Dear Sergio and all,

 

The questionnaire already is much improved. Thanks a lot Sergio for all the
work.

 

I wanted to come back on the point of the ‘mandate’: I do not see any
opposition between ‘service’ and ‘political’, in the sense that I think the
possible political – or should we call it ‘intellectual’ work the IC could
do necessarily has to be at the service of the participants of the WSF. I
refer back to our discussion in Dhaka, where we talked on how we could
‘re-dynamize’ the IC and bring back the intellectuals that once came
regularly to our meetings, but now have all left us. There are also new and
younger intellectuals that I think could play a very important role in the
IC. 

What I dream of is intellectual (political) debates on the world political
situation, the ‘state of arts’ on the thematic that always are on the agenda
of the WSFs. The point is that not all social movements have the capacity of
making broad political analysis, certainly not beyond their own thematic
interest. What I think of is not a debate in order to give ‘one political
line’, on the contrary, I mean academics presenting the different lines of
thinking about a specific topic, be it debt, social matters, climate change,
energy, and so on. By giving some kind of intellectual ‘guidance’, showing
the choices we are all faced with, the IC could greatly help the
agglutination process and finally the convergence process. If movements know
what line they want to follow, they can look for others in the same
direction.

The other way of achieving this goal would be to organize ‘organized events’
on each thematic axis e.g., or preparing ‘TEDs’, that is the ‘you tube’ type
short presentations that could be made available to all.

So, I do agree with Gina that the IC cannot have a ‘political’ mandate as
such, but I think it can have a mandate to organize debates at the service
of the participant movements of the WSF.

I think this could give more content to the IC.

 

The other question we have to solve, maybe only after the consultation, is
how to make decisions about the future IC, especially concerning members.

 

I also think the questions now are clear to the existing members, but I
wonder whether they will be clear to others, and whether they do not need
some explanation?

 

All the best,

Francine

 

 

 

Van: Sergio Bassoli [mailto:s.bassoli@...] 
Verzonden: 18 May 2013 10:09
Aan: cifutur-consultations@...
CC: gina vargas; Francine Mestrum
Onderwerp: Re: [G2 - CI futur Consult Carto Eval Strategy Synth] Re: work to
be done working group 2

 

Hola Gina !!!!
Thank's a lot for your contribution. I'm answering in red color, point to
point to your suggestions/demands/remarks. Plus, I'm attaching a Version.2
of our draft-document. I have inserted all remarks received till now,
included some points discussed by phone with Pierre.
Tell me if this way of coordination and interchange is usefull and
understandable for everybody. 
Keep in touch
Best regards
Sergio

Il 13/05/2013 17:53, gina vargas ha scritto:

 

  

Dear Sergio, thanks a lot for this work!

 

I agree with the questions possed by Francine (and your answers, although,
work has to be done)

 

Still, there are some other things that need clarification for me:

The mandate of the IC: service or political? Political in what sense?  Maybe
I prefer the idea of service, facilitation, etc. instead of political,
otherwise more power apetites can grow

I agree with you. First we have to insert some more details, as Pierre
suggestion (we had a long telephone call...), inserting a list of different
type of service with the possibility to a multy-choose option; We do not
agree ona political rol, but we thougth to give this option for a democratic
approach; if we decide to mantein, I agree that we have to ask: " please
define does it mean a political mandate". (We are adding these integrations
to the questionaire format for a Version.2)


How to take decisions: the Charter says by consensus. We are planning to
change the Charter?  This requires a much more deep discussion, and I don t
think we can do it through this consultation. 

No, we don't think and we don't want to change the Charter, but in the
reality there have been cases where there were different opinions and
positions, and we don't have any regulation to deal these cases. May be we
can change the Question: " how to deal in case of different positions, after
discussed in plenary ? " Please think on it. 



 In relation to the question Does the FSM process need a permanent body to
coordinate and manage the process? Yes or no  

What means not to have a permanent body, in relation to the tasks that have
to be donde on preparatoin of the wsf events?   In this question, for the
ones that say no, we can ask for which alternatives they propose?

Yes, We agree,we have to add this point. Done in Version.2



Also, is not so clear to me the question if  Can IC nominate a secretariat ?
If not, how are we thinking the tasks of support for the facilitation of any
coordinating body can be done? So, also here it is possible to ask for which
are the alternatives?

