[p2p-research] engaging with the core principles
marc fawzi
marc.fawzi at gmail.com
Thu May 14 18:02:52 CEST 2009
There is a huge problem in seeming to say two contradictory things,
even if that's not the intent or can be argued against:
1. You seem to say that P2P is "open" (although I don't see the word
"evolvable" or "evolving" which is key to description of any model
that is .. um.. evolving, not set in stone, not static, not already
out dated)
2. You seem to contradict the above by excluding reciprocal exchange
(in the last paragraph) and saying that that is not P2P. Who is the
P2P Foundation to tell people what P2P is and isn't. All we can do is
describe the core moral and rational ideals and keep it open and
evolvable. Prosper uses the term P2P Lending for "lending with
interest." P2P is also used the P2P Energy Economy which is a
reciprocal system optimized for "the more you share, the more you
have" which is a commons-inspired ideal that benefits all while
benefiting the individual. To dictate what P2P is and isn't and then
call it "open" is a very clear contradiction.
What we need to do is state what the moral and rational ideals are (of
the commons) and let the P2P definition alone in peace so as not start
new wars of ideology. That is because the term P2P is being used in a
huge variety of ways, way beyond the very purist definition. Stating
the moral and rational ideals is sufficient, IMO, we don't need to
become a dictionary authority for the term P2P, as that will surely
relegate us to irrelevance. We can't own the concept. And I feel part
of the core principles assumes that we can.
Marc
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Article 3 re-edited...
>
> [edit] Article 3: Economic and Political Theories
>
> A. P2P is not associated or disassociated with any particular economic
> theory such as capitalism or socialism.
>
> B. P2P relations, in their strongest form, are specific type of
> non-reciprocal exchange characterized by voluntary contribution to a pool
> shared by all. P2P is arguably its own economic theory but it is not
> exclusive of other economic approaches. A person picking up a piece of
> litter in a park is making a non-reciprocal contribution to a commons...the
> park. From a P2P ethos perspective, this is done out of advancement of a
> shared resource. It is not a duty, but a practical way to live. The
> expectation is that, in concert with others committed to sharing and
> advancement of commons, a responsible network of mutual benefit and shared
> purpose is feasible. Further, the conflicts associated with sharing can be
> minimized through reasonable agreements and norms. Avoiding free riders and
> selfish uses is perhaps easiest in the context of non-rival goods--goods
> where nothing is lost through sharing. Thus one finds P2P systems often
> associated with software--a classic non-rival good. But it is in the area of
> exclusivity where P2P takes on its primary political traits. P2P respects
> rights to exclusivity, but normatively attempts to advance willing
> participation in systems where exclusivity is minimized or abandoned in the
> interests of a shared advancement. Some systems such as publishing
> scientific research are partially exclusive or non-exclusive with
> attribution, etc. P2P advocates typically advance the weakest reasonable
> exclusivity arrangements. Such views often lead to P2P being likened to a
> utopian communist system or a mutualist/anarchist system. These are not
> unreasonable comparisons. However, P2P itself is not an exclusive economic
> framework.
>
> C. There is much interest in the ways P2P systems influence and work in
> association with other economic systems. For example, how does a free
> software framework influence or change software markets or consumer actions?
>
> D. Strong advocates of a P2P ethos search for means by which a culture of
> sharing and trust could largely reduce or replace the need for many market
> or governmental systems.
>
> E. P2P is most consistent with democratic systems where free expression and
> other human rights are respected and protected; however, no political model
> other than one that abolishes the concept of a commons is antithetical to a
> p2p ethos. It is implausible that a political system with strong
> restrictions on freedom of expression could be consistent with a p2p ethos.
> P2P is often associated with Non-Market Economics. It might also be situated
> with certain branches of Communitarianism.
>
> F. Implementations of Alternative Currencies, Open Money and modes of
> exchange that do not necessitate governments, central banks or state-based
> regulatory authorities are linked elements of a p2p ethos.
>
> G. P2P is not typically a national system. P2P entities are perhaps most
> appropriately situated with or compared to transnational civil society
> organizations.
>
> H. What to avoid: P2P is not a transaction-based mode of exchange where
> compensation is explicitly expected. Optimization of trades and exchanges
> exclusively for personal gain is not consistent with a p2p ethos.
>
> Ryan Lanham
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:06 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would totally love it if what Michel just captured (i.e. the
>> blending) below can be added to the P2P Core Principles along the
>> lines of this interpretation: P2P is not a static idea of thing we can
>> frame and hang on the wall. It's life. And as life, it's complex,
>> adaptive and evolving, with the caveat that, as an ideal, both moral
>> and rational, it holds on to its core values and inspires change all
>> around it, toward that ideal.
>>
>> If that makes sense to you Ryan.
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Michel Bauwens
>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Marc,
>> >
>> > I would add an additional observation.
>> >
>> > When we are in a transition process of one format of domination, say the
>> > commodity form, to another one, say peer to peer, then the other forms
>> > start
>> > an adaptation to the new mode.
>> >
>> > Examples are blended value (doing well by doing good), social enterprise
>> > (the corporate form in the service of a social good), fair trade (trade
>> > submitted to partnership and fairness). I think we are witnessing many
>> > examples of hybrid formats, driven by an adaptation of the market form
>> > to
>> > the emerging chaotic attractor that is the commons,
>> >
>> > Michel
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:24 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The moral ideal is the commons. But that doesn't really work
>> >> universally right now and so market dynamics enter into it but
>> >> moderated by the moral ideal, and so they become dynamics in the
>> >> service of an ideal, not counteracting it.
>> >>
>> >> And the balance is where most people find comfort between the two
>> >> different worlds of the market economy and the commons.
>> >>
>> >> I sort of tried to do that in the P2P Energy Economy but it was a raw
>> >> and initial attempt and more learning is to be had before something
>> >> more viable emerges.
>> >>
>> >> Some people like to interrupt this process in order to hold on to the
>> >> ideal but Michel, for one, realizes that it's important to stay open
>> >> to this process of reconciliation even when it swings to extremes.
>> >>
>> >> Marc
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michel Bauwens
>> >> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Ryan,
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm tacking ARticle 3
>> >> >
>> >> > For me, p2p is a particular form of non-reciprocal exchange,
>> >> > voluntary
>> >> > contributions to a common pool which is available to all. As such it
>> >> > is
>> >> > a
>> >> > very specific system, not really barter, gift economy, or market
>> >> > exchange.
>> >> >
>> >> > But, it co-exists with these plural forms. What is of interest
>> >> > therefore
>> >> > is
>> >> > how it influences them and how it is influenced by them.
>> >> >
>> >> > So I would say that a specific 'p2p theory' is interested in
>> >> > understanding
>> >> > the specificity of p2p dynamics and how they relate with all other
>> >> > economic
>> >> > forms, eventually with a special interest in sustaining and promoting
>> >> > p2p
>> >> > dynamics in such a plural environment.
>> >> >
>> >> > In its 'strong form', the one I adhere to, it is interested in making
>> >> > p2p
>> >> > dynamics the core of a new type of economy and civilization.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think that perhaps these comments could trigger more specific
>> >> > formulations
>> >> > in article 3?
>> >> >
>> >> > Michel
>> >> >
>> >> > Article 3: Economic and Political Theories
>> >> >
>> >> > A. P2P is not associated or disassociated with any particular
>> >> > economic
>> >> > theory such as capitalism or socialism.
>> >> >
>> >> > B. P2P is most consistent with democratic systems where free
>> >> > expression
>> >> > and
>> >> > other human rights are respected and protected; however, no political
>> >> > model
>> >> > other than one that abolishes the concept of a commons is
>> >> > antithetical
>> >> > to a
>> >> > p2p ethos. It is implausible that a political system with strong
>> >> > restrictions on freedom of expression could be consistent with a p2p
>> >> > ethos.
