July 2014 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

an evaluation of the flok
by Michel Bauwens 07 Jul '14

07 Jul '14

thanks for the moral support, Sergio, it counts, Michel <<Message: 4 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 18:16:58 -0300 From: S?rgio Storch <sergiostorch(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [P2P-F] an evaluation of the flok as colonialist To: P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> Message-ID: <CAJrkveO85Xdt2=4iK5YE4UVc_Fkoa1YtwBT4UHaUQYRnYxRvwg(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Michel, although I?m not involved in this endeavor, I feel so much empathy towards your commitment and generosity that I feel the duty of saying some words for the sake of recognition and encouragement. I?ve been through analogous situations so many times in life when beautiful ideas coupled with generous hearts and minds stumbled on the logic of bureaucracies and paranoia on the part of people who see threats and conspiracies around every corner that I feel so much as mine your frustration and feeling of lack of gratitude. It happens all the time with people driven by care for the wellbeing of others. You are not the first nor the last one to experience it. So I hope you are comforted by the solidarity of all the people who?ve been following your courageous steps , and go ahead. Get as a gift this Brazilian song that says, in my poor translation of the lyrics "Stand up, shake away the the dust, and turn around..." - http://www.cifraclub.com.br/paulo-vanzolini/volta-por-cima/ Best regards Sergio S?rgio Storch 11-3666.9005 - 11-99753.9701 sergiostorch(a)gmail.com Facebook Sergio Storch <https://www.facebook.com/sergio.storch> Blog: www.sergiostorch.com -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] open budget
by Michel Bauwens 07 Jul '14

07 Jul '14

gordon: as an update, the may salary has arrived after my departure, and we made an agreement from the missing part of april, I expect the june part to arrive with the customary delay you are right in your interpretation of flok mgt, but I want to avoid unde personalization of the issue, I'm not critiquing a person per se, but a method of mgt that I believe to be incompatitlbe with p2p values, we should also distinguish the generic critique of hierarchy, from the critique of the particularly abusive versions of it which may occur when we had the research project for Orange, our p2p processes did simply not work, and I had to take over with a paid assistant, so we used hierarchy there, but I didn't feel the compulsion to disinform my assistant. The idea that hierarchy must mean arbitrariness is false; hierarchies need their own forms of trust and controls. Michel -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: MA - Rede//Labs - networked experimental labs
by Michel Bauwens 07 Jul '14

07 Jul '14

could anyone create an english wiki entry on this ? can't find fabio filho's email for the moment, Michel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Felipe Fonseca <felipefonseca(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 1:13 AM Subject: MA - Rede//Labs - networked experimental labs To: Felipe Fonseca <felipefonseca(a)gmail.com> Hi friends, Just using a bit of your time to share the results of my MA research recently completed (approved in mar 2014). The text is pt-br only, but I have just posted the abstract both in portuguese and english here: http://redelabs.org/blog/redelabs-laborat%C3%B3rios-experimentais-em-rede The research tries to articulate experiences within the so-called brazilian digital culture context in the last decade and the background of experimental labs in the borders of technology, culture and society elsewhere in the world. The trend towards a society totally captured by cybernetic governance is indicated as a huge threat to any attempt to create novelty. I then propose the image of labs as spaces intentionally left blank as a way to go forward, skipping usual traps found in policies for 'creative' sectors. Thanks for your time, and would be glad to hear comments or suggestions (despite the little information I sent in english ;)). As soon as University bureaucracy allows me, I will be posting the full text to the internets. If anyone is interested in practicing their pt-br, I can send the PDF in private. Please let me know. Best wishes from the last week in the world cup ;) efe -- ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||FelipeFonseca|||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||http://efeefe.no-ip.org|| |||||||http://ubalab.org||||||| |||||http://redelabs.org||||| ||||http://gaivota.fm.br|||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] an evaluation of the flok
by Michel Bauwens 07 Jul '14

07 Jul '14

Just responding to some of Gordon's points. I did meet Carlos, repeatedly, after arriving in Quito. Just to make a few points: the contradictions of the project became apparent very very fast, since we didn't get paid because of it, until the end of March. I'm not sure if everyone appreciates how serious that it for precarious activist-scholars, i..e most of our team. (only the flok mgt had a basic income) We had to pay our tickets, rent guaranties, rent, food etc .. without an income and reserves. And the stress of not knowing when it would be solved, but the main issue of course: why the hell where we invited if the project was not supported, why were we invited and sabotaged at the same time. I knew the reasons of the conflict since October, but only experienced its effects as of January. It is only 2 days after I went public with the issue, that it was resolved. After the departure of our rector, we were refunded and things improved. Since I had won my case by threatening to leave, it frankly didn't make any sense to leave having obtained satisfaction. >From then on, we just did what we could, in imperfect and hard circumstances, and tried to respond as best as we could to the huge expectations that the flok generated. I still don't think an early departure would have a better option. Because of the depth of the abuse that Gordon was subject too, I understand he has a different view of it, but the research team had to take into account many factors and expectations. I just want to make a point that though, for someone who has lived under the poverty level / minimum wage for years, though the income was very important to me and my family, it is not something that can keep me quiet. If money was the factor, I would not have taken a 90% pay cut since 2002. This is why I have always continued to speak out against the abuses, as can be readily seen in the public mailing list of the project. My main aim was to react against the systematic defamation that was used as a mgt tool, but otherwise leave the hierarchical process as is because I was powerless to change it. I just ignored the many entreaties to ask for permission for my activities. so the research team operated fairly autonomously outside of the ambit of the hierarchical process. We have been entirely free in our research and expression of our research results. The mgt team has always systematically tried to minimize the role of the research team and my role in particular, but I don't think it was very effective. The willful defunding of the translation of the transition document was rather easily circumvented by an appeal for volunteers; the way the summit was organized was similarly carefully calibrated to diminish my role, but the flok mgt team proceeded from the mistaken assumption that my reputation was a threat to them, while the truth is , my strategy is entirely invitational. Nevertheless, I see the purposeful policy to refuse a discussion on the transition proposals, as a huge strategic mistake. While they were hoping for the backroom deals that never materialized, though some may ultimately come to fruition, let's hope, the generic discussion about the commons is exactly what was needed to have a lasting impact. I make my work as interesting and signficant as I know to, and respond to invitations. I never see myself as competing or as needing to push away anyone else to do this. It's not something they are able to see from their scarcity-driven point of view, but I entirely adapt this and never push against such attempts. I proceed from the pov that quality work ends up being noticed. As Bethany argued elsewhere, while many of the papers and concrete proposals may soon be forgotten because of the lack of engagement of the authorities, the general ideas and concrete human connections are exactly the lasting impact that our work will have there. Michel -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

4 3

Re: [P2P-F] [P2P-es] A parting of ways with Bernardo Gutierrez
by Michel Bauwens 07 Jul '14

07 Jul '14

Thanks Bernardo, Though the case of Gordon comes up a lot, I never bring it up on my own, only as a reaction to disinformation, literally every single time I bring it up, it's because of this. While the case of Gordon was particularly galling and he was singled out for abuse, you know as well as me that it happened with every single person who left the flok. That is what I find symptomatic, the inablitity to disagree or leave without this whole attempt at character assasination. There is a difference between the attitude of flok mgt, where this scapegoating is used as a way to maintain internal coherence around the leader, and done by people who were there, and you, who came afterwards (yes indeed, though you participated remotely as well), spread the disinfo externally, and kept maintaining the message even after receiving corrected info. It's one thing to trash people in kaffee klatsch, to use it for internal group cohesion against perceived enemies, but quite another to use public mailing lists to keep repeating false charges. But let's move on. I am happy to see that the only charges retained now for Gordo is that he used copyright for his newsletters and is ill. We're making progress. Same thing for AD and the others, I don't mind that you trash him, (them) privately, it's your right, but if you repeated spread the charge that he is a spy, you have to come up with proof. I think it would be an entirely more productive use of your time, and that of others, to focus on the continued construction of flok, and to forget about attacking perceived enemies and trying to suppress autonomous evaluations. I think we are reaching that space, and can leave the negativity behind. If you had read the blogpost and fb discussion about my evaluation, , you will have seen that I say the same thing as you, i.e. I'm concluding that it was not a strategic transition project but that many seeds have been sown that will have an effect in Ecuador, but that globally it still remains a turning point that it was made possible. I also mention the participatory methodology as one of its innovations in policy making. There is nothing improper in evaluating a project and its pro's and con's, and I'm glad you are giving your perspective here. I agree with the three points, despite their imperfect execution, which is quite normal in the real world. This is why many people will continue working on post-flok experiments with various names. You and I played different roles in this, you through communication and myself and the research team (augmented by all those who participated and co-constructed the documents), did our part. And as you agree, not just us, this is why it is so important not to malign the other people who participated, even if they left the project for various reasons. The difference for the post-flok projects I would like to undertake in the future, is that I believe the internal processes should be prefigurative of the kind of society we want to achieve. So, no, not asking the boss for permission if we want to talk somewhere (in these other emails where you make these arguments that this was proper, I was surprised, as I previously interpreted your position as being actually more radical than mine, i.e. some kind of more absolute p2p requirement; I have been surprised by your argument pro-hierarchical permission and control in the discussion elswhere), or meet with a particular person. There is no reason these processes should be centralized and controlled, it's actually counter-productive, but that's just my opinion. According to me, the internal processes were based on a triple deception, 1) in the communication with our funders. Though it is difficult to prove, I have significant anecdotal evidence to argue that our funders, until very recently, did not truly know what the flok was about and had misconceptions about it; it is probably my weakest claim, because it relies on anecdotes, but this very fact derives from the secrecy of the negotiations as well 2) disinformation of the own staff, I have extensive evidence that this is the case, and it would take at least six pages, to document this; and you have seen most of them; I have a very strong evidence-based argument for this; 3) a propaganda model of external communication, based on maintaining a mythology of absolute success, and attempts, such as yours, to prevent independent evaluations that question this narrative. My opinion is that it is not normal that an independent evaluation is seen as a threat, it should be part and parcel of any open project, that people can challenge it without be submitted to pressure. If you challenge any of these theses, I'd be happy to provide the evidence, and to hear the counter-evidence from you. I'm not saying this can't work, most of history has worked that way; what I'm saying is that it is very problematic to instantiate an open culture and society, based on methods that are not only alien to it, but actively opposed to it. Though I didn't like the opacity, really extreme hierarchical control, permission-based mgt style that was used internally, I realize it is one of the perennial choices that humans take in times of extreme stress. But please just use it internally, inside your present existing team, just don't try project it externally after I and others have left the project. I always accepted it, my red line is maligning third parties without proof, which is commonly called defamation. A part from that, I wish you and your team the best of luck in your freely accepted methodologies, As p2p-f network, with our friends and associates, we want to try a different track, where the internal processes match the external goals, and of course, we may fail, but I think it is worth trying after seeing the difficulties of the first attempt. This is how social learning works, and why it is important to have open discourse about it. Michel On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Bernardo Gutiérrez < bernardobrasil(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello you all (perdón por el inglés para la lista en español). > > Nice to see that hostility is going down, Michel. As you know, the whole > process and futures fork of FLOK are quite important. Having commited all > the parts mistakes and havind a such a difficult scenarium (it is > politic!), it would be childish to keep on fighting among us. I think that > the 1%, the elite, is quite united, and that they will be enyoing this. > But, anyway, the discussion, being constructive is always good. > > You always speak about Gordon Cook, Michel. Among all the things you > say..., by my side side there are just two things, that by, the way I just > wrote in a mail feed (just one) in the most intense moment of the fight > (before the summit) and never insisted in mailing lists, networks etc Even > feeling that Cook Report is not fair and that he got private information > from private communication, I did not comment it anywhere, never. I said > that Gordon published copyright his whole life, until Cook Report. And that > is ture. I said, in that moment, that 'defending a neocon' that uses NSA > tactics (violating privacy) was not good idea. Reading some of his works, > may be yes, he is not the classeical neocon, even more progressive than I > thougt, havind some clear liberal ideas, that I respect, of course. So, I > can beg your pardon Gordon, for saying that defending a neocon is not a > good idea. And feel quite happy that your are not and that I am able to > recognize mistakes! > > But what we need is more version, stories about the FLOK not just yours, > Michel. I understand that your not so optimistic now and that you felt > dissapointed by some things. But there are such fantastic things that > happened and that are still happening around the process, that it would be > nice to light the positive things. Above, you can see a mail to a Spanish > list from Daniel Vàzquez, director of the FLOK. Michel was in charge of the > research that was part of a quite bigger process. > I see, with some perspective, see some fantastic points of FLOK process: > > *-FLOK as Method.* A new method for connecting academy with civil > society, for connecting academy to politics, for connecting networks and > movements to public policy. We have to remember that FLOK started as a > quite top down project, more Goverment than civil society. And that now is > completly different . The Summit was the prove that so many movements, > networks, local leaders, indigenous people, hackers, worked hand by hand > with politicians from local, regional and State. > > *-FLOK as a prototype*. It was fantastic: all the papers of the research > were considered drafts. A source code improved by collective intelligence. > it is not easy for researchers to acknowledge that. And we have to flatter > all of them. It was exciting to see George Dafermos, Restakis and Michel > Bauwes seated with local people, working in this new academic prototype, > real time public policy method. Just as an academic prototype it is quite > an innovation. Here the PAD we created in Communication Team for openning > the research: http://floksociety.org/pad/p/comunicainvestiga Even having > done just a part, the work made, leaded by Michel, the one who used more > networked methods in the research, was amazing. So, FLOK is an academic new > sorce font remixing method. > > -*Extitutions: new institucionality.