Pirate Parties International First Online General Assembly | PirateTimes

Posted: March 30, 2015/Under: Andrew Reitemeyer, Creator, General Assembly, News/By: Andrew Reitemeyer

Pirate Parties International First Online General Assembly

Pirate Parties International First Online General Assembly

March 30, 2015 · by Andrew Reitemeyer · in

The first Online GA for Pirate Parties International was held on Sunday 29 March 2015.

It was held in a specially designed conference room in the Mumble instance held on the servers of the Pirate Party of North Rhine Westphalia in conjunction with a Piratepad and was conducted with no more problems than would be expected at a conference held at a physical location.

There were 16 Pirate Parties represented, which was enough to establish a quorum of 1/3 of the ordinary 41 members. The PPI members present were: Catalonia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Kazakhstan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Tunisia and Poland (after lunch). Observer organisations present were Pirates Without Borders and the Pirate Party of Aargau, Switzerland

Stathis Leivaditis (PPGR) headed the meeting as chairperson, with the help of Vojtech Pikal (PPCZ) as vice chairperson. The minutes were taken by Jens Stomber (PP-DE) and the votes tabulated by Ben Vidulich (PP-NZ).

After  an intense discussion over the rights of  board members to use membership fees for travel and accommodation, the first motion to be passed was regarding the right of PPI to raise fees. The motion AF2 was passed with 10/14 votes (which is greater than the two thirds needed). The passed motion [unedited] reads:

Acording of art. XVI of PPI Statutes [1], General Assembly determines the calculation of :Affiliation Fees as follows: 
The actual HDI [2] of a country is taken as an exponent to 50 to get the basis fee in €. 
This basis fee is multiplied by following factors: 
  •  for each elected pirate on national level times two, 
  •  for each elected member of a regional parliament times 1/5, 
  •  and for each elected member on a local level times 1/10. 
:This multiplied values are then added to the basis fee. 
  •  For the calculation it is non-discriminatory if a pirate is holding a mandate in the executive or legislative branch. 
  •  Affiliation fee shall not excess 1% of the member’s annual income for the previous financial year. 
  •  Observer membership is not associated with any costs. 
  • No member shall contribute more then 20% of all PPI’s due fees. 
:The first fees are due the next financial year. This calculation of Affiliation Fees is valid for following years unless decided otherwise. 
:General Assembly furthermore (according to art. X(h) of PPI Statutes [3]) decides that: 
  •  PPI is obliged to publish all the bank statements of all the accounts online [5] 
  •  Until these transparency requirements are fulfilled, members are not obliged to pay their membership fees for that year 
  •  [5] Personal details of natural persons can be censored prior to publication online

 

The meeting broke for lunch and at the reconvening 30 minutes later, there was no longer a quorum. However, an observing board member from the Pirate Party of Poland was able to become a delegate for his Party.

There were a series of policy statements that the PPDE wanted PPI to adopt, but these were delayed as it was felt there was not sufficient time to discuss the individual motions and that a committee should be established to garner consensus within the members on the policy proposals.

The Board was also charged with taking the necessary steps in order to establish a standing committee infrastructure within PPI. It was decided that at least the committees listed below should be established and that they should have had at least one meeting before the Warsaw conference. Each ordinary member of PPI may have at least one seat in all of the standing committees. This includes one standing member and up to two deputies. The Board of PPI should take committee recommendations into consideration, when making decisions.

:Each standing committee should convene two to four times per calender year on a regular basis.
:Every standing committee should have a support of a PPI board member who is responsible for it.
  • standing committee on public and press relations, elections and campaigning.
  • standing committee on new parties
  • standing committee on INGO relations
  • standing committee on PPI budget, oversight, transparency, finances and fund raising, 
  • standing committee on common political program.

Also the board was given approval for a plan to investigate the granting of PPI membership for  individuals for a yearly fee.  They will bring a formal proposal at the Warsaw conference in July.

The Pirate Party of Italy proposed that The PPI General Assembly should commit to the implementation of an online eDemocracy system as is already outlined in the statutes. The deadline of 30 June 2015 was imposed on the board to have a suitable system in place.

The pad used for the conference is available online

Featured image: Pirate Times from content by PPI

Andrew Reitemeyer

About Andrew Reitemeyer

I joined the Pirate Party of Lower Saxony in Germany in April 2012, once I found out that non citizens were welcome to join and become active members of the Party.
I joined the Pirate Times soon after it was started as a proof reader and am now an editor and author. Since then I have returned to my native New Zealand and joined the Pirate Party of New Zealand.
Politically I come from the libertarian left and have, up to now, not regarded any political party as having a solution for the democratic deficit that envelops the world. With the advent of the Pirate Party, which truly embraces grass roots democracy, I have found a political home. The Pirate Times is a way I can contribute to furthering the Pirate Movement around the world.
Skype: frithogar

 

 


All content is CC-BY if not mentioned otherwise. Please link back to us if using content.

