[New-imc] san francisco

[Mike R]

Hi Bht,

Rereading the 2 letters, the SF people were not so much trying
retrieve personal items as much as they were taking inventory of items
belonging to the SF collective.  indybay needs to give SF access to do
this.  Assuming from the level of animus in these emails, indybay
seems to have concerns about allowing access.  With that in mind I
propose amending to bht's proposal that an indybay member and a
neutral observer be present during the inventory, and that SF can
remove the items that are agreed to be theirs.  Anyone have a good
proposal for deciding ownership of items with disputed ownership?  Was
there any resolution in the mediation about who retained what physical
property?  The resolution at
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-November/004642.html
doesn't mention any property dispute other than ownership of the
domain.

SF's accusation about the press credentials is serious. If indybay is
encouraging the police to reject the legitimacy of SF's credentials,
that can seriously endanger them at any press event and hurt in
general the concept of open media access.  I propose that the
credential issue be expediently resolved.

The mediation was done in good faith & both sides need to act in good
faith, not trying to discredit, abuse, or defame either group, whether
on IMC lists or in public.

These proposals, as bht stated, are only requests of the New-IMC
working group.  The blurb and ownership are key issues for indybay to
thrive.

Furthermore, while we all may have opinions on Indybay's proposed
remedies for non-compliance by SF, New-IMC is not the arbiter of
financial arrangements.  I agree with Libby that our working group
should have the power to dispute applications made in bad faith, but
we may need some support of the IMC-Process to work through this
unusual situation.



Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 12:58:36 AM, Bht said:

B> Oh my goodness.  Reading through these last two emails is hard work.

B> It appears that the SFBAY people have stated exactly what the SF people
B> have neglected in their agreement.  All that the SF people have done is
B> insinuate that things happened.  They also threatened to expose private
B> emails and such to back up their claims of threats and what not.

B> Looking at this on the computer, the SFBAY people are looking for the
B> terms of their agreement to be upheld.  Which includes:
B> 1.  turning over ownership of indybay.org
B> 2.  SF posting the blurb about the "expansion"

B> The SF people havent, that I have read, asked for anything except access
B> to the physical space to retrieve personal items.

B> Disregarding the personal sentiment in the emails, and addressing the
B> agreement and what it states, it seems clear(er) that the SF people are
B> delinquent on the agreement.

B> I dont know what "power" we have, but I would rather not see a flame war
B> going on various global lists about a US IMC.  Being that, I propose:

B> New-IMC requests that both collectives up hold the terms of the agreement.
B> SF IMC will:  hand over the dns indybay.org, and post the blurb.
B> SFBAY IMC will:  allow removal of personal items from the physical space.

B> Or something like that, short and to the point.  The personal issues are
B> not something that can be dealt with over email.  I kind of feel that this
B> will be overlooked and everything, because we havent even gotten into to
B> the second round of bickering about this.  Perhaps we wont need too.
B> bht
B> _______________________________________________
B> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
B> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
B> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc



-- 
Mike
mailto:micro.zen at verizon.net