From PPI
Jump to: navigation, search

PPI General Assembly June 2026

20.06.2026 13:00 UTC

Agenda

All times are in UTC.

13:00: Accreditation and roll call
Delegates, proxies, observers, guests, voting power, and quorum.
13:30: Formalities
Chair, secretary, vote talliers, voting procedure, agenda, and previous minutes.
14:00: Opening of the GA
14:05: Reports
Board, Treasurer, Court of Arbitration, and Lay Auditors.
14:20: Statute Amendment 1: Voting and membership tiers
14:45: Statute Amendment 2: Membership application procedure
15:10: Motion: Membership fee structure for 2027
15:35: Infrastructure continuity after 30 June 2026
Website, email, communication systems, hosting, costs, access.
16:00: Break
16:15: Other motions
16:30: Working groups and international activities
UN, IGF, AI, media, Think Twice, and PPEU cooperation.
16:50: Any Other Business
18:00: Closing of the General Assembly

Minutes:

Record of the meeting

1 - ATTENDEES

1.1 - Ordinary Members of PPI

  • List of Current and Prior Members

Pirate Party of Australia - Pirate Party of Belgium - (Inactive) Pirate Party of Brazil - Pirate Party of Catalonia - Pirate Party of Chile - Czech Pirate Party - Raman Estonian Pirate Party - Delegated to Davoodi Pirate Party Germany -Babak, (Gregory -> Ukraine) Pirate Party of Hungary - Pirate Party of Israel - Keith Pirate Party of Italy - Pirate Party Luxembourg - Delegated to Keith by Sven Pirate Party of Netherlands - (provisional) Bart Pirate Party of New Zealand - (Inactive) Andrew Internet Party New Zealand - Jo (Jo-IPnz) Polish Pirate Party - Pirate Party of Portugal - (Inactive) Pirate Party of Russia - Alex, delegated to Keith in case of connectivity problems Pirate Party of Slovakia - Pirate Party Switzerland - (Nemax is present but not the delegate) Pirate Party of Tunisia - (Inactive) Pirate Party Turkey - (2 Parties Inactive) Ukrainian Pirate Community - (They contacted us, but they have low activity at the moment due to the conflict. Delegation is pending for the German delegation.) Pirate Party of Venezuela - (Inactive)

1.2 - Observer Members

Internet Party of Serbia - inactive atm, but it may change Pirates without Borders - Bastian Pirate Lobby, France - Pirate Party of Berlin - Pirate Party of Bavaria - Pirate Party of Hesse - Pirate Party of La Rioja - Pirate Party of Lower Saxony - Pirate Party of New York - Pirate Party of North Rhine-Westfalia - Pirate Party Potsdam - Bastian Pirate Party of Brandenburg - Bastian Europe beyond division e.V. - Young Pirates Sweden - Pirate Party of Japan - Pirati (Italy) - Marco is here but not representing PPIT. Pirate Party of Finland - European Pirate Party - The Pirates Center of Belarus - Pirate Party of Slovenia - Pirate Party of Spain - Pirate Party Romania - Pirate Party of Latvia - Pirate Party of France - Pirate Party UK -

  • Confirm attending member voting list
Sven (PPLU)

Allows for delegation of vote to Keith

  • Confirm inactive parties

Andrew Control over the PPNZ party’s social media was lost, and they stopped dealing with various matters. The party that took over the social media is now in power. “One of the Internet Party’s problems.” Control over Facebook and Instagram is not being used, but the name is being used by another (left-wing) party. The five people running PPNZ were not enough to defend against a party with members in parliament.

  • Counting Table for Votes

Czechia: Estonia: Germany: Israel: Luxembourg: Netherlands: New Zealand: Russia: Ukraine:

  • Role call

Czechia: (Raman check if here) Estonia: Davoodi Germany: Babak and Gregory Israel: Keith Luxembourg: Keith Netherlands: Bart (for now) New Zealand: Jo Russia: Alex Ukraine: German delegation (Gregory)

1.3 - Guests Participating

Jelena, Kay, Mike Gill, Andrew Reitemeyer (visited briefly), Nemax (from PPCH)
Jelena is representing the
PiratesOnAir

1.4 - Proceedings

Total Voting Power of the GA is 9 out of 23 (perhaps it is 18).
Quorum requirement: 33%.
Quorum present: yes.
Bastian

Even when counting as inactive party, according to current statutes, they still have voting right.

Keith

Quorum is achieved at 33% (not counting inactive parties, 50%)

Gregory

Art IX(5a) If the quorum is not reached, a new General Assembly shall be convened without delay, which shall always have a quorum. The number of those present and entitled to vote (whether remotely or in attendance) constitutes the quorum for the calculation of voting majorities.


