[DEBATE] : WSF Event Principles: A Critique

[peter waterman]

Posted by Jai Sen, of CACIM and Open Space Forum, India, to the WSF-Discuss List:

 

'Guiding Principles for Holding WSF Events'

 

SOME HARD QUESTIONS 2: 

A SOURCE OF CONSIDERABLE WORRY; 

SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FORUM

 

Thursday, November 1, 2007





            I am writing to make some comments on the draft document that has been posted here by Madhuresh, prepared by Vinod Raina as a member of a WSF Assessment Working Group, titled 'Guiding Principles for Holding WSF Events'.  Thanks, Madhuresh, for posting this document. 



In my opinion, and precisely because I believe that the WSF itself is an important world institution, the preparation of these guidelines, along with other similar protocols that are being prepared within the WSF (by other members of the Assessment Working Group), is a very significant development in the history of this initiative.  The WSF is, moreover, at - at the minimum - a crossroads, as some people put it; or it is beginning to face a crisis, as others see it.  It is therefore, as I see it, of the greatest importance for the future of the Forum that this policy document, as well as any others like it that emerge, is very closely and very widely debated.  Therefore this comment, on this list, towards such a debate.  (But wouldn't it be great if people on the WSF IC and its various commissions were also on this list and themselves posted such documents ?!)



            Madhuresh's posting is also very timely (even just a little late); the WSF IC is meeting yesterday and today in Belem, in Brazil, where this document will be considered - and so I am of course hoping that someone there will check in on WSFDiscuss and see this posting.  But it would be great if others who see this posting of mine can also come in with comments today itself, on the original note and/or on my comments, as below.



Background

First though, some background.  I happened to be present at the meeting of the WSF International Council in Nairobi in January 2007 where Vinod, Oded Grajew, and others made the proposal that there need to be some guiding principles formulated that could guide how the WSF is organised and functions.  This happened, just to remind or inform people on this list, in the context of the minor disaster that so many saw the Nairobi Forum as having been and the angry exchange that then took place at the IC meeting in Nairobi, and where at least one of the problems was the hugely differing perceptions about what is appropriate and inappropriate for the WSF to do and not do, and/or what should and should not be done in the name of the WSF.  (For debate around the Nairobi Forum, see http://www.openspaceforum.net/twiki/tiki-index.php?page=WorldSocialForum%3AWSF2007Articles&pagenum=1.)



I had also attended the Nairobi Forum, and felt, not only in that particular context but also of things that have been happening in the name of the Forum in India, in Europe, and elsewhere, since 2004, that this was a very good idea, and so I even went up to those who I could reach in that room to congratulate them on their initiative.



I also later spoke with one of the members of the Brazil Organising Committee, Moema Miranda, who also happened to chair that particular session of the IC meeting, and suggested that the formulation of this and related policies should this time not be done within a small committee but more openly in the Forum community, and I suggested / offered the possibility of using this listserve, WSFDiscuss, for this purpose.  She seemed to like the idea, but I / we at CACIM have never heard back from her or from anyone else within the WSF establishment; so I left things there and decided that those of us who are interested could and should always open up discussion once documents from this initiative started emerging.  Which is now.



The present task

So on the one hand, now that this document is public, we should in any case be closely examining and discussing it, and hopefully the powers that be in the Forum will listen in and take note.  But to be absolutely frank, on reading this document I think that it is even more important - and urgent - that we, the ordinary members of the Forum, read and closely debate it because of what it does not say, rather than what it says.



In short, and while I think we should all appreciate the effort that Vinod (with the help of comments from some of his fellow Group members - see his covering letter to the IC, as below) has put in to prepare this otherwise simple, sober, workmanlike, and therefore quite useful document, the fact is that it is far, far short of addressing the complexity and subtlety of something like the WSF, let alone the very complex and troubling issues that have arisen and that are threatening to rip it apart.  Crucially, given the very extensive literature that is now available on the WSF, including some quite thoughtful analysis of many of the difficult issues, and given the intense debate that has taken place around the Nairobi Forum and which is what led to the formation of this Assessment Group, this document does not - I am very disappointed to have to say - even begin to address the key issues.  But what further worries me though, and very deeply, is that the document as it appears in its present draft is either unaware of this analysis and debate or, if it is aware of it, then it seems to have avoided articulating and addressing the core issues.



After all is said and done, we need to recognise that the WSF is, whether its organisers like to publicly admit it or not, a site of very considerable power (power not only in the conventional sense, of power-over, but also of power-to).  It is therefore a deeply contested idea and terrain; what happened at Nairobi (and crucially, what has also happened elsewhere at WSF meetings in other parts of the world such as London and Mumbai) did not happen by mistake - some people wanted things to take place that way; and as a consequence, or in this context, what this document does, by not addressing these issues, is to depoliticise the debate and therefore also the Forum.  It seems to want to divest it of politics and of power, or at the minimum, to keep away from mentioning that this is part and parcel of what the Forum is and that at certain points the Forum's organisers are going to have to take positions on burning issues.



I do not mean at all to personalise these comments; they are not directed at Vinod Raina as such, who - it appears from his covering note - is merely playing the role of lead author.  But given his extensive experience in positions of power, and his long association with political organisations and formations, both of which I respect a great deal, and the fact that perhaps all the members of the Assessment Group are of equal calibre, I find this non-addressal of key issues to be, at the minimum, puzzling; but beyond this, worrying - deeply worrying.  So aside from discussing the details - some of which I raise below - I believe we therefore also need to try and understand why the document has not taken up what are widely now considered to be key issues; why the authors of this document have treated their subject like this, seeming to make the subject seem innocuous, innocent, and merely a technical subject.



I therefore request you to please read the document and the following with this much larger perspective in mind.



Finally, please also note that the document posted is still only at a draft stage - and is therefore capable of change.  I therefore suggest that we all try to make comments and suggestions, as well as any criticisms we might have, such that we help the authors review their draft. 



In particular, the draft ToR set for the Working Group also said that "The draft document will also be discussed by the International Council and it will also be available on the WSF website for comments and suggestions." (Emphasis added.) We should therefore now expect that the International Office will soon post the draft document for comments, either as it is or as developed further to discussion at the Belem IC. 



(I have also pasted on below the text of the full draft ToR, for all those interested - both the original, adopted in Nairobi in January 2007 and the amendments made by the IC in Berlin in May-June 2007.  Please do take a look at it.  It has some interesting things to say.  The Working Group was originally given until the IC meeting in Berlin in June 2007 to come up with recommendations (and also to organise a seminar around its work in Berlin).  It failed to do this, and its term was extended without debate until the first IC meeting after the WSF 2008 Day of Action on January 26 2008.)



Comments :

1.     My first point here is that we need to recognise that this present document - which limits itself only to suggesting 'guiding principles for organising WSF events' - is far short of providing principles that can guide how the WSF is organised and functions.  While undoubtedly useful, because the events organised in the name of the WSF are what are widely understood to be the WSF, a set of principles in and for this area alone do not even begin to guide the relations between different entities acting in the name of the WSF - such as so-called 'national' WSF committees, city level WSF committees, and so on.  (And which is where many of the problems that arise in Nairobi, were located and - as I understood the debate that took place there, in any case - was what was decided.)  I hope that this distinction is clear - and I hope that the WSF IC, in its wisdom, is also addressing this much wider, and deeper, question, through one of its many other bodies.  If there are IC or other commission members on this list / reading this intervention, it would be good to hear from you ! 



            I move now to more detailed comments on this document itself :



2.         The section on  'The Venue' is disappointingly inadequate and vague, especially given what happened at Nairobi.  There, the Forum site, a stadium, was (a) so far out of the city or where accommodation was available that the transport costs became prohibitive; (b) was already a fenced territory - with two sets of fences, outer and inner - therefore lending itself perfectly to the exclusion that actually took place, of ordinary working and labouring class people, with armed private security guards doing their work; and (c) was absurdly / criminally inadequate to the purpose of peaceful, creative exchange - precisely because of the nature of stadiums and the weak attempt by the Nairobi Forum organisers to divide the raked concrete seating areas into 'rooms' (with cloth partitions).



But in addition, it is important to note another aspect of what happened and what took place at Nairobi : That the chief physical planner of the Forum (a local architect) was / just happened to also be the chief coordinator of the one of the largest coalitions that took part in the Nairobi Forum, the so-called 'Human Rights and Dignity Caucus (or Forum)' - and where this highly funded caucus got huge tents allocated to itself at very prominent locations within the Forum, whereas less well-connected, ordinary event organisers got the stadium stands.  This, surely, was no coincidence.  In other words, the 'design' of a venue is not only a function of physical attributes, as described in this document, but also, like everywhere, also a function of the social, political, and economic relations that are involved.  The consequence of this is that guidelines for organising a Forum must not stop at the physical but must also necessarily cover these areas.   They must address questions of accessibility (including, for something like the WSF, equality in accessibility), economy, and so on.



