Active communities of commoners and relevant commons

Authors: Valerian Guillier, CNRS

Digital Commons as a concept is sometimes perceived as fuzzy or redundant. A few months ago, CNRS Centre Internet et Société, a key consortium partner in the NGI Commons initiative released a compelling research report exploring the evolution, practices, and governance of Digital Commons. The study combines desk research with 23 interviews and case studies, and its key findings shed light on the changing nature of how digital resources are created, shared, and governed in Europe. CNRS is studying the relevance of the concept and delivering some insights about the needs of the commoners.

Defining digital commons

First, this report draws on prior research on digital commons chronologically and reveals an evolution in the meaning and the definition of the concept: from an initial conception (found for example in Benkler) grounded in an opposition and as an alternative to intellectual property, the concept has slowly but surely evolved to include more of the components of the commons (that is, in addition to the shared resource, the community and the governance rules). The report also identified how specific values have been progressively added to the definitions.

In times when ‘extractivism practices’, which refer to all forms of exploitation and dispossessions, which in the digital realms are generally obvious, have extended to the whole Internet, questions about sustainability of the resource and the communities have become overly important. Rather than fighting against private ownership (only), the latest definitions tend to emphasise collective action, ownership and governance over the resource against extractivism. Which can be considered a new form of enclosure, thus also getting closer to the original idea of the commons. Therefore the report suggests to use one of the last definitions of the digital commons (by the Digital Commons EDIC, whose creation is still ongoing):

“Digital Commons are digital resources which are defined by distributed and communal production, ownership and governance. The governance includes access and sharing rules to ensure the development and sustainability of the resource and the community against exclusive use, exclusive profit or value extraction.”

The report then shortly compares and distinguishes digital commons, open source, Digital Public Goods and digital public infrastructure.

Mapping the communities

Most of the research is dedicated to an analysis of a diversity of active communities around digital commons, ranging from free software to open data by ways of open hardware, open contents and open standards. CNRS conducted 23 interviews (which are also pseudonymised and shared as open data) with several actors to understand better their perception and needs but also the values they share and their perception of what digital commons are and the value they embed.

The second part of the report is therefore dedicated to identifying similarities and differences in the values and ethos that can be found in the set of projects that were interviewed. The report finds that, if openness appears as a central value, many actors have different strategies to share under some conditions of reciprocity, some delays, etc.

The third part presents the different ways the commons projects are organising their sustainability models. This report identified the great importance of the public sector in supporting the commons: either because public bodies (in administrations, agencies, universities, etc. either at local, national and European levels) contribute to, buy the products, provide grants or other forms of funding. The report also shows the valuable contribution from the private sector and individuals in sustaining the commons.

The fourth part shows that the ‘digital commons’ concept is often undefined for the actors themselves and in competition with other concepts they are more familiar with, like open source, social and solidarity economy, although some actors really chose the concept of commons, often from a political standpoint. The report also shows difficulties to organise and structure communities around a given project and delves into different governance issues that have been raised by the actors. The report finally explores the values the actors associate with the commons and potential tensions, around (social) innovation, ecological footprint and social value of their activities.

This mix of openness and values is for example particularly visible in this quote from someone active in Mastodon : 

“It’s something that benefits everyone… In fact, it’s something that shouldn’t belong to anyone. Because the incentives are not alignedwith ownership and control by anyone. For example, Wikipedia is a digital commons, because it is knowledge, and this knowledge must not be controlled or owned by anyone, because otherwise knowledge is more neutral. And knowledge, at one time or another, can or will be used, will be modified to serve certain interests.”.

Digital Commons: a timely topic for continued research

As Europe seeks to assert its digital sovereignty and reduce dependence on foreign technologies, digital commons and open source emerge as vital instruments in this endeavour. They offer not only technological autonomy but also foster transparency, innovation, and collaboration rooted in shared European values. 

This report mapped the landscape of Digital Commons in Europe, examining how the concept relates to similar ideas like Free Libre Open Source Software and Digital Public Goods, and how it is practised by various projects and communities. Through interviews and case studies, CNRS explored definitions, governance models, financial challenges, and the core values driving these initiatives.

Despite the lack of a universal standard for Digital Commons, some common patterns emerge, such as the separation of non-profit and for-profit activities and the significant role of public entities in supporting these projects. The European context is marked by cross-border collaboration, challenging traditional notions of digital sovereignty and emphasising user autonomy and shared values.

Overall, the study underscores the importance of sustainability, governance, and community in the development of Digital Commons, and suggests that future policies should focus on supporting these aspects rather than imposing rigid definitions or standards.

This rather large report provides original insights on a field that needs to be further studied and better taken into account by public bodies. The customisation of the governance and the sustainability models show how much these organisations are specific, what also makes them more resilient. This topic will further be developed in CNRS’s next report, so please stay tuned! to entry and enhance community engagement.