ECC2013/Knowledge Stream

Working page for the knowledge stream of the Economics and the Commons Conference.

As of 2013-02-05 everything is incomplete, draft, subject to change.

Please edit, comment, contact as appropriate!

150 word motivation

Science, and recently, free software, are paradigmatic knowledge commons; copyright and patent paradigmatic enclosures. But our vision may be constrained by the power of paradigmatic examples. Re-conceptualization may help us understand what might be achieved by moving most provisioning of knowledge to the commons. We must critically evaluate our commoning and strive to fully realize the salience of knowledge commons as fundamental to all commoners.

Let us consider what if:

Copyright and patent are not the first knowledge enclosures, but only "modern" enforcement of inequalities in what may be known and communicated?
Copyright and patent reform and licensing are merely small parts of a universe of knowledge commoning, including transparency, privacy, collaboration, all of science and culture?
Our strategy puts commons values first, and views narrow incentives with skepticism?
The value of commons is difficult to quantify – but necessary. We grapple with that, alongside all commoners.

Objective

This gathering of commons-minded knowledge commoners, together with other commoners, presents a unique opportunity to (re)consider and (re)conceptualize the free/libre/open/commons movements we are active in from a strategic and commons-first perspective.

Goals

Deepen commons-basis for knowledge commons
Broaden our conception of knowledge commons, given commons-basis
Explain knowledge commons to, learn from, and make common cause with other commoners
Improve descriptions of the value of commons (specifically knowledge, but generally applicable) to society; structurally, qualitatively, marginally, and quantitatively
Make our domain-specific commoning more strategic and potent, by incorporating commons knowledge and connections

Non-goal: Repeat domain-specific conversations that occur continuously at hundreds of conferences and online, enmeshed in domain-specific politics and little commons-grounding, e.g.:

How to fight the latest proposed expansion of copyright or patent
How to pay artists, scientists, journalists, etc
Various “business models” for culture, research, etc
How to promote free software, open access, open data, etc
What is the right public copyright or patent licensing structure to use
Does “piracy” increase or decrease culture industry revenue
Well-known possible reforms, eg re copyright; expansion of exceptions, filesharing levy, formalities, reduction of term, orphan works, etc
Problematization based on privacy, knowledge used for bad things, indigenous knowledge, etc
How do we explain the existence of peer production; how do we make it more efficient

None of these topics are verboten; indeed several may be vehicles used to concretize the above “what if” questions and to to illuminate our goals. Creative Commons' Role in the Global Commons Movement from 2011 shows a little bit of the flavor, but not format, in mind: think about a thing's strategy if it were to be first about and aware of the commons, embedded in some other politics second (copyright in this case).

Further provocations that may serve as jumping off points or levers:

Might a deeper understanding of the commons paradigm, and (less importantly, and only with more understanding?) use of the term commons empower movements that think of themselves in terms of "open" (sometimes criticized for over-emphasizing access and taking while under-emphasizing provisioning and ethics; eg Open Access, Open Source) or free/libre (which suffers from conflation with gratis, and is too-little criticized for over-emphasizing individual autonomy, under-emphasizing community autonomy)? Acknowledging that free/libre/open often do denote real commons and commoning, and that the term "commons" does not guarantee commons and commonsing.
Knowledge commons following the free software paradigm focus on voluntary "contractually constructed" commons, and while some consider all humans having freedom of computation (or culture, research, etc) an ethical imperative, the primarly legal instrument thought to protect autonomy relies on the whim of individual copyright holders to take expensive legal action, which very rarely happens. Does a deeper understanding of commons lead to an even deeper embrace of this reliance on "contractual construction" and private action, a turn to emphasis on government and institutional regulation, both, or other?
Faced with paradigmatic enclosures (copyright and patent), commoners tend to react (protest enclosure expansion) and propose small reforms to mitigate the broad harms of enclosure and specific threats to voluntary/constructed knowledge commons. Would a deeper understanding of commons change or add to those strategies?
If we consider knowledge as commons, can we more clearly appreciate how governance might occur at both global and local/community levels? For example, rules within communities, appropriately far more varied than global rules; threat to both commons by global enclosures, eg patent.
What does "beating of the bounds" mean for knowledge commons? "Piracy" is pervasive; how can it, at least in part, be made to help build commons, as opposed to merely marketing proprietary "content" and brands?
Would a deeper understanding of commons help the various free/libre/open domains (eg software, science, education, culture, hardware) cooperate more and better? How? What about movements not of the same mold, but very much about knowledge commmons, eg transparency, privacy?

Schedule

Pre-conference on-line planning

May 21: possible side-events

May 23: ~30 minute keynote on knowledge commons.

May 24:

(morning) ~2 hour stream session, concurrent with 2 other stream-focused sessions
(afternoon) ~3 hour stream/other breakout sessions; presumably smaller numbers than morning
(near closing) plenary session with stream organizers; report-back, discuss, synthesize

May 25: for those who chose to stay: How to get there from here?

Post-conference followup

Methodology

Pre-conference, further develop methodology!

Knowledge keynote to inspire stream participants to address stream objectives, introduce and motivate knowledge commons for all commoners. (All in 30 minutes.)

Morning stream session:

Brief introduction by stream coordinator
Depending on numbers, maybe some kind of individual introduction
Conversation between two commoners to begin to contextualize big questions (in domains/expertise of the two?)
Two brief but detailed interventions by domain experts on how "what if" commons-first/deeper commons unerstanding could affect a question of their field
Small group breakout (maybe by domain and/or labor and nature knowledge crosscurrents given scheudle) brainstorming on deepening commons
Report-back/summation

Afternoon stream breakout:

Workshop on specific goals (broaden/deepen/explain/improve/make)
Brief interventions by people who are doing interesting work toward each goal
Breakout/sequential/or mix depending on numbers: work on strategy for pursuing each long-term
Report-back/summation

Plenary: TBD by session content, overall conference organizers

How to get there from here?: TBD, appropriately

Post-conference: see outcomes

Outcomes

See goals. ;-)

Material:

Some ongoing online communication re furthering stream goals (minimally, mailing list)
Brief statement re stream goals that can be endorsed by many and widely translated and promulgated
Documentation of all stream-related conference activities (writeup/photos/recording)
Further collaborations sparked in stream/at conference