[pp.int.general] court of arbitration

Wed Mar 23 04:00:32 CET 2011

I have no vested intrest in the PPI, but I follow the activities and
the mailing list simply out of interest as a Pirate.

I don't know what the intentions were with this election, and I am not
saying that anybody had sinister motives.

But from the outside looking in, this election seems like a very
poorly organized, non-transparent, undemocratic election at its best;
and a secret attempt to have an insider election to solidify power at
its worst.

For a party whose cornerstone is transparency and having every member
participate in democracy, having an election for an important body
like this without notice just seems very wrong.

We are not a member of PPI, so I don't have an iron in the fire
regarding this situaiton; but watching it from the outside makes it
look very weird.

Marcus Kesler
Pirate Party of Oklahoma

On 3/22/11, Thomas Gaul <thomas.gaul at pp-international.net> wrote:
> Am 22.03.2011 22:56, schrieb Andrew Norton:
>> On 3/22/2011 3:56 PM, Thomas Gaul wrote:
>> >> So, all meetings of the GA, be they the annual one, OR the
>> extraordinary
>> >> one JUST for voting on the board has at least 5 weeks notice, PLUS get
>> >> emailed to all members, AND on the website. That means we ALWAYS have
>> >> *AT LEAST* 5 weeks notice of an election.
>> >>
>> > Where do you read: /announcing of elections/? The statutes explicitly
>> > state out: /Meetings of the General Assembly will be announced at least
>> > five weeks prior to the meeting/. It is about the meeting. Not the
>> > elections.
>>
>> I read it the same place as evidently someone read that they must be
>> elected immediately. The only difference is I used common sense, and
>> pirate principles. I didn't use the same sort of scummy procedural
>> tricks we all are opposed to.
>>
> Official procedures are tricks? Do I understand that correctly? You are
> a democrat, aren't you?
>
>> > Any criticism you offer at the moment is criticising the GA as a whole.
>>
>> Oh no, I hope I don't make it cry! If you, and the body as a whole,
>> can't do some HONEST, CRITICAL self analysis, then you've certainly got
>> no business being on the Board.
>>
> self analysis.. :) What about? Sorry for *you *not haven't been elected
> by the GA.
>
> So you do ignore the highest organ within PPI. Sorry about that, but
> that as being a true democrat, you do not respect it. No go! and *plonk*
> on this.
>
>> > Please get it straight - as you are being a democrat - that the GA as
>> > the highest organ within PPI is free in its decisions.
>>
>> Ah, not quite. That's kinda the point of the statutes. The Ga can't just
>> 'do whatever', and in fact the court is supposed to help ensure that.
>>
>> If it were any other thing, there wouldn't be an issue. However, the
>> issue is the makeup of this body.
>>
> You will have to explain your point here more clearly, sorry I am just a
> German guy who does not understand what you are heading at atm.
>
>>
>> > If the PP-US is opposing this decision it has to formally call for a
>> > decision by the Court of Arbitration.
>>
>> You've not really thought that through. In order to call for a decision
>> by the court, first that would mean recognising the court. Since the
>> problem is the improper recognition of the court, it doesn't work.
>>
>
> So you do not recognise the elected court. In case this is so, ask the
> jurisdiction in Belgium to get rid of the elected court of arbitration.
> You are free to do so!
>> It means saying the election was valid, then asking the court to decide
>> if the election of itself (in some cases the votes to elect are the same
>> people as 'somehow' wound up on the court) and then rule. Either you
>> really don't understand the issues, or you're being deliberately obtuse
>> and ignorant.
>>
> I believe, you do not understand how an independent CoA does work. If
> they find out, that your point is valid they will decide that way. So
> what? You don't believe in anything - that's the way you are waving
> around for friends and favorites. Nothing is done correctly, nobody has
> got a clue. You are one of the few among many who does know what is
> right or wrong. Am I correct or am I German, meaning, just being stupid?
>> This is part of the so called "rule of law". Not the one who shouts
>> > aloud may be right, it might be the mice whispering somewhere in the
>> > corner. CoA will take care of it. That's the way the General Assembly
>> > did decide upon.
>>
>> Well, This is the problem when things are rushed through. There's no
>> thought, or no time to think. Someone says 'we have to elect this now'
>> and someone else says 'why' and they go 'because the statutes say so'
>> and then 'ok' and the issue is spread like that, and the issue is
