[p2p-research] engaging with the core principles

Fri May 15 11:53:01 CEST 2009

we do have a different approach, but it is not a 'requirement' to be part of
the p2p foundation, which is pluralist <g> ... so: difference is appreciated

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:22 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> It sounds like a complex rational device.
>
> Keeping it simple, focused on the ideals on top of which variety of
> frameworks are based, is better in my opinion than presenting it as a
> core of principles that one must to uphold and defend to be part of
> the P2P Foundation's view of P2P.
>
> Marc
>
> On 5/14/09, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have to disagree with Marc here.
> >
> > We use a very precise definition of p2p in the context of the p2p
> > foundation:
> >
> > peer production is based voluntary input, participatory process,
> > commons-oriented output
> >
> > the peer to peer dynamic is free self-aggregation to create common value
> > without direct expectation of reciprocity from any particular individual
> >
> > it is therefore not a hierarchical allocation method, not an exchange
> based
> > market form, and not a reciprocity based gift economy
> >
> > We can use it in a looser sense as well, as mere self-aggregation amongst
> > equals. I use 'peer-informed' to indicate processes.
> >
> > So it all depends what we are talking about, the precise definition, or
> the
> > looser principle of aggregation.
> >
> > Finally, there are different levels, the factual definition described
> > above,
> > the underlying values and ethical principles on which it is based, and
> the
> > social ideals and praxis that it inspires.
> >
> > It's important to keep these levels apart when we can.
> >
> > Of course, people are free to define it in any way they want, but
> > 'traditionally' this is how it has been defined in our context here, but
> > again, people can disagree.
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:27 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> The preamble works as long as we call them Common Ideals not Core
> >> Principles.
> >> I have not explored what constitutes common ideals for me and say
> >> Kevin or anyone else but I trust Michel's judgment on what constitute
> >> the common ideals for the P2P movement at this time in our evolution
> >> and I trust your integrity in articulating it.
> >>
> >> I am totally in as long as we drop Core Principles, which scares me a
> >> lot, and call it Common Ideals.
> >>
> >> Both "core" and "principles" are problematic words for me. The first
> >> implies an assumed center of mass in whatever follows the word "core"
> >> (in this case the principles as the center of mass or the anchoring
> >> center) where in fact our evolving morality and evolving rationality
> >> are the only grounding forces, so I reject the implied meaning that
> >> there is a solid core to our morality or rationality that does not
> >> change. There isn't. And we live with an evolving morality and
> >> evolving rationality.
> >>
> >> So that's as far as my grievance against the word Core as used in Core
> >> Principles.
> >>
> >> The problem I have with Principles as a word is that principles are
> >> meant to be upheld and defended and we are not setting out to uphold
> >> or defend any set of rules or ideas that we ourselves come up with. We
> >> are setting out to work toward common ideals.
> >>
> >> So if we change Core Principles to Common Ideals the I'm super fine
> >> and Michel snd yourself can lead the definition and articulation of
> >> those common ideals.
> >>
> >> I am fine as long as they're recognized as Common Ideals not Core
> >> Principles. For me, it makes a big difference.
> >>
> >> Thanks Ryan. I do like the preamble but with the title change to
> >> Common Ideals, or any such phrasing, not just the preamble by itself!
> >>
> >> Marc
> >>
> >> On 5/14/09, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > 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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> 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
>

-- 
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090515/06c5ce56/attachment-0001.html>