The Student Guidelines ForumHere you will find the discussion on the Student Guidelines, listed in chronological order, with the most recent statements up top. In order to follow the line of thought you therefore need to start at the buttom and work your way up;-) Please note that parts of mails concerning information not regarding the above topic have been taken out. You may download the guidelines draft here. Hi, Best whishes (and thank you to the guideline committee), Caecilie Buhmann
Dear IPPNW Students, Supporters and Interested members of the IPPNW community, As many of you may be aware, there has been active discussion among the students in IPPNW about the formulation of some formal guidelines for the student movement (within IPPNW). This discussion has been very enthusiastic and at times led to hurt feelings and confusion. However, I believe this discussion to be healthy and necessary as the students grapple with many of the same issues as the larger IPPNW community is dealing with. I have been trying to follow all of the issues from the sidelines, and as Chair of the "Neutral Voting Committee" and now-co-Chair, designate of the student Pre-Congress in Beijing, I would like to make some suggestions and clarifications. It is my intention to clarify where we are in the process, and to recommend next steps to take place before and during the Beijing Congress so everyone is aware. I am sorry the email is so long, but please try to read through it. First, I believe that the all of the students who have been involved in this effort deserve a lot of credit, going back to Ernest and Anna, including Caecilie and now Ahmed and Proochista. I would also like to thank Alex for putting together a tremendous website where much of the discussion has been captured. Second, all processes like these cause growing pains. We all need to take a step back and remember that the process is natural, not life-or-death, and most participants truly are trying to do the right thing for the organization. Third, it is easy to get caught up in specifics when there is general agreement on the underlying principles. When stuck, it is best to return to the principle. It seems that there is a bit of a "chicken and the egg" problem with the current set of specifics, since decisions have to be made by an "Overall Decision Making Body" which has not been officially set up yet. I think there is general agreement on the principle that this ODMB should consist of the National Student Representatives (NSRs), Regional Student Representatives (RSRs) and the International Medical Student Representatives (IMSRs). I should point out that this body, although existing now separately, has never had the official voting standing suggested by the guidelines. There are outstanding issues about defining what this body should be which are part of the guidelines (and also partially missing from the guidelines as currently drafted). The current IMSRs, have been given authority to continue a process started several congresses ago, to help form these guidelines and institute a process for them to be changed and grow. To do this, they drafted some ideas, circulated them among the students on the internet, and requested feedback which were then put to the RSRs for a wide review. Note that there is no formal way at this time to approve the guidelines, and this process of drafting, soliciting feedback and initial approval from the RSRs and forwarding to the IPPNW Board of Directors was very reasonable. Once approved, the guidelines then included a process for the newly-defined ODMB to amend the guidelines as it sees fit. Currently, the Board of Directors, although aware of them, has not acted on the guidelines. They will be further presented and discussed in Beijing. However, there is general approval in the concept and the idea that the students should make these changes themselves with input from the Central Office and BOT. Elections have begun (with "absentee" votes being recorded by the neutral voting committee) and we will have the opportunity to use this experience to inform the discussions in Beijing. There is currently a 2.5 hour time slot dedicated to discussion of the guidelines on the second day of the Pre-congress. I hope this will offer time for some informal face-to-face meetings beforehand to allow people to express some of their feelings in a more private manner. I have agreed to also facilitate these discussions. However, transparency dictates that there be free and open discussion during the Congress taking into account those who cannot attend and participate but have made their thoughts known via other methods. I believe that this process will be successful. To some specific issues... Term LimitsThe guidelines originally called for a single, two-year, synchronous term for the two IMSRs as well as RSRs. The two principles under discussion are: 1) the need to have opportunities for different students to participate in governance and 2) the need for continuity. There is a side issue about regions having some say over their regional representation. The current proposal addresses these principles by:
The guidelines provide a way to enhance student governance by allowing for non-local voting. This encompasses both the need for early designation of candidates, as well as the process of actually recording and reporting on votes. This point included the creation of a "Neutral Voting Committee" of which I am the Chair. Dr. Arun Mitra from India, and Dr. Herman Spanjaard from the Netherlands are also on this committee. The principles under discussion here are: 1) The need to be more democratic by allowing those students unable to pay to attend the congresses, or due to other reasons like visas, to participate in voting. 2) To allow for voting to occur between congresses, 3) The need for reasonable discussion prior to voting, 4) The need for some sponteneity (some people might not know they want to run until the Congress), and 5) The need for transparency or to prevent email fraud in voting. There is a side issue of whether the Constitution allows email voting. However, it is unclear whether the consitution speaks at all to this issue for medical student governance, and I am not sure that the status quo offers any greater security or represenation. The current guideliness address these principles by:
The initial guidelines tried to address the need to formalize what is a NSC and provide for a process to ensure continuity by requiring reporting. The principles discussed are: 1) NSCs should involve more than a couple of students to be considered a Chapter. 2) NSCs do not have to be in places where there are Affiliates, 3) NSCs should coordinate with Affiliates whenever possible, 4) NSCs should report regularly to RSRs and to the Central Office, 5) There should be a way to "clean-up" non-active NSCs from the roles and to prevent NSCs which are not consistent with IPPNW from representing IPPNW. Note that nothing in the guidelines insists that a NSC should be considered no longer official, but only provides a framework and language for making such a designation if the ODMB decides to do so with due cause. The current guidelines address the principles by:
There are other issues which have come up in the email discussions, but these three seem to be the most difficult to reach consensus on. I also believe that there are further clarifications and improvements which can be made to the guidelines, and I believe that these can be addressed at the meeting for later ratification by the ODMB. I look forward to all of your comments and participation, both at the Congress and after. In Peace, Andrew S. Kanter, MD MPH
The issue is that the guidelines and affiliation documents have been far more controversial then depicted. There have been little or now discussion within the different regions, at least that we know of. The need for governing documents for the student body's different need is large. The issue is how one wants to get these guidelines in place. I too agree that it is not a fully democratic way of to hold discussions when everyone cannot participate. I do not think that the way they have been conducted over email where only a few students have contributed presents as a wanted alternative. The guidelines are not in place and hence planning for the conference with them feels awkward. Praxis in the past have been to elect at the conference and there has been a possibility to run up until that date. Changing this with an arbitrary email vote, where the voting body at that instance was the seven regional reps is not right either. This has never been discussed as a body having any referendum to decide upon these things, at least to my knowledge. The only sound solution would be to talk this through, with as many differing opinions as possible and try to come as close to a consensus as possible. I believe that this would solve many of these issues, even though there are important differences in opinion on certain topics. Richard Fristedt
Dear All, In addition to what Proochista mentioned in her last email i would like to inform you that many other responses and emails were sent to Richard and Caecilie as well and they were CCed to everyone on the email list of IPPNW students, These responses and replies explained and discussed each and every single point of these documents and replies on all the concerns of Caecilie and Richard to the point when no further emails nor comments were sent from Caecilie or Richard. These replies which went through Caecilie's opinions were sent to the email list of IPPNW students months ago and are titles ( first ,second and third reply on Caecilie's email ) . Ahmed Geneid
Dear Ian, Robin, Gunnar and Michael, To have a more complete sense of the discussion, I am attaching here the responses made to Richard's comments - which were posted to the student listserve early in May [see below]. An email discussion ensued [also below], the most recent email on the matter was May 13th after which there was no more discussion. Then again on May 31st, a statement was posted relaying the implications of endorsement, again, no discussion). The student guidelines were sent to the board May 31st and concerns addressed June 20th. I would like to stress that the Student Guidelines outline a process whereby the National Student Representatives become the decision making body for the student movement. As such, endorsement of the documents empowers this body to make any changes to the student guidelines it sees fit as long as there is agreement indicated by a majority vote of all representatives therein. We are not discouraging discussion but rather providing a more representative and democratic forum for them. While ideally we would want all our active National Student Representatives to be present at all meetings to engage in face-to-face discussion, this is not always feasible (for financial as well as logistical reasons- i.e. visas). The new generation of student leaders ought to have equal opportunity to candidate for international and regional representative positions despite the barriers that may prevent their physical participation at meetings. This is the reason why we opted to try the email voting for the international student representative positions- through a neutral voting committee chaired by Andy Kanter. As for candidating 60 days prior to elections, this is the same procedure employed for ALL board positions. Please realize that many of our students support the Guidelines (including those in North America, Latin America, Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East as well as some within Europe- such as our co-regional representative for Europe, Alex Rosen from Germany). I would be happy to address any further questions or concerns you may have. Proochista Ariana
