October 2017 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Fwd: The EU GDPR and how it can enable Platform Cooperativism ?
by Dante-Gabryell Monson 06 Oct '17

06 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:13 PM Subject: The EU GDPR and how it can enable Platform Cooperativism ? To: platformcoop-discuss(a)lists.riseup.net May 2018, will our platforms be ready to make it easier to re-use our google and facebook graph data ( or any existing platform where we have data ), to generate value amongst ourselves by migrating such data onto our own platforms ? https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21721634-how-it- shaping-up-data-giving-rise-new-economy *Mandatory data sharing is not unheard of: Germany requires insurers jointly to maintain a set of statistics, including on car accidents, which smaller firms would not be able to compile on their own. The European Union’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which will start to apply in May 2018, requires online services to make it easy for customers to transfer their information to other providers and even competitors.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation> * *The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) is a regulation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)> by which the European Parliament <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament>, the Council of the European Union <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union> and the European Commission <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission> intend to strengthen and unify data protection <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_protection> for all individuals within the European Union <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union> (EU). It also addresses the export of personal data outside the EU. The GDPR aims primarily to give control back to citizens and residents over their personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for international business <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_business> by unifying the regulation within the EU.[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation#cite_note-1> When the GDPR takes effect, it will replace the data protection directive (officially Directive 95/46/EC) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_95/46/EC>[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation#cite_note-2> of 1995. The regulation was adopted on 27 April 2016. It becomes enforceable from 25 May 2018 after a two-year transition period and, unlike a directive <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)>, it does not require national governments to pass any enabling legislation, and is thus directly binding and applicable.* https://pagefair.com/blog/2017/gdpr_risk_to_the_duopoly/

1 0

Fwd: 3D printing: a threat to global trade
by Michel Bauwens 06 Oct '17

06 Oct '17

this is quite an explosive report in my view: 3D printing a threat to global trade.pdf <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8ojYwSnwORKUzhZZ3piT2M1ZlE/view?usp=drive…> Executive summary  3D printing is still in its infancy. For now it has very little effect on cross-border trade.  This will change once high speed 3D printing makes mass production with 3D printers economically viable. The first technical steps have already been taken.  3D printing will lead to less trade growth because 3D printers use far less labour, reducing the need to import intermediate and final goods from low wage countries.  It is tricky to define the exact potential of 3D printing, but some experts expect a share of 50% in manufacturing over the next two decades. Tentative calculations show that, if the current growth of investment in 3D printers continues, 50% of manufactured goods will be printed in 2060 in scenario I, with this figure possibly being achieved as early as 2040 in scenario II in which investment doubles every five years.  This is estimated to wipe out almost one quarter of world trade by 2060 under scenario I (or two-fifths by 2040 under scenario II).  Automotive, industrial machinery and consumer products are the industries that, as a result of 3D printing, will take the lead in suppressing cross border trade These industries are top investors in 3D printers and are large players in world trade.  In automotive, the dominant bilateral trade flows are exports from Mexico, Japan, Germany and Canada to the US. So these flows will be most affected by 3D printing.  Locally printed car parts will increase jobs at US-based automotive factories.  In industrial machinery and consumer products, the largest bilateral export flows also have the US as their main destination. China is the main origin country.  The direction of flows in the most important 3D printing industries will lower US trade deficits with Mexico and Germany (automotive) and China (machines, consumer products), all large contributors to the US trade deficit.  Less trade means that countries with trade deficits in manufacturing will see deficits decline. This will be more pronounced for countries that import relatively many products from leading industries in 3D printing. Countries with a surplus in manufacturing trade will see their surpluses shrink, especially if they currently export many products that will be 3D printed in the near future . -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: It is published: portuguese and english interview on p2p, for brazil
by Michel Bauwens 06 Oct '17

06 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bia Martins <bia.martins(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 6:47 AM Subject: It is published To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> Dear Michel, Your interview is already online. Here in English - http://www.em-rede.com/site/content/michel-bauwens-our-soc iety-and-economy-have-become-commons-centric. And here in Portuguese - http://www.em-rede.com/site/ entrevista/michel-bauwens-nossa-sociedade-e-nossa-economia- t%C3%AAm-que-se-tornar-%E2%80%9Ccentradas-em-commons%E2%80%9D Looking forward to seeing you next year in Rio ;) Best wishes Bia -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org 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: Twenty years of ecosystem services
by Michel Bauwens 05 Oct '17

05 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert Costanza <costanza(a)thesolutionsjournal.com> Date: Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:18 PM Subject: Twenty years of ecosystem services To: Solutions <solutions(a)mailman.anu.edu.au> Hi all. We’d like to call your attention to our new review paper just published in *Ecosystem Services* titled: “Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?" The abstract is below and you can download the full paper here: http://www.robertcostanza.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ 2017_J_Costanza-et-al.-20yrs.-EcoServices.pdf All the best, Robert Costanza *Abstract* It has been 20 years since two seminal publications about ecosystem services came out: an edited book by Gretchen Daily and an article in Nature by a group of ecologists and economists on the value of the world’s ecosystem services. Both of these have been very highly cited and kicked off an explosion of research, policy, and applications of the idea, including the establishment of this journal. This article traces the history leading up to these publications and the subsequent debates, research, institutions, policies, on-the-ground actions, and controversies they triggered. It also explores what we have learned during this period about the key issues: from definitions to classification to valuation, from integrated modelling to public participation and communication, and the evolution of institutions and governance innovation. Finally, it provides recommendations for the future. In particular, it points to the weakness of the mainstream economic approaches to valuation, growth, and development. It concludes that the substantial contributions of ecosystem services to the sustainable wellbeing of humans and the rest of nature should be at the core of the fundamental change needed in economic theory and practice if we are to achieve a societal transformation to a sustainable and desirable future. *Prof. Robert Costanza** | *VC's Chair in Public Policy | Crawford School of Public Policy | The Australian National University | 132 Lennox Crossing | Canberra, ACT 2601 | Australia | Mobile: +61 (0)47 801 2393 | Website: www.robertcostanza.com, Google Scholar <http://cholar.google.com.sg/citations?hl=en&user=EQ-mkaAAAAAJ>, Research Gate <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Costanza>, Scopus <http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7005761060&origin=AuthorEv…> *Co-Editor in Chief, **Solutions* (www.thesolutionsjournal.com <http://www.thesolutionsjournal.org/>) | Fellow, Royal Society of Arts (RSA) | Fellow, Asia and the Pacific Policy Society | Senior Research Fellow, Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm, Sweden | Senior Fellow, National Council on Science and the Environment, Washington, DC. | Affiliate Fellow, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont | Co-chair, Ecosystem Services Partnership (es-partnership.org) | deTao Master of Ecological Economics, deTao Masters Academy, Shanghai, China _______________________________________________ <a href="%(user_optionsurl)s?password=%(user_password)s& unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> Click here to unsubscribe. </a> -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org 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: [xnet-news] XNET'S REPORT ON CATALAN REFERENDUM: DIGITAL REPRESSION AND RESISTANCE
by Michel Bauwens 05 Oct '17

05 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: info <info(a)xnet-x.net> Date: Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:11 PM Subject: [xnet-news] XNET'S REPORT ON CATALAN REFERENDUM: DIGITAL REPRESSION AND RESISTANCE To: xnet-news(a)listas.xnet-x.net *XNET'S REPORT ON CATALAN REFERENDUM: DIGITAL REPRESSION AND RESISTANCE:* https://xnet-x.net/en/digital-repression-and-resistance-catalan-referendum/ ============ *REPRESSION AND DIGITAL RESISTANCE IN THE #CATALANREFERENDUM: Successes and failures in the use of digital tools in Catalonia’s rebellion * The battle presently being fought in the streets and polling stations in towns and cities throughout Catalonia before, during and after October 1, in which a diverse civil society has come together in huge numbers, putting their bodies and knowledge in the service of the shared goal of defending what is considered to be real democracy, has also had a crucial battleground in the case of the Internet. *September 7, 2017* On September 7, 2017, the Constitutional Court declared the referendum in Catalonia illegal. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-politics- catalonia-court/spains-constitutional-court-suspends- catalan-referendum-law-court-source-idUSKCN1BI2TE) Thenceforth, the Spanish government embarked on legal, police, and administrative persecution of any “device or instrument that is to be used for preparing or holding the referendum”, including ballot boxes and papers which were now criminal objects. Websites, apps and tools related with the referendum were closed on the Internet. Independently of whether one agrees or disagrees with the decision of the Spanish courts to ban the referendum, the closing of many regular Internet spaces can be viewed, in a great number of cases, as a grave violation of freedom of expression—and especially freedom of political opinion—which is protected in international treaties and by Article 11 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (http://www.europarl.europa. eu/charter/pdf/text_e <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_es.pdf#page=11>n.pdf#page=11 <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_es.pdf#page=11>) on “Freedom of expression and information”. While some websites, apps and domains belong to the Generalitat (Government) of Catalonia and were tools directly linked with organizing the referendum, many others were of private individuals or associations, and basically reflect political opinions. It is clear that one thing—arguable or not—is banning a referendum and quite another is *blocking, while they were at it, the right to express one’s political opinion *that the referendum should be held. In the last few days, Catalonia has been the testing ground of what we have always denounced or, in other words, the fact that the space of the Internet has yet again been subjected to a state of exception which “democratic” governments wouldn’t dare to apply to physical space because this violation of rights would immediately be visible. Proof of this is that many of the shut-down websites belong to associations with physical premises but no authority has risked ordering that these centers should be closed. Internet access is essential for the exercise of our freedoms and should be considered in itself a fundamental right #KeepItOn. https://www.accessnow.org/keepiton/ *If we let the space of the Internet become the first casualty in the curtailment of basic rights, we can be sure that the next step will be to limit those rights in other spaces as well.* *September 13, 2017* On September 13 a court order shut down the web page *referendum.cat <http://referendum.cat>* (http://www.catalannews.com/politics/item/catalan- government-opens-new-referendum-website-after-original-is-shut-down-by-spain). Thus began a game of cat-and-mouse between the Spanish government (with its state repression) and the Catalan government. Some citizens published the referendum web code in Github. After this, clones of the website began to appear, created by volunteer citizens in domains with names like *piolin.cat <http://piolin.cat> *(where *piolin* refers to Tweetie Pie, painted on the boat accommodating Spanish police)*, **referendum.ninja o marianorajoy.cat <http://marianorajoy.cat>*, while alternative sites were also made available by the Generalitat itself. The police operation continues with domains being shut down and access blocked to all these sites as well as many other web pages with opinions about the referendum, including those of associations, sports clubs and private sites. All of this was occurring against a background of politicians being arrested and presidents of civil society associations being charged with sedition. *In ten days more than 140 websites were blocked. *The project OONI by Tor includes a non-exhaustive list of affected domains and information on the type of block (https://ooni.torproject.org/post/internet-censorship- catalonia-independence-referendum/). As part of this state operation, the *Guardia Civil raided the headquarters of **Top Level Domain **.cat*, confiscating IT equipment and data, and detaining one of its IT staff. This disproportionate measure, which is unprecedented in the European Union, implies the possibility of opening the way for something we have been struggling against for years, namely *domain managers being held responsible for content*. The UN Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Internet Society, the Electronic Founder Foundation, and many other organizations like our own have condemned this blocking of websites and the inordinate digital repression carried out by the Spanish government just days before the referendum was held, which meant that there was no chance to establish their validity, suitability and legality because they left no time to do so. (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/cat-domain-casualty-catalonian- independence-crackdown https://www.internetsociety.org/news/statements/2017/ internet-society-statement-internet-blocking-measures-catalonia-spain/ http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews. aspx?NewsID=22176&LangID=E) In this situation of persecution and* very serious violation of rights*, many people, moved by their convictions and without proper legal advice, have exposed themselves to risks which could have been avoided in some cases, and have left their identities at the mercy of a repressive apparatus that needs scapegoats to justify its actions. The open use of names among the alleged authors of the first mirror sites has meant that the authorities are now boasting that they have rounded up the young perpetrators (as many as 14) (http://www.europapress.es/ catalunya/noticia-libertad-cargos-13-investigados-clonar-webs-referendum- 20170925193606.html). Some of them face very serious charges like “heading a seditious organization” which, as everyone knows, makes no sense at all in a free, open space like the Internet. These are definitely measures that aim to inflict disproportionate punishment so as to bully and intimidate citizens in an attempt to discourage their intense online activity. ( http://www.eldiario.es/cv/val/policia-proreferendum-Valencia-cabecilla- desobediencia_0_692231117.html). One of the most common errors made by citizens has been their frequent use of servers with few and poor legal guarantees for the client. A case in point is the insistent use of .cat domains. These come under the control of .es, and therefore the Spanish state, which shows no concern for civil rights, in contrast with other generic domains (.net, .org, .com...) with are overseen by ICANN and other organizations that do respect basic rights. We believe that it is important to stress that *we shouldn’t need martyrs to prove that our struggles are just*. We must make every possible effort to ensure that the people who are struggling for their rights don’t suffer reprisals. In this regard, Xnet has tried to give an overall explanation of how to avoid this and other useful information in a Guide ( https://xnet-x.net/en/how-to-guide-for-preserving- fundamental-rights-internet/) that seeks to protect people who work with the Internet from unjust repression. This initiative is part of a set of actions designed by the lawyers and organizations of #SomDefensores to defend basic rights. NET DEMOCRACY: DISTRIBUTED GOVERNMENT We have seen a Generalitat that is competent and farsighted in its online activity but, in particular, we also note that the acceleration of events in Catalonia has catalyzed the population into a massive use of digital tools in defense of their basic rights. Unlike similar situations, such as that in Turkey for example, the Catalan institutions have agreed in recent days to *cede and share, in a widely distributed manner, responsibility for safeguarding freedoms*, thus regularizing what we see as the embryo of what could be a *truly transversal democracy worthy of the digital age*, as some of us have already proposed in our discussion of the methodology of the device Red Ciudadana Partido X (https://partidox.org/en/) The president of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont—thanks also to help from international experts who have actively and continually been engaged in providing advice for the defense of rights (people like Julian Assange and Peter Sunde)—have recommended the use of proxies in social networks in order to gain access to blocked websites (https://twitter.com/KRLS/ status/909126641145798656). He subsequently announced that IPFS ( https://twitter.com/KRLS/status/911482634789953536) had also been used as a distributed tool for housing the website giving citizens information about where they should go to vote. *September 23, 2017* On September 23, the High Court of Justice of Catalonia ordered the “*blocking of websites and domains [giving this information] which are publicized in any account or official social network of any kind*” (http://www.elmundo.es/ cataluna/2017/09/23/59c69496468aeb8c7f8b45bb.html). This was not just a matter of a specific list of sites but a general order giving a free hand to forces of security in ordering Internet providers to shut down websites. With these new powers, the Guardia Civil blocked the domain gateway.ipfs.io (https://twitter.com/AlexHinojo/status/911900292152791041) and thereby cut off connection, not only to the referendum website, but also to all content from the Spanish state hosted in IPFS through this gateway. The shutdown extended to websites of nongovernmental organizations and movements like *empaperem.cat <http://empaperem.cat>, assemblea.cat <http://assemblea.cat> y webdelsi.cat <http://webdelsi.cat>* which are in favor of the referendum. This carrying out of the court order also extended to GooglePlay, which was forced to withdraw the app allowing people to find information about where to vote. Nevertheless, *at all times the whole population of Catalonia has been able to keep informed about polling stations* thanks to continuous *replication* and *massive use of VPN and anonymous browsing *in order to access sites that were blocked from Spain. This capacity for *action distributed between the government and organized citizens* has been the trend throughout the electoral process, with large-scale use of chats, networks and other tools that have allowed swift circulation of information circulated on the micro-scale and among strangers who are working together to deal with hoaxes, leaks and infiltrations. This *networked action* by means of which people have, for example, organized themselves, polling station by polling station, has also been manifest in physical spaces, for example with regard to protecting the ballot boxes from police seizure (http://www.ara.cat/tema_del_ dia/referendum-Que-gestar-se-Elna_0_1880212030.html). For a month, the state security forces and their secret services have been searching all over Catalonia for the ballot boxes and voting papers. Although they have raided printers, media offices and headquarters of political parties and other organizations—sometimes without a court order—*the ballot boxes were never found, yet they magically appeared in the polling stations*. The ballot boxes and papers were there—they were everywhere—guarded by *small groups, autonomous nodes*, and spread all around Catalonia. *October 1, referendum day* Finally, even as the referendum was taking place on October 1, the Spanish government tried to block, by every means it could, the possibility of accessing the “universal census” app of the entire electoral register. The domain *registremeses.com <http://registremeses.com> *where the app was hosted was immediately blocked. The Generalitat quickly supplied the more than 1,000 polling stations throughout Catalonia with alternative IPs for access. We believe that, in this case, it probably would have been better to work with Hidden Service in order to avoid police harassment and DDoS attacks by groups opposing the referendum. Internet connection was also interrupted (http://www.ara.cat/tema_del_ dia/Violencia-tambe-digital-contra-referendum_0_1880212015.html) and it is not yet known who is responsible. Could it have been Internet suppliers obeying state orders (although they deny it)? However, the polling stations still managed to function, almost all of them routing the smartphones of the volunteers in order to access the Internet*. In the street, people were chorusing “airplane mode”* so as to save network bandwidth for people working inside the polling stations. The operation lasted from 5 a.m.—which is when citizens began filling the streets to protect the polling stations—until midnight when the vote count ended. All this was achieved in the midst of violent charges by National Police with a toll of more than 800 wounded. Despite everything, more than 2,200,000 people came out to vote. ORDER IS THE PEOPLE, EQUAL TO EQUAL: DISORDER IS THIS STATE AND ITS VIOLENCE *The citizens and government of Catalonia have learned and are witnesses to the fact that in the front line of defense of our democracy, digital resistance depends on our use of technological tools which allow us to protect our rights autonomously and in a well distributed manner*. We hope that the Catalan government will never forget this and that its administration will always resist the temptation of the usual kind of discourse that criminalizes tools protecting privacy, encryption and decentralization of the Internet. Moreover, when repression was massively unleashed in streets and villages of Catalonia, the social networks and their intelligent use by citizens were once again used to put an end to the blocking and manipulation of information by the mainstream media in Spain, and to let the international media outlets know what was really happening. Perhaps in 2017, many people were already used to this, but it is also highly possible that there have never been so many published videos and photographs documenting police violence as there have been this time (https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/ 914450692416397312). *Without the widespread use of social networks to testify and inform, the people of Catalonia would have been totally isolated and crushed with absolute impunity.* >From this point of view, what has been happening in the last few days is historic. This acceleration towards a greater degree of democracy and more power in civil society is happening spontaneously but the *ignorance of most people about some aspects of the digital milieu is exposing them to risks* and, in this regard, this is what we must make, and are making, every effort to avoid (https://xnet-x.net/en/how-to-guide-for-preserving- fundamental-rights-internet/). *October 1, 2017 as a beginning* On October 1, 2017 *the politicians were nowhere to be seen. Only **Unidos Pode**mos (**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidos_Podemos* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidos_Podemos>*) could be heard now-and-then, trying to capitalize on our wounded for its ow**n ends. Apart this, there were only grassroots people organizing and acting*, including some members of parliament and councilors who are people like anyone else. Over 24 hours, civil society came together to work for a day in which people could vote and vote on a huge scale and, furthermore, it didn’t fall into the temptation of responding to the state’s provocation in the form of violence, even though hundreds of injured people needed medical attention. There was happiness, anger and fraternity among the most different people. It was incredibly moving. There were no slogans, no shouting, so that people could vote without being coerced in *this display of a valiant, stirring capacity for organization and desire for democracy.* *On October 1, 2017 we proved that order is the people and disorder is this state*. *Xnet* ============ More information: info(a)xnet-x.net ----- XNET https://xnet-x.net/en/ https://twitter.com/X_net_ https://www.facebook.com/RedX.Net ----- If you do not want to receive more email from this list please click the next link and send the email letting the subject or body untouched. UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIGNOFF%[email protected] &body=SIGNOFF%20xnet-news(a)listas.xnet-x.net Sorry for any inconvenience. -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org 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: Info: 👣 Walking the talk: Introducing Open Source OuiShare
by Michel Bauwens 05 Oct '17