Accreditation and roll call

Roll call:

Delegates:

Proxies:

Observers:

Guests:


Formalities

Meeting chair

Bailey, Keith

Backup cochairs:

Gregory

Secretary

Bart and Babak

Backup Secretaries:

Keith, Alex

Vote talliers:

Davoodi, Babak,

Voting procedure:


Opening of the GA

Keith

Opening at 13:00 UTC, and recording to PiratesOnAir and PeerTube/YouTube

Approval of the agenda

Motion
Approval of the agenda
Does the GA approves the agenda.
Yes : -
No : -
Abstain : -
Result: No objections


Approval of the previous minutes

Motion
Approval of the previous minutes
Does the GA approve the minutes of the previous General Assembly. https://wiki.pp-international.net/wiki/index.php?title=PPI_Minutes_2026-01-10
Yes : -
No : -
Abstain : -
Result: No objections


Reports

Board Report

  • Summary for the GA

We had a busy and somewhat unexpected year. We held 8 board meetings since the Winter GA. We published 23 blogs. About half of the blogs are about important issues, news, and policy statements. These were formatted collectively with the board and our communities, such as on Discord. We are always happy to share news from Pirate parties, and we encourage everyone to share statements with us that they would like us to publish. We aim to write original blogs and not just rebroadcast prior statements. We registered delegates for UNHQ, UNOG and UNOV, and we have had members on site in all 3 locations. If anything, we are lacking representatives in New York, and unfortunately USPP has reacted against participating. We kept our PPI Tech monitored and running smoothly, but we have an issue that our current service provider is unilaterally cancelling the contract and we need to immediately find another solution. This will be discussed in today´s meeting. Babak and Schoresch held a talk at the Chaostreff Tübingen "Tübinger Tage für Digitale Freiheit" in May https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJbJc7pwGkU We assisted (and ran) in local elections in Holland, Germany, and other countries (please update us about your elections). We assisted in planning Pirate Security Conference 2026. We are planning/organizing TT5 in collaboration with PPEU. We were very concious about the Iran situation, the Ukraine situation, the Gaza situation, and other conflicts around the world. Business as usual.

For those who would like to read further, we provide a short summary of our blogs and board meetings, which can be reviewed in full on our website: https://pp-international.net/ and wiki: https://wiki.pp-international.net/wiki/index.php?title=PPI_Board/Board_Meeting Please share your opinions on how to help us improve here: https://lime.ppi.rocks/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=599366

Additional details of our board work

  • Board meetings:

20.01.2026: Board meeting times and roles were decided. UN Working Group proposed. 10.02.2026: Blogs were worked on, Pirate Beer was well-attended. Iranian Freedom Movemen was discussed. 03.03.2026: UN Delegates were settled, IGF was started, PSC was well attended and spoken at. 24.03.2026: Blogs about UNOG&UNOV were posted, TT5 Call for speakers was advertised. 14.04.2026: We had a big discussion about the PPI budget spendig (and reforms) and a special guest from PPCZ and PPEU. 05.05.2026: Keep Android Open was discussed, as PPI birthday was April 18th, 10 Years since the Panama Papers. Prinicples of IT infrastructure were discussed. 26.05.2026: GA proposals and statute amendments discussed 16.06.2026: Local politics and the reminder of the IT contract cancellation. TT5 keynote speakers discussed.

  • Blogs:

January: International solidarity with the Iranian People, Statements on the Taliban Penal Code. February: Statements on the Taliban Penal Code March: PPI at UNOG on the Global Inequality Emergency, Commission on Narcotic Drugs April: 1 'st, Call for speakers in Think Twice, Reviewing our UN activities, Panama papers review May: Age Verification concerns, Keep Android Open, GA Announcement June: Edward Snowden Day, VPN Crackdown, General Assembly Proceedings and Motions

1. Executive Summary

The year 2025 was a period of significant diplomatic activity and internal consolidation for Pirate Parties International. Following the elections in January, the 16th Board focused on strengthening PPI’s presence within United Nations bodies, managing membership transitions, and ensuring the continuity of the global Pirate movement. The Board successfully represented Pirate values on the international stage.

2. Board Composition and Governance The 16th Board was established during the General Assembly on January 10, 2026. The key priority remains maintaining a full and functional leadership team. Core Leadership: The Board was led by Dr. Keith L. Goldstein (Chair), Gregory Engels (Vice-Chair), Sebastian Krone (Treasurer), and Alexander Isavnin (General Secretary). Carlos Polo and Grigorii Dizer were returning board members. Personnel Changes: Numero6 and Bart Overkamp, Thomas Gaul and Lilia Kayra Kuyumcu were added as Alternate Boardmembers Internal Operations: The Board convened for 8 official meetings since the Winter GA. While operations were consistent for the first three quarters, the final quarter saw some difficulties in reaching a quorum, requiring increased coordination among the active core members.

  • International Diplomatic Engagement

PPI was highly active within the United Nations in general as an ECOSOC member: Internet Governance (IGF): IGF will be held in Nairobi, Kenia from 13 tot 18 December. There is an event in July at UNOG on AI and Governance that we will attend. If anyone would like to go, please contact us. We are involved at lot now with the UNODC at UNOV on illegal drug policies.

The Board navigated a changing landscape of member parties and global political challenges: Membership Changes: (none?) Political Statements: Iran, Keep Android open, Digital Legacies, VPN use and Age Restrictions. Also: Introducing Edward Snowden day to the public. Activism: PPI maintained its grassroots connection by participating in events and organizing TT5 PPI foundation made a big step forward, e.g. changing location.

Treasurer Report

Bastian informs about his work as treasurer, more information can be found at:
https://owncloud.ag-technik.de/s/PYDqkWjwWawDaRn
https://wiki.pp-international.net/wiki/index.php?title=Finances
in addition he adds information he thinks to be important about his work as responsible person for the technical tasks, technical data security, from his background of being a Information Security Specialist
Jo (IPnz)

Can appreciate the challenge of being part of something and also voices his solidarity.

Court of Arbitration Report

PPRU Nikolay Voronov (PP-RU), Noam Kuzar (PP-IL)

No report.

Lay Auditor Report

Mia Utz (PP-DE), Alexander Kohler (PP-DE), Ohad Shem Tov (PP-IL), Miles Withicker (PPAU)

No report.

Statute Amendment 1: Voting and membership tiers

Statute Amendment 1: Voting and membership tiers

Raman

Clarification is asked for which amendment is being discussed.

Keith

The last version of the text from the shared document is pasted here

Raman

PPCZ, I as delegate have been in close collaboriation between the PPI board and PPCZ leadership about the concerns regarding the proportionality of the membership fees, so this proposal should be seen as a more balanced and attainable option of contributing PPI membership fees. The proposal is in various tables and the membership fees are tiered, and voting weight is tiered in the same manner. PPI has been responsible for options b-g as PPCZ is responsible for option a. This has worked towards the model used by PPEU, and PPEU has been very succesful. The new parties that would join would be considered to have different voting weight than vested and more achieved parties.

Bastian

We have had a system since 2011 that is based on one party, one vote that has been a function system that allows for small parties to have a same voice. The minimum contribution allows for a participation fee that will allow smaller members to participate. Not linking monetary contribution to politics. This is part of our responsibility as an NGO and we should not discuss this motion further.

Alexander

Can Raman provide an example where PPCZ would have needed bigger voting power to achieve result? The finances of PPRU are largely already membership fee and that is difficult under Russian sanctions.

50 euros is an issue for small parties.

Other methods of contributions should be considered.

Raman

Regrets the sanctions on Russia but sees this as out of scope for this meeting. There is no precedent of not having enough votes, that is not the motivation of the current motion/ammendment. The model of the PPEU is somewhat more linked to the achievement in the political space, and more liked in PPCZ. Proportional voting is also the model used in the European Union. The proposed change is not revolutional but modeled to organisations in the world as it is now.

Babak

PPEU runs a system not appropriate for PPI, PPEU migth run better but might not be as democratic. Efficiancy is not the goal, running democratically moreso. The current system is not perfect, the proposed system isn't either.

Keith

The membership fees are able to be determined at any GA, this does not require the statute amendment. Presenting the different structures like (f) paying members will have a full vote and non-paying memers a restricted (or half) vote. Different options are explained.

Bastian

This motion is mixed, combining voting rights (requiring a statute change) and membership fees. Examples of different parties and methods of paying contribution: the bigger problem is having 15 board members (including alternates). 2 members paying fees are present. How can (proud) members of PPI pay their fees? 50 euros is a low fee. How can that be a problem? The big company cannot exist without fees, getting at them and reminding members should be possible. When we get to that we have a very capable organisation.

Soresh

Question for Raman: Is efficiency the goal?

Raman

(quick) yes

Gregory

Regarding PPUkraine, the party will not be able to pay in the forseeable future.

Jo

Perspective of the Internet Party where membership was ~10 dollars, like the start we had ~.99 or something symbolic but actual expenses had to be payable. So to fulfill the requirement to be financial member of the party ~ was changed to any amount e.g. $0.01 for membership but asking to pay the $1 fee within 3 year, getting people active before asking to pay a more substantial fee. Solving the: Getting to active membership, the bigger problem

Mike (in chat)

So in short: There is no example of a Czech proposal in the past that wouldn't pass but this change is in no way preparation for future Czech proposals that will seek to take over the PPI. Suuure... 😂 Also, in the PPEU, due to how voting power is setup there, there have been multiple occasions in the past when Czechs held the absolute majority of votes at a GA, combining its own votes and the EU Parliamentarians' votes. And despite us meaning well back then, I don't really see how one can call that democratic or call it a good example of a well-functioning organisation.

Raman

Even at multi-disciploninary meeting ~~This introduces voting power distribution. The biggest and primary issue is adressing the membership fees, we are still cooperating with members and the board.

Soresh

Example of member parties being taken over and not wanting to play into the hand of regimes.

Bastian

Motion to end discussion and come to a vote.

Chair

Before we come to a vote let's hear if there are objections or comments.

Keith

Moving along let's narrow down the options as well.

Bastian

Let's get to the point. My motion was not to open another discussion.

Bart

Motion to take a short break, discuss wether to remove options and then come to a vote.

Chair & Keith

Break for 15 minutes (why not five? majority wants 15) Reconvene 17:15

Chair

Suggests for Keith to take over after reopeing the meeting and discussion the motion Reopens the meeting at 14:20 Role-call CZ √ ES √ has a question of legal precedece DE √ IL √ LU √ NL √ NZ √ RU √ Ukraine √

Chair

Thank you for being back here, we want to round up the discussion and going to pass chair to Keith

Bailey

Regarding the discussion on this motion I want to support the PPI method of 1 member 1 vote. Acknowledging this is not about a pushing of agenda and where this idea is coming from. PPI is not a political organization, it is an NGO being a Pirate movement. Having votes/distribution it would be too Euro-centric and things would become too procedural. Looking at power balance PPI is already pretty Euro-present, if we were to do voting distribution that would not suit PPI as democratic movement. Looking to grow all around the world. If we were to change that we would be risking alienating parties.

