To edit, click on "Edit" at the top of the page, below the green header.
This is how to leave a comment. You may respond to or comment on other people's comments, but please do not delete other's comments. --Michelle Thorne 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Does this policy include every type of social media platform used by jurisdictions? --Aurelia Schultz 22:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Section I.c.i has a typo in the reference to other sections. I assume you are trying to refer to sections labeled: "Registering in CC’s Name" and "Registering in Affiliate’s Name". Those are (d) and (e), not (e) and (f). JesseWeinstein 06:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jesse, we'll fix that. --Aurelia Schultz 06:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I seems no many people has been involved in the discussion over here. Are you sure this is the best way to encourage people's participaction in this process? Anyway, here my two cents; actually, three topics of the Internet Service Policy.
Clause II (a) says, "Purpose of Project Website. The Project Website (if any) is to serve as the principal public information portal about the Project, which should include educational, research and promotional programs that encourage and enable the sharing of work within the Project jurisdiction through the use of the six Creative Commons licenses (...); and other legal instruments, such as the CC0 waiver, patent licenses, patent non-assert tools, and other previous and forthcoming licenses and tools published by CC (collectively “Legal Tools”). - Q: Must the national websites encourage and include informaction about some legal tools that do not apply in their domestic jurisdiction? What's about if it is not clear if a given tool is consistent with domestic law? Including such information in those cases undermine the credibility of the national initiatives and domestic teams. This is the case of our team, in Chile, because it's not clear, for example, that CC0 can work legally, since the law expressly repelled waive of rights by authors.
Clause II (p) says, "Items that cannot be hosted. The following items will be hosted on the CC HQ Website only: License drafts,..." - Q.: During the process of discusion of the draft of the licenses in Chile, draft were made available on line in the website of the organization that host the initiative and several other electronic resources, some of them are not own. As a policy, we do not remove content from website, because it undermine public credibility... Should we remove draft made publicly available in order to discusse the national versions of the license?
Best, Alberto Cerda Silva
PD.: I would suggest that this discusion should have place in the mailing list rather than here.
Some responses to Alberto's comments:
Clause II (a): the list given there, following "such as" is a list of examples. If an Affiliate Team does not want to promote CC0, it does not have to do so.
Clause II(p): As mentioned on the MOU discussion page, it would be best if old license drafts could be removed. However, if they cannot be, they may remain posted provided they are marked as drafts and provide a link to the finalized licenses.