[p2p-research] Request: Peer to Peer and Human Evolution

[Michel Bauwens]

background text to the theses I just sent:

*Discussion:*

(the first 3 sections of the text concerning a summary of P2P Theory)

*4. The conditions for the expansion of peer governance*

Peer governance functions because peer production is the macro-scale
coordination of a large number of micro-production teams. Within the teams,
decision-making is participative and consensual, and the global coordination
is voluntarily accepted and today technically feasible. Small tribes, the
victims of civilizational hierarchies, are re-enabled in the new format of
affinity-based cyber-collectives.

Positively, peer governance expands the sphere of autonomy-in-cooperation to
all social fields. It’s promise is that production becomes a
non-hierarchical process. But as I said earlier, peer governance is
‘post-democratic’ because it is non-representational.

The negative constraint is the following: peer governance requires a priori
consensus on the common object. But society as a whole lacks such consensus
by definition: it is a decentralized collection of competing interests and
worldviews, rather than a distributed network of free agents. Therefore, for
society at large, there is no alternative to a revitalized democratic polity
based on representation. However, just as the market can inspire itself and
be reformed by P2P or partnership-based principles (as in the fair trade
that is subjected to peer arbitrage), so we can have peer-informed formats
of multi-stakeholder based global governance. And in any case, the sphere of
autonomy, i.e. of pure governance, can substantially expand even within the
strictures of democratic government.

*5. P2P theory as the emancipatory possibility of the age*

Our current political economy is based on a fundamental mistake. It is based
on the assumption that natural resources are unlimited, and that it is an
endless sink. And it creates artificial scarcity for potentially abundant
cultural resources. This combination of quasi-abundance and quasi-scarcity
destroys the biosphere and hampers the expansion of social innovation and a
free culture.

In a P2P-based society, this situation is reversed: the limits of natural
resources are recognized, and the abundance of immaterial resources becomes
the core operating principle.

The vision of P2P theory is the following:

1) the core intellectual, cultural and spiritual value will be produced
through non-reciprocal peer production;

2) it is surrounded by a reformed, peer-inspired, sphere of material
exchange;

3) it is globally managed by a peer-inspired and reformed state and
governance system.

Because of these characteristics, peer to peer can be said to be the core
logic of the successor civilization, and is a answer and solution to the
structural crisis of contemporary capitalism.

Indeed, because an infinite growth system is a logic and physical
impossibility with a limited natural environment, the current world system
is facing a structural crisis for its extensive growth. Currently consuming
‘two planets’, it would need four planets if China and India would obtain
equity with the current Western levels of consumption. Because of the
ecological and resource crisis that this causes, the system is ultimately
limited in its extensive expansion.

However, its dream for intensive development in the immaterial sphere is
equally blocked, since the sphere of abundance and direct social production
of value through peer production, creates an exponential growth in use
value, but only say a linear growth in the market opportunities in its
margins.

The current world system is facing a similar crisis to that of the
slave-based Roman Empire, which could no longer grow extensively (at some
point the cost of expansion is greater than the benefits of added
productivity), but could not grow intensively either, since that would
demand autonomy for the slaves. Hence, the feudal system emerged, which
refocused on the local, where it could become much more productive and grow
‘intensively’. Serfs, which were tied to the land but now had families, a
fixed part of their produce, and a much lighter taxation load, were
substantially more productive than slaves. The lords took a substantially
lesser part of the surplus. Today, extensive growth is ultimately blocked,
but intensive growth in the immaterial sphere requires a substantial
reconfiguration which largely transcends the current system logic.

Similarly, the current structural crisis causes a reconfiguration of the two
main classes (just as the slave owners had to become feudal lords, and the
slaves had to become serfs). At present, we see the emergence of a
netarchical class of capital owners, who are renouncing their dependence on
the present regime of immaterial accumulation through intellectual property,
in favour of a role as enablers of social participation through proprietary
platforms, which cleverly combine open and closed elements so as to ensure a
measure of control and profit, while knowledge workers are reconfiguring
from a class that was dissociated from the means of production, to one that
is no longer dissociated from its means of production, as their brains and
the networks are now their socialized means of production.
(However, they are still largely dissociated from autonomous means of
monetization.) It would be fair to say that currently, peer production
communities are collectively sustainable, but not individually, leading to a
crisis of value and widespread precarity amongst knowledge workers.