Marco

Echoing Bailey there is difference between PPI and PPEU and seeing that PPEU was born the way the Eurpean Parliament works. Seeing that PPEU is aiming to be a proper political party that would work the way European Parties work. I don't think it is applicable to PPI and is a model that is easily exported.

Chair

Let's move to a vote, options a-g written with their vote state and fee, write the list of prefered figures.


Reform of PPI Statutes: Membership, Voting, Infrastructure, and Fees

  • Statute Amendment by PPCZ

This document proposes targeted reforms to the statutes of Pirate Parties International (PPI) to ensure increased membership, financial sustainability, fair representation, and resilient infrastructure. The proposals draw on best practices from comparable organisations and respond to urgent operational risks.

1. Background and Problem Statement

PPI currently faces structural challenges related to its fee structure, voting system, and technical infrastructure. A small number of member parties contribute a disproportionate share of the budget, while voting power remains equal. Technology costs dominate expenditures. Membership in PPI has dwindled. Participation in General Assemblies has also declined. Many Pirate parties are not members of PPI because they are concerned about excessive membership fees. Technology costs dominate expenditures. PPI is unable to expand and conduct meaningful activities without a large global professional community and organizations that contribute financially. This community should include active participation from professionals who want to use PPI as a forum for global causes, conferences, and UN activities.

Figure 1: Cost per Vote Comparison

PPI — Fee: €1000 — Votes: 1 — Cost per vote: €1000

PPEU — Fee: €250 — Votes: 5 — Cost per vote: €50

2. Objectives of the Reform

Enable more parties to join and remain members Restore proportionality between financial contributions and voting power Ensure compliance with internal budget limits Reduce infrastructure costs and risks Improve transparency and accountability Align governance with acceptable NGO practices

2. Objectives of the Reform

Enable more parties to join and remain members Restore proportionality between financial contributions and voting power Ensure compliance with internal budget limits Reduce infrastructure costs and risks Improve transparency and accountability Align governance with acceptable NGO practices These reforms aim to stabilise PPI financially, improve fairness among members, and ensure operational continuity. Adopting these changes is essential to maintain the organisation’s long-term viability.

3. Proposed Statute Amendments

3.1 Weighted Voting Model

Introduce a simple revision to voting that encourages members to pay their fees. This ensures inclusivity while rewarding contributions. Membership tiers will align with financial contribution to the organization and electoral success. This creates predictable revenue and fairness across members. The statute currently states:

XI. Voting (1a) Each sovereign state with at least one Ordinary Member shall have one vote and resolutions shall be taken by a simple majority of the sum of the votes of the Ordinary Members present or represented and voting. In the event of a tie, the motion is defeated.

Draft Statute Amendment #1: Weighted Voting Based on Membership Tiers

Revise: To: (1a) Each non-observer tier PPI member with at least one Ordinary Member shall have a vote that corresponds to their membership tier. Each sovereign state shall have no more than 3 votes. Members will pay a discount or full fee in line with their electoral success and budget, as outlined in the membership fees resolution at each GA. Resolutions shall be taken by a simple majority of the sum of the votes of the Ordinary Members present or represented and voting. In the event of a tie, the motion is defeated.

Membership tiers and weighted voting amounts are proposed in Figure 2, options a to g. A separate vote shall be taken on the membership tiers, as this is not a statute amendment

Figure 2a: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €0 — Votes: 0 Emerging — Fee: €60 — Votes: 1 Established — Fee: €120 — Votes: 2 Mature — Fee: €250 — Votes: 3

Figure 2b: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €0 — Votes: 0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €0, 50 — Votes: 0.5 Established — Fee: €75, 150 — Votes: 1 Mature — Fee: €250, 500 — Votes: 1.5

Figure 2c: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €0 — Votes: 0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €0, 50 — Votes: 0.5 Established — Fee: €75, 150 — Votes: 1 Mature — Fee: €250, 500 — Votes: 1

Figure 2d: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €0 — Votes: 0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €0, 50 — Votes: 0.5 Established — Fee: €75, 150 — Votes: 0.75 Mature — Fee: €250, 500 — Votes: 1

Figure 2e: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €0 — Votes: 0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €0, 50 — Votes: 1 Established — Fee: €75, 150 — Votes: 1 Mature — Fee: €250, 500 — Votes: 1

Figure 2f: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €0 — Votes: 0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €0, 50 — Votes: 0.5, 1 Established — Fee: €75, 150 — Votes: 0.5, 1 Mature — Fee: €250, 500 — Votes: 0.5, 1

Figure 2g: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €0 — Votes: 0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €0, 50 — Votes: 0.75, 1 Established — Fee: €75, 150 — Votes: 0.75, 1 Mature — Fee: €250, 500 — Votes: 0.75, 1


Figure 2a: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €no — Votes: 0 Emerging — Fee: €low — Votes: 1 Established — Fee: €medium — Votes: 2 Mature — Fee: €high — Votes: 3

