[Imc-finance] RE: Proposals A & B -- the final lap

[Bart]

Hello Matthew,

----- Original Message -----
From: "hoity toity" <brilliant@stlimc.org>
To: <imc-finance@lists.indymedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:30 PM
Subject: [Imc-finance] RE: Proposals A & B -- the final lap


> To the Members of the IMC Global Finance List--
>
> It is with a great deal of reservation that I am writing this, as I have
> managed to swallow my opinions and remain for so long outside of the
> discussion and debate.  However, I feel that before the final proposals
> are passed, I must at least voice my opinion concerning this venture.
> These are opinions I have held since the beginning of this process, but
> have refrained from committing them to the list firstly because when the
> discussion was first getting started I was embroiled in personal issues
> locally and could not extend myself into the 'global' realm at that time,
> and secondly because St. Louis IMC did not come to consensus around my
> proposal and I did not want to enter the discussion as an individual
> rather than as a representative of our group.
> Since that time I have logged in occasionally and viewed the progression
> of the discussion and the decision-making process.  I have been very
> impressed by that process and how well it has worked and how able we, as a
> network of individuals and groups around the globe, have been at working
> through a process in this very tricky medium.
> However, from the beginning I have been very concerned by the aim and
> intention of this particular discussion as I feel that it cuts to the core
> of what our global network is and should be.  There are several aspects of
> what is being decided here that I find counter to the ideals I have for
> the global network of autonomous INDEPENDENT media Centers.

Off course they are.

> First, it is one of several moves to CENTRALISE our network. One of the
> most prevalent responsibilities of most governing structures is to
> determine how to spend and allocate the group's money.  In more democratic
> governing structures, this is determined by a group of representatives for
> the sake of the whole.  Unlike most governing structures, we as an IMC
> network have no safeguards written in for how a representative is chosen
> by their local IMC, nor for how long they may serve, etc.  It is assumed
> that they are chosen by consensus and that each group will make their
> decisions via consensus, as will this working group.


that's not true.
every idea so far to work with representative's has been blocked since a lot
of people don't want imc to work with representatives.
The liaison model hasn't been adapted (halfly on imc-communication list).
until now every imc is completely free to choose a model in how they
participate on the global level (or don't participate at all).



> However, there is at
> present no way of verifying this, or really knowing how well a local
> representative is serving or representing hir local IMC.  Also, within the
> IMC network some degree of hierarchy is created by a few factors, among
> them: knowledge of the system, connection to other individuals and groups
> in the system, tenure of involvement, and language of the majority.    My
> point is not that we should make a detailed plan to counter-act these
> trends but to point out that they exist and are inherent in the system we
> are dealing with (i.e. a high-tech medium in which keeping up with global
> issues generally requires more free time, technical access and
> proficiency, and familiarity with the system and language of exchange than
> keeping up with local issues).

You could have started with some of the things people ask allready a long
time

- trying to get your message translated to at least one other language
- writing a summary of your mail on top (which is real important).
- formatting your mails into paragraphs. That's easier for non native
english speakers (like me) to read.

>  In fact, we as a network have put in place
> some very good measures to counter-act some of these.  But, how well have
> we examined the ways in which a centralization of this magnitude will
> effect our network in regards to these inherent inequities?

can you define what the centralisation is you talk about. I really don't get
it.


> I believe the IMC's with the greatest amount of existing wealth in terms
> of technical hardware, proficiency, and local stability will naturally be
> more able to partake in online decision making and will therefor have more
> of an ability to influence the decision making process.  Also, most
> nations have only one IMC, whereas the United States has many.  Does this
> not cause an imbalance in the decision making process as well?

depends where you want the balance. It's a logical consequence when you
decide to work with local imc's mostly. then you can have a lot of them in
one country.

> It is my belief that the global network serves the local IMCs the most as
> a hub of information and resource exchange among and between individual
> IMCs, rather than as anything resembling a unified, governing body.  I
> believe the more decentralized we are the more we empower our local
> communities toward making change where it matters most--locally.

we are decentralised for most things.
only new-imc (and even that) & deciding which values/rules/... we'll have
for a network are decided on the global level.


 This is
> not to say that global awareness is not important, but that the focus for
> most people is on the locality of our daily lives, which will set the
> precedent for what we can and cannot exert our energies toward.
> Had we decided to disburse global funds equally among existing, local
> IMC's after a certain quantity had accrued, I feel that we would have been
> making a truly radical step away from a mere shadow imitation of
> centralized, hierarchical power structures and towards greater autonomy
> and decentralization.

we could have done this too.
the problem is that the amount of money local imc's will get will be rather
small
40 000 / 80 is about 500 max. (considering we might keep at least 10% for
emergency cases, it would even be less)

On the other hand, we are distributing most of the money allready to locals.
Everyone who contacts the donate address is told we prefer giving money to
local imc's. only the ones who really want to suppport the global network
give us money for the global fund(s). You could have known this before
sending such a long mail/rant.


The more decentralized we keep our resources, the
> less able any one IMC or individual can hold sway over how we allocate
> those resources or how our local IMCs operate.  IMC proposals for
> financial aid could still have been made to a central list, but it would
> be up to individual IMCs--their priorities and their decision-making
> groups--to individually decide whether to answer the call, while ensuring
> the resources in question were safely in the hands of the local groups
> making those decisions.  It is my belief that disbursing funds as
> equitably as possible among active IMCs would help counter-balance the
> inherent hierarchies and inequities in our global-decision making process.


it won't.
it will only counter-balance it if we spread it non-equal. so imc's from
regions where technical resources are expensive (let's say africa, or the
global-south, ...) & where fundraising is harder get a bigger part of the
total.


> So anyway, I apologize for putting this 'out there' so late in the
> process.  I hope that people on this list have seriously examined for
> themselves the purpose they want the global network to serve, whether they
> feel comfortable with systems that mirror centralized governing bodies,
> etc.  Most governments tend to keep the resources from the people, and
> then decide how to use those resources with some input from the people.
> Wouldn't it be a radical step in the right direction to distribute the
> resources directly to the people BEFORE asking the people how they want
> their resources used?

did you study how the global lists work ? I just get the impression you've
seen there's a global group for dealing with money and then you start the
typical rant about decentralisation without much fundated arguments.

to say one thing: this process took around 10/12 months to create it. Most
of the delay came because we searched for ways to get as much local imc's as
possible included.

Greetings from Belgium,

Bart



> Sincerely,
>
> Matthew B. (writing as an individual only)
> St. Louis IMC
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-finance mailing list
> Imc-finance@lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-finance
>