Re: [Int-koordination] [PP-EU.programme] CEEP - Patents - partial veto

[Martina Pöser <martina.poeser AT bremen.piratenpartei.de>]

Dear Muriel, dear everyone,

I am very happy to pronounce that the German Pirate Party ratified the 
Statutes and the Manifesto of PPEU and adopted the Proposal for a Common 
European Election Programme (CEEP) as a whole with an overwhelming 
majority on Saturday afternoon on its GA in Bremen. Among the roundabout 
1000 Pirates voting there were only 3 and 5 No-votes respectively.

Now we are looking forward to all other Pirate parties to hopefully do 
the same (if they haven't done so already).

Best regards,

Martina




Am 02.12.2013 13:49, schrieb Muriel Rovira Esteva:
> Dear Martina,
>
> How did it finally go? Where you able to vote on it at the German
> Pirate Party's GA? Was it accepted?
>
> Greetings,
>
>            Muriel
>
>
> 2013/11/30 Martina Pöser <martina.poeser AT bremen.piratenpartei.de>:
> > Great! Now we can vote on it this afternoon! Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Martina
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Muriel <muriel AT pirata.cat>
> > Gesendet: Sa 30.11.2013 10:04
> >
> > Betreff: Re: [PP-EU.programme] CEEP - Patents - partial veto
> > Anlage: inline.txt
> > An: PP-EU Programme development
> > <pp-eu.programme AT lists.pp-international.net>; Aram Gurekian
> > <aramgk AT gmail.com>;
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Mostly is ok! :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Muriel
> >
> > Aram Gurekian <aramgk AT gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Muriel & all
> >
> > On 29/11/2013 23:07, Muriel Rovira Esteva wrote:
> >
> > In any case, there are not enough proofs to be categorical in this aspect.
> >
> > Therefore, we propose to either:
> >
> > a) Instead of just striking "now", to substitute it by
> > "frequently", "often", or something else with the same meaning.
> >
> > Could "mostly" be a satisfying substitute?
> > "Patents mostly function as a deterrent to innovation rather than as an
> > incentive."
> >
> >
> >
> > 2.- Regarding the second veto, we agree with Martina that, if the
> > problem for the Italian work group is only on the first sentence, then
> > we can leave the rest, because we feel the text still works without
> > that.
> >
> > It is not our favourite option but we're not putting a veto on that.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > PP-EU.Programme mailing list
> > PP-EU.Programme AT lists.pp-international.net
> > http://lists.pp-international.net/listinfo/pp-eu.programme
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PP-EU.Programme mailing list
> > PP-EU.Programme AT lists.pp-international.net
> > http://lists.pp-international.net/listinfo/pp-eu.programme
> _______________________________________________
> PP-EU.Programme mailing list
> PP-EU.Programme AT lists.pp-international.net
> http://lists.pp-international.net/listinfo/pp-eu.programme