cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Cc-europe mailing list
List archive
- From: Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>
- To: John Hendrik Weitzmann <jhweitzmann AT mx.uni-saarland.de>
- Cc: cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [Cc-europe] halftime for review
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:13:06 +0200
On 11 Apr 2009, at 10:08, John Hendrik Weitzmann wrote:
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.
My suggestion to integrate both views above would be torephrase it as "... european-level Organisations ..."]
sounds good to me...
2 pro (or did I get anything wrong?)
+1
3.
- under procedure: IF we want to include procedural rules here (and I am[Comment: We could go into more detail and regulate f.e. what amounts to
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?
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]
i agree with john 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.
i think it is indeed better to not exclude the CoE, but the current text does not do that as it is only giving an example for sake of clarification. also there is no such thing as European council legislation as it is not a legislative body. so i would favor 'European Union legislative process' but it does not really matter as it is just an example.
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]
i do not think this was meant in order to prevent random combnations of projects to engage in super national fundraising on the european level but was simply intended to state that cc europe can be an additional fundraising platform. if it is this easy to misunderstand that we should change the wording.
1 pro
1 con
6.
Regarding problem No. 5 above, I'd suggest to formulate "... by
individual CC Jurisdiction Projects".
1 pro
? con
given the above i am against this change
/paul
have a nice easter weekend and reply actively if you want to be counted
on the "scoring board",
John
_______________________________________________
Cc-europe mailing list
Cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe
--
Kennisland | Knowledgeland
t: +31 20 5756720 | m: +31 6 41374687
www.kennisland.nl | www.knowledgeland.org
-
[Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review,
John Hendrik Weitzmann, 04/03/2009
-
Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review,
Tomislav Medak, 04/08/2009
-
Message not available
-
[Cc-europe] halftime for review,
John Hendrik Weitzmann, 04/11/2009
-
Re: [Cc-europe] halftime for review,
Tomislav Medak, 04/11/2009
- Re: [Cc-europe] halftime for review, Gisle Hannemyr, 04/13/2009
- Re: [Cc-europe] halftime for review, Gisle Hannemyr, 04/13/2009
- Re: [Cc-europe] halftime for review, Paul Keller, 04/14/2009
-
Re: [Cc-europe] halftime for review,
Tomislav Medak, 04/11/2009
-
[Cc-europe] halftime for review,
John Hendrik Weitzmann, 04/11/2009
-
Message not available
-
Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review,
Tomislav Medak, 04/08/2009
-
Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review,
Gisle Hannemyr, 04/13/2009
- Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review, Paul Keller, 04/14/2009
-
Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review,
J.C. DE MARTIN, 04/14/2009
-
Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review,
Paul Keller, 04/16/2009
-
Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review,
Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, 04/16/2009
-
Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review,
Catharina Maracke, 04/19/2009
- Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review, Prodromos Tsiavos, 04/20/2009
-
Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review,
Catharina Maracke, 04/19/2009
-
Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review,
Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, 04/16/2009
-
Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review,
Paul Keller, 04/16/2009
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review, Maja Lubarda, 04/18/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.