• cifuturG2 consultation inputs4

last modified June 15, 2014 by facilitfsm


Dear all


Here are listed some information and inputs in the discussion on “WSF/IC future”, towards Casablanca meeting.


1 - Thanks to Francine Gina Giuseppe, for taking up the tasks of conveying one of the surveys developed in group 2 to IC members in a simple way in three languages.

Herebelow , ( and also the part 1 of joined document) is my response to this survey  .

Also collected 28 responses to surveys sent publicly on IC list are here in EN ES FR with some statistics http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-exploration2a-statistics


2 –in the part 2 of the following document, you will find some proposals about horizontal organizing of IC –which emerged while working on draft surveys in Tunis group 2


3 - Of course considerations presented in point 1 and 2 may appear “functional” and not “political” enough. Introduction of part 2 is an attempt to contextualize those inputs in a broader picture, and a contribution in the group 3 may further comment on this : http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-strategies


4- The current survey circulated in IC lists points to many important issues. However, one short survey cannot capture all dimensions and facets of the WSF governance discussion. Issues around “scenarios of evolution of IC” might be also stimulating object of survey, and on the other hand, “IC as a WSF facilitating body” is assessed by others WSF participants than IC members

With these two considerations in mind, another of the several online surveys progressively developed in group 2 maybe of relevance, both for “WSF active participants who are not IC members”, and for IC members

 Collected responses are here in EN ES FR with some statistics and access the online form ( EN version with ES FR translation available http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-exploration1-statistics. They may require further comments


5 - There is a space dedicated to three working groups on IC future launched in Tunis G1, Tunis G2 Tunis G3 with tasks listed in Tunis meeting http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/project-home .

Also here you can access the record of messages inside those three groups, a fragile record http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists


6 – All this contribution is made in personal capacity at this stage


Regards to all




part1- answer to survey IC “explorations IC” 2

Part 2 : Proposal for an horizontal structure in a horizontal process facilitating body (eg IC) 7




part1- answer to survey IC “explorations IC”


YES indicates a selected answer

Other: indicates the other answer comment zone is used

xx indicated a qualification or addition to the survey questions

This exploration is closely connected to the proposals described in part 2

Also a contribution made in group 3 (link below ) may be giving a broader picture  on techno functional approach as a complement to political approach


IC & WSF Explorations

1.Presence in IC

1. How many IC meetings have you personally attended?

21 since passignano 2004 http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-age-and-presence-in-ic

1b. How many IC meetings has your organisation attended?

28 as visible here http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-participation-profile in the cartography pages of groupe tunis G2

1c. When was the first meeting attended by your organisation?

sao Paulo 2001

1d. When was the last meeting attended by your organisation?

Tunis 2013

other it is startling to see the stall in the inclusive dynamics of IC around 2000xx in the exploration a great majority of answers wish that IC should be enlarged but for this it needs to be attractive

2. What best would represent according to you the mandate/tasks of the IC? (choose as many as you prefer)

a. Decide place format and date of WSF events YES a/ “format” of WSF event needs also to be assessed - i-e extension, polycentrism etc..

o      b. Practical preparation of WSF events (together with local organizing committee) YES

c. Political preparation of WSF event (together with local organizing committee) YES c/political preparation can be understood as a mutual update between WF stakeholders present in IC of general contextualization speech about WSF

o      d. (Co-)organizing activities on occasion of WSF events (next to self-organized activities) NO- there is no need for IC to act as a body inside a WSF event, other than giving information on how it operates and tries to contribution to facilitation of WSF process

o      e. Discussion of global political situation in order to improve the political relevance of WSF events YES this is IC as stakeholder club

o      f. Facilitating connections between activities in social forum events YES

o      g. Facilitating relationships between activities in WSF events and those in national or thematic social forum events YES

o      h. Facilitating the agglutination/convergence processes in social forum events YES

the i/ item “discussing strategy of IC for WSF” which was in the earlier draft version of this survey seems relevant too

o      j. Developing communication strategies in and about the IC YES

o      k. Discussion methodology of WSF process and event(s) YES

l. Providing resources for WSF events and process YES: noting that “IC process = IC operation and some tools/ website/ lists initiatives” are/should be? resources for WSF process( see question 3)

o      m. Monitoring financial resources for WSF events and process YES

o      n. Promoting the geographical expansion of WSF process and events YES


The answers are outlining an ambitious scope for IC, based on perception of need for “facilitation /service” in many dimensions (events and process ).