>> brought up and passed before any real investigation, discussion, debate,
>> can be done.
>>
> Where had been your objectiv in the GA? Have you in any way attended?
> Other PPs were able to talk to the assembly up front though being
> remote. Did you honestly try to do so? We haven't seen you at your
> presentation for going to be a member of the board.
>
>> I think we've all seen the kinds of laws that get passed when this sort
>> of tactic is used. Usually ones that don't stand up to scrutiny, so
>> therefore have to be passed 'quickly' or without time for debate.
>>
>> In the UK, there was the Digital Economy Act. The Patriot ACt in the US.
>> In France in April with the HADOPI law.
>>
>
> Is there any connection with PPI? PPI is not a country. Nor can PPI
> decide upon laws. So why this distraction? Is that your way for getting
> down to the point?
>
>> Here's the point.
>> No-one's arguing that it was 'the actions of the GA'.
>> No-one's arguing 'the court needs to be elected'
>> What *IS* at issue is that the court was filled by an unpublicised vote,
>> created at incredibly short notice, where many members were unable to
>> participate (some because the remote participation wasn't working,
>> others because they just didn't know)
> Repetitive... Now news, no argument. You are not going into other
> arguments but just stating out, you are right. Other arguments are not
> valid. The decisions by the General Assembly are not valid. Are you more
> important than the General Assembly? If so, tell us why!
>
> I haven't read an argument by you, that is opposed to the decisions of
> the GA in Ludwigshafen and backed up with any real arguments. If you
> find those arguments, go ahead and go for a court decision. You are
> welcome to do so.
>
>>
>> Since that is contrary to one of the core principles of the pirate
>> movement, that you keep arguing 'it's ok' or 'the GA did it, and they
>> can do anything' boggles the mind. Do you actually understand democracy?
>> Do you understand that for an election to be free and fair, all parties
>> must have equal chance to participate (especially as has been pointed
>> out already, the court is binding on all members), even if by proxy.
>>
> Why did you have not taken your right to be a part of the General
> Assembly? If you did yourself apart deliberatly, bad luck for you. You
> have lost the right to criticise at that very moment. And again you
> claim that the GA wasn't free and equal in their vote. Go ahead and tell
> that all participants! Either in person or remote.
>
> Do so! Tell those "bold" people that they will have be enlightened by
> you. That they have done all wrong. Just do so!
>
>> Why are you so afraid to have a free and open election on this? What
>> exactly is so bad about it that we had to ignore one of our core
>> principles for some expediency? Just how important are your principles
>> to you?
>>
> ??? Could you explain your question? Is it again a confrontation with
> the General Assembly and all the people who did attend? If so, explain
> to them.
>
> And on the other hand, you are mingling subjects. But I believe, you do
> know.
>
>>
>> > If you want to change the way it is, PP-US as any other PP within PPI is
>> > allowed to go for a change of the statutes.
>>
>> What's it matter what the statutes say? "the GA as the highest organ
>> within PPI is free in its decisions." so it can just ignore them and do
>> what it wants.
>>
> So it is. (in a way)
>
>> This is my point. the PPI *must* act in accordance with the goals and
>> interests of it's members.
>>
> So it will hopefully do.
>
>> This is an issue that could only come up once, and thanks to the actions
>> of some, pushing this through like this, it happened. But here's another
>> thought. Just imagine what this is going to do to the credibility of the
>> PPI when (if?) the press pick up on this.
> On what exactly?
>
>> Or what it'll do to a Pirate
>> Party that tries to critisise a law that was passed int he same manner
>> as this election. You'll make parties a laughing stock.
>>
> ??? Sorry,  rhetorics, got nothing to do with the main subject.
>
>> But hey, as long as it's not Germany, you don't care, right?
>>
> Ahh, there we are. I am a German. That's why. Now I seem to get it. If
> you think so, do as you like.You are a free to think whatever suits best
> for you. :)
>
> Dream on!
>
> With very best regards,
>
> Thomas Gaul
>
> P.S.: If there are items on the GA in Friedrichshafen, either positive
> or negative, please post them: board at pp-international.net, the 2nd
> review will take place next monday.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > Best regards
>>
>> > Thomas
>>
>> > ____________________________________________________
>> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>