NationStates Jolt Archive

Environmental
Resolution to Advance the quality of life in third world nations.
Strength: mild

Recognizing that the level of technology involved in sanitation and refuse disposal in third world nations is the leading cause of disease, infant death, and destruction of the environment, the resolution to advance the quality of life in third world nations resolves the following.

Resolves that all sanitation technology, created and patented as of the ratification of this resolution, as a mature and necessary technology will be considered public domain for use of any nation to develop further as their needs and capabilities allow.

Further resolves that to promote public health and safety, a portion of the proceeds collected by the UN will be applied to assisting third world nation in developing this sanitation equipment and in training the citizens of these third world nation in proper sanitation techniques.

OOC: Not bad. Quick detail: Games mechanics don't allow you to have an Environmental resolution with a "strength". Instead, you have to specify what type of industry will be affected.

Environmental
Resolution to Advance the quality of life in third world nations.
Industry Affected : Sanitation

Recognizing that the level of technology involved in sanitation and refuse disposal in third world nations is the leading cause of disease, infant death, and destruction of the environment, the resolution to advance the quality of life in third world nations resolves the following.

Resolves that all sanitation technology, created and patented as of the ratification of this resolution, as a mature and necessary technology will be considered public domain for use of any nation to develop further as their needs and capabilities allow.

Further resolves that to promote public health and safety, a portion of the proceeds collected by the UN will be applied to assisting third world nation in developing this sanitation equipment and in training the citizens of these third world nation in proper sanitation techniques.

Industry Affected : Sanitation


OOC: No, the game rules require you to choose one from the following list:

Automobile Manufacturing
Uranium Mining
Woodchipping
All Businesses

No.

Go back, read the rules, and try again.

OOC: No, the game rules require you to choose one from the following list:

Automobile Manufacturing
Uranium Mining
Woodchipping
All Businesses

Very well...

Environmental
Resolution to Advance the quality of life in third world nations.
Industry Affected : All Businesses

Recognizing that the level of technology involved in sanitation and refuse disposal in third world nations is the leading cause of disease, infant death, and destruction of the environment, the resolution to advance the quality of life in third world nations resolves the following.

Resolves that all sanitation technology, created and patented as of the ratification of this resolution, as a mature and necessary technology will be considered public domain for use of any nation to develop further as their needs and capabilities allow.

Further resolves that to promote public health and safety, a portion of the proceeds collected by the UN will be applied to assisting third world nation in developing this sanitation equipment and in training the citizens of these third world nation in proper sanitation techniques.

Now, back to the meat and potatos of the bill

Obviously a set number has to be assigned to the "portion of UN proceeds" would anyone like to start the debate on this?

[GrammarNazi, with a hint of legislator]
First, it seems to be in need of a title. And yes, this is important, because your title decides how the ReadNothings will vote.

Recognizing that the level of technology involved in sanitation and refuse disposal in third world nations is the leading cause of disease, infant death, and destruction of the environment, the resolution to advance the quality of life in third world nations resolves the following.

There should be a colon, rather than a period, at the end, if you're going to refer to the following text. Furthermore, I wouldn't say "...the resolution etc. resolves the following:", I'd say "...the United Nations resolves the following:". However, this is unnecessary, too. If you're going to say "blah blah blah resolves the following:" you don't need to say resolves again. A nicer way to put it would be:
blah blah blah, the UN resolves that:

all sanitation technology blah blah blah

to promote blah blah blah
However, the "standard" would be:
The United Nations,

Recognizing that etc. etc. (without the "this res resolves the following" bit on the end)

Resolves that all sanitation technology etc...

Further resolves that[comma] to promote blah blah blah
I'm not sure how well this format is received by some, but it certainly is present in a great deal of past legislation.

I'm too tired right now to go into each line. I can see a few errors here and there. However, you'll need to go a lot more in-depth for this to succeed. Don't just add minor details, you need to look at the bigger picture. You're demanding that nations give up technology, which won't be received well, I imagine, and people hate giving up money, especially when it's expected that that money will magically poof the solution into place.

My assessment: this hasn't a whelk's chance in a supernova of passing. Nice try.

[/GrammarNazi with a hint of legislator]

-the Author of Wolfgang

An interesting idea and well worth considering. A few points....

Recognizing that the level of technology involved in sanitation and refuse disposal in third world nations is the leading cause of disease, infant death, and destruction of the environment, the resolution to advance the quality of life in third world nations resolves the following.

We can't buy such a broad, general statement. Do you mean in those countries? If so, you need to put that in there. Is improper sanitation the leading cause of infant mortality? Or is it the lack of proper pre- and post-natal medical care? If you're going to make such a sweeping statement, you'll need some evidence to back it up.

Resolves that all sanitation technology, created and patented as of the ratification of this resolution, as a mature and necessary technology will be considered public domain for use of any nation to develop further as their needs and capabilities allow.

Instead of throwing the technology into the public domain, how about requiring free licensing for the poorer nations who need the technology? We wouldn't object to that, but we don't want to hand our technology gratis to nations with thriving economies that could well afford to pay for it.

Further resolves that to promote public health and safety, a portion of the proceeds collected by the UN will be applied to assisting third world nation in developing this sanitation equipment and in training the citizens of these third world nation in proper sanitation techniques.

Do you mean the total funds collected by the NSUN? If so, you should say "revenues" instead of "proceeds". And, as someone already mentioned, you'll have to say something specific about the amount.

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but there's been objection in the past to using "third world nation" in resolutions. People argue that there is no such thing in the world of NationStates. You might want to consider a different term.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but there's been objection in the past to using "third world nation" in resolutions. People argue that there is no such thing in the world of NationStates.

Of course, Third World nations themselves, such as Ariddia, would beg to differ.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The Third World is not a reality but an ideology.

It's such a vague concept, you may be better using other phrases, such as "developing nation".

Other than that, I'm vaguely in support, and I might have a bit to contribute to this.

Here is a draft I did back in July addressing access to water as a fundamental right. It's got it's flaws, but it perhaps has something you can use here:

NOTING that Water is essential for life;

CONCERNED that many people face water shortages on an alarmingly regular basis;

NOTING a substantial shortfall in availability of potable water;

NOTING that access to safe water is a fundamental need, and therefore a basic human right;

ASPIRING that:
a) each person has the right to a water supply that is sufficient and continuous for personal and domestic uses, such as drinking, personal sanitation, washing of clothes, food preparation, personal and household hygiene.
b) each person is also entitled to water of adequate quality.
c) water should be accessible to all, in terms of location, economic accessibility and indescriminate

MINDFUL that limitations of resources make these aspirations difficult or impossible in the short and medium term;

MANDATES member states shall:
a) respect the right to water, by refraining from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of the right to water for anyone;
b) protect the right to water, by preventing 3rd parties from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of the right to water for anyone;
c) ensure best possible access to the minimum essential amount of water, that is sufficient and safe for personal and domestic uses to prevent disease
d) ensure the right of access to water and water facilities and services on a non-discriminatory basis, especially for disadvantaged or marginalized groups
e) ensure best possible physical access to water facilities or services that provide sufficient, safe and regular water; that have a sufficient number of water outlets to avoid prohibitive waiting times; and that are at a reasonable distance from the household
f) ensure personal security is not threatened when accessing water
g) ensure best possible equitable distribution of all available water facilities and services
h) adopt relatively low-cost targeted water programmes to protect vulnerable and marginalized groups
i) take measures to prevent, treat and control diseases linked to water, in particular ensuring access to adequate sanitation

OBLIGES member states to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, to the maximum of its available resources, with a long term objective of achieving accessible water supplies of adequate quality,

REMINDS member states that they have a ongoing duty to progress as effectively as possible towards the full realisation of the right to water;

URGES member states to assist and co-operate with the international community, such as sharing best practices and expertise.

RESERVES member states margin of discretion to fulfil their obligations under this legislation

Ok, I can accept the change in terminology, developing nations for third world nations, etc...

That changes the wording without the intent.

As for my choice of sanitation, proper sanitation cuts down disease and improves the quality of drinking water. Buy cutting down disease, more money is freed up for other uses. But improving drinking water, the levels of diesase are reduced, etc.

It has actually been well established that sanitation, rather than pre or post natal care, in developing nations is the greatest factor in infant mortality. In developed nations, the problem still remains pre and post natal care.

As for making sanitation technology public domain, as well as providing funding for the production of sewage treatment, etc. There is actually a method to my madness.

Notice that I stated that this is a mature technology, and that the public domain clause only applies to tech that exists atthe time of ratification. Further development would be protected by patents, and at the same time, sewage treatment which hasn't had any real developments in the last ten years or so, would become available to poorer nations without licencing fees.

This is actually a good thing for buisnesses. While they might lose out on a few hundred thousand in licencing fees, the coiuntries building these treatment facilities would not have the expertise to build them. So the companies that developed these systems would naturally be employed in their construction. While concrete workers may be redily available, hydraulic engineers and such may be as rare as hen's teeth in the nation needing these facilities.

So, the developing nation benefits, the companies that initially developed the technology would benefit, the unions would benefit due to the employment of skilled personel, and the developed nations would benefit due to having stable healty nations that could now afford to purchase manufactured goods, or provide labor for manufacturing.

It's a win win situation.

I would like to hear further thoughts on the title and the amount of procedes that should be applied to this project.

Oh, BTW :

You'll notice the impact on the environment is listed as a reason for this resolution.

