When is a commons not a true commons: boundary conditions
Ryan Lanham proposes a set of P2P Commons Boundary Conditions to delineate real commons from weaker versions and even counterfeits:
“I think the key boundaries are as follows:
Primary Boundaries:
1. A P2P Commons attempt to maximize free, voluntary and open sharing of assets that are engaged in the commons.
2. Assets placed in the commons are irrevocably there and cannot be removed for personal gains. Ongoing participation in a commons implies shared responsibility for its sustaining expenses. When a commons cannot be sustained, it is dissolved so as to maximize reuse and sharing of its prior assets without cost or selfish limitations.
3. P2P (though not necessarily a commons) emphasizes reduced hierarchical control and greater autonomy of the individual. The role of parties, states, churches, co-ops, corporations, shareholding owners and other collective action bodies is intentionally minimized in any form of governance of the commons.
Secondary boundaries (many may reject these in individual terms and still claim status as a P2P commons):
a. Commons work to avoid free riding by encouraging valid and useful contributions to the commons as a sustainable process.
b. P2P commons work to minimize governance interventions.
c. Commons work to provide useful and valuable tools, assets and services to participants.
d. Commons reject inputs and uses that are applied for gains that are not sustainable or that adversely impact the environment.
e. Commons apply open, fair and recognizably democratic means to govern themselves.
f. Commons are not owned by a state. They are created out of voluntary participation mechanisms where users and participants continually and freely choose to participate and the right to exit from participation and support clearly exists.
g. Commons are not a part of or party to any form of capitalism, communism, anarchism or socialism as a political ideal and may be compatible with any form of government that allows voluntary and free participation in protected sharing schemes that are self-governing within reasonably constraints (e.g. valid safety or environmental regulations).
h. P2P commons reject the idea of a single controller, a controller or governor for life, or any mode of control or ownership of the commons that positions one person or one group as a vanguard, protector, trustee or governor acting beyond reasonable terms of a few years and freely chosen by participating members. Organizers and social entrepreneurs who start commons with benign intent and who have imbued a commons with their own personal will have greater latitude under this criterion so long as their actions are reasonably consistent with the long-term goals and boundaries of commons.
i. Commons are perpetual and may not be privatized.
j. Commons work toward ideals of general public good even if the public good is at odds with most members of the commons.”