= aims at creating a protocol which is legal and technical/technological through which people and organizations will be able to define how they wish the data they produce to be used". 
"What happens when the data generated from our bodies, organs, emotions, actions, gestures, traversals, presence and personality becomes the object of sharing, selling and analysing?
"designing a legal+technological toolkit with which you reappropriate data you produce (social networks, wearables, biotech, IoT, sensors, domotics...), you establish a identity+trust+responsibility model and you distribute access through a p2p infrastructure"
"Ubiquitous Information and Knowledge is different from the content which can be handled using, for example, the Creative Commons or other current licensing schemes. It is not about mp3s, JPEGs, GIFs, PDFs, MOVs or other digital formats.
It is about the data, information and knowledge produced by bodies, locations, movements, desires, expectations, cultures, which are created, reproduced and mediated ubiquitously, online, through mobile applications, sensors, cameras, augmented reality, maps, Internet of Things, and more, consciously and unconsciously, and about the ways in which these information and knowledge are used." (http://ubiquitouscommons.org/)
" in UC we deal with the main issue of "given a certain data/information/knowledge, who can access, use and manage this data/information/knowledge?"
More precisely: you define an identity (individual, collective, anonymous, temporary, nomadic or a combination of these) through a trust/responsibility/purpose mechanism, and each data/information/knowledge can be made available to a set of these identities (1, more than 1, everyone, etc).
This is, in basics, the "contract" which is currently published onto the blockchain and which creates the "protocol" (legal + tech) through which you access the data/info/knowledge (e.g.: Facebook becomes a repository of encrypted data which can be accessed only by the identities listed in the contract; the same goes for IoT, domotics, wearables, etc).
Now: when you deal with, for example, knowledge exchanges, it is clear how a purely transactional model can be really limiting. Knowledge can (and should) be exchanged in many different ways, direct, indirect, unconscious etc. Only some of these ways are "transactional", or, better, only some of these ways can be described in terms of transactions (how do you express an ambient, emergent, unconscious knowledge propagation in terms of a transaction? who do I transact with?).
This and similar issues are pushing us in the direction of designing p2p infrastructures which are different, and which include also expressions which are not of a transactional type.
If you think about it, this can turn out to be a profound political consideration, affecting the "markets" of informality, emergence, creativity and collaboration.
For now we are obviously maintaining the blockchain as the main p2p infrastructure, but we have also opened up a new design domain which has the objective of searching for other models. For example we have started using the I2P codebase to try to design and develop a p2p infrastructure which could address some of these issues." (email, September 2015)