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

Antonio Garcia ningunotro at hotmail.com
Sat Aug 18 03:12:55 CEST 2012

(sorry for the missing capital letters in the text that follows, they are under embargo pending assessment of a received threat)

we are already breaking apart... out of sheer incompetence, movementwide.

the critical mass of this collective's collective unconscience is almost permanently established, and logic, ethic and the rule of law are only secondary to the direction in which the ad-hoc majority at any time decides to fart. More decisively so in any simulacre of a general assembly.

it becomes very unrewarding to stay true to the supposed core values of the movement when it shows at any time that the majority is absolutely unconscient about them in the best of cases, or willingly does not give a damn, and abiding by the rules only seems to be a handicap for those who still appreciate some.

i'm still awaiting any kind of argumented response to the facts and reasoning exposed in the following mail sent to the court of arbitration:

> On 05/24/2012 06:03 PM, Antonio Garcia wrote:
> > 
> >         Hi Maxime!
> > 
> > 
> >       Dissenting opinion
> > 
> > Maxime Rouquet : Considering the initial meaning of the statutes was to
> > prevent multiple Ordinary Members in a given state, and encouraging the
> > cooperation inside a Federation (in article VI of the statutes), I think
> > we should not have accepted Pirate Party of Catalonia as an Ordinary
> > Member without having changed and clarified what exactly we meant by the
> > word "country", and made it sure Pirate Party of Catalonia and Pirate
> > Party of Spain cannot work together inside a federation.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks for having the guts to speak up.
> > 
> > 
> > As you can imagine, we here at the Spanish Pirate Party have not been
> > pleased at all to see what a fuck of a subterfuge the CoA has used to
> > turn down the badly formulated complaint of PP-UK. We're having trouble
> > not forcing Arturo Martinez to walk the plank ;) , and hang the rest of
> > the Court for High Treason.
> > 
> > 
> > As you know, the situation with Pirates de Catalunya is really tricky...
> > they even dared blackmail the whole Assembly and in particular Thomas
> > Gaul when they threathened to derail the PPI GA and make a real scandal
> > before all the international press gathered at the venue for the
> > occasion... less than a month before two crucial elections in Germany.
> > We in Spain acknowledge that Thomas did what was within his powers to
> > resist while risking that scandal.
> > 
> > 
> > Here in Spain, many PIRATA people fear a direct confrontation with
> > Pirates de Catalunya, because they do not hesitate to use dirty tricks
> > and talk themselves out of adverse situations with the conversation
> > skills of the few real demagogues and propaganda people that form their
> > inner core, and as not many of our people are experienced enough to
> > withstand their insistence and intimidation tactics.
> > 
> > 
> > Anyway, it was trying to minimise bad impact for PPI and PP-ES that I
> > devised the strategy of tactically voting, in a very explicit way (thank
> > you Slim Amamou for being very smart and tweeting the good picture) in
> > favour of the full membership of Pirates de Catalunya to the PPI.
> > 
> > 
> > The rationale being that our one vote was not going to be of any real
> > use if there was not a clear majority for or against the proposition and
> > could even become very problematic at home if it came close of being the
> > tie breaker for the decision. So, we figured out that if there was a big
> > majority in favour of letting PP-Cat in as full member, our negative
> > vote would be worthless anyway, and if there were a big majority against
> > it then our positive vote would not matter either. If it were a tie then
> > there is a bigger problem in PPI than this single issue anyway. So we
> > used our vote to do Public Relations and gain us some goodwill as the
> > ones that were not making things worse for everybody. At the same time
> > we explained to everyone we could talk to without our Catalan brethren
> > eavesdropping why the situation was that difficult, why we were playing
> > it smart, and all the good reasons why they should not forget to vote NO
> > to full membership of PP-Cat.
> > 
> > 
> > Well, you know how things went... the very improvised way.
> > 
> > 
> > I did not care that much, because I knew that the Statutes changes that
> > had to create the structure for it to be possible to have two full
> > members per country had not been voted upon, so a simple complaint to
> > the CoA should suffice to void the Australian motion and its results.
