[New-imc] Liason Model (was BLOCK: IMC-Rogue)

[Arc]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 01:49:09AM -0400, Sarsnic at aol.com wrote:
> It seems like we don't have the clearest guidelines in place yet for
> who can block and who can declare a block set-aside.  However, the
> seven day period for blocks on process seems pretty clear to me.  I
> understand there may be many valid reasons why Ithaca didn't block in
> that period, and I understand they have important concerns they are
> raising by blocking, but they missed the deadline by ten days.
> Perhaps if they phrased it as a second to Andy Rice's block...?  I
> don't know how to proceed.  Sorry, I am real new to the new-imc
> workgroup and am in the middle of all kinds of conflicting stuff.

Blocks were made during this time, many of them the same reason for our
block.  I feel that Andy, and others, have been pressured into backing
down due to the threat of their blocks being ignored.  Their blocks were
very sound, this IMC clearly does not meet the criteria of a new IMC.

I believe this is the first time any IMC has made a block, and it was
quite time consuming.  We have weekly meetings, but many IMCs have
bi-weekly or even monthly meetings.  Furthermore, even for weekly
meetings, it takes time to research issues and discuss it before
consensus can be reached on an issue.

I think before any "liason-only" system can be put in place that a clear
system needs to be put in place that includes a period of time which all
IMCs are asked to have a liason go through some sort of training, which
could consist of just reading over a few online documents, to become
familiar with process etc.  It cannot simply be brought into being when
something is blocked as a way to ignore that block.

I'm going to propose the following system as a starting point, this isnt
a formal proposal, I'm not asking for people to express an opinion on it
or approve it etc, just a starting point for discussion:

1) A date is set for the new system to go into place, during which time
individuals can still block as the liason process isn't in place yet.
This can be as little as a month, as much as three months, from when
it's consensed on to begin operating by a liason-only model.

2) Clear documentation be posted on a public website for the liason
model, how to join the list, how to make proposals, how to process
proposals locally, etc.

3) Once the system is in place, liasons bring global proposals to the
local IMC meetings.  Any member of any IMC can ask for up to 4
additional weeks to research an issue, during which time it's marked "in
discussion".  Discussion of the issue is expected to continue during
this time.

4) A local IMC, during this time, can come to consensus to block a
proposal.  This must be through true consensus, even if the local IMC is
operating against the principals of unity  (ie, NYC-IMC), any member of
that IMC can block the IMC's block, thus preventing any single IMC from
adopting a non-consensus process to negetivly effect the NIMC.

5) If any member of an IMC has concern over an issue, even if consensus
cannot be reached locally to block the issue, that concern must be
forwarded to the list in question either through the liason or through
the list moderator (who approves posts by non-members of list).  IMCs
which cannot reach consensus to either block or approve an item are
considered to "stand aside", if too many IMCs (set number, percent, etc)
stand aside the issue has not reached consensus and is thus not
approved, without anyone having to block.

I think the above system is pretty standard for a spokes-council, which
I view the liason model for being very similar to.  I believe this is
where we need to go, not because of the blocks that are being made, but
because too few people are currently involved in global IMC processes
and many groups effected by these decidions are not being included in
these discussions.  We, thus, do not operate in the "direct democratic"
system we are suppost to be striving for.. but, at the same time, we
can't just change the rules when it suites us to either.  We need to do
these things formally, transparently, and with enough time for the
system to be setup and everyone brought onboard for it to actually work.

-- 

Fascism (noun) A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of
the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business
leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. 
 (From the American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use GNU Privacy Guard to protect your email, see [http://www.gnupg.org/]

The attachement to this and every email I send is my GPG signature which
is used to verify that I am the sender and it is unmodified by any third
party.  You need GNU Privacy Guard installed to verify my GPG signature.

This was important even before our government's war on civil liberties,
but with the USA PAT RIOT Act signed into law it's especially important
to secure our right to communicate freely without federal surveillance.

If you have GNU Privacy Guard, please use it to encrypt and sign any and
all mail you send me.  I can help you in setting up and using encryption
to protect your email as well as host workshops for teaching your group.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/attachments/20030415/1c87d352/attachment.pgp