* Some how, FLOK became a new type of > institution, and in-out institution, a liquid one, not exactly State not > exactly civil society, with some independet corners, commosn oriented, > working inside the machine to create public policy. I like very much the > concept of Extitución (spanish link), former institution > http://viveroiniciativasciudadanas.net/2012/07/05/extitucion-netizens-y-mas/ > > > > For all of this, It would be nice to get more versions of FLOK. Now, there > are 14 ecuatorian leaders working with the last part of this first era of > FLOK and thinking how to implement de pilot projects. For me, It would > complete this source font of the research with real projects, real time > prorotypes. And would be wonderfull. Let´s ask them! > > About the Partner State, Michel. I think that may be Ecuador is not > prepared . I am sure that your commitment will develop this in other > country in the next years. In my opinion, in Ecuador, the prototyping > method of public policy has more chances of being real than the Partner > State. > > Thanks for flattering now the communication strategy, at least the > guerrilla part. But in my 20 years in communication and have done (and do) > many different things beyond guerrilla. From El Pais to Squire, from > National Geographic to La Repubblica, from CLarin to Al Jazzera, I have > publish (still do ) in some of the most important newspapers and magazines > of the world. In the last years, my commitment with copylef is so big that > I just write in copyleft media (many, just look for my name in the web). I > research in academy (in the group of Manuel Castells), do consultant work > for the commons, publish books (the last, collective, with Michael Hardt > and Toni Negri) and I am jury of differente prizes, now ofr Gabriel García > Márquez Journalims Prize (the most important in Latin America), in > Technology field. So, I have some differente communicational aproches to > share. I did share them in FLOK process. And, being honest, I think it > worked in the creation of participation. > > > > Best (above the mail of FLOK´s Director) > > Bernardo > > Daniel > 13:18 (hace 23 horas) > > > para p2p-lang-es > Hola! > > Me apena ver que a veces todas (incluso personas muy inteligentes) > pierden o perdemos la perspectiva sobre discusiones/estrategia, entrando > en análisis de pobre calidad más guiados por sentimientos o pesimismo > que sobre posibilidades, personalizando y en negativo frente a la linea > más interesante de analizar en colectivo y pensar en vías de superación, > en acciones que abran el escenario y permitan seguir avanzando con > transformaciones que son un sueño. > > Por supuesto, toda crítica o análisis es bienvenido, yo al menos me > permito descartar los que no considero relevantes, por falta de tiempo, > pero tambien ya sea en algunos casos por superficiales o por no incidir > en construcción colectiva. > > Quizás lo hago por que es obvio que no existe un proceso de medio o gran > tamaño sin fallos, o porque los personalismos o fallos humanos en una > acción colectiva me resultan irrelevantes, prefiero centrarme más en las > posibilidades que se abren. > > Desde ahí, el post de Michel es comprensible, tras un proceso de trabajo > muy complejo en muy poco tiempo como ha sido FLOK me parece más un post > de desahogo de estres que cualquier tipo de análisis meditado, creo que > leyéndolo se ve claro, y que no hay que darle más transcendencia que > esa. Obviamente no es su mejor contribución, pero tampoco tiene porqué > serlo, Michel puede y debe escribir lo que quiera. > > A Michel y a Bernardo hay que darles las gracias por lo que han hecho, > incluso aunque ellos o yo nos hayamos equivocado en cosas (imposible no > hacerlo en un reto de 8 meses, debatiendo con más de 1500 personas, > hablando con más de 45 instituciones y decenas de colectivos y decenas > de expertos) han contribuido con sus aportes (al igual que las otras > 25-30 personas que también han colaborado directamente, ni más ni menos) > a que ahora mismo un montón de movimientos sociales y académicos estén > debatiendo con las instituciones cómo aplicar las políticas públicas > propuestas que hemos construido de forma colectiva. > > Y mientras esa multitud se organiza, debate y construye, algunas miran > nombres y apellidos y se enredan en ver una "telenovela" muy personal; > la pena es que mientras lo hacen o lo hacemos se pierden o nos perdemos > algo increíble, mucho más grande que cualquier nombre y apellido, se > pierden que lo que queríamos que sucediera está sucediendo, las > propuestas de políticas públicas caminan hacia su implementación (no > todas serán posibles, que sean muchas dependerá de nuestra inteligencia > colectiva) en instituciones clave. Los proyectos pilotos van todavía un > poco más atrás y hay que empujarlos, esas serán las prioridades de los > colectivos y expertos Ecuatorianos que la semana que viene comienzan a > trabajar el plan de implementación, un lujo poder verlo :) > > Un abrazo, seguimos con temas más interesantes. > > P.D: Ahora mismo vivo con 2 compañeros del equipo de investigación de > FLOK, y es un lujo pensar y analizar con ellos, nuestras emocionantes > discusiones van algo más allá de los clásicos atrasos de cualquier > administración pública en realizar pagos, andan apasionados por empujar > los proyectos pilotos que discuten con muchos compis ecuatorianos, ojalá > podemos seguir ayudándoles con eso > > > 2014-07-06 0:57 GMT-03:00 Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net>: > > ok, Gordon, we are going to try to avoid the understandable hostility here >> f, and I realize you are still seething for what happened to you. I have >> suggested to Bernardo to apologize for the falsehoods he spread , but let's >> leave it at that here and try to have a civilized debate based on the >> facts. Bernardo is adult enough to face his conscience. I have apologized >> many times to you so don't need to redo it here I hope <g>. >> >> For your info, Bernardo was co-responsible for communication and did an >> excellent job on that front. He is spanish but lives in Brazil and >> well-known for his skills in guerilla communication. >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Gordon Cook <cook(a)cookreport.com> wrote: >> >>> Here is the requested url michel >>> >>> While Michel is preparing his report, anyone wishing to read mine may >>> hit this URL >>> >>> http://www.cookreport.com/pdfs/July-augCRecuadorfinal.pdf >>> >>> hidden i.e. not advertised on my web site. >>> >>> I am curious as to where Bernardo came from? His was the outside media >>> company hired by Daniel? You will see in the about my evidence of his >>> changing the rules at the last hour for the summit thunderclap. Quite >>> funny. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 5, 2014, at 10:53 PM, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm really sorry Bernardo, but your threat has been public and can be >>> verified; second, if you publicly and privately threaten me, I don't think >>> you have any moral authority to criticise that I make these threats public. >>> I will send the URL of your facebook threat here a bit later. You will note >>> that this facebook account with a few thousand followers, and with several >>> dozen exclusively positive evaluations of my relatively positive evaluation >>> of the flok process, none of them even 'liked' the threat. It was >>> absolutely out of place, while a political discussion of flok is entirely >>> in place. So here is the warning: please respond to political analysis by >>> counter-analysis. But if you respond to analysis by threats and character >>> assasination, you will find me on your way. >>> >>> To deny that you did it won't work, and neither will be the argument >>> that it was all meant of a joke. I know you are following a precedent. >>> Somebody we both know accused Gordon Cook, of 1) not existing 2) being a >>> front of Robert Steele 3) being a CIA agent 4) being an adolescent ranter >>> 4) being a neocon. That person, who spent several hours online searching >>> for proof, spread these accusations, and you gave credence to it by also >>> spreading it. When exposed as lies, can you then simple say, after trying >>> to repeatedly destroy a person's reputation. >>> >>> And you still continue, you are shameless. Gordon Cook is the author of >>> absolutely stellar reports on p2p infrastructures, which can be verified >>> and read at the Gordon Cook report. His policy paper, which is excellent >>> and breaks a lot of new ground, is also available online. I copy Gordon so >>> he can provide the URL's. >>> >>> We have to reiterate the case of what happened to Gordon Cook as it was >>> exemplary. Like many other authors, Gordon Cook was promited $4,000 for a >>> paper. This promise was then unilaterally changed to $3,500 on condition >>> that he would attend the summit. Since Gordon had undergone a absolutely >>> invasive and painful spinal operation, and needed a series of eye >>> interventions to boot. I was physically present twice when the promise was >>> made to him to facilitate the trip through a business class trip. Not once, >>> but twice. That promise was then also broken. And no, the maximum was not >>> done to make it possible. As has been already admitted, it was a conscious >>> and political decision not to do it, not a force majeure. >>> >>> Now, f..ups are always possible. But you know it is a pattern. Every >>> person who was asked to leave the project has been systematically maligned. >>> I'll review the list again, BH, an excellent journalist and communicator, >>> was accused of being on the payroll of US intelligence for publishing a >>> critical article; AD, was being branded as 'a spy of Senescyt' and was >>> threatened with physical intimidation; a research team member was >>> threatened with dismissal for expressing critique on the mailing list. In >>> recent days, you have been publicly trashing both the work of the research >>> team and the communication team. It's a paranoid style of politics and >>> character assasination that has no place in an open culture. If you can't >>> avoid trashing people, have the wisdom to do it indoors, but don't publish >>> and spread unfounded and unproven accusations via the network. >>> >>> I want to avoid speaking about this mess, it's not very interesting, >>> unless as a generic lesson for the future: don't let hierarchies dominate >>> participatory projects. >>> >>> Bernardo, I invite to challenge my political conclusions from now on, >>> and I will avoid publishing the facts of my experience. You have failed to >>> intimidate me in my right to politically evaluate flok, move on. >>> >>> Take a hint from Daniel's approach in this controversy. >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Bernardo Gutiérrez < >>> bernardobrasil(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello you all >>>> >>>> I think there are several misunderstandings and some unfair accusation. >>>> Try to be polity and to explain the problems: >>>> >>>> In the last few days, I have been harassed and threatened by Bernardo >>>>> Gutierrez, who tried to suppress the publication of an evalution of the >>>>> FLOK process, which you can find here: >>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/a-provisional-informal-assessment-of-the-flok… >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It is complitily false. Never tried .In fact, it is the first time that >>>> I know that you published in the blog. Our discussion started when I told >>>> you that it was not propor to share in FACEBOOK (it is quite clear in all >>>> of our mails), now, those critics to FLOK process, right now. Having had >>>> several problems, It is an important moment to know what it is going to >>>> happen. May it does not help. I valu your version, but desagree in several >>>> points. Correa (the president) invited the guest of the FLOK to the Cambio >>>> de Guardia. He spoke about FLOK in Sabatina. We were working with high >>>> level politicians, as Cancilleria (minister Patiño), Senplades and even >>>> people from presidency. So, I think it was not such an unknow project. In >>>> fact, it became, during and after the Summit a quite important project for >>>> the Whole Ecuatorian Goverment >>>> >>>> >>>>> In this text, I simply make a political evalution of my 6 months in >>>>> Ecuador, as I see it, as I believe was both my right (of free speech), and >>>>> a duty to the p2p community, who has been asking for it. It is in my view a >>>>> moderate and considered political evaluation, though of course, as my >>>>> opinion, open to critique and counter-argumentation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think it is good, Michel, And you are an importante person in the >>>> process. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> While I would have accepted a conversation asking me to postpone it, >>>>> in order to safeguard some potential backroom deal in Ecuador, instead BG >>>>> thought it would be useful to publicly threaten the publication of my >>>>> private emails, thinking this would frighten me. It doesn't, as I don't >>>>> believe I write anything in private that can't see the light of the day. >>>>> But private email involves other persons and I find it very ethically >>>>> objectionable that he would use this as a threat. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Another big misanderstanding. I think it horrible to publish any >>>> private conversation. In fact, I am super critic with private conversation >>>> going public. I was joking and exagerating the fact that Gordon Cook >>>> violated privacy and made a report with that. Publishing in networks some >>>> things is not good. So, If you understand that, I am sorry. We have more >>>> people in that conversation, that probably did not undestand that. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is not the first time, a few months ago, Bernardo tried to >>>>> suppress any balanced treatment of Fora do Eixo ( >>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Fora_do_Eixo) and even objected to the >>>>> mention of chilean groups that were somehow one day, connected with FdO. >>>>> BG's totally unfounded accusation then was that "I defended FdO because I >>>>> was getting a free PhD from Ivana Bentes". >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is a private mail. PRIVATE CONVERSATION, Michel. But, well, I >>>> think that is my personal opinion, yes. I don´t need to hide it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> It gave me a first insight into his unfair mindset. To be clear, I was >>>>> not then nor am I now, neither defending nor attacking FdO, but the p2p-f >>>>> is conceived as a pluralistic network to show different perspectives on an >>>>> issue, helping people make their own decisions. We don't want to be >>>>> factional and choose one side or another within the broad p2p community. I >>>>> found it strange then that Bernardo was exerting pressure to have only one >>>>> side of the story seen as legitimate, and refused an open debate on the >>>>> merits of the critique. I could only be radically against FdO, no nuance >>>>> was permitted. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That is not true. I asked you how did you make the list of p2p projects >>>> of the year. Almost all the node sof Brazil P2P branch were disgusted with >>>> that, none was consulted. . At the end, we knew it was more your list than >>>> P2p List. I am specially critic with FdO, but it is on you the aproach >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The second incident came with the aftermath of the FLOK. In the above >>>>> evaluation, I avoid studiously to mention or critique internal matters, >>>>> believing that it would only make matters worse. But I have had to suffer >>>>> there the systematic unfounded accusations against my friends and >>>>> associates: BG has simply reiterated and continue to spread unfounded >>>>> accusations against excellent people I had the opportunity to work with : >>>>> BT,, AD, GC, the research team , the communication team ... >>>>> >>>> >>>> You are again publishing private conversations. With Gordon Cook we >>>> argued in the list, that is true. Not the rest. So I will deny that, >>>> because is quite far from reality. You also make big critics to many people >>>> (some of this list) in our conversations But I think it is not proper to >>>> divulgate here, Michel. Private conversation (me and you ) is private. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> What is worse, even when I sent information to BG advising him not to >>>>> re-iterate these accusations based on facts that I provided to him, he >>>>> would continue spreading them, totally ignoring the counter-factuals I had >>>>> sent him. For example, BG has coninued to spread disinfo about Gordon Cook >>>>> that he is a neocon, opposed to copyleft, and other falsehoods, even after >>>>> receiving documentation to the contrary. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I feel sorry, Michel. But Gordon Cook has been publishing with Copy >>>> Right ever. He has a lot of problems, health, as well. The problem began >>>> when he told FLOk that he could only travel in business, because of his >>>> health problems. The management team tryed, but could no be that. The >>>> quality of the drafts sent was not good. Neither shape of paper neither >>>> quality. You did a nice job editing the second one amd transforming it into >>>> a goog paper. But for many reason, it was impossible to get the business >>>> ticket. And he started a war. The burocracy was terrible and he could not >>>> be paid (just coming to Ecuador). Believe that has nothing to do with me. >>>> After the dirty war he began (violating privacy and laws), he deserve to >>>> not be paid, in my opinion. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Bernardo's attempt to suppress an independent evaluation is a proof of >>>> the latter. How would a healthy p2p process be endangered by an open >>>> discussion? The truth is that the flok attempted to create a mythology of >>>> success, and of political and social support that wasn't there, and that >>>> Bernardo's highly stage-managed twitter storms were part of that effort. " >>>> >>>> I am not trying to suppress anything, Michel! I just told you that it >>>> was not propor to publish now in Facebook!!! in the moment of the reshaping >>>> of the project. I feel really sorry of your accusation about communication >>>> strategy. A Twitter Storm is a 1% of what we did. We created a strong >>>> participatory process, wiht personal meetings, seminars, speeches. We did >>>> wordk shop in 24 cities, with 500 local leaders (who were in the summit). >>>> we published more than 100 post un few months, we did many hang outs (many >>>> with researchers), p2pbeer. We worked with Cancilleria (international >>>> affair minister), with their Ecuela Revolución, people from 40 countries. >>>> We made meeting in squatters (with Restakis, researcher), we made cultural >>>> collaborative mappings, Mumble meetings etc etc. We presented in MAdrid, in >>>> the arab-latin american summit, in Media Lab Prado. All of that is >>>> communication. Communication is conection, and that is what happened. A >>>> twitter storm never work if there is no network. And we got it, with a lot >>>> of difficulties. At the begining it was a top down project. It became more >>>> organic. So, It is not a twitter storm, Michel. >>>> >>>> >>>> "The very reason that BG is attempting to suppress an evualuation of >>>> the FLOK, is that it endangered potential backroom deals. My thesis is: if >>>> they are endangered by an open discussion, what value do these deals >>>> ultimately have? >>>> I'm preparing an evaluative essay on "Hacker Bolchevism, the paranoid >>>> style of politics in p2p' to critique the non-prefigurative politics that >>>> were so characteristic of the FLOK internal process" >>>> >>>> >>>> Your critics are necessary. In fact, I respect them. But I think that >>>> you do them in the wrong places (Facebook, this list, for example). The >>>> last Facebook schandal, some months ago, when they ought some money, was >>>> proper and worked. Not this one. >>>> >>>> >>>> "Stalinistic tactics have no place in an open p2p culture". >>>> >>>> It is commom sense, Michel. this mail of you, for examplo, is out of >>>> place in this moment >>>> >>>> "I do not intend to pollute the p2p lists with these personal >>>> antagonisms (even as they reveal antagonistic value systems and political >>>> and metholodgical approaches). I will at most respond once to the >>>> counter-accusations that will undoubtedly follow this, but I can't tolerate >>>> public and private intimidation when I am no longer part of the flok team". >>>> >>>> Sorry, but I think this is pollution. No one accusated you in any list. >>>> I never would do it. >>>> >>>> >>>> It is me who think you should reconsider your position. We all have >>>> (researchers, management team, communication team) done an interesting and >>>> innovative worlk, begining from you and ending with the secretary. It would >>>> be a pitty to espoil that >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Bernardo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no >>>> record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* >>>> >>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - >>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>>> >>>> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >>>> >>>> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint >>>>> Lista >>>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> www.futuramedia.net >>>> www.codigo-abierto.cc >>>> @bernardosampa (twitter) / @futura_media >>>> São Paulo +55 11 43044380 (fijo) +55 11 84881620 (celular) >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint >>>> Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no >>> record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* >>> >>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - >>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>> >>> <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: >>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >>> >>> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no >> record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* >> >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: >> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint >> Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es >> >> > > > -- > www.futuramedia.net > www.codigo-abierto.cc > @bernardosampa (twitter) / @futura_media > São Paulo +55 11 43044380 (fijo) +55 11 84881620 (celular) > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint > Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es > > -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
by willi uebelherr 06 Jul '14