05 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Laurent Favia <laurentfavia75(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:56 PM Subject: Info: 👣 Walking the talk: Introducing Open Source OuiShare To: Simon Louvet <simon.louvet.zen(a)gmail.com>, Victor Vauquois < victor.vauquois(a)gmail.com>, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net>, Laurent Marseault <laurent(a)outils-reseaux.org> Début du message transféré : *Expéditeur:* OuiShare <hello(a)ouishare.net> *Date:* 4 octobre 2017 09:06:02 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* <laurentfavia75(a)gmail.com> *Objet:* *👣 Walking the talk: Introducing Open Source OuiShare * *Répondre à:* OuiShare <hello(a)ouishare.net> View this email in your browser <http://mailchi.mp/ouishare/walking-the-talk-introducing-open-source-ouishar…> <http://ouishare.us5.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=744876426414b018c030e670…> Hello, For the past few months, we've been working on a project powered by *openness* and the drive to *empower* decentralised communities. We just launched a platform to *make accessible* all the experience and knowledge our international community has produced, as well as inspire others to explore new ways of working. Discover our journey behind the scenes - from how we organise collaborative, zero-waste events, kick-start communities around the world or make decisions in a networked organisation! <http://ouishare.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=744876426414b018c030e670a…> Take me behind the scenes! <http://ouishare.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=744876426414b018c030e670a…> Are you interested in open-sourcing your project? Would you like to transform your organisation? Contact us at opensource(a)ouishare.net With love, The OuiShare Team, PS: Don't forget to subscribe to the OuiShare Open Source newsletter <http://ouishare.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=744876426414b018c030e670…> if you want to follow our latest projects! <http://ouishare.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=744876426414b018c030e670a…> <http://ouishare.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=744876426414b018c030e670a…> <http://ouishare.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=744876426414b018c030e670a…> You are receiving this email because you are a registered OuiShare member. *Our mailing address is:* OuiShare 29 rue de Meaux <https://maps.google.com/?q=29+rue+de+Meaux+%0D+Paris%C2%A075019+%0D+France&…> Paris 75019 <https://maps.google.com/?q=29+rue+de+Meaux+%0D+Paris%C2%A075019+%0D+France&…> France Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences <http://ouishare.us5.list-manage.com/profile?u=744876426414b018c030e670a&id=…> or unsubscribe from this list <http://ouishare.us5.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=744876426414b018c030e670a…> . -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org 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] A globa-local synthesis of a possible city-supported public-commons partnership for climate- friendly and ecologically balanced provisioning systems
by Michel Bauwens 05 Oct '17

05 Oct '17

dear Michael, I will add some responses in-line On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Michael Lewis <Lewiscccr(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Pat I really like the memo you sent. But I have several questions. > (Michel - I wrote this and then see you have replied to Pat) I will think > about and perhaps comment later. I the meantime here is my response to Pat) > > I am a poor student of history, but as I have come to understand Cole his > guild strategy was rooted in the work place, although relevant to other > kinds of association. The role of the state was radially reduced. What > emerged was a decentralized, democratic approach to provisioning, where > workers were the central (but not only) actors. Advise me here what I am > missing. > > If this is the case there a large difference in what Michel is proposing? > The foundation of his proposition is public-commons partnerships. Is this > not very different? Given the radical difference in reference points - > Cole with workers a the base and this 21st idea where globally mediated > knowledge that enables localize production on an > open-mutualized-cooperative basis; I wonder where the context renders some > of Cole’s propositions less relevant. > in my interpretation, the commons are themselves multi-stakeholders, so this include the workers and the user communities ; you may be familiar with the idea of some that today the workplace has exploded and is no longer confined to the factory; but there is an obvious linkage between the commons seen as the locus of co-production, and thus a sphere of production including workers, and industrial and craft workers as they used to exist > Second, as I understand it Michel, your proposition is critically > dependent of an member cities to be active at the city and global level, > the latter through associations. In short, cities are organized into a body > the coordinates and governs the terms under which sourcing technical > solutions is build and maintained on an open source base. Question here > Michel is whether access to the knowledge repository requires cities to be > active members of the global mutual…?? > the code is open source, and would be accessible to everybody, but the right to commercialization of that code may be subjected to some reciprocity limitatations, in my opinion (reciprocity-based licensing) > > Third, the territorial platform co-operatives become critical > infrastructure for production, distribution and governing. Michel…a > question about the platform co-ops; are they conceived of as being > multi-stakeholder and, if so, what is the role of local state actors, if > any? > yes, they are conceived as multi-stakeholder and I'm open to co-governance by local public actors > > Lastly, I am wondering about the thinking to date on whether there will > be limits to what is gathered into the global digital open source > repository? Is the focus on all the critical elements to aid and > accelerate transition? Given the absolute urgencies emerging from climate > breakdown, this might make senses. Or is it broader? I think these are > important questions as they will shape the counters of the politics that > such a proposition would provoke. Even if it is restricted to urgent > transition related production, I can imagine that a global manufacturers of > say, public transit vehicles, and their employees, would be none to > pleased with a strategy that could has the potential for sidelining their > businesses and jobs.. But, then again, I may not be capturing the > fullness of the vision. > for me, this would work for all provisioning systems, and is connected to the climate/ecological/resource emergency of our time, i.e. this proposal is one of the crucial ways to radicallly reduce our material footprint > > One interesting and attractive feature of what Michel is proposing is the > bypassing of national governments. Given the growing network of cities > collaborating on climate breakdown and transition strategies, and for those > involved, their leadership in advancing more progressive transition > politics, the proposal being put forward has a strategic context where it > can be tested. > national partner-state governments could decide at a later stage to join and support these global depositories by the way, this was written in the context of urban transitions, but I realize it could be stronger in stressing the role of the cooperative sector in supporting the deployment of such infrastructure Michel > > Anyways, a bit more grist for the proverbial mill. > > Michael L > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > wrote: > > Dear Pat, > > as I was schooled in marxism in my youth, and subsequently abandoned it, > this means that much of the tradition you speak of is completely unknown to > me, I had simply no idea that georgism and guild socialism even existed and > where so big back then ... for me there were revolutionaries, reformists > and anarchists (and stalinists <g>) ... > > when I decided to embark on p2p work, I decided to make a clear break with > my dogmatic past, and start constructing a 'low theory' that would be a > more direct expression of what is happening and possible today. Hence in my > wiki, I only include things that exist (no projects or plans) and use > concepts that are born from the very movement I am observing. > > as much as I think it is necessary, I don't see it as a very realistic > possibility for me to dig into that history, so I am very much counting on > you for this historical context and genealogy!! > > one note, you will have seen in my approach a combination of the local and > the global, bypassing the nation-state level. > > There is both a opportunistic and strategic reason for this > > Opportunistic as it appears in a report on urban transitions, > > but strategic as I see coalesced cities (and bioregions/territorities) as > a crucial new part of transnational governance, which can't be a > inter-statist world government, but must be based on global public-commons > alliances > > quid with the nation-state, > > I am not dissing it, but I think nation-states should now support > transnational commons infrastructures > > the double movement has become inoperative because of the > trans-nationalization of capital; national revolutions carry great risks > and dangers (syriza, venezuela), and keynesianism can only be a small part > of the solution in the context of overshoot > > so what is a progressive majority in a nation-state to do, for sure, let > it do green new deals at the national level, but crucially, it must also > understand that change today is not going to come from a frontal assault > against a stronger enemy, but from a global coalition of change efforts > everywhere, which are the only ones that can overwhelm the repressive > capacity of the transnational empire > > in other words, progressive national governments must absolute support the > kind of global commoning policies we are proposing and cannot limit their > vision on their own citizens > > Michel > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:21 PM, pat commonfutures < > pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > >> Hi Michel >> >> Some feedback for consideration..... >> >> This is a really good summary and illustration. So much makes complete >> sense to me. Thanks so much for this articulation. I think it is rich and >> very helpful indeed. When will the report be coming out and who are the >> authors? >> >> I have a sense of deja vu however? So my comments are about the practical >> articulation and the dynamics as other forces are in play. For the past >> two hundred plus years, the tension and indeed struggle between authority >> at the political level and the striving for democratic authority from the >> grassroots has been continuous and constant. Polanyi's Double movement >> therefore has many dynamic aspects to consider. How is it best to do this >> to be clear about the dialectical complexity? >> >> Stephen Yeo, a very close colleague of Robin Murray's over decades, is >> writing a book on the Three Socialisms. These are Statism (from social >> democracy to communism), Collectivism and Associationism. The last form is >> the most forms that are participatively democratic and includes working >> class self-help associations for mutual aid and including of course trade >> unions that we should try to include in your illustration of the layers. >> >> The ideas you are advancing are a rekindling of the debates and thinking >> from say 1900 right up to 1947 when the Cold War kicked off and when >> Statism thereafter effectively crushed and suppressed associative democracy >> thinking and ideas. Statists East and West told co-ops and unions thank, >> but no thanks. We are taking over to make your bits and pieces integrated >> and comprehensive. >> >> But to guide this earlier struggle by commoners, In 1919 GDH Cole >> produced his book Guild Socialism Restated when he set out a very clear >> blueprint with a remarkable coincidence with what you, David B, Janelle >> Orsi and others are working up here. >> >> What is very creative about the Cole proposals that Bertrand Russell >> fully supported in his book Roads to Freedom a century ago was to recognise >> clearly that political socialism (social democracy shall we say) and >> associative socialism need to be established at the territorial level and >> at the national level in a system of checks and balances with a clear and >> agreed division of labour between the politicos and the economic democrats. >> >> Essentially the proposal of Cole set out a blue print for how economic >> democracy though a Guild Congress at local, regional and national levels >> would relate and complement Parliamentary democracy. But what was wonderful >> about the Cole proposals is that it considered co-operative commonwealth >> building in all industries, services, arts and sciences and worked out >> sector solutions for them. Plus Cole also proposed that cities should be >> based on land held in commons to capture economic rent and to stop >> speculation. Thus he argued for co-operative garden cities. >> >> 20 years earlier in Fields Factories and Workshops had attempted a very >> creative blueprint as well for economic democracy and what in practice this >> would look like. >> >> Okay Polanyi did not arrive in the UK until about 1933 and his way to >> escape fascism was paid for by crowd funding by Guild Socialist, but given >> that in Vienna in the 1920s Polanyi was at the forefront of associative >> democracy solutions and thinking, you can see the resonance. >> >> Given that democratic socialism is being rekindled in parts of Europe >> (Spain, Portugal, the UK and elsewhere), I think it would helpful to >> connect the sound thinking from the 1920s before the lights began being >> turned out with what you are proposing. >> >> I would suggest we are rediscovering co-operative commonwealth thinking >> and practice which you are doing such a brilliant job of updating to the >> digital age. >> >> I hope this helps. Drawing on the best practices from the past will >> enable us to contextualise the arguments and link these to this vernacular >> part of the Double Movement we should not overlook. >> >> All the best >> >> Pat >> >> On 04 October 2017 at 06:35 Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> >> wrote: >> >> this is the very last section of our report which will come out soon with >> the Boll foundation: >> >> 3.6. Towards a global infrastructure for commons-based provisioning >> >> We have argued in this overview that we are in a conjuncture in which >> commons-based mutualizing is one of the keys for sustainability, fairness >> and global-local well-being. In this conclusion, we suggest a global >> infrastructure, in which cities can play a crucial role. >> >> See the graphic below for the stacked layer that we propose, which is >> described as follows: >> >> - >> >> The first layer is the cosmo-local institutional layer. Imagine >> global for-benefit associations which support the provisioning of >> infrastructures for urban and territorial commoning. These are structured >> as global public-commons partnerships, sustained by leagues of cities which >> are co-dependent and co-motivated to support these new infrastructures and >> overcome the fragmentation of effort that benefits the most extractive and >> centralized ‘netarchical’ firms. Instead, these infrastructural commons >> organizations co-support MuniRide, MuniBnB, and other applications >> necessary to commonify urban provisioning systems. These are the global >> “protocol cooperative” governance organizations. >> - >> >> The second layer consists of the actual global depositories of the >> commons applications themselves, a global technical infrastructure for open >> sourcing provisioning systems. They consists of what is globally common, >> but allow contextualized local adaptations, which in turn can serve as >> innovations and examples for other locales. These are the actual ‘protocol >> cooperatives’, in their concrete manifestation as usable infrastructure. >> - >> >> The third layer are the actual local (urban, territorial, >> bioregional) platform cooperatives, i.e. the local commons-based mechanisms >> that deliver access to services and exchange platforms, for the mutualized >> used of these provisioning systems. This is the layer where the Amsterdam >> FairBnb and the MuniRide application of the city of Ghent, organize the >> services for the local population and their visitors. It is where houses >> and cars are effectively shared. >> - >> >> The potential fourth layer is the actual production-based open >> cooperatives, where distributed manufacturing of goods and services >> produces the actual material services that can be shared and mutualized on >> the platform cooperatives. >> >> ... >> >> [image: Figure 8.png] >> >> Figure 8: City-supported cosmo-local production infrastructure >> >> -- >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >> http://commonstransition.org >> >> 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/ >> >> > > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > http://commonstransition.org > > 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/ > > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org 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: Are GMO Pesticides Supertoxins? A New Analysis Raises Questions of Food and Environmental Safety (Press Release)
by Michel Bauwens 05 Oct '17

