Procedural motion to assess the quorum.
Krishna: IT IS HALF PAST, CAN EVERYBODY PLEASE SIT DOWN!
Comment: Another 10-15 minutes for the streaming.
Krishna: You have a motion?
Comment CAT: Yes, I want to present to motions.
Krishna: CAN YOU ALL SIT DOWN PLEASE AND BE QUIET, WE ARE STARTING.
Krishna: There are some procedural motions, and there are membership topics over from yesterday.
Krishna: Procedural motion to change the procedural rules.
Motion: "Limit the total amount of votes of a single delegate to at most 2 votes."
Matthias: I am just waiting until I get the attention I so desparately long for. Our Rules of procedures are probably not the best rules ever. But changing the rules in the middle of a meeting because of how it plays out is like changing the rules of a game because someone seems like winning. ??? If you want to change the rules, do it in between the events. So that the rules are clear in advance. ??? The rules are set in advance, we abide by them, but we don't change them midway. I hope we can be better than that.
Gregory: I was stuck in the train. I am very glad to be here in time to speak about this motion. Of course the countries which I represent here strongly oppose the motion. There is no sense anyway in limiting of how many countries one delegate can represent, because the countries have put trust in the delegate. ????? Why two, why not one? In PPI there is a rule that a delegation can be up to 6 members, but these share the same vote. ??? If something happens, for example the delegates get stuck somewhere, they can delegate to someone else. ??? Since many of you are talking about liquid democracy, this is how liquid democracy looks like, really. I represented the countries I represent also by splitting my vote where they had differing interests. ??? A weaker start for the PPEU because it would look like a procedural trick to exclude some countries. ??? I personally am not offended, and I would be happy with any outcome, but then I would request a procedural break to get my countries get a new proxy. ??? In the end, the result would stay the same.
Julia: To the next speakers: Please think whether you actually have new points to add.
Comment FR: We didn't really ask ourselves, who ????? and now we have to discuss just about things that some people thought evident. But we have to clarify what we think are implied rules. A lot participants maybe thought that noone could even have two delegations. It is not a bad thing if not all participants are on the same line, to discuss it and find a solution. We don't have a rule that the rules must be stable. ??? I think it is good to discuss and find a solution together, otherwise people will complain afterwards because they don't like the rules.
Matthias: I don't mind discussions, I actually sort of like them. But if you believe that by discussions we can come to a result everybody is happy about, we err. ??? Some people will always be unhappy about this decision. We are delegates representing countries. ???? But equal voting in this case is not individual one vote, it is one party one vote. Basically what we are saying is that some countries like Kazachstan made the wrong choice of delegate. I don't think anybody has the right to contest the choice of delegate of a country. Not even italy, I'd not object to their choice. It's not our position to tell this to countries. ???
Comment GAL: Gregory started with 1 country, in the end he had 4. You should not get further cards during the congress, the countries should have participated from the beginning. ??? This is not a clean process.
Gregory: Right now I have 5. ???? Why are they growing? Because of the clarification process and some countries had problems with the process. And some had problems with the remote delegation. And I have no idea how many will come. I was asked before the conference to get in touch with countries which are not coming to make it possible for them to be represented. ???
Muriel: I would like to say that what Mab said that we should not change the rules in the middle of the meeting. Well, we already did this. It has nothing to do with trusting Gregory, it's just that it is hard not to make mistakes if you try to handle 5 opinions at the same time. Hence it should be limited so it reduces mistakes.
Gregory: I am aware of the responsibility. It's a burden, I would love to have less of them. ???
Comment: We had other Countries joining during the course yesterday, so that happens. And just off the record, Gregory voted differently for different countries. ???
Comment BE: When we are coming here, we are coming to do something for the european election. At the end it's the geographic europe. Are we doing PPI or PPEU? If someone is representing 25% of the vote, this guys always wins. ??? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Is it in the interest of the PPEU to be a copy-paste of PPI.
Procedural motion to close the speaker list.
No one objects.
Comment CAT: Gregory said that it was hard to split his vote, but none of his votes were recorded. But I never saw any splitted vote. I always only see red or green. I do not believe that the parties who not even managed a remote delaget. ????
Julia: I can assure you, some of the votes were split and some were recorded.
Comment CAT: I think nobody expected this, so this is why we don't have a rule about it.
Matthias: I think it is still morally wrong to change the rules to reduce the influence of a single person. It was told that 5 votes always wins. The majority when Gregory and I were in disagreement, I won. There were only 2 occasions when it went the other way. So 5 votes is not all that.