The solution would in my opinion point in the following direction:

1) the private sector recognizes its increasing dependence on the positive
externalizations of social cooperation, and together with the public
authorities, agrees to a new historical compromise in the form of a basic
income; this allows the sphere of cooperation to thrive even more, creating
market benefits

2) the sphere of the market is dissociated from infinite-growth capitalism
(how this can be done would require a separate article, but the key would be
a macro-monetary reform such as those proposed by Bernard Lietaer,
associated with a new regime that extends the production of money from
private banks to the social field, through open money systems)

3) the sphere of peer production creates appropriate ‘wealth acknowledgement
systems’ to recognize those that sustain its existence, and systems exist
which can translate that reputational wealth in income

*6. Peer governance and democracy *

As peer to peer technical and social infrastructures such as sociable media
and self-directed teams are emerging to become an important if not dominant
format for the changes induced by cognitive capitalism, the peer to peer
relational dynamic will increasingly have political effects.

As a reminder, the p2p relational dynamic arises wherever there are
distributed networks, i.e. networks where agents are free to undertake
actions and relationships, and where there is an absence of overt coercion
so that governance modes are emerging from the bottom-up. It creates
processes such as peer production, the common production of value; peer
governance, i.e. the self-governance of such projects; and peer property,
the auto-immune system which prevents the private appropriation of the
common.

It is important to distinguish the peer governance of a multitude of small
but coordinated global groups, which choose non-representational processes
in which participants co-decide on the projects, from representative
democracy. The latter is a decentralized form of power-sharing based on
elections and representatives. Since society is not a peer group with an a
priori consensus, but rather a decentralized structure of competing groups,
representative democracy cannot be replaced by peer governance.

However, both modes will influence and accommodate to each other. Peer
projects which evolve beyond a certain scale and start facing issues of
decisions about scarce resources, will probably adapt some representational
mechanisms. Representative and bureaucratic decision-making can and will in
some places be replaced by global governance networks which may be
self-governed to a large extent, but in any case, it will and should
incorporate more and more multistakeholder models, which strives to include
as participants in decision-making, all groups that could be affected by
such actions. This group-based partnership model is different, but related
in spirit, to the individual-based peer governance, because they share an
ethos of participation.

*7. Towards a Partner State approach*

Partner state policy is an approach in which the state enables and empowers
user communities to create value themselves, and which also focuses on the
elimination of obstacles.
The fundamental change in approach is the following. In the modern view,
individuals were seen as atomized. They were believed to be in need of a
social contract that delegated authority to a sovereign in order to create
society, and in need of socialization by institutions that addressed them as
an indifferentiated mass. In the new view however, individuals are
always-already connected with their peers, and looking at institutions in
such a peer-informed way. Institutions therefore, will have to evolve to
become support ecologies, devising ways to create infrastructures of
support.

The politicians become interpreters and experts, which can guide the issues
emerging out of civil society based networks into the institutional realm.

The state becomes a at least neutral (or better yet: commons-favorable)
arbiter, i.e. the meta-regulator of the 3 realms, and retreats from the
binary state/privatisation dilemma to the triarchical choice for an optimal
mix between government regulation, private market freedom, and autonomous
civil society projects.

A partner state recognizes that the law of asymmetric competition dictates
that it has to support social innovation to it utmost ability.

An example I recently encountered was the work of the municipality of Brest,
in French Brittany. There, the “Local Democracy” section of the city, under
the leadership of Michel Briand, makes available online infrastructures,
training modules, and physical infrastructure for sharing (cameras, sound
equipment, etc…), so that local individuals and groups, can create cultural
and social projects on their own. For example, the Territoires Sonores
project allows for the creation by the public of audio and video files to
enrich custom trails, which is therefore neither produced by a private
company, nor by the city itself. In other words, the public authority in
this case enables and empowers the direct social production of value.

