[Imc-unity] Re: [IMC-Process] SAN DIEGO (deadline approaching)
Jason Reep
jasonr@speakeasy.org
Sat, 10 Nov 2001 15:16:51 -0800
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3088250211_4223608
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Mark,
thanks for the reply .
I appreciate your clarifications on SD's attitude about the principles of
unity. To me, this is a fundamental debate in the development of the NIMC.
The original response to POU that San Diego put out gave me the impression
that there is a general cynicism about the consensus process among members
of the San Diego collective. I am not interested in telling others how to
come to a consensus or how to define the difference between agreement and
consent. Honestly, consensus by lack of dissent is often how our process i=
n
Seattle works out. I am pretty comfortable with that as long as there is,
in fact, a process and sincere effort is made to address members
reservations. So, great. I'm convinced about San Diego's commitment to th=
e
concept of consensus and will be interested to hear how the process for
getting there develops.
Regarding principle 3. The revised version I last proposed actually does
include the term activist. I have kind of been hoping that inclusion of th=
e
term word activist and the context of the rest of the principles of unity
will carry the implicit understanding that we're not intending to protect
violent actors or law enforcement. One idea batted around a bit lately is
to remove the first sentence and start with: "All IMC's respect the right o=
f
activists..." I've included all three of the revisions that have been
written in that last few days and a fourth that I just wrote. I have tried
to include the essence of all three while also removing a bit from each for
clarity and simplicities sake.
revision 1: POU Working Group
#3 Indymedia respects the right of those who wish not to be identified for
any reason. With this in mind, all IMC's respect the right of activists who
choose not to be photographed or filmed, and will encourage all contributin=
g
reporters to do the same. It is required that anyone who wishes to record,
film or photograph inside a physical IMC space announce their intention in
advance to all present and respect the decision of any person(s) who choose
not to be included.
revision 2: Stephen K.
"#3) As individuals Indymedia respects the right of people to request that
they not be documented in any fashion, as we may wish the same at times.
However, circumstance will not always allow our members to comply with thes=
e
requests and we reserve the right to act upon our judgment. As an
expression of our solidarity with those we continue to document after being
requested to cease Indymedia will not violate the trust of individuals by
releasing compromising documents, film or tapes into the public domain or
surrender them to any authority."
revision 3: Mark Gabrish Conlan.
"3) As a general rule, Indymedia and its participants respect the right of
people to request that they not be photographed, filmed or documented in an=
y
fashion. However, when covering a public event where access is open to
anyone passing by, we reserve the right to document actions, verbal
statements or other conduct which we believe may infringe on the rights of
other participants, even if the people perpetrating such conduct request us
not to do so. Within physical spaces owned or controlled by an IMC, we
insist that anyone who wishes to record, film or photograph inside the spac=
e
announce their intention in advance to all present and respect the decision
of any person(s) who choose not to be included. We will also grant that sam=
e
right to any organization that requests it as a condition of our covering
their non-public activities and events."
revision 4: ack!
"3) Indymedia and its participants respect the right of people who request
that they not be photographed, filmed or documented in any fashion. However=
,
while committed to respecting the wishes of activists, when covering a
public event, we reserve the right to document actions, verbal statements o=
r
other conduct even if the people perpetrating said conduct request us not t=
o
do so. Within physical spaces owned or controlled by an IMC, it is require=
d
that anyone who wishes to record, film or photograph inside the space
announce their intention in advance to all present and respect the decision
of any person(s) who choose not to be included. We will also grant that sam=
e
right to any organization that requests it as a condition of our covering
their non-public activities and events."
What do you all think of that?
All this work on number three is great. It would be greater still if we
could maintain this momentum and continue revising the rest of the
principles. There's a working group and a listserv at
http://lists.cat.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imc-unity.
thank, Jason
--=20
> From: Mark Gabrish Conlan <mgconlan@earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: mgconlan@earthlink.net
> Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 20:26:25 -0800
> To: Jason Reep <jasonr@speakeasy.org>
> Subject: Re: [IMC-Process] SAN DIEGO (deadline approaching)
>=20
> Jason:
>=20
> This is Mark Gabrish Conlan from the San Diego IMC (though since I'm not
> our group's official representative to the process list I am posting
> this as an individual only).