Dear Ian, Robin, Gunnar and Michael, I do not know how much you have heard about the discussion that the student body has held on the guidelines and affiliation documents for the IPPNW student chapters. They have been of great concern to us for the past year or so, and as the documents are approching the IC for final endorsement I would like to raise a few issues with you. The two documents can be easily found on www.ippnw-students.org under ”documents and information” attached is a compilation I made to sum up the ideas and the discussion held, by the European students, on Ireland past April regarding these documents (some changes have been made to the documents since my compilation was sent out, but for grasping the whole issue I've kept it as is). The outcome of the discussion that we held, in about 3h, was so convincing that we agreed on making sure that the possibility to discuss this in person was brought to everyone. Too many nuances were lost over email and as agreed on Ireland I am now approaching you to share our concerns. As I have understood this, the two documents ”Standards for National Student Chapters” and ”Guidelines” are not implemented as of now since they have to be approved by the BoD who will pass them on for a vote in the IC. When the documents are not in use, some of the issues that the same documents are trying to set rules for are not valid either, for example candidacy 60 days prior to elections, email voting etc. This is a problem since the planning for the Beijing congress is set to the standards dictated in the new guidelines. We do understand the will to try to incorporate the guidelines as quickly as possible since there is a need for a better framework for the student body but is this possible without having the formal approval from the legislative body of IPPNW? The discussion held of the past year has sometimes been quite harsh and there seem to be a need to vent the issue fully to be able to leave this behind and move forward strengthened. Another concern is that it is important to have a fully worked-through document and as few disagreements as possible before it is passed to the BoD (has been submitted) and the IC. This is to prevent that this discussion will take up too much time from the few and very important IC and BoD meetings already having overfull agendas I am sure. Furthermore, in the event of a turndown of the documents in these bodies, the student movement will lose two more years for final endorsement since they will have to be re-worked and again be submitted for approval. I am sorry for bringing this troublesome but yet important issue before you this late in the planning for the congress. I am looking forward to your replies and comments as well as your advice on how to proceed in this matter that I feel is vital for the student movement as well as IPPNW as a whole. Richard Fristedt
Dear Alex, While I appreciate your request for such a lengthy discussion on the guidelines, you must realize that given the current funding situation, we are far from a position of being able to get all our national student representatives to Beijing. So, as mentioned numerous times before, there will be a bias in the voices heard and it is unfair and undemocratic to give more importance to those who have acquired the financial means to attend. That being said, I see no problem in having an informal discussion of the guidelines during one of the dinners. The second night dinner would likely be more appropriate since it can follow from the 'IPPNW Students Movement in today's context and projections for the next two years "Open discussion"' session at 5pm. Of course, a summary of such discussions will then have to be made available via internet to the other national student representatives for their fair chance at participation. What do you think? Proochista Ariana
Hi Proochista and Ahmed, I just wanted to hear whether or not you considered my plea for a little more time for discussing the guidelines during the student congress in Beijing. I believe that a straightforward and thorough discussion (three hours) with one representative from each country attending, as well as the regional reps and you two, would save all of us a lot of behind-the-scenes haggling and pave the way for a broad acceptance of the guidelines, also within the European Student Movement, which have been a little testy regarding certain aspects of it. I don't think I have to recount them here, but the general feeling was summed up perfectly by Lars Pohlmeier that, while it is of course a very normal procedure to adopt IPPNW's stance on disaffiliation, this is not one of the themes that should be central to the discussion, as the point of these guidelines is not to organize disafiliatiion, but rather to get more people to join the student movement and contribute. I'm sure that there really is no argument here and therefore I believe that an open discussion as to the intent of the guidelines will make clear to everyone how urgently the student movement requires clear guidelines and why the ones proposed by you would serve this purpose well. By letting the attendees voice their concerns, we might even be able to improve on some of the critical points. I know it sounds strange to people like us, who are so used to working through e-mails, but I truly believe that any people are not yet able to do this, so that a three-hour personal discussion might serve the purpose much better than months and months of mail-debates. I hope you agree and will find a slot of time for the discussion (this might be parallel to another workshop, because for new members this discussion might seem a little disentchanting so that I believe that it could run parallel to an introduction to IPPNW or during dinner. I'm sure we'll find the time and avoid a hassling debate over missing democracy, etc., a topic which both you and I have undeservingly been confronted with in the past. What do you think? Alex Rosen
Dear All IPPNW Students and Friends, Thanks to all your helpful comments and suggestions the IPPNW Student Guidelines and Governance documents are ready for endorsement by the Board of Directors. Endorsement will simply mean the following:
As for the controversial issue of ‘disaffiliation’ this was language directly drawn from the IPPNW constitution and we found it appropriate to hold students chapters to the same rules as physician affiliates in this regard. However, the guidelines explicitly leave room for the student governing body to make any decision it sees fit depending on the case at hand. Student chapters in countries without physician affiliates will be handled on a case-by-case basis since each situation is unique. Such decision will be made first among the student governing body in consultation with the central office. The decision will then have to be endorsed by the IPPNW board and ratified by IPPNW’s international council. This set of guidelines allow for more transparent, explicit and democratic processes within the IPPNW student movement. It is in your hands now to amend as may be needed to suit the changing nature of the student movement. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. Proochista Ariana and Ahmed Geneid
Dear All, Please bear with us as we further clarify some issues pertaining to the student guidelines. Below are responses to the points raised by Richard’s recent email (in italics). Please allow me to clarify that as stated in the previous email, the documents will be instituted prior to the Beijing Congress such that discussions can be officially undertaken by the then official decision making body (National, Regional and International representatives). “The documents were handed out to us after the Berlin meeting, so the first time for the Europeans to discuss them were in Dublin, and we also regret that the ISR were not able to attend during the fruitful discussion” The guidelines were available before this meeting and if discussion was mandated they should have been distributed by the regional representatives and incorporated into the schedule at that time. “A neutral voting committee will off course be mandatory for the voting protocol to work, doesn't it have to be in the guidelines? as it currently stands email voting will be used only in the eventuality of a student meeting not being held. This document becomes larger and larger for any eventuality to be considered.” I would suggest you read the guidelines again. Section 1.2 of the guideline document clearly refers to the neutral voting committee. “Mentioning "...some unsettling comments I have seen circulated...", I think we all believe that ALL activities regions perform contribute to the IPPNW student movement, such implying statements are not good for an open discussion and I'm confident that this was not the intention.” I suggest that everyone be more conscious of the remarks they make so as to avoid contributing either directly or indirectly to such biased claims. Furthermore it is important to point out that “an open discussion” is not necessarily a representative or inclusive one. It is the latter kind of discussions we are working towards with the implementation of the guidelines. “We were not aware that there had been an election regarding the official decision-making body at the world congress in Washington D.C. for its current composition. Off course we recognise and respect that decision but we believe that the composition should be altered, see proposition made earlier.” You, yourself were present at the DC meeting where you were elected as co-regional representative for Europe. The regional student representatives, as the name so states, are officially responsible for accounting for and representing the interests of the national student chapters in their region. However, nothing was documented or made explicit regarding decision making powers. The current guidelines clearly and explicitly set forth the very change your are suggesting here by establishing a decision making body consisting of ‘national, regional and international student representatives’. “Summing up. There seem to be some fundamental different stand points on some issues and on some we fully agree. I hope the document presented, to you all, was valuable and that it presented an alternative way of viewing things. I look forward to continue the discussion in Beijing.” We look forward to reading the discussion among the official student governing body on email prior to the Beijing Congress. Proochista and Ahmed Geneid
Dear Alex, I appreciate your comments. Please note that the guidelines will NOT wait until the Beijing congress for enactment although discussion both before and during the congress is welcomed (and indeed mandated). There is no one conclusion to be reached. This is a document that will evolve depending on the needs of the student movement and the decisions made by the student governing body at any one time. A clear document stating what enactment of the guidelines means is a good suggestion and we will work on this. And if you think more clarity is needed with respect to the resulting changes, this can also be summed. We can pass these drafts to you for your comments and suggestions. Again, thank you for your helpful feedback. Proochista Ariana
Hello you all, first of all thank you Proochista, Ahmed, Molly and Ernest for your explanations, which I believe have cleared up a lot of questions which arose form the recent European Discussion. I'm sure that as soon as we sit down together in Beijing, we'll be able to come to a conclusion concerning the guidelines and will thereby have made an important step in IPPNW student history. Maybe we should now talk about the work we can still do before the pre-congress in order to make the debate as concise and productive as possible (none of us want a four hour discussion ;-) I would propose drafting a document, explaining the process through which the guidelines will come into effect (since this is one point, which many do not fully understand), as well as a document summing up the changes which the documents will mean for the student movement. I believe that by sending these two documents, in combination with the guidelines, the governing structure-document and the affiliation standards to the participants before the congress , you will have answered a lot of questions before we actually meet and greatly speed up the whole process. Also, it would lead to a broader understanding amongst the participants of what is actually being alked about. You would probably like to avoid having to explain the same things in Beijing, which you've already stated in so many mails and I think that by summing up the differences, which the guidelines will make for the individual IPPNW students, many qualms about the document can be answered beforehand. What do you think? I would, if need be, also offer to help in drafting these two short documents, but I assume that it's no great problem for you to do it. Please get back to me, concerning this. Thank you very much and all the best, Alex Rosen
Dear everyone, we thank the ISR for your answers and clarifications to our concerns and questions. We are also happy to see that there has been time set aside for 1. organisation and funding for crossregional projects as well as 2. guidelines discussion and ISR report, both for one hour during the Precongress in Beijing. I believe that for the latter, 1 hour will prob. not suffice, having an additional hour would be welcome, but time is something we do not have a lot of. Just to pick up on a few things mentioned in your reply:
Richard Fristedt
To facilitate current discussion of the student guidelines and contextualize the issue, I am providing a brief history of student efforts in this regard. I am sending this in my official capacity as member of the Board of Trustees for students but more so as a previous medical student representative for a good three years. Student participation within IPPNW has been an evolving process. In what started out as student involvement only in terms of providing support and performing “scut work” for the doctors in the federation, it has grown into participation in the projects and in the policy and decision-making roles both at the affiliate and federation level. Such change was brought about by the growing student membership and a conscious effort on the part of students to organize and strengthen their ranks by setting up organizational structures within the student group and creating opportunities for representation of students on all levels. The growth of student involvement brought with it the challenge of governance and representation. Imperative to the growing organization was a structure by which it could be governed and managed. More than just establishing a hierarchy, representation was of critical importance because of the wide diversity in the student membership. These challenges have been addressed in different ways by the student representatives through the years. Even prior to the Melbourne World Congress (1998), the medical student representatives together with the student groups then had endeavored to come up with ways by which governance and representation were ensured. The problem, however, was that these guides or rules were never passed on, endorsed or made formal consequently jeopardizing their continuity. This was what we faced during our preparations for the Paris World Congress. Anna Sjogren (Sweden) and I, as the international student representatives, strongly felt the need for more explicit guides or rules. As such, we worked together to come up with ideas based on our experience on how governance and representation are maintained in the organizational structure of IPPNW. And for those who have been in Paris, this lead to the discussion of how to go about electing student reps and regional reps. Despite this discussion, concrete rules were not set and policies regarding student projects and initiatives were never discussed. Later on, with a new set of representatives, myself and Caecilie Buhmann, the focus shifted to ensuring regional representation but again there was no formulation of clear cut guides and rules for elections and for management and governance of student members. Much of the decisions were made anecdotally and on a case by case basis which resulted in preferred or favored projects coming from student groups with greater backing or those who can readily send representatives to meetings receiving more attention compared to others who do not have a similar advantage. Again, no rules were set out and no documentation of the anecdotal policies were written down. The current efforts made to formalize a document for student governance is welcome. It is a very positive step forward for the organization and will undoubtedly strengthen the student movement and ensure the continuity and transparency of its actions. I support the governing documents as it currently reads not just in terms of voting protocol in particular but more so in terms of a protocol for decision-making and in supporting the work and projects of students in a process that is inclusive and participative. I believe this will effectively avoid many of the problems we faced in the past two congresses and in how we interacted and worked with the student groups, minimize subjectivity and increase representation thereby allowing us to more honestly claim to be a truly international organization. Ernest Guevarra
Dear All, Please find below a response to the issues raised by our co-regional representative for Europe regarding the guidelines and affiliation documents. Apologies for the long document but we hope this clarifies the matter and allows us to move forward in a productive fashion. If you have any lingering questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. Unfortunately, face-to-face discussions will not entirely avoid misunderstandings and this is not necessarily a viable solution for an international organization. We must learn to more effectively use the technologies available to us (i.e. email communication). We otherwise run the risk of discriminating in favour of those with the means to attend meetings. Currently, our other regions demonstrate very effective use of the internet despite numerous logistical and financial barriers. We should expect as much from all our regions. In response to some unsettling comments I have seen circulated, it is important to point out that ALL our regions engage in activities that contribute to the IPPNW student movement. Of our most prominent student projects currently, one is European (the NWIP), the small arms project is from Latin America and the Refugee project is from the Middle East. The students in these regions as well as those in Africa, South Asia, North America, and North Asia can be said to be just as active if not more in certain respects than those in Europe. Therefore, I do not believe it right to give preference to Europe (or any one region) above and beyond other regions simply because they are able to consistently secure a more prominent presence at meetings or be more vocal in such arenas. IPPNW is not about the meetings you attend but the activities you do to further our collective cause. There was plenty of opportunities to discuss the documents which were available on the student website and distributed to the listserves. And there is no end to the possible discussions which we encourage through implementation of the documents. Inherent in the guidelines is a mandate for discussion and amendments made by the body of National student representatives. The need for further discussion, therefore, does not provide reason to avoid officially enacting the guidelines; on the contrary it supports it. Once endorsed, the officially decision making body for students (made up of national regional and international student representatives) decides what to do with the documents. This explicitly democratic process mandates that discussions involve all national representatives (and not just those who will be able to make it to Beijing) and necessitates all decisions to meet with the approval of the majority of this body. Regarding "disaffiliation":The wording of ‘disaffiliation’ and the context in which it is placed is derived from the IPPNW constitution. However, it is clearly stated that whatever action is taken is based on the official decision of the student governing body (national, regional and international representatives). In essence, it is this representative body that sets the rules and decides on the mechanism for their enforcement. Regarding "E-mail vote as unconstitutional":Email voting does not have a precedent in the constitution but it is NOT unconstitutional. It addresses the issue of representativeness and a democratic process of decision-making (not only voting). It should also be noted that funding is not the only limitation to attendance. As we saw in the DC congress, the granting of visas also poses a considerable problem not only to our students but also certain affiliates. It is just as easy to ensure transparency here as with in person voting. Having the identities of all our national student representatives facilitates this transparency. Furthermore, the establishment of a neutral voting committee further ensures the legitimacy of the process. The advantage of being part of an international federation is being able to share ideas and concerns and while it would be wonderful to