[pp.int.general] court of arbitration

[Andrew Norton]

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

On 3/23/2011 3:10 PM, Maxime Rouquet wrote:
> On 03/23/2011 07:42 PM, Ikke wrote:
>>
>> It is crucial for the democratic process that:
>>
>> A) Information about decisions is announced to as wide an extend as
>> possible prior to the decision.
>> B) Information about decisions is announced as early possible so it can be
>> digested prior to the decision.
>> C) In the case of representative structures due time be given for
>> representatives to convene with the represented. 
>>
>> On the account that all these preconditions have failed this election was
>> only democratic on paper.
> 
> The General Assembly was announced weeks before. The amendments to the
> statutes creating the Court of Arbitration were published weeks before
> too. If you had read it you would have know about this eventuality.

Certainly we knew about the amendment. We also had a schedule published
AFTER the amendments had been decided. THUS, if the court HAD to be
elected in (as you have claimed) then it was also known before the
schedule was written, and thus should have been included, if only as a
conditional entry"
SAturday 19:30. Nominations open for Court of Appeal (*)
Sunday 14:30. Elections for Court of Appeal (*)
(*) These events will only take place if Amendment xx passes.

As you said, it was known about beforehand, so if it was known, why
wasn't it put on the schedule, if it was essential. The 'essentialist'
nature of it didn't change over the weekend, did it? So while it wasn't
essential before hand, it suddenly was after it had been passed? This is
the incongruity.

ALL of us knew that the Court, if approved would have to be elected. Yet
there is not, and has not been any requirement pointed out to me yet
that indicates why it had to be done straight away. The requirements are
that the General Assembly elect them. It says that they can be elected
in person or remotely, at an annual meeting or an emergency one convened
for the purpose.

In short, if you want me to shut up, you just have to provide one thing. ONE

The requirement that the court had to be elected that weekend, with no
public notice, rather than scheduling an emergency meeting of the GA to
vote it in for that purpose (which could be done 100% remotely)

That's all, the justification for it. You've yet to provide it, just
repeated endlessly 'the GA says so, thus it happens'. A method which
tends to be used only by the most undemocratic regimes worldwide, to rig
elections. Otherwise I foresee the PPI losing members, and being
sidelined as an corrupt, ineffectual rubberstamp org working for a few
parties in Europe.

- -- 
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/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNinU9AAoJECjjuYTW3X5HFCkIAKM5umzAJrCs3xnbOZWcAL7G
6f8acJrYDt8RrK/3EwLfFLUM8Mk9CQsdzl1cgA2SxuqEZywfCE+DRTWwJUbDl3Jy
jEG2kluHgeN9tThLbmeXfDZo77N+nLd/TExNKuWbzcdQu7FTBrF2n+gWvuEm8T6H
Jy6ZE/aiR/wukEcXRfiUDh1QeZ5KsCBoBLNPPjYAV1/YsiKOnbpvfGjXWzJMeA03
t5pSXdl7fYZvhyYeLF2TEOJmSvYFBDHvcXuYCYV+aPM3PWYu25ez8kcQZkRfT6Hd
mLCALyVku96Y4sPIDwCqwqI49Pw9fJPkL/B+wGsFb6IOJvfLIDp672ydt/WAz9w=
=cAlU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----