Resolution 2006/23: Concerning Membership of all countries in the MUN

Apollo

Any more comments? If not, Nightowl or I will add a poll.

Whatever happened to the comments/suggestions I made now? What do we do about them?

Reply 22

OP

I do apologise Nutter I didn't see them

Nutter

We would like the text of this draft resolution to be amended to specifically mention how exactly the Secretary General or UNGA is expected to monitor the movement of representatives, and the time that a representative switches countries, since this can be quite confusing with many other matters to look into.

Yes this was always going to be difficult, the group monitor thing doesn't give any "date joined", but then I thought since we started this "We welcome blah blah blah our new representative for blah blah blah" in the Welcome threads, we could use that as our record for the DOA (Date of Arrival, not Dead on Arrival) As for changing countries, I think we also announce them somewhere in the Welcome threads.

Australia also wishes to define explicitly the term "month" as 30 days, because this can be interpreted as 31 (or even 28 days) by other member countries.

I'll change it as soon as I've posted this.

Furthermore, we stress there must be a MINIMUM of 30 complete days, and not even an hour less, for this resolution to be honoured.

Not so sure about this, I mean if there is a good representative whose being going for 28 days and a major position opens up, he won't be able to nominate himself because it isn't 30 complete days - perhaps we could allow a "buffer zone" of some sort of about 4 or 5 days so they can nominate themselves, as long as the predicted date of appointment is within the 30 day limit.

Reply 23

OP

I have made appropriate adjustments - any comments?

Reply 24

Nightowl

I do apologise Nutter I didn't see them

Not a problem.

Yes this was always going to be difficult, the group monitor thing doesn't give any "date joined", but then I thought since we started this "We welcome blah blah blah our new representative for blah blah blah" in the Welcome threads, we could use that as our record for the DOA (Date of Arrival, not Dead on Arrival) As for changing countries, I think we also announce them somewhere in the Welcome threads.

I understand what you mean, but it may get disorganised, and it would be quite a hassle to search through the Welcome threads for such indications of when a member assumed a particular position. May I suggest the setting up of an official registry in the Welcome thread that would list the precise dates that every single current ambassador assumed his position? The SG could update this on announcing the result of an election and/or approving a user's membership of the group. Furthermore, we would have convenient reference to check whether we qualify to run for a position or not.

I'll change it as soon as I've posted this.

Thank you.

Not so sure about this, I mean if there is a good representative whose being going for 28 days and a major position opens up, he won't be able to nominate himself because it isn't 30 complete days - perhaps we could allow a "buffer zone" of some sort of about 4 or 5 days so they can nominate themselves, as long as the predicted date of appointment is within the 30 day limit.

We have no problems whatsoever with that, as long as there is some sort of precise standardisation and no ambiguity or subjectivity involved.

Reply 25

OP

Nutter

Not a problem.
I understand what you mean, but it may get disorganised, and it would be quite a hassle to search through the Welcome threads for such indications of when a member assumed a particular position. May I suggest the setting up of an official registry in the Welcome thread that would list the precise dates that every single current ambassador assumed his position? The SG could update this on announcing the result of an election and/or approving a user's membership of the group. Furthermore, we would have convenient reference to check whether we qualify to run for a position or not.

I have no problems with that.

We have no problems whatsoever with that, as long as there is some sort of precise standardisation and no ambiguity or subjectivity involved.

I have included a precise time frame so it can't be misunderstood, the expected Date of completed election can be based on times set in the charter.

Vote!

Denmark urges all members to vote FOR this resolution as its is vital for the survival and functioning of this MUN.

Reply 28

So just to clarify (and this should really be made clear in the resolution): This resolution would apply to all CURRENT members of the (permanent and non-permanent) members of the UNSC, correct?

Once that's cleared up, Australia will cast her vote.

Reply 29

santogold

15

Finland is in strong support of this resolution.

Reply 30

Knogle

16

I object to point 6, but agree with the rest.

(just kidding :wink:

)

Reply 31

OP

Nutter

So just to clarify (and this should really be made clear in the resolution): This resolution would apply to all CURRENT members of the (permanent and non-permanent) members of the UNSC, correct?

Once that's cleared up, Australia will cast her vote.

Yes, and I apologise in advance to Apollo for all the work I just created :biggrin:

Reply 32