It is well known that the improper disposal of waste has a far reaching impact on the environment, one that is both obvious and verifiable.

hundreds of villages in developing nations simply dump refuse and human excrement in the local rivers which kills plant and wildlife and destroys the quality of their water supply.

Thes rivers merge, choked with filth forming rivers that carry disease and chemicle debris through their nations and into their neighboors nations. This in turn makes this not a local issue, but an international issue.

And for once, instead of posturing about the environment and the damage man does to it, we have an opportunity to actually do something real about it.

THat's right, it's not sexy, it's not a hot topic, but it's time to deal with real unadulterated shit.

Oh, and as for richer nations gaining access to the sewage treatment technology of other nations...

You're joking right?

Assuming you are not, all developed nations already use state of the art waste processing. They have to, it's an unavoidable result of becomming a developed nation. The costs associated with not using this technology, while rarely pondered by people who never travel outside these safe havens, defies description.

I would not concern yourself with other developed nations stealing your waste processing secrets. :rolleyes:

OOC: You haven't figured out the edit feature have you?

Interesting read...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1962786.ece

This is a good idea for a resolution. THere happen to be no operative cluases in it yet, unofrtunately. Here's one:

Calls upon all developed member states to contribute aid to third world nations in order to assist them in eradicating extreme poverty;

Suggests that there be close monitoring of this aid to ensure that it is not lost through corruption;

And then there would be more...

Thanks

The Allied States of Mauricio Curbelo

Oh, and as for richer nations gaining access to the sewage treatment technology of other nations...

You're joking right?

Assuming you are not, all developed nations already use state of the art waste processing. They have to, it's an unavoidable result of becomming a developed nation. The costs associated with not using this technology, while rarely pondered by people who never travel outside these safe havens, defies description.

I would not concern yourself with other developed nations stealing your waste processing secrets. :rolleyes:

Despite your snide remark, we were not joking. Let's assume, for the sake of argument only, that all developed nations already use state-of-the-art waste processing. But now....

Are they using patented technology under license? Would your proposal, which would make the technology public property, void the licenses and deny the inventors/developers their deserved proceeds?

Even though the technology they're using may be state-of-the-art, is there other, patented technology that they might use because it would be cheaper if not for the licensing fees? Your proposal would hand that to them for nothing.

Free licensing to poorer nations would avoid these potential problems and accomplish what we believe the intent of the proposal to be.

Despite the churlish behavior of the author in other threads, we tried to offer some constructive criticism, not only to improve the legislation, but to alert the author to problems he may encounter in debate. Obviously, he's not interested in that. He knows everything worth knowing about the subject, and everybody else should just accept that. Attempts to contribute are met with rolling eyes and snarky remarks. We tried to be helpful. We won't make that mistake again.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

OOC: You haven't figured out the edit feature have you?


OOC : two factors...

1. Data base error

2. the desire to go back and see a cronological development of the resolution.

Despite your snide remark, we were not joking. Let's assume, for the sake of argument only, that all developed nations already use state-of-the-art waste processing. But now....

Are they using patented technology under license? Would your proposal, which would make the technology public property, void the licenses and deny the inventors/developers their deserved proceeds?

Even though the technology they're using may be state-of-the-art, is there other, patented technology that they might use because it would be cheaper if not for the licensing fees? Your proposal would hand that to them for nothing.

Free licensing to poorer nations would avoid these potential problems and accomplish what we believe the intent of the proposal to be.

Despite the churlish behavior of the author in other threads, we tried to offer some constructive criticism, not only to improve the legislation, but to alert the author to problems he may encounter in debate. Obviously, he's not interested in that. He knows everything worth knowing about the subject, and everybody else should just accept that. Attempts to contribute are met with rolling eyes and snarky remarks. We tried to be helpful. We won't make that mistake again.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Ok, there's some wiggle room here...

First let's change the wording to make technologies involved older than ten years old public domain.

Then we add an exclusion that states that current licences being legal contracts cannot be vioded by this resolution.

Attempting to limit this to poorer nations would create a debate over which countries qualified. And I would like to avoid that if possible. In addition, the nature of the resolution actually tends to generate business for the companies that held the original patents due to their specific expertise.

I would also like to appoligize for my remark, as I misunderstood the seriousness of your concerns, and my experience with some delegates has made me unfortunately defensive at times. I hope my explanation has releived at least some of your concerns, and I look forward to developing this resolution with you.

This is a good idea for a resolution. THere happen to be no operative cluases in it yet, unofrtunately. Here's one:

Calls upon all developed member states to contribute aid to third world nations in order to assist them in eradicating extreme poverty;

Suggests that there be close monitoring of this aid to ensure that it is not lost through corruption;

And then there would be more...

Thanks

The Allied States of Mauricio Curbelo

Despite the obvious benefits to individual nations, I would prefer to have the money come from an international source, such as the UN. This would avoid unintentional consequences that could arise from situations that may be percieved as loans.