It is a fact that only a small proportion of tasks implied in this facilitation scope has been effectively done by the real IC in the recent years.

However those tasks can beshared between a “realistic /minimal adapted IC”, with some organizational and membership changes from current situation, and “other WSF facilitation groups”, which may somehow connect with IC, and use IC as a “convergence space” about WSF facilitation.


i would add two tasks in this list in order to limit the “risk of self reference” 


  • 1 / “Be praised for efforts towards effective horizontality and good “output to operation cost” ratio of IC operation by the vast majority of WSF participants ” (and this relates to question 4 below “how to operate”)

and also

  • 2/ “ find ways to keep a strong interactive contact between IC and other active WSF participants/facilitators” As a facilitation body and barely using consensus decision protocol IC members can be active in many contribution groups and in contact with many other participants see question 4 below – Remember this contact was one of the motivation for creating commission in 2003 and commissions have done this to a very little extent (some seminars on methododolgy in 2004 and expansion in 2020)


3. What would you consider to best represent the values, attitudes and behaviours of the IC members? (choose as many as you prefer)

o      a. Commitment to the WSF Charter YES

o      b. Commitment to the WSF process YES

c. Financial contribution to the IC process YES IC process” is including IC meetings and some central or distributed online work infrastructure (IC linked mailing lists /IC linked websites)


IC process could to be significantly “self sustained”, with low cost of operation, and only partially subsidized by hosting groups and next or last WSF event organizers. The financial contribution is of course according to possibilities of each IC member organization As a principle it could be a small % of their operating budget.

o      d. Financial contribution to IC meetings YES

Other. Suggestion to add Commitment to IC process In this list :

Beyond financial contribution to IC process, IC operation needs also “dedication of time and care” from member organizations and possible individual members, to contribute to different working groups on line between meetings ( IC groups or contributive groups see question 4), and to implement initiatives with a wide array of WSF participants,

 “Time” is maybe the only resource evenly distributed on our planet. An indication of time expressed in percentage of fully dedicated staff time might be relevant


4. How could the IC tasks be fulfilled? (choose as many as you prefer)

o      a. By nominating members to smaller working groups for work linked to the IC process (former liaison group, organizing meetings, making agenda, etc.)
The wording of this answer is not clear to me : the notion of
liaison groups seems one of the small groups there i understand this line to propose resorting to a liaison group, and i do not think it is a relevant option, so i prefer to select the b options which does require structuring IC operation

and I reword the question as a. (*) with resorting to a central coordinating group : By nominating members to a smaller working group(s) for work linked to the IC process (former ‘liaison’ group, organizing meetings, making agenda, etc)

o      b. By full member participation in IC operation without resorting to a central coordinating group YES and this implies creating a mesh of various groups replacing liaison group (see the S-groups proposal development part 2)

 I reword the question as b. (*) without resorting to a central coordinating group : By participation of all members of IC to IC operation through a series of basic IC operation working groups ( structural groups),

o      c. By setting up at least one working group that reviews the WS process and makes recommendations to the IC YES and in fact have SEVERAL such functional review groups replacing commissions(see the development part 2)

I reword the question as c. (*) By setting up several "functionnal review groups" reviewing each a specific aspect of WSF, and making recommendations to the IC, and by each member participating in at least one of them

o      d. By setting up working groups engaging non IC members and aiming at supporting /developing the WSF process YES this is a way to connect IC with its available facilitation energy which is existing but limited to many needed facilitation work(see the development part 2) I reword this d. (*) By setting up working groups engaging non IC members and aiming at supporting /developing the WSF process, and by each member participating in at least one of them

Other: those 4 answer options are linked to proposal for changes:

