NationStates Jolt Archive

Authored by Adolf Barham, co-author by Reveal & Repeal.

The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the privacy protections in Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion,"

CONSIDERING that Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," does not enforce anything due to the wording used in that it only suggests that each UN member passes the legislation, making the resolution ineffectual,

NOTING that Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," severely hampers the ability of governments in the NSUN to catch criminals,

ALSO NOTING that Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," does not define many of the terms it contains, making it vague,

FURTHERMORE NOTING that Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," does not define "other kinds of interception of communications," nor what "serious" evidence of a planned or committed crime means, making it even more vague,

BELIEVING that an improved replacement that doesn't go too far in protecting people's privacy, should be made,

REPEALS Resolution #10 "Stop Privacy Intrusion."

Co-Authored by: Reveal and Repeal

The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the privacy protections in Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion,"

CONSIDERING that Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," does not enforce anything due to the wording used in that it only suggests that each UN member passes the legislation, making the resolution ineffectual,

Which presumably is the only reasons why NatSov's would support it, besides, doesn't this suggest it needs strengthening?

NOTING that Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," severely hampers the ability of governments in the NSUN to catch criminals,

And their ability to trample over the privacy of their citizens, restrict debate and freedoms of expression and speech, ruthlessly target opponents of the present government/regime and to intrude into any aspect of their citizen's lives they so wish to intrude into.

ALSO NOTING that Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," does not define many of the terms it contains, making it vague,

Agreed.

FURTHERMORE NOTING that Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," does not define "other kinds of interception of communications," nor what "serious" evidence of a planned or committed crime means, making it even more vague,

Agreed, thus reinforcing the case for strengthening and clarifying it.

BELIEVING that an improved replacement that doesn't go too far in protecting people's privacy, should be made,

The words "too far in protecting people's privacy" send a chill down my spine. We are contemplating authoritarian, reactionary measures of control purely so we can compensate for the sheer incomptence of the security services of a few despots, who can't seem to operate under circumstances where they might not have the right to ransack through the lives and personal affairs of the citizens of the state they work for.

Compadria refuses to sign up to this unless a guarantee that the repeal will only lead to a clarificatory enhancement of the original resolution being put forwards as a replacement, not a replacement that kicks open the door for tyranny and repression.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Compradia: if myself or another member were to write a replacement to be used if this is approved, say, by tommrow, would you approve?

I hope that the replacement would protect people's privacy, but ensure that it doesn't lower the chances of governments catching criminals before they commit the crime. I don't know yet, but this may be by allowing the government to intrude on people's privacy as soon as the government has suspicion of a planned crime rather than having to get their suspicions passed by a judiciary.

What would you like in the replacement Compadria?

Compradia: if myself or another member were to write a replacement to be used if this is approved, say, by tommrow, would you approve?

Depending on its terminology, I might lobby for it to be endorsed by my regional delegate.

EDIT: I would like to see definitions of the terms in the original resolution included, because you were correct in the assessment that failing to define them was extremely poor form and an oversight. I would however like to see strong privacy laws encouraged, but with (as a concession on my part to those who want strong anti-crime laws) a clause/clauses emphasising a nation's right to conduct invasions of privacy under exceptional or compelling circumstances (in the interest of the public good). However, I would like to see judicial oversight included, even if it isn't popular, simply because I'm uneasy with the idea of an imbalanced use of these powers. Something encouraging agencies like the RL FISA for example.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I would however like to see strong privacy laws encouraged, but with (as a concession on my part to those who want strong anti-crime laws) a clause/clauses emphasising a nation's right to conduct invasions of privacy under exceptional or compelling circumstances (in the interest of the public good).So, in essence, you support a NatSov blocker? :p

Compradia: My proposal for a replacement would essentially do the following:

1.) Create a UN organization to oversee the distrobution of warents
2.) Stop unwarrented privacy attacks...
3.) ... unless its a matter of national security. If so, the government of the NSUN nation would have 24 hours to prove to the UN organization that it was required (see: original FISA). If not, the person is notified they were intruded and the something (I haven't decided what yet) happens to the government.

Privacy is not just for individuals, it is also for corporate interests. Your laws are not our laws, we have a different legal system, therefore what you consider criminal is not what we consider criminal. We do not want people peering into our internal affairs and messing with our commercial interests. Foreign companies checking into our corporate activities are conducting industrial espionage whether it is on the individual level working for a company or company wide inspections. Privacy intrusion protection protects our industries from industrial espionage, criminal prosecution by foreign bodies and similar activities. It also protects our military interests. Too many people peer into our activities copying our inventions is a problem.

People work for companies. Privacy intrusion is not just for criminal problems. It also protects commercial and military interests.

It is in our clients interest to protect their offshore bank accounts, privateering contracts, and pharmaceutical production contracts which are not illegal under our law.

So, in essence, you support a NatSov blocker? :p

Yes, slightly ironic isn't it. But I do this for distinctly un-NatSov reasons, you see I plan for the blocker to be a U.N. check on the types of reasons for which a sovereign state could violate privacy laws enacted by the U.N.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Compradia: My proposal for a replacement would essentially do the following:

1.) Create a UN organization to oversee the distrobution of warents
2.) Stop unwarrented privacy attacks...
3.) ... unless its a matter of national security. If so, the government of the NSUN nation would have 24 hours to prove to the UN organization that it was required (see: original FISA). If not, the person is notified they were intruded and the something (I haven't decided what yet) happens to the government.

This looks promising, I like the idea of a U.N. organisation having oversight of the warrent distribution and of the 24 hour rule.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

OK Compradia, here's my (first draft of a) replacement.

UN Privacy Protection Statute

RECOGNIZING Resolution #(whatever), Repeal “Stop Privacy Intrusion,” and its call for a replacement,

UNDERSTANDING that individuals have a fundamental right to privacy,

NOTING, therefore, that the United Nations must respect this right,

BELIEVING that the United Nations must prohibit governmental privacy intrusions, unless doing so would harm the public good,

1. DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, the following:
a. “privacy” as the fundamental right of a nation’s citizens and organizations to be secure in their communications and possessions;
b. “warrant” as a document which, if attained, allows a government or governmental organization to impede on the privacy of an individual or organization within their own nation, solely for the interest of the public good;
c. “privacy impeding devices” as any device used to impede on the privacy of an individual or organization.

2. ABOLISHES the use of privacy impeding devices by any UN government without a warrant,

3. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Privacy Activism Committee (UNPAC),

4. AUTHORIZES UNPAC to do the following:
I. Distribute warrants to UN governments, based on probable cause;
II. Oversee the correct use of these warrants;
III. Execute Section 6 of this resolution, if necessary.

5. STATES that, if any UN nation claims receiving a warrant would be too time consuming, said nation may be exempt from Section 2, provided that said nation applies for a warrant through UNPAC within twenty-four (24) hours of implementing a privacy impeding device,

6. FURTHER STATES that, if a nation attempts to use Section 5, but has their application for a warrant denied, UNPAC will notify the individual or organization that their privacy has been impeded, and UNPAC will also revoke said nation’s ability to use Section 5 of this resolution for a period of one (1) year.

Sounds good to me, but I'm slightly worried about the fact that our proposal has only got 17 approvals so far!:mad:

I don't like the replacement at all. Criteria should be set for privacy intrusion, governments shouldn't be bound by a UN organization with hardly any rules for when to give a warrant and when not. How is UNPAC going to know what the public good is? Perhaps have a UN organization that could certify judges to give warrants, based on their judgement, training, etc.?

I like the look of it, but I have two areas of mild concern:

1). "Probable clause" still sounds a little too imprecise, could you give me an example perhaps?

2). 1 year's revocation sounds a little too harsh (strange as this may seem coming from me). Mistakes are made after all. Perhaps 6 months would be better?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Ok, here's a major change to the way it works. UNPAC only creates a defination of probable cause based on UN member input, then certifies judges in UN member nations based on their knowledge of the defination. Then, those judges can do the same things UNPAC in the old proposal could do.

I also changed some definations and cut the revoked period to 3 months (after rereading it, even 6 seems harsh).

