[Imc-communication] response to cyprus imc inaccuracies on darwin proposal
and at axxs.org
Mon Sep 4 17:59:46 PDT 2006
this is a rather laborious email. It's a response to the document
that IMC Cyprus have made their decision on to block the Melbourne
IMC proposal in imc-process. <http://english-cyprus.indymedia.org/
newswire/display/239/index.php> There are some serious inaccuracies
in this document. Below are responses to many of the assertions. I'd
hope that other IMC Cyprus collective members read it thoroughly as
it seems that very bad information is being used, and very skewed at
These inaccuracies have happened before with Petros making
accusations that the proposal was the work of Arafura Indymedia, with
the backing of Melbourne. <http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-
A charge refuted by Arafura, Melbourne and Aotearoa, with Petros
later having to withdraw the accusation. I don't see that Cyprus is
in a position to block the proposal given it seems unable to fully
understand the situation.
For those that don't make it all the way through I'm also
particularly concerned that largely irrelevant points such as the
failure of www-features to approve a feature about Arafat are used to
point to a decline in Indymedia that the Melb IMC proposal is
apparently complicit in, and also that threats are made to
disaffiliate several IMCs in our region.
Good luck making it through, responses are as short as possible.
> The position of Cyprus IndyMedia on a formal Proposal by imc-
> Melbourne to:
> disaffiliate imc-Darwin on the basis of Mick Lambe's membership in
> the imc-Darwin local
> The original proposal:
> [IMC-Process] Darwin - official disaffiliation proposal
> ~ Summary ~
> This document includes:
> - our collective position
> - our reasoning
> - support for alternative solutions
> We are very concerned to see that with such a serious proposal with
> so many repercussions on the whole of IndyMedia there has been
> absolutely no discussion among imc groups on this. There are more
> than 160 local imc groups in our network: total silence!
There has been 18 months of discussions within Australian and
Aotearoa IMCs attempting to find a resolution to this problem. There
has also been much discussion on global Indymedia lists both in the
last year and in the last 2 weeks directly relating to this proposal,
including here on these lists, new-imc and imc-communication.
> If there were discussion, it would have been simple for us to ask
> our colleagues to hear our concerns. We would prefer to see a
> dialogue in which we and others can raise our questions and
> objections, point to alternatives, and offer our help to
> materialize them. As it is, without any dialogue, and with the
> deadline approaching, we see no other alternative but to BLOCK the
> proposal. Please consider this statement as a formal and official
> BLOCK. Our reasons are stated below.
> We are reluctant to use the Block. We would prefer a dialogue, and
> solutions based on co-operation.
> Our desire is to share with you our reasoning, share you with some
> facts and developments, and to ask kindly that our colleagues of
> imc-melbourne withdraw the proposal. For the following reasons:
> 1. The Proposal is in violation of the IndyMedia Principles of
> Unity. In particular, it violates the sense of autonomy, self-
> determination and non-intervention that we cultivate among our
> collectives. This intention is stated clearly in the founding
> papers of IndyMedia.
> Please see article One of the Principles of Unity:
> "1. The Independent Media Center Network (IMCN) is based upon
> principles of equality, decentralization and local autonomy. The
> IMCN is not derived from a centralized bureaucratic process, but
> from the self-organization of autonomous collectives that recognize
> the importance in developing a union of networks."
> Principles of Unity
The IMC network has disaffiliated collectives before, there is
nothing new about this. Autonomy in the IMC network is not a question
of "do whatever you want". This is why there is a new-imc process in
the first place to ensure would be collectives are in accord. New-imc
is already a centralised and bureaucratic process, however I see no
problem with that as it's the cost of having a coherent network. What
is new about the proposal is the idea that IMCs refuse to associate
with Mick, we based this on principals of free association, which
also provide us with the freedom NOT to associate.
> 2. The Proposal is an interference and a violation of the currently
> active procedure of the new-imc work group: new-imc is already
> processing the case of imc-darwin.
New-imc does not have a monopoly over procedures within the IMC
network. Any collective may make a proposal at any time.
> The consensus of the new-imc work group so far, is to deal with it
> as a split: the group that was imc-darwin has split into two
> groups, one named imc-Arafura, and another named imc-Darwin. Both
> groups now have candidate status in the new-imc procedures.
> We believe that those procedures with the new-imc should be allowed
> to continue without outside intervention by other local or regional
> groups - except for support.
Why only for support? Surely dissent is allowed. This option in
anycase is a dead end for Darwin as IMC as Melbourne i am 100% sure
and Sydney most likely also would block Darwin's application. Darwin
is currently not an affiliated collective. What we were trying to do
with our proposal was to make that finally clear. We are not blocking
the idea of a Darwin IMC, we are only against it including a person
whose abuse we have been suffering for the passed year on our lists
and imc newswires. Please have a look at the hidden posts on
Melbourne for the latest offerings. <http://melbourne.indymedia.org/
news/?display=f> How are we supposed to work with someone who attacks
us on our own IMC sites?
> We would encourage all imc groups to offer help to these two imc
> groups in the sense of solidarity, mutual aid, material assistance,
> resources, etc. This will aid the new-imc procedures, and help the
> groups heal from the trauma caused by the split in Darwin.
> 3. The Proposal is against the wishes of the imc-arafura group - it
> is against the wishes of both of our groups affiliated with
> IndyMedia in the City of Darwin. They agree on this!
> Imc-arafura is the group which was seen in the split as the
> "opponent" group of the present imc-darwin formation. The official
> position of the imc-arafura group is expressed here in the words of
> its liaison, Robert Fyffe. These are excerpts from their statement
> (we have rendered some text in bold for emphasis):
> "We at arafura have not, at any time, made suggestions or attempted
> to influence the workings of any other imc.....
> Believe me, we were all just as surprised as you to read the proposal.
> Although I can fully understand the anger and frustration that Mick
> can drive people to. I feel that we cannot actually support the
> To attempt to constitutionally exclude an individual from any
> organisation sets a rather disturbing precedent. And only protects
> the organisation from that individual. Not from like minded others.
> However, regardless of my personal opinion of Mick, I do not
> believe it wise to go down the path of constitutional exclusion of
> individuals. There are many more Micks out there. It is best that
> when one encounters such individuals, that they are simply exposed
> for what they are so that others may be made wary of allowing that
> person to associate with their organisation."
> - Robert Fyffe, liaison of imc-arafura.
> The full statement is here:
> [Imc-arafura] arafura and darwin
Arafura are not an affiliated IMC.
> 4. The Proposal from Melbourne does not have the full consensus of
> its own membership. Our colleagues in Melbourne who signed the
> Proposal were kind to inform us that they do not have consensus
> among all of the regular and long term members of Melbourne to take
> this step. In particular, the Proposal names Nigel, a member of imc-
> Melbourne as a dissenting voice.
I will let Nigel respond to this as in internal MIMC communication
his position has now changed. He was previously the only person of
any Australian or New Zealand IMC to actively support Mick.
> Nigel W. (also referred to as "changeling" online) has been
> involved for a long time in efforts to stop his own collective from
> interfering in the affairs of imc-darwin.
Yes, against the will of everyone else in the collective, are you
saying the rest of the collective were deluded and only Nigel was
able to see the truth?
> Nigel has made many attempts to help bring about a settlement based
> on reconciliation. We agree with him that imc-darwin was wrongfully
> deprived of its imc subdomain. (A "subdomain" is the phrase used on
> the internet address of the local group "darwin.indymedia.org").
> This irregularity took place when some indymedia activists in the
> Australia/ Oceania region acted against imc-darwin without
> authority and in violation of due process.
Please read the email by Takver outline this situation. This is
statement is not true at all. There was due process and Perth made a
decision based on the democratic will of the collective.
> Nigel has tried on numerous occasions to restore the function of
> imc-darwin by communicating with the imc DNS group and other global
> IndyMedia resources to reverse the injustice - here are some of his
> communications from 2005, May, June, and September:
> Nigel W. has consistently insisted that imc-darwin must be given
> back the right to use the subdomain
> darwin.indymedia.org. We agree with him that there was never any
> formal proceeding by any imc body to disqualify the group from
> using that subdomain. The group lost control of it by entrusting it
> to regional groups who then took it away, and gave it to other
> people without authorization from the IndyMedia network, and then
> took it away entirely.
> Nigel W. has also been consistently impartial on this: he
> criticizes Mick Lambe whenever he thinks it is appropriate. Here is
> an example of how Nigel issues a caution to Mick for his over-
> exaggerated and confused protestations - an open criticism in public:
> " Mick - you're attacking the wrong target.":
Again, I'd suggest to ask to hear from Nigel directly as I don't
beleive he holds such a position any more.
> 5. The Proposal by Melbourne to blacklist Mick Lambe will make the
> current and future work of new-imc impossible. Are we to write into
> the "rules" that no group on earth is allowed to join the global
> IndyMedia network if Mick Lambe is a member in it?
No, the proposal applies to Darwin IMC. Please do not exaggerate.
> Also the Proposal by Melbourne refers to a "constitution" for imc-
> darwin. There has never been a requirement for any imc group to
> have a constitution. Global IndyMedia has never asked for one, and
> the new-imc group has been following an evaluation procedure based
> on much more detailed documents and criteria to see if a group is
> fit to join IndyMedia: it examines Editorial Policy, organizational
> structures, contacts with the wider community of activists,
> adherence to the IndyMedia Principles of Unity, internal democracy,
This language has been changed, please see the revised proposal.
> The impossibility of enforcing this Proposal for an international
> ban on one person is examined by John Milton in a dialogue on the
> new-imc list:
> "Is this requirement for a "constitution" with a "blacklist" clause
> naming Mr. Lambe to be imposed on all new applicants?"
There is no proposal for an international ban, the proposal refers to
Darwin IMC. Please read the proposal.
> 6. The element of time and the absence of discussion are worrisome.
> John Milton also explains that the time allocated by Melbourne-imc
> for such a serious Proposal (only two weeks) is not enough for
> liaisons of our more than 160 locals to translate everything to the
> local groups, hold local meetings, get consensus, and respond back
> to global imc-process. John calculates that even if we wanted only
> 20% of our liaisons to have meaningful time to help their local imc-
> groups develop a statement and speak to imc-process only once each,
> it would require more than three months.
> And yet, even in these two weeks there is still no discussion on
> the imc-process list. This is an indication of serious problems of
> our democratic process.
The 2 week proposal was approved by IMC process as being valid. IMC-
process is not necessarily for discussion, but for liasons to
communicate decisions of their collectives. Plenty of discussions
were happening on other lists.
> Please read John Milton's exploration of the time element in the
> dialogue and consensus process, here:
> "What would a reasonable deadline interval be under such a model if
> we were serious about doing good consensus work on "imc process"?
> We have, at the present time 164 (I think) collectives listed on
> the cities list, and 387 members of "imc process" so lets use a
> round number of 150 as a conservative estimate of the number of
> "valid" spokes to this list.":
Petros, this again is exaggeration, proposal within Indymedia have
never been expected to be read and replied to by everyone. In my
experience if 5 Indymedias respond to a proposal in IMC process you
are doing quite well.
> 7. The Proposal has the potential of dangerous repercussions for
> the international imc network. Can we accept that outsiders from
> far away have a right to purge an individual member of an
> autonomous imc group?
Or that outsiders from the other side of the planet have the right to
decide what happens in our local IMC network? Also Darwin are not
even currently an affiliated group, they still need to go through new-
imc process as yourself have said. You don't have to deal with this
individual on a daily basis Petros.
> It will set a precedent where this intervention into the internal
> affairs of an autonomous imc group becomes "normalcy" among us. We
> worry: who will be the next target of a purge? Which individual?
> Which imc local group?
Please do not use inflammatory language like purge, this is not
helpful at all.
> Additionally, we worry that this will open up a series of
> retaliations related to the conflict which might rip indymedia
> apart. Also, unrelated conflicts will be given a new "ceiling" to
> which they can escalate. Any and every disagreement among
> individual and group members might find itself being "settled" by
> this kind of threat: "do what we say, or we expel your group".
What is ripping Indymedia apart in the Australia/Aotearoa region is
having to deal with constant attacks by this individual upon our IMC
newswires, our server collectives and our lists.
> The participatory (direct) democracy instruments of global
> IndyMedia are very strained and very weak already. If we allow such
> a Proposal to pass unopposed (without even discussion!) we are
> worried that it will become "normal" to accept intervention by any
> IndyMedia body into the affairs of another.
> Any unpopular (or too popular) member of indymedia can be targeted
> by a Proposal such as this. It is unreasonable and unfair to accept
> this threat as normal: "either expel a particular member or your
> entire group shall be expelled".
