The new version of the conservation plan was put on the agenda of the Joint Commission
In a letter last week, the Parliamentary Research Center announced the numerous problems regarding the July version of the Conservation Plan and asked MPs to give them more time to review the plan; However, in today’s meeting (December 26), the Joint Commission for the Study of Conservation Plans did not give such an opportunity to the Research Center and it was announced that another new version is on the agenda of this commission.
According to Zomit, the 11th meeting of the Joint Commission for the Protection of Users’ Rights in Cyberspace was held today (December 26). At the meeting, delegates initially criticized the research center for publishing a letter about the flaws in the cyberspace protection plan in recent weeks. According to the delegates, the research center should have sent this letter to the commission first and then published it. At the request of the delegates, the Research Center announced that the letter had been sent to all delegates automatically.
“This plan is the result of the thoughts of friends at the research center,” said Ali Yazdikhah, the commission’s first deputy chairman, criticizing the research center. “What happened that changes the head of the center of this plan, which is against the principles of the constitution and has many weaknesses?”
“Instead of sending a confidential letter, the head of the research center published the content in the media and somehow ruined the parliament,” he continued. We also expressed our grievances to the head of the center, and it was decided that they would issue a statement in this regard and correct this position. “Mr. Negahdari said that I was not in charge of publishing the letter on the websites, and because the experts had published parts of the letter and there was suspicion, I ordered the rest of the material to be published as well.”
Yazdikhah The budget review will start soon. It is better for the deputies to implement this plan as soon as possible.
According to Yazdikhah, by holding several meetings in a joint working group and receiving the opinions of the National Center, the Ministry of Communications and experts, a new version has been prepared and the weaknesses of the previous plans have been eliminated, the text of which will be provided to the delegates soon.
Yazdikhah also stressed that the budget review will begin soon and that some members of the commission are also members of the budget consolidation commission, and that it would be better for the deputies to implement the plan as soon as possible.
The letter was sent to the parliament automatically
Ataullah Rafiei Atani, deputy head of the Parliamentary Research Center, said in the continuation of the meeting that the Research Center has not changed its views since the previous period: “At the center, all experts like all of you believe in the principle of regulation; But in the pre-work period, it was the hand of the cultural office and the hand of Mr. Fayyazi who seriously pursued the work. At that time, with the organizational culture that we have in the research center, the reports should be the result of the expertise of all offices. “At that time, we did not reach the report that was the result of the collective opinion.”
He continued: “We accept the principle of concern and the need for regulation; “But it was decided to address the concerns of the office experts in detail in reviewing the plan in specialized offices, and all of them had corrective opinions, and nothing new has happened.”
Taghipour: Criticism of the Research Center on the plan to protect is a political statement and not like other reports of the Research Center
According to Atani, the letter from the Research Center was systematically sent to Mr. Taghipour immediately on Tuesday, December 20, and was subsequently published. He stressed that the experts of the research center never consider themselves more valuable than consulting, and Atani asked the delegates for an opportunity to complete the experts of this project.
Expert or political letter ?!
Taghipour stressed that delegates believe that the criticism of the research center is a political statement and not like other reports of the research center. He stated that until December 20, the joint copy was not available to the research center’s deputies, so what did the center investigate? “And I gave it to all the deputies until the plan was sent to the center under Article 142.”
In response to Gheidarloo, Weiss Karami, a member of the Joint Commission for Reviewing the User Protection Plan, stated that the Joint Commission did not refer the plan to the Research Center in accordance with Article 142, and only authorized it to consult and advise the Research Center.
In this case, Gheidarloo reiterated that according to legal cases, the only existing procedure between the Research Center and the Parliament is Article 142, whether we mention this article or not. “We believe in legislation and this legislation must be done,” he said, referring to the research center’s letter to the media, which was made available to the media. In this letter, we also stated the advantages of the plan, which includes the courageous entry into the field of cyberspace legislation, despite the governments’ continuous failure to provide the required bills, efforts to organize cyberspace, and so on. “In the following, we also enumerated some of the criticisms and entered the specialized section.”
Qidarloo read the specialized sections of the letter and said:
According to this letter, in several cases, matters of a legislative nature have been delegated to the High Regulatory Commission, which is contrary to Article 85 of the Constitution, and the approval of executive bylaws and general approvals has been delegated to non-ministers or the Cabinet, which is contrary to Article 138. Contradiction of some provisions of the plan with the approvals of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace, which is contrary to Article 57 of the Constitution.
During Gheidarloo’s speech, Taghipour once again criticized that the points raised about the plan were on July 17th, and the representative of the Research Center once again emphasized that this critique is all versions of the plan.
“Why do you comment on the whole plan?” Said Bijan Nobaveh, the first secretary of the joint commission. The letter came from the minister and we presented at the meeting that the center should review the two copies. Now you have generalized this to the whole plan and examined all the plans and all the plans were raised again from the beginning. If it was not necessary. These issues were reflected in the media, which is unconstitutional. “Why did the research center not mention this at first?” “The opinion of the center is completely advisory and we are not going to impose an opinion,” Gheidarloo replied. “Three plans are in the hands of the center, and these plans have many problems, and we also have specialized problems with the government’s plan.”