We agree on this remark. Done in Version.2



Sorry for the english!!!

warm regards

 

Gina

 

 

2013/5/13 Sergio Bassoli <s.bassoli@...>

Dear Francine
yes I not an easy task but we have to take it on bord. 
I tried to interact with your questions, delivering some explanations and
some comments. I hope the debate will start.
 Best regards.
Sergio

ps: my answers in red.



Il 12/05/2013 18:34, Francine Mestrum ha scritto:

Dear Sergio,

 

Dear friends,

 

Thank you very much Sergio for this first proposal. Reading it, and
re-reading it, I understand how difficult it must have been.

And I realize how problematic it is to organize a consultation on
‘organizing’ before we have clear ideas on what a possible IC will be for,
what it will have to do …

So I wonder if we should not try, first of all, to get some clarity about
that, though again, this is not easy. Maybe we can introduce a first
question, multiple choice, on that. I think the answer to that question
could be clarifying for all the other questions you have mentioned.

According our proposal the question of: Mission and Functions, has to be a
risult of the consultation process. 

 

There are a couple of questions where I think it might be good to give some
explanation on what the choice implies.

For example, I fully agree with the consultation as an ‘open space’ , though
we should be aware of the risks. IC members with their experience of the
past years, will react differently from non-members. We all want, I guess,
to have an ‘ideal’ IC, though I also think we have to be very pragmatic, at
least this is what my IC experience learns me. So maybe, in the examination
of the results, we might make a difference between ‘IC members’ and ‘non
members’, otherwise we might get a biased view.

Yes, I agree, in the analysis of the results it's important to divide for
the different type of organizations. 





 

The question on ‘coordination and management’ is another example of where
some explanation might be useful. Personally, I think this is not possible
with a meeting of 200 people. If past experience has taught us anything, I
think it is that you need some kind of ‘leadership’, and by that I mean one
or a couple of persons who take initiatives, not ‘leading’ in the proper
way, just decide on agendas and procedures; and on the other hand you need
some continuity in order to remain coherent. The ‘open space’ is an
attractive idea, but a constantly changing participation may not allow for
this continuity and coherence. The ‘open space’ or the ‘horizontality’ does
allow for hidden power games, and I think we should try to avoid that. Some
structure, or explicit responsibilities might help.

 

Yes, I agree. Open consultation for a defined body !!!  There are different
solutions: if we decided for a large IC may be we need a Secretariat or
Executive body. If we decide for a suitable IC (50-100) may be it's enouth
to work with Commissions and 1-2 persons from the Commissions can become a
restricted coordination body, etc. etc.  But, again, this discussion have to
be realized after the consultation process. 





Maybe we can also make a mix of ‘open meetings’ and ‘closed meetings’: as we
did in the past and also our last meeting in Tunis: only members get the
floor. 

Yes, it's an open question. 





 

As for the number of members: I would introduce the choice for ‘50’

Yes. Done. 





 

The question on the matrix: 1) and 2) are not clear to me. What is meant?

 

Matrix 1: is the questionaire
Matrix 2: is the box related to the second question on "representativeness";
each organization can define own criteria of representativeness; defining
criteria/labels and defining the wheight (1 - 5)





Finally: does the IC have to be representative?

That is the question, the consultation process will give us the answer. 





 

Sorry for the length of my answer, I think this is a very important task we
have.

 

Maybe a hint, for Sergio: try to think of whether you would want this or
that rule also for your trade union?

 

May be we can make some test for verifying the validity of the Questionaire
!!  Ishould be the first. 





I think the point of the ‘mandate’ of the IC is the most important. We
should either introduce a multiple choicer question on it, or have a
separate discussion on it.

 

These are my first reactions. Once again, many thanks for the important and
delicate work.

 

Francine

Van: Sergio Bassoli [mailto:s.bassoli@...] 
Verzonden: 11 May 2013 19:07
Aan: cifutur-consultations@...
CC: Francine Mestrum
Onderwerp: Re: [G2 - CI futur Consult Carto Eval Strategy Synth] Re: work to
be done working group 2

 

Dear all

as we promise, we are sending you a first input for opening our debate
looking for a shared instrument targeted to the consultation process. 