Petros, any proposal has to go through a process, no one has the
ability to start excluding people as they choose, again you are
> Right now in the city of Darwin itself, both of the IndyMedia
> groups affiliated with our network are against the blacklist - they
> do not oppose the membership of Mick Lambe in imc-darwin.
These groups are not affiliated, they are going through new-imc
process have you have stated. This distortions are completely out of
> 8. The Proposal by Melbourne is collective punishment. Collective
> punishment is illegal in every country in every context
> (educational, corporate, financial, and political) and is even
> banned during warfare.
I'm sorry, this just keeps getting worse. Collective punishment is
Australian and Aotearoan IMCs having to suffer constant attacks
because of one individual. Perhaps you could think of for a moment.
To compare this to warfare again is a massive exaggeration.
> The Proposal aims to punish the imc-darwin group for including a
> particular person as a member. All the other members of the group
> are to be penalized for having this person as a member.
> Please note that the imc-darwin group has not been charged with any
> violation of IndyMedia principles and methods. Its members have not
> been accused of doing anything wrong except associating with Mick
> Lambe as a member of their group.
Not true, ML has been accused of doing quite a lot wrong, ie
attacking members of other Indymedias on their newswires, spamming
lists with insults and defaming members of other IMCS, particularly
using their full names so that they will be picked up by search
engines. He has also been accused forging minutes of meetings.
> And any other imc group in the world can face the same - be
> collectively punished for associating with one of its members.
> All of humanity finds collective punishment to be unacceptable even
> in warfare (Fourth Geneva Convention), how can we accept collective
> punishment in peacetime, among colleagues? Among colleagues who are
> activist-journalists in the progressive and radical community?
Blowing this out of proportion again, please stick to the facts and
stop exaggerating, this is not a war!
> 9. The Proposal is a violation of due process. The imc-darwin group
> itself has not violated any of indymedia's premises, nor has it
> been accused of anything except having Mick Lambe as a member.
See above, not true. You have a very selective memory.
> The imc-darwin group has not even been invited or allowed to speak
> on the imc-process list in its own defence.
Not true, ML attempted to send a mail and it was rejected by imc-
process as it was only in 1 language, he was asked to translate it.
> 10. Implications on the International scale
> This conflict is not just some "irrelevant local argument" - it is
> a conflict which has placed emphasis directly on the weakness (and
> the potential strength) of the few democratic institutions and
> procedures that are still functioning within IndyMedia at the
> global level.
> - internal global IndyMedia situation / internal balance
> We want to contribute to a strong and healthy internal IndyMedia
> process on the global level. But a simple inspection of the
> archives of our important global entities in this year 2006 shows
> that we are deeply in a crisis of non-participation and absence of
> dialogue: this means there is no real consensus, and no validity
> for the decisions taken by our global bodies.
> Please have a look at the archives here and see - where is the
> participation from liaisons of more than a hundred fifty locals
> that would make these procedures valid by any definition of quorum?
Every single IMC has never participated in these lists. The
expectation is unrealistic.
> We see a need for all individuals and organizations which are now
> in IndyMedia to be actively engaged in doing everything possible to
> promote unity, diversity, inclusiveness, democratic participation,
> dialogue, cultivation of the consensus process based on respect of
> On the contrary, the Proposal by Melbourne, which legitimizes
> intervention of one local into the affairs of another, will further
> destroy the few remaining elements of participatory democracy and
> trust among us.
ML is destroying in our region the IMCs by taking up so much of our
time and resources. IMCs like cyprus are ignoring the concerns of the
bast majority of the people in the local IMCs in the region.
> - global IndyMedia external situation / our allies and friends
> All the grace, strength, and any good reputation for imc now reside
> in our local organizations. The image and reputation of global
> IndyMedia globally is very sad. If the Proposal passes, it will
> bring more shame and embarrassment to IndyMedia in the eyes of our
> comrades in the wider global liberation movement.
What???? Yes i'm sure the Zapatistas will be very upset!!! Again, can
we have some proportion.
> There was a good period of a few years (2000 - 2003) during which
> it was unthinkable for progressive and radical organizations to
> move forward while ignoring IndyMedia. Global IndyMedia deserved
> that status, because we were doing the right things: we respected
> our allies in the Movement, and they returned the courtesy. That
> time is gone due our own political mistakes. And arrogance.
