[pp.int.general] court of arbitration

[Andrew Norton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 3/22/2011 12:18 PM, Thomas Gaul wrote:
> Am 22.03.2011 16:24, schrieb Andrew Norton:
>> I was reading through the Italy thread here, and it mentioned the Court
>> of Arbitration. That had been mentioned in the old statutes, and dealt
>> with a little in the amendments.
>>
>> So, the PPI site now lists (http://int.piratenpartei.de/PPI_CoA) not
>> only a basis for it, BUT a full court.
>> WTF? (un)Surprisingly, they're ALL representing European Parties (again)
>> but I'm not seeing anything about the appointment in the minutes from
>> the board meeting
>> (http://int.piratenpartei.de/PPI_Board_Minutes_2011-03-19) and I checked
>> the schedule from the Conference
>> (http://int.piratenpartei.de/wiki/images/6/6a/PPI_Conference_2011_-_Agenda.pdf
>> ) and found no mention there either. So, where did this list of people
>> come from? (and why, yet again, is it only west/central Europe represented?)
>>
> Dear Andrew,
> 
> you'll have to ask the General Assembly about it.
> 
> But for once, there had been amendment to the statutes about a full
> Court of Arbitration. As that had been accepted by the General Assembly
> the Court of Arbitration had to be elected asap.

Right, even you admit "as soon as possible" but that is not the same as
"immediately". In fact, the ONLY requirements are that the same methods
for electing the board apply to the court.

HOWEVER
XII
(4)The Board is elected by the General Assembly at the regular sessions
or if an extraordinary session is requested for that purpose.

An extraordinary session would have been the proper way to do this,
under the statutes. Unless there was some reason it HAD to be done right
there and then. The extraordinary session would allow for appropriate
due process, and full informed participation.

> 
> Have a look at the statutes: (Not yet cross-checked)
> <http://www.ceskapiratskastrana.cz/wiki/en:zo:docs:ppi_statutes>
> 
> The now member of the Court of Arbitration have been proposed within and
> elected by the General Assembly. Not taking into account which country
> or continent they grew up or live.
> 
> Any member could have proposed other candidates, even by proxy as remote
> attendent.

ONLY if they were aware the election was going to happen. Since the
Conference Schedule contained NOTHING on this topic, anyone reading it
would not have known about it. Thus absent already taking part, or
happening to overhear, other candidates could not have been proposed.

And there was some issue with the remote delegates it seems.

> 
> PP-US did not participate to my knowlegde. PP-CA did, as did others
> 
> Please keep your critics in mind for the next General Assembly. So
> better go ahead and minimize the risk that only Member of European
> Parties are elected, propose candidates - as you have been a candidate
> for the board, sponsored by PP-UK.

Yes, because the election was PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED ahead of time. There
was a call for candidates made publicly, and the nomination period was a
week or two. It wasn't all done in 30 minutes.

> 
> And to be honest, how can it be the fault of the General Assembly that
> you did not follow the stream.

I followed part of it. The parts of it that were, I thought, relevant.
As decided by the published schedule. I did NOT think that it would be
ignored and an extra election, for an arbitration body be proposed, run
and elected without notice. Because that is counter to a lot of what
we're doing.

If any country were to hold a no-notice election, where 'you had to be
participating to know about it' we'd publicly CRUCIFY them. Yet it's ok
to do it ourselves? Look at yourself, and look at what you're saying.

As it is right now, the Court has ZERO legitimacy. and the PPI is
increasingly showing its contempt for itself, it's members and it's
ideals every time another stunt like this is pulled.

Frankly, it's getting disgusting. Your own board candidacy stated "An
exchange of information, gathering information and spread this knowledge
to each Pirate Party." and yet right here, you say "well, we didn't
spread the information because you should have been seeking it out
yourself".

dear oh dear....

> 
> Best regards
> 
> Thomas Gaul
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general


- -- 
Andrew Norton
http://ktetch.blogspot.com
Tel: (352)6-KTETCH [352-658-3824]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNiNJTAAoJECjjuYTW3X5HmM8IANpjaWBB+4TR+nSNbTLtlOJW
jGZ8xWQAddpvY7T9hpUVtYict8vsfW5uBdVgm3R6mX5u5Ff20T7iiCuBxzkDToyK
BoJCDbPvl6mq9VnvX7J6P5kx6v70iWSy5tB06Phrh0SOH9O64K5KnwGCMmDzuOLF
YOvYtPuKEm4Nr9ovXEkRppf5LTmAWhmy5idvSkPQlziTt23nS3YQDdRrxvC6d0Gu
a/aJTWiAXTDKQhsJQ5w5qoTz4Gsshc0WgNf8XrQGNCIybiLSY8nLXS8pmNRgXZMb
KdBDpZJoauKR3K6pF7GMpSsylT5+RMbowpWrakTlRXG+tUAPucAF6gIc9UWQ4dc=
=uy7c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----