacecraft staff the rights to perform the required inspections themselves (after proper training, of course)?

Remember, some nations are very technologically advanced - for them, launch and re-entry for nuclear spacecraft might be as mundane as pulling our cars out of their drives is for us.
In that case their crews would be familiar with safety practices, and the procedure would be as routine as filling in a simple form for them.

OK, how about this for a start?

-Preamble...

Perplexed by...Amazed at...Sick and tired of...etc etc...

The UN hereby establishes the International Nuclear Assessment Agency (INAA).

This body will be given authority to inspect all civil nuclear reactors of member states, or to delegate this task to appropriately trained persons of member states where this is practical, for the purpose of ensuring safe procedures surrounding the generation of nuclear power.

1.

a) The INAA will exercise jurisdiction over the following:

- Category 1; Static, operational nuclear reactors.

- Category 2; Mobile, operational nuclear reactors (including space-vessels).

- Category 3; Non-operational nuclear reactors (including those destined for transit).

- Category 4; Facilities and vehicles for the transport, processing, and disposal of radioactive waste products from nuclear reactors.

b) The INAA will not exercise jurisdiction over nuclear reactors designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation - see Annex A (definitions).

These are the broad categories, which I think are workable. From here we can work out a separate regime for each category. Suggestions?

I don't think the distinction between operational and non-operational ought to be made here. The important distinction, which ought to be made in the section describing the regulations, is really whether something is going to be operational in an inaccessible place.

I'd also like to ask that "nuclear reactors" be replaced by my original suggestion "nuclear power plants, which obtain usable energy via fission or fusion". This both covers the whole power plant and not just the reactor, which I feel to be important, and defines what kinds of "nuclear" we are talking about.

EDIT: Oh, and I reckon the military exemption should only apply to mobile reactors, otherwise there might be issues defining military so that the INAA can still look at power plants which happen to be supplying military bases. We'll still be able to exempt military vehicles and I suppose portable reactors to use in field bases.

You're right; 'power plants' is better. I did wonder about the 'non-operational' category too; it probably isn't necessary for reactors being shuttled off to space-colonies. It might be useful to leave it for de-commissioned nuclear power-plants though.

The military exemption for static nuclear power plants is necessary cover smaller reactors at bases used for emergency back-up power and the like. Nations might fairly conclude that providing international access to these would be adverse to national security.

Of course, where a plant provides power for both civilian and military use, the plant will be defined as 'civil' for the purposes of the legislation, regardless of its location and the ratio of energy allocation between civilian/ military.

I did wonder about the 'non-operational' category too; it probably isn't necessary for reactors being shuttled off to space-colonies. It might be useful to leave it for de-commissioned nuclear power-plants though.

I'd try and include them in the waste portion - since they ought to be disposed of safely similarly to waste from the reactors. How about this:

"- Category 4; Facilities and vehicles for the transport, storage, processing, and disposal of radioactive waste products and decommissioned components from nuclear power plants."

As one of the biggest users and exporters of uranium in the world, LA Ice fully supports this proposal.

<Looks at LA Ice's nation>

Really? I think there are many many nations bigger my friend. Such as Hirota. Indeed, Hirota feels LA Ice should evaluate it's position as a major user, and relabel themselves "small fish"

Anyway back on track, I hope people don't mind if I UNify the draft and add my own spin on this?

Endorses the establishment of the International Nuclear Assessment Agency (INAA), with the mandate of ensuring safe procedures surrounding the generation of nuclear power, and the management of nuclear fuel.

Delegates the responsibility of inspecting all civil nuclear reactors of member states to this organisation, and appropiately trained representatives of this organisation.

Assigns specific and explicit jurisdiction to the INAA over the following:
- Category 1; Static, operational nuclear reactors.
- Category 2; Mobile, operational nuclear reactors (including space-vessels).
- Category 3; Non-operational nuclear reactors (including those destined for transit).
- Category 4; Facilities and vehicles for the transport, processing, and disposal of radioactive waste products from nuclear reactors.

b) The INAA will not exercise jurisdiction over nuclear reactors designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation - see Annex A (definitions).

Urges member states to contribute best practices regarding the management of nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel to the INAA for consideration.

I'd like to suggest something about the INAA making recommendations to member states about the improvement of their nuclear management, such as training, buildings and safety procedures, but I suspect space is at a premium.

By the way, I was under the impression that the draft that The RunnyNose Tribe posted was not for the whole of the resolution, but just for establishing jurisdiction - isn't there more to come concerning specific regulations for each category?

Been away for a few days.

