GA Resolution: The Gem Trading Accord

[Ananke II]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

The Gem Trading Accord
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Urgench


Description: Realising that the trading of precious gemstones is vital to many member states' economies and,

Dismayed at the deceit employed to falsely trade fake and poor quality gems and precious stones and,

Noting that such trade can badly damage trade in real gems of quality and depress the market in natural stones.

Concerned that fraudulent trade in gems and precious stones may fund international criminal organisations and,

Convinced that standardisation of quality of gems and punishment of fraudulent trade in gemstones is a manifest good,

The WA hereby founds the International Gemological Agency (IGA) and International Gemological Laboratory (IGL).



Definitions:
Precious stone: any naturally occurring mineral valued for relative qualities of its appearance far beyond its intrinsic value
Gem: a cut or otherwise prepared Precious stone.


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.

b) WA member states and the IGA must ensure that all traded gems are tested to meet these standards.

c) The IGA will accredit laboratories within member states to test and assess the quality of gems and precious stones in order to licence guaranteed trade in real gems, thereby assuring consumers of the standard of quality of their purchases, ending trade in fraudulent and misrepresented gems.

d) The IGA, in cooperation with producers, traders and governments, shall discuss issues and arbitrate disputes regarding the international trade in Gems and Precious stones.

e) The IGA shall assist member states, when needed, to ensure that only WA standard quality gems are marketed as such and that all synthetic or substandard gems are clearly understood to be such at the point of sale.

f) IGA accredited laboratories, with IGL assistance, will certify whether or not coloured gems have undergone any treatments; gems passing this test shall be certified as natural.

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.

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.

i) Member states are strongly urged to thoroughly investigate and vigorously prosecute cases of large scale fraudulent precious stone and gem trading; where sufficient expertise in the field of fraudulent gem trading is lacking, the IGA shall assist in providing experts with relevant experience and qualifications.

j) The provisions of this statute apply to all gems and precious stones sold within WA member states. IGA accredited laboratories will make every effort to protect the integrity of pieces in which gems are set when testing gems in situ, expert craftspersons will be employed to remove and replace gems when necessary. Repair work attendant upon any damage caused by the testing process must be fully detailed to the owners of the pieces in question.

[Markanite]

I'm going delegates prerogative on this one

[Guy]

Seems reasonably reasonable - I'd say aye

[Takaram]

No reason not to. Aye

[Kanaia]

AGAINST
"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. "

This will put WA nations at a huge disadvantage in gem trade. And, I don't want the WA looking over my shoulder during all my gem transactions and mining.

[Walabamba]

I'm against as well.

[Guy]

It doesn't have to be an ICA lab, just an accredited one. Still sounds reasonable to me.

[Takaram]

Ooh, didn't notice that provision.

[Urgench]

Sept 19, 2010 10:04:49 GMT -5 Kanaia said:

AGAINST
"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. "

This will put WA nations at a huge disadvantage in gem trade. And, I don't want the WA looking over my shoulder during all my gem transactions and mining.

Hi chaps, at Ananke II's suggestion I just thought I'd pop by to see if I can explain anything about this resolution, maybe answer some questions

To answer Kanaia's concerns above I'd probably point out that the net effect of the Gem Trading Accords will be to remove some of the burden (both administratively and in cost terms) of gem trade certification and regulation from member states and creating a regulatory level playing field throughout the WA. If member states already have robust regulations on this then the Accords will merely compliment and augment them, indeed where member states have expertise in the field there's nothing in the resolution to prevent them from offering the benefit of their wisdom to the IGA. As Guy points out the IGA will merely accredit labs in member states with the requisite expertise and at virtually zero cost or inconvenience.

This will have two extremely positive effects, firstly the value and confidence in the value of gem stones traded between member states will soar, and secondly it will radically increase confidence in gems originating in WA member states among non-member states.

Effectively this will give WA member states a huge advantage over non-member states in this particular form of trade, while hugely increasing the value of this trade to member states. IGA quality guaranteed gemstones will be highly sort after because no other organisation or region has so many states whose gemstones are guaranteed to such a high level of confidence.

In fact it's highly possible that IGA guaranteed stones could corner the market completely, and I'm sure I need not tell you how beneficial that would be for WA member states who have substantial gem mining and gem trading sectors.

A secondary (though completely intended) effect is that increase in confidence in gem stones and gem trading in WA states will significantly increase confidence on the stock markets in quoted companies in this sector. Stock market investment in these companies would radically increase. The over all worth of Stock Markets in member states would increase, especially in countries with large gem mining and trading sectors. The whole cycle is in fact a virtuous one.

I'll be glad to answer any other questions anyone may have.

[ImperialPoland]

Against

[Harpoon Man Henrik]

(just a reminder that my main nation is Krioval, in case it had been forgotten)

As for the resolution, it only requires that natural gemstones be certified as such, otherwise allowing unrestricted trade in artificial/synthetic gems. If anything, this regulation should improve trade in natural gems within WA nations simply because the buyer will know with confidence what he or she is getting.

Further, most of the gems in Krioval are synthetic, this resolution helps create a secondary market specifically for synthetic gems, combating the idea that "building" gemstones leads to tricking consumers into believing that they are real. So trade in both synthetic and natural gemstones should be improved.

The resolution creates a standard for certification and even allows nations to request assistance from the oversight committee in implementing the certifications.

[Globexanter]

Against.

[Guy]

Why? I think this is a great resolution.

Tactical voting: Just voted for Delegate's Prerogative

[Harpoon Man Henrik]

I have to admit, I don't understand the the one-line "against" posts. Is there something that Urgench could have improved? Is there something he left out? Is it the category, the strength, the focus of the legislation?

For a region that can swing the vote by 1000 either way (by switching from for to against or the reverse), it would be nice to know why that 1000-vote swing is taking place, and how WA resolution authors could prevent being vote stomped if we were to revise and resubmit.

[ImperialPoland]

meh, i just don't like it. WA shouldn't get involved in economics and such except for Welfare to poor nations or something. Fair gem trade should be something nations independently work on. For example, my Gov. could have a branch that exclusively works on the legitimacy of gems being exported, but more importantly, imported from other nations. If their fake, i don't allow them to enter the country. The point is, it's a nation's responsibility to oversee the goods traded in their sphere of influence. Now, if this was only about funding for poor nations who can't set up anything to curve the selling and buying of fake gems, then i wouldn't have too much of a problem.

I'll make this suggestion, forget this and write a reasonable resolution for the selling of Blood Diamonds...i don't remember seeing a proposal on this yet in the WA.

[Walabamba]

Sept 21, 2010 16:17:26 GMT -5 ImperialPoland said:

I'll make this suggestion, forget this and write a reasonable resolution for the selling of Blood Diamonds...i don't remember seeing a proposal on this yet in the WA.

^This

[Urgench]

The only problem is that compared to the trade in fraudulent gems (traded normally by large international criminal organisations) the trade in Blood Diamonds is actually tiny, in fact the economics of gem trading naturally mitigates against blood diamonds in any case.

Now that isn't to say that blood diamonds shouldn't be addressed but that's why the resolution allows the IGA to arbitrate and help member states resolve issues relating to the trade-

"d) The IGA, in cooperation with producers, traders and governments, shall discuss issues and arbitrate disputes regarding the international trade in Gems and Precious stones. "

This clause is where issues like blood diamonds could be dealt with. I didn't name that phenomenon directly because in fact blood diamonds are just one of a large number of smaller scale issues related to illegal and unethical gem trading which the IGA can and would be able to deal with in cooperation with member states.

[ImperialPoland]

regardless, my point still stand, it's a nation's responsibility to oversee the goods traded in their sphere of influence, including fraudulent gems. If some nations don't regulate these things, it's not my concern. I could say that my nation controls the flow of goods (gems included) coming in and out of my nation, therefor, fake gems wouldn't effect me and i would have no need to "cooperate" with some branch of the WA that does the same thing as the branch in my gov.

[Urgench]

Sept 21, 2010 17:54:42 GMT -5 ImperialPoland said:

regardless, my point still stand, it's a nation's responsibility to oversee the goods traded in their sphere of influence, including fraudulent gems. If some nations don't regulate these things, it's not my concern. I could say that my nation controls the flow of goods (gems included) coming in and out of my nation, therefor, fake gems wouldn't effect me and i would have no need to "cooperate" with some branch of the WA that does the same thing as the branch in my gov.

But if the price of gems from WA member states rises because international confidence in WA guaranteed gems increases, then your country stands to gain exponentially, why pass up the opportunity to increase the profitability of a whole sector of your country's economy?

[Unibot]

Sept 21, 2010 17:01:39 GMT -5 Walabamba said:

Sept 21, 2010 16:17:26 GMT -5 ImperialPoland said:

I'll make this suggestion, forget this and write a reasonable resolution for the selling of Blood Diamonds...i don't remember seeing a proposal on this yet in the WA.

^This

Ile Royale never submitted his draft on the subject, unfortunately.

[Guy]

You know, you guys telegraming Islanders to vote here would probably be more effective than contacting Delegates...

[Harpoon Man Henrik]

Sept 22, 2010 10:45:09 GMT -5 Guy said:

You know, you guys telegraming Islanders to vote here would probably be more effective than contacting Delegates...

That's all right to do? I thought that it would be considered rude, to be honest. Also, I don't know how close the internal vote is among the Islands because I can't see that subforum (fair enough, but I can't tell if it's really close or if it's a blowout).