Tags:

    • Just as a correction, the statutes state
      “one third of the total voting power shall constitute a quorum”

      With 41 members, that means a quorum needs a voting power of 13.6.

      From reading the notes, it seems like a number of times, there were only 13.5 votes participating. So the quorum at times is quite questionable.

      There’s also a big question as to Kazakhstan, specifically, does it meet the criteria for membership under IV(1) as it is seeming to be a single person. As such it would be ineligible under VII(3)

      But most importantly I think is this – If PPI can only BARELY get 1/3 of its members to participate in a ‘free’ online GA, doesn’t that say something about what those parties think of PPI?

    • Andrew,

      actually the total voting power is 40, not 41, since Spain and Catalonia share a vote (0.5 each). A 1/3 rd of 40 is 13.3 so 13.5 was sufficient at all times.

      I also think that it says something about the fact that a usual physical GA can easily gather more members then online one – you can’t replace true human interaction at an event with pure online proceedings.

        • no, it was 41. I asked if Australia was counted, you have said yes.

          09:53:55 «K`Tetch» btw, is Australian still considered a PPI member, dichter?
          09:55:16 «dichter» K`Tetch: not by me. but they still have not sent the registered letter, so statutory wise, yes they are a member.

          PPI wiki lists 41 entries, NOT including Australia.
          That makes 42 ‘members’, with a voting power of 41.

          I think the only thing it says about the GA is that it was badly organised.

          Had you used the transparent discussion-based model you were originally going to use, you’d probably have had a whole lot more.

          I’d also point out this from your own page of rules

          According to the standing Rules of Procedure [1], all delegates must present written authorization from a member of their respective board unless they are designated International Coordinator or equivalent on their parties official website.

          By the statement in this piece, the polish delegate doesn’t seem to have provided the requisite written authorization.

          Next, there seems to have been no German delegate. Yourself, Thomas and Bastian are specifically prohibited by statute from representing PP-DE

          XII(1)…The members of the Board shall consider the interests of the Pirate movement as a whole and shall neither consider themselves, nor be considered, as representing any particular Member or non-member Organization or region.

          (amphasis mine)
          That leaves Jens Stomber, who is listed as “international coordinator PP-DE-Bavaria” That’s fine, but Bavaria is an OBSERVER member. Was there any signed notice from the PP-DE board granting such status? It seems unlikely.

          Again, the same issues with Eric from France, and Jonna from Finland.

          Statutory-wise, (and remember, you MUST obey statutes), there was no quorum, because you couldn’t follow the rules that YOU wrote.

          Quite ‘galling’ no?

    • I do not agree with what you said Andrew.
      have a nice day.


    • cross

      2Andrew: 16 countries participated from the start and 15 after launch,
      some members didn’t vote on certain “vote procedures”, but THEY WERE there
      we made 2 voice roll cals to confirm the quorum during oGA (at start, and after launch)


    • Hollie

      KIDNEY DIALYSIS: my daddy has stopped it – what now?


    • ThomasG

      Oh my dear poor Andrew!

      It is a shame that it is common knowlegde and even so wanted by experience and states arguments in the past that PPI Statutes and such stuff shall not intermingle with Member issues.

      According to your wording PPI Statutes seem to be above each members will and its statutes.

      So in your view the PPI Statutes shall have active influence to the independence of each party being Member of PPI.

      You are also omitting the will of the General Assembly of PPI as the highest body within PPI. -> Individuals from several Pirate Parties got elected to the board of PPI in the full knowlegde that some had been in office (define office yourself) otherwise that time on the national scale. Personally, I consider this an affront to those member parties being active at the esp. General Assembly.

      If I read your words correctly you want to have binding decisions from PPI even influencing national Parties interests. Even to internal affairs.

      As the latter had been objected in the past. Even to the public and stated otherwise:

      You may have ideas and critics. If the very latter are biased they will be taken into account, if the are give the Schopenhauer way they won’t.

      Thomas Gaul

        • According to your wording PPI Statutes seem to be above each members will and its statutes.

          Yes. That’s KIND OF THE POINT of statutes. Otherwise why else have them? Or are you saying they don’t really matter?

Archives

Categories

New Pirate Times 2024
Vega Pro Wordpress Theme by LyraThemes

Terms and Conditions