[IMC-US] Re: [New-imc] Re: Proposed New IMC -- IMC-US

[SuZQ]

I wasn't blocking and I wasn't speaking on behalf of Philly.  I don't know
of any discussion of the US IMC idea on the Philly listserves.  I was just
stating my discomfort at being defined as part of a "national" network
rather than a global one.

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, boud wrote:

> hi sascha, susanna, everyone,
>
> #####
> SUMMARY - this is a SUGGESTION, it is NOT a block
> Is it practical for those people and local IMCs strongly motivated
> to syndicate info from USA IMCs into a bunch of 5-10 regional IMCs
> of which several deliberately cross the violence-based borders of the USA,
> fully including Canadian and Mexican IMCs right from the start?
> #####
>
>   i guess one reason for preferring cross-border regions than national
> boundaries is that a national boundary encourages negative, defensive
> reports - defending against the crimes of State - while cross-border
> regions are more likely to come up with positive, constructive
> reports about alternative structures to those of violence-based States
> (where USA is a State).
>
> susanna: i guess part of the question is how much work you are willing
> to do to discuss your profound discomfort with others in Philly IMC
> and to do the communication and organisation work to really construct
> a regional NENA (north-east north america) IMC syndication site.
>
> IMC Philly has (apparently) known about the IMC US proposal for at
> least two months, and if you as an IMC really feel you should block
> the proposal, then the most constructive way to do it would be to
> make a clearly consensed on decision within IMC Philly, and then
> bring it up on imc-process. However, it would be good to show that
> you're also willing to work on a reasonable counter-proposal - such
> as to create regional, cross-US-boundary, syndication sites.
>
> Both of these require time to communicate, consense - but these
> are required, by definition, for creating any sort of collective.
>
> IMHO, the arguments in favour of syndication sites are very strong,
> whether or not they have an additional component of a people
> collective, but the arguments in favour of cross-border regions are
> also very strong. And the two are compatible, IMHO (even in in CE Europe
> we're still a long way from this).
>
> The NENA mailing list exists:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-nena/
>
> hmm. It seems that lee at eds.org has already set up a test syndication site
> for NENA!!! :)))
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-nena/2003-July/000152.html
>
> So maybe in this sense alternatives to US IMC are *already* being tried...
>
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
>
> > > To create a "U.S. IMC" ignores the bonds of affinity that already exist
> > > between IMC activists in Seattle and British Colombia, say, or between
> > > mediactivists in California and in Mexico.  "America" is much bigger than
> > > the U.S., and I wouldn't like to see us confine ourselves to a
> > > self-definition based on borders.
>
> > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 suzq at riseup.net wrote:
>
> > The goal is not to create boundaries, but to build capacity and resources
> > for people accessing Indymedia news.  I don't believe that an IMC-US would
> > detrimentally effect the relationship between Seattle and British Colombia
> > or California and Mexican media activists.
>
>
> So why not:
>
> NENA - north east north america
> NWNA - north west north america   Seattle, British Columbia, ...
> SWNA - south west north america   California, ..., northern Mexico
>
> plus other regions?
>
>
> There's no need for sharp boundaries, especially in syndication, it can't
> hurt if some stories are syndicated "up" to a couple of different neighbouring
> regional sites.
>
> Why not use the US IMC mailing list to help people group into a small
> number of regions which deliberately violate State boundaries?
>
> IMHO this should not be that difficult. If local US IMCs as
> collectives are to really be involved, rather than just people acting
> as individuals, it seems to me that having NENA etc rather than US IMC
> would be more likely to be bottom-up grassroots and involve more
> people.
>
> IMHO, the people asking to create US IMC should at least *attempt* to
> organise and participate in regional, cross-border IMCs such as NENA
> before trying to create US IMC. If the cross-border IMCs fail, then US
> IMC could be a fallback position as a "better-than-nothing" regional
> IMC.  In fact, i think the main argument for a US IMC - for more
> efficient info access - is a "better-than-nothing" argument - NENA IMC
> and so on are not yet developed, so US IMC is better than no regional
> IMCs at all (in that part of the world).
>
> Someone gave the argument that accessing 30-40 IMCs each morning to
> select the most interesting USA articles is simply impractical. But
> accessing 5-10 regional IMCs, especially those closest to where you
> live, should surely be much easier. This would also encourage stronger
> cross-border info flow.
>
> Anyway, i just want to make it clear that *this* message is *not* a
> block of any sort, it's just an analysis by an individual who lives in
> a region which has been organising norther summer anti-border camps
> since summer 2001.
>
> My earlier "block" was in the sense that US IMC is applying as "an IMC"
> to the new-imc working group, and simply has not provided most of the
> info requested in:
> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewImcHowTo
>
> For example, there is no decision-making method. The argument that
> people have many indymedia skills is not the same as actually
> consensing on a general decision-making method and answering the
> principles of unity and membership criteria. And the fact that US IMC
> people didn't seem to autonomously know how to solve a simple
> technical problem (http://newimc.indymedia.org not working) suggests
> that they are not yet well organised as a collective...
>
> As i said above, IMHO a real block could only validly come from a
> decision by a functioning local IMC (not just an individual) in the N
> America region that has worked or is presently actively working on an
> alternative regional syndication site in the region - eg. NENA - and
> which presents this as a constructive counter-proposal.
>
> solidarity
> boud (new-imc and IMC PL volunteer)
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
>
> > Hi Susanna,
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 suzq at riseup.net wrote:
> >
> > > It looks like my response to this didn't go through the first time, so I'm
> > > re-sending it.
> > >
> > > I am _profoundly_ _disturbed_ by the idea of setting up an IMC-US.  The
> > > monstrous organizational tasks involved might be countered by making it a
> > > largely software driven "syndication site," but do we really want the
> > > voice of America on Indymedia to be developed by a computer program,
> > > rather than by human collectives?
> >
> > The proposal clearly states that a collective of people would be involved
> > at every aspect of the editorial process.  The only computer program part
> > of the proposal is to automate the syndication of the newswire to draw
> > stories from participating IMCs.
> >
> > > I understand the need to lower U.S. domination of Indymedia, but the only
> > > way I see an Indy-US as doing this would be to have Indy-US features
> > > replace features from local IMCs within the U.S. on the Indymedia.org
> > > features-syndication newswire, thereby reducing U.S. stories on the global
> > > newswire to about 1/46 of their original frequency.  This sounds like a
> > > good idea, but the question is, which national features would go to the
> > > newswire, and how would they be selected?  And would we have national
> > > liaisons with the global lists, rather than the current system of local
> > > U.S. IMCs having individual liaisons?
> >
> > Features would be produced and selected by the Editorial Working Group of
> > the IMC-US.  The IMC-US wouldn't usurp or replace any existing IMCs -- it
> > would simply be a place for drawing connections between the stories
> > published by the many US-based IMCs, a place to get information from
> > across the United States, and a place where stories and issues that have
> > national impact can be found.  The current system of local IMCs having
> > liaisons to the global lists would in no way be impacted by the IMC-US.
> >
> > > I'm not sure how many local IMCs within the U.S. want to be identified as
> > > part of a "national IMC."  As a member of the Philly IMC, I certainly
> > > would not want to be identified this way.  I've always thought of
> > > indymedia as being internationalist in tone, transcending national
> > > borders, deliberately focusing on the regional and local, grouping itself
> > > based on affinity and on geographic boundaries, rather than state lines.
> > > I fear that an Indy-US would lose its regional autonomy and local focus,
> > > and that efforts to cover "National News" would wind up being dominated by
> > > news from Washington, DC, as news of changing governmental policies are
> > > defined as "national" news.
> >
> > As mentioned in the proposal, each IMC can choose to opt out of the IMC-US
> > syndication system.  No one in the project is interested in changing the
> > current dynamics of local autonomy and focus of individual IMCs.  The goal
> > of the IMC-US is simply to be a venue for highlighting stories from across
> > the US and draw connections between the events and stories that appear on
> > multiple US IMC's websites.
> >
> > > To create a "U.S. IMC" ignores the bonds of affinity that already exist
> > > between IMC activists in Seattle and British Colombia, say, or between
> > > mediactivists in California and in Mexico.  "America" is much bigger than
> > > the U.S., and I wouldn't like to see us confine ourselves to a
> > > self-definition based on borders.
> >
> > The goal is not to create boundaries, but to build capacity and resources
> > for people accessing Indymedia news.  I don't believe that an IMC-US would
> > detrimentally effect the relationship between Seattle and British Colombia
> > or California and Mexican media activists.
> >
> > > I would be much more comfortable attempting closer integration on a U.S. -
> > > regional level, via conferences and IRC chat, as is already being done
> > > among Northeast US IMCs, before attempting integration on a national
> > > scale.
> >
> > This is already being done on an ad-hoc basis throughout the US.  Over the
> > past several years there have been multiple conferences, IRC chats,
> > gatherings, visits, and e-mail lists that are building communication and
> > information-dissemination among Indymedia participants.  An IMC-US has
> > been talked about all during this time and there is currently a critical
> > mass of interested people from across the US who think it's a good idea,
> > are full of energy to create the site, and have the experience and skills
> > to make it a sustainable endeavor.  In many ways, the process of setting
> > up an IMC-US has been going on for years, the IMC-US affinity group feels
> > that it's time to move forward on its implementation.
> >
> > In solidarity,
> >
> > --Sascha Meinrath
> > Urbana-Champaign IMC
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> > New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
> >
>
>