-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dear all,
Being both the CC project lead and iCommons board member, let me try
providing yet another explanation of those $1000.
iCommons started as a daughter organization of CC - over the last year
and a half two organizations have become separate organizations.
However, CC partners with iCommons on organizing iSummit, it will hold a
legal day for CC legal leads and, probably, a number of other sessions
within the iSummit.
Consequently, as a partner it also foots a part of the costs of
organizing the conference. The CC has proposed that its contribution
will not be a fixed sum, but rather per-person contribution equivalent
to the estimated per-person cost of the iSummit times number of CC
participants. So, $1000 is an estimation what the conference will
actually cost per participant (this does not include the travel costs
for participants), provided the attendance turns out as expected. Thus,
it really can't be said that CC's contribution is unfair. It is not a
taxation on the side of iCommons, but rather the form that CC preferred
to contribute its partner share. If there's no such contribution by CC,
it is iCommons who must find money for costs that are covered from there
and opportunities for that are not abounding.
Now, the issue of how international CCi projects and leads volunteering
are rewarded for their work - e.g. through scholarships for
participation in iSummits - is an issue that needs to be addressed
primarily to CC. It is CC, and not iCommons, who can ultimately go to
grant-givers, supporters and sponsors and say that they have over 45
projects porting licenses internationally. The fact that there's a catch
22 situation that the more international leads and project members CC
has in Sapporo the less money it has for scholarships, should be framed
as a question of how much CC can and is willing to spend on rewarding
international projects.
This doesn't mean that iCommons's work and its direction shouldn't be
discussed and questioned, particularly in its relation to public CC
activities. This should be done - in CC-Europe fora or, better still, in
the iCommons list and iSummit, but not related to the $1000 question.
The two organizations are now legally and financially separate, and
those two questions need to be dealt with separately.
BTW, letter is well worded and CC-hr supports it.
Best,
Tom
Henrik Moltke wrote:
| A few quick comments:
|
| On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Florian Philapitsch
|
| Dear Paul, dear All,
|
| you are probably right, this should be adressed on a seperate
| occasion, but, as I said, when and where?
|
|
| If we decide to have this discussion in Sapporo, it will be unfair to
| those that can't go. If we have it on the list, it will be too
| scattered. If we have it on a wiki, it will go nowhere, unless someone
| takes the time to draft, maintain and push people to participate. I
| would personally prefer a face-to-face meeting, and the summit is the
| only chance to have that, if we want to expand beyond Europe - but
| unless *someone* finds a mighty big bucket of money very soon - we have
| a Catch 22.
|
|
| Since we are already talking about that issue, I'd like to add some
| (personal and frustrated) thoughts to Henriks rant.
|
|
| (I sent a few words about my feelings towards iCommons to Florian which
| I guess would qualify as a 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.
|
|
| I too put a lot of time into CC on a number of levels, and feel that I
| get a lot out of it too (inspiration for my work as a journalist and
| documentary maker, network, friends, good times etc etc) - but there are
| some things about money, iSummit attendance etc that need to be adressed
| and made more transparent. Basically, you do this kind of stuff because
| it is fun, and because you want recognition. When you are told that your
| projects or ideas cannot be carried out because there is no money, and
| you see others spending or suggesting spending money spent on things you
| deem completely irrelevant, you become a sad panda (thanks for that
| wording, Florian!).
|
| Here is another catch 22 because, if you decide to leave your formal
| affiliation with CC, someone else might take over and get credit for
| your work. On the other and, the step from spending a little free time
| now and then to several hours a week, sometimes full days or most of
| weeks - is difficult to draw (this has been the case for me this year
| prior to the KODA / Tone / new cc dk website release). But if you don't
| attend to these things, people will never hear about CC even if they´d
| be inclined to think in this way.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| 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.
| 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.
|
| 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 :)
|
|
| I feel exactly the same, but there are so many things that I am
| uncertain about, and have vague doubts or mixed feeling about. From
| where does iCommons get funding - now and in the past? How is the summit
| handled financially, between CC and iCommons, before and now? Who
| decides who gets to go, and who doesnt, based on which criteria? Who
| decides who gets appointed to which positions, and is the value I have
| helped generate channeled into these paid positions?
| As much as I love Larry, I find it ironic having these feelings towards
| the organisation he built up.
|
| I would love to continue but have to hurry to make my nightshift at my
| IRL, paid work, tee hee - sorry for spelling and harsh wordings in case
| there are any
|
| Henrik
|
|
| kind regards from Vienna,
| Florian
|
|
| > 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
|
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| Cc-europe mailing list
|
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| _______________________________________________
| Cc-europe mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFID0VPkbN024ZV0z0RAomQAKCXyFSmJDcocBjROLtTSJtib38tvACcD18q
joXJ4gROh1UuuX9rI9b09zU=
=IhLz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Cc-europe mailing list
