Cc-europe mailing list

[John Hendrik Weitzmann <jhweitzmann AT mx.uni-saarland.de>]

Hi Paul,

good ideas. If you draft something regarding the advisory board
discussed earlier, I'm fine with it not having special rights but it
should be a little more than just 5 people I think.

all the best from B.
John


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