Roles

In the Components section, I have defined the minimal constraints that must be applied to the rules of operation for digital services to qualify as digital commons. Without these constraints, the risk of re-appropriation would be far too high. However, meeting these conditions is not enough to guarantee that they will be effective. How they are made available to the public is in fact only one aspect of the commons status. Let us remember that the operational and strategic governance of the commons cannot be anything but democratic[^21].

For example, if the source code of a digital service is licensed with a redistribution clause but no stakeholder ever calls an infringing reuser to order, this constitutes a loophole for reappropriation just as if the original clause did not exist.

We must now define the methods for exercising and balancing power between the various actors involved in the digital commons. The aim is not to establish territories but to guarantee the sustainability of the tool and its values. Thus, governance must necessarily be transparent: the different roles and decision-making methods must be described, and the latter must be traceable and publicly verifiable.

The different parts of this section present the necessary roles to be fulfilled, ordered by distance from the service usage itself. For each role, I will present the associated tasks and suggest forms of retribution and associated legal forms. Just as constraints can only be expressed on the rules of the components and not ready-made rules, the concrete implementation of these roles will depend on the stakeholders gathered around the commons to be governed. For example, some stakeholders may hold several roles, especially at the beginning of the service's existence.

[^21]: This is because the commons exist through their community of users between whom there is no difference in status, and because democracy is the most appropriate means of collective decision-making for any given number of equal individuals.