At this link find a description of how to build a bottom-up social movement. At this link find an article on how iCommons sees itself governed. At this link find a letter written by Mike Shaver, chief evangelist at the Mozilla Corporation.

Mike Shaver writes:"Creative Commons has produced a set of licenses that helps not only software developers, but photographers, musicians, authors, bloggers, videographers, poets, DJs, painters , documenters, and journalists. This means that anyone who produces a creative work, which is virtually everyone on the planet, can share their work in ways that they choose."

On this iCommons wiki you'll see that a community governance document is being drafted. There is no wiki asking the community to be involved in creating any kind of ideology that governs iCommons (yet?).

At this link find a call for the summit to more scientific. At this link find out that science has it own commons. At this link find an article asking 'what is art to iCommons?'

iCommons' mission currently is "iCommons.org’s mission is to provide a valuable service to the global commons community by providing valuable information and networking tools to the social entrepreneurs that make up this movement."

How many social entrepreneurs within the iCommons community depend on using Creative Commons licences to distribute their art/creativity? How many intellectuals/ creators/ artists define themselves as social entrepreneurs? What about the valuable information and networking tools for the people that Mike Shaver from Mozilla mentions?

According to an interview at this link link Ronaldo Lemos chairman of iCommons says. "iCommons is made for those connected to Creative Commons .....iCommons is the movement, Creative Commons is the legal project".

If Creative Commons is the legal project, why does Creative Commons not have a meeting that brings all those interested in the legal aspects together? If Science Commons is focused on the intellectuals within the movement, why partly not the same? Is it part of the iCommons mission to bring the users of the licences together?

Is the Creative Commons movement made up by those that licence their creativity with a Creative Commons licence or by those that create the bureaucracy around the licence? According to the description of "how to build a bottom-up social movement". Step 2 Appoint (not elect) members of the board and employees.

A festival that brought creators that used Creative Commons licences and those that create platforms for that creativity could happen in many different parts of the world at different times of each year. Its a huge expense to fly people from all around the world to a remote part of Japan to gather and talk about free culture. How do those outside the iCommons movement and those on the fringe of this movement view this?

Are the non-professional/part time/ full time artists and creators that licence using Creative Commons going to be fairly represented at future summits and events?

tags: Oslo Norway policy-law icommons bottom-up-social-movement

extracted from: