First sentence: “The global charity Creative Commons…” Recommend replacing the word “charity” with “non-profit.”
Replace “and the charity based in the United States” with: “and the non-profit based in the United States”
I do not understand why it’s necessary to have a different mission for the CC organisation and for the CCGN. The values, guiding principles, and collective work product of the CCGN would feed into meeting the overarching organisational mission and vision, which CC already agrees on.
I think the steering committee should better explain the difference between “values” and “guiding principles”, and create separate headings for each (if indeed they mean separate things).Alternatively, since many of the ideas under these headings are similar, you could consider condensing them. For example, “Transparency and Accountability” is very similar to “We work openly”; “Diversity” is very similar to “We respect each other”, etc.
instead of “regulatory environment”, I’d say “law and policy”, or similar
RE: “We understand the digital commons broadly.” Statements like this need to be further explained to be useful, typically by including a few examples to show the breadth that you’re talking about.
RE: “We provide the legal infrastructure to enable sharing and collaboration” — This statement is an example of why i think it’s very hard to separate the mission of the organisation from the mission of the CCGN. If we read the mission statements literally, this would not be something that the network does; it’s something that HQ does (“Creative Commons develops, supports, and stewards legal and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, and innovation.”)
RE: #3 “providing stewardship for the CC licenses” — Again, back to the point about the different missions. Does this fall under the CCGN mission, in its proposed form?
RE: #7 “Evaluate staff support” — Could be interpreted in such a way that CCGN has say over HQ staffing/employment. Is this what you mean?
RE: #4 “Establish platforms” — I think it should be clear that the network will steward, support, host platforms; the point is, say a bit more than just “establish”
RE: “is willing to actively contribute to tits activities and sustainability” — we have the “values and guiding principles” outlined above, but will this other part be more specifically defined somewhere?
RE: #4 “Country Teams agree to work by consensus” — I think it’d be useful to further explain what this means. Does it mean for decisionmaking regarding the Council? Or deciding on country-specific work activities? Something else? Why is consensus necessary?
RE: “Executive Committee” — What is the purpose/role of the executive committee? In what circumstances will it be used or needed?
RE: #6 “It consults the GNC as part of its own strategic planning” — Similar to a unified vision and mission, I think the end goal should be that HQ and CCGN have one unified strategy.
Would this process apply to funding applications to non-multi-national-organizations? For example, government agencies, local NGOs or local private businesses.
If so, why? The above seems to have been drafted with large US corporates (Google) or NGOs that operate in multiple national jurisdictions in mind.
Apologies if I’ve missed something!
Devil’s advocate: Why does local work need to be strategically consistent with the CCGN?
Given that many/most of the ‘wins’ for country projects relate to implementing open policy in national institutions, surely it only matters that local work is strategically consistent to the priorities of its own country project?
The word ‘frame’ is used, above. Does that mean that a local affiliate / country project may not do anything under the national CC brand unless a ‘Platform’ exists? Not challenging this, necessarily – just asking for clarity.
Following up on Tim’s point regarding 4., there are established ways for successful NGOs with active communities to make decisions. It doesn’t always require consensus so much as a transparent and open decision making process, usually by a board, with processes for resolving local dispute locally.
The second sentence under 4., makes complete sense, though!
Who are “we”
agreed. regulatory environment seems counter-intuitive
agreed. further, perhaps we seek or endeavor to understand would be more accurate.
perhaps fundamentally tied to truth rather than honesty
no educational pillars???
why is the recommendation of 2 existing “members” seen as imperative if the end goal is broad participation and acceptance.
At first blush as written with this structure, it seems it would be difficult to “follow the money”
CC also exists online. Instead of “internet” it should say “knowledge”.
“Growth and productivity” sounds like it’s focused on economy. It should say “social and economic development”.
It should say this goal is for every person.
Respect does not equal diversity. A cohesive group can promote respect within but oppose diversity outside it. It’s important to mention both things.
The paragraph should say why openness and sharing is good.
For example, “we need it to express ourselves, understand each other, and defend our rights”.
It should also say “and to take advantage of technological possibilities”.
Also, “we will encourage stakeholders to protect the digital commons and the people who use it”.
I would say universal access.
I would add “we promote collaboration”.
I would add responsibility.
People often dont know truth. But they always know what is being honest.
I would add “find solutions to problems.
Non-derivative licenses should not be promoted, especially in CC resources.
That’s one of the platforms in point 4.
If members and partners arent so legally, what legal status does have the CC Global Network?
To reduce the risk of takeovers, I guess.
About point 3, if country teams are informal, they wobt be recognised legally by local authorities. They will always demand to talk with a specific organisation, like a formal CC chapter.
Having a Global Network, a Council and an Executive Committee seems excessive bureaucracy to me.
Perhaps Global Network representatives should gather in an assembly every year to appoibt new executive members, but without being a permanent body.
“Teams, Network Members, and Network Partners must report annually on funds raised under the CC country name”
“Teams, Network Members, and Network Partners may not solicit general donations for their Country Teams using the CC country name ”
Those points contradict each other.
Build a globa commons or contribute towards building a global commons?
Is it only about norms and practices or is there a need to be a little more developmental about our openness? For example, if we encourage the growth of open behaviors in society, then we could extend openess to addressing capability, opportunity and motivation.
Please add the initials here too, e.g. “Creative Commons Global Network (CCGN)”.
There’s no definition of Platform Coordinator. Who can hold such a position?
“To establish a regulatory environment” sounds immediately wrong. I’m not sure what are we trying to say here (is this directed to the creation of legal tools, or to our copyright reform work?), but Tim’s suggestion doesn’t make it sound right. Maybe if we use another verb instead of “to establish”, e.g. “to advocate for…”
Agree with Tim on the fact that the network doesn’t provide the legal infrastructure. I think we should say something along these lines: it helps implement such infrastructure at a national and regional levels, and promotes its adoption by local users.
