(03-21-2022, 10:06 PM)LFP Wrote:

(03-21-2022, 07:46 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(03-21-2022, 02:46 PM)LFP Wrote: And while the Assembly has passed the Sunshine Act quiet some time ago to ensure the body is not kept in the dark, it is clear that some provisions of the Act allows the Cabinet to suppress information from both the Assembly and the region as a whole.

Could you clarify which provisions of the Sunshine Act allow the Cabinet to "suppress information from both the Assembly and the region as a whole"?

a. they are ongoing or directly related to another ongoing discussion, 
d. if they contain diplomatic conversations with other regions or organizations.
and to some extend -- 
c. if any personally identifiable information is contained therein,

What exactly is problematic about those terms?

• (a) typically involves some form of ongoing security issue, diplomatic issue, or other similar such topics, where being forced to release those discussions while they are still active can compromise whatever is still ongoing, and negatively affect the region
  
• (d) is an extension of that, where being compelled to release something without cause before being ready for public disclosure can compromise relations and interactions with other regions.
  
• © seems redundant. We already have wording for redacting that information in 2.4, I don't know why we need to add complicated phrasing like that.
  

The whole clause about private releases really doesn't fix anything. Private isn't that "private", and releasing those can still expose the information to individuals it should not be exposed to, even if it doesn't get leaked outside of the Assembly. Simple cases of this include ongoing diplomatic discussions, where even releasing it to the Assembly could include revealing it to members of third-party regions where it can be damaging for them to see pre-emptively.

EDIT: The new name for section 3 is also contradictory to what that clause actually does. It has nothing to do with court discussions.