[p2p-research] Am I missing any commons?

[Ryan Lanham]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> I think that there should definitely a set of conditions for a strong and
> real commons; and an expanded version for a weaker version, but both should
> have clear boundary conditions.
>
> In my view, it should be clearly restricted to common property, and not
> public property like libraries.
>
>
I think the key boundaries are as follows:

1. A P2P Commons attempt to maximize free, voluntary and open sharing of
assets that are engaged in the commons.
2. Assets placed in the commons are irrevocably there and cannot be removed
for personal gains. Ongoing participation in a commons implies shared
responsibility for its sustaining expenses.  When a commons cannot be
sustained, it is dissolved so as to maximize reuse and sharing of its prior
assets without cost or selfish limitations.

3. P2P (though not necessarily a commons) emphasizes reduced hierarchical
control and greater autonomy of the individual. The role of parties, states,
churches, co-ops, corporations, shareholding owners and other collective
action bodies is intentionally minimized in any form of governance of the
commons.

Secondary boundaries (many may reject these in individual terms and still
claim status as a P2P commons):

a. Commons work to avoid free riding by encouraging valid and useful
contributions to the commons as a sustainable process.
b. P2P commons work to minimize governance interventions.
c. Commons work to provide useful and valuable tools, assets and services to
participants.
d. Commons reject inputs and uses that are applied for gains that are not
sustainable or that adversely impact the environment.
e. Commons apply open, fair and recognizably democratic means to govern
themselves.
f. Commons are not owned by a state.  They are created out of voluntary
participation mechanisms where users and participants continually and freely
choose to participate and the right to exit from participation and support
clearly exists.
g. Commons are not a part of or party to any form of capitalism, communism,
anarchism or socialism as a political ideal and may be compatible with any
form of government that allows voluntary and free participation in protected
sharing schemes that are self-governing within reasonably constraints (e.g.
valid safety or environmental regulations).
h. P2P commons reject the idea of a single controller, a controller or
governor for life, or any mode of control or ownership of the commons that
positions one person or one group as a vanguard, protector, trustee or
governor acting beyond reasonable terms of a few years and freely chosen by
participating members.  Organizers and social entrepreneurs who start
commons with benign intent and who have imbued a commons with their own
personal will have greater latitude under this criterion so long as their
actions are reasonably consistent with the long-term goals and boundaries of
commons.
i. Commons are perpetual and may not be privatized.
j. Commons work toward ideals of general public good even if the public good
is at odds with most members of the commons.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100225/6b83c4e7/attachment.html>