DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Version October 2016 Krishna Ravi Srinivas Phd Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Version October 2016 Krishna Ravi Srinivas Phd Introduction Germplasm and the Commons: From Global to the Field- Draft Version October 2016 Krishna Ravi Srinivas PhD Introduction : Plant Genetic Resourcesi (PGR) are inseparable part of agricultural biodiversity. Crop improvement is not possible without access to PGR and transformation of PGR into usable germplasm through human intervention is a continuous process. Crop improvement is a cumulative process and the PGR found in nature are modified by humans into germplasm which can be used for further improvement and/ or, for cultivation. Germplasm ‘refers to the sum total of all hereditary material in a plant, as coded in its DNA. For a crop, it reflects the compounding nature of sequential improvements carried out by breeders over a long period of time, all of which, of course, is encapsulated in the seed Moschini (2010: 5). Another definition of germplasm is “Germplasm: the genetic diversity (gene pool) of a certain species when used as the source of genes in a breeding program.(Bjonstrand 2016). According to Roa-Rodriguez and van Dooren PGR can be understood as having two components- tangible and intangible with material seeds being the tangible component and the inscribed genetic code as the intangible component (Roa-Rodriguez and van Dooren 2008). But PGR can be conceptualized purely as a material entity , i.e. the seed that is also a product and source for cultivation of plants. In such cases it can be a common pool resource, part of genetic resource commons and also be appropriated using intellectual property rights and other means including the rights of the sovereign nations over such resources. But thanks to developments in science and technology, the informational component in the seed can be separated from the material entity and this provides opportunities for claiming exclusive rights through intellectual property but the informational component can also be part of knowledge/information commons. These are equally true for germplasm. In this article I discuss the developments in the governance of germplasm, in the last four decades and suggest a commons approach as an alternative mode/model for governing germplasm at different levels. The objective of using a common approach is to develop a narrative that challenges the claims that intellectual property protection through patents and Plant Breeders’ Rights are the most means to incentivize innovation in plant variety development and to propose an alternative mechanism that blends public interest in plant breeding with the rights of farmers, indigenous communities through development of commons and providing access to such commons by regulating it through different mechanisms. Shifts in Regulation of PGRs : From Common Heritage of (Hu)Mankind to Common Concern and Appropriation Through Intellectual Property ”The greatest service which can be rendered to any country is to add a useful plant to its culture.” Thomas Jefferson Since time immemorial there has been exchange and spread of plant varieties, novel/exotic plants, crops and other material used for breeding, including multiplication and all this was done without much thinking on ownership rights or exclusive claims on germplasm and plant breeding material. .ii But this exchange and transfer was not necessarily on equal terms or was based solely on altruism and the spirit of sharing. Rather these exchanges and transfer of materials were often part of colonial expansion and the quest for resources. The colonial expansion and emergence of empires resulted in founding of botanical gardens and the gardens were also used for classifying the botanical materials and their transfer. But the rediscovery of Mendel’s law in the early twentieth century transformed plant breeding and breeders could develop better varieties from materials available to them. For breeders accessing germplasm collections was made possible without many restrictions and this relatively open access system worked well as it gave them the freedom to use genetic material for varietal development without any obligation to share the results or benefits. (Byerlee and Dubin 2010). But systematic approach to germplasm conservation and exchange had to wait till 1948, when FAO decided to set up a global clearing house for cataloging and sharing of resources for plant breeding programs. Through Plant Introduction Stations at different parts of the world samples were delivered by FAO. Thus by the early 1960s thanks to developments in science and the improved capacity to use the genetic diversity among PGR for breeding, the demand for access and materials increased. Realizing the need to avoid erosion and loss of genetic diversity, FAO convened the First Technical Conference on plant genetic resources in 1967 and conservation on the global scale emerged as a key concern (Fowler and Mooney 1990). The advent of Green Revolution resulted in the establishment of centers for agricultural research devoted to different crops or to meet the needs of different regions and in 1971, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research was formed with representatives from private foundations, governments and World Bank as members and the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARC) such as International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) were brought under CGIAR. CGIAR functioned as an independent group, outside the UN system and the IARC were not part of the FAO. Over the years, IARC had developed an impressive collection of germplasm, rich in diversity and through them ex-situ conservation got a boost. The centers under CGIAR exchanged and shared germplasm freely and