[CIMC-working] Proposal;declaration of support for Chuck O's position on DC 1/18 meetings

[Garth Liebhaber]

Hey all,
     I would like to know what folks think of supporting Chuck-O's statement 
with a formal statement and/or block of our own relative to the present 
process/discussion around this proposed meeting in Washington D.C. for 
January 18th.
    Having been privy to being present at the last meeting in Washington DC 
that was organized with the outcome of IMC Commworks listserve.  As also 
occurred in San Francisco more than a year ago, it was an opportunity for 
several people to push forth an agenda in an undemocratic manner.  There was 
not chance for even representation of ALL IMCs, yet a concrete decision was 
made in the form of the listserve, despite overwhelming consensus against 
any formal decisions being made.  While this may seem to be nitpicking 
around what is merely a discussion listserve, I feel it is important to 
block this undemocratic tendency.
    I am not proposing a block of all group discussion by the IMC folks 
present that weekend.  I am proposing a block against initiatin of a 
decision making process that affects all IMC.  That simple.
    Let me close that this is easily made into a 'greyzone' that certain 
people have shown the tendency to be pushy about.  I also want to 
acknowledge Doug's pointing out that we need to be conscientious in 
'conserving our credibility', or where and how to voice our dissent.  I 
would say that if discussion around the meeting dies that we should drop it. 
  BUT, from experience it is not unlikely that it will be pushed forth in 
DC.
Therefore, I see an importance in making a clear declaration/block before 
the fact, so as to be clear.
     If discussion/weigh-in on this is positive, I would take the 
responsibility to push the content of this issue, into a clear, concise and 
not too lengthy declaration.
     Finally, Chris K. can you give us an update on the progress of this 
discussion? also, forgive my ignorance, but what list did this come from?  
ciao, garth

This is from Chuck O;
>While it's always nice to see out-of-town IMCistas when they come to town, 
>I
>think that a meeting here in Washington is inadequate to what the IMC needs
>to accomplish and may actually compound the problems that the IMC is 
>having.
>
>Let me outline my objections to this idea:
>
>1) Several people in the IMC network, including myself, having been calling
>for a series of IMC network conventions/meetings to discuss process issues
>and our politics. These calls go back for some time, possibly more than a
>year. I think we all wanted to see a series of regional conferences, so 
>that
>IMC activists outside the U.S. wouldn't be expected to travel to the U.S.
>for
>a meeting. I think many of us seek to set up meetings that challenge the
>U.S.-centric nature of the IMC network. For example, there could be
>concurrent IMC network meetings on each continent that covered the same
>agenda.
>2) If this meeting idea is to be done right, it needs a weekend of 
>meetings,
>some preparation of documents and agenda, and the right amount of focus.
>While summit protests are good venues for general IMC network meetings, 
>they
>are a poor venue for the type of serious IMC conventions that need to take
>place. And local IMCistas would not be able to fully participate because of
>the distractions of the weekend.
>3) Having a serious meeting about process and politics, while IMC people 
>are
>also doing lots of media work, is just impossible.
>4) If we were to have a regional/continental meeting for North America, a
>more logical location would be Chicago, Denver, or Houston. Those cities 
>are
>central to the continent are are convenient to most forms of 
>transportation.
>5) Having this conference in D.C. during a summit protest privileges the
>same
>set of IMC network regulars who have the means to constantly attend these
>events. In other words, a conference in DC would allow IMC summit-hoppers 
>to
>make decisions concerning the IMC network.
>6) Even if out of towm IMC people help with the conference, the logistical
>work would still be added to the work that IMC people are doing to keep the
>physical IMC space running that weekend.
>
>At this point, you may be saying to yourself that this is just another
>network meeting. It's not. The serious of IMC conferences that some of us
>have been talking about would be big affairs, where decisions would be made
>about IMC processes and fundamental stuff like the politics of the IMC
>network. It would be imperative to involve as many IMC stakeholders as
>possible. Think of this as the "IMC Constitutional Convention" if you will.
>And it wouldn't just be one convention in North America, but concurrent 
>ones
>around the world.
>
>Lastly, I have some personal objections to this proposal. I think that it
>replicates the insensitive way that non-Washington activists treat
>Washington
>activists. We are always expected to host your meetings, marches,
>mobilizations, summit protests, and so on. Our activist community is
>constantly inundated with protest after protest that are organized by
>outsiders. We have little time to pursue our own local projects. We see our
>resources depleted without outsiders giving us anything back to keep us
>going. We are left holding the bag on legal fallout.
>
>Speaking for myself, I'm tired of playing the party host all the time. You
>won't believe this, but I've never gotten the opportunity to attend a 
>summit
>protest outside of Washington. Not Seattle, Philly, L.A., Cincinnati,
>Prague,
>Quebec City, New York, or even the WSF conferences. In fact, I've been
>unemployed since the Quebec City protests. I think that I haven't been able
>to get out to these protests because my schedule was always filled up with
>organizing for Washington protests.
>
>I'm always happy to see IMC people visit D.C., but I think this is a bad
>proposal.
>
>Chuck0
>

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail