All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Analyzing the Production of the Law of Cyberspace
Unformatted Document Text:  14 is to develop research that is useful to all of them and would not otherwise be developed by a single entity. 48 The work might not be completed by one firm, because of the sheer cost or the need for a standard that competing firms can also adopt. 49 By cooperating in a consortium, the participants can collectively work towards a common solution. 50 Two prominent consortia for the Internet are the World Wide Web Consortium and the Internet Engineering Task Force. 51 Consortia are the primarily developers of voluntary consensus standards for communication technologies. Standards for code are considered to be a quantifiable metric used by a group of people for common interchange. 52 Standards allow for technologies to interconnect and interoperate. Unlike in other fields, there is little activity in developing communication technology standards within Standard Developing Organizations (SDOs), such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 53 The standardization efforts of consortia occupy a middle ground between the de facto standards set by firms and the de jure standards of SDOs. 54 Consortia also differ from SDOs in that standard setting is only one aspect G OVERNMENT R ELATIONSHIP 65 (Albert N. Link & Gregory Tassey eds., 1989) (reviewing the history of the law); Richard Hawkins, The Rise of Consortia in the Information and Communication Technology Industries: Emerging Implications for Policy, 23 T ELECOMM . P’ CY 159, 164 (1999) (reviewing the structure and origins of consortia). 48 See Nelson supra note 19, at 303. 49 If there are strong economic incentives for certain code, this work will be done outside the cooperative reaches of a consortium. See M URPHY , supra note 46, at 162 (noting eight motivations for firms to cooperate); D AN D IMANCESCU & J AMES B OTKIN , T HE N EW A LLIANCE : A MERICA ’ S R&D C ONSORTIA 58 (1986) (noting five reasons why firms and universities may form consortia). Lorrie Cranor pointed out that there are generally two reasons a consortium is used. First, all parties have their own technology and want to now come up with a common standard. Second, some parties have the technology and everyone wants to have a universal standard. 50 Andrew Updegrove, Standard Setting and Consortium Structures, S TANDARD V IEW , Dec. 1995, at 143, 144. 51 The use of consortia has minimized the role of Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) such as the American National Standards Institute and the International Organization for Standardization. See Carl F. Cargill, The Role of Consortia Standards in Federal Government Procurements in the Information Technology Sector: Towards a Re-Definition of a Voluntary Consensus Standards Organization, available at http://www.sun.com/standards/HouseWhitePaper_ver2_Final.PDF (June 28, 2001). 52 C ARL F. C ARGILL , I NFORMATION T ECHNOLOGY S TANDARDIZATION : T HEORY , P ROCESS , AND O RGANIZATION 13 (1989) (defining standards). 53 Cargill, supra note 47, at 4. 54 Updegrove, supra note 50, at 144. See Paul A. David & Mark Shurmer, Formal Standards-Setting for Global Telecommunications and Information Services, 20 T ELECOMM . P' CY 789 (1996) (reviewing the nature and economic significance of the activities of formal standardization bodies); C ARGILL , supra note 52, at 125 (discussing the characteristics of some international SDOs).

Authors: Shah, Rajiv. and Kesan, Jay.
first   previous   Page 14 of 24   next   last



background image
14
is to develop research that is useful to all of them and would not otherwise be developed by a
single entity.
48
The work might not be completed by one firm, because of the sheer cost or the
need for a standard that competing firms can also adopt.
49
By cooperating in a consortium, the
participants can collectively work towards a common solution.
50
Two prominent consortia for
the Internet are the World Wide Web Consortium and the Internet Engineering Task Force.
51
Consortia are the primarily developers of voluntary consensus standards for
communication technologies. Standards for code are considered to be a quantifiable metric used
by a group of people for common interchange.
52
Standards allow for technologies to
interconnect and interoperate. Unlike in other fields, there is little activity in developing
communication technology standards within Standard Developing Organizations (SDOs), such
as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
53
The standardization efforts of
consortia occupy a middle ground between the de facto standards set by firms and the de jure
standards of SDOs.
54
Consortia also differ from SDOs in that standard setting is only one aspect
G
OVERNMENT
R
ELATIONSHIP
65 (Albert N. Link & Gregory Tassey eds., 1989) (reviewing the history of the law);
Richard Hawkins, The Rise of Consortia in the Information and Communication Technology Industries: Emerging
Implications for Policy
, 23 T
ELECOMM
. P’
CY
159, 164 (1999) (reviewing the structure and origins of consortia).
48
See Nelson supra note 19, at 303.
49
If there are strong economic incentives for certain code, this work will be done outside the cooperative reaches of
a consortium. See M
URPHY
, supra note 46, at 162 (noting eight motivations for firms to cooperate); D
AN
D
IMANCESCU
& J
AMES
B
OTKIN
, T
HE
N
EW
A
LLIANCE
: A
MERICA
S
R&D C
ONSORTIA
58 (1986) (noting five reasons
why firms and universities may form consortia). Lorrie Cranor pointed out that there are generally two reasons a
consortium is used. First, all parties have their own technology and want to now come up with a common standard.
Second, some parties have the technology and everyone wants to have a universal standard.
50
Andrew Updegrove, Standard Setting and Consortium Structures, S
TANDARD
V
IEW
, Dec. 1995, at 143, 144.
51
The use of consortia has minimized the role of Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) such as the American
National Standards Institute and the International Organization for Standardization. See Carl F. Cargill, The Role of
Consortia Standards in Federal Government Procurements in the Information Technology Sector: Towards a Re-
Definition of a Voluntary Consensus Standards Organization
, available at
http://www.sun.com/standards/HouseWhitePaper_ver2_Final.PDF (June 28, 2001).
52
C
ARL
F. C
ARGILL
, I
NFORMATION
T
ECHNOLOGY
S
TANDARDIZATION
: T
HEORY
, P
ROCESS
,
AND
O
RGANIZATION
13
(1989) (defining standards).
53
Cargill, supra note 47, at 4.
54
Updegrove, supra note 50, at 144. See Paul A. David & Mark Shurmer, Formal Standards-Setting for Global
Telecommunications and Information Services, 20 T
ELECOMM
. P'
CY
789 (1996) (reviewing the nature and economic
significance of the activities of formal standardization bodies); C
ARGILL
, supra note 52, at 125 (discussing the
characteristics of some international SDOs).


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 14 of 24   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.