CC global network strategy proposal

Can't get around the apparent contradiction between their stated (and laudable) goal of overall openness and their active rejection of open communication platforms (I've personally offered to create and host an open one for them) and preference for a demonstrably closed platform (Slack). Seems hypocritical, and at the very least undermines the sincerity of their objective.

Agree with Keitha. I think we can take the critique from an open-source-tech-advocacy perspective as read. I don't think it's hypocritical, but that's neither here nor there. There are some substantial issues here that are likely to be implemented in some form, so the best course IMO would be to give feedback as concretely as we can, without calling into question the goodwill or sincerity of the folks involved.

For the record, my direct dealings with CCHQ have left a rather bad taste, and created some serious doubts about their goodwill and sincerity.

CC HQ seem to me to want to continue to be a successful international organisation supporting openness this century. They are trying to find a way to support affiliates struggling to survive and unable to prepare and deliver the road maps etc that they committed to when there are more important local priorities. CC HQ seems to have concluded that other open groups are needed in the international CC tent. I worry that CC's clear function and role could be lost. Let's discuss these big strategic issues and put aside editing and which discussion tools to use.

I've cited the example of the discussion tool as an instance of "open washing": claiming to be open on principle, and yet being demonstrably not open despite ample opportunity to remedy the dissonance. To me that's a pretty serious thing that cannot be swept under the carpet. There's no point in discussing strategy if the commitment of the organisation to its own stated principles are in question.

Forcing someone to use a closed platform in order to participate fully in a discussion about openness is directly contrary to the stated goals of the CCGN. That, folks, is textbook hypocrisy.

I must say it makes me very cross indeed for people to excuse this tech choice as "ok" when it governs the very discussion about how CCGN can achieve its goal of being more open. I would've preferred it if you had said "yes, that decision is inconsistent with their ideals, and we'll raise concerns about that with them" and then suggest we move on... but excusing it as irrelevant? I'll bow out now, but I'm very disappointed by the lack of commitment to open principles.

I struggle with the document - on the one hand, I understand how their proposal attempts to address the struggle of some affiliates. On the other hand, I fear that in providing a mechanism to support those affiliates, there is a loss of independence, which may come at a prize with respect to finding local support. Maybe I am reading this wrong - perhaps the legal team can shed some light with respect to how, for example, the ability of CCANZ to find local funding and how to tailor their work to support the local needs may be affected. What I have loved about CCANZ was its ability to focus on local needs - and the work actually being driven by local demand. I am not sure how this fits with the document as I understand it.

I agree. But it's worth noting that the existing MoU says (I think) that CCANZ needs CCHQ approval to raise funds under the CC banner. It's a risk-management thing for the global org, rather than a 'control what local affiliates do' thing.

But yeah, @fabianakubke I have the same concerns. A charitable reading would suggest that the new 'platforms' approach—which seem to be intended to be global issues of shared importance to most regions—is mainly a way to raise and distribute funding from large corporates and global NGOs. CCANZ can still work outside of those 'platforms', but it won't be able to get grants from HQ on those non-platform issues. Which we don't, at the moment, on any issues whatsoever.

Do you have any other insights from your discussions with HQ, Keitha or Elizabeth?

Thanks, Elizabeth. Let's all continue in good faith and spend this week discussing and agreeing on what changes we will put to CC HQ and the Summit to make sure that NZ continues to lead with its CC outreach and advocacy.

Dave - I suggest you take this issue directly to CC HQ again, and allow this conversation to discuss the issues raised in the consultation paper. I would never suggest you are wasting our time, but so far you have not addressed the far-reaching matters raised in the document.Please give others a chance to join this - pass the "talking stick" to them.

An organisation which espouses to be open, should not deny access to equal participation in community discussions which requires contributors to sacrifice their freedoms in software choice. This is a substantive issue insofar as openness is concerned. The OER Foundation and it's staff are required to use free and open source software for enterprise supported technologies as a matter of policy.

The OER Foundation has a substantive concern with the current draft as it stands - we can discuss further during the Advisory Panel meeting. Under the proposed rules for fundraising under para 63

63-3) Would require the Foundation to seek prior approval including disclosure of the prospective funder list.
63-4) CC HQ reserves the right to lead or co-ordinate the approach with the funder.

As an independent entity, the Foundation would not sign an agreement where the autonomy of the company to raise funding to support our projects and operations is signed off to a US-based entity. We have local NZ legal obligations, eg employment of staff, contracts, fiscal reporting etc which have nothing to do with CC-HQ. I appreciate that CC-HQ wish to protect themselves against individuals and institutions attempting to generate funding using the "Creative Commons" name - but we would not sign an agreement which restricts the autonomy and independence of the Foundation to an offshore entity.

thanks, Wayne. That is most helpful and needs to be covered in whatever document replaces the current MOU.

Can you please also put this comment in the Advisory Panel thread.

Feel free to copy my comment to the Advisory Panel thread - its dedicated to the public domain :-). I chose to communicate the Foundation's policy openly.

I understand the concerns about freedom to raise funds, though it's worth considering what this is actually trying to address.

I think the real-world example here is if CCANZ approached Global Tech Giant's NZ representatives (say), while CCHQ were doing the same. We can argue about the desirability of NZ approaching Global Tech Giant ourselves, though CCHQ might (probably correctly) say that they could get more money, and distribute it more equitably around the world, with a centralised approach that had the backing of affiliates. This is less good for NZ, though arguably has more impact on the international CC project.

So, I guess I'm not sure I personally have a problem with that. There's a degree of trust around them not interfering in other respects, but the CC mothership has always had the power to interfere much more than they have. CCANZ is a CC affiliate, after all. But they've generally been very good at respecting and supporting local autonomy, as the last eight years have shown.

It might also be worth checking the existing MoU. The activities of the OERF, acting as CCANZ — or however you wish to phrase it — is obviously already limited by this US org in various ways according to terms of that MoU. I can't recall, though it may actually require disclosure of funders already. I'm not sure if you were taking this point beyond fundraising, Wayne, but I guess the broader point is that there has always been (and always will be) a legally structured relationship that limits the freedom and autonomy of CC's affiliates.

Hi Matt,

As you well know, the OERF hosts CCANZ as an independent self-funded project - we do not generate any revenue from CCANZ's activities. In the interests of disclosure I cite the relevant text of the current agreement:

"This means that Affiliate is not permitted to make any policy statement on behalf of CC on matters relating to the Project or other activities contemplated by this Agreement without CC’s prior written consent, and further means that Affiliate shall not raise funds or seek funding in the name of Creative Commons without CC’s prior written consent. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not prevent Affiliate from making policy statements or seeking funding in the name of CC New Zealand so long as Affiliates complies with the CC Policy Advocacy Guidelines." [My emphasis]

Yes there is a legal relationship between the OERF and CC-HQ through the CCANZ agreement - but the OERF needs to operate within its own autonomy as an open organisation. In the spirit of openness - CCANZ has the freedom to become its own independent organisation - its not in our DNA to restrict freedom.

Thanks Wayne - that's a useful reminder if the existing MOU, and hopefully useful context for other folks.

Wayne. Does OERF have an MOU within its sector?

Keitha, No - we do not have an MOU within our sector (other than the MOU we signed for hosting CCANZ).

We subscribe to open and transparent planning, for example, all planning for the OERu international partnership is documented in WikiEducator. We have not had any need for MOU's - this agile and responsive approach has worked well for OERF.

Hello CC friends. One point of clarification: The draft proposal does not preclude any independent organization or foundation from fundraising for their own initiatives. The proposal precludes members and partner orgs (as does the current MOU) from fundraising using the Creative Commons name, affiliation, and brand without the express permission of HQ.

This is consistent with all of the current MOUs, and FWIW, the current draft provides a framework for how we could co-ordinate and collaborate on fundraising activities for shared activities for the first time.

I welcome any other comments or questions. Our goal is a growing, vibrant global community that works collaboratively to strengthen itself, participates in shared goal-setting and decision-making, and has greater impact.

Ryan Merkley
CEO, Creative Commons

Kia ora Ryan,

I commend your goal and leadership in building a vibrant community that works collaboratively to strengthen itself. It is also important to clarify how the CC community will co-ordinate and collaborate on fundraising activities. This is a step in the right direction. I have two questions:

1) 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 MOU provide express permission for 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?

Thanks, Wayne and Ryan.

Ryan - CCANZ's status as NZ's affiliate providing CC licences training and outreach has been a strong factor in our success in gaining operational funding since 2010. The MOU through OERF has given authority to our position. The proposal to 'eliminate the MOU' and replace it with a Global Network Charter that all network members and partners needs to sign changes our status significantly and could well result in confusion for potential funders of our operations. As Wayne says, can you please confirm that:

1. the Charter will provide express permission for CCANZ through OERF to raise funding for CCANZ's operations; and
2. a Country team under the new proposal will be able to continue to present itself as the authoritative CC group providing CC licences training and outreach.

Keitha

Wayne, thanks for your comments and questions.

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.

I anticipate we will make refinements based on the feedback -- that's why we're having a consultation -- and our intention is not to constrain the types of funding arrangements you're using to support CCANZ ops. I'll be working on those revisions at the end of the month after the consultation closes. However, as the network grows, some co-ordination and disclosure from those working as CC will be needed, and I think, beneficial to all. I'm sure we can strike a balance.

Hi Keitha, thanks for sharing those points of concern.

I think I've answered your first question above. With respect to the second, yes, there will be only one "authoritative" country team, made up of all the constituent members and partner orgs. They will operate together and co-ordinate nationally. We want to let each country team structure itself as they need to, so I might expect you'd continue to operate similarly as you do now, and other teams will keep their models as well. Regarding the value of affiliation with OERF, I might expect that OERF would become a "network partner", which would create a relationship with the country team that would be similar -- certainly enough that you could present outwardly in the same way to funders.

Ryan,

Appreciate your clarifications and thanks for taking the time out from your busy schedule to respond on our questions on the CCANZ list.

The OERF (as legal host) of CCANZ would be keen to join the CC family as a "network partner." However, given that we host CCANZ as an independent flagship project under the OERF umbrella - representation would come from the amazing talent within the small but passionate and very capable CCANZ team.

My thanks to you also, Ryan, for replying so quickly to our queries. This information will inform our Advisory Panel's quarterly meeting next Monday. Discussion of the proposed strategy is a key item on our agenda. After that discussion we will prepare our formal response. Best wishes, Keitha

And we'd love to have you. The model allows both orgs as network partners, but also individuals to become members -- we think this makes a more resilient community because when people leave the org, they don't leave the movement. So it's both together. The current model doesn't allow that and has (unintentionally) restricted growth and limited opportunities for new participation and leadership.

That's great. If you have further questions, please feel free to reach out -- you know where to find me. :)

[I'm new to the group, but for those of you who don't know me, my day jobs have involved promoting open source software in the UK with OSS-Watch 2003-2008 and then doing tech with the NZETC, one of NZ's first public CC boosters 2010-current.]

I have a significant issue with the vision promoted by the new document. "universal access to [...], full participation in culture" is myopic in assuming that no culture occurs in a private space and that there is no shareable cultural artifact that should not be shared.

This is a completely flawed assumption, for example:

(a) Many cultural structures depend on non-universal access. Think Eleusinian Mysteries, contemporary LDS and Buddhist practices and many indigenous initiation practices (possibly including Māori ones).
(b) There are entire classes of cultural artifacts whose purpose lies in their production rather than their existence. Think juvenilia (there's a reason why pretty much every artist destroys their juvenilia), lullabys, etc.
(c) There are entire classes of cultural artifacts which are widely agreed should not be created or shared because they are posited to be innately harmful. Think illegal child pornography or snuff films.
(b) There are entire classes of cultural artifacts which are widely agreed should not be shared because they are confidential. Think medical records, computer passwords, etc.

Basically the proposal should be abandoned, in my view.

@stuartyeates are there any other reasons you think the proposal should be abandoned?

That's been CC HQ's vision for many years (at least five, probably much longer), so it isn't new to this document. It's a bit vague and open-ended, and your examples are good ones; but in practical terms, I doubt anyone at CC would disagree with any of your points, nor would their positions and actions be bound by an extremely literal interpretation of that statement in the first place.

I'm not a huge fan of that mission statement either—and I think others share that view—but there are many other fish to fry in this proposal. I'd personally be interested to hear your thoughts on those, given your experience in open source communities and with CC in particular.

Thanks, Stuart and Matt.

This proposal suggests vision, a mission statement and values and guiding principles.

I don't support multiple statements like these as in my experience they generally result in people focusing on those differences rather than collaborating to achieve results.

I support Para 6 of the proposal: "The core goal of the Creative Commons network is to establish a regulatory environment and a set of norms and practices that promote and support openness and sharing as key societal values".

The proposed platforms make sense in this context - for example a legal platform, which continues CC's primary work.

what other platforms would you suggest?

Lets be concrete about this.

When the NZETC digitised 'Moko; or Maori Tattooing' by Robley (an important New Zealand cultural work by pretty much any means), we did some consultation (see http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-MokoDiscussionPaper.html) and based on that we digitised the work and published it as Creative Commons with certain images removed, for example: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-RobMoko-t1-body-d1-d3.html If that's against the Creative Commons movement's direction, then a number of GLAM institutions and organisations are likely to have serious issues with that direction.

Other than translating the licenses in to local laws / languages, the workstream on indigenous knowledge http://creativecommons.org.nz/indigenous-knowledge/ is in my eyes pretty much the only New Zealand-specific part of CCNZ.

Other issues with the document for me include:
* Lack of definition of what a country is (particularly with respect to Palestinian-Israeli, North Korea-South Korea and Taiwan-China conflicts). I think we need 'state recognised by at least one UN member state' wording
* 'Country' probably needs to explicitly cover dependent territories

* The USA appears to get double-representation, once as CC HQ (three reps) and once as a country team (one rep).
* It's unclear whether people become 'contributors' merely by using the various CC licenses. If so, Yahoo and it's ilk count as contributors, which makes para 17 seem a little odd.

Hi Stuart - thanks for raising those questions. Some replies:

The Vision is very broad, I agree, and might be due for refinement later on, though outside the scope of this work. To your question, in my experience, no one in CC has ever read it to imply that there are works that could not be closed or should be protected. Also, I'm aware of several affiliates in Latin America and North America that actively share your view about cultural works and appropriate types of sharing (and not sharing). I think we're aligned on this, and the vision has never been ready by me, our staff, the board, or the community in that way.

Good comments re: country definition. Will take that back to the committee.

CC US and CC HQ are separate entities. I'm the CEO, and I'm based in Canada. We are legally a 501(c)3, but our activities are globally focused -- every org has to be registered somewhere. Our team is in Canada, the US, Chile, and Kenya. We don't speak for the US. Fair point to clarify, though.

We'll take a look at the contributor section you mention. The intent is to be clear that membership is not a requirement to do something that advances the work of the CC movement.