Alliance 21: Making Another World Possible
Evaluations, Visions, Proposals, and Projects
Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World
April 2003

The first three parts :

- Evaluation and Vision of the Future
- Proposals and Projects
- Report on the Participatory Process Used for the Evaluation and Future of the Alliance :

• Description of the dialogue process
• Description of the participation
• Interprétations des évaluations :
  - General evaluation of the Alliance
  - Evaluation of the coordination
  - Evaluation of the World Citizens Assembly in Lille
  - On the new organization of the Allianc
  - On financing
  - On communication and participation
  - On the Proposal Papers
  - On the application of the proposals
  - On the Alliance facing global challenges
  - Evaluation and proposals of the Alliance in Africa
  - Consultation
  - Proposal for the collective elaboration of a Charter

- The second stage of the Alliance

Part Three :

Report on the Participatory Process Used for the Evaluation
and Future of the Alliance

EIFE and delibera.info-alliance e-forums, and Porto Alegre Meeting
March 2002 - April 2003

3. EVALUATION OF THE WORLD CITIZENS ASSEMBLY IN LILLE

Interpretation of the 19 appraisals and 11 comments.

There was a large measure of objection to the fact that many of the participants in the Lille Assembly had not participated in the previous work of the Alliance and it was added that many of the participants in Lille didn't even know the Alliance.

Along the same lines, most also considered (although a large number of appraisals showed disagreement with this) that in many cases the Proposal Papers were not adopted by the participants of the Assembly.

Almost everyone also considered that there should have been some thought on how to organize action proposals. One comment explained that this was probably done in some of the workgroups. In spite of this, it was also pointed out (with some opinions to the contrary) that if the Proposal Papers had been sent to the participants with more advance time, everyone would have read them and it would have been possible to move on to strategic considerations more quickly.

There was a lot of difference of opinions on the methodology that was used. Among the more unfavorable positions, there was some criticism of its clarity and efficiency. Similarly, some spoke of having wasted intellectual energy, having lacked a methodology to face the thematic diversity, etc., and even of a method that was far too ambitious and pre-planned, and depended on a logistics based on non-professional volunteers.

The appraisals also showed a lot of agreement and relative agreement (there were no opinions in disagreement) with the statement that Lille was a great meeting and featured a lot of experience sharing and exchange of ideas. Despite that, there were just as many favorable as unfavorable opinions when it came to saying that it had fulfilled the expectation of an intense and synergetic articulation.

Lastly, it was claimed unanimously (with 1 abstention) that the Allies should be informed of the recommendations and proposals that resulted from Lille.