[New-imc] EMERGENCY PROPOSAL - please respond by Sep. 1 2006 / Re: arafura and darwin
sarsnic at gmail.com
Fri Sep 1 16:56:41 PDT 2006
ok here's my version. I have serious concerns about part 2 of boud's
as it would seem to be the equivalent of saying the whole proposal
which essentially regards Mick should be re-written so as not to do
so. I think this concern should be done by a local collective if it
needs to be done at all. I also want to note, that I am trying to get
the folks here in Houston to discuss this so that we can block the
part about taking away the list-serv. The last paragraph here is
kinda messy and I would like it if someone re-wrote it, but the thing
I wanted it to do was to describe where the Melbourne proposal would
put our efforts as opposed to recommending or requesting further
new-imc internal EMERGENCY PROPOSAL for imc-process version 2.1
The new-imc working group does not consider itself a collective with a
liason entitled to block proposals. However, we RECOMMEND that the
Melbourne proposal concerning disaffiliation of the the present group
calling itself imc darwin:
be modified to clearly state that this group will BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN
USE OF THE IMC-DARWIN MAILING LIST:
New-IMC has agreed that the requirements for granting mailing lists
are much looser than those for being affiliated.
Also, we want it to be known that the new-imc work group has worked
hard to set up communication with all the parties who have a valid
interest in the case. We recognize that certain conflicts cannot be
resolved consensually, but we want to point out the Melbourne
proposal is a much less consensual process than the one we had been
On 9/1/06, boud <boud at riseup.net> wrote:
> hi again new-imc,
> Below is a point-by-point response to petros' five points, but first
> here is a modified proposal.
> The only valid point i see is in point 3 - about the mailing list.
> What do people think of a new-imc statement to imc-process as follows?
> new-imc internal EMERGENCY PROPOSAL for imc-process version 2.0
> (1) The new-imc working group RECOMMENDS that this proposal concerning
> disaffiliation of the the present group calling itself imc darwin:
> be modified to clearly state that this group will BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN
> USE OF THE IMC-DARWIN MAILING LIST:
> in order to give it a chance to reorganise - as a NEW collective - and
> to give mick a chance to return to becoming functional. We do not wish
> to comment about mick's access rights to other indymedia resources,
> which we suggest be decided autonomously by the different local or
> working groups.
> The new-imc work group has worked hard to set up communication with
> all the parties who have a valid interest in the case and we believe
> that the the group calling itself imc darwin, and using the imc-darwin
> mailing list:
> should be allowed to continue trying to reorganise.
> (2) We also SUGGEST that THE GROUP ITSELF SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
> DECIDE WHEN AND IF MICK IS PART OF THAT GROUP and when and if it feels
> ready to go through the various steps that a new collective is
> requested to go through in getting organised, in its role as a new group.
> We request liaisons on imc-process to pass on this recommendation and
> suggestion to their local collectives in order to work through modified
> versions of the proposal.
> Until a liaison on imc-process requests extending the deadline, we
> cannot wait for the normal 3-day deadline for new-imc internal
> decision-making, so i presume we're going to have to use rough
> (petros: since you made the initial internal new-imc proposal, and if
> imc cyprus is functioning sufficiently well, i would suggest you get
> imc cyprus to make a collective decision and ask for more time on
> Does anyone object to the above proposal?
> Point-by-point response:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Petros Evdokas wrote:
> > There's been a new development. I believe it calls for emergency action
> > on our part.
> > The liaison of Imc-ovl now supports the Melbourne proposal:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2006-August/0831-g1.html
> > I would like to ask for your consensus to inform the imc-process and
> > imc-communication groups that:
> > 1. the proposal is a violation of the indymedia principles of unity,
> > especially the sense of autonomy, self-determination and
> > non-intervention that we cultivate among our collectives.
> Firstly, i'm not sure that this is true, our sense of autonomy is not
> absolute. It's very strong, but not absolute.
> Secondly, i think that new-imc does not have the right to tell the
> network how to interpret the principles of unity. IMHO our
> responsibility on this topic (in new-imc) is to explain to new groups
> how we think the network is likely to interpret these and what the
> network expects of new groups, and then we tell the network that we
> think a group has accepted the PoU and we give the info to the network
> to decide for itself.
> So point 1 would be inversing this power relation IMHO.
> > 2. the proposal is no different than the New York imc proposing that Los
> > Angeles imc (the other end of the continent) either expell one of its
> > members or be expelled as a group, entirely.
> i think the imc-process proposal is written in a confused way, so trying
> to describe an analogy is difficult, and i don't see why new-imc should
> add confusion to a confused text.
> > 3. the proposal is a violation of the procedure that new-imc group has
> > set up with the darwin and arafura groups.
> i'm not sure about "violation". i think we could say: "We recommend
> that the proposal clearly state that the present group calling itself
> imc darwin by allowed to retain use of the imc-darwin mailing list in
> order to give it a chance to reorganise and to give mick a chance to
> return to becoming functional."
> > 4. the proposal will set a precedent that will undo the validity of
> > every decision that new-imc has taken, on the basis of a claim against
> > one person, a member of darwin imc who is neither capable of defending
> > himself well nor has any access to a forum where he can be heard by
> > impartial peers. A total violation of due process.
> "nor has any access to a forum where he can be heard by impartial peers."
> This is false IMHO: mick did have access to many fora, where he was heard
> by many people (including me) who knew nothing about the conflict earlier.
> Many people (including me) spent many, many hours trying to follow mick's
> confused, postmodernist style hints at the roots of the problem despite
> what soon became clear was his (present) dysfunctionality.
> Even now, mick still has access to the imc-darwin mailing list, and i
> don't see anyone (except possibly new-Darwin-imc people) excluding
> impartial peers from the imc-darwin mailing list. The list is controlled
> by new-Darwin-imc people.
> So i think point 4 is false.
> > 5. the proposal is an ultimatum to imc-darwin: either accept foreign
> > internvention, or face collective punishment. Even the Geneva convention
> > bans collective punishment - if it is banned in war, why should it have
> > validity among colleagues in peacetime?
> It's not punishment: it's limiting damage (except for the removal of
> the mailing list part of the proposal).
> > Above all, the proposal is an outside interference in the process that
> > the new-imc work group has worked hard to set up with all the parties
> > who have a valid interest in the case. Besides being unfair, it will
> > also disable us.
> Removing the mailing list is an interference in this process, i think
> that's a fair comment. Whether or not the network wants to interfere
> is another question.
> > This is a formal proposal, asking for your consensus. I'd like to
> > propose that we hear discussion, arguments, suggestions to improve or
> > change it, adapt it with other language, if you want but please do it
> > quickly. Given that the proposal by Melbourne has a three day deadline,
> Not a three-day deadline - it had a 14-day deadline from the time it
> was proposed - local imc liaisons should, in principle, have passed
> this on to their local collectives:
> info at melbourne.indymedia.org info at melbourne.indymedia.org
> Sun Aug 20 08:35:29 PDT 2006
> *Now* it has only 2 days left.
> > I'd like to ask for your responses by tomorrow, Sep. 1 2006. That way,
> > we can send to imc-process and imc-communication the views of new-imc by
> > Sep. 2nd, in time for the deadline set by Melbourne.
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the New-imc