RE: “#1 Coordinate the activities of the most active contributors” – why only of the most active ones? And which contributors: members only, I assume?
If that is not what is meant, maybe “report on…” would be more appropriate?
Let me praise this. I think it was about time to let individual members become official members of the network!
Why can’t Network Partners have voting rights? They could do so through representatives? Otherwise, they will always be required to have their team members enrolled as individual members. I mean, I understand that, most of the times, partners will prefer to have their team members enrolled on an individual basis, because that’s easier than requiring approval to vote. But that shouldn’t be a reason to have this discrimination. Also, if we turn this into politics, this means that bigger teams will end up having more voting power than smaller ones 😉 Finally, this is not coherent with the first sentence that says that both individuals and partners have the same rights.
I also think this needs to be clarified. Also, I understand we don’t want to create partnerships and any sort relationship that would turn members and partners liable for CC activities, and vice-versa, but I’m not happy with this drafting.
What happens if current affiliates don’t want to participate of the CCGN? Country Teams are constituted by those that participate on the CCGN, so if current affiliates don’t want to participate they will stop being affiliates? In other words: the current national affiliates are supposed to become the future country teams, correct?
I think we should clarify that he current affiliates will be eliminated and that the Country Teams will replace it, if I understand correctly.
We should clarify that the current affiliates will be eliminated and that the Country Teams will replace it, if I understand correctly.
There should probably not be a comma in between “knowledge, and.” I’d also probably add the Oxford comma in between “advocates, promotes, and enables openness and sharing around the world.”
It should read:
“The mission of the Creative Commons Global Network is to build a global commons of creativity and knowledge and grow a movement that advocates, promotes, and enables openness and sharing around the world.”
Or rather, “it could read,” not should. This is a grammatical recommendation. 🙂
The emphasis on consensus-based decision making is really great, but I think that there should be a strong working definition of consensus because “consensus” is a term that is often thrown around without a basis in what that actually means. (eg. Consensus is not democracy)
There are a lot of ways to implement consensus, but I’d maybe consider offering a template of how CC does consensus so as to limit groupthink and stand by process. The Wikipedia article on consensus outlines some of these concerns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
* Copyright is not restricted to the Internet. Is the CCGN’s scope limited to the Internet?
* Due to the closeness of CC’s mission to the Culture Theory of Copyright, culture should come before the rest: education, research, etc.
“Creative Commons network” = CCGN? The use of terms has to be consistent.
“We promote the exercise of free speech.”
Add: Country Teams will send a representative(s) to Platforms of interest.
Add (after #5) : Ensure national positions align with CCGN Platform positions when they exist.
#1 confuses me. The CCGN tells the most active contributors what to do? Perhaps a different word than ‘coordinate’ is better, such as ‘monitor’, ‘promote’, ‘help organize’, etc.?
Here it should be wise to describe how CCHQ and the CCGN share values and work toward strategic goals. This is not just two organizations coming together, but one is the executive arm of the other.
Does the document need to have the names of people? If any of them leave on day one, will you have to remake this document?
I still have issues with the use of the word “platform.” I think this word is confusing and I think a phrase like “Working Group” would be more descriptive.
What does this mean? This means that at a minimum every platform has to have a platform coordinator?
Who is this person? Are they on the Global Network Council, or who is this person?
The title of this individual should be named in this document. Maybe: “country team lead” or “country lead.”
Point 6: Any meaningful fundraising or project participation usually requires a legal entity for the national CC team. If that entity cannot be any way related to CC, how could a CC team do something?
I don’t agree with the use of “we”.
Something like “Creative Commons Global Network aimed to realize …” seems more appropriate.
“Growth and productivity” has an extremely capitalist connotation to it. I’d suggest we use something like “To drive a new era of social and economic development and sustainability.”
Agree. There needs to be an explanation on what the CCGN is.
Is this a strategy proposal or some sort of manifesto/ guiding principles we want the affiliates to compromise to? I understand strategy as a more planning instrument. This document seems more as a set of principles/ rules under which the network can operate. That’s not strategy, that’s structure.
Also the whole document needs a grammar revision. For example, I’ve noticed commas preceding “and” in many parts of the text.
Is this really necessary? I’d try to go more straightforward. Something like “Transparency implies honest and systematic sharing of information on the work we develop, both within the network and to the public”.
“All of this builds trust, which is…” Again, I find this a bit too moralistic. As a member of CCGN, I assume this is implicit to everyone’s view of communities and teamwork.
A suggestion: “We welcome participation, communication, exchange of ideas and getting feedback, even when this is difficult. We promote trust as an essencial principle of our work as a community.”
Sorry for the persistence but, again, I’m feeling a very moralistic tone to this. It starts to sound like we’re building some sort of church here. I would convert to that, definitely! 😀 But I think we could approach it differently.
For example, couldn’t we include this text under the Diversity section and suppress the “We Respect Each Other” title?
Agree. I think this needs to be clarified and it could also include an explanation on the process of becoming a member. Normally, the current affiliate approves new memberships. I believe it is important to maintain and clarify this in the document.
Ops… It’s the next topic! 😛
Is the renewal automatic or will it actually need to be resubmitted every two years?
I am not sure if we should address “digital commons” commons here. To me a broader term “commons” is better.
In any case term should be consistent in all paragraphs of the section, at the time paragraphs 7 and 9 mention “commons” and heading, paragraphs 8 and 10 mention “digital commons”
I believe requirement of approval by the Council addresses such risk.
Maybe this section should be places right after “General Concept” one for the ease of understanding as we have the term “contributor” defined here, and this term is used in paragraph 26.
Is there a particular reason to include the first sentence? It just repeats in the section on membership above
Would it be possible to organize in-person meeting at least once a year for representatives of all (a majority of) teams?
Current wording of #3 implies that membership applications/renewals are to be approved by the full GNC. This seems to be a time-consuming process of approval. Maybe it would be better to delegate this to the Executive Committee?
Maybe use a better word than ‘veto’ here? Something like Existing Network Members can request, on stated grounds, that a membership application be referred to the GNC’s Dispute Resolution Committee, which may decline the application.
I wonder if the language of GNC will be limited to English, or it will be multilingual, translation (/interpretation)-supported entity.
This veto & dispute resolution processes could be a bit tricky when there are not sufficient multilingual people bridging the locals in dispute and the GNC’s Dispute Resolution Committee.
To have a better grasp, I here try to compare this Country Team to the conventional Affiliate team:
– more reporting? (in which language? – it is often a key issue.)
– more consensus-building process?
– no more FAQ translation required
– broader participation, less bond among members
My sense is these platforms mean to be global-scale entities/ containers.
This may be easier entry-point for many currently non-CC affiliated entities to take part into the CCGN.
I think this item’s title and the content have a slight gap. (or a not-so-slight gap, some may say.)
For many hard-core activists and advocates of open movements, some CC licenses are not necessarily “free” nor “open.”
In a broader community, as seen in open education, open access, etc., some people do use the term “open” more liberally. even to mean “free-of-charge for reading.”
Even among the current CC community, the NC and ND licenses have been somewhat controversial, so it may be okay to carry forward the controversy to CCGN. But the problem with this current wording of this item is that it is not clear if the CC licenses and tools are to be conserved or it is okay to criticize them as a Member or Partner.
My sense (broad but still limited in light of the breadth of the globe and issues) is that hard-core communities care about licenses limited to 0, BY, and SA, and they may be early participants to the CCGN. The broader community would not care too much about the strict sense of openness, but they prefer more choice in general. They would also like to see much simpler and shorter licenses than CC licenses. In a way, neither “support, promote and care” CC licenses and tools fully.
From this part on, there is a series of governance issues. It is better to have some chart to help broader participation. I am afraid some may think this is a huge and complicated bureaucracy being discussed, and that alone may put off people..
This summary bit could be written like “CCGN is the broad network of individuals and organizations, joined by any allies of the CC movement,” to better characterize what it is.
In other words, I think it is more welcoming to the broader audience to start with its relevance to their interests (free/open movements), and not its place in the governance.
I had the same impression with Teresa, I think.
My concern is a matter of presentation not content, to be clear.
A very brief explanation of “The MoU” is helpful here, because it is not a self-explanatory term for non-affiliate readers.
“actively” here may play a key role down the line, I imagine.
If CC Japan is any indication, there will be inactive members – some only there for the title/ affiliation, some meaning to contribute but unexpectedly busy with other duties and priorities, other simply lose interest, yet others having difficulty finding the right amount and area of responsibility they are interested to take. What do we do with many different types of inactive members is an issue.
More importantly, even those inactive members do have a say in the “consensus” process determining the position of a Country Team. And because CT is less of a group with bonds and more like a loose network, inactive members feel freer to speak their opinions. The resulting consensus reflect less of the most committed, but more of the people with opinions.
I am not trying to suggest this is a good or bad thing. But trying now to understand the change in dynamics.
My take on Teresa’s question is: if the current affiliates (Leads) does not join CCGN, others joining the CCGN in the country make up the Country Team, and they will select the Council rep and liaison person among themselves.
Even when the current affiliates join, the selection is not that different.
My limited experience in Open Knowledge’s global expansion process tells me that two recommendations is a better process than Council approval. Council members do not know applicants well, their reputation in their country, achievements, character issues (such as record of disrespect to others), etc.
I think the defense is not so much against take-overs, because take-overs could still happen very easily with this process (you only need two members of your conspiring group to somehow join the network in order to let all others join, and specific objections could not be made by other CCGN members because they simply do not know enough of the conspiring members). The key here is that members are not required to show any track record as contributors first.
The defense is against apparent trouble-makers, like trolls, people known-to-be verbally abusive, or otherwise controversial. The defense is not that strong, so it could make the consensus building process a bit stressful, demoralizing some people, energizing others.
I agree that some government entities rather speak to an organization formally incorporated in that country. How to organize the Country Team is up to each country, as explained elsewhere. So I see no problem. It is just that the CT, even when it is incorporated, does not have formal relationship with the HQ.
A difficult question is what to do with all those existing CC websites, like creativecommons.jp. It does not belong /represent a CT, and the affiliate team is to be phased out.
I was not sure when it is necessary (how often) to form a national consensus. It could take a long time to build a consensus on one particular issue. It could take a long time changing it.
CC Affiliates are currently the focal point of donation originating in that country (however small), whereas Country Teams will be just one of recipients of the donation.
The type of activities gaining public/media attention and support will get the funding, but more mundane work needs some funding mechanism. Reporting, record keeping, accounting, consensus building, answering questions, etc.
Or is my imagination here too constrained by my experience with CC Japan…?
“We” here means the strategy building team, I think. “We” below means CCGN members.
I think some clearer language differentiating the two would be helpful for readers.
Only internet? seems it limits the scope. We can rather use a common term or a group of terms that may cover all kind of media and communication technologies!
[it will be appropriate to do so as a CC Member.]
Here, I think you meant to say a member of the CCGN? A CC “Member,” is individual, but the intention is that individuals, organizations, or (unincorporated) groups could raise fund in some cases using CC name/brand.
Somewhat overlapping comment:
There are some thankless tasks get done because of 1) funding arrangement and/or 2) intra-group dynamic in the existing affiliate team, I guess. And some of those tasks may lose financial support and/ or motivating factor, I am worrying a bit.
The tasks I am thinking are administrative task of an organization (accounting, record keeping, reporting, etc.), and answering inquiries (we get about 100/year in Japan and it has been a challenge to find volunteers), translating FAQs, etc.
Funding arrangement could be lost when there are more bodies (projects, Partner organizations, etc.) to fund within the country, other than the Country Team.
Motivation could be lost when the team in the given country is less of a tight-knit group and more of a loosely-connected network. For those who do thankless tasks, one strong motivation is that they get appreciation from peers within the affiliate team, even when none of the public /broader community member take notice.
Weather the existing Affiliate teams could take a leadership in the new structure as the Country Team is a somewhat separate question. Some existing affiliate may be too small to open up and organize broader community of people, but without taking leadership, their current representative position within the jurisdiction may be lost, and funding arrangement could be lost as well. The transition issue is a concern for some affiliates, I would imagine.
Please note this is not meant to be a prediction, just half-speculation. I am trying to see the consequences of the proposed governance structure.
I just want to second what Tomo says. It seems impossible for an affiliate team to not join the network, given para 24, unless they work hard to ‘block’ new members, which would be counterproductive.
But otherwise, you could have two ‘official’ reps from CC saying conflicting things publicly about certain issues. While we might all agree about broad goals, the tactics employed to achieve these goals may diverge, or even conflict.
For example, an affiliate might wish to work behind the scenes with a government department. A CCGN member might publicly denounce that government department for not moving quickly enough. This might undo a lot of the goodwill produced by the affiliate. And so on and so forth.
Once more, agreeing with Tomo! The potential proliferation of members would complicate and maybe undermine 1) existing organisational structures and, as a result, 2) fundraising.
The Global Network Strategy Steering Committee. See https://consultation.creativecommons.org/context-background-information/
Yes. We, here, refers to the Global Network Strategy Steering Committee. See: https://consultation.creativecommons.org/context-background-information/
I think the superlative is redundant on #1. Are there any criteria to separate active contributors from the rest?
Transparency alone doesn’t eliminate these things; it does reveal them and guard against them.
I think it should just be “commons”, not “digital commons”.
Whereas it is too early to be descriptive, local or national chapters suffer from the balance of semi-autonomy and structure around what they can do. I think we have a good balance, but if CC is not specifically requesting CTs to deliver quick and low hanging fruits such as “Annual press event” or ‘Annual community event’ – then we will continue to miss opportunities to be present in conversations, as well as the disparity between CTs which are able to do certain things better than others.
I notice that CC is staying clear of member and/or partner fees. Is this intentional? What is the rationale? Also, what is the trade-off?
What exactly is the member value proposition, in comparison to Contributor? is it media and publicity? is it a profile on xx.creativecommons.org? Other than being voted into the GNC, what do we really want to offer members?
It would be great to state our position on Regional Summits. I would have proposed that the Global Summit remains on a 2yr cycle, but we look out for ways to engage regional blocs in an alternate 2yr cycle. This should maintain an active network, strong and active relationships with regional partners and an engaged Network.
Is this a good place to consider Member fees, atleast as an in-country resource that can fund in-country thankless activities and expenditures?
23.1 Why only ‘active contributors’. CCGN should facilitate the ‘less active’ to improve and contribute more. Efforts should be made to understand why some contributors are unable to qualify as ‘active’. Maybe they need more support!
Apart from _elected_ seats, I would propose adding _selected_ seats. Normally, most Boards find the use of selected seats useful as it is a tool used to fill the gap created by the community-elected seats (such as finance experience, governance experience, etc)
This is Great idea, and lets have a platform for individuals to apply for membership
I do agree with Towo’s thinking.
This seems strange to me. To only focus on the Active Contributors will discourage growth. Perhaps just needs to be re-worded.
And to publish open data? We should strive to do that too.
Come to think of it, quitting or being taken away a membership is not discussed anywhere in this document.
When some member does not follow “we respect each other” part of the above-stated value and behave abusively, can anybody take away the membership, for example?
One way is that “vet0” could be done
(continued) “veto” could be done even to an existing member, by other members.
Too much use of ‘We’ in the document. May I suggest replacing it with alternative words such as, “Our value and recognition of the right to share,”…”and knowledge IS a key…”
Too much use of ‘We’ in the document. May I suggest replacing it with alternative words such as, “Our value and recognition of the right to share,”. Then add “and knowledge IS a key…”
Not sure how this is possible if CCGN is actively promoting collaboration that is contrary to this stated ambition (namely the adoption of Slack, which requires users to sacrifice openness and their freedoms to participate in… discussions about increasing openness). I fear CC is losing its way and its credibility (especially among those advocates of openness – from bottom to top – who’ve been with them since the start). Your tools need to be compatible with your goals and principles. At the moment this is a clanging discord.
How can this be reconciled with the official CC advocacy of proprietary (closed) collaboration technologies like Slack over mature, well regarded, widely used open tools?
no comma after “i.e.” and you actually probably mean “e.g.” – for example.
I note the use of “slack” as an apparent generic. Actually, Slack is a business name and is no doubt trademarked. This should be “instant messaging channels” if you want a generic term. And, actually, you shouldn’t be using Slack at all, given the myriad of equally functional open source instant messaging platforms, which even conform to open standards like the “matrix” open messaging standard, unlike Slack’s service.
The use of a comma after an abbreviation like “e.g.” is incorrect.
Totally agree regarding Oxford comma. Its lack creates unnecessary ambiguities.
“stewarding”? Awkward/incorrect use. Perhaps “curating”, “offering stewardship for”, or something similar.
Again, Oxford comma (“…modify, and improve…”)… and I assume that this desire to share, modify, and improve extends also to the tools used to undertake that sharing, too? I hope so. This point incompatible with CC’s adoption of Slack as a collaboration tool.
Point 6: I have a similar question as Patrick – does this mean that the current ‘legal host’ structure that applies to affiliates is retained, but becomes a legal host of the country team? I am unable to find where the legal structure needed to hire staff, receiving funds, auditing etc at a local level is described.
I agree with Naburu and Fatima on the terms “growth and productivity”: they sound too capitalistic. I would rather say social development, equity, creativity and happiness.
And I also agree with Mostafa and Emilio… we have restrictions all over the world, not only in the internet. CC licenses are already being used in material world -in books, in design-, so knowledge would be much better.
Not giving Network Partners voting rights could result in views being offered by individual members which do not represent the views of the Network Partner. It will not always be possible to have consensus and unanimity despite the very best efforts. A Country Team must have authority to make a binding decision when consensus regarding a vote cannot be reached.
CCANZ needs the Charter to have the same flexibility for negotiation as does the current MOU. The Charter needs to be able to accommodate more structured affiliates such as ours and to protect our ability to seek local funding. Our funders require a formal contract with a legal entity and for us to have a formal national status. The Charter needs to allow for this as well as for the less formal sponsorship available in some countries. It also needs to allow countries to seek operational funding without going through CC HQ each time
Will Country Teams be consulted when people or institutions try to join the CGCN?
CCANZ recommends a second round of consultation once the comments have been assessed and a draft Global Network Charter developed.
The current proposal erodes CCANZ’s authority. There’s a risk that, especially during a law reform process, an alternative Country Team could arise that had a less reasoned position. This could create confusion with funders and impact on our ability to gain funding.
Because the Country Team has to take all comers it ends up just being a loose affiliation of people who happen to be in the same geographical location.
We need a clear statement about leadership structure in a Country Team.
Having to reach consensus plus having to take all comers means we would never do anything. The Country Team has to have the power to make decisions. ‘Consensus’ has to be defined. How will this impact existing and future contractual obligations?
We need different affiliate models to accommodate different approaches in different countries. The Charter should reflect this.
CCANZ suggests that there must be a Legal Platform, which continues the work of the present Legal Panels, led by Diane Peters. Maintaining, reviewing and updating the licences is CC HQ’s core work and must have equal status with the current emphasis on expanding the community.
CCANZ notes that there’s a big emphasis on open without acknowledging that some of the CC licences are quite restrictive; this loses one of CC’s key strengths, which is that it’s a sharing mechanism that allows the rights-holder to choose.
We are concerned that there’s a danger of CC becoming an evangelical ‘open’ lobbying group, which doesn’t quite make sense when we offer NC licences. We must not devalue the more restrictive licences in the CC suite; the licences should not compete with each other. Forgoing our well-known and understood open licensing brand to a more generic one seems unwise.
Our current MOU provides express permission for the OERF to seek funding in the name of CC New Zealand to sustain the affiliates operations. Will the new Charter provide express permission forlegal entities,such as our OERF, to raise funding for CCANZ’s operations? (Note that 100% of the funding raised is allocated to CCANZ operations and the Foundation donates management time free of charge.)2) If not, will CC-HQ assume the responsibilities and associated risks associated with CCANZ operations including local statutory requirements?
(We have added this comment to this document, so that all our comments are in it. Ryan has commented directly on our own consultation site that “The intention is not to cut off flows of funding, especially the kinds of funds that are supporting CCANZ work. The goal is to increase collaboration and coordination for fundraising outreach where multiple teams might be seeking funds from a single funder. This happens often, and we think we can support better, more co-ordinated asks in these cases”.)
We suggest that this is set out clearly in the document
On network membership i think the organisation or institution should have a clear definition of the roles and structure of the team that forms the CCGN in the organisation
putting this at the beginning would make reading a bit easier 🙂 Preferrably with a schema drawing.
The line “We are committed to adapting our practices” is confusing and can be explained as willingness to bend the CC principles and activities in favour of allowing “diversity” of political situations (dictatorships including).
Commitment to internationalization is good. Awareness of (or respect for) cultural differences too, but not being committed to adapt to such situations.
I would expect here also some statement what the expectations/obligations of a member and partner would be. I suspect none?
This feels like an approach that is potentially going to create a lot of drama. I would much rather prefer the approach where membership will be approved by a dedicated committee, and that they can request input on that decision. A veto immediately becomes very confrontational, and it would be better to resolve it a bit more low profile. Especially as these people probably will later have to work together in a country team.
During the meeting today we discussed the importance of a professional affiliate in the current structure. I would really like it if we would actively define the possibility that one partner or a consortium of partners can act as ‘host’ of a country team. This could give more stability to the team. That would also make it possible to have the partner be responsible for coordinating etc (paragraph 34).
I agree, this is more likely to make sense in some cultures than in others. Lets define values that are important (which we did in the earlier paragraphs) and have the country teams agree to them. What you could potentially do (but no need to include that here) is set a number of ‘default guidelines’ that will apply for the teams, unless they change it to something else (for example, if they feel they need a more formal structure).
Also, if you allow teams to become legal entities (which seems to be the case) I don’t think you can simultaneously obligate them to ‘work by consensus’.
#4 states that teams can appeal to a dispute resolution committee. I fear that I have to predict that this will lead to an explosion of cases, if not defined very carefully. Right now, you open the door for any situation where a member disagrees with a team decision on anything.
Re #1: Currently the text defines that teams must be open to all network members. Situations will likely arise where individual members work very well in an international context, but they simply are a terrible match with the country team.
It’s good to work from the default that they accept everyone, but build in a possibility to make an exception to that rule.
