Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-europe - [Cc-europe] halftime for review

cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-europe mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: John Hendrik Weitzmann <jhweitzmann AT mx.uni-saarland.de>
  • To: cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Cc-europe] halftime for review
  • Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:08:33 +0200

hi all,

to get this structured I'll list the proposed changes and how many
pros/cons for each (including my own opinion). I'll then change what has
more pros, as soon as next Friday's deadline has passed.

here are the scores at halftime:

1.
- under Objectives: to extend the scope of the second objective beyond
*EU* Organizations, Institutions, Officials and Agencies to *European*
organizations, institutions, officials and agencies (and then maybe
specify particularly European Union organizations, institutions,
officials and agencies), which then might include the Council of
Europe, EPO,...
----
- under objectives: imho it should read "at the" or "on the" EU level
----
[Comment: This is to indicate that we're talking about transnational
institutions, as opposed to only the communication etc. talking place on
that level. My suggestion to integrate both views above would be to
rephrase it as "... european-level Organisations ..."]

2 pro (or did I get anything wrong?)


2.
- under activities: why the inclusion of "on a day to day basis"? This
might (at least in theory) exclude several people who are doing CC not
fulltime or on a regular basis. Do we really want that?
[Comment: It practically wouldn't exclude anyone IMO; it is meant to
indicate that CC Europe doesn't claim to speak for any FSFE, Wikimedia
or other activist who endorses CC ideas]

1 pro
1 con


3.
- under procedure: IF we want to include procedural rules here (and I am
not sure if this is necessary) they should be somewhat more detailed. What
about vote-transferrals for instance? Are only the representatives present
at a meeting allowed to vote?
[Comment: We could go into more detail and regulate f.e. what amounts to
due information about amendments, voting by email and other things, but
I think we should keep it as simple as possible. Still, we should touch
the most important procedural matters in the MoC, so that we don't need
any further side documents. In my view we reached a reasonable level of
regulation here]

1 pro
1 con


4.
- under Activities: to change "European legislation" into "European
Union legislation"
----
- regarding Tomislav's comment about European legislation: why exlude the
CoE-scope? "European" includes EU and CoE, while limiting ourselves to
EU-jurisdictions excludes the CoE. The latter has shown some genuine
interest in Public Domain and User Generated Content lately and has been
working on several instruments regarding these things. I was present in
several working groups at the CoE and CC was mentioned regularly (and even
included in official reports). It would be unwise to ignore these entities
just for the sake of focusing on the EU.

1 pro
1 con


5.
- under Activities: to change ambiguous formulation of funding
"otherwise not attractable by CC Jurisdiction Projects" -
hypothetically, two or more CC Jurisdiction Projects can always form a
legit partnership outside of CC Europe and compete with CC Europe for
transnational funds. It's hard to exclude potential rivlarous
situations. We can either replace "otherwise" with "commonly" or "at a
particular moment" or register a general intent to avoid competing with
individual or partnering CC Jurisdiction Projects.
----
[Comment: "particular moment" and "commonly" are ambiguous as well, and
whether we can or even need to solve any rivalrous situations beforehand
with this MoC? not sure]

1 pro
1 con


6.
Regarding problem No. 5 above, I'd suggest to formulate "... by
individual CC Jurisdiction Projects".

1 pro
? con


have a nice easter weekend and reply actively if you want to be counted
on the "scoring board",

John






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page