[p2p-research] Mesh - Not for profit Cooperative + "Megabytes" Currency
Dante-Gabryell Monson
dante.monson at gmail.com
Mon Jul 19 17:18:02 CEST 2010
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:
> This brings up an interesting conundrum.
>
> If you say to people "There's a mesh network! It's free!"
>
> They say "Free Internet! Yes!"
>
> And you say "No! It's an intranet, with strangers!"
>
> And they say "...oh...what do you use that for?"
>
> What would your answer be?
>
"you can call your family and friends for free if they are at the other side
of town, connected to the mesh"
>
> As long as there is no plan for economic or other agreed upon interaction
> with node hosts there are no guarantees of net access,
>
indeed, good point, no guarantees.
I do not have an engineer background for technical details and its
feasibility,
but in the way that I conceptualize it,
I imagine that for participants providing shared internet to the mesh,
they can access their own connection ( or equivalent in data flow / via the
"currency" approach ) via the mesh.
so that even if there is only one internet contributor to the mesh,
then this one contributor is the only one having access to hes own
connection, via the mesh,
except for the percentage of the volume of dataflow s/he shares from he's
her internet connection that is given to the network promoters, who
potentially could sell ( or not ? ) a few of these megabytes to some other
user, as to support the network financially - for the promotion of the
network.
or the long term presence of the node itself. They need power, shelter, the
> usual things an off-the-shelf robot needs.
>
yes - i imagine there could be a "backbone" of nodes owned by the project,
and other nodes being participants, hence the network being emergent,
including mobile nodes ( manet protocols ? compatibilty with other protocols
? bridges possible ? )
>
> Freethenet's original model was to subsidize the node hardware for a
> business making a commitment to share an uplink with the public, within
> reasonable limits, for a duration. In some cases the business would pay for
> it themselves, and those businesses got installed first. The point was to
> increase traffic. The business were enticed with advertising, but, in
> effect, it was a decision about whether they wanted people loitering with
> laptops.
>
I guess the business model I imagine with the examples shared earlier are
probably a bit different - hopefully not as hierarchical, and not dependent
on specific providers -
yet still dependent on a threshold density of users/participants
>
> The main library in Amsterdam has recently removed power connections from
> the 7th floor, where the most comfortable couches are, and where the beer
> is. It was a veyr busy spot. They screwed the power connection covers
> shut.
>
> A
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante at ecobytes.net
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> thanks for your 11 points reply.
>>
>> http://freethenet.ca/ sounds like a nice model.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> I wonder if the first step could be to
>>
>> - evaluate the costs of setting up a few nodes/routers in a limited area -
>> without necessarily connecting them to the internet.
>>
>> - making it possible to anyone finding such nodes,
>> to download a software from these nodes on their devices ( options for
>> various OS ),
>> as
>> 1) enable their laptop/phone to be a participating node in the mesh when
>> they choose to
>> 2) giving them the option of sharing their internet, directly through the
>> wifi connection of their laptop/phone/...
>>
>> - I do not know *if such software already exists* -
>>
>> a later stage potentially being for people to modify the protocols of
>> their routers, or buy routers that are compliant with one/several
>> communication protocols ?
>>
>> ---
>>
>> for hardware , software, prices and protocols used,
>> openmesh hardware sounds nice.
>>
>> its nice to see *what is already available out of the box, and at what
>> price*.
>>
>> i do like the idea of being able to update and add multiple protocols,
>> even at a distance. ( although cracking concerns may be taken into account )
>> i also like the potential of using "batman" and "robin"
>> i guess all this is possible providing the expertise.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *if cash is not involved* in exchange for internet data currency,
>>
>> the question for me becomes : *how to self-finance some of the ( purchase
>> of ) nodes* needed to keep a minimum permanent presence, especially in
>> areas where there are few participants, as to bridge zones with different
>> levels of mesh density ?