The answers options proposed for this question 4 have been originally formulated during earlier stages of group work on this survey, to put a focus on possible alternative to the liaison group option. Some words were reflecting this in the wording of these option 4 b (notion of structural /basic operation group, replacing liaison group option) 4 c (notion of functional review groups, replacing core work of commissions) 4 d (notion of WSF contributive groups, involving non IC members, developing the original commission idea of broadening participation ) these ideas are developed in part 2 of this document

5. What are your thoughts about the IC membership?

o      It should remain as it is

o      It should be expanded further YES and thematical / geographical involvement imbalances should be corrected inasmuch possible

o      it should be limited to active members there is not an easily formulated criteria for active or inactive members with years of practice of collective review of WSF facilitation contribution of IC members to WSF facilitation we could get to some..- presence to meetings is not an accurate indicator of activity in WSF facilitation but repeated absence surely is - what could be attempted is a rule that if the is no presence, nor tele presence nor contribution on mailing list, nor input in the WSF facilitation contribution review, of a IC member in 4 or 5 consecutive meetings, the membership could be lost automatically

o      It should include mechanisms of rotation of its members

Other, : the creation of 5 to 8 structural groups and 5 to 8 functional groups and the consolidation of the practice of tele participation, gives possibility of a larger and better informed and prepared participation in IC, by a larger number of people

 It is avoiding passivity for many, and accommodating the various level of availability of members, and it allows to work with a 50 members to 300 members IC meeting. Rotation is not a logistical necessity for the moment


6. How could the IC memberships be expanded?

o      According to the current guidelines

o      Include individuals in their personal capacity YES along formal rules described in others

o      Include organizers of previous WSF events in personal capacity

o       A mix of the above

Other. – Having a “dual membership”, combining representatives and individuals, may be a way forward to address several issues:

1/instill a much needed dose of volunteer energy and experience for practical and online tasks in IC process And keep collective wisdom, since “Representatives” rotate and are often very loaded

2/ rejuvenate IC, and include “somehow” “ new movements-who-are not-organizations-and-cannot-be-represented”

Individuals can be

-proven on field Social forum event organizers recognized for insight and practical sense,

 -proven on line organizers of WSF initiatives (needed interrelates events into a process),

-recognized new movements “contributive personalities”, etc...

The protocol for inclusion of individuals could be defined around a notion of requested “support to individual capacity member candidacy by a certain number IC members organizations, similar to what has been done for inclusion of new organization, and appointment as IC member would have a limited duration for individuals

This individual flux may be ensuring an IC with a dual identity of “facilitating body + stakeholders club”, a better blend of  “representativity and contributivity”, where ”networks representative” and “Social forum process facilitator” profiles converge around “WSF process as a common good”. This requires some agreed protocols to balance influence of both profiles -see part 2 of document)

A better Age and gender balance Make IC acquainted with “technopolitical” practices

A better global and “glocal” activism balance some new individual members could be involved in international processes and also locally rooted while effective in horizontal processes and politically relevant (even if they are not representative staff of international networks)


7. How should the IC take its decisions?

o      Consensus in all cases YES

o      Majority votes in cases of deadlocks

o      Other. We are speaking of the negative consensus practice, where one IC member can say his /her organization is going out of IC if a certain decision is taken which leads other members to reformulate what can be object of consensus up to a certain point


8. As IC member, which tasks would you preferably commit yourself to?

o      a. Work in IC working groups during IC meetings YES

o      b. Work in IC working groups online between meetings YES IC working groups being according to comments made in question 4 both structural basic operation groups ( see part 2) and functional review groups which make recommendation on WSF contributive groups, and some ad hoc groups

o      d. Contribute to general discussions during IC plenary discussions YES that is the easy part

Other. two other modes of contribution can be added

e/ contribute by written online between meetings in IC lists.  written contributions require a significant effort, have a significant dialogic potential and can circulate away from meeting time

 -f/ Work in WSF contributive working groups online between meetings to implement facilitation work by IC with non IC members this is a crucial point: as potential facilitators, IC members are active during meetings and also  they need to irradiate IC vision and wisdom to broader circles of participants - so a rule could be that each IC member is formally participating in at least one WSF contributive group ( the reality of this participation being up its possibilities/ethics


