NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought that it would be a good idea to start a new thread for this.

Here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349725) is the original thread.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

The United Nations;

Recognizing the need of the United Nations for a steady and reliable source of funding with which to conduct its appointed activities;

Also recognizing the inability of wholly voluntary contributions to meet this need;

1. Establishes a system of assessed contributions to the UN by member states on an annual basis;

2. Defines the assessed contribution as:
a. Being calculated as a percentage of the lesser of either Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Gross National Product (GNP) of each member state,
b. Not exceeding 0.00005% of the lesser of GDP or GNP for that state;

3. Establishes a United Nations Contributions Trust (UNCT) whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
a. Determining, along with UN committees, what the assessed contribution shall be for the following fiscal year;
b. Acting as the sole agency for collections of assessed contributions from member states,
c. Holding UN monies in trust on behalf of member states for disbursement according to UN requirements, as stated below;
d. Ensuring all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the missions approved by a vote of the General Assembly;
e. Returning to member states all surplus UN funds at close of each fiscal year, determined according to each member state’s proportion of total contributions, or reducing each member state’s assessment for the following fiscal year by an equivalent amount;
f. Striving for maximum efficiency in disbursement of all UN monies;

4. Establishes a UNCT Oversight Board, whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
a. Overseeing UNCT and its outside auditors;
b. Permitting the publication of the independent audits and financial reports and make them available to member nations every six months;
c. Monitoring expenditures made by UN committees, in order to eliminate waste and corruption;
d. Monitoring and adjusting assessment rates where economic change necessitates such measures, while maintaining compliance with section 2b of this resolution;
e. Reducing or deferring a member state's annual assessment, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote;

5. Prohibits the UN from engaging in deficit spending.

At this point, comments and suggestions are more than welcome. Also, I would like to thank the person who helped me with this.

I think that a different title would be good, but I can't think of one right now.

I would ask that anyone tackling this project include Sophista as the sole co-author.
May I ask why? That doesn't really make much sense. The request is analagous to me writing a book, by myself, about an evil clown, but having to list Stephen King as my co-author because he also wrote a book about an evil clown, except in our hypothetical scenario, King only gets halfway through writing It, gets bored, wanders off, and never publishes it to begin with.

Edit suggestion for clauses 3 and 4:

3. ESTABLISHES a United Nations Contributions Trust (UNCT) whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
a. Acting as the sole agency for collections of assessed contributions from member states,
b. Holding UN monies in trust on behalf of member states for disbursement according to UN requirements, as stated below,
c. Ensuring all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions approved by a vote of the General Assembly,
d. Returning to member states all surplus UN funds at close of each fiscal year, determined according to each member state’s proportion of total contributions, or reducing each member state’s assessment for the following fiscal year by an equivalent amount,
e. Striving for maximum efficiency in disbursement of all UN monies;

4. ESTABLISHES a UNCT Oversight Board, whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
a. Overseeing UNCT and its outside auditors, and report regularly to the General Assembly for their approval, where the interval between consecutive reports shall not exceed six months,
b. Monitoring and adjusting assessment rates where economic change necessitates such measures, while maintaining compliance with section 2b of this resolution;
c. Reducing, defering, or waiving any member state’s annual assessment upon proof of need or hardship;
d. Excluding nations petitioning for hardship from the random selection either until the petition is denied or the hardship has ended, to prevent conflict of interest;Also:

RECOGNIZING the inability of wholly-voluntary contributions to meet this need,Remove the hyphen.

excluded from the random selection until the petition ...What random selection? Will nations be subject to random audit?

At this point, comments and suggestions are more than welcome. I would like to thank the person who helped me with this. They wish to remain anonymous.

Also, I think that a different title would be good, but I can't think of one right now.

I am not the anonymous person.

That said, I fully support this funding act. As a token of my support, I'll donate HotRodia's yearly (it is yearly, right?) contribution. After all, while we are no longer a member in this body, we too were once joined in diplomatic relations with it and it seems only natural that we would give back to the nations that followed in our footsteps.

Because there is no official currency in my nation, I will pay in my personal favorite currency. Given the rather wide variety of needs that the UN meets through its programs, I'm sure it will find some legitimate use for a large number of alligator teeth.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

The only point I'd have an objection on is 4(c) and the word 'waive'. That gets too close to the optionality clause. I'd rephrase it as follows:

c. The Board may, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote, reduce or defer a member state’s annual assessment;

Note that this preserves the intent of your sentence, as nothing prevents the Board from 'reducing' to zero or near-zero on demonstrated need.

Apart from that, an excellent effort.

What random selection? Will nations be subject to random audit?

Sorry, that was something left over from an earlier draft. I just forgot to remove it. Pretend it never existed.

I have made the changes that you suggested, Kenny. Thank you.

Edit: Sorry, Fris. I didn't see your post until after. Thank you. I will rephrase it as you suggested.

May I ask why? That doesn't really make much sense. The request is analagous to me writing a book, by myself, about an evil clown, but having to list Stephen King as my co-author because he also wrote a book about an evil clown, except in our hypothetical scenario, King only gets halfway through writing It, gets bored, wanders off, and never publishes it to begin with.

