(Autoposted from July 1-7, 2007)

Special notice for media: Please read this FAQ before filing inaccurate stories
about a "group" and its "members" assembling for the annual North American
rainbow gathering. So far, in the absence of a permit and a group of
self-appointed leaders who have attempted to control previous gatherings on
behalf of the Forest Service, this year's gathering appears to be a free
assembly in the tradition of the rainbow gatherings. Please do not misrepresent
it by repeating claims to the contrary, typically made by Forest Service media
personnel.

------------

This FAQ is my attempt to document matters of broad consensus about the
"permitted" gatherings, and to that end I have invited all readers to
contribute. All contributions and discussions about its content took place
online and are now in a.g.r. archives. Other FAQs on the internet have
addressed the consensus-based, free assemblies called rainbow gatherings, and
this is not an attempt to replace or duplicate them.

This year's FAQ was delayed due to the volatile situation developing around the
2007 gathering, after the Forest Service dropped their insistance on a permit.
Many of the core issues of the permit issue remain because they are still
insisting on representatives and binding agreements. After watching the
unfolding events for a while, I have decided not to try to keep up with these
events in this FAQ, but focus instead on the history of the "permitted" gatherings.

The views expressed in this FAQ are those of the contributors alone, and should
not be attributed to any organization or group.

-------------------------

2007 "Rainbow Family Gathering" FAQ

Q. What is the "Rainbow Family Gathering?"

A. It started as a rainbow gathering, but it's debatable whether it remains
one, because it lacks key elements of a free assembly. It has instead become,
in effect, a US Forest Service-sponsored event. Differences from its
predecessor include:

- It's a national, rather than an international gathering, since it is
sponsored, planned and managed by the US Forest Service;

- It's a private event, which is ironic considering the sponsorship by a
public agency;

- It has managers and representatives empowered by the permit, who use a closed
and mostly secret process to select sites, to help make the rules and manage the
gathering;

-There is no meaningful consensus process;

-The Forest Service uses the rubric of the permit scheme to mask their selection
of proxy managers and gathering sites. It also publicizes the events on its
official web sites, and closely supervises them. Using a heavy law-enforcement
presence, it enforces the permit contract's attached terms and conditions, which
are secretly negotiated with their hand-chosen proxy gathering managers prior to
the event.

In contrast, "traditional" rainbow gathering has no leaders or rules, is
inclusive and is based on the consensus of the participants. It is not
just an event, but an activity encompassing far more than the assembly
itself, e.g. planning, "scouting," pilgrimage, altruism, etc. These and other
key characteristics of rainbow gathering are either absent from the permit
events, or are compromised by the permit.

--

Q. What is the significance of the name change from "rainbow gathering" to
"Rainbow Family Gathering?"

A. Government spin. The name "Rainbow Family Gathering" probably first
appeared in court documents in the late 1980s during the first series of legal
battles against the NFS permit regulations. This name seems to stress the
government's claim that the gathering is a function of an organization with
representatives, namely the "Rainbow Family." In all subsequent media and legal
references, including their websites, that name was used exclusively by the
Forest Service. This meaning of "Rainbow Family" is contrary to its usage by
participants, who use it to refer to any inclusive assembly (i.e. a group
containing "anyone with a belly button").

--

Q: What is the NRMT?

A: The NRMT (National Rainbow Management Team) is a group that was named and
selected by US law enforcement agencies to sponsor and manage "Rainbow Family
Gatherings" on the agency's behalf. Its main purpose is to facilitate
compliance with the permit regulations. The term probably originated in the
Forest Service's NIMT (National Incident Management Team, not to be confused
with NRMT) and first used in their intra-agency communications.

Currently the NRMT represents the "Rainbow Family" in the eyes of the government
and media, reinforcing the government's claim that their "Rainbow Family" is a
sponsoring organization distinct from the general public, with the NRMT members
acting as their official leaders and representatives. To gathering participants,
however, the NRMT deny that they are an organization, or that they act in a
representative capacity.

NRMT members instead claim to be acting on individual initiative for the good of
the assembly when negotiating or signing permits. They also deny that their
signatures have any legal or representative effect. In spite of these denials,
the permits subject all participants to the regulations, to various liabilities
and to any terms and conditions attached to the permit contract. In addition,
the NRMT assumes the role of official representatives of the "Rainbow Family" in
the eyes of the media and government.

--

Q: What is the significance of the NRMT's July 1, 2006 media announcement that
it's time for the "Rainbow Family" to "demand rights as a religious organization."