> > PP-UK did the right thing, albeit judging from the results in a quite
> > clumsy way. It'd be great to have the complaint text and the records of
> > the deliberations, to have some fun ;) .
> > 
> > 
> > The way they arranged to reinterprete the meaning of the word country to
> > grow us a new Gibraltar in Spain is exhilarating and caught us a little
> > bit by surprise, I'm afraid... instead of jumping PP-Cat out (although I
> > heard the option of jumping PP-ES out was even more funny), they split
> > the country to make there be two of them!
> > 
> > 
> > Really funny.
> > 
> > 
> > Anyway, everybody has had its time to be funny, now it's time for the
> > really serious stuff.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > In accordance with the CoA Rules of Procedure section about Anonymous
> > complaints as stated:
> > 
> > 
> > http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_CoA/Rules_of_Procedure 
> > 
> > 
> >         Anonymous complaints
> > 
> > Anybody can contact either the Court of Arbitration or one of its member
> > by the channel of his choice to issue a complaint about the functioning
> > of the PPI or the PPI by itself, provided they are suspected of a
> > violation of the PPI Statutes, of the Pirate Party movement core values,
> > or would be victims of such a suspected behaviour.
> > The Court of Arbitration then decides whether the claim seems
> > well-grounded, and if so can initiate an own intended procedure without
> > the need of disclosing the identity of the complainant. This decision is
> > sent to both the complainant and the PPI officers, organs or members the
> > complaint is referring to, and is subject to the same time limits
> > applied to regular complaints.
> > 
> > 
> > I choose you as the member of my choice to present the following
> > complaint about the CoA ruling 2012-3 that resulted in the admittance of
> > PP-CAT as a full member of PPI in such a way as to constitute a breach
> > of the Statutes as 1) Proper procedure for the admittance of a new full
> > member was not respected; 2) Spurious interpretation of the meaning of
> > the word "Country" was used insofar as only the existence of dubious
> > significance in the dictionaries was used as an argument, and the facts
> > and occurrence of the word was not checked against the historical facts
> > and context when these Statutes were crafted (none of the founding
> > members had trouble nor could or did foresee it emerging related to
> > multiple Pirate Parties existing in one of their single countries, as it
> > happening is antithetical to genuine Pirate Core Values, so in their
> > context COUNTRY meant as they all were... Sovereign Nations); 3)  The
> > Honourable Court of Arbitration permitted herself to twist the real
> > wording of Section III Paragraph (4) of the Statutes to grant the
> > Assembly seemingly unrestricted decision powers as to the admittance of
> > new members, in order to take for granted the validity of the Motion
> > presented by the Australian Pirate Party, whereas that paragraph only
> > grants discretional powers to decide whether "AN APPLICANT" that has
> > duly submitted his candidature papers and fulfilled al requisites shall
> > be granted the status they ASKED FOR or the other possible one. As I say
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Maxime,
> > 
> > As we have never spoken to eachother, let me please introduce myself
> > before we start talking. My name is Antonio García and I am one of the
> > delegates that represented the Spanish Pirate Party in the 2012 PPI GA.
> > 
> > https://yfrog.com/gzy0wyclj
> > 
> > I'm the one voting ;) .
> > 
> > I do still not know what the PPI thinks about Pirates de Catalunya,
> > 
> > though I can imagine you got a better picture of them now you had to
> > 
> > face their irresponsible behaviour and outright blackmail at the end of
> > 
> > the GA when they realised they were not going to get what they longed
> > 
> > for.
> > 
> > Believe me, I felt sorry for everyone while I saw them trying to
> > 
> > maneuver in such a way as to not to ruin the PPI GA with a scandal in
> > 
> > front of all the german press that was attending, less than a month before
> > two crucial local elections in Germany were due.
> > 
> > I spent more money I could afford to just make sure I'd be there
> > instead of any of the other possible candidates from Pirate Party
> > Spain, because I knew some of the alternative candidates that might
> > have gotten elected otherwise and as they are young and inexperienced
> > I could not trust them to behave properly and not ruin the PPI GA.
> > 
> > The situation in Spain of the Pirate Parties (both of them, no, all
