[P2P-F] Fwd: [Networkedlabour] <nettime> Consensus within the Bay Area elites?
Anna Harris
anna at shsh.co.uk
Sat May 24 09:51:52 CEST 2014
Thank you to Brian and Orsan for raising this issue. Of course we are
deeply suspicious of where big capital could take us. As Brian writes, 'as
inequalities grow worse and climate change takes hold............ the
Euro-Sinical program itself will accelerate those same contradictions.'
Here in Leeds UK we see the possibility of collaborating with big business
in a way that serves the interest of the community. A group has been formed
to support the idea of a Third Industrial Revolution (TIR) project in the
Leeds City Region similar to what is happening in Nord-Pas de Calais.
*http://www.nordpasdecalaisthethirdindustrialrevolution.com
<http://www.nordpasdecalaisthethirdindustrialrevolution.com/>*
A small group has met with Rifkin in London, and an exchange is planned
with Lille (which is already twinned with Leeds) to explore developments.
(A similar project in York is looking to introduce green, sustainable
policies, *http://www.oneplanetliving.org/index.html
<http://www.oneplanetliving.org/index.html>* but without the specific
appeal to business). We think the collaboration with business is essential,
but grassroots participation is also essential. We don't yet know how this
will manifest.
Is this being naive? Possibly. It needs citizen involvement at every level
to ensure the interests of the community are respected. We need to get
cross party support, local councils, NGOs, Trades Union Council, Chamber of
Commerce, Academia, students. etc etc.This may be beyond the capacity of
local people to control. But how much do we control at the moment?
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>wrote:
> I recommend that everyone reads Brian Holmes' analysis of the current
> situation, and my response / questions
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
> Date: Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Networkedlabour] <nettime> Consensus within the Bay Area
> elites?
> To: "networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org" <
> networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org>, Jaap van Till <vantill at gmail.com>
> Cc: Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift at gmail.com>
>
>
> Very interesting contribution, from Brian, as usual <g>
>
> I copy Jaap as he just made a presentation about the euro-asiatic corridor
> that Brian is referring to.
>
> I see two issues that need to be covered. I share Brian's view of the
> possibility of a new kondratieff wave, which I called some years ago, the
> 'the high road to p2p' (high, because, even though it is capitalist, it
> would be more smoothly creating p2p infrastructures in a context of growth
> and redistribution, rather than low: bottom-up survivalist p2p in the
> context of global dislocation); such a high road, I argued then, would
> necessarily incorporate both green and p2p/distributed elements;
>
> however, it is important that such k-wave growth would require at the same
> time deep structural reforms, of the kind undertaken by roosevelt in the
> 30s and by european post-war govt's after WWII (and now we would need this
> type of reconfiguration:
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Russia_and_the_Next_Long_Wave)
>
> Yet, we see nothing on this sort. This could mean that the scenario would
> be that following the 1873 meltdown, not a consistent growth, but a long
> series of enduring crisis, ultmately leading to world war and the russian
> revolution; but the difference is, there are now much more serious problems
> to deal with: energy and resource crisis, climate change, soil depletion
> and so much more grave social crisis.
>
> What this would mean is that, all the potential for growth that we see
> (smart cities, internet of things, etc ..) may actually not be able to be
> used by capitalism for a growth wave.
>
> So my question to you Brian is: what makes you so sure that this wave of
> growth is indeed coming ?
>
> The second issue is: do you see Brian, the broad restructuring that is
> also taken place from the bottom up ? Yes, indeed, most of the p2p economy
> is indeed subsumed to capitalism, but, there is a huge wave of bottom up
> innovation, mobilisation and re-invention, on the scale of the labor
> movement in the latter half of the 19th cy. If you see it (I do, as I
> document it every day), how is this impacting your assessment of capitalist
> strategies. I would question any analysis that is exclusively focused on
> the internal dynamics of the capital class, and neglects the
> counter-movements and counter-restructurings that are taking place.
>
> Just for info, if Brian has not seen it, the Commons Transition Plan we
> have crafted here in Ecuador,
> http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan, with the ToC at bottom.
