Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-europe - Re: [Cc-europe] draft letter to the CC Board on communication and governance

cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-europe mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>
  • To: cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-europe] draft letter to the CC Board on communication and governance
  • Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:17:26 +0200

Dear all,

so alek and i were sitting down to have a look at the draft letter again this morning and realized that this is probably not the way to move forward. (first of all nobody had even undertaken the effort to upload it to the jotitt space!). most of you will have seen mike's pre- announcement of the new CC0 beta on the cci list this morning and in this light i think it does not make sense to start the letter by pointing out that there are no pre announcements. given this that the letter needs to be completely re-written.

it would probably make sense to start with the issues of governance raised in the discussion on this list and then touch on communication at the end. we might make a couple of suggestions (international advisory board, clear communication guidelines, transparency regarding projects in the pipeline, pointing out that we do not think that post porting work of the international projects should be represented via icommons, etc...) and then suggest some kind of venue where there could be a discussion about the issues raised in the letter. how to formulate this might require some thinking as we do not think that such a discussion can be held on a list (or even worse a wiki) so it might mean that we ask for some kind of physical meeting (connected to the isummit or not).

in any case we should get this letter done before friday the 25th otherwise we might just forget about it. if people think we should move along these lines please do let us know and we will come up with a new draft before friday the 18th.

all the best from Amsterdam,
Alek and Paul



On 6 Apr 2008, at 15:38, Paul Keller wrote:
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

_______________________________________________
Cc-europe mailing list
Cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page