We do wish to address some of the criticism brought by the Gianatlan delegation.

Sec. A Subsec. 3: It is the firm believe of the Sallodesian delegation that making the resolution binding is a safeguard for orbital security. While we recognize that underdeveloped countries might not now have the capabilities to operate a space agency, they might so in the future. This legislation however doesn't only target space agencies, but space companies as well which might arise from underdeveloped countries and not be bound to preventive measures in regards of orbital security. Thus potentially putting billions of hardware in orbit at risk. It is also our belief that unlike climate change, we do have the capabilities to evade catastrophe here. Any space agency that has successfully operated mission of space exploration has learned that they must foresee for any complications or the entire mission will have an increased chance of failure. Compared to the safety of spacecraft and human lives, we do believe implementation into national legislation is a slight price to pay if indeed very preemptive.
However, the Sallodesian delegation does believe could be a clause to the bindingness of this resolution to be only mandated into effect if a space agency or space company is operating in said country.

Sec. B Subsec. 2: The distinction and inclusion of orbital and sub-orbital spaceflight is made for the reason that supersonic flights may enter the definition of sub-orbital spaceflight and thus potentially also create space debris. So as the commercial airline industry advances into the age of supersonic flight, the line between operations in space and airspace begin to blur. Hence the inclusion and distinction of the two categories of spaceflight.

Sec. C Subsec. 1: The reasoning for proposing the CLE is because we believe that orbit of Pacifica is not separated from Pacifica's environment. Hence why we proposed it under the CLE and believe that a technical department under the CLE could fulfill that role.
Following the comments of the Sedunnic delegation, it is perhaps wishful to create a new Committee of Space Regulations as it intertwines between the CLE & SCE.

Sec. C Subsec. 2: This subsection is specifically targeted to components that are part of a spacecraft with very limited or temporary use. The most common example is that of a fairing which is used to protect the spacecraft during sub-orbital flight from heating exposure that would prove hazardous to the vital part of the spacecraft as well as provide an aerodynamic form to said spacecraft as it passes through the atmosphere and serves no other purpose. However, this subsection also targets components as small as pistons which still could prove hazardous at orbital speeds. By imposing technical & orbital specifications - such as limiting fairing to two separation parts for example - these hazards are prevented.

Sec. C Subsec. 3: As stated before, it is our belief that the orbit of Pacifica is inseparable of Pacifica's environment. Following the remarks and criticism from Gianatla, perhaps a new Committee should be founded as spaceflight intersects with multiple mandates of World Forum Committees and would prove more efficient under a new committee instead of supervision from multiple committees. The rise of space companies as well brings the further need of a said Committee of Space Regulations as the exploitation of space will become a reality.

We hope that we have adequately explained our answers to the points of criticism.

Jengo Van Schalwyk
Ambassador to the World Forum of the Republic of Sallodesia