Your analogy fails, Lady Siri, because Sophista didn't get bored and wander off. He stuck with this through multiple revisions, several submissions, and a great deal of effort. I could make an equal case for myself as co-author, but I thought Sophista deserved mention more than I.

That said, it was a request from an old co-author, not a demand from a moderator. If somebody plagiaries this substantially, then Sophista deserves co-author credit. If they take his concept and run with it in a different direction, or even use substantially different phrasing to accomplish the same goals, then it's theirs. The current proposal by Karmicaria could go either way, and I assume she could chose to include or exclude prior authors as she wished.

That said, it was a request from an old co-author, not a demand from a moderator. If somebody plagiaries this substantially, then Sophista deserves co-author credit. If they take his concept and run with it in a different direction, or even use substantially different phrasing to accomplish the same goals, then it's theirs. The current proposal by Karmicaria could go either way, and I assume she could chose to include or exclude prior authors as she wished.

Thank you, Fris.

Siri was the one who helped with my version of the proposal and I would like the list Menelmacar as co-author. However, I would also like to somehow acknowledge Sophista as the inspiration for the proposal. Is there a way I can do this without breaking any rules?

Thank you, Fris.

Siri was the one who helped with my version of the proposal and I would like the list Menelmacar as co-author. However, I would also like to somehow acknowledge Sophista as the inspiration for the proposal. Is there a way I can do this without breaking any rules?

You might be able to ask them to look the other way - they have done so in the past to multiple co-author violations on major proposals (read: where the proposal was really good and the co-author violation was a rather minor blemish on a great document), but that's about all that could be done.

I'm sorry, but I am not about to ask any of the mods to look the other way. I just can't bring myself to do it.

If I submit the proposal with more than one co-author listed, I'd expect it to be deleted for breaking the branding rule. I have a clean record. I'd like to keep it that way. Which is why I asked if there was another way for it to be done.

We would like to thank the Kamicarian delegation and all those who contributed over the years for once again presenting us with a well-thought out proposition. [There area snickers from the rest of the Gobbannaen delegation, which seem to confuse the ambassador. Again. One day he'll stop putting his foot in it.] If we may quibble, and this is only a quibble:

3d. Returning to member states all surplus UN funds at close of each fiscal year, determined according to each member state’s proportion of total contributions, or reducing each member state’s assessment for the following fiscal year by an equivalent amount;

In purely practical terms, the second option is surely more likely to be chosen given the likely expense of reimbursement in terms of clerical time and banking expenses. One would hope that the amounts concerned would be small, after all. We realise that the proposal as written allows for this perfectly well, we just wonder if the ordering of the two halves of 3d is the right one?

(OOC: I'm used to calling the accumulated monies "Reserves" when they don't immediately disappear into predetermined funds. "Trust" just conjures up the wrong image for some reason. Hope that helps.)

Edit: (OOC: except the Trust is the thing controlling the money, not the money itself. Duh. I'm still not sure that "Trust" is the right word, but I can't seem to think what the right word would be!)

Is there a way I can do this without breaking any rules?Sadly, no. Could always mention one in the text and the other in the official thread. Not much else you can do, I'm afraid.

That's pretty much what I figured. Thank you, Hack.

The current proposal by Karmicaria could go either way, and I assume she could chose to include or exclude prior authors as she wished.

I would like to list Menelmacar as the co-author on the version of the proposal that I submit. If this reaches quorum, I will make sure to acknowledge Sophista as the inspiration for the proposal. I do feel that it is sufficiently different from the original proposal to do this

Is there anything else that needs to be fixed up, removed or reworded? If not, I will be submitting this shortly.

Just a couple of grammatical points:
- you need to put in 'The United Nations' or 'The General Assembly' or similar somewhere: at the moment, you have a lot of verbs, but it's not clear who is recognising or establishing (no, I know it doesn't really matter);
- you wobble a bit between 'United Nations' and 'UN': it would probably be best to use 'United Nations' in the first instance, and 'UN' subsequently;
- in 4a, it should be 'reporting', and 4c should probably be reworded such that it follows the format of the other clauses: 'reducing or deferring...'.

Aside from those quibbles, some questions:

So far as I can see, this proposal doesn't actually state how much our contributions are. In 2a, is the intention that the percentage will be fixed for all nations (e.g. all nations must contribute 0.00002% of their GNP)? Related to this, how will the sum total for collection be fixed? For example, the UN collects ten bajillion units. How does the UNCT know it needs ten bajillion units? An element of the UNCT's role could perhaps be liaising with the Secretariat and UN committees, finding out what their funding requirements are, and collecting based on those projections. So if the UNCoESB says 'this is the Year of the Dolphin and so we only need 0.1 bajillion units for Operation Stop People Being Nasty To Dolphins' the UNCT knows it need collect fewer units (and can scale down contributions accordingly). Otherwise, there will be a constant and inefficient cycle of collection and return (and further, if you give a committee money, it'll do its best to spend it).

