[Imc-communication] Imc-belgium block of german RENEWED PROPOSAL (Belgium-Case)

[ben]

Hi,

>
> We don't think taking away the url of an existing working IMC collective
> is a good idea. 

It's not about taking away, it's about sharing.

> IMC is a diverse network. In the very small space of
> Belgium there are several views on what indymedia can or should be. This
> is not necessarily a problem. It seems obvious for us that a new project
> starts looking for a new url. 

This is not: "First come - first serve!", sorry.
New Development, new cards... it's a process, we are all into...

> There are several good options which are all showing that they are
> also working on a national level as seems to
> be their ambition. (be.indymedia.org, belgique.indymedia.org,
> belgie.indymedia.org, ...)
>
Didn't seem to me in my humble opinion, that this is their ambition.

> The current German proposal instead is very unclear on mediation.
> Taking away the url from a working collective seems - according to
> imc-germany "provide a fair basis for further clarification of the
> situation
> and communication (via mediation, direct negotiations or whatever)".
> So apparently mediation is only an option. Taking away the url seems
> to be the most important thing.
> What will follow is not clear at all and seems to be less important.

No. As I understood the german proposal, we didn't want to force anybody
into mediation,
thats why we chose these words...

> 2. The fact that not all of the local imc's involved in the
> conflict replied on the proposal and the fact that at least one
> of them (imc-wvl) clearly states that they do not believe in mediation
> (http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2005-May/0518-kv.html),
> are not comforting us.

That's a very good point wich I can understand very much.
I'd also like to read from the local collectives, what they think about
this proposal and the situation.

> 3. According to the German proposal imc-belgium doesn't represent
> all belgian imc-activists. Indeed we don't. In another text we
> made already clear that there are different visions on Indymedia
> in Belgium. Those differences are visible on the website (lay
> out, structure, topics,...)but also in the way of working. In
> fact we never had the ambition to represent anybody else than
> ourselves. It is already hard enough to reach consensus in our
> own collective. But if you follow this logic: we have a lot of
> volunteers from Liège, Ovl, Wvl and Antwerp who are not
> represented by the imc-liège, imc-ovl, imc-wvl or imc-antwerp.

It's not about, being only different. It's about severe problems that exist.

> And what about the provinces and towns who wouldn't be
> represented at all? Should they now move to another province?
> And what about indybay.org? Should they stop utilizing this url
> because they don't represent all the cities in this area? Are
> all the collectives in the US represented by us.indymedia.org?

It's up to them. As I once said to andypie (imc-cleveland), please don't
let us start speculating.
Let's look at the facts. There was a proposal on disafiliation after
years of struggeling...
IF the imcs in the US don't feel represented by us.indymedia.org, they
should voice their critics and
get things done. If necessary, than the us-side should change... IF...

> 4. As a precedent forbidding a national collective to use a
> national url would make the global network extremely vulnerable

It's not about to forbid something. It's about accepting each other in
diversity and equality.
I disagree, that a procedure like this makes the network vulnerable.

> It is a green light for everybody who doesn't agree with the imc
> of his region: start a more local imc and force the
> national/regional collective to give up the national/regional
> url. 

He/She should try so. In my believes, the imc-network will be stronger ;-)
But we are speculating.

> It is also a real spiral. Where does it end? There are now
> four provincial imc's in Belgium. What if people from towns in
> those provinces start with town-imc's because they don't agree
> any longer with the local imc's? Will imc-liège cease to exist
> when imc-seraing (a popular town near Liège) is online?

If, if, if,...what are the facts (again) ?

> 5. According to the German proposal Belgium.indymedia.org should be
> administered by a non-belgium imc-collective because the actual
> imc-belgium collective doesn't represent all belgian
> imc-activists. How can a non-belgium collective 'represent' all
> belgian imc-activists? Who will and can decide the constitution
> of such a collective?

We are talking about a static page, so it's no page that has to be run
by a collective actively.
They just need to link every imc in belgium equally and keep this up to
date.

> 6. Imc-germany wants us to choose a new name based on locality,
> topic or similar. We are a belgian national collective covering
> all kinds of topics. We should choose a name that is not in
> competition with other imc's. Well, we are not in competition
> with other imc's. Imc is not about competition. What is going on
> when indymedia activists start using such strange notions? There
> are indeed different visions on indymedia in Belgium but this is
> not about competition. All these visions are valuable. We find
> it also strange that imc-germany proposes us to focus on a topic
> or a locality. Asking our collective to change its way of
> working and it's composition even before any mediation took
> place can never lead to a healthy solution.

I disagree with the last sentence. As I said earlier in an answer to a
question of imc-cleveland,
I would very much support the change of the germany.indymedia.org -
domain, IF this would
make serious sense in bringing all of us collectively further towards a
solution.
If it would be like this, I'd start brainstorming and at least chose
(just a spontaneously given example): germany-temp.indymedia.org.

> 7. An url is not some symbolic idea. It is a real material thing.
> The Belgian collective uses this url since may 2000. Google
> counts 67.000 links to a belgium.indymedia.org link.
>
> http://www.google.be/search?as_lq=belgium.indymedia.org&btnG=Zoeken

I don't really know, but what pseudopunk wrote makes sense to me.
And I agree, changing the url is not only symbolicaly, but more or lesse
little work to do, to keep links updated.

> Also a lot of overview pages on the actual imc-belgium website
> are full of belgium.indymedia.org links. There are also a lot of
> people linking to belgium.indymedia.org because they happen to
> appreciate the imc-belgium website. Will they all be alerted
> that this url is from now on wrong?

The URL won't be wrong, it will be just one "click" more for them.
They don't even have to change the link and they will get the
all-belgium variety af imcs.

> 8. In july 2004 the local imc's already tried to obtain the
> belgium.indymedia.org. Their proposal has been blocked in
> september by several imc's. Was the whole desaffiliation
> procedure only a strategic manoeuvre to get the url? We are very
> relieved that this painfull procedure has been ended. But we
> still have a lot of questions about this method of ad hoc
> inventing and adapting rules and procedures in order to obtain
> what one wants.

As far as I could follow, it was a very transparent process and I did
not get the impression,
that they are just domain-hunters.

> 9. We would like to iterate our call for mediation. We are open to
> discuss all options but without preconditions or strings
> attached.

In my opinion, the mediation proces partly already begun.
But as I said much earlyer, both parties have to do a step backwards,
for getting forward collectively.

> han: liaison for imc-belgium

@han: you said in a mail from 11th of may on imc-communication:

"But neutralizing this url as proposed by the german IMC was not only
blocked by several IMC's the last couple of weeks (as this was also the
proposal of Liege-imc) but it was already blocked several months ago."

Therefore I asked you (and others repeated the same question, because
neither me nor they could find such blockings)
when (and where) was this blocking?  Or was it just a misunderstanding ?
I'd still be glad about an answer.
Thanx

love & solidarity


Ben (individual from imc-germany)