Dear Sergio, thanks for your answers.The document is getting very good shape.  I am out of the country so I cn not follow all, I will try to catch very soon

besos


gina


2013/5/18 Giuseppe Caruso <giu.caruso@gmail.com>
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@cgil.it> 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@cgil.it>
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@cgil.it]
Verzonden: 11 May 2013 19:07
Aan: cifutur-consultations@lists.openfsm.net
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@arci.it]
Verzonden: 06 May 2013 15:12
Aan: Francine Mestrum
CC: cifutur-consultations@lists.openfsm.net
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
To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to cifutur-consultations@lists.openfsm.net. Please contact cifutur-consultations-manager@lists.openfsm.net for questions.



--
Archive: http://openfsm.net/[…]/1367846515002
To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to cifutur-consultations@lists.openfsm.net. Please contact cifutur-consultations-manager@lists.openfsm.net 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
To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to cifutur-consultations@lists.openfsm.net. Please contact cifutur-consultations-manager@lists.openfsm.net 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

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



--
Archive: http://openfsm.net/[…]/1368460840024
To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to cifutur-consultations@lists.openfsm.net. Please contact cifutur-consultations-manager@lists.openfsm.net 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

To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to cifutur-consultations@lists.openfsm.net. Please contact cifutur-consultations-manager@lists.openfsm.net 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@gmail.com
giuseppe.caruso@helsinki.fi
tel. +358 9191 23525