>>
>> / *what is the "cash" version of the "business model"* ,
>> even if it is a not for profit approach - which could partner with
>> existing not for profit mesh projects.
>>
>>
>>
>> Forwarded conversation
>> Subject: Mesh - Not for profit Cooperative + "Megabytes" Currency
>> ------------------------
>>
>> From: *Dante-Gabryell Monson* <dante at ecobytes.net>
>> Date: Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:52 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Alex,
>> Caroline, Sepp, Meinhard, Gael
>>
>> I ( we**? ) want to set up a Mesh Cooperative.
>>
>> I created an entry on
>>
>> http://cashwiki.org/en/A_Mesh_Data_Currency
>>
>> ---
>>
>> In addition to the set up and interoperability of the communication
>> protocols,
>> it can use an "alternative currency" for accessing the internet. ( its
>> units / megabytes / can also be used as currency for any other type of
>> exchanges )
>>
>> Ideally it creates partnerships between all participants, credits earned
>> by the network preferably reinvested into valorizing the network while
>> promoting open source hardware.
>> *
>> *
>> *It works like this :*
>>
>> People use their wifi router ( check hardware + software, and
>> interoperability ),
>> their wifi enabled pc or laptop, or their wifi enabled mobile phones,
>> to enable ad hoc networking,
>> becoming relay's.
>>
>> As they participate in the network, they have access to the network.
>>
>> As they provide bandwidth to the local network, they have access to
>> bandwidth in the local network BUT they give a certain percentage more of
>> what they receive to the network,
>>
>> which makes it possible to the network to "sell" credits to non
>> contributing people wanting to access the internet.
>>
>> Thats the business model.
>>
>> The extra cash is being spent in a not for profit to promote the network,
>> create partnerships ( with national libraries, universities, schools,
>> businesses )
>> increase its usership,
>> and set up critical nodes in places where the density of existing users is
>> not high enough.
>>
>> It can be a combination of MANET ( Mobile Ad Hoc Networks ) and Fixed
>> routers.
>>
>> Two existing , different projects :
>>
>> http://meraki.com/
>>
>> http://www.fon.com/en/
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Mesh Networking :
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_ad_hoc_network
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ad-hoc_routing_protocols
>>
>>
>> Also see some of the posts on
>>
>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/could-peernet-be-separate-from
>>
>> including Sepp's post
>>
>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/mesh-potato-how-to-roll-out
>>
>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/project-spiderweb-a
>>
>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/evernote-cloud-app-for-mobile
>>
>>
>> More links :
>>
>> http://delicious.com/deliciousdante/mesh
>>
>> and related
>>
>> http://delicious.com/deliciousdante/adhoc
>>
>>
>> ----
>>
>> **Its an old idea I have been thinking about since I interacted with
>> reseaucitoyen.be some 8 years ago,
>> and set up back to date through interacting with Gael.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> From: *Alex Rollin* <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:00 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> An wxcellent example of all the concepts we have been discussing. I will
>> review your links.
>>
>> I deployed a Meraki mesh net in the early days of the product. It was not
>> easy and that was with a simple protocol ( ie sans currency.) i hope
>> research will tell me the situation has improved.
>>
>> Indeed the mesh net entry on the p2p wiki referenced a lean network,
>> g-something, that looked quite on top of things.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> From: *Dante-Gabryell Monson* <dante at ecobytes.net>
>> Date: Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:28 PM
>> To: Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
>> >
>>
>>
>> oh cool !
>>
>> I guess you mean... hmm... scanning through the following pages... ( see
>> below )
>>
>> and updated the wiki page :
>> ----
>>
>>
>>
>> - Mesh Networks <http://Mesh_Networks>
>> ... ogy' of the network. There are a number of routing protocols which
>> support meshnetworking amongst which [[OLSR]] is one of the most
>> advanced and most wid ... ... nections. It is the lack of a hub-and-spoke
>> structure that distinguishes a meshnetwork. Meshes do not need
>> designated routers: instead, nodes serve as ro ...
