Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-europe - Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review

cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-europe mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no>
  • To: John Hendrik Weitzmann <jhweitzmann AT mx.uni-saarland.de>
  • Cc: cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review
  • Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:57:35 +0200

Here is CC Norway's feedback on the proposed memorandum.
I'll comment on Weitzmann's "half-time score" message of April 11
rather than the original memo, as this list the areas that may
need change.


> 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?)

CC Norway: pro extending the scope beyond EU

Rationale: While the EU may be the most significant body, there is
no reason to limit this to the EU. EEA, where Norway is a member,
may for instance be a source of funding, and there are some
interest in open access in CoE institutions.

Here is our suggestion for re-phrasing the sentence:

Desiring to coordinate their efforts in communicating with
transnational Organisations, Institutions, Officials and
Agencies based in Europe.


> 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 wan
>> 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

CC Norway: con the inclusion of "on a day to day basis".

Rationale: CC Norway thinks it is a good idea to make it clear that
we don't speak for other free/open content communities, but believe
the current phrasing does not say that and instead is open to
mis-interpretation.

Here is our suggestion for phrasing the sentence:

Act as a European face of the community of European activists that
are supporting Creative Commons through participation in their
respective CC Jurisdiction Projects (both as the concept it
is as well as the organisation that is Creative Commons Inc.),
especially by working towards the formation of common opinions
and position papers of the Members on specific issues and questions
arising on the European level, e.g. in the course of consultations
on European legislation;


> 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

CC Norway: pro the inclusion of procedural rules

We are very uncertain about this one, but ended up agreeing (mostly)
with Weitzmann's comment about this issue.


> 4.
>> - under Activities: to change "European legislation" into "European
>> Union legislation"
> ----
>> - regarding Tomislav's comment about European legislation: why
>> exclude 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

CC Norway: con changing "European" into "European Union"

Rationale: Same as under #1, in particular with respect to CoE.

> 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
>> rivalrous 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

CC Norway: con changing "otherwise" into something else.

Rationale: We think there is no need to fret over this. We know
of no past situation where rivalry this has been an issue. The
present phrasing just says that the MoC facilitates cooperation
between Members to attract funds, but that it is against the
"spirit" of the MoC to use this platform for rivalrous purposes.

> 6.
> Regarding problem No. 5 above, I'd suggest to formulate "... by
> individual CC Jurisdiction Projects".
>
> 1 pro
> ? con

CC Norway: pro adding "individual"

Rationale: It does no harm, and is slightly more precise.
It doesn't solve the rivalry issue tho'.

--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
"Don't follow leaders // Watch the parkin' meters" - Bob Dylan




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page