http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=3537764#p3537764 This act passed by a razor-thin margin of (edit:73, I couldn't math last month) votes, making it an obvious target for repeal. Right now I am listing arguments for feedback/additions to later compile into a proposal. --WA regulation of luxury goods is a frivolous, unnecessary expense. something, something, starving children --the resolution outlaws all trade in gems not certified by its new bureaucracy, when consumers should have the choice on whether or not they prefer certified gems --testing all colored gems to determine if their coloration is natural is impractical when many mineral's often or normally exhibit coloration --persons who are willing to spend a large amount of money on a gemstone should have the sense to buy from a reputable source anyways and the resolution is unneeded
>h) Trade in gems not certified by IGA accredited laboratories is hereby outlawed; those found to have illicitly traded non-certified gems shall be punished with fines, penalties, or forfeits proportionate to the magnitude of their crime. That would create a black market for gems, too right? Because WA nonmember gems would not be certified. Also it might be worthwhile to spin the whole certification scheme as a way to artificially inflate gem industries for world assembly nations.
>a) The IGA, funded by normal sources, will cooperate with the IGL to establish standards of gemstone quality for all gems traded within and between WA member states. >g) The IGL shall assist producers of artificial or synthetic gemstones to differentiate their products from naturally occurring gems to avoid such stones being mistaken for natural gems; trade in synthetic or artificial gems shall remain licit so long as they are not fraudulently sold as natural gems. There is also no point for the IGL. It does one thing on its own, that could be completely replaced by the IGA. So, it's utterly redundant. It also doesn't specify where the IGL will receive funding. So its funding magically appears out of thin air? Just a few points I found just skimming the bill.
I haven't forgotten about this, but progress will be slow. Let's put a few of these into clause format, feedback appreciated (especially since the prevailing format for these lends itself well to awkward sentences). Incomplete proposal: DISMAYED that World Assembly funds are being used to administer a program to regulate luxury goods when there are far more pressing concerns that affect the world's poor, CONCERNED that the definition of "precious stone" mistakenly includes precious metals if geologically and economically accurate definitions of "mineral" and "valued for relative qualities of its appearance far beyond its intrinsic value" are used, DISAGREEING that every single gem should be tested, when it would be far more cost-effective to implement a program wherein producers and retailers are kept honest by testing a random selection of their inventory, ALSO UNDERSTANDING that the mandate to test coloration of all gems is similarly inefficient when many minerals commonly exhibit certain colors naturally, FINDING the bureaucratic division between the IGA and IGL counterproductive and unnecessary, BELIEVING the resolution's ban in non-certified gemstones to be unacceptably illiberal, DISAPPOINTED that the resolution does not make exceptions for old jewelry known to be authentic, instead requiring difficult and potentially damaging in-situ testing if those items are to be resold, CONCLUDING that the Gem Trading Accord and associated bureaucracies are a gross misallocation of resources and irredeemably inefficient at achieving the resolution's goals, HEREBY REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #113, "The Gem Trading Accord."
Draft 2. Comments on format, content, grammar, etc.? The World Assembly, DISMAYED that World Assembly funds, which must come from member states' taxpayers, are being used to administer a program to regulate luxury goods when there are far more pressing concerns that affect the world's poor, DISAPPOINTED that the Gem Trading Accord is required to be enforced in an excessively inefficient and expensive manner, due to such provisions as: --Requiring every single gem to be tested, when it would be far more cost-effective to implement a program wherein producers and retailers are kept honest by testing a random selection of their inventory; --Mandating that every single colored gem be tested to determine if their coloration is natural even though some minerals normally occur colored and when the cause of coloration of some minerals may be poorly understood and difficult to test; --Failure to grandfather in pre-existing jewelry, not even pieces of historic value and/or known to be authentic, instead requiring difficult and potentially damaging in-situ testing if those items are to be resold; --An unnecessary and inefficient bureaucratic division between the IGA and IGL; CONCERNED that the definition of "precious stone" mistakenly includes precious metals if geologically and economically accurate definitions of "mineral" and "valued for relative qualities of its appearance far beyond its intrinsic value" are used, BELIEVING the resolution's ban of trade in non-certified gemstones is unacceptably illiberal and that a consumer not concerned about IGA certification should be free to choose whether or not to purchase a certified stone, CONCLUDING that the Gem Trading Accord and associated bureaucracies are a gross misallocation of resources and irredeemably inefficient at achieving the resolution's goals, HEREBY REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #113, "The Gem Trading Accord."
I like it. The bullet points beneath the "DISAPPOINTED" clause are particularly interesting and definitely one of the stronger points to advance in order to convince others to repeal the legislation
Minor edits in red on my most recent post. Proposed campaign telegram, please rip it apart thoroughly so that I may pre-empt counterarguments: Esteemed delegate, I ask you to consider the arguments for repealing GA Resolution #113, The Gem Trading Accord. Nations from across the political spectrum should find a good reason to repeal this resolution: Some will consider it unfair that WA funds are being used to subsidize the quality control of a luxury good, others will dislike the WA's heavy-handed intrusion into the market. Everyone should be disappointed in how inefficient the resolution is at accomplishing its goals due to several problems listed in the repeal. The resolution passed by only a razor-thin margin and its worthwhile to at least give voters the chance to revisit the issue. The repeal: [link] Thank you for your time, and hopefully for your approval. Burtonia WA Embassy
