NationStates Jolt Archive


Draft: Internet Neutrality

Nistraph
09-04-2009, 04:45
Category: Free Trade?The World Assembly:

REALIZING that the internet, due to it's inherently international nature, as well as it's contributions from both members and nonmembers of the WA, is the modern era's single greatest legal "gray area,"

ALSO REALIZING that as the internet becomes increasingly important for the purposes of communications and commerce, it becomes increasingly imperative that the international community must join in an effort to enforce the rights of intellectual property, the fairness of commerce, and the responsible dissemination of information,

RESPECTING the laws of all nations in the fields of intellectual property rights, legality of trade in some or all items, legality of obscenity, and rights of speech and press, among others

NOTING that as of current, the ability of nations to enforce clear violations of their laws in any of these fields is highly difficult and questionably ethical,

ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Internet Security Team (WAIST), a committee of international investigators who's sole purpose is to investigate all violations and enforce all terms of the following resolution:

I. For the purposes of this resolution, the following terms are defined as follows:
A. Internet: The interlocking series of computer networks for the purpose of communication between the various connected networks
B. World Wide Web: The collection information made publicly available and accessible through the internet
C. Content: Any amount of information made available through the internet
D. Author: The intellectual property rights owner of a piece of content
E. Nation of Origin: The nation from which content is uploaded
F. Host Nation: The nation in which the server which contains the content in question is physically located
G. Receiving Nation: A nation which has access to the server in question through the host nation

II. Under no circumstances is any WA nation permitted to allow content that directly violates any passed WA resolution to be uploaded from that nation, nor shall commerce that directly violates any passed WA resolution to be permitted (the trading of nuclear arms, human trafficking, ect.)

III. Any content made accessible through the internet must be made accessible in accordance with the laws of the nation of the author as well as the nation of origin.

IV. Any commerce which has been arranged of the internet must be fully in accordance with the laws of both the nation of origin and the receiving nation.
A. In the trade of physical items, commerce must be treated as with any other method of trade, an excise tax may be levied by the nation of origin, a tariff may be enforced by the nation receiving the items into its borders, and all embargoes and trade agreements still apply.
B. The host nation may collect no tax from this transaction, except directly from the entity which owns the server on which the transaction took place.
C. In the trade of content, all laws of the nations involved in the transaction must be adhered to, excepting that no excise tax or tariff may be collected.

V. All nations maintain the right to control which content on the world wide web is accessible through all internet capable devices located within their borders, but may not, under any circumstances, entirely remove content or allow content to be entirely removed uploaded from another nation of origin that does not violate this resolution except when the nation in question is the host nation.

VI. Because of the quite serious possible impact of noncompliance with this resolution on the WA member if a non-WA nation of origin willingly refuses to remove content and prosecute or allow providers of offending content all WA member states will be required to immediately pass full embargoes of all commerce against that state until compliance is reached.

VII. All measures must be taken to assure that non-WA member nation's citizen's intellectual property rights are protected, and that fair commerce takes place between members and non-members.

VIII. All government networks made unavailable for public access are not covered by this act, and may contain violating content in the in the interest of national security. Classified information held by a government is not investigatable by the WAIST.

IX. The vandalism, unauthorized access, or any other use of content on the world wide web in a manner that is clearly and expressly forbidden by the author in the form of contract and terms of use of the content

X. Illegal content and illegal commerce which is arranged through the internet is enforceable by the laws of the nation which is offended.
A. A violation of Article II is enforceable under the terms of the appropriate resolution.
B. A violation of Article III is considered an offense against the nation of the author and/or the nation of origin.
C. A violation of Article IV, Clause A, is a crime against the nation or nations to which tax was not paid.
D. A violation of Article IV, Clause B or Clause C, is a crime against the seller of the item by the government of the host nation and is punishable by appropriate compensation to the seller.
E. A violation of Article V is an offense against the author of the removed content and the author may claim damages against the violating party in the court of the author's nation.
F. Article VI clearly outlines the steps needed to be taken in the event of a non-WA violation.
G. A violation of Article IX is punishable by the terms of the contract agreed upon by the entity of the receiving nation which must state clearly the jurisdiction which the signer agrees to submit to.Probably close to the length limit, but Nistraph has to redeem its national honor after the "fairness in elections" fiasco.
Kelssek
09-04-2009, 15:01
First off: "due to it's inherently international nature, as well as it's contributions"

Very common and understandable grammar mistake; you want to use "its", not "it's". Its is the possessive form of it, while it's is a contraction for "it is".

My impression is that a great deal of this is either redundant, or (unintentionally, perhaps) overreaching. For instance, there is no need to ban things that violate WA resolutions, because game mechanics dictates that violating a WA resolution is impossible. The part dealing with trade is largely redundant, in my view, and in a rather strange manner, seems to violate the Economic Union resolution and then veer into restrictions on economic policies with little apparent reasoning behind the provisions.

V needs a serious rewrite. If I'm not wrong it bans hacking into foreign servers to remove content, but the expression is so convoluted it's difficult to understand. And mandating embargoes really goes too far, I think.

As for VII, what about nations which do not recognise the concept of intellectual property? What is "fair commerce"? Wouldn't this be ground already covered more generally by the existing Economic Union resolution? Why would commerce necessarily be good?

Section VIII: I think this is redundant as well. A government stupid enough to routinely put sensitive information on the Internet is really just asking for it anyway.

IX doesn't make much sense. What contract is formed from just viewing content? What's this clause trying to do, anyway?

And that's a question you really need to ask yourself about your proposal. I can't figure out what its objectives are; it's all over the place and doesn't even do what it says in the title - Internet neutrality in the most common understanding has to do with all connections being given equal priority and this isn't mentioned in the text at all.