I don't know about the number of EGCC board members.
But one point that I tried to make at the AGM is that the two representatives of EGF member associations in the supervisory board should be elected by the AGM. Someone at the meeting had said that the supervisory board should appoint itself, which I don't think makes sense at all. This year, the EGF Executive nominated two candidates for the EGCC supervisory board, and they were accepted by the AGM. Both were excellent candidates I think, so that's ok. But in principle it is better if these two representatives are nominated in the usual way by the EGF members and elected at the AGM for a fixed term (like 3 years?) . Their main function is to ensure that the EGF members are confident in the way the EGCC is operated, so the key parameter is that they really represent the EGF members.
In the EGCC constitution it says:
"The Supervisory Board will consist of at least five and at
most seven members, of which at most two persons
on behalf of the European Go Federation;
at most three persons on behalf of the national Go associations
in Europe, of which two persons in accordance with an
appointment system to be developed by the European Go
Federation, and one person on behalf of the Dutch Go
association"
so what I'm saying is that the EGF should not run a system where the members of the Supervisory board appoint themselves, nor a system where the member representatives are appointed by the Executive (which is represented in the Supervisory board anyway).
Clearly there has been a lack of confidence in the way the EGCC has been operated, as evidenced by this year's criticism and proposals from the Romanian and Czech Go Federations:
http://eurogofed.org/egf/proposals2010ro.pdfhttp://eurogofed.org/egf/proposals2010cz.pdfPeter Zandveld has replied to the criticism on the EGCC website:
http://www.go-centre.nl/tikiwiki/egcc_for_dummies ,
in letters to the EGF members, at a pre-AGM meeting in Tampere and at the AGM itself. However, the intended mechanism to provide insight and confidence in the EGCC is through the EGF member representatives in the Supervisory Board. It's great that Catalin is now a member.
best regards,
Henric.
P.S. There are always less serious whiners out there who thrive and feed on rumours of dissent and discontent. The ex-representatives of Figg (Italy) Soletti & Corradi are running a complaints campaign at home and explain (in italian) to everybody that the EGF has wasted milions of euro on rubbish, that the European and International go has been run by a "little mafia", that the EGF is "corrupt", that the EGCC has squandered poor Iwamotos money, that the EGCC should have been built somewhere else etc. Example:
http://www.figg.org/cgi-bin/view.cgi?id=2861&dName=soci . I think that sort of discussion should be held (if at all) here or in some international forum, in english, not on the Figg website, where only italians, who generally don't know much about the EGF and other international go entities, can read. But the cure spells transparency and the EGF members representatives of the EGCC supervisory board should be part of it.