meet regularly finances and logistics may effectively prohibit the possibility. We should not let this get in the way of our communication, progress and expansion. We are fortunate to have at our fingertips the technology which puts us at a considerable advantage relative to our predecessors. They relied on meetings because this was the most effective means of sharing ideas. We have much more options available to us today. Regarding the "60 day notification"::The 60 day notification is the procedure for all board positions. Within our term, Ahmed and I ensured that the recent past international student representatives automatically occupy a position on the BoT precisely to address the issue of continuity. Currently the BoT includes both Ernest and Caecilie. Regarding Beijing:Discussion can certainly be held in Beijing about the documents but I would advise reconsidering spending such a considerable amount of time on them. Please bring this to the attention of the congress-organizing committee. A discussion on communication would be welcome and can be posed to the congress-organizing committee. A discussion on funding can also be addressed but keep in mind that money is not the only barrier for some of our active members. Regarding the "Governing Body":As it reads now, it is composed of the national, regional, and international student representatives, all with equal voice. The proposed change can be posed to the body once implemented. Regarding the Endorsement of the Guidelines:Given that we have received support from the majority of our regions, the documents will be sent to the BoD for endorsement prior to the Beijing meeting. Discussions will then be opened and encouraged among the then official student governing body (composed of national, regional and international student representatives, all with equal voice and each with one vote). In conclusion, I would like to add a point of historical clarificationAs stated by Molly’s notes, according to Caecilie: “The first version of the guidelines was introduced by IMSRs Caecilie and Ernest at the Paris Congress in 2000. A copy of this version was handed out at the meeting.” The IMSRs at the Paris Congress were Ernest Guevarra from the Philippines and Ana Sjogren from Sweden. There were no ‘guidelines’ distributed at this meeting and the discussion which was held pertained to the voting protocol. However no decisions were made at that time and the issue was left unresolved. Being new to IPPNW at that time, Caeceilie was not involved in this. In their term as IMSRs (2000-2002), Caecilie and Ernest selected regional representatives but did not further address the issue of an election protocol or student guidelines. Selection of students for support to attend the 2002 DC congress remained subjective and other similar procedures for addressing student issues remained implicit. Hopefully this has provided answers to the concerns raised. Let us move forward now. The guidelines are not set in stone and once implemented will give the explicit and democratic means by which to make changes and amendments. Proochista Ariana and Ahmed Geneid
Dear Richard, et. al., Thank you for putting together such a thoughtful response. I can only imagine that this discussion will strengthen the student movement and improve communications within the organization. I am only responding from a personal point of view, as I have no direct say in what all of you are doing, however, I think I might be able to help facilitate the work. It is often very difficult to manage an organization like this, particularly with the students who frequently are very enthusiastic with widely divergent views. I think you can appreciate the purpose behind the student guidelines, so focusing on the fundamental principles of what we are all trying to achieve is more important than the specific solutions. I believe the solutions can be made to fit the principles. I do think that successful face-to-face meetings are often successful because of advance work that is done... such as your report. I wonder if it would be good to begin some futher discussions about the specific principles and concerns that you brought up. You referred to other comments and specifics which were not mentioned. One possibility would be to identify the key principles behind the proposed policies and guidelines, and then align those with the comments brought up at the European student meeting. If there are disagreements as to the principles, then a lot more work has to be done to achieve consensus. If it is only in the manner or process in which the principles will be met, then perhaps there can be some preliminary debate about them, then this can be brought to the meeting in Beijing. I think everyone would like the process to be a constructive one and not a destructive one. There is a substantial amount of history here, some of which is probably not well known by the current students. We also want to be able to focus on the incredible amount of work to be done, rather than spend too much energy on internal issues. However, we need to address the concerns brought up by the students. I will offer to help facilitate the process if you (the students) would like me to. Others may also be better positioned to take this role. I look forward to seeing you all again in Beijing. I am sure it will be an incredible Congress. Andy Kanter
Dear Everyone, I went through the email and report of Richard and i guess both Proochista and me need few days before getting back on this proposing on how to proceed and to take your opinions. One thing drew my attention and i guess i can reply on it now which is what is mentioned " A clarification on whether or not the documents are in use right now (will make such a request to the int. Council) " Actually we didn't submit it to the international council and we would have informed you and the other national and regional if we did that , they are not into force and are not in use , as we confirmed in previous emails to different people. Additionally, I would like to draw your attention that we were intending to submit the guidlines to the board and we were about to approach them after getting the votes of all the region infavor with the exception of Europe , however and after the last two reports of Molly and you , this is not going to happen now and we will tell you what we suggest to do in few days. Rest assured that presenting them to the board will only happen after informing you and that the only one in the board who was informed of our intentions to present the guidlines to the board was Ian ( in addition to Herman ) , however , and with the current situation , Proochista and me are considering other possibilities of discussions and reaching a possible consensus before going to the board. Inaways , we will keep in touch with you on our future steps and will take your comments and suggestions and the content of your recent report. Ahmed Geneid
Dear All, The guidelines discussion has gone out of proportion. There have been many misunderstandings just because things haven’t been discussed in person. It seems like this could have been avoided if the discussion would have been held face to face instead over email, where (evidently) misunderstandings arise and the essence of an idea easily gets lost. The guidelines and affiliation documents were presented in mid-late June of last year a time when many students don’t follow email as closely as during the semester. For the European students, they were presented just after the annual meeting held in Berlin, meaning that there was no chance of having a thorough discussion, until this year, on its content and implications. Instead it had to be done over email, because the vote needed to be cast rather fast. It is very hard to start up a discussion on something that one is not familiar with and even harder to understand how this (the guidelines) will influence them especially if it is done over email. All this taken together caused a lot of concern and frustration amongst the European students. After one year of discussions, we convened outside Dublin and were able to discuss the issue more in detail, and to explain to the nat. affiliates the importance of the guidelines and aff. docs. Based on this new understanding on why there is a need for rules-guidelines to make the IPPNW student movement run smoother, the national European aff. thought that the guidelines, as they look now, are a good start but need some changing for them to fulfil their purpose – to facilitate the work of the IPPNW students. We also think that some of the core problems that the guidelines are trying to mend may be dealt with in other ways. Seeing the amount of frustration (by all parties), the low amount of students taking active part in the discussion and the positive outcome of Dublin discussion, make us even more certain that these issues are indeed very important for IPPNW and hence deserve time to be discussed in person. Core issues:
We feel that it is only now when we have gotten many students involved in the discussion that people start to care and feel they have something to contribute. It helps if we sit down and discuss the background (as we did in Dublin, with approximately one person per country present) to the issues before we speak about the means to mend them. Making people care is essential for this federation, if we do not facilitate for all national reps to take part in the discussion they will not feel they can contribute and this will turn them away. On the other hand, incorporating the affiliates in these important discussions and decisions will make them take more responsibility and their communication will improve. We hope that this email has cleared some of the concerns and highlightened some of the problems that we need to discuss. We are all working to improve an organisation that we believe in and to do this we need to be patient, openminded and not be stressed when opinions differ – the large amount of ideas is what makes the IPPNW federation strong. Richard Fristedt
Dear Alex , As usual, it is always comforting to read your emails and listen to your opinions and ideas about the current situation, however, I do have some comments about them. The INTERNATIONAL situation as i see it now , is that we have all the regions voting for the guidlines with the exception of the Europe that abstained from voting, Europe within itself is not consistent on voting against the guidlines nor for it, and the debate that was scheduled in Dublin just signals this. The guidlines themselves are not sent from heavens , nor they are a holy document that can't be changed , they are open for change/addition/deletion of any parts of them according to the decisions of the governing body of the IPPNW students movement which will include the national , regiona, and international reps. With the guidlines entering into force we ( Germany , Egypt , Zambia , etc ) will have the opportunity to propose any changes that they would like to make and to be voted upon these changes by the same governing body mentioned above even before Beijing meeting. Our ( Proochista and Ahmed ) main focus before the end of our term is not only to be sure that the IPPNW students movement reached a new level of activity but also to ensure that transparency and democracy are stengthened . Ahmed Geneid