>=20
> On September 10, 2001, according to the IMC-San Diego minutes, we DID
> agree by consensus to "agree in spirit" to the IMC principles of unity
> as they now stand =97 which is all the membership criteria require us to
> do. Here is the relevant excerpt from our minutes:
>=20
> "IMC MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA - DRAFT
>=20
> Each IMC and Global Working Group is expected to
>=20
> a. Agree in spirit to the NIMC Mission Statement and Principles of
> Unity,=20
>=20
> ***We have done this.***"
>=20
> We look forward to continuing to work with the rest of the IMC national
> network to improve the principles of unity.
>=20
> Regarding our own decision-making process, we have always proceeded on
> the basis of consensus as interpreted to mean unanimous CONSENT (as the
> Baltimore group has done, according to their post) rather than the
> tougher standard of unanimous AGREEMENT which some people seem to think
> is inherent in the word "consensus." In other words, if a person
> expresses disagreement with a proposal but says that disagreement does
> not rise to the level of a block, we can go ahead with it, and do.
>=20
> Regarding principle 3 and its revision: I personally find the revised
> principle somewhat more problematic than the original, in that it no
> longer references "activists" (however we define "activist") but now
> says, in its first sentence, "those who wish not to be identified for
> any reason." The word "those" would seem to apply to everyone, including
> undercover cops as well as the 2x4-wielding "activist" Stephen Konieczka
> from Chicago has referred to in his posts.
>=20
> Stephen has posted a different proposed wording for principle 3 and I
> took some of his wording and some of the official wording (especially
> the last sentence, which I think is VERY important =97 as you noted, we
> can't control what happens to people in public event but we CAN and
> SHOULD assure anonymity to those who request it within our own spaces)
> and came up with the following proposal:
>=20
> "3) As a general rule, Indymedia and its participants respect the right
> of people to request that they not be photographed, filmed or documented
> in any fashion. However, when covering a public event where access is
> open to anyone passing by, we reserve the right to document actions,
> verbal statements or other conduct which we believe may infringe on the
> rights of other participants, even if the people perpetrating such
> conduct request us not to do so. Within physical spaces owned or
> controlled by an IMC, we insist that anyone who wishes to record, film
> or photograph inside the space announce their intention in advance to
> all present and respect the decision of any person(s) who choose not to
> be included. We will also grant that same right to any organization that
> requests it as a condition of our covering their non-public activities
> and events."
>=20
> Mark Gabrish Conlan
> IMC-San Diego
>=20
> Jason Reep wrote:
>>=20
>> No, not blocking but I'm still not sure if San Diego has agreed to the
>> Principles of Unity. What's the point of having them and asking people
>> to agree to them to become a part of the decision making process of
>> the IMC network if rewriting them to suit your preferences is
>> acceptable. While we have known all along that this process is still a
>> work in progress we have still been asking people to agree to this set
>> of documents before becoming a full fledged member of the network. San
>> Diego's questions and rejections aren't something that I think should
>> prevent them from becoming an IMC but we now have an even less clear
>> set of criteria for membership.
>>=20
>> I, for one, am still in support of explicitly using the term
>> "consensus process." If that means different things to different
>> people, that's fine. But it is a powerful, if problematic, part of how
>> Indymedia got to where it is. As to Principle #3, the revision
>> proposed by the Principles of Unity working group addresses the
>> concerns that I have sensed from the debate over the last few days. It
>> acknowledges that we have no control over what happens outside the
>> confines of a physical IMC space but that IMC respects *ACTIVISTS*
>> right to choose whether to be recorded. If we need to be more explicit
>> that the term *ACTIVIST* does not include law enforcement then we can
>> do that.
>>=20
>> #3 Indymedia respects the right of those who wish not to be identified
>> for any reason. With this in mind, all IMC's respect the right of
>> activists who choose not to be photographed or filmed, and will
>> encourage all contributing reporters to do the same. It is required
>> that anyone who wishes to record, film or photograph inside a physical
>> IMC space announce their intention in advance to all present and
>> respect the decision of any person(s) who choose not to be included.
>>=20
>> To be clear, I am in favor of the approval of San Diego as an IMC and
>> generally of the interpretation of the Priciples and Criteria to adapt
>> to each group. I'd like to get this nailed down so it's clear what
>> we're asking people and what we're expecting.
>>=20
>> solidarity,
>> jason
>>=20
>> At 11:31 PM 11/7/2001 +0100, Jay wrote:
>>=20
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>=20
>>> The deadline for "accepting" San Diego's application is coming on
>>> November
>>> 11. We've had some interesting and substantial discussions about
>>> the
>>> principles of unity in response to their discussions about them.
>>> Thanks
>>> to Guy and Jim for being involved and explaining the San Diego IMC's
>>> opinions. I don't get the sense that any of the discussions about
>>> San
>>> Diego's responses to the principles rise to the level of the kind of
>>> dissent that would call their application into question. If anyone
>>> out
>>> there has that level of concern please express it explicitly and
>>> we'll
>>> figure out how to deal with it. Otherwise, we should be able to
>>> point
>>> "http://sandiego.indymedia.org" to "http://www.sdimc.org".
>>>=20
>>> Cheers,
>>>=20
>>> Jay
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> imc-process mailing list
>>> imc-process@lists.indymedia.org
>>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process
>=20
--B_3088250211_4223608
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [IMC-Process] SAN DIEGO (deadline approaching)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Geneva">Hi Mark,<BR>
<BR>
thanks for the reply . <BR>
<BR>
I appreciate your clarifications on SD's attitude about the principles of <=
BR>
unity. To me, this is a fundamental debate in the development of the =
NIMC. <BR>
The original response to POU that San Diego put out gave me the impression =
<BR>
that there is a general cynicism about the consensus process among members =
<BR>
of the San Diego collective. I am not interested in telling others ho=
w to <BR>
come to a consensus or how to define the difference between agreement and <=
BR>
consent. Honestly, consensus by lack of dissent is often how our proc=
ess in <BR>
Seattle works out. I am pretty comfortable with that as long as there=
is, <BR>
in fact, a process and sincere effort is made to address members <BR>
reservations. So, great. I'm convinced about San Diego's commit=
ment to the <BR>
concept of consensus and will be interested to hear how the process for <BR=
>
getting there develops.<BR>
<BR>
Regarding principle 3. The revised version I last proposed actually d=
oes <BR>
include the term activist. I have kind of been hoping that inclusion =
of the <BR>
term word activist and the context of the rest of the principles of unity <=
BR>
will carry the implicit understanding that we're not intending to protect <=
BR>
violent actors or law enforcement. One idea batted around a bit latel=
y is <BR>
to remove the first sentence and start with: "All IMC's respect the ri=
ght of <BR>
activists..." I've included all three of the revisions that have=
been <BR>
written in that last few days and a fourth that I just wrote. I have =
tried <BR>
to include the essence of all three while also removing a bit from each for=
<BR>
clarity and simplicities sake.<BR>
<BR>
revision 1: POU Working Group<BR>
#3 Indymedia respects the right of those who wish not to be identified for =
<BR>
any reason. With this in mind, all IMC's respect the right of activists who=
<BR>
choose not to be photographed or filmed, and will encourage all contributin=
g <BR>
reporters to do the same. It is required that anyone who wishes to record, =
<BR>
film or photograph inside a physical IMC space announce their intention in =
<BR>
advance to all present and respect the decision of any person(s) who choose=
<BR>
not to be included.<BR>
<BR>
revision 2: Stephen K.<BR>
"#3) As individuals Indymedia respects the right of people to request =
that <BR>
they not be documented in any fashion, as we may wish the same at times. <B=
R>
However, circumstance will not always allow our members to comply with thes=
e <BR>
requests and we reserve the right to act upon our judgment. As an <BR>
expression of our solidarity with those we continue to document after being=
<BR>
requested to cease Indymedia will not violate the trust of individuals by <=
BR>
releasing compromising documents, film or tapes into the public domain or <=
BR>
surrender them to any authority."<BR>
<BR>
revision 3: Mark Gabrish Conlan.<BR>
"3) As a general rule, Indymedia and its participants respect the righ=
t of <BR>
people to request that they not be photographed, filmed or documented in an=
y <BR>
fashion. However, when covering a public event where access is open to <BR>
anyone passing by, we reserve the right to document actions, verbal <BR>
statements or other conduct which we believe may infringe on the rights of =
<BR>
other participants, even if the people perpetrating such conduct request us=
<BR>
not to do so. Within physical spaces owned or controlled by an IMC, we <BR>
insist that anyone who wishes to record, film or photograph inside the spac=
e <BR>
announce their intention in advance to all present and respect the decision=
<BR>
of any person(s) who choose not to be included. We will also grant that sam=
e <BR>
right to any organization that requests it as a condition of our covering <=
BR>
their non-public activities and events."<BR>
<BR>
revision 4: ack!<BR>
"3) Indymedia and its participants respect the right of people who req=
uest <BR>
that they not be photographed, filmed or documented in any fashion. However=
, <BR>
while committed to respecting the wishes of activists, when covering a <BR>
public event, we reserve the right to document actions, verbal statements o=
r <BR>
other conduct even if the people perpetrating said conduct request us not t=
o <BR>
do so. Within physical spaces owned or controlled by an IMC, it is re=
quired <BR>
that anyone who wishes to record, film or photograph inside the space <BR>
announce their intention in advance to all present and respect the decision=
<BR>
of any person(s) who choose not to be included. We will also grant that sam=
e <BR>
right to any organization that requests it as a condition of our covering <=
BR>
their non-public activities and events." <BR>
<BR>
What do you all think of that?<BR>
<BR>
All this work on number three is great. It would be greater still if =
we <BR>
could maintain this momentum and continue revising the rest of the <BR>
principles. There's a working group and a listserv at <BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U>http://lists.cat.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/i=
mc-unity.<BR>
<BR>
thank, Jason<BR>
</U></FONT><BR>
-- <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> From: Mark Gabrish Conlan <mgconlan@earthlink.net><BR>
> Reply-To: mgconlan@earthlink.net<BR>
> Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 20:26:25 -0800<BR>
> To: Jason Reep <jasonr@speakeasy.org><BR>
> Subject: Re: [IMC-Process] SAN DIEGO (deadline approaching)<BR>
> <BR>
> Jason:<BR>
> <BR>
> This is Mark Gabrish Conlan from the San Diego IMC (though since I'm n=
ot<BR>
> our group's official representative to the process list I am posting<B=
R>
> this as an individual only).<BR>
> <BR>
> On September 10, 2001, according to the IMC-San Diego minutes, we DID<=
BR>
> agree by consensus to "agree in spirit" to the IMC principle=
s of unity<BR>
> as they now stand =97 which is all the membership criteria require us to=
<BR>
> do. Here is the relevant excerpt from our minutes:<BR>
> <BR>
> "IMC MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA - DRAFT<BR>
> <BR>
> Each IMC and Global Working Group is expected to<BR>
> <BR>
> a. Agree in spirit to the NIMC Mission Statement and Principles of<BR>
> Unity, <BR>
> <BR>
> ***We have done this.***"<BR>
> <BR>
> We look forward to continuing to work with the rest of the IMC nationa=
l<BR>
> network to improve the principles of unity.<BR>
> <BR>
> Regarding our own decision-making process, we have always proceeded on=
<BR>
> the basis of consensus as interpreted to mean unanimous CONSENT (as th=
e<BR>
> Baltimore group has done, according to their post) rather than the<BR>
> tougher standard of unanimous AGREEMENT which some people seem to thin=
k<BR>
> is inherent in the word "consensus." In other words, if a pe=
rson<BR>
> expresses disagreement with a proposal but says that disagreement does=
<BR>
> not rise to the level of a block, we can go ahead with it, and do.<BR>
> <BR>
> Regarding principle 3 and its revision: I personally find the revised<=
BR>
> principle somewhat more problematic than the original, in that it no<B=
R>
> longer references "activists" (however we define "activ=
ist") but now<BR>
> says, in its first sentence, "those who wish not to be identified=
for<BR>
> any reason." The word "those" would seem to apply to ev=
eryone, including<BR>
> undercover cops as well as the 2x4-wielding "activist" Steph=
en Konieczka<BR>
> from Chicago has referred to in his posts.<BR>
> <BR>
> Stephen has posted a different proposed wording for principle 3 and I<=
BR>
> took some of his wording and some of the official wording (especially<=
BR>
> the last sentence, which I think is VERY important =97 as you noted, we<=
BR>
> can't control what happens to people in public event but we CAN and<BR=
>
> SHOULD assure anonymity to those who request it within our own spaces)=
<BR>
> and came up with the following proposal:<BR>
> <BR>
> "3) As a general rule, Indymedia and its participants respect the=
right<BR>
> of people to request that they not be photographed, filmed or document=
ed<BR>
> in any fashion. However, when covering a public event where access is<=
BR>
