|

Comments by Commenter

  • Abbas Mahmmood

    • Comment on English on March 2nd, 2017

      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)

  • Alexandra Matiakh

    • Comment on French on February 1st, 2017

      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.

  • Alexandra Matiakh

    • Comment on French on February 1st, 2017

      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.

  • Aristarik Maro

    • Comment on English on March 2nd, 2017

      This is Great idea, and lets have a platform for individuals to apply for membership

       

    • Comment on English on March 2nd, 2017

      I do agree with Towo’s thinking.

  • Brian Ssennoga

    • Comment on English on February 24th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on February 24th, 2017

      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?

    • Comment on English on February 24th, 2017

      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?

    • Comment on English on February 24th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on February 24th, 2017

      Is this a good place to consider Member fees, atleast as an in-country resource that can fund in-country thankless activities and expenditures?

  • Cable Green

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      non-profit

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      First sentence: “The global charity Creative Commons…”  Recommend replacing the word “charity” with “non-profit.”

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      Replace “and the charity based in the United States” with: “and the non-profit based in the United States”

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      Add: Country Teams will send a representative(s) to Platforms of interest.

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      Add (after #5) : Ensure national positions align with CCGN Platform positions when they exist.

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      The title of this individual should be named in this document.  Maybe: “country team lead” or “country lead.”

  • Darius Whelan

    • Comment on English on February 10th, 2017

      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.

  • Dave Lane

    • Comment on English on March 8th, 2017

      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.

       

    • Comment on English on March 8th, 2017

      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?

    • Comment on English on March 8th, 2017

      no comma after “i.e.” and you actually probably mean “e.g.” – for example.

    • Comment on English on March 8th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 8th, 2017

      The use of a comma after an abbreviation like “e.g.” is incorrect.

    • Comment on English on March 8th, 2017

      Totally agree regarding Oxford comma. Its lack creates unnecessary ambiguities.

    • Comment on English on March 8th, 2017

      “stewarding”? Awkward/incorrect use. Perhaps “curating”, “offering stewardship for”, or something similar.

    • Comment on English on March 9th, 2017

      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.

  • David Ramírez-Ordóñez

    • Comment on Spanish on March 6th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on Spanish on March 6th, 2017

      De acuerdo con Jorge.

  • Derek Moore

    • Comment on English on January 27th, 2017

      Build a globa commons or contribute towards building a global commons?

    • Comment on English on January 27th, 2017

      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.

  • dorothy

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      Include the word sharing because that is what we do

       

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      Regulatory environment ?- please look at this wording. I m fine with the set of norms and practices

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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.

       

  • ELIZABETH OYANGE

    • Comment on English on March 8th, 2017

      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…”

    • Comment on English on March 8th, 2017

      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…”

  • Emilio Velis

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      * 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.

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      “Creative Commons network” = CCGN? The use of terms has to be consistent.

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      “We promote the exercise of free speech.”

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      #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.?

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      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?

  • Erasmus Rukantabula

    • Comment on English on March 20th, 2017

      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

  • Fabiana Kubke

    • Comment on English on March 11th, 2017

      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.

       

  • Fátima São Simão

    • Comment on English on February 9th, 2017

      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.”

    • Comment on English on February 9th, 2017

      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.

       

    • Comment on English on February 9th, 2017

      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”.

    • Comment on English on February 9th, 2017

      “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.”

       

    • Comment on English on February 9th, 2017

      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?

       

    • Comment on English on February 9th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on February 9th, 2017

      Ops… It’s the next topic! 😛

    • Comment on English on February 9th, 2017

      Is the renewal automatic or will it actually need to be resubmitted every two years?

  • Geert Lovink

    • Comment on English on March 22nd, 2017

      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.

  • ilkay holt

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      +1

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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?

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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?

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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.

  • Iryna Kuchma

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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?

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      Why every 2 years? I would go with a three-year membership – strategies are usually designed for this period, not for two years

  • Jan-Bart de Vreede

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      Agreed

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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….

  • Jennie

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      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.”

       

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      Or rather, “it could read,” not should. This is a grammatical recommendation. 🙂

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      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

       

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      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?

  • John Weitzmann

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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 …

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      to consult them would definitely make sense, so I guess it is maybe implied here?

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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?