Hello all, having read Molly report and Ahmed's views on the current debate regarding the guidelines, I would like to respond. First of all, I welcome the fact that so many people are spending their costly time, pondering over ways to improve the IPPNW student movement. That's one thing that we have to keep in mind: no one is participating in this discussion, wrecking their brains over new ways of governance and voting procedures for his or her own personal profit, but for that of the movement as a whole, or rather for what he or she perceives to be the best for the movement. This also means that personal issues should not be part of this debate, since no one wants to "work against" other people, but just help the student movement and its structures to progress. While everyone has different ideas on how to achieve such progress, it should always be our foundation in this discussion that all of us are just contributing what we believe is the best suited to further the causes which are so important to us. I can understand Ahmed's feelings, when he sees the guidelines, which he has worked on for the past months, critizised without having the chance to respond in an open forum. It is true that Ahmed was asked not to submit his views on the European mailing list. I disagreed with this decision back then and I haven't changed my mind on this subject. You cannot criticise a lack of discussion and openness and ban certain peple from defending their views and their work. I would therefore like to apologize to Ahmed on this point and agree with him in criticising this. However, it must also not be forgotten what the situation looked like, when this occured. The main problem was and still is that many people feel that decisions are being taken over their heads. While it is true that the guidelines were easily accessible to everyone through the homepage and that they were repeadetly discussed (through the incessant attempts of Ahmed and Proochista) in the Student mailing lists, you cannot (yet) expect the majority of the students to participate in these online-discussions. For most parts of the student movement, face-to-face meetings are still the only way to communicate with each other, at least concerning important issues and votes. That's why many European students (I can't speak for students from other regions, but I expect there to be some on other continents as well) felt that despite Ahmed's and Proochista's efforts, they were not adequatly included in the process of drafting the guidelines. So much for the way the guidelines were drafted. Concerning the content, the reaction was not as negative as some my make it out to be. As the international voting success of the guidelines show, they are a viable basis for future student work and have found broad approval amongst the regional reps. All the more, many students within Europe have felt the need for some criticism, since several critical topics were not brought up by the regional reps who were voting on the guidelines. That's why there was a certain amount of pressure coming from the European student community to at least abstain from voting before the European Student Congress. During this congress, many parts of the guidelines were applauded. However, the fact was criticised that the decision had basically already taken place before the national reps could talk the topic over (I mean face to face, since we've given them ample opportunity to do it through e-mail, but as we could see not to much avail). There were also some points which the European students thought should be reviewed. This does not mean that they were opposed to the guidelines (at least as far as I interpreted the mood). It was merely a feeling of "if noone else is going to say anything critical, I guess it's up to us to scream even louder". There was the general feeling that Europe cannot change anything about the voting process, no matter what and that led to statements and perceptions which might have been harsher than they should have been. As I've said, I wasn't able to attend the discussion on the guidelines in Dublin, but what I've heard from the national reps of Russia, Estonia, Norway, Germany and Austria who attended the discussion was that there was indeed a whole lot of debate on the different topics and not only were many parts of the guidelines seen as good solutions for current propblems of the mevement, but the very need for such guidelines was also made evident to everyone. This gives hope that future discussions on these topics will take part within a broader audience. However, since the final discussion about the guidelines (as far as I understood it), will have to wait until Beijing anyways, since the decision making body has to agree on the guidelines for them to come into effect, I would suggest that we try not to let this discussion get too personal, with certain people accusing others of not being able to have a constructive debate and others of working against them for personal motives. I hope that my perception of everyone involved is right and that all of us just want to have these guidelines be the best they can, in order for all the potential of the student movement to be used effectively. While some may differ in their ideas of how to unleash this potential (for example through a high turn-over rate amongst representatives or through continous representation over several terms), I think that we will be able to find compromises, if we all sit down together in Beijing, whereas no number of online discusssions can bring us to this point. I hope you agree with me on this issue and I also hope that everyone can reflect on his own stand and behavior again, analyzing which actions might have diverted the discussion from being an effective, constructive one to the current state of affairs. No body is perfect and we all make mistakes. That's why it's so important to always keep our ears open for constructive criticism, while at the same time allowing for the faults of others, just as they allow for our own. Hoping to have somehow brought the different sides of this debate a little closer together and having shown what this discussion should be about (a better student movement) and what it shouldn't be about (everything personal, including the assumption of different motives, personal grudges and taking critique personally). All the best from sunny old Duesseldorf, Alex Rosen
Dear All , Here is my reply on the report of the discussions on the guidlines: Concerning the "Background":It is true that the guidelines are not something new , however , the guidelines which were made by Caecilie were never presented to the national or the regional reps to vote upon them ( unlike what happened with this version presented by Proochista and me to the regional reps ) and according to that , they remained unofficial while in the same time many of us acted according to them including me ( Ahmed Geneid ) when I was the regional rep of the middle east. Concerning the "Purpose of the Guidelines":This was present in the first version we made and presented to the previous Medical students coordinator in the central office, Allison Howard, they were removed and instead the following was used: “IPPNW recognizes the importance of encouraging medical students to play an active role in the organization. The Medical Student Member is essential in ensuring the continuity and future vitality of IPPNW. As such, Medical Students shall be an integral part of the governance and leadership of IPPNW.” In the same time , it is obvious that these guidelines are meant to establish a better infrastructure , communication and confirm a democratic way of elections in the IPPNW students movement as the guidelines mention in its various sections. These guidelines were revised by the CO and never considered to be against the constitution by the central office itself, I hope those who claim that to specify the points which stand against the constitution of IPPNW. Regarding the "General Concerns":There was enough communication from Proochista and me to all of you and discussions were held on the IPPNW students list concerning the guidelines, also , these guidelines were sent many times on the email list of IPPNW students and are available for downloading from the IPPNW students website . In the same time , they were presented to the regional reps and we asked the regional reps to disseminate them among their national reps and they did , and we got the voting of the regional reps who were all in favor except for Europe which abstained from voting. After the first voting , minor modifications were made according to the comments we got , and we revised the guidelines and sent it again for voting , and the same results happened , all were infavor except for Europe that abstained , this whole process from us ensure that we kept transparency on this issue for all the way . All of the emails which mentioned the guidelines were replied upon and discussed , except for one email by Caecilie sent on the email list of European students , I asked Alex and Richard to reply on that email on the same email list , however , this request was never replied upon and in the end Alex explained to me that there are others who don’t want that to happen and don’t want me to send my reply. What is happening now is quite surprising , there is a voice claiming that there was not enough communication when in the same time we were sending these guidelines over and over and replying on any email concerning them , even to the limit that one time we were denied the right to reply on these ideas like what is mentioned above. According to the fact that it is misleading to the Europeans students to say that we are not communicating when in the same we are denied the right to simply communicate with you. According to that and being the International rep, I am obliged to send this email to you and to explain our ideas. The guidelines are open for revising and adding/deleting any points to them in the future , they are not a holy document that can’t be touched , on the contrary , they were made to suit the students interests and serve the students movement , and according to that , all of the students in IPPNW have the right to revise them in the future and add to them and the process is simple , you just have to present your addition and get a majority from the governing body of the students movement. Concerning "Status and Representation of IMSRs": "Why not use same rules as BoD, do not want one term limit for IMSRs"Because our students movement will benefit more when more students are involved and when more students have the advantage to experience being an international or regional rep . The One term we are talking about is two years and I guess that is more than enough for any student to present his ideas and leadership to the whole