[Imc-communication] NEW-IMC: a few more days of ideas, then . . . .

Pete Stidman pstidman at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 4 11:44:44 PDT 2005


Well, I have not seen all of the other posts on this
subject, but I have been giving it a lot of thought.  

I see a lot of problems with the way new IMC is set up
now. Here are a few of the big ones in my mind:

1.) Centralized.  New IMC is one group of folks that
makes decisions for the entire world, this creates
problems in translation (most business takes place in
english) and also raises the posibility of cultural
barriers that could hold up the process.  

2.) Opaque.  It is not easy or obvious, even for a
member of an american, english speaking IMC to figure
out the details of the process.  

3.) Unfocused.  THe principles of unity are
interpreted in a number of different ways by a number
of different people.  The process needs some more
concrete measures of what an IMC is, so that less
disagreements happen between individuals and
individuals cannot dominate the process, even if they
are the chosen represenatative for that new IMC.

4.) unbalanced.  New IMC's themselves do not have much
recourse if the person who is guiding them through the
process decides to go rough on them, or at least other
options are not made clear to them.   A more open
process would benefit the new IMC's, leaving several
options open to them instead of only one.

The suggestions for improvements that follow probably
need to be adjusted, I just intend them to be the
basis for beginning a dialogue about the whole thing. 
 I hope that instead of us trying to win over our
ideas on each other we can seek to create a solution
to this thing together....

I think that the new IMC process is indicative of
problems that effect way more than the new IMC
process.  We can use this opportunity to build not
only the new IMC process into a better structure but
to bring better cooperation and communication between
all IMC's.

There are something close to 300 official and
unofficial IMC's now, or so I have heard.  That is an
incredible number to be under one roof.  Some IMC's
have begun to cooperate inside the borders of their
home countries.  Examples I have heard about are
Brazil, Argentina, The UK, Ontario canada and the USA
on us.indymedia.  

My idea is to encourage this regionalization and when
it exists, shifting the power of naming IMC's to the
regional groups.  THis can be done in a number of ways
and we should be very careful about how it is done. 
Doing it by national borders would be a mistake I
think, because local political forces could easily
come to dominate the process.  It might make more
sense to divide things by continent or broad lingual
group.  For instance, the US and Canada could be one,
so could latin america, SE asia, Southern asia,
Eastern and Western europe, and so on..

This way lingual and cultural barriers become less
intense, and it takes care of the centralization
problem.  As for the other three problems, that's
something we may want to tackle as these regions
emerge.  We cannot just say, OK these regions exist. 
The global collective will have to urge them into
existence by maybe creating a set of guidelines about
how to begin a regional IMC center.  LIke for
instance, new-IMC must be explicitly described in a
central location, linkable to all the regions IMC
websites.  New-IMC process must be transparent, and
new-IMC's themselves must be given many options for
appeal and bringing things into consensus decision
making processes.  

Because it is not impossible for regions to meet
online, on the phone, or in person, decisions about
new IMC's could be based a great deal more on the
consensus process, without having these folks that
"guide" through the process and thus have greater
power than normal.

Maybe globals role is to outline some guidelines not
only about the principles of unity and what an IMC is,
but about how the new-imc process should be handled.  

Undoubtedly, due to the huge size of our network now,
regionalization could benefit us all in many more ways
than one.  It could actually improve the ability for
us all to work together even interregionally, since
each region would then have more resources for
communicating their needs and interests to the rest of
the world, and be able to bring the fruits of their
stronger interconnections within their regions to us
all.  


-Pete

  
    

--- Jay <idiot at jaysand.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> So far a handful of people have written in to
> imc-communication with their 
> ideas of how to move forward toward a better new-imc
> process.  I'm trying 
> to find time to consolidate the posts, as well as
> some background about the 
> new-imc process, into a wiki for all to enjoy.  Then
> we can start to focus 
> the points and see where we have to go next.
> 
> That leaves some more time for anyone and everyone
> to put in your 
> suggestions before the discussion really starts to
> take form.
> 
> Welcoming as much positive thought as possible,
> 
> Jay
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html



More information about the IMC-communication mailing list