(1) Scope of the network.

The vision is for networking that is pluralistic and inclusive, with a concern to place local interests at the centre. But...

- is it trying to be too all-embracing, bringing everything under one umbrella instead of supporting 'networking' in its many manifestations? NO I THINK ITS GREAT

- how committed are we to counteracting traditional dominance by northern/western/wealthy players ? EVERONE HAS A ROLE TO PLAY AND I'M HOPING THAT PARTICIPATION MEMBERS FROM REPSSI CAN BALANCE THE SOUTH - NORTH IMBALANCE

- should we highlight more strongly the bringing together of clinical and the community appproach? ILL POST A PUBLICATION BY DR BRIAN ROBERTSON THAT CLOSES THE MENTAL HEALTH - PSYCHOSOCIAL DIVIDE

- do we want to include advocacy as an explicit purpose? NOT SURE - I HAVE A SENSE THAT DIFFERENT PLAYERS WILL USE THE NETWORK FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES AND ADVOCACY MIGHT BE ONE BUT THAT WE MIGHT JUST ALLOW THINGS TO DEVELOP DRIVEN BY THOSE WITH PASSION AND ENERGY TO FOLLOW SPECIFIC AGENDAS

(2) Governance.

- Constitution of the stewarding group is crucial in protecting the principles (pt 4 of proposal) of the initiative. At the moment there is a bias towards international agencies, how could we identify players more broadly and ensure balance of influence?

- Approaches to decision making and election are not yet spelled out, but will be fundamental in defining the possible directions that the initiative could take. What models of decision making work best, being both inclusive but allowing for a clear sense of direction to emerge?

(3) Membership and fees

There is a tension between the use of fees (or contributions of time etc) to both secure commitment, encourage participation, and raise minimal funds to support core services, and the potential for fees (or contribution in kind) to exclude some from participation. What ways of structuring membership will serve these purposes optimally?

YES I THINK WE NEED TO SORT OUT THE FEE QUESTION QUITE SOON, PERHAPS ALLOWING FOR FREE MEMBERSHIP FOR THE FIRST YEAR TO GET THE NETWORK REALLY UP AND RUNNING - ONCE INDIVIDUALS ARE HOOKED AND THERE IS VIBRANT DISCUSSION AND SHARING IT WILL BE MUCH EASIER TO GET PEOPLE TO PAY

(4) Activities

- Is there too much reliance on web-based strategies - which prove to be either inaccessible or simply unattractive to many of our target stakeholders?

IM BEGINNING TO THINK ABOUT HOW REPSSI MIGHT USE THE FORUM IN THE FOLLOWING WAY

1) WE GO ABOUT OUR USUAL BUSINESS TRAINING OUR PARTNERS IN THE REGION VIA OUR REFAS (REGIONAL FACILITATORS OF WHOM THERE ARE OVER 40 AND WITH WHOM OUR TRAINING DEPT HAS AN ONGOING AND RICH RELATIONSHIP)

2) AS FOLLOW UP TO THE TRAININGS, WE USE THE NETWORK AS A FORUM FOR ONGOING LEARNING, REFLECTION, M&E, SHARING ETC WHERE REFAS AND REPSSI AND OTHERS ENGAGE IN DISCUSSIONS

3) AFTER SOME TIME WHEN THE REFAS MEET AGAIN AS A LARGE GROUP, ONCE AGAIN IT IS A FACE TO FACE CONTACT

- What exactly is the role of the 'fellow' (will more clarity on this go some way to meeting the concerns above)?

YES, I SHARED SOME IDEAS SOME TIME BACK

- There is both an enthusiasm that networking will enable the development of more and better training for psychosocial professionals. What are the best ways to support this?

I NOTICED ALISON POSTED SOME INFO ABOUT AN UPCOMING TRAINING, I DONT SEE THE NETWORK AS DOING ITS OWN TRAINING, JUST ENDORSING AND POINTING TO INTERESTING AND HIGH QUALITY TRAININGS

- How can we promote horizontal exchange of expertise and avoid the 'top-down' approaches that tend to reinforce north/south, resource rich/resource poor divides?

SEEMS YOU ARE DOING THIS ALREADY