[Lnc-business] Fwd: IALP Conference Report
Daniel Wiener
wiener at alum.mit.edu
Thu May 21 19:56:14 EDT 2015
Daniel and Alicia have raised some interesting questions, but so far they
seem to be only that: questions rather than problems. This is a brand new
organization with some amorphous (but desirable) purposes and no concrete
plan of actions yet. Geoff Neale has not said that he has any binding
authority; he instead wondered what authority should be given to our
representative (which the Policy Manual states must be specifically
delegated by the LNC). The LNC will probably want to know more about the
things the IALP will likely be doing before we authorize any specific
authority. But if the answers make sense, then why not do so? In the
meantime I'm comfortable with giving Geoff plenty of maneuvering room to
try to get things off the ground.
I was sanguine about the formation of the IALP, and remain so, for several
reasons:
- The IALP charter says "The IALP shall have no authority over any
Member beyond those specified in the Charter". And I see damn little if
anything in its charter which currently asserts any kind of authority over
Members.
- The IALP charter says "The IALP shall respect the autonomy of the
Members." What suggests to anyone that the IALP might ever want to violate
the autonomy of its Members? How could this explicit restriction even be
circumvented?
- The IALP charter says "A Member may terminate their membership in the
IALP at any time, for any reason." So if we think the IALP is getting off
track, or violating its charter, or asserting authority it doesn't have, or
violating our autonomy, or whatever else we dislike, we can simply drop out
of it.
- The IALP charter says "Each Member shall designate a Representative,
and is solely responsible for determining their Representative, for all
voting matters." So if we become dissatisfied with Geoff's representation
(or that of anyone else), we can simply recall our Representative and
designate a new one.
I see the IALP as the equivalent of a voluntary trade association that
wants to make it easier for its members to cooperate and achieve common
goals. In this case they are common political goals. There's lots of
potential upside, and no apparent downside.
Dan Wiener
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick,
>
> Thank you for forwarding the report. I had recently been wondering
> about this subject.
>
> I share Daniel Hayes' concern. To what unspecified thing does our
> IALP Representative wish to bind us?
>
> Policy Manual Section 2.09.3 begins:
>
> "The LNC may appoint one or more individuals to serve as International
> Representatives, subject to the following:
> • The title is honorary, and does not convey any binding
> authority,
> unless specifically delegated by the LNC..."
>
> The very first condition of the LNC's agreement to create this
> position was that there was not to be any binding authority. I find
> it quite disconcerting that the first report we received back is a
> request to change that, which would fundamentally change the nature of
> this organization from the sales pitch we were given originally.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On 5/21/15, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com> wrote:
> > Geoff Neal wrote the following:
> > "I should note that when I asked the representatives whether or not
> > they had binding authority to act on behalf of their parties, "
> >
> > What exactly is meant by this? Binding authority to do what?
> > You have an organization that has no formal rules of procedure but
> > constituent members claim to have binding authority.
> >
> > This whole thing troubled me from the start of the feel good moment
> during
> > convention and has continued to do so.
> >
> > Why was a question even asked regarding binding authority?
> > Where is this organization going to be garnering it's funds? Under the
> Swiss
> > dissolution rules..if this organization were dissolved does that mean it
> > would send money back to LPUS? Might that not be a problem to have money
> > coming in from foreign entities? The more I see the less I like.
> >
> > Daniel Hayes
> > LNC Region 7 alternate representative
> >> On May 21, 2015, at 9:59 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Geoff Neale's report from the founding International Alliance of
> >> Libertarian Parties conference. My apologies for not forwarding it to
> >> the list earlier.
> >>
> >> -Nick
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Geoffrey Neale <liber8or at austin.rr.com>
> >> Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:02 AM
> >> Subject: IALP Conference Report
> >> To: chair at lp.org
> >>
> >>
> >> My apologies for the delay in getting this to you.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The March 6, 2015 founding of the International Alliance of
> >> Libertarian Parties was a great success.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In attendance were representatives from the libertarian parties of
> >> Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, the United
> >> Kingdom, France, the United States, and the Czech Republic.