The issue of location is also linked to the economics of organising a Forum - which involves, after all, big money.  It was widely said at Nairobi, including by Kenyans, that some of the members of the Forum organising committee had business interests in or were linked to both hotels and taxis in the city, and that it was therefore absolutely in their financial interests to have the Forum located far away from the city.  Without now going into whether or not this was the case, the guidelines being drafted must not avoid the possibility of these issues and others like them arising.



3.         The section on Funds is again surprisingly, disappointingly, and even shockingly silent (and inadequate) on (a) private foundations, and (b) the intersection of religious and other influences with such foundations.  On private foundations, all the document has to say is :



Raising funds from foundations etc. is the major resource. But it is deeply political, since in each region and country, there can be differing opinions regarding the desirability of raising funds, from a particular or different funding sources.



But is this all that there is to say on foundations ?! And in a sense, giving all of them a way out, just by saying that this is a "deeply political" question ?  Why are there no points on insisting on reviewing the political, social, human rights, etc track records of potential foundations and funding agencies ?  What about their affiliations, say with fundamentalist religious bodies ?  And their role also in terms of supporting neoliberalism, which the document otherwise says that all organisations with such positions must be proscribed ?



Take, for example, the following comment on Caritas (the huge Catholic foundation) and its role in the Nairobi WSF, in an article that was written by Jean Nanga, a Congolese writer, before the Nairobi Forum - and keeping in mind the enormous physical prominence that Caritas then got at the Forum that actually took place in Nairobi (where it seemed to be everywhere).  But my giving this quote here is not to only point at Caritas; it is to point to the need for WSF policy documents to openly addressing these issues, and to subject all foundations to critical review :



"The WSF in Nairobi could be the theatre for an offensive by the NGOs who are partisans of the addition of a social dimension to globalisation, a charity-based movement for global justice, through the participation of associations that they support financially in Africa in particular, in the Third World in general.



"With the development of poverty and misery, religion has become once again "the opium of the people". The Islamophobic campaign orchestrated by the US neoconservatives and relayed in Europe, in the name of a very selective secularism, tends to cover the reactionary offensive waged by the Christian churches in the world in general, in Africa in particular. Kenya is one of the African societies where, alongside the traditional Christianities (Catholic and Anglican) and traditional, indeed fundamentalist, Islam proliferate Christian fundamentalisms: the Pentecostalists, the born again, "brothers and sisters in Christ" of G. W. Bush and millenarian televangelists, who surf on the poverty developed by the system that they co-manage.



"For example, it is unsurprising to find the anti-capitalism of Caritas, a charity organisation as its name indicates, statutorily established in the Vatican, [taking the following position] : "Caritas Europa considers the World Social Forum (WSF) as being a permanent world process, which groups together in an open meeting place the social movements, networks, NGOs and other bodies of civil society opposed to neoliberalism and to a world dominated by capital or by any form of imperialism". Has it [Caritas] passed bag and baggage into the camp of Christian liberation theology?



"Is this the sign of a radical progressive change of the Pontifical Justice and Peace Council, at the very time when the Vatican state is led by the former head of the Sacred Congregation of the Faith (an inquisitorial body, charged with among other things the clerical repression of the liberation theologians), Cardinal Ratzinger, alias Benedict XVI? One of the most influential members of the said Pontifical Council is none other than Michel Camdessus, former director general of the IMF, former adviser of Nicolas Sarkozy at the French ministry of the economy and finance, and said to be a member of Opus Dei."



(This is taken from : Jean Nanga, January 2007 - 'The Nairobi Social Forum', in International Viewpoint, IV Online magazine, IV385, January 2007, on 'Africa'; @ http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1191 (accessed js 130297))



I am aware of the fact that Caritas was one of the biggest funders of the Nairobi Forum (for some details, see the 'Report of the World Social Forum International Council meeting' at Berlin, Germany (May 30-31st, 2007) (Venue: Hotel Christophorus Haus, Spandau)' on the WSF site; soon to also be up on www.openspaceforum.net).  But does this mean that the WSF cannot discuss the profound contradiction that having this involvement, and other such involvements, implies to its own Charter of Principles ?  If it cannot, or if its leadership feels it cannot, then what is the point of establishing working groups of this kind ?



