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

[Chris Kaihatsu]

Garth, all,

My understanding is that Chuck has never called for a potential meeting of
IMC participants in DC to be a decision-making body for the IMC network.

>    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;
[...]

Well, Garth, where did you get Chuck0's text from? -- I believe I saw it
myself on the Process list.


Chris




on 1/6/03 10:27 PM, Garth Liebhaber at garthliebhaber@hotmail.com wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
>