[pp.int.general] [RULING] 2012-5 (Validity of 2012 GA Conference)

Fri Aug 17 20:10:44 CEST 2012

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

On 8/17/2012 7:43 AM, Anouk Neeteson wrote:
> Good news, on one hand the complaints of which one turns out to be
> correct, well done Czech PP for noticing it. And also on the other hand,
> the PPI has 'only' made a mistake in the procedure that can be
> corrected, see court conclusion.

Oh, plenty of people noticed it. Some, like me, just considered it 'par
for the course'.

I do find the following ruling funny
"II) The Statute amendments passed at the conference are valid,"
There were no amendments made (except those that would change the
voting), that I recall. Mainly because the 2 hour election block took up
the entire day, because of 'votes on how to vote to decide the method of
voting' (I kid you not, people who weren't there) and interruptions to
deal with things deemed 'more important', such as PP-EU.

"That these procedural errors were not challenged during the GA,
implying that there was no significant lack of consensus."
I tried to, but since I was a 'remote' participant, I was ignored (and
yet again, the 'court' failed to contact all participants so didn't
conduct a thorough investigation). Consulting the official record is
great, provided the official record notes everything. Since it didn't
(because comments by the remote participants were NOT recorded, except
in specific instances) it's not the whole story.

Personally, the whole event was a disgusting show of sheer incompetence,
and 'bureaucratic middle-fingering' (aka 'up yours with paperwork') to
me. I'd suggest PPI hide the videos of the event, because if voters,
journalists, or opposition parties actually saw the activities there and
the way things were handled, they'd crucify the entire movement as
self-important squabbling kids who have no clue.

All I can say is that from my point of view, the annual meeting has two
required parts.
1) That elections are held in a pre-determined manner to elect new
officers (and the court has ruled that this didn't actually happen, just
that something like it happened with the general indifference of the
delegates, a bit like the 'advantage' rule with football fouls)
2) That proposed statute amendments are discussed and voted on (and this
did not happen at all)

Of these, the second is actually more serious. Statute amendments were
submitted by authorized people in good faith that they would be attended
to at the conference - the only time in the year they can generally be
addressed. The only actual statute amendments made were to do with
changing the positions of the board -
http://wiki.pp-international.net/wiki//index.php?title=Statutes&action=historysubmit&diff=8334&oldid=7531
- - immediately before the elections, when the agenda
(http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2012) made it clear
that vote would take place AFTERWARDS, and therefore come into effect
for the following year. Wasn't until TWO DAYS before the event. Given
that all amendments had to be in 4 weeks before, and amendments
distributed 1 week before, perhaps it might have been an idea to make it
clear to those announcing candidacy that things might change.

Meanwhile, Statute X lists the functions of the General Assembly
(http://wiki.pp-international.net/Statutes#X._Functions_of_the_General_Assembly)
and we clearly didn't fulfill it (since the ruling makes no comment on
this, taking their lead, I assume they agree with me that it violated
Statute X)

Don't get me wrong, I understand entirely why the court voted as it did.
Were it to not assume apathy equated support, or that every person knew
the statutes in detail and could accept that things had deviated and
were happy with it; then it would have to hold the ppi elections as invalid.
Not only would that mean that things like the WIPO membership would be
invalidated (because Denis would not have been authorized to send it,
and we're past the deadline) but also that the very members of the court
adjudicating this would not be elected, and thus couldn't decide.
So, as with last year's 'event', we have a question over the legitimacy
of an election, where the court's own position is in question (see
ruling IIIc)

> 
> So over all this is a good example of the transparency of the PPI.
> I CONGRATULATE US ALL :)

I wouldn't cheer yet, since the ruling actually puts a big question mark
over transparency.

Of course, no court that was worthy of the name would allow itself to be
an arbiter in a case where it was itself a party. That's what we call
'conflict of interest'. A 'good example of transparency' would have the
whole court recuse itself at the start because it's nomination and
election is at question. It would then have looked for non-involved
parties to look into it, and stated so publicly. It's not the first time
either, as the court has already been asked to examine if it's own
actions were acceptable
(http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_CoA/PPI_CoA_Ruling_2011-1-A) and
'surprisingly' decided it was, with clarification. I mean who would have
thought that the same people who were asked to decide something, would
decide a few weeks later that their decision was fully acceptable?

These are my thoughts, y'all can do with them what you will. I hold the
Pirate Party name to a high standard, the same standard I expect of
anyone else. It's a shame that some feel like the internal standard for
pirates is so low by comparison. I mean I could make this a formal
request that the court investigate their own ruling on the grounds of
conflict of interest, but I won't bother, because I'm sure there will be
a 'motivated reject of the claim within one week', since every judgement
of the court has been a rubber-stamp for 'status quo' (even if it
requires extensive redefinitions of words, such as 'country' to mean
'part of a country' -
http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_CoA/PPI_CoA_Ruling_2012-3 - to do so.)

To my mind, the 'Court of arbitration' is a highly flawed body, with
deep-seated questions as to it's existence, and with it's establishment
and its ongoing actions fundamentally at odds with the PP core values
(that of open democracy, informed rule-making, transparency, and honesty).

Andrew
PPUK Member
(who values integrity more than some title, or being 'liked' for that
matter - flame away, I don't care.)

> 
> On Aug 17, 2012 12:13 p.m., "Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer"
> <mozart.palmer at pp-international.net
> <mailto:mozart.palmer at pp-international.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Fellow Pirates,
> 
>     The Court of Arbitration has made the following ruling:
>     http://wiki.pp-international.__net/PPI_CoA/PPI_CoA_Ruling___2012-5
>     <http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_CoA/PPI_CoA_Ruling_2012-5>
> 
>     ==Summary==
> 
>     The Pirate Parties International Court of Arbitration received a
>     complaint from the Czech Pirate Party about the proceedings of the
>     April 2012 General Assembly Conference of PPI. Due to the volume of
>     complaints and requests, the Court of Arbitration apologises for the
>     delay in ruling on this matter.
> 
>     The Czech Pirate Party also lodged an addendum to the complaint,
>     which is included as part of this ruling.
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     --
>     Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer
>     Court of Arbitration, Pirate Parties International
>     W: www.olbrychtpalmer.net <http://www.olbrychtpalmer.net>
>     T: @OlbrychtPalmer
> 
>     ______________________________________________________
>     Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>     pp.international.general at __lists.pirateweb.net
>     <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
>     http://lists.pirateweb.net/__mailman/listinfo/pp.__international.general
>     <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
> 

- -- 
Andrew Norton
http://ktetch.co.uk
Tel: +1(352)6-KTETCH [+1-352-658-3824]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQLokkAAoJECjjuYTW3X5HvAYIANlDKHBMuBtmxMOmmAAKQlEM
CTkvQBF14+WY35Ph/uk+oOvyNvF3cGzi4qBPECIzMCdqtJLG9S1dMkVdZ+D+z3Pc
tpdPOQBwoO+KASWawo5Gcx6SQxR6cFUaHX2VNC2bZwSPWcFzAjeTfxqi8cUKn9e4
dDuVQUPhBClaULD/168pn3Pbzia1gjgYbNmJu2Z6ArFdYnjmSDZBqurwnAa5lcqr
60jDaPo0x4AJKayL/AY6bMv04TNzl/Pf8U4uBZLzzxYOm7ZYMasCG/0OGwTJv/il
vy3e1s9goDYih3c2ffn++kT8X5hpijlZ7GI7jQUj6EhDYKz2TgrC83IXj1RLZrg=
=4iIf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----