Ok, there's some wiggle room here...

First let's change the wording to make technologies involved older than ten years old public domain.

Then we add an exclusion that states that current licences being legal contracts cannot be vioded by this resolution.

Attempting to limit this to poorer nations would create a debate over which countries qualified. And I would like to avoid that if possible. In addition, the nature of the resolution actually tends to generate business for the companies that held the original patents due to their specific expertise.

I would also like to appoligize for my remark, as I misunderstood the seriousness of your concerns, and my experience with some delegates has made me unfortunately defensive at times. I hope my explanation has releived at least some of your concerns, and I look forward to developing this resolution with you.

First off, your apology is accepted. As long as you treat other members with respect and their ideas with an open mind, we'll try our best to work with you on this and any other proposal you draft.

We can see the logic of your concern about defining "poorer nations". Makes sense. Your idea about protecting current licenses is a good one. Takes care of that. As for the 10-year business, we'll have to think about that some. Maybe. We'll have to see how things develop as others provide (we hope) comments and suggestions.

I'm not convinced by the generating business argument. It could certainly apply in some cases, but not all. Some companies would have expertise that could be a valuable asset to those producing the items or making use of the technology in building systems. Others, particularly the "innovation" companies, either wouldn't have the expertise in application or it would be outside their line of business. You could use that argument to rebut opposition, but I wouldn't advance it unless necessary.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm not convinced by the generating business argument. It could certainly apply in some cases, but not all. Some companies would have expertise that could be a valuable asset to those producing the items or making use of the technology in building systems. Others, particularly the "innovation" companies, either wouldn't have the expertise in application or it would be outside their line of business. You could use that argument to rebut opposition, but I wouldn't advance it unless necessary.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations


The thing is, though the technology would be available to these poorer countries, the innovation companies would be of greater need than the implimentation companies.

The reason for this is that local conditions, including but not limited to weather, soil, and diet, would vary greatly.

Possibly even more important, most of these technologies were developed for first world nations, and while the basic principles involved would no doubt remain sound, applying these principles to poorer nations that do not yet have the infrastucture to support the systems as originally designed, will present enormous engineering challanges.

Yet, despite the difficulty, and the problems with multi-national cooperation, no to mentione the hundreds of experts from multiple nations employing hundreds of inturpreters, this is possible the most important international undertaking that has ever been proposed. The effects on the environment and helthcare are almost incalculable.

So, I respectfully request that we all knuckle down and hammer out an acceptable resolution. We've done some good work so far, but we can do better.

Environmental
Resolution to Advance the quality of life in third world nations.
Industry Affected : All Businesses

Recognizing that the level of technology involved in sanitation and refuse disposal in third world nations is the leading cause of disease, infant death, and destruction of the environment, the resolution to advance the quality of life in third world nations resolves the following:

I. That all sanitation technology, created and patented as of ten years prior to the date of the ratification of this resolution, as a mature and necessary technology will be considered public domain for use of any nation to develop further as their needs and capabilities allow.

A. No existing contracts or licences concerning this legislation are to be considered void except where nullified by the nation of origin of the original patent.

That to promote public health and safety, a portion of the proceeds collected by the UN will be applied to assisting third world nation in developing this sanitation equipment and in training the citizens of these third world nation in proper sanitation techniques.

A. Whereever possible, the holders of the original patents being applied will be contracted by the UN to deploy and modify the technology concerned to the developing nations being assisted.

Items in Bold need further refinement and discussion.

I. That all sanitation technology, created and patented as of ten years prior to the date of the ratification of this resolution, as a mature and necessary technology will be considered public domain for use of any nation to develop further as their needs and capabilities allow.



Ambassador, A question from the Cookeslandic UN Mission, who is (are) donating said sanitation technology to these third world countries?


David Swansea
Cookeslandic UN Ambassador Pro Tempore

Ambassador, A question from the Cookeslandic UN Mission, who is (are) donating said sanitation technology to these third world countries?


David Swansea
Cookeslandic UN Ambassador Pro Tempore

According to the resolution, everyone. The technology would become public domain for the good of the environment and the people, and the money would come from a UN fund set up for this purpose.

OOC : two factors...

1. Data base error

2. the desire to go back and see a cronological development of the resolution.
OOC: Actually I was referring to the fact that you had posted four times in a row, although it only looks like three due to the damn Jolt time warps. See you posted this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12419100&postcount=12), then you posted this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12419111&postcount=13), followed by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12419135&postcount=14), and finally this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12419249&postcount=16) all done within a few minutes of each other.

OOC: Actually I was referring to the fact that you had posted four times in a row, although it only looks like three due to the damn Jolt time warps. See you posted this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12419100&postcount=12), then you posted this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12419111&postcount=13), followed by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12419135&postcount=14), and finally this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12419249&postcount=16) all done within a few minutes of each other.

I didn't feel like fighting the database when I had something i forgot to add.

OOC:
I've been away for a bit, so I might have missed something, but does the United Nations collect a general tax nowadays?

OOC:
I've been away for a bit, so I might have missed something, but does the United Nations collect a general tax nowadays?


The UN does have the ability to collect taxes and fees from it's members.

This is one of the things I need assistance in finalizing in the resolution.

I didn't feel like fighting the database when I had something i forgot to add.

OOC: And I've never encountered a database error when editing a post, of course I could just be lucky in that regard.

Recognizing that the level of technology involved in sanitation and refuse disposal in third world nations is the leading cause of disease, infant death, and destruction of the environment, the resolution to advance the quality of life in third world nations resolves the following:

I. That all sanitation technology, created and patented as of ten years prior to the date of the ratification of this resolution, as a mature and necessary technology will be considered public domain for use of any nation to develop further as their needs and capabilities allow.
A. No existing contracts or licences concerning this legislation are to be considered void except where nullified by the nation of origin of the original patent.
That to promote public health and safety, a portion of the proceeds collected by the UN will be applied to assisting third world nation in developing this sanitation equipment and in training the citizens of these third world nation in proper sanitation techniques.
A. Whereever possible, the holders of the original patents being applied will be contracted by the UN to deploy and modify the technology concerned to the developing nations being assisted.

I really, really, like this idea. Unfortunatley, I think where getting bogged down in the concept of funding and patents instead of looking at solving the problem where aiming at-->unsanitary drinking water and waste disposal.

If where really going to make this work, not only do I think we should free patents for sanitization equipment, but also work in it's implentation as was earlier suggested. To this end I would recommend the collection of voluntary donations of workers, experts, equipment and money from willing nations. I would also make sure donated funds and equipment are used solely for sanitation.

Here's my re-draft:

CONCERNED over the lack of clean water and sanitary waste disposal systems and technologies in developing nations.

NOTING that royalty payments and restricted patents on sanitization technologies make proper sanitization equipment more difficult to obtain in these developing nations

DEFINES Sanitation technologies as any technology, equipment, or technique which is used in the construction, use, or implementation of equipment or other means of sanitarily disposing of waste and/or sanitizing water for personal use.

(Need definition for developing nation, I think).

Thusly the United Nations

MANDATES That all sanitation technology, created and patented as of ten years prior to the date of the ratification of this resolution, as a mature and necessary technology will be considered public domain for use of any nation to develop further as their needs and capabilities allow.

NOTES HOWEVER That no existing contracts or licences concerning this legislation are to be considered void except where nullified by the nation of origin of the original patent.

MANDATES That all patent holders or relevant expertise provide proper documentation and instruction on the use of sanitation technologies or equipment.

CREATES The UN Sanitation Fund (UNSF). An organization dedicated to collecting voluntarily submitted funds, expertise, wokers, and equipment for the use of properly maintaining and implementing sanitation technology in developing nation.

MANDATES That the UNSF give equal attention to all developing nations requesting sanitation aid, but give preference to nations that are more likely to properly use and maintain provided equipment and technology.

MANDATES That any funds, expertise, or technology provided by the UNSF be used solely for bettering waste disposal and access to clean water.

Definitley not perfect, but it's my two-cents. Any thoughts?

How does this jive with UN patent/copyright laws?

Ok, there are two problems I can see from your rewrite...

1. Patents and funding are critical to this to prevent problems with everybody from the developing nations to the developed nations.

2. Voulenteerism is great, in a sudden abrupt crisis. A tital wave, a hurricane, an earthquake, these all generate enormous amounts of assistance. Butthis is a crisis unlike those, this has been going on since before human history, and so the tendency is to see this as a natural state of existence rather than a failure in the evolution of society and technology.

While people view this as a natural state, few will do anything to correct this situation, even as the lack of proper sanitation in neighboring countries polutes their own ground water.

And because this polution from a lack of sanitation affects all nations eventually, this is an international issue, and therefore is an international responsibility to fix. Those creating the polution are not to blame, they would obviously prefer to fix the problem themselves if they were able. Nothing, not even animals, if given a choice, chooses to live in it's own filth.

So, requesting funds rather than mandating them will actually only make the problem worse. The reason for this is that many if not all will choose to feel that they have done enough to deal with this problem, pat each other on the back, tell each other how noble and environmentally consious they are, and then ever more forget about it.

I would rather not submit this resolution for vote than allow itto become an empty token of how enlightened we are.

How does this jive with UN patent/copyright laws?

That, among other things, is what we are trying to determine.

Would you care to investigate that for us?

I'm thinking that your public-domain clauses is in contradiction of UN Copyright Convention (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Copyright_Convention). I'd also take a look over the UN Patent Law (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Patent_Law) and Public Domain (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Public_Domain). If you want to figure out the santation tech you'll have to make it concur with those laws.

