• mexico22 input3.8Q en

last modified November 5, 2022 by facilitfsm

WSF IC - FSM CI |  |CIMexico22                                                                                              ICconsensus           ICoption4


 ORIG - EN - ES - FR - PT 



Bartiria @25 - Chico @18 - 22 - 24 - Francine @1 - 13 - 19 - Ian @6 - 10 - 21 - 23 - 31- 33 - Kamal @17 - Norma @5 -9 - 29 - Ole @27 - Pierre @11 - 28 - Rita @16 - Sheila @2- 4 -8 - 15 - Rosa @3 - 7- 11 - 12 - 14 - 20 - 26 - 30 -32 - 34 - 38


see also the tchat with two discussions @20 @23 about the difference with the assembly of social movements and @28 about instituting processes 

( automatic from spanish version) 


@1 Francine ………Of the assembly never in the name of the forum and never of course in the name of the International Council 

So it seems to me that we still have to discuss this point of the assembly.

Because we concluded that we are going to hold an assembly, but that is all. How to do it? all this has not been decided.



@2 Sheila I understand what Francine said that instead of staying in this clash in the international council, this proposal was created and I thought it was very good. Congratulations Francine on the exit. This from the Assembly.

But I think that, in any case, the decisions of the International Council, without considering the Assembly, need to review this concept of unanimity. So, finally, I think that the orientation of this group is that the idea and they (external facilitators)  present us with different forms, different possibilities of reaching a consensus that is not unanimity, and one important thing if there was this disposition, is the availability of participation that already have. is displayed, if you are looking for a possible date.

I think in a way it's a welcome thing to resolve the international council and still have to make a decision. In these perspectives, regardless of whether to make a statement on behalf of the board itself or not, but whatever decision is made is interesting that it is no longer unanimous. I would hold this meeting with the group of experts there in parallel to this organization of the Assembly.

How the Assembly is going to work and I believe that it is a decision of the Assembly itself. more how it will be constituted I think if we need to think together. is that

@3 Rose Okay, okay. I think Francine, maybe we are clear about what consensus is. And we have done it at different times. I think that maybe if we consider that it is important to do a session of our own for that, maybe we will see it 

But perhaps what obviously touches, is like this that Sheila says: How would you be? What thing are we going to recommend regarding , how is the assembly constituted ? some criteria elements. I don't know if it goes there. 

@4 Sheila Sorry to say it again. I keep thinking if it is in this consensus group that we have to deal with the constitution of the assembly, I don't know if it wouldn't be a broader group, you know?


@5 Norma I also think maybe that. But it seems to me that What they said remains the things that were left up in the air that have to be defined, because it is true that there is a certain generalized consensus that the International Council is on one side and an assembly of social movements is on the other. 

But what was left hanging in the air was, and some say if the social movement assembly was just an assembly of social movements external to the WSF, or if it was an assembly of social movements in the WSF. And if it is at the WSF, it means that when he is going to make a statement on his behalf he is going to say “this statement is not from an assembly of social movements,

 it is a declaration of “the social movement assembly of the WSF” 

I think that this is something that was not clear and that perhaps we should discuss, in case there are people who do not agree.

Rosa: yes, that's the point and that's it


@6 Ian Hello all I say all because there are some men who are well represented that's very good. If I think you are sure that we have to discuss because there is a proposal from Chico and from Francine at the same time, then I think that may be a solution that we could go developing detailing you have to build the. 

Sheila says that it is an assembly itself that decides on its members, but there are rules that we have to build together, perhaps before knowing what we are doing, because there may be conditions for the creation of this assembly. 

So I think there is a whole discussion to do. 

But I don't know if it has to be done here in that consensus group How it was said It's not clear to me. 

For me it is important to keep the consensus, because as Francine said, one of the only things that we could not solve in consensus was that: if the CI has to take positions? But for the other things we were always able to find consensus on a lot of things. 

So I think that we should concentrate instead, perhaps that group has to form a new proposal group of what this assembly can be and well and those things. 

And as Sheila says, the decision obviously has to be made more broadly, and as Norma said, because there is still consensus on everything, there are things to discuss. But hey, I think we're making progress, and I'm fine. Nothing more, thanks.



@7 Rosa before continuing I would like, if someone wanted to propose to take today's notes, do the synthesis? 

and I don't know if anyone wants to do it, it can be two people, we are not many! 

@8 Sheila I prefer not to, because last time I set out to do the meeting and then they charged me. Make a report of everything that was in the chat and everything else. and I am not in a position to do this survey beyond the meeting.

 Norma could you support?

@9 Norma I don't think I can today because I have to leave a little earlier, I can pass my notes but I'm not going to do the whole thing.

@10 Ian Rose I can do in an online document I'm going to share the link and what you want to add something that is a collective work. 



@11 Rosa Thank you, yes, I would recommend that they not be long texts. only with the agreements that there is no internal debate here. 

Well, my comment is that obviously we would have to propose. It is up to this commission to propose making proposals that facilitate decision-making when we are in the international council and that we do not eternalize ourselves in the international council. On the one hand, we are clear about some conditions that must be taken. the international council that maybe it should be put into a document,

 and what we have to work on is first to decide to propose the IC and propose it to the consensus that the assembly of movements of the world social forum, that is, it is an assembly of movements of the world social forum, which meets, with its own rules, has its own agenda, based on the problems it is dealing with, solving by working, and then it decides on that course.

The way in which the assemblies are carried out is another step, it is another moment that will involve the methodology commission of the assembly that prepared it. But I think it would be worth that point to move forward right now I think. I don't know if and who you already downloaded.



@11 Pierre If you would like to comment. We saw in the meeting on August 2 that if we focus only on the old, let's say agenda of this group, there is a confrontation of visions that formally there are very different visions. 

there are people who say that if you always decide by consensus, and consensus is discussion until an agreement is reached, whose formulation is acceptable to all, it does not mean that everything is agreed upon, what is the historical form the IC has used since its inception . 

That first way can be improved Ah, but the idea is that. 

There is another that says consensus that will define what is good, with the vote, with whatever 

We know this discussion. 

The only new element is the question that allows to change the approach a bit, and see an exit: that is to say: on the one hand there is an idea of ​​assembly, which is not yet defined

There have been proposals from Chico, proposal from Francine, I have put an understanding of what I understood from Chico and the reflection continues. 

But there is a shared interest in elaborating and discussing around an idea of ​​an assembly, whether it be inside, whether it be outside, whatever it may be, there are many things to discuss. 

But perhaps it is interesting to discuss the influence that a productive discussion would have on the assembly, on the way in which the problem of consensus is. 

I have made the transcript of the meeting of August 13 and I have seen that there are people like Francine and Rita who have said that if there was an exit with the assembly that seemed good to them, it is evident that the problem, the demands that they make about the CI can go to the assembly, and what they would accept according to what I understand the discussion and what they have said 

I named the people, because not all of them have said this. 

There are others who have remained, let's say "there is a conflict of interest" others who say that there are two that are little left like this, maintaining an implicit pressure on that 

There is a possible way out: it is to maintain the IC as the current consensus and the assembly. In this case, the problem of consensus becomes to improve the consensus as it has been, and it is not to make a speech about whether the consensus should be interpreted as majority vote for example.

So I agree with Francine that this discussion of the assembly gives a context to the discussion about consensus.

If we ignore this, we can continue saying “we are going to ask for external facilitators to help us fight over the redefined consensus or not. 

But the reality is not like that, the reality is that everything will depend on the dynamic that is created around a discussion about the assembly, as I understand it.

Perhaps there are people who see it that way, others who say “no matter what the assembly is, we continue to ask the IC to take a position”. 

I have seen that there are evolutions in relation to the idea of ​​the assembly 

So I don't know how to take this into account in this group? : o Is it necessary to create another new group, which is an assembly group?

I see it as a key point: it is seen that there is a possibility of leaving, and that it returns to the question of consensus when there is more clarity about the assembly.

Otherwise, well, we can play the agenda of August 2 “we can't reach an agreement, we are going to ask external facilitators”, but we know that we are still not going to be able to reach an agreement? I don't see what would be the way out with the external facilitators, and let's not take into account other elements. I don't see the point, let's say, of maintaining the initial agenda of the group. 

Perhaps it would be wise to wait a while and concentrate, or in this group in another place, on the discussion about the assembly, because that brings something new, it brings new things, it moves the lines. 

@12 Rosa Thank you Pierre I don't see any raised hands, the truth is that your explanation made me feel a bit strange because it makes me lose myself. I think you go around a lot, it doesn't migrate Of course what you mean is the truth. The thing is very messy.

@13 Francine I'll try to summarize what Pierre said. It's more or less what we said at the beginning of this meeting: we don't have a consensus problem. We always had a solution with consensus, except for the point of the declarations,

 and there is no solution to that problem, that is why Chico proposed, and today I made that initial proposal from Chico a more elaborate proposal, a proposal to use the formula of the assembly of the world social forum, parallel to the international council, and as an entity permanent, and it would be this assembly that can make declarations, manifestations of solidarity, on behalf of this assembly, not on behalf of the Council, not on behalf of the social forum. 

Pierre is right, that time is the key issue we have to discuss 

How to do this assembly? Of course, this assembly needs a certain measure of autonomy. But it has to collaborate permanently and closely with the international council. 

But that is the question we have to solve, and nothing more. Because we never had a problem with consensus, also as confirmed by Ian.


@14 Pink Likewise Francine. 

So I say that we do not have to create any commission.

This commission that is going to be the contribution and then the contribution that is made here has to be taken to the international council, to be approved, to say yes, with some amendments, whatever is necessary. 

So, taking advantage of the fact that I have the use of the floor, I would say that obviously the international council has its rules, that maybe they have to be reviewed, fine-tuned so that they are settled in a document and it is clear to all of us, that it is clear who integrates? That decides? when do you decide? And because ? And who supports it?

And for the assembly of movements the same; who integrates it? It is supposed to be an assembly of the movements that are part of the world social forum, and as movements they have an agenda, be they problematic priorities to attend to, and they have to pronounce themselves as an assembly of movements, and now for the same reason, they have autonomy to do so, and to decide their own rules.

 the question is to say “which movements are part of the assembly of the movement” there We would have to have a convocation as an international council to invite the social movements, and even us who are part of the movement, to integrate it, or to invite other actors. 

We have to think about who are these who are going to come, and then this implies preparing, at some point, how the assembly is done within the framework of the forum, the necessary conditions in short, who is the one who is going to write the letter or what are we going to finish as a statement.

In short, a series of things that an assembly carries. How are decisions made ? I think that is the step we have to take.



@15 Sheila I was worried about Norma's speech, regarding the question in the assembly and outside the forum. I would like to share the drawing that Francine made in her proposal, I can share the screen, the drawing seemed very clear to me. I can't share the screen. Yes now.

This was the design proposed by Francine, which I understood was approved. I didn't see anyone at the last meeting, there were people who kept quiet and nobody who said they were against it.

The World Social Forum is no longer just the council as an instance of its process, but the council and the Assembly. I would avoid calling it the Assembly of Movements or say that the Assembly of the World Social Forum is the Council of the World Social Forum, so that this confusion does not spread.

Then the council would have its structure functioning as it already has it, and the Assembly the same.

So they are parallel instances of the World Social Forum.

I would not call it an Assembly of Movements, so as not to have this problem.

And then there's another thing that I think is important to put and so on. I think it would be a way: whoever from the International Council who wanted to be part of the Assembly, could now join this group, and this group proceeds with the structuring and invitation to other organizations and everything else.

It is not the board as a whole that defines how this assembly is going to work, because that is not going to solve anything. And there is a call that I make, of everything as a prayer, we have a problem of taking the condition in the council, for this we have to believe the assembly

Now, if all those who believe that the council should not make a decision go to the Assembly to say that this assembly cannot make a decision, then it will be childish.

The advice remains as is. The Assembly is created to be different, I call on everyone to maturity, so that the Assembly can really be that new thing, that many people want to be.

that the Assembly be allowed to exist in a different form than an international council answering why what it decides. 


@16 Rita I arrived a little late and I have been traveling outside of São Paulo, he is preparing to participate in this very important meeting.

I wanted to hear Francine Rose say that the board has no consensus issues.

but I would like to make a small objection there, because he cannot resolve the declarations, ok, we are, I think that the Assembly will have autonomy for decisions, declarations, etc.

But the board also has difficulty defining its own decisions, and its referrals, this goes beyond the report, the things that are defined and that in another meeting someone says that it was not like that, that they do not remember. ,

 So I think that sometimes we will have to define if something is approved or not, right?

I think that in the last meeting about the assembly itself, everyone agreed, but Marcela said, oh, I don't know if everyone agreed.

It is something that we must be very clear about; the way the board makes its decisions is not about declarations, and I think sometimes the decisions are not necessarily consensual.

 So, the problem of Consensus, in my opinion, remains for the IC as well, so I don't want to discuss it now, because I think we've taken an important step, regarding the possibility of an assembly, which is playing this role.

I just wanted to put the name, I think it should be "assemblies of the struggles of the World Social Forum", which is not an assembly for any decision more related to the struggles, if I think it is not just an instance that goes there, look at the advice international is getting to make a decision and then the assembly makes the declaration.

It has to be all the legitimacy of a permanent process, which mobilizes, as well as CI, it must make these decisions and transparent representative meetings even if the members participate, it can be a transmitted meeting.

I believe that the organization of this assembly is not going to be a simple thing, it is not a gift for those who are looking for this alternative, because they are going to have to face the issues of mobilization, capacity to convene, coordination with those who left. , with those who did not arrive, to be part of the forum process, which has historically been made unfeasible due to limitations.

Then some rules that are the internal rules of operation, but the division of functions like this, could be defined jointly.

And then I agree with Sheila in the future to hold an assembly to get out of the obstruction process at all times, it is an assembly that has to try new ways of influencing the common social struggles of the world, in politics, right?

So that meant that the Assembly would have, as it would be something parallel to the IC, it would also have obligations to hold meetings with representation, convene them, organize them in the face-to-face forum, that they be online, that they have a discussion process, and be able to reach these protests, right?

 Because we cannot run the risk of creating an instrument that becomes a second way of collecting signatures.

Let's do who agrees like this? Nope ! They are live processes, that there are, that are going to give a lot of work, do you understand?

I think there should have been this availability to mobilize the dialogue, to expand the scope of the forum, to have a real impact in provoking fundamental discussions in the forum, and that meant thank you. 


@17 Kamal Thanks Rosie I feel like we're making life a bit complicated for ourselves. It seems to me that the discussion has advanced a lot on the question of consensus, on the basis of a principle that has been repeated by all, nor of the national consensus….

Piere there is no translation into English

So I start again quickly: we complicate our existence, we have advanced in the debate.

We were at a very important point of divergence, on a particular question: is the IC going to take political positions or not?

I think this question has become almost obsolete: everyone today says

that neither the IC nor the likely, possible, desirable assembly can speak on behalf of the World Social Forum. This is a fundamental and important advance that we must specify in the minutes.

The second element that we find is that the decision-making processes within the International Council are not clear. It is about bringing clarifications, precisions, but not in terms of political declarations, since they have been evacuated, they have been set aside.

but about how to decide on a number of things that fall within CI's role in facilitating the Social Forum and facilitating contact between social movements on a global scale.

3rd element: in my opinion, given this magnificent proposal that our friend Francine made us, it seems to me that in view of all the questions that have been asked, it would be appropriate to isolate this question, knowing that it has a link with the World Social Forum and with the International Council.

It is about starting from the principle on which we all agree: an assembly cannot be decided by an international Council.

The International Council proposes as a way out, as a possible solution to overcome the stagnation of political declarations, to promote the constitution of an assembly.

Basically it is the social movements that must create this assembly, it does not depend on us.

Now, we are members, probably, of this assembly, as members of the International Council, some will join, some will not join.

We are ready to take political positions as an assembly, once everything has been arranged, both its statutes, its operation, its composition, its former secretariat.

And possibly give the International Council, this assembly, a somewhat special status within the World Social Forum, arrange the space, arrange the moments of declaration, arrange some specific meetings with this assembly and the International Council.

But in my opinion, this is a debate that should take place outside the consensus process, in which we practically agree and in which we have gone further. Thank you very much. 



@18 Chico I think things are going slowly, they will clarify where the divergences and convergences are.

I am going to try to speak now closer to the microphone because of what I was saying that little by little things are becoming clearer, in relation to the things on which we still do not agree, so I would say that this meeting is already taking on the dimension of a meeting that is broader than on consensus, we are already talking about the creation or not of this Assembly,

The second thing I wanted to say: I think that Francine's proposal reduces the potential and the possibilities of an assembly because it puts it on the same level as the IC

And in that sense it creates another problem than a kind of possible contradiction between the council and the Assembly because they are not made up of the same people, by the same organizations and can create a divergence that is difficult to overcome.

My vision, this proposal that I gave Francine at the beginning of our conversation  [in july]. My vision is that the Assembly is on the same level as the World Social Forum itself, that is, be something that exists at the same time as the World Social Forum  exists.

And in that sense, I would say that the concept of the “World Social Forum process” should be broadened.

We So far  use   not reduced to the IC but to everything that has been born from the world social forums of the IC itself: for example the local forums, the regional forums, the national forums, the thematic forums.

 And we call this process, if we broaden the conception of the process and include the assembly in what was born from the forum, we would also have, in addition to everything else, the assembly that is at a higher level than all the others because it encompasses is higher than the broadest thing was that it was a theme of the Regional, National, that is, another type of instance that was created.

And we could refer to it, not even as the Assembly of Social Movements, because that is remembering previous experiences that were not very positive, not even of…. It would be something else, but that exists parallel to the forum itself.

It would have a special relationship with the other things that exist in the forum; it would have a special relationship with all the forums from the World one to the local ones and I even thought that these assemblies could exist not only at the World level ; but they could also exist at a national level and even at a regional or local level.

It is a type of process that is born of another nature, more focused on carrying out articulated actions in the forums, the forums continue to move towards action, but the assemblies create possibilities for action,to become  from all together, articulated, including mainly planetary actions. In the case of the world assembly.

And in that sense I would not call it an Assembly of social movements, or a forum of struggles, I would call it a World Social Assembly.

In other words, something that is there to create an Instance for the realization of planetary action proposals,

In other words, to conclude I would say that this topic is not yet mature, and it was even said that it was accepted at the meeting  [13th august], yes it was accepted as a principle of discussion, to open the new Horizon it was accepted by all of us.

But there have already been those who raised, as in this same meeting, the need to deepen this proposal, which would be this assembly.

I bring here a more detailed elaboration of my proposal on which Francine based herself to do what she did,

And to say that I would prefer it, I think it is preferable that it have another character, that it be included not in the World Social Forum, but in the process of the World Social Forum, to even open the 'space of national, regional, and even local assemblies , that is, we are no longer linked to action, a better way of articulating everything, than our great objective with the forum, the great objective of the forum is that we cannot continue with one in his fight, ignoring the others, and sometimes even competing with each other, sometimes on the desktop but in the sectors that appeared on the same desktop, there were different organizations working.

The forum was created so that convergences are recognized and discovered and articulated for actions.

Now something was missing that would allow these actions to be carried out tentatively.

For example, during a time in the life of the forum, many times proposals for actions came out of the Council meetings, or they passed in the council, they did not come out, but they proposed planetary actions.

The typical case of the mobilization against the war in 2003, this proposal was born from the organizations that participate in the forum, but it did not have a special space

Then they came, the proponents of these proposals asked the IC to articulate them, that is, to promote them and they said that at that moment 2  discussion in the first in Florence ESF2002, in the second in Porto Alegre  WSF2003, the IC concluded that it was not its role because it did not want to replace organizations. The actions of the organizations are theirs, if they want to be articulated globally, articulated, a space for articulation was lacking and that is what this assembly comes to fill.

In fact, I think that the topic that I am saying is not for discussion now, obviously there will be disagreements, but it is up to us to go deeper.

so my idea is to just say “let's go slow with procession litter”. Here Brazil has a very interesting expression when there is a religious procession, the saint is usually built of clay on the litter, something that is carried, people said "Go slowly with the litter, the saint is made of clay". if it falls, it breaks.

Here too we have to go slowly with the procession litter, because we are at a delicate moment in the life of the forum, and who knows, it will be a very creative moment, but for that we have to have patience, we have to have serenity, we have to have wisdom, to be able to do things.

I don't think we can quickly introduce this topic to this group, we have to think about how to get out of this. Thanks. 


@19 Francine Thanks Chico It seems to me that your proposal, Chico, is something very, very different. They are two totally different proposals, of what an assembly could be.

The proposal that I made, and that we have already discussed several times, has a single objective: to get out of the dilemma we are in. 

Your proposal, Chico, goes much further, it is much more ambitious, and in fact, what you describe we can already do. We do not need a new proposal, we can already do it. It does not change anything in the situation in which we are already. 

While the proposal that we are discussing, of an assembly of the forum, and parallel to the council, is fair and mainly to get out of the dilemma in which we are: that is, to be able to speak on behalf of the assembly, and what are we going to say, I think We have already said it several times: demonstrations of solidarity. That is the main objective. 

Now, if we can discuss this, and agree on this, then we can finally move forward with the forum. 

Because now we have been discussing for years, for years, issues to which there is no solution, and I very much hope, Chico, I very much hope, that this new proposal, this possibility of getting out of the impasse we are in, is not going to be blocked, because it is a solution, Chico, is a solution to move forward with the forum, so that the forum can be relaunched, become more dynamic. And that would be possible, and nothing more, nothing more. 

But, please, if we start discussing a proposal that does not contribute anything new, because we can already do what you describe, please, I very much hope that we can move forward with this parallel assembly to the council. Thank you. 


@20 Rosa The list is me and ian I would like to comment that what Chico points out seems to me to be already happening in the world.

There are movements that call themselves to hold an assembly, and they can be carried out without us. But I think that the important thing is how the entities that are part of the Council can make decisions, in the sense, carry out actions of solidarity, as he points out Francine, regarding situations that concern us, such as movements. 

And there it seems to me that, like several proposals, I thought: we have the world social forum, I would see as a second level the assembly of movements, which make this world social forum, and then comes the council, which in a certain way could I think about it a lot with the structure of CEAAL as well, but it doesn't necessarily have to be like that, but it could dictate some questions for the council 

But it seems good to me that they are on the same level. In other words, the council and it has a weight, a series of instances with certain positions, and the assembly of the movement, as Rita said, the assembly of the struggle of the world social forum, which also has its agenda, and which has a practice to issue actions of solidarity, or promote campaigns, or do a series of things. 

So according to what Francine says. It is not about creating an external one of movements, because maybe it already exists there, there is the assembly of peoples, but it has its own dynamics. would have to see the world assembly of peoples, assemblies that already exist 

But I think it is important to have this assembly of the struggles of the world social forum, or of the movements of the world social forum. that was my reflection


@21 Ian yes The truth is that I have to study the two proposals well, because I don't see much difference between one and the other, except that in Chico's, he is clearly sure that, that there will be no confusion of the fact that the assembly spoke on behalf of the world social forum.

It would be a little clearer, but the truth is that I have to read the proposals well.

What I do not agree with is that it is said that "they can already do it" Well, anyone can create an assembly, and in fact, as you said, Rosy, many did. 

But the idea is not to create an assembly like others, it is to create an assembly that has a special relationship with the world social forum.

What does special relationship mean? For me, this special relationship, as Rita said a bit at one point, would have to be more of a relationship of collaboration, of articulation, of networks all around networks. 

For example, when you have a world social forum that this assembly has a special place, a special communication, that this assembly can use all the communication media of the world social forum, or at least some of them, that it can create articulations , use the mailing list I, all those kinds of things that you can't do right now. no assembly can create all the articulations and everything we did because it does not have the legitimacy for now it does not have this special relationship.

So for me I do not agree on the fact that it can already be done, that anyone can do it, I think that the special relationship is a matter of working together, of articulations, and this, as we have said several times, trust is needed, and many other things.


@22 Chico I decided to talk, but I didn't want to have a dialogue with Francine, a discussion with Francine, I wanted to get into the group, and that's why Ian's entry was very good, before I spoke, he raised some of these problems 

and I see that Francine reduces the potentiality of an assembly too much; 

What is not like what exists, there is no longer something of the world type, which is linked to the entire process of the WSF, it does not exist. We are creating something new,

And I find that leaving it at the Council level, instead of solving problems, is going to create future problems, and that is what we have to avoid. 

In this sense, there is no need to be afraid that this assembly will grow, it must grow 

And I must have even said it, it must have different levels, which are complementing each other, but it is a different dynamic.

Now, within that assembly, there is an international council-type body, which exists for the world social forum, and there is a body that helps. The dialogue should be between that body, and the body of the world social forum 

But the assembly has its existence in the world as something totally new, almost an assembly of the United Nations that is of peoples, it is a way to reach something of the type assembly of the peoples

The United Nations Assembly is an Assembly of governments. This would be an assembly of the peoples. Therefore, it is not necessary to reduce it. you have to have in my opinion, and on that I disagree a little with Francine, we should not be afraid of being daring, we have to be daring, we have to move forward and propose.

I find this World Social Assembly as something really that is going to stay the assembly of the peoples, that does things, that intervenes, that makes declarations, that makes proposals, that brings together who? All who are in the world social forum and who want to participate in it.

But I don't want to continue to establish a debate with just francine, I say that this issue needs to be further explored. 


@23 Francine One sentence. Of course more in depth:, is what we said at the end of the last meeting, but we are looking for a solution to our problem, Chico, we are not inventing other things. 

We are looking for a solution to our problem, nothing more, nothing more! 

If some want to block that Okay, then so be it. But needing a solution to our problem. Thank you

@24 Chico Yes Francina speaks, I have to speak. Who speaks last? What do I do? Now we are looking for a better kind of solution to our problems. That is the question. The solution that I propose is nothing new: it is a leap forward. We get out of the problem, not staying in the problem, but getting out of it, and creating a leap forward that creates other possibilities.



@25 Bartiria Good afternoon here in Brazil, Good evening elsewhere

Well, I would like to talk a little bit about the question of this structure that Francine presented.

The structure, the scheme with structure of how it would be for us to decide here. A FSM structure, IC structure, assembly structure. And a dialogue scheme is being made.

So I think it's not a parallel assembly, it's a structure that is within this presented organization chart, which Francine presented, because if it is parallel, there will also be some problems; This is an organization structure.

It even has a structure that has a forum, we have the IC, the Assembly that is inside the forum for a day of forum space, and that from what I understand in this dialogue, in all this passage that was presented that we have been discussing This assembly is to solve a problem that the IC has, who makes the decisions, and which Assembly begins to make the decisions, will be deliberative, in that forum, on the day it is held.

This Assembly of the WSF brings together all the movements, after the assemblies that can continue the Assembly of the movements that it has, there are various convergents such as the assembly that converge with this assembly of the forum, assumed by the forum, and assumed as deliberative, that the declarations are really decisions of this forum, of this assembly, that the agendas of struggle also, be decisions and operationalized.

Because I am speaking here of my experience of the social movements within the forum, which they have followed for many years, since the first forum, that one of the problems we have with the social movements is that the forum is a forum in itself, the forum, that the Assembly of social movements, for not being assumed by the IC, by the forum itself, has no value. This is something that our schedule does what it doesn't, happens or doesn't happen.

So with this decision, you assume that this is deliberation.

And these deliberations will be...

The IC will also have to accompany these deliberations, together with the secretariat, so that this happens, so that it is disseminated, so that everyone is informed, and all the fighting organizations can be converging and directed to regional forums, forums that happen, that they are in several countries of the world, where there is already a whole movement,

 that I think there is going to be dialogue, it is going to improve, what Chico says that we have already talked about something like that with those who already have it, the decisions that are going to be made, and that none of these regional forums is going to question, no declaration , the some fight agenda, because the World Social Forum, in its assembly, deliberated on these points, these declarations, these agendas.

This is our understanding, which has always been the case, mainly in the various movements from which we most converge, it may be that there are other movements that do not have this understanding, and they never questioned it.

But we, who are from CONAM, from FECOC, from the International Alliance of Inhabitants, our fellow trade unionists, with whom we also spoke, and with many others, it was always this: is it a forum in itself? What do you decide in this forum? What converges in this forum? Take away this agenda, but who touches this agenda, how will it be?

I also think that the assembly will be followed up, so that this also happens together with CI, that these agendas be passed, that these declarations be made known, and that they be respected from the date of the Assembly.

And a little bit what I wanted to put here, because this is an anxiety that we have, and it will be a great advance for us from the popular social movements, if that happens.

And you don't have to create anything else body within that assembly. The IC has to monitor this movement that we were talking about in the deliberations of the assembly. This is my opinion and the discussion we have been having 


@26 Rosa I understand Chico's point, that he says that we have to be more daring, of course, but we also don't have to recognize our limitations, and go step by step, as Chico himself says, and of course we have to start with own thing, with our own house. 

It has been said that the international council cannot issue statements in the name of the forum, or even in the name of the IC itself.

The last declaration we signed was “the member entities of the International Council…. they denounce such a thing” and we saw that an alternative to issuing declarations of solidarity is to constitute an “assembly of struggles and movements of the world social forum” 

This does not mean that we are going to replace the popular social movement or the social movements, but it is an entity that represents the social movements that are part of the forum, or that want to be in the forum, and for that we have to do all that : define the rules, the structure, how decisions are made, and it is a process, it does not have to be decided now also, we have to define it there with the IC as a whole

So I think that's what we want. 