On that issue, it could be made more explicit that a role of the UNCT should also be in monitoring expenditure by the Secretariat and committees and eliminating waste and corruption.

Next, some committees make provision for their own funding: for example, the UNEAF solicits voluntary donations. This raises two issues. First, will such committees be funded out of the UNCT pocket? And second, if so, will there be allowance for states that already contribute? We give a voluntary national contribution to the UNEAF: we would not thereby expect to be assessed for a mandatory contribution alongside states that do not give such voluntary contributions.

How can the UNCTOB report to the General Assembly, given all the GA does is vote up or down on resolutions (and amendments are prohibited)? It might be better to state that the Board will permit publication of the independent audits and financial reports and circulation of them to member nations.

Finally, some committees are optional. UN nations are not required to open branches of The Microcredit Bazaar; they do not need to seek aid from the UN Recycling Commission; they can ignore the Sustainable Agriculture Center. This is a concern for two reasons. It makes little sense to assess contributions from nations who make no use of them. But more than that, some of these resolutions were sold on the basis of their optional nature. One could have objections to the UN Demining Survey because it researches landmines, but still vote for the resolution that established it; it would seem some nations made this very choice. Requiring them to fund such committees might be objectionable.

Thinking about it, this isn't the way that taxation works. I don't drive, but my taxes go towards maintaining roads. Still, it might be worth bearing in mind, because the option to leave the United Nations is far more open to nations than it is to citizens to simply stop paying taxes.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Thank you. I have made some of the changes that you suggested and corrected the minor quibbles you had.

However, I don't have the time right now to get into the rest. I will address the rest of your questions and concerns at a later time (tonight when I have some time to myself and can think straight).

Your analogy fails, Lady Siri, because Sophista didn't get bored and wander off. He stuck with this through multiple revisions, several submissions, and a great deal of effort. I could make an equal case for myself as co-author, but I thought Sophista deserved mention more than I.

That said, it was a request from an old co-author, not a demand from a moderator. If somebody plagiaries this substantially, then Sophista deserves co-author credit. If they take his concept and run with it in a different direction, or even use substantially different phrasing to accomplish the same goals, then it's theirs. The current proposal by Karmicaria could go either way, and I assume she could chose to include or exclude prior authors as she wished.
Ah, fair enough.
Honestly, I have no idea how I wound up posting that here, instead of the other thread.

Anyway. On to the various points. I'll take these one by one.

1. on "waive" in 4c:

It's not an optionality clause. If a nation can demonstrate that they genuinely cannot reasonably pay their dues for a certain period of time then the board has the option to waive their dues for that period of time. These board-discretional changes would under no circumstances permanently alter a member state's obligation, and if the hardship continues beyond the period demonstrated or requested in the initial petition, the nation would petition again. That said, 'reduce' would still leave open this option, since the Board could certainly reduce an assessment to zero or a symbolically small amount (like, say, one dollar).

It might be a good idea to throw a "temporarily" in there to clarify that adjustments to assessments would not be permanent.

2. on the ordering of 3d:

A fair point... yet having just now tried to reorder that, I've found that doing so increases the complexity of the phrasing substantially. The option should remain to return the funds in case those surpluses ever get particularly large - and I certainly hope that they do at some point, as efficiency is good, particularly at the UN.

That said, your point is a good one and if you or anyone else has a suggestion on how to achieve said reordering while keeping the clause concise and readable, Karmi and I are open to ideas.

3. On 'Trust' being the right word for the UNCT:

It's really a question of instilling the right mindset, I think. I suggested 'trust' here as 'reserves' or most of the other previous suggestions 'accounting office', 'collections board', etc. create a mental image of the money being the UN's property to do with as it likes. A 'trust', on the other hand, is an agent, authorized to handle and in some cases disburse funds on behalf of a client. Since membership in the UN is optional and any nation can of course withdraw at any time the member states can be seen as clients of the UN.

On looking at recent posts I see Karmi's taken care of some of the other points and such.

Ah, fair enough.
Honestly, I have no idea how I wound up posting that here, instead of the other thread.

Split and merge.

2. on the ordering of 3d:

A fair point... yet having just now tried to reorder that, I've found that doing so increases the complexity of the phrasing substantially. The option should remain to return the funds in case those surpluses ever get particularly large - and I certainly hope that they do at some point, as efficiency is good, particularly at the UN.
Hmm. Yes. We see your point, having just made the attempt ourself. Perhaps it would be simpler not to reorder, but instead to insert something brief to explicate the intent. Something of the nature of "... or, in preference, reducing..." That isn't quite right, but something of that ilk may work.

3. On 'Trust' being the right word for the UNCT:

It's really a question of instilling the right mindset, I think. I suggested 'trust' here as 'reserves' or most of the other previous suggestions 'accounting office', 'collections board', etc. create a mental image of the money being the UN's property to do with as it likes. A 'trust', on the other hand, is an agent, authorized to handle and in some cases disburse funds on behalf of a client. Since membership in the UN is optional and any nation can of course withdraw at any time the member states can be seen as clients of the UN.
We think this may be part of our unease, since we find the idea of the body handling the collection of dues and disbursement of funds for the UN not being part of the UN a singularly disturbing one. Additionally, clause 3c means that the collected money precisely is the UN's to do with as it sees fit, given that we assembled delegates of the General Assembly are the ones to define missions on which those funds may be spent.