A bit more expansion:

The UN hereby establishes the International Nuclear Assessment Agency (INAA).

This body will be given authority to inspect all civil nuclear reactors of member states, or to delegate this task to appropriately trained persons of member states where this is practical, for the purpose of ensuring safe procedures surrounding the generation of nuclear power.

1. Jurisdiction.

(a) The INAA will exercise jurisdiction over the following:

- Category 1; Static, operational nuclear reactors.

- Category 2; Mobile, operational nuclear reactors (including space-vessels).

- Category 3; Facilities and vehicles for the transport, storage, processing, and disposal of radioactive waste products and decommissioned components from nuclear power plants.

(b) The INAA will not exercise jurisdiction over nuclear reactors designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation - see Annex A (definitions).


2. Powers.

(a) The INAA is delegated the following general powers:

- to conduct inspections of the facilities within section 1 (a), the practices and procedures pertaining to their operation, and any documentation relevant thereto.

- to make recommendations to the member state and/ or operator of the facility regarding any aspect of the facility’s operation.

- to make a full post-investigation report on the safety or otherwise of a facility, the contents of which will be made freely available to the public.

- to train non-INAA personnel in all the procedures and techniques of the INAA, and to act as the sole body of accreditation for such personnel.

- to delegate any of the powers and resultant responsibilities held by the INAA to accredited non-INAA personnel.

The general powers can be exercised in relation to any of the categories in 1(a), so now we need to lay down the category-specific powers which deal with the differences in power plants as discussed earlier in this thread.

this idea certainly has more merit now the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act has passed.

more and more nations will be using nuclear power and probally a lot quicker than they'd planned too.

if the FFRA remains in place this will be essential.

I would agree with keeping military facilities separate if they only generate energy for military purposes.

my main concern is other countries thinking that the UN is sticking its nose into their business yet again. If this can be addressed we will have a workable proposal.

this idea certainly has more merit now the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act has passed.

more and more nations will be using nuclear power and probally a lot quicker than they'd planned too.

if the FFRA remains in place this will be essential.

I would agree with keeping military facilities separate if they only generate energy for military purposes.

my main concern is other countries thinking that the UN is sticking its nose into their business yet again. If this can be addressed we will have a workable proposal.

If the investigative body has no power to shut down or mothball any reactors, but instead only powers to investigate and report, then I have no problem with it, as it can't be used as a political weapon by one nation against another.

agreed in principle

If the investigative body has no power to shut down or mothball any reactors, but instead only powers to investigate and report, then I have no problem with it, as it can't be used as a political weapon by one nation against another.

I forgot to put that bit in the updated version, but this will be explicit in the final draft.

All the INAA do is provide post-inspection advice to operators of nuclear power plants and information to UN member states and their publics. Nations will be unable to conceal leaky reactors and the international community will be able to react with sanctions, diplomacy, aid, or whatever seems appropriate in the circumstances. This allows for a much more flexible approach than if the INAA had been designated an enforcement agency.

I forgot to put that bit in the updated version, but this will be explicit in the final draft.

All the INAA do is provide post-inspection advice to operators of nuclear power plants and information to UN member states and their publics. Nations will be unable to conceal leaky reactors and the international community will be able to react with sanctions, diplomacy, aid, or whatever seems appropriate in the circumstances. This allows for a much more flexible approach than if the INAA had been designated an enforcement agency.

How will the INAA be set up? Who will sit on it and how will it be able to come in to a nation to do the inspection? How will you ensure the independence of the INAA when they do inspections?

Basically my fear is this (and please don't take offence at what I am about to suggest, cause I am not aiming it at you) :-

If a nation that dislikes me sits on the INAA, would they be able to come in, find faults in my reactors and then badmouth me to the rest of the UN so I am totally isolated and unable to conduct any business? Cause I'd rather that not happen :}

How will the INAA be set up? Who will sit on it and how will it be able to come in to a nation to do the inspection? How will you ensure the independence of the INAA when they do inspections?

Basically my fear is this (and please don't take offence at what I am about to suggest, cause I am not aiming it at you) :-

If a nation that dislikes me sits on the INAA, would they be able to come in, find faults in my reactors and then badmouth me to the rest of the UN so I am totally isolated and unable to conduct any business? Cause I'd rather that not happen :}
I wouldn't worry about that because the UN proposal rules state that all committees "are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I guess this proposal is better then the Nuclear disarmin proposal that says if you have more then 1000 nukes to send 100 a year to the garbage lol. What if our kids got ahold of them. lol

I wouldn't worry about that because the UN proposal rules state that all committees "are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Then my happyness is complete :}

If a nation that dislikes me sits on the INAA, would they be able to come in, find faults in my reactors and then badmouth me to the rest of the UN so I am totally isolated and unable to conduct any business? Cause I'd rather that not happen :}

Their report would have to contain very specific facts and figures detailing the problem. If these were untrue the nation being 'stitched up' could have an independent third-party (probably another UN member) come and verify the figures with its own experts.