Here's the redraft (with new things in bold):

UN Privacy Protection Statute (draft 2)

RECOGNIZING Resolution #(whatever), Repeal “Stop Privacy Intrusion,” and its call for a replacement,

UNDERSTANDING that individuals have a fundamental right to privacy,

NOTING, therefore, that the United Nations must respect this right,

BELIEVING that the United Nations must prohibit governmental privacy intrusions, unless doing so would harm the public good,

1. DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, the following:
a. “privacy” as the fundamental right of a nation’s citizens and organizations to be secure in their communications and possessions;
b. “privacy impeding devices” as any type of wiretap, governmental seizure of property, or interception of communications used to arrest criminals;
c. “warrant” as a document which, if attained, allows a government or governmental organization to use a privacy impeding device on an individual or organization within their own nation,

2. ABOLISHES the use of privacy impeding devices by any UN government without a warrant,

3. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Privacy Activism Committee (UNPAC), which will create a definition of "probable cause," based on the input of every willing UN nation,

[b]4. AUTHORIZES UNPAC to certify judges in a UN nation based on their knowledge of UNPAC's definition of probable cause, and how to utilize it,

5. AUTHORIZES UNPAC-certified judges to do the following:
I. Distribute warrants to UN governments, based on probable cause;
II. Oversee the correct use of these warrants;
III. Execute Section 6 of this resolution, if necessary.

5. STATES that, if any UN nation claims receiving a warrant would be too time consuming, said nation may be exempt from Section 2, provided that said nation applies for a warrant through a UNPAC-certified judge within twenty-four (24) hours of implementing a privacy impeding device,

6. FURTHER STATES that, if a nation attempts to use Section 5, but has their application for a warrant denied, UNPAC will notify the individual or organization that their privacy has been impeded, and UNPAC will also revoke said nation’s ability to use Section 5 of this resolution for a period of three (3) months.

Instead of 3 months, why don't you make it 6 months/1 year but only after 3 strikes?

Yes, one year after three strikes sounds good... I like the idea of the 24-hour, after the fact window. Gives the government just enough room to act.

I'll approve the repeal, but the phrase "doesn't go too far in protecting people's privacy" seems unnecessary/redundant. Can proposals be edited after they've been submitted? I'm still not quite familiar with the process.

I'll approve the repeal, but the phrase "doesn't go too far in protecting people's privacy" seems unnecessary/redundant. Can proposals be edited after they've been submitted? I'm still not quite familiar with the process.

That phrase doesn't mandate anything. It was only a belief. All that actually matters as an aftermath of that phrase is the actual replacement which as you can see, Dankism has done a good job with.

I'm still worried that we only have 21 approvals considering that we have tg'd 369 delegates so far in total. I'm starting to think that they don't like it. Hopefully, they just haven't seen the telegram yet.

No, proposals cannot be edited after submission

Ceorana, I will add that to the proposal, that makes a lot of sense.

OOC: Proposals can't be edits, but posts can, Adolf. It would be nice if you didn't always double post :/

I'll have to withdraw support for the repeal, I'm afraid. It was easier to get round than I suspect this will end up being.

Compradia: My proposal for a replacement would essentially do the following:

1.) Create a UN organization to oversee the distrobution of warents
2.) Stop unwarrented privacy attacks...
3.) ... unless its a matter of national security. If so, the government of the NSUN nation would have 24 hours to prove to the UN organization that it was required (see: original FISA). If not, the person is notified they were intruded and the something (I haven't decided what yet) happens to the government.


The government of St Edmund would definitely oppose the creation & proposed role of the UN agency that you're suggesting here...

The government of St Edmund would definitely oppose the creation & proposed role of the UN agency that you're suggesting here...
As, possibly, would Ecopoeia, though not necessarily for the same reasons as St Edmund. None of these resolutions, repeals or proposals are of any consequence to Ecopoeia given our libertarian nature, but this particular proposition does had a UN agency an unnerving amount of power.

The government of St Edmund would definitely oppose the creation & proposed role of the UN agency that you're suggesting here...St Edmund, please read my redraft. It changes around the way the UN organization would work- they would simply approve the judges would could order the warrants.

I support this draft, it's addressed all our concerns satisfactorily.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

St Edmund, please read my redraft. It changes around the way the UN organization would work- they would simply approve the judges would could order the warrants.

OOC: That's not as bad, in itself, but I find the idea that the committee it creates could "create a definition of "probable cause," based on the input of every willing UN nation" successfully -- just because a [potential] resolution says so -- even less plausible than the existence of the Gnomes...