collaborated with different universities and research centers in varietal development, testing and dissemination. The varieties released under the Green Revolution were available for multiplication, sharing and further improvement without any limitations or conditions for use. The sharing of varieties and germplasm resulted in wider and quicker dissemination of varieties developed by IARC and by other entities in public sector. The private sector also relied on the germplasm collection of public sector institutions for its breeding programs. All this was done without any part claiming or asserting exclusive rights over PGR including germplasm. Thus within two decades of launch of Green Revolution , a global pool of plant genetic resources conserved in different centers and repositories emerged. This pool included ex-situ collections with centers under CGIAR, agricultural research institutions, national level germplasm conservation centers and collections under agencies devoted to agricultural research and education. The exchange and use of materials available under this pool was based on the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM) Approach. This approach was grounded in the notion that plant genetic resources constitute a commons that should be accessible to all with very few or no restrictions on collection, exchange, use and classification. Plant genetic resources were considered a global resource not subject to restrictions under national sovereignty but in reality national sovereignty was not a major barrier for collecting, sharing and using them . This enabled CGIAR centers and the FAO to freely collect, exchange, store and share matierials with many stakeholders including plant breeders, researchers and private sector breeders. Under FAO, an International Board on Plant Genetic Resources was set up. Calls for developing a global legal convention on PGR were made the 1981 biennial conference of FAO and there was a divide between developed nations(North) and developing nations(South) divide on this with North opposing such a convention. The idea of treating PGR as CHM was similar to treating a resource as it was in public domain, free for access and free to access and use. According to Bush “Common heritage refers to the treatment of genetic resources as belonging to the public domain and not owned or otherwise monopolized by a single group or interest. Common heritage is similar to common property regimes that anthropologists and other social scientists have described for nonmarket economies. Neither common heritage nor common property implies lack of rules (res nullius) …. Rather they imply community management (res communes) that involves regulated access to common resources and reciprocity among them.” (Brush (2004: 221-22) The Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CPGR) was established by FAO in 1983. The CPGR adopted the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (IUPGR) which was a non-binding Undertaking which dealt with rules and standards for conservation and exchange of plant genetic resources. It was based on the premise that PGR were the ‘Common Heritage of Mankind’. But the coverage and definition of PGR under the Undertaking became a contentious issue. According to the Undertaking, PGR included plant varieties and elite breeding lines, and, traditional landraces, wild plants and commercial plant varieties protected by Plant Breeders’ Rights were considered as similar and were to be exchanged, shared and used under the CHM principle. It treated ‘products of nature’ such as traditional landraces and varieties protected under Plant Breeders’ Rights as the same under the category of PGR. But USA and some European governments questioned such a treatment and argued that this was contradictory to UPOV Convention and national intellectual property (IP) regimes which recognized exclusive rights over plant varieties including the right to exclude and right to commercialize
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Saving the Information Commons a New Public Intere S T Agenda in Digital Media
    Saving the Information Commons A New Public Intere s t Agenda in Digital Media By David Bollier and Tim Watts NEW AMERICA FOUNDA T I O N PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE Saving the Information Commons A Public Intere s t Agenda in Digital Media By David Bollier and Tim Watts Washington, DC Ack n owl e d g m e n t s This report required the support and collaboration of many people. It is our pleasure to acknowledge their generous advice, encouragement, financial support and friendship. Recognizing the value of the “information commons” as a new paradigm in public policy, the Ford Foundation generously supported New America Foundation’s Public Assets Program, which was the incubator for this report. We are grateful to Gigi Sohn for helping us develop this new line of analysis and advocacy. We also wish to thank The Open Society Institute for its important support of this work at the New America Foundation, and the Center for the Public Domain for its valuable role in helping Public Knowledge in this area. Within the New America Foundation, Michael Calabrese was an attentive, helpful colleague, pointing us to useful literature and knowledgeable experts. A special thanks to him for improv- ing the rigor of this report. We are also grateful to Steve Clemons and Ted Halstead of the New America Foundation for their role in launching the Information Commons Project. Our research and writing of this report owes a great deal to a network of friends and allies in diverse realms. For their expert advice, we would like to thank Yochai Benkler, Jeff Chester, Rob Courtney, Henry Geller, Lawrence Grossman, Reed Hundt, Benn Kobb, David Lange, Jessica Litman, Eben Moglen, John Morris, Laurie Racine and Carrie Russell.
    [Show full text]
  • Info Commons Development Task Force
    Information Commons Development Task Force 2008 Recommendations For the Development of the Information Commons Services and Facilities At the University at Albany 2008 – 2010 By the Information Commons Development Task Force Greg Bobish, Jane Kessler, Chris Moore, Lorre Smith, Laura Ryan, and Robert Wachs March 10, 2008 1 Information Commons Development Task Force 2008 Introduction The Task Force charge is to provide ideas for development of the current Information Commons (IC) to allow evolution to the next generation. The Task Force was asked not to be overly constrained by resource limitations, but to provide ideas that may be used by the University Libraries and Information Technology Services to develop facilities, staff and services. The Task Force was encouraged to develop an expanded concept for the IC. The Task Force decided to look at IC‐related web pages at our peer institutions as well as look at additional Information and Learning Commons that featured services and facilities that were innovative. We used the InfoCommons‐L electronic discussion list to find IC sites and discover ideas through those discussions at the international level. We used survey data gathered from users in the University Libraries by the Reference Assessment Librarian during the fall of 2007. We also met with IC staff and asked them to tell us from their experiences what were successful services, what the users indicated that they liked, what problems users were having, and what they requested often that we are not currently offering. We searched the growing body of literature about Information Commons and Learning Commons and drew philosophical and pragmatic ideas from our results.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Commons: Models for Eliteracy and the Integration of Learning
    Information Commons: Models for eLiteracy and the Integration of Learning Susan Beatty and Peggy White, University of Calgary Abstract Information Commons are often described as integrated learning facilities, where the user can receive assistance in acquiring information literacy skills and/or technical literacy skills or “e-lit skills”. User acquisition of e-lit skills that support further learning is a desirable goal. Information Commons in academic libraries are designed to facilitate this learning goal, often through an integrated and collaborative service model. What are the models of integrated service delivery for Information Commons in academic libraries? Are there models which have been more effective in fostering the learning of e-lit skills and if so, how? This paper will describe the results of an environmental scan of some of the most successful Information Commons in North America and elsewhere, focusing on the elements of their service and program model that in the authors’ opinion foster e-lit integration. Keywords: Information Commons, e-literacy, learning, university, library Journal of eLiteracy, Vol 2 (2005) 2-14 2 1. Introduction Information Commons are a new type of library facility offering innovative services that facilitate student learning. This paper presents an environmental scan of Information Commons in universities and identifies service and program models that support e- literacy. It examines to what extent instruction and services, supporting formal and informal learning, are offered for technology and information searching, that is e-literacy. It seeks to identify which models of Information Commons best meet this objective and suggest areas for further research. 2. Background During the 1990’s and continuing through the present day, a new type of service facility has begun to appear in academic libraries across North America, Europe, and elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Commons
    Please do not remove this page Information Commons Kranich, Nancy; Schement, Jorge Reina https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/discovery/delivery/01RUT_INST:ResearchRepository/12643403850004646?l#13643526980004646 Kranich, N., & Schement, J. R. (2008). Information Commons. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 42, Issue 1, pp. 547–591). Rutgers University. https://doi.org/10.7282/T3KW5JBB This work is protected by copyright. You are free to use this resource, with proper attribution, for research and educational purposes. Other uses, such as reproduction or publication, may require the permission of the copyright holder. Downloaded On 2021/09/25 21:16:40 -0400 Information Commons 1 Information Commons Nancy Kranich Consultant Jorge Schement Pennsylvania State University Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) Chapter 12: 547-591. ABSTRACT This chapter reviews the history and theory of information commons along with the various conceptual approaches used to describe and understand them. It also discusses governance, financing, and participation in these commons. Today’s digital technologies offer unprecedented possibilities for human creativity, global communication, innovation, and access to information. Yet these same technologies also provide new opportunities to control—or enclose—intellectual products, thereby threatening to erode political Information Commons 2 discourse, scientific inquiry, free speech, and the creativity needed for a healthy democracy. Advocates for an open information society face an uphill battle to influence outcomes in the policy arena; yet they are developing information commons that advance innovation, stimulate creativity, and promote the sharing of information resources. Designers of these new information resources can learn from those who have studied other commons like forests and fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Peer Production: a Form of Collective Intelligence.” in Hand- Book of Collective Intelligence, Edited by Thomas Malone and Michael Bernstein
    THIS IS A PRE-PRINT VERSION OF PUBLISHED BOOK CHAPTER.THE FINAL VERSION AND THE REFERENCE TO USE WHEN CITING THIS WORK IS: Benkler, Yochai, Aaron Shaw, and Benjamin Mako Hill. (2015) “Peer Production: A Form of Collective Intelligence.” In Hand- book of Collective Intelligence, edited by Thomas Malone and Michael Bernstein. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Peer Production: A Form of Collective Intelligence Yochai Benkler ([email protected]) HARVARD UNIVERSITY Aaron Shaw ([email protected]) NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Benjamin Mako Hill ([email protected]) UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION Wikipedia has mobilized a collective of millions to produce an enormous, high quality, encyclopedia without traditional forms of hierarchical organiza- tion or financial incentives. More than any other twenty-first century collab- orative endeavor, Wikipedia has attracted the attention of scholars in the so- cial sciences and law both as an example of what collective intelligence makes possible and as an empirical puzzle. Conventional thinking suggests that ef- fective and successful organizations succeed through hierarchical control and management, but Wikipedia seems to organize collectively without either. Legal and economic common sense dictates that compensation and contracts are necessary for individuals to share the valuable products of their work, yet Wikipedia elicits millions of contributions without payment or owner- ship. Intuition suggests that hobbyists, volunteers, and rag-tag groups will not Parts of this chapter build upon work published in: Y. Benkler, Peer. “Production and Cooperation” forthcoming in J. M. Bauer & M. Latzer (eds.), Handbook on the Economics of the Internet, Cheltenham and Northampton, Edward Elgar. 1 2 be able to create information goods of sufficient quality to undermine pro- fessional production, but contributors to Wikipedia have done exactly this.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Commons - a Public Policy Report - by Nancy Kranich
    - the - Information Commons - a public policy report - by Nancy Kranich THE FREE EXPRESSION POLICY PROJECT BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE at NYU SCHOOL OF LAW e Information Commons: A Public Policy Report © 2004. is report is covered by the Creative Commons “Attribution-No Derivs-NonCommercial” license; see http://creativecommons.org. It may be reproduced in its entirety as long as the Brennan Center for Justice, Free Expression Policy Project is credited, a link to the Project’s Web page is provided, and no charge is imposed. e report may not be reproduced in part or in altered form, or if a fee is charged, without our permission. Please let us know if you reprint. BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE at NYU SCHOOL OF LAW Democracy Program, Free Expression Policy Project 161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th floor New York NY 10013 Phone: (212) 998-6730 Web site: www.brennancenter.org Free Expression Policy Project: www.fepproject.org Author of the report: Nancy Kranich, Senior Research Fellow, Free Expression Policy Project, 2003-04 Editing: Marjorie Heins, Director, Free Expression Policy Project, 2000-04 Design: Jon Hecht table of contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................ INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... I. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF THE INFORMATION AGE.. Evolution of the Information Society................................................................... e Promise of the Internet and
    [Show full text]
  • Polycentric Information Commons: a Theory Development and Empirical Investigation
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University CEPRIN Dissertations Center for Process Innovation Fall 12-10-2018 Polycentric Information Commons: A Theory Development and Empirical Investigation Vitali Mindel Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/ceprin_diss Recommended Citation Mindel, Vitali, "Polycentric Information Commons: A Theory Development and Empirical Investigation." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2018. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/ceprin_diss/5 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Process Innovation at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in CEPRIN Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Polycentric Information Commons: A Theory Development and Empirical Investigation By VITALI MINDEL A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE ROBINSON COLLEGE OF BUSINESS OF GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY ROBINSON COLLEGE OF BUSINESS 2018 Polycentric Information Commons V. Mindel 2018 Copyright by Vitali Mindel 2018 2 Polycentric Information Commons V. Mindel 2018 ACCEPTANCE This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the Vitali Mindel Dissertation Committee. It has been approved and accepted by all members of that committee, and it has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration in the J. Mack Robinson College of Business of Georgia State University. Richard Phillips, Dean DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chair: Dr. Lars Mathiassen (Center for Process Innovation & Computer Information Systems Department, Georgia State University) Chair: Dr. Arun Rai (Center for Process Innovation & Computer Information Systems Department, Georgia State University) Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Knowledge As a Commons