movement and then open the way for another student to go and lead the movement , more brains and people involved will push the movement forward and not the other way around. "One IMSR should overlap into second term or be allowed to run for a second term"This is already replied upon above. "Strengthen the BoT, IMSRs serve on BoT after term in completed – strengthening of BoT helps with conitinuity"After Proochista and me were elected we added and strengthened the BoT , it is responsible now for approving the exchange students of MedEx , we invited new doctors to join it , we asked them the two immediate past International Reps join the BoT and made it as a rule ( this never existed before ) and all of this was to strengthen the BoT and ensure the continuity of the IPPNW students being involved . Concerning the "Elections of IMSRs": "There should be no 60 day time restriction in case someone wants to candidate at the Congress itself."This issue of 60 days was suggested by the CO so the guidelines can be compatible with constitution of IPPNW , so for those who think that the Guidelines are against the constitution , we kindly ask them to review the constitution and the CO to know that we already changed the first draft to make it compatible with the constitution and this 60 days issue is one point of making it compatible with the constitution so we can’t change it . "Voting by proxy should only happen in the extreme case that a Congress is not held. Otherwise, voting should only happen in person as stated in the IPPNW Constitution."I am against that, it happens that students of developing countries may not have the money to attend, or denied to issue their visas and if we really want to ensure democracy and transparency in the students movement so we should give them the right to vote by email incase they are not able to attend , otherwise we will be talking about democracy when were not practicing it in the real world and we will be making elections and voting depending on the financial situation of the students groups in different countries. Concerning "Reporting of IMSRs"It is mentioned in the constitution that the IMSRs should report to the reps and the BoD , we don’t have to mention the fact that the number of reports made by both of us and sent to all of you on the general IPPNW students list was quite much to the extend that people asked us to reduce such too much reporting. Also in the responsibilities of the IMSRs it mentioned the following : “Providing regular updates concerning international student activities to the IPPNW student membership via the student listserve and website.” Concernign "Responsibilities of IMSRs": "Request clarification of “official decision making body”The official governing body is composed of the National , Regional and international reps with one vote for each of them. "Double-voting: concern that there will be double voting with the “official decision making body” in cases where the Regional Student Rep is also the from the same country as a National Student Rep."This may happen , however , the regional rep is voting on behalf of his/her region and not his country so he/she serve the interests of his region as a whole. "National Student Reps better represent the voice of the student movement and should be the “decision makers” not Regional Student Reps"They are already making the official governing body , and they already maintain vote for each one of them in addition to the vote of the regional reps ( one for each region ) and one for each IMSR "IMSRs should monitor and facilitate existing cross-regional projects not “coordinate” them (projects already have coordinators)."It seems that you were taken by the word , during our term the ReCap Project , we never asked to coordinate it and all the efforts we existed was to facilitate it , you can contact the ReCap coordinators to know more about that , however , this can be changed. "What is and isn’t brought to a vote? Clarify which issues are brought to the “official decision making body” for a vote"This deals with the amendments to the guidelines and the affiliate of the students groups. Concerning "Status and Representation of RSR's" "Define who is eligible to candidate for a Regional Rep position e.g. can an active student without a National Affiliate candidate for Regional Rep?”If there is an active student with few more students back in his country and without a physicians affiliate so they can establish their own students affiliate and he/she can candidate. “Why is there a time limit to the Regional Rep term? If they are good should they not be allowed to candidate for a second term?”Kindly refer to the previous discussion on the importance of renewing the leadership of the movement to ensure that the students movement is pushed forward each two years . Concerning "National Student Standards": "There should not be a limit to the number of students required to form a student chapter"We guess that five students is not that big number for a students group to exist , otherwise we can’t call it a group. "Strike #4 completely from the guidelines (IMSRs & “official decision making body” should not have the power to suspend voting privileges)."The national reps, regional and international ones constitute the IPPNW Students governing body and if something happened ( like a group using IPPNW name against the aims of IPPNW ) so the best way is to maintain that option of affiliating them except if you will feel comfortable with the possibility of that happening without us able to take any action against it. "Strike #5 completely from the standards (IMSRs & official decision making body” do not have the power to disaffiliate. A student cannot be disaffiliated as an individual, particularly when they are a member of a National Affiliate. Only the International Council has the power to disaffiliate not students)."You missed the fact that there can be a national students affiliate when no physicians affiliate exist , what is this students affiliate disappeared and never communicated with us , should we still give them the right to vote ?! , if you answer yes , so we will strike it out. Concerning "Governance Structure":It is strange and funny to have this request, as if we talking about the way in which some ministers of the third world work , in anyhow , why not. We welcome and support that, as they are approved by the regional reps so they are open for amendments. Ahmed Geneid
Guidelines Discussion Regional European Student Meeting Dublin, Ireland – April 8-12, 2004 Present: Richard (Sweden), Caecilie (Denmark), Klaus (Germany), Peter (Ireland), Ivona (Romania), Lina (Estonia), Gen (Estonia), Gorki (Germany), Kathrin (Germany), Simon (Austria), Veronika (Austria), Tygrve (Norway), Niina (Finland), Heli (Finland), Sara (Sweden), Ann-Polin (Russia), Molly Goggin, Central Office, (USA) Background:Caecilie began the meeting by giving an overview of the IPPNW organizational structure, the function of the International Council, the Board of Directors, and the election process to the BoD, Regional VPs, etc. She reminded everyone that the issue of student guidelines is not a new topic. The first version of the guidelines was introduced by IMSRs Caecilie and Ernest at the Paris Congress in 2000. A copy of this version was handed out at the meeting. The sole purpose of student guidelines within the student movement is for continuity. The guidelines are not hard and fast rules but merely a road map for how the IPPNW student movement should be run. Purpose of Guidelines:
Molly Goggin
Dear all! To me as a russian representative Caecilie's position is rather reasonable, I agree with her and would vote for those changes to be taken into concideration. You may take it as an official position of the Russian Students part of IPPNW. Kirill Polyakov
Dear Ivona , Thanks for your email, I guess the point you are objecting to is the point of the allowance of international reps to candidate for more than one two years term. What we call for is a limitation that will help in ensuring that more IPPNW students have the possibility to go ahead and get more experience by being one of the regional and international reps. Here is an example of what will happen when these new guidlines are applied , if a students X , would like to candidate for being the regional rep of europe , so he will be able to do that for a two years term , after which he can candidate himself for being international rep , but not a regional rep again . So, other students from his region will have the ability to represent the region as well and he will have the ability to use his experience for the sake of IPPNW if he want to go for being an international rep. This is nearly the same of what was happenining before in IPPNW , but we want to make this tradition a rule and not only a tradition. Look at the regional reps and international reps who were elected for the period from May 2002 ( in Washington D.C. ) and tillthe coming meeting in Beijing , all of them are new reps , except for the two international reps who served before as regional reps . This is exactly what we want to see happening. If you remember the last congress in Washington , none of the international or regional reps asked for a second term , except for one rep who candidated herself for a second term as international rep. We are already ensuring continuity , it is a two years term and not only one year term , in IFMSA they offer students a way to relect , but with a maximum of two one year term = two years ;-) We should be able to differentiate between continuity and steadiness , we want continuity , and we hope to avoid having only one mind representing a region for four years , thhis is going to be two much . We are not ministers in a developing country who just want to remain in office as long as they can , we are students whoo see the importance of opening the way for other students to have a similar experience to what we had. In the end , i hope you can tell us your comments on these ideas. Ahmed Geneid
Hello everyone!! Sorry for replying to the guidelines this late. A great job done and a very useful one!! I will be short and say I agree with the settlements there except the part regarding the number of mandates. Like Caecille and Ingvild I believe in order to allow continuation or allow more mobility in the election process, 2 mandates as Student Representative should be aloud if the situation is asking for it and the students vote for it. More on voting I would underline a part of the reply recently send by Ahmed for Veronika regarding voting, that sounded like that:" communication between regional reps and their national reps. Imagine the future of the Students movement with the guidelines in place, things will move faster, cross regional projects will be doable, representation will be truly inclusive and not just depending on those who show up at meeting and MAY disappear later on". I do agree with this one. Ivona Iacob
Dear Veronika, Thanks a lot for your email and comments, I would like to make few comments on the recent email sent by you.