It's all very well having a good replacement, but the repeal is not doing too well on getting approvals. I am tging more delegates now. Dankism, can you tg the delegates who you haven't tg'd who have voted against the current resolution?

but I find the idea that the committee it creates could "create a definition of "probable cause," based on the input of every willing UN nation" successfully -- just because a [potential] resolution says soOOC: But, according to the All-Mighty FAQ, all UN nations must comply with every resolution... therefore, this WOULD get done.

OOC: But, according to the All-Mighty FAQ, all UN nations must comply with every resolution... therefore, this WOULD get done.
OOC: The FAQ applies to nations. Committees are not nations.

OOC: Ah, but the committee is made of citizens of every UN nation; as citizens of said nation, they are bound by that nation's laws- which, if they are in the UN, includes all UN laws. And if a UN law mandates that a definition be developed, they must help comply by making that definition.

OOC: Ah, but the committee is made of citizens of every UN nation; as citizens of said nation, they are bound by that nation's laws- which, if they are in the UN, includes all UN laws. And if a UN law mandates that a definition be developed, they must help comply by making that definition.
OOC: Neither of those statements is true.

Firstly, nations are obliged to comply; citizens are not. You seem to be suggesting crime does not exist.

Secondly, committees are not composed of national citizens, they're composed of "magical creatures that spring from the ground", or words to that effect.

Firstly, nations are obliged to comply; citizens are not. You seem to be suggesting crime does not exist.OOC: Ok, fine, but they are not merely citizens. They are representatives of that nation to which they belong; the represent the national interests of the government; if they didn't, they'd be fired.

Secondly, committees are not composed of national citizens, they're composed of "magical creatures that spring from the ground", or words to that effect.What if the proposal was worded in a way that the committee must be made of citizens?

OOC: What if the proposal was worded in a way that the committee must be made of citizens?
OOC: Then it would be illegal and would be deleted.

Only 46 approvals and we're about halfway through.:mad:

still only 63 approvals, not looking good.

still only 63 approvals, not looking good.
You've still got two days to go. It could get there. Have you made sure to TG all delegates who've approved proposals?

Yes I have now tg'd at least 400 delegates. Up to 74 approvals.:)

Dankism, are you continuing your telegramming of delegates who voted against the current resolution? If you're not, could you tell me soon and tell me where you were up to, so I can continue. Also, tell me if you are, just so i know

I need 42 approvals in the next roughly 36 hours. Any ideas? Dankism, could you please get back to me quick, so I know if I have to tg the people who voted against the resolution?

Dankism, can you get back to me please!

Yay 100 votes now. Do you reckon I can get 23 approvals in about 20 hours?

Dankism, please tell me if you have tg'd delegates who have voted against the current resolution!!

I think I might start tging delegates from the bottom of that list anyway now.

Reached Quorum, but the big update still to come, so it could go below.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Lol, great art work Dankism. Yup, quorum reached. And Jey said it couldn't be done :p. He helped get it to quorum once it was close, though, so thanks Jey.

Congrats.

If my repeal succeeds, Dankism, are you going to propose your privacy statute. If so, you can now change your draft 2, so that it says recalling resolution #159 because that is what my resolution will be if it passes.

Congratulations, so long as we are in a good position to pass this replacement, I am fully in favour of this repeal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Well done, Adolf. I didn't think you could do it, but gladly, you proved me wrong. :)

There was mention earlier in this thread about a replacement privacy proposal, but I have seen no link or text for such a proposal. Does such a proposal exist?

Reidalia would support the repeal of the "Stop Privacy Intrusion" Resolution only if it were part of a "repeal and replace" process that included a fully formed and supported replacement proposal in the queue behind the repeal.

Regards,
vonKreedon, Reidalian Syndic Chair

Reidalia would support the repeal of the "Stop Privacy Intrusion" Resolution only if it were part of a "repeal and replace" process that included a fully formed and supported replacement proposal in the queue behind the repeal.
Given that would be illegal, I doubt you'll find one like that.

As I have stated before, I am new to this august body and am not fully informed as to its byzantine workings; will the Gruenbergian representative be so kind as to direct me to the reasoning behind the assertion that a "repeal and replace" process is illegal?

