P2P Foundation

Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices


Featured Book

No Straight Lines


Open Calls


Mailing List

Subscribe

Translate

  • Recent Comments:

    • Øyvind Holmstad: “(The Appendix to this essay reprints a review of Alexander’s “A Pattern Language” that I wrote for Amazon.com).”:...

    • Sepp Hasslberger: Great post and good observation by Eric that the word “gift” is really a link into the old type of rigid market....

    • Øyvind Holmstad: We just republished an essay from this blog by Nikos Salingaros yesterday, about these themes: - Peer-to-Peer Themes and Urban...

    • Øyvind Holmstad: This is EXACTLY what CLASSICAL LIBERALISM is ALL ABOUT: http://www.preservenet.com/cla ssicalliberalism/index.html

    • Patrick Anderson: The author writes: > Everyone should earn a profit for their work Profit is never the result of work! Profit is the difference...

An update on Christian Siefkes’ Peer Economy (3): Characteristics of Sharing Networks

photo of Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens
12th September 2008


We continue our coverage of Siefkes’ discussion of his Peer Economy workshop in Hiddinghausen, where he proposed the idea of a Commons Network.

In the same article, he proposes an interesting typology of such a commons.

I suggest that perhaps we could distinguish sharing networks in case of Granted Property, and talk of a Commons Network in case of Common Property?

Here is the summary by Christian Siefkes:

Typology according to Property Format:

Shared goods and the necessary means of production are either:

• Granted Property: (private property shared by the owners)
• Common Property (permanent part of the commons—nobody has the right to take them out)

Typology according to Usage Formats:

• “Shares: goods that are shared

o Parallel co-use (e.g. Wi-Fi)
o Serial co-use (e.g. book lending, apartments) o Repositories (e.g. of tools; libraries)
o Open Production Places (e.g. on-demand book/media printer, individual furniture-maker)

• Floaters: goods that can “float” from one peer to another (“New user wanted”)

• Sources (“Open X Source”): peers or projects producing new goods

Sample: Open Food Source, maybe using permaculture/community farming

• Sinks: peers or projects using/consuming goods

Sharing Constraints:

“Based on an idea by Thomas Kalka.

Family of constraints which shares may apply (family of “sharing agreements”, similar to the family of Creative Commons licenses):

• Permanent: good must remain permanently in the commons (“permafloater”)

• Transitive: any goods produced with the help of this good become part of the commons (“copyleft” for physical goods/means of production)

• Attribution appreciated: sharers wish to be attributed, if practical (not a strict requirement)

• Details for serial co-use:

o Use on site (e.g. washing machine, on-demand press, house/apartment) or move to user (e.g. books)?
o If move to user: who (user or sharer) organizes/pays for transport? o Transfer to others allowed? (only within a specific region?) o Return on date / on demand?
o Must repair if broken by user?”

Why Participate?

For the same reasons that motivate people to develop free software or participate in community networks:

• To produce goods they like to have (“scratching an itch”)
• To do something they enjoy doing (“fun and passion”)
• To give something back to the community
• To learn something or expand their skills
• To increase their reputation or community standing
• Because sharers might get preferred treatment

Source: www.keimform.de/2008/09/08/hiddinghausen-talks-2-commons-network/

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>