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: Florian Philapitsch <florian.philapitsch AT wu-wien.ac.at>
  • Cc: cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-europe] draft letter to the CC Board on communication and governance
  • Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:46:57 +0200

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page