As Francine rightly says: that is the point of debate that we have in the council, it is a way out that suits us all, to be the proposal the proposal: an assembly of movements, the council, with its own dynamics and its own rules, with its particular members, perhaps some members of the council or entities can be in the assembly for their policies and others, but not all of them have to be in the assembly. 

Even in this assembly there may be movements that are not part of the Council. So we have to move towards that, I think we also had to prepare a dialogue with the international council, regarding this, because here we do not have to decide, we have to propose how it would work, and I think we are moving forward in this regard. 

Well also to say that we don't have much time left, because I asked the interpreters for an hour and a half and we have 4 minutes left for this process, and Francine left us, she said she had to leave. 


@27 Ole Thanks, can you hear me? I'll speak in English, and I find this parallel assemblage to be a bit confusing, and it's hard for me to understand how we're actually going to figure anything out, because as long as it's in parallel with the IC, and as a world social forum assemblage, I think even if we can write it in an organization chart "ok, this declaration of this initiative of this assembly is not from the social forum of work but from the assembly of the social forum that is part of the social forum", I think it could be very confusing for the public and for those outside who receive this statement, and understand the difference.

So I think that what really makes sense is that the assembly should be, as Chico said, at the height of the word social forum, and not the IC, and that it should be a truly autonomous body of the general process of the world social forum.

And also that it could receive very strong support and could have a good space in the World Social Forum, and the IC could help to mobilize for it, support it and do what we can to strengthen it, but unless it is an independent body of the process from word social forum, I don't see how it solves anything and I think it would just add more confusion. Thanks. 



@28 Pierre Bueno would like to remind you that we have three months until Tunisia. If Tunisia is at the end of November, if it is confirmed that we will have Tunes at the end of November, we have three months to… then we are not with a knife to our throats, we have time to think and compare, explore etc., to be able to discuss calmly, I think it is an invaluable element and it is important.

And I see that we agree that for facilitation decisions of the WSF space-process, consensus, how to look for formulations of decisions, I would say written, that are acceptable by all in a certain perimeter, in the IC in this case, I think there is a consensus . 

The problem is when there are people who want the IC to do something else. But it's important to remember that we have this basis that, to make facilitation decisions that generally don't need urgency, consensus works. 

So in this case the question of the discussion about what consensus means is deflated.

What is important is to see how the people who have put their energy into the CI making statements, where they can put this energy. This, I understand, is a problem that needs to be solved. 

The IC facilitates a WSF space process, and it does not want to replace the participants in this intercommunication process, which are the organizations participating in the forum. 

Now we are talking about something else. When Chico and Francine talk about “forums” and “assemblies”, it should be noted that, in both cases, there are facilitation committees or whatever; or driving or executive, whatever. 

A general assembly has an executive committee, preparer, facilitator, whatever, but it has one, and a social forum process has a facilitating committee. 

I think it is also important in our discussion to go down to the level of these committees, because that is where you can say precise things, when you want to institute something. 

So I think that you have to think about the instituting process of what you want to imagine. 

So I propose that people, what is the proposal they have, but that people think about the instituting process, and try to give it a reality, explore to be able to compare. 

Because concrete things are going to appear in writing there, questions that perhaps in verbal conversation do not appear so clearly. 

And another thing to finish: Chico puts the discussion in a big field called the “FSM process in general”. 

Now, if we just talk about the social forums, the situation I think would be, within the framework of the work of the IC, which is only responsible for the world process of historical events in Porto Alegre, with its 15 events. There is already a whole reflection, when the council welcomes facilitating committees of the social forum, which want to contribute to facilitating the global process of the Forum, while at the same time reaffirming that these processes are autonomous.

So there is a reflection of what are the relationships between the facilitating committees of such a process, and the IC, what is a bit of the World process? 

In the same way, an assembly is instituted, whether internal to the SF or external to the world WSF process, but not external to the global WSF process. We have to think about how this new Object and its committee are going to relate to these things that are in this overall process. 

You have to give time, think about the instituting processes, and explore ways and think about the relationships between the processes, be it a social forum, be it a world social assembly that are there

 I invite you to work even on written proposals, to ground the concrete of these instituting ideas, and not to speak of "forum" and "assemblies" because these are produced processes.

The reality is that if there is no IC, there is no WSF, or if there is no committee of such an assembly, there is no assembly, we have to think about focusing on the committees.


@29 Norma I think we are effectively trying to find a way around it, let's say, to get out of the problem of many years ago. 

What I think is not entirely clear, and does not want to do on this issue, that some of the instances of the world social forum have a Global voice on behalf of all, is that I either do not understand, or do not understand which is what we want, is the subject of symbolism. 

It is not the same as the Davos Forum, The owners of the world, raise something: it is immediately taken over, reproduced by the hegemonic, alternative media, etc. What they say, what local organizations of businessmen or owners of local power, that we know a lot, that reproduce locally, regionally/

The symbolic thing is that the Davos Social Forum appeared as "the voice" of the owners of the world and in parallel, the World Social Forum appears as "the voice" of the diversity of those excluded from world society by the owners of the Davos Forum. . 

So there is a symbolic question that we are here not taking into the center. In other words, we all say it in different ways, but one is trying to say "better that some organizations say it" and another we say "Well better that we all say it" 

Because there is a theme that appears a lot in what Pierre says: he says "the IC cannot replace the organizations" 

y We are not talking about substituting, we are talking on behalf of all the organizations that include it 

In other words, the world alliance of inhabitants does not replace all its members, let alone its assemblies, its decisions, deliberations, etc.

And when they reach decisions, they speak on behalf of everyone and say it from them, then the one we are really talking about. 

And we are thinking about it, because some of us want, it is not true, that the social forum can speak symbolically, on behalf of all the peoples and the struggles of the world, and others do not, because they consider that this does not correspond. 

But that's the thing. it's called an assembly, it's called the networks, it's called an alliance, it's called whatever it's called, the problem is that what we're discussing now, so that the forum doesn't break up, that's the issue; it is somehow, to stop some instance of the world social forum, which includes all the thematic regional forums, etc., because at some point it was said that this world assembly includes all the forums in the thematic and regional forums that are part of the world social forum

So, thinking about this new world assembly, above everything that exists, of course it is very daring, and as Rosi says it has many limitations.

But it is something else, this is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is how we can, within the world social forum, find a way to power, not just make declarations, it seems to me more than declarations of solidarity, it is important to make proposals, or support proposals for global action, because the world is at a time where we are going to global collapse.

It is not to make a statement supporting the fight of so-and-so, but as everyone to stop this debacle. 

So I just want to say that we keep in mind that we are discussing the symbolic. 

We are not discussing whether, organized or methodologically, it is better to do it from here or from there. 

We are talking about whether or not we want the world social forum to speak on behalf of all the excluded, whether it be called the social forum, the IC, the assembly, or any other name. But that's what we're talking about.

@30 Rosa Ian Let's close with your word and see how we fare. 


@31 Ian -Well I'll try to be short, I wanted to summarize, but I'm very interested in what Norma just said, because it's a real philosophical debate we're in.

Norma says that symbolism is important. I totally agree with that, but for me, there is nothing more symbolic than having a forum that works in a radically different way from Davos. 

Davos speaks the name of the great, the forum does not speak: the peoples below speak. There is not one way of speaking, there are thousands of ways of speaking, there are thousands of ways of thinking. 

Not only does the world system exist, as Davos tells us, who imposes it, speaks it and does it. No! That's what's interesting about the forum for me. So philosophically, symbolically, it's even more interesting: a forum that he doesn't talk about in his letter. 

Very powerful for me, symbolically, speaking to him, symbolic if we go in that environment.

but you can talk about this for hours, it seems to me. 

In fact, I'm talking to you too Norma: it's not the statements that count, it's the global actions.

But it did not stop us from making tremendous demonstrations against the war in Iraq. the IC did not speak. I don't need to speak and it was even stronger. 

This seems to me that it could be an interesting topic to talk about, perhaps within the discussions that Rosy proposed, that there are perhaps many things that are interesting. 

I also understood well what Bartiria was proposing. I already strongly agree that in any case, there must be a special relationship with the assembly. I still don't know which one, I have to discuss it with Attac and with my colleagues. 

But there is something I don't agree with. Regarding dissemination, yes, everything that the assembly does has to be disseminated, but the IC does not have to do the secretariat of this assembly. He has to do everything so that the decisions of the Assembly are applied.

The assembly will have to have its own secretary, yes it is necessary, but it cannot be the IC that does that, the IC can, within the communication commissions and all this, disseminate 

Well nothing else. I'm not going to talk anymore, why talk

and now just to conclude, to see if the notes I took. Do not hesitate to go to the link that I put here in the chat, to be able to modify anything.

But let's say quickly what I think can be said.

That there is the conclusion that:

For now the consensus has to follow the IC decision method. 

We all agree that the assembly has a special relationship with the world social forum and the IC. That we all agree.

The only thing is that there are two different proposals, regarding the exact place that this assembly has to have within the process of the world social forum.

I think we still have to talk about that, but those are the three keys to this meeting. If I'm wrong, don't hesitate to modify or add. Thank you.


@32 Rosa yes, I think we agree. that there has to be an assembly of movements, and that we have to debate how it is constituted, how it is formed, how it is concretized. 

We have time to concretize this maturation. 

We also have emergencies, because there are things that happen in the world that require a word, and we can move forward in the process.

And it would be worth sharing that, either with written documents, or with advances in accordance with the international council, to move forward in the reflection. 

And it would only be to see if we see each other in a next time, or wait for when?


@33 Ian. It seems to me that, to advance further, we should make written proposals, right?

@34 Rosa We can give ourselves time to send a proposal by mail or in the chat and then we will see.

 The decision of the colleagues from Tunisia is pending, regarding the proposed date that they gave that they will have it on September 1st. It moves a lot of things we have to be in good processes.

@35 Guy on August 27 is there any IC meeting planned?

@36 Rosa yes it was planned but no: it was postponed, because it was a dialogue that we were going to have with the companion from Italy, but we said no. 

@37 Sheila O Paco says that he cannot participate due to family health problems and says that he will participate in the next meeting.

@38 Rosa We continue in the dialogue. And thanks to the fellow interpreters who helped us. A hug tchau tchau. 



Chat _____________________________________


DISCUSSION 1-1    and    DISCUSSION 1-2  (@23) (@20) ABOUT IF THIS ASSEMBLY IS OTHER THAN SOCIAL MOVEMENTS (differences between what was said by francine/sheila and Rosa with questions from Meena) 

DISCUSSION 2  (@28) ON ISSUES OF INSTITUTING PROCESSES (Rita Rosa Pierre - incipient) 

From Meena 05:10 PM

Hi. This is Meena from the Asia Pacific Social Forum process. I will read the minutes later since there is no English. i don't want to trouble Rosy

From Rand 05:12 PM

hello there I will also read the minutes later, too.

(availability of English confirmed) 

From Analba 05:23 PM

Hello companheiras e companheiros. excuse or delay



From Sheila 05:25 PM (@1) (@20)

yes , the proposal is very clear : it is an assembly of the WSF and a council of the WSF

the assembly proposal is internal to the WSF, it is not the same as an assembly of social movements

From Ian 05:29 PM (@8)

notes: https://pad.attac.org/p/

From Rosy 05:42 PM (@16)

Rita, Kamal, Chico

From Ian 05:43 PM

But I think no one said that, Sheila, right? haha (@15)

From Analba 05:43 PM   (@15)

Perfect Sheila! perfect

From Rosy 05:43 PM (@15)

Of course.

From Analba -05:45 PM (@15)

Rita true. We have to be very attentive to the decisions we make ourselves.

