• newci discussion1 contributions en

last modified October 27, 2014 by facilitfsm

 Discussion 1 - sobre el nuevo CI - on new IC http://openfsm.net/projects/newci/lists/newci-discussion

1 chico -  2 sheila - 3 janeth - 4 gina - 5 giuseppe - 6 norma - 7 pierre - 8 Gina   -  9 Gus 

chico 1


Dear friends,
It is not yet totally confirmed where will be the next IC meeting, and we don't have information yet on the question of the solidarity fund for the participation. But apparently this meeting will be in Ottawa, Canada, after the Peoples Social Forum to be held from 21 to 24 August of this year (please correct me if the date is not this one). Which means that the IC would meet on 25 and 26 November.

One of the main issues to be discussed at that IC meeting will be its own reorganization and operation mode inside the WSF process.

The Casablanca IC meeting agreed upon a list of the tasks of the IC, made two proposals in terms of its composition and structure, and a working group has been formed to deepen these proposals, and bring something to discuss in the IC at its next meeting (which will be probably the Ottawa one).

But that group has not until today started effectively its work.

As I am on of the persons designated to animate it, I am taking the initiative of sending this message to those who signed up as participants, to try, although belatedly, some discussion: Outtara Taofiq Leonardo Sergio Mireille Raphael Hassania Uddhab guy Raffaella standard Alaa Pierre Rita Leo Cheima Hamouda. I am sendindg also to other members of the IC that were not in Casablanca but later signed up to participate in this group (all connected to the discussion list newci-discussion@lists.openfsm.net) as well as to the two authors of the proposals concerned.

Even if all of us are involved in many activities, it would be important to make an effort now in relation to this task, since the IC will meet within less than three months and not we cannot meet without having advanced even slightly about the proposals put forward in Casablanca.

I add to this mail the part of the Casablanca IC meeting report which refers to the question of the new IC (the full report, made by Pierre, is in http:openfsm.netprojectswsficfsmcicasa13-report-fr.

What I propose is to start our discussions by the proposals for composition and structure related in topic 3, taking as reference, concerning the IC tasks, the consensual list of the Casablanca meeting (topic 1 in the report).

I also ask IC members who made the referred proposals (Gus and Mauri) to review them if necessary.

As we start and runn our exchanges, we can review the tasks list and begin to discuss the IC foncitonning.

Thank you for your attention. Chico Whitaker

III -         Topic 3 Expansion CI
 : it was agree that expansion implies reorganizing IC : Membership, Dialogue with movements, Reactivate old members, presence of Regional and Thematic social forums processes

Two visions of future IC membership were shared

Three third IC with a third of historical persons- a third for presence of local and regional committees – a third with new actors

IC as” 3 circle assembly of social actors willing to contribute to WSFprocess facilitation and growth”

 ( with formal membership and consensus decision protocol In first or second circle) with a circle of “active members” paying a little fee – and being active with human or monetary resources, a circle of “associated members” agreeing with charter of principle and not willing to be ”active”, a circle of “observers”- Keep membership for organizations, not persons, nor “forums”

I -               Topic 1 Tasks of IC
 - the following list of tasks was consensed though a 30mn discussion .

  • Discuss political geopolitical context in order to contextualize wsf process
  • Sustain Methodological discussion on how to organize events , sustain processes and initiatives
  • Facilitate dialogue between local and global struggles and alternatives
  • Facilitate linkage between regional forums processes–
  • Identify tasks/issues about concretely facilitating wsf process and launch/review work of open contributive groups addressing those tasks/issues
  • Spread knowledge on wsf charter and process
  • Develop and promote use of appropriate Communication tools
  • Define date and place and format of WSF events
  • Monitor and contribute to Practical organization of wsf events
  • Finance IC activities/meetings
  • Monitor financing of WSF events


Sheila 2




janeth 3



gina 4

Dear Chico and others, still, there are not many responses to the proposal sent by Chico. I hope we can encourage more to participate.

Now I just want to send some ideas and proposals to go forward.

  As for item 3,   expansion of IC.

I think right now the best vision on the future of the proposed CI is 3/.  I agree that we should reactivate former members who are related to regional and global movements and the presence of organizers of regional and thematic forums. Both in relation to what actually exists in the IC as among the new presences in the IC, I agree with Janeth in seeking to express the diversity of women, indigenous, sexual diversity, that belongs to  organized networks, organizations, movements. The presence of members of Occupy, the indignados of Spain-as, of young Quebecers, etc... is a clue to follow.

