Dear Sean: Thanks for the newest version of the proposal. I think it is fit for purpose with one exception. The section on externalities has become a victim of 'committee write' (compromises) and I would make the following (word neutral -- 48 words in each case) suggestion for revision. As received: The Centre will extend analysis to externalities in the digital economy: 5. externalities: The costs of environmental factors as well as the transaction costs of policing copyright are only partly hidden in the prices paid by consumers. This programme will relate copyright transactions to externalities, public goods and resources. Proposed substitute: Assessment of externalities will be an important theme for the Centre: 5. Externalities: Copyright and other IPRs impose externalities (benefits and costs outside of the choice framework of the market) that influence consumer welfare, environmental quality and sustainability. Assessing these externalities will be a research issue for the Centre. If the phrase '(benefits and costs outside of the choice framework of the market)' seems cumbersome, an alternative is '(windfall benefits and involuntarily imposed costs)' which adds a bit of colour and still is technically correct. Best regards, Ed Steinmueller ________________________________________ From: Cubitt S.R. [[email protected]] Sent: 06 September 2011 17:44 To: Group working in the Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy Cc: Matthews N.S.; Amelia Wakeford; Taylor C.; Ed Steinmueller; Caroline Bassett; Kirk Woolford Subject: Centre:new draft Here's the new version, incorporating everything I could from wiki and mails and comments; and removing all previous comments and track changes - you may have to turn track changes back on to make your comments. The word counts require very sharp writing: not too much detail, not too much abstraction. I welcome all suggestions, but we must get this signed on Thursday morning to be sent in officially. The paragraph on "strategy for how to bring stakeholders in to the research process" at the end of the Partnership section is of special interest: it is an amalgam of a conversation I once had with the late Bill Mitchell on how MIT Media Lab was funded mixed in with an outsider view of how Ubuntu make a living from Linux. This I would especially thank you for help with. The section on strategic fit is one hundred words over, mainly because when I'd accommodated all suggestions, I realised we hadn't done the required bit on pubic communications. I will cut to size after I get your reactions The most heavily worked section as you'd expect is the first, Demonstration of Need. I have tried to be more diplomatic, without sacrificing the vision, and in a very tight word-budget. We have about 15 words to play with here In Funding and Legacy, we are near complete figures. These will have to be digested into the 500 word limit. In the meantime I have included the draft of the required paragraph on 'potential for a sustainable legacy' Your comments here also appreciated Thanks so much for the process so far: even if we don't nail this one, it is a great, collegial process. Sean PS Franco: if not on already, could you add the names in the cc list to the Group mail? Grazie tanto.