Just for reference, read the following extract from the Terms of Reference for the Assessment Group (drawn from the 'Brief report of the World Social Forum IC meeting, Nairobi, Kenya (January, from 26th to 27th, 2007) at Stadia Guest House (Kasarani)', also on the WSF site) :



CONTEXT

The past seven years of the World Social Forum process has been a rich experience of lessons learned and lessons "un-learned".

The purpose of assessing the World Social Forum process is to strengthen our work, to improve and deepen our practice, and to increase our political and social impacts.

Assessment is not merely a technical exercise: it is a political act. Therefore, our assessment of the process should be framed according to the values contained in the WSF Charter of Principles: that the WSF process is open, inclusive, plural, diverse, non-violent, non-racist, non-hierarchical, non-patriarchal, anti neo-liberal, ecological, non-confessional, non-governmental, non-party, and functions on the basis of solidarity, democracy and transparency.

 

TASKS OF THE WORKING GROUP.



Given these brave, straightforward words, what then should we expect from the Assessment Working Group ? A non-political act ?



4.         Equally, the section on 'Formation of an Organising Committee' is extremely simplistic.  For me, this is especially so given the main author's rich and deep experience in leading organisations, for which, as I have said above, I have the greatest respect. (For those who do not know him, he is - or was - vice president of BGVS - Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samiti (one of the leading people's science organisations in India); chair of Jubilee Asia; and on the boards of various major civil federations and associations such as ARENA; these positions do not come easily.) Equally, I am sure that will be largely true of the other members of the working group, which is the strength on which they are there and have been given such major responsibilities.  But despite this depth of experience, there is no mention in the section - and in a document that is said to be all about 'principles' - of the principles of accountability of leadership; of the principles of internal democracy and things like limited terms on WSF committees and especially in convening roles; of the principles of gender balance and of social inclusion; and so on.  In short, this section is therefore actually quite amazing for what it does not say !  It is an astonishingly apolitical, almost anti-political and depoliticising formulation, and so it needs the deepest review, and analysis.  And surely it must raise the question of why the authors have not raised these issues.  It is surely not because of a lack of experience or expertise.  If not this, then what else ?  And can something like this, and recommendations of this order, be the basis on which something like the WSF should be organised ?



5.         Finally, although there is a welcome-enough section on 'Space for Horizontal Interconnectedness of Movements', there is nothing at all on how organisers of WSF events should (a) practise internal horizontal interconnectedness - ie horizontal relations within and among themselves (why should the WSF only preach such connectedness for movements ?  Why not for itself / why not practice what you preach, and preach only what you practice ?); and (b) relate 'horizontally' to the many other things that happen around most Fora; such as the autonomous zones and events that take place at many Fora (such as take place usually within or related to the Youth Forum in Porto Alegre, such as the Caracol Intergalactica), or the parallel events or initiatives that appear to oppose the WSF, such as took place in Mumbai (the Mumbai Resistance) and also at the ESF in London in 2004 and the polycentric WSF in Caracas.  (For links to some of these, go to http://www.openspaceforum.net/twiki/tiki-index.php?page=OfficialWsfSites.)  There has been so much discussion of these important phenomena, and of the vital roles that these events play within the life of the Forum; and of how in so many ways the WSF plays the role of almost encouraging such autonomous thinking and action to take shape - which is one more very positive feature of the Forum; almost its hallmark.  But here, we find that such an important document is totally silent on this, and seems to not be aware about this whole side of the WSF / that all this is the larger Forum.  This is shocking !





The above does not pretend to be comprehensive - covering everything that the document says or does not say.  But if any of the above makes sense, then I submit that the draft document as it stands needs to be fundamentally redrafted.  And I believe that we should individually and collectively ask the IC to do just this.



Some suggestions for the Forum as a living body

The above are comments on the specific document that has been posted.  But, as will be evident from those points, what lies between the lines of the document (as in the case of all policy documents) is as important as what it says.  Here therefore are some further suggestions for the Forum, not for this document but for this whole culture of producing such documents and for the life and politics that it embodies.  I would like to request that we also debate these here on this list and then, if the powers that be are listening, where the conclusions of this debate too can also be taken by them as recommendations to them :



1)     The WSF is a political initiative, and must be understood and treated as such.  It is crucial that its participants, and especially those in positions of responsibility, do not ever attempt to reduce it to an apolitical, bureaucratic exercise.  The WSF should adopt internal guidelines that not only urge a political approach (as above) but that also specifically proscribe depoliticisation.



