[New-imc] the current status of darwin

and and at axxs.org
Thu Sep 7 16:30:01 PDT 2006 

Responding to both Nick and John's emails here

Nick wrote:

> 1. The proposal did not attempt to officially decide whether or not
> they were affiliated, but simply to say that we would not support
> linking them without a proposal and a decision that passes through
> new-imc and imc-process, which is our ordinary procedure.

Without saying they are disaffiliated you are saying they are not  
affiliated, which is surely the same thing? Otherwise there wouldn't  
be the requirement to go through new-imc. The Melbourne proposal was  
an attempt to clear up this confusion but it seems it may be clearer  
than previously thought. I think new-imc needs to come up with an  
exact  position on where Darwin currently stands and forward it to  
imc-process.
>
> 2. I did put it to imc-communication and assumed you saw:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-communication/2006-August/ 
> 0826-6f.html

I didn't fully understand it's implications at the time but it  
essentially says the same as above, that Darwin needs to go through  
new-imc/imcprocess to be approved, and therefore is not currently  
affiliated.

On 07/09/2006, at 11:58 AM, John Milton wrote:

> Hi And:
>
> I need to begin by saying that while I am a member of "new imc"  
> everything that follows is no more than my opinion / understanding  
> and that I'm not in any way speaking officially on behalf of "new  
> imc" here.
>
> O.K., if that that sentence gave you the idea that this situation  
> is complex and heated right now then all I can say is I agree with  
> you. I'll also be interested in hearing what others here hopefully  
> have to say in response to your query because it's far from clear  
> to me, and I have spent some time trying to archive that clarity.
>
> My understanding is that round about the time that Darwin (I'll  
> call them Old Darin from here on) split into 2 collectives, one of  
> which continues to identify as Darwin (I'll call them New Darwin),  
> and the other as Arafura the folks at Perth, who had been hosting  
> the Old Darwin site found themselves unwilling to continue doing  
> that. Thus Darwin.indymedia.org continues to be a valid domain  
> name, and is still on the cities list pointed right now to I.P.:  
> 58.7.0.146 which is host: dsl-58-7-0-146.wa.westnet.com.au but all  
> that is there is a splash page confirming that the site is no  
> longer hosted.
>
> Now in order for New Darwin to get a site back on line 2 things  
> would need to happen:
> 1) They would need to find a new web host
> 2) They would need to get the Indy Global DNS folks to point their  
> URL to that host.
>
> I assume that (1) is not the problem, they seem to have access to  
> hosting resources and I know offers have been made to them from  
> within the Indy community to host them.
>
> But (2) really is. The folks within Indy Global who manage DNS  
> assignments will only switch a DNS pointer if "imc process" is not  
> in disagreement, and "imc process" in turn looks to "new imc" for  
> proposals regarding the approval of new cities, which implies  
> changes to the list / dns work.
>
> So, there has been no official disaffiliation of Old Darwin, but  
> the Darwin site is now "dark" because it has been dehosted, New  
> Darwin can't get darwin.indymedia.org pointed to their site because  
> the Indy DNS folks want the o.k. from "imc process" (a situation  
> that angers some of them greatly), and so, until that changes it  
> has been claimed, by New Darwin and others that this amounts to  
> defacto disaffiliation, since they, it seems to me, continue to see  
> themselves as a continuation of "Old Darwin" and insofar as the use  
> of a "XXX.indymedia.org" domain is a major benefit of affiliated  
> status.

Sounds fairly accurate to me (apart from who in dns is greatly angry?)

>
> So, there we are. Some are acting as if the way to proceed is to  
> treat New Darwin and Arafura "equally", as new collectives, and  
> require them both to be approved by "new imc" and proposed to "imc  
> process" before either of them get a site / get a site back,

Rather than some, this seems to be the official position of the new- 
imc work group.
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-May/0527-g6.html

> others in "New Darwin" and elsewhere feel that since "Old Darwin"  
> was never disaffiliated "New Darwin" is still entitled to a pointer  
> to it's site because "its still IMC Darwin and Darwin has never  
> been disaffiliated".
>
> And to top it all off there are those who don't want New Darwin to  
> have anything to do with Indymedia until Mr. Lambe is expelled from  
> that and any other collective, and are acting accordingly, on "new  
> imc", "imc process", and elsewhere.

There was nothing specified about "any other collective" in any  
proposal as far as I am aware.

It seems to me that new-imc has a position on the current status of  
Darwin but is not being explicit about it. I think this is part of  
the cause of the confusion. I think new-imc needs to clarify this  
position explicitly and communicate this and any recommendations to  
imc-process.

Thanks.
And.

>
> With process like this who needs the FBI? and it's only taken us 6  
> years to dig ourselves in this deep, incredible but there ya go.
>
> Hope thats all clear ;)
>
> and wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm sorry to be continuing on with this, I'm sure you are all as   
>> tired of it as I am. I however need some clarifications from this  
>> group.
>> I was recently pointed to this decision my new-imc
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-May/0527-g6.html
>> It appears new-imc already considers darwin to be disaffiliated.
>> Can someone please explain to me
>> 1. why this never went to imc-process for official confirmation  
>> and  removal of darwin from the cities list?
>> 2. why no one told us this explicitly when we made the proposal  
>> to  imc-process for disaffiliation?
>> Thanks.
>> And.
>> Melbourne IMC
>> _______________________________________________
>> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
>> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>
> -- 
> Peace: John Milton
>
> email: john at johnmilton.ca
> mobile (Canada): 905-537-8472
> web: johnmilton.ca
>
> Encrypted email welcome. PGP key on my website
> Fingerprint: 40D8 5835 7230 8EE1 E968  1E7A 5CF1 68A6 C0E2 F9DC
>
> Koan for our times: "Are we smarter than yeast?"
>
>

More information about the New-imc mailing list