Poco a poco la etnografía va decantando un interés por lo ‘común’. Desde luego, por el procomún (commons), con el Laboratorio del Procomún del Medialab al frente; pero también por la cultura de la colaboración y la cooperación, por la gestión común, por la auto-gestión. Aprovecho la relectura de unos textos de Ostrom para hacer una ‘note to self’, que dicen los ingleses – un recordatorio para un futuro análisis.

A propósito de lo que significa gestionar un commons…

1. Todo procomún es una institución colectiva. Se soporta sobre un diseño robusto de principios institucionales:

“One of the truly important findings in the traditional commons research was the identification of design principles of robust, long-enduring, common-pool resource institutions. These principles are:

• Clearly defined boundaries should be in place
• Rules in use are well matched to local needs and conditions.
• Individuals affected by these rules can usually participate in modifying the rules.
• The right of community members to devise their own rules is respected by external authorities.
• A system for self-monitoring members’ behavior has been established.
• A graduated system of sanctions is available.
• Community members have access to low-cost conflict-resolution mechanisms.
• Nested enterprises – that is, appropriation, provision, monitoring and sanctioning, conflict resolution, and other governance activities – are organized in a nested structure with multiple layers of activities.”

(Hess, C. & E. Ostrom. 2006. Introduction: an overview of the knowledge commons. In Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice (eds) C. Hess & E. Ostrom. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, p. 7)

Conclusión: no hay commons que funcione si no hay mecanismos de control, de gestión de conflictos y de penalización.

2. Conviene distinguir hasta 5 tipos de derechos en la gestión de un procomún: “These are defined as:

Access: The right to enter a defined physical area and enjoy nonsubtractive benefits (for example, hike, canoe, enjoy nature);

Extraction: The right to obtain resource units or products of a resource system (for example, catch fish, divert water);

Management: The right to regulate internal use patterns and transform the resource by making improvements;

Exclusion: The right to determine who will have access rights and withdrawal rights, and how those rights may be transferred; and

Alienation: The right to sell or lease management and exclusion rights.”

“In this view private individuals, private associations or firms, and governments may hold well-defined rights to a resource that include or do not include all five of the rights defined above. This approach separates the question of whether a particular right is well defined from the questions of which rights are possessed and who possesses them. While not the conventional view of lawyers, analysis of resources can benefit from viewing these rights bundles as diverse forms of property rights.”

(Hess, C. & E. Ostrom. 2003. Ideas, artifacts, and facilities: information as a common-pool resource. Law and Contemporary Problems 66, 111-145. pp. 124-125)

Conclusión: el abanico de posibles modos de gestión (de accesos, explotación, enajenación, etc.) puede llegar a ser muy complejo, en la medida que distintos actores tengan distintos derechos, o incluso que los derechos de un mismo actor queden modificados según el momento, el lugar, la compañía, etc.