• Commenting and answering questions of input3 by facilitators

•  >>>> english google translation !!

____________________________________________________________________________

JASPER IN - SALETE PT - Inst Paulo Freire PT - REPEM ES - CHICO IS - GUS FR - CADTM FR

input visible in mail list - visible inputs mailing list - dumbbells visible dans la liste courriel LIST POSTS  

 JASPER (OBSERVER) 

comments by Teivo  on jasper answers

I find the questions quite suggestive and rethorical, reflecting the very specific Desired outcome, Which is in my opinion not helping an open, inclusive and fruitful debate. So here are some first short comments on the questions. I'm sorry I'm Inglês in only. 
greetings jasper 


1. Questions to be answered: 

- Existence of the IC: the IC has to be maintained? Can it possibly be Replaced by another kind of (representative / Facilitating?) Body? 

I think the main reason for the ongoing deadlock of this discussion is que 99% of the participants of the WSF events do not even know about the existence of the IC, since its meetings and communications are not public and separated (in time and space) from the many other realities of the WSF. That's why the same people make the same complaints about participation, commitment and functioning forever. Thus change and will never come, and even if it comes, noone will notice! 

- Composition of the CI: 

In the questionnaire of the last year, most members said They want the IC to expand, but how? 

§ With the 'new' social movements, If They want to come? 

Let's ask: Why are 'new social movements' not willing or capable to join the current organizational structures of the WSF? 

§ Have members to be categorized: active / associate / observers? 

In any longterm initiative activist I've been Involved in I have seen the Possibility to step up and step down ones Capacities According to the an important condition for continuity, any pre-established categorization of roles Could be disencouraging to add to the dynamic. 
  

- Functioning of the IC: 

Should we abandon the the 'horizontalism' for a more structural way of decision-making? 

This formulation Suggests 'horizontalism' is in opposition to a 'more structural way of decision-making'. I do not think this is a fair representation. The best method of decision-making is circumstancial and depends on the types of decisions have to be made ​​que. If, for example, the task for the IC is to Facilitate the decision-making on the date and location of the next WSF, I recommend a model que builds the widest range of support around the best option without dismissing the other options. For the record: I've Observed several recent meetings IC and none of Those cam close to any methodology of horizontality, so calling the current practices of the horizontal IC only adds to the ridiculasation of the term I'm not an ideological horizontalist,. I just think que the diversity of methodologies is possible and essential for the evolution of movements.   The WSF Reflects que essence and shouldnt keep to the so. 

The Do we need a clearer structure so the to Enhance transparency and accountability? 

This Suggests que a "clearer structure" will automagically "Enhance transparency and accountability," while I think it's the other way around: operating According to shared principles such as transparency and accountability will result in a structure que is more clear to everybody! 

The Do we need a new version of the 'liaison group' for practical tasks, Avoiding the shortcomings of the previous one? 

If there is the need to form working groups, including the liaison group, They Will Rise. The question is who defines These needs, just the IC itself or all the organizers and participants of WSF events and processes? At the moment our group named TransitionCI WG is the only WSF working group I know about, the rest is inactive or invisible to me. 

- Objective and strategy of the IC (and here, also of WSF): 

the word can we Clearly what our concrete objective is (beyond 'surpassing capitalism / neoliberalism' and, for the IC 'Facilitating' the WSF)? 

For the WSF: replace capitalism / neoliberalism by relationships based on equal / just / fair distribution of powers, knowledges and wealth. In my view, the WSF Within capitalism and neoliberalism are Clearly not marginalized, but just marginally Replaced by alternatives. 
For the IC: Facilitating is just fine to me Good facilitation of the process is an art.. I have seen amazing facilitators at work in very small workshops at WSF events, They shouldnt be in the IC! Supporting and Promoting the events, decide the date and location of the next WSF, Evaluating the events, resolving Conflicts - that already is an enormous task. 

Can we discuss the strategy if we are not clear on our objectives? Cornichons remember our year long discussions on space and / or movement and / or action. 

