Reply to Colin 30th October 2018

This is a good example of the types of conversations that have been going on in the Internet Party with Suzie at the helm and the amount the Party was being mis-directed. As it is a reply to questions by Colin written by me it might be a little confusing. Feel free to ask for clarification in the comments. I might remember what I was talking about. 🙂

Colin#5308 Yes, it is I. Curiously I always sound like myself to myself 🙂 In
rebuttal to your post.

I haven’t lost the passion. I think the party has lost it’s way and the facts
would seem to prove this.In regards to the past executive. It has been almost 300 days since the last executive yet people are still blaming them instead of being proactive. In the 260ish days between the election and de-registration with a supposedly stable exec no member emails have been sent out and there was no effort put into sorting out the membership database until the week/s? before the de-registration. The ability to contest in a New Zealand general election is vital to the aims and objectives of IPNZ and yet the matter was not dealt with by the executive.

I am aware of the problems in the past exec. The present exec is the current problem, not the past. I am not accusing the current exec of double dealing and fowl play. I am accusing them of acting against the aims and objectives of the Internet Party NZ. I would like them take responsibilty for the failure of the strategy they have followed and resign or at least change strategy. I would like them to hold a by election to fill the empty executive member positions instead of constantly hiding behind what is practicable. It is practicable now.

My understanding of the membership time period is that it would only cover newly signed members. ( @jomangee#5037 can I have a current copy of the by-laws please?). The constitution doesn’t appear to have been updated with the change back to three years…perhaps it is a by-law…..or is there another constitution since the party was de-registered?

Who are “the voices”?

Your idea of terms before being able to vote would either disallow Suzie, Daymond, etc… from sitting on the exec committee in the last election. Probably not a good idea with so few members. Currently it would give control of the Party for the next three years to 40 people?..try it with one AGM instead of electoral term.

THE PROs:
Unfortunately that strategy didn’t work and needs to change. BTW, has the Internet Party NZ officially told the Pirate Party International that we have been de-registered? My argument is not that Suzie enabled that cooperation but that that cooperation did not result in helping the aims and objectives of IPNZ and as such has to change.

THE CONs:
Nothing on Discord or the website or the videos appears to be helping the aims and objectives of IPNZ. Furthermore any assets of IPNZ or IP Assets that go toward non NZ activities would appear to me to have a very dubious basis since both are aimed at New Zealand solely and without real positive results for IPNZ are not in line with the aims and objectives of IPNZ.

There has been plenty of time to do something for New Zealand and IPNZ but nothing appears to have been done. As for money, the executive seems soley focused on getting money from KDC. Correct me if I am wrong but there has been no effort to make money in other ways (exempting donations). There are a number of ways IP Assets could provide value to members and memberships for little money. For example members being able to use an IPNZ vpn would be cheap and easy. A virtual server with 1TB of transfer costs about $10/month. If the tech nohow isn’t around then partnering with a VPN provider, or other providers of services that complement the A&O of the party, for kick backs would provide funds and further the A&O’s of the party.

The continued focus on KDC funds essentially makes the Party a lobby group for a single person. An example of this is the current international push. Suzie says that KDC always wanted the Party to be international yet there is nothign in the A&O’s to say this. Essentially we are dragging resources away from IPNZ to further the aims of KDC. Not IPNZ. Not New Zealand. Also, not in the constitution.

Who are these voices? Can you give me an example and why would they bother? The current exec strategy is doing more to shut down the Party in factual terms than anything I have come across.

I am not quite sure why you are bringing Suzies income up? Possibly I can’t find the reference.

As for Discord being quieter than a grave at midnight. From an IPNZ point of view it is. This discussion is only happening because I called for heads to roll on the exec and in it we have exactly the same members of IPNZ plus Cat Memer ( I take it CM is an IPNZ full member? ) Where are the new full members resulting from the executives strategy? @ them in please.

I agree that the balance is all wrong and that we need international and NZ faces but I totally disagree with the way this has been done. IPNZ is not an international organisation. Please refer to the A&O’s. If Suzie/KDC/etc…want an international organisation then they can set one up with separate funding and objectives. It is not included in IPNZ’s objectives and needs to be completely separate from IP Assets and IPNZ funding and resources (Although I suppose a stipend could be set up).

It is possible I will run for exec, it is doubtful I will resign. 🙂 What does
appear to be impossible currently is to get the executive to follow the aims and objectives of the party, change course in a strategy, communicate with members, update the website, take notice of NZ, or have some responsibility for the de-registration of the Party.