>> >> > P2P is often associated with Non-Market Economics. It might also be
>> >> > situated
>> >> > with certain branches of Communitarianism.
>> >> >
>> >> > C. P2P may represent its own framework of economic theory most
>> >> > closely
>> >> > aligned with what have been considered barter and exchange economies.
>> >> >
>> >> > D. Implementations of Alternative Currencies, Open Money and modes of
>> >> > exchange that do not necessitate governments, central banks or
>> >> > state-based
>> >> > regulatory authorities represent core elements of a p2p ethos.
>> >> >
>> >> > E. What to avoid: P2P is not a transaction-based mode of exchange.
>> >> > Optimization of trades and exchanges for personal gain is not
>> >> > consistent
>> >> > with a p2p ethos. P2P is not typically national. P2P entities are
>> >> > perhaps
>> >> > most appropriately situated with or compared to transnational civil
>> >> > society
>> >> > organizations.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I further changed Article 1 to reflect recent discussions:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Item J is new, and the latter part of the item A is new. No other
>> >> >> changes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Article 1. P2P Interactions
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A. High quality P2P interactions exist between peers. Peers
>> >> >> typically
>> >> >> recognize and interact with each other without reference to rank or
>> >> >> hierarchies. Interactions are best when cordial, tolerant,
>> >> >> respectful
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> made, where possible, without judgments especially regarding aspects
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> directly relevant to the P2P domain.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> B. Peers' willingness to interact is not primarily linked to
>> >> >> external
>> >> >> drivers. External drivers might include, for example, prestige in
>> >> >> undertaking an interaction, financial gain, or duty.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> C. P2P interactions are not amoral or value neutral. A p2p ethos
>> >> >> embodies
>> >> >> trying to act with goodness and goodwill as well as with practical
>> >> >> skills
>> >> >> and wisdom.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> D. Peer interactions are judged (by others who aspire to a p2p
>> >> >> ethos)
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> qualitatively superior if linked to contributing to a commons.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> E. Another measure of quality is the contribution to mission
>> >> >> critical
>> >> >> functionality. For example, this might involve efforts that save
>> >> >> lives,
>> >> >> advance learning and understanding, enable sustainable economic
>> >> >> processes or
>> >> >> otherwise support or enable key components of the public good as
>> >> >> openly
>> >> >> understood in free, deliberative and collaborative societies.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> F. P2P interactions attempt to minimize mediating forces or
>> >> >> organizations.
>> >> >> Hierachies that impose governance on p2p interactions that are
>> >> >> otherwise
>> >> >> consistent with social standards and laws are not appropriate to the
>> >> >> ethos.
>> >> >> This is particularly true if the party imposing governance is acting
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> some interest other than enabling smooth, stable and harmless p2p
>> >> >> interactions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> G. A p2p ethos is inconsistent with the purposeful extraction of
>> >> >> value
>> >> >> from interactions when no such value is contributed directly to a
>> >> >> given
>> >> >> interaction. Simply enabling future actions is not a creation of p2p
>> >> >> value
>> >> >> worthy of repeated compensation. That is, royalties or licensing
>> >> >> fees
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> not consistent with a p2p ethos.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> H. A P2P ethos is consistent with advancing the interests of the
>> >> >> underprivileged, the weak, those on the bottom of the digital
>> >> >> divide,
>> >> >> or any
>> >> >> who have need of a more sustaining commons provided through fair and
>> >> >> honest
>> >> >> means.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I. Unless dire political consequences are involved, peers should not
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> anonymous[3].