The UN would want to ensure the INAA operated fairly as any incidents of political bias of the kind you describe would harm its credibility. INAA personnel also have their credibility (and jobs) to think about.

It's a good point you raise though, and needs to be addressed. Perhaps the INAA can be made accountable to the General Council, required to give bi-annual reports, and its committee liable to be called before the UN for questioning at any time. That way all UN members can ensure fairness.

Remember, the INAA just does inspection and advice. Nothing it says is binding on the rest of the UN or international community, and individual nations can follow up on INAA inspections by asking questions of their own through diplomatic channels. As the INAA isn't an enforcement agency, there won't be any pronouncements of 'guilty' or 'innocent', just opinion and recommendations. A member nation can always refute the INAA's conclusions. In cases where the INAA states that small improvements should be made, a member state could disagree without there being much effect on its international trade. Where a reactor is seriously dangerous though, this will trigger a response from other UN members when they hear the report, and the issue will be settled quickly one way or the other. If the report is untrue this should be easily verified.

I would also point out that nations will benefit from the INAA's free, expert advice regarding their nuclear industries, so this will be a value-adding piece of legislation. If nations are producing and managing nuclear energy more safely this will be a huge boost for business throughout the UN (healthier populations = lower healthcare costs = lower taxes: safer facilities = fewer accidents = lower clean-up costs: Reliable reactors = increased public confidence = stronger energy markets, both nationally and internationally where countries import some of their energy).

Their report would have to contain very specific facts and figures detailing the problem. If these were untrue the nation being 'stitched up' could have an independent third-party (probably another UN member) come and verify the figures with its own experts.

The UN would want to ensure the INAA operated fairly as any incidents of political bias of the kind you describe would harm its credibility. INAA personnel also have their credibility (and jobs) to think about.

It's a good point you raise though, and needs to be addressed. Perhaps the INAA can be made accountable to the General Council, required to give bi-annual reports, and its committee liable to be called before the UN for questioning at any time. That way all UN members can ensure fairness.

Remember, the INAA just does inspection and advice. Nothing it says is binding on the rest of the UN or international community, and individual nations can follow up on INAA inspections by asking questions of their own through diplomatic channels. As the INAA isn't an enforcement agency, there won't be any pronouncements of 'guilty' or 'innocent', just opinion and recommendations. A member nation can always refute the INAA's conclusions. In cases where the INAA states that small improvements should be made, a member state could disagree without there being much effect on its international trade. Where a reactor is seriously dangerous though, this will trigger a response from other UN members when they hear the report, and the issue will be settled quickly one way or the other. If the report is untrue this should be easily verified.

I would also point out that nations will benefit from the INAA's free, expert advice regarding their nuclear industries, so this will be a value-adding piece of legislation. If nations are producing and managing nuclear energy more safely this will be a huge boost for business throughout the UN (healthier populations = lower healthcare costs = lower taxes: safer facilities = fewer accidents = lower clean-up costs: Reliable reactors = increased public confidence = stronger energy markets, both nationally and internationally where countries import some of their energy).


I am all for benifiting from advice, and even critisism (sp?). Not so much for being totally screwed over by people who don't like me :}

But seriously - now that you have explained all this, I am happy and content to give support to your proposal should it require it.

Ok, here's the full final draft, subject to any amendments or suggestions...

The UN hereby establishes the International Nuclear Assessment Agency (INAA).

This body will be given authority to inspect all civil nuclear reactors of member states, or to delegate this task to appropriately trained persons of member states where this is practical, for the purpose of ensuring safe procedures surrounding the generation of nuclear power.

1. Jurisdiction.

(a) The INAA will exercise jurisdiction over the following:

- Category 1; Static, operational nuclear power plants, which obtain usable energy via fission or fusion.
- Category 2; Mobile, operational nuclear reactors and vehicles which employ these as a power source (including space-vessels).
- Category 3; Facilities and vehicles for the transport, storage, processing, and disposal of radioactive waste products and decommissioned components from nuclear power plants.

(b) The INAA will not exercise jurisdiction over nuclear reactors or power plants designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation - see Annex A (definitions).

2. Powers.

(a) The INAA is delegated the following general powers and responsibilities:

- to conduct inspections of the facilities within section 1 (a), the practices and procedures pertaining to their operation, and any documentation relevant thereto without restriction.
- to make recommendations to the member state and/ or operator of the facility regarding any aspect of the facility’s operation.
- to make a full post-investigation report on the safety or otherwise of a facility, the contents of which will be made freely available to the public.
- to train non-INAA personnel in all the procedures and techniques of the INAA, and to act as the sole body of accreditation for such personnel.
- to delegate any of the powers and resultant responsibilities held by the INAA to accredited non-INAA personnel.

(b) The INAA shall exercise the general powers in relation to the distinct categories with the following modifications:

(i) Category 1:
- having first given notice of no less than two weeks to the manager of the facility and the member state in question of any inspection.
- to make available to an inspected facility a full copy of its report one week before the report is made publicly available.

(ii) Category 2:
- having first given notice of no less than eight months to the operator/ owner of the reactor. The operator/ owner may choose a date and location for inspection at a time not exceeding two months from the expiry of notice.
- operators of space-capable craft within this category may elect to have inspections carried out by accredited non-INAA personnel, who shall communicate their report to the INAA by the quickest means available. In addition, the INAA may require such craft to be inspected before each take-off and landing.

(iii) Category 3:
- having first given notice of no less than one week to the member state in question of any inspection.

(c) The INAA will not have the power to suspend or terminate operations, though it may recommend this.

ANNEX A

A Category 1 power plant will be designated ‘military’ if it supplies energy exclusively for military purposes. If any portion of its supply is allocated to a civilian population, it will be designated ‘civil’.
A Category 2 reactor or vessel will be designated ‘military’ if it is used exclusively by the military. Where a military branch charters any civil vessel for its operations, this vessel will be designated ‘military’ for the period of charter.
No item falling within Category 3 will be designated ‘military’.

This is looking very good (see the telegram I sent you). I just have a few suggestions:

In 1 (a), you might want to consider dropping "operational". That way, plants can be inspected before they are started up.

In 1 (b) consider saying that the military can invite the INAA to make an inspection, and in these cases specific agreements can be made regarding the inspection and any publication of reports.

In 2 (b) (ii) perhaps change "accredited non-INAA personnel" to "accredited non-INAA personnel (who may be crew members)" just to clarify.

Finally, if a good mechanism can be thought up, some way of holding the INAA to account might be good. Perhaps the UN general assembly could have the power to dismiss and appoint INAA staff if they feel that their duties are not being properly fulfilled? If you want to use this suggestion, I'd recommend checking with a mod to see if it's legal.

Myopia, I've incorporated most of your suggestions. I don't think 1(b) is necessary though since its already implied. The INAA has no jurisdiction as such over the military, but that doesn't stop the military from asking for help or advice. The only difference is that the military would set the agenda and ground-rules. The INAA could even offer their services to various militaries, but that would be an internal matter for its committee.

I think this is it....

The UN hereby establishes the International Nuclear Assessment Agency (INAA).

This body will be given authority to inspect all civil nuclear reactors of member states, or to delegate this task to appropriately trained persons of member states where this is practical, for the purpose of ensuring safe procedures surrounding the generation of nuclear power.

1. Jurisdiction.

(a) The INAA will exercise jurisdiction over the following:

- Category 1; Static nuclear power plants, which obtain usable energy via fission or fusion.
- Category 2; Mobile nuclear reactors and vehicles which employ these as a power source (including space-vessels).
- Category 3; Facilities and vehicles for the transport, storage, processing, and disposal of radioactive waste products and decommissioned components from nuclear power plants.

(b) The INAA will not exercise jurisdiction over nuclear reactors or power plants designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation - see Annex A (definitions).

2. Powers.

(a) The INAA is delegated the following general powers and responsibilities:

- to conduct inspections of the facilities within section 1 (a), the practices and procedures pertaining to their operation, and any documentation relevant thereto without restriction.
- to make recommendations to the member state and/ or operator of the facility regarding any aspect of the facility’s operation.
- to make a full post-investigation report on the safety or otherwise of a facility, the contents of which will be made freely available to the public.
- to train non-INAA personnel in all the procedures and techniques of the INAA, and to act as the sole body of accreditation for such personnel.
- to delegate any of the powers and resultant responsibilities held by the INAA to accredited non-INAA personnel.

(b) The INAA shall exercise the general powers in relation to the distinct categories with the following modifications:

(i) Category 1:
- having first given notice of no less than two weeks to the manager of the facility and the member state in question of any inspection.
- to make available to an inspected facility a full copy of its report one week before the report is made publicly available.

