From the general meeting on 26/9/04

Melbourne Proposal We read the proposal and responded point by point. Generally speaking we found that the proposals became progressively less agreeable/acceptable as considered in the order presented. We agreed to put this response on the wiki for Kent to check and confirm before liaising with Oceania.

1.Brisbane IMC immediately receive admin passwords to site. This is to happen asap, before the 24th if possible.

It would appear that there is no longer consensus within Oceania to retain our passwords, and so Oceania should not require a consensus decision to return them. Obviously we want our passwords back, but it appears that this is offered as part of a package deal which includes another four proposals which we do not agree with. If Oceania is not prepared to offer to give our passwords back without condition but only as part of a package deal, we feel we could continue to have our time wasted over and over again, considering one proposal after another, none of which address the legitimacy of Oceania's right to posess the passwords in the first place.

2.imc-oceania recommend that BIMC move off CAT server as specified by CAT and onto a new server.

BIMC would love to move off the CAT server and onto our own server, but not necessarily according to the terms specified by CAT. CAT (Andy) has specified that the BIMC site archive and software should go to all interested BIMC parties. We do not agree that our site contents and software package ought to be sent to non-bimc members, presumably to helping them to challenge BIMC's legitimacy, thus further entrenching divisions. CAT manages the indymedia.org.au DNS and has already indicated that it may refuse to serve BIMC that address. We have reason to suspect that they might want to set up a competing BIMC at brisbane.indymedia.org.au. BIMC has been planning to move off the CAT server for over 6 months now. We have been delayed by the time wasted dealing with Oceania, time that we would much rather be investing in BIMC's media projects. Nonetheless we budgeted funds for the move a month ago. The MIMC wording makes it look like Oceania is agreeing with a CAT eviction notice. This clause is redundant and offensive.

3.BIMC be disaffiliated from the oceania network until trust can be reestablished but that a new more amicable liaison remain in contact.

BIMC does not consider itself to be a member of the Oceania regional decision making forum, only the RSS features syndication site. This proposal is worded as an eviction, when we never joined. No detailed reason is given for why ocenia might want to dissafiliate us, or in what way we have broken trust with Oceania. There is also no interest indicated within this point of Oceania attempting to regain bimc's trust. The word 'trust' should have been reworded to 'mutual trust'.

_4.That a proposal be put to imc-process that BIMC be put on a three month trial period._

Again, no reason is given. Also, the terms and procedures of any such trial are not stated. A proper trial of another group should include clear detailed charges, standards of proof, and all this on a public record.

5. That a proposal be put to imc-process that BIMC go through new-imc process to prove it's commitment to the PoU^? and it's endorsement by the activist community in Brisbane.

We object to being singled out as a group in breach of the POU. If this was even handed the other parties to the dispute would also have their membership reviewed. In particular, we fail to understand why Oceania as a group should not have to do the same, or how it came to be in the position it is of having jurisdiction over us when it is technically not even an imc. We object to the new IMC process being used as a trial. As of this meeting we have again reafirmed the new IMC criteria and POU. We discussed the posibility of reaffirming the groups commitment to the new IMC criteria and POU on a regular basis at a widely advertised public meeting.

We believe MIMC is being unreasonable in its dealings with us by threatening to pursue disaffiliation (without the support of other Oceania groups) rather than propose mediation with us. They have not responded to our process list censure motions of Oceania and CAT.

-- KimCi - 28 Sep 2004
to top