How would we change course? Could a June 1 vote be to continue the discussion until a future date? Wouldn't even have to be as far out as the OWC...

Let's honor all the good and diverse thoughts so far by many very smart and caring people, and find a better combined solution.

Hello folks,

I'm asking all of us to stop and look clearly at where IFOAM stands today. It’s a fabulous organization that has completed 50 years. In such situations, most organizations re-orient themselves and evolve to face the realities of the present – this is true even for IFOAM. We must realize that status quo isn't working. We need change - but change that is grounded in reality, not only ideology, and that delivers solutions we can actually implement.

Motion 1A has a flaw: it pushes regional bodies to the margins.

For over twenty years, these organizations have been the engine of organic agriculture in their regions. They are not abstract entities - they are on the ground, working with farmers, building networks, lobbying governments. Many started small and have grown into formidable institutions with expanding memberships, all under the IFOAM banner.

Here's the math: over 60% of IFOAM's membership comes through regional bodies. Yet this motion does’nt give them adequate space. When IFOAM's reputation is at risk, so is theirs. When trust erodes at the global level, it can collapse at the regional level—threatening the survival of organizations that have spent decades building credibility.

And here's what I don't understand: Why are we being forced into a choice?

Why present members with "Motion 1A or Motion 1B" when a single, unified motion could have been crafted? Both contain important elements. Both are incomplete in some sense and need to be relooked. There is obvious common ground – not irreconcilable differences.

Governance reform of this magnitude cannot be rushed through in one vote. What cannot be resolved now should be carried forward to the General Assembly in the Philippines. This is not delay - it is diligence. Members deserve time to deliberate, not pressure to pick sides.

Let's govern like the movement we claim to be: collaborative, inclusive, and accountable to our members.

This will strengthen transparency and interaction both on the regional and worldwide levels.

The motion 1b uploaded here does not represent the full motion that has been submitted and does not show in detail how the motion has been developed - only the December version has been included in the GA Report.

I have requested the Headoffice to include the full motion text in the GA Report and in the email from Headoffice sent out on April 30th and titled "Extended Deadline: GA Feedback Forum now open until 5 May" the full text of the motion 1b (second version), has been included at the end of the GA Report as "Appendix 4".

What has been uploaded as motion 1b here has been copy-pasted from two parts of the full motion submitted in March.

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”?