Motion: "Limit the total amount of votes of all participants to a maximum of two - delegated or not."
Gregory: I would like to request a procedural break for an hour to get back to the countries.
Muriel: I sent an email that many parties wanted this motion, so they could prepare. ????
Matthias: I think we will have to take the time. Anyone who voted in favour of this motion, had to realize that there would be problems with finding a new delegate. ??? An hour is actually quite a short time.
Comment CAT: It can be a little bit messy, but maybe they can participate by email like voting in the next two days on the things we vote upon.
Muriel: We told Gregory about the motion yesterday.
Gregory: At two in the morning.
Muriel: I think this asking for time is just a way to protest.
Comment NL: A lot of people in this room discovered the internet. It is really cool. It allows us to communicate over vast distances in short times. It is sensible to give them some time to communicate, ??? I think a 20 minute break would be a reasonable compromise.
Procedural motion to close the speaker list.
No one objects.
Comment BE: If Gregory is in contact to vote for the countries, then there is someone there. If there is a real party after those votes, then there is a pirate behind a computer.
Matthias: I was in contact with the swedish pirate party and got general directions. No one here is in mental contact with his party. ???? Gregory probably got general directions, ??? But the choice to trust me was made by the swedish pirate party. ??? If they had trouble finding Gregory, they will have trouble finding someone else. ????
Daniele: I want to change my vote to no.
Julia: You can not just change your vote, but you could file a motion to remove the restriction we just passed.
Daniele: In Italy we limited the delegation of a single delegate. Because someone showed up with 8. But we did it after the meeting. ???
Julia: The list of speakers is closed.
Gregory: I would like to propose to vote on the proposal of italy first. If we reduce the number of delegations at the end of the meeting, it saves us a lot of trouble.
Comment CAT: During the next voting, Gregory would only have two votes.
Comment NL: I would like to ask Gregory ??? will the PPI be hosted in one of the five countries you represent? There is a conflict of interest here.
Krishna: Please raise your cards if you want to revoke the last motion.
Julia: We move on to vote on the 1 hour break.
Straw-Poll: Green: 1 hour break. Red: 20 minute break.
Julia: There were more supporters for the 20 minutes break. So we now vote on that break.
Procedural motion for a 20 minute break.
Julia: We continue at 11:46.
Krishna: 3 minutes, then we continue.
Julia: Ok everybody, please take your seats. We continue.
Julia: Everybody please have a seat. We have to...
Julia: Would you please stop your discussions so we can continue. We have to assess the quorum.
Procedural motion to assess the quorum.
Julia: We have more procedural motions.
Motion: "Record every delegated or remote vote."
Gregory: We yesterday had this motion passed and then changed it. I see no reason to table it again. This session is open, everybody can do it himself, really don't move your job of doing a decent report to somebody else.
Stefan: We are all delegates. This will record all votes.
Motion: "Record every delegated or remote vote."
Julia: This motion was rejected.
Julia: We continue.
Motion: "I ask the assembly to organize further telematic meetings..."
Daniele: Since today we have to discuss about the euroliquid. We don't have the time. Hence I reduced the time to 10 minutes, just to manage a further meeting to talk about euroliquid.
Julia: If you are in favour of a 10 minute discussion on euroliquid, raise your green card, otherwise raise the red card.
Julia: At 14:20 we'll have the 10 minute discussion.
Julia: Yesterday we talked about the obligations of ordinary members. We agreed that ordinary members can be all parties in countries in europe. We have agreed that they do ??? have to attend meeting and maintain transparency including financial transparency towards their members. We continue with the other bullet point: "To pay their designated fee as Ordinary Members in a timely manner"
Comment BE: We scrapped all concrete objectives of the PPEU and replaced it with the "interest of its members". I want to see concrete things, and the only concrete thing I see is paying. ??? For ordinary member, belgium is not here to give money. You can pay a symbolic euro, but that's it.
Motion: "to pay a symbolic fee of 1 euro".
Matthias: When we started this one of the main objectives was to get EU funding. It clearly states that 15% of money needs to come from somewhere else. I think membership fees are a good place. ??? Ordinary members are those who vote how to distribute the money. They should also be the ones giving the money. ???? Hoping for other members to pay, this might be an optimistic approach. ???
Comment UK: I don't think this motion really achieves much. If you just keep it as it is, later on in the finances section, it will say "the council will set the fees", and they can well set it to 1 euro.
Julia: This is basically just saying that there is a membership fee.
Comment BE: It depends on for example a country which has members in parliaments, but there are other countries which have not. ??? It depends on which party. It could be writing something like "the fee depends on the importance of the party or the financial ability".
