Our Media 6 - the futureDear all,

After spending some time reading or re-reading a number of e-mails posted to the list in the last few months, including the one on OURFuture sent by Sergio Rodriguez, the message from Juan Salazar proposing to hold OURMedia 6 in Sydney, Alfonso's message and various others, and as someone who volunteered to be part of the OM6 International Steering Committee, I would like to support OM6 in Sydney and follow-up on Alfonso's suggestion that the International Steering starts working with the OM6 local committee towards the next conference.

But first, on OURFuture....

I was one of the people who had previously advocated for a clearer (not more formal) governance structure. The logic being to create a transparent framework for the network, as well as more clearly defined responsibilities (not hierarchies) in order to help the network achieve its' stated goals of "facilitating a long-term dialogue between academics, activists, practitioners and policy experts around citizens' media initiatives (and ultimately)  design and develop initiatives that can strengthen citizens' media, community media, and alternative media in national and international policy arenas." These ambitious goals imply doing work in between conferences if for nothing else than to follow-up on the outcomes from one conference to the next. 

The attempts to create some kind of governance structure beyond what already exists did not work in the past for some of the reasons expressed by Alfonso - lack of core funding, volunteer participation by network members who have multiple commitments and I also think due to diverging views on how to get things done and the diverse nature of the "communities" (activist/practitioner or academic) represented by network members . Rather than see this as a negative, it can be seen as an indicator of the nature of the network itself - fluid and still emerging. Since 2001, the network appears to have had varying degrees of resources, participation, balance between academic vs. practitioner conference focus, etc. So, as long as there are enough people willing to invest their time and energy in making things happen - they will happen.

On this basis, I think it may be most constructive to stick with the loose structure that already exists for now. Namely, 

As a reminder - Sergio's message outlined the following responsibilities for the International Steering Committee:

"The responsibilities of the steering committee are : 1) Fund raising; 2) Supporting website; 3) Managing the lists; 4) Linking with local organization committee once location for next conference is selected. When the local (conference) committee is formed, at least two members of the steering committee should be in the local committee."

He reminds us that at the end of OURMedia V (Bangalore) it was decided that a ten-member steering committee should be formed. Five people volunteered in  Bangalore: Tripta Chandola (Queensland University of Technology), Alfonso Gumucio-Dagron (Communication for Social Change Consortium), Tanya Notley (Queensland University of Technology), Jethro Pettit (Institute of Development Studies, Sussex University), and Juan Salazar (University of Western Sydney). Various other people volunteered later: Arturo Bregaglio (FM Trinidad, Asuncion, Paraguay), Gaby Hadl, (Ritsumeikan University, Japan), Stefania Milan (IPS, London), Clemencia Rodriguez (University of Oklahoma), Sergio Rodgriguez (Geomar, Montreal), Elvira Truglia (Social Justice Committee, Montreal), Marilu Villachica (Southern Illinois University).* 

(*Please note this is a corrected version of the list included in the Sydney proposal and re-sent by Alfonso - mainly the name of Arturo Bregaglio was missing the last time, is there anyone else missing from the list or anyone who shouldn't be on the list?)

There is one other set of guidelines for the operation of the network as stated on the Web site:
    >>"Conferences should be held bi-annually or every 18 months. Spacing vs. Yearly (proposed from: Porto Alegre). "
    >>"There could be simultaneous OURMedia smaller events in different parts of the world -- kind of what happened in December of 2005 with an event in London, the main event in Bangalore, and another smaller event in Mompox (Colombia); if planned well, we could have joint         sessions using internet, video, etc (proposed at OURMedia 5.5 in Mompox)."

OURMedia 6 in Sydney...

When I first saw the Sydney proposal on the OM list in April and later saw it on the OM Web site I was surprised as it seemed to me that there was a step missing. Shouldn't the International Steering have started doing something as of March (when all ten members were in place)? Shouldn't there have been a general call for proposals (in English and Spanish) posted on the list inviting anyone interested in organizing the next OM conference to do so (or did I miss this?). This seems to be an example of the consequence of the lack of a clear governance structure or maybe the lack of well-functioning governance structure. Or maybe it's just a sign of the fluid nature of the network? Among a number of informative messages, I know that Juan re-posted the guidelines for hosting an OM conference as taken from the OM Web site shortly after the Bangalore conference. But I believe that message was only in English and I don't think that was intended as the general call for proposals (am I wrong?). In the future, it may be a good idea that the International Steering Committee (or other delegated body) send out a general call for proposals (with a deadline) right after the OM conference ends. I am pointing this out simply to stress the importance of communication in a virtual network.

This doesn't take away from the fact that the proposal sent by Juan Salazar and prepared by Juan Salazar,  Ellie Rennie and Tanya Notley to host OM6 in Sydney is a very strong one. Just as holding the conference in Latin America twice in a row helped the OM Network grow in that region, holding the OM conference in the Asia-Pacific region for a second time will surely help strengthen the network, especially since there appears to be great momentum from members in the Asia-Pacific to stay actively involved.

The local committee members identified in the Sydney proposal are Juan Salazar (University of Western Sydney), Ellie Rennie (Swinburne University), Tanya Notley (Queensland University of Technology), Tanja Dreher (University of Technology, Sydney).

Next steps....

Let's take up Alfonso's suggesting about hooking up with Skype about setting up a virtual meeting with the International Steering Committee, which includes two members who are also part of the Sydney Local Committee (Juan and Tanya).  I agree that this would be an opportunity to give more specific feedback on the conference proposal and plan the next steps. We should also have a list of e-mails for all committee members... 

Elvira

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Alfonso Gumucio Dagron 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:41 PM
Subject: Our Media 6 - the future


Dear colleagues of Our Media,

I couldn't react much earlier to the whole group because I wanted to find the time and read the proposal from our colleagues in Australia submitted by Juan Salazar, the paper that Clemencia Rodriguez and Sergio Rodriguez circulated, and other messages related to the network, which I had not the time to read because of moving from Brazil to Guatemala, and then travelling intensively during April and May.  I did however respond to Juan ratifying my commitment to be part of the International Steering Committee, as I had volunteered in Bangalore. 

Our Media 6 in Sydney

The proposal from Australia is in my view very well crafted and is already the results of preliminary agreements between our colleagues from various organisations and universities in Australia, which is very encouraging and a new great improvement from past experiences. I'm impressed. We have a joint effort from four universities of Australia, I think this is great. Plus 11 organisations that have expressed their interest in supporting the conference, from AMARC Asia to RMIT School of Applied Communication. All this confirms my belief that Our Media 6 should take place in Australia, and not because there is no other proposal, but for other equally important reasons: our Australian colleagues have been participating in the Our Media network from the beginning; they are well organised, motivated and working worldwide with initiatives that enrich the content of what Our Media represents. 

Having the next conference in Australia is also an important indicator of the growth and expansion of Our Media, allowing the network to meet in a new region. We had met already in North America, Europe, South America and Asia, so this new development should be more than welcome. Already with Our Media 5 in Bangalore, the argument of "too far" was defeated.  Too far from whom? For Our Media to be a real global network, we need to challenge our own centralist approaches.  If some of us will not make it to Sydney, it's OK, as long as many other colleagues from the South Pacific and Asia can join. The issues of visa that some have mentioned, are now common to most of the world: not easy to get a visa to the US or Europe, for most of the countries.  Depending on what passport we hold, we may have difficulties to enter countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America.  So the visa factor is just a reality we have to faced. The sooner we start with the visa request, the better.  We will all need a more formal invitation from the university hosting the conference.

Juan has done great work to bring all of us in front of our responsibilities and commitment. Do we want to contribute towards Our Media 6?  Then let's activate the international steering and the local organising committees, within the timeframe he has mentioned in one of his messages. I suggest we all get into Skype, exchange our Skype names, and then plan for a meeting of the international steering committee, with Juan as the link to the local organising committee. 

During the preparation of the Our Media 5 conference in Bangalore, one important question raised was about funding. Some colleagues thought Our Media 5 would fail to take place because it was the first meeting that started with zero funding, and the little funding that the organisers got came later. I'm involved as chair of a Working Group in the preparation of the ALAIC conference next month in Brazil, and again, there is no funding. Each one has to manage to get there, with the support of his/her own academic institution or by her/his own means. Most of these large conferences happen because people want them to happen.  Funding is increasingly scarce, but with a university offering the facilities to meet, things get much easier.  