From Rosy 05:46 PM (@17)

Kamal, Boy

From Ian 05:47 PM (@16)

Rita, are you talking about the collaboration rules?

From Meena 05:50 PM

no english  thank you so much maybe text in the chat?



From Rosy 05:54 PM ( @20)

Of course, not all the entities that are in the IC will be in the Assembly.


From Sheila 05:59 PM (@18)

There is no agreement on this Boy. Your proposal is exclusive

From Rosy 06:01 PM(@19)

Francine, Rose

From Sheila 06:02 PM (@18) 

I totally disagree with your proposal]a]

From Rosy 06:08 PM (@20)

Rosy, Ian, Chico


From Meena 06:08 PM ( @20)

Is there no clarity about who will be in the Assembly and who will speak on whose behalf?

From Francine 06:10 PM

membership will have to be discussed Meena, the assembly will speak on behalf of the assembly

From Rosy 06:11 PM (@22)

Boy, Bartiria

From Meena 06:11 PM (@20)

How will it differ from an Assembly of social movements?

From Rosy 06:12 PM (@23) (@20)

Yes Francine.

Of course, you have to create the conditions to create it.

Rules, participation criteria.

From Francine 06:12 PM (@23)  


it will be an assembly of social movements, but of the WSF, and it will be a permanent assembly

From Meena 06:13 PM  

(@23) (@20)

Will this Assembly take precedence over the Assembly of Social Movements? But why?

From Francine 06:13 PM 

(@23) (@20)


From Rosy 06:14 PM  

(@23) (@20)

It is the Assembly of Movements of the WSF

I don't think so Meena.

From Francine 06:15 PM 

(@23) (@20)

let's be modest... we are looking for a solution to our dilemma, nothing more

From Rosy 06:15 PM   

(@23) (@20)

It will be an Assembly of the Social Movements of the WSF.



From Meena 06:16 PM  

(@23) (@20)

So it will be a permanent assembly of social movements? and will it be directed by movements? non IC members

From Rosy 06:18 PM


Rose, Pierre  


From Meena 06:18 PM

no english


From Francine 06:19 PM  

(@23) (@20)

they can be members of the IC Meena, we could also decide to have only IC members, remains to be discussed

From Meena 06:20 PM  

(@23) (@20)

but in fact an assembly of social movements must be directed by movements not by the IC

From Francine 06:20 PM   

(@23) (@20)

is not run by IC Meena

cooperates with IC but has its autonomy

From Meena 06:21 PM  

(@23) (@20)

and is it led by popular movements?

From Rosy 06:22 PM  

(@23) (@20)

Yes Francine.

Yes Mena.

Rosy, Ole, Pierre   



From Ian 06:24 PM  


Bartiria, I don't know if I understood correctly, are you saying that the IC should accompany the decisions of the Assembly so that they are made and disseminated in all parts of the world? (it's for the notes)

From Francine 06:25 PM

I'm so sorry but I have to go...

From Bartiria 06:25 PM  


sim iam

From Sheila 06:25 PM   


exactly rosy



From Rosy 06:31 PM  


Pierre, Norm

Pierre, Norma, Ian.

We have that clear Pierre.  


From Rita 06:37 PM   


There is only one problem. An assembly outside the WSF should not be a matter for the IC. We have to decide on the questions of the WSF.

It is not up to the IC to say what the organizations outside the WSF will do.

From Rosy 06:37 PM   


ok rita

From Pierre06:37 PM   


Rita can have an instutive initiative that is conceived and implemented from organizations

From Sheila 06:37 PM  


the assembly of the WSF will not speak on behalf of the WSF or the IC, but of itself

From Rita 06:37 PM  


If it is not from the WSF, it is not up to the IC to create institutions

From Rosy 06:38 PM  


So is Sheila.

From Pierre 06:38 PM  


yes of course Rita -these are the organizations that we are the political actors of civil society

From Rita 06:39 PM   


Do you want to create institutions for the organizations of the WSF to do things outside of it?

From Pierre 06:39 PM   


and specific ad hoc groupings can institute a process if they so wish.

From Analba 06:39 PM  


I believe that the assembly should be within the WSF. Call it the Assembly of Struggles of the Movements that make up the WSF. For that we need a process to create concrete conditions to build this assembly. there will have to be an effort of articulation and mobilization.

From Rosy 06:39 PM  


Likewise Analba.

From Rita 06:39 PM   


Agreed Analba

From Meena 06:39   


Do we take Davos seriously as a model? support the status quo. they don't need diversity. we are fighting the system.

As a boy 06:39 PM 


right Rita. The problem is how to relate to the things that arise in the WSF process, thinking about the permanent concern that is to unite and not compete. A problem that the IC has not yet resolved in its relationship with thematic forums

From Sheila 06:39 PM  


Exact Alba

Pink 06:40 PM  


That's what we're trying to figure out Boy

From Rita 06:41 PM  


So we are going to create the assembly within the WSF, without competition, but with some level of coordination, with different tasks and roles.

From Pierre 06:41 PM   


facilitating committees of the thematic forums can consider that these processes are part "of the global wsf process", but they are not part of the world wsf process porto Alegre taken care of by the IC, they are autonomous

From Meena 06:41 PM   


it's easy for the one percent to agree. not the 99 percent.

From Sheila 06:41 PM  


Exactly Rita

From Rita 06:42 PM  


Meena, I did not understand your position in this sentence, sorry.

From Meena 06:43 PM  


we can't be like Davos. they don't need democracy

From Ian 06:43 PM  



From Rita 06:44 PM

I agree with

I defend that the IC needs to define its democratic form of consensus

From Pierre 06:44 PM    


1/ we have three months to mature

2/ explore instituting processes of concrete assembly processes both within the world wsf and as an assembly process part of the "global wsf"

3/ important to distinguish the role of the committee and the role of the assembly or the social forum process that this committee takes care of

From Rita 06:45 PM   


Pierre, role of what committee?

From Pierre 06:46 PM  


of the committee that looks after the assembly

Pink 06:46 PM   


This is defined by the Assembly