the changes this weekend were in many ways primarily symbolic, but we shouldn't underestimate the material effects they might potentially enable. javier being asked to co-facilitate the meeting on sunday, for example, was already a concrete move in the right direction.

there are many specific issues that were cursorily raised in the small group of us who met to negotiate process/inclusion on saturday night. on most of these the 'other side' expressed interest in addressing them and usually in the ways that we desire. however, there was no one from the gla at this table, so of course seeing how folks from that organisation respond to our requests will be interesting.

issues along these lines that we want to make sure are kept visible, are addressed, and solved along the most inclusive and radical lines possibles (just my initial thoughts at this juncture):

*official esf web site and communications over web and e-mail

from what i heard at the weekend, last friday the esf web site was put up (not the one that will be used for registrations, but the one that is temporary, to be used for communications, a 'notice board'). we should work to make sure the URL is widely distributed (we should find this out on thursday), that all minutes are put up here within 24 hours or so of each meeting of any committee, that these minutes are more accurate than what have been passing for minutes, that notices of upcoming meetings are posted here, etc. this web site should also serve as a place for folks to discuss possible proposal ideas (for seminars and workshops), and collaboration possibilities, until the main registration site is set up, where people will officially apply for places on the programme.

*other web site to be used for registration

there is still the issue of whether this will be done by a private company or not. javier raised the point at the assembly on saturday, during one of the large public discussions i believe, that there was not a tender process but rather the gla went to a company it self-selected. last thursday at the organising committee meeting i brought up the issue of this web site procurement, and asked what decisions had been made, including in regards to the proposal from the folks from cambridge to help with the web site. redmond o'neill's answer was that they were likely to follow the model from india, with a company doing the web site, but using open source, etc. i pressed him about the cambridge group's offer -- he said he had never heard of them. however, from what i know, they posted the official esf-uk organising e-mail address and never received a response. we will have to keep raising this issue and fighting for a democratic process to decide how this web site is created and by whom and at what cost.

*practicalities working group and legal suggestions document

this issue relates to a larger one -- the unilateral abolition of the working groups by redmond o'neill on 29 jan. in actuality, many of the working groups simply carried on, and new folks just joined the existing groups after this time (programme and culture groups, for example). but the practicalities group presented a very large and well-thought-out document to the organising committee in mid-february, this document then was considered in the smaller, weekly co-ordinating committee, and when the decision was taken by that group that the practicalities group's suggestion for legal structure wasn't going to work -- they had apparently consulted gla lawyers, who recommended the other option, forming small company with a board of trustees etc -- they threw out the whole document. it was never brought back before the oc for consideration. this is significant, given how many good suggestions there were in it, including ones about how to have consensu s, etc. we need to ask about this document and insist that it be properly considered, and also see that the original practicalities group members be brought on board again if they are willing, that this be reconstituted formally as an ongoing working group. (in general we need to work to see that the efforts of the originally constituted working groups are not wasted and that all people who want to are able to participate in working groups.)

*programme issues

there is, so far, consensus in both the organising committee and the programme group that no one wants very many plenary speakers, that folks want as many workshops and seminars as possible, and shorter times for plenaries as well. from what i've heard, i'll support something like 20 plenaries max. the issue of how the venue(s) are carved up (ally pally + either bloomsbury or areas surrounding ally pally, or both of these as extra spaces) will be influential on the number of workshop/seminar spaces available.

also we will want to support having spaces available for autonomous groups, a youth space, an interfaith space, a women's day, and make sure the assembly of european movements is integrated into the main programme.

*enlarging the network

there was a workshop on this on saturday afternoon. alison philcock from london unison has been pushing to have this issue addressed for a long time and made sure it was on the agenda for the euro assembly. the group who met there, along with anyone else who wants to join, will carry on with this work to reach out to as many marginalised, grassroots, activist, autonomous and other groups, networks, and individuals as possible. i'm signed up to receive e-mail from this group and will post to this list as soon as i hear anything about when/where they will be meeting. also i think there is reason to be hopeful about this group's efforts. alison spoke on saturday at the larger assembly about the workers on whose behalf she works in her union -- mostly women, mostly women of colour, many from african countries, in low-paying service sector jobs, e.g. as cleaners. she wants to create an esf where these folks and others like them will be welc ome and able to afford to participate. i spoke with her on saturday night and she's keen to do the kind of outreach that we would like to see happen as well. once we this 'enlarging the network' group is up and running, some of us should participate in it directly, and we should all forward contact information their way and simultaneously take it upon ourselves to reach out to the groups etc we know of as well, and bring them into the organising process as well as to the esf itself.

