[discuss] FW: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Jan 31 10:51:46 UTC 2015
On Sunday 25 January 2015 11:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> There have been a lot of criticisms of NMI based on its lack of
> transparency and top down decsion making. It appears to be trying to
> fix itself, but does not seem to having great success at this point.
> How will the ISF distinguish itself in this respect.
ISF (Internet Social Forum) submits to WSF thinking and processes -
which one must say are quite demanding inter alia with regard to
openness and transparency, since right now I am responding to a
question on these points. At the same time, as has happened with regard
to many WSF linked initiatives, that may produce document outcomes etc,
like the intended People's Internet Manifesto, the ISF process would
also go beyond what is 'WSF proper' which is clearly not an outcome
producing forum. How this will be done would, I understand, be figured
out collectively by the actors who join in this initiative, but
obviously it cannot do anything that goes against WSF thinking and its
extreme accent on openness and transparency. ISF would build on similar
initiatives that have earlier formed under the umbrella of the WSF - of
which there happen to be a considerable number. We are already in touch
with a number of such groups/ initiatives.
As to the key operative phrase above, about 'the actors who join in the
initiative' , ISF will be working under WSF rules and criteria, which
are listed on the WSF 2015 website on the unambiguously titled page
'criteria of participation
<https://fsm2015.org/en/criteria-participation>'. . As you will see, one
of the criterion is adherence to the original Charter of Principles
of the WSF.
Now, if some people consider these criteria too exclusionary well that
is what the WSF is, and ISF is working under the WSF umbrella . It is
possible, just to give an example and no offence intended, that some
anti abortionists may find some women's rights groups too exclusionary,
but that is how it is. In my experiences any serious political work
requires some boundary laying.
> Also, I do hope the ISF takes more pains than the NMI has in terms of
> appearing to challenge the existence of the IGF.
I responded on this to Wolfgang (whose response BTW I still await).
Unlike NMI, the ISF has no claim to be multistakeholder. It is
out-and-out a civil society initiative (Please see WSF criteria above) .
In the circumstances, I do not understand what conflict it presents with
the IGF, In fact I asked Wolfgang and I ask you Avri, why and how does a
civil society initiative present questions about 'challenge to the
existence of the IGF'?
And again, we welcome all progressive groups and individuals who
subscribe to the WSF thinking to join us in the ISF initiative. And this
is a public pledge that the group working on this initiative will always
holds itself highly accountable to the public, and will always respond
to questions that are posed to the group.
If this response is not found satisfactory with respect to the original
question, please do not hesitate to ask again or if needed re-frame the
question or get more specific. If we do not have an answer right now,
that too we will tell you.
Disclaimer: Above are just my views about what the ISF should and is
likely to , and there is still no definitive articulation of the issues
and processes discussed above by the collectivity behind the ISF initiative.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss