Hi, this is Markus Arbenz from FIBL. No discussion yet, so let me break the ice with a detail and I come back later:

I find the title of the motion confusing. "World Board Composition Diversity Criteria" : The motion proposes fixed World Board seats to some organisations and does bring a décision about diversity criteria.
I see rather Motion "1a: World Board composition based on regions and constituencies" and "Motion 1b: World Board composition based on organisations". 

Posted by: @markus-arbenzbluewin-ch

↑

Hi, this is Markus Arbenz from FIBL. No discussion yet, so let me break the ice with a detail and I come back later:

I find the title of the motion confusing. "World Board Composition Diversity Criteria" : The motion proposes fixed World Board seats to some organisations and does bring a décision about diversity criteria.
I see rather Motion "1a: World Board composition based on regions and constituencies" and "Motion 1b: World Board composition based on organisations". 

@gmail.com

The Seeds Platform strongly favors Motion 1b over 1a, primarily because of the distinction that 1b explcitly empowers and involves RBs more directly as WB members. We do however appreciate much of the language in 1a, and suggest that the WB improve 1b to incorporate more of it, in particular:

• to part (b) add language that reflects "The General Assembly may, by ordinary resolution, recognise additional constituencies and assign them a reserved seat." 
• include part (c) about the Council Chair serving ex officio.

Furthermore, Motion 1b needs to include a little language as to what constitutes a "recognized" RB. We suggest that this require, at a minimum, a legal registration.

Regarding the limitation of the WB to 10 members, we appreciate the concerns around having too big of a WB, but see the main challenge for the HO being budgetary considerations around travel for WB members. Other possible burdens of management should not be an issue if the constituency group or RB takes its due share of the responsibility for having a representative WB member; Terms of Reference for WB members could also specify minimum requirements/expectations for WB participation in order to maintain a seat.

@seedsplatform I think that the main issue with 1b is how this will be experienced by members. I dont think it will be experienced as transparent. An empowered small group, also at the GA, will be assessing candidates, dropping some and keeping others on the candidate list based on criteria. It may be "by the book" but there will be a multitude of questions in our minds about why, and questions raised about criteria and these assessments. This undermines trust. 

I dont think that the concern about lack of influence for Regional Bodies in 1a is warranted. These important member creations will have influence in 1a, but largely on their own continents. Whereas in 1b the possibility of dominance of GA voting by regions with larger numbers of members would still be a challenge. 

Hi, Dr Thomas Jacob from India, I support motion 1b, but my concern is how to assess the efficacy of the RB to help in the growth of IFOAM International in the region?

@phpaulholmbeck-com - Thank you Paul for that thought-provoking feedback.

I fully support transparency, regardless of who or what process is involved. 1b attests to this by saying ,”The General Assembly of IFOAM – Organics International shall ratify the individuals nominated to occupy the seats allocated to Regional Bodies, INOFO and regions, ensuring overall accountability and consistency with the organisation’s Statutes and values.” I do not see any greater guarantee of transparency in the wording of 1a. Why would the doubts you have about 1b not also be possible under the conditions set by 1a? It may be necessary to review the RoPs of the RBs to assure they have adequate procedures and transparency, and this should also be a requirement for being a "Recognized" RB (so add that to our list of suggestions for improvement). Your concern about power imbalance at the GA may be more or less a “fact of life” regardless of which (1a or 1b) passes.

Your comments do however highlight another shortcoming of 1b, namely that it should require more than one candidate to be nominated for the WB election at the GA. I thought that this was the original intention of those who worked on this option. So in addition to our previous suggestions, 1b should also be amended with such language. (The Seeds Platform is not allowed to actually move to make amendments! Isn’t that ironic?)

My reading of the way 1a sends candidates to the GA and the way 1b do it are otherwise more or less the same. Isn’t the main difference a question of who is running the nomination process? Who better than the network on the ground in that region?

Much of this whole governance reform process has been about getting more engagement from the network. What “Rules of Procedure,” set by whom, does 1a speak of? Hopefully not the Head Office - they already have too much to do, and keeping this process centralized there only further entrenches the status quo. “…influence for Regional Bodies” is largely what we are trying to improve in IFOAM overall. Share the work. Share the responsibility. Empower the RBs to be proactive in the network! Dr. Thomas Jacob asks a fair question, which could also be applied to the Head Office. We all need to do better.

We all need to figure out how to share the work. This is a complex puzzle, and other motions in this extraordinary GA must be taken into account in order to make a well-informed decision on Motion 1. In particular, Motions 2, 3, and 4 make the picture much more complete. The Seeds Platform expressly encourages passing of Motion 1b with some improvements as suggested, and also Motions 2, 3, and 4.

Prefer 1a to 1 b.   

@seedsplatform 

Good point about capacity all the way around. One of the strengths of 1a is that all members of IFOAM Organics International on a given continent would be choosing the nominated rep for the continent rather than only those who are members of a regional body. So some IFOAM OI members would not have a vote.
 In my ideal world (that many work for) we would have one membership, so all members are members at all levels. But That not being the case yet, I prefer 1a.

There, Regional Bodies could certainly run elections, where all IFOAM members can vote. That would be a big help for our small Head Office for sure.

Hi all, this is Markus again.

I support Paul Holmbeck and echo from the FIBL perspective the concerns about Motion 1b: The motion 1B favors organizations over geographical regions and discriminates against those with little structure. Motion 1b also has big risks of imbalances in case a same region has more than one organization, giving that region more weight (e.g., why should Central Asia or Mediterranean countries be double represented, while others are not represented at all??). I also dont know how 1 b wants to handle Africa. While Southern Africa has a Regional Body (ISAN), other African regions (e.g., East and West Africa) have no RB representation at all. Do you interpret the motion that Africa should have now 1 (ISAN) and 1 (Africa withouth RB)? Or do you say, Africa can be represented by Southern Africa and the Mediterranean?

If we start organizing like that, the World Board will be very big and easy to manipulate (just make more organizations, e.g., for Central Europe, which could be like the Mediterranean covered double). 

David you mention it yourself: MOTION 1B is not well thought through. I feel, it is dangerous for IFOAM. We had enough adventures in the last years and dont want ot risk more. STATUS QUO and MOTION 1A provide so much better solutions!

Hi, this is Shahidul Islam from MATI, Bangladesh. On behalf of MATI, Bangladesh, I second the proposed changes, i.e., Motion 1b, regarding WB Composition Diversity Criteria for making it more equally represented. 

OTA has concerns with Motion 1b as drafted and is more aligned with 1a. Please see our comments in 1a for further detail. 

I support Motion 1a over 1b. The Regional Bodies are not yet universally representative of their regions and for large continents, like Africa, it would be better organized if there was more than one region. Until regions are fully represented by the Regional Bodies, 1a better addresses representation from the continents.  Regional Bodies could organize the selection process of the 3 candidates; however, their process must include all members within the continent regardless of membership in the Regional Body. Motion 1a presents a process that will ensure greater representation and not create new "power clusters" in the selection of candidates and election to the World Board. 

MOTION 1b 

Comment: World board should be one of the SGs. So, there is no need to put any federated nature of the organization. This might say as “hidden hierarchy”?