CC global network strategy proposal

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.