Dear all
Thanks for your patience in awaiting my notes from the last session.

I'd like to add to the thanks to the local committee for pulling together a very enjoyable conference - like others, I'm sure we can learn a lot from the experience about how to move forward and I really appreciated all the efforts to make an OURMedia mark in Asia. It was great to catch up with old friends and colleagues and meet many new people.

There was a discussion of the achievements of OURMedia V which can be summed up as:

·  Many new people

·  Expanding network

·  Strong link between research and grassroots

It was widely felt that there was no need for negative thoughts about OURMedia's future (Alfonso had raised the question of whether OURMedia should continue in the opening session to the conference) - that it was more appropriate to think in terms of strengths:

·  Good to have an international mix (now incorporating Asia)

·  There are many new ideas circulating

More critically:
Alfonso described how the past two meetings had a much larger group, more young activists, and he missed that this time, fewer people and he felt it was less vibrant. He also thought many presentations were very descriptive not leaving much space for discussion of ideas.

Venu felt we could have had a space for discussion of ideas, maybe at the expense of one of the panels

Mario suggested we all make a concerted effort to involve many more young people, and that the good thing about the small group was that it was more intimate, we really got to know people.
Working sessions would have been useful - e.g. 'what is community media?' 'what do we mean by "transformative"?' - more conversations about these kinds/levels of issues in rural and urban settings would have been good (echoes earlier points about discussions of ideas).
There have been a number of ideas emerging about the building of networks within the OURMedia network on particular issues (more later on this point)

Juan agreed that having more people and students generates energetic debate, however, in this OMV the level of relationships has been better, more intimate - so there are positive things about smaller groups as well as larger and younger groups.

The organization of presentations into panels did not work according to the plan except in a couple of instances - we had panels where the topics were completely different to the panel title

At OMV we had 5 volunteers to help organize this conference but very little happened, there was a disengagement of OURMedia people from the organization. There was a lack of structure and organization from the beginning. We asked for panels and discussions, most people put in individual papers.

Alfonso made the point that he didn't know until the last minute that he was able to attend, thus making it difficult to plan panels, whereas he felt academics have more opportunities to plan ahead.

Deepti felt it would be good to integrate community radio with other media and that the agenda for next year might include:

·  Integrate discussions on alt media with traditional and mainstream media

·  How are we going to empower communities to use media effectively?

·  Media ethics and regulation

Ganesh learned more about community radio than he had known, it has motivated him, he made lots of media activist friends and heard and expressed lots of ideas. We (as media activitst) need to create space for creation and experimentation and need to address motivating community expression.

Sajan wants to ensure that all attendees are on the OURMedia listserve (Juan asked for people to email to him and he will add to the list)

Alfonso - during first 4 OMs John created and sustained a website voluntarily but can no longer do this - John Downing said the server could be moved to his University and he would provide someone to support it. This didn't happen. The website is not up to date. WE NEED A WORKING WEBSITE. [There was widespread agreement about this and it came up several times but without any clear resolution of how to address it those there were some offers of assistance (see below) - it was felt to be a crucial tool in maintaining and strengthening the network].

Jethro picked up on the point of descriptive ideas: regarding the process of discussion he felt it might be a mistake to have panels on 'ideas' - descriptive presentations are a good way to generate discussion of ideas. We need to get beyond traditional academic format of panels and teacher/student formats. More small group work would be beneficial, parallel sessions in which we find ways to generate discussion of ideas and from there action. Jethro volunteered to be part of next conference planning committee, taking particular responsibility for thinking through and planning an enabling format that will allow discussion of ideas.

From UTC's perspective Rev Sham explained that it wasn't until the last few days that they knew they had enough attendees - important to start process earlier in future. He also missed debates at a theoretical level: How is new media affecting our understandings of space and community for example? Some panels had 4-5 presenters which were too many.

Suzanna saw website as a problem, people looking for info on the conference would not have found it, and there was no other information on either UTC or Voices websites - so unless you were already in the circle you would not have found information. She felt it important to try and find a bridge between academics and activists - different modalities might be explored because format was very academic. We should apply what we practice when working in communities, ie exchange and creation. Displays would have been good - for example we could have played with Chris' OurMob website in advance of his talk.

Juan reminded us that there was a call for interactive presentations and films in advance and that was intended to run for the whole conference.
He also reiterated that (up till now) the network has been fluid, it doesn't have a form as such and thus its hard for a few people to organize a conference - Suzanna's feedback for example would have been useful 3 months ago. We must take this on board for next time or we will be in same situation.

Stephen said that communication wasn't taking place with Joshva very effectively - he offered assistance but it wasn't taken up. Need better planning, e.g. we had rather formal welcome sessions which took up valuable time. Website is important - Stephen offers assistance of a webmaster.

Tripta feels that what is good about OURMedia is that it is fluid. It would be a shame if it were forced to have a definitive structure. Should work towards maintaining the fluidity of the network.

Alfonso acknowledged that we want things to work better, eg the website and list-serve and preparing for next conference and making it one in which ideas are debated more effectively. The way OM works is that a steering committee is appointed at one conference who go on to support a local committee for the next conference.

Rev Sham made a suggestion: this time none of local committee was part of steering committee - this would be beneficial next time.

Alfonso - last year we didn't know it was going to happen in India this year - and same applies for next year - life of steering committee is as long as it takes to appoint local committee [in which case, steering committee should become members of local committee to avoid local committee feeling lack of support??? this is my comment JT]

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Alfonso outlined the practical things we need to deal with:

·  proposals from the floor re next OM location

·  when to do it

·  appointment of steering committee [up to 10, 5 from here, 5 from wider OM network]

Suzanna asked that we not only discuss next meeting but other responses to networking

Mario would like to initiate an expanding network practically in terms of actual production of community media. We can create our own network of relationships between radio stations, practicing journalists; as well as maintain regular correspondence, and consistent connection. There are many practitioners here - it's an easy way to have authentic voices heard and strengthen and build visibility of community media. Can have live links. Exchange of radio personnel to experience and learn from each other. Can OM play some kind of role in moving such a project forward?

Alfonso responded that whoever drives such a proposal must take it forward.
Maria suggested we have a 'correspondent' list - make it a 'mass network'.

Jethro proposed the formation of a learning network around participatory forms of community media - bring communities together more by documenting what is already happening. This can be a project under the auspices of OM and Jethro is happy to take a leading role in this [and I am happy to support Jethro in this - JT]

Stephen proposed a unit under umbrella of OM for 'communication for social change'

Arun commented that his experience of the OMV was greatly enhanced by the opportunity to stay and eat together in a campus environment - which also reduces costs of course.

The discussion moved on to WHERE to host OMVI:

Juan explained the 'ideal' criteria that have been followed to date:

1.                  Has to be a strong and active local environment (strong community media, active local committee)

2.                  Cost of location have to be reasonable (including transportation)

3.                  There should be possibilities of funding (lack of funding was critical factor this conference) [Ellie and Tanya's efforts were often acknowledged in this respect and they did manage to gain some funding from commonwealth for some attendees]

Juan also explained that we can put forward proposals here, but then the wider network would also have some proposals and these would all need to be considered alongside proposals coming from participants at OMV.

The first proposal put forward from Juan was for Sydney, Australia.

Juan presented pros and cons of Sydney bid:

1.                  Australia has been present in all OM conferences - there is strong interest and support from Australians

2.                  Community media is strong in Australia - they are able and interested to take part

3.                  UWS (University of Western Sydney, Juan's Uni) will host - mission of university is community engagement, there is a lively community media in the local context.

QUT will also support this location and conference [extent of support to be established, and I'll look into this on my return to Australia - JT]

However, it is expensive and OM need to consider:

1. If there will be other Australian support
2. Ways of reducing costs
3. Visas may be a problem [need to plan well in advance]
4. Funding

in terms of when this might happen, we need at least 12 months if not more.
Do we try and associate with a larger conference?

Mario proposed New York:
The cost is prohibitive, visa is difficult... but because of these things and the current climate in US, it would be good to meet in NY to 'get in their face'. Mario wants to work on a proposal with other OM members who live in NY.

Stephen thought it would be good to hold next OM in Philippines.
Juan said he would need to develop a case for that. Other proposals mentioned in the network so far have been Korea and Mexico.
Juan felt that as Pacific is not well represented in OM it strengthens Australia case.

Alfonso pointed out that a steering committee created from this conference and wider network would need to receive all proposals and take this forward.
Tasks of steering committee:

1.                  Commit to some possibility of gaining funding

2.                  Commit to supporting website

3.                  Commit to managing the list

4.                  Linking with local organization committee once location selected