en - fr - es - zh

Robert WHEELER

Allie. United States

His or her answers to the questionnaire

... on the spirit of the Charter
| 18 August 2005 | en |

As far as the Charter goes I think that it is quite suitable; however it leaves out several of the most important matters. The first is the methods and means by which we can purposefully expand and strengthen the Alliance. The Alliance is based upon a solid framework and orientation that does not seem to me to have been implemented very well. I refer here to the development of Collegial, Geographical, and Substantive Working Groups as well as the regional and continental assemblies.

It has never been clear as to how coordinators for such groups will be selected; what type of support will be provided to establish such networks; or what type of a process will be developed to ensure that we do what is needed to develop in all areas simultaneously. I seem to remember that Pierre started to work on this in an earlier proposal, but there doesn’t seem to be anything in this document about this. It is essential that these types of things be defined in the Constituent Charter.

In addition, I believe that an earlier draft also talked about means and guidelines for how one can develop campaigns and initiatives that are associated with the Alliance. I think that this also needs to be included in the document and such campaigns that will bring us closer to establishing the type of world we want to live in will be encouraged and supported by the Alliance as a whole.

The other matter that is not dealt with in this draft proposal is the financial relationship between the Fondation and the Alliance. It is quite clear that the financial decisions that the FPH makes have a profound impact on the direction, orientation, and effectiveness of the Alliance. In addition, we have operated in a very undemocratic and non participatory fashion in regards to financial decisions ever since the Alliance was founded.

Either the Fondation must be much more transparent in its financial decision making processes and must explain and put forward the specific means by which it makes its decisions, or it must find a way to devolve some of these decisions to the Alliance itself. One means of doing so would be to give an Alliance Board say half of the money that it has budgeted to use as it will. However it would probably take a good deal of effort to set up an agreeable process for how the Alliance could make such decisions; so it might just be best to improve the methods and transparency by which the FPH makes its financial decisions.

Then in addition, if the Alliance is to set a calendar and priorities every two years there must be some linkage spelled out that ties a certain amount of funding to this.

These are complicated questions that have deserved much more consideration and discussion than they have received to date.

0 reaction(s) |

... on your possible participation
| 18 August 2005 | en |

I have been an active Ally since December 1997. I will definitely continue to take part in the Alliance. I continue to believe that it can play an important part in determining our planetary future. However I have been quite discouraged from time to time with the seeming lack of coordination within the Alliance, transparency in some decision making and organizing processes, lack of a clear process by which to participate in important decisions, etc.

For example, I have not known how Working Group Coordinators are selected; which Working Groups are active; how to develop a new Working Group; what support for such new Working Groups might be available; etc. Likewise I signed up for the Working Group on Global Governance a year before the Lille Assembly but there didn’t seem to be any type of discussion process that I could participate in. Nor did I see any of the materials for the Proposal Booklet until it was completed. As it turned out, it was very good; but still I think that there was some valuable input that I could have given.

Similarly, Marti Olivella organized an Alliance evaluation process which produced a report on all of the input that was given after the Lille Assembly. However, many of the recommendations that were made and which were included in the report just seemed to disappear without ever really being discussed or addressed. I don’t understand why this occurred or why we never had a chance to make sure that these things were incorporated in the restructuring and/or future development of the Alliance. I still think that Marti’s report should somehow be incorporated into either this or a later process.

Interested in being part of: the users committee for the Alliance Web site, the discussion group on the common calendar, the facilitation committee for the 2006-2007 strategy

0 reaction(s) |

... on the Constituent Charter
| 18 August 2005 | en |

In describing how the Alliance differs from other similar networks and efforts, I think that an important point or characteristic was left out and should be added. This would be that: it is distinguished from other networks in that it is based upon the idea of developing a structural and organizational framework that can take us into a Responsible, Plural, and United World. This framework would be the development of Collegial, Geographic, and Substantive Working Group which develop initiatives and proposals covering all issue areas and sectors of society and which are interlinked with one another. Thus we are imagining, designing, and taking the first steps towards actually creating the new future.

