NationStates Jolt Archive

About a week ago, Fris made a mod decision on a proposal about medical aid (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523269) that I'm struggling to understand. Please not I'm not contesting the decision here, it's done and dusted and one of the reasons for waiting a week was to put reversing that particular call out of the question. That said, I'm intending to become a more active proposal writer, and if there's a mod decision on proposals that I can't wrap my head around the basis for, that's a problem for me.

The decision text:

Yeah, I'd forgotten that line. Still, I stand by assertion that it's a House of Cards. This resolution is entirely about adding new duties and responsibilities to an organization that should (by all rights) be disbanded if its charter is revoked.

People used The Pretenama Panel in other resolutions, but it was more of an add-in to a broader idea. TPP is called into existance as needed. The IRCO is a permanently-staffed, heavily funded, internationally based organization. It's not a committee like the TPP. Even Epidemic Prevention Protocol mentions it in a minor context, and clearly shows that the proposal can succeed even without the IRCO, thanks to "Health Ministries of its members".

Nope, this one is entirely about new duties for a standing organization, and I'm going to rule that you've broadened the exclusion line beyond its intended limits. It's House of Cards until rewritten.

My problem is that I don't see the distinction between active organisations created by the UN (such as the IRCO) and committees (some of which are pretty damn active), at least in legislative terms. It seems nonsensical not to use the IRCO for emergency aid distribution, since that's its exact purpose, so I genuinely don't get why the exclusion line isn't thought to cover it.

If someone could explain this in terms I can get my head around, I'd be eternally grateful.

The Pretenama Panel is a committee of the General Assembly, made up of UN representatives who instantly spring into being when needed. It's an ad-hoc organization, created as a by-product of the Eon Convention, with the concept shared among one or more other resolutions. No mention was made of its funding or organization, only its specific duties with regard to the resolutions that called it into being. While UN rules prevent you from stating the exact composition of the Panel, several players have called TPP into existence and roleplayed their membership on the committee. So far, no problem.

The IRCO is not a committee of the General Assembly. It's a permanent organization with its own staff and responsibilities. Its existence is the sole reason for the resolution that called it into being. If that proposal is repealed, the organization is disbanded for lack of funding and support, and the IRCO goes away. If it's not repealed, then the addendum proposal was in fact an amendment to the original IRCO resolution, expanding its duties. It's either House of Cards or an amendment, and both are illegal by UN rules.

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer than that.

Hmm. No, still not buying it. In fact buying rather less for the IRCO than for a normal committee which would be funded out of the UN coffers directly.

If Resolution 29 is repealed, the funding for the IRCO doesn't disappear because the resolution doesn't directly give it any anyway. It's all done by donation and grant, deliberately to avoid possible corruption issue apparently. The organisation would lose its mandate and a good bit of its authority, but there's actually no reason it couldn't continue to exist independently of the UN. I doubt it would, but we are talking legalistic theory here :-)

I'm also failing to see how adding (related) duties counts as amendment under the meaning of the act. With a normal committee, we are actually (in character) encouraged to do this, to avoid creating more committees than are really needed. Assuming that a proposal doesn't actively contradict UNR #29 (which is quite hard if it's dealing with humanitarian aid, since UNR #29 doesn't actually say much), it's not doing anything different to any resolution that expands on a committee's operations.

I presume UNR #77 (Epidemic Prevention Protocol) is grandfathered in on this? I'm not familiar enough with the timeline of rulings to be sure.

I understand the emphasis on funding and support, and I hear Gobbanium's point, but I'm just wondering where the line is drawn in this case? When the ruling itself was made, I had a hard time figuring out what would be House of Cards and what wouldn't. I'm interested in a greater clarification of the committee rules and their relation to House of Cards.

]A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity.

Okay, so the committees continue to exist, but without doing anything, even if the resolution creating it was repealed. Is it then possible to assign duties to committees that have had their mandates revoked, e.g. if MRoB is repealed, is it possible to assign duties to the committee established by that resolution?