06 Jul '14

Dear friends, maybe you lost the old emails. Therefore i send you my proposal to for our InterNet to the list of NetMundial, www.1net.org. First the proposal self. After then 3 general answers. All specific answers and the discussion you find in the open archive from the list at: www.1net.org Mailing List Archive http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/ I lnow, this is a more technical question. But not only. This because in all our technical decisions we transport our value systems, our philosophical principles. many greetings, willi Medellin, Colombia -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works Datum: Sun, 04 May 2014 01:00:13 -0600 Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr(a)gmail.com> An: 1net discuss <discuss(a)1net.org> Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works Dear friends, from the final document of NetMundial we can see, that this organization has no interest to strongly support the self-organization of the people for their global communication systems. Rather, institutions are installed to continue the principles of monopolization and representation. Now I want to submit my proposal for a real Internet in this discussion group. 1) The local networks The Internet is nothing more then the connection of local, independent networks. They have at least one server, which is connected to the local router and this router connects to the adjacent networks. These local networks have a maximum of sovereignity and independenence, because they maintain all the necessary resources and functions locally. These local networks are organized by the local people themselves. 2) The inter-connection of local net-works The Internet rests on three levels. a) connection of the adjacent local networks b) the regional network of regional centers c) the global network of regional centers The technology is based primarily on directed microwave radio links. The components are manufactured locally or regionally. All types of data are transported. Text, graphics and speech. This eliminates all separate instances for the data transport. The transport capacities are symmetric in principle. Thus, each client can themselves act as a server. 3) The IP address The IP address is derived from the geographical position in the world coordinate system. We use 64-bit for global and 64-bit for local address. Because the world coordinate system WK84 is distributed asymmetrically, we should strive for a symmetrical system of coordinates. Maybe it already exists. The routing (geo-routing) is based on the destination address of the packet relative to the position of the router. From the distance and the angle wc can easy make the decisions. This eliminates all institutions, which deal with the management of number spaces and routing. There is no Internet governance more. It is not necessary. Conclusions This concept rests on the responsibility to all people on our planet. Only if they can operate at a most independently locally or regionally level, our global communication system can arise. People are important and not the institutions. It also follows, that we have to manufacture the hardware components local and regional self. Any form of incapacitation of people by private or public institutions is terminated. But this is only possible if we determine the technology itself and organize itself. We do this according to the principle: Think globally, act locally. many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr Quetzaltenango, Guatemala -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works Datum: Sun, 04 May 2014 22:37:43 -0600 Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr(a)gmail.com> An: 1net discuss <discuss(a)1net.org> Dear friends, I am very grateful for the constructive responses. In particular, the critical questions are important. They force us to organize our thinking and to substantiate our views. In this response, I will deal only with the philosophical basis for my proposal. Some answers are originated from a different orientation. In a second response I want to discuss some technical aspects that are general in nature. Special reviews and questions I want to answer specifically, as far as I am able. The background We can distinguish two extremal poles. a) we support the desire from all people to a free communication b) we use the communication requirements in order to realize our own interests. To a) I stand and many members of this list. To b) stay all those for which the current structures and organizations are important. Be it to stabilize their jobs or to secure their livelihood in any other form. But it is also important to organize governance and to try anything that the people in the regions can not organize independently. And therefore are not in a position to shape their communication system itself. As part of the many actors worldwide. As in all questions of constructive design also flow into our principles of the design of our communication systems our philosophical orientations and ultimately determine our methods. We always have to deal with limitations in the technical possibilities. But from the contradiction between target and condition arise the driving forces. This also applies to those for which the needs for communication are only objects for their money-oriented actions. In general I formulate the following development principles: a) massively decentralized b) massively parallel c) massively redundant From that directly follows that our global communication system rests on independent local networks. It also follows that the people in the regions concerned in parallel with the development of technical components that they need for their communication systems. And it also follows that the capacity should be well above the maximum demand. The current restrictions are primarily the monopolization of knowledge and a specific concentration of technical infrastructures. But these restrictions have no inherent legitimacy. They are the result of constructive design. Where the boundaries lie for distributed and parallel development of the necessary technical components, we do not know. But we know that diversity is an essential prerequisite for a strong development. We are inevitably confronted with the private appropriation of human knowledge. This is not a problem for me, because for me knowledge is always world heritage. This eliminates all the justifications for legal systems to patents and licenses. This is because basically our individual knowledge rests on the knowledge of our ancestors and contemporaries. Because not the needs of the people to free communication are the foundation in the technical development of components for communications systems, but the interests of capital utilization, there are no reasonable technological systems. Therefore, we can never make the present state of the technology to the basis of our discussion. Communication is always bidirectional. It also follows that we consider in our technical terminology the client and server as a unit. In our direct verbal communication, we also do this. Technically that's not a problem. If we treat our connection paths for data transport such as public roads, which everyone can use, then we immediately see the massive limitations. Again, there is no technical reason. Always the people in the local regions make their paths and trails usable for guests. Communication takes place primarily locally and regionally. In families, between friends and colleagues. Therefore, it is natural to organize our technical communication systems locally and regionally. This eliminates much of the meaningless data transports. I will summarize it briefly. We focus on the needs. We decentralize and parallelize our activities for the construction of the components for our global communication systems. We cooperate worldwide. We help each other worldwide. We can do this because we have the same needs for a free communication worldwide. Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr Quetzaltenango, Guatemala -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works Datum: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:41:17 -0600 Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr(a)gmail.com> An: 1net discuss <discuss(a)1net.org> Dear friends, for the delay in my second reply I beg your pardon. In this response, I will discuss some basic technical issues that were discussed in some answers. 1) The local responsibility for the whole. In money-oriented, capitalist environments there is no responsibility for the whole. Only the quantum of money-flows are crucial. The fact that this discussion is about communication is for that actors secondary. In user-oriented environments, the whole is always the basis for the individual. The communication requires the action of at least two partners. From the interest of a free and unfettered communication for ourselves necessarily follows the interest in free and unfettered communication for the other. 2) Geographical or virtual location. There is no virtual locality. Location is always defined geographically. Every person may define their own terminology. Whether they however can enter into a communication depends on the willingness of others. From the clear determination of a locality follows the clear determination of the address of a location. It is the geographical location. And this is only necessary to transport a data packet as desired from one location to another. 3) Multicasting With unique addresses no multicasting is possible. It is not the task of a transport system for data packets to multiply them. This task will always have the transmitter. However, it is technically very easy to activate in regional and local node dynamic distribution server, which then multiply a package for distribution. One example is mail distribution or streaming server. 4) Transport types. There are only 2 types of transportation. Asynchronous and synchronous. Due to the time requirements of synchronous packets this are preferred. They are usually smaller. They are like kids who aspire between the legs of the adults to the front. Or even like dogs, they will always find a way. Even with a large storage of adults. Within the synchronous packets, we distinguish those for emergency calls, which are always given preferential treatment. All others have to wait. 5) Server instances We do not distinguish between specific clients or servers. Each node can always be both. If two communication partners have the functionality for client and server, the packets flow directly from one partner to the other. Between are just transport nodes. But these are only interested on the IP header. The content remains closed as in a letter. From this symmetry of the operators, the requirement for symmetry of the transport capacity directly follows. And since each local network also has a central server node, all those they do not wish to maintain her own server can outsource their requirements. Because the server management is not a major technical problem, most end nodes in the network will evolve to Client/Server instances. Central server structures such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Hotmail, Yahoo and any else will dissolve. They are unnecessary. The data remain decentralized, as they always are. How we make visible the decentralized distributed data on our client, it is entirely another topic. 6) backbones and ISP's. Such designs are not necessary for us, because they are technically not required. In the discussion "African take on Net Neutrality" we can see with what nonsense people play, because they can not construct her network. They are fence-sitters that are not allowed to go inside. They have to stay before the fence and can only use a few doors. 7) Transport technologies In my proposal I pointed out that today's technical limitations can never be the basis for this discussion. What methods we use has little to do with the discussion on principles. It is primarily a question of rational knowledge. It remains free to continue today's nonsense in the future. We can look at the technologies for data transport as a global community task. This corresponds to their real content for a global and free communication system, in which all people in our small world want to be involved. Or at least most of them. 8) Mobile communication partner. Each mobile communication device contacts over a local access point to the global communication system. And this will not change because there is a physical constraint for it. Thus, each mobile communications partner have the global address of the local access point. Always the same applies to moving equipment. We disconnect and make a new connection, or vice versa. A simple method. 9) The analogy to the street. Our transport system for data packets is comparable to the transport systems on the road. There are community responsibilities because they are important for communities. 10) State, private companies and Comunas. In my design, I am guided for the local communities, the Comunas. States and private companies are not important, because they are not really necessary. Communication always takes place between people and not between virtual, not real structures. Local communities realy exist. States and companies exist only in the imagination. That's why I do not concern myself with it. The need for worldwide communication exists in reality. It is a basic need of people to contact each other, share ideas and experiences. So, if we omit the foreign interests, eliminate their material bases by making them superfluous, our action spaces are wide open and freely accessible to go inside. A summary. In our considerations we need to make the focus to that what we want to achieve. We disolve all dogmas. If we want a world-wide communication for all people, then we should also make this the subject of our thinking. With side scenes, we need not concern ourselves. Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr Jinotepe, Nicaragua -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works Datum: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:18:34 -0600 Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr(a)gmail.com> An: discuss(a)1net.org <discuss(a)1net.org> Dear friends, this discussion now focuses on the question: Direct or indirect addressing in the Internet? But this question we can answer only if we understand the requirements of the data packet transport properly. The transport of data packets is a geographical task because origin and destination in communication are at different geographical locations. Otherwise, these questions would not arise. It makes no sense to apply the methods of internal addressing of CPU's, because it is a completely different tasks in a completely different environment. When we realize what to do in order to transport data packets and what information is necessary so that the packets even reach their goal, then it becomes very easy. Andrew has taken leave with great speech from this discussion. He wrote: "Today, on the actual Internet we have, if I am the registrant of an IP address range and I move my data centre from one location to another, I make a new announcement and everyone can find me automatically". Because he does not understand the content of DNS processes, he also does not know what lies behind the facade of his "announcement". But he acts as if he would be familiar. Meanwhile, we have several examples of supposed experts on this list who do not understand the contents of that of which they speak. JFC Morfin (Jefsey) has disappointed me a little. He knows very well the history of the Internet, he knows many names. But is this sufficient? If we do not develop our own criteria, then it is better that we go to the church. Like small child we can run behind the religious dogmas. Luis Pouzin put it clearly in his texts to the catenet. Never stand the physical requirements in the foreground. At that time the project was stopped because the telecommunication companies of the different state were afraid of a possible loss of their monopoly position. They prefer the X25 protocol. The main forces for indirect addressing in the Internet are government intelligence agencies and the military authorities; public or private. And it seems like their needs were always the most important in the last 40-50 years. There are not helpful many names of famous people. Luis Pouzin was also fixed to the indirect addressing. Following of that was developed such illustrious names such as "Virtual Geo Network". Each person can build such a virtual network if they want. Even virtual communities of any kind. But we never allowed to make this nonsense to the base. The same is true for the pseudo-model OSI. Each person can think up to any models. But models always remain just perceptions. They arise from the attempt to outline the reality. But the determining factor is the reality itself and not the idea of reality. I can only hope that something more consciousness arises in this circle about the reality. But based on my experience in so many threads in this list I have big doubts. At least until the more passive reader interfere. Then could also Luis Pouzin participate in the discussion. The geo-routing come today through the backdoor in again. In dynamic meshnets of mobile devices without local access points, the geo-routing has proven to be advantageous. Also a military line of research. Even if that is not the issue here. We should think about, how we can disolve all kinds of military worldwide. Then we have a lot less problems in our lives. And not only in the internet. Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr Jinotepe, Nicaragua

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [P2P-es] A parting of ways with Bernardo Gutierrez
by Michel Bauwens 06 Jul '14

06 Jul '14

I'm really sorry Bernardo, but your threat has been public and can be verified; second, if you publicly and privately threaten me, I don't think you have any moral authority to criticise that I make these threats public. I will send the URL of your facebook threat here a bit later. You will note that this facebook account with a few thousand followers, and with several dozen exclusively positive evaluations of my relatively positive evaluation of the flok process, none of them even 'liked' the threat. It was absolutely out of place, while a political discussion of flok is entirely in place. So here is the warning: please respond to political analysis by counter-analysis. But if you respond to analysis by threats and character assasination, you will find me on your way. To deny that you did it won't work, and neither will be the argument that it was all meant of a joke. I know you are following a precedent. Somebody we both know accused Gordon Cook, of 1) not existing 2) being a front of Robert Steele 3) being a CIA agent 4) being an adolescent ranter 4) being a neocon. That person, who spent several hours online searching for proof, spread these accusations, and you gave credence to it by also spreading it. When exposed as lies, can you then simple say, after trying to repeatedly destroy a person's reputation. And you still continue, you are shameless. Gordon Cook is the author of absolutely stellar reports on p2p infrastructures, which can be verified and read at the Gordon Cook report. His policy paper, which is excellent and breaks a lot of new ground, is also available online. I copy Gordon so he can provide the URL's. We have to reiterate the case of what happened to Gordon Cook as it was exemplary. Like many other authors, Gordon Cook was promited $4,000 for a paper. This promise was then unilaterally changed to $3,500 on condition that he would attend the summit. Since Gordon had undergone a absolutely invasive and painful spinal operation, and needed a series of eye interventions to boot. I was physically present twice when the promise was made to him to facilitate the trip through a business class trip. Not once, but twice. That promise was then also broken. And no, the maximum was not done to make it possible. As has been already admitted, it was a conscious and political decision not to do it, not a force majeure. Now, f..ups are always possible. But you know it is a pattern. Every person who was asked to leave the project has been systematically maligned. I'll review the list again, BH, an excellent journalist and communicator, was accused of being on the payroll of US intelligence for publishing a critical article; AD, was being branded as 'a spy of Senescyt' and was threatened with physical intimidation; a research team member was threatened with dismissal for expressing critique on the mailing list. In recent days, you have been publicly trashing both the work of the research team and the communication team. It's a paranoid style of politics and character assasination that has no place in an open culture. If you can't avoid trashing people, have the wisdom to do it indoors, but don't publish and spread unfounded and unproven accusations via the network. I want to avoid speaking about this mess, it's not very interesting, unless as a generic lesson for the future: don't let hierarchies dominate participatory projects. Bernardo, I invite to challenge my political conclusions from now on, and I will avoid publishing the facts of my experience. You have failed to intimidate me in my right to politically evaluate flok, move on. Take a hint from Daniel's approach in this controversy. Michel On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Bernardo Gutiérrez <bernardobrasil(a)gmail.com > wrote: > Hello you all > > I think there are several misunderstandings and some unfair accusation. > Try to be polity and to explain the problems: > > In the last few days, I have been harassed and threatened by Bernardo >> Gutierrez, who tried to suppress the publication of an evalution of the >> FLOK process, which you can find here: >> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/a-provisional-informal-assessment-of-the-flok… >> >> > It is complitily false. Never tried .In fact, it is the first time that I > know that you published in the blog. Our discussion started when I told you > that it was not propor to share in FACEBOOK (it is quite clear in all of > our mails), now, those critics to FLOK process, right now. Having had > several problems, It is an important moment to know what it is going to > happen. May it does not help. I valu your version, but desagree in several > points. Correa (the president) invited the guest of the FLOK to the Cambio > de Guardia. He spoke about FLOK in Sabatina. We were working with high > level politicians, as Cancilleria (minister Patiño), Senplades and even > people from presidency. So, I think it was not such an unknow project. In > fact, it became, during and after the Summit a quite important project for > the Whole Ecuatorian Goverment > > >> In this text, I simply make a political evalution of my 6 months in >> Ecuador, as I see it, as I believe was both my right (of free speech), and >> a duty to the p2p community, who has been asking for it. It is in my view a >> moderate and considered political evaluation, though of course, as my >> opinion, open to critique and counter-argumentation. >> > > I think it is good, Michel, And you are an importante person in the > process. > > >> >> While I would have accepted a conversation asking me to postpone it, in >> order to safeguard some potential backroom deal in Ecuador, instead BG >> thought it would be useful to publicly threaten the publication of my >> private emails, thinking this would frighten me. It doesn't, as I don't >> believe I write anything in private that can't see the light of the day. >> But private email involves other persons and I find it very ethically >> objectionable that he would use this as a threat. >> > > Another big misanderstanding. I think it horrible to publish any private > conversation. In fact, I am super critic with private conversation going > public. I was joking and exagerating the fact that Gordon Cook violated > privacy and made a report with that. Publishing in networks some things is > not good. So, If you understand that, I am sorry. We have more people in > that conversation, that probably did not undestand that. > > >> >> This is not the first time, a few months ago, Bernardo tried to suppress >> any balanced treatment of Fora do Eixo ( >> http://p2pfoundation.net/Fora_do_Eixo) and even objected to the mention >> of chilean groups that were somehow one day, connected with FdO. BG's >> totally unfounded accusation then was that "I defended FdO because I was >> getting a free PhD from Ivana Bentes". >> > > That is a private mail. PRIVATE CONVERSATION, Michel. But, well, I think > that is my personal opinion, yes. I don´t need to hide it. > > >> It gave me a first insight into his unfair mindset. To be clear, I was >> not then nor am I now, neither defending nor attacking FdO, but the p2p-f >> is conceived as a pluralistic network to show different perspectives on an >> issue, helping people make their own decisions. We don't want to be >> factional and choose one side or another within the broad p2p community. I >> found it strange then that Bernardo was exerting pressure to have only one >> side of the story seen as legitimate, and refused an open debate on the >> merits of the critique. I could only be radically against FdO, no nuance >> was permitted. >> > > > That is not true. I asked you how did you make the list of p2p projects of > the year. Almost all the node sof Brazil P2P branch were disgusted with > that, none was consulted. . At the end, we knew it was more your list than > P2p List. I am specially critic with FdO, but it is on you the aproach > >> >> The second incident came with the aftermath of the FLOK. In the above >> evaluation, I avoid studiously to mention or critique internal matters, >> believing that it would only make matters worse. But I have had to suffer >> there the systematic unfounded accusations against my friends and >> associates: BG has simply reiterated and continue to spread unfounded >> accusations against excellent people I had the opportunity to work with : >> BT,, AD, GC, the research team , the communication team ... >> > > You are again publishing private conversations. With Gordon Cook we argued > in the list, that is true. Not the rest. So I will deny that, because is > quite far from reality. You also make big critics to many people (some of > this list) in our conversations But I think it is not proper to divulgate > here, Michel. Private conversation (me and you ) is private. > > > >> What is worse, even when I sent information to BG advising him not to >> re-iterate these accusations based on facts that I provided to him, he >> would continue spreading them, totally ignoring the counter-factuals I had >> sent him. For example, BG has coninued to spread disinfo about Gordon Cook >> that he is a neocon, opposed to copyleft, and other falsehoods, even after >> receiving documentation to the contrary. >> > > I feel sorry, Michel. But Gordon Cook has been publishing with Copy Right > ever. He has a lot of problems, health, as well. The problem began when he > told FLOk that he could only travel in business, because of his health > problems. The management team tryed, but could no be that. The quality of > the drafts sent was not good. Neither shape of paper neither quality. You > did a nice job editing the second one amd transforming it into a goog > paper. But for many reason, it was impossible to get the business ticket. > And he started a war. The burocracy was terrible and he could not be paid > (just coming to Ecuador). Believe that has nothing to do with me. After the > dirty war he began (violating privacy and laws), he deserve to not be paid, > in my opinion. > > > > "Bernardo's attempt to suppress an independent evaluation is a proof of > the latter. How would a healthy p2p process be endangered by an open > discussion? The truth is that the flok attempted to create a mythology of > success, and of political and social support that wasn't there, and that > Bernardo's highly stage-managed twitter storms were part of that effort. " > > I am not trying to suppress anything, Michel! I just told you that it was > not propor to publish now in Facebook!!! in the moment of the reshaping of > the project. I feel really sorry of your accusation about communication > strategy. A Twitter Storm is a 1% of what we did. We created a strong > participatory process, wiht personal meetings, seminars, speeches. We did > wordk shop in 24 cities, with 500 local leaders (who were in the summit). > we published more than 100 post un few months, we did many hang outs (many > with researchers), p2pbeer. We worked with Cancilleria (international > affair minister), with their Ecuela Revolución, people from 40 countries. > We made meeting in squatters (with Restakis, researcher), we made cultural > collaborative mappings, Mumble meetings etc etc. We presented in MAdrid, in > the arab-latin american summit, in Media Lab Prado. All of that is > communication. Communication is conection, and that is what happened. A > twitter storm never work if there is no network. And we got it, with a lot > of difficulties. At the begining it was a top down project. It became more > organic. So, It is not a twitter storm, Michel. > > > "The very reason that BG is attempting to suppress an evualuation of the > FLOK, is that it endangered potential backroom deals. My thesis is: if they > are endangered by an open discussion, what value do these deals ultimately > have? > I'm preparing an evaluative essay on "Hacker Bolchevism, the paranoid > style of politics in p2p' to critique the non-prefigurative politics that > were so characteristic of the FLOK internal process" > > > Your critics are necessary. In fact, I respect them. But I think that you > do them in the wrong places (Facebook, this list, for example). The last > Facebook schandal, some months ago, when they ought some money, was proper > and worked. Not this one. > > > "Stalinistic tactics have no place in an open p2p culture". > > It is commom sense, Michel. this mail of you, for examplo, is out of place > in this moment > > "I do not intend to pollute the p2p lists with these personal antagonisms > (even as they reveal antagonistic value systems and political and > metholodgical approaches). I will at most respond once to the > counter-accusations that will undoubtedly follow this, but I can't tolerate > public and private intimidation when I am no longer part of the flok team". > > Sorry, but I think this is pollution. No one accusated you in any list. I > never would do it. > > > It is me who think you should reconsider your position. We all have > (researchers, management team, communication team) done an interesting and > innovative worlk, begining from you and ending with the secretary. It would > be a pitty to espoil that > > Best > Bernardo > > > > > -- > *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no > record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint >> Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es >> >> > > > -- > www.futuramedia.net > www.codigo-abierto.cc > @bernardosampa (twitter) / @futura_media > São Paulo +55 11 43044380 (fijo) +55 11 84881620 (celular) > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint > Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es > > -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