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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 …

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      I fully agree that this would make a lot of sense.

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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 😉

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      I really like this approach, a real innovation for our network 🙂

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      I was just about to point out the same thing as Tomo. “CC Member” would be yet another different term.

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      I think “general donations” means donations for purposes other than CCGN activities, so there is probably no contradiction here.

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      Here are several instances of the term “Teams” without anything attached. Shouldn’t those be “Country Teams”?

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      Point 7: It must be clarifies more where the borderline is between “general donations” and, well, specific donations? project donations?

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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.

  • Jonathan Ball

    • Comment on English on March 2nd, 2017

      This seems strange to me. To only focus on the Active Contributors will discourage growth. Perhaps just needs to be re-worded.

  • Jorge Gemetto

    • Comment on Spanish on January 25th, 2017

      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.

  • Kat

    • Comment on English on February 24th, 2017

      Transparency alone doesn’t eliminate these things; it does reveal them and guard against them.

    • Comment on English on February 24th, 2017

      I think it should just be “commons”, not “digital commons”.

  • Keitha Booth

    • Comment on English on March 20th, 2017

      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.

  • Keitha Booth

    • Comment on English on March 20th, 2017

      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

    • Comment on English on March 20th, 2017

      Will Country Teams be consulted when people or institutions try to join the CGCN?

    • Comment on English on March 20th, 2017

      CCANZ recommends a second round of consultation once the comments have been assessed and a draft Global Network Charter developed.

    • Comment on English on March 20th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 20th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 20th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 20th, 2017

      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

  • KSEltar

    • Comment on Spanish on March 22nd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on Spanish on March 22nd, 2017

      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?

  • Kshitiz Khanal

    • Comment on English on February 20th, 2017

      I think the superlative is redundant on #1. Are there any criteria to separate active contributors from the rest?

  • Leo Arias

    • Comment on English on March 3rd, 2017

      And to publish open data? We should strive to do that too.

  • lodewijk

    • Comment on English on March 22nd, 2017

      putting this at the beginning would make reading a bit easier 🙂 Preferrably with a schema drawing.

    • Comment on English on March 22nd, 2017

      I would expect here also some statement what the expectations/obligations of a member and partner would be. I suspect none?

    • Comment on English on March 22nd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 22nd, 2017

      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).

    • Comment on English on March 22nd, 2017

      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’.

    • Comment on English on March 22nd, 2017

      #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.

    • Comment on English on March 22nd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 22nd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 22nd, 2017

      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.

  • MAKSYM NAUMKO

    • Comment on English on February 10th, 2017

      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”

    • Comment on English on February 10th, 2017

      I believe requirement of approval by the Council addresses such risk.

    • Comment on English on February 10th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on February 10th, 2017

      Is there a particular reason to include the first sentence? It just repeats in the section on membership above

    • Comment on English on February 10th, 2017

      Would it be possible to organize in-person meeting at least once a year for representatives of all (a majority of) teams?

    • Comment on English on February 10th, 2017

      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?

  • Marcela Basch

    • Comment on English on March 18th, 2017

      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.

  • Maria Paz Canales

    • Comment on Spanish on March 20th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on Spanish on March 20th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on Spanish on March 20th, 2017

      La recomendación no puede provenier de un integrante de CC HQ?

    • Comment on Spanish on March 20th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on Spanish on March 20th, 2017

      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.

  • Matěj Myška

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      +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.

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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?

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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).

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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?

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      +1

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      The paragraph ends with a colon (:) – where does the enumeration end?

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      So the Network Partners are not in position to take part in the decision-making?

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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?

  • Matt McGregor

    • Comment on English on January 25th, 2017

      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!

    • Comment on English on January 25th, 2017

      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?

       

    • Comment on English on January 25th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on January 25th, 2017

      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!

    • Comment on English on February 16th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on February 16th, 2017

      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.

       

  • Meredith

    • Comment on English on March 24th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 25th, 2017

      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.”_

       

    • Comment on English on March 25th, 2017

      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.)

    • Comment on English on March 25th, 2017

      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)

    • Comment on English on March 25th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 25th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 25th, 2017

      Agree that a Legal Platform would be great!

  • Mostafa

    • Comment on English on February 14th, 2017

      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!

  • NaBUru38

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      Respect does not equal diversity. A cohesive group can promote respect within but oppose diversity outside it. It’s important to mention both things.

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      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”.

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      It should also say “and to take advantage of technological possibilities”.

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      Also, “we will encourage stakeholders to protect the digital commons and the people who use it”.

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      I would say universal access.

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      I would add “we promote collaboration”.

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      I would add responsibility.

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      People often dont know truth. But they always know what is being honest.

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      I would add “find solutions to problems.

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      Non-derivative licenses should not be promoted, especially in CC resources.

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      That’s one of the platforms in point 4.

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      If members and partners arent so legally, what legal status does have the CC Global Network?

    • Comment on English on January 26th, 2017

      To reduce the risk of takeovers, I guess.

    • Comment on English on January 27th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on January 27th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on January 27th, 2017

      “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.

  • Patrick Peiffer

    • Comment on English on January 31st, 2017

      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?

  • Savithri Singh

    • Comment on English on February 27th, 2017

      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!

  • Shauna Lee Lange, The Art Evangelist

    • Comment on English on January 25th, 2017

      Who are “we”

    • Comment on English on January 25th, 2017

      agreed.  regulatory environment seems counter-intuitive

    • Comment on English on January 25th, 2017

      agreed.  further, perhaps we seek or endeavor to understand would be more accurate.

    • Comment on English on January 25th, 2017

      perhaps fundamentally tied to truth rather than honesty

    • Comment on English on January 25th, 2017

      no educational pillars???

    • Comment on English on January 25th, 2017

      why is the recommendation of 2 existing “members” seen as imperative if the end goal is broad participation and acceptance.

    • Comment on English on January 25th, 2017

      At first blush as written with this structure, it seems it would be difficult to “follow the money”

  • simeon

  • Teresa Nobre

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      Please add the initials here too, e.g. “Creative Commons Global Network (CCGN)”.

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      There’s no definition of Platform Coordinator. Who can hold such a position?

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      “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…”

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      RE: “#1 Coordinate the activities of the most active contributors” – why only of the most active ones? And which contributors: members only, I assume?

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      If that is not what is meant, maybe “report on…” would be more appropriate?

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      Let me praise this. I think it was about time to let individual members become official members of the network!

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      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?

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      I think we should clarify that he current affiliates will be eliminated and that the Country Teams will replace it, if I understand correctly.

    • Comment on English on January 29th, 2017

      We should clarify that the current affiliates will be eliminated and that the Country Teams will replace it, if I understand correctly.

  • timothy vollmer

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      instead of “regulatory environment”, I’d say “law and policy”, or similar

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      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. 

       

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      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.”)

       

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      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? 

       

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      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?

       

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      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”

       

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      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?

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      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?

       

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      RE: “Executive Committee” — What is the purpose/role of the executive committee? In what circumstances will it be used or needed?

    • Comment on English on January 24th, 2017

      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.

       

  • Tomo

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      I wonder if the language of GNC will be limited to English, or it will be multilingual, translation (/interpretation)-supported entity.

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      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

       

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      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.

       

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      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..

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      I had the same impression with Teresa, I think.

      My concern is a matter of presentation not content, to be clear.

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      A very brief explanation of “The MoU” is helpful here, because it is not a self-explanatory term for non-affiliate readers.

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      “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.

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      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.

       

       

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      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.

       

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      Re: #5

      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.

       

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      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…?

    • Comment on English on February 12th, 2017

      “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.

       

    • Comment on English on February 14th, 2017

      [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.

    • Comment on English on February 14th, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 7th, 2017

      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

    • Comment on English on March 7th, 2017

      (continued) “veto” could be done even to an existing member, by other members.

  • Ton Roosendaal

    • Comment on English on March 22nd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 22nd, 2017

      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.

  • trc

    • Comment on English on March 27th, 2017

      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:

      http://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/~trc/public/Comments-on-CCGN.txt

  • Vladimir Garay

    • Comment on Spanish on March 24th, 2017

      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

    • Comment on Spanish on March 24th, 2017

      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.

       

  • XIN Xingzhi

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      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.

    • Comment on English on March 23rd, 2017

      Also, Jurisdiction Team should replace Country Team.

Source: https://consultation.creativecommons.org/comments-by-commenter/