Julia: You want to withdraw this motion and file it when we talk about the concrete fees?
Vote on the Bulletpoint "to pay their designated fee as Ordinary Members in a timely manner"
Julia: We come to "to report every year to the association on party and policy developments".
Julia: So we have the ordinary member requirements and obligations. So we move on to the rights. What can an ordinary member do? 1) to vote in the council, 2) participate in political discusions, speak in council, 3) appoint delegates and arbitrators and propose candidates for the Board 4) to hav eaccess to use of the Associations logo and other representational devices.
Gregory: What are the arbitrators about? Will there be a court of arbitration?
Julia: The proposal is that every country sends one delegate to the court of arbitration, and if there is a case, then a random subset, will decide on the case, without those confliting two. ????
Matthias: I propose we just vote on this en-block and then remove the court of arbitrators later.
Gregory: I propose to remove the arbitrators first, and maybe later put them back in.
Julia: "to vote in the council on every matter"
Julia: "The right to participate in political discussions and to speak at Council meetings"
Julia: We have a motion for the third point.
Motion: "Strike the words 'and arbitrators' from the bullet point.
Matthias: If we pass this as it is, it just means that the members send arbitrators, it's not clear that they actually have to form a court.
Motion: "Strike the words 'and arbitrators' from the bullet point.
Julia: Then it is "To appoint delegates and propose candidates for the board.".
Julia: Then we vote on "have access to use of the Associations logo and other representational devices"
Julia: We are done with the section of ordinary members rights and can move on to the next type of members. Originally the associative members were supposed to be parties in countries outside of europe. ??? We have a motion to remove associate members entirely.
Matthias: Since we will have a need for members who could be ordinary members but for example don't want to pay a fee, could use the associative membership.
Julia: There are also observer members, which don't have votes.
Comment: We should not remove associated members which have not run in elections yet.
Julia: He is arguing that because parties have to have filed for elections, there should be a class of members which have not yet filed for election.
Jack: Can you bring up the criteria for ordinary members to remind us of the difference?
Julia: [Reads slide]
Comment FR: Yesterday I submitted a proposal about associate membership to remove the territorial dependency on europe. I believe we might want to work with parties which are not part of geographical europe. ??? There should be a place in the statutes for them. ??? So I propose to remove the european geography point and keep associative members.
Julia: There is a second motion to remove the geographical requirement, this mean parties outside europe could become associative members.
Stefan: If every party in the world can join, we are just refounding PPI.
Matthias: We should discuss associate members last. Because then we know which types of members we might not have thought about. ???
Procedural motion to handle associatite members last.
Julia: Then we continue with observer membership. The proposal is that these are parties without voting rights and membership fees. But they can participate in discussions and file motions with the council. The proposal for eligibility is "all parties, which are parties of ..." I don't think this makes sense, so I'll go to the draft...
Discussion on the board.
Julia: Basically they have to be registered as a party or some other form, say association. ...
Krishna: What it means is a party or some other entity.
Julia: We don't have to vote on this, everyone is either a party or not a party. But the next point is that observer members need to be subordinate. [Reads slide]
Julia: There'll be motions, so let's first have a general discussion.
Jack: This seems to me a lot more like associate members should be. Observer membership could be any organization which is aligned with us, ??? rather than just restricting it to other parties.
Julia: Do you agree that regional parties should be one type of organizations which ???
Jack: Remove the requirement to be a party.
Matthias: The second point means they have to be a party or what constitutes a party in that country.
Julia: I would advise you to file a motion to remove the second bullet point in this case.
Stefan: I would remove the geographical requirement. Because Marocco and Tunesia etc. might want to join. Also I would remove the requirement to be a party, because for example pirates without borders might want to join.
Gregory: Right now, the rules for observer membership is stricter than for ordinary membership. We should first harmonize it with what we decided yesterday.
Julia: If it is just the wording, we'll of course harmonise it.
Julia: I suggest, we go bullet point by bullet point. If you want it removed, vote against it.
Julia: You don't have to pass a motion to remove bullet points.
Julia: We vote on the first bullet point first, i.e. whether they need to be parties.
Julia: "The ordinary members have to be parties."
Krishna: Observer members.
Julia: Everybody understands the question? Good.
Julia: We move on to the next bullet point.
Julia: "They have to be in europe."
Jack: Now we removed the requirement to be parties, we should also remove the requirement about elections.
Julia: We'll go bullet point by bullet point.
Gregory: I want to suggest that observer members have to be in europe or in neighbouring countries.
Julia: You can either file a motion or separate motions for it.