Leave the Decisions on the actions to Those Who are going to do it. The IC shouldnt just stick to its simple objectives: Provide continuity and (critically) support all Initiatives of WSF event organizers and participants. My strategical priorities would be very practical: 1) put Team, energy and resources in the organizing process of the WSF in Montreal (and all other planned WSF events in the coming years) 2) finally create a good functioning global website for the WSF 3 ) already start to investigate where and- When the WSF can be located after Montreal, so the fire can be handed over properly. 

Can the IC be / become a kind of 'governance' (sorry for the word, we found no better one) body for the WSF, with Clearly attributed Responsibilities and accountability? 

Oh please, I have a better one. The IC shouldnt no longer handsome itself the head of the WSF. It Has Been long enough now que the IC functioned like the ass of the WSF, an ass stupid enough to think it was the brain of the same body. It's time for the IC to stick to its task and Become the feet of the WSF.Bare feet. And just walk where the heart of the WSF wants you to bring it. 

- How to re-politicize the IC? 

I think the statement que the IC has to be 'repoliticized' is very tricky, because it really depends on what we mean by politics. As the Charter of Principles says, the WSF should "not Constitute a locus of power to be disputed by the participants in its meetings" (rule nr 6), but it shouldnt be empowering struggles around the world Which are of course political struggles .. . 

Should we abandon the the non-directive characteristic of the IC? 

No. I mean, has the non-directive characteristic of the IC ever been embraced? 

Can we organize more and deeper political debates on the world situation (Demanded by the majority of members in questionnaire last year) 

The so-called political analysis of the world situation and all the strategizing shouldnt be done by all the participants of the forum, and not be limited to the small and exclusive circle of the IC.   So this is Clearly not the task of the IC. The IC should not speak, but listen. 

Should the Charter of the Principles be changed? 

Yes, if there is a need to change it. I have some suggestions, but I can elaborate on que later. 

- Should the solidarity fund be re-instated in order to guarantee the presence of movements que otherwise can not attend? 

Yes, the long the it's transparent who gets what and who is making que decision. 

Should the IC-members pay a fee? 

Yes, but on a voluntary basis. 


 SALETE   

Existence del CI: 
El CI debería Mantenerse? ¿Es posible que sea substituted for each other type 
of cuerpo (facilitator / representative?) 

R. Salete: Yes. Must keep up with organizations working only 
be a facilitator and representative already part of the paper today. 

Composición del CI: 
En el Cuestionario del pasado año, la mayoría de los miembros dijeron that quieren que la IC expands, pero ¿cómo? 
Con los "nuevos" sociales movimientos, si quieren venir? 

R. Salete: Who do you desire to work and invest time and / or 
money for the CI function. Caring for geographical representation 
and. The diversity of themes 

La membrecía current puede ser clasificada cómo: active / asociados / observers? 

R. Salete: Yes, it may be 3 

Funcionamiento del 
CI:? ¿Hay to leave her "horizontality" hacia una más manera estructural de la taking decisiones 
¿Necesitamos una clear bad structure the fin de mejorar la transparency y la surrender of cuentas? 
¿ Necesitamos una nueva versión del "link group" to tareas practices, preventing them defectos of it earlier? 

R.Salete:. not abandon the little horizontal Having a 
management. resources and events with accountability reports 

Objective y del CI strategy (y here, también del 

FSM):? We can clearly show cual sería nuestro concrete goal (bad allá of 'el overcoming capitalism / neoliberalism' y para el IC, el be'facilitador 'del FSM) 
¿una We can discuss strategy in itself we are clear en nuestros goals? debemos remember nuestros debates of bad de año un sobre el espacio y / o movimiento y / o acción. 
¿Puede el IC be / Convertirse en una kind of un cuerpo de "gobernanza" (perdón por la palabra, to find mejor) to el FSM, con clearly assigned responsibilities y surrender of cuentas? 

R. Salete: The IC needs to have an exciting role, mobilizer of 
monitoring and working to carry out local events 
and. World? ¿Cómo re-politicize el 



IC? ¿Debemos abandon her feature in the directive del CI 
¿We can arrange bad y bad profound political debates about her world situación (según it required by mayoría de los miembros en el año pasado del Cuestionario) 
debería modificarse her Charter of Principles? 