>> 15 KB (2345 words) - 08:04, 13 May 2009
>> - Wireless Mesh Networks <http://Wireless_Mesh_Networks>
>> '''Wireless Mesh Networks''', '''Wireless mesh networking is mesh networking
>> implemented over a Wireless LAN.'''
>> 5 KB (812 words) - 11:06, 10 March 2008
>> - Wi-Mesh Alliance <http://Wi-Mesh_Alliance>
>> '''Wi-Mesh Alliance''' URL = http://www.wi-mesh.org/
>> 654 B (95 words) - 09:52, 26 May 2006
>> - Marc Canter on Mesh Networks for Content<http://Marc_Canter_on_Mesh_Networks_for_Content>
>> '''Title: Mesh-Up: Connecting Conent to People''' Written summary at
>> http://www.nmk.co.uk/article/2006/07/25/content20-the-mesh
>> 415 B (56 words) - 08:49, 25 August 2006
>> - P2P Mesh Networks <http://P2P_Mesh_Networks>
>> ... device to their in home network connection that offers free access
>> to the meshnetwork and simultaneously extends the network. Not all
>> participants choo ...
>> 1 KB (180 words) - 23:00, 8 July 2010
>> - Open Mesh <http://Open_Mesh>
>> ... rk Canter has an extensive investigation of what we need to build
>> the open mesh: 1) [
>> http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2008/03/how-to-build-the-mesh-1-id-social-graphs-and-groups
>> Layer One], [[Identity]], [[Data Portability ...
>> 10 KB (1526 words) - 04:19, 17 August 2008
>> - Meraki Mesh Networks <http://Meraki_Mesh_Networks>
>> ... ipal wi-fi projects'''." [
>> http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/10/meraki-free-mesh-wif.html] "In
>> most mesh networks, all the nodes that receive a particular data
>> packet
>> 8 KB (1288 words) - 20:03, 11 March 2008
>> - Open Mesh Networks <http://Open_Mesh_Networks>
>> ==Why Open Mesh Networks are beneficial== ... ion, expands the
>> capacity of the network. This intelligence is the key to mesh networks’
>> immense capacity.
>> 2 KB (336 words) - 12:51, 28 December 2007
>> - Open Source Mesh <http://Open_Source_Mesh>
>> '''= community in favor of [[Open Source Mesh Networking]]''' ... rld
>> now have a place to collaborate to create a suite of tools to liberate
>> Mesh networks from proprietary solutions and vendors who's business
>> models focu ...
>> 1 KB (163 words) - 04:33, 17 August 2008
>> - Open Source Mesh Networking <http://Open_Source_Mesh_Networking>
>> #[[Open Source Mesh]] #[[Meraki Mesh Networks]]
>> 134 B (14 words) - 05:10, 2 February 2008
>> - Open Mesh Routing Protocols <http://Open_Mesh_Routing_Protocols>
>> 121 B (13 words) - 05:30, 2 February 2008
>> - Marc Canter on the Structural Conditions for Building an Open Mesh<http://Marc_Canter_on_the_Structural_Conditions_for_Building_an_Open_Mesh>
>> ... rk Canter has an extensive investigation of what we need to build
>> the open mesh: 1) [
>> http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2008/03/how-to-build-the-mesh-1-id-social-graphs-and-groups
>> Layer One], [[Identity]], [[Data Portability ...
>> 6 KB (933 words) - 05:39, 8 July 2008
>> - World Wide Mesh <http://World_Wide_Mesh>
>> ... o each other via the Internet these meshes come together in one
>> world-widemesh. ... m the network-centric model to the peer-to-peer
>> model, enabled by wireless mesh technology."
>> 603 B (77 words) - 02:37, 17 February 2010
>> - Mesh Potato <http://Mesh_Potato>
>> URL = http://www.villagetelco.org/mesh-potato/mesh-potato-faq/ ... a
>> marriage of a low-cost wireless access point ( AP) capable of running a
>> mesh networking protocol with an Analog Telephony Adapter ( ATA).
>> Wireless AP ...
>> 1 KB (142 words) - 15:55, 28 May 2010
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> From: *Sepp Hasslberger* <sepp at lastrega.com>
>> Date: Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:58 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Dante,
>>
>> this seems a good initiative, but I have one question: What is the selling
>> point?
>>
>> In other words, what does the currency you propose add to people's
>> willingness to network and to share.
>>
>> In my view, many users would be happy to get into a sharing and networking
>> mode, but they aren't there yet. What they are missing is not so much an
>> incentive (a currency) but an opportunity. There is no easily available
>> hardware, and more often than not, there is no one to network with. So how
>> can that scarcity of opportunity be overcome?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Sepp
>>
>> p.s. added a cc to Michel, who would no doubt also be interested.
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> From: *Dante-Gabryell Monson* <dante at ecobytes.net>
>> Date: Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:11 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Sepp.
>>
>> Good point.
>> Yes, I have been reading many of your posts on this subject, and I
>> remember we may have discussed the topic of meshed networks already.
>>
>> The selling point I believe is not the currency per se,
>> but the possibility for people to access local and internet communication
>> beyond their own wifi access point, for no additional cost,
>> except for a configuration of their router, or wifi enabled mobile phone.
>>
>> more precisely, it can offer them access to :
>>
>> 1) a distributed local mesh, which enables them to share files or *communicate
>> locally*,
>> potentially *also through voice over ip, for free*.
>> note : As more and more people are likely to have wifi enabled phones,
>> and as such phones are more and more like little computers, I imagine they
>> themselves may become a manet ( mobile ) node in the mesh.
>>
>> 2) *have access to the internet in more places* in their neighbourhood
>> and city,
>> *if they themselves provide internet bandwidth to the mesh*
>>
>> the currency in itself probably being only coming in third position,
>> as an additional option.
>>
>> ----------
>> From: *Dante-Gabryell Monson* <dante at ecobytes.net>
>> Date: Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:14 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> and a fourth , omportant one for me,
>> one may be a sense of increased local autonomy,
>> of a bound between people in your neighborhood that is not dependent on
>> companies anymore,
>> and potentially even of "identity" ... ? :-)
>>
>> ----------
>> From: *Sepp Hasslberger* <sepp at lastrega.com>
>> Date: Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:48 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Dante,
>>
>> what you are saying is actually the business model of FON. You install one
>> of their low-cost wireless modems permitting other "foneros" who happen to
>> be close by, to use your connection via WiFi, and in exchange you get to use
>> the connections of others who also have installed a "la fonera" FON modem.
>> They are making those wireless modems available at a low price, but the
>> technology is not as advanced as it should be. The reach is definitely too
>> short to be really useful, and the FON wireless access points don't make a
>> network, they don't talk to each other. The model of FON is sharing your
>> connection and getting access in a similar way from others.
>>
>> Meraki, I believe, is different, in that their modems actually do form an
>> ad-hoc network by talking to each other. They are also using cheap wireless
>> modems that extend, to some degree, the area of coverage of one or more
>> single "real" internet connections to a group of users. Meraki is
>> commercial, just like FON. They were trying to roll out a network over San
>> Francisco, but have scaled back their expectations, I believe. None of those
>> two have really had a great growth or a breakthrough.
>>
>> There is also an open source Meraki, so to speak, which is, I believe,
>> called Open Mesh. If I remember correctly, they concentrate on B.A.T.M.A.N.
>> which is a routing protocol that allows mesh networks to form. They work by
>> changing the flash memory of certain compatible commercially available
>> routers.
>>
>> The big problem, for now, seems to be the lack of a proper hardware
>> platform to base the network on, that is widely available. That would be the
>> thing to concentrate on. Meraki and FON have hardware, but their drawback is
>> lack of wide reach (WiFi goes only about 30 meters distance in good
>> conditions, less if you have walls to contend with), and the fact that they
>> are commercial, meaning they would like to have the whole world converge on
>> themselves, and it doesn't seem to work that way.
>>
>> Until we have proper hardware to ensure connectivity, that is widely
>> available and that is open to be configured like we want, there is really no
>> way people will jump unto the mesh networking scene, if only because there
>> is a lack of opportunity, i.e. they don't know HOW to do it.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Sepp
>>
>> ----------
>> From: *Dante-Gabryell Monson* <dante at ecobytes.net>
>> Date: Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:29 AM
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly Sepp!
>> A mixture of meraki and fon approaches, although I Ideally imagine that
>> people could configure their own routers
>> (if they can add protocols , such as with a linksys router, or unless
>> partnerships are created with various existing internet providers who offer
>> a router with their service as to add a mesh protocol)
>>
>> Or if they can add a module that easily turns their mobile phone or laptop
>> into a mobile relay node.
>>
>> Easiest would be to start experimenting on university campuses, including
>> by enabling the meshed laptops and phones to share files ,potentially using
>> bittorrent over mesh? With a high density,I wonder if it reduces bottlenecks
>> and increases file sharing speeds? At the same time increasing the quality
>> of the reach of connectivity over a campus.
>>
>> I guess this is where is connects with the one laptop per child project.
>>
>> It could also be used by students to enable shared processing power of
>> their devices,over mesh,to support some of their projects. (especially for
>> hungry for processing tasks? Video editing? )
>>
>> Eventually processing power over mesh could also warn credits?
>>
>> Just brainstorming as I m walking back and writing on my phone...
>>
>> What motivates me most,personally,is to have an.emergent autonomous local
>> mesh,which can guarantee autonomy of control from governments and internet
>> providers for local data exchanges,and serve as backbone for local
>> information systems that support local economics.
>>
>> Perhaps there can be a mobile mesh protocol that can be proposed to run
>> with various mobile applications.
>>
>> Perhaps that one way of doing it,in a granular and emergent way... ?
>>
>> In that case,where does one start?
>>
>> Using open hardware and old pc' to contribute to existing meshes, and find
>> existing tools to easily enable compatibility between Batman and mobile mesh
>> protocols,
>>
>> Using an easy to install module for android and iPhone's?
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I guess its still a dream...
>> Perhaps the time is not ripe yet?
>>
>> Still need to wait till 10 dollar open hardware ,with wifi and pre
>> installed (and configurable) open source software enabling mesh protocols?
>>
>> Or is the current 30 to 50 dollar node making it viable in high density
>> areas,especially if some form of revenue can be created?
>>
>> Just thinking loud up late at night ,after a small sip :)
>>
>> Perhaps easiest to start by investing in our own mesh of routers...
>> starting with the meraki approach... building on existing communities of
>> local mesh enthusiasts...
>>
>> Hi Dante,
>>
>> > Yes, I h...
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> From: *Alex Rollin* <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:50 AM
>> Peer-To-Peer Research List <p2presearch at listcultures.org>
>>
>>
>> A couple points:
>>
>>
>> 1. The connections to the internet are not *free* because "access
>> points" are assumed to be connected to the www, which requires someone to
>> pay.
>> 2. The currency might be great for enabling those who offer an "access
>> point" credit for use on other "access points"
>> 3. Most "organized" mesh nets do not encourage a charge of any kind
>> for roaming users. Example: http://guifi.net/directori . This might
>> just be a new class of networks, though. See FreeTheNet below, which does
>> charge as a cooperative.
>> 4. An alternative currency for access is great, and innovative, but
>> exchanging that currency for "cash" may not be desirable as it is not
>> standard procedure for mesh nets. Good idea, though. It needs to be a
>> platform, though. A platform should be usable, copyable, and extendable.
>> Hypothetically, extensions should be usable by others on the platform
>> copies. Walk away complete is the tag line.
>> 5. Most protocols that happen over the internet can happen between
>> machines and a configuration package for local services discovery could be
>> very interesting. Usually local networks are useless except for file
>> sharing, and the services are less than ideal in many cases.
>> 6. The local package for service discovery could be handled/built in a
>> way that was "network ambivalant", as a package that worked on the internet
>> or a local network. Example: keeping a list of media files you are looking
>> for and using a collection of programs that search here or there to find you
>> sources.
>> 7. OLPC already does mesh networking in a way significantly similar to
>> what you describe http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mesh_Network_Details .
>> This is not typical for the configuration of wireless network cards in
>> machines, though it is possible (for some part, at least)
>> 8. The Meraki company made a mistake and raised the price of their
>> hardware so Open-Mesh took over the "higher purpose" of providing BATMAN and
>> ROBIN pre-flashed nodes and extenders
>> https://www.open-mesh.com/store/categories.php?category=Lowest%252dCost-Mesh . FreeTheNet uses Accton routers from OpenMesh, see below.
>> 9. Changing settings to allow and encourage local services discovery
>> can be dangerous. As a networking professional I will say that 95% of
>> people are using default settings on their machine, and these make it almost
>> impossible to easily discover local services with changing configurations,
>> and that is potentially dangerous. No more dangerous than using the
>> internet, I suppose, but the exploits don't come through the browser,
>> necessarily. See the wifi iphone hack. The issue is perhaps only different
>> in that local network bandwidth is much higher, and so a hole in security
>> can be exploited very quickly with big packages.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/technology/23iphone.html
>> 10. You don't need to do anything new to accomplish your vision of
>> extending the range of a local network across your city. Just copy what
>> http://guifi.net/directori is doing and use Open-Mesh routers. It's
>> getting easier, apparently. I worked on http://freethenet.ca/ in 2007
>> when it was just some guys hacking hardware and figuring out the business
>> model. It was a pain because the first Meraki products were just coming out
>> and the team had to write and rewrite the code for the coordinated uplink,
>> which allowed the routers to be flashed remotely. Now it's a coop. Yay!
>> So you can copy them too! Check out their bylaws here:
>> http://www.vonic.ca/about FreeTheNet and Vonic use a custom DogOnRails
>> app for network management, under development in a different form during my
>> time. This is for tracking memberships, I am sure, over the network and
>> between access points. It's also needed because the FreeTheNet model
>> through Vonic calls for underwriting extending mesh deep into residential
>> areas to supply home connections over a shared network. A special purpose
>> monitoring and optimization software is useful for that kind of thing.
>> 11. You won't escape governance and I don't know how to conceive of a
>> local mesh in such a way. It still uses hardware made by the machine, and
>> it still has to connect to the www, at least for now, through ISP
>> connections. Someone has to pay for that. Using local mesh for file
>> traffic several limits what files are available. It would take a small city
>> to duplicate the power of a Google server farm used to cache partial copies
>> of the internet, and that farm would be optimized for the task, unlike a
>> city-res-mesh.
>>
>> Alex
>> http://alexrollin.com
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/User:GoodRollin
>>
>> ----------
>> From: *Gael Van Weyenbergh* <stroombank at gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:45 PM
>> To: Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
>> Peer-To-Peer Research List <p2presearch at listcultures.org>
>>
>>
>> The simplest way I see this is to apply the couch surfing model to the
>> sharing of internet connections. Then there is maybe no need for a currency
>> and the risk of abuse can be reduced by mutual good practices as
>> participating members are equally vulnerable. In fact, my underlying concern
>> is to avoid being totally dependent on regular ISPs. The development of a
>> parallel mesh of interconnected mobile devices sounds more appealing. It
>> could be used at a city-level for file sharing, grid computing or as a place
>> where needs can match offers with the exchange of community currencies.
>>
>> Gael
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100719/4f99ce6a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list