Assemblea Generale Partito Pirata 2018 - Iceland - Reykjavík

https://etherpad.pp-international.net/p/ppeu_ga_2018_minutes

The European Pirate Party General Assembly 2018, Iceland - Reykjavík

=== Sunday 2nd December Agenda === 9:00 - 9:30 Opening of the 2nd day of GA 9:30 - 10:00 Introduction of Patrick Breyer 10:00 - 11:30 Motions and proposals 11:30 - 12:00 Second Chamber of PPEU (“Chamber of Pirates”)

— Lunch break —

13:30 - 14:00 Motions and proposals (if necessary to continue) 14:00 - 15:30 European elections (CEEP, campaign, strategy, top candidate) 15:45 - 16:30 Other 16:30 Closing the meeting/next meeting

Present: Mörður Áslaugarson PP-IS (3) Oktavia Hrund Jonsdóttir PP-IS Magnus Andersson PP-SE (1), PP-NO (1). Mikuláš Peksa PP-CZ,
Markéta Gregorová PP-CZ Oliver Herzig PP-Catelonia (1) Anthony Motakis PP-GR František Kopřiva YPE Charalampos Kyritsis YPE Gregory Engels PP-DE 1. Francois Tabuteau PP-FR 1. Sebastian Krone PP-DE Thomas Gaul Alessandro Ciofini PP-IT (1)

Remote Participants: Raymond Johansen PP-NO (1) Radek Pietron (1)

[At 15:30 on Sunday, Magnus Anderson took over as PPNO delegate]

Minutes: Olga Cilia

The meeting begins with introduction of Patrick Breyer

Finish of the agenda from the day before: 15:30 - 16:00 Applications for membership No applications of members. The topic is closed.

-------------10:00 - 11:30 Motions and proposals------------

Gregory introduces this Motion:

Motion 1 Motion by PPDE New Art. 16 (11). There shall be four Alternate Members of the Board. If a seat of the Board becomes vacant, one of the Alternate Members shall follow-up according to a list. The position of the Alternate Members on the list shall be determined by approval voting. The Alternate Members of the Board may take over tasks on behalf of the board and shall be fully informed. Reasoning: The board shall be workable at all times.

Questions

  • Why four? : We have 9 board members in total - this should be enough for the time.
  • This motion is quite open - approval voting - will that be a process itself - will it be applicable to the entire board - what if the four alternative members leave - how would you wnat to vote new ones? --> we elect four board members which means that you vote for as many candidates as you want, you elect them all in one go. If they step down there will be no replacements.
  • Do you see this happening at the same time as the board elections? Would you have elections for the board, appointed positsions and then after that have alternatives? --> yes --> why not have the four that come after in the main elections --> because someone says I want to be an alternative and someone who runs for the boards maybe does not want to be an alternative.
  • Different positisons inside the board comes with different responsiblie - in the way this motion is worded there is nothing that accounts for that - why have a chair and a vice chair if we can have an alternative - why do we have a vice chair if the alternatives are supposed to take that place - that is taken from another rules - to clarify this is only for the board members not for the appointed positions.
  • Are the alternate four members member of the board or not–> they are not, amy take a task on the board and be informed in order if they need to step in - they are lika board members without voting powers. If any board member is not attending one of the meeting an alternate will come in and have voting rights
  • Wouldn’t you rather change art 16 (1) --> no we don’t want them to be full board members. We want the alternate board members to help the board - but not have any more votes in the board.
  • Do these alternates have a voice in the board --> yes they should - in order to be informed you need to be able to ask questions.
  • You have do define what vacant means - what does it mean? For example if someone steps down.
  • Does it mean that someone is inactive? --> no it means that someone steps down
  • What you will be willing to change this so we now what vacant means --> now it means if someone steps down or dies.

Discussion If someone dies do we not just re-elect?

Our law says that if there is a vacant seat we can re-elect. We rarely have board members that leave or step down - unless you have a mechanism that expells board members who do not show upp and if we want that that has to made by the council and not the board. The shift we need is that we can expell inactive members and be able to reelect new people.

Regarding re-elections - we only have council meetings once a year - so we can make by-elections in january becuase if we don’t have a council meeting we can’t reelect. The person who put this forward sees that this motion needs to be clarified - should we put more work in it or not.

It is a very important disussion to have - there is nothing hindering us in having a new council meeting early in the year - and then that council will be able to sit - we are so late in the year anyway - we need to address is of course inactive, possible death, or members stepping down. Two parts to address: maybe we are trying to fix a problem of the past regarding inactive members. Wouldn’t this be fixed be having a online council meeting in the beginning of the year and that council should sit all year.

There is a statue 13(8) (in some law) that says that if 17(11) of the statues in the PPEU that if we want to change this and change one board member we have to change the whole council

Clarification: minutes take effect when they are signed at the end of meeting - the decisions we take here take effect after meeting - Discussion about if the decisions take effect after the meeting or not.

If the treasurer steps down we need a new treasures - we should be able to vote a new person if one person steps down instead of voting a new board.

I can see the need to elect a new treasurer if a treasurer steps down - but I don’t see the need for someone standing on the side line waiting for someone to step down - especially when they have a right to talk at the board - which means we would have 13 people discussing - sometime it is good to be many but sometimes it good to be fewer.