(ii) Category 2:
- having first given notice of no less than eight months to the operator/ owner of the reactor. The operator/ owner may choose a date and location for inspection at a time within the notice period, or one not exceeding two months from the expiry of notice.
- operators of space-capable craft within this category may elect to have inspections carried out by accredited non-INAA personnel (including crew- members), who shall communicate their report to the INAA by the quickest means available. In addition, the INAA may require such craft to be inspected before each take-off and landing.

(iii) Category 3:
- having first given notice of no less than one week to the member state in question of any inspection.

(c) The INAA will not have the power to suspend or terminate operations, though it may recommend this.

ANNEX A

A Category 1 power plant will be designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation if it supplies energy exclusively for military purposes. If any portion of its supply is allocated to a civilian population, it will be designated ‘civil’.
A Category 2 reactor or vessel will be designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation if it is used exclusively by the military. Where a military branch charters any civil vessel for its operations, this vessel will be designated ‘military’ for the period of charter.
No item falling within Category 3 will be designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation. However, where an inspection within this category takes place wholly or partly on a military base, that member state’s military may elect to have the inspection carried out by accredited non-INAA personnel, who may be persons enlisted in that military.

ANNEX B

Although the INAA will be administered through the establishment of the usual committees, a member state who has been the subject of an inspection may appeal directly to the General Assembly if it;

(a) disagrees with the written report (in whole or part) of the INAA consequent to inspection,

and

(b) it has some evidence of influence or bias on the part of the INAA regarding the report.

Love and esterel support this proposition

A very good resolution, but two very minor things:

Is it under 3,200 characters (including spaces), and surely you mean Appendix, and not Annex?

OOC: The RL UN actually uses the term "annex," rather than "appendix" in its resolutions.

OoC: Really? I've never heard of annex being used in the context such as this before. Oh, well, I can't be right all the time. Just most of the time!

The UN at it's finest here, I feel. And about time, too. You have our full support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

A very good resolution, but two very minor things:

Is it under 3,200 characters (including spaces)

Aaaaaaaaaargh! No, the Annexes take it over. Is this a strict rule?

I think it will work. I just copy and pasted it into the "description" box and the entire text fits. We will support this, by the way. Good work.

Aaaaaaaaaargh! No, the Annexes take it over. Is this a strict rule?


your proposition:
characters without space = 3618
characters with spaces = 4341

the longest "UN resolution" is:
#25 The Child Protection Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/...tions/start=24

characters (without space)= 2938
characters (with spaces)= 3513

it seems the limit is 3000 without space (not sure)

ps: the limit for the title is 30 with spaces (sure) => you are ok there

Love and esterel is right, it probably is too long. I'm not sure what the exact character limit is though. When you submit one thats too long does it warn you that it's too long or does it just go ahead and submit it with part of the text cut off?

the longest "UN resolution" is:
#25 The Child Protection Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/...tions/start=24

characters (without space)= 2938
characters (with spaces)= 3513

it seems the limit is 3000 without space (not sure)

OOC: That being longest resolution doesn't really provide any real indication of how long a proposal can be. I did a little digging in the Technical forum, though, and found this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7415957&highlight=character#post7415957) in which Fris seemed to think the character limit is 5,500.

When the original Diplomatic Immunity was submitted a few months back now, I remember having to cut it back to 3,200 words (removing things such as things pertaining to diplomatic vehicles and mandating that Ferrero Roche, arrange into a giant triangle, be served at all ambassadors receptions)

When the original Diplomatic Immunity was submitted a few months back now, I remember having to cut it back to 3,200 words (removing things such as things pertaining to diplomatic vehicles and mandating that Ferrero Roche, arrange into a giant triangle, be served at all ambassadors receptions)
I've never submitted an overly long proposal, so i'm curious as to what happens to let you know that it is too long. Will the game just not allow you to submit it? Is there some sort of warning? Or does it just go ahead and submit with part of the text removed and you have to get the mods to delete it?

OOC: That being longest resolution doesn't really provide any real indication of how long a proposal can be. I did a little digging in the Technical forum, though, and found this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7415957&highlight=character#post7415957) in which Fris seemed to think the character limit is 5,500.


you right 3000 is what i hear on the forum, it's why i said i was not sure
Venerable libertarians had to shorten his UNCoESB resolution:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UNCoESB
which finally was:
characters without space = 2933
characters with spaces = 3491

Cluichstan are you ok to do some testing with me lol:D
you try without space, i try with spaces (or vice-versa)
=> we will definilitly know

Cluichstan are you ok to do some testing with me lol
=> we will definilitly know

Hell, I'm new and haven't pissed off the mods/admins yet, so why not? I'll run a test and post back here in a few minutes.