Julia: So we have two motions on this point. All neighbouring countries and "all neigbouring countries and those with special relations"
Comment NL: Can we please be consistent across the statutes what we mean by 'europe'.
Julia: The definition here is consistent everywhere and is what we decided yesterday.
Comment IS: We are increasingly connected to europe but we are definitely not in geographical region. Please make it clear.
Julia: We mean "parliamentary assembly of the council of europe" if we say "europe".
Comment: We should be open for countries which are neighbours and those with special relations to europe, and then let the board decide whether these requirements are fulfilled.
Comment: But for example the Pirate Party of Brazil could be a friend to our PPEU? Like other organizations all over the world are friends with us now.
Comment NL: I am here only for one reason. To win the european elections. ??? Please stop discussing another PPI.
Comment: But can PPEU has more tasks.
Gregory: Absolutely true that the european elections in 2014 is an important task. But we are building the PPEU as an organization not only for the election campaign. We all agreed in Prague that there will be an coordinated election campaign. But then it will be done. But PPEU is a foundation for our future work together. ??? By doing this work properly we lay a solid foundation for the years to come. If we rush things, we will not have an effective organization. ???
Comment CAT: We can cooperate with parties or organizations outside of the continent, but they don't need to be members. I think nobody is going to be against inviting the brazilians, or marrocco if there are common interesest. But we should differentiate between PPI and PPEU. If it is something worldwide, do it at PPI.
Comment: Maybe we are just missing a friendship status in this membership thing.
Julia: We have two competing motions, we have a straw-poll first.
Julia: "Eligible as obserer members are organizations in europe or in the neighbouring countries." This is motion 1. Use your green card for this. "??? associations in europe, in neighbouring countries to europe or in countries with special relations to europe".
Comment FR: What about world wide organizations?
Julia: If you don't want any requirements, just vote no to the two motions and the bullet point.
Comment GAL: I don't want neighbours. What should I vote?
Green for neighbours only, red for "with special relations" as well.
Julia: More people prefer the broader motion. Before we vote on it, I want it in writing.
Motion: "... and special relations ..."
Julia: I'll explain once again. If we pass this motion, it means all countries in europe and neigbouring countries and countries with special relations" can become members. ???
Comment NL: What is "special relations".
Gregory: In international law it usually is taken to mean "having relevant treaties".
Comment NL: How is it going to be defined by this organization.
Gregory: USA, Canada and Japan. That's probably it. Basically good old trade partners.
Matthias: Either it will be defined by this organizations statutes or by this organizations council. That's how it is going to be defined.
Julia: Once again, ??? voting.
Motion: "... and special relations ..."
Julia: Are there more motions?
Gregory: I would propose that we also vote on the other straw-polled motion. Because the discussion afterwards changed opinions.
Motion: "... or neigbouring countries"
Julia: If there are no more motions for the first bullet point. You vote yes if you want it to be restricted to europe, otherwise vote red.
Julia: If you vote no, where the organization is from, doesn't matter. They can be anywhere.
Julia: Green is just europe, red is any country or international organizations.
Julia: The proposal has been rejected.
Julia: I think the next bullet point has become void. Since we have decided that observer members don't have to be parties, there should not be a requirement that they should be subordinate members ???
Julia: No one objects. We move on to the name. Objections to this point?
Comment NL: I would prefer to add "and don't have the word 'green' in their organization name".
Julia: Please prepare a written text. In the meantime we can discuss.
Matthias: For me green is not worse than red or black or purple, it's ???
Comment NL: My loyalty is to pirates at first. I am also aware of strategic alliances between greens ??? they are not all nice. ??? Look at for example at groups which call themselves "green pirates". It poses a threat to our identity and that of the greens. We have to develop our own identity. ??? People should not pirate us in that respect.
Comment CAT: We don't need the word 'pirate' in observer members. ??? I agree with your opinion, that some organizations which were anti-establishment a century ago. ??? Maybe we can just reject these organizations when they want to join. ????
Daniele: Even if I totaly agree with Samir, there is a rule in marketing: Never talk about your competitor. If we talk about them, we give them importance. So. My opinion is to avoid this issue even if we totally agree with this. The second issue: In italy we have some organizations that fight for digital rigths like 'artisti ???' ??? they are very ??? maybe they don't have the word pirate but they are more pirate than us even.
Julia: You don't have to do a motion, you can simply vote against the bullet point.
Gregory: I would suggest what italy suggested. Scrap the requirement. It's observing membership. People who have a special interest in the organization. ??? If we not put in 'not green' we should also put in 'not nazi' and so on. ??? We cannot have an exhaustive list at all, so let's not start with it.
Jack: I'll be in favour of getting rid of this entirely. Other organizations don't belong in the statutes at all. The political landscape changes.
Matthias: I agree with italy. I agree with gregory there are other political labels which are as harming to us as green. ??? I do not believe the greens will take over the pirate movement by officially joining the PPEU.
Samir: I know things, if I say them out loud, they might be criminal allegations. You make jokes about 'evil greens'. ??? But they have done some really nasty stuff to some pirates. I want to keep them out of organization.
Motion: "Carry the term pirate or any translation of that term somewhere in their party or organization name and their name shall not include the name 'green' in any language."
Julia: If you want to exclude greens, raise your green card.
Julia: If there are no more motions, then we vote on the proposal. "They have to carry the word pirate somewhere in their name."
Julia: The next point is void. Then "observer needs to maintain an democratic internal structure".
Comment CAT: We have transparency as a requisite for an ordinary member. So not just democratic but also transparent to its members.
Jack: There'll be some organizations which we might want as observer member which are meritocratic or such. ??? Organizations we might want to align us with. ???
Julia: Usually, what it means to have a democratic internal structure basically means there are members and they democratically elect members. ??? It doesn't keep us from talking to other organizations, but it means only democratic organizations can become members.
Matthias: I am a strong fan of foundations. They cannot be democratic because they don't have members. We would exclude all foundations. But they are cool, so we should allow them.
Comment IS: The icelandic modern media institute for example would not fit this definition.
Comment: We have to think about the requirements. I think it should say "non-profit organization".
Julia: Anybody wants to change the bullet point? No. So we vote on it. "Having to maintain a democratic political base and a democratic internal structure"
Daniele: I want to know: The observers have to be accepted by the council?
Julia: Every member has to be accepted by the council. And I'd say it wouldn't be sensible to found with observer members.
Julia: We have one more bullet point in the proposal. "have to be politically active"
Gregory: This is also a minimum requirement. We don't like for example 'Microsoft' applying for membership. Not having corporations entering it.
Matthias: I think it should go. If we don't want corporations, we should have a bullet point. But this one would for example exclude research institutes, which are not allowed to become politically active.
Julia: Then we vote on "have to be politically active".
Julia: Now we have several motions. We will first read them all.
Motion: "Add the same requirements of transparency as ordinary members."
Stream: Stream is down.
Julia: We can still continue presenting.
Stream: But the remote delegates.
Motion: "Carry the term pirate or any translation of that term somewhere in their party or organization name."
Julia: This is from Samir? You tabled a motion to reintroduce it?
Discussion about the motion.
Comment NL: You voted on it, it was refused.
Motion: "Every observer member must work in favour of PPEU goals."
Motion: "Add 'any association that does not qualify for another category of membership'"
Julia: None of these motions seem to be competing. We can just discuss them one by one.
Julia: Maybe we should have a 5 minute break and wait for the stream.
Julia: The stream is working again.
Julia: We continue, please take your seats.
Julia: Please take your seats, we continue with the meeting.
Julia: Everybody, first we have to assess the quorum.
Krishna: CAN YOU PLEASE BE QUIET!
Julia: Please raise one of your cards if you are present.
Julia: We have collected all of the motions to add bullet points to the slides. Since there aren't any conflicts, we discuss them one by one.
Procedural motions to change the agenda: "Finalize the next real-life meeting" and "for the next meeting, finalize the rules of proceedures for the meeting, further changes of rules only effective on the next meeting".
Julia: But it would still be possible to change the rules. These are two unrelated things. We talk about the first motion first: After this point which is requirements for observer members, we will discuss the next meeting. Because we'll not finish today. We have 50 minutes left. We have to leave at 14:30. ???? So if you want to change the agenda, vote green, otherwise red.
Julia: We'll finish this slide and then we talk about the next meeting.
Julia: "that maintain transparency including financial transparency towards their members"
Jack: We didn't like this point for full members, we should not have it for ordinary members.
Julia: We didn't like financial transparency towards the public...
Matthias: He's stating what the UK likes.
Jack: ??? some organizations have members towards whom they needs to be transparent about. Other don't.
Julia: This would imply they have members.
Matthias: If they have zero members, they have to be transparent towards no one.
Motion: "that maintain transparency including financial transparency towards their members"
Julia: We move on to "non-profit organizations". Would someone like to comment?
Matthias: This would exclude foundations. Oh... this would only exclude corporations and individuals.
Comment FR: We have removed everything. Individuals could be observer members.