05 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathan Latham <jrlatham(a)bioscienceresource.org> Date: Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:43 AM Subject: Are GMO Pesticides Supertoxins? A New Analysis Raises Questions of Food and Environmental Safety (Press Release) To: bsr-PROJECT-ELIST1(a)gn.apc.org *Press Release:* *Are GMO Pesticides Supertoxins? A New Analysis Raises Questions of Food and Environmental Safety* Oct 4, 2017, The Bioscience Resource Project, Ithaca, New York, USA *Summary: The chief benefit claimed for GMO pesticidal Bt crops is that, unlike conventional pesticides, their toxicity is limited to a few insect species. Our new peer-reviewed analysis systematically compares GMO and ancestral Bt proteins and shows that many of the elements contributing to this narrow toxicity have been removed by GMO developers in the process of inserting Bt toxins into crops. Thus, developers have made GMO pesticides that, in the words of one Monsanto patent, are "super toxins". We additionally conclude that references to any GMO Bt toxins being "natural" are incorrect and scientifically unsupportable.* New Publication Title: *The Distinct Properties of Natural and GM Cry Insecticidal Proteins* Authors: *Jonathan R. Latham, Madeleine Love & Angelika Hilbeck* (2017), in *Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews*, 33:1, 62-96, DOI: 10.1080/02648725.2017.1357295. *Background:* Bt toxins are a diverse family of protein toxins produced in nature by the bacterium *Bacillus thuringiensis*, which is a gut pathogen of many species. Naturally occurring toxins (also known as Cry toxins) of *B. thuringiensis* are believed to all have very limited toxicity ranges. These toxins exist in nature as crystals packaged around DNA. Through a complex sequence of unpacking and protein processing steps these molecules are converted to active toxins and kill their targets by creating holes in the membranes of the gut lining of their victims. Commercially, GMO pesticidal corn, cotton, and soybeans are widely grown around the world. GMO Bt crop varieties constitutively synthesize these Bt toxins and can contain numerous different Bt transgenes (1), each with somewhat different pest control properties. For this publication, we reviewed biosafety application documents for 23 globally traded Bt pesticidal GM crop events as well as peer-reviewed research and patents. We sought to compare GM proteins with natural ones. Our analysis is the first to explore the chemical and functional differences between GMO Bt toxins and natural ones. The findings: Our review describes numerous differences between naturally occurring and GM Bt proteins. Some are intentionally introduced but others are inadvertent in origin. First, all GMO Bt toxins are soluble proteins rather than crystalline structures; many GMO Bt toxins are truncated proteins; parts of natural Bt toxins are often combined to make hybrid GMO molecules that don’t exist in nature; GMO Bt toxins often have added to them synthetic or unrelated protein molecules; GMO Bt toxins may be mutated to replace specific amino acids. Sixth and not least, all GMO Bt proteins are further altered inside plant cells. GMO crop plants themselves thus cause changes to the nature of Bt toxins. Implications: Surprising as it may seem, these changes are poorly taken into account in GMO risk assessment. For example, GMO regulators frequently refer to the "history of safe use" of specific natural Bt toxins. Regulators also controversially allow most tests of safety to be on surrogate toxins, rather than GMO crops themselves (2). Our next question was therefore to determine whether these physical changes enhanced Bt protein toxicity, which would imply real world food and biosafety implications. In the publication, we identify clear theoretical reasons, and sometimes direct evidence, to suppose that each of the six types of changes noted above enhances Bt toxin activity. For example, Ciba-Geigy measured their Bt-176 toxins to be 5-10 times more toxicologically active when inserted into plants. Monsanto patented a series of novel Bt toxins with up to 7.9-fold enhanced activity and called it these "super toxins" having "the combined advantages of increased insecticidal activity and concomitant broad spectrum activity." The most powerful of these is now found in commercial MON863 corn. Additionally, there are theoretical reasons to expect all GMO Bt toxins to have broader spectrums of activity. Natural Bt toxins are large, insoluble, and non-toxic precursors requiring unusual chemical conditions to become active toxins, but thanks to the processing undergone by all GMO Bt proteins these are far closer to the toxicologically active form having bypassed key specificity requirements. Conclusion: Apparently ignored by GMO biosafety regulators, Bt developers have been commercialising pesticide-containing GM crops with increased and broadened toxicity, undermining the chief safety advantage of Bt toxins over conventional pesticides. Quotes: "We are raising important questions here. This publication reveals compelling scientific reasons to be concerned about the toxicological consequences of GM Bt toxins in food and in the environment. But it also reveals the complex interplay between corporations which carefully select the data they share with regulators and, on the part of regulators, a willingness to ignore the science if it threatens to derail a GMO approval." says Jonathan Latham, Executive Director of The Bioscience Resource Project. "Naturalness is a key claim about pesticidal GM crops. But it is constructed to justify the omission of actual testing of the GMO. "O" stands for organism, after all, but what we observe in the use of surrogate proteins for risk assessment is the reduction of biology to chemistry."--Angelika Hilbeck of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. The publication is available open access from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02648725.2017.1357295 Citation: Jonathan R. Latham, Madeleine Love & Angelika Hilbeck (2017) The distinct properties of natural and GM cry insecticidal proteins, *Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews*, 33:1, 62-96, DOI: 10.1080/02648725.2017.1357295. Author contacts: Jonathan Latham, PhD, Executive Director, The Bioscience Resource Project jrlatham(a)bioscienceresource.org Ithaca, NY 14850, USA Phone (1) 607 319 0279 Angelika Hilbeck, PhD, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Switzerland angelika.hilbeck(a)env.ethz.ch Phone: (41) 44 632 4322 (1) https://www.rt.com/news/smartstax-maize-germany-approval-428/ (2) Dolezel, M., et al. (2011). Scrutinizing the current practice of the environmental risk assessment of GM maize applications for cultivation in the EU. Environmental Sciences Europe, 23, 33. doi:10.1186/2190-4715-23-33 END Jonathan Latham, PhD Executive Director The Bioscience Resource Project Ithaca, NY 14850 USA www.independentsciencenews.org and www.bioscienceresource.org jrlatham(a)bioscienceresource.org Skype: jonathanlatham2 Tel: 1-607-319-0279 _______________________________________________ BSR-project-elist1 mailing list Info and options: https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/bsr-project- elist1 To unsubscribe, email bsr-project-elist1-unsubscribe(a)gn.apc.org -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org 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] A globa-local synthesis of a possible city-supported public-commons partnership for climate- friendly and ecologically balanced provisioning systems
by Michel Bauwens 04 Oct '17