We remain awaiting for your feedback for making all emendaments and changes
till finding a common point of view.

All the best
Sergio   




Il 06/05/2013 15:15, Francine Mestrum ha scritto:

Perfect! Thanks.

Fr

 

Van: Raffaella Bolini [mailto:bolini@...] 
Verzonden: 06 May 2013 15:12
Aan: Francine Mestrum
CC: cifutur-consultations@...
Onderwerp: [G2 - CI futur Consult Carto Eval Strategy Synth] Re: work to be
done working group 2

 

Dear Francine, dear all,

 

I confirm Sergio, on behalf of us, will send you a first preliminary draft
to open the debate on Saturday.

Kisses

raffaella

 

Il giorno 02/mag/2013, alle ore 18:06, Raffaella Bolini ha scritto:

 

Dear Francine, dear all,

 

we will send in few days some lines to start the discussion.

 

We ask you to wait a little bit, because Sergio Bassoli, which is
coordinating for us this work, now is sick -nothing bad, but he have to rest
a little bit. Then, he will send a first idea.

Ok?

 

Kisses

raffaella 

 

Il giorno 02/mag/2013, alle ore 14:31, Francine Mestrum ha scritto:





Dear friends,

 

One month after our IC meeting in Tunis, we now have a mailing list for our
exchanges, and Laura has sent us the necessary information about membership
and participation in IC meetings. Thank you veery much Pierre and Laura.

It means we can now start the important work we have to do.

The most urgent thing seems to me to prepare the consultation of IC members,
a decision which was originated by a proposal of the Italians.

So I wonder if our Italian friends have a concrete suggestion to make for
organizing this consultation? Or we do have to start from scratch?

 

Hoping to hear from you soon, and looking forward to working together,

 

Francine

 

 



--
Archive: http://openfsm.net/[
<http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/201
3/05/1367846341223> …]/1367846341223
To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
cifutur-consultations@.... Please contact
cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.



--
Archive: http://openfsm.net/[
<http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/201
3/05/1367846515002> …]/1367846515002
To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
cifutur-consultations@.... Please contact
cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.





-- 
Sergio Bassoli
Dipartimento Politiche Globali
CGIL
Corso Italia 25
00198 Roma
Italia
Ufficio/Office +39.068476267
Cell/Mobile +39.3351219622
Fax +39.0685350323
skype: sbprosvil



--
Archive: http://openfsm.net/[
<http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/201
3/05/1368376887127> …]/1368376887127
To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
cifutur-consultations@.... Please contact
cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.






-- 
Sergio Bassoli
Dipartimento Politiche Globali
CGIL
Corso Italia 25
00198 Roma
Italia
Ufficio/Office +39.068476267
Cell/Mobile +39.3351219622
Fax +39.0685350323
skype: sbprosvil



--
Archive: http://openfsm.net/[
<http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/201
3/05/1368457540773> …]/1368457540773 


To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
cifutur-consultations@.... Please contact
cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.

 



--
Archive: http://openfsm.net/[
<http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/201
3/05/1368460840024> …]/1368460840024
To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
cifutur-consultations@.... Please contact
cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.






-- 
Sergio Bassoli
Dipartimento Politiche Globali
CGIL
Corso Italia 25
00198 Roma
Italia
Ufficio/Office +39.068476267
Cell/Mobile +39.3351219622
Fax +39.0685350323
skype: sbprosvil



--
Archive: http://openfsm.net/[
<http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/201
3/05/1368864979456> …]/1368864979456
To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
cifutur-consultations@.... Please contact
cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.

Attachments

text.html (text/html) 37.6 kB

Ciao Sergio, and all

thank you for this lovely piece of work and sorry for coming in just now
(but i didn't realise i had to sign up for the new future of the IC list,
but now here i am).

I have only two brief questions on the questionnaire and a tiny idea.

1. i am uncertain that the "political" option is fully congruent with the
WSF charter and with what the IC has been doing (or trying to do) since its
inception. Of course one can define political in many ways but i think the
IC cannot but be moved by other than a spirit of service. More in specific,
it seems to me that a certain ambiguity on the meaning of the political
could generate conflicts with the practice of the open space itself. IE
there could be an ambiguity between a WSF as open space and its IC
(smaller, less representative, elitist or whatever people might highlight
about it) as a political instrument.