> > three of them ;) ) is very bad, as far too many of their members are
> > quite young and rather the Anonymous and free-loader kind of people
> > that only thinks about having fun or getting some benefit while they
> > "play" politics. Pirates de Catalunya has a very strong "separatist"
> > membership and following they cater for, something that does not
> > really fit within the Pirate Ideals, and all they are doing at the
> > moment is manoeuvring to get their candidate on the n° 1 spot in the
> > 2014 European elections through a Confederated candidature they may
> > break loose from very easily if we get one Catalan elected MEP. That
> > is why they are not happy with the fact that the actual PPI statutes
> > requires the plural membership formula to be a Federation and they
> > submitted amendments to the PPI Statutes in that sense. They also want
> > full membership because the idea they have is to destroy the Spanish
> > Pirate Party by starting a Confederation of Spanish Pirate Parties
> > where they are encouraging other regions to form their Pirate Party
> > too, and the more people follow their ideas the more regions of Spain
> > would get barred for the Spanish Pirate Party... until it vanishes as
> > all territories get their own Pirate Party and the Confederation
> > agreements stipulate that no two parties shall compete electorally in
> > the same territory.
> > 
> > You have seen Kenneth Peiruza at work in the PPI GA. If they favour
> > Direct Democracy it is solely because they are a few demagogues and PR
> > people who think that they will be the more able to get the upper hand
> > in whatever dialectical dispute may arise in a group where most of the
> > participants are rather passive. You say how they played on the
> > feelings and primary instincts of the Assembly, not caring what they
> > risked as a scandal for the PPI and the negative fallout for PP-DE.
> > 
> > My personal strategy for the PPI GA 2012 was to avoid as far as
> > possible any possible direct confrontation that might give the PPI and
> > the Pirate Movement bad publicity. That is why I engaged personally
> > with the delegates to the GA and explained the situation to them. I
> > told them that the Pirate Party of Spain would be strategically voting
> > in FAVOUR of the full membership of PP-CAT in order to minimise
> > animosity between the two Spanish Pirate Parties both at the PPI GA
> > and at home, because our ONE vote would anyway be useless, and
> > conflictive if it were a tie breaker, if no clear majority was either
> > for or against full membership of PP-CAT, but that we believed that
> > full membership of PP-CAT to PPI would open a Pandoras' Box whose
> > consequences for PPI would be hard to estimate, and that they should
> > vote massively against it and do themselves a favour.
> > 
> > But they managed to push for a vote playing with the feelings of the
> > delegates rather than their intelligence, and that is what we could
> > not avoid because it is very hard to counter irresponsible mass dynamics.
> > 
> > Anyway, I do not know how many Pirate Parties were exactly accredited
> > for participation, nor what the voting threshold is for validly
> > accepting new full members... but they got 8 positive votes (mine
> > included of course), 3 negative votes and not less than 5 abstentions
> > (plus any accredited party that did not even bother to state anything).
> > 
> > First, I'd say I do not know if 8 votes, while constituting a majority
> > result for the motion are sufficient quorum to get the PP-CAT full
> > 
> > membership status through that vote.
> > 
> > I stayed very calm, because I knew that it did not matter... the
> > Statutes had not been amended to make room for more than one full
> > member per country, so I only had to wait until somebody complained
> > because of this to the CoA and the decision resulting from that motion
> > would have to be undone.
> > 
> > PP-UK presented such a claim to the CoA, so all was well. I was
> > contacted by caring pirate colleagues from other Pirate Parties asking
> > whether they could be of any help, and I contacted the CoA who told me
> > that additional evidence would not be needed. Of course I believed it,
> > as I was convinced of that myself. But then, the CoA published its
> > very crafted decision playing with the meaning of the word "country"
> > to make it as if Spain were two countries and each Pirate Party was
> > the one full member of his own country (plain bullshit of course ;) )
> > and we are thus in trouble still. They did not give the Spanish Pirate
> > Party (as an affected country that got the seccession of part of its
> > territory decreed by a foreign tribunal ;) ) a fair chance to defend its
> > 