Re #1, second part: each network member or partner currently only allows them to be affiliated with one country team. Again, this sounds great like a rule of thumb, but I foresee some exceptions that would be very helpful:
– supranational network partners that are equally active in multiple countries (i.e. a cultural organization in a border region)
– someone from a diaspora that can help with maintaining an active community in their country of origin. This would potentially be helpful in countries with complicated governmental relationships (i.e. China, Iran)
– People living in one country but mainly working in another. This will be typically for a set of two countries, with people in border regions.
This article also only allows one team == one country. This sounds great from the perspective of Europe, but I would suggest to allow exceptions:
– Some countries are too small to maintain a viable community. Allow them to join forces, and ‘represent’ two countries if the community wants so. Examples that come to mind with possible application include Belgium/Luxembourg, France/Monaco, Italy/San Marino, Spain/Andorra.
– Some countries are too big to coordinate effectively. Allow them to split up (if approved by the Council) the country in regions. I know that theoretically this is possible by setting up your own national structure already. This may make sense in very big countries to some extent, but it also allows you to handle complex legal situations. For example, this allows you an easy way to give a separate team status to Taiwan, Hong Kong etc if need be. By not having a very strict 1-to-1 relation you also remove potential tensions around status conflicts like Palestine and Kosovo.
I find this a bit creepy, corporate and not personal.
My preference would be a wording that more directly supports the creatives and contributors.
“Our vision is to support and empower creative people to enable them to share and collaborate, and to provide universal and common access to human culture, education and science”.
Something like it. If you want CC to be ‘bottom up’ the goal should start with the people who create first.
Here at the Institute of Network Cultures in Amsterdam have used the CC license for everything we do from the beginning of our organization in 2004 and have organized various networks and events related to your topic, from MyCreativity, Economy of the Commons (twice), the Creative Sweatshop and three MoneyLab events on the questions of internet revenue models for the arts. I would like to sideline ALL lawyers inside CC and politicize the organization as I no longer see CC as a legal issue. The enemy is clear: it is not the rightholders and the copyright issue but the economy of the free (read: Google and Facebook). IMHO CC has focused on noble causes but spent its efforts on the wrong battle. It is time to switch. You know what I am talking about. There is a growing consensus about this. What I saying here is not controversial. It is just a matter of strategy how to get there. Licenses are necessary, but no longer the key issue. Let’s focus on what’s really important: the redistribution of wealth.
Rather than country-based, I think the global network should be jurisdiction-based, given that we have 4 jurisdictions here in China, which vary widely in IP laws.
Country team should be replaced by jurisdiction team. As we have 4 jurisdictions in China, and the copyright law of each jurisdictions differs very much from others. Only 1 representative cannot represents all the 4 jurisdictions.
Also, Jurisdiction Team should replace Country Team.
I like the idea of having votes be a personal matter, rather than corporate or otherwise organisational. It gives the network the feel of a group of people instead of just stakeholders. Teresa’s concerns about voting power could maybe be addressed by limiting votes to one within each sub-group having ties to the same organisation, although that would make things more complex onbviously.
What concerns me more than voting asymmetry (see above) is a possible multitude of contradicting voices speaking “as CC Poland” in this sense, if that national representation is not concentrated in one entity. Maybe something further down will deal with this? I’ll be on the lookout …
I’m a bit confused here, for starters about the naming:
Why not “Members”/”Partners” or “Network Members”/”Network Partner”, but a mix of those?
Also, the following para. 25 introduces “country teams” as an additional and quite important term w/o defining it, which is done further down in para. 33. So until then, one is left to wonder whom the Members/Partners are representing really and speaking on behalf of.
to consult them would definitely make sense, so I guess it is maybe implied here?
here we already have a proper limit on self-beneficial voting, so I guess Teresa’s concerns above about organisations sending more than one of their employees in as Network Members might also be addressed like this, i.e. by limiting vote to one per organisation’s group.
Seeing here the “Network Member” term next to the lowercase “members of the CCGN” probably clarifies, that the capitalised NM has 2 words to distinguish it even more from the term “member” in the general sense. But still, why not also “Network Partner” to align the terms better?
Looking at the ca. 14 years of quitenpeaceful growth success of “European Digital Rights” (EDRi) as a network of organisations and individuals, maybe we should learn from how they do it. They might or might not have a veto right in the process, but would surely be worth checking out …
I fully agree that this would make a lot of sense.
From here on the term “Country Team” is properly defined and capitalised, but it already pops up above in para. 24 without definition and capitalisataion, just saying 😉
To me it sounds like the UN Security Council, or otherwise the “actual” decision-driving group, as the total GNC will become quite large and rahter non-dynamic, like the UN General Assembly.
I’m a bit worried about this stacking of bodies, i.e. GNC subcommittees, GNC in total, GNC secretariat and GNC Exec Committee. But hey, it might still work.
So, we have a movement, a network, contributors and also an ecosystem? I mean, Claudio’s title sounds fitting and fancy, but also a bit confusing.
I really like this approach, a real innovation for our network 🙂
I was just about to point out the same thing as Tomo. “CC Member” would be yet another different term.
I think “general donations” means donations for purposes other than CCGN activities, so there is probably no contradiction here.
Here are several instances of the term “Teams” without anything attached. Shouldn’t those be “Country Teams”?
Point 7: It must be clarifies more where the borderline is between “general donations” and, well, specific donations? project donations?
Really a great idea, those platforms, as they are not per se leaning towards replicating national silos, make up a modular and flexible structure and leave room even for different governance cultures within the CCGN.
Our main CC vision statement should be short and clear
‘nothing less’ – negative language. We are realising ‘human potential’ way beyond just internet. Focus should be on unleashing creativity and sharing. This current version does not highlight our core business.