> The time is gone when IndyMedia was considered the most exciting
> medium (organ) of expression for the global liberation movement.
> The time has passed when progressive and radical organizations were
> competing to form alliances with IndyMedia, and to have our
> activist-journalists "on site" wherever important developments were
> occurring in the Movement.
> As a medium of expression, global IndyMedia has failed to follow
> through on important events of the last few years and we failed to
> support in a timely way - either as journalists or as activists -
> significant events which shaped the global liberation Movement. It
> is not a coincidence that nowadays it does not matter to some
> activists if IndyMedia is invited or contacted about things - we
> have lost the respect of certain sections of the Movement due to
> our political errors. Here are four examples that are easy to see
> and verify:
> (a). "Question: 'what happened with the ' International Civil
> Mission to Lebanon' (posted july 29th) from greece? was it
> successful? are they in lebanon now?'
> Answer: 'I think that was a somewhat strange mission, seems like no
> one met them (or at least the people I asked in Lebanon hadn't even
> heard that there was one)'":
> (b). IndyMedia refusal to note the death of Arafat with a Feature
> article - no political reasons given:
What on earth does this have to do with the proposal? These points
are completely irrelevant.
> Instead, even two years later our global editorial group allows
> this in our pages:
> Arafat Plays With Own Anus
> (c). We failed to promote and support the global protests against
> the war on the weekend of March 17-19, 2006 which was also the
> anniversary of the largest ever global antiwar protest in history
> (5 to 15 million participants!). Given that we, global and local
> IndyMedia, were instrumental in helping to promote and organize the
> previous two annual global protests, it was a terrible
> embarrassment that we utterly failed our supporters and allies on
> this campaign. Global imc only published a compilation Feature
> article three days after the fact.
> Letter from Deva, Portland OR, US:
> [Imc-communication] global demonstration against the war
> (d). We failed to give assistance to our colleagues and timely
> publicity during the Gaza- Lebanon war, even while three IndyMedia
> locals were under bombardment by air, artillery shells and rockets:
> imc-beirut, imc-israel, and imc-jerusalem/palestine laboured for
> months this summer to survive the war. This is the worst, so far,
> and the most embarrassing.
> During that period, relevant and timely articles were often
> proposed to the global Features editorial and they were ignored,
> often for days. No discussion, no action was taken to publish them
> even when we begged and the corpses of the dead piled up. Many of
> our comrades during this time - inside and outside IndyMedia -
> experienced betrayal and disappointment. We allowed a betrayal of
> the most basic values of internationalist solidarity - it's no
> wonder that we keep losing political friends and allies.
> And now another embarrassing action will take place if we don't
> speak up.
Exaggeration again. This situation is not the same as not supporting
collectives under bombardment by the IDF.
> If we allow this undemocratic Proposal to pass by ignoring it, by
> simply not speaking up, it will seal our fate: how can we justify
> this to any progressive or radical ally? Shall we say "We don't
> mind a purge, as long as it is called something else?"
> Alternative Solutions
> We don't like to use a BLOCK: we prefer dialogue, negotiations, and
> a process of good will able to set up and support alternative
> Some alternative solutions exist already:
> There is already in place a procedure of the new-imc group which
> will approve or reject the two new groups (arafura and darwin)
> according to the standards that global IndyMedia has applied to
> approve more than 160 locals so far.
If that is the case then I am very sure Melbourne will block the
application of Darwin, as most likely will Sydney and possibly Aotearoa.
> The new-imc group has also rejected in these past few years several
> unsuitable applications from groups which did not fulfill the
> criteria as laid down by global IndyMedia. Some of those included
> applications from authoritarian or fascist groups, commercial
> groups, hierarchical groups, groups of people who did not
> understand the founding principles of autonomy, equality,
> consensus, transparency, direct democracy.
> The new-imc work group has also initiated proceedings to
> disaffiliate imc groups which no longer fulfill the criteria of
> membership, or violate our founding principles. In other words, it
> is a capable, discerning and well- equipped organ, able to evaluate
> the process of imc-darwin's application. If imc-darwin fails to
> fulfill expectations, new-imc will not validate its application.
> On the particular issue of Mick Lambe, new-imc has communicated
> clearly its consensus that imc-darwin should choose a different
> person to be the liaison for these proceedings. New-imc has also
> encouraged the other members of the group to shoulder more
> responsible positions as moderators, editors, facilitators,
> contacts, etc, both in its work meetings and online. The new-imc
> group is monitoring how well the imc-group is responding to these
> suggestions (or not).
> We would like to see the new-imc procedure supported, and allowed
> to bear fruit without outside intervention.
Any IMC can make a proposal at any time, any one in an IMC can be
part of new-imc, the Melbourne proposal is not outside intervention.
> More alternatives can by generated when there is good will:
> Local/ Regional Alternatives
> We would like to see an effort to support and empower the other
> members of darwin-imc to help the group mature and grow as a
> collective that aims to be practicing political journalism. That
> group should be empowered to handle its own membership - including
> Mick Lambe - in a way that keeps him out of conflict, and able to
> participate in the reconciliation process.
IMCs in the region have attempted a reconciliation process for 18
months. The proposal is based on the only option left which is
> This will not happen unless the outside intervention ceases. There
> must be a "cease-fire" for any peace to take hold. As long as there
> is intervention in the form of defamation campaigns and libelous
> slander published against Mick Lambe he will probably continue to
> react, often in exaggerated proportions, and the cycle will not end.
> Those who call him "crazy" must prove that they, themselves, are
> willing and capable of reasoned, sane and balanced behaviour. As
> long as they taunt and insult this person, there will be trouble.
> And they will do this as long as we allow them.
> Editorial Alternatives
> It would be advisable for all IndyMedia outlets to delete (not
> "hide") items published in their pages which are insulting to Mick
> Lambe. For too long, imc-Melbourne, and other imc groups in the
> Australia/ Oceania region have allowed things to be published in
> their pages against Mick Lambe which are despicable personal attacks.
Please get your facts straight Petros. You have never been here and
have never had direct communication with out collective. MIMC has
always been prepared to take down material attacking ML and often do.
If there is material we have missed we are happy to receive
notification about it and pull it if it breaches our editorial policy.
> Every single one of these groups could easily be brought up with
> very valid charges of violating the imc Editorial Policy by
> allowing - and often encouraging - personal attacks maligning the
> reputation and public image of Mick Lambe. It was not only insults:
> degrading pictures of living and dead friends of Mick (corpses)
> were used in these "free speech" campaigns, racist, homophobic and
> misogynous material ....all these were published by some of the
> regional and local Australia/ Oceania imc groups during this
> conflict to attack Mick Lambe.
Please see above.
> Perhaps it would not be wise to bring these imc groups with charges
> to be disaffiliated now, in this immediate period. It may not help
> the cause of peace. But it is highly appropriate to see to it that
> they stop these publications, and their editors remain vigilant
> when outside agitators use their pages to stir up trouble in this way.
Excuse me? Petros you are cultivating some seriously uncooperative
relations when you start throwing around ideas of disaffiliating most
of the IMCs in the region.
> It is wonderful to see that some of the editors have already
> realized the value of this and have begun a sincere effort to put
> an end to it. Even better, some have already apologized in public,
> which is a very honourable and difficult thing to do - we applaud
> all these efforts. Here is a wonderful example - an initiative by
> Smush - of the Aotearoa IndyMedia :
> "These posts are attacks against Mick and they go against our
> editorial policy. I put these links to
> our editorial collective yesterday and people agreed that they
> should be hidden.
> Personally, I would like to apologise to you, Mick, that these
> comments were not hidden earlier. "
If you weren't so one sided you'd also note that Aotearoa had to
permanently purge posts that were attacks by Mick to their newswire.
"fyi - aotearoa collective has decided to purge any media (stories,
comments, pics etc) regarding DIMC et al from our database.
It is clear that IMC Cyprus have little idea of what is actually
happening over here and the situation of the IMCs directly affected
by his behaviour. I'd ask that given your decision is based on so
many inaccuracies and that you withdraw your block.
> These are wonderful steps toward reconciliation, and we hope to see
> more of them, both at the personal and the organizational level.
> In summary: we BLOCK the Proposal by Melbourne, for all the reasons
> given above, and we embrace the alternatives listed above in
> addition to any other initiatives aimed at reconciliation and justice.
> Cyprus IndyMedia Collective
> imc-cyprus (at) lists.indymedia.org
More information about the IMC-communication