Clarification: at the first council meeting each year we elect a new board - in any other council meeting we can elect a new person if someone steps down.

Regarding when the minutes take effect - maybe we can clarify that in the motion - best way to agree how we do this.

Motion 2: Motion by PPDE Change from: Article 4 – Principles (7) The Association may carry out all operations and conduct all activities (including real estate transactions), both in Belgium and abroad, which directly or indirectly increase or promote its objectives under the condition that these activities adhere to the principles of this organisation stated in this article. The Association does not undertake industrial or commercial transactions and does not seek to procure a profit to its members. to: Article 4 – Principles (7) The Association may carry out all operations and conduct all activities (including real estate transactions), both in Luxembourg and abroad, which directly or indirectly increase or promote its objectives under the condition that these activities adhere to the principles of this organisation stated in this article. The Association does not undertake industrial or commercial transactions and does not seek to procure a profit to its members. Reasoning: Changing minor stuff to Luxembourg

PP-AT 1
PP-BE 1 PP-HR 1 PP-CZ 5 František Kopřiva (5) 5 x yes PP-EE 1 PP-FI 1 Maija Li Raudaskoski PP-FR 1 Franscois Tabuteau (1) PP-DE 3 Gegory Engels (2), Jens Stomber, (1) 3 x yes PP-GR 1 Charalompos Kytsis 1 x yes PP-IS 3 Mörður Áslaugarson 3 x yes PP-IT 1 Alessandro Coifini 1 x yes PP-LU 3 Mattias Bjärnemalm 3 x abs PP- NL 1 PP- NO 1 Raymond Johansen PP- PL 1 Radek Pietron 1 x yes PP- RO 1 PP-CAT 1 Oliver Herzig 1 x yes PP-ES 1 PP-SE 1 Magnus Andersson 1 x yes PP-CH 1 Thomas Gaul 1 x yes PP-SL 1
YPE 2 Charalampos Krytsis 2 x yes

Everyone is voting yes that is present in the room Vote is closed The statue change has passed

Motion 3 Motion by PP-DE Delete: Art. 21 – Financial Provisions (7) The Board shall ensure that the annual accounts and the other documents referred to in the Law on Not-for-profit Associations are deposited within thirty (30) days of approval at the Registry of the Court of First Instance or, if the law so requires, the National Bank of Belgium. Reasoning: obsolete

Gregory presented: not able to change this motion so we have to delete -

The meeting is asked if we go to vote - we can go to vote.

PP-AT 1
PP-BE 1 PP-HR 1 PP-CZ 5 František Kopřiva (5) 5 x yes PP-EE 1 PP-FI 1 Maija Li Raudaskoski PP-FR 1 Franscois Tabuteau (1) 1 x yes PP-DE 3 Gegory Engels (2), Jens Stomber, (1) 3 x yes PP-GR 1 Charalompos Kytsis 1 x yes PP-IS 3 Mörður Áslaugarson 3 x yes PP-IT 1 Alessandro Coifini 1 x yes PP-LU 3 Mattias Bjärnemalm 3 x abs PP- NL 1 PP- NO 1 Raymond Johansen PP- PL 1 Radek Pietron 1 x yes PP- RO 1 PP-CAT 1 Oliver Herzig 1 x yes PP-ES 1 PP-SE 1 Magnus Andersson 1 x yes PP-CH 1 Thomas Gaul 1 x yes PP-SL 1
YPE 2 Charalampos Krytsis 2 x yes

Everybody present in the room is voting yes. The motion is passed

Motion 4: Motion by PP-DE Amendment regulations regarding lay auditors. Add: Art. 23 (5): Until the conditions of the Art 23 (1) are met, the council shall elect one or more lay auditors. The regulations of Art. 23 (2) and (3) are applied accordingly. Reasoning: we do not have provisions for lay auditors. the current provisions of Art. 23 (1) are curently not in action, as we are not required to be audited by law, nor that we could afford it. Instead we propose to have a minimum level of financial oversight that we can afford in the current state.

Gregory introduces : we could go external and get an audit company - but that is expensice - better to elect one or two internal auditors so before the council meeting would double check all financial information - so we have a transparent bank account - but bank account is not enough to be a transparent accositation.

There is a counter proposal from the check Pirates : Counter-motion to motion 4: Proposal by PP-CZ As we have a transparent bank account, if all the money are there, we don’t need lay auditors, thus we propose either using the transparent account, or even setting it into our statutes as the reason for no auditors. We understand the need of PPDE to protect the data of their donators and therefore we suggest that the German bank account will be used for collecting money from those that don’t want to be visible in the transparent accounting and they will proccess it into a bundle and send once upon a set period of time to the transparent account.

Markéta introduces: We understand the need of the German Pirates and maybe someone others - we suggest that the german bank account could be audited somehow. If you don’t see it you don’t need it.

Question: Why should we not need lay auditors when we have a lot of bank accounts

Question: In Iceland we have lay auditors that are Pirates but it is just the arm lengths approach - your suggestion here is to not have those, neither internally nor externally. As I understood it in our discussion there is no need for these people if the bank accounts are transparent.

Question: you are not suggesting to get rid of the whoule audit - your proposal is just vote no to the German proposal - so why not just change the German propoasl (original propasal no. 4)

Debate
Gregory wants to clarify that the German bank account is not to protect the identiy of the donors some of them might not be public like salary and stuff. The need for auditing is for we like some people to check the organisitation without hiring auditors

If we have a one year for the board, we should have a one year order for a lay auditor. Having a possibiility to talk to a lay auditor will build trust -if there is something they don’t want to talk to the board they can talk to the lay auditor. I oppose the motion that we should use the German Bank account for anynoumous donors - I don’t think we should have unanimous donors. In favour of lay auditors not in favour of unanimous donors.

PP - CZ clarifies: we have lay auditors - with this motion we want to protect personal data - we fulfill GDPR and can have a transparent account - all the contracts with our employees are put online.

Do have someone externally auditing is important and important for the transparency.

The foundation for lay auditing work is practicing what you preach - I think 3 years is to long for someone to lay audit and these will be people inside of our movement and know how things are done. How the Icelandic Pirates have done this you elect the board and theny you elect these two lay auditors - It’s a good idea it is a good assistance to the people doing the bulk of the work.

PP - CZ clarifies - the people who will pay through - the bundle does not mean why are trying to hide someone - there are other reasons this is proposed and after this discussion we are withdrawing the counter propoals

Counter-motion to motion 4 is withdrawn.

Lay auditors should have real power.

23 (1) and 23 (3) should apply

Motion 4 goes to vote:

PP-AT 1
PP-BE 1 PP-HR 1 PP-CZ 5 František Kopřiva 5 x yes PP-EE 1 PP-FI 1
PP-FR 1 Franscois Tabuteau 1 x no PP-DE 3 Gegory Engels (3) 3 x yes PP-GR 1 Charalompos Kytsis 1 x yes PP-IS 3 Mörður Áslaugarson 3 x yes PP-IT 1 Alessandro Coifini 1 x yes PP-LU 3 Mattias Bjärnemalm 3 x abs PP- NL 1 PP- NO 1
PP- PL 1 Radek Pietron 1 x yes PP- RO 1 PP-CAT 1 Oliver Herzig 1 x no PP-ES 1 PP-SE 1 Magnus Andersson 1 x yes PP-CH 1 Thomas Gaul 1 x yes PP-SL 1
YPE 2 Charalampos Krytsis 2 x yes

Yes 5 + 3 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 No: 1 + 1 Abs: 3

Motion 4 passes with the majority of the vote

Motion 5: Motion by PP-CZ Proposal for collecting memberships fees from the past. Council agrees that the membership fee won’t be demanded for the years preceding the absence of a transparent PPEU account. If a country wants to pay for it voluntarily, such an activity will not be hindered. Those parties that already paid the membership fees in past can freely decide whether they consider it a gift to the PPEU or want to have a pre-paid membership thanks to that. Reasoning: The PPEU hasn’t been registered and didn’t have a transparent bank account until 2018. We consider it reasonable to not want from our members from such times any membership fees.

Questions: Just to clarify - you don’t want to change anything else - no it has nothing to do with that

Question: I think it is a good thing because there is a lot of parties not active now and this is good for that

Discussion: PP SE thinks that this is a good motion - let by gones be bygones - yes we have contributed before - we are of course indenting to do that in the future - it is perfectly fine motion either if we see it as a gift or not - I would concur with this motion Switzerland: Thinks that organizations should pay what they owe. PP-LU : once it was decided to wait until there was a bank account to pay it in - additional it says that a treasurer shuold talk to the council before. This is a good proposal - this waiver the fees from the past and then we can decide if we want to pay fees or not PP-CZ : good idead not to push it too much because some of the parties were really unhappy about the price that is supposed to be paid and would be not happy paying three years back for something they got nothing for. Let’s to good work for future, right now it does not make that much sense.

Discussion about change of words 

Motion 5 looks like this after editing:

Motion 5: -> Motion by PP-CZ PP-IS as amended by the Council Proposal for waiving of memberships fees from the years 2014-2017. Council agrees that the membership fees accumulated in 2014-2017 will be waived, and thus the financial commitments of all members have been fulfilled for those years. The reasoning for waiving fees is inactivity and absence of a transparent PPEU account. If a member wants to pay membership fees voluntarily, it will be considered a contribution and will not be hindered. PPEU members that have paid membership fees in the 2014-2017 period can freely decide whether they consider previous payments a contribution to PPEU or if the fees paid should be considered a pre-paid membership fee(s). Reasoning: PPEU hasn’t been registered nor had a transparent bank account until 2018. We consider it reasonable to not collect back fees from PPEU members.

We go to a vote :

PP-AT 1
PP-BE 1 PP-HR 1 PP-CZ 5 František Kopřiva 5 x yes PP-EE 1 PP-FI 1
PP-FR 1 Franscois Tabuteau 1 x yes PP-DE 3 Gegory Engels (3) 3 x no PP-GR 1 Charalompos Kytsis 1 x abs PP-IS 3 Mörður Áslaugarson 3 x yes PP-IT 1 Alessandro Coifini 1 x yes PP-LU 3 Mattias Bjärnemalm 3 x abs PP- NL 1 PP- NO 1
PP- PL 1 Radek Pietron 1 x yes PP- RO 1 PP-CAT 1 Oliver Herzig 1 x yes PP-ES 1 PP-SE 1 Magnus Andersson 1 x yes PP-CH 1 Thomas Gaul 1 x no PP-SL 1
YPE 2 Charalampos Krytsis 2 x yes The Chair finds that Motion 5 has passed

A motion has come in on the meeting As lay auditors is now implemented in the structure there is now need to vote them.

Bjarnemalm: I have two objections, first, without any contest in cannot to be disputed - it is false that we have to vote them, according to the stature there is no need to elect auditors, even thought there is a desire - we will have a council meeting early in the beginning of next year and we could elect the auditors there - and if we have it there we can have someone who is good at it.

Okta: PPIS: we consist of 20 movements - giving people time and space to take in changes is vital - i don’t see that this moving forward is very inclusivary or give all pirates access to this part and of course of well we need quality - that is not the best people to be on a board are the best suited to be auditors. I find it a bit disrespectful to put this in without notice - it is too fast and not inclusivory

Gregory: I would say that we discuss this over lunch and decide what we want to do after lunch - lets see what we can find during lunch - if we can’t elect we will postpone it to the meeting next year.

Magnus PPSE: I would concur we need lay auditors and even if we do have people with experience and knowledge here - maybe it is not the very best we can find - I think we should not elect any auditors in this meeting because we need to look deeper into our capacity when looking for candidates

Allesandro: I agree with all of you - but I need the needs of the German Party to move more quickly on this - but we are not losing time we are just taking time to respect all the others that are not here, because it is just two months.

Mikulas: I would like to speak as a board member - we don’t have anything against having lay auditors at this time

Procedural proposal has been set for the meeting Election of lay auditors : to table an agenda item, adding election of lay auditors after second chamber and after lunch.

PP-AT 1
PP-BE 1 PP-HR 1 PP-CZ 5 František Kopřiva 5 x yes PP-EE 1 PP-FI 1
PP-FR 1 Franscois Tabuteau 1 x abs PP-DE 3 Gegory Engels (3) 3 x yes PP-GR 1 Charalompos Kytsis 1 x yes PP-IS 3 Mörður Áslaugarson 3 x no PP-IT 1 Alessandro Coifini 1 x no PP-LU 3 Mattias Bjärnemalm 3 x abs PP- NL 1 PP- NO 1
PP- PL 1 Radek Pietron 1 x yes PP- RO 1 PP-CAT 1 Oliver Herzig 1 x no PP-ES 1 PP-SE 1 Magnus Andersson 1 x no PP-CH 1 Thomas Gaul 1 x yes PP-SL 1
YPE 2 Charalampos Krytsis 2 x no no - 3+1+1+2+1 = 8 yes 5 +1+3+1+1 = 11 abs 3 + 1 = 4

The proposal has passed

---------- 11:30 - 12:00 Second Chamber of PPEU (“Chamber of Pirates”) ------------

We have article 9 in our statuses we have - it makes no sense in doing this today - we should postpone this issue due to the fact that we do not have balanced voting rights here

I have to make a long introduction: we found out that PPEU and other - we are umbrella organization for parties but we want to have every pirate in Europe under this umbrella - we have to bring them into the second chamber - we have to bring them into the organization

Allesandro : there are many liquid boards - the power of the second chamber - the board function is administrative and functional - but what about our political agenda

Mikulas: pirate have a strong feeling that everybody hsould have their own voice regardless of nationality or language.

Okta: tecnology will not solve anything if it is not solving the problem for the user. I hear from the Pirates that we need a common platform where we can all engage together - pirate party politics has a lot to do with access and the check and balances of power - power is personal and should be spread. I’m wondering what the chamber will do that regular organization wouldn’t do and I want to say in particualr with the up and coming election we have to decide how we will have access to that process actively, and more importantly what mandadte and in whose name. Regarding the second chamber - what is the problem that the second chamber will solve that regular organization of the Pirates cannot solve.

Allesandro: regarding the second chamber: it has to be only political on the political level , what has to be done on the political level nothing else complaining for instance special board -

MAB: we want a European Political Party - but we don’t - we don’t unified elections and that’s why we don’t have unified party. What we do with PPEU is to make a platform that each country can decide if they use or not. I don’t want great consensus of the few. This is not a political entity that pushes its policy on its members.

Mikulas: what we are talking is pan european pirate party - it is a goal then can be achieved but it is not easy to achieve - it is consultation about what our position is -

Oktavia: PPIS was a founding member of this PPEU organization - and we were inactive after that - we took a couple of years ago to be more active within the PPEU - this conversation happened also last year - and what happens when this discussion comes up is emotions and feelings - and the solidarity we feel disappaers. I’m so honored and humble that I was elected to the board put I will not take part in any action that will divide us. However the second chamber discussion - we a structure here that we have an executive board that can take decisions and write them in their minutes - not their job to form for example the feminist sub divison - but their job is to sign it off so we have it written down formally. Not everything is a nail which will be solved with a hammer. But I have more questions what political activities the second chamber would be solving.