Regards,
vK

There was mention earlier in this thread about a replacement privacy proposal, but I have seen no link or text for such a proposal. Does such a proposal exist?


There is a replacement done by Dankism earlier in this thread. I think page 1 maybe 2.

Thankyou for everyone's support.

OOC: Duh, I'd read it a couple of days ago and then wondered why I thought I'd read something like that, but could not find a thread on the replacement. /OOC

I thank the representative from Adolf-Barham for pointing me to Dankism's draft proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10915132&postcount=15). On initial reading the draft seems very supportable, but we wonder why it is not already in process toward being queued for consideration.

Cheers,
vK

Because we'd be required to repeal this first.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

As I have stated before, I am new to this august body and am not fully informed as to its byzantine workings; will the Gruenbergian representative be so kind as to direct me to the reasoning behind the assertion that a "repeal and replace" process is illegal?

Regards,
vK

There is nothing illegal about the "repeal and replace process." However, the specific situation you described ("A fully formed and supported replacement proposal in the queue behind the repeal") is not possible under the rules. If a replacement proposal were submitted with the original resolution in place, the new proposal would certainly violate either the contradiction or duplication rules -- probably both.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

we wonder why it is not already in process toward being queued for consideration.


My repeal must pass before the replacement is proposed.

Lol, great art work Dankism. Yup, quorum reached. And Jey said it couldn't be done :p. He helped get it to quorum once it was close, though, so thanks Jey.

OOC: Actually, credit for that quorum card goes to Gruen.

OOC: Actually, credit for that quorum card goes to Gruen.

Indeed.

In case your wondering, Adolf, all of the UN cards are here. (http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/cards.htm)

Lol, ok

When this opens as an official Topic, post your replacement Dankism, so that no-one asks where the replacement is.

When this opens as an official Topic, post your replacement Dankism, so that no-one asks where the replacement is.

Can this not be posted now so that we can work on the proposed proposals in semi-tandem? I am uncomfortable with a repeal and replace process that cements a repeal proposal without also having a working draft of the replace proposal. I am perhaps still not grasping the intricacies of the UN resolution rules, but from what I have read and seen it appears to me that there could be a thread devoted to drafting a replacement proposal for future consideration for "official Topic" qualification prior to the repeal of the resolution to be replaced. Am I incorrect in this understanding?

Regards,
vonKreedon, Not We Regional Delegate

When this opens as an official Topic, post your replacement Dankism, so that no-one asks where the replacement is.Good, then the repeal debate becomes all about the silly replacement, and not the merits of the actual repeal. :rolleyes:

Can this not be posted now so that we can work on the proposed proposals in semi-tandem? I am uncomfortable with a repeal and replace process that cements a repeal proposal without also having a working draft of the replace proposal.OK, you've said this 80 times already. You don't think member states can function properly without the UN having legislated for them on every possible issue. I think we get the point.

...OK, you've said this 80 times already. You don't think member states can function properly without the UN having legislated for them on every possible issue. I think we get the point.

Apparently the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny does not get my point, as my point is that I am uncomfortable with the disconnect between repeal and replace in the repeal/replace process, not that I wish the UN to legislate on all possible issues.

It is true that I have posted questions and statements of position on this point several times in the course of my continued attempts to both fully understand the rules based limits imposed on the repeal/replace process and to try and set the ground for improving the process.

regards,
vonKreedon,Not We Regional Delegate

OK, you've said this 80 times already. You don't think member states can function properly without the UN having legislated for them on every possible issue. I think we get the point.

Make that 81.

Look, trust me Reidalia when I say that there will be a replacement. If Dankism doesn't try to propose (possibly improve) his one, then I will try, so don't worry about the separated repeal and replacement.

Omigodikilledkenny, we will simply post the replacement, so no-one moans about the part of my resolution that says,

BELIEVING that an improved replacement that doesn't go too far in protecting people's privacy, should be made,

You see, my wording sounds iffy, but if the replacement is seen ,this statement can be ignored to a degree.

