Process for gathering proposals from the network

Hi Alex. Thanks for your input. Did you see the pad? There's a link in the description of this thread. From there there are links to examples.

I agree totally with Alek. Clear concise policy content undersatanble by policy-makers must be a priority over a strict consensual co-creation process. I mean the EU policy context and language is fundamental, content must not be pushed out by process. As well, at this point of preparation for the Assembly event in the European Parliament in one months time we need to look for some consensual, "big recommendations" to frame commons principles. Our objective is to favour an EU facilitatiing the commons as opposed to being a barrier.

I'm glad we are having some discussion in loomio on this. I also agree that concise proposals are important in the Parliament. However, I think that by doing this "back-end" co-creation work we are creating something much more sustainable in the long run because we are talking to each other and working together, so the proposals have something strong to stand on.

The coordination team has identified Sunday October 23 as the cut off for issue proposals. So then the task is to translate the "back-end" stuff on the pads into the "front-end" concise proposals for the EU. Does this make sense? Thoughts? It will be up to people in the Content Team like @davidhammerstein @gaelle11 and @sophie40 to follow this process! We already have a good start.

hi @nicoleleonard I did have a look at the pad and I started reading the Knowledge & copyright pad, since that's the issue I most familiar with. I like the content and I agree with the gist of it, but I noticed that the recommendations are not very precise (yet). From my experience good recommendations are much, much harder than good analysis, overview of the issue, etc. - that's why I thought that having more clear guidelines in very practical terms, of the "product" you want to have, could be good guidance. I'm writing this from a perspective of someone wanting to help with some of the issue framing (I'm also interested in "education" and "internet". but from what you're saying we should this week focus on providing you with issue content, even if it's still rough. ok.

It's not 100% clear and I'm not the one making calls, the previous comment was just a personal opinion from someone who has been following the discussion on this. I'd say if you are in a position to cut out some of the "translation from back to front end work" for a specific issue and go right into framing and recommendations then go ahead. Also, if you come up with any nice ways to frame the other issues, please share them here asap. We can use help from people with experience on this.

Hi all!

Agreed on the overall container that is now lacking or the present list of commons seeming to become a sectoral approach of (material) commons. Also I'd like to state that I am discovering new insights here in Rotterdam in the Noomap & Synergy Space Network where many commons gather this month and before. I.e. The art of collaboration, Village 3.0, Sphere Foundation etc. I thinks these belong in a policy proposal to the EU officials too. And can be clarified in valuation and estimation strategies of support of the commons by the EU.

Trends I see are:
1. A scaling of commons globally on intent (moving away from the margins). Creating nodes that connect.
2. A combination of bottom up and top down strategies to do this. With still a strong p2p component. Or renewed strategies for financing and starting. Combining i.e. gentrification principles that might be not so commons per se with a commons approach for the content and use of empty buildings on a longer term.
3. An overall movement from 'common resources' or material commons towards 'time & space' commons: connecting hubs, connecting intentions, connecting co creative ways of working in a global way. With this the 'in between space' or heterotopia between material and immaterial commons is being covered. It's more than before about dynamics and communication or conceptual commons that are more abstract and connecting, than about material commons or 'resources' only. This contributes to the global approach. With this 'resource centralized thinking' is being left.
4. Insights in 'natural time & space management', i.e.
a. emergent co creation processes which are not linear
b. the measurement of time as a resource and determining factor in the valuation of work or creation
as a component that has been missing in the analysis on the commons in general.

There is a reason for the commons to be staying in the margins. We have often talked about powers that be and the political system or capitalism, not about the generic principles that lead to the construction of only material commons, such as the valuation of what's being created and the perceivement of time as a value by people. It think this is a topic we can learn from. And I am in the right collaboration now to put it on the agenda. With this we leave the commons as a purely 'resources focussed' subject and we look in the more abstract principles determining our behavior and organizing principles of society. As well we can find keys to enhance the commons.

I saw the open container as an invite to share new insights and to put them on the agenda.

Then again I'd like to stipulate that thoughts such as 'Preventing that commons-oriented projects, hubs and networks end up becoming "clusters" which reinforce processes of socio-economic exclusion instead of undermining them. Including intersectionality: Race/ethnicity/nationality, class, gender.' often relate to acting as if commons were to come out of the margins of power instead of reinventing the commons for a common future from a non-dual perspective going beyond power structures.

In general I am positive on the trends I see and might add here: yes we can move beyond power structures by not reinforcing them constantly in our thoughts and policy proposals again.

Let's create that shared future and move beyond power structures as a topic, towards nodes of commons connecting.

I respectfully disagree that at this stage we need to have concrete policy proposals. Simply because there is no time if we want to keep a bottom - up approach and keep calling this an assembly. We have to be VERY VERY careful with the process otherwise you risk alienating many people and especially because the location of the event itself being hosted in the EU parliament is not helping with that either. I would propose to focus on the process and gathering input from many people for many things, present some to the event and then have time through the tools that we are already establishing to work on these.

Here's a suggestion for conceptualizing the policy areas in the master list to make them fit better. I fear it may be too late in the game to implement this, given that this is due on the 24th but give it your consideration.

As part of our policy work in Commons Transition, we identified the competencies of the various EU commissions and related them to the existing categories on the Commons Transition wiki (which can be found here. This "targeting" is very specific to EU commissions, but I don't know how they will be reflected by the MEPs attending or if those clusters make sense for the brief presentations (for example, clustering Communities, Law, Housing, Land for Home and Justice Affairs, etc).

I'm attaching our initial comparison. There are descriptions for each of the councils in the notes in column A.

Do you think this framing is useful? I'm not sure myself so I'd really appreciate your opinions.

HI everyone,
I think the comments by Jose Luis - which I just copy in here below - are very helpful.
Just to build on and respond this his comments:

1. what type of policy recommendations: I think this depends on the topic. For example, on copyright there is a reform taking place now, and we can be quite specific and point towards legal proposals. On urban commons there is less competence at EU and less obvious current avenues for legal proposals, so we could a more general or aspirational approach. They need to be relevant for EU policy in some way or another, and it would be great if the European Parliamentarians could add, respond and relate it to their work. The Parliamentarians involved are very keen on making this more of a ongoing platform for exchange, we should see how that works out, but they'd like to take up our ideas basically and push them in policy. For that they need to relate to ongoing processes.

2. Agreed!

3. Agreed!

4. 25 ! :)

5. Agreed! it would be great if we can do some of the mapping of the project people are involved in the run up to the assembly meeting in November and show case it in some way.
   Sophie

Jose Luis :
Dear commoners,

I would like to address issues mentioned by Elisabetta and Amanda, and both are related to the topic that I have just uploaded in the hackpad on Food Commons (pls, feel free to enrich it).

1.- Regarding the policy recommendations, it could be nice if we agree what type of policy suggestions should we craft (general policies, specific ones?, legal proposals? more aspirational declarations ?) and to whom they should be targetted? Do we just think about policy proposals that can be debated/agreed upon by European Parliamentarians? or is much broader?

2.- I understand the 3 minutes limitation does not give much space for an ellaborated rationale and nuanced proposals, so we could have two results of the co-creation of policy proposals: a longer version with more words, substance and better rationale and policy proposals and a short version with prioritised policies specifically addressed to EP members and to be delivered in 3 minutes. The latter would be meant for the Assembly and the former as a foundational document for further actions

3.- Regarding the overall framework and the approach by topics, we need both but they have different goals. Policy-wise, it is better to work with specific policy proposals for specific sectors (be that water, energy, transport, IP rights or food), but we also need a broader framework that provides the over-arching narrative and shows how this narrative, goals and values differ from the neoliberal/capitalistic hegemonic narrative. Using a Gramscian approach, this a a debate of ideas or a clash of narratives to gain hegemonic power to then justify specific policies that conform that narrative. Therefore, we need both: the overall narrative of the commons transition and the topic-framed policy proposals.

4.- It took the neoliberal capitalism half a century to become so dominant and its narrative so pervasive, so we cannot expect to overthrow profit-maximising capitalism so easily. It will take at least other 50 years.

5.- I support the idea to nurture "nodes of innovation" at two levels: a) co-creation of ideas and alternative commons narratives, and b) exchanging and networking of practical experiences. In that sense, a common endeavour could be "Mapping the European Commons" (material and inmaterial resources) in order to highlight their survival from past enclosures and the thriving growth is now experiencing. This mapping exercise can be better done by topics.

I am looking forward to meeting you all in BXL.

best regards

Jose Luis

and at some point, with some time before the assembly, we will have to have a little ad hoc working group, bring together the 10 proposals we are going to present, and edit them into presentable proposals in the European Parliament. The Parliamentarians have also requested to receive them in advance.