>> >> >>
>> >> >> J. P2P interactions ought not to be used as a opening to
>> >> >> proselytize,
>> >> >> sell, advance unrelated political, social or moral positions except
>> >> >> when
>> >> >> such discussions are expected, invited and made welcome by other
>> >> >> peers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> K. What to avoid: P2P specifically does not aim to circumvent human
>> >> >> rights, democratically enacted laws, rightfully established
>> >> >> organizational
>> >> >> controls, or legitimate claims of property in force. Rather, p2p
>> >> >> seeks
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> build and expand common resources that are expressly free, open,
>> >> >> collaborative and mutually beneficial.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ryan Lanham
>> >> >> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>> >> >> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Michel Bauwens
>> >> >> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hi Ryan,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I think we understand each other, not sure if it is necessary to
>> >> >>> have
>> >> >>> a
>> >> >>> whole paragraph to indicate this subtle discussion ?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I'll leave it up to you?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> (perhaps we can say that a peer project only judges persons on
>> >> >>> their
>> >> >>> voluntary participation to the common object, without requiring
>> >> >>> involuntary
>> >> >>> changes in identity in matters unconnected to the project; that
>> >> >>> differentiates with premodern communities that do require it)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Michel
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Ryan Lanham
>> >> >>> <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Interesting Michel. I suppose it is inevitable that someone must
>> >> >>>> be
>> >> >>>> called retro by being postmodern, and I am it, it seems.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Seriously, I understand what you are saying and I agree. Your
>> >> >>>> view
>> >> >>>> is
>> >> >>>> that the commons is a source of social linkage and therefore
>> >> >>>> identity. But
>> >> >>>> one would also like to avoid compulsory Nehru suits or Mao caps at
>> >> >>>> the same
>> >> >>>> time. We want an artistic freedom to express along with a
>> >> >>>> willingness to
>> >> >>>> share...not an obligatory commitment to join the Borg (since Star
>> >> >>>> Trek seems
>> >> >>>> vogue now.)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> One area where I think P2P is sharply in contrast with socialism
>> >> >>>> is
>> >> >>>> in
>> >> >>>> the fact that P2P seems to eschew any notion of obligatory
>> >> >>>> participation.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Perhaps we might say something like the following:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> P2P is not a framework for institutionalizing worldviews or
>> >> >>>> standardizing political wills. It is not ideological in any
>> >> >>>> strong
>> >> >>>> sense.
>> >> >>>> Rather, it is a voluntary model where, even when commitment is
>> >> >>>> quite
>> >> >>>> high
>> >> >>>> and very deeply felt, it is inappropriate for a participant to
>> >> >>>> feel
>> >> >>>> bound to
>> >> >>>> a specific way of being, appearing, acting or judging in order to
>> >> >>>> share in a
>> >> >>>> P2P ethos. At the same time, destructive anti-commons actions, or
>> >> >>>> highly
>> >> >>>> heterodox expressions to the point of being highly distracting and
>> >> >>>> disruptive for most participants in a sharing and trust model is
>> >> >>>> counter-productive and appropriately sanctioned by those charged
>> >> >>>> to
>> >> >>>> protect
>> >> >>>> a group,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> That seems overwrought and repetitive with some other sections,
>> >> >>>> but I
>> >> >>>> throw it out for consideration..