Motion: "non-profit organisation"
Julia: This has been approved.
Motion: "are organizations that are in favour of PPEU goals".
Matthias: I'd say that we should not accept organisations that work against our goals, but this requirement would exclude some neutral organisations. ????
Comment CAT: We can at least receive attempts from organisations which have nothing to do with the pirate movement, we can obviously still vote no. ??? It doesn't mean "every PPEU goal".
Samir: I am having contacts which people from NGOs and some of them don't even want to be on the same picture with me. So they would not be able to join if this would hurt their political neutrality, because they'd be out of business. ????
Matthias: The evil ones will not read the text and say 'oh wait, I cannot apply'
Motion: "work in favour of PPEU goals"
Julia: We move on to "are organizations that don't qualify for any other types of membership"
Jens-W.: If you can't pay, you can become observer member. With this motion, no longer. ???
Samir: If you qualify for full membership, ???
Matthias: I'd like to use the associative members for parties which might one day become full member. ???
Comment CAT: Taking the philosophy of the swedish delegate, keep it simple. ??? I would suggest anyone to stop talking and start voting. ???
Comment: A european party may not become an observer member if they fail to become ordinary or associate member.
Daniele: So they are excluded?
Julia: If we pass this, then a party which could apply for ordinary or associate membership can't become an observer.
Julia: If you are a party, but don't want to apply for ordinary membership. You cannot become an observer instead. But observer members cannot vote.
Daniele: Is there another kind of association or only these two?
Daniele: If italy want to become a member, but prefer to wait some years, so in the meantime they can partiicpate in any other way to this organization even without voting? Or are they forbidden?
Julia: Sweden's proposal is to make associate members fit this role.
Matthias: My idea is that any party that don't want to become an ordinary member shall apply as an associate member. The reason to separate them is that we can have a clause that associate members reaching the criteria automatically become ordinary members, if you want to. That would let people choose between those two options. ???
Samir: There might be financial motives for being an observer member instead. So I propose to take the vote after the finances are clear.
Gregory: Fix the last line "doesn't qualify or have not requested any other membership type".
Julia: What is the difference between this and not having a point at all?
Procedural motion to close the speaker list.
No one objects.
Motion: "Observer members are organizations that don't qualify for any other type of membership."
Julia: Are there any motions left on this topic? No. We have agreed that observer members can be organisations that maintain transparency including financial transparency towards it members and are a non-profit organisation. Then we are done with the eligibility criteria.
Julia: We then come to the topic of the next statutes meeting. We still have a lot of work to do. We need one or two more weekends to meet. I personally think reallife meetings are way more efficient than mumble sessions. ??? I know there is a meeting planned in rome in November which regards the election campaign. It should be preserved for that topic. So we need volunteers. If someone thinks their party is able to organize a meeting sometime soon.
Daniele: In the meeting in rome we can dedicate some time also to complete the points we didn't complete today. In November we can take the time to refine some issues also and decide in the agenda the campaign and the rest.
Krishna: I think that a part of a weekend is not enough for the rest. Many of the more conflicting points we have not even touched yet.
Comment CAT: It is not a bad idea to do some work online. Because there are people like me who talk to much. With three like me, we can kill such a meeting.
Julia: There is of course going to be online meetings.
Comment CAT: ... we also have other countries also running for elections. We can help these countries by meeting there.
Jack: We would be able to host something in November. Manchester has an international airport.
Julia: So PP-UK is offering to host a conference.
Comment: I think online preparations with the new tool Krisna made can be help a lot. ???
Comment FR: We need to meet before November. ???? Organizing meetings when the host has an election does not help, but eats up resources of small parties. ???
Julia: So France is offering to host in the beginning of 2013.
Stefan: I already distributed invitations for February 2013, there will be a national assembly and we can place a PPEU meeting there if you whish so. It'll be an Aarau again. 22. January 2013
Julia: I actually believe we need two more meetings before the founding conference. One more for bullet points, and then one weekend for the real text of the statutes. Well, this is optimistic. But we need two at least.
Daniele: If the founding is in the beginning of 2013, then maybe the two meetings of the statutes in october in england and november in rome. And after decide about the campaign. In my opinion the campaign agenda of rome can be changed with the statutes and maybe decide upon the campaign in france or aarau.
Comment GAL: I have to consult with the rest of my collegues. ???? It is ok with them, we will offer.
Matthias: I would be very worried if we cancelled an election campaign conference in favour of a statues conference.
Daniele: We move it one month back.
Matthias: ??? Just booking a meeting soon will mainly generate more meetings. I would suggest a later date and just postpone the funding. There is no rush. ???