I believe the main CC Vision should be more like the CCGN Mission in para 4.
Include the word sharing because that is what we do
Regulatory environment ?- please look at this wording. I m fine with the set of norms and practices
I believe legal infrastructure is broader than licenses. I like the word reform but it is very strong Adjust may be a possible option but I would like to see the para reflect the support CC provides as the legal framework must adjust to rapid technological change.
+1 for sustainability
However, this is IMHO indeed a mission statement for CC, but not CCGN. Changing this would require a “deeper cut” in the whole philosophy of CC.
Which mission statement shall prevail? Or to say in other what, which one is more “fundamental” to CC? Or build these two together an overarching one?
Excellent point. +1 Thank you!
Do the CC licenses have a special treatment in the context explained in Context & Background Information (which I understood that no, the CCGN should be not only licenses centered).
I also share this view and again thanks for pointing this out – if an entity wants to participate in the CCGN it should adhere to its values which include activity right?
What about the level of activity needed in § 37?
This was a general remark echoing during the European call – i.e. the missing transitional provisions. However, the question is whether this is also the aim of this document.
I hope I did not get lost in the terms and their definitions but Network Member (§ 73/1) is only an individual right? So the Partners will not have the veto right?
I think John already mentioned this little discrepancy in terms in his comments.
Excellent point that definitely must be taken into account. Thank you! + what is the relationship between paras 33 and 34 – i.e. reflecting the local peculiarities (§ 33) (such as organizing the teams into a legal entity) and § 34 – work by consensus – that is by definition excluded.
The paragraph ends with a colon (:) – where does the enumeration end?
This is an excellent overview that should be at the beginning.
As any other enumeration of terms used in the document it should also include the abbreviations (the classical “further referred to as “XXX”).
Also the term Creative Commons is used quite loosely and in many connotations and meanings (and sometimes it is abbreviated and sometimes not) – see e.g. § 6 (Creative Commons network), § 37 (goals of Creative Commons), § 60.
So the Network Partners are not in position to take part in the decision-making?
So are member fees generally allowed?
An practical example – a civic association (or registered association) is a Network Partner – in order to be an individual member of the Association with voting rights you have to pay the member fees. Is this OK?
I don’t see why you need partner/organisation in this new model. Because individuals in it need to be member to have a say over things. I assume it will replace existing affiliates.
And what it is the voting for?
As I read more, I don’t see why partners exist in the new structure, apart from replacing current affiliates with less power. Just to make it clear that I like the idea of country teams and moving away from “affiliated” structure.
I would expect to see proposed rights and responsibilities of these new positions in the new structure. I certainly don’t mean to underestimate the great work went into this consultation but this document looks like more of a discussion paper to me. This gives an overview of who is what and how to become member/partner information.
I am also wondering how the transition will take place but i guess all this to be implemented gradually in 2018.
Affiliate institution has a role to provide fund for trainings, conferences, seminars, technological structure etc. It doesn’t always happens but we benefited from this in the last years. In this new structure, there is a risk to loose this unless “partners” credited in some way.
This centralised approach to the country is good. Whoever really work and contribute can appeal to CCGN and recognised. But I can also see that people like to see an entity to sit around a table. For instance, when I say CC Türkiye, people know that there is an institution behind it and partners work together under an umbrella. What I understand now, whatever a CC member say locally, it will be said on behalf of CCGN. This may require more control of CCGN on local activities. Hope CCGN can deliver it.
Re #4 if there is no partner, who is taking over what responsibility for local sites in the context of technical, financial maintenance?
Re#1-7 what is the carrot? Why do individuals take all this responsibility?
Not that everyone who is interested in CC activities and has potential may not want to sign the charter but still want to be involved. Perhaps some interest groups can be formed within the country teams to ensure their engagement.
I know you probably do not want to go into specific sectors, but open education seems something obvious to share when going into the value of open like it is suggested above
If at all possible I would detach this from the country teammembers, but instead call for other volunteers from within the movement, setting up completely transparant process . For inspiration see: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee
This is a very centralistic approach to something that aims to be very decentralised…. But the next paragraph implies that local fundraising is an option. En line 63 again sets all kinds of conditions which makes local fundraising not onkly very cumbersome, but also unattractive.
Other organisations such as Greenpeace, Red Cross and Wikimedia have solved this is a variety of ways, but this seems to be a mix between the different models, resulting in a non-optimal solution….
Not sure I understand how this is going to work. There are no existing members of CCGN now, right? Who will give recommendations in this case? And what about scalability – does the Global Network Council have capacity to approve every single application?
Why every 2 years? I would go with a three-year membership – strategies are usually designed for this period, not for two years
I agree that we might want elected + selected. (Or elected from national teams, plus elected through an open member election for expertise-specific posts.) This allows for wider representation, but also maintaining institutional expertise.
This was very worrisome to us as well. It’s great to have broad membership, but it’s very important that there be coordination when dealing with policymakers.
For example, at CC USA, we hope we’ll add CC country team members in OER and library areas of practice, but it would be really problematic for them to speak to federal policymakers representing themselves as delivering CC USA policy positions. But could be appropriate for them to talk as part of CC USA in areas where they are expert.
The position needs to also make it clear that everyone can speak on settled positions, but not that everyone can establish new positions for the Country Team
“Network Members and Partners can speak in their roles as members/partners to report established CC positions in relation to issues covered in any activity Platforms covered by CCGN. _ When speaking to the public, to other institutions, or to policymakers, Network Members should work within any authorization or policy structures established by their Country Team.”_
Most membership applications will be non-controversial. I would allow country teams to admit new members as part of their internal process as well. So that the CCGN can admit people if there’s no action by the Country Team, but country teams can also admit people as long as they have a process. (With CCGN override, in case of abuse, but not in regular cases.)
