Subject: Re: [Interocc] [NYCGA-IWG] US National Communications Links - Update
From: Global Assemblies
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 21:01:31 -0700
To: internet_working_group@googlegroups.com, occupynorthamerica@googlegroups.com, interocc@occupyeverywhere.org, occupyusa@googlegroups.com, occupycallplanning@googlegroups.com, occupyus@googlegroups.com

Charles,

Whats up,

I am the one who has spearheaded creating this list.

The reason for this list is to track National Working groups to make sure all meetings are made public and transparent for people involved in the movement.

The alternative would be you not even knowing that there is interest in these National Working groups being created in the first place.

So I am glad that you have concerns because they need to be herd.

The only reason this list has been created is because all of these working groups have been requested by local organizations on the ground, and individual working groups at the local level.  At least 7 have already been created.  Many GA's have a process where creating a working group can happen without consensus from their GA, and in the same way, already existing working groups on the ground at different cities should be able to communicate with each other on a national level.

With your GA, do you guys need to come to consensus on creating a working group on creating websites for example, or do your members have the first amendment right to create websites?

Also this list is a public "administrative" list for just tracking what is going on, and to have all the information for National Working groups in one place, so that all of this isn't happening in the background.  It is completely open and anyone can use this information for what ever they would want with it.

It is up to each local working group weather there are members who would like to be involved in National Working groups, but it makes sense to me that a single local level GA or working group, should not be able to Block communications from other local working groups on the regional or national levels etc...

In my personal view point, none of these groups, including the National Group/ "Assembly" that has like 200+ people on the calls, have any decision making authority at all, and only Local GA's should have any decision-Making Power.

Since you have serious concerns, I would focus your effort on the purpose and scope of the National group/Assembly itself, because the National Working groups are just communication space between local working groups, but the National group/Assembly itself is a whole other can of worms and is where I am focusing my energy.  This National Group/Assembly has 200 people on it, and there is already discussion about brining proposals to this group, and I am actually pushing a structure proposal where the national group doesn't make any decisions, but instead just compiles proposals from local GA's for communications.  Here is the link for the structure proposal options:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y2fW8fQbEtrlrHJpZk3f9KxevUSXDLLNJlghMfA_vEE/edit?hl=en_US

I am a support of Proposal C, which is limiting any discussion on regional, national, and global levels, and simply do not push one proposal over an other at those levels, and only package similar proposals, translate them, and send them to the local GA's to make all the decisions.

Unfortunately this is a very new idea of creating a "global consensus process", and the old decision making systems seem to be winning out, cause people seem very interested in setting up "representative" bodies that debate the pro's and cons of proposals and actually come to consensus at these levels.  I am very concerned about that, and if you have concerns about that too, I strongly encourage you to step up and make your voice herd.

I'm having difficulty in even getting discussions on "Meta Discussions" which basically involve the purpose and scope of the national level.  Cause that is what all of your questions are regarding, so we need more people who push that as the TOP priority of discussion to make sure this national level is done correctly, cause there is going to be some sort of communication, the only question is for what.

As of yet, there still hasn't been any "top down" process, most of the notes and discussions are available for you to review, but I am still working on trying to database and access all of the already existing groups.  I am still in the process of getting some of the notes, but for me it is essential to be having access to what is going on within any national meetings.  Unfortunately unless people speak out like this, there could be a "top down" process that is created, and it could happen soon, so I hope people speak up and ask for something new!.

Do you really think that you should have the right to "Block" other local Working groups from communicating and talking to each other?

I think you do have a right to "bock" the existing National Assembly, and to do that is very simple.  Pass a proposal in your GA that says that your GA will not participate with it.  But to prevent other GA's from communicating with each other could be a thwarting of first amendment rights for people to communicate and speak their mind nationally.  What I do think is the real question, is what is the purpose of the national group, and should they be able to discuss and come to consensus on solution based proposals?  I say no, and My proposal explains that because I believe that only local GA's should be able to discuss the pro's and con's and come to consensus on solutions.  But I am the minority right now.

 Who 'decides' what forms and communication tools end up being used?

The individuals in the working groups at the local level.  If no one uses it, then it does't get used.

 Why should they be 'created' as opposed to 'vetted and decided upon by local
occupation working groups on an individual basis'?