The peer to peer dynamic, and the thinking and experimentation it inspires,
does not just present a third form for the production of social value, it
also produces also new forms of institutionalization and regulation, which
could be fruitfully explored and/or applied.

Indeed, from civil society emerges a new institutionalization, the commons,
which is a distinct new form of regulation and property. Unlike private
property, which is exclusionary, and unlike state property, in which the
collective ‘expropriates’ the individual; by contrast in the form of the
commons, the individual retains his sovereignity, but has voluntarily shared
it. Only the commons-based property approach recognizes knowledge’s
propensity to flow everywhere, while the proprietary property regime
requires a radical fight against that natural propensity. This makes it
likely that the commons-format will be adopted as the more competitive
solution.

In terms of the institutionalization of these new forms of common property,
Peter Barnes, in his important book Capitalism 3.0, explains how national
parks and environmental commons (such as a proposed Skytrust), could be run
by trusts, who have the obligation to retain all (natural) capital intact,
and through a one man/one vote/one they would be in charge of preserving
common natural resources. This could become an accepted alternative to both
nationalization and deregulation/privatization.

I would surmise that in a successor civilization, where the peer to peer
logic is the core logic of value creation, the commons is the central
institution that drives the meta-system, and the market is a peer-informed
sub-system that deals with the production of rival physical products, along
with a pluralist economy that is augmented with a variety of
reciprocity-based schemes.

*8. A renewed progressive policy centered around the sustenance of the
Commons*

What does it mean for the emancipatory traditions that emerged from the
industrial era?

I believe it could have 2 positive effects:

1) a dissociation of the automatic link with bureaucratic government
modalities (which does not mean that it is not appropriate in certain
circumstances); proposals can be formulated which directly support the
development of the Commons

2) a dissocation from its alternative: deregulation/privatization; support
for the Commons and peer production means that there is an alternative from
both neoliberal privatization, and the Blairite introduction of private
logics in the public sphere.

The progressive movements can thereby become informational rather than a
modality of industrial society. Instead of defending the industrial status
quo, it becomes again an offensive force (say: striving for an equity-based
information society), more closely allied with the open/free, participatory,
commons-oriented forces and movements. These three social movements have
arisen because of the need for an efficient social reproduction of peer
production and the common.

Open and free movements want to insure that there is raw material for free
cultural production and appropriation, and fight against the monopoly rents
accorded to capital, as it now restricts innovation. They work on the input
side of the equation. Participatory movements want to ensure that anybody
can use his specific combination of skills to contribute to common projects,
and work on lowering the technical, social and political thresholds;
finally, the Commons movement works on preserving the common from private
appropriation, so that its social reproduction is insured, and the
circulation of the common can go on unimpeded, as it is the Commons which in
turn creates new layers of open and free raw material.

These various movement come in the usual three flavours:

1) transgressive movements, such as young and old filesharers, which show
that the legal regime has to be changed

2) constructive movements, which create a framework for new types of social
relationships, such as the Creative Commons movement, the free software
movement, etc…

3) reformist or radical attempts to change the institutional regime and
adapt it to the new realities

I personally believe that these movements will not create new political
parties, but that these networks of networks will indeed look for political
liaison. While peer to peer is a regime that combines equality and liberty
and therefore potentially combines elements from various sides of the
political spectrum, I believe the left is particulary apt to forge an
alliance with the new desires and demands of these movements.

There is also a connection with the environmental movement. While the
culturally-oriented movements fight against the artificial scarcities
induced by the restrictive regimes of copyright law and patent law, the
environmental movement fights against the artificial abundance created by
unrestricted market logics. The removal of pseudo-abundance and
pseudo-scarcity are exactly what needs to happen to make our human
civilization sustainable at this stage. As has been stressed by Richard
Stallman and others, the copyright and patent regimes are explicitely
intended to inhibit the free cooperation and cultural flow between creative
humans, and are just as pernicious to the further development of humanity as
the biospheric destruction.