As for the tasks, I agree with all, but I want to remember that many of these tasks are the ones that belong to the committees or ad hoc working groups. We have to think if we continue with this form of organization (I think so,  because it is the only way to decentralize the work and take responsibility of the tasks. Although, I know that the committees and working groups have been working at its minimum capacity. We would have to analyze what is limiting a more productive dynamic and what new strategies cab is useful for better dynamism.

 I agree that the task is not to "finance" activities but raise funds for activities.

I think that in this process of readjustment of the CI is not convenient to give decisiveness to observers, at least until we have the determined processes; how observers have entered the CI is not clear, there are no clear signs of how , why and whom, etc.. If  we believe, as I said, that in  the new dynamic regional units that organize regional forums  are important, but not local organizations, except those corresponding to the country where the Forums takes  place, and not on permanent bases but  regarding the specific time of the realization  of the forums.

Finally, I think Giuseppe interviews should continue, in this case, in addition to the opinions he has been sought, would be good ways to influence the expansion, the possible tasks and modes of operation of an IC with a new dynamic.

Because the Solidarity fund has less money now, many of us from Latin America are maybe not going to the IC meeting. I hope we can participate through skype in the discussion.



Giuseppe 5

Dear All, 
Here comes the second instalment of the work I started last year before the Casablanca IC meeting. The attached paper is quite long, for this I apologise. At the same time I made sure that the first three pages summarise all the arguments developed later in the paper. I also indicate where exactly a specific argument if discussed in greater detail. I hope this helps the navigation of the text that in its current form is 12,000 words long. 
I hope that its length conveys also the quantity of the material collected, its density and the sheer number of issues raised that deserve thorough consideration (not that I managed to get anywhere near a thorough consideration of even the part of the material which I am starting to reflect on). It goes without saying that I would be delighted to receive your comments.

Finally, dear Gina i'm happy to continue this work with a further round on interviews of course!





Norma 6

 friends:  generally agree with everything  Gina says, and I find it important to emphasize the presence of organizers of regional and thematic forums, as well as the "new movements". Perhaps these changes may reactivate the IC.  I had earlier stated also  that  some local movements in Latin America, Africa and Asia, might be invited to the meetings on a rotating basis (with funding from the solidarity fund), because some of them are very important at home and have not yet articulated in regional and international networks (usually due to lack of resources) or do not have an IC meeting in their area. But if it doest not seem desirable to you yet , I think we should at least encourage the presence of local movements where the CI is held, perhaps in a time window - to be able to operate afterwards on internal issues, but so to really know diversity of each place.  For now just that. hugs Norma


Pierre 7

Chico's message and inputs of Sheila Janeth Gina Giuseppe Norma  (compiled in a page http://openfsm.net/projects/newci/newci-general-page) invite us to continue the discussion we started in Casablanca

I would like in this input to present three ideas : an idea of “IC process”and an idea of three steps A B C  to work online, then an input on sorting IC tasks



Inputs in the discussion of Casablanca have sketched more mature ideas about what would mean contributing “from IC "to" facilitate WSF process »;There are elements in the series of interventions in Casablanca 16 and 17, or  quick discussion about CI on 17 afternoon  http://openfsm.net/projects/wsfic_fsmci/casa13-report-en 

On 17th in Casablanca, we have defined a list of tasks for CI, which had not been done before, among these, there are some tasks that we have already practiced (such as 1 : contextualize the process in the global situation during meetings) and others where we are still incipient, (like 5 : initiate and drive groups contributing to WSF process facilitation) and which open concrete perspectives for an IC  with more input for WSF process


To perform each task, we can distinguish more proactive "contributions", which allow dynamism and continuity of each working group and of IC meetings, and “participations” more reactive in nature.

One can expect that IC members be "contributive" on several tasks from this list, and there may also exist "IC contributers" who are not IC members,  some being volunteers, some other being employed by their organisation, or by a WSF secretariat, being installed In Tunis ( note 3)

Let us Call 'IC process'  the set of interactions between IC members/contributors, and with the greatest possible number of WSF participating organizations, that allows to carry the 11 tasks in this list. “IC process” Is done by open contributive groups, and cadenced by IC meetings. ( e-g "Between IC tunis and IC Casablanca."