> > position on this issue during the trial.
> > 
> > That is a first important point.
> > 
> > But there is more... the CoA, presumably on purpose, or by sheer
> > incompetence, did cite and instrumentalize part of the PPI statutes
> > wrongly. They argumented in ruling 2012-3 of may 15th:
> > 
> > "9) Considering Section III, paragraph (4) of the Pirate Parties
> > International Statutes states that the General Assembly can grant, at
> > its own discretion, the status of Ordinary Member or the status of
> > Observer Member."
> > 
> > And this is an too simplified interpretation of what that section and
> > paragraph of the PPI Statutes state, who literally says:
> > 
> > (4) The General Assembly is authorized to grant, at its own
> > discretion, the applicant one of the following Member status in Pirate
> > Parties International
> > 
> >     a) Ordinary Member
> >     b) Observer Member
> > 
> > And are to be understood as a direct and related following to the
> > preceding point:
> > 
> > (3) Requests for Membership shall be submitted in writing to the Board
> > at least four weeks before the meeting of the General Assembly. They
> > shall include contact information and a statement on the adoption of
> > the statutes and internal regulations of the Pirate Parties
> > International, in addition to a copy of the statutes and by-laws and
> > the political program of the applicant and information on the
> > background and organization of said applicant. The Board will transmit
> > the application to all Members at least two weeks before the meeting
> > of the General Assembly.
> > 
> > There is another point in the statutes that says something more
> > similar to what the CoA cites, when talking about ordinary members in
> > section IV:
> > 
> > (3) The General Assembly is authorized to grant Member status in
> > Pirate Parties International to any Pirate party, which subscribes to
> > the association’s principles and accepts its statutes and internal
> > regulations.
> > 
> > But obviously... it would have been invoked in the CoA ruling about
> > the acceptance of the applicants that submitted their application
> > after the deadline if it was meant not to be relativized by Section
> > III paragraph (3).
> > 
> > 
> > NOW... I have searched through the PPI website, and I could not find
> > any evidence of an application form for full membership of the PPI
> > coming from PP-CAT.
> > 
> > NOR... have I found in the minutes of the Assembly session any
> > evidence of PP-CAT applying for full membership in due course, be it
> > voted upon or not.
> > 
> > 
> > As a result, I conclude thus that PP-CAT has NOT applied in due form
> > for full membership at the 2012 PPI GA Assembly, and as such they were
> > at that ocasion ===NOT APPLICANTS=== as is needed to invoke on their
> > behalf Section III paragraph (4) of the current PPI Statutes.
> > 
> > The Assembly has NO discretional powers to grant membership to any
> > Pirate Party she wishes without these Parties being subject to the
> > requisites of the formal and statutory admission procedure.
> > 
> > Therefor, the verdict published as CoA Court Ruling 2012-3 is VOID!
> > 
> > Therefor, the motion submitted by PP-AU was illegal and should never
> > have been discussed, making any of its results VOID!
> > 
> > Therefor, the Pirate Party of Catalonia can under the present
> > circumstances not be said to have acquired full membership status
> > through the acts performed at the 2012 PPI GA.
> > 
> > 
> > Now, not to exacerbate the situation with PP-CAT within Spain, I would
> > love it if this argumentation was presented to the PPI Board and the
> > PPI Court of Arbitration by somebody else than PP Spain.
> > 
> > Maybe another Pirate Party could do so, or it is enough to submit the
> > 
> > facts anonymously for the Board of PPI or/and the Court of Arbitration
> > 
> > to start the proper procedure on their own once under knowledge of
> > 
> > the facts, or if no alternative is available PP Spain will have to sign
> > the necessary paperwork itself.
> > 
> > But what has to be done, shall be done.
> > 
> > 
> > Pirately yours,
> > 
> > 
> > Antonio García
> > Pirate Party Spain
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > If at all possible, please reformulate the context of this complaint
> > letter in your own words, as my writing style and argumentation
> > skills are not unknown among quite a few Pirates.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Once more, thank you for having the guts to be independent and
> > 
> > integer.
> > 
> > 
> > Please aknowledge receipt of the present letter as soon as possible.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Antonio García
> > Pirate Party Spain