>
> Though the actual effect of this plan will be limited in Ecuador, it is
> significant that it has been commissioned, and that a global
> commons-oriented movement of movements is emerging from which it is derived
> and which is looking at it. Lots of the proposals I made a few years ago
> (the commons-based reciprocity license, the alliance and chamber of the
> commons, the global coalition of the commons), are now being taking
> seriously and the subject of actual experimentation on the ground, along
> with the thousands of other p2p/sharing/commons experimentations and
> projects (I'm not talkng about the business sharing economy here). Nearly
> every aspect of the bottom-up p2p economy (from urban gardening to
> co-working to rural hackerspaces) is growing exponentially, along with its
> capitalist similes .. (this is factually documented, I'm not just saying
> this, though of course, it is easier for emergent phenomena to grow
> exponentially).
>
> So my second question is: how do the new social movements affect
> capitalist scenarios ?
>
> My hypothesis is: the next k-wave may well not be coming, and with a
> perfect storm of really grave issues risking to coalesce say by 2030, we
> may need an integrated alternative, much faster than we expect.
>
> Michel
>
> 2 Background on the FLOK Project<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Background_on_the_FLOK_Project>
> 3 The Framing of the Proposal<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_Framing_of_the_Proposal>
>
> - 3.1 The Three Value Models and the transition to a Social Knowledge
> Economy<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_Three_Value_Models_and_the_transition_to_a_Social_Knowledge_Economy>
> - 3.1.1 The first model: 'Classic' Cognitive Capitalism based on IP
> extraction<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_first_model:_.27Classic.27_Cognitive_Capitalism_based_on_IP_extraction>
> - 3.1.2 The second model: Netarchical Capitalism based on the
> control of networked platforms<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_second_model:_Netarchical_Capitalism_based_on_the_control_of_networked_platforms>
> - 3.1.2.1 The Value Crisis under conditions of netarchical
> capitalism<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_Value_Crisis_under_conditions_of_netarchical_capitalism>
> - 3.1.3 Towards a third model: a mature 'civic' peer-to-peer
> economy<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Towards_a_third_model:_a_mature_.27civic.27_peer-to-peer_economy>
> - 3.1.3.1 Solving the value crisis through a social knowledge
> economy<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Solving_the_value_crisis_through_a_social_knowledge_economy>
> - 3.2 Four Technology Regimes<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Four_Technology_Regimes>
> - 3.2.1 Netarchical Capitalism as a technological regime: peer to
> peer front end, hierarchical back-end<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Netarchical_Capitalism_as_a_technological_regime:_peer_to_peer_front_end.2C_hierarchical_back-end>
> - 3.2.2 Distributed Capitalism as a technological regime: the
> commodification of everything<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Distributed_Capitalism_as_a_technological_regime:_the_commodification_of_everything>
> - 3.2.3 Resilience Community Platforms Designed for Re-Localization<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Resilience_Community_Platforms_Designed_for_Re-Localization>
> - 3.2.4 The Global Commons Scenario as the desired alternative<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_Global_Commons_Scenario_as_the_desired_alternative>
> - 3.3 Cognitive/Netarchical Capitalism vs. an Open-Commons based
> Knowledge Society<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Cognitive.2FNetarchical_Capitalism_vs._an_Open-Commons_based_Knowledge_Society>
> - 3.3.1 The Socio-Economic Implications of a Social Knowledge
> Economy<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_Socio-Economic_Implications_of_a_Social_Knowledge_Economy>
> - 3.3.2 Discussion: IP and patents impede and slow down innovation<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Discussion:_IP_and_patents_impede_and_slow_down_innovation>
> - 3.3.2.1 Intellectual property rights and their supposed role
> in cognitive capitalism<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Intellectual_property_rights_and_their_supposed_role_in_cognitive_capitalism>
> - 3.3.2.2 A synopsis of empirical evidence on the effect of
> exclusive intellectual property regimes on innovation and productivity<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#A_synopsis_of_empirical_evidence_on_the_effect_of_exclusive_intellectual_property_regimes_on_innovation_and_productivity>
> - 3.3.3 Discussion: the role of Indigenous Peoples and
> (Neo)Traditional Knowledge<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Discussion:_the_role_of_Indigenous_Peoples_and_.28Neo.29Traditional_Knowledge>
> - 3.3.3.1 Arguments for the specific role of (neo)-traditional
> knowledge and peoples in a social knowledge transition<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Arguments_for_the_specific_role_of_.28neo.29-traditional_knowledge_and_peoples_in_a_social_knowledge_transition>
> - 3.3.3.2 The potential role of commons-based reciprocity
> licenses to protect traditional knowledge<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_potential_role_of_commons-based_reciprocity_licenses_to_protect_traditional_knowledge>
> - 3.3.4 Discussion: Gender Aspects<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Discussion:_Gender_Aspects>
> - 3.4 Introducing the new configuration between State, Civil Society
> and the Market<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Introducing_the_new_configuration_between_State.2C_Civil_Society_and_the_Market>