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Ryan Lanham
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Michel Bauwens
>> >> >>>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Ryan,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I have moved to section to.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I only have one question:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> - (commons) is usually of low intensity in relationship to a
>> >> >>>>> participant's identity formation.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> hmm ... I'm actually assuming that people are more and more
>> >> >>>>> building
>> >> >>>>> their identities through their engagement with the commons
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> see:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> "Postmodernism was all about deconstructing oppressive mental
>> >> >>>>> structures that we inherited from modernity. Amongst other things
>> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >>>>> Cartesian subject/object split and the alienating effects of
>> >> >>>>> Kantian's
>> >> >>>>> impossibility of knowing true reality; it was a necessary
>> >> >>>>> destructive
>> >> >>>>> passage, a cleaning out process, but it didn't, as its names
>> >> >>>>> "post"-
>> >> >>>>> indicate, construct anything. So in my view, if modernity was
>> >> >>>>> about
>> >> >>>>> constructing the individual (along subject/object divisions), and
>> >> >>>>> postmodernity about deconstructing this, then this new era, which
>> >> >>>>> I'ld like
>> >> >>>>> to call the era of participation, is about constructing
>> >> >>>>> relationality or
>> >> >>>>> participation. We are not going back to the premodern wholistic
>> >> >>>>> era
>> >> >>>>> and
>> >> >>>>> feelings, but just as modernity was about rigorously
>> >> >>>>> individualising
>> >> >>>>> everything, eventually reaching the current dead-end of
>> >> >>>>> hyper-individualism,
>> >> >>>>> we are now just as rigorously 'relationising' everything. If in
>> >> >>>>> premodernity
>> >> >>>>> we thought, we are parts of a whole that is one and above us, and
>> >> >>>>> in
>> >> >>>>> modernity we thought we are separate and unified individuals, a
>> >> >>>>> world onto
>> >> >>>>> ourselves, and in postmodernity saw ourselves fragmenting, and
>> >> >>>>> pretty much
>> >> >>>>> lamented this, then this is the mash-up era. We now know that all
>> >> >>>>> this
>> >> >>>>> fragments can be reconstructed with the zillions of fragment of
>> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >>>>> others,
>> >> >>>>> into zillions of commonalities, into temporary wholes that are so
>> >> >>>>> many new
>> >> >>>>> creative projects, but all united in a ever-moving Commons that
>> >> >>>>> is
>> >> >>>>> open to
>> >> >>>>> all of us..
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> So the fragmentation of postmodernity is a given for us now, but
>> >> >>>>> we
>> >> >>>>> are
>> >> >>>>> no longer lamenting, we are discovering the technologies
>> >> >>>>> (infrastructural,
>> >> >>>>> collaborative-software-ish, political, but above all the mental
>> >> >>>>> and
>> >> >>>>> epistemological) that allow us to use this fragmentation to
>> >> >>>>> create
>> >> >>>>> the Great
>> >> >>>>> Cosmic Mash-Up. That is the historical task of the emerging Peer
>> >> >>>>> to
>> >> >>>>> Peer
>> >> >>>>> Era."
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Ryan Lanham
>> >> >>>>> <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Michel, in order to address your concern: I added Item H below.
>> >> >>>>>> See
>> >> >>>>>> if that affirmation of moral action makes you more comfortable
>> >> >>>>>> with
>> >> >>>>>> Section
>> >> >>>>>> 1. Also, for those new to the discussion, we are collaborating
>> >> >>>>>> on
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles specifically
>> >> >>>>>> Article 1 and subsequent. Any and all comments, changes,
>> >> >>>>>> criticisms, etc.
>> >> >>>>>> are welcome.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> [edit] Article 1. P2P Interactions
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> A. High quality P2P interactions exist between peers. Peers
>> >> >>>>>> typically
>> >> >>>>>> recognize and interact with each other without reference to rank
>> >> >>>>>> or
>> >> >>>>>> hierarchies.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> B. Peers' willingness to interact is not primarily linked to
>> >> >>>>>> external
>> >> >>>>>> drivers. External drivers might include, for example, prestige
>> >> >>>>>> in
>> >> >>>>>> undertaking an interaction, financial gain, or duty.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> C. P2P interactions are not amoral or value neutral. A p2p ethos
>> >> >>>>>> embodies trying to act with goodness and goodwill as well as
>> >> >>>>>> with
>> >> >>>>>> practical
>> >> >>>>>> skills and wisdom.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> D. Peer interactions are judged (by others who aspire to a p2p
>> >> >>>>>> ethos)
>> >> >>>>>> as qualitatively superior if linked to contributing to a
>> >> >>>>>> commons.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> E. Another measure of quality is the contribution to mission
>> >> >>>>>> critical
>> >> >>>>>> functionality. For example, this might involve efforts that save
>> >> >>>>>> lives,
>> >> >>>>>> advance learning and understanding, enable sustainable economic
>> >> >>>>>> processes or
>> >> >>>>>> otherwise support or enable key components of the public good as
>> >> >>>>>> openly
>> >> >>>>>> understood in free, deliberative and collaborative societies.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> F. P2P interactions attempt to minimize mediating forces or
>> >> >>>>>> organizations. Hierachies that impose governance on p2p
>> >> >>>>>> interactions that
>> >> >>>>>> are otherwise consistent with social standards and laws are not
>> >> >>>>>> appropriate
>> >> >>>>>> to the ethos. This is particularly true if the party imposing
>> >> >>>>>> governance is
>> >> >>>>>> acting with some interest other than enabling smooth, stable and
>> >> >>>>>> harmless
>> >> >>>>>> p2p interactions.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> G. A p2p ethos is inconsistent with the purposeful extraction of
>> >> >>>>>> value
>> >> >>>>>> from interactions when no such value is contributed directly to
>> >> >>>>>> a
>> >> >>>>>> given
>> >> >>>>>> interaction. Simply enabling future actions is not a creation of
>> >> >>>>>> p2p value
>> >> >>>>>> worthy of repeated compensation. That is, royalties or licensing
>> >> >>>>>> fees are
>> >> >>>>>> not consistent with a p2p ethos.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> H. A P2P ethos is consistent with advancing the interests of the
>> >> >>>>>> underprivileged, the weak, those on the bottom of the digital
>> >> >>>>>> divide, or any
>> >> >>>>>> who have need of a more sustaining commons provided through fair
>> >> >>>>>> and honest
>> >> >>>>>> means.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> I. Unless dire political consequences are involved, peers should
>> >> >>>>>> not
>> >> >>>>>> be anonymous[3].
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> J. What to avoid: P2P specifically does not aim to circumvent
>> >> >>>>>> human
>> >> >>>>>> rights, democratically enacted laws, rightfully established
>> >> >>>>>> organizational
>> >> >>>>>> controls, or legitimate claims of property in force. Rather, p2p
>> >> >>>>>> seeks to
>> >> >>>>>> build and expand common resources that are expressly free, open,
>> >> >>>>>> collaborative and mutually beneficial.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Ryan Lanham
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Michel Bauwens
>> >> >>>>>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Ryan,
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> only a minor remark then for this first section, I feel I agree
>> >> >>>>>>> with
>> >> >>>>>>> all your formulations
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Michel Bauwens
>> >> >>>>>>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Hi Ryan,
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> I have been overwhelmed lately, but ready now to engage with
>> >> >>>>>>>> your
>> >> >>>>>>>> core principles,
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Would it be useful for you to discuss your draft, say section
>> >> >>>>>>>> by
>> >> >>>>>>>> section, starting with this:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> If you agree, I will start commenting after receiving that
>> >> >>>>>>>> reply:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Article 1. P2P Interactions
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> A. High quality P2P interactions exist between peers. Peers
>> >> >>>>>>>> typically recognize and interact with each other without
>> >> >>>>>>>> reference to rank
>> >> >>>>>>>> or hierarchies.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Here a reference to Equipotentiality may be useful? see
>> >> >>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> B. Peers' willingness to interact is not primarily linked to
>> >> >>>>>>>> external drivers. External drivers might include, for example,
>> >> >>>>>>>> prestige in
>> >> >>>>>>>> undertaking an interaction, financial gain, or duty.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> C. P2P interactions are not amoral or value neutral. A p2p
>> >> >>>>>>>> ethos
>> >> >>>>>>>> embodies trying to act with goodness and goodwill as well as
>> >> >>>>>>>> with
>> >> >>>>>>>> practical
>> >> >>>>>>>> skills and wisdom.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> D. Peer interactions are judged (by others who aspire to a p2p
>> >> >>>>>>>> ethos) as qualitatively superior if linked to contributing to
>> >> >>>>>>>> a
>> >> >>>>>>>> commons.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> E. Another measure of quality is the contribution to mission
>> >> >>>>>>>> critical functionality. For example, this might involve
>> >> >>>>>>>> efforts
>> >> >>>>>>>> that save
>> >> >>>>>>>> lives, advance learning and understanding, enable sustainable
>> >> >>>>>>>> economic
>> >> >>>>>>>> processes or otherwise support or enable key components of the
>> >> >>>>>>>> public good
>> >> >>>>>>>> as openly understood in free, deliberative and collaborative
>> >> >>>>>>>> societies.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> F. P2P interactions attempt to minimize mediating forces or
>> >> >>>>>>>> organizations. Hierachies that impose governance on p2p
>> >> >>>>>>>> interactions that
>> >> >>>>>>>> are otherwise consistent with social standards and laws are
>> >> >>>>>>>> not
>> >> >>>>>>>> appropriate
>> >> >>>>>>>> to the ethos. This is particularly true if the party imposing
>> >> >>>>>>>> governance is
>> >> >>>>>>>> acting with some interest other than enabling smooth, stable
>> >> >>>>>>>> and
>> >> >>>>>>>> harmless
>> >> >>>>>>>> p2p interactions.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> G. A p2p ethos is inconsistent with the purposeful extraction
>> >> >>>>>>>> of
>> >> >>>>>>>> value from interactions when no such value is contributed
>> >> >>>>>>>> directly to a
>> >> >>>>>>>> given interaction. Simply enabling future actions is not a
>> >> >>>>>>>> creation of p2p
>> >> >>>>>>>> value worthy of repeated compensation. That is, royalties or
>> >> >>>>>>>> licensing fees
>> >> >>>>>>>> are not consistent with a p2p ethos.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> H. Unless dire political consequences are involved, peers
>> >> >>>>>>>> should
>> >> >>>>>>>> not
>> >> >>>>>>>> be anonymous[3].
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> I. What to avoid: P2P specifically does not aim to circumvent
>> >> >>>>>>>> human
>> >> >>>>>>>> rights, democratically enacted laws, rightfully established
>> >> >>>>>>>> organizational
>> >> >>>>>>>> controls, or legitimate claims of property in force. Rather,
>> >> >>>>>>>> p2p
>> >> >>>>>>>> seeks to
>> >> >>>>>>>> build and expand common resources that are expressly free,
>> >> >>>>>>>> open,
>> >> >>>>>>>> collaborative and mutually beneficial.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> I probably agree with does not aim, but neither would it be
>> >> >>>>>>> opposed
>> >> >>>>>>> to legimate attempts to change them, see for example the
>> >> >>>>>>> landless
>> >> >>>>>>> movement
>> >> >>>>>>> in Brazil?
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Michel
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>>>> Working at
>> >> >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> >> >>>>>>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> >> >>>>>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> >> >>>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> >> >>>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> >> >>>>>>>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>>> Working at
>> >> >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University
>> >> >>>>>>> -
>> >> >>>>>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> >> >>>>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> >> >>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> >> >>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> >> >>>>>>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> --
>> >> >>>>> Working at
>> >> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> >> >>>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> >> >>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> >> >>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> >> >>>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> >> >>>>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University
>> >> >>> -
>> >> >>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> >> >>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> >> >>> http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> >> >>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> >> >>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> >> > http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> >> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >> >
>> >> > Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> >> > http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> >> > http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >> >
>> >> > Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >> >
>> >> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> >> > http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > p2presearch mailing list
>> >> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> >> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Marc Fawzi
>> >> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>> >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> > http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >
>> > Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> > http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> > http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >
>> > Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >
>> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> > http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Marc Fawzi
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>
>
--
Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list