We would in effect be making a declaration not dissimilar to a nation calling its tax collection and benefits arms a trust, and that seems wrong. Such a misdirection has an air of spin about it that may make voters more distrustful, rather than less, of the honourable intentions of the proposal writers.

Hmm. Yes. We see your point, having just made the attempt ourself. Perhaps it would be simpler not to reorder, but instead to insert something brief to explicate the intent. Something of the nature of "... or, in preference, reducing..." That isn't quite right, but something of that ilk may work.


We think this may be part of our unease, since we find the idea of the body handling the collection of dues and disbursement of funds for the UN not being part of the UN a singularly disturbing one. Additionally, clause 3c means that the collected money precisely is the UN's to do with as it sees fit, given that we assembled delegates of the General Assembly are the ones to define missions on which those funds may be spent.

We would in effect be making a declaration not dissimilar to a nation calling its tax collection and benefits arms a trust, and that seems wrong. Such a misdirection has an air of spin about it that may make voters more distrustful, rather than less, of the honourable intentions of the proposal writers.
It is, however, not wrong, and not comparable to the taxes collected by a nation due to one crucial difference. Taxes, as abhorrent as the necessity is, are funds appropriated by a government to provide essential services for the citizens under its charge. While it is my firm belief that in most cases the private sector is a more efficient, higher quality, and lower cost provider of services, certain ones are better provided by a government, such as national defense, police services, roads and infrastructure, and in many nations education and health care. Paying taxes is a civic duty and an obligation of citizenship and while you can press for lower taxes, you don't have the option not to pay while you remain a resident thereof.

The UN, on the other hand, provides few services and those it does are not essential. The UN is not a government and is really more of an international scale-up of a community organization whose members voluntarily adopt by consensus certain, ideally higher, standards of conduct, and do good works for those less fortunate.

That said, if you've a better idea, I'm open to it.

Okay, this post has been sitting here a while and Karmi and I apologize for not getting to it... let me see if I can tackle it.

So far as I can see, this proposal doesn't actually state how much our contributions are. In 2a, is the intention that the percentage will be fixed for all nations (e.g. all nations must contribute 0.00002% of their GNP)? Related to this, how will the sum total for collection be fixed? For example, the UN collects ten bajillion units. How does the UNCT know it needs ten bajillion units? An element of the UNCT's role could perhaps be liaising with the Secretariat and UN committees, finding out what their funding requirements are, and collecting based on those projections. So if the UNCoESB says 'this is the Year of the Dolphin and so we only need 0.1 bajillion units for Operation Stop People Being Nasty To Dolphins' the UNCT knows it need collect fewer units (and can scale down contributions accordingly). Otherwise, there will be a constant and inefficient cycle of collection and return (and further, if you give a committee money, it'll do its best to spend it).
I'll tackle this first. While the RL UN uses fixed dues and this may in fact be part of its problem, and it is certainly true that a committee given money will spend what it has if it can... on the other hand, variable dues according to UN needs requires an entirely new layer of reporting and auditing and review and I'm not sure it's a great idea to add too much more bureaucracy. I think the best middle ground here would be not for the UNCT to just write a lot of big checks every January 1, but to disburse funds more slowly and steadily throughout the year, based on quotations provided them. I'm open to more specific thoughts on this, certainly.

On that issue, it could be made more explicit that a role of the UNCT should also be in monitoring expenditure by the Secretariat and committees and eliminating waste and corruption.
An excellent plan. Any suggestions on the actual phrasing of this for the resolution?

Next, some committees make provision for their own funding: for example, the UNEAF solicits voluntary donations. This raises two issues. First, will such committees be funded out of the UNCT pocket? And second, if so, will there be allowance for states that already contribute? We give a voluntary national contribution to the UNEAF: we would not thereby expect to be assessed for a mandatory contribution alongside states that do not give such voluntary contributions.
Voluntary initiatives would be separate from the mandatory contributions and would be assessed separately according to the mechanisms already arranged for such. Of course it stands to reason that only member-states who participate in a voluntary initiative should have to pay for it.

How can the UNCTOB report to the General Assembly, given all the GA does is vote up or down on resolutions (and amendments are prohibited)? It might be better to state that the Board will permit publication of the independent audits and financial reports and circulation of them to member nations.
Another excellent idea.

Finally, some committees are optional. UN nations are not required to open branches of The Microcredit Bazaar; they do not need to seek aid from the UN Recycling Commission; they can ignore the Sustainable Agriculture Center. This is a concern for two reasons. It makes little sense to assess contributions from nations who make no use of them. But more than that, some of these resolutions were sold on the basis of their optional nature. One could have objections to the UN Demining Survey because it researches landmines, but still vote for the resolution that established it; it would seem some nations made this very choice. Requiring them to fund such committees might be objectionable.
Again, voluntary initiatives would be assessed separately.