> - 3.4.1 What can we learn from the already existing social
> knowledge economy<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#What_can_we_learn_from_the_already_existing_social_knowledge_economy>
> - 3.4.2 The new configuration<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_new_configuration>
> - 3.4.3 Why is this a post-capitalist scenario?<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Why_is_this_a_post-capitalist_scenario.3F>
> - 3.4.4 Discussion: The role of the capitalist sector<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Discussion:_The_role_of_the_capitalist_sector>
> - 3.5 A description of the new triarchy of the Partner State, the
> Ethical Economy and a Commons-based Civil Society<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#A_description_of_the_new_triarchy_of_the_Partner_State.2C_the_Ethical_Economy_and_a_Commons-based_Civil_Society>
> - 3.5.1 The concept of the partner state and the commonification of
> public services<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_concept_of_the_partner_state_and_the_commonification_of_public_services>
> - 3.5.2 The Ethical Economy<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_Ethical_Economy>
> - 3.5.2.1 Discussion: Material and Immaterial Infrastructural
> Requirements for the Ethical Economy<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Discussion:_Material_and_Immaterial_Infrastructural_Requirements_for_the_Ethical_Economy>
> - 3.5.3 The Commons-Based Civil Society<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_Commons-Based_Civil_Society>
> - 3.6 Beyond the market, beyond planning ?<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Beyond_the_market.2C_beyond_planning_.3F>
> - 3.6.1 The key role of Commons-Based Reciprocity Licenses<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_key_role_of_Commons-Based_Reciprocity_Licenses>
> - 3.6.2 Mutual coordination mechanisms in the new 'ethical'
> enterpreneurial coalitions: Cybersin redux ?<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Mutual_coordination_mechanisms_in_the_new_.27ethical.27_enterpreneurial_coalitions:_Cybersin_redux_.3F>
> - 3.7 The historical and present importance of mutualization in times
> of increasing resource scarcity<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_historical_and_present_importance_of_mutualization_in_times_of_increasing_resource_scarcity>
> - 3.7.1 Discussion: The issue of eco-system sustainability<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Discussion:_The_issue_of_eco-system_sustainability>
> - 3.7.1.1 Why innovation should be located in open design
> communities<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Why_innovation_should_be_located_in_open_design_communities>
> - 3.7.1.2 The role of 'idle-sourcing' and the sharing economy<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_role_of_.27idle-sourcing.27_and_the_sharing_economy>
> - 3.8 A historical opportunity: The Convergence of
> Material/Technical P2P Infrastructures, Digital/Immaterial Commons, and
> Commons-Oriented Governance and Ownership Models<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#A_historical_opportunity:_The_Convergence_of_Material.2FTechnical_P2P_Infrastructures.2C_Digital.2FImmaterial_Commons.2C_and_Commons-Oriented_Governance_and_Ownership_Models>
> - 3.9 Elements of Idealized and Integrative Full Transition Plan to a
> mature Social Knowledge Economy<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Elements_of_Idealized_and_Integrative_Full_Transition_Plan_to_a_mature_Social_Knowledge_Economy>
> - 3.9.1 Analysis<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Analysis>
> - 3.9.1.1 1. Under conditions of proprietary (industrial)
> capitalism<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#1._Under_conditions_of_proprietary_.28industrial.29_capitalism>
> - 3.9.1.2 2. Under conditions of emerging peer production under
> the domination of financial and 'cognitive', 'netarchical' capitalism<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#2._Under_conditions_of_emerging_peer_production_under_the_domination_of_financial_and_.27cognitive.27.2C_.27netarchical.27_capitalism>
> - 3.9.1.3 3. Under conditions of strong peer production under
> civic dominance<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#3._Under_conditions_of_strong_peer_production_under_civic_dominance>
> - 3.9.2 Transition Dynamic<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Transition_Dynamic>
> - 3.9.2.1 The State<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_State>
> - 3.9.2.2 The Ethical Economy<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_Ethical_Economy_2>
> - 3.9.2.3 The Commons Sector<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#The_Commons_Sector>
> - 3.10 Political reconstruction of social movements in a
> conjuncture of post-industrial transformation<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan#Political_reconstruction_of_social_movements_in_a_conjuncture_of_post-industrial_transformation>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Örsan Şenalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Flawless translation of some concerns I deeply share by Brian Holmes,
>> thanks Brian for putting it forward! passing it the the
>> networkedlabour list:
>>
>> Orsan
>>
>> On 23 May 2014 07:47, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > In 2008, a fellow named Mark Leonard published what was probably the
>> most
>> > useful book of the year, entitled "What does China think?" With great
>> > concision he went through the country's think tanks, one by one, with a
>> five
>> > or six page summary of the people, the problematics and the major
>> statements
>> > issuing from each. The book begins with the idealism of China's New
>> Left. It
>> > ends with generals plotting grand strategy (of which, for them, military
>> > strategy is only a small part).
>> >
>> > On this list, with all our collective knowledge, contacts and
>> capacities to
>> > learn, we ought to do a similar analysis of the tech companies in the
>> Bay
>> > Area (and perhaps other major technology development hubs). How do the
>> > network elites see the future? How do they believe they can direct the
>> > global development forces which are already managed, day in day out, by
>> the
>> > computational routines embedded in their products? What are their
>> politics
>> > and geopolitics? And how do they "think" via cables, software, devices
>> and
>> > infrastructure design? A deep and detailed understanding of what is
>> being
>> > discussed by such elites today would be far more useful than the
>> superficial
>> > critique so commonly produced on the blogosphere and conference circuit
>> (let
>> > alone the bickering that Felix denounced).
>> >
>> > As some of you know, I'm convinced that for better and for worse there
>> will
>> > be a new economic growth wave rising in the next few years, in response
>> to
>> > the current dead-end and generalized climate of fear and uncertainty.
>> This
>> > is common sense among corporate elites, so they are quite interested in
>> the
>> > subject. Following a suggestion by Örsan Şenalp, I have been looking at
>> the
>> > latest writings of Jeremy Rifkin, an American tech and business guru
>> who has
>> > set up shop in the EU and advises European governments, particularly
>> > Germany. I am listening right now to the talk he gave in the Google
>> authors
>> > series. I recommend it. Beyond the deflatable hype about the "zero
>> marginal
>> > cost" of production in a totally networked p2p economy, it is clear that
>> > tech elites and the governmental sectors they have in their pockets
>> foresee
>> > an intensification and systematization of the wired and wireless
>> economy,
>> > based on the multiplication and interconnection of microprocessors and
>> > analytic software apps (that's the famous "Internet of Things," hats
>> off to
>> > Rob van Kranenburg for proposing to study its philosophy). Major
>> economic
>> > and social consequences can in effect be expected from this
>> interconnection.
>> >
>> > On the one hand, you're a thing: everything you do on the networks is
>> > tracked, surveilled, compiled, analyzed. Fair enough, on nettime we've
>> had
>> > that aspect covered for years. On the other hand, every humble material
>> > thing is an entity in a network ontology: and far beyond the
>> > one-size-fits-all fantasy of ubquitous RFID chips, what's emerging is a
>> new
>> > logistics system for global distribution of energy, raw materials and
>> > manufactures (some of it is already built and operational). You can also
>> > throw in a new generation of assembly-lines robotics (including
>> industrial
>> > maker-bots) and a new personal transport system (the driverless car, in
>> > which Google itself is so deeply invested). As Florian Cramer pointed
>> out in
>> > a reply to Van Kranenburg, this kind of pervasively networked system not
>> > only opens up tremendous possibilities of horizontal cooperation
>> (between
>> > persons, businesses and institutions) but also, huge security holes
>> like the
>> > Heartbleed OpenSSL disaster: so the networked elites are very
>> interested in
>> > how to govern the system they are creating.