We are buidling an infrastructure that can never promise innovation as you said , but can help us maintain good communication and ensure that each students group is represented and not only those who are able to go to world congresses depending on their finances. When Proochista and me were elected we hardly knew how many students affiliates do we have and where , now this is changing , the list of students affiliates is updated regulary , communication is improved and these guidlines will help them improve more. Now we are able through communication with the regional reps to make a preliminary list of attendance of Beijing meeting seven months in advance and be able to tell who should be funded and who not through the communication between regional reps and their national reps . Imagine the future of the Students movement with the guidlines in place , things will move faster , cross regional projects will be doable , representation will be truly inclusive and not just depending on those who show up at meeting and MAY dissapear later on . The new guidlines will be open for change though the new governing body of IPPNW Students movement as mentioned in the guidlines themselves. I may be pushing too much for this , but from where i set now and maintain communication with students in Cuba , Australia , Kenya and Tunisia in addition to european countries , i feel the urge to make the process of elections/voting/discussion on IPPNW Issues open to every one and not just to those who are able to go to the meetings. I am sorry for that long email , in anyhow , thanks for your comments and hope i didn't bore you with my long email. Ahmed Geneid
Dear all, To begin with the whole guideline discussion confused me a lot, but it revealed very important issues one should think about being a member of an international organisation :
I am really happy that Cäcilie started the debate and that the European reps now asked for comments, before they vote on the guidelines. However, I don’t consider myself competent to comment on the guidelines comprehensively, as I have no experience with guidelines and their possible consequences. Therefore, in a way, I have to assume that the international representatives, in establishing the student guidelines, did something they saw a need for. Taking that into account, as well as the changes that were made following the debate , I feel much better about the guidelines now. Yet, there is still some criticism concerning the ‘process of implementation’: DEMOCRACY
In conclusion, I trust in your (European Reps) sensibility to the issue to make an appropriate decision. However, for the future I believe we have to be more cautious about the ‘mode of communication’. The use of internet seems to be suitable for exchange of information and ask/reply to questions, but discussions should take place at meetings with direct feedback and personal contact. GOALS AND OBJECTIVESFew meetings, the difficulty to perpetuate continuity and a high turn over of members are problems every international students organisation has to deal with. However, if stricter rules and internet communication can change this reality is questionable. Furthermore, this unchangeable reality suggests that the strength of IPPNW lies somewhere else: Probably in the possibility to provide an international network to inspire, motivate and support people. Moreover, to offer a flexibility that fosters creativity - no matter if there is only one active member or hundred. Guidelines (as long as they stay guidelines) are important to strengthen the structure of an international organisation, but they will not strengthen the innovative potential of the organisation. Thanks to everyone (especially Ahmed, Proochista and the regional reps),who is putting lots of energy in the whole process to develop an IPPNW students organisation that can make a difference in the world. I hope the dialogue continues, being more aware of democratic procedures, the risks and benefits of internet and the visions of IPPNW . Veronika Wiesmueller Dear Alex , I just wanted to clarify a certain issue with you. First, the governing documents ( after their approval by the regional reps ) will be open for amendments and changes in the coming world congress in Beijin by the governing body of IPPWN students which will be the IPPNW national reps at this time as the regional reps will no longer be the only governing body of IPPNW students according to the governing documents so those who have ideas can present them for the governing body and these changes can be made to the already approved governing documents by this time. These changes can be made in Beijing according to the procedures mentioned in the governing documents. Second, Ii am attaching to you the replies on Caecilie's objections and these replies were sent a long time ago on the IPPNW students list. Ahmed Geneid
Hello again, The issue of the guidelines (or governing documents, as they were also called) has sprung up several times in the past months and Richard and me have followed it attentively. Now it is time for us to vote on these guidelines, together with the other regional representatives. We realize the need for such guidelines and want to support Ahmed and Proochista, the two International Student Representatives, who've worked on these documents for a long time now. There's a lot that needs to be done and the guidelines will serve to facilitate many future steps of the Students' Movement. However, we've seen that several choices, which were made in the guidelines have met some criticism within the European constituency. The limitation of a representative's term to two years, the voting procedure and the matter of creating and dissolving affiliates were the main topics of the discussion. Because of these mixed feelings towards the guidelines within Europe and amongst ourselves, Richard and me feel that the most accurate response for us would be abstaining in the voting. The deadline is February 10th. Until this time, there's still the possibility to have a broad discussion amongst ourselves. Ingvild and Caecilie have already voiced their opinions. If we see that more negative feedback comes, we'll have to rethink our decision and consider voting against the guidelines. Two more things: it looks like the vote is generally in favor of the the guidelines so that the European vote has more of a symbolic character and the possibility to have future changes made to the guidelines also exists. I hope to hear fro some of you concerning this matter. All the best from Germany, Alex Rosen
Hi, I agree with Caecilie's objection to limit the international student representatives period to only 2 years. During the 7 years that I have been active in IPPNW it has been a problem that there is continuity in many of the student affiliates. At the European and international student meetings that I have participatd in, the majority of the students have been new to the organization. It is good that we are able to recruit new students and that the new members get a chance to travel to such meetings, but as a result we tend to end up discussing the same organizational problems every time without the participants knowing what has been done to solve these problems before. It is lso at these meeting that the international and regional student representatives are elected, and often the majority of the candidates for the positions are new members of IPPNW. The student movement will have difficulties learning from previous experiences if the international student representatives can only sit for 2 years. It takes time to get a good overview of IPPNW and the diversitites between different regions and affiliations. I think we should rather aim for longer periods. Europe has two student representatives. Both are elected for two years, but just one at a time. This means that when a new student representative is elected at the European student meeting, his/her partner has 1 year of experience in the position and still one year left of his/her period. In my opinion, an equivalent system for the international student represenatives would ensure better continuity. Ingvild Fossgard Sandřy
Dear Alex , No the voting is final and governing documents will be the rules as soon as they are approved by the regional reps. Ahmed Geneid
Hi Proochista and Ahmed, as there is a little debate going on here in Europe concerning the governing documents, I'd like to have one thing specified. As I understood it, the vote taken by the regional reps will only be a preliminary vote. Afterwards (for example in Beijing), the Guidelines will undergo a final vote by the national reps. Is this correct? if it is, this would undermine Caecilie's critique concerning the "unfairness" of the voting process, which she mentioned in her last mail. Thanks, all the best, Alex Rosen
I have read the three new documents and it seems only little has changed. I will try to sum up my comments: Given that the guidelines are concerning even down to chapter level and nothing similar has existed before I believe that it is at least appropriate that they are voted upon by all national student representatives. This for two reasons. With all due respect, many of the regional representatives (in this case not europe) has been elected more or less by coincidence based on thier participation in the world congress. Also the regions do not correspond in number to the number of active students. Europe is the region with most national student chapters and most active students - and it only has one vote. Other regions only have one or two national chapters. In conclusion I do not believe that it would be a democratic vote if it is only based on regional representatives. Furthermore the discussion of student guidelines has a long tradition in IPPNW. It goes back more than 6 years and so far no one has agreed. I therefore think another attempt at discussion would be appropriate. Given all the time the international student representatives have put into formulating the guidelines we also have something to start from which would be a great help. If any other national representatives agree to the above - I would suggest that you and Alex take this matter to the International Student Representatives and the student coordinator at the central office, Molly Goggin. As for the content, I believe dramatic changes have been made in the guidelines compared with previous IPPNW history.