Omigodikilledkenny, we will simply post the replacement, so no-one moans about the part of my resolution that says,

BELIEVING that an improved replacement that doesn't go too far in protecting people's privacy, should be made,

You see, my wording sounds iffy, but if the replacement is seen ,this statement can be ignored to a degree.I don't think you get it. Once a replacement draft is posted, no matter what your intention is, the thread will become all about the draft, not the repeal -- just as this thread has become. I would advise against posting the replacement, frankly, because once members see how awful it is, they will be inclined to reject the repeal.

If replacement hounds start griping about repealing something without replacing it (oh, nooooooooooooos!!!!! :eek:), just tell them there's a replacement, and post a link to it. Don't invite a threadjack.

Apparently the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny does not get my point, as my point is that I am uncomfortable with the disconnect between repeal and replace in the repeal/replace process, not that I wish the UN to legislate on all possible issues.

It is true that I have posted questions and statements of position on this point several times in the course of my continued attempts to both fully understand the rules based limits imposed on the repeal/replace process and to try and set the ground for improving the process.Well, the process isn't going to be changed anytime soon, so you're just going to have to live with it. You'll find, even where the United Nations has repealed a standing resolution, that nations are more than capable of handling the issue themselves in the weeks- or months-long interim that the GA ponders replacement legislation. Don't even get me started again over repeal/replace: The UN has made some very bad decisions when it rushes to replace something it has just repealed. Sure, we all know that fossil fuels are eeeeeeevil, but doesn't mean we have to jump out of the pan (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875378&postcount=125) and into the flame (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875394&postcount=127).

And, oh yeah, there's also the issue of -- umm -- just because something is repealed, it doesn't mean it needs to be replaced. Just ask LAE.

I agree with the Kennyite representative's statement that just because something is being repealed does not mean that it must be replaced. I understand that the Kennyite's well known mental capacities may lead the representative to leap to unfounded conclusions based on insufficient evidence, and that this tendency has caused the representative to assume that I am intent on every repeal being a repeal and replace. So, for the Kennyite representative's understanding I will state simply that I and the Confederacy of Reidalia and the region of Not We are not interested in replacing every repealed UN Resolution.

That being said, there are UN Resolutions whose repeal I, and those I represent, would not support unless there was a clear, improved, and immediate replacement proposal in process at the time of repeal. I am still attempting to clearly understand the details of the UN Rules regarding at what points draft proposals can be debated and appreciate the help that many in this august body have given me in broadening my understanding.

Regards,
vonKreedon, Not We Regional Delegate

I'll take into account what you said Kenny, but will leave it up to Dankism to decide if he posts it or not.

You said that they wouldn't vote for my repeal once they see how bad the replacement is: may I say that I think Dankism's replacement is very good. It is found on the first or second page of this thread. I don't see much wrong with it really.

Reidalia, as we said before, you can make a thread on a replacement of a repeal at any time (even if no-one actually had any intention to repeal the original!). Dankism wrote the replacement to the resolution I'm trying to repeal before this resolution is repealed.

However, you are not allowed to propose a replacement for a resolution until the repeal has actually been passed by members of the UN.

I agree with the Kennyite representative's statement that just because something is being repealed does not mean that it must be replaced. I understand that the Kennyite's well known mental capacities may lead the representative to leap to unfounded conclusions based on insufficient evidence, and that this tendency has caused the representative to assume that I am intent on every repeal being a repeal and replace. So, for the Kennyite representative's understanding I will state simply that I and the Confederacy of Reidalia and the region of Not We are not interested in replacing every repealed UN Resolution.

That being said, there are UN Resolutions whose repeal I, and those I represent, would not support unless there was a clear, improved, and immediate replacement proposal in process at the time of repeal. I am still attempting to clearly understand the details of the UN Rules regarding at what points draft proposals can be debated and appreciate the help that many in this august body have given me in broadening my understanding.

Regards,
vonKreedon, Not We Regional Delegate

We did our best to try to eliminate the representative's confusion here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10939450&postcount=86

Since, apparently, that still did not suffice, we'll be a bit more direct:

You cannot legally SUBMIT a proposal which contradicts or duplicates an existing proposal. In this forum, you can talk about a replacement any damn time you want to and post a draft of a replacement any damn time you want to. Submitting a proposal for approval and discussing it in this forum are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large