2. I'm not sure I understand the 50 100 200 300 members number option. Are
we considering reforming the IC starting from its membership? I mean, the
IC has around 200 members on paper. Is that membership going to be
reviewed? If yes how? I understand that many organisations in the IC list
have already given up on the forum etc. but i'm not sure how the
restructuring of the membership would happen

3. This is the tiny idea. I always wanted to do something like this but
never had the chance. Here it is. I think it would be great to interview
all the people in the IC list with a questionnaire of this kind, rather
than having only a web format. I once thought i could do it as part of an
academic research with the support of my institution. I wanted to get the
telephone numbers and call each and everyone of us and interview us on
issues similar to those of the questionnaire, but also on others, more
general on the WSF and on its future. Especially interesting i thought it
would be to interview those who have left the IC and the forum... ok this
is just an idea... but i think it would be feasible in not too much time
really...

i wish you all a restful weekend
g


On 18 May 2013 11:08, Sergio Bassoli <s.bassoli@...> wrote:

>  Hola Gina !!!!
> Thank's a lot for your contribution. I'm answering in red color, point to
> point to your suggestions/demands/remarks. Plus, I'm attaching a Version.2
> of our draft-document. I have inserted all remarks received till now,
> included some points discussed by phone with Pierre.
> Tell me if this way of coordination and interchange is usefull and
> understandable for everybody.
> Keep in touch
> Best regards
> Sergio
>
> Il 13/05/2013 17:53, gina vargas ha scritto:
>
>
>
>
> Dear Sergio, thanks a lot for this work!
>
>
>
> I agree with the questions possed by Francine (and your answers, although,
> work has to be done)
>
>
>
> Still, there are some other things that need clarification for me:
>
> The mandate of the IC: service or political? Political in what sense?
>  Maybe  I prefer the idea of service, facilitation, etc. instead of
> political, otherwise more power apetites can grow
>
> I agree with you. First we have to insert some more details, as Pierre
> suggestion (we had a long telephone call...), inserting a list of different
> type of service with the possibility to a multy-choose option; We do not
> agree ona political rol, but we thougth to give this option for a
> democratic approach; if we decide to mantein, I agree that we have to ask:
> " please define does it mean a political mandate". (We are adding these
> integrations to the questionaire format for a Version.2)
>
>
> How to take decisions: the Charter says by consensus. We are planning to
> change the Charter?  This requires a much more deep discussion, and I don t
> think we can do it through this consultation.
>
> No, we don't think and we don't want to change the Charter, but in the
> reality there have been cases where there were different opinions and
> positions, and we don't have any regulation to deal these cases. May be we
> can change the Question: " how to deal in case of different positions,
> after discussed in plenary ? " Please think on it.
>
>    In relation to the question *Does the FSM process need a permanent
> body to coordinate and manage the process? Yes or no*
>
> What means not to have a permanent body, in relation to the tasks that
> have to be donde on preparatoin of the wsf events?   In this question, for
> the ones that say no, we can ask for which alternatives they propose?
>
> Yes, We agree,we have to add this point. Done in Version.2
>
>   Also, is not so clear to me the question if  *Can IC nominate a
> secretariat ?  *If not, how are we thinking the tasks of support for the
> facilitation of any coordinating body can be done? So, also here it is
> possible to ask for which are the alternatives?
>
> We agree on this remark. Done in Version.2
>
>   Sorry for the english!!!
>
> warm regards
>
>
>  Gina
>
>
>
>
> 2013/5/13 Sergio Bassoli <s.bassoli@...>
>
>>  Dear Francine
>> yes I not an easy task but we have to take it on bord.
>> I tried to interact with your questions, delivering some explanations and
>> some comments. I hope the debate will start.
>>  Best regards.
>> Sergio
>>
>> ps: my answers in red.
>>
>>
>>
>> Il 12/05/2013 18:34, Francine Mestrum ha scritto:
>>
>>  Dear Sergio,
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much Sergio for this first proposal. Reading it, and
>> re-reading it, I understand how difficult it must have been.
>>
>> And I realize how problematic it is to organize a consultation on
>> ‘organizing’ before we have clear ideas on what a possible IC will be for,
>> what it will have to do …
>>
>> So I wonder if we should not try, first of all, to get some clarity about
