[New-imc] taking back the proposal

[Otto Nomous]

> The high points of debate are 1. police issued presspasses, 2.  dns', 
> 3.
> trust issues, 4.  property theft/with-holding, 5.  publicity.

I'm sure the previous email I sent makes it clear that Point 1 and 
Point 4 are irrelevant.

> Point 5 is becasue apparently a memeber of SFBAY talked to the 
> corporate
> media and because SFBAY brought these local issues to global process.

SFBAY did not talk to the corporate media. A reporter from East Bay 
Express, a local paper, has been trying to talk to both sides yesterday 
and today about doing a story about the split. Once we found out, and 
given the bad history of this particular reporter, the indybay.org 
group discussed and reached consensus today about not saying a single 
word to this reporter, who kept calling everyone he could think of 
being associated with either group. However, before we made that 
decision, a new member of indybay.org (who was not part of the split 
and the mediation process) did talk to the reporter briefly when he 
called her (after getting her number from calling around the community) 
earlier in the morning.

We have brought these local issues to global process precisely because 
the new sf.indymedia.org group has violated the mediation agreement 
from the beginning, as has already been pointed out in previous emails.

> So I tried the
> approach of taking it back to the local level and having a face to face
> meeting re-negotiating their agreement and getting it in proper writing
> and having it signed (apparently their agreement was mostly verbal and 
> the
> version we got was lisa's (SFBAY) interpretation from the meeting 
> notes)
> or something.

The agreement Lisa sent out was typed up the next day using the butcher 
paper from the mediation. Kristen, the mediator could testify that this 
was the actual agreement. I would agree that it was naive to not have 
it be all legalistic and have a written document that got signed at the 
actual mediation itself, but they made the agreement in good faith, not 
expecting the type of behavior eventually displayed by the 
sf.indymedia.org group.

This has been taken to the local level. Agreements were made from face 
to face meetings. The new sf.indymedia.org group has not respected the 
agreements made. That is why we are demanding that Ryan's group should 
be denied control of the sf.indymedia.org domain.

-Jino