> >> Participating via Skype were South Africa and Russia.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, the Czech Republic had not approved of the charter
> >> prior to the meeting, so they acted as observers in official voting,
> >> but were free to otherwise participate.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I had been provisional chair through the official founding, and was
> >> approved by the body to chair the meeting, which I did.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The meeting allotted time was only about six hours, including lunch,
> >> so the priority was placed on making decisions. We consciously decided
> >> to avoid wordsmithing on site, so that we could find our points of
> >> agreement, and craft actual motions later. However, certain charter
> >> changes were made which were most necessary.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The decisions we came to include:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> · Official domicile for registration and banking purposes will
> >> be in Switzerland, which required us to change the charter to specify
> >> this, and to include a dissolution distribution of assets, which is
> >> required in Switzerland.
> >>
> >> · The official language will be English (not American).
> >>
> >> · Changes to the charter will require a 2/3 approval of all
> >> current members.
> >>
> >> · Changes to the rules will require a majority of all current
> >> members.
> >>
> >> · Business of the assembly may be conducted in person or via
> >> email ballots. Attendance by members at an in person meeting may
> >> include electronic attendance.
> >>
> >> · Email ballots will be up to 30 days in length, or until the
> >> outcome of interim ballots has definitively determined the outcome.
> >>
> >> · In person meetings of the assembly will require a 90 day
> >> notice via email.
> >>
> >> · The provisional name of the International Alliance of
> >> Libertarian Parties has been made official.
> >>
> >> · The charter now provides for an Executive Committee of from
> >> three to seven, which must include Chair, Treasurer and Secretary.
> >>
> >> · Members of the Executive Committee are not required to be
> >> official representatives, but must be affiliated with the member
> >> parties.
> >>
> >> · There is no limit on how many Executive Committee members
> >> may be from a single member party.
> >>
> >> · The term of office of the Executive Committee is two years.
> >>
> >> · Any decision of the Executive Committee will require a
> >> majority vote of the number of positions on the Executive committee.
> >>
> >> · Vacancies in the Executive Committee can be filled
> >> temporarily by the Executive Committee. Permanent election will be
> >> conducted by email ballot.
> >>
> >> · The Executive Committee was formed with five positions
> >> filled, which are:
> >>
> >> o Chairman – Geoffrey Neale (US)
> >>
> >> o Secretary – Hilary Hackleman (UK)
> >>
> >> o Treasurer – Jean Francois Nimsgern (France)
> >>
> >> o Vice-Chair – Guy Montrose (UK)
> >>
> >> o Vice-Chair – Daniel Martinez (Spain)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I brought up the topic of rules of procedure, but I’m afraid almost
> >> all of the representatives said their party did not use any formalized
> >> rules, and they were skeptical. What I suggested was that I invite the
> >> submission of an argument in favor of adopting an external
> >> parliamentary document for the members to consider, and they are all
> >> amenable to consider the subject at a later date.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I should note that when I asked the representatives whether or not
> >> they had binding authority to act on behalf of their parties, all said
> >> that they had such authority. I think the LPUS should formally
> >> consider what authority it wishes to grant to its representative. For
> >> the record, just about every decision was made without objection. My
> >> voting for or against any of the decisions would have been
> >> inconsequential.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That’s about all I have to report on the meeting.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Since this meeting, we have voted and approved the inclusion of the
> >> Czech party, and are currently voting on Norway. We expect votes to
> >> start relatively soon on another party in Switzerland, and also a
> >> party from the Ivory Coast. We had a representative at the European
> >> SFL event in Berlin, and the response to the IALP was positive.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Geoffrey Neale
> >> <IALP Signed Charter.pdf>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lnc-business mailing list
> >> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lnc-business mailing list
> > Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
--
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
-- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150521/2efa5566/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list