>> that, though again, this is not easy. Maybe we can introduce a first
>> question, multiple choice, on that. I think the answer to that question
>> could be clarifying for all the other questions you have mentioned.
>>
>>  According our proposal the question of: Mission and Functions, has to
>> be a risult of the consultation process.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are a couple of questions where I think it might be good to give
>> some explanation on what the choice implies.
>>
>> For example, I fully agree with the consultation as an ‘open space’ ,
>> though we should be aware of the risks. IC members with their experience of
>> the past years, will react differently from non-members. We all want, I
>> guess, to have an ‘ideal’ IC, though I also think we have to be very
>> pragmatic, at least this is what my IC experience learns me. So maybe, in
>> the examination of the results, we might make a difference between ‘IC
>> members’ and ‘non members’, otherwise we might get a biased view.
>>
>>  Yes, I agree, in the analysis of the results it's important to divide
>> for the different type of organizations.
>>
>>
>>
>> The question on ‘coordination and management’ is another example of where
>> some explanation might be useful. Personally, I think this is not possible
>> with a meeting of 200 people. If past experience has taught us anything, I
>> think it is that you need some kind of ‘leadership’, and by that I mean one
>> or a couple of persons who take initiatives, not ‘leading’ in the proper
>> way, just decide on agendas and procedures; and on the other hand you need
>> some continuity in order to remain coherent. The ‘open space’ is an
>> attractive idea, but a constantly changing participation may not allow for
>> this continuity and coherence. The ‘open space’ or the ‘horizontality’ does
>> allow for hidden power games, and I think we should try to avoid that. Some
>> structure, or explicit responsibilities might help.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Yes, I agree. Open consultation for a defined body !!!  There are
>> different solutions: if we decided for a large IC may be we need a
>> Secretariat or Executive body. If we decide for a suitable IC (50-100) may
>> be it's enouth to work with Commissions and 1-2 persons from the
>> Commissions can become a restricted coordination body, etc. etc.  But,
>> again, this discussion have to be realized after the consultation process.
>>
>>  Maybe we can also make a mix of ‘open meetings’ and ‘closed meetings’:
>> as we  did in the past and also our last meeting in Tunis: only members get
>> the floor.
>>
>>  Yes, it's an open question.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for the number of members: I would introduce the choice for ‘50’
>>
>>  Yes. Done.
>>
>>
>>
>> The question on the matrix: 1) and 2) are not clear to me. What is meant?
>>
>>
>>   Matrix 1: is the questionaire
>> Matrix 2: is the box related to the second question on
>> "representativeness"; each organization can define own criteria of
>> representativeness; defining criteria/labels and defining the wheight (1 -
>> 5)
>>
>>  Finally: does the IC have to be representative?
>>
>>  That is the question, the consultation process will give us the answer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the length of my answer, I think this is a very important task
>> we have.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe a hint, for Sergio: try to think of whether you would want this or
>> that rule also for your trade union?
>>
>>
>>
>>  May be we can make some test for verifying the validity of the
>> Questionaire !!  Ishould be the first.
>>
>>  I think the point of the ‘mandate’ of the IC is the most important. We
>> should either introduce a multiple choicer question on it, or have a
>> separate discussion on it.
>>
>>
>>
>> These are my first reactions. Once again, many thanks for the important
>> and delicate work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Francine
>>
>> *Van:* Sergio Bassoli [mailto:s.bassoli@... <s.bassoli@...>]
>> *Verzonden:* 11 May 2013 19:07
>> *Aan:* cifutur-consultations@...
>> *CC:* Francine Mestrum
>> *Onderwerp:* Re: [G2 - CI futur Consult Carto Eval Strategy Synth] Re:
>> work to be done working group 2
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> as we promise, we are sending you a first input for opening our debate
>> looking for a shared instrument targeted to the consultation process.
>>
>> We remain awaiting for your feedback for making all emendaments and
>> changes till finding a common point of view.
>>
>> All the best
>> Sergio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Il 06/05/2013 15:15, Francine Mestrum ha scritto:
>>
>> Perfect! Thanks.
>>
>> Fr
>>
>>
>>
>> *Van:* Raffaella Bolini [mailto:bolini@... <bolini@...>]