04 Oct '17

Dear Pat, as I was schooled in marxism in my youth, and subsequently abandoned it, this means that much of the tradition you speak of is completely unknown to me, I had simply no idea that georgism and guild socialism even existed and where so big back then ... for me there were revolutionaries, reformists and anarchists (and stalinists <g>) ... when I decided to embark on p2p work, I decided to make a clear break with my dogmatic past, and start constructing a 'low theory' that would be a more direct expression of what is happening and possible today. Hence in my wiki, I only include things that exist (no projects or plans) and use concepts that are born from the very movement I am observing. as much as I think it is necessary, I don't see it as a very realistic possibility for me to dig into that history, so I am very much counting on you for this historical context and genealogy!! one note, you will have seen in my approach a combination of the local and the global, bypassing the nation-state level. There is both a opportunistic and strategic reason for this Opportunistic as it appears in a report on urban transitions, but strategic as I see coalesced cities (and bioregions/territorities) as a crucial new part of transnational governance, which can't be a inter-statist world government, but must be based on global public-commons alliances quid with the nation-state, I am not dissing it, but I think nation-states should now support transnational commons infrastructures the double movement has become inoperative because of the trans-nationalization of capital; national revolutions carry great risks and dangers (syriza, venezuela), and keynesianism can only be a small part of the solution in the context of overshoot so what is a progressive majority in a nation-state to do, for sure, let it do green new deals at the national level, but crucially, it must also understand that change today is not going to come from a frontal assault against a stronger enemy, but from a global coalition of change efforts everywhere, which are the only ones that can overwhelm the repressive capacity of the transnational empire in other words, progressive national governments must absolute support the kind of global commoning policies we are proposing and cannot limit their vision on their own citizens Michel On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:21 PM, pat commonfutures < pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > Hi Michel > > Some feedback for consideration..... > > This is a really good summary and illustration. So much makes complete > sense to me. Thanks so much for this articulation. I think it is rich and > very helpful indeed. When will the report be coming out and who are the > authors? > > I have a sense of deja vu however? So my comments are about the practical > articulation and the dynamics as other forces are in play. For the past > two hundred plus years, the tension and indeed struggle between authority > at the political level and the striving for democratic authority from the > grassroots has been continuous and constant. Polanyi's Double movement > therefore has many dynamic aspects to consider. How is it best to do this > to be clear about the dialectical complexity? > > Stephen Yeo, a very close colleague of Robin Murray's over decades, is > writing a book on the Three Socialisms. These are Statism (from social > democracy to communism), Collectivism and Associationism. The last form is > the most forms that are participatively democratic and includes working > class self-help associations for mutual aid and including of course trade > unions that we should try to include in your illustration of the layers. > > The ideas you are advancing are a rekindling of the debates and thinking > from say 1900 right up to 1947 when the Cold War kicked off and when > Statism thereafter effectively crushed and suppressed associative democracy > thinking and ideas. Statists East and West told co-ops and unions thank, > but no thanks. We are taking over to make your bits and pieces integrated > and comprehensive. > > But to guide this earlier struggle by commoners, In 1919 GDH Cole produced > his book Guild Socialism Restated when he set out a very clear blueprint > with a remarkable coincidence with what you, David B, Janelle Orsi and > others are working up here. > > What is very creative about the Cole proposals that Bertrand Russell fully > supported in his book Roads to Freedom a century ago was to recognise > clearly that political socialism (social democracy shall we say) and > associative socialism need to be established at the territorial level and > at the national level in a system of checks and balances with a clear and > agreed division of labour between the politicos and the economic democrats. > > Essentially the proposal of Cole set out a blue print for how economic > democracy though a Guild Congress at local, regional and national levels > would relate and complement Parliamentary democracy. But what was wonderful > about the Cole proposals is that it considered co-operative commonwealth > building in all industries, services, arts and sciences and worked out > sector solutions for them. Plus Cole also proposed that cities should be > based on land held in commons to capture economic rent and to stop > speculation. Thus he argued for co-operative garden cities. > > 20 years earlier in Fields Factories and Workshops had attempted a very > creative blueprint as well for economic democracy and what in practice this > would look like. > > Okay Polanyi did not arrive in the UK until about 1933 and his way to > escape fascism was paid for by crowd funding by Guild Socialist, but given > that in Vienna in the 1920s Polanyi was at the forefront of associative > democracy solutions and thinking, you can see the resonance. > > Given that democratic socialism is being rekindled in parts of Europe > (Spain, Portugal, the UK and elsewhere), I think it would helpful to > connect the sound thinking from the 1920s before the lights began being > turned out with what you are proposing. > > I would suggest we are rediscovering co-operative commonwealth thinking > and practice which you are doing such a brilliant job of updating to the > digital age. > > I hope this helps. Drawing on the best practices from the past will > enable us to contextualise the arguments and link these to this vernacular > part of the Double Movement we should not overlook. > > All the best > > Pat > > On 04 October 2017 at 06:35 Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > wrote: > > this is the very last section of our report which will come out soon with > the Boll foundation: > > 3.6. Towards a global infrastructure for commons-based provisioning > > We have argued in this overview that we are in a conjuncture in which > commons-based mutualizing is one of the keys for sustainability, fairness > and global-local well-being. In this conclusion, we suggest a global > infrastructure, in which cities can play a crucial role. > > See the graphic below for the stacked layer that we propose, which is > described as follows: > > - > > The first layer is the cosmo-local institutional layer. Imagine global > for-benefit associations which support the provisioning of infrastructures > for urban and territorial commoning. These are structured as global > public-commons partnerships, sustained by leagues of cities which are > co-dependent and co-motivated to support these new infrastructures and > overcome the fragmentation of effort that benefits the most extractive and > centralized ‘netarchical’ firms. Instead, these infrastructural commons > organizations co-support MuniRide, MuniBnB, and other applications > necessary to commonify urban provisioning systems. These are the global > “protocol cooperative” governance organizations. > - > > The second layer consists of the actual global depositories of the > commons applications themselves, a global technical infrastructure for open > sourcing provisioning systems. They consists of what is globally common, > but allow contextualized local adaptations, which in turn can serve as > innovations and examples for other locales. These are the actual ‘protocol > cooperatives’, in their concrete manifestation as usable infrastructure. > - > > The third layer are the actual local (urban, territorial, bioregional) > platform cooperatives, i.e. the local commons-based mechanisms that deliver > access to services and exchange platforms, for the mutualized used of these > provisioning systems. This is the layer where the Amsterdam FairBnb and the > MuniRide application of the city of Ghent, organize the services for the > local population and their visitors. It is where houses and cars are > effectively shared. > - > > The potential fourth layer is the actual production-based open > cooperatives, where distributed manufacturing of goods and services > produces the actual material services that can be shared and mutualized on > the platform cooperatives. > > ... > > [image: Figure 8.png] > > Figure 8: City-supported cosmo-local production infrastructure > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > http://commonstransition.org > > 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/ > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org 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

A globa-local synthesis of a possible city-supported public-commons partnership for climate- friendly and ecologically balanced provisioning systems
by Michel Bauwens 04 Oct '17

04 Oct '17

this is the very last section of our report which will come out soon with the Boll foundation: 3.6. Towards a global infrastructure for commons-based provisioning We have argued in this overview that we are in a conjuncture in which commons-based mutualizing is one of the keys for sustainability, fairness and global-local well-being. In this conclusion, we suggest a global infrastructure, in which cities can play a crucial role. See the graphic below for the stacked layer that we propose, which is described as follows: - The first layer is the cosmo-local institutional layer. Imagine global for-benefit associations which support the provisioning of infrastructures for urban and territorial commoning. These are structured as global public-commons partnerships, sustained by leagues of cities which are co-dependent and co-motivated to support these new infrastructures and overcome the fragmentation of effort that benefits the most extractive and centralized ‘netarchical’ firms. Instead, these infrastructural commons organizations co-support MuniRide, MuniBnB, and other applications necessary to commonify urban provisioning systems. These are the global “protocol cooperative” governance organizations. - The second layer consists of the actual global depositories of the commons applications themselves, a global technical infrastructure for open sourcing provisioning systems. They consists of what is globally common, but allow contextualized local adaptations, which in turn can serve as innovations and examples for other locales. These are the actual ‘protocol cooperatives’, in their concrete manifestation as usable infrastructure. - The third layer are the actual local (urban, territorial, bioregional) platform cooperatives, i.e. the local commons-based mechanisms that deliver access to services and exchange platforms, for the mutualized used of these provisioning systems. This is the layer where the Amsterdam FairBnb and the MuniRide application of the city of Ghent, organize the services for the local population and their visitors. It is where houses and cars are effectively shared. - The potential fourth layer is the actual production-based open cooperatives, where distributed manufacturing of goods and services produces the actual material services that can be shared and mutualized on the platform cooperatives. ... [image: Figure 8.png] Figure 8: City-supported cosmo-local production infrastructure -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org 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