> [The commons] in a strictly economic sense, was not perceived as scarce.
I think this is crucial distinction that is missing from most folks' rhetorical use of "commons". Once the reality of scarcity is perceptible, some form of rationing will always take place, typically expressed as "ownership" (e.g., by the lord via enclosure, or privately via homesteading). As such, there can be no "commons" of a scarce resource. At best, the owner can permit actions which mimic those of a commons.
> The issue which I propose for discussion should therefore be clear: how to counter the encroachment of new, electronic devices and systems upon commons that are more subtle and more intimate to our being than either grassland or roads
I think this is crucial distinction that is missing from most folks' rhetorical use of "commons". Once the reality of scarcity is perceptible, some form of rationing will always take place, typically expressed as "ownership" (e.g., by the lord via enclosure, or privately via homesteading). As such, there can be no "commons" of a scarce resource. At best, the owner can permit actions which mimic those of a commons.
> The issue which I propose for discussion should therefore be clear: how to counter the encroachment of new, electronic devices and systems upon commons that are more subtle and more intimate to our being than either grassland or roads
I share the author's concerns, but the "commons" framing misidentifies the problem. Thankfully, a decade later someone did a more thorough job of it: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-societ...