[CIMC-work] (a call for dispute discussion to remain on IMC-US-Process list) FW: [imc-us-process] us-process is not a positive tool for coordination.

Tue Mar 23 11:53:16 PST 2004

___

The lessons of the past few days in Spain must be studied carefully by all
those who wish to understand the nature of the period through which we are
passing. What has occurred in Spain will tomorrow happen in Britain, the USA
and every other country. We must be prepared!

www.marxist.com/Europe/lessons_of_spain0304.html

------ Forwarded Message
> From: Quill <quill1984 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: "A process discussion list for U.S.-based IMCs"
> <imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:49:27 -0800 (PST)
> To: imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> Subject: RE: [imc-us-process] us-process is not a positive tool for
> coordination.
> 
> I agree with John's point here; This is a situation we
> should be looking at with concern/foresight about how
> future similar conflicts will be handled. We should
> not consider this to be an isolated situation. This
> likely has already and will again occur within other
> imc's in the global network.
> 
> For this reason alone, I believe that discussion about
> this & similar issues should stay on imc-us-process. I
> also feel strongly that sf.indymedia.org should have
> it's dns privileges revoked until it complies with
> arbitration agreements made in the past about domain
> ownership & Enemy Combatant Radio.
> 
> I agree with John's proposed solution & feel we should
> adopt these arbitration proposals 1 thru 4 or
> something similar. I think that sf.imc should go
> through the new-imc process to get reinstated if they
> ever comply with the arbitration agreements they made
> that have never been honored.
> 
> If this conflict isn't resolved by the network now,
> what will happen in the future? Are splits resulting
> from/in hostile takeovers like this going to continue
> to be tolerated? Is the tacit acceptance of an imc's
> hostile takeover along with blatant refusal to comply
> with subsequent arbitration agreements, violations of
> principles of unity, and defamation of character &
> work done by other imc's, going to become the norm?
> 
> We at Portland IMC have discussed this issue and feel
> strongly that discussion of this issue should remain
> on this list, and that issues around the conflict
> should continue to be posted and discussed on this
> list. We feel strongly enough about this issue that we
> have removed sf.imc from our cities list, at least
> until they comply with the arbitration demands and
> stop acting outside the imc principles of unity. I
> personally feel that the greater imc network should do
> the same.
> 
> ~ Quill, portland imc volunteer
> (Not sure what it means to be a liason but BHT & I do
> bring many issues discussed here to and from the
> portland imc working groups for feedback)
> 
> 
> --- John Windmueller <john at conflictresolver.com>
> wrote:
>> I've actually seen lots of points I agree with--many
>> aren't actually
>> mutually exclusive.
>> 
>> * With a bit more information, now I see why Peter
>> wanted this brought to
>> the list's attention.  I wish that was in the
>> earlier message.  I think it
>> would help if messages to imc-us-process have the
>> list as the primary
>> audience/recipient and we aren't just CC'd in the
>> back and forth
>> interactions between the collectives.  It would also
>> help to be clear when a
>> dispute/concern/position in the conflict is personal
>> or actually has been
>> discussed and endorsed by a whole collective.
>> 
>> * I can understand why SF would assume that it's ok
>> to use material from
>> another Indymedia site.  [As an aside, I do a lot of
>> digital photography,
>> and I'm often amazed how many places my images show
>> up around the network.
>> Images, unfortunately, often get borrowed by
>> collectives or added to feature
>> articles without giving credit to the shooter, which
>> I think is
>> unfortunate.]  
>> 
>> * I think it's understandable why Peter wouldn't
>> want his work being used by
>> a site that he has had such a difficult and
>> adversarial relationship with.
>> 
>> * I'm not sure from the messages if either of these
>> things have occurred,
>> but just to be clear... (a) reposting material
>> without crediting it would be
>> wrong; (b) changing material by an author while
>> still listing them as the
>> creator would be wrong.
>> 
>> * I appreciate that SF complied with the request of
>> a fellow IMC'r, even one
>> they've had an adversarial relationship with.
>> 
>> * I wish that could have happened without replacing
>> the story/image with a
>> personal jibe against Peter.  That was unnecessary.
>> 
>> 
>> * On the larger issue of the SF/Indybay conflict, I
>> don't think any
>> resolution is going to happen until we have a way to
>> arbitrate this and
>> future conflicts.  I know it sounds weird, but I'm
>> perversely glad to see
>> people so frustrated and annoyed.  I don't think
>> this problem will get
>> solved until people get fed up enough with it that
>> they're willing to put a
>> little time and labor into doing the work to design
>> and get buy-in for an
>> arbitration process.  Ok, it's bad and you're all
>> frustrated and annoyed.
>> Are you frustrated and annoyed enough to figure out
>> a way to fix it?
>> 
>> ---[ topic focus shift: the domain issue
>> ]-----------------
>> The indybay domain name ownership keeps coming up.
>> I can see why.  I'd not
>> feel very good if my collective's domain name was
>> owned and controlled by a
>> group we had a terrible relationship with.
>> 
>> The simplest solution would be to follow the
>> mediation agreement and giving
>> this to Indybay.  But if we've got to look at other
>> options for whatever
>> reasons...
>> 
>> I really would like to see an arbitration process
>> get written up and used
>> for this and similar conflicts, but just to float an
>> idea on a possible
>> option:
>> 
>> 1. Indybay gets the domain indybay.indymedia.org (or
>> an alternative of their
>> choosing, just not sf)
>> 
>> 2. For 6 months www.indybay.org has nothing but a
>> pointer/redirect to the
>> new URL.  After that, the owner of that domain can
>> do whatever they chose,
>> but it won't be linked to the Indymedia network.
>> 
>> 3. Both sites indybay.indymedia.org and
>> sf.indymedia.org have cross-links at
>> the top of their pages (Indybay's current format)
>> for three months after the
>> switch so that community members don't get harmed in
>> the switch.
>> 
>> 4. Noncompliance means the offending collective gets
>> a warning with 24hrs to
>> fix things.  Failure to fix things means the
>> collective gets pulled form the
>> network and has to go through new-imc process to get
>> back up.  
>> 
>> -
>> Or perhaps as an alternative, really ugly
>> non-solution, but short-term
>> assurance: 
>> 
>> An agreement that if anything nasty happens to the
>> www.indybay.org domain
>> name, the sf.indybay.org domain immediately goes to
>> the Indybay collective.
>> Let's get the power dynamics a bit more balanced
>> here so there's more
>> incentive for compromise and reaching agreement.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> imc-us-process mailing list
>> imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
>> 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-process
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> _______________________________________________
> imc-us-process mailing list
> imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-process
> 

------ End of Forwarded Message