[Imc-communication] UC-IMC the headquarters of indymedia?
mark at indymedia.org
Mon May 23 18:03:38 PDT 2005
in May 2002 imc-finance was empowered by imc-process to allocate
money donated to "the global network", as "grants" to local
imcs. imc-finance decided that UC-IMC would maintain this
account (for U.S. tax purposes, it would be the fiscal sponsor
of this fund).
personally I don't think this means that UC IMC is fiscal
sponsor of the network, just fiscal sponsor of this account,
which is controlled by imc-finance.
On the other hand, UC-IMC has been described, and describes
itself as fiscal sponsor of the global network, e.g.
As far as applying for grants for the global network,
applications have been drafted, i think most were either not
or not agreed to
so, i think there has mostly just been debate about whether or
not to apply for grants to "the global network", or subset
there have been many related proposals from local IMCs, e.g.
that imc-finance has to agree to accept funds, and that they
only be received "no strings attached"
how UC-IMC should act as fiscal sponsor
On Mon, 23 May 2005 19:44:37 -0400, Danny P wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2005, Brian Hagy wrote:
> > deva,
> > i think there might be a misunderstanding here as to what is meant by
> > sponsorship. it is true (for good or bad) that the uc-imc is the fiscal
> > sponsor for what is refered to the global imc.
> I think a good part of the problem here is how casually you and others
> from UC-IMC refer to the "global IMC."
> In my opinion, there is no real "global IMC." There is an Indymedia
> Network, which consists of all of us. But the question of to what extent
> should the autonomous collectives that make up Indymedia function like an
> organization in its own right, is in my opinion, something that's still up
> for debate.
> I think that's really the underlying issue behing, say, the debate over
> whether or not the Principles of Unity should be made "official."
> In other words, I do not believe there is global consensus that
> "Indymedia" is an organization, and not just a movement of autonomous
> (Not to suggest that it isn't possible to be both at once, mind you. The
> process of figuring this all out in a non-authoritarian manner, is in my
> opinion, anarchism in action.)
> > by sponsor: if the global imc needs to write a grant to get assistance for
> I think a lot of people question whether the "global IMC" exists to the
> point where it could, say, need to write a grant. To some, that's like
> saying "what if Critical Mass needs to get a grant" - people don't view
> Critical Mass as an organization, but rather a happening. The idea of
> getting them a grant, or fiscal sponsorship, simply does not compute.
> Maybe imc-finance came to consensus and an implication of their consensus
> was that a "Global IMC" exists, and that's why people involved with it use
> that term freely. But if so, I don't think that's representative of the
> indymedia network, and as such, I don't think it's a valid decision- there
> are IMCs that simply don't see things that way. Consensus is a tricky
> process like that.
> Pittsburgh IMC volunteer
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the IMC-communication