None of this is to be a substitute for your own research and work, though. I'm not going to lay the groundwork for you.

I'm thinking that your public-domain clauses is in contradiction of UN Copyright Convention (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Copyright_Convention). I'd also take a look over the UN Patent Law (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Patent_Law) and Public Domain (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Public_Domain). If you want to figure out the santation tech you'll have to make it concur with those laws.

None of this is to be a substitute for your own research and work, though. I'm not going to lay the groundwork for you.

As co-author of the "UN Copyright Convention", we don't think there's a problem with contradiction of that resolution. Technology is protected by patents and, if it exists (which it doesn't in NS, at least not on the UN level), trade secrets law, not copyright. Note that the proposal specifically addresses patented technology.

Also note that "Public Domain" was repealed. The author does need to take a good, hard look at "UN Patent Law", though.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Further resolves that to promote public health and safety, a portion of the proceeds collected by the UN will be applied to assisting third world nation in developing this sanitation equipment and in training the citizens of these third world nation in proper sanitation techniques.

Quoted just so we know what we're playing with here.

Like Knoot, I am concerned about the legality of anything implying that the UN taxes nations (though the UN Taxation Ban merely forbids the UN to "collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose" -- my bolding there).

However, the Climate Refugees resolution currently at vote has a clause in which a committee collects fees from nations, and that made it past the legality check, so that might be one way you could raise funds (you'd have to have a reason for imposing the fees, though).

If you do find a way to raise, or have the UN provide, funds, you really should have some sort of oversight to prevent fraud. Waterana wrote a reso in which funds were distributed but constantly checked by unannounced visits from a committee, and the penalty for misuse was loss of further funds. I tried to look this up, but kept getting distracted by the Inflatable Gandalfs and Hippos articles. However, someone less light-minded may be able to help with a link here, and the structure she used could give you a model.

I keep tripping over this phrase: "a portion of the proceeds". Proceeds usually come from somewhere -- a garage sale, a gala benefit night, whatever. If you mean the UN should apply a portion of its (yearly?) income, then I fear you'd be sailing into shark-infested waters, because nations will want to know (a) what income (b) who has it and (c) why haven't we been given any?

So, before going into what portion, I think you need to clarify where the money is going to come from -- I don't mean a long definition, you may even able to get away with something as simple as "the UN shall commit an appropriate sum to the (definition here) (purpose)" -- but it will be bound to come up, and you will need to have it clear in your mind before you're asked.

There's an assumption in the above that the concept "third world nations" means something specific in the NS multiverse; you might be better off just going with "poor" or "underdeveloped". A committee would come in handy here, too, to define precisely who should get this assistance, but I know you're trying to avoid committees, so I'll just have to hope someone else can come up with a way around that.

Finally, this is such a good idea it deserves to succeed, but would it be possible to approach it from the other end of the scale? Instead of giving underdeveloped nations access to patents that they probably don't yet have the technology to use, might it not be faster (saving lives earlier) to concentrate on the absolute basics?

It's not so long ago that many RL developed countries weren't sewered, and a "dunny-man" came round weekly to collect what was coyly called "nightsoil". I've seen comments occasionally on NS from people who in real life are in some way involved in projects to provide reliable clean drinking water or regularly serviced lavatories in underdeveloped countries, using the resources the countries do have. Maybe some of them will chip in with suggestions.

(I raise this point mainly because I don't want to see this commendable notion hijacked into yet another patents row.)

Ok, now we're startingto get some work done!

Excellent suggestions all.

One thing I have put some time and thought into is a definition of developing nations, which I'll see about merging into the resolution later one today.

But, for the purposes of this resolution, and obviously this would not work for every resolution or ever situation, developing nations would be defined as over 50% of the nation possesing pre-1970 sanitation technology.

That's a good way to tackle it. But avoid that "pre-1970s", because this is NS, and not all nations work on the same timeline or even time system (Cobdenia, for example, is still in the 1930s or '40s, I forget which, and there are many future-tech states). You'd be better off specifying what level of development their sanitation has reached (or failed to reach) -- more than 50% unsewered, for example, or without regular sanitation services ... I'm no plumber, I haven't researched the subject, these are just suggestions.

Why are you so eager to keep the patents release in this proposal? It seems to me almost an invitation to de-rail the topic. There are plenty of lawyerly types who would happily plunge into the obscurer aspects of patent law, but for me it detracts from the main point. One-topic proposals work better.

Character limits are always a good thing to remember, too. Dancing Bananaland's quick fix gives a good base to work from, but if you're going to define terms properly and detail funding sources and oversight, something will probably have to go.

I wonder if anyone playing this game would allow someone to call their nation "third world".

I wonder if anyone playing this game would allow someone to call their nation "third world".