>> *Verzonden:* 06 May 2013 15:12
>> *Aan:* Francine Mestrum
>> *CC:* cifutur-consultations@...
>> *Onderwerp:* [G2 - CI futur Consult Carto Eval Strategy Synth] Re: work
>> to be done working group 2
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Francine, dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I confirm Sergio, on behalf of us, will send you a first preliminary
>> draft to open the debate on Saturday.
>>
>> Kisses
>>
>> raffaella
>>
>>
>>
>> Il giorno 02/mag/2013, alle ore 18:06, Raffaella Bolini ha scritto:
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Francine, dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> we will send in few days some lines to start the discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> We ask you to wait a little bit, because Sergio Bassoli, which is
>> coordinating for us this work, now is sick -nothing bad, but he have to
>> rest a little bit. Then, he will send a first idea.
>>
>> Ok?
>>
>>
>>
>> Kisses
>>
>> raffaella
>>
>>
>>
>> Il giorno 02/mag/2013, alle ore 14:31, Francine Mestrum ha scritto:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   Dear friends,
>>
>>
>>
>> One month after our IC meeting in Tunis, we now have a mailing list for
>> our exchanges, and Laura has sent us the necessary information about
>> membership and participation in IC meetings. Thank you veery much Pierre
>> and Laura.
>>
>> It means we can now start the important work we have to do.
>>
>> The most urgent thing seems to me to prepare the consultation of IC
>> members, a decision which was originated by a proposal of the Italians.
>>
>> So I wonder if our Italian friends have a concrete suggestion to make for
>> organizing this consultation? Or we do have to start from scratch?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hoping to hear from you soon, and looking forward to working together,
>>
>>
>>
>> Francine
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Archive: http://openfsm.net/[…]/1367846341223<http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/2013/05/1367846341223>
>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
>> cifutur-consultations@.... Please contact
>> cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Archive: http://openfsm.net/[…]/1367846515002<http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/2013/05/1367846515002>
>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
>> cifutur-consultations@.... Please contact
>> cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>
>> Sergio Bassoli
>>
>> Dipartimento Politiche Globali
>>
>> CGIL
>>
>> Corso Italia 25
>>
>> 00198 Roma
>>
>> Italia
>>
>> Ufficio/Office +39.068476267
>>
>> Cell/Mobile +39.3351219622
>>
>> Fax +39.0685350323
>>
>> skype: sbprosvil
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Archive: http://openfsm.net/[…]/1368376887127<http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/2013/05/1368376887127>
>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
>> cifutur-consultations@.... Please contact
>> cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sergio Bassoli
>> Dipartimento Politiche Globali
>> CGIL
>> Corso Italia 25
>> 00198 Roma
>> Italia
>> Ufficio/Office +39.068476267
>> Cell/Mobile +39.3351219622
>> Fax +39.0685350323
>> skype: sbprosvil
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Archive: http://openfsm.net/[…]/1368457540773<http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/2013/05/1368457540773>
>>
>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
>> cifutur-consultations@.... Please contact
>> cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Archive: http://openfsm.net/[…]/1368460840024<http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/2013/05/1368460840024>
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
> cifutur-consultations@.... Please contact
> cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.
>
>
>
> --
> Sergio Bassoli
> Dipartimento Politiche Globali
> CGIL
> Corso Italia 25
> 00198 Roma
> Italia
> Ufficio/Office +39.068476267
> Cell/Mobile +39.3351219622
> Fax +39.0685350323
> skype: sbprosvil
>
>
>
> --
> Archive: http://openfsm.net/[…]/1368864979456<http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/2013/05/1368864979456>
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
> cifutur-consultations@.... Please contact
> cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.
>



-- 
Dr. Giuseppe Caruso
Research Fellow
Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights - University
of Helsinki
PO Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu, 3)
00014 Helsinki - Finland
email: giu.caruso@...
giuseppe.caruso@...
tel. +358 9191 23525
Mobile: +358 (0) 44 2222 848
giuseppecaruso.wordpress.com

Attachments

text.html (text/html) 40.5 kB