Elinor Ostrom’s principles for managing common-pool resources successfully and equitably may be more germane than traditional management theory. If Ostrom’s proposed principles for managing common-pool resources successfully and equitably are applied to a CCE, those rules substantially would be stated, as follows:

1. Define clear group boundaries for each of the disparate groups.
2. Match rules governing distribution of the net profits to the needs and conditions of the disparate groups.
3. Ensure that the directors of the commons corporation, and their represented constituents, can participate in modifying the distribution of the net profits.
4. Develop a system carried out by the directors for monitoring the activity of each director’s group to ensure that the respective distribution of net income is appropriately applied.
5. Use graduated sanctions to remediate actions of underperforming groups.
6. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution between the disparate groups.
7. Build responsibility for administering each distribution of net profit from the lowest level of each group to the directorship level of the commons corporation.

Accordingly, the model CCE must have tremendous flexibility to meet internal and market demands.

Table 1 which will be provided as Research is provided to aid in the discussion of formulating the model CCE. The table sets forth a survey of the not-for profit laws in the fifty states and the District of Columbia, designating the statutes of each jurisdiction pertaining to whether a not-for-profit corporation can:

1. Allow for any lawful activity as its purpose;
2. Have no members (shareholders);
3. Delegate the board of directors’ functions;
4. Use designators to appoint directors;
5. Prescribe qualifications for a director; and
6. Allow any director to bring a derivative suit.

Furthermore, Table 1 has divided the states into four color-coded classes of states based upon the author’s subjective evaluation of how amenable each state’s not-for-profit act is to forming a CCE. Class 1, Blue, represents those jurisdictions where a CCE not-for-profit corporation could easily comply with state law while interposing the most dynamic management system. Class 2, Green, represents those jurisdictions where the CCE not-for-profit corporation would have to form as a public benefit corporation (PBC). Although PBCs can easily comply with state law while interposing the most dynamic management system as with Class 1 jurisdictions, PBCs are subject to more oversight and reporting requirements by state law. Class 3, Yellow, represents those jurisdictions where a CCE not-for-profit corporation cannot interpose a dynamic management system because of the inadequacies or proscriptions of state law. In those jurisdictions, the non-for-profit must implement a traditional management system which may cause substantial conflicts of interest in the management of the CCE. Class 4, Red, represents those jurisdictions where the jurisdictions’ statutes present existential problems for the formation and operation of a CCE.