as you may have guessed, my patience with the irresponsible behaviour is over, as it will otherwise be totally impossible to perform politically as desired and worthy of our movement in the various upcoming elections. some instruments and strategies that are ready to be used and could be killer applications towards achieving astonishing results simply can not b handed over for their use by unconscient, playing, kiddies.

antonio garcía
not representing here the pirate party of spain

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 01:34:45 +0200
From: jakobsheep at gmail.com
To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] [RULING] 2012-5 (Validity of 2012 GA	Conference)

Hi Andrew, I (obviously) was also not there. I am naïve, so I (often without knowing) poke in mud and under the surface(s). I am again pleasently surprised with 1 an update and 2 you also show you can seperate one from the other. Emotion from the intellect, the individual from the group.

I'm not sure how to say it but logic and honesty WILL make it succeed. The collective subconsience is finally moving into the collective conscience. The old ways of thinking are convulging even through our fellow pirates. I don't want to preach (another) new age retorics, but listening and looking around one can see things actually changing.

The new revolution is going to be a 'silent' one. No destruction but carefully keep that what is good functioning, improve what needs to be and REPLACE what is wrong.
Al the details are bollocks in the end if we can't change what needs to be changed before ANY PERMANENT change can take place. And that is replacing the lie of our so called Free West into true DIRECT democratie. And that can only happen with building trust and learning to communicate even better. In the end it is about the critical mass that true change will occur, and that countdown is about how many truly honest and empathic people coorperate in that spirit

The technology is available, we only lack excercise/experience and unity. 
I know how to get united, but not all pirates understand freedom. There is NO TOTAL FREEDOM. Therefor must we define it. But that is a bridge too far because the 'uniting factor' of the pirate movement today is this undefined, by everybody differently perceived abstract 'freedom'

Oh dear, does that mean......?

Yes we need a set of moral guides/codes for the individuals how to coorperate and function. (like the netiquette)

And next to that we need ethics for groups on how to function and coorperate.

(This is that difficult stuff about OGM, embryo's, euthenasia, war, etc)
Until this is sorted, WE WILL CONTINUE TO BREAK APART EVERYTIME when the critical mass of this collective UNconscience is reached.

I hope that you understand this sociological psychodynamical process.
 pirate philosopher Anouk ;-)
On Aug 18, 2012 12:10 a.m., "Andrew Norton" <ktetch at gmail.com> wrote:


Hash: SHA1

On 8/17/2012 5:53 PM, Zbigniew Łukasiak wrote:

> I was not there - but taking Andrew's word for this

By no means take my word for it. In fact, I strongly suggest you do NOT.

I can only speak for my experiences, recollections and reactions, and

others may differ. While I stand 100% behind everything I say, my

perspective is not the only one and shouldn't be treated as such.

However, I thank you for your confidence in my opinion.



> Cheers,

> Zbigniew Łukasiak


> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Andrew Norton <ktetch at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/17/2012 2:49 PM, Charly Pache wrote:

>>>> Thanks Andrew, sincerity is crucial in our party, I guess indeed that

>>>> people who think everything was all right because the court of

>>>> arbitration decided it are missing the point: we may tolerate what

>>>> happened once but we have really to be better next time.


> I would agree, if the SAME thing hadn't been said the year before, after

> the CoA fiasco then (where the court was brought up,voted into existence

> at the meeting, and then candidacy was opened and elected on the spot,

> effectively allowing only those present to stand, and giving no time to

> vet candidates at all.


> This year we had election rules changed the morning of the election,

> including the positions available, and the methods to elect them, and

> the means to present candidacy. It was another mess, and on the same

> basic topic as the previous years one. You can say 'we have to be better

> next time', when it ended up WORSE than last year, when 'we have to be

> better' was said then too.


> By all the alcohol I saw consumed, there's no doubt that organizers

> could manage a piss-up in a brewery, but anything political is clearly

> beyond them.


>>>> The problem

>>>> here was the consequence of making the session invalid, it could have

>>>> been seen as a major failure by the press, by our political opponents

>>>> and worst, by our followers.


> And then that is the price we should pay. We shouldn't reward

> incompetence, or accept it because 'it is easy' or because dealing with

> it as we should is hard. Otherwise yes, it's just politics as normal,

> and the Pirate movement is just another political group looking out for

> its own interests and willing to subvert its principles any time it may

> make things hard.


> The simple fact is that it WAS invalid by every criteria that should

> have mattered. That these were later considered not important enough to

> overrule 'inertia' is a worrying precedent.


> It just means Do whatever you want, but quickly, and make sure any court

> request is tied up long enough to allow us to do something that would be

> risky to overturn.


> By the way, No date was given for the date of complaint. If the

> complaint was made before July 16th, then the Court is in violation of

> it's own procedure:

> "The Court of Arbitration acknowledges the reception of the complaint

> within two days after any of its members has read it. The Court of

> Arbitration can issue a motivated reject of the claim within one week

> from this acknowledgement. The Court of Arbitration must issue a rule

> within thirty days since the complaint was acknowledged."

> 2 days from complaint received to acknowledgement, 30 days from that to

> ruling is 32 days. we'll assume that between the 5 they can manage to

> check the court email within 24 hours. So, what date was the complaint

> filed, Court? before or after July 16th?



>>>> My guess is if we wanted to look different than the other political

>>>> parties, we should have accept it as a failure. We would really have

>>>> looked like a clean, sane and very honest political party. But on the

>>>> other hand I understand why the court chose otherwise, out of fear of

>>>> unlocking something bad.


> Doesn't that say it all then? That they really don't believe the pirate

> way? That at the same time that pirate parties worldwide are publicly

> proclaiming how they're 'challenging politics', when it comes down to

> the internal stuff, it's just as corrupt, as pathetically incestuous as

> always, and the bodies charged to keep the party to the principles,

> won't because they're afraid to do so.



>>>> Anyway, I guess that concerning the content and the decisions we made

>>>> there, everything went fine and we would have no other conclusions if

>>>> the procedure would have been flawless, furthermore it was a great time

>>>> there, the 250 participants went back full of energy and motivation,


> I certainly didn't, and I don't think I'm alone. In fact, not long after

> the conference, I stepped down from every position I held at the end of

> April, because I was tired of actually believing and following the

> principles we espouse, and seeming to be the only one. Instead we're led

> by people that seem to want positions so they can get Wikipedia entries,

> and add fancy titles to their business cards.


> As for my motivation, I suggest you read the liveblog I started 3 hours

> into the 2 hour voting block. Might give you an insight into how I felt

> at the time.

> http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/04/liverblogging-ppi-conference.html


>>>> and

>>>> at the end, this is the main point here. Anyway, next time we will have

>>>> a perfect PPI GA, for the external participants as well ;)


> Yeah, that too was claimed last year. There's only one way to ensure

> that though. That's to make those who are the regular attendees, the

> 'movers and the shakers' of PPI, attend virtually for a change. Have

> their comments be ignored, their input ridiculed, and their ability to

> interact be curtailed, and see how they like that (or if they can even

> hold on to their positions)


> What the hell. I'll submit a proposal for next year, and we'll see how

> people like it (of course, the board won't, which is why it'll be

> rejected, in favour of another European one)


> I know there's a number of journalists here (including Mike Masnick from

> techdirt, and Ernesto from TorrentFreak, as well as someone from

> Forbes), let's hope the likes of The Register's Orlowski aren't, or the

> things the court tried to prevent happening through the ruling, will

> happen anyway, and be made WORSE by it (coverups have that effect)


> Andrew



>>>> Cheers, Charly


>>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Andrew Norton <ktetch at gmail.com

>>>> <mailto:ktetch at gmail.com>> wrote:


>>>> 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 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>

>>>>> <mailto: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>

>>>> <http://www.olbrychtpalmer.net>

>>>>>     T: @OlbrychtPalmer


>>>>>     ______________________________________________________

>>>>>     Pirate Parties International - General Talk

>>>>>     pp.international.general at __lists.pirateweb.net

>>>> <http://lists.pirateweb.net>

>>>>>     <mailto: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

>>>> <mailto: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

>>>>     <mailto: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




- --

Andrew Norton


Tel: +1(352)6-KTETCH [+1-352-658-3824]


Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)

Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/










Pirate Parties International - General Talk

pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net


Pirate Parties International - General Talk
pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20120818/eed911d5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list