The Chair: There are no proposal that we are voting on - and that should be taken into consideration.

Exile: tired of having the same discussion each year. The points are well known, nobody who is supporting the idea of the second chamber is suggesting to take away the board. With one man with one vote we will solve this.

Gregory: if we don’t deliver on the promise I cannot see that some parties see the point in continuing within the organization

Mikulas: there are some European countries who are not part of the EU - because of different reasons - these are reasons that should not leave them from the decision making

Frankovitch: should the chamber of Pirates include the Young Pirates?

MAB: I’m opposed to having decisions pushed upon members - and then people will vote with their feet. The reason for the Chamber of Pirates for no being in effect is because we don’t have the tools for liquid democracy that we need to put it in effect.

Gregory: Young Pirates are their own organization and already members in the PPEU so there is no need to put them in the Second Chamber - it’s just an idea - the problem is - what are we doing here electing and say hello what are we doing here I insisted to have working groups and I need to collect people for the work in progress for the european elective program - first step to have political decisions - we started it just now maybe in may / june - we can formulate a vision for the future and go a way to follow that vision and now we have nothing we are just an organization - we have to do some something - unless we have a next council meeting and nothing has changed.

A motion from Exile to pause this discussion until afther the lunch. We finish the last speaker and the list and then there will be a break

Allesandro: the people who impress me the most here are people who have something to say - I understand clearly now the point but I think we have a lot of potential to grow up and move to another step - let’s to the version but let’s do it - we can move on en do something better - I don’t want to lose anyone - when someone has left something is wrong - I don’t want to do the wrong steps but the good sense - compromise and consensus - I propose : let’s keep everything like this but lets adopt something - but issue a chamber with an instrument - where political decisions is made - let’s not force anybody and let every political party to decide for themselves (one vote one person) - I don’t want to be proxied by my party but I want to have a platform for my opinions. My proposal here today if we decide something - that it is a consensus chamber that makes no binding decisions -

Procedural motion to close the speaking list: Mörður Áslaugarson PP-IS (3) - yes Magnus Andersson PP-SE (1)- yes Oliver Herzig PP-Catelonia (1) - yes Jens Stombar germany (1) - no František Kopřiva YPE (5) - yes Charalampos Kyritsis YPE (3) - yes / abs / no Gregory Engels PP-DE (2) yes Francois Tabuteau PP-FR 1 - yes Thomas Gaul (1) - no Alessandro (1) - no Bjarnemal (3) - abs Raymond Johansen PP-NO (1) - yes

Procedural vote to take a break for lunch until 2 pm

No opposition

Lunch Break at 1pm.

11:30 - 12:00 Second Chamber of PPEU (“Chamber of Pirates”)

— Lunch break —

Olga leaves as a minute taker and Smári McCarthy takes over

We will contine discussion about second chamber

Meeting resumed 14:03.

14:03 - 14:21 Motions and proposals (if necessary to continue)

Magnus [SE]: This shouldn’t be decided here, but rather determined by each individual party. What the council can do is promote the system and use it ourselves like when we created CEB. It’s better if what happens is in response to a need that arises. I suggest that everybody who is interested in this get together as a group, work on it, create the system and promote it.

Mikulaš [CZ]: We are resource restricted. What we can do regarding volunteers is that PPEU calls for volunteers to provide proposals for implementation of the second chamber of the PPEU.

Bastian [DE]: Let’s call the new working group the working group chamber of Pirates. We can vote on implementing a working group.

Jens [DE]: [Withdraws]

Mab [LU]: The problem is, what is the tool for? Don’t say we want a chamber of pirates because nobody who hasn’t attended these meetings knows what that means. If we need a tool for online collaboration, let’s decide that. Decide what the problem is you want to solve.

Okta [IS]: We are having multiple conversations simultaneously right now: removing of proxies, one man one vote, organization,… we’re not that far apart.

Tony [GR]: Agree with everyone.

No resolution text; postponing this item until later in the meeting.

Gregory [DE]: Sent a motion.

Mab [LU]: Gives floor to YPE.

František and Haris [YPE] give presentation.

14:38 - 16:54 European elections (CEEP, campaign, strategy, top candidate)

Marketa [CZ]: [Generally describes discussions around CEEP]

Okta [IS] and Mikulaš [CZ]: There needs to be a mechanism within which potential PPEU MEPs can be trusted to negotiate and then report back.

Oliver [CAT]:

Marketa [CZ]: [On CEEP]

Mab [LU]: [Discussion on Swedish/German Pirate MEPs and how decisions were made]

Proposal from Gregory Engels [PPDE]: The Council meeting of the European Pirate Party in Reykjavik 2018, emphasising that all decisions concerning choices and attitudes of PPEU member parties in their own countries remain strictly under the sovereignty of national parties, welcomes the effort it’s Members have put forward in the creation process for the common European election programme proposal

15:30 Magnus Anderson was at this point appointed as delegate for PPNO.

Jens [DE]: Discussed the SaveYourNet campaign.

Mikulaš [CZ]: Reiterates proposal from Wiki.

Oktavía [IS]: Some suggestions on language.

[General discussions on language updates.]

Three proposals for changes on the table, resolved through straw poll:

  • “Democratic action”. ─ Overwhelming majority for this wording.
  • “Direct democratic action or delegative democracy”.
  • “Individaul participation”.

Text drafting continues.

[Discussions on candidates]

One proposal on the table:

Resolution With the intent of enhancing cohesion and consistency in policies across Pirate movements of Europe as well as empowering grassroots and strengthening information flows to and from centers of power, the Council of the European Pirate Party:

  1. Emphasises that PPEU is a co-ordinating and consensus seeking body of common European Pirate values and policies on a Pan-European level and that policies formed and decisions made by the PPEU on the Pan-European level are distinct and fully independent from country level politics that the Pirate Parties forming the PPEU conduct in their respective countries.
  2. Issues a mandate based on the policies and decisions of PPEU to the European Pirate Parliamentary group on behalf of European Pirates to negotiate with other parliamentary groups.
  3. Welcomes the efforts put forth by its Members in updating for the Common European Election Programme 2019.
  4. Delegates the Board of the PPEU to coordinate and facilitate the creation of common policies of European Pirates in the European Parliament for future election term on behalf of European Pirate Party and its members.
  5. Encourages its members and their candidates for the European Parliament elections to provide collaboration in participatory-driven processes to ensure close cooperation and information flows to and from the European Pirate Party to ensure grassroots-driven access to decision-making processes securing Pirate policies turning into practice.
  6. Invites members of the Pirate Parties across Europe that hold membership in the PPEU to provide input, proposals and a participatory-led process for the implementation of a structure that strengthens democratic action within the collaborative body of the PPEU, with the goal of ensuring broad, inclusive consultation of grass-root movements of the Pirate movement in relation to the implementation of Pirate policies.
  7. Calls for a common media strategy implementation among the members of the PPEU to facilitate and ensure cooperation and coordination of joint efforts between the member PR and media teams.
  8. Orders the Chairperson to inform the members about this resolution.

Votes: Yes: 18 No: 1 Abst: 4

PP-AT 1
PP-BE 1 PP-HR 1 PP-CZ 5 František Kopřiva YES PP-EE
PP-FI 1
PP-FR 1 Franscois Tabuteau YES PP-DE 3 Gegory Engels YES (two Gregory, one Jens) PP-GR 1 Charalompos Kytsis YES PP-IS 3 Mörður Áslaugarson YES (Vala 1, Mörður 2) PP-IT 1 Alessandro Ciofini YES PP-LU 3 Mattias Bjärnemalm ABST PP- NL 1 PP- NO 1 YES PP- PL 1 Radek Pietron PP- RO 1 PP-CAT 1 Oliver Herzig NO PP-ES 1 PP-SE 1 Magnus Andersson YES PP-CH 1 Thomas Gaul ABST PP-SL 1
YPE 2 Charalampos Krytsis YES

17:00 - Other Discussion on location and time of next meeting.

17:14 Closing the meeting/next meeting

ALL DONE.

------- Allt sem er hér fyrir neðan var skrifað á fundinum 1. des ----- Smári og Olga hafa ekkert gert með þetta.

Present: Francois Tabuteau PP-FR 1. , Thomas Gaul 1. Gregory Engels PP-DE 1. Jens Stomber PP-DE 1. Oliver Herzig PP-Catelonia 1. Valgeirður Arnadóttir PP-IS 1. Mörður Áslaugarson PP-IS 1
Markéta Gregorová PP-CZ . Magnus Andersson PP-SE 1. Mikuláš Peksa PP-CZ . Anthony Motakis PP-GR. Oktavía Hrund PP-IS František Kopřiva YPE. Charalampos Kyritsis YPE , Salvör Kristjana Gissurdóttir PP-IS 1. Mattias Bjärnemalm Chair- Proxy for all remote delicats Remote participants: Marek Nečada PP-CZ . Mateja Skrt PP-SI . Radek Pietron PP-PL . Aram PP-IT. Maija Li Raudaskoski PP-FI. Raymond Johansen PP-NO. Chair: Mattias Bjärnemalm Minutes-keeper: Pétur Óli Þorvaldsson Start:9:51

=== Saturday 1st December Agenda === 9:00 - 9:30 Delegates accreditation 9:30 - 9:40 Opening of the General Assembly - Oktavía Hrund Jóndóttir Welcome to Iceland, to the darkness. 9:40 - 10:00 Formalities: chair, secretaries, agenda, vote count Chair: Mattias Bjarnemalm unanimous. Secrataries : Smári Mcarty, Pétur Óli Þorvaldsson, Þorgnýr, Olga unanimous. Agenda: Agenda chance, workshop for three hours for the Europions Parliment elections. for sunday,

