March 22, 2017 at 4:25 pm
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.
See in context
March 22, 2017 at 1:04 pm
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.
March 22, 2017 at 12:56 pm
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.
March 22, 2017 at 12:49 pm
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.
March 22, 2017 at 12:45 pm
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.
March 22, 2017 at 12:43 pm
#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.
March 22, 2017 at 12:41 pm
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’.
March 22, 2017 at 12:38 pm
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).
March 22, 2017 at 12:36 pm
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.
March 22, 2017 at 12:33 pm
I would expect here also some statement what the expectations/obligations of a member and partner would be. I suspect none?