That said, if you've a better idea, I'm open to it.
We suspect that this is one of those occasions where two opposed viewpoints cannot be reconciled, and that which seems right and proper to one will seem wrong or deceptive to the other. As author of the resolution, clearly yours is the position to work from, and we withdraw our suggestion, if not our misgivings.

So far as I can see, this proposal doesn't actually state how much our contributions are. In 2a, is the intention that the percentage will be fixed for all nations (e.g. all nations must contribute 0.00002% of their GNP)? Related to this, how will the sum total for collection be fixed? For example, the UN collects ten bajillion units. How does the UNCT know it needs ten bajillion units? An element of the UNCT's role could perhaps be liaising with the Secretariat and UN committees, finding out what their funding requirements are, and collecting based on those projections. So if the UNCoESB says 'this is the Year of the Dolphin and so we only need 0.1 bajillion units for Operation Stop People Being Nasty To Dolphins' the UNCT knows it need collect fewer units (and can scale down contributions accordingly). Otherwise, there will be a constant and inefficient cycle of collection and return (and further, if you give a committee money, it'll do its best to spend it).

I think I've fixed this with this clause, but I'm not sure.

a. Determining, along with the Secretariat and UN committees, what the assessed contribution shall be for the following fiscal year;


On that issue, it could be made more explicit that a role of the UNCT should also be in monitoring expenditure by the Secretariat and committees and eliminating waste and corruption.

To be honest, I completely missed this. Using your words, how's this?

Monitoring expenditures made by the Secretariat and committees, in order to eliminate waste and corruption;

I don't know if I like using the word 'corruption' though.

Next, some committees make provision for their own funding: for example, the UNEAF solicits voluntary donations. This raises two issues. First, will such committees be funded out of the UNCT pocket? And second, if so, will there be allowance for states that already contribute? We give a voluntary national contribution to the UNEAF: we would not thereby expect to be assessed for a mandatory contribution alongside states that do not give such voluntary contributions.

I have quite figured out how to word it yet, but I do have an idea in mind. I'll edit it in once I have it hammered out.

How can the UNCTOB report to the General Assembly, given all the GA does is vote up or down on resolutions (and amendments are prohibited)? It might be better to state that the Board will permit publication of the independent audits and financial reports and circulation of them to member nations.

Again, using your words as a basis, I added this clause:

Permit the publication of the independant audits and financial reports and make them available to member nations every six months;

Finally, some committees are optional. UN nations are not required to open branches of The Microcredit Bazaar; they do not need to seek aid from the UN Recycling Commission; they can ignore the Sustainable Agriculture Center. This is a concern for two reasons. It makes little sense to assess contributions from nations who make no use of them. But more than that, some of these resolutions were sold on the basis of their optional nature. One could have objections to the UN Demining Survey because it researches landmines, but still vote for the resolution that established it; it would seem some nations made this very choice. Requiring them to fund such committees might be objectionable.

This one hurts my head, but I'm working on it.

Next, some committees make provision for their own funding: for example, the UNEAF solicits voluntary donations. This raises two issues. First, will such committees be funded out of the UNCT pocket? And second, if so, will there be allowance for states that already contribute? We give a voluntary national contribution to the UNEAF: we would not thereby expect to be assessed for a mandatory contribution alongside states that do not give such voluntary contributions.

How does this sound?

Funding for committees that accept voluntary contributions shall be assessed separately, and only for nations that choose to participate;

I'm still working on the last point. If there are any suggestions on how to word a clause to cover this, please feel free to let me know.

Determining, along with the Secretariat and UN committees ...
When did we get a Secretariat? If you're referring to the mods / admins / gnomes, you can't. That's metagaming.

It wasn't my intention to refer to the mods, admins or gnomes. I know that's metagaming.

3a. Determining, along with UN committees, what the assessed contribution shall be for the following fiscal year;

and;

4c.Monitoring expenditures made by UN committees, in order to eliminate waste and corruption;

Some edits have been made in the first post.

Do the changes meet your approval, Fris? I would like to submit it as soon as possible.

Why is this Furtherment of Democracy? I'll admit that I haven't yet had the time to take an in-depth look at the inner workings of UN resolutions, but it seems to me that this proposal doesn't have jack to do with democracy, and is more about making sure that the UN government keeps running year in and year out. Given that, something like Political Stability would seem to me to be a better fit.

Though if there is a good reason, I remain open to convincing.

The Furtherment of Democracy
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Political Stability
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Political Freedoms. "The Furtherment of Democracy" increases these freedoms while "Political Stability" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Political policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to grant more or less say in the operations of their government? Who makes the decisions? Whether or not you even get to vote on anything (or anyone) is a Political Freedoms issue. Total Political Freedoms represent something akin to pure democracies, where every single citizen has a direct vote in every single matter. Zero Political Freedoms means that the citizens (or subjects, or slaves) have no say in the operations of government whatsoever. Imposing regulation on campaign finances is a mild form of reducing Political Freedoms.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

I have to agree with New Manth, this does not look at all like a furtherment of democracy issue. Funding the UN doesn't in any way shape or form increase democracy in UN nations. In fact I can't see a single category this would fit under. There are a plethora of good resolutions that can never be because they can't fit into an existing category. I think this resolution may be one of them.