Present: Francois Tabuteau PP-FR 1. , Thomas Gaul 1. Gregory Engels PP-DE 1. Jens Stomber PP-DE 1. Oliver Herzig PP-Catelonia 1. Valgeirður Arnadóttir PP-IS 1. Mörður Áslaugarson PP-IS 1
Markéta Gregorová PP-CZ . Magnus Andersson PP-SE 1. Mikuláš Peksa PP-CZ . Anthony Motakis PP-GR. Oktavía Hrund PP-IS František Kopřiva YPE. Charalampos Kyritsis YPE , Salvör Kristjana Gissurdóttir PP-IS 1. Mattias Bjärnemalm Chair- Proxy for all remote delicats Remote participants: Marek Nečada PP-CZ . Mateja Skrt PP-SI . Radek Pietron PP-PL . Aram PP-IT. Maija Li Raudaskoski PP-FI. Raymond Johansen PP-NO. Chair: Mattias Bjärnemalm Minutes-keeper: Pétur Óli Þorvaldsson Start:9:51

Original

PP-AT 1 PP-BE 1 PP-HR 1 PP-CZ 5 Yes František Kopřiva (5), Marek Nečada PP-EE 1 PP-FI 1 Maija Li Raudaskoski PP-FR 1 Yes Franscois Tabuteau PP-DE 3 Yes Gegory Engels (2), Jens Stomber, (1) PP-GR 1 Yes Charalompos Kytsis (1) PP-IS 3 Yes Valgerður Anradóttir (1) Mörður Áslaugarson (2) PP-IT 1 Alessandro Ciofini (1) Aram PP-LU 3 Mattias Bjärnemalm (3) PP- NL 1 PP- NO 1 Raymond Johansen PP- PL 1 Radek Pietron PP- RO 1 PP-CAT 1 Yes Oliver Herzig PP-ES 1 PP-SE 1 Yes Magnus Andersson PP-CH 1 Abs Thomas Gaul PP-SL 1
YPE 2 Yes František Kopřiva. Charalampos Krytsis (2) Maija Li Raudaskoski

10:00 - 11:00 Board Reports - Chair, Treasurer, Council Chair report : unanimous Treasurer report : unanimous Status:

Yearly payments: Proposed budget

11:00 - 12:30 Board elections - chair, vice-chair

Chair

Markéta Gregorová Unanimous

Mikulas Peksa Withdraws

Vice-chair Delayed

— Lunch break — 12:56

Vice-chair

14:00 - 15:30 Board elections - board members without appointed office, treasurer 15:30 - 16:00 Applications for membership No applications of members. The topic is closed.

— 16:00 - 19:00 Althing visit! — — Evening program —

---------------------------------------------------------- Þetta þarf að fara á réttan stað - PP-AT 1 František Kopřiva PP-BE 1 PP-HR 1 PP-CZ 5 František Kopřiva (5), Marek Nečada PP-EE 1 PP-FI 1 Maija Li Raudaskoski PP-FR 1 Franscois Tabuteau PP-DE 3 Gegory Engels (2), Jens Stomber, (1) PP-GR 1 Charalompos Kytsis (1) PP-IS 3 Valgerður Anradóttir (1) Mörður Áslaugarson (2) PP-IT 1 Alessandro Ciofini (1) Aram PP-LU 3 Mattias Bjärnemalm (3) PP- NL 1 PP- NO 1 Raymond Johansen PP- PL 1 Radek Pietron PP- RO 1 PP-CAT 1 Oliver Herzig PP-ES 1 PP-SE 1 Magnus Andersson PP-CH 1 Thomas Gaul PP-SL 1
YPE 2 . Charalampos Krytsis (2) Maija Li Raudaskoski

Meeting restarts, after lunch, at 14:05

Election for Position of vice chair. Vote on all candidates. PP-AT 1 František Kopřiva PP-BE 1 PP-HR 1 PP-CZ 5 František Kopřiva (5) ABS, Marek Nečada PP-EE 1 PP-FI 1 Maija Li Raudaskoski PP-FR 1 Franscois Tabuteau PP-DE 3 Gregory Engels (2) ABS, Jens Stomber, (1) ABS PP-GR 1 Charalompos Kytsis (1) ABS PP-IS 3 Valgerður Anradóttir (1) ABS Mörður Áslaugarson (2)ABS PP-IT 1 Alessandro Ciofini (1) Aram ABS PP-LU 3 Mattias Bjärnemalm (3) ABS PP- NL 1 PP- NO 1 Raymond Johansen PP- PL 1 Radek Pietron PP- RO 1 PP-CAT 1 Oliver Herzig PP-ES 1 PP-SE 1 Magnus Andersson PP-CH 1 Thomas Gaul PP-SL 1
YPE 2 . Charalampos Krytsis (2) ABS Maija Li Raudaskoski

Meeting decided to open for further candidates.