R. Salete: We must give meaning to the CI or whether to stay with the 
group of organizations, networks and movements that considers it important to 
facilitate spaces trials, experiences and reflections to 
worlds that have not yet participated. 

Debería re-instalarse el Fondo de Solidaridad con el fin de la guaranty presence of them movimientos of each other so that the pueden asistir? 
Los miembros del CI deberían them pay una cuota? 

R. Salete: Our most difficult issue was always financial resources. 
Whether for the activities of the CI is to participate in the WSF events. 
I do not think we have many solutions already tried many things. 

 IPF 

Asked Questions to answer: 



- Existence del CI: 
El CI debería Mantenerse? ¿Es posible que sea substituted for each other type of cuerpo (facilitator / representative?)

IPF:   Yes, the IC should continue to exist, it must carry out a political role, and should have an Executive Secretariat held by the institutions that are part of it.   Organizations that take the Executive Secretariat must have clarity of assignments the same: to promote and coordinate meetings Periodic among the IC members, update the WSF site, contribute to the process of memory etc. The Executive Secretary must have a permanent role, perhaps maintained by an annuity paid by organizations that are part of CI. Organizations with more conditions can contribute to a greater value and those who have less financial condition may make symbolic contributions. (ABONG has a contribution system that could inspire the functioning of CI). We support the itinerant character of the Executive Secretariat which could be, for example, two years in a country / continent, and then analyzed the possibility of renewal. 

- Composición del CI: 
En el Cuestionario del pasado año, la mayoría de los miembros dijeron that quieren que la IC expands, pero ¿cómo? 
 Con los "nuevos" movimientos sociales, si quieren venir? 
 La membrecía current puede ser clasificada cómo: active / asociados / observers? 

IPF:   P new energy recisamos in CI, younger and engaged people. But the inclusion of new members is directly linked to the direction and actions of the IC.While the IC has the function of deciding just where will the next issue, it makes sense to invite more people. The entry of new members in the IC may have as a criterion engagement with the actions of the WSF in these first 15 years, participation, involvement. Who stayed in the CI in these first 15 years can be "founding member" for example and others "associated members".


- Funcionamiento del CI: 
¿Hay to leave her "horizontality" hacia una manera más de la estructural taking decisiones?

IPF:   You have to have clear definitions of the responsibilities of each authority or not advance. The IC can define every edition of the WSF, where will the Executive Secretary in the next biennium. Organizations that take the Executive Secretariat do so knowing that they will have resources coming from contributions from IC members to perform specific actions: promote and coordinate regular meetings between members of the CI (virtual, for example), update the WSF site, contribute to the process of memory, articulate receipt of "annuities" provide detailed and transparent way bills, prepare projects that enable participation in the IC of the WSF editions or in-person meetings (for those who do not have own resources).

The management should be "horizontal" but with clear allocation of responsibilities between the IC, the Executive Secretary of the CI and the CO.


¿Necesitamos una más clear structure the fin de mejorar la transparency y la surrender of cuentas?

IPF:   yes, no doubt. As already argued in earlier answers.

¿Una nueva versión del Necesitamos "linkage group" to tareas practices, preventing them defectos of it earlier?

IPF:   The Executive Secretary of the IC having clear responsibilities, with resources for a permanent performance and getting work effectively, there would be no need for the Liaison Group. 

- Objective y strategy del CI (here y también del FSM): 
can clearly show cual sería nuestro concrete goal (bad allá of 'el overcoming capitalism / neoliberalism' y para el IC, el be'facilitador 'del FSM)? 
¿una We can discuss strategy you're in the clear en nuestros goals? Debemos remember nuestros debates of bad de año un sobre el espacio y / o movimiento y / o acción. 
¿Puede el IC be / Convertirse en una kind of un cuerpo de "gobernanza" (perdón por la palabra, the find mejor) to el WSF, con responsibilities clearly assigned y surrender of cuentas?


IPF:   P recisamos challenge us to fulfill what is put in Item 7 of the WSF Charter of Principles: .... "The World Social Forum undertakes to circulate such decisions widely by the means at its disposal, without directing, hierarchies, censorship and restrictions, but as deliberations of the organizations or groups of organizations that made ​​the decisions. "P recisamos think of how politically focused in our countries / continents during the two years that separate the two editions of. And the IC is who should coordinate / facilitate this. What to do with the "Manifesto of Social Movements" produced in Tunis (2015), for example? How organizations that make up the IC can support the dissemination of documents as taking advantage of this even to involve more organizations in the WSF process? We can put this challenge to be discussed at the next meeting of the IC.

While the Executive Secretariat of the CI has more operational role, the CI needs to meet its most political function.

[can be considered the fetus of "initiatives" in fsm methodology 2016]

- ¿Cómo re-politicize el 
IC? ¿Debemos abandon her feature in the directive del CI 
¿We can arrange más y más deep political debates about her world situación (sec ún it required by mayoría de los miembros en el Cuestionario del pasado año) 
debería modificarse her Charter of Principles?


IPF:   I do not think that should be adjusted by the Charter of Principles. The s "political debates on the world situation", mentioned in the question, could give guided by the documents produced in the previous edition of the WSF, which has also fulfill the proposed in item 7 of the Charter of Principles. Groups of CI organizations - collective of the same country or region, for example - could take debates in their territories. Several of these debates, methodologies and socialized results could increase the potential of political influence and attract the interest of more organizations are tallying the IC and the WSF process.


- Debería re-instalarse el Fondo de Solidaridad con el fin de la guaranty presence of them movimientos of each other so that the pueden asistir? 
- Los miembros del CI deberían them pay una cuota? 

IPF:   In this issue we highlight two points. One is the importance of trying to u best s ing the s s existing technology to enable participation at a distance. (*) Economic resources can not define who participates or not the IC meetings. We must seek alternatives for conference calls, looking for ways to make them productive. Regarding the Solidarity Fund, we believe that quotas paid by member organizations of the IC should keep the Executive Secretariat and this, in turn, could undertake the implementation of projects and joints in search of financial support to enable the participation of representatives IC in-person meetings. Having an Executive Secretariat strong and active, articulate and articulating, perhaps the Solidarity Fund is not required.

[* can be considered the initiative of ci extended]

 REPEM 

Organization - REPEM LAC - Popular Education Network among Women of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Delegate: Janneth Lozano B - REPEM Colombia

Dear friends of the CI ... Gina, Francine, Teivo, Teivainen, Giuseppe, thanks for your work and consistency in the management of CI and all bets ... which means the WSF are some contributions made ​​from REPEM

Synthesis and questions / proposals for discussion on the future of WSF / CI

 

1. Assumptions:  

- The future of CI has been debated for many years now and a lot of serious thought has already taken place. It's time to look at a series of specific questions and make decisions

- All documents on these discussions have been put on the website http://openfsm.net/projects/transitionci/transitionci-discussions   . Participants recommended in the current workgroup to read them, especially the excellent report that Gina made ​​to the CI in Casablanca, prepared with Giu and Francine. If this is not possible, please look at the following synthesis.

- The main point of this exercise is to look to the future. Although synthesis mention some of the points of "discontent" will not be discussed, but only taken into account in the discussion about the future.

- Even if it is difficult to separate the IC process and the future of the WSF process and the future, this paper will focus on the IC, considering some decisions may have implications for the WSF.

- The questionnaire last year has shown great willingness of members to cooperate and find solutions.

- Now the questions to answer are limited to what is necessary in order to facilitate the discussion.

 

2. Major problems and issues raised by IC members and some non-members:  

- Lack of transparency and accountability

- Lack of commitment

- The lack of a political "new" culture. - Gap between values ​​and practices

- The lack of trust between Member

- The lack of use related to the WSF

- The lack of implementation of decisions taken

 

3. Questions to be answered:

- Actual CI:

The CI should stay? Is it possible to be replaced by another type of body (facilitator / representative?)

We consider it important to keep an instance to facilitate and invigorate the WSF. The name, or is named CI is not fundamental, do we believe to be eliminated the existing group. There is a story, resolutions, new and sufficient supplies and that could well strengthen proposals and if necessary debug, based on criteria and harmonized definitions, the instance we have.

It is necessary to move towards self-regulated body that is able and sits with authority to enforce agreements and commitments ... I think it's important to have frameworks that allow some form of "monitoring and control" in order to progress and not be meeting after meeting skating on what "should be and what we should do."

 

 

- Composition CI:

The questionnaire or last year, most members said they want to expand the IC, but how?

 With the "new" social movements, if they want to come?

 The current membership can be classified as: Active / partners / observers?

On the composition, always we consider new shares oxygenate and energize work, however it is important that this enlargement is done responsibly and with a view to effectively advance a representative of social movements and organizations CI. It would be important to review and update the criteria that was established with the current CI and review responsibilities and commitments that come with being part. We propose:

·           A small team of 3-4 people to energize this process to Brazil .... Than:

·           Check criteria Quick Reference conformation and propose ideas for this update and mechanisms to CI to proceed to enlargement (wide call, reference IC members? Invitation ....?

·           Proceed to call ...

·           In Brazil CI meeting approve this extension ...

 

 

- Operation CI:

Or should we abandon the "horizontal" towards a more structural way of making decisions?

Or do we need a clearer view to improving transparency structure and accountability?

Or do we need a new version of "liaison group" for practical tasks while avoiding the shortcomings of the prior?

The horizontal process should not affect democratic decision-making, but the decisions are not made ​​by themselves and in that sense it is necessary to strengthen the "liaison group" taking care of:

-            granting authority, depending on decisions taken by the group, monitoring and control necessary to ensure the completion of critical tasks

-            It is not a group that makes the appointments and tasks, only a group that facilitates dynamic IQ.

-            Surely it is necessary to revise the composition of the liaison group, but from their management assessments and clarities of their role ... not simply to change.

 

 

- Objective and Strategy of the CI (and here, too WSF):

or which we can be clearly demonstrate our specific goal (beyond 'surpassing capitalism / neoliberalism' and, for the CI, being'facilitador 'WSF)?

Or can we discuss a strategy if we are not clear on our objectives? We must remember our discussions over a year on space and / or movement and / or action.

Can the IC or be / become a kind of a body of "governance" (pardon the word, we find better) for the WSF, with clearly assigned responsibilities and accountability?

It is certainly time to review the objectives of the WSF, in the perspective of strengthening the foundational dream of the Forum to the new times and situations suits and we are not sure that the IC is clear and clearly take on the challenges of the WSF today. The Forum certainly goes beyond what the same IC can provide, they need to be revised objectives and strategies and especially the role it should play as IC.We should not be afraid to think in a kind of instance, the first self-regulated, Capaza accountability, but especially with authority to represent and stimulate global strategy ... very big challenge and that maybe requires us to rethink mechanisms ...

- How to re-politicize the IC?

Or should we not abandon the policy of the CI feature?

Or we can arrange more and deeper political debates on the world situation (as demanded by a majority of members in the questionnaire last year)

or the Charter of Principles should be amended?

We believe that the Charter of Principles should be updated, two things we could discuss:

-            Should not we ask with "vocation of power," people power, alternative that progress in realizing the dream of another possible world?

-            If either is recognized as broad and plural, it would be time to recognize this plurality as expressed in the diversity of women and men we around libertarian betting move, right from the recognition of those others and others that require appointed ?

 

 

- Should I re-installed the Solidarity Fund in order to ensure the presence of movements that otherwise can not attend?

- The members-as the CI should pay a fee?

The fund should be and definitely for many social organizations involved would be impossible without this background.

It should make the effort to install the practice of providing a fee ... this would make us more sustainable and less dependent ...

 BOY 

Francine, Giuseppe, Gina, Teivo


Friends, shipping here my answers to the questionnaire, with a penalty of not being able to participate in the IC meeting in Salvador in late
next October (the date changes coincided with major anti-nuclear activity while I'm preparing).


As the four of you speak Spanish, makes me do the translation, not further delay my answer ... Hugs, Chico Whitaker.


1. * Existence of CI *:


The CI should stay? Is it possible to be replaced by another type of body (facilitator / representative?)


Yes, it would be profitable advantage of lived to experience.


But we should launch something that sounds like a new stage of the IC, without discontinuing, that is, for example marking a change of name,
to make clearer its role and function in the WSF process, but may be confused with what can not be: a management organ (or governance) process.


One idea: * International Mobilization Board and Supporting the World Social Forum - - CI-MAP *.


2. Objective and Strategy * * IC (and here, too WSF):


The new CI-MAP would be an organ of assistance to the expansion and strengthening of what is essential and central to the WSF that is the WSF process itself.


That process has been born and grown over 15 years of meetings of all kinds, with its horizontal, self-managed, open, freely articulating networked organizations and individuals, on the initiative of the participants, creating possible new spaces, topics , levels and types of meeting (local, national, regional, thematic), which allow the deepening understanding of the social, political, economic and cultural, enable mutual recognition and the launch of new joint initiatives in the struggle to overcome of capitalism in all its forms and in each of its economic, social and cultural policies towards the "other possible world".


Within this process each FSM is a chance to provide feedback worldwide the hope that "another world is possible" by the autonomous action of organized civil society movements gives, by the set of actors seeking to change the world.




3. We can clearly demonstrate our specific objective which would be * * (beyond 'surpassing capitalism / neoliberalism' and,
for CI,'facilitador being 'WSF)?


Or can we discuss a strategy if we are not clear on our objectives? We must remember our discussions over a year on the * space and / or movement and / or action *.


Can the IC or be / become a kind of a * body of "governance" * (pardon the word, we find better) for the WSF,
with clearly assigned responsibilities and accountability?


Or should we not abandon the policy of the CI feature?


or the Charter of Principles should be amended?


If we maintain the WSF as a process of creating spaces of encounter and articulation can not be contested objectives, strategies and actions "of the" FSM (like a structured militants in competition with other "movements" body to "direct" the move ).


Fewer still be discussing objectives, strategies and actions of the IC, but do with it effectively an instrument of support and mobilization
the FSM, which in turn stimulate discussion of strategies and actions of social movements seeking to build "another possible world" and the growing links between them, in the (local, national, regional, thematic) areas of the process.


In such a "process" can not be taken to CI function of "governance" and address but facilitation. In the same perspective, there is no change to the Charter of Principles.


But if we leave the character of the WSF as a process, we can prepare us for his disappearance among many attempts made in the world
creating managerial character "international".


* 4 * Composition CI:


The questionnaire or last year, most members said they want to expand the IC, but how?


§On "new" social movements, if you want to come?


§ The current membership it can be classified as: Active / partners /
Observers?


Launch an invitation to all current members of the CI to come to integrate it into its new stage, without worrying about measuring the
participation of each so far, whether at meetings or in the activities in the process.


To the extent that they decided to integrate the new Council (CI * ** - MAP) *, they constitute a "school of acceptance of new members."


Then we would open, from now and permanently to all stakeholders who are not part of the Council's ability to integrate. Their
nominations would be submitted to the college of acceptance of new members, with a deadline for its members say restrictions will have to present the candidate, indicating that restrictions would.


The registration of candidates would be submitted to the Administrative Secretariat (see below), it would proceed immediately to the school consultation.


Candidates for which restrictions have had the opportunity to lodge an appeal, which would be discussed in special space for the next meeting of the Council, with the individual concerned, the decision must be unanimous acceptance.


The conditions placed to participate in the Council would be the same for the old and new, and are as follows: -


3.1 options: active member, associate, observer.


2.Representantes of organizations and individuals, one to two per organization, the representatives indicated obligation to participate in all meetings of the CI for at least two years, with possible renewal without limitations.


Annual financial 3.Contribución (_de assets, associates and observadores_) to fund the operation of an administrative secretariat of the CI-AP, to be paid at the end of each year to avoid discontinuities in the work of the secretariat.


Enrollees choose to be active members necessarily the Commission which link such as Financial Resources
for the World Forums, financial resources for the implementation of Council meetings and Fundo de Solidaridad's relationship with dominant process and alternative media, memory of the process and its expansion strategy and implementation of Global Forums, Support for organizers each meeting of the Council, permanent improvement of the methodology of the World Forums, etc.


