[p2p-research] engaging with the core principles

Thu May 14 21:25:54 CEST 2009

Marc,

I have no problem with ideology.

But I take your point that this is not principles as in legislative or moral
law principles.  It is principles (or ideals) of current broad consensus.  I
suspect you feel affinities toward ideals of mutualism and anarchism such as
those Kevin espouses or that might find under Proudhon here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist

I also share some sympathies with those views.

What I think is going unstated is the OBLIGATIONS of individuals and
collectives.  You are so antithetical to obligations to the state (meaning
compulsory or OBLIGATORY governance) you wish to leave any comment on
governance unsaid.

This opens lots of cans of worms.  What do organizations do when they wish
to interact?  Must they assume that only anarchical governance is feasible
if they wish to be "P2P"?  If one takes that to be an extreme, what then is
allowed?  Where can we go?

To address your concerns, I propose a "preamble" to the whole of the
document like the following:

 P2P should evolve to meet whatever needs peers have in building a commons
or similar works.  Perhaps the term or whole concept of P2P will be subsumed
by other ideas or become irrelevant for one reason or another over time.
For now, P2P implies some conceptual elements to many who work to advance
its ideals and to research its elements, and there is value in setting
down such details even if they often do not apply to a number of particular
instances.

Note that these Collaborative Principles are not intended as legal
structures, definitions, or definitive assertions about the nature or future
of P2P relationships.  They are set down as a working, living, tentative set
of ideas for discussion and as a normative guide for those who wish to
advance their own understanding of P2P as others see it who have tried to
travel the road either through application, research or both.  They are not
intended to be trivially ignored just as they should not be blindly
subscribed.  They are norms to be considered, agreed, or rejected for cause
when a group approaches a P2P partnership, project or framework.  As any
living document, it should change, evolve and reflect the ideas of those
working with P2P, researching it, or implementing successor ideas.

  Ryan

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> A principle is something to uphold and defend, which leads to ideology.
> An ideal is something to work towards which leaves room for
> imagination and creativity.
>
> The spat between Stefan and Michel, if it taught us anything, is an
> example of one person holding an ideology (Stefan) which is based on a
> principle while the other person (Michel) is holding a set of ideals
> which allows him to transcend the ideological state.
>
> I'm in as long as we are promoting ideals not defining principles as
> if we're gods or law makers. Ideals to work toward with an open mind
> and room for all possibilities heading in the same direction, not
> constricting "principles."
>
> Else, I'm against any and all attempts to set in stone what is and
> what can be because that is futile. We don't own the concept of p2p
> and we can only aspire to match our ideals with our actions not up
> hold some principles that we ourselves make!
>
> Marc
>
>   On 5/14/09, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
>   Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090514/e911b0dd/attachment-0001.html>