Hell, I'm new and haven't pissed off the mods/admins yet, so why not? I'll run a test and post back here in a few minutes.


ok me too

ok me too

----------------------------------
h-oh
Your proposal exceeds the maximum length by 1371 characters.

If possible, use your browser's BACK button to return and fix this.
---------------------------------

4021 without
4785 with

Experiment: I posted the word "test" over and over again with a space in between each. At 5,000 characters, including the spaces, I tried submitting it and was told I was 1,500 characters over the limit (so yes, Yelda, the system does tell you you're over and by how much). Then, using the word "test" again but without the spaces, I submitted 5,000 characters and was over by the same amount.

Determination: Maximum character length is 3,500, including spaces.

Experiment: I posted the word "test" over and over again with a space in between each. At 5,000 characters, including the spaces, I tried submitting it and was told I was 1,500 characters over the limit. Then, using the word "test" again but without the spaces, I submitted 5,000 characters and was over by the same amount.

Determination: Maximum character length is 3,500, including spaces.

whoooo, thanks a lot

Experiment: I posted the word "test" over and over again with a space in between each. At 5,000 characters, including the spaces, I tried submitting it and was told I was 1,500 characters over the limit. Then, using the word "test" again but without the spaces, I submitted 5,000 characters and was over by the same amount.

Determination: Maximum character length is 3,500, including spaces.

i'm not sure how is counted : ,;; / " etc, see my results

whoooo, thanks a lot

No problem at all, though I wouldn't mind some fine Yeldan Cheddar as compensation for doing this... ;)

i'm not sure how is counted : ,;; / " etc, see my results

I'm assuming you were using a random block of text, rather than a controlled one (i.e., the same word over and over again). The way you did it, it's difficult to determine how many spaces you took out. Doing it the way I did eliminated that variable.

No problem at all, though I wouldn't mind some fine Yeldan Cheddar as compensation for doing this... ;)

may i send you some blu-ray movies?, it's more the speciality of love and esterel:)

OOC: That being longest resolution doesn't really provide any real indication of how long a proposal can be. I did a little digging in the Technical forum, though, and found this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7415957&highlight=character#post7415957) in which Fris seemed to think the character limit is 5,500.

I thought it was around 2500. I will go check what I foudn it to be the last time I did anything :}

Yeah - I can't find it. Sorry. But I do know that something that was around 4000 to 4500 characters was around 1500 characters too long.

But keep in mind my last attempt at submission was just under a year ago, and the game might have been upgraded since then.

I thought it was around 2500. I will go check what I foudn it to be the last time I did anything :}

Read on in this thread. We already tested it. It's 3,500, with spaces.

Read on in this thread. We already tested it. It's 3,500, with spaces.

Sorry :}

Read on in this thread. We already tested it. It's 3,500, with spaces.

Cluichstan, you right but it seems to be a little bit more tricky, lol
The Child Protection Act is 3513
which software did u use? me microsoft word


the longest "UN resolution" is:
#25 The Child Protection Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/...tions/start=24

characters (without space)= 2938
characters (with spaces)= 3513

Cluichstan, you right but it seems to be a little bit more tricky, lol
The Child Protection Act is 3513
which software did u use? me microsoft word


the longest "UN resolution" is:
#25 The Child Protection Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/...tions/start=24

characters (without space)= 2938
characters (with spaces)= 3513


I'm guessing you're including stuff like the strength of the resolution in the text for your character count.

I'm guessing you're including stuff like the strength of the resolution in the text for your character count.


try by yourself, tell me please:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=24

ok NS count "line jump" as 1 character, winword don't

ok NS count "line jump" as 1 character, winword don't

OOC: You spent far too much time on this, L&E. In the time it took to get that worked out, I just wrote an entire article on the US Navy's plans for preventing another Cole incident. :p

I think this scrapes through...can someone please double-check it?

The UN hereby establishes the International Nuclear Assessment Agency (INAA) for the purpose of ensuring safer generation of nuclear power.

1.
(a) The INAA will exercise jurisdiction over the following categories:

- 1; Static nuclear power plants obtaining usable energy via fission or fusion.
- 2; Mobile nuclear reactors/ vehicles employing nuclear power.
- 3; Facilities/ vehicles used at any stage in the disposal of radioactive waste and decommissioned components from nuclear power plants.

(b) The INAA will not exercise jurisdiction over items designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation (see Annex A).