Generally if the guidelines are not in complete accordance with the rules of IPPNW I forsee trouble in the future should future representatives choose to use the guidelines. I therefore think that a consultation with the international council would be necessary should these guidelines be the one all the students agree they would like to have. Caecilie Buhmann
Dear regional representatives, Hope you all had a wonderful start to the new year. On the following URL http://www.ippnw-students.org/Govdocs.html you will find the new Governing documents of the IPPNW Students Movement, developed in the past months to facilitate the work our many active IPPNW students worldwide. N.B. Please ignore the deadlines on the website , there was a mistake from our side and we sent to Alex to correct it and the actual deadline is 10th of Feb If you recall, they had recently been approved by a majority vote on the part of regional respresentatives (North America in favor, Latin America in favor, Middle East in favor, Europe abstained, Africa and North Asia did not vote as they were unreachable, and South Asia is currently without a regional representative) but were further slightly refined with feedback from the central office. The documents are now ready for your re-review and revoting. We kindly ask that as regional reps you cast your votes by the 10th of February. . Thank you for all your efforts and work towards improving the IPPNW student movement. We look forward to working closely with you in the months to come in preparation for the World Congress ; If you have not already done so, please register for the organizing email list and if you don't know how , please send to us and we will add you at once. Proochista Ariana and Ahmed Geneid
Dear IPPNW students and friends, Please find attached a revised version of the student guidelines and affiliation document. We have tried to incorporate all the valuable comments and suggestions we received on the previous version. Please feel free to provide us with any further discussion or queries. At this time, we will present the documents to your regional reps for final revisions and a vote. Please keep in mind that this document is amendable and we will continue to look to you for feedback on its implementation. Apologies for the large attachment. Please let us know if you have any problems opening them. Proochista Ariana and Ahmed Geneid International Student Representatives 14.8.03 Dear all, I hope you're all doing fine. Forgive my delay in joining the discussion about guidlines in IPPNW but i am in italy and not so free to access internet. I would like first to mention that we can not in anyway leave this matter till the congress in china next year..there is still more than one year for this congress...which is pretty a long period through which ippnw can not work in my opinion without having a generally accepted guidlines cause as it sounds it GUIDES.... First i see that it is really crucial we are organized following some rules which we have to stick to...like ahmed and proochista said before...this thing is not about rules and restrictions..noo....we need to feel that it is a real federation our IPPNW, not just a group of people who are working haphazardly..what i need to say here is in the case we dont have a deadline for reps to give thier reports twice per year it will a big mess...we know all that many wont be sticking to the deadlines, in this case what shall be done is some kind of a real action towards those reps..like disaffiliation as is mentioned in the guidlines..i really see its very important to have such an action in the guidlines for students who cant stick to time and cant be well organized...otherwise many will not present reports and this will lead in turn to demolishing of that affiliate activites and not being on the track of IPPNW.. This procedure in my imagination will not be in a rough picture as it may sounds from the word DISAFFILIATION..it will be like putting a deadline for getting reports from different regions and then following this in a very close way, sending more emails asking more for the reports and when it gets too exagerated and no respond from this region or reps in this case the rule has to be applied cause anyway it wont be an active affiliate and not interested at all in working in IPPNW. About the 30 days period prior to elections i am totally with..cause ippnw has to get a full idea and info concerning the motivation of such candidate to elect himself/herself. and i guess 30 days is a pretty satisfactory period for both sides. but the idea of candidating just during the congress is not quite logic..for example i was elected in washington congress and i knew about this quite a period before the congress...i got much time to know more bout my roles and how will it be to have this post as a middle east student reps for IPPNW. i talked with ahmed geneid for many times and i got to know more about the task...cause he was the previous middle east reps before i had this.. Do you think its enough period 2 or 3 days a congress to get the big picture of being a reps for a region? in my belief i cant see this appliable.,... Hope to hear from all of you.. I will keep you updated for more ideas about the guidlines but after all i think we shouldnt stop discussing this matter on the list. Take care all of you.. Fady Aziz
Dear Cacille and all, Thanks Cacille for your ideas a bout the guidelines, I agree with you that there are some points must be discussed in the world congress in Beijing but not all of them so we can discuss on email every thing can be finished by email but I think there must still some points that must be discussed on the world congress, about the proposal I think it is better to see what is the percentage of students who see this is important, for me I think it is a good idea to put a proposal for comments on guidelines I do not know what are the others think, it is only my oponion and of course I respect my friends who do not agree with me, Mustafa Ganim
Hello from Germany, after having followed the current debate for the past weeks, I have to agree with Nedaa on the matter of putting the guidelines in place before the World Summit. This will not only help us get acquainted with the different points before meeting in Beijing, but also give us a better idea of which points to amend ;-) We can see how the new rules work and then review them in Beijing. Ahmed and Proochista have worked on this proposal and if it's their opinion that we should apply the rules asap, so as to ensure them being put into place at all, I think we should trust their judgement and go ahead with it. Anyways, nothing is forever and if certain aspects of the guidelines turn out to produce undesireable results, we'll be able to see this in Beijing and talk about it. OK, that's what I have to contribute to the debate this early in the morning, all the best, Alex Rosen
Hello Caecilie and all, the giudelines are really a huge topic, and difficult to assis, and following them needs reading very long emails, which may be tiring for the students, but we shouldn't forget that this is really a very important issue, and I think delaying it to the congress meeting is not a good choise, since much talk has been done concerning it, and much effort and time has been taken on it, and I think it is not logic to leave the guidelines of a huge institute like IPPNW hanged out. I think we as IPPNW students sould take part in this, may be by making it more organised, and taking every issue alone, and ask every country of what they think about it. Nedaa Issa
Dear Caecilie and all friends in IPPNW. Thanks a lot for your email and for your proposition as well. We respect your proposition , however , we won't be able to accept it , and that is due to the following reasons :
With much respect we got your suggestion and with much respect we refuse it due to the above mentioned 10 reasons . Proochista Ariana and Ahmed Geneid
Dear contributors to the discussion on the student guidelines, Now a considerable time has elapsed since Ahmed and Proochista posted the student guidelines to the server the first time and a number of contributions have been made. Ahmed sums the content of the discussion up nicely in his last e-mail. So far a number of people have put forward that they believe a vote on the guidelines and a thorough discussion at the world congress would be in place since the issue of guidelines is in no way new in student IPPNW. It is difficult to have such a discussion on e-mail since very few contributes and it does look like no one has further contributions to make. The people who have contributed have expressed certain doubts with regards to some parts of the guidelines. Ahmed and Proochista have on the other hand thoroughly explained their reasons for proposing the guidelines in the form they are. They have also written about the possibility of the guidelines being amended. No one can know whether the silence on the part of the majority of the students is because they agree with the guidelines in the form they have now, whether they agree with the doubts and concerns expressed in the discussion of the guidelines or whether they are indifferent. I would therefore like to make a practical proposal. I suggest that further discussion of the guidelines is postponed to the world congress in Beijing next year where more students will be gathered and we can have a face-to-face discussion. At the world congress we could vote on the guidelines or an amended form of them after having discussed them. We could agree that the guidelines should be applied directly after the vote. If the vote were before the election of student representatives the only part of the guidelines which would be affected by this arrangement would be the 30 day period for candidatures. To overcome this problem I suggest that Ahmed and Proochista call for candidatures for positions of international and regional representatives to be submitted at the latest 30 days prior to the world congress. If the guidelines are adopted in their present form then only those who have candidated before the deadline would be eligible for election. If the rules for candidature are changed or the present form where people candidate until the evening before the election is kept – then people could continue to submit candidatures until the deadline agreed upon. In case the student representation at the world congress is not presenting the real composition of students in IPPNW it would be possible to outline a procedure for Internet voting during the congress so that all could have a say. Furthermore Ahmed and Proochista could call for written comments to the guidelines to be submitted by those not participating in the congress so that their comments could be taken into consideration during the discussion. All in all I believe that people have made very sound comments during the discussion and I hope that this proposal both takes into consideration the concerns of Ahmed and Proochista and the concerns of those who have commented. I fully understand the need to finish a task when one has spent hours and hours working on it. I hope that you, Ahmed and Proochista, despite this, understand the rationale of postponing the final decision to when a larger forum of students can contribute to the discussion. Caecilie Buhmann
Dear all, it's a great effort that you're all doing concerning affiliation documents and I wish to assis on 2 points;
Nedaa Issa
Dear friends , Now to the issue of disaffiliation mostly raised from you when you read that a national students affiliate that doesn't submit biannual report will be disaffliated. we hope you kindly let us descripe our rationale for a little more and hope you can go through the following as well. The following , are some reasons that stand behind our support for this new rule , some of them are ours and some are yours ;-) , even some of them were in the emails of those who rejected that new rule . Here are 13 reasons for our believe in these rules.
|