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@cgil.it]
Verzonden: 18 May 2013 10:09
Aan: cifutur-consultatio
ns@lists.openfsm.net
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@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.

 




-- 
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