Or does it depend entirely on the amount of support and involvement that the committee recieves? It seems that the only requirement is that the resolution be able to stand by itself.

Oh another note- is it possible, in repeal, to specifically disband a UN committee? For example, if the repeal of MRoB had specifically required the disbanding of the CRMB?

I know I'm being a difficult child, but I just want to make sure I've got it crystal clear.

I'm differentiating between a committee and an Independent Internal Organization (IIO). IIOs are not committees, and committees are not IIOs.

Committees in the real world tend to form when they're needed, and generally consist of members whose 'day job' is something else. In the NSUN, committees would be formed of national ambassadors drawn from the General Assembly. You might be a permanent committee member on any given committee, but your actual full-time role is Ambassador to the UN.

An Independent Internal Organization is staffed by paid professionals who do nothing else. The Director General of the IRCO heads the organization known as IRCO. Her boss is the General Assembly, or possibly the "Subcommittee on IRCO Activities", but she manages the IO independently of day to day UN business, and she is NOT a member of the General Assembly.

It's my opinion that Hack's ruling was intended to concern itself only with committees in the above sense. It's clear to me that the IRCO is an IIO and not a committee. I'm having trouble understanding why that's a difficult concept to grasp.

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee.
I'd accepted the initial ruling, and I get the distinction you're drawing, but this is only getting more confusing. Are you now saying that committees aren't staffed by these mystical beings, but by national representatives?

I ask, because when I referenced the UN Free Trade Commission in a proposal, I did so under the assumption it was an impartial body. If, now, it's staffed by national ambassadors - and hence easily open to partisanship - that means I was mistaken and will need to repeal it.

For example, if the repeal of MRoB had specifically required the disbanding of the CRMB?

Despite my frequent visits there, I don't live in the UN building, and I do have other jobs here. How about providing those of us who are acronymically-challenged with spelled-out names and perhaps even a link or two?

Mutual Recognition of Borders (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=189), and the Committee (http://www.nationstates.net/36985/page=un) thereon.

Are you now saying that committees aren't staffed by these mystical beings, but by national representatives?

It's always been my interpretation that the 'mystical beings' were in fact the vewy vewy qwiet UN reps who never appear in the UN forum, and who (in their quiet way) managed astounding feats of impartiality.

It's also been my interpretation that if somebody wanted to roleplay being on such a committee, more power to them. It would have no precedent-setting effects of any sort in day-to-day UN business, nor could you require that such RP bodies be formed, but there's not a damn thing in the rules of UN proposals that prevents you from having fun in this game by pretending that it did have an effect.

You might want to get a second / third / fourth opinion from some of the other mods. I'm not in a position to post a collaborative response at this time.

Ok, thanks. Thinking about it, we did talk about doing a UNFTC roleplay when the resolutions passed, so it was that I'd forgotten. I shall move on.

Mutual Recognition of Borders (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=189), and the Committee (http://www.nationstates.net/36985/page=un) thereon.

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members who want to (i) clarify their borders and (ii) seek neutral third party mediation;
This is a classic case where a committee could easily survive the repeal of the resolution. Why? Because of the phrase 'neutral third party mediation'. It doesn't specify that the membership must be UN ambassadors, or even UN members. There is no requirement to disband a UN organization, because it wasn't formed as a UN organization. It was formed under the auspices of the UN, but that's not the same thing.

Offhand, I don't think I'd kill a proposal that included a line about disbanding a committee, as long as it included other useful reasons for repealing the resolution. Like Hack's Committee ruling, you can't create a proposal exclusively for the purpose of creating a committee. It's not a leap to see that the reverse is true - you can't repeal a resolution just because you don't like the committee.

It's never come up on my watch, and I absolutely refuse to make preemptive rulings over things that aren't a problem. Therefore, you have my opinion, but no ruling.

Alright, thanks then.