Figure 2b: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €no — Votes: 0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €no, low — Votes: 0.5 Established — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 1 Mature — Fee: €lower, normal— Votes: 1.5

Figure 2c: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €no — Votes: 0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €lower, normal— Votes: 0.5 Established — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 1 Mature — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 1

Figure 2d: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €0 — Votes: 0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 0.5 Established — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 0.75 Mature — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 1

Figure 2e: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €0 — Votes: 0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 1 Established — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 1 Mature — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 1

Figure 2f: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €0 — Votes: 0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 0.5, 1 Established — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 0.5, 1 Mature — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 0.5, 1

Figure 2g: Example Membership Tiers

Observer — Fee: €0 — Votes: 0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 0.75, 1 Established — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 0.75, 1 Mature — Fee: €lower, normal — Votes: 0.75, 1


Proposed vote: Do we accept options a to g as a revision to the current voting system? Additional proposals can be considered. Please vote for each proposal regarding solely the voting weights, whereby the proposal with the most support will be voted on as a statute amendment.


  • Counting Table

Czechia: a Estonia: e Germany: e Israel: e, f, g Luxembourg: abstain Netherlands: e, c New Zealand: e, f, g Russia: abstain Ukraine: e

Option "e" actually means, that the statues are not being changed. The structure of voting would not be changed by a vote on the motion.

Motion
Statute Amendment 1: Voting and membership tiers
Option A to G
Yes :
No :
Abstain :
Result: NoChange


Chair

Can we skip forth to the membership fees structure? Ramon proposes a different amount for memberships fees and gives reasoning a such.

Ramon

Fees are high in comparison to the PPEU fee amount and seeing those as more proportional. Pulling in doubt continued PPCZ membership. Making sure fees are split proportional

Sebastian

Not sure we exactly know what we have voted for, can someone read the motion for the recording, and also can someone make a statement about the structure we have (same) and about the membership fees. Forseeing a future in half a year from now.

Secretary reads the motion
Chair

Line number is read. We skip to this part of the agenda.

Statute Amendment 2: Membership application procedure

motion|title=Statute Amendment 2: Membership application procedure


  • Counting Table

Draft Statute Amendment #2: Revision to Membership Rules

  • Motion by PPIL

PPI is unable to expand as interested new members have difficulties preparing applications one month before the GA. In the current GA there was less than a month between the time that we announced the GA and the date that the membership application was due.

We propose the following revision:

III. Membership

Motion
Membership applications
:Current text:
(3) Requests for Membership shall be submitted in writing to the Board at least four weeks before the meeting of the General Assembly. They shall include contact information and a statement on the adoption of the statutes and internal regulations of the Pirate Parties International, in addition to a copy of the statutes and by-laws and the political program of the applicant and information on the background and organization of said applicant. The Board will transmit the application to all Members at least two weeks before the meeting of the General Assembly.
Revise to:
(3) Requests for Membership shall be submitted in writing to the Board at any time, up to and including the General Assembly. The Board will transmit the application to all Members during the meeting of the General Assembly. Applications shall include contact information and a statement on the adoption of the statutes and internal regulations of the Pirate Parties International, in addition to a copy of the statutes and by-laws and the political program of the applicant and information on the background and organization of said applicant.


  • Counting Table

Czechia: yes Estonia: yes Germany: yes Israel: yes Luxembourg: yes Netherlands: yes New Zealand: yes Russia: yes Ukraine: yes

Chair

Unanimous result! statutes are to be changed.

Yes : Unanimous
No : 0
Abstain : 0
Result: Statutes are changed.


Motion: Membership fee structure for 2027

Bastian

Euro sign is needed before the figures

the figure is corrected
Raman

Can we go over the different fees amounts per tier so it is clear what kind of fee we are deciding on?

Chair

We can decide on the listed amounts

Gregory

Can we clarify the number of euros per votes on the PPEU example - Current Fee Structure:

  • Mature Tier pay 1000 euros.
  • Established Tier pay 185 euros.
  • Emerging Tier pay 50 euros.
  • Nascent Tier pay 0 euros.
Raman clarifies the calculation to mean 250 euros per vote..
Bastian

Does the board or the member decide the lower or higher fee?

Bart

Cautioning that if the member decides that NL will try to go for the (lower) fee.

Chair

Adds options assumed to be needed,

they are accepted
Motion
Membership fee structure for 2027
The fees are currently around 1000 euros for mature members, and they are too much (especially compared to PPEU). PPCZ would like to reduce these fees in half to 500 euros. The lower fee would be for parties that do not have sufficient financial resources. The 2% of the budget clause would override the lower fee. Do we accept the motion to lower the membership fees as such.

Figure 2e: Membership Tiers

Option A Observer — Fee: €0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €0 (lower) or €50 (higher) Established — Fee: €75 (lower) or €150 (higher) Mature — Fee: €250 (lower) or €500 (higher)

Previous posts can be found under the header Fees

Option B Observer — Fee: €0 Emerging — Fee: €60 Established — Fee: €120 Mature — Fee: €250

Option C (keep the current fees)

  • Mature Tier pay 1000 euros.
  • Established Tier pay 185 euros.
  • Emerging Tier pay 50 euros.
  • Nascent Tier pay 0 euros.

