[Imc-communication] UC-IMC the headquarters of indymedia?

[deva]

Dan is saying much the same thing as I am saying.

There is no real "global IMC". The very first Principle of Unity states 
otherwise. Now suppose, someone wants to donate a bunch of money to 
Indymedia as a whole, so there is created a bank account and fiscal 
sponsor for that account to receive the money. This is a fabrication 
for purposes of receiving the money. It is important that imc people 
not believe this fabrication is true. If such fabrication becomes seen 
as true, then it is better for the long term health to say no to the 
money. Money is not important enough to bend oneself for. Vision is 
more important than money, by far.

At one time Seattle was perceived as the center on the Network. Many 
local IMC sites were hosted from there. If true to some extent at that 
time, it is true no longer. IMC Network has grown beyond it.

IMC Network, started in the US, and there is still a underneath idea 
that it is centered in the US, but this is not true.

That many imc's do not even know there is a fiscal sponsor in the US 
for the global imc account (thank you Mark B for that idea) shows the 
truth.

It is hard to rise above ones own local thinking...

regards,
deva



On May 23, 2005, at 4:44 PM, 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 
> collectives.
>
> (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.
>
> -Dan
> Pittsburgh IMC volunteer
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication