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

Mon Feb 22 17:59:35 CET 2010

2010/2/22 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>

> Hi Michael,
>
>
> first of all, thank you for your open minded and cooperative approach:
> it seems to me that it is not by accident that you are an integral
> part of such a great community:)
>
> > I'm still of two minds regarding internet taxation, but first hand, I
> don't
> > see why internet companies should be excempted from contributing to the
> > public good.
> >
> > Of course, our communication should not be taxed.
>
> not exempt at all: companies (our companies, run on the new
> jurisdictions) should pay taxes, but the tax-level and tax-composition
> should be set by tax-competition of the jurisdictions. This is why I
> expect that taxes for intangibles will be somewhere between
> https://www.paypal.com/fees and 5%. Not without predecessors:), e.g.
> http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/images/WM1628-chart1-lg.jpg
>

do I understand you correctly that you are suggesting to pay moderate taxes
to non-state jurisdictions?, say like a tax that would go 'directly' to
musicians?

>
> of course we are intended to contribute to the public good, but 1. we
> define public good through another form of participation/organization
> than the state 2. in a reasonable measure.
>

I agree that the notion of the public good can be divorced from the notion
of the state; ;what matters to me is to recognize a sphere that is beyond
the interests of even p2p groups, i.e. the field in which we all operate;
from corporate experience, I do not believe in exclusive self-regulation and
pure private contractual agreements, contrary to thatcher, I do believe that
'society really exists'

>
>
> > Generally speaking, what makes sense to me is a radical overhaul of the
> tax
> > philosophy away from taxing productive activities, especially labour, and
> > replace it with taxing financial transacitons, especially the speculative
> > ones (tobin tax etc..)
> >
> > I remember yann moulier boutang's approach made a lot of sense to me
> >
> > see also the smart taxes network: http://smarttaxes.org/
> >
> > you are of course right that the state (and corporate) institutions are
> > largely unreformable, but intense pressure from successfull social
> > alternatives (p2p ones), can drive the change towards more participatory
> > government
>
> I completely agree with you: we want successful p2p alternatives and
> more participatory governments. So we have a common vision.
>
> What about the strategy? I think (and this, of course, is subjective)
> that the direct pressure on governments by however successful p2p
> exemplars is 1. quite provocative towards the states, while at the
> same time 2. not enough for significant change, or, at least, not
> enough for change in due time, because do not change the rule of the
> game.
>
I think the issue is that there will be different interlocking time scales
at work; on the one hand there is the slow but steady buildup of alternative
p2p modalities by many actors, that are quite strong, but still emergent; on
the other hand, the possible dislocation of the current system (which in my
view is not a certainty, I believe we still have a half-kondratieff wave to
go before the collapse), or at the very least the current imbalances after
the meltdown, will create the basis for social unrest; what is important is
that factor 1, can keep enough pace with factor 2, so that social forces can
see a believable alternative; but one and two can work in concert, I believe
peer production can ally itself with the forces for active political and
social change; they both need each other

>
> What we need is more what you characterize as the "dissociation of
> markets" from the states.
>

what I really want is different commons, different markets, different state
approaches ... I think unregulated corporate markets are dangerous, as we
have seen in 2008; and I don't see how you can have different markets
without also tackling the state issue (i.e. smarter regulation,
participatory policy making)

>
> I think we are at the corner of an Edgeworth box
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/figs/Box/box.html of
> the states and the p2p orgs: we are at equilibrium with them, but
> states & their corporations endowed immensely compared to p2ps. If we
> follow the rules of the states, we can move towards the center of the
> box merely infinitesimally. If we want to shift the proportions of
> production significantly, we should reallocate the factors and/or
> endowments, i.e., in case of states, the taxes. Of course, states
> won't be nice to us, but at the end of the day(?:), a more balanced
> equilibrium will work out, in the near of the center of the box.
>

I think the 'meanness' of states depend on many factors; why was jesus
killed but not the buddha? two radical messages, but one was not perceived
as a threat .. I think smart p2p projects can position themselves not as
enemies of states and markets, but as hyperproductive solutions to difficult
problems, in such a way that the temptation to 'meanness' can be avoided to
the maximum

I agree that new tax practices and tax hacks are necessary .. perhaps we
could find a term akin to monetary transformation, that shows the necessity
for radical new approaches to taxation?

>
> > in the long run, my 'european' preference for a specialized sphere taking
> > care of the public good, should be distinguished from what we know today
> as
> > the 'state',
> >
> > we can imagine a lot of different ways to take care of this, and probably
> > will need to create new ones, rather than reform the old ones,
>
> absolutely
> I am not against nudges ( http://www.nudges.org/ ), some kinds of
> redistribution, e.g. educational, and not against states. I don't want
> to predetermine the tastes of any collectives for redistribution
> either. But what the states (and their orgs, e.g. the EU as an
> economic unit) do... now that is outrageous.
>
> > I'm by all means interested in learning from your approach and
> cooperating,
> > perhaps we could set up a discussion area in the wiki, and post
> discussion
> > documents, see how we can find synergies ..
> >
> > it fits with the goal of developping commons oriented policy frameworks,
> > which I intend to set as one of my personal goals for 2010
>
> Wiki: very good idea, i'd like to participate:) What about the label
> '/taxhack' for the wiki? As for your main topic, commons would be 1 of
> the 3 main strategic areas:
> - infrastructure for e-cash and taxation (of transactions, probably)
> (Vision: autonomous monetary system)
> - infrastructure for participation (Vision: online political units
> worthy of our love and loyalty)
> - general theory of commons and rewards (Vision: maximum sustainable
> creativity)
>   What do you think?
>

the form it takes in the mediawiki is Category:Taxation, but this can be
disguised behind a more popular meme .. I'm  not so fond of taxhacks but if
we find nothing better, it will have to do <g>; fine also to treat the 3
different aspects

Do you have access to the wiki, if not send me a private email,

Michel

>
> Peter
>
> > Michel
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

-- 
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/20100222/1f6ced31/attachment.html>