Another myth that was broken in Bangalore is that we have to "marry" Our Media conferences with some "larger" conference.  This is only valid if for some colleagues Our Media is not a priority, just a minor activity. If ICA or IAMCR or any other network is more important than Our Media, then it is clear that we may not have the same faces around every time.  But Our Media has shown already that we don't need to piggy-back on another conference to exist. We started as a one-day "pre-conference", then we grew to two days, three days... We are now a conference on our own, without any complex of inferiority. The only remaining issue is prioritising, but I leave that to each colleague to decide.

I will not get into the details of the proposal from Australia, because that can be discussed with the members of both committees. The programme, the themes, the papers, the logistics, can be refined as we go.  The most important issue now is to know who is willing to support the process, joining the international steering committee. Some of us had volunteered in Bangalore and some joined later: Alfonso Gumucio (Communication for Social Change Consortium); Clemencia Rodriguez (University of Oklahoma); Jethro Pettit (Institute of Development Studies, Sussex University); Marilu Villachica (Southern Illinois University); Tripta Chandula (Queensland University of Technology); Elvira Truglia (World Social Justice, Montreal); Stefania Milan (IPS, London); Gaby Hadl, (Ritsumeikan University, Japan); Sergio Rodriguez (Geomar, Montreal).  Are we all in? Maybe the first step is to raise our hands and say: count me in. 

So, in short, I just wanted to say I support the proposal and I'm ready to make some time available to participate as a member of the International Steering Committee. 

The future of Our Media

With their usual commitment to the network, Clemencia and Sergio issued a message in Spanish and English on the future of Our Media. We have all been concerned that the network may disappear, given the tepid level of participation. I myself suggested at the opening of the Bangalore conference, that if we had to disappear because of the lack of interest, be it.  But Bangalore showed that there was more people than we even thought, committed to push the process forward. There is a young generation motivated, but we need to make room for them in the decision making process. Which is why is so important than anyone reading the messages in this list participates and has a saying. Nobody owns this network, so everyone should feel free to comment on what is circulated. Those that have been involved from the beginning should support a process of renewal. 

Once again there is on the table the topic of Our Media becoming, or not, an organisation with a formal structure: a governance structure, an institutional structure, or an efficient communication structure. This means having people elected to perform certain tasks and assume certain responsibilities. Logically, it may also mean having some core funding to maintain a secretariat, etc. I personally disagree with a very formal structure, and think that we have managed quite well until now just by joining our enthusiasms. Some, like Clemencia, have dedicated much more time and effort than others. There is much to do to improve the communication flow and particularly the website, but if we haven't been able to do that part, I don't see a more complex structure being put in place, with more generals than soldiers. 

It is true that we all want Our Media to be more than an annual conference.  We want it to become a real network of academics and activists, that can articulate our work in various parts of the world between two conferences. It is a key issue to discuss, and when we do that, we should be very realistic, because we are all members of numerous virtual networks and we seldom have time to participate online. Our exchanges on this list are a clear proof.  How many of those receiving these emails actually contribute with their ideas? I'm one of those that surfaces every now and then, but some others don't even show up once a year.  This is to say that making a network function on a virtual platform is far from easy. Whatever we decide to do, it has to be feasible, not just wishful thinking. Let's not dream about having financial support to function as an organisation. Let's continue learning how to do things with the little we can get. Above all, let's think of including Our Media in the other activities that we do; that is the best way to do something for Our Media between two conferences.

Are we unique? I think so. We are different from IndyMedia, we are different form academic networks, we are different from activists networks. The mix of academics and activists is unique, or it was.  If there is another network doing the same, we still have the right to claim that we were there first. The fact that there are new networks only means that there are more people in the field, with different needs. Networks do not multiply with the same people, although we might be part of several networks at the same time. As Clemencia pointed out, we should be excited about these developments.

One thing is clear, none of us can "dissolve" Our Media, because nobody owns it. It may fade away if nobody pays attention to it, but it cannot be eliminated by decree. 

Anyhow, I think the discussion should take place during our conference, not just by email.

Sorry for this very long posting in the list. Maybe it compensates my absence during the past two months.

Alfonso 

Alfonso Gumucio Dagron
Edificio Marqués del Valle
Apartamento 16-P
2a Avenida 23-85, Zona 14
CP 01014 Ciudad de Guatemala
GUATEMALA

Tel. +502-2366-3801

[log in to unmask] 
http://www.geocities.com/agumucio/  
http://gumucio.blogspot.com/