[CIMC-work] statement to us-process

[Mitchell Szczepanczyk]

As promised, here's the "rewrite".  The only difference is that
I've added in some clarifying words I forgot to include.  (Might want to
have one *other* person chime in before sending this off.)

Chicago Indymedia would like to express some reservations about the
proposed US-IMC project.  These can be summarized in the following points.

Point one: Improving diverse representation.  Ostensibly, one motivation
of US-IMC was and is to reduce American emphasis and increase global 
south participation in such things as the global center panel and the
syndicated feed of center panels on the right-hand column of 
Indymedia Global.  If so, was the global south consulted as 
to what in their opinion would be on the matter?  Were they asked if this
was a good or effective idea, or consulted as to what should be done 
to increase global south activity in Indymedia?  

Point two: Accountability.  Who decides what would be center paneled on
US-IMC?  What criteria would be used?  More to the point, was the
decision to work on creating a US-IMC not brought before every IMC in
the United States and agreed upon by all US-IMCs?  After all, such a
decision was worked out for the syndicated features feed on the right-hand
column of global IMC; why can't a similar deliberation/consensus take
place for US-IMC?  

Point three: Redundancy.  Based on the traffic to date, US-IMC sounds like
it would replicate the global site, but include only US  
contributions.  What new content or contributions, if any, would the
US-IMC bring to the network?  If there aren't any, how then is US-IMC
an improvement to the network?  

Point Four: Global impacts.  The issue of US-IMC isn't just a matter for
the United States.  A significant portion of the global movement is 
in the United States and any effort involving the US could have massive
reverberations, positive and negative, across the global indymedia 
movement.  Perhaps the debate of a US-IMC should be brought before the
entire indymedia network--simply because of the possible global
reverberations.

We understand that it may be too late to halt the process of assembling
US-IMC, but it would appear that a number of considerations that were 
not brought or considered to the attention of the US-IMC organizers.  We
therefore ask that these issues be satisfactorily addressed, 
or the US-IMC organizing process be delayed until such time as these
issues can be addressed.

----------
_ Z  Mitchell Szczepanczyk
  /  http://home.uchicago.edu/~msszczep http://www.chicagomediaaction.org
     http://www.geocities.com/szczepanczyk http://chicago.indymedia.org

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Chris Kaihatsu wrote:

> Garth, CIMC,
> 
> By passive-consensus standards I'd say it's good to go. Maybe could just one
> more person chime in and if there's no opposition I'll send it to
> IMC-US-Process.
> 
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Garth Liebhaber" <garthliebhaber at care2.com>
> To: <imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:38 PM
> Subject: [CIMC-work] statement to us-process
> 
> 
> > hey gang, i haven't had time to read through the emails on our letter to
> us-process.  did someone
> > send it out? or is it sitting there waiting for me to do something with
> it?  if there was enough
> > consensus, let's just send it out.  someone let me know, garth
> >
> >
> > Help the planet each day! It's free and easy:
> > http://www.Care2.com/dailyaction/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> > Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
>