Here’s voting for vice-chair PP-AT 1 František Kopřiva -mikulas x2 -salvör x2 PP-BE 1 PP-HR 1 PP-CZ 5 František Kopřiva (5), Marek Nečada -mikulas x5 -salvör x5 PP-EE 1 PP-FI 1 Maija Li Raudaskoski -carlos -salvör -gabrielle -thomas PP-FR 1 Franscois Tabuteau -carlos -salvör PP-DE 3 Gegory Engels (2), -Thomas x2 -Gabrielle x2 -Mikulas x2 PP-DE Jens Stomber, (1) -Thomas -Gabrielle -Mikulas PP-GR 1 Charalompos Kytsis (1) -carlos -gabrielle -mikulas PP-IS 3 Valgerður Anradóttir (1)
-salvör -gabrielle PP-IS Mörður Áslaugarson (2) -salvör x2 -gabrielle x2 -mikulas x2 PP-IT 1 Alessandro Coifini (1) Aram -carlos -salvör -gabrielle -mikulas -thomas PP-LU 3 Mattias Bjärnemalm (3) -carlos x3 -salvör x3 -gabrielle x3 PP- NL 1 PP- NO 1 Raymond Johansen -carlos -gabrielle -thomas PP- PL 1 Radek Pietron PP- RO 1 PP-CAT 1 Oliver Herzig -carlos PP-ES 1 PP-SE 1 Magnus Andersson -gabrielle -carlos PP-CH 1 Thomas Gaul -salvör -thomas PP-SL 1
YPE 2 . Charalampos Krytsis (2)
-mikulas x2 -salvör x2 -gabrielle x1

Salvör and Mikulas elected

Meeting opened up for further nomination for treasurer.

Here’s the treasurer voting: PP-AT 1 František Kopřiva -peter x2 PP-BE 1 PP-HR 1 PP-CZ 5 František Kopřiva (5), Marek Nečada -peter x5 PP-EE 1 PP-FI 1 Maija Li Raudaskoski -peter PP-FR 1 Franscois Tabuteau -peter PP-DE 3 Gegory Engels (2), -bastian x2 Jens Stomber, (1) -bastian PP-GR 1 Charalompos Kytsis (1) -peter -sebastian PP-IS 3 Valgerður Anradóttir (1)
-peter Mörður Áslaugarson (2) -peter x2 PP-IT 1 Alessandro Coifini (1) Aram -ABS PP-LU 3 Mattias Bjärnemalm (3)+ -peter x3 PP- NL 1 PP- NO 1 Raymond Johansen -bastian PP- PL 1 Radek Pietron PP- RO 1 PP-CAT 1 Oliver Herzig -bastian PP-ES 1 PP-SE 1 Magnus Andersson+ -bastian PP-CH 1 Thomas Gaul -bastian PP-SL 1
YPE 2 . Charalampos Krytsis (2) Maija Li Raudaskoski -peter x2

Peter elected.

Opened for more nominations for members without appointed office:

Agreed to vote five people for the board.

Here’s the voting for members without appointed office

PP-AT 1 František Kopřiva -oktavia x2 -francois x2 -magnus x2 -antonios x2 -carlos x2 -ernst x2 -gabrielle x2 -alessandro x2 -sebastian x2 PP-BE 1 PP-HR 1 PP-CZ 5 František Kopřiva (5), Marek Nečada -oktavia x5 -francois x5 -magnus x5 -antonios x5 -carlos x5 -ernst x5 -gabrielle x5 -allessandro x5 -sebastian x5 PP-EE 1 PP-FI 1 Maija Li Raudaskoski PP-FR 1 Franscois Tabuteau -carlos -lorena -oktavia -alessandro -francois PP-DE 3 Gregory Engels (2) -alexander x2 -bastian x2 -gabrielle x2 -magnus x2 -ernst x2 Jens Stomber, (1) -alexander -sebastian -gabrielle -magnus -ernst PP-GR 1 Charalompos Kytsis (1) -oktavia -antonios -sebastian -magnus -lorena -gabrielle PP-IS 3 Valgerður Anradóttir (1) -oktavia -gabrielle -magnus -francois -antonios -lorena -alexander Mörður Áslaugarson (2) -gabrielle x2 -magnus x2 -lorena x2 -alexander x2 -oktavia x2 -francois x2 -antonio x2 PP-IT 1 Alessandro Coifini (1) Aram -oktavia -alessandro -gabrielle -magnus -lorena PP-LU 3 Mattias Bjärnemalm (3) -oktavia x3 -lorena x3 -antonios x3 -magnus x3 -gabrielle x3 -carlos x3 -ernst x3 PP- NL 1 PP- NO 1 Raymond Johansen -tony -carlos -magnus -gabrielle -francois PP- PL 1 Radek Pietron PP- RO 1 PP-CAT 1 Oliver Herzig -carlos -lorena -magnus -alessandro -oktavia -antonio PP-ES 1 PP-SE 1 Magnus Andersson -magnus -oktavia -ernst -gabrielle -antonios PP-CH 1 Thomas Gaul -alexander -gabrielle -sebastian -magnus -ernst PP-SL 1
YPE 2 . Charalampos Krytsis (2) Maija Li Raudaskoski -oktavia x2 -antonios x2 -alessandro x2 -lorena x2 -magnus x2 -francois x2 -sebastian x2 -ernst x2

summary of the votes: Gabrielle: 21 Alessandro:12 Alexander: 7 Antonios (Tony): 19 Carlos: 13 Ernst: 17 Francois: 14 Lorena: 12 Magnus: 24 Oktavía: 20 Sebastian: 14

Gabrielle, Antonios, Ernst, Magnus and Oktavia elected

Status_2018-11-29.pdf (60.3 KB) YearlyPayments.pdf (109.0 KB) Budget2019.pdf (65.1 KB)