5. Should I re-installed the Solidarity Fund * *, in order to ensure the presence of movements that otherwise can not attend?


If, fitting hosting resources management and distribution of aid to the Secretariat of each FSM. The Fund would be made to each FSM, according to current procedures (voluntary contribution suggested for organizations of the North).


6. The members-as IC * should * pay a fee?


If, to fund the operation of an administrative secretariat of the CI-AP (as I said above).


Value of the contribution to decide, based on a minimum budget to be covered, the eventual surplus referred to recipe the following year.


7. CI * * Operation:


Or should we abandon the "horizontal" way towards a structural decision-making?


Or do we need a clearer structure to improve transparency and accountability?


- How to re-politicize the IC?


Or we can arrange more and deeper political debates on the world situation (as demanded by a majority of members in the
questionnaire last year)


The CI-MAP meetings would be made ​​after each WSF regularly, as now, and two or three among the WSF.


They always shall include at least:


1.½ day on which the social, political, economic and cultural development that are made (prepared by the organizers of the meeting);


2.½ day committee meeting


3.½ day plenary discussion on the global situation and trends as well as strategies of domination system (prepared by the Commission memory and expansion).


4.½ day plenary discussion on the following World Forums (prepared by the same commission memory and expansion) and decision as appropriate.


5.½ day plenary for the administrative secretariat report on the applications to join the CI-MAP (and decision cases with restrictions), on their activities and conduct, and on proposals for process participants to share which others want to be associated, or not presented at the site.


6.½ day can form groups to discuss these and other proposed actions.


Decision making in plenary would always be by consensus, with voice and vote of the active members. Partners tend Right
only voice and observers would have no say.


Commissions would be self-managed, even financially.


The Commission Memory and Expansion of the process is responsible for organizing the discussion of proposals for each World Forums
two years, and the process of making decisions about them. She also accompany permanent derrick update
process memory.


The CI-MAP would be supported by an Administrative Secretariat, with well-defined and limited functions:


-of maintaining an informative and interactive site of the Council and the WSF process, with information on the IC itself and the work of
its committees, on the proposals and actions of the participants of the WSF process, on forums or projected completion, and global forums. This site would be continuous, without being confused with sites created for each FSM.


-of management consulting the school on new members of CI-MAP.


To also not confuse CI-AP Secretariat with the Secretariats of each WSF to be held, the IC-MAP would be installed for two years, ever since the end of the FSM (and in the country where it was made) until the next WSF, and it is running even six months pivotally with the new secretariat for the next period.


Each WSF Secretariat would be installed to run before and during the respective FSM, supporting then the next WSF Secretariat.




8.Necesitamos a new version of "* * liaison group" to work practices, avoiding the shortcomings of the above?


No, since it tends to become a power within the IC. The Secretariat and Commissions fill the role that was intended for when Liaison Group has been created, with more horizontal and more responsibility.


Chico Whitaker, September 14, 2015

 GUS 

gustave massiah response to questionnaire
I think the IC must be maintained 
even if the activity of the IC is quite low, and sometimes insufficient, 
the absence of CI would be serious for the process, symbolically and sometimes actually as Reference CI may be quite profoundly altered without need to define another instance type






 - CI composition:
o In the questionnaire last year, most of the members said that the CI had to be expanded.  How? 
 By inviting 'new' social movements (if they want to come) 

two openings needed: 
organizations that organize and participate actively in the World Social Forums, regional, national, thematic 
new movements who agree to come here 


 o Should members be categorized: active / associate / observer? 

yes, it is a way to expand the CI without the paralyzing 
and also solve the issue of financial contributions or participation by militant participation in the activities and functioning 



- The operation of the IC:
o horizontalism it must be abandoned in favor of a more structured form of decision-making? 

I do not think that horizontality prevents decision making 
and prevents the creation of fractions 


o Do we need clearer structures to promote transparency and accountability (accountability) 

Yes certainly 



o Do we need a new version of the 'linker' for practical tasks while avoiding the shortcomings of the past?
 