Julia: It would be very good for the election compaign when we found PPEU during the election. It would not be a statues discussion but a media event. We could do it in early 2014. ??? We can coordinate the election campaign before the official founding, this was the plan anyway. And I think we should keep this plan. All other parties are already preparing for EU elections. ???? It would be really important to have a meeting on the election campaign soon.
Comment BE: It is also more concrete. ?????
Julia: We should collect the offers.
Comment BE: With an offer it is only possible, we think for the launch of the PPEU it would be good if it would happen in brussels. ??? So, for the Launch it'd be cool in Brussels.
Samir: Can we please have a formal vote on this one?
Julia: We don't have to decide this today.
Julia: We have UK, France, Galicia, Switzerland
Comment: Do you really intend to postpone founding until 2014?
Julia: This is my proposal. The reasoning is ????? good publicity event, also we don't need the organization for ???
Matthias: If we manage to have a statutes in spring, we should found in 2013. We can get funding if we have 7 members in parliaments, and this might be reached in 2013. To get the 2013 funds, we would need to found in 2013 and can use the money in 2014. ?????
Krisna: We have to agree on the next meeting.
Julia: Should we have a formal vote to postpone the founding?
Julia: Green card to not have the founding conference in the first quarter of 2013. Otherwise, vote red.
Julia: So we have decided that we'll not do the founding in the first quarter of 2013 so the earliest possible date is 1. April 2013.
Julia: Any date before April 2013 would be a good idea for the next meeting. So we have four proposals, UK, Switzerland, Galicia and France. Switzerland is already offering a concrete date which is in February.
Stefan: We have been in Switzerland, I'd rather we go to the UK. It would be more fair.
Jack: ??? There will be some international pirates meeting up at our national conference, but we'll need a whole weekend.
Jack: The end of november would be possible.
Daniele: 17./18. November is rome.
Matthias: After the november meeting, december would be great.
Jack: December would be possible.
Comment FR: The end of november would be too soon for france. I would have proposed a date around the switzerland proposal.
Julia: How about early february?
Julia: What about Galicia?
Comment GAL: I still have to check with the party.
Julia: The meeting in France has no specific date yet, but it would be in early february.
Julia: I have a proposal. We decide to have one meeting in the UK in december and one in february in France. Galicia can check, and if we need a third one, it could be in Galicia.
Julia: I have UK in early december and france in early february.
Stefan: We have this meeting, but we have already been to switzerland once. It would be fair if PPEU meetings would visit other countries.
Gregory: Germany could offer to host it in Essen.
Comment: We have a nice room in Essen.
Julia: The question is, should we just note it in case we need it? Ok, we just keep it in mind.
Comment: Would it be more cost-effective to just extend a conference?
Julia: If you have more than 2 days you exclude people having jobs.
Comment: Traveling through europe already excludes 2 days, namely monday and friday.
Julia: We will need two conferences anyway, so we can vote on the conference duration.
Julia: We are voting to have the next statutes conference in early december in the UK and the next one in early february in France.
Julia: I have to explain what we are voting on. The text is "We decide to have the next statutes meeting in december in the UK and the second one in France in early February."
Julia: So we have more or less fixed dates for the next meetings.
Julia: There is another motion.
Krisna: This time everybody was a bit surprised about what happened here. We have regular mumble meetings. I propose that we have a detailed agenda for the next meeting three weeks in advance. And the same for the rules for procedures.
Motion: "We create a detailed agenda and a finalised rules of proceedure three weeks before the next meeting."
Krisna: So we will meet online.
Krisna: In the past me and a few others have used one mailing list, the ppeu-statutes. This is an open list. And there is a closed mailing list, only for the delegates. Everyone can read but everyone can write. I want a vote to choose which one to continue.
Stefan: We should have an official mailing list, where things like invitations are sent. Discussions, Remote delegates, votes. ... We don't need everyone posting there. So I am in favour of keeping both.
Julia: Some organizations could become special members, so the main discussions should be in the open mailinglist. So official discussion continues on the statutes mailing list.
Comment: There is already is another mailing list. You talk about young pirates, we could make an exception. There are two people from the checz pirate party trying to read that mailing list, it's impossible.
Comment CAT: There is two many germans on the ppeu mailing list. When we started working, many people joined and the same topics ??? a closed mailing list is the only way to advance in a fast way.
Motion: "We will use the established closed mailing list." and "We can use the statutes mailing list also as an official mailing list."
Julia: Green for main discussion on the delegates-only list. Red for main discussion on the ppeu statutes list.