OOC: Yes, me. And I'm not the only one (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Third_World). There's even a Third World University (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Third_World_Open_University).

I wonder if anyone playing this game would allow someone to call their nation "third world".

Considering that the definition of the "third world" was "those nations that aligned themselves with neither the West nor with the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War" and that technically neither the US nor the USSR exist in NS I would say that all nations in NS are "third world." :D

OOC: To add to the chatter: Third World is an archaic and outdated term. More proper terms would be "Developed Nations," "Developing Nations" and "Undeveloped Nations." Those are the most politically neutral terms to use, without getting into the nasty connotations of the real world.

I would guess that Ariddia fits somewhere in between Undeveloped and Developing.

That's a good way to tackle it. But avoid that "pre-1970s", because this is NS, and not all nations work on the same timeline or even time system (Cobdenia, for example, is still in the 1930s or '40s, I forget which, and there are many future-tech states). You'd be better off specifying what level of development their sanitation has reached (or failed to reach) -- more than 50% unsewered, for example, or without regular sanitation services ... I'm no plumber, I haven't researched the subject, these are just suggestions.

Why are you so eager to keep the patents release in this proposal? It seems to me almost an invitation to de-rail the topic. There are plenty of lawyerly types who would happily plunge into the obscurer aspects of patent law, but for me it detracts from the main point. One-topic proposals work better.

Character limits are always a good thing to remember, too. Dancing Bananaland's quick fix gives a good base to work from, but if you're going to define terms properly and detail funding sources and oversight, something will probably have to go.

The rational behind the patents issue is :

1. to avoid endless court arguments about who owns what and what can be used in a specific deployment and who gets paid for what technology.

and

2. We're talking about a rather mature technology here almost as mature as using charcoal to filter water. Most modern sewage treatment patents date back the 1970's with minor modifications ever since. Most of the people who have developed these processes are dead or have already moved on to other fields, and so sorting out who owns what or even finding them would be a nightmare, and ultimately a waste of time and money. So let's but them lose and get down to work.

As for the dating involved, it has not yet been incorporated into the bill, but we have to set some standard. It is possible that we could have a nation of sewer monsters join tomarrow, and that this bill would be automatically a bane to them, but we have to come up with a reasonable standard that suits most nations. The Exceptions will just have to realize that they cannot set the rules for the majority.

The exceptions may not set the rules, but someone else has. I was trying to alert you to a possible technical problem with the proposal. A proposal that contains a real life reference is illegal. Illegal proposals are deleted. You may think "pre-1970s" is not a real-life reference, and you may be right. But if you're not right, there's a problem.

Certainly the metric system is part of NS, as there was an attempt to repeal it. Measurement by nautical miles must be, too, as it has already been used in legal proposals.

However, I'm concerned that the system of dating that would define technology as "pre-1970s" may not be regarded as a common feature of the NS multiverse. That's why I pointed out to you situations where it is not used. If it's not an accepted part of NS, your citing of it may be taken as a real life reference. If so, your proposal would fail on an avoidable technicality.

Therefore I'd suggest you either seek advice on this point -- which you'll probably get as soon as somebody with the necessary knowledge reads this -- or try another way of describing what level of technology would show a nation was "undeveloped", "poor", or whatever term you end up with.

Thank yoj for responding to my question about patents. I can't say I'm wholly convinced, but I'll stop harping on it, as it is, after all, your proposal.

The exceptions may not set the rules, but someone else has. I was trying to alert you to a possible technical problem with the proposal. A proposal that contains a real life reference is illegal. Illegal proposals are deleted. You may think "pre-1970s" is not a real-life reference, and you may be right. But if you're not right, there's a problem.

Certainly the metric system is part of NS, as there was an attempt to repeal it. Measurement by nautical miles must be, too, as it has already been used in legal proposals.

However, I'm concerned that the system of dating that would define technology as "pre-1970s" may not be regarded as a common feature of the NS multiverse. That's why I pointed out to you situations where it is not used. If it's not an accepted part of NS, your citing of it may be taken as a real life reference. If so, your proposal would fail on an avoidable technicality.

Therefore I'd suggest you either seek advice on this point -- which you'll probably get as soon as somebody with the necessary knowledge reads this -- or try another way of describing what level of technology would show a nation was "undeveloped", "poor", or whatever term you end up with.

Thank yoj for responding to my question about patents. I can't say I'm wholly convinced, but I'll stop harping on it, as it is, after all, your proposal.

I'm not trying to shoot you down, I really would like your input.

How can we approach the level of technology in a consistant form that will deal withthe tech levels of various societies? We have to leapfrog over a hundred years of development and carry these countries into the modern world.

The bad part is that even as written, this resolution realistically deals with so many things, from water treatment and the obvious sewage treatment, to garbage disposal, recycling, power generation, plumbing, education, public health, etc.

Unfortunately any attempt to deal with any one of those issues without tackling them all would be an empty gesture.

I look forward to your input on what is likely to be a lenghty process.

Quoted just so we know what we're playing with here.

Like Knoot, I am concerned about the legality of anything implying that the UN taxes nations (though the UN Taxation Ban merely forbids the UN to "collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose" -- my bolding there).

However, the Climate Refugees resolution currently at vote has a clause in which a committee collects fees from nations, and that made it past the legality check, so that might be one way you could raise funds (you'd have to have a reason for imposing the fees, though).

If you do find a way to raise, or have the UN provide, funds, you really should have some sort of oversight to prevent fraud. Waterana wrote a reso in which funds were distributed but constantly checked by unannounced visits from a committee, and the penalty for misuse was loss of further funds. I tried to look this up, but kept getting distracted by the Inflatable Gandalfs and Hippos articles. However, someone less light-minded may be able to help with a link here, and the structure she used could give you a model.

I keep tripping over this phrase: "a portion of the proceeds". Proceeds usually come from somewhere -- a garage sale, a gala benefit night, whatever. If you mean the UN should apply a portion of its (yearly?) income, then I fear you'd be sailing into shark-infested waters, because nations will want to know (a) what income (b) who has it and (c) why haven't we been given any?

So, before going into what portion, I think you need to clarify where the money is going to come from -- I don't mean a long definition, you may even able to get away with something as simple as "the UN shall commit an appropriate sum to the (definition here) (purpose)" -- but it will be bound to come up, and you will need to have it clear in your mind before you're asked.

There's an assumption in the above that the concept "third world nations" means something specific in the NS multiverse; you might be better off just going with "poor" or "underdeveloped". A committee would come in handy here, too, to define precisely who should get this assistance, but I know you're trying to avoid committees, so I'll just have to hope someone else can come up with a way around that.

Finally, this is such a good idea it deserves to succeed, but would it be possible to approach it from the other end of the scale? Instead of giving underdeveloped nations access to patents that they probably don't yet have the technology to use, might it not be faster (saving lives earlier) to concentrate on the absolute basics?

It's not so long ago that many RL developed countries weren't sewered, and a "dunny-man" came round weekly to collect what was coyly called "nightsoil". I've seen comments occasionally on NS from people who in real life are in some way involved in projects to provide reliable clean drinking water or regularly serviced lavatories in underdeveloped countries, using the resources the countries do have. Maybe some of them will chip in with suggestions.

(I raise this point mainly because I don't want to see this commendable notion hijacked into yet another patents row.)


I thank you for your input, and I knew this was going to be a major issue that would have to be resolved before submission.

Quite frankly, I don't have enough history with the UN to know how to even approach this.

What would you consider a fair way to deal with this? I don't want nations to be exempt, but I don't think we need to put a devestating burden on any nation.

This should have the economic impact of dropping a quarter in a begger's cup, no real impact on the person giving, but if everybody in existance gave a quarter to that one begger, they would suddenly become the richest man in existance. spread out to all the beggers at once it would again have little long term results, but concentrating on a few at a time it would have a lasting effect on their lives.

And yes, oversight will have to be established, though the CRC gives that awful connotations. I would like it to be minimal, and limited to preventing fraud, overseeing construction, and determining the que for nations to be helped.

All the ideas I come up with involve ABC -- Another Bloody Committee, both for raising funds and for oversight.

I think it would help if you worked out exactly what you want to do. How will nations that have felt the effect of your proposal be different from the way they were before? Underground sewers? Earth closets? Water closets? In each home, or community-based? Similarly, clean wells? Clean running water at designated sites? Running water in each home?

Then you have to work out how they'd get it. Is it all about building programs -- like, the UN goes into places with no well and digs a well -- or is it also about setting up a working national water authority to plan future wells? Plus water cleaning plants, recycling plants ... how ambitious do you want the UN to be?

Maybe what you need is just for the UN to assemble all the information and arrange for the training of some sort of implementation teams to work with governments. I know that doesn't sound as grand as, say, The UN Sanitation Taskforce: Let No Poo Go Unflushed! The Decade of World-wide WCs! But the more scope you leave to individual governments to adjust the details to their cultural needs, the less you have to specify in your proposal.

Finally, the money angle. As far as I can see, recent resolutions are more likely to call for voluntary contributions,with some form of committee to make sure they go where they're intended to go. Having the UN require contributions makes people dig in their heels.

Anyway, I've asked a few people who've actually written resolutions to take a look at this thread, because my observations are based on just that: observation. I've critiqued proposals and contributed wording, but not taken a raw idea and sculpted it into shape.

I think it would help for you to have another go at writing the proposal. It would help you sort out what you can afford to leave out and what fundamental end you're trying to achieve. You're the only one who knows that.