I suppose I would ask that those Islanders who are in favor of this or at least have no objections to this (in a general sense) to vote that 10000 Islands withdraws its vote (which should greatly help the chances of passing). But then, I don't want to pester people too much (such as it is) or otherwise violate an unwritten custom of 10000 Islands in the process.

[Ananke II]

I'm kinda iffy on the telegramming ordinary nations as well. Suppose it could be done in an ok way, but it could quickly become annoying, so I'm not really comfortable with the idea.

[Guy]

Oh, I meant PMing forum users, not tging WA Islanders. I wouldn't have any problem with that, can't speak for others

[Kanaia]

Sept 19, 2010 13:08:11 GMT -5 Urgench said:

Sept 19, 2010 10:04:49 GMT -5 Kanaia said:

AGAINST
"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. "

This will put WA nations at a huge disadvantage in gem trade. And, I don't want the WA looking over my shoulder during all my gem transactions and mining.

Hi chaps, at Ananke II's suggestion I just thought I'd pop by to see if I can explain anything about this resolution, maybe answer some questions

To answer Kanaia's concerns above I'd probably point out that the net effect of the Gem Trading Accords will be to remove some of the burden (both administratively and in cost terms) of gem trade certification and regulation from member states and creating a regulatory level playing field throughout the WA. If member states already have robust regulations on this then the Accords will merely compliment and augment them, indeed where member states have expertise in the field there's nothing in the resolution to prevent them from offering the benefit of their wisdom to the IGA. As Guy points out the IGA will merely accredit labs in member states with the requisite expertise and at virtually zero cost or inconvenience.

This will have two extremely positive effects, firstly the value and confidence in the value of gem stones traded between member states will soar, and secondly it will radically increase confidence in gems originating in WA member states among non-member states.

Effectively this will give WA member states a huge advantage over non-member states in this particular form of trade, while hugely increasing the value of this trade to member states. IGA quality guaranteed gemstones will be highly sort after because no other organisation or region has so many states whose gemstones are guaranteed to such a high level of confidence.

In fact it's highly possible that IGA guaranteed stones could corner the market completely, and I'm sure I need not tell you how beneficial that would be for WA member states who have substantial gem mining and gem trading sectors.

A secondary (though completely intended) effect is that increase in confidence in gem stones and gem trading in WA states will significantly increase confidence on the stock markets in quoted companies in this sector. Stock market investment in these companies would radically increase. The over all worth of Stock Markets in member states would increase, especially in countries with large gem mining and trading sectors. The whole cycle is in fact a virtuous one.

I'll be glad to answer any other questions anyone may have.

This still doesn't explain why using IGA standards is mandatory.

If this was an option for nations I would understand. If it was truly beneficial nations will adopt the standards, and comply. If not, they would continue trading as they do now.

My issue is that the resolution is forcing nations to accept a policy that may or may not help trade, rather than leaving it up to the nation to decide.

[Unibot]

Sept 22, 2010 10:45:09 GMT -5 Guy said:

You know, you guys telegraming Islanders to vote here would probably be more effective than contacting Delegates...

I might do that in my own campaign if I have permission from the delegate. But otherwise it would be officially spam, I believe.

[Urgench]

OK look, I'm totally genuinely asking you guys to do me a favour, as a person, not a player or a nation. I've spent months and months and months writing this, I know some of you have objections to it, and that's why I ask you to withdraw your delegate vote and abstain. The views here a re mixed enough and I'm sure if I went through every page of every Islander I would find many who voted for the Gem Trading Accord as nations even if they didn't make their preference known here.

I don't write dozens of resolutions like some WA players do, and that means those I do write I try to write very carefully and I try to gather as much input from as many other clever players as I can in doing so.

I guess I'm just asking a favour, one you have no obligation to do me, but if you do I'll be forever in your debt, for what that's worth.

[Kanaia]

Voting currently stands at 1 FOR, 6 AGAINST, 6 DELEGATES PREROGATIVE .

Once Anake comes on and sees the current vote she will probably retract.

[ImperialPoland]

Sept 21, 2010 18:15:19 GMT -5 Urgench said:

But if the price of gems from WA member states rises because international confidence in WA guaranteed gems increases, then your country stands to gain exponentially, why pass up the opportunity to increase the profitability of a whole sector of your country's economy?

i see your point, but i still don't like the idea of the WA getting involved over this kind of thing...sorry

Kanaia- unfortunately, i doubt it, voting ends in 2 hours...

[Anime Daisuki]

This was one of the most closely voted resolution I have seen. It only passed because the Alsted from Europe switched at the last minute.

"The Gem Trading Accord" was passed 3,013 votes to 2,940.