I would think that out of the three active mods who have read over the proposal and posted in this thread, one of them would have said something about this being in the wrong category. Then again, I could be wrong.

I'll leave it open and ask if I could get a moderators opinion on the matter.

I'mnot really trying to call out the cavalry on your resolution or anything, it just seemed weird to me to see Furtherment of Democracy up there. Like I said though I am open to being convinced.

What were the reasons for putting it under Furtherment of Democracy? If there was a good reason I will shut up and go home :)

This (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6994636&postcount=218) argument for Furtherment of Democracy was made in the original thread.

I could make a better case for Furtherment of Democracy, "A resolution to increase democratic freedoms." The UN is all about promoting freedoms, right? So anything that allows it to operate better would be 'Furtherment of Democracy'.

It seems to me that this is still a valid and logical argument.

Firstly, FoD resolutions don't increase all freedoms, just "democratic freedoms," or the right of people to participate in their own government. It's a limited scope. Secondly, that offering from Fris sounds like a joke, but no offense to His Frizziness if it wasn't. Thirdly, the purpose of the UN is not just "promoting freedoms," but "improving the world, one resolution at a time" -- which includes restricting freedoms when the need arises. This Assembly has done so four times since I rejoined, with two Political Stability resolutions and two Moral Decency (including one of yours). [EDIT: Actually seven times, since Social Justice resolutions (I think) restrict economic freedoms, and there have been three (one repealed).]

That said, this is obviously a gray area of legislation, and cuts across several categories, so it's a tough call. I'd probably suggest Political Stability or even Free Trade, or maybe just FoD if you don't want to bother with it all.

Sorry to sound so pedantic, but that's how I see it.

Also:

[3]d. Ensuring all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions approved by a vote of the General Assembly;Didn't we agree not to reference this body? Apparently it was mentioned twice.

3b has been fixed. I must have missed that when I was editing before.

As for category, you're right when you say that it cuts across a number of them. I'll take a better look. I'm starting to think that this doesn't fit into any of them, though.

I could make a better case for Furtherment of Democracy, "A resolution to increase democratic freedoms." The UN is all about promoting freedoms, right? So anything that allows it to operate better would be 'Furtherment of Democracy'.

The UN works in many different categories, thus this principle can be used to argue for any category. I suppose you could say that the majority of UN legislation is in a certain category, and thus this is mostly in that category, but, of course, UN legislation is subject to change. Every category suggestion under this principle is about equally as valid as the next.

I could make a better case for Furtherment of Democracy, "A resolution to increase democratic freedoms." The UN is all about promoting freedoms, right? So anything that allows it to operate better would be 'Furtherment of Democracy'.

I would say that Free Trade would not be the right category, mostly because this resolution doesn't really promote free trade. It would be a more valid argument that it restricts free trade by requiring a percentage of GDP/GNP. I would very much agree with Political Stability. A United Nations that receives its budget from voluntary donations is far less politically stable than one that receives its budget from pre-set percentages of GDP/GNP. Yeah, it's still a bit of a stretch, but it seems a lot less of a stretch than any of the other categories.

Quite frankly, I've always thought that this proposal didn't fit the categories and really shouldn't have been proposed. However, it's so damn necessary that I was willing to look the other way on the rules questions.
This (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6994636&postcount=218) argument for Furtherment of Democracy was made in the original thread.

It seems to me that this is still a valid and logical argument.
When I made that statement I wasn't a mod. Given my historical involvement with this, I'm not really in a position to rule. If Hack or Hotrodia want to step in with an opinion, I'd be totally happy with letting them make the call.

Political Stability:
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

If you argued that we are restricting the ability of nations to balk at paying membership dues in the interest of letting the UN operate (thus providing "law and order" to its operations and rulings), the category is probably the best fit.

I'd say Freedom of Democracy is the next best - but the fact that two effectively opposite categories would be my first and second choices is cause for concern. However, as Kenny pointed out, it isn't a good fit

The Furtherment of Democracy
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

The budgetary issues aren't given much oversight by the UN floor and the power to decide what to do with their dues is even further restricted than before. With the citizens having no say, the closest thing to their voice is the government who has it's voice limited. I'd say it isn't this.

Also, since it came up

Free Trade:
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

This deals with neither trade nor commerce. While you could argue that we are increasing the standardization of International rules, it misses on the second half which we use for Free Trade arguments: to facilitate better trade relationships.

The problem we have is that categories are either about how national governments relate to one another - with, or without, direct intervention or assistance on the part of the UN - or about how national governments relate to the people (and how the people relate to one another, etc). In this case, instead of a web where the UN is facilitating or looking at the relationship of nations to one another, it's looking at the relationship between the UN and each national government - a relationship that the mods have regularly said we can't legislate on solely. However, this is a proposal that is quite important from a conceptual point of view and there isn't a reasonable way to try and change the relationships being evaluated without sacrificing the entire concept behind the proposal.