We want this "IC process" to be a "radiant focus" of new initiatives and practices for the expansion and deepening of the WSF process in general, don’t we?



Now let us focus on the three aspects we addressed briefly in Casablanca on 17th point 1: Tasks of IC  - point 2: organization of IC during and between meetings - point 3: IC expansion.

How can we move forward on line on these three points in our working group ? http://openfsm.net/projects/newci/newci-general-page  

Here is a proposal of a three steps sequence to continue:

  • Step A - Discuss the tasks of IC and the type of interaction and inputs that these tasks involve from the participants in “IC process”( 18-1 point 1 "Tasks" in Casablanca)Below is an input in this step A
  • Step B - Comment on "who" and "how" and "that" may be invited to participate in this "IC process" and with what role / status active members, associate contributor to the CI process, or participants WSF process, and this can help to better visualize expansion of IC (18-1  point 3 "expansion" in Casablanca)If we spend some time on step A, exchanging about concrete tasks mixing members contributers, plenaries and groups, we can see better who to associate and how to “IC process”
  • Step C - Discuss how to organize the "IC and the ICprocess" in terms of rules of organization and manner of operation - (point 18- 1 2 point "organization" in Casablanca) The vision after stage A and B enables to assess organization on concrete cases



Here is the input stage A about IC tasks

It is a proposal of sorting the 11 task list defined in Casablanca along the context where they can be performed : mostly in IC meeting, mostly in online groups, mostly in daily practice

  • Mostly in CI meeting ,with the help of online groups between meetings

1/ Discuss political geopolitical context in order to contextualize wsf process

2/ Sustain Methodological discussion on how to organize events , sustain processes and initiatives

8/ Define date and place and format of WSF events


  • Mostly, in on line contributor groups, with some meetings when possible

3/ Facilitate dialogue between local and global struggles and alternatives

4/ Facilitate linkage between regional forums processes–

5/ Identify tasks/issues about concretely facilitating wsf process and launch/review work of open contributive groups addressing those tasks/issues

10/ Finance IC activities/meetings

11/ Monitor financing of WSF events


  • Mostly in the practice of each participating organization to process CI

(also tasks 3 4 can be performed individually by each organization)

6/ Spread knowledge on wsf charter and process

7/ Develop and promote use of appropriate Communication tools ( linking local activities, online cooperation, extended participation)

9/ Monitor and contribute to Practical organization of wsf events


We could stay a while in stage A in our newci group and give concrete examples of tasks, mention existing groups, make proposals for new groups, considering in particular points 3 4 5 9 where there is great potential (see Notes 1 and 2 below)

Wishing for more input,  in "stage A" about our list of tasks





Dear friends, we are already halfway through 2014 and it is possible that our IC is in a few weeks (it seems that it will be held in Montreal, in August?). And Hamouda has sent relevant information on the political situation of Maghreb and the progress and tasks relating the WSF 2015 in Tunisia.

Meanwhile, there are several tasks agreed in Casablanca which are still outstanding. There has been little communication, although Pierre has made permanent efforts to put things together. And Giuseppe has sent, few days ago, a fresh new reflection  based on interviews with members of the IC, in preparation for Casablanca. I have carefully read this second "delivery" and want to congratulate him for it.  What I want now is to share with you those parts which seem interesting to put in discussion, in preparation for the tasks assigned by the IC. As it is not a summary I recommend to all the comrades to read Giuseppe piece. I also recommend reading what was also the contribution of  Giuseppe in Casablanca IC  and the results of the questionnaire facilitated by Francine. And the same report of IC in Casablanca,, as several of these perceptions and proposals for change were discussed and, from there, the tasks and working groups were derived.

Now I just want to raise some points in the report of Giuseppe, to feed the discussion. It is undoubtedly a personal reading, whit my own emphasis.

1. The IC and the Forum

The forum is not out of the environment and its changes. And the global and regional contexts have changed dramatically in recent years. Hence the urgency of devoting significant space to analyze what happens in the world, what is the status of anti-systemic struggles and how to articulate and strengthen those struggles.... Several interviewees stressed the urgency of reflections that feed strategies: interrelation between movements, evidence and confront the growing forms of exploitation of capitalism, to imagine a shared and collective global development to prevent climate change impacts ... etc..

Faced with these changes and facing the struggles that are taking place and the way the forum is - or not – welcoming  them, several questions arise concerning the Forum: If the momentum that led to the forum is fading as the reality changes and does not change the original format of the Forum and its dynamics. Or if the situation is that of a crisis of global progressive movements, product of the destructive advance of capitalism. Or if we are facing a time of social regression.

What would then be in discussion are not only the tasks and different composition of the IC but the same dynamics and horizons of the Forum. This discussion will reflect more clearly the role, composition and duties of the IC. Hence the statement that no change in IC can be given if not in relation to perceived changes in the Forum.

For some, if the project of the WSF has still legitimacy and usefulness is a question that should feed a thoughtful and thorough process. Some approaches provide some signposts to this question:

2. IC culture:

The Political Culture Forum, powered by its initial promises of re-imagine another possible world, against unique thoughts, encourages plurality, and illuminates multiple daily struggles and wisdoms. This was the impetus to recover the differences in a climate of respect and learning proposals and demands of the alter-globalization movements, feeding a transformative energy.

However, along with these features of the political culture of the Forum, which has fueled the dynamics of IC, have been detected further features in the practice of IC: undemocratic practices, lack of transparency and accountability, distrust, oversized egos.... These democratic deficits strongly affect the sense of reality of the old and new activists, and their self-perception, self-esteem and commitment hindering the learning process that places the FSM in its pedagogical role in interaction with the alter-globalization movement....  Lack of trust leads to incapacity to learn from others. The consensus method was, for some, the only one that could accommodate the need to do things together, but not always we have learned from it.

All this makes it difficult to discuss the visions and the changing environment. And this has also affected the perception and reception of new members to the IC, perceiving that no space is given to listen or discuss the visions of change.

3.  Actual perceptions of IC

- The IC has a weak democratic political culture

- IC is too fragile to pretend now incorporate new actoría

- The IC sold out their energies

But this can also be a first step to think of ourselves more creatively. And these concerns can collectively aim to devise ways to feed processing and inclusive practices.

This perhaps reflects the different proposals have emerged in Casablanca for restructuring the IC.


4. New presences and movements in the Forum and the IC

The incorporation of new struggles and new projects in the FSM and the IC raises the question if the Forum has something to offer to global change. There is an affirmative view, from the recognition that many of the current struggles have a specific language, which is the same language that inaugurated the FSM. Therefore, in the approach to new players, we have to consider that the paradigm shift fueled by the Forum is not exhausted! Therefore we are not facing a paradigm shift that makes useless the prior knowledge of the movements.

But there are also differences. It would seem that two orientations that hinder convergence are given: concerns about representation, relevance, and legitimacy on the one hand, negotiation from new languages, new forms of communication and organization bring by new players. Similarly, the forms of articulation and organization are different from the social movements participating in the Forum.

Another substantial difference: the current struggles seem to give much more emphasis to the national and local levels, unlike 2001, at the beginning of the Forum, where a strong international expression was urgent.

It also is argued that efforts to connect and bring new projects cannot ignore the effort to recover those movements that have been since the beginning of the CI, that have to share an important historical memory.

5.  This leads to the scope and scale of the Forum-

The last experience of the WSF, especially Tunisia, with a global appeal, had a central role in bringing together and strengthening the regional. The 2015 Forum will also have that feature. This greater regional relevance that can feed the local and the global seems to be an important and more realistic signpost, because the anti-systemic struggle seems to have more impact on national spaces. This has led some respondents to propose a shift from international solidarity to the translocal solidarity. A translocal articulation that illuminates the importance of the everyday experience of activism, multiply the laboratories of change on a small scale, looking for their global interdependence can be a strategy. Which undoubtedly reinforce the idea that IC may not be representative but rather a facilitator.

 I think that this approach would allow not only the most visible expressions of new mobilizations and existing movements, but would open the possibility to analyze in situ the form of "accumulation by dispossession" that capitalism is prevailing in the world and has made today, the fight against territorial extractivism  and have given rise to powerful  local, national struggles defending the body and the territory. This approach also could facilitate to recover and/or expand the transformative horizon of the WSF. .


The possibilities of local-regional-global linkages could be the contribution of the FSM.