2 2

an evaluation of the flok
by Michel Bauwens 06 Jul '14

06 Jul '14

Here is a nice ecuadorian and in my view balanced evaluation of the flok, in order to avoid inflaming, I removed the name of the author and most of the persons cited Since I have been repeatedly threatened and intimidated in an attempt to avoid any independent political evaluation of the flok, I don't see any point in continuing to be careful about some of its unfortunately realities: from an ecuadorian person who participated in the flok process << It's sad but the failure of something like FLOK is just another part of life. Big picture, what mattered in Ecuador was introducing revolutionary ideas to the population, and I think the way your team decided to carry out research did impact many key people and foment important connections in-country. What mattered for the P2P movement worldwide is learning from failures, and you're more in tune with how that is going to move forward. The case of Bernardo is very sad ... the case of Daniel V. somewhat sadder. I do understand Ecuador much more than Bernardo or Daniel V. do, and I can predict what FLOK is going to mean in the political landscape: the word FLOK will eventually mean nothing. The papers it produced will mean nothing. What will last will be the connections between people that it left behind. This is why it saddens me that within the category of the people who met via FLOK, some of them don't see the value of the others, and the strength that the organism that coalesced in Quito could have. I'm sorry that they're treating you the way they are. It's despicable. I think that people that know you will see through the vitriol and judge you for your actions rather than the words of others. I don't think "FLOK" as it was imagined in Ecuador can be rescued. I think if there's a power struggle over the idea or the papers produced at the summit, that will just sink it faster. My opinion (and keep in mind that I don't know much about what happened at the summit) is that you would benefit from even more distance between yourself and Daniel V's project, that you should continue to be open to the public and continue to process the "whys" of your split and critique of the project, but move on without the label "FLOK" on what you do. There's a measure of pride and ownership in not wanting something that you loved, i.e. the idea of FLOK, to be completely taken over by people whose ideas you hate, but that's how open source stuff works, I suppose :) I don't think the way Daniel V. and co. do things is going to conquer Ecuador. Actually, I'm positive that he will continue to fail. Ecuadorians are not fond of being ruled by centralized power, especially not from abroad. He's successful when he operates in the shadows and when he uses Ecuadorians like Andres or Isabel as puppets to speak to the locals, and foreigners with more cache, like yourself, to speak to the international community. On his own, operating in Ecuador, he's pretty harmless. And since he continually alienates people, I think he'll always end up alone. So, take heart, I suppose? " -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

6 5

A parting of ways with Bernardo Gutierrez
by Michel Bauwens 05 Jul '14

05 Jul '14

Apologies that this is in english. (copy to spanish p2p list) In the last few days, I have been harassed and threatened by Bernardo Gutierrez, who tried to suppress the publication of an evalution of the FLOK process, which you can find here: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/a-provisional-informal-assessment-of-the-flok… In this text, I simply make a political evalution of my 6 months in Ecuador, as I see it, as I believe was both my right (of free speech), and a duty to the p2p community, who has been asking for it. It is in my view a moderate and considered political evaluation, though of course, as my opinion, open to critique and counter-argumentation. While I would have accepted a conversation asking me to postpone it, in order to safeguard some potential backroom deal in Ecuador, instead BG thought it would be useful to publicly threaten the publication of my private emails, thinking this would frighten me. It doesn't, as I don't believe I write anything in private that can't see the light of the day. But private email involves other persons and I find it very ethically objectionable that he would use this as a threat. This is not the first time, a few months ago, Bernardo tried to suppress any balanced treatment of Fora do Eixo ( http://p2pfoundation.net/Fora_do_Eixo) and even objected to the mention of chilean groups that were somehow one day, connected with FdO. BG's totally unfounded accusation then was that "I defended FdO because I was getting a free PhD from Ivana Bentes". It gave me a first insight into his unfair mindset. To be clear, I was not then nor am I now, neither defending nor attacking FdO, but the p2p-f is conceived as a pluralistic network to show different perspectives on an issue, helping people make their own decisions. We don't want to be factional and choose one side or another within the broad p2p community. I found it strange then that Bernardo was exerting pressure to have only one side of the story seen as legitimate, and refused an open debate on the merits of the critique. I could only be radically against FdO, no nuance was permitted. The second incident came with the aftermath of the FLOK. In the above evaluation, I avoid studiously to mention or critique internal matters, believing that it would only make matters worse. But I have had to suffer there the systematic unfounded accusations against my friends and associates: BG has simply reiterated and continue to spread unfounded accusations against excellent people I had the opportunity to work with : BT,, AD, GC, the research team , the communication team ... Human conflicts are unavoidable but this is beyond this, as it was part of a systematic politics of denigration, a paranoid style of management, in which all faults were always seen to come not just from 'exterior', but always from malicious willfullness. It was a very oppressive working culture and one that was much worse than any I have experienced in my life to date. What is worse, even when I sent information to BG advising him not to re-iterate these accusations based on facts that I provided to him, he would continue spreading them, totally ignoring the counter-factuals I had sent him. For example, BG has coninued to spread disinfo about Gordon Cook that he is a neocon, opposed to copyleft, and other falsehoods, even after receiving documentation to the contrary. That you repeat accusations from third parties out of ignorance is one thing, but that you persist, even when you have received proof of the contrary, shows clear ill will. So to be clear: I will not be intimidated. I will continue to think through, the things that went rignt and wrong with FLOK. This is my right, and it is my duty. The main conclusion I can already reveal: P2P politics must be prefigurative. You can't built a new p2p society, by using methods that are opposed to it. You have to treat your fellow beings as you want to be treated. You can't base a transition strategy on a triply deceptive communication strategy: 1) misleading the funders (I can't prove this fully, but I have strong anecdotal and personal experience of this) 2) systematically misleading your own staff (there is plenty and systematic evidence for this) 3) misleading the public through propaganda .. Bernardo's attempt to suppress an independent evaluation is a proof of the latter. How would a healthy p2p process be endangered by an open discussion? The truth is that the flok attempted to create a mythology of success, and of political and social support that wasn't there, and that Bernardo's highly stage-managed twitter storms were part of that effort. The very reason that BG is attempting to suppress an evualuation of the FLOK, is that it endangered potential backroom deals. My thesis is: if they are endangered by an open discussion, what value do these deals ultimately have? I'm preparing an evaluative essay on "Hacker Bolchevism, the paranoid style of politics in p2p' to critique the non-prefigurative politics that were so characteristic of the FLOK internal process. Bernardo, you have nothing to gain by your attempts at intimidation, and much to loose, I suggest you back off and respond to political arguments by political means, instead of through systematic ad hominem attacks. That you think your threats have a place in an open discussion, shows how far off the track you've already gone. Follow the wisdom of DV, who is leaving me alone despite our differences. That I have to do this now here as well, I regret, but I hope it will show you that you have nothing to gain by these tactics, they will backfire. Stalinistic tactics have no place in an open p2p culture. I do not intend to pollute the p2p lists with these personal antagonisms (even as they reveal antagonistic value systems and political and metholodgical approaches). I will at most respond once to the counter-accusations that will undoubtedly follow this, but I can't tolerate public and private intimidation when I am no longer part of the flok team. The P2P Foundation network will continue with Commons Transition Processes, without the use of the moniker FLOK, and in which the internal processes will match and prefigurative the aims that we will want to achieve. Michel -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

2 1

Re: [P2P-F] an evaluation of the flok
by Michel Bauwens 05 Jul '14

05 Jul '14

Thanks John, I agree with your perspective, and if you remember my early writings on flok, that's exactly how I put it then, that we couldn't know what would happen in Ecuador, but that it would still plant seeds. Michel 1. Re: an evaluation of the flok (John Baxter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 16:30:20 +0930 From: John Baxter <john(a)jsbaxter.com.au> Subject: Re: [P2P-F] an evaluation of the flok To: P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> Message-ID: <CAJpg6=S-9gVMEwHpq=+xubo_DYcS0ujkMR-vF9c7ADb5ocCjig(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Thank you for continuing to share the rough bits Michel I always looked to FLOK as an 'ambitious' research project that would produce much value but couldn't imagine that it would really lead to the sort of change on Ecuador that was hoped. Though I shared the hopes. Looking at what you have done (the transition proposal) makes me think of Holmgren's take on present cultural proliferation? that whilst mostly wasteful, exactly that wasteful diversity makes the amazing things possible that will really be of ongoing value as we steward challenging transitions on this planet (especially as resource constraints will likely soon make such rich cultural production impossible). Looking over the transition proposal for the first time recently was incredibly inspiring. I think you have produced (more accurately, are producing) one of the few great gems that will continue to be meaningful and valuable regardless of how quickly its initial motivation is forgotten. I write to make sure everyone has an eye on FLOK from this angle. *John Baxter* jsbaxter.com.au <http://www.jsbaxter.com.au> 0405 447 829 @jsbaxter_ <http://twitter.com/jsbaxter_> -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

2 1