I think that it’s important to make it clear that country teams can establish governance and limits on how and when members can speak/represent/fundraise/etc on behalf of the country team. I understand that might be implied by P33, but I think it needs to be explicit.
I also think that in some places a “host organization” for the country team will be useful, to provide a (1)public point of contact, (2)administrative support, and recognition of the resources required to do (1) and (2)
I mentioned this in the paragraph above, but at least for us, having some type of host organization still makes sense, at least for the ability to fundraise and distribute responsibility for the maintenance responsibilities like updating the website, responding to basic queries and administrating the country team structure – organizing calls, meetings, etc.
Agreeing with the other comments above, as written it creates confusion about how much veto power CC HQ has or expects to exercise with funding control. It makes very good sense to coordinate, but the “approval” language and the “reserves the right to lead or cooordinate the approach with the funder” doesn’t seem to acknowledge that in many cases Members/Partners have strong existing relationships to funders that shouldn’t be superseded by CC HQ.
Also, just curious about the donation piece in #7 – I would think this would be a great way for country teams to raise money locally, where donating to a US NGO isn’t as appealing.
Agree that a Legal Platform would be great!
A global network to advance the missions and goals of a creative commons shall be more flexible and inclusive. Anyone — an individual, a local or global community, a transnational entity, and others — shall easily be part of it. Anyone recognizing a well-defined charter of principles and goals toward the commons, and acting to its fulfillment, is a member of the commons.
For full comment, please refer to:
La cantidad de miembros en los órganos ejecutivos de las organizaciones suele ser impar. Si bien la red global CC basará sus decisiones en el consenso, esto es algo que puede ser conveniente tener en cuenta.
No sé si valga la pena incluir referencias a propuestas como el manifiesto del dominio público. Uno de los focos del manifiesto es mantener en dominio público lo que está en dominio público, es decir, procurar no cerrar contenidos.
De acuerdo con Jorge.
Tal vez sería bueno incorporar que junto con trabajar para reformar el derecho de autor, se trabaja para influenciar las políticas de instituciones vinculadas con la creación de conocimiento, y en particular de bienes digitales (estoy pensando por ejemplo en universidades), para que estas aporten a la proliferación de los bienes comunes digitales en formatos legales que faciliten el acceso y la colaboración.
Ambos tipos de miembros cuentan con derechos y responsabilidades similares (salvo en materia de voto, como se explica más abajo).
O tal vez es mejor subir el último párrafo y dejar el actual segundo como tercero.
La recomendación no puede provenier de un integrante de CC HQ?
Actuación por consenso parece adecuado al espíritu y misión de CC como regla general, pero desde un punto de vista pragmático, al incrementarse el número de representantes a nivel nacional debiera consagrarse alguna regla de mayoría en forma supletoria al menos para evitar la paralización en la toma de decisiones en que no se alcance consenso. De otra forma el Consijo Global de la Red podría llegar a experiementar una sobrecarga de temas en que se requiera su resolución.
Sería bueno que junto a las responsabilidades de los equipos que se encuentran aquí definidas, se especificara si exisistirá algún apoyo en recursos desde CC HQ para ejecutarlas.
sobre el termino de bienes comunes digitales. Definir asi pues hay gente que aun no se nutre del las herramientas tecnologicas puesto que sus obras se desarrollan en un contexto fisico (escritos, musica viva, dibujo, pintura, ceramicas, las mismas las tecnicas de trabajo aunque no esten plasmadas son una creacion, asi tambien hay costumbres ancestrales, pero en realidad si deben pasar a un ambito plasmado). Si bien en ambito tecnologico es el area principal y mas facil de manejar, deberia ampliarse la referencia a “bienes comunes fisicos y no fisicos” y “bienes comunes digitales y digitalizados” en algun momento.
en que condiciones quedan las entidades actualmente firmantes de los MOU, forman parte inmediata de la red tras la firma del (futuro) estatuto hasta la siguiente cumbre/reunion_de_consejo o pasaran la gran mayoria por el proceso de recomendacion y evaluacion obligatoria?
Creo que se entiende el sentido que tienen estos fondos y el modo en que se administrarán, pero me queda la duda si está contemplada la recaudación de fondos asignables a los equipos nacionales para proyectos de mayor envergadura o si esa responsabilidad recae solamente en los equipos nacionales
Es fundamental tener una estrategia clara al respecto, de otro modo se corre el riesgo de que las organizaciones más grandes, que cuenten con mayor experiencia y recursos, monopolicen no solo la discusión en la plataforma, sino también los recursos y -consecuentemente- los resultados.
Y respecto a la discusión, es también importante considerar asuntos como: ¿en qué idiomas se va a dar la discusión, en el caso de ser plataformas temáticas, de alcance potencialmente global? Pensando en que es mucho más sencillo participar de una instancia como esta para un hablante nativo.
Voilà qui est très prometteur dans l’avancée de la recherche sur la propriété intellectuelle de l’idée, le droit de realisation des auteurs / compositeurs de produits audio-vidéo et la protection de l’image des individus.
Oui !! Bonjour et bienvenue. Ce texte est d’une importance capitale pour tout acteur oeuvrant à l’avancement des technologies de partage et de communication. J’ai envie d’appeler ce texte : la suite logique de la SACEM.
March 27, 2017 at 2:01 am
See in context
March 25, 2017 at 12:36 am
March 25, 2017 at 12:35 am
March 25, 2017 at 12:24 am
March 25, 2017 at 12:20 am
March 25, 2017 at 12:16 am
March 25, 2017 at 12:08 am
March 24, 2017 at 11:47 pm
March 24, 2017 at 9:03 pm
March 24, 2017 at 8:11 pm