Introduction: The following text contains a few proposals for the EGM 2013. The aim is to aid EGF in eliminating some of the ‘bad aji’ it has accumulated in its internal structure over the years. After a few difficult years for the European Go Community the attention of the Asian Go superpowers is shifting again towards Europe. As new opportunities arise and EGF holds a key role in the future development of Go in Europe, the need to change perspective and struggle to become a reliable and flexible partner is imperative.
Thus the following proposals:
Proposal no. 1:  Change the voting system in the EGMs . 
Detailed description: Establish three possible ranks for each country: small, average and large. Small countries have a voting weight of 1, average countries a voting weight of 3 and large countries a voting weight of 5. 
The rank of a country is influenced by two factors: number of players according to EGD and tax paid to EGF.
Large countries should have a min. of 1000 players in the EGD and pay annually 2000 euro to EGF.
Average countries should have a minimum of 250 players in EGD and pay annually 500 euro to EGF
Small countries have no limit of players and pay 200 euro to EGF.
Note. It is considered reasonable that a player contributes 2 euro by year to the welfare of EGF. National associations should separate this EGF tax from their own tax, as it is easy to convince players to pay in return for the service of having a rating in EGD. Also, proposed numbers are subject to change based on a more accurate study of the actual situation in Europe. 

Argumentation: The main reason is that the actual voting system, a country a vote, is not really representative and fair. A very large country with over 5000 players can be outvoted in EGM by 2 small countries that can barely put together 50 players. This is not normal. Also, while large EGF members pay a lot of contribution money, small countries struggle to pay even the minimal tax. While everyone should have a word to say in the EGF, the weight of their vote should come in harmony with their contribution to the organization. The most dangerous ‘aji’ about the actual voting system is that EGF is extremely vulnerable to a dictatorship of the minority. The mere possibility of a scenario where many small countries plot together to monopolize voting power is scary enough to consider mending this aji. Even more likely is that a country who wants to control EGF will strive to influence or outright buy the votes of smaller countries. While the actual proposal will not entirely protect EGF from such abuse, it will decrease the chances of this to happen. 
Another significant aspect is the fact that often small or even average countries are sending to EGM players participating in the congress, because their financial situation doesn’t allow them to send their presidents or at least someone informed who can vote responsibly. Because of this, voting of matters of great importance can take a strange turn and more than once EGM has denied measures voted in the previous years. A serious organization can’t afford this instability.
Finally, as pro arguments to this proposal:  the way the two requirements for country rank complement each other, a country cannot simply buy its voting weight, it still needs the player base. Also, a country with sufficient player base that refuses to pay the required amount of money should not deserve a higher status. With rights should come responsibility. 
For example, a country with 500 players in EGD that insists to pay the minimal tax of 200 euro will have the rank of a small country and lose voting power where it could otherwise earn the average rank if it agreed to pay the tax of 500 euro. 
Also, any country can strive to increase its weight as an EGF member and with some effort it can achieve maximum rank. The effort to upgrade rank is in fact what we all want, as it is very beneficial for Europe to increase its player base and have a more financially solid EGF. 
Proposal no.2 Modify the EGF constitution regarding the ability of the EGF executive  to take important decisions only after EGM has agreed upon it. 
Argumentation: Often in the past initiatives to change things and opportunities were lost because of this rule. We have elected an executive and we should let it work freely. In the case of an extremely important thing, voting on internet is a good option. This is probably done already but it still needs to be officially acknowledged. Also, this rule often served as an argument to reject proposals in the past  just because it was more comfortable not to deal with them and half a year or more of waiting is usually enough to dilute the will of  most people. EGF needs to be very flexible and ready to change now, if needed. 

Proposal no.3 Make a set of rules regarding the European Go Congress
Detailed description: 
Establish a commission inside EGF with sole responsibility to handle matters regarding EGC.
The commission’s immediate responsibility is to put together a congress organizer’s handbook with all info learned in the past.
Each year send an EGF observer to the EGC. It should be fully paid from EGF+EGC funds. This person should be trustworthy, impartial in decisions. The main role would be to supervise the congress and make sure things happen in line with EGF expectations. Also, give a helping hand in decision making of the congress organizers, as well as advice. 
The EGC is the biggest EGF asset, as well as responsibility. Thus give the congress only to organizers who engage responsibly. 
Expect the organizers to come up with local sponsorship; this event is the ideal opportunity to find local sponsors. 
Separate the funds that an EGC receives into two streams: organizers earned money (local sponsors, partnerships, etc.) and EGF money (player taxes, official sponsors brought by EGF, etc.) . Organizers have full control of funds received through their own efforts. EGF has clear limitations on how EGF money is to be spent. The idea is that is normal that organizers make a profit, EGF makes a profit, but it should never be at the expense of participating players. To avoid misunderstanding of the last sentence: if participant players go home happy and with a fond memory of the congress, then EGF objective is accomplished. 
As such, the expectations of EGF should be that organizers manage to cover most of the playing halls rental fees by local sponsorship. This allows a large part of the tax money to go back to players from all categories in form of money prizes and also pay the organization team. 
There should also be a firm demand of a minimum standard of quality regarding chosen congress site. 
If there are sponsors brought in by EGF the organizers should commit to a sponsor protocol that should insure sponsor happiness and continuity in sponsorship. This is very important and should be strictly respected. 
In order to preserve European identity give support from EGC funds to top players participating in EC ( say top ten ) and also give priority as employed teachers to European professionals. 
The top prizes should be respectably large, as this is the measure of the event in the eyes of the rest of the world and it has direct impact on reputation and sponsorship possibilities in the future. 
Use the most successful children teachers from Europe in the EGC with special lessons for children participants and experience exchanges between teachers. 
Make the EC a purely European one, the argument that this will discourage former Insei from Asia to come and play with us has failed; see how participation of strong Asian players has diminished once the prizes got lowered. The few top Asian players who come to EC can play friendly games at anytime during afternoon or evening with top Europeans, even a special match could be arranged, with side effect of possible local or Asian sponsorship focused on that. The mixed system used now is unfair to players and has proved strange results already.
Organizers should be obliged to announce prizes in advance of starting day of congress.
At the end of first and second week the EGF observer aided by the organizers team should collect a survey from all participant players. The players should rate the congress between 1 to 10. Based on the final rating the organizer country could have the right to immediately organize the congress again (on a rating of 9 or ten, also counting the countries who already engaged to organize) while on a rating of under 3 it would be suspended for an indefinite amount of time, until fundamental changes are being made in the respective country and EGF decides by special vote to allow the country back in the organizing race. 
And the list can continue…

Argumentation: Based on the observations of someone who has participated in almost all congresses in the past 20 years and loves the idea of a European Go Congress.
While some organizers prove to be very fair and do their best to keep participants happy, some others regard the congress as a personal business .This could be fine unless the limit is crossed where participant players meet various distressing conditions and leave the congress with a lot of discontent, some of them never to return again. This last scenario is very damaging to congress reputation and ultimately EGF reputation as congress it’s EGF’s main responsibility. Choosing to not get involved may have a fine reason in the fact that EGF always looked at the congress organization as a difficult task, but reality is that lack of supervision opens the door to lack of responsibility on organizers part and finally when things get worse no one is willing to assume responsibility or in equal measure, point the finger. EGF needs to acknowledge that each failed congress in the past has done a lot of damage and to prevent that is should get very actively involved in the life of each EC.