The first IFT meeting in Barcelona in September 1999 underlined the significance of simultaneous continental assemblies for June 2001. In Bangalore, reports of the various ongoing continental dynamics have shown that there have been concrete follow-up in very different forms on the various continents and that there has been promising progress in the preparation of these continental meetings.

In Bangalore, we looked at various ways of linking up this continental dimension with the 2 other pathways of the Alliance (Colleges and Thematic workshops) and of putting it in the broader process, including the world assembly.

We agreed upon December 2001 as the date for the world assembly and need to study more closely the feasibility of it being held in India/ Bangalore. Continental assemblies are already planned for June 2001. It is the whole of these meetings that will express the Allies' determination to build a new world civility at the dawn of this nascent century and millennium.

Recent events, such as the Seattle meeting, are confirmation for us that the Alliance's Assembly process comes at the right time. More and more people feel a need for a global civil society fully able to define its own agenda and rise up to the challenges of globalization.

We propose to change the name to "Responsible, Plural and United World". We further propose calling the entire 2000-2001 process the "Assembly for a Responsible, Plural and United World". In this way, each meeting or activity can be titled according to its geographical or topical designation, i.e. "African Caravan of the Assembly for a Responsible, Plural and United World" or "Meeting of the Corporate Leaders of the Assembly for a Responsible, Plural and United World". This name could be applied to the events but also to the documents of 2001 process.

Although the "collegial" dimension of the Alliance is part of both the continental and thematic workshops, we came to the conclusion the collegial pathway be developed to reflect the diversity of the points of view of various socioprofessionals groups. A major obstacle in that regard is the difficulty encountered by Allies of making contacts with some of these socioprofessional groups. We therefore expect a particular effort to be made by all Allies to identify pertinent people and institutions in their respective countries. In particular, there should be a specific and stronger effort to reach out to the groups that are largely under-represented in the current process.

The constituency of the Alliance is not limited solely to its signatories, the Alliance has evolved into a broader, unexpected and diverse social process. Allies aren't simply the 2300 signatories of the platform but also the thousands of people involved in processes supported or initiated by allies. As a result, we are faced with an unforeseen situation and a new challenge: the 2000-2001 assembly process has to be one of opening and reaching beyond the present Alliance as well as associating and linking up with other social dynamics and initiatives.

We discussed the present Alliance constituency. This prompted a number of essential breakthroughs in terms of redefining our strategy until December 2001.

• The number of signatories hasn't grown as much as we expected and a good number of signatories aren't active participants in the Alliance.

• The breakdown by country and continent shows that there are allies in many countries but that there are a significant number of allies in only a few countries. [...]

• Direct relationships between allies are seen by all to be weak, unless based on existing personal relationships; they are in any case far poorer than what could be expected given the richness and diversity of the allies.

• Nevertheless, many initiatives and processes have been launched within the Alliance, as part of the geo-cultural, thematic and collegial pathways; however, generally speaking, they do not lead to a formal signing of the platform by the participants [...] we are aware that it has adverse effects to spread the information and interconnect these initiatives.

By January 2001, we will need to know what kind of people will be part of the world assembly of December 2001. First we need to identify significant contact people in the various countries and themes and colleges. Second, these participants will not be invited on the basis of formal contacts (letters, etc.) but will be contacted directly by allies. Thirdly, these participants should be informed about and involved in the 2001 process far in advance of the world assembly, for instance through their participation in other meetings before December 2001.

Facilitation is at the core of the preparation of the 2000-2001 process. It is however more a question of practices and human relationships than one of structures and organized bodies. It is thus important to identify key contact people who can facilitate communication and maintain contact with other allies since many people in charge of thematic, geo-cultural or collegial concrete dynamics don't have time or make the effort to reach out to other allies and other Alliance dynamics outside of their areas of interest.

All the thematic workshops should work toward the continental meetings provided that they afterwards contribute to the world assembly.

The 2000-2001 process is a very broad, complex and ambitious project. It is however feasible if each initiative in the geo-cultural, thematic or collegial path maintains its autonomy. However, each initiative can be backed by the rest of the process as information from the other ongoing initiatives will be integrated at whatever stage they are at the time the exchange is needed. This emphasizes once again the importance of the contact people.

Based on our own past experience, we are convinced that things happen best when they rely on the personal commitment of one or several people rather than when they are the official responsibility of a "commission." A good example is the commission on communication wherein each and every member is personally committed to and in charge of a task for which s/he can be held accountable, the commission then being the locus for the coordination of these various personal tasks. Within the Alliance, being responsible for an initiative, college, action, etc. cannot be a source nor a matter of power, but a matter of accountability.

What we are looking for in terms of the outcome of the 2001 process is to make "breakthroughs", significant leap forward, that is to focus on the innovative perspectives, changes of mindsets and transformative strategies based on the work of the various colleges, workshops and geo-cultural groups; it is not just to obtain a well-informed and global overview of issues. Each group is thus being asked to provide one page of pathbreaking propositions and not a digest of information. A major responsibility of all those who accept to facilitate the whole process is to see that it happens.

We took note of the great diversity of our personal interests, actions and commitments within the Alliance: some of us are more interested in the collegial path, others a geo-cultural approach and social dynamics, and yet others the thematic workshops. We see this diversity as a great source of richness. It should not be expected that everyone get involved in all aspects of the process, granted that the various initiatives are well described, are mutually reinforcing, and that in the overall process all the dimensions be addressed.

In order to give great visibility to the unique and rich Alliance process as a whole, we need to develop 3 levels of visibility: a) operational plans which can be used for monitoring the whole process; b) a global shared agenda made public through Caravan and the Web site; c) diverse materials (booklet, video, etc.) meant to give broad visibility to the process and its expected outputs.

We feel a strong need for a global shared agenda to reflect and highlight the global vision of the 2000-2001 process. Such a complex process is indeed possible and meaningful only if it can be based on the great visibility and clarity of the various events and initiatives that are part of it.

The reality of the process will be the result of the undertakings of all allies; it is therefore necessary that each ally expresses herself/himself clearly on her/his expectations and commitments for the 2000-2001 period. In Bangalore, we did this exercise and found it very fruitful.

Given the scope of the task to be undertaken, it became clear that the IFT alone in its current form does not have the human resources to facilitate the process. We must now constitute a much broader group with all the people who already share or are willing to share the responsibility for facilitation. This broadening also implies a change in the functioning of this group. We think that the 2 meetings held in Barcelona and Bangalore have been vital in giving shape to the process and reinforcing interpersonal links and commitments. From now on, the work will be done through a diversity of means: forum, small-focused meetings, and travels that will enable people to share information in a structured way, to move forward, and to make things happen. A special forum will be created to facilitate this process.

The various IFT commissions identified in Barcelona in September 1999 did not appear as the most relevant structure to monitor the overall process. However, we still need a monitoring team which constantly looks at what is actually working and finds practical solutions when it does not work efficiently to preserve the continuity and consistency of the process.

We will send shortly to all Allies a working process proposal wherein we will identify the various functions and tasks to be implemented in view of the 2000-2001 Assembly. This will be the overall framework to identify the various human and financial needs. It will also be the basis for each (individual and collective) Ally to decide upon and let know her/his/its personal commitment and contribution to the whole process.

We discussed very openly the situation created by postponing approval of the budget of the "Future of the Planet" program of the FPH meant to back the Alliance process. We acknowledged that communication on this issue hasn't been clear enough and created confusion: the Board of the FPH had emphasized that no dynamics should be stopped, but this message hasn't been clearly communicated, heard or understood. We feel that the Bangalore meeting has been a good opportunity to discuss and prepare a collective answer to the various questions raised by the Board of the FPH and we see it as an important new beginning.

We are very grateful to Pipal Tree and Siddharta to have welcomed us in such warm human conditions. It was extremely fruitful for our exchanges and the longer-term impulse of the Alliance.

Participants in the Bangalore meeting:
Siddhartha, Michael Ochieng’, Makarand Paranjape, Pradeep Sebastian, Pierre Calame, Eulalia Flor, Lydia Nicollet, Cécile Sabourin, Ethan Gelber, Laura Maffei, Marti Olivella, Gustavo Marin.
Also participated in the meeting Veronique Rioufol in support of the facilitation process.

Return to Top