There is therefore a huge potential for such a renewed movement for human
emancipation to become aligned with the values of a new generation of youth,
and achieve the long-term advantage that the Republicans had achieved since
the 80s.

*8. Conclusion: What needs to be done?*

Let’s recall some of our points, and see how the movement against artificial
scarcity and for sustainability intersect.

We live in a political economy that has it exactly backwards.

We believe that our natural world is infinite, and therefore that we can
have an economic system based on infinite growth. But since the material
world is finite, it is based on pseudo-abundance.

And then we believe that we should introduce artificial scarcities in the
world of immaterial production, impeding the free flow of culture and social
innovation, which is based on free cooperation, by creating the obstacle of
permissions and intellectual property rents protected by the state.

What we need instead is a political economy based on a true notion of
scarcity in the material realm, and a realization of abundance in the
immaterial realm. Complex innovation needs creative and autonomous workers
that are not impeded in their ability to share and learn from each other.

In the world of immaterial production, of software, text and design, the
costs of reproduction are marginal and therefore we see emerging in it
non-reciprocal peer production, where people voluntary engage in the direct
creation of use value, profiting from the resulting commons in a general
way, but without specific reciprocity.

In the world of material production, where we have scarcity, and costs have
to be recouped, such non-reciprocity is not possible, and therefore we need
modes of neutral exchange such as the markets, or other modes of
reciprocity.

In the sphere of immaterial production, humanity is learning the laws of
abundance, because non-rival goods win in value through sharing. In this
world, we are evolving towards non-proprietary licences, participatory modes
of production, and commons-oriented property forms. Positive forms of
affinity based retribalization are emerging.
But in the world of scarce material goods, a series of scarcity crises are
brewing, global warming being just one of them, that is creating the
emergence of negative forms of competitive tribalizaition.

The logic of abundance has the potential of leading us to a reorganization
of our world to a level of higher complexity, moved principally by the peer
to peer logic.

The logic of scarcity has the potential of leading us to generalized wars
for resources, to a descent to a lower form of complexity, a new dark age as
was the case after the disintegration of the Roman Empire.

So the challenge is to use the emergent logic of abundance, and inject it
into the world of scarcity.

Is that a realistic possibility?

In the immaterial world of abundance, sharing is non-problematic, and the
further emergence and expansion of non-reciprocal modes of production will
be very likely. “Together we know everything”, is a rather achievable ideal.

In the material world of scarcity, abundance is translated into three key
concepts that can change human consciousness and therefore economic
practices. The notion of ‘together we have everything’ seems not quite
achievable, we therefore need transitional concepts.
The first concept is the distribution of everything. This means that instead
of abundance, we have a slicing up of physical resources and the physical
means of production, so that individuals can freely engage and act. This
means an economy that moves towards a vision of peer-informed market modes
such as fair trade (a market mechanism subjected to peer arbitrage of
producers and consumers seen as partners), social entrepreneurship (using
profit for conscious social progress). Objective tendencies towards
miniaturization of the physical means of production makes this a distinct
possibility: desktop manufacturing enables individual designers; rapid
manufacturing and tooling are diminishing the advantages of scale of
industrial production, and so do personal fabricators. Social lending
creates a distribution of financial capital; and the direct social
production of money through software is not far away from being realized in
various parts of the world (see the work of Bernard Lietaer); If indeed
scarcity will create more expensive energy and raw material, a
re-localisation of production is likely, and peer-informed modes of
production will be enabled to a much greater extent.

The second concept is sustainability. Since an infinite growth system cannot
last indefinitely, we need to move to new market concepts as described by
the throught schools of natural capitalism (David Korten, Paul Hawken, Hazel
Henderson), capitalism 3.0 (Peter Barnes’ proposal to use trust as property
forms because they impose the preservation of capital), cradle to cradle
design and production processes so that no waste is generated. We need to
move to a steady-state economy (Herman Daly), which is not necessarily
static, but where greater output from nature, is dependent on our ability to
regenerate the same resources.