Gheidarloo: The problems of the research center are included in the plan and if the plan goes to the Guardian Council, it will be rejected.
“The problems you mentioned were not in the original version of the plan?” “Why did the experts who were present during the commission meetings not point out these problems?”
Regarding this ambiguity, Gheidarloo stressed that at that time, the Center of Experts could not respond to these criticisms.
At the end of the discussion, Gheidarloo stated that the letter was a summary of the center regarding the joint version and that there were problems and that if the plan goes to the Guardian Council, it will be rejected. He also asked the delegates to continue to give the delegates a chance to stay in the center in accordance with Article 142, which referred the project to the research center, in order to resolve any problems.
Emphasizing that the plan had not been sent to the center under Article 142, Taghipour announced that several meetings had been held in a joint working group, with a new version of the prosecutor’s office, headquarters, FATA police, representatives of the research center, experts and the Ministry of Communications. This version is on the agenda of the commission.
Theoretical foundations of the new version of the support plan
In the continuation of this meeting, Taghipour presented the theoretical foundations of the new plan. According to Taghipour, the plan has been renamed the “Cyberspace Services Regulatory Plan” and has been reduced from 37 articles to 21 articles. He said about the theoretical foundations of this plan:
We admit from the beginning that we need about 70 to 80 laws like this in cyberspace. So one of them is 70 to 80 rules. The second point is that we have a number of macro issues of the system in cyberspace, in which case the Supreme Council of Cyberspace was established as the central core of this system of governance in 2011 by the Supreme Leader. It is unique that the Supreme Council is the central core of the system of government in the country. Many countries later came up with the idea, such as South Korea, Japan and Malaysia.
“Countries have come to the conclusion that the scope of cyberspace is so vast that a ministry and an institution can not do that,” he said. “They envisioned a multifaceted institution.”
Taghipour addressed the challenges in the field of cyberspace and stated:
First, cyberspace today is quite close to real space and is still the same as real space. That is, similar to what happens in our real life, it exists in cyberspace. We have 11,800 titles of law in real space. My question is, what is the role of these rules in cyberspace? Because, after all, everyone admits that when it comes to cyberspace, the way it is handled changes.
“So in the case of digital businesses or platforms, the same real-world rules can not be copied,” he said. Many cases are currently without a trustee and have not been assigned. “It is the duty of the legislature to enforce these cases.”
The chairman of the Joint Commission goes on to point out the problems that have arisen for business owners: “The business owners themselves complained to us that they started a business and that various institutions created obstacles under different headings. “We must have a clear definition of the regulatory system, and the institutions must know their duties, and the businesses must be affiliated with only one institution.” As Taghipour says, as the Supreme Leader said for 1400, the year of the removal of the deputies, it should be their duty to remove the obstacles from the way of production and business.
Taghipour: The protection plan has been changed to “Cyberspace Services Regulatory System Plan” and has been reduced from 37 articles to 21 articles.
Taghipour considered the second challenge as the interference and conflict of institutions related to cyberspace and said: “We have several institutions regarding cyberspace, which is why the establishment of the High Council of Cyberspace was to manage these conflicts and do the proper division of labor.” According to statistics, 85% of South Korea’s traffic is inside the country. Their strategic management is designed and designed to work in such a way that their citizens do not have to pay for outside traffic. In our country, the national information network has been approved, but a small percentage of it has been implemented.
We need to be able to manage cyberspace strategically and have this internal traffic take advantage of external traffic. The next issue is activity outside the realm of foreign service governance. Many countries, such as Turkey, have legalized foreign platforms. In many ways, we are proud of domestic platforms; But sometimes they complain that it is hindered because we do not have a law. 2 businesses wanted to enter the stock market and because there was no law, their problem was not solved. Then they say why we do not have Unicorn in the country after all these years.
According to Taghipour, the aim of the plan is to have a business in the region; But our problem is the regulations and the frameworks and the irregularities. He called the next problem the non-implementation of the resolutions of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace and stated: “The council has been formed for 10 years; But a small percentage of its approvals have come to fruition. The border crossing is the next problem. Despite all security measures to secure cyberspace; But we see that these borders are attacked several times a year, and the latest cyber attack on the fuel card slot. “Ultimately, exercising taste in blocking and refining was one of our challenges, which businesses themselves acknowledge.”
Taghipour continued: “The parliament approved the law on determining criminal cases in 1988, and this law needs to be revised. “One of the grievances is that various institutions are blocking, and we addressed that in this law.”
The existence of a support system is another goal of this plan, which according to Taghipour, they are not satisfied with the support of domestic platforms and in this plan they are looking for this issue. As mentioned in this meeting, in the next meeting, the generals of the new plan and voting on it will be discussed.