I think that administrative secretariat sufficient and ad hoc working groups for the implementation of ad hoc or permanent tasks 



- Objective and Strategy of the IC (and here too WSF):
o Can we articulate a concrete goal (beyond terminate capitalism / neoliberalism 'and, in that respect to the CI, the' facilitation 'of the WSF) 

be the tool for defining international movement strategies 



o Can we discuss a strategy if we do not have clarity on our goals? Think of our lengthy discussions for years about space and / or movement and / or action. 

WSF is the definition of mobilizations space, elaborations and alliances 


o The IC can it become a kind of 'governance' (excuse the word, we do not find better) WSF with a well-defined responsibilities and accountability? 

it is more a facilitator than a ruler 


- How to re-politicize the CI?
o The non-directive nature of the IC should it be abandoned? 

it would be illusory; there is no way to impose a directivity except for exclusions 


o Can we organize more serious political debates on the situation in the world (as requested by a majority of members in the questionnaire last year) 

it is essential 
it would be easier to organize debates autonomous places associated with the CI 


o Does the Charter principles be changed? 


it's very random and will lead to Byzantine discussions or splits 
it is better to keep the Charter and adopt additional texts 
as we did in Abuja [Copenhagen] with the text on the organization of forums 


 
- The Solidarity Fund should it be re-activated to ensure the presence of movements that otherwise can not attend meetings?
o Members of the IC should they pay their membership CI?

requires contributions that cover the operation of the IC that can be set by the management of certain activities of the CI 
the Solidarity Fund should be reactivated; perhaps seeking support some near foundations process

 CADTM response to the questionnaire of CI / FSM 


- Existence of CI: CI should it be maintained? Can it possibly be replaced by another type of instance (representative / facilitator)?

We are for maintaining the CI. It remains important and useful for the process despite the difficulties it is currently facing. 

- CI Composition: 
o In the questionnaire last year, most of the members said that the CI had to be expanded. How? 
§ By inviting 'new' social movements (if they want to come)

Yes it is useful to involve, in one way or another, the new social movements. 
O Should members be categorized: active / associate / observer?

This is not a good idea to categorize members. We can describe as observers representatives of organizations that have filed their applications for membership but which have not yet been decided by the IC. 

- The operation of the IC: 
o horizontalism should it be abandoned in favor of a more structured form of decision-making?

No, one must keep the same formula of decision making with all members to avoid some "categorization" that will only create tension.


o Do we need clearer structures to promote transparency and accountability (accountability)

Yes all the structures in place (including commissions and / or working groups) must have a clear mandate and must make their reports.


o Do we need a new version of the 'linker' for practical tasks while avoiding the shortcomings of the past?

The liaison group has shown its limits. It allowed control IC meeting by a minority of people. The establishment of a secretariat provided by an organization (not an individual or individuals) can play an important role. 

- Objective and Strategy of the CI (and here too WSF): 
o Can we articulate a concrete goal (beyond terminate capitalism / neoliberalism ', and in regard to the CI, the' facilitation 'of the WSF)

The IC of the WSF as a facilitator, can / will play the role of catalyst of the struggles of movements whose overall objective of combating neoliberalism in its capitalist phase.


o Can we discuss a strategy if we do not have clarity on our goals? Think of our lengthy discussions for years about space and / or movement and / or action.

We must have clear goals and a strategy (or strategies) equally clear to achieve them.


o The IC can it become a kind of 'governance' (excuse the word, we do not find better) WSF with a well-defined responsibilities and accountability?

No, the IC has a facilitating role. 

- How to re-politicize the CI? 
o The non-directive nature of the IC should it be abandoned?

No, that's the bureaucracy that having a direction of a body whose role is to facilitate the process.


o Can we organize more serious political debates on the situation in the world (as requested by a majority of members in the questionnaire last year)

Yes, it's always interesting to open discussions on the international situation.


o Does the Charter principles be changed?

Not necessary the key is how to ensure compliance with these principles by members and by the participants in the WSF. A new debate on changing the charter is likely to take a lot of time at the expense of critical issues. 

- The Solidarity Fund it should be re-activated to ensure the presence of movements that otherwise can not attend meetings?

Yes, it will ensure the principle of solidarity.


o Members of the IC should they pay their membership CI?

Ok for annual contributions.