2.
(a) The INAA is delegated the following general powers and responsibilities:

- to conduct inspections of the facilities within section 1 (a), the practices pertaining to their operation, and any documentation relevant thereto without restriction.
- to make recommendations to the operator of the facility regarding any aspect of the facility’s operation.
- to submit reports on the safety or otherwise of inspected facilities, which will be made freely available to the public.
- to train non-INAA personnel in the procedures and techniques of the INAA; to act as the sole body of accreditation for such personnel.
- to delegate any of the powers and resultant responsibilities of the INAA to accredited non-INAA personnel.

(b) The INAA shall exercise the general powers in relation to the distinct categories with the following modifications:

(i) Category 1:
- having first given notice of no less than two weeks to the manager of the facility and the member state in question of an inspection.
- to conduct to an inspected facility a full copy of its report one week before this is made publicly available.

(ii) Category 2:
- having first given notice of no less than eight months to the operator of the reactor. The operator may choose a date and location for inspection at a time within the notice period, or not exceeding two months from the expiry of notice.
- operators of space-capable craft within this category may elect to have inspections carried out by accredited non-INAA personnel (including crew-members), who shall communicate their report to the INAA by the quickest means available. In addition, the INAA may require such craft to be inspected before each take-off and landing.

(iii) Category 3:
- having first given notice of no less than one week to the member state in question of any inspection.

(c) The INAA will not have the power to suspend or terminate operations, though it may recommend this.

ANNEX A

A Category 1 power plant is designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation if it supplies energy exclusively for military purposes. If any portion of its supply is allocated to a civilian population, it will be designated ‘civil’.
A Category 2 reactor or vessel is designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation if it is used exclusively by the military. Where a military branch charters any civil vessel for its operations, this vessel will be designated ‘military’ for the period of charter.
No item within Category 3 is designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation. However, where an inspection within this category takes place wholly or partly on a military base, that member state may elect to have the inspection carried out by accredited non-INAA personnel, who may be persons enlisted in their military.

OOC:

While not qualified to subject this redo through critisism, I would respectfully like to enjoy the benefit of adding my support.

IC:

The Republic of Anagonia herein adds its support to anything that may come of this in present time or future. Therefore, whatever emerges from this draft/proposal, shall herein be considered by the Republic Senate as a logical choice for the safety of Anagonia and its People.

We thank the Represenitive from the Nation of the RunnyNose Tribe for initiating this proposal with the best intentions possible.

Thank You.

to the honourable delegate from the runnynose tribe:

i'll send a copy of this back to my government and get back to you as soon as i can. its only fair they know about this.

Here's a suggested alternative cut-down which you can use if you like - I've taken The RunnyNose Tribe's latest text, cut out superfluous spaces, changed some words, and been able to put back in a shortened form of annex B.

EDIT: word says it's 3492 characters incl. spaces:

The UN hereby establishes the International Nuclear Assessment Agency (INAA) for the purpose of ensuring safer generation of nuclear power.

1.
(a)The INAA will exercise jurisdiction over the following categories:
-1; Static nuclear power plants obtaining usable energy via fission or fusion.
-2; Mobile nuclear reactors/vehicles employing nuclear power.
-3; Facilities/vehicles used at any stage in the disposal of radioactive waste and decommissioned components from nuclear power plants.

(b)The INAA will not exercise jurisdiction over items designated ‘military’ in Annex
A.

2.
(a)The INAA is delegated the following general powers and responsibilities:
-to inspect the facilities in section 1(a), practices pertaining to their operation, and any documentation relevant thereto without restriction.
-to make recommendations to the operator of the facility regarding any aspect of the facility’s operation.
-to submit reports on the safety or otherwise of inspected facilities, which will be made freely available to the public.
-to train non-INAA personnel in the procedures and techniques of the INAA and act as the sole body of accreditation for such personnel.
-to delegate any of the powers and resultant responsibilities of the INAA to accredited non-INAA personnel.

(b)The INAA shall exercise the general powers in relation to the distinct categories with the following modifications:
(i)Category 1:
-having first given notice of no less than two weeks to the manager of the facility and the member state in question of an inspection.
-to conduct to an inspected facility a full copy of its report one week before this is made publicly available.
(ii)Category 2:
-having first given notice of no less than eight months to the operator of the reactor. The operator may choose a date and location for inspection at a time within the notice period, or not exceeding two months from the expiry of notice.
-operators of space-capable craft within this category may elect to have inspections carried out by accredited non-INAA personnel (including crew-members), who shall communicate their report to the INAA by the quickest means available. In addition, the INAA may require such craft to be inspected before each take-off and landing.
(iii)Category 3:
-having first given notice of no less than one week to the member state in question of any inspection.