Really, there isn't a "right category" from the rules lawyer perspective, so we're going to have to make an argument for a category and hope the mods will accept it as the best fit for the intent (and agree with Fris that this is too important to toss out because it can't fit a category)

This is most likely the most important UN resolution we've had in a while. The pressure's on, Karmi. ;)

Yeah, thanks. :(

Yeah... I'd go with Political Stability, myself.

Or, heh, Social Justice. After all, that's the catch all steal-money-from-the-people-who-earn-it-and-give-it-to-those-who-don't category.

What about Strength? This obviously has significant impact on member states, but its actual impact on political stability or social justice is rather mild.

Considering that it is a mandate....it's got to be at least significant.

Mild. For both "real" reasons and for metagamey ones.

The "real" reason, is largely for reason listed by Kenny. It's actual effect on the political freedoms of member nations is pretty mild. Cough up the cash and nobody gets hurt. It's not especially intrusive, and doesn't do too much.

The metagamey reason is actually similar. To be perfectly blunt, this Resolution applies to the UN; not UN nations. As such, it cannot be anything other than Mild. It's bad enough that such a Resolution would alter nation states (even while not really doing anything to it), to have it signifigantly or drastically alter nation stats isn't right, or fair.

Alright, so this is what I have after all the edits, deletions and whatnot;

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild

The United Nations;

Recognizing the need of the United Nations for a steady and reliable source of funding with which to conduct its appointed activities;

Also recognizing the inability of wholly voluntary contributions to meet this need;

1. Establishes a system of assessed contributions to the UN by member states on an annual basis;

2. Defines the assessed contribution as:
a. Being calculated as a percentage of the lesser of either Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Gross National Product (GNP) of each member state,
b. Not exceeding 0.00005% of the lesser of GDP or GNP for that state;

3. Establishes a United Nations Contributions Trust (UNCT) whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
a. Determining, along with UN committees, what the assessed contribution shall be for the following fiscal year;
b. Acting as the sole agency for collections of assessed contributions from member states,
c. Holding UN monies in trust on behalf of member states for disbursement according to UN requirements, as stated below;
d. Ensuring all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the missions approved by a vote of the General Assembly;
e. Returning to member states all surplus UN funds at close of each fiscal year, determined according to each member state’s proportion of total contributions, or reducing each member state’s assessment for the following fiscal year by an equivalent amount;
f. Striving for maximum efficiency in disbursement of all UN monies;

4. Establishes a UNCT Oversight Board, whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
a. Overseeing UNCT and its outside auditors;
b. Permitting the publication of the independent audits and financial reports and make them available to member nations every six months;
c. Monitoring expenditures made by UN committees, in order to eliminate waste and corruption;
d. Monitoring and adjusting assessment rates where economic change necessitates such measures, while maintaining compliance with section 2b of this resolution;
e. Reducing or deferring a member state's annual assessment, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote;

5. Prohibits the UN from engaging in deficit spending.

The final clause should be reworded, shouldn't it: 'prohibits the UN from...' is usually illegal (the rules specifically state you can't prohibit further UN action).

Thank you, Fris.

Siri was the one who helped with my version of the proposal and I would like the list Menelmacar as co-author. However, I would also like to somehow acknowledge Sophista as the inspiration for the proposal. Is there a way I can do this without breaking any rules?


You could always found a puppet called "Menelmacar & Sophista", thus you'd only be listing one nation, but in fact giving kudos to two...

There's no real reason for such branding anymore, given resources like NSwiki; you can brand to your heart's content on the NSwiki page and the forum thread (which is always linked from the UN Timeline). So a lot of the supposed 'loopholes' seem unnecessary anyway, aside from being more irritating than leprosy.

The final clause should be reworded, shouldn't it: 'prohibits the UN from...' is usually illegal (the rules specifically state you can't prohibit further UN action).

This is the rule: Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

The clause is not prohibiting future legislation and it is not making the proposal "Repeal-proof". It's saying that the UN can't spend money that it doesn't have.

Again, if it is deemed illegal as written, I will reword it. But I don't see how it violates any of the rules.

You could always found a puppet called "Menelmacar & Sophista", thus you'd only be listing one nation, but in fact giving kudos to two...

The ruling was made a while ago that you can't do this to get around the branding rule. Now, I wouldn't be using it to promote a region or group, but still. I think it would violate the rule. Thank you for the suggestion though.

At this point, I think that it has turned out to look nothing like the original. I'm going to stick with adding Menelmacar as co-author.

You could always found a puppet called "Menelmacar & Sophista", thus you'd only be listing one nation, but in fact giving kudos to two...

I think the revised rules on the branding rules would effectively make that illegal....

