[discuss] [bestbits] FW: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Jan 31 10:54:55 UTC 2015
On Saturday 31 January 2015 04:21 PM, parminder wrote:
> 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
Should have made clear -- WSF is the World Social Forum ...
> 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/
> 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
> <http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2> 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
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss