Ostrom Amongst the Machines: Blockchain as a Knowledge Commons

Author(s):  
Herminio Bodon ◽  
Pedro Bustamante ◽  
Marcela Gomez ◽  
Prashabnt Krishnamurthy ◽  
Michael J. Madison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Madison ◽  
Brett M. Frischmann ◽  
Katherine J. Strandburg

This chapter describes methods for systematically studying knowledge commons as an institutional mode of governance of knowledge and information resources, including references to adjacent but distinct approaches to research that looks primarily to the role(s) of intellectual property systems in institutional contexts concerning innovation and creativity.Knowledge commons refers to an institutional approach (commons) to governing the production, use, management, and/or preservation of a particular type of resource (knowledge or information, including resources linked to innovative and creative practice).Commons refers to a form of community management or governance. It applies to a resource, and it involves a group or community of people who share access to and/or use of the resource. Commons does not denote the resource, the community, a place, or a thing. Commons is the institutional arrangement of these elements and their coordination via combinations of law and other formal rules; social norms, customs, and informal discipline; and technological and other material constraints. Community or collective self-governance of the resource, by individuals who collaborate or coordinate among themselves effectively, is a key feature of commons as an institution, but self-governance may be and often is linked to other formal and informal governance mechanisms. For purposes of this chapter, knowledge refers to a broad set of intellectual and cultural resources. There are important differences between various resources captured by such a broad definition. For example, knowledge, information, and data may be different from each other in meaningful ways. But an inclusive term is necessary in order to permit knowledge commons researchers to capture and study a broad and inclusive range of commons institutions and to highlight the importance of examining knowledge commons governance as part of dynamic, ecological contexts


Author(s):  
Madelyn Rose Sanfilippo ◽  
Brett M. Frischmann ◽  
Katherine J. Strandburg
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-142
Author(s):  
Inna Kouper ◽  
Anjanette H Raymond ◽  
Stacey Giroux

AbstractMaking decisions regarding data and the overall credibility of research constitutes research data governance. In this paper, we present results of an exploratory study of the stakeholders of research data governance. The study was conducted among individuals who work in academic and research institutions in the US, with the goal of understanding what entities are perceived as making decisions regarding data and who researchers believe should be responsible for governing research data. Our results show that there is considerable diversity and complexity across stakeholders, both in terms of who they are and their ideas about data governance. To account for this diversity, we propose to frame research data governance in the context of polycentric governance of a knowledge commons. We argue that approaching research data from the commons perspective will allow for a governance framework that can balance the goals of science and society, allow us to shift the discussion toward protection from enclosure and knowledge resilience, and help to ensure that multiple voices are included in all levels of decision-making.


2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna Ravi Srinivas

AbstractThe experience of the indigenous communities regarding access and benefit sharing under the national regimes based on provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity and Bonn Guidelines has not been satisfactory. The communities expect that noncommercial values should be respected and misappropriation should be prevented. Some academics and civil society groups have suggested that traditional knowledge commons and biocultural protocols will be useful in ensuring that while noncommercial values are respected, access and benefit sharing takes place on conditions that are acceptable to the communities. This proposal is examined in this context in the larger context of access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity and implementing prior informed consent principles in access and benefit sharing. This article examines knowledge commons, provides examples from constructed commons in different sectors and situates traditional knowledge commons in the context of debates on commons and public domain. The major shortcomings of traditional commons and bicultural protocol are pointed out, and it is suggested that these are significant initiatives that can be combined with the Nagoya Protocol to fulfill the expectations of indigenous communities.


Author(s):  
Alex Pazaitis ◽  
Vasilis Kostakis ◽  
Giorgos Kallis ◽  
Katerina Troullaki

The coronavirus outbreak has come in the aftermath of other concerning and disastrous events, from the rainforest fires in the Amazon to the wildfires of Australia. So far, the political response worldwide has been limited to identifying the villain and the hero who will first invent the life-saving vaccine. However, in a time of crisis, it is becoming obvious that the problem is not external but rather embedded and systemic. We argue that a political economy based on compound economic growth is unsustainable. While the pandemic is no proof of the unsustainability of economic growth as such, the speed and scope of this disease are driven by the interconnectivities of accelerated globalization. Through three ongoing cases, which we have been studying following a participatory action research approach, we discuss an alternative trajectory of a post-capitalist future based on the convergence of localized manufacturing with the digitally shared knowledge commons.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document