Cc-europe mailing list

[Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>]

Dear All,
first of all thanks to J.C for drafting this letter. i think it makes  
a very good starting point. regarding the issues raised in vilnius and  
in replies to J.C's draft i think they fall into two issues that do  
not necessarily belong together. the first (and that seems to be the  
one that triggered the letter) is one of communication or rather the  
lack of communication from HQ to the international projects. i think  
we are right to point this out and we should make our point clearly.  
the way Mia handled 3.0 has shown that  it is possible and while John  
W is right to point out that it is generally possible to figure out  
what they are planning by asking questions or listening closely...

On 4 Apr 2008, at 02:40, John Hendrik Weitzmann wrote:

> a pre-discussed "we the people" mail seems a bit like desperate  
> measures
> to me, and I think things are not _that_ bad after all. And the
> possibilities I meant to influence CCHQ are the regular ones, like
> asking the right people there the right questions, writing proposals  
> and
> sending them over mailing lists or channeling requests through the CCi
> office. So far I never got turned down by anyone in S.F. or Berlin.

... i do think that communication from HQ to the international  
projects should be proactive. preferably by means of consultation  
regarding upcoming projects, but in any case we should insist on pre- 
announcements and maybe even en periodic update regarding activities  
and plans. (maybe we can get Joi so far as to write bi-monthly updates  
to the international projects?). Thinking of this, it might be a good  
idea to write the letter to Joi & Jamie Boyle in their capacities as  
CEO and chairman of the board. they are both new in their positions  
and we could take as the starting point of our letter rather than the  
complaint about how CC0 and CC+ where handled. This might be a bit  
more elegant.

Secondly there is the issue inclusion of the international projects  
into the decision making process (again along the lines of what John W  
suggested in his last mail) and what i called ann international legal  
advisory board in Vilnius

On 4 Apr 2008, at 02:40, John Hendrik Weitzmann wrote:

> Instead of complaining about having nothing to decide in S.F. we  
> should
> maybe suggest that CCHQ should - in the light of the progressing
> internationalization of CC as a concept - set up something like an
> international advisory board of commoners, mutually nominated by CCHQ
> and the national CC projects. That IAB could simply be counselling or
> get equipped with certain rights, like ...
> - approving nominees for internationally important positions (General
> Cousel maybe?)
> - approving the CC policies relevant for international projects
> - deciding on what parts of the CC portfolio should get ported
> internationally
> - ...


however contrary to what John W. suggests here i would position the  
board differently. not so much as another layer of aproval required  
for certain actions (i would guess that the cc-board wont be very  
thrilled by the idea of installing such a body) but rather as an  
advisory board that embodies the expertise of CC projects outside of  
the US. i am specifically thinking of legal expertise here and as such  
i would assume such a board should consist of a small number (5?)  
respected scholars from outside of the US and as such complement the  
CC-board when discussing legal issues of international importance (the  
cc-board almost US only). Secondly such a board could also serve as a  
backup body for CCi to give advice in situations where there are  
different approaches among the jurisdiction teams that need to be  
harmonized (think moral rights, neighboring rights or database  
rights). right now we are missing transparent processes to deal with  
such situations.

So in short, i would suggest that we suggest to create an  
international legal advisory board that advises the CC board and CCi.  
Such a board should be small and i would suggest that we make it clear  
that we are not seeking to gain influence on decision making but  
rather want to ensure that the  knowledge persent with the  
international projects is adequately represented when making decisions  
that affect CC on a global level. [another option would be to suggest  
more international representation in the CC-board, but i would prefer  
a separate advisory board of some sorts].

finally i do agree with the remarks that this should coem from as many  
cc project leads as possible (also outside of the EU) and that we  
should suggest to discuss these issues in sapporo.

all the best,
paul

--
Kennisland | Knowledgeland
t: +31 20 5756720 | m: +31 6 41374687
www.kennisland.nl | www.knowledgeland.org