2)     Those who take or are given the responsibility of preparing 'official' / policy documents on behalf of the WSF must be fully aware and abreast of current thinking and debate within the Forum; not only of discussions within committees but also of literature emerging, of debate on listserves, and so on.  In turn, this awareness must also be reflected in policy documents that they prepare, even in draft form, including where appropriate with references / citations etc.  (I am here not suggesting an 'academic' format, but simply a live, aware treatment.)



3)     The official WSF itself must now take on board the wider, actually-existing Forum and the debate that is going on about it.  This should be reflected with, among other things, a far more alive and aware, wired website - and where necessary, with links to other sites where such information exists.  The WSF must stop treating itself as a kind of aloof UN body, above everyone and everything else, and plunge into popular, everyday politics and thought.



4)     Among other steps towards the above, it should discuss and formulate policy on how it is going to formulate policies in future; and in particular consider the possibility that it stop, or certainly reduce, its tendency to do things in closed committees and move to doing things more openly, through consulting the wider WSF community - including, if felt appropriate, by using this listserve.  The historic step that it took in 2005 to opening up the planning of the themes of the world meetings was a very welcome first step in this direction; but behind this attractive screen lies a growing complex and culture of intertwined and somewhat overlapping and therefore incestuous committees, formed from among a chosen few who continue to do this (including living and working transnationally) in perpetuity.  This must change.  This should feature as a guideline.



5)     As one step among many, the official WSF should, within a very short period - say within two months / by January 1 2008 -, make public a list of all the commissions, committees, and subcommittees that it has formed / instituted, their dates of formation, their terms of reference including their time frames and mandates, their memberships, and the contact details of all current and past members.  This should include all bodies that have completed their work (if there are any such).  Any new bodies formed from now on should also, of course, be immediately publicised.



6)     While the document in question (the draft Guidelines for organising WSF events) is - even if a weak and somewhat worrying beginning - useful, because the events organised in the name of the WSF are what are widely understood to be the WSF, what is far more urgently needed is the formulation of a set of principles to guide the relations between different entities acting in the name of the WSF - such as the IC, the so-called 'national' WSF committees, city and/or provincial / state-level WSF committees, and so on.



7)     Equally, if the WSF is to continue to be able to speak proudly about democracy and other such noble things, it is time it set its own house in order and formulated a set of principles - perhaps an open framework - that can help make all these various bodies democratic; not only the IC, where work has supposedly started, but also all the various other bodies that claim the name of the WSF.  And where from now on, all those who want to act in the name of the WSF have to declare their agreement with the framework or whatever.  Just as Vinod Raina is, in this document, saying is implicitly the case in terms of exclusionary principles etc : That we must abide by them.  So too, those who form the official WSF.





JS





For information : Extracts from WSF IC decisions :



DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL

(drawn from the 'Brief report of the World Social Forum IC meeting, Nairobi, Kenya (January, from 26th to 27th, 2007) at Stadia Guest House (Kasarani)', also on the WSF site)



The International Council meeting in Nairobi on 26 and 27 January 2007, agreed to establish a working group to facilitate the assessment of the WSF process and to develop guiding principles for the future.



  a.. The tasks of the working group are to:
 

  a.. Facilitate the assessment of the WSF process;
 

  a.. Develop guiding principles for the future.
 

Timeline:

This working group will function from now until the next IC meeting in Berlin in June when the future of the working group will be re-assessed.



Composition:

The working group is open to all members and observers of the International Council. The final terms of reference will be posted on the IC email list with an invitation to join the working group after which the WSF secretariat will set up an email list for the working group.



CONTEXT

The past seven years of the World Social Forum process has been a rich experience of lessons learned and lessons "un-learned".

The purpose of assessing the World Social Forum process is to strengthen our work, to improve and deepen our practice, and to increase our political and social impacts.

Assessment is not merely a technical exercise: it is a political act. Therefore, our assessment of the process should be framed according to the values contained in the WSF Charter of Principles: that the WSF process is open, inclusive, plural, diverse, non-violent, non-racist, non-hierarchical, non-patriarchal, anti neo-liberal, ecological, non-confessional, non-governmental, non-party, and functions on the basis of solidarity, democracy and transparency.



TASKS OF THE WORKING GROUP

1. Facilitate the assessment of the WSF process by:

Undertaking an on-line survey using all available databases of WSF participants from 2001 until 2007, including regional forums.

This survey will be primarily quantitative with some optional qualitative questions.

The aim of the survey is to:



Gauge the relationship (if any) between the WSF processes and movement building and campaigning in the broader society;



Assess the role and usefulness of the WSF as part of the wider processes of resistance, movement building and creating alternatives; and



Gather opinions on the future of the WSF on questions such as periodicity, format, time, etc.

 

A draft questionnaire will be designed by a small working group including sociologists with experience in data collection and surveys and the final form will be agreed by the working group.

The survey will be conducted in Spanish, English and French.

The working group will also need to consider whether funds should be raised to carry out the survey and analyse the data.

Facilitating a one day seminar to be held immediately prior to the next international council meeting in Berlin in early June.

The inputs for this seminar will include:



? Results of the above survey



? Africa Social Forum Council report on the Nairobi WSF



? Kenya Organising Committee report on the Nairobi WSF



? Any other available reports on previous World Social Forums and regional forums



? The report commissioned by the resources commission (the Novib report)



? Other qualitative and quantitative reports and surveys relevant to the overall discussion



The seminar will be facilitated by members of the working group.

The working group will aim to have all reports available two weeks before the meeting. At least the results of the on-line survey will be available in English, Spanish and French.



2. Develop guiding principles for the future

The working group will prepare a document, which aims to translate the principles of the WSF, as articulated in the Charter of Principles, into practice.



For example, the Charter of Principles states that the WSF is "in opposition to a process of globalisation commanded by the large multinational corporations and by the governments and international institutions at the service of those corporations interests, with the complicity of national governments." Therefore, in practice, the WSF processes should not be used to further the interests of transnational corporations, for example by refusing TNCs sponsorship, using free open source software, local products and local suppliers, etc.



Another example: "The World Social Forum will always be a forum open to pluralism and to the diversity of activities and ways of engaging of the organizations and movements that decide to participate in it, as well as the diversity of genders, ethnicities, cultures, generations and physical capacities, providing they abide by this Charter of Principles." In practice, therefore, the WSF process should facilitate this diversity and pluralism by ensuring maximum access for marginalized groups by guaranteeing physical, financial and linguistic access, access to information, to space, and so on.



The document will draw on the experiences of past forums, using examples of how the WSF principles can be implemented in practical ways, such as architecture, mobilisation and education of volunteers, provision of translation and interpretation, innovative and accessible communication tools, open and democratic decision-making processes, and so on.

In addition, the working group will try to develop some assessment tools, such as social, ecological and gender audits, which would help us to strengthen our work.



It is envisaged that this document would be a "work in progress" that could be continually added to drawing on the vast experiences and creativity of those involved in the WSF process. Nonetheless, its main purpose is to provide a "tool kit" for committees coordinating WSF processes in the future and a set of "indicators" for assessing to what extent we are "walking the talk".



The draft document will also be discussed by the International Council and it will also be available on the WSF website for comments and suggestions.



ALSO, amendments / revisions to the above :



4) Information on assessment of WSF events

(Extract from 'Report of the World Social Forum International Council meeting' at Berlin, Germany (May 30-31st, 2007) (Venue: Hotel Christophorus Haus, Spandau)')



Follow below the agreements concerning the assessment of WSF events, after the debates held on the seminar of May 29, 2007:

1. The mandate of the assessment working group be extended until the first IC meeting after the Global Day of Action

2. The aim of the working group is to provide material and analysis that can contribute to the strategic discussion about the WSF process planned for that IC meeting

3. The comments and suggestions from the discussions on the guidelines, survey, and synthesising existing evaluations held during this IC meeting in Berlin will be incorporated into the terms of reference and the ongoing work of the group

4. To start discussions on the guiding principles, a first draft will be prepared by Vinod Raina

5. The survey team will prepare a final draft survey for circulation to the working group

6. The input collection & analysis team will carry out a systematic analysis of articles, reports and other texts evaluating the WSF. For this purpose the 12 tasks /analysis grid will be revised and circulated in the assessment working group list (assessment-wg at listas.rits.org.br).

7. The working group is calling on the IC and on all organisations in the WSF process to provide existing articles, reports and other evaluative texts regarding any WSF event or the process as a whole. These can be sent at the following address inputsonorganizingwsfevents at wsfprocess.net

8. The working group requests the cooperation of organising committees of the world and poly-centric forums in providing contacts of participants who can be invited to take part in the on-line survey and of activity organizers who can be invited to make or provide inputs.

9. The budget for the work of the group (in particular the survey) will be incorporated into a global budget for the ongoing WSF process.