[pp.int.general] Questions to PPI Board from PPNL.

[Thomas Gaul]

Hello!

On behalf of the Board of PPI I deliver this answer to you.

As it has been urgent for the PPNL members the answers had been
delivered to <algemeen.lists.piratenpartij.nl> first.

Best regards

Thomas

Q+A:
Prior to the upcoming online GA the Dutch Pirate Party has several
questions it would like answered.
Most of these can be answered succinctly in yes / no or a link to the
relevant pages, and it would be much preferred if they were answered thus.

1) We would like to know how PP-DE's international co-ordinator annex
board member procured the motion to alternative medicine. Though
partially answered in the recent piratetimes article, we would like
these answered for clarity.
1.1) If this motion is part of PPDE's program and is explicitly
supported by PPDE (or an individual idea of PPDE international
coordinator.)
1.2) And if so, where we can find this in the program, and the
proceedings by which this position on alternative medicine was reached.
1.3) If not, why this motion is on the international agenda.
1.4) Lastly, why PPDE thinks such a subject should be internationally
upheld by pirate parties, as pirate parties can advocate information
politics perfectly well without, or even on a contradictory stance to
alternative medicine.
1.5) Bluntly put: Why does PPDE feel that with all the recent commotion
regarding its board members, that this policy subject has enough
priority that is must be taken care of on this online GA, while at the
same time there seems no time for discussing structural problems in ppi.

======= <Answer> =======
PPI board is not the right authority to answer questions aimed at the
activities of its Members. We consider this question is for us "for
information only" and it is be the Board of PPDE to answer these questions.
======= </Answer> =======
2) We have seen several board members bringing in complaints and grounds
for removal against one another. We would like clarified:
2.1) Which board members have been thus indicted.
2.2) And where the formal complaints are to be found.
2.3) As well as any ruling by the CoA on these matters.
======= <Answer> =======
We can not make any comments to currently open court cases. You are free
to direct your questions to CoA.
======= </Answer> =======
3) The board has refused to accept PPAU's departure of PPI pending a
formal letter which PPAU has no intention of sending on grounds of
principle. Clarification is requested on:
3.1) If indeed this is the sole ground for refusing to acknowledge their
departure.
3.2) If not, what other grounds exist to contest this fait accompli.
3.3) What is accomplished by refusing their departure on this ground?
3.4) How the board sees this impasse resolved.
3.5) Most importantly, why is the format/style of the resignation the
primary concern instead of the fact ppau wants to leave?
======= <Answer> =======
The board of PPI is not allowed to breach the statutes of the
organization. Statutes are given rules by a vast majority of the members
and have to be followed by the then elected bodies as well as by the
members themselves. I.e. PPAU had accepted these statutes, too.
Each and every member of PPI is invited to go for statutes amendments as
it lays in the sole descretion of the General Assembly to change the
Statutes.
Also, as representitatives from political parties we believe, that we
all should lead by example by following the rules and not by making our
way around them. It is indeed very cleare that PPAU have made its
decission, based on public information and communication. At the moment
we still wait for the reception of the registered letter. If you think
that this provision is unfitting, you are very wellcome to submit a
statutes amendment proposal asking for different provisions for parties
to leave.
======= </Answer> =======

4) We note that the Australian proposal for an online assembly have been
ignored in favour of a mumble meeting type of proceeding.
4.1) On what grounds were these RoP preferred?
======= <Answer> =======
There are accepted and standing RoP for General Assemblies, decided upon
by the General Assembly. It is up to the (online) General Assembly to
change the RoP's according to the then present proposals.
As for the Australian proposal, even this would have been to be accepted
by the online GA in the first place. If the motion to accept the
proposal would have failed in the GA the previous given RoP would still
stand.
4.1) The proposed mumble style meeting is in line with the format of the
PPI board meetings since 2011 and we are confident, that it is feasible
as a tool for a meeting of group as large as the PPI GA. Proceedings
require only minimal modifications to work with pure online meeting.
======= </Answer> =======

5) It has come to our attention that the new bank account of PPI is
actually PP-LU's. We would like to have clarified:
5.1) If indeed this new account is on the name of PPLU.
5.2) And if it is PPI or PPLU who ultimately holds the keys.
5.3) If the previous PPI account is salvaged, or lost.
5.4) If PPI has a bank account on it's own name.
======= <Answer> =======
1) The account is in the name of "Pirate Parties International". The
service is provided by PP-LU as service provider. This account is part
of PP-LU framework agreement with the DEXIA BANQUE INTERNATIONALE A
LUXEMBOURG S.A.
2) Bastian, as PPI treasurer have full access to this account.
Representatives from PP-LU are also able to access this account as
service providers.
3) The account that was opened by the coreteam is indeed not in the name
of PPI, but in the name of its former officers. The bank have frozen
this account and refuse to resolve the situation, unless it is provided
with a form signed by Nicholas Sahlquist, who have not cooperated until
this time. Currently we are preparing further actions that could lead to
his cooperation. There is also some doubt if the funds on that account
are actually PPI's money, since they have been deposited there for
reimbursment of the travel of participants of the EP visiting group of
Christian Engström prior to the PPI foundation conference in Brussels.
4) see answer to 5.1
======= </Answer> =======

P.S. German board added in bcc with regards to question 1.