>> >
>> > Think a little bit about the Heartbleed-type problem, to the 10th
>> power. The
>> > infamous book by Eric Schmidt and Jared what's-his-name, the Washington
>> > security goon, is no accident. In American history, we lived through the
>> > capitalist development of the giant mass-production corporation,
>> epitomized
>> > by the Ford Motor Co., from 1900 to 1940; and then, after those kinds
>> of
>> > productive forces issued in the most devastating war imaiginable, we
>> lived
>> > through the government orchestrated systematization of mass production,
>> in
>> > the postwar "Fordist" period from 1945 to 1973. There is a dialectic
>> here:
>> > the initial development of a productive system is followed by a major
>> cisis;
>> > then that productive system is reworked, rationalized and integrated to
>> a
>> > social order (or at least, the capitalist version thereof).
>> >
>> > Under the long shadows of 9/11 and the 2008 crisis, the Bay Area elites,
>> > whether at Google, Cisco, HP or Apple, seem to be moving toward a
>> fragile
>> > and probably untenable consensus that "something similar" will happen
>> again.
>> > In other words, somehow, somehow, the US will find a social and
>> governmental
>> > synthesis that allows techno-economic development to be guided by and
>> for
>> > giant US corporations. And somehow (this is where the "thinking" gets
>> > extremely magical) this synthesis will be libertarian, user-friendly,
>> > horizontal, wild-west, and so forth.
>> >
>> > As for Rifkin, he represents a more pragmatic East Coast version of the
>> > Californian Ideology (and he actually grew up in Chicago). Like many
>> > so-called progressive American intellectuals, he found a better
>> reception
>> > for his ideas in Europe, where, since the days of Bernstein and early
>> German
>> > social democracy, a left ideology is considered a necessary mask on
>> > capitalist development. Rifkin's ideas about the smart electric grid
>> and the
>> > Internet of Things now appeal to both the German and the Chinese
>> > governments. They appear to believe that recent technological
>> developments
>> > can be fused into a new productive order, manifested in the extension of
>> > railways lines and development corridors across the entire Eurasian
>> landmass
>> > (the giant free-trade/logistics project that the Chinese call "The New
>> Silk
>> > Road"). They want to put German hi-tech, European consumption, and Asian
>> > manufacturing capacity together, and mitigate climate change along the
>> way.
>> >
>> > The green capitalism widely denounced on the eco-anarchist left
>> coalesces
>> > here, in the concept of a Euro-Sinic (or perhaps, Euro-Sinical)
>> production
>> > system whose green ideology would cover massive Chinese infrastructure
>> > investments, with Germany replacing the US as the key banker and
>> > technological and scientific partner. This perspective thinks big, on
>> the
>> > scale of Eurasia. The aim is to use capitalist modenization to guide the
>> > largest part of the world's population through the devastating first
>> half of
>> > the twenty-first century, as inequalities grow worse and climate change
>> > takes hold. Of course the Euro-Sinical program itself will accelerate
>> those
>> > same contradictions...
>> >
>> > How do the Bay Area elites situate themselves within this emerging
>> > world-picture? What is their consensus, and where does it fall apart?
>> Who
>> > has the greatest power to set the agendas? And to what degree do these
>> tech
>> > elites remain unconscious and merely reactive? I do not claim to know
>> the
>> > answers, certainly not in the necessary detail. The facile "critique" of
>> > this or that form of evil-doing is definitely blocking us from even
>> grasping
>> > how Google thinks, and how Apple-Cisco-HP-etc thinks, and how they get
>> > together and think with BofA and Wells Fargo and Citi and the NSA and
>> the
>> > DoD and so forth.
>> >
>> > In short, I see two mistakes, dear nettimers. One is failing to see
>> that the
>> > Bay Area elites and their interlocutors are fully engaged in the titanic
>> > project of imagining, designing and governing a pervasively networked
>> social
>> > system on a global scale. The second one is the failure to see that
>> they are
>> > not alone, and that similar problems are being dealt with by potentially
>> > more organized and more powerful forces, who do not think in purely
>> > communicational and financial terms, but instead deal also with
>> large-scale
>> > industry.
>> >
>> > best, Brian
>> >
>> >
>> > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
>> > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
>> > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
>> > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
>> > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetworkedLabour mailing list
>> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
>> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20140524/afa6723d/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the P2P-Foundation
mailing list