[p2p-research] Am I missing any commons?

[Alex Rollin]

It would seem to me that the discussion of boundaries presupposes a perfect
"Commons" which would have to be the ultimate 'all' of Universe or something
like that.

On that note, it doesn't seem too much a jump to say that a Commons is
always a 'system' of some kind.  If for no other reason than 'nothing is
static, given enough time,' every Commons must be replenished, perhaps used,
but in some way is always expended unless you are referring to Universe,
because otherwise something is always creeping from inside one boundary to
the inside of another.

For this reason, I would add that the term 'boundary conditions' would more
aptly be applied to the potentially arbitrary and hopefully conscientious
useful boundary put around a Commons, with the idea being to say "this is
this commons, with these supply chains, these distribution mechanics, these
replenishment vectors, and any number of potential users involved in
accepting the 'distributions' of the commons, whether that distribution is
of a nature that diminishes the Commons or not.

I have been struggling with a sort of 'exploratory view' of an operation
that works in tandem with a Commons, asking the question 'how does this
operation touch the Commons?'  The idea is to help people find useful
operations that they can undertake that work in league with the idea of
re-enclosing, creating, or generally growing the Commons with some
self-interest in mind.  Think bike fleets, housing, or food cultivation.

Following this, it seems that because a view of a Commons as a system is
useful, and because there are any number of processes happening within that
Commons, that the boundary conditions would refer specifically to the ...
endpoints ... the edges of relevance, on vectors or processes, with regards
to the Commons in question.

I understand where the idea for these conditions came from.  I think they
are much better called P2P operation conditions, and that they are
operational, normative guidelines for P2P operations, as opposed to a
definitive set of conditions for bounding a Commons, whether that Commons is
P2P or not.

The Commons definition/description page on the wiki seems to go at length in
an effort to walk around and nail down the general, global, if not
completely non-local idea of the Commons, and doesn't get into the sort of
detail we are discussing with regards to the 'qualities' of the operation of
a commons, from a P2P perspective or otherwise.

http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons#Definition

I am attempting to contextualize some criticism here, hopefully in a way
that will allow me to do something useful on the wiki with regards to this
information.  Where does it all go!

So, to #1
1. A P2P Commons attempts to maximize free, voluntary and open sharing of
assets that are engaged in the commons.

How about

"A Commons can be, and in some cases is, best managed using a P2P ethos and
principles.  See: Managing a Commons with P2P (link)

Since half the things you list are the specific P2P principles used in
application of the 'how' of Commons governance, I think they would go on
that page.  Some of what you are saying is about what a Commons IS.  I know
you are really into property rights and state enforcement on some level, so,
to say that somewhere in there would be helpful.  I think it's funny that
you say that a Commons is all these things, and yet there is no single state
institution that I am aware of that cannot be corrupted in some way shape or
form that insures perpetuity, so your definitions of what a Commons "IS"
make every Commons besides "Universe" not a Commons.  I'm not picking holes
in this so much as to say that I appreciate your attempts to offer a rather
large perspective on Commons, P2P, management, ownership, and a whole lot of
other things, and I think that teasing them apart would be helpful,
especially since you (and others) have put quite a bit into the principles
page.

Wouldn't it be cool to have a page about the specifics of a Commons in a P2P
context?  I think the idea that there's a P2P context also pries apart the
idea of the Commons in some useful way that might help us be more specific,
brief, and clear on the Commons definition page, too!

A







On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Sepp.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Sepp Hasslberger <sepp at lastrega.com>wrote:
>
>>  Michel, Ryan,
>>
>> I did some minor editing of the conditions proposed by Ryan, and I feel
>> that there should be an introduction to the page that defines what a commons
>> is and what the special case of a P2P commons is.
>>
>> I have formulated such an introductory definition but left it on the
>> discussion page for now...
>>
>> Sepp
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25/feb/10, at 16:13, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>
>> Ryan, see the file I created:
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Commons_Boundary_Conditions
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Michel:
>>>
>>> A commons is not a corporation because a corporation has a defined
>>> purpose other than useful sharing.  A commons may be organized as a
>>> corporation legally but a corporation cannot become a commons unless its
>>> purpose is free, open sharing with minimal purposes beyond those ends.
>>>
>>> A commons is not a co-op because it is perfectly reasonable for a co-op
>>> to attempt to maximize the intrinsic value of its assets.  A commons would
>>> not do this as a stated goal.  Still, a co-op could be structured to be a
>>> commons or to have many commons-like features.  The similarities are perhaps
>>> greatest here.
>>>
>>> A commons is not a state because it does not create its own mechanisms
>>> for policing and enforcement beyond rudimentary social guides and
>>> constraints.  It also does not hold "public" property.
>>>
>>> A commons is not a commune because individual property rights are not
>>> inconsistent with the commons.  A person may use, for example, a creative
>>> commons license and still participate in the commons.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
> P.O. Box 633
> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
> Cayman Islands
> (345) 916-1712
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100225/7d8b2cda/attachment.html>