[p2p-research] engaging with the core principles

Thu May 14 18:54:25 CEST 2009

We cannot control an idea, and P2P is in essence an idea.

We can state moral and rational "ideals" not "principles" .. I have a
huge problem with the word "principals" and sorry I dd not note it
before.

Also "core" abstracts away rationality and morality and replaces them
with some center of mass that is not really there. The word "core" is
problematic but I may be insane.

I prefer Rational and Moral Ideals or more specifically Ideals. No
Principles as principles bound and dictate.

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:49 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ryan,
>
> Speaking for myself, I have developed a half-decent model (still has
> potential to evolve to capture more realism) of a P2P economy where
> the more one shares the more one benefits. This contrasts with the
> Commons idea if 'just sharing and not necessarily benefiting from the
> sharing" It gives an incentive to sharing which is closer to the
> notion of fairness to about 80% of people. It's the reason charitable
> foundations get so much money around tax time, as there is mutual
> benefit. Sharing without expectation of benefit (to the individual and
> community) is what the commons is right now but layers of abstraction
> could evolve around this core idea that are less purist than the core
> but still hugely beneficial.
>
> So my issue with your statement that P2P cannot be about exchange with
> reciprocation. It's because you're looking at classical reciprocal
> exchange that does NOT reward sharing, whereas I'm looking at a kind
> of reciprocal exchange that does reward sharing and in fact makes
> sharing a necessity for growth. That's the model in the P2P Energy
> Economy. Why should it be barred under this non-definition definition
> (or core principles)
>
> ?
>
> Marc
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Marc,
>>
>> My own view is that more description is useful even if problematic at
>> times.  But descriptions ought not to be laws.  This work is meant to be
>> normative... Norms are guidelines not rules or laws.  If that point isn't
>> made explicitly enough, it should be.
>>
>> Stating that P2P can evolve is good.  But what can't it evolve to?  Can it
>> become commercial?  The history of public corporations evolved around the
>> idea of granting a license to firms to act in the public interest in the use
>> of certain assets to make a profit.  Admittedly, that ethos is long gone,
>> but what can't become P2P, and what can't P2P become?
>>
>> What isn't a commons?  To me, if something has relatively strong
>> exclusivity, it isn't a commons or P2P.
>>
>> Strong exploratory assertions of what isn't and what is P2P could lead to
>> disagreement, but the document isn't a definition.  It is a description of
>> collaborative principles.  Still, people can and should disagree.  Apply it
>> or not.  The point is to have a locus of departure when talking about P2P.
>>
>> It seems to me that P2P is a mode of interacting with a commons or groups of
>> commons with minimal bureaucratic overhead and low transaction costs.  That
>> mode arises based on an ethical commitment to responsible sharing goods and
>> furthering shared goods.  It arises most frequently in association non-rival
>> goods because those are least prone to perceived selfish value in
>> ownership.
>>
>> But to say all those things introduces ethics, economics, modes of
>> management, organization, etc.  Without some expansion, it is hard to
>> understand what one is even talking about.
>>
>> I agree the P2P Foundation is not a rulemaker for P2P, but as an advocate,
>> as a research body, doesn't it have responsibilities to expand the ideas of
>> the shared framework?  That is, isn't the knowledge of P2P and the current
>> ideas about it also a commons?  If one can reject the parts and use the
>> substance, it is like using free lines of code without using the whole
>> object or program.  I certainly don't propose to legislate for anyone in a
>> strong sense what is or isn't P2P.  But to discuss and outline theories of
>> it seems responsible and reasonable, just like it is responsible and
>> reasonable for the Creative Commons to do fundraising, to hire lawyers and
>> to draft intellectual property licenses that fit various national
>> frameworks.
>>
>> Ryan
>> Ryan Lanham
>> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:02 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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