    4626_Hess 11/3/06 7:18 AM Page 1 U a communications/scholarly publishing s n Understanding Knowledge as a Commons d a e From Theory to Practice C r s o t m edited by Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom a n m d Charlotte Hess is Director of the Digital Library of the Commons at o i n n Indiana University. Elinor Ostrom is Arthur F. Bentley Professor of g s Understanding Knowledge Political Science, Codirector of the Workshop in Political Theory and K n Policy Analysis at Indiana University, and Codirector of the Center for H e o the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environmental Change (CIPEC) s as a Commons Knowledge in digital form offers unprecedented access to information w s at Indiana University. a l through the Internet but at the same time is subject to ever-greater n e d d restrictions through intellectual property legislation, overpatenting, From Theory to Practice O g s licensing, overpricing, and lack of preservation. Looking at knowledge e t r o as a commons—as a shared resource—allows us to understand both m its limitless possibilities and what threatens it. In , Understanding Contributors e David Bollier, James Boyle, James C. Cox, Shubha Ghosh, Charlotte Hess, Nancy d Knowledge as a Commons, experts from a range of disciplines discuss i t Kranich, Peter Levine, Wendy Pradt Lougee, Elinor Ostrom, Charles M. Schweik, Peter o the knowledge commons in the digital era—how to conceptualize it, r Suber, J. Todd Swarthout, Donald J. Waters s edited by Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom protect it, and build it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Commons As a Neglected Factor of Information Policy
    THE COMMONS AS A NEGLECTED FACTOR OF INFORMATION POLICY Yochai Benkler* ABSTRACT Direct government intervention and privatization have long been the dominant institutional approaches to implementing information policy. Policies pursued using these approaches have tended to result in a centralized information production and exchange system. The paper suggests that adding a third cluster of institutional devices, commons, may be a more effective approach to decentralizing information production. The paper uses two examples, from spectrum regulation and intellectual property, to show that regulating certain resources as commons is feasible, and that such commons can cause organizations and individuals who use these resources to organize the way they produce information in a decentralized pattern. The paper suggests that identifying additional resources capable of being used as commons, and investing in the institutional design necessary to maintain stable commons in these resources, serves two constitutional commitments. First, commons are the preferred approach to serving the commitment that government not unnecessarily prevent individuals from using or communicating information. Second, commons facilitate “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.” INTRODUCTION Information policy in the United States has been framed by the two institutional approaches generally considered available for its implementation—direct government intervention and privatization. “Direct government intervention” refers
    [Show full text]
  • The Information Or the Learning Commons: Which Will We Have?1
    Editorial: The Information or the Learning Commons: Which Will We Have?1 by Scott Bennett ho would today build or renovate an academic library librarians and academic computing staff cannot alone create a Wwithout including an information commons? As learning commons, as they serve but do not define institutional Charles Forrest tells us, “in the last decade infor- mission. Other academic units do that and must join librarians mation commons have made a sudden, dramatic, and wide- and technologists in creating a learning commons. The funda- spread appearance in academic and research libraries across the mental difference between the information and the learning country and around the world.”2 Indeed, the information commons is that the former supports institutional mission while commons has in many ways come to substitute for the card the latter enacts it. catalog as a principal means of defining space as library space. How does one move from supporting to enacting institu- At the same time, we have exhibited considerable uncer- tional mission, from the support of learning to learning itself? tainty about what to call these spaces. The information Good counsel is available from Jeanne Narum, Director of commons and learning commons are by far the most common Project Kaleidoscope, who observes that “too often, planning names, but the words academic, collaboration, teaching, tech- for new spaces … begins with the wrong questions”—questions nology, and media often appear in names, along with or in the about what and how much will go in the space. Such questions place of information and learning.3 Curiously, the word service usually yield answers relating to things (books and computers, is not used even though librarians think of themselves as service for instance) and services (help with reference questions and the professionals and the convenience of “one-stop” shopping for use of technology in the case of the information commons).
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives for the Internet: a Journey Into Decentralised Network Architectures and Information Commons
    tripleC 18 (2): 622-629, 2020 http://www.triple-c.at Alternatives for the Internet: A Journey into Decentralised Network Architectures and Information Commons Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay* and Francesca Musiani** *Centre for Internet and Society, CNRS, Paris, France, [email protected], https://cis.cnrs.fr/melanie-dulong/ **Centre for Internet and Society, CNRS, Paris, France, [email protected], https://cis.cnrs.fr/francesca-musiani/ Abstract: For over twenty years, alternative forms of organising and networking – fuelled by the Internet but sometimes pre-dating it – have been discussed as possible responses to the dynamics of concentration, centralisation and capture exemplified in the current pervasively digital world by Internet giants such as Google and Facebook. This article takes stock of the lessons learned by the authors in over a decade of research on decentralised/P2P network architectures and on information commons, to suggest some ‘ways forward’ for these alterna- tives for the Internet. Keywords: Internet, alternatives, peer-to-peer, P2P, decentralisation, information commons, digital commons, data commons, urban commons, intellectual property, capitalism, peer pro- duction 1. Introduction In a world dominated by Internet giants – such as Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft, the infamous GAFAM – whose business models feed on the massive collection, retention and elaboration of our data and content, are there any alternatives to capitalism? For at least twenty years, from the beginnings of Napster1 in 1999 (Ku 2002), decentralised network architectures, or peer-to-peer (P2P), have been dis- cussed as a possible response to these dynamics of concentration, centralisation and capture (e.g. Schoder and Fischbach 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Commons
    Open Access and Information Commons1 Yochai Benkler Open access commons are family of institutional arrangements that are far more pervasive in modern complex economies than is usually recognized in the economic literature. Core resources necessary for communications, innovation, trade, transportation, and energy are managed on the basis of symmetric use privileges open to all, deploying nondiscriminatory allocation based on queuing where congestion occurs, rather than on exclusive proprietary control used to achieve price clearance. Highways, roads and sidewalks, navigable waterways, and open squares are central to intercity and urban commerce. The public domain in knowledge, data, information, and culture forms the foundation of innovation, markets, and creativity. Open standards, the core Internet protocols, unlicensed wireless spectrum, and the privately-created open access commons in Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) runs most Internet infrastructure. More ambiguously, common carriage and public utilities that characterize basic infrastructures for energy and wired communications exhibit full or partial characteristics of open access commons. The defining characteristic of open access commons, by comparison to property, whether individual or collective, is their utilization of (a) symmetric use privileges for (b) an open, undefined set of users in the general public, rather than (a’) asymmetric exclusive control rights located in the hands of (b’) an individual legal entity or defined group (club) use, and (c) their primary reliance on queuing and some form of governance-based allocation, rather than (c)’ price-cleared models, for congestion-clearance and management. Far from being necessarily less efficient or unsustainable, for substantial classes of resources we have observed many critical resources migrating from provisioning based on a reasonably well-developed market in private exclusive rights to open access commons.
    [Show full text]