A: As the NRMT's control of the gathering increased, dissention also increased
among participants. Last summer, unlike the previous year, participants refused
to move the gathering location in order to secure a permit. This led to a
permit-free gathering and to confrontations with law enforcement. Such
dissention, and the occasional failure to secure a permit, created the need for
a new NRMT/Forest Service strategy.

The media announcemnt may be the NRMT's attempt to create an official "Rainbow
Family" religious organization, satisfying the permit regulations while muting
criticism by using a nominal consensus process for selecting representatives and
making official statements. Religious groups like the Quakers and Unitarians
use a smiliar approach, but it's nevertheless incompatible with any type
consensus process used in free assembly, where no single group may bind the
unaffiliated participants. Binding consensus is not a feature of the consensus
process typically used by rainbow gatherings.

--

Q: There were various rumors about site problems resulting in the rejection of
the 2006 permit application, including a prior logging contract. Why would the
gatherers not have been aware of the problems beforehand?

A: Any individual who asks for site selection advice from the Forest Service may
be targeted for prosecution in the event that no permit is applied for or
granted. In addition, facts may be withheld from those who inquire, in effect
laying a trap by giving the Forest Service a pretext for refusing a permit.
This is what may have happened prior to the 2001 Idaho rainbow gathering.

Their motive may be to pressure participants into negotiating site selection
far in advance of gatherings, which is also one of their publicly stated goals.
This would strengthen their hand in gathering management, eliminate the risk
of rejected permit applications, reduce enforcement costs and cement the role of
the NRMT as gathering managers.

--

Q: Why is the reason for the 2006 permit rejection still publicly unknown?

A: The NRMT is secretive, and the permit negotiations are regarded as
confidential by the Forest Service, although there are questions even among top
Forest Service personnel as to whether such details are available via the
Freedom of Information Act. Those who inquire about permit rejections may be at
similar risk as those who seek site selection advice.

--

Q: Since last year's gathering did not have a permit, does that mean it
was a rainbow rathering (i.e. a consensus-based free assembly), rather than a
"Rainbow Family Gathering?"

A: The optimistic interpretation seems to be contradicted by the NRMT's media
announcement about the formation of a religious group, allegedly eminating from
a "consensus council." For years the NRMT has worked diligently with the Forest
Service to co-opt gatherings, even when no permit is issued. Often under threat
of prosecution, they use various tactics to compel gatherers to accept external
control of the gathering.

In the past, such tactics have been very successful in undermining the consensus
process. The effects of recent permitted gatherings, combined with the rapid
turnover of participants, make it uncertain that the consensus process and other
gathering traditions will recover. The lack of a permit last year appears to be
only a temporary setback for the NRMT, and recent events suggest that the NRMT
is making every effort to recover from last year's fiasco and reassert their
control over the gathering.

--

Q. What about the argument that since the regs have been declared to be
constitutional by several appeals court decisions, we just have to live
with permits now?

A. Few of the permit cases effectively addressed the constitutional
issues, and none systematically. There is, however, a recent appeal which
appears to cover the basic constitutional issues raised by the Group
Use scheme:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gathering.rainbow/msg/f7fe12eae13f720f?dmode=source&hl=en (Who's computer is this?)

The current status of this case is unknown to the author.

The two challenges which directly focussed on the constitutional issues were
successful, and forced rewrites of the regulations. In both cases the rewrites
addressed only technicalities, not fundamental constitutional issues.

Morover, if participants have a valid moral cause they are obligated to pursue
it regardless of how the courts rule. Consider the long standing, but
ultimately successful, legal challenges by the Quakers or the Abolitionists.

--

Q. Why don't people just stay away or go where permits are not required? Does
this mean that the leaderless ethos was bunk from the start?

A. There remain alternative rainbow gatherings around the world, and regional
rainbow gatherings in North America.

--

Q. This may explain the problems with the permit gathering, but what are
the answers?

A. If participants know the facts, then they will stand a better chance of
making decisions that work in favor of their expressive rights. In 2005
participants had a choice between a consensus-chosen site, and a site selected
by the Forest Service. By moving the gathering site, they not only repudiated
the consensus process, but also acknowledged the "treaty chiefs" collaborating
with the Forest Service. In contrast, in 2006 gatherers refused to move from
the site and engaged in peaceful protest against the permit. People are
gradually becoming aware of the stakes, and many are deciding to stand up for
their First Amendment rights.