Part 2 : Proposal for an horizontal structure in a horizontal process facilitating body (eg IC)

        :Introduction: contextualizing a deliberate focus on organizing considerations

In the debate on WSF and IC future, the purely organizational considerations in part 1 and this coming part 2 may come next to many considerations on the world “political” situation anti systemic struggles etc..(see agenda of next IC meeting)


Here is a broader background to contextualize the focus deliberately put on "organizing" 

(see also contribution 7 in group G3 about techno-functionnal view)

WSF process is a long term change initiative aiming at “self help” of alternative civil society This self help may be a significant, may be strategic asset, relevant in a long and maybe chaotic “transition” mixing resistances struggles initiatives alternatives

It can stay with highs and lows in political contexts, inasmuch it is owned by its participants.

WSF process participants/facilitators strategic option is to provide to organized civil society active towards another possible world:

  • 1/dialogic open spaces for intercommunication in all its dimensions from information to action
  • 2/ occasions for experiencing alternative situations, practices, values, relationships etc, while building and maintaining those spaces and initiatives
WSF process appears then as a “big mesh of actors”, facilitating events and initiatives in space and time and participating in them with various levels of implication

Logically, this large and fuzzy community faces the challenges of inventing new horizontal forms of collective organizing radically alternative to pyramidal models, yet collectively effective, combining focus on dialogue, individuation, and power of collective organizing 

Now, in this rapidly sketched context, we can focus on the case of IC organization, Assuming it makes sense to keep the stakeholder aspect of IC and strengthen  its service aspect

 “Liaison group option taken in IC 2007” has “faded away” in 2011 12 13. Its non action has generated passivity in many IC members. Liaison group has not liaised between commissions, and has generated mainly “silence”

Avoiding a “central coordination group” organizing option in IC can be then considered a relevant political challenge, consistent with horizontal nature of WSF process

IC could be a place for finding realistic ways to stay more horizontal in big groups pretending to facilitate and horizontal process

Some ideas discussed and experimented could be also adapted for big events organizing committees- wherever there is need of a large number of participants 100 to 1000

Beyond the current “WSF stakeholder club” mode, where IC members share frustration, but also conviction that this process is valuable, the following formulation be considered a “political objective”

Succeeding in having IC as facilitating body, operating WITHOUT A Limited CENTRAL GROUP, happily and effectively enough in the perception of its members (it is the case today? ) and in the eyes of the active WSF participants in contact with it (it is the case today ? )

This objective, if adopted, calls for a determined discussion resulting in an agreed frame and shared vision, which may allow transitioning to an IC more horizontal operation, which could deter “vertical by default” behaviors, or “neutralization behaviors”

The final manifestation of these behaviors is the prevailing “silence on mailing lists”, reducing “IC process”

- from what we feel it could be : an all year round potentially exciting agenda around what we all consider a great idea, with news initiatives and discussions on IC lists,

-to what we do not want it to be: some three days semi improvised get-togethers, condensing verbal declarations about expectations and frustrations of stakeholders, without much concrete common progress, and hasty conclusions, with low follow up attention

The document below complements suggestions made in the survey (part 1) and gathers inputs toward such an horizontal frame,

It is to be noted that this proposed frame is not based on wishful thinking,. Of course horizontal participation is more stimulating more than vertical participation, but the organizing concept does not require assumption that “everyone will be active”, just that it ensures that “ facilitation energies of participants, are evenly dispatched in the various collective elements of the horizontal structure” to allow each of them to operate

Of course the challenge of aligning experience and vision of IC members around a common frame starts with describing possibilities.

