[p2p-research] engaging with the core principles

[Michel Bauwens]

hi ryan,

have you heard of the cult classic bolo bolo, which answers that question?

I haven't read it myself though,

Michel


On 5/16/09, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Left and right now, there is a strange anti-organizational power emerging
> that can only remind one of Proudhon, Spooner and other
> anarcho-libertarian-socialists.
>
> I'm inclined to think that Kevin may be on to something.  It is a social
> order (or lack thereof) I cannot easily comprehend.
>
> If someone can give me a link to a futuristic portrait of how such a
> society might work in the large...a real picture of it--I'd be very
> grateful.  I'm trying to imagine 9 billion people living in anarcho-utopian
> socialism and things working out OK.  Or is this just academic?
>
> Ryan Lanham
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> let's distinguish a few things:
>>
>> - Ryan's core principles is his project, to which I'm commenting, and he
>> is free to use the formulations he wants, just as you did with your p2p
>> energy project
>>
>> - but I have my own, on certain aspects quite strong, convictions ...
>>
>> The distinction between p2p as ethics, which I think exists, and p2p as a
>> specific mode of production/governance and property, is important, in <my>
>> view, because it is its very hyperproductivity which makes it the likely
>> candidate for the succesor civilization, if it would just be ethics ...
>> well, we have christian ethics and buddhist ethics but still a very
>> exploitative and destructive society .. Ethics is not enough, congruent
>> change is needed on different levels at the same time, and can only succeed
>> if it is demontrably better than what it intends to replace ..
>>
>> But again, these are my convictions, there is no requirement to adhere to
>> it at all,
>>
>> just as you are free to defend the ethical point of view, please allow me
>> to defend the other point of view,
>>
>> Michel
>>
>>
>> On 5/15/09, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> c
>>
>> ...
>
> [Message clipped]




-- 
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/20090517/52275b40/attachment-0001.html>