One of the things that has deterred me from investigating Tiqqun's views more has been their use of specialized jargon that mystifies and obfuscates their views. There has been some theory on language that an increasingly specialized language protects these views from entropy, but I'd have to disagree.
The changing face of an academia and off-academia (like off-broadway) will re-interpret "commune" and "communization" just as they re-interpreted the terms for their own use. In order for these terms to be used by anarchists, we have to remove them somewhat from the academic discourse and place them within a more assessable jargon where it can be applied without a great deal of confusion.
I could posit that "communization" is a negative project and "commune" is the irl social network that works to achieve this negative project. This would make the definition more applicable to descriptions of the Oakland Commune or the Atlanta Commune as they seems to use it.
Long story short: Communes are larger social forms, a TAZ, that share in the development of social cohesion around attack. So informal networks of individuals, affinity groups and collectives that meet in assembly, share in culture, scene and a sense of community, perhaps also with overlapping networks that share necessities in a limited way, skills in a limited way and so on. Organic blobs of individuals coming together and breaking apart, perhaps moving from tight affinities with some to loose affinities with others. This sounds almost like an answer, but since I don't have the language to answer this question in a more direct way, I'll leave it as a comment.