[New-imc] Re: membership/affiliates/allies: Independent Newssite in Goa (India)

[boud]

hi blue, everyone,

On Thu, 26 Dec 2002, blue.pi wrote:


> > So, concretely, what does everyone think of the above suggestion (see
> > top of this message) for an addition to the newimc basic info? i'm
> > sure there are other changes which could be made to the page, but
> > IMHO blue pi's point is different to that of maffew, since blue pi
> > agrees that process is important. It seems to me that adding some
> > useful pointers on organising f2f meetings should respond to blue pi's
> > experience in Bierut. 
> > 
> > From what you've said about activists in Beirut, maybe an Arabic
> > translation/summary/extract of: 
> > 
> > http://www.geocities.com/collectivebook/index.html
> > http://consensus.net/ocaccontents.html 
> > 
> > would be useful. i'm hoping to get a Polish translation done... 
> > 
> 
> Is that a proposal? 

Yes. i've made a TWiki page:

http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewImcPageImprovements

for this and my translations link proposal.

> Before I bring in my suggestions, I would like to 
> discuss the whole topic with the group in Beirut. However, that may take 
> some weeks as we are still in the middle of the process and maybe we should 
> finish it first and then ask people what they didn’t like about it. 
> 
> The other thing I would like to talk about is what happens if people can't 
> hold f2f meetings (e.g. in dictatorships). 

This is actually an excellent point. While i'm sure you agree there is 
a spectrum of danger between "democracies" and "dictatorships", i think
that everyone would agree that there are some places where meeting f2f is
much more dangerous than others.  

When i got involved in IMC, there was generally the feeling that
expatriate IMCs were not what IMC is all about - maybe in countries
where you're likely to get arrested (or worse), it may be better to
open an open publishing website, but without claiming it's really
openly organised, grassroots media, and accepting the risk that the
website and the media collective is dominated by elites safe in
"democratic" countries.

However, now there are more and more IMCs in places where the risk of
arrest (or worse) is high, and at least one IMC has openly stated that
f2f meetings were not possible *and* requested official recognition
anyway - IMC Ambazonia. Noone objected to this, so in some sense that
seems to me an implicit recognition that the f2f meeting question 
needs to be rediscussed.

Over time, we can of course hope that the existence of an IMC will
lead to a reduction in the security risks, but this won't happen
without going through big social changes.

My feeling is that this is a big discussion, and beyond just the
scope of the new-imc working group. And it requires various elements.

i've put the following on the TWiki, please rewrite it, improve it,
though maybe longer discussions should be on the list, and just
the key ideas (ideas, counterarguments) done on the TWiki.

---++ theoretical 
   * What is reasonable to request of IMCs which say they are 
not yet ready for f2f meetings because of the physical danger?
      * require open f2f meetings in "safe" countries, if there is an 
expatriate support group?
      * require at least one openly archived mailing list (there may
also be a more closed one)?
      * require some sort of "transition" plan of how local meetings
with grassroots groups could eventually be organised, or how there
could be a shift from "slightly open" local meetings to gradually
more and more open ones?
      * require some sort of sketch of how this IMC will really be used
(production+consumption) by grassroots activists and not just the
elite?
      * Is having f2f contact with existing IMC collectives in "safe"
countries a sufficient condition to judge that the expat+local
collective in the "dangerous" country will genuinely be as open as
is reasonable and include a diverse range of local grassroots groups?

   * Requiring *all* of the above is of course too much, i'm just
trying to give what seem to be the most useful ideas.

   * Can we accept that IMCs in "dangerous" places are going to start
off being dominated by elites and that only in the long term will they
become accessible to grassroots groups?

   * Is there a danger of having creating two classes of IMCs? 
Not all "South" regions are that dangerous, and not all "North" 
regions are that safe.

   * Is there a danger of being involved in supporting armed 
opposition groups and thereby getting labelled as an international
terrorist organisation? If we drop the open f2f meeting requirement,
then we become more vulnerable to the "terrorist" claim by governments.

---++ empirical
   * What is the experience of existing IMCs or IMC-like groups
about the practicality of any or all of the above? Are there other
ideas?


---++ useful info on the newimc page
   * links to anonymiser service HOWTOs, but warning that the anonymity
is only relative, not absolute

---++ tech support

   * develop some sort of indymedia reader people support + "hotline"
software which can be used at a local meeting so that if the
authorities attack a meeting, it will instantly get live indymedia
coverage and an immediate avalanche of letters/faxes/embassy
protests/whatever... - this requires the software, local hardware,
local knowledge of how to use these, and a global group of people
committed to react quickly (maybe a hotline email list,
e.g. imc-dangerouscityname-i-promise-rapid-support at
lists.indymedia.org , something like Amnesty International Urgent
Actions, only much more targetted?)


---++ bootstrap problems in discussing the issue

   * The grassroots people in the "dangerous" places can't actually
have f2f meetings to tell us what they think about all of this.

   * The existing IMCs in "dangerous" places 
      * generally have higher priorities than process discussions such
as these
      * their members risk being accused of playing on "white man's
(sic) guilt complex".
      * many of them have expensive/slow internet access, so it's 
difficult for them to participate in the discussion.

   * These are intrinsic problems making it difficult for the people
most affected by process decisions to partake in those decisions.

i've put all this at:

http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/FaceToFaceInDangerousPlaces


i'm not really sure of how to get around the bootstrap problems, how
to get the people most affected by the decision to take most part
in making it.

But the minimum thing we can do is avoid going around and around in
circles on the same issue, and at least try to clarify what the arguments
and possibilities are...

Maybe someone on imc-communication could ask for people from IMCs
(official or requested - IMC Zimbabwe counts as requested) who are
most concerned to say they would like to be involved in the
discussion, and then maybe there should be an interval, e.g. two weeks
or a month, during which *only* people from the IMCs on that list
organise the discussion amongst themselves, but on an openly archived
list, and everyone else waits to give their comments until this period is
over? Unless we have some sort of hard constraint, it would be difficult
for others to resist the temptation to make comments, IMHO...

Anyway, thanks for making the point, blue pi, it got me to finally 
write up something which has been hanging around for ages...

solidarity
boud