Option D Observer — Fee: €0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €50 Established — Fee: €150 Mature — Fee: €500

Option E Observer — Fee: €0 Nascent/Emerging — Fee: €0 Established — Fee: €75 Mature — Fee: €250


  • Counting Table

Czechia: b Estonia: b, d, e Germany: c, d Israel: b, d, e Luxembourg: abstain Netherlands: a, d, c New Zealand: a, e Russia: c Ukraine: c

a (2), b(3), c(4), d(4), e (3)

Vote of Option C or D

Czechia: neither Estonia: d Germany: c Israel: d Luxembourg: abstain Netherlands: d New Zealand: c, d Russia: c Ukraine: c

Chair

Ties, we are taking a break to observe rules of procedure.

informally Sebastian suggests we keep to the previous fee stucture including the informal ability to grant a fee discount on account of a pledge starting the fiscal year.
Jo

From IP perspective we try to remove the burden for membership.


Chair resumes at 16:08

Role-call CZ √ ES √ DE √ IL √ LU √ NL √ NZ √ RU √ Ukraine √

Rules of Procedure: Art 6 Voting: paragraph 5: (…) In the event of a tie, the motion is defeated.

Motion D is defeated. (Option C is alrady status quo)
Add to the financial regulations, any member that finds the fee to be too high can request and receive a reduced fee of half or less. The 2% rule, where no party should pay more than 2% of their budget should also apply.
Yes : {{{Yes}}}
No : {{{No}}}
Abstain : {{{Abstain}}}
Result: Defeated


  • Counting Table

Czechia: yes Estonia: yes Germany: yes Israel: yes Luxembourg: yes Netherlands: yes New Zealand: yes Russia: yes Ukraine: yes

Chair

We still want to adress the financial burdens ar percieved by the Chech party.

Jo

Can we pin the exact clause in the financial regulations we are changing?

We will amend the rules for fees (also mature - nacent member)
  • Counting Table


Motion #1: Change to Membership Fee Structure

In line with the earlier statute amendment, we propose the following vote on Membership fees. Membership fees are decided each GA, and so this is not a statute amendment. When considering the membership fees, the GA must consider the tech, banking, and conference support fees. PPI has paid approximately 1500 euros annually for such fees and ongoing payments should be considered in line with any budget revisions.

The current rules are as follows:

Current rules for fees 2019 and later

New rules for Affiliation fees calculation were established at 2018 PPI Conference.

This is a regulation for member affiliation fees, it has removed all previous affiliation fee rules.

Affiliation are made for a 4-Tier Membership Fee System. The Four Tiers are as follows:

  • Mature
  • Established
  • Emerging
  • Nascent

Each member category would have a distinct affiliation fee payment. No member shall pay more than 2% of their previous annual income. This would apply to the affiliation fees that are due in 2019.

Mature members are Established members that also receive regular state funding, have elected officials at state or regional level, and/or have elected officials at local level who receive compensation. They must fulfill at least two.
Established members are Emerging members that also have paying members and run for elections on a regular basis. They must fulfill all.
Emerging members are Nascent members that also collect donations. They must fulfill all.
Nascent members have regular statutory activities, such as general assemblies and run activism projects. They must fulfill all.

Fees

  • Mature Tier pay 1000 euros.
  • Established Tier pay 185 euros.
  • Emerging Tier pay 50 euros.
  • Nascent Tier pay 0 euros.

Revise to

Proposal A

PPI will use a 3-Tier Membership Fee System. The Three Tiers are as follows:

  • Mature
  • Established
  • Nascent/Emerging

Each member category would have a distinct affiliation fee payment. No member shall pay more than 2% of their previous annual income. This would apply to the affiliation fees that are due in 2027.

Mature members are Established members that also receive regular state funding, have elected officials at state or regional level, and/or have elected officials at local level who receive compensation. They must fulfill at least two. Mature members without regional or national officials and/or limited funding will pay the minimum fee. Mature members with regional or national officials and/or sufficient funding will pay the full fee.
Established members are paying members that run for elections on a regular basis. Established members without national funding and/or limited budgets will pay the discount fee. Established members with funding will pay the full fee.
Emerging/Nascent members are organizations that are accepted to PPI as Ordinary members but do not run in elections on a regular basis or have limited funding. Emerging/Nascent members without national funding and/or limited budgets will pay a discounted fee. Emerging/Nascent members with funding will pay the full fee.

Proposal B

PPI will use a 3-Tier Membership Fee System. The Three Tiers are as follows:

  • Mature
  • Established
  • Emerging

Each member category would have a distinct affiliation fee payment. This would apply to the affiliation fees that are due in 2027.

1. Emerging Members

Suggested Criteria

A member qualifies as Emerging if it fulfills fewer than two of the following:

  • Has participated in at least one election within the last 4 years
  • Has more than 25 paying members
  • Has annual income above €2,000
  • Holds no elected office above municipal level
  • Receives no regular public/state funding

2. Established Members

Suggested Criteria

A member qualifies as Established if it fulfills at least two of the following:

  • Has participated in elections regularly during the last 4 years
  • Has at least 50 paying members
  • Has annual income above €5,000
  • Holds elected office at municipal or regional level
  • Receives limited or irregular public funding

3. Mature Members

These are institutionalized parties with significant resources or parliamentary success.

Suggested Criteria

A member qualifies as Mature if it fulfills at least two of the following:

  • Receives regular public/state funding
  • Holds seats in a national or regional parliament
  • Has elected officials receiving public compensation
  • Has annual organizational income above €10,000
  • Has more than 250 paying members


Infrastructure continuity after 30 June 2026

Website:
Email:
Communication systems:
Hosting:
Costs:
Access:

Infrastructure continuity after 30 June 2026

Background: The current contractor has announced that he will not continue to provide PPI tech services after 30 June 2026. The Board therefore asks the members to give political direction on how PPI should continue its infrastructure. The costs of the services were documented as 1800 euros annually. The tech provider has in recent years charged 1300 euros while donating the remaining amount.

Website: Server, hosting
Email: In-house, paid hosted, free corporate options
Communication systems: Decide which systems are essential.
Chair opens the floor for discussion
Jelena

Bluebutton as an option of NGO Cryptpad with a warning that forgetting your password is fatal.

Chair

Ideas for how we pay for e-mail and servers and stuff?

Jo

Similar situation of infrastucture burden, suggesting breaking up the infrastructure as they could be distributedly hosted. It's hard to determine if for example the PPI stack could be hosted externally - eg Greenhost - Dutch-based NGO hosting. €62.82/yr basic plan. But you need the tech support - but how to seperate tech stack from support of it.


Sebastian

Reminding that the whole problem began with demanding that 100 euros is too much for the services we are using. As the company is also trusted by companies with high confidentiality requirements. The same level of service is not easily reproduced. Going to the Big5 is acknowledging that we live in a surveillance world. Option f, maybe we don't need all that, but maybe we can cross out some. What do we need? A centralised service or decentralised service, and you need the people who can manage that.

Babak

In one case we need the people that can provide the services, and we were able to support the people who depended on those services while or for protecting their lives. If we would like to decentralize. We can use the services provided by other national pirate parties but then we depending on these communities/parties. So when they are doing their work right we can use it but when they become dysfunctional we cannot depend on those. Seeing the future, some of us are still nerds, with computers.

Kay

Decide on what we want to do, deliver services for member parties or not. Do pirate parties rely on the infrastructure?

Soresh

We have this infrastructure, in favor for option B

Gregory

Of course if the PP depend on infrastructure, in the past by even PPEU, and services have been used in the past, like mailing lists. The question is wether a incumbent party can be helped, providing what is possible. In the chat was an option for some server to run on the internet, but it does not include administration, updates, monitoring etc. We should compare in like kind. Run PPI in a way that is supporting for PPI's members

Bart

Dutch pirates are dependent on services like etherpad, where we could use different services like cryptpad, also hosted by germans, but we are also, and we must be careful on not to lose our archives.

Bastian

At the moment we provided a very intensive backup system. We have no downtime, we have an archive of about 5000 pads there, we have a wiki with 15 years of legacy. Would you throw that out for a decentralized service? No expert will tell you that is a great idea, are you kidding me, the decision should be that we have a centralized system again. The money is not a lot, the issue is not money.

Keith

Delivered e-mail issues have surfaced and running e-mail is a legacy problem almost, the current issue is however costs and we sure should be economising our (dis)use of services. We need a pragmatic conversation about reducing services and therefore costs. Sebastian has been donating ~500 euros that might not even be in our books. We should however consider that it is part of our budget.

Kay

Running costs are the most important thing to consider, even when using IPFS.

Chair

Any comments on the things we can practically consider.

Babak

Having to find a solution ís the pressing issue, having a system to work on online. After this month, we will not have infrastructure otherwise. Consider that for the next vote.

Chair

Wether the term is exactly june 30'th or wether the tech team will be able to provide some continuance, Bastian?

Bastian

A contract can be cancelled, that is fact. There was no question yet on wether this problem can be solved but keeping quiet is not an option. Making an offer, or discussing in a private board-meeting there is need as there are solutions.

Raman

Continuing with Bastian's remarks and as discussed with Keith there was ample time and space to consider and propose solutions.

Jo

Is there a contingent solution, or escrowed back-up that could be continued down the line. Is there an independent archive of pads, for example to be put on IPFS that could be available.

Sebastian

Of course there are back-ups but there is no way to back-up a whole structure, it is more than one server working together hosting containers, moving that is a nightmare. Back-ups can be restored step by step but if you see the whole system you can see the issue. This is something that can be discussed and it is something to be discussed, that.

Babak

You are hoster and treasurer

Sebastian

IT is the case since 2017 that I am hoster and treasurer, yes

Jo

So the tech stack is not described in a way that is reproducable? Is there a way that we can describe those dockers that it can be independently hosted or reviewed, as a way forward.

Sebastian

Of course there is documentation of the system.

Jo

If there is, then it would be a tech person like yourself that would provide the same service; which would result in the same situation. It would need to become a more condensed and rationalized process.

Chair

Can we vote on these options or do we need to clarify things?

Gregory

So if I understand correctly this is also considering the future of PPI infrastructure options? Is it better to task the board with finding a solution while we don't know the details as a GA

Kay

This came from the board. Does that make sense.

Gregory

This became an urgent matter action.

Bart

Shall we give the board the most information on which service are needed and which direction to go further.