That is what is attempted in this text in 7 steps


        1/Agree on an IC “horizontal structure”( array of S- groups and “frame”)

It consists of several “structural groups” ( can be called S-groups) holding together through a common frame,

 Each structural group ( S-group) has a limited scope of practical tasks. These S-groups are defined to work, interrelate, make “IC process” run, while respecting membership renewal protocol inside each group, in order to avoid consolidation of power position and foster sharing of organizational experience among members

Here is a suggested list of such structural groups – They are asking up basic operation tasks to make “IC process” “broad enough”, that is involving formally 100 to 1000 people using mailing list, and not 15 people using telephones

    • ·        IC meeting agenda group,
    • ·         WSF facilitation Contribution review group ( organizing IC review of members contribution to WSF facilitation in each IC meeting in parallel of the meeting itself with some formal moments in the agenda), ( there is a input made last year about this :
    • ·         IC Decision review group,( to document if the decisions are clear and to follow up their implementation up to next meeting
    • ·         IC process Permanence & Evaluation group( to have some reactivity in between meetings)
    • ·         , IC meeting Extension group( to allow broad and effective participation of members not in position to come to a meeting),
    • ·         IC Membership review group ( to see that the dedication and experience is well distributed in the group and respect rotation rules,
    • ·         IC process Resource review group – (to foster proportion of self sustained operation funds and time)
    • ·         Joint meeting organizing committee, mixing IC members and hosts taking care of logistics of the meeting and local contacts with civil society and having relations with the other necessary groups ( extension agenda resources


The relationship between those S-groups is clarified through a “typical meeting agenda frame” where the outputs of S-groups activity before the meeting are expected in various moments of the agenda frame-

This frame reflects the horizontal cooperation between all S-groups to get to a smoothly operating IC

Agreement on such an horizontal structure requires discussion, profiling the S-groups, their respective scopes and terms of references, and the overall meeting “frame” ( see part 6), and how they can work minimally on line, work and renew themselves on occasion of each IC meetings, be responsible of specific moments in plenary work in IC meetings, inserted in the agenda.

All this can be done having in mind ten years of experience of IC meetings, and can be robust to the diversity of investment time that members may have, assuming the average level of commitment will raise with new members ( see in part 1 question 4 the development about dual membership


        2/ Replace “IC commissions” by “IC functional review groups” ( F-groups) and “contributive groups”( (C-groups)

As mentioned in question 4 of part 1 / “IC functional review groups” could replace “IC commissions” and focus on “WSF process facilitation”

  • a/ There is a clear separation between the IC operation ( S- groups) and the IC WSF facilitation effort ( F-groups) (so F groups are not active on IC internal operation which would be taken by the S-groups mentioned in B/ ) – this allow full focus on conceptual WSF facilitation and limits the risk of self referencing e.g. expansion commission who spends time on candidacies to IC more than devising action plans to foster expansion of WSF …
  • b/ Instead of “issuing policies” as was expected originally from “IC commissions” which did not work, or was not implemented, F-groups review focus on issuing
    • 1/recommendation about operation of existing C- groups)
    • 2/ suggestions to create new C –groups, and with nominative participation of 2/3 IC members

Of course this can make sense inasmuch IC members in the F –groups gather a significant practical experience about WSF process, so the reviews and recommendation they make are considered relevant by non IC members participating in the C-groups with them and who have practical experience of event or initiative organizing

F groups are arranged by functions as the former commissions but with more emphasis on various aspect of communication inside WSF process, distinguishing communication among organizers, communication with participants, communication with general public, and communication with mainstream media)



        3/ Establish a rule that each IC member formally participate in at least 3 groups one S- group, one F- group, and one C- group, and changes S-groups and F- groups regularly


This simple rules allows to have everyone formally involved in practical tasks during a three day IC meeting with one day equivalent of moments where 5 to 8 S-groups, or 5 to 8 F-groups work in parallel, welcoming each 10 to 30 people depending the attendance in the meeting

Also Agree some general renewal rules for S-groups, and others for F-groups in order to avoid “consolidated positions”, “territories” and to give in a several year period all IC members an opportunity to discover and practice view on various aspect of “IC process” (S-Groups) and WSF process ( F-Groups

The membership S-groups task is to ensure that people change groups according to rules and Check collectively that each S-groups and F-groups has enough “active/experienced members” in it,

This is formal participation, then each IC member acts and behave as he/she can /thinks appropriate- so there is no “wishful thinking”, there is spread of available energies  :  “IC members who are known by  current “S-group  Membership” to be contributive and experienced enough” are dispatched in the various groups respecting rules of renewal, so S-groups and F–groups can realistically have a reliable minimum basic operation during meeting,  and, most important  on line.