> open to anyone passing by, we reserve the right to document actions,<B=
R>
> verbal statements or other conduct which we believe may infringe on th=
e<BR>
> rights of other participants, even if the people perpetrating such<BR>
> conduct request us not to do so. Within physical spaces owned or<BR>
> controlled by an IMC, we insist that anyone who wishes to record, film=
<BR>
> or photograph inside the space announce their intention in advance to<=
BR>
> all present and respect the decision of any person(s) who choose not t=
o<BR>
> be included. We will also grant that same right to any organization th=
at<BR>
> requests it as a condition of our covering their non-public activities=
<BR>
> and events."<BR>
> <BR>
> Mark Gabrish Conlan<BR>
> IMC-San Diego<BR>
> <BR>
> Jason Reep wrote:<BR>
>> <BR>
>> No, not blocking but I'm still not sure if San Diego has agreed to=
the<BR>
>> Principles of Unity. What's the point of having them and asking pe=
ople<BR>
>> to agree to them to become a part of the decision making process o=
f<BR>
>> the IMC network if rewriting them to suit your preferences is<BR>
>> acceptable. While we have known all along that this process is sti=
ll a<BR>
>> work in progress we have still been asking people to agree to this=
set<BR>
>> of documents before becoming a full fledged member of the network.=
San<BR>
>> Diego's questions and rejections aren't something that I think sho=
uld<BR>
>> prevent them from becoming an IMC but we now have an even less cle=
ar<BR>
>> set of criteria for membership.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> I, for one, am still in support of explicitly using the term<BR>
>> "consensus process." If that means different things to d=
ifferent<BR>
>> people, that's fine. But it is a powerful, if problematic, part of=
how<BR>
>> Indymedia got to where it is. As to Principle #3, the revision<BR>
>> proposed by the Principles of Unity working group addresses the<BR=
>
>> concerns that I have sensed from the debate over the last few days=
. It<BR>
>> acknowledges that we have no control over what happens outside the=
<BR>
>> confines of a physical IMC space but that IMC respects *ACTIVISTS*=
<BR>
>> right to choose whether to be recorded. If we need to be more expl=
icit<BR>
>> that the term *ACTIVIST* does not include law enforcement then we =
can<BR>
>> do that.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> #3 Indymedia respects the right of those who wish not to be identi=
fied<BR>
>> for any reason. With this in mind, all IMC's respect the right of<=
BR>
>> activists who choose not to be photographed or filmed, and will<BR=
>
>> encourage all contributing reporters to do the same. It is require=
d<BR>
>> that anyone who wishes to record, film or photograph inside a phys=
ical<BR>
>> IMC space announce their intention in advance to all present and<B=
R>
>> respect the decision of any person(s) who choose not to be include=
d.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> To be clear, I am in favor of the approval of San Diego as an IMC =
and<BR>
>> generally of the interpretation of the Priciples and Criteria to a=
dapt<BR>
>> to each group. I'd like to get this nailed down so it's clear what=
<BR>
>> we're asking people and what we're expecting.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> solidarity,<BR>
>> jason<BR>
>> <BR>
>> At 11:31 PM 11/7/2001 +0100, Jay wrote:<BR>
>> <BR>
>>> Hi everyone,<BR>
>>> <BR>
>>> The deadline for "accepting" San Diego's application=
is coming on<BR>
>>> November<BR>
>>> 11. We've had some interesting and substantial discussio=
ns about<BR>
>>> the<BR>
>>> principles of unity in response to their discussions about the=
m.<BR>
>>> Thanks<BR>
>>> to Guy and Jim for being involved and explaining the San Diego=
IMC's<BR>
>>> opinions. I don't get the sense that any of the discussi=
ons about<BR>
>>> San<BR>
>>> Diego's responses to the principles rise to the level of the k=
ind of<BR>
>>> dissent that would call their application into question.  =
;If anyone<BR>
>>> out<BR>
>>> there has that level of concern please express it explicitly a=
nd<BR>
>>> we'll<BR>
>>> figure out how to deal with it. Otherwise, we should be =
able to<BR>
>>> point<BR>
>>> "http://sandiego.indymedia.org" to "http://www.=
sdimc.org".<BR>
>>> <BR>
>>> Cheers,<BR>
>>> <BR>
>>> Jay<BR>
>>> _______________________________________________<BR>
>>> imc-process mailing list<BR>
>>> imc-process@lists.indymedia.org<BR>
>>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process<BR>
> <BR>
</FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--B_3088250211_4223608--