Considering that it is a mandate....it's got to be at least significant.
Huh? Not that old argument again.
Mild. For both "real" reasons and for metagamey ones.
Total agreement.
you can brand to your heart's content on the NSwiki page and the forum thread (which is always linked from the UN Timeline). So a lot of the supposed 'loopholes' seem unnecessary anyway, aside from being more irritating than leprosy.
Good plan.
Again, if it is deemed illegal as written, I will reword it. But I don't see how it violates any of the rules.
It's fine.
I'm going to stick with adding Menelmacar as co-author.
Also a good plan.

Now that that's all sorted out. I will be submitting this shortly.


Thank you, to everyone who helped to work out the kinks and whatnot. Now, the hard part. Getting it to quorum and passed.

Now that that's all sorted out. I will be submitting this shortly.


Thank you, to everyone who helped to work out the kinks and whatnot. Now, the hard part. Getting it to quorum and passed.

What if the nation's currency doesn't have a unit small enough to pay 0.00005% of the domestic product?

Unlikely to be a concern. Taking from RL, we turn our gaze to Micronesia. The CIA factbook lists their GDP at about 277 million annually, about 177 million without foreign grant aid. At 277 million, their contribution (at 0.00005%) would be $113.50. Eliminating the foreign aid, it would be $88.50.

Indeed, even with a GDP of only $50,000.00, a nation would still be able to contribute (at a whopping two-and-a-half cents). I don't think it's too likely for there to be an NS nation with such concerns.

Submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=UN%20Funding%20Act).

Unlikely to be a concern. Taking from RL, we turn our gaze to Micronesia. The CIA factbook lists their GDP at about 277 million annually, about 177 million without foreign grant aid. At 277 million, their contribution (at 0.00005%) would be $113.50. Eliminating the foreign aid, it would be $88.50.

Indeed, even with a GDP of only $50,000.00, a nation would still be able to contribute (at a whopping two-and-a-half cents). I don't think it's too likely for there to be an NS nation with such concerns.

I was thinking more about micronations, sure they also number in the NSUN? I guess it's up to each nation whether to round up or down.

Submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=UN%20Funding%20Act).
Weren't you going to list a co-author?

Yes, I was. I forgot to put Menelmacar on as the co-author. I've already talked to them about it and they are fine with this. If it doesn't reach quorum this time around, I will put their name on.






That'll teach me to submit proposals before I've had my first cup of coffee in the morning.

I was thinking more about micronations, sure they also number in the NSUN? I guess it's up to each nation whether to round up or down.Surely even the most microest of micronations manages a GDP of $50,000 (or, even more ridiculously, $12,000 for a one cent contribution).

And, more importantly, once you hit that point, the Reasonable Nation concept kicks in and makes them utterly irrelevent anyway. The Proposal is fine.

At last check, 19 more approvals to go....

Quorum!

I have started redrafting this. So far, I have a new title, which might stop people from thinking that we're trying to tax the hell out of them.

"UN Maintenance Act"

I also have a bit of a preamble, but it needs work.

Recognizing the need of the United Nations for a steady and reliable source of funding, without having to rely on special-interest donations, with which to conduct its appointed activities;

I'm not sure where to begin with the rest. Here's the final draft that was submitted, reached quorum and fail to pass.

The United Nations;

Recognizing the need of the United Nations for a steady and reliable source of funding with which to conduct its appointed activities;

Also recognizing the inability of wholly voluntary contributions to meet this need;

1. Establishes a system of assessed contributions to the UN by member states on an annual basis;

2. Defines the assessed contribution as:
a. Being calculated as a percentage of the lesser of either Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Gross National Product (GNP) of each member state,
b. Not exceeding 0.00005% of the lesser of GDP or GNP for that state;

3. Establishes a United Nations Contributions Trust (UNCT) whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
a. Determining, along with UN committees, what the assessed contribution shall be for the following fiscal year;
b. Acting as the sole agency for collections of assessed contributions from member states,
c. Holding UN monies in trust on behalf of member states for disbursement according to UN requirements, as stated below;
d. Ensuring all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the missions approved by a vote of the General Assembly;
e. Returning to member states all surplus UN funds at close of each fiscal year, determined according to each member state’s proportion of total contributions, or reducing each member state’s assessment for the following fiscal year by an equivalent amount;
f. Striving for maximum efficiency in disbursement of all UN monies;

4. Establishes a UNCT Oversight Board, whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
a. Overseeing UNCT and its outside auditors;
b. Permitting the publication of the independent audits and financial reports and make them available to member nations every six months;
c. Monitoring expenditures made by UN committees, in order to eliminate waste and corruption;
d. Monitoring and adjusting assessment rates where economic change necessitates such measures, while maintaining compliance with section 2b of this resolution;
e. Reducing or deferring a member state's annual assessment, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote;

5. Prohibits the UN from engaging in deficit spending.

If anyone can help me figure out how to make this into something that will pass, I would be eternally grateful. The idea of taking an anti-corruption line with this and putting emphasis on the fact that small, flat mandatory donations would preclude the need for larger, voluntary donations from special interest groups, which would, in theory, promote the UN's neutrality.

I like the idea, I just don't know where to begin.