        4- Connect to energy of WSF process participants, and circulate ideas and initiative concretely from and towards IC

Already evoked in question 4 of part 1 “WSF contributive groups”(C-groups) are an element of implementation of IC strategy for WSF development, and flexible connection of IC to “outside WSF world”.

  •  “WSF contributive groups”(C-groups) are mixing IC members and non members. Willingness of minimum 2 or 3 IC member to participate in a WSF contributive group is needed to launch this  group.
  • Those C-groups would be defined and followed up in the reviews of the F groups review groups in order to address issues about WSF facilitation, which have been detected and formulated in the functional reviews meetings during IC meetings.
  • IC members and other WSF active participants, who maybe more available than IC members, and more motivated /skilled on certain topics, could cooperate in those WSF contributive groups, and this would allow progress on the related issues and foster effective ownership of WSF process beyond IC
  • C-groups are tool to broadcast ideas matured in IC and to escape “IC self reference” and link it closely to the rest of WSF process, and see how IC members are a dynamic component of WSF facilitation.

Note: This linkage to the WSF participants was also an objective of the commissions in Miami 2003 which was not developed or implemented significantly

We might learn from this experience: make inner IC work more conceptual and intense and make all implementation entrusted to contributive groups


In the WSF facilitation review of each IC members on the last day of IC meeting there is a peer to peer assessment of how the various IC members participate in their respective S-groups -F groups and C-groups, and how, on the whole, as a collective body, IC is engaged in WSF facilitation tasks that F-groups are reviewing and defining through the C-groups

Several governance elements may be mentioned here


  • 1/ Contributive groups can collect energies of all kind outside IC, and horizontally

In them IC members have not a particular “leading” role

Also participation in them is not reserved to big networks and organizations.. Ad hoc gathering of WSF participants willing to help WSF process progress on certain specific aspects (e.g. documentation of WSF activities in events) can self organize in and be present as actors in those groups, inasmuch they have an accountable decision process to express their views.

Thus, they can co –own the WSF process development and maturing in this particular group and unleash contributive energies of their participants

So contributive groups can “root” the WSF process ownership at local level, and they are a token for effectiveness and horizontality of the process between local and global dimensions


  • 2/ IC members are personally, through C-groups, vectors of circulation of collective experience and wisdom about WSF accumulated in IC

As a minimum of 2 or 3 members formally present in a contributive group, their role is to convey this experience and vision inside a diversity of contributive groups and to “stabilize” those groups “inside WSF culture and vision”.

This is done the through consensus decision protocol in those C-groups : as group members they can oppose decision in the C-group which seem to them not in line with WSF culture and vision.

So the groups have an autonomy of decision, they are not “reporting to IC” as in big multinational, but they are informed,  stimulated, and guided by presence of IC members in them.

If some IC members support a group decision which appear questionable by other IC members no present in this group, then this can be discussed inside IC..

A precaution to avoid deadlocks could be that C-group proposals in certain area of facilitation such as “methodology” may need a previous confirmation review in IC


  • 3/ Creating such contributive groups may not necessarily be done at sole IC initiative. This can be obtained providing the following rules  

1/ at least two IC members should be present in a group to brand it “WSF contributive group”

2/the group is open to other IC members participation,

3/ the group operation will be reviewed in IC functional review groups which will make recommendations during IC meetings.

This allow other WSF facilitating group to take initiative and contact IC in a practical way


        4/ Dynamism of those C-groups is an indication of IC relevancy and legitimacy

IC is expected to propose attractive / inclusive C-groups with a minority of IC members in them to progress on concrete identified issues important for progress of WSF,

if those contributive groups are attractive enough on line for non IC members, who may have other facilitation groups at hand to join, it is a clear indicator of IC perceived legitimacy and added value, Reviewing relevantly their progress is a task which requires experience

A “conceptual pen and paper” list of working groups, many of which are contributive groups is given here, many other formulation are possible!

