Re: Connecting re Ostrom

Hey,

just a few very quick notes.

I don't think that it's meaningful to look at the whole web as commons. 
It's too big and varied, too incoherent, doesn't have a clear path to 
governance.

What I'd recommend instead is to start by mapping out what's 
infrastructure that is relevant to the web. (Though if you insist on 
drawing a boundary between web and the rest of digital it might be 
introduce some weirdness.) The way to look for infrastructure is to 
identify infrastructural goods. We can identify infrastructural goods 
using three principled criteria that together form sort of an 
"infrastructural good tests":

1. Infrastructure arises from economies of scale or network effects 
(including all n-sided markets) that tend to tip towards monopoly 
production. So basically anything where it benefits from being big and 
when you're big it's hard-to-impossible for smaller providers to 
dislodge you.
2. Infrastructure is characterised by a high degree of diversity in 
downstream uses. In fact, much of the value of infrastructure stems from 
the high variety of applications that it enables on the demand side, 
leading to innovation as well as higher resilience. So you want things 
that enable all kinds of uses.
3. Infrastructure makes downstream uses vulnerable to domination by 
private power. Providers of infrastructural goods have their hands on 
control points (also known as chokepoints or bottlenecks) that give them 
power over their users. Our community has a history of being blind to 
power so one trick that might help is to make it caricatural and ask 
"what would happen if Elon Musk bought this?"

Infrastructural goods are important because of the manner in which these 
three properties interact. Without monopolistic tendencies, the market 
could correct with competition. Without the variety in downstream uses, 
the power of infrastructure would be narrow (and users in a narrow 
domain can more easily coordinate countervailing power). And without 
downstream vulnerability, the impact of control over infrastructure 
would be limited. But when all three aspects are brought together, 
whoever governs the system governs its users.

Then, once you have your list of infrastructures (it's going to be long) 
you should talk to Brett Frischmann about why a commons model of 
governance is the way to go for any infrastructure. (You could also read 
his book on infrastructure, it's good, but I have to warn you that it's 
dense.) One important consideration (and I certainly encourage you to 
discuss this with Brett if you meet) is infrastructure neutrality. 
Understanding why even good intentions don't work to govern 
infrastructure and only some forms of democratic power can durably 
maintain it is key here.

I should warn you that you're likely to reach pretty depressing 
conclusions… Just because something should be governed as a commons 
doesn't mean that it is, and there really isn't much of the web that 
qualifies as a commons rather than an open access chokepoint.

Another point that I don't see mentioned in the discussion is 
polycentricity. It's not a coincidence that this notion was also 
developed by the Ostroms. And for something as big as the web you kind 
of have to have that, doubly-so if you start to think about how all that 
infrastructure interrelates.

There is also a line connecting user agency to capabilities to how the 
Ostroms imagined self-governance, and that's applicable to web stuff (or 
would be, in a better web).

There's a ton more down that path. I would also recommend looking at 
Ostrom's work on institutional grammar. It becomes particularly relevant 
when you want to fix things (and not just describe them). A fun project 
could be to take a system that has some degree of formal governance 
(even if limited) like the W3C and look at how the 
constitutional/collective/operational rules work (or don't), and from 
that map out what you'd have to fix if web standards were to be managed 
as a commons.

I hope you enjoy the journey, it's a fun area!


On 22/11/2024 22:54, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> Thank you! The notes are now published to 
> https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2024/telcons/11-14-commons-minutes.md <https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2024/telcons/11-14-commons-minutes.md>.
> 
> Could you introduce us to Angie Raymond, Brett Frischmann, and someone 
> from the IASC to help figure out how we can/should participate in the 
> Amherst conference?
> 
> I'm planning to write a first (very-incorrect) draft of the structures 
> I'm seeing, and hopefully iterate on it a bit with the other TAG folks 
> during our face-to-face the week of Dec 2. I'll share it with you once 
> it exists.
> 
> The www-tag@ list I just added is publicly archived 
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/> so that future TAG 
> members can see what we were talking about. Feel free to drop it if 
> there's anything more private.
> 
> Thanks again,
> Jeffrey
> 

-- 
Robin Berjon (he/him)
https://berjon.com/ - social: https://robin.berjon.com/

Received on Monday, 25 November 2024 11:18:46 UTC