Our Media 6 - the future
Dear 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/