The third concept is that of sufficiency or ‘plenty’. Abundance has not just
an objective side, it has a subjective side as well. In the material
economy, infinite growth needs to be replaced by sufficiency, a realization
that status and human happiness can no longer be dependent on infinite
material accumulation and overconsumption, but will become dependent on
immaterial accumulation and growth. Having enough so that we can pursue
meaning and status through our identity as creative and collaborative
individuals, recognized in our various peer communities.

Only a rich experience economy can avoid a culture of frustration and
sacrifice, and the repressions and unhappiness that such could entail. This
experience economy however, will not just be created by commercial
franchises, but there will also be the direct social production of cultural
value. Businesses and peer communities, enabled and empowered by a partner
state, will have to create a rich tapestry of immaterial value, and the
thicker the surrounding immaterial value of being, the lighter our
attachment to mere having will be.


2010/2/18 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>

> Hi Michael,
>
> 2010/2/17 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > it all depends whom you are addressing, the p2p-f is a pluralist platform
> > with people holding different views, and kevin carson for example, may
> share
> > your position on the state (not sure, but perhaps)
>
> Thank you for the idea: could you connect us?
>
> > but as for myself, in my own formulation of a p2p theory and program and
> > vision, it's not libertarian and anti-state
> >
> > here is a short version,
> >
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/11/03/the_peer_to_peer_manifesto.htm
> >
> > and two longer political pieces:
> >
> >
> > P2P Politics, the State, and the Renewal of the Emancipatory Traditions.
> > Re-public, Wiki Politics issue, 2007. Retrieved from
> > http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=133. Reprint at Democracy by the People
> blog,
> >
> http://democracybythepeople.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-to-peer-politics.html
> >
> > The Political Implications of the Peer to Peer Revolution. Knowledge
> > Politics, Volume 1 Issue 2 (April 2008), pp. 1-24 . Retrieved from
> > http://www.knowledgepolitics.org.uk/kpq-1-2-Bauwens.pdf
>
> The last link is broken: could you please attach it?
>
> > In short, I consider the state inevitable in a class society, and much
> like
> > the ego, something that cannot be abolished, but must be outgrown, and
> this
> > in a probably very long historical process
> >
> > I see the state as fullfilling 3 roles: 1) protecting the system as a
> whole
> > and hence defender of the existing elite and status quo ; 2) reflecting
> its
> > own interest as a separate body; 3) reflecting the balance of power
> > resulting from social struggles and social progress
> >
> > this last characteristic makes it an object of political struggle between
> > the elite and other forces in society, which can partially use it to
> their
> > own purposes
>
> I am definitely not against the state: I think the invention of the
> state & the (originally anarchistic) interstate (=international) order
> is one of the great achievements of the humanity during the last half
> millenium (based on my theoretical considerations I won't specify
> here). From this point of view, we are living in the best of all
> possible worlds (supposed that our resources are practically not
> limited, which I think to be true, and that we survive until we
> populate at least the inner solar system, which I think to be
> uncertain).
>
> Moreover, I completely agree: "14. We need to move from empty and
> ineffective anti-capitalist rhetoric, to constructive post-capitalist
> construction. [...]"
>
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/11/03/the_peer_to_peer_manifesto.htm
>
> We agree (with Benkler
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks) on the significance
> of the commons...: "Indeed, from civil society emerges a new
> institutionalization, the commons, which is a distinct new form of
> regulation and property. Unlike private property, which is
> exclusionary, and unlike state property, in which the collective
> ‘expropriates’ the individual; by contrast in the form of the commons,
> the individual retains his sovereignity, but has voluntarily shared
> it."
> http://democracybythepeople.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-to-peer-politics.html
>
> ... and on their organizational consequences: "5. The creation of
> immaterial value, which again needs to become dominant in a
> post-material world which recognized the finiteness of the material
> one, will be characterized by the further emergence of non-reciprocal
> peer production system."
>
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/11/03/the_peer_to_peer_manifesto.htm
>
> > obviously I think p2p communities should strive for the maximal autonomy,
> > both vis a vis corporations and the state, but I believe that they will
> also
> > inevitably have to compose with them; I also think traditional political
> > struggle, for influence within the state, and molding state actions to
> one's
> > own interests, is a necessary part of the mix which will continue to be
> > needed for a long time
> >
> > however, what is new is that the sphere of autonomy can be increased
