en - fr - es - zh

Oriol ALSINA

Aliado. España

His or her answers to the questionnaire

... on the spirit of the Charter
| 13 May 2005 | en |

The proposal is right in its spirit but falls short in the application of the principles it endorses. In other words, I fully agree that the main problem of the Alliance is the lack of clear governance rules. Without any kind of mechanism to manage differences and conflicting opinions, having unanimity as the only decision-making rule, the Alliance has only been able to take a collective stand on very broad and rhetoric principles, those that everyone agrees upon. It has also been impossible to define a strategy for implementing -or even promoting as they should- a selection of its hundreds of good proposals.

Therefore, a proposal to create and implement a system of governance which allow us to precise what does “jointly adopted” or “jointly defined” exactly mean is more than welcome!!

Yet, I’ve had the impression that we want to create rules without daring to call them “rules”. Having an arbitration body representing all continents is a wonderful idea. In practice this arbitration body will end up covering some of the functions that a conventional board of directors does, so why not accept even in words that there will be some kind of structure. I don’t agree in stating that the non-institutional character of the Alliance is necessarily the guarantee of openness and diversity, nor in saying that the general goal for this Alliance secong stage is to increase diversity. Diversity is already there.

In my opinion, the general goal of the “new Alliance” should be to have an impact on reality by putting into good use (directly or letting social movements do it) some of the proposals that it has generated. For that, we need governance, we need to adopt mechanisms to be able to take decisions which cannot please such a diverse spectrum of opinion.

All this, taking into account that our vision, the building of a global community, is already underway and that spaces like the WSF have taken the lead in this process and have gained a legitimacy that we unfortunateky don’t have. It is only by accepting reality that we will be able to change it.

0 reaction(s) |

... on your possible participation
| 13 May 2005 | en |

Yes.
Interested in being part of a created Cofunding comitee or group

0 reaction(s) |

... on the Constituent Charter
| 13 May 2005 | en |

Objectives: I like the “principle” of linking the identity of an ally to its contributions, as modest as it would be. Regarding the “finding”, I would say that dialogue and joint work are one of the ways - the most ethical one - to bring forth viable alternatives, but there are others. Our way is not the only one.

Ethics: It is curious that most principles apply to the internal functioning of the Alliance and very few are general ethical principles which can be applied both externally and internally like “promoting a culture of peace and cooperation”.

0 reaction(s) |

... on the working procedures
| 13 May 2005 | en |

Great, although I would assign different priorities to these 5 objectives:
 Urgent:

• 1. define the governance
• 2. to support the future development of the Alliance

 Medium:

• 3. to structure the connections and the debate

 Then ongoing:

• 4. to enhance the workingmethods
• 5. to build the memory

I am most amazed and disappointed that the goal “support the future development of the Alliance” does not make any reference to funding!!!!!... Yes, we need good rules, but we need funding other than FPHs too.

As you may know, I have undertaken a cofunding mission for the Alliance for over two years now and the results have not been what we expected. As the FPH position text mentions, the innovative approach of the Alliance and the identity confusion between FPH/Alliance make it difficult for traditional funders to support our work.

Knowing how difficult it is, but also how crucial for the future of the Alliance, I propose that one of the working procedures deals specifically with this issue. That is where I could participate more actively. Let’s not be afraid to talk about rules, but let’s not be afraid neither to talk about money.

0 reaction(s) |

... on the calendar
| 13 May 2005 | en |

Agree, we need a calendar and overall strategic orientations. These should be decided once the governance structure has been defined.

0 reaction(s) |

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