[p2p-research] engaging with the core principles

[marc fawzi]

But then you create two classes of citizens (or members) within the
P2P Foundation: those who uphold some officially recognized "core"
principles and those who don't, like America which is a Christian
nation even if Obama says its not (just look at the dollar bill or go
live in any small town where the dominant belief system is
Christianity) but they 'tolerate' non-Christians and are inclusive on
the surface.

Having fixed or core beliefs or principles that are not open to change
(not just debate) and that are upheld and defended always separates
people and can never unite humanity.

What we share as human beings are not principles that we fight for and
defend but moral and rational ideals and we can capture that
commonslity in our case here as the ideal of the commons and other
adjunct.

I would definitely not subscribe to any Core Principles because of
what the phrase means but simply changing the phrase (not the ideas)
to Common Ideals will allow me to subscribe to them.

As a thinking person, I'm very sensitive to the underlying meaning of things.

Marc


On 5/15/09, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
>


-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi