[p2p-research] engaging with the core principles

Fri May 15 14:34:49 CEST 2009

Good words.  I will include them in the preamble.

Ryan Lanham

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:56 PM, 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090515/d908becc/attachment-0001.html>