Since 2001 the growth of the WSF process has been much less then could be expected and more compared to a wave than to a surge (permanent growth and capacity to replicate successful open space expression in places where it was already done

        5/ The idea of “frame” is reflected in the below sketch of an IC 3 day meeting agenda, accommodating the S-groups and F-groups constraints has been made here :

Overview of the frame

    • ·         around 20% 4 hours dedicated to moments in plenary reporting the work of structural groups,
    • ·         around 35% 7 hours is dedicated to group work ( split in S-groups and F groups)
    • ·         around 45 % 9 hours dedicated to plenary discussion facilitated by functional or structural groups


Detailed view of the agenda is here http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-body-meeting-typical-agenda.)

Green are the new elements   - yellow are the recurring and open 6 hours for  plenary discussion



imposed slots

/S groups 4h

plenary slots


Split in S groups


Split in F Groups


Day 1 - total 7h



Evaluation of IC on line operation since last IC

Membership IC candidacies

2H general situation

2h next WSF event build up /process

1h Old S-groups meeting balance report and recommendations( prepared on line)

1h old F-groups meeting balance report and recommendations( prepared on line)

Day 2 - total 7h


Extension status

Membership and Group/rotation review status


IC Ressource reviews

1h WSF process situation

1h New S-groups (meet before working on line up to next meeting)

2x 2h New groups review of contributive groups –core of WSF facilitation work – review and creation of contributive groups

Day 3 – total 6h


Decision review

next meeting place

2h review of WSF facilitation contribution by IC members incorporating peer to peer review and review of F-groups of day 2

1h free subject

1h free subject




        6/” Possible Steps Towards a renewed IC  in 6 months

  • Meeting 1 (Casablanca)- Adoption of dual membership and opening of a lot of individual candidacies ( 30?) Adoption of general concept of frame
  • Towards Meeting 2 – Drafting of frame V0 Terms of reference of S-groups and meeting agenda frame, and first staffing of S-groups towards meeting 2
  • 5 commissions give way to  8 F-groups –Individual candidates request sponsoring from IC members
  • Meeting 2- Adoption of frame V0 -  first meeting organized using frame V1, and inclusion of individuals who meet requirement – first list of C groups created by F-groupsedition 0 of contribution review between IC members( more announcements)  - opening of new lot of membership both individual and organizations
  • Towards Meeting 3 revising frame V1, based on experience of first meeting- Discussion contribution review protocol V1
  • Meeting 3 First review of progress of C groups – second edition of contribution review (more assessments) 


        7/” what if nothing is decided in casablanca?

  • IC may remain with the weak but comfortable option of a ambiguous practice organizing model of secretariat /office/liaison group,  and more passive or neutralized  bulk membership, which do not differentiate it from  the organizing  of many other “confederations”
  • Without an agreed “frame” ( see paragraphs 1  to 6 ), with groups specifically designed to focus on facilitation work,  same cause produce same effects :  there is no realist strength that will act towards giving more time for facilitation work and group work in agenda, because it is easier to go on with “simple to organize and control plenaries”.
  • IC probably will then remains a “WSF stakeholder club”, with a low contributive profile and thus more depending on capacity and willingness of event organizers to host its IC meetings

        Conclusion : combination of elements 1 2 3 4 5 6, may balance  “representativity” and “contributivity” of IC


  • a/- they Do not concentrate tasks in a smaller group which will bring the two negative effects we have experienced during the “liaison group age” : not enough energy in the central group & neutralization of available energies existing outside the group They create a context  involving everyone in IC, and many of those active in WSF “around” IC, up to his/her willingness/ awareness/financial/time dedication possibilities
  • b/  they Create concrete condition for more involvement of IC members in IC operation, by peer to peer stimulation in S groups and F groups and the stimulation created by their interdependency to make IC operation run smooth , 
  • c/ they Create concrete condition for more involvement of IC members in WSF progress through “WSF contributive groups a concrete and open relationship with a vast array of WSF active participants outside IC and the review of facilitation contribution on the last day where IC members confirm some commitments in C-groups for the next period ( see table above in part 5) “


       more details about the ideas exposed here can be found : http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-consultation-inputs1