Gregory

Give the board the task to re-nogotiate as Denk selbst e.v. regarding the continuation of the services in the temporary fashion. And then continuing the consideration on which services are essential

Raman

PPEU has not the capacity to provide the services of the PPI, giving this task back to the PPI-board would take to long.

Jo

The solution that reduces costs significantly, propably does not exist, does that mean there is not have the same services at a different costs?

Sebastian

The services are invoiced at cost. There is no way to get at lower services costs. There is no cheaper hoster then at Hetzner for bare metal (root server) what we need. For example the 1200 euros we pay for a server does not fit the 1000 euro budget, so we need the money in pocket to pay for the server.

Chair

Including the donation you are already making towards the server costs

Sebastian

That is also not the way we should be doing donations

Chair

Those should be in the books so we can recognize you for those

Babak

Reducing the amount of containers on a server that is being leased will not reduce the amount of costs for leasing the server. Reducing the amount of services would be an option to be able to compare the amount paid for those services Bastian should be recognized for his contribution and the amount of that for taxes. Reducing costs would only happen, like when he says, we would move to a different kind of service

Kay

So the hardware is already not in first party control.

Gregory

Please do not continue this part of conversation.

Bailey

Kay has input and has given that at meetings

Keith

And has been representing us an UNOV

Babak

Would really like to get to a decision.

Chair

Would the GA like to move to vote on option F, as it is understood from Sebastian, please correct me, that is an option.

Babak

Any hosted system is hosted, and therefore controlled somewhere.

Gregroy

This goes down to datacenters, software stack, etc. Therefore claiming control by a third party is not applicable.

Kay

Exactly that is the reason behind suggesting distributed systems.

Option A: Minimal essential services only PPI keeps only the minimum essential services: website, wiki, official email, domains, DNS, backups, and basic meeting/communication tools. Non-essential systems are archived, discontinued, or replaced later.

Option B: Pirate movement hosting PPI asks Pirate parties, PPEU, or trusted Pirate teams to host or co-host the infrastructure, with clear responsibilities, access rules, documentation, backups, and cost sharing.

Option C: External hosting CHATONS-style providers and providers suggested by members, such as Zaclys, Mailo, or similar privacy-respecting providers.

Option D: Decentralized hosting Kay’s proposal: PPI adopts a minimal, decentralized, maintenance-free model using P2P tools for internal work, IPFS or similar decentralized file sharing, and standard web hosting only for public services.

Option E: Commercial hosting PPI moves to hosting, but some members are concerned about privacy and the perception of corporate associations.

Option F: Temporary continuation if possible Essential services:

• Domains and DNS • Website • Wiki • Official email addresses and mailing capacity • Backups and archive of existing data • Meeting access and basic communication channels Additional services: • Nextcloud or file storage • Redmine or project management • Etherpad or collaborative pads • Mattermost, Discord, Wire, or other chat systems • Streaming, recordings, and media archive • Other legacy systems?


Motion: Vote on Option F. We will approve a temporary continuation of the services, during which time the board will continue discussing tech services, which we can expire, which we need to keep, which we might decide to migrate to another Pirate party or other organization, which to keep decentralized or use commercial services? The GA now will give us guidance on which services are necessary. There is currently no possibility to pay less than 100 euros per month.

  • Counting Table

Czechia: yes Estonia: yes Germany: abstain Israel: yes Luxembourg: yes Netherlands: yes New Zealand: yes Russia: yes Ukraine: yes

Motion
Infrastructure continuity after 30 June 2026
Option F
Yes : 8
No : 0
Abstain : 1
Result: Approved
  • Counting Table

Break

Break begins at 16:08 UTC.
Meeting resumes at 16:15 UTC.
  • Roll call after break:


Working groups and international activities

UN

Raman volunteers to be a delegate at the UN.

IGF

AI

First to have a working group, now still lagging?
Jo

Will check the AI working group

Media

Think Twice

Conference is happening Oct. 17.

PPEU cooperation

Any Other Business

Global Pirates rebrand
We should not throw away our brand, but it might be a nice idea for individual members.
Make posts about people to join. Social media posts, blogs, reasons to join. Offer internship opportunities.
there are a lot of people who do not have a party and might want one, and Global Pirates could offer them this opportunity.
Bailey

We should also check what Pirates Without borders are up to. We should also check with the Global Pirates chat whether this would be feasible.

UN delegates, especially in NY.
Bart will try two contacts in NY who might be willing, next at the next board meeting
Blogs
Keith

We try and get feedback when we. write blogs and that doesn't always work out; but when you write about war, or global policies. We want to know what you think and what you would like to have published Does anyone have a blog they would like to have published

Jo

Keep up the good work

Keith

We end up checking the webpages of parties and also just publishing

E-mail
Kay

Since we have PPIHQ should we also register PPIHQ.org so we can be sending un-blacklisted e-mail.

Jo

The way though that is essentially using a re-mailer that presents another problem entirely.

Those wanting to volunteer

Inernships, if it combines with our ideals and if we are able to povide the proper guidance.

New members
New board members


Closing of the meeting

Meeting is closed at 17:31 UTC.
)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.pp-international.net/wiki/index.php?title=PPI_Minutes_2026-06-20&oldid=8496"