Julia: We first decide which motion is preferred. The green card if you prefer the closed mailing list, where everyone can read but only delegates can write. You use the red card if you want the main discussion on the ppeu statutes mailing list.
Julia: Could we please concentrate.
Jack: There are still two open lists.
Krisna: Statutes mailing list and the closed mailing list. These are the two options.
Julia: There is a general ppeu mailing list, where there is a lot of traffic. We mean the ppeu statutes mailing list, where there are relatively few people, but theoretically anybody can write on it.
Julia: So the majority prefers the closed one.
Motion: "The official discussion of PPEU statutes will take place on the mailing list, where only delegates can write."
Julia: This was accepted.
Motion: "Any young pirate organization from any state can send someone to write on this email list."
Julia: Now only official delegates can write. The motion is that also young pirate organizations can have someone writing on that mailing list.
Comment CAT: Would it not be better to allow more than one delegate from every pirate.
Julia: For now I just want the young pirates to be able to participate in the discussion.
Motion: "Any young pirate organization can appoint someone to write on this email list."
Julia: We have the last topic, Muriel can we stay until 14:40?
Daniele: Since the chamber of pirates has not been voted on yesterday. Euroliquid project will grow apart from PPEU. This fissure has occured. ??? We will have more time to organize each other and coordinate better all the digital participation of everybody. In the wiki wiki.ppeu.net there is a euroliquid page where has been collected all the brainstorming we did in the past weeks. And I invite everybody to read that. What about direct democracy? What about participative democracy? I can talk about italy. Our first problem is the corruption. Even if the last years many parties with good intentions tried to change something, when they arrived to the top, the corruption machine took them and so all the good intentions were gone and they began to act as the traditional parties did. ??? In favour of lobbyists and banks. The result is that in italy a lot of people suffer and the banks take everything. ??? You cannot consider safe as long as in the last year maybe, all people were better than now. The solution for this corrupted system of politics is direct democracy. Direct democracy will allow people to decide about their lifes even in the good and in the bad. In this room we have the possibility to change this. We can do the difference. With the other parties. This is not a votation, I just want to ask to raise the green card if you intend to participate in this project in the sense that we'll record the cards, and I'll send invitation tokens to those participating.
Daniele: ??? How this plattform has to be done and the basic rules are to be implemented.
Comment GAL: I am not going to participate but one of my collegues wants. So, the green card is?
Daniele: You participate as a party. Afterwards you choose a delegate.
Comment: This is about setting up a liquid feedback instance for the european union?
Daniele: Whether it'll be liquid feedback is still open. This is one of the questions we will have to decide.
Straw-Poll about who participates.
Julia: Before we close...
Daniele: It could be useful to, and we can technically this, to implement within the euroliquid platform a little group of the delegates to keep on discussing before the next meetings. They might not be decisionally effective, but they will solve a lot of discussions. And maybe during the next meetings reach all the points. So this is a motion maybe?
Motion: "To create a dedicated unit for debating on the euroliquid point."
Julia: It's a motion to create a dedicated group to work on the euroliquid with something like delegates.
Comment: So every party has to delegate someone to this group?
Matthias: Basically he's proposing that instead of discussing on the mailing list people should discuss on the euroliquid.
Comment CAT: No, he's proposing the statues discussions should be on the euroliquid in parallel.
Julia: This is too vague, we need the concrete text.
Krisna: I take the time to thank Julia, Max and ???,
Krisna: Then there is Stefan, who's also vice chairman.
Krisna: And then there is Jens, who's taking the minutes.
Krisna: And last but not least thanks to the catalans who have organised everything.
Julia: I want to add a big thank you to Krisna.
Motion: "Create a unit dedicated to delegates ... no decision effective, "
Julia: Including statutes?
Daniele: Yes, all topics.
Julia: ??? Within euroliquid. It is already operational?
Julia: "To have a dedicated unit of something like delegates in euroliquid to discuss PPEU issues and prepare the next meetings. But they are not exclusive and don't have decision making powers."
Julia: The motion was rejected.
Julia: We are pirates, we can do anything, you can still organize within the euroliquid.
Julia: Do we have any motions.
Julia: We don't have to decide on this motion, but you should know that it exists.
Krisna: "To change of the objectives: 'The association shall work to further the goals of its members, in particular by ...' and then follow with the original proposal"
Julia: This is just to let you know that there will be another discussion on objectives.
Discussion wether the talks are part of the meeting or not.
Krisna: So we close this discussion.
Krisna: We close the meeting for now.
Julia: There will be no more votes.
Julia: Ok, we're done.