Cc-europe mailing list

[Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>]

On 23 Apr 2008, at 11:21, Florian Philapitsch wrote:

> Dear Paul, dear All,
>
> you are probably right, this should be adressed on a seperate  
> occasion, but, as I said, when and where?

thanks for your answer. i do think this is something that does indeed  
need to be adressed on a sperate occassion. first of all because i do  
not think that it makes sense to mix it with the issues that we are  
ting to adress with the letter. it will distract from the issues that  
are raised in the letter. i would really really urge you to keep the  
letter focussed on the realtionship between CC-HQ and the CC  
jurisdiction projects. as far as i see it icommons does not have a  
role in this and so i would hesitate to included this discussion in  
the letter to CC.

the issues related to the isummit are more urgent and are currently  
being discussed (at least between cc and icommons). because of this i  
think it makes sense to seperate them. to be honest i would have  
expected this discussion to begin after the mails regarding summit  
participation send by catharina to the CCi mailing list and i think  
that is the proper place to discuss this issue and adress our concerns  
with the per partcipant fee.

> Since we are already talking about that issue, I'd like to add some  
> (personal and frustrated) thoughts to Henriks rant.
> I have been active in the CC-business for a very long time now, I  
> got in in the midst of the creation of the first CC-licenses for  
> Austria. Since then I have spent quite some time on the CC-issue.  
> Mainly because as a web-user I liked the idea of the project and as  
> a jurist I liked the license-part. I wrote several texts on behalf  
> of CC, I gave some speeches and I am just finishing the 3.0 licenses  
> for Austria. For most of these things I did not recieve any money.  
> For most of these things I did not _expect_ any money.
>
>
> Personally, I am no big fan of iCommons. It feels like a generic  
> movement, a forced good-will-organisation and the uptight and  
> disilliusioned jurist in me despises the world-hugging copyright- 
> hippie direction this "movement" has taken (the idea of a "greener"  
> iSummit still makes me go *rrrraaaaahhh*). But hey, I do not have to  
> like iCommons to work on CC which IMO is still a copyright-project.

thanks for being kind here. from my perspective as a cc-project lead i  
have a very similar view on the role icommons plays. i think for  
national cc-projects it makes sense to have a strict focuss on the  
core cc issues. there needs to be place within CC (and outside of  
icommons) to cooperate on this and have international collaborations.  
as far as i am concerened icommons has a different role. in a way the  
letter tries to work towards this by trying to argue for tighter  
integration of cc jurisdictions projects into the cc project. i do not  
think it is productive to coplain to the cc baord about icommons  
because it is not responable for the conduct of cc. it might indeed be  
usefull to take these issues up with icommons as well but that would  
be a spearete letter to icommons.

Lets also not forget that the preparations for this years i summit had  
already begun when icommons was still closely linked to cc (in terms  
of corporate structure). this means that this years isummit will  
reflect that in a somewhat messy form. catharaina had already  
indicated (in her mails to the cci list) that this might change in the  
future.

> Paul, you are right, the decision about the lump sum has been made -  
> but this does not make it indiscussable. With the chosen solution,  
> the optics are extremely poor. I regard it almost as a personal  
> insult, when I invest unpaid time and work into CC, and then CCi  
> (which I do not wish to blame for anything here) pays iCommons a sum  
> for my participation and ultimately (and in the worst case scenario)  
> I have to pay for my trip to Sapporo and the stay there.

i can understand this (and i have made the same argument when this was  
duiscussed earlier). however i donot think it is productive to include  
this in a letter that trys to establish a relationship between cc-hq  
and the projects. as i said before i would have expected this issue to  
be raised on the cci list when the arrangement was mentioned there.

> This will result in fewer people travelling to Sapporo, therefore  
> saving CCi some money but it also will result in some people (like  
> me) severely considering if they want to further want to invest time  
> and work when they end up paying for their trips themselves.

i see your point here.

> To sum this up in an over-simplifying way - personally, I do not  
> want to have to do with iCommons. As a copyright jurist I am  
> interested in the CC-licenses and the many interesting legal  
> questions they bring on. Thinking that, ultimately, iCommons is  
> getting money for the work I do, is making me a sad Panda :)

that is very much understandable even it is not entirely right. cc is  
contributing to the costs of the isummit (through the stupid  
arrangement of a per person fee) because the it benefits from the fact  
that icommons is organizing the summit as this will enable cci to hold  
a legal day and hold a couple of other evenst and discussions there.  
your particpation in that event costs more than just your travel and  
accomdation costs as we also need to pay for venue speakers etc....  
that is reflected in the per person fee.

hope this clarifies a couple of things,
paul


> kind regards from Vienna,
> Florian
>
> Zitat von Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>:
>
> > On 23 Apr 2008, at 10:03, Florian Philapitsch wrote:
> >
> > > I totally agree with this letter and will be happy to sign it.
> > > The issue with the seperation between iCommons and CC is raised, but
> > > not really elaborated upon.
> >
> > dear Florian,
> > thanks for your reponse....
> >
> > > In my opinion this will be one of the
> > > major issues in the future. If I think of the mentioned 1000 USD  
> > > paid
> > > by CCi for the participation of (voluntary working) CCi-members to
> > > iCommons, thereby nuking the sponsorship for travels, I feel that
> > > clear and clean borders have to be drawn here.
> >
> > i do not think that we should adress this issue in the letter
> > (disclosure: i am on the board of icommons) for the simple reason  
> > that
> > this decision has been made and we are beyond the point that it can  
> > be
> > changed. i agree with many of you here that the way the  
> > contribution by
> > CC to icommons is structured is not the most obvious or elegant one,
> > but in the end it does not really matter if icommmons pays a lup  
> > sum of
> > USD xxxx to icommons or if that sum is expressed as xx * nomber of
> > participants send to the summit by CCi. i do agree with you that  
> > there
> > need to be clear and clean borders and i think that our letter
> > underlines this.
> >
> > best regards, paul
> >
> > > This HAS to be addressed and discussed, however, I am not sure, if
> > > this letter is the right place. On the other hand - what is?
> >
> > --
> > Kennisland | Knowledgeland
> > t: +31 20 5756720 | m: +31 6 41374687
> > www.kennisland.nl | www.knowledgeland.org

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