(c) The INAA will not have the power to suspend or terminate operations, though it may recommend this.

ANNEX A
A Category 1 power plant is designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation if it supplies energy exclusively for military purposes. If any portion of its supply is allocated to a civilian population, it will be designated ‘civil’.
A Category 2 reactor or vessel is designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation if it is used exclusively by the military. Where a military branch charters any civil vessel for its operations, this vessel will be designated ‘military’ for the period of charter.
No item within Category 3 is designated ‘military’ for the purposes of this legislation. However, where an inspection within this category takes place wholly or partly on a military base, that member state may elect to have the inspection carried out by accredited non-INAA personnel, who may be persons enlisted in their military.

ANNEX B
A member state disagreeing with any part of a report of its inspection, and with evidence of bias or influence in the matter, may appeal to the General Assembly.

One thing - I'm not sure what this means:

having first given notice of no less than eight months to the operator of the reactor. The operator may choose a date and location for inspection at a time within the notice period, or not exceeding two months from the expiry of notice.

One thing - I'm not sure what this means:

having first given notice of no less than eight months to the operator of the reactor. The operator may choose a date and location for inspection at a time within the notice period, or not exceeding two months from the expiry of notice.

I would say that it means if I want to inspect your reactor on the 1st of September, I have to tell you by the 1st of January. And you can put off the inspect from the 1st of September, but only until the 31st of October.

But maybe I misunderstood something.

I would say that it means if I want to inspect your reactor on the 1st of September, I have to tell you by the 1st of January. And you can put off the inspect from the 1st of September, but only until the 31st of October.

But maybe I misunderstood something.

That's exactly it. The idea is to allow greater flexibility than in previous drafts. This might be useful if, for instance, a cruise ship is on a long voyage. On the other hand, the operator might want the vessel checked out next month as its going to be docked that month.

Myopia, I think you've cracked it. Unless there are any objections, this will be the final 'Final Draft'.

I'm still a little worried about vehicles which go on really long journeys. Is it enough to say we trust the INAA not to be unreasonable?

Why not contact Texan Hotrodders, have him take a look at it and then get him to give you those tips he promised?

So would non-nuclear countries or countries w/fusion/antimatter/etc capabilities be effected by this?
Even though I'm not a UN member I'm curious, because we utilize fusion.

The inspections are on fission and fusion only:

nuclear power plants obtaining usable energy via fission or fusion

I'm still a little worried about vehicles which go on really long journeys. Is it enough to say we trust the INAA not to be unreasonable?
Well the operators are allowed to choose a date and location, so that should provide enough flexibility to schedule a break in the journey for the inspection. In some cases it might even be possible for the inspectors to board the vessel at some point and conduct the inspection on the move. We want to avoid a situation where it would be possible for operators to postpone an inspection indefinitely by claiming a lengthy voyage for a vessel, for instance a cruise ship perpetually sailing and only putting into port for the odd day or two to allow passengers to embark/ disembark.

Oh wait - bugger - ignore that. I completely forgot we were allowing crew members to do it, so a craft would theoretically never have to go back to port if it had sufficient qualified crew to deal with the reactor. And I suppose if it was a colony ship, or going on a journey spanning generations, then one or two of the crew could be qualified as an INAA trainer, to pass on the skills, and accreditation confirmed as and when practical via communications with home.

This proposal will be submitted for approval by the UN Delegates tomorrow (Sunday, 30th Oct).

Have you spoken to Texan Hotrodders? I'm not an expert on strategies to get proposals to quorum, but I'm sure he can advise you excellently, including on the best time to submit proposals to get most approvals possible (I think it's supposed to be sometime on Mondays).

Have you spoken to Texan Hotrodders? I'm not an expert on strategies to get proposals to quorum, but I'm sure he can advise you excellently, including on the best time to submit proposals to get most approvals possible (I think it's supposed to be sometime on Mondays).

(OOC)

I'd certainly agree with the suggestion to discuss submission with Texan Hotrodders. He's a very experienced and knowledgeable individual who is sure to have some good advice for you.

When I was about to submit a proposal a month or so ago, I was advised by several long-time UN members to submit it on Monday morning (US EDT), right after the proposal list is purged. This lets you avoid the weekend slow time, when fewer delegates tend to log on, giving the proposal maximum exposure.

Best of luck!

OOC: We did speak, and he's doing fine. It won't matter if he submits it on Sunday as long as he telegrams the folks in the special list I sent him.

Excellent. Good luck RunnyNose Tribe! I'd help out with the campaign, but I really can't spare the time - sorry!