In terms of the Alliance Annals I think it would be good to define who will coordinate this project, how will the group do its work, how will they get the materials needed to do their job, and how will we make sure that important parts of the Alliance’s activities are not left out. Will the FPH take on the responsibility of making sure that this project is well carried out?

The idea of producing and distributing quarterly summaries of Alliance activities is also an excellent idea; but will also need to be coordinated and will probably required a good deal of persistence by someone to pull it all together and to get the input needed to do it right. This will thus need to be institutionalized

The rule about posting new initiatives on the Website is not very well defined; and the month time period for consideration may not be sufficient to get much of a response. I would suggest that we either send a listing of such initiatives out on an email list when they come in or extend the period of consideration to 2 months. Also, it needs to be clearer as to what is acceptable in terms of an objection. Could a handful, or even a significant minority, of people say no to and block an initiative which most of us welcome and agree to? We need to have a means of openly responding to and discussing objections.

The matter of use of the Logo could become somewhat problematic. For example, those people who are working on the Charter of Human Responsibilities could develop, post, and distribute a lot of documents. Would they have to post all of them on the Alliance website? Perhaps well established initiatives of the Alliance would not have to post everything on the website before they could begin to distribute them. Also, say a Citizens Alliance is active in the area of global governance. There are some allies that do not think that we should try to establish a World Parliament or an international rule of law. Should an Alliance Working Group that is active in this area have to say that not everyone in the Alliance supports these things in its brochure?

I would agree that papers and reports should include various points of view and reflect the diversity that exists within the Alliance; but I don’t think that promotional materials should have to do this. If most of the Allies would support an initiative or project then we should be able to promote it without having to say that a few Allies don’t support it. Otherwise we will just be stuck with the tyranny of the minority.

0 reaction(s) |

... on the working procedures
| 18 August 2005 | en |

I think that it would be a mistake to have the FPH select or appoint the support and intercession group, especially considering that the existing members would select all new members of the group. This would be a most undemocratic process, which would just rekindle the problems we have had with the lack of accountability or too much authority residing independently with the FPH. In other words, it smacks of cronyism and we oppose it constantly in our domestic government institutions.

I would think that it might be Better to say anyone that has been an active Allie for at least 3 years can vote on the nominees rather than to have the FPH decide. Then we could set some criteria by which Allies can be nominated and will be considered by the voters.

Also the participation in the Alliance in North America is not very well developed. For example, there is much more participation in Latin America and most of the time the representative would probably come from there. Thus I would suggest that you consider including an additional person who would come from North America - the idea being to encourage the Alliance to continue to expand its participation in the US, Canada, and Mexico. It would also give a better intercontinental balance.

0 reaction(s) |

... on the calendar
| 18 August 2005 | en |

In terms of selecting strategic lines and action priorities, I think that this is a very good proposal; but again there must be a way by which we can discuss the various input and proposals both before and after the facilitation committee does its work. Also, there is the question of conflict of interest. Can the proposers of initiatives also serve on the facilitation committee? What is to ensure that they would do their best to consider all of the proposals equally rather than to favor their own? And if the proposers would not be included on the Committee, then how can we ensure that they have an opportunity to participate actively in the discussion and consideration process?

0 reaction(s) |

... Other answers
| 18 August 2005 | en |

Thank you for asking for our input and feedback.

0 reaction(s) |

... on the idea of the Alliance
| 23 August 2005 | en |

Yes definitely, but only if we fully implement the intended framework and also take the needed steps to begin to implement the changes that we know are needed in the world.

We have to get beyond proposals, advocacy, and philosophical/strategic discussions and begin to actually carry out our projects and activities and to create the new world that we all know is possible and achievable now.

0 reaction(s) |

- Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World -
- Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Humankind -