This is a great point, I really like it, and we should create a "vetting process"!!!

Who designates any given solution as being 'national'?

I would say the only way to have a national agreement would be through a "National Consensus Process", which is explained in my structure proposal, although my proposal is in the point of view of the Global level, but you would just substitute world, for the nation.  I believe the only way to have a National Consensus is for every Local General Assembly to come to consensus on the same proposal.  This could take a long time, and is a process, but the process is all covered within the proposal I have written.

The message is being sent out that if local Working Groups want some kind of
solution, they should approach particular parties. How is this vetted? Which
occupations or Working Groups have gone through a process of approving any
of it?

I have no idea, we need to figure out the answer to this question???

I realize my questions come across as possibly contentious or rhetorical. It
could be that there ARE answers to these questions, and I am missing them in
all the traffic. If so - please do post some of them. 

No your questions are Right on!!! and really should be the TOP focus in discussion throughout the movement nOW.

I know that decisions made in the Working Groups I belong to are made by the
folks in the room, within the contest of the Occupy Wall Street effort. But
when something declares itself to be national, like a list, I want to know:
were all the possible stakeholders involved in a position to affirm or deny
that designation, or am I free to work with a buddy in San Fran and decide
on the spot to have a 'national occupy marching bands list' and project the
idea that all the other local occupy marching bands suddenly have motive to
join my list?

I think I understand you, but basically the process we are using, is that if you want to make a "National Marching Band Working Group" we will add it to the list.  The decision is made by weather or not people want to join it and actually schedule and participate in the group.  On the current list of requested National Working Groups, are possibly working groups that there might not be interest, it all is up to each individual and local working group members to decide to make these groups happen. 

My concern is - I don't want there to be any kind of address for 'national'
occupy movement stuff. It represents a kind of power or leadership that is
unaccountable. If and when something 'national' emerges, I want it created
by and accountable to some formal structure agreed to by a consensus or near
consensus of all the General Assemblies, not by whoever jumped first to
build the right email lists with the proper language. Otherwise, it just
feels 'co-opty' for lack of a better word.

I definitely feel you.  I think that national and international organizations are going to pop up.  ON the national level there are already 3, and on the international level there are already 8+, so it is just going to happen, and most likely there are going to be more and more, which I support, cause if they all form together, it would put too much power into one place.

Also the reason I have created this as a publicly editable google document is exactly that reason, that I don't want this to be a national organization putting the information up on their website and people have to go through some type of national decision making process to put up their new National Working group.  So in this way, anyone from any local working working group, and just add a request for a new national working group, so that they can have their topic discussed between other cities and get their questions answered for what is going well or not at other locations.

I think the main reason you haven't seen information like this from other places, is because I haven't found anyone else that is doing what I am doing, which is simply documenting and supporting everything that is already going on.  Most of these national and international organizations are all creating their own websites and systems that are difficult to get involved in, and even more difficult to actually talk with.  So I'm just trying to be transparent and let people know what is being talked about and what is going on.

We are already starting to document and database meeting minutes.

My goal is simply access to information, support for local General Assemblies (tell me what you need), participatory democracy, consensus-decision making, interactivity, and integrity.

I also want to say that I am concerned about the regional conference, unless this "regional conference" agrees that it will not discuss or come to consensus on proposals, and instead they simply compile all the proposals and send them back to the local GA's for the decision making.  That is what I support.  It doesn't matter weather it is a "regional conference", "National Conference" or Global Conference, when people are meeting in person, or on the phone, it still creates a system of elitism because only the people who have the time and ability to travel are able to participate.  But with Local General Assemblies people can easily fit them around their life and do not have to travel because they are in their own neighborhood or town.  That is why I feel decisions and even discussions on proposals happen in local GA's and not Regional, National, or International -- conferences, assemblies, groups, or whatever you want to call them.

That is my two cents, and you are welcome to call me anytime.

Thanks for your hard work, and bellow is the link for the structure proposals I have seen so far.  


Jay

Jay Blas Jacob Cabrera
(415) 323-5833
http://GeneralAssemblies.info
http://JaysLIFE.net
http://Jelo.in


On Nov 3, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Charles Lenchner wrote:

I don't understand the relationship between all this, and the organic coming
together of representatives of specific working groups. Am I the only one
who feels that a top down process is being facilitated into existence?

