[New-imc] Re: summary of beachcites discussion

Sat Sep 6 10:48:07 PDT 2003

We may not be in consensus on how to deal with it, but perth has got that
baby blocked until they prove they are legit, or perths
block loses consensus internally.

:)

So no need to stress. Problem solved :)

Shayne.

* Since
------------------------------------
"Must not Sleep! Must warn others!"
-Aesop.
Shayne O'Neill. Indymedia. Fun.
http://www.perthimc.asn.au

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, .:.:cburn:.:. wrote:

>
> fyi, we have definitely determined that this is the work of a right wing
> group working under the name kobehq.com. that IP and the
> beachcitiesimc.org are the same.
>
> c.
>
>
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Sheri Herndon wrote:
>
> > hi chris,
> >
> > ***summary***
> >
> > - summary of thread about beachcities
> > - next steps and simple proposal
> >
> > yes we have been discussing this on new imc and imc process lists.  perhaps the thread needs to make its way to docs wiki so that we can make use of the discussion to establish some kind of precedent and response to future sites like this.  basically, they are not an imc; they are not in the new imc process; they are violating imc principles of unity, particularly #10 and criteria J.
> >
> > in terms of a proper response, we are not in consensus about how to deal with this situation as is clear from the thread and spectrum of viewpoints.
> >
> > do we should make some kind of more formal statement about sites like this so there is no confusion of people out in the larger community (including our own).  some people think we should do nothing, some people feel we should have stronger mission statements, some people feel we need some kind of process for this, some people say touche to the "opposition's" use of indymedia tools and name, some suggest we delete links to them so they don't get higher ratings on google, etc.
> >
> > you have contacted their "chief editor"?  keep us posted.  i'm curious about what kind of response you might get.  i think making some kind of initial contact with these people who claim to be (1) hacked (2) in the new imc process and (3) that they are an imc is at least a tangible first step.  not doing anything doesn't seem like a very proactive way of dealing with this situation.
> >
> > SUMMARY of this discussion that  has been on both new imc and process:
> >
> > the initial thread was started by ana's post:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-nyc-editorial/20001031/000235.html
> > which pointed out that there was a fake right wing website claiming to be indymedia.
> >
> > blicero followed up commenting that their support of arnold schwartzenegger was not going to get them easily through the new imc process.
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2003-August/005079.html
> >
> > xare's post pointing out their list of topics that give a clear indication of their politics (libertarian/right wing):
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004308.html
> >
> > **dave's post congratulating the opposition:  http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004309.html
> >
> > clara's post followed with a request for how to handle this "beachcitiesimc" and what kind of procedure do we follow:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2003-August/005083.html
> >
> > pseudopunk's response that we don't have a process and are there any good ideas for such a process:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2003-August/005088.html
> >
> > blicero's response that why should we care about their site:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004320.html
> >
> > bill's post about "nothing to prevent a right-wing imc and points out two "process problems" within our current new imc process - (1) strict consensus and (2) lack of lefty political litmus test - and suggests that we require new imcs to adopt a mission statement similar to imc seattle's: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004312.html
> >
> > xare's comments that they don't follow principle of unity #10 and therefore we have a strong recommendation to not include them in the network  or criteria j about supporting political candidates.  we should find out if this is a hoax or they really are wanting to be an imc.  xare suggests that imc la is in a good position to contact this group since they are in the region.  maybe we add this to a list of "indymedia anecdotes":
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004313.html
> >
> > shayne's email about recommendation that perth imc will block this application:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004315.html
> >
> > mike's response that their website says they have been hacked and to give them the benefit of the doubt before blocking....
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004317.html
> >
> > blicero's response to bill's email saying it's clear that beachcities will never pass through the new imc process and that seattle imc mission statement is good but no need to have all imcs use it:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004321.html
> >
> > alan's email states: The whois record for "beachcitiesimc dot org" lists a contact address (101 Palos Verdes Drive East) that google finds in various places associated with kobehq.com, an extreme right wing website.  This indicates to me that there will be no serious attempt to join the network but instead is an attempt
> > to discredit and disrupt Indymedia by associating extreme right wing views with it to the casual web surfer." and "I suggest all sites (LA, NYC, this mailing list archive) remove links to that domain as that is how google's search ranking works.  We may also consider having any referrer traffic from that domain include a disclaimer that "Beach Cities IMC" is not associated with our network.  I suppose it would be at this point that hierarchical organizations would file a trademark infringement lawsuit."
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004323.html
> >
> > several more emails about whether or not to block....
> >
> > another response that since they are not in the new imc process, there isn't a need to block.
> >
> >
> > some next steps:
> >
> > - they are in clear violation of principles of unity and therefore will not be admitted into the imc network.
> >
> > - we lack a policy for how to deal with sites like this that claim to be an imc but are clearly not.
> >
> > - what kind of steps do people feel we should take to be proactive?  alan's email makes some very tangible suggestions that go proactively beyond "we don't have to do anything and this is a waste of energy".  there have been some recommendations, even from "our ally attorneys" electronic frontier foundation, that we consider having a way of holding groups like this accountable with a copyright infringement.....something we'd only use in cases like this.  when this has come up in the past and it has been mentioned, some people say it is impossible that indymedia ever consider something like that.  perhaps there are pros and cons worth discussing.
> >
> > - what about establishing a simple policy and contacting the group and making a public statement somewhere - like on new imc page or ???  that states simply:  "these sites are not recognized by the indymedia network because they are in violation of our principles of unity .....etc."
> >
> > ciao
> > sheri
> > seattle imc
> >
> > >hey,
> > >
> > >This is Chris Burnett from LA IMC. There is a new IMC claiming to be
> > >part of
> > >indymedia called www.beachcitiesimc.org. I am wondering what their
> > >status is
> > >in terms of joining the network. Some of the information on their site
> > >is
> > >seems very much not in the spirit of an IMC. We are concerned about a
> > >possible
> > >relationship to a right wing libertarian group in the area. (This is
> > >unconfirmed). Any information you have to offer would be helpful. I am
> > >waiting
> > >for a response from their "Chief Editor" as well.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Chris
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >imc-process mailing list
> > >imc-process at lists.indymedia.org
> > >http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process
> > >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>