Thanks for your question @zeemarx
Just a note: for better collaboration I’d suggest people who ask these type of questions share some info about their project, links, perhaps invite others to help in that particular context. It builds context, it builds trust, it expands the network, it increases stigmatize in our network.
Per that note, @zeemarx I’d like to know more about your work and see if you can go much further together than just an answer to your question, or see if I can learn something from your past work and apply it to mine Thanks.
Back to the question, @bhaugen already covered a lot of ground.
- frame this question around commons, which is a special type of Resource that requires
Governance (I consider it part of the infrastructure), which requires
knowledge (about it), experience (using it), which refer to Agents and are dimensions of Reputation, and all that enables
analysis and planning, which are Processes
Bob also covered externalities pretty well.
These things are Resources in the sense that they are used as inputs in socioeconomic Processes. As resources, they may have multiple uses, for example a forest can have a role in a neighborhood to refresh the air, to cut noise, to serve as a recreation park, to host some whiled life that has other roles somewhere else, to provide wood for fire, … So perhaps this particular Resource, this forest, appears in multiple accounting contexts, not just one. This makes us understand why an NRP (network resource planning) should not be a silo, but should properties that allows it to exist in a network. The municipality might have an interest to account for this resource and make sure that it provides something in a sustainable way (clean the air and cut noise from a nearby highway for example). A local community organization might have an interest to account for it and make sure that they can utilize this resource in a sustainable way, not only sustainable for them but for all stakeholders. For example they use it as a recreation park where they plan social activities, which may require building some installations, cutting some trees, etc.
So we’re realizing that these resources under the regime of commons naturally have multistakeholders, which utilize the resource in multiple ways, extract different benefits from it, in the process they need to transform it in multiple ways and as they extra ct they need to make sure that the whole thing is maintained and no stakeholder suffers. These stakeholders cannot be forced to use the same tool, to conduct their business using the same software, but their tools that they use to manage their operations need to talk to each others.
This network-of-networks NRP allows all stakeholders to keep track of actions that affect the resource: use / extraction on one side and replenishment / restoration, cleaning, … on the other.
The planning in the NRP also allows you synchronize all activities in time.
In the end, the network-of-networks NRP adds transparency to the entire activity around this resource, aggregated from all stakeholders. Moreover, this system allows a decentralization of use and management, a rules-based premissinless system, which is the most important feature of a resource in the regime of commons. Public assets are under the control of some level of government. If you want to use it you need to ask permission. Gatekeepers can do favors, which affects the proper allocation of the resource. Moreover, in the public regime + corruption there is no incentive for transparency, because corrupt officials prefer to hide details of their actions. You don’t need permission to access a commons, as long as you respect the governance. Part of that engagement should be mandatory to use a compatible management tool (plug into a network-of-networks NRP) in order to make transparent your use, to coordinate with others, and also to coordinate with pothers activities that replenish that commons.
Then we can talk about Roles. The entire system can generate incentives (access to benefits) for those who do positive work (replenish, maintain, police, govern, …). Agents (individuals and organizations) can elect to take these Support Roles, which are Commitments against planned Processes, log their Contributions (time, materials, money, …) and become eligible for Benefits, through Benefit Redistribution Algorithms. From my experience, the best way to manage commons is to strongly link extracted benefits to Support Roles activities. In other words, those who add have first choice to extract. If someone doesn’t need to extract, after adding, he/she/it can transfer that to someone else. This can also be done with token economics, but it’s better to do it with accounting, in my opinion, since in general tokens are transferable but have no memory.
We have experience with managing commons in the context of a tightly focused network, Sensorica. Multistakeholding is realized in Sensorica through multiplicity of projects, In other words, Projects are seen as independent / autonomous open and collaborative ventures. Projects access Resources and make various use of these resources. For example the Sensorica lab is a shared space, it can be used by a project as a meeting place (tables, chairs, projector), by pother as a techshop (3D printer and other mechanical tools, …), another as an event space (requires rearrangement of objects in the space to make room for more people), … So we do have a context where these concepts have been applied. But this is a more simple context, since all projects use the same instance of the NRP, hence no need fore network-of-networks NRP. Natural commons are natural use cases for network-of-networks NRP.
That’s it for now… I can come later to contribute to this discussion if it continues to develop further of if I have some other ideas…