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: Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>
  • To: Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no>
  • Cc: cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-europe] MoC draft V0.7, two weeks for review
  • Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:13:05 +0200


On 13 Apr 2009, at 13:57, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

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.

i am strongly against this suggestion. we do not do this because we want to talk to te red cross or amnesty international or greenpeace international or WIPO (although we also might want to do that but as european cc projects we do not have a special privilege to talk to these orgs). We want to set up cc europe because we want to engage with european organisations.


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;

makes more sense than on a day to day basis to me


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.

yep, i think the one jurisdiction one vote plus the required majorities for decision making are the minimum necessary to prevent us for drafting by laws at the next meeting.



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.

but the European Union is as far as i know the only super national *legislative* body. so while i agree on substance teh formulation does not make sense



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.

again, this was never intended to refer to rivalrous situations. it simply states that these fundraising activities would be in addition what individual (groups of) jurisdiction projects can do. i do not think we would sign any MoU that limits our fundraising activities in any way. i want to be able to submit a proposal for a EU project with CC-greece, CC-poland and CC-vatican-state even though there is a cc- europe if i think this particular combination has more merits than cc- europe as a whole.
/paul


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
_______________________________________________
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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page