Where can I vote against having a national working group? Did I miss that
meeting?

Who 'decides' what forms and communication tools end up being used? Why
should they be 'created' as opposed to 'vetted and decided upon by local
occupation working groups on an individual basis'? Who designates any given
solution as being 'national'?

The message is being sent out that if local Working Groups want some kind of
solution, they should approach particular parties. How is this vetted? Which
occupations or Working Groups have gone through a process of approving any
of it?

I realize my questions come across as possibly contentious or rhetorical. It
could be that there ARE answers to these questions, and I am missing them in
all the traffic. If so - please do post some of them. 

I know that decisions made in the Working Groups I belong to are made by the
folks in the room, within the contest of the Occupy Wall Street effort. But
when something declares itself to be national, like a list, I want to know:
were all the possible stakeholders involved in a position to affirm or deny
that designation, or am I free to work with a buddy in San Fran and decide
on the spot to have a 'national occupy marching bands list' and project the
idea that all the other local occupy marching bands suddenly have motive to
join my list?

My concern is - I don't want there to be any kind of address for 'national'
occupy movement stuff. It represents a kind of power or leadership that is
unaccountable. If and when something 'national' emerges, I want it created
by and accountable to some formal structure agreed to by a consensus or near
consensus of all the General Assemblies, not by whoever jumped first to
build the right email lists with the proper language. Otherwise, it just
feels 'co-opty' for lack of a better word.

It's confusing....

With good intentions,

Charles Lenchner

-----Original Message-----
From: interocc-bounces@occupyeverywhere.org
[mailto:interocc-bounces@occupyeverywhere.org] On Behalf Of Global
Assemblies
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:54 PM
To: occupynorthamerica@googlegroups.cominterocc@occupyeverywhere.org;
occupyusa@googlegroups.comoccupycallplanning@googlegroups.com;
occupyus@googlegroups.com
Subject: [NYCGA-IWG] [Interocc] US National Communications Links - Update

Hey Everyone


I want you all to know that we are getting closer to having a comprehensive
list of National Working groups that people can join.  This list will
including forms for voting for the meeting times and getting on the email
lists/online communication tools, for each National Working group. They are
all optional and open.

We are currently in the process of helping create the forms and
communication tools for all the National Working groups that have been
requested.  But we are sure that there are other national working groups
that exist that we don't know about, so do tell us, and also groups that
people want created but but need help getting started.  So tell us what your
local working groups need and if they would like to connect with other local
working groups working on the same issues.

Here is the link for the current list of National Working Groups Contact and
Meeting Forms (this will be more complete in the next few days so please
check back soon)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14lUU5SZ8Eb2RVyoJGWWZFnJPRnTzS6ye4DWDDbQ7
7Dc/edit

On that list are links to the email lists for people interested in getting
mass updates about the movement on your email.  Currently there are three
National General Email Lists.  So if you aren't on one of those, you may
want to join so you continue to receive updates.

There is also a link to Global Communications information for people
interested in that.

Our goal is to help schedule and support communication for the people who
are interested in Inter-Communication Working groups.

We are also looking for volunteers to help set these meetings up, so if you
are interested in helping with "repetitive computer tasks", do let us know,
cause we could use your help.  There are only 3 of us working on this list
right now, but thats better than just one.  If you want to volunteer, please
submit the number of hours you can committee to the next few days/week, and
your available schedule.

So let us know what you need, and we will do our best to help.

Jay


Jay Blas Jacob Cabrera
(415) 323-5833
http://JaysLIFE.net
http://Jelo.in


_______________________________________________
InterOcc mailing list
InterOcc@occupyeverywhere.org
http://occupyeverywhere.org/mailman/listinfo/interocc_occupyeverywhere.org


_______________________________________________
InterOcc mailing list
InterOcc@occupyeverywhere.org
http://occupyeverywhere.org/mailman/listinfo/interocc_occupyeverywhere.org



Jay Blas Jacob Cabrera
(415) 323-5833
http://GeneralAssemblies.info
http://JaysLIFE.net
http://Jelo.in

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >