en - fr - es - zh

Guy VANDEBROUCK

Non allie. Switzerland

His or her answers to the questionnaire

... on the idea of the Alliance
| 12 October 2005 | en |

Definitely yes, but keeping in mind every body is more and more busy and overloaded with information, therefore the first issue, the first barreer to overcome is to create attraction and interest for individuals to "clean their agenda" to find time to commit.

Effectiveness is a key mord, as answering questions as "what will be different if I join ?". All the answers are implicit in the documents, but not explicit, and the Alliance proposal is in a sort of competition with other alternatives. Its effectiveness is also a need and the communication could be moving towards this direction.

As a small illustration, the questionnaire is good since it is very open and provides lot of space for comments if somebody has time. But you could also in addition have a part with closed questions to assess some pratical issues. On the content and on the effectiveness to communicate it. Would have three advantages : give to the person filling it that if he has not too much time its feed back will anyway partly be clear and taken into account, be consistent with the overall image that the Alliance is practical and efficient and I should join, and give you material for quantified analysis.

0 reaction(s) |

... on the spirit of the Charter
| 12 October 2005 | en |

Summarizing my perception after reading, it is excellent to propose the maintenance (or slightly increase) an open network of Allies and the related processes to ensure sharing and capitalizing, it is probably less designed to enlarge the Alliance and attract new members in any form of quantum leap. This perception might be the result of a conscious decision since the FPH is willing to get less involved but it makes the bet that it is not necessary to replace the FPH (even with a new approach) in a sort of active governance. Even if I am not experienced in the running of similar entities, I am a little bit afraid that the Alliance will to the best "kindly survive" with the proposed approach.

Diving a little bit in details, when reading it, I perceive a number of assumptions, and the proposal probably create "de facto" a specific trend for the coming years. Let me share them:
 taking a "marketing and communication hat", the implicit positioning is one of maintaining, with less involvement of the FPH, the current network,
 Therefore it raises the question of the desired goals and of the possible goals,
 Is the desired goal to maintain the current dynamic with a priority on the current allies, or to "recruit", attract a large number of new entrants? My personal perception is that recruiting is a must considering the agenda for a better world, and the progress so far. The impression that comes out of the reading is that the proposed next phase, both in content and style, is designed more for current members, and for entities rather similar to the FPH,
 But there is also a possible goal. And this raises the question of the FPH somehow stepping back. This decision is good by definition, since it is decided by its Board. But it might have been possible maybe to reinforce the ownership of the Alliance image, brand, architecture and processes while minimizing the FPH role by various alternatives. Just an illustration could be a rotating group of Allies in charge of the active governance and promotion of the Alliance. Selecting them would be a key strategic decision would recruitment be a goal. These ownership alternatives could be designed to protect the essence of the open network with implicit governance, which is key in the whole initiative. But it would have created more possibilities to attractively communicate: the solution taken in the current proposal gives a sense of "dehumanization", of coldness, of lack of passion and commitment just because we see nobody in there or behind it. We know the risks of the proposed alternative (appropriation by a small group, power, disagreements among members...), but there is also risk in the current ones, with probable consequence of a somehow sleeping Alliance. But I might be wrong, I hope in fact.

0 reaction(s) |

... on the Constituent Charter
| 12 October 2005 | en |

As said above, I did not perceive it as easy to grasp or attractive for "non-already-committed-and-informed" people, but once again it depends of the target of the documents. Did you in the collection of reactions separated "already-informed" from others ? Could these papers be proposed to organizations who are already Allies and others who are not and analyse separately their reactions ?And to citizens ready to move to further commitment and see their candid reactins ? (but once again it might not be one target for the Alliance).

As a detail, it is also surprising (if I did not read too fast) that there are not one figure. The current number of Allies as an example, any target even if purely tentative : does the Alliance be happy to double its network in 5 years ? No commitment but facts? Otherwise there is even a sense of secret...Who is in ? Why nothing of the past is mentionned except the 2001 initiative ?

0 reaction(s) |

... on the working procedures
| 12 October 2005 | en |

Attracting new allies, assessing progress, evalutaing active governance (with an ouside high level review Board as an example) and communicating could be also procedures.

0 reaction(s) |

... on the calendar
| 12 October 2005 | en |

The impression that resulted from the reading is that the Congress in 2010 is the key miletones. This is a good one, a very good one. Could it be possible to pull backwards from it intermediate steps ? Could the Alliance propose to itself themes to work upon to create a rythm towards 2010 ? Even if of course this would be a "Call for contibution" type of something but not at all the exclusive content of the Alliance ? This would contribute to put flesh around the bones, and give a solid way to communicate opn the Alliance.

0 reaction(s) |

... on your possible participation
| 12 October 2005 | en |

Yes as an individual.

I take the opportunity to add a comment in this direction: my perception is that progress comes from individuals that appreciate values, and then align their believes and commitments with their actions in their direct environment: family, work, social, artistic... Now, if in this direct environment, the individual is also a member or managing an ONG, great. In other worlds, I know an active militant in a trade union that beats his wife and it desesperates me. Why mentioning this? Just because I think the Alliance should recruit and network individuals, not only organizations. If this is recognized as a good goal, then it has direct consequences on the marketing of the Alliance, and my previous comments are even stronger.

Interested in being part of: the facilitation committee for the 2006-2007 strategy

0 reaction(s) |

... Other answers
| 12 October 2005 | en |

Sorry if all this appears critic, it is not. And of course I havemy own bias of practical efficiency, not always adapted to such innovations as the Alliance. Best wishes for the next steps.

0 reaction(s) |

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