[IMC-US] *PENDING* Proposal for US-IMC -- Version 2.0 [DECISION DEADLINE July 1, 2003]

[Ana]

thanks so much to max and sascha and all of you who gave such great 
feedback. I have a couple more things to add. These are minor 
suggestions.
-- typo in the first sentence: forth = fourth
-- I think wherever possible in the proposal we should call this a US 
IMC *website* as opposed to a US IMC entity. I think this alleviates 
some of the nation-state concerns. 

-- A US-IMC would be the appropriate place
> for these types of articles (e.g., important stories regarding US 
> politics
> and domestic issues).

here I think we could be more specific in giving examples of types of 
nationally significant stories that a US IMC website would help us draw 
attention to. i.e. attacks on civil liberties, INS detentions, 
egregious legislation, media consolidation, poverty, race and class 
issues, the 2004 elections, etc.

> The suggested format for the US site is a syndicated newswire of US-
> features, much like the global site syndicates features from IMCs 
> around
> the world.  The features column could include stories published by US
> IMCs, articles with information compiled from various US IMCs, and
> original pieces written exclusively for the US-IMC.

To this I would add that the US IMC site could also feature work by 
other alternative media sources (non-IMC specific). There is a lot of 
good content the site could draw from where no IMC work exists. For 
example, Corpwatch has many great original research articles on 
corporate fraud, environmental destruction, etc but they never get 
highlighted anywhere else and I dont think that site gets anywhere near 
as much daily traffic as global IMC. In other words, we should work in 
closer solidarity with groups that are creating their own media and 
highlight their work.

I would also like to suggest that we make a stronger case in this 
proposal for not having an open-publishing newswire. Our newswire 
should highlight features from local IMC sites and keep individual 
posts on local sites. Not only does this make the US IMC site more 
focused in terms of purpose and function it also addresses the concern 
that a US IMC website would take away from local sites.

Regarding the note on the name, i would make it clearer that we came to 
agreement that us.indymedia.org, despite its shortcomings, would be the 
most effective name. As it reads now, it sounds like the concerns were 
somewhat overlooked and a majority opinion won.

For the tech working group description, I think it would be helpful to 
add that people without tech expertise could be part of that group in 
terms of helping to decide what features we want out of which code.

Could we add in here too that we are hoping this will be a bilingual 
English/Spanish site?

Lastly, I would like to more directly address Chris Strohm's concern 
about the presentation of this as a project that IMC's can opt into 
right at the top. I think making that a stronger point in the first 
paragraph would be great. here is a rough idea of how that could sound: 
Please change this language as you see fit.


>
> ***********************
> *** US-IMC PROPOSAL ***


> Discussion for a US based Indymedia website has happened on and off 
> for many months. But recently at the NorthEast IMC regional conference 
> and at the Allied Media Conference in Ohio, this project received 
> unprecendented focus. Participants from about 20 IMCs expressed 
> interest in seeing Indymedia articles of national significance 
> highlighted on a us-based news website. They have committed to seeing 
> this project through and have composed this proposal for review. An 
> outreach working group was formed to invite local IMC's to 
> participate. If your IMC is interested in being involved, please 
> contact XXXX.
> ***********************
>
> WHY A US-IMC?

> The Indymedia network, now approaching its fourth anniversary, started 
> in
> the United States and is expanding exponentially outwards.  IMCs exist 
> on all continents and
> utilize many languages; however, while many country-specific IMCs 
> exist,
> no IMC focuses on issues unique and relevant to the United States as a 
> whole.  Currently, there are 45 IMC's within the US, most of which are 
> producing incredibly important content that often has national 
> significance. Unfortunately, with so many sites to surf, much of that 
> information gets lost and is never seen by a wider national audience.
>

> Below are some of the discussion points discussed at the IMC caucus 
> meeting at the Allied Media conference.




>
>
> A less US-Centric Global Site:  A US-IMC would reduce domination of the
> global indymedia site by US-specific issues.  While it may not be 
> apparent
> to many IMC-istas in the US, US stories have been overrepresented on 
> the
> global Indymedia site. Having a US site would allow the global site to
> have a more balanced and diverse distribution of articles -- helping to
> alleviate the alienation experienced by some non-US viewers.
> Additionally, a US-IMC would help encourage the creation of a
> multi-lingual global site by creating a venue for many English language
> posts that otherwise end up on the global site.
>
> The US-IMC:  Although the content of the global site is 
> disproportionately
> English language and US-centric, because of space limitations, many
> important articles are passed up.  A US-IMC would be the appropriate 
> place
> for these types of articles (e.g., important stories regarding US 
> politics
> and domestic issues).  Furthermore, a US-IMC would strengthen and 
> solidify
> the Indymedia network in the US.  Currently, many US IMCs exist in
> relative isolation from one another -- the only common news 
> dissemination
> point being the global site.  A US-IMC would link these IMCs in a 
> national
> network that could potentially become a "legitimate" and sustainable 
> rival
> to the mainstream corporate media.
>
> A US-IMC is also an effective way to collectivize our struggles and 
> draw
> national and international attention to the strong independent media
> movement in this troubled country.  It will help make each of our local
> IMC's stronger by drawing traffic to our local sites whenever a story 
> of
> national significance happens in an IMC's home town or state. Plus it 
> will
> create a new canvas that we can collaborate on together outside our 
> local
> sites. Who knows what new projects could rise out of this?
>
> The suggested format for the US site is a syndicated newswire of US-
> features, much like the global site syndicates features from IMCs 
> around
> the world.  The features column could include stories published by US
> IMCs, articles with information compiled from various US IMCs, and
> original pieces written exclusively for the US-IMC.
>
> ORGANIZATION -- three core working groups have been discussed:
>
> OUTREACH:  This group would be responsible for contacting and inviting 
> all
> US-IMCs to be involved in the process of creating the US-IMC.
> Additionally, the outreach group would contact other independent media
> organizations (especially those in areas where there are no IMCs) to
> spread the word about the US-IMC.
>
> EDITORIAL:  The editorial group will be responsible for newswire
> maintenance (if an open newswire is part of the site) and feature
> writing/compiling/editing.
>
> TECH: The tech group will be responsible for maintaining the tech 
> aspects
> of the site, from installing a codebase to fixing bugs as well as 
> general
> maintenance.
>
> These groups will be composed of IMC members from across the US.
>
> It should also be noted that specifics of the editorial group are 
> linked to
> what code we decide to use for the site.  For example, the global site 
> uses
> a code that requires email discussion and approval of features, while 
> sites
> that use dadaIMC code vote on features through the website.
>
> Note about the term US-IMC.  Some folks at the meeting at the Allied 
> Media
> Conference expressed concerns with the fact that having a US-IMC
> legitimizes or condones the US as an imperialistic superpower that 
> exists
> because its founders displaced the indigenous peoples that lived here.
> Others recognized this and thought that regardless of our opinions of 
> the
> US, it exists, and we live in it, and by calling it the US-IMC, we are
> taking a step towards reclaiming this country for the people that live 
> in
> it.  Others suggested alternative names, such as
> peopleoftheus.indymedia.org.  Most agreed that us.indymedia.org is 
> better
> than usa.indymedia.org as it sounds less like a chant at a pro-war 
> rally
> and it is also "us" in addition to "U.S."
>
> ***
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-US mailing list
> IMC-US at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>