> > substantially, and that if both autonomy and political strength increase
> to
> > a certain level, we could morph the state into a partner state model,
> just
> > as the worker's movement succeeded in molding it to a welfare state model
> >
> > as we develop p2p value creation in more and more social domains and
> > activities, then the objective conditions which necessitate a state, will
> > slowly start to unravel, and more and more state functions will lose
> > legitimacy and they will be replaced by p2p processes
> >
> > I do also expect however, that no matter how much confederative processes
> > p2p communities achieve, a guarantor of the general public interest will
> > remain a necessity, but I expect this type of 'p2p state' to be totally
> > unrecognizable from the current form
> >
> > one final item is the distinction you make between bits and atoms in
> terms
> > of the state; I think this distinction is too binary and polarized, and
> that
> > the role of the state in cyberspace will similarly not be avoided, and is
> > not necessarity less legitimate
> >
> > however, we have the great opportunity to create millions of p2p
> communities
> > which will largely escape the role and control of the state, and will
> > determine more and more of their own affairs, again this is part of what
> I
> > see as the process of 'outgrowing'
>
> You say that because the state has a coordination function p2p is not
> able to fulfill...
> "It is important to distinguish the peer governance of a multitude of
> small but coordinated global groups, which choose non-representational
> processes in which participants co-decide on the projects, from
> representative democracy. The latter is a decentralized form of
> power-sharing based on elections and representatives. Since society is
> not a peer group with an a priori consensus, but rather a
> decentralized structure of competing groups, representative democracy
> cannot be replaced by peer governance."
> http://democracybythepeople.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-to-peer-politics.html
> ... we should reform/transform it into a state which absorbs the p2p
> fabric:
> "11. The role of the state must evolve from the protector of dominant
> interests and arbiter between public regulation and privatized
> corporate modes (an eternal and unproductive binary choice), towards
> being the arbiter between a triad of public regulation, private
> markets, and the direct social production of value. In the latter
> capacity, it must evolve from the  welfare state model, to the partner
> state model, as involved in enabling and empowering the direct social
> creation of value."
>
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/11/03/the_peer_to_peer_manifesto.htm
>
> What I say here is different: I think
> - states are intrinsically unfit to manage "bits" (however they try to
> fill the void)
> - p2p-s are potentially (but not actually) fit to manage bits
> (supposed there is an appropriate infrastructure for them)
> - state is intrinsically monopolistic organization, practically
> unreformable even in its democratic form (you know that I was a member
> of the State Reform Cabinet of the Hungarian Government when I first
> wrote you:)), and the only way to deal with it is to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast , not with voluntary tax
> cuts but by way of "driving out" unfitting taxes of intangibles (while
> giving to "Caesar what is Caesar's"
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2020:25 ), and
> attaching them to elements of an "intangible" political system we feel
> allegiance to,
> - we are both the states and the p2p kind of organizations, and as
> states we are not more fit to manage the business of our freely
> chosen, functionally alien political units, than as member of p2p
> networks to manage states.
>
> > an extra final point, I see peer governance as occuring wherever
> abundance
> > makes allocation of resources redundant, but in every area where this is
> not
> > the case, democratic decision-making will remain necessary,
>
> This could be a firm basis for a joint venture: if we agree that if
> anything, the intangibles are our abundant resources (and the natural
> scope for different kinds of commons), we are both at home:) What do
> you think?
>
>
> Peter
>
> > Michel
> >
> > 2010/2/17 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Dear Michael, Chris and Research List Members,
> >>
> >>
> >> first of all, sorry for the almost 1 month delay.
> >>
> >> The translation of the amendment is ready, we will check it, put it on
> >> our blog, I think Stefan will post you soon along with his comments
> >> and questions, and I will join the debate.
> >>
> >> As for now, I want to ask your help in a different way, concerning the
> >> core of your (our) P2P cause, more exactly, the politics of it.
> >>
> >> I wrote an article (& at last finished the proofreading and correcting
> >> today:) which, as my understanding goes, is a possible political
> >> vision of the P2P evolution.
> >>
> >> This is the link:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/states-let-them-prey-on-atoms-but-not-on-bits
> >>
> >> I think you have the experience (and the feeling in your gut:) to help
> >> me in answering my question: is it a desirable vision of the future of
> >> P2P evolution? Do we have discrepancies in our understanding of the
> >> explicite/implicite politics of P2P?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you for your help:
> >> Peter
> >>
> >>
> >> 2009/12/23 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> >> > That's fine, Peter, good timing,
> >> >
> >> > Michel
> >> >
> >> > 2009/12/23 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Michael,
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll contact you (cc Chris & the Research List) asap, I think first
> >> >> half of january. We are translating the amendment and I should clear
> >> >> some open issues for myself. I am driving to Berlin for 2 weeks,
> there
> >> >> I'll have time to think. Stef suggested we should argue on open
> >> >> standards & other stuff in english: I feel inclined to accept this in
> >> >> order to be able to have your opinion.
> >> >>
> >> >> Peter
> >> >>
> >> >> 2009/12/23 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Peter,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > thanks for the details,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > on what point exactly are you asking my opinion?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Michel
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2009/12/23 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, I think you should not refrain.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The main question is whether p2p process is a necessary condition
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> a standard to be open: based on my research in Hungarian sketched
> in
> >> >> >> English
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> http://visszaajovo.be/mazsa/the-5-and-only-5-open-standards-requirements
> >> >> >> I am not sure about it, and there is not yet an official
> standpoint.
> >> >> >> We should make it clear publicly first in Hungarian.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> However, like stef, I prefer setting standards p2p rather than g2p
> >> >> >> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1483836&cid=30495906
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This is the official formula: "Nevertheless, there is much yet to
> be
> >> >> >> done to have the specifications of sockets established in the
> future
> >> >> >> more by means of a public process rather than exclusively by the
> >> >> >> government."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> http://nyissz.hu/blog/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And this is our strategy @EU-level
> >> >> >> "In the near future, [...]
> >> >> >> in spite of EU tendencies [
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2620&blogid=14
> >> >> >> ] the Alliance seeks to make its approach – interoperability based
> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> publicly defined [!] open standards – the EU norm under the
> >> >> >> Hungarian
> >> >> >> presidency of the European Union in 2011. To that end, it will
> >> >> >> promote
> >> >> >> public collaboration – possibly between every interested party,
> >> >> >> civil
> >> >> >> and political organisation in the European Union."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> http://nyissz.hu/blog/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> About global strategy I am intended to publish later, definitely
> in
> >> >> >> spirit of p2p: i'll be interested very much in your opinion.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yours:
> >> >> >> P.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2009/12/22 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> >> >> >> > should I understand from the comments of stef in the fcforum
> list
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > we
> >> >> >> > should refrain from further publishing it?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Michel
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 2009/12/22 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I realized because we got hits from your blog. Thanks, both of
> >> >> >> >> you:)
> >> >> >> >> Yours,
> >> >> >> >> P.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 2009/12/22 chris at cataspanglish.com <chris at cataspanglish.com>:
> >> >> >> >> > ;-)
> >> >> >> >> > Cheers,
> >> >> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > On 22 Dec 2009, at 14:28, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Dear Peter,
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > by coincidence, chris pinchen just published it on our blog,
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > see:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/2009/12/22
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > 2009/12/18 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Michael,
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> could you help me to publish this article:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> http://nyissz.hu/blog/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/
> >> >> >> >> >> We have been working on this since 2007.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> And/or tweet:
> >> >> >> >> >> http://j.mp/OpenStandardsinHungary
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you:
> >> >> >> >> >> Peter
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think
> thank:
> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >
> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> >
> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
> > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100220/477591cf/attachment-0001.html>