Back to gallery
This image was posted on Monday, January 23rd, 2017 at 7:41 pm and is filed under . You can follow any comments on this image through the RSS 2.0 feed.Both comments and pings are currently closed.
March 27, 2017 at 2:01 am
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:
See in context
March 25, 2017 at 12:36 am
Agree that a Legal Platform would be great!
March 25, 2017 at 12:35 am
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seem to acknowledge that in many cases Members/Partners have strong existing relationships to funders that shouldn’t be superseded by CC HQ.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.
March 25, 2017 at 12:24 am
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.
March 25, 2017 at 12:20 am
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)
March 25, 2017 at 12:16 am
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.)
March 25, 2017 at 12:08 am
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.”_
March 24, 2017 at 11:47 pm
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.
March 24, 2017 at 9:03 pm
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.
March 24, 2017 at 8:11 pm
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