along these lines, as you may already know, there was an amendment proposed to the document alex gordon presented on 24 jan, the 'for a uk organising committee to host the european social forum in london' -- the amendment specified that 'the organising committee supports local social forums and local ESF mobilising forums, reproducing alliances at the local and regional level'. (this was the amended version). at the meeting (5 feb i believe) where amendments were discussed, this one did not 'pass'. it was left until the very end of the meeting, the last one to be addressed, jeremy and another guy from _workers power_ were the only ones to speak in its favour, and it was just shot down quickly. on saturday, we managed to get language back into this document that acknowledges reaching out to and including local social forums, and we should work to make sure that this does happen.

*fees

as i mentioned earlier, the proposed registration fees for the esf have been broadly criticised. the gla/union folks were insistent last week that in order for their organisations to come on board -- and give significant amounts of money -- they would have to show them a balanced budget. redmond o'neill repeatedly said that he would welcome a budget with lower registration fees -- if someone could come up with one that included lower fees but made up for that money elsewhere, and still had a balanced budget, he would welcome that. the point is not whether he is genuine -- and after all, we're trying to change the whole power structure so that decisions such as this are made collectively. the point is that we might think about other ways to carve up the budget. this means immediately insisting that a recent outline of the budget is distributed, in meetings and online, and we then can pass that information on to others who will want to know wh at has been proposed for the overall budget projection.

also, many folks on saturday suggested solidarity fund-raising efforts to support people going to the esf who might not be able to afford the fees. my thought is that we can work on all fronts:
--try to get the proposed registration fees lowered for unwaged folks (and raised for waged)
--work on and suggest alternative budget structures
--work to ensure solidarity fund-raising happens

at this point i'm not clear, but i think that the co-ordinating committee has a big role in these kinds of efforts. so we should do work there, and also insist that these issues be brought up for consensual decision-making in the organising committee meetings. also there were a few folks saturday (from outside the uk) who suggested setting up a budget working group; it's a thought.

*accommodation

this issue was raised by several folks at the euro assembly, as at this point it's not clear if it's included in the registration fees or not, how it will be handled, and where folks will stay in this unbelievably expensive city. at the co-ordinating committee on thursday, we should definitely raise this issue, as it was not directly addressed over the weekend.

*role of 'parties' and 'code of conduct'

saturday night we agreed to remove the sentence of the big document that endorsed the right to exclude folks from meetings. the issue of political party participation has never been addressed, despite tina's and others' continous efforts to get it on the agenda at meetings. we can keep asking that it be discussed and debated. also, tina's concern about being excluded from co-ordinating committee meetings will still need to be resolved. though there is no longer language of 'right to exclude', the proposed 'code of conduct' that tina drew up has also never been discussed. the european mediators/facilitators of saturday night said it looked completely reasonable but that we'd have to work that one out later, amongst ourselves in the uk.


these are the concrete issues that come to mind at the moment, with just my recounting of the context as i know it and some of my suggestions, again as a way of opening the discussion amongst the horizontals on these (and other) issues. i can't guarantee that cynicism is entirely unwarranted here, or that what we want to happen (the most inclusive process of organising the esf, as well as the most inclusive and politically radical esf) will be what comes to pass. but i can say that i think we have a much better outlook -- that enough of a shift has occurred that it's worth our while to keep on participating (or to come back to doing so, or start joining in if you're new) in the organising process. i think that the chances of our desires and goals being enacted will be significantly higher if we can have as many of horizontally minded folks as possible on every committee and working group, speaking out for what we want, against positions and strategies t hat are based in compromised politics (i.e., too exclusionary or complicit with neoliberalism), and against any attempts to go back to the non-democratic way of operating.

we should try to do our own outreach as this point, i think, to bring in (or bring back in) more horizontals and especially to attend meetings of committees and working groups. so please forward our e-list messages and these calls widely -- it will make a difference.

thanks to all for your work and for this continued dialogue,
in solidarity,
laura