Links to Full-Text Copies of Memos to Students

January 21, 1998

To: CLS98 Class

From: Nicholas Johnson

Re: Assignments, Mileposts, Processes and Deadlines

We all want to have fun with this seminar. Indeed, some sense of fun, genuine curiosity/interest, and personal satisfaction at professional accomplishment are integral to the academic purpose/value of the exercise.

At the same time, we also want to minimize pain: unnecessary stress, frustration, recrimination.

In pursuit of both goals, I offer these comments/requirements/suggestions.

1. Self-discipline. This seminar -- deliberately -- imposes on you a requirement for what may be significantly more self-discipline than you have been used to in law school. Your primary motivation is no longer "preparing for class" (in the conventional sense), or "studying for a mid-term (or final)." It is your own, internalized, standard of professional excellence. Yes, depending on where you set the high jump bar, that standard (and your success in exceeding it) will also affect your grade for the seminar -- and, not incidentally, what future employers think of this "writing sample" you are in the process of creating. But the primary drives are your own curiosity, desire to learn/master an area of law that is of interest to you, and advance your own professional skills. But this involves tasks, and an investment of time (e.g., building our Web site, doing your research, coming by for office visits with me), every week -- not just during those weeks when you've finished all your other obligations. It's your responsibility to schedule the time, establish the routine, and get those tasks done every week without my getting on your case. This need not, should not, be onerous, or require any more time than the reasonable requirements of any other two-to-four credit hour course around here. But that much time it does require.

2. Academic credits. There are two distinct (though inter-related) academic exercises in this seminar. And, although you will receive one grade for the seminar, it will be made up (for most of you) in equal measure of both elements.

(a) As you know, you will receive two hours credit for "the seminar" and an additional two hours credit for your paper. This does not mean four hours credit for the paper. The paper is worth two.

(b) The other two reflect your contribution to the class project of building the "cyberlaw research Web site," seminar discussions, and any other group projects. And this is not just a matter of bibliographic entries (in this case "URLs"). It is also a matter of your reading the material you find in that way. In short, there are "readings" for the seminar, it's just that each of you is finding them on your own. What you find, and read, will be reflected in [1] the weekly bibliographic entries you provide your colleagues and me, [2] the one-on-one conversations we have, [3] our group discussions during seminar meetings, and, of course, [4] the content of your paper (and [5] the sources/Web sites it cites).

3. Processes. There are specific tasks, with individual deadlines, and there are also what I am calling processes that continue throughout the semester. The processes include:

a. Internet understanding. One process is continuous progress in your Internet surfing facility and general knowledge (see "Aspects of Internet Understanding" in the January 5, 1998, memo, "Assignments and Overview"). Initially this is a primary focus. Later it becomes a byproduct of your research and search for contributions to our group Web sites collection.

b. Research. This is, hopefully, something you are doing every time you are Web surfing. Initially it contributes to your search for a topic; then to the gathering of the material you need to outline, write a first draft, and polish, your paper. Toward the end of the semester it will be contributing, primarily, to additional endnote cites/links for your paper.

c. Revision. Most of the writers I know (including myself) seldom publish anything that has not gone through at least ten rewrites. Writing is not simply a matter of dashing off a first draft and then looking it over for obvious errors, correcting them, and calling it a final draft. It's a process of constant draft re-reading, tweaking -- catching an awkward or unclear passage, cutting out unnecessary words, seeing a grammatical error, inserting an explanatory piece of text or endnote -- putting aside, reading again, making more changes, and so forth. Among other things, this requires that one allow a good deal of time between the first and final drafts for this process to take place.

4. Mileposts and deadlines. As explained in the January 5, 1998, memo mentioned above ("Deadlines," which is the last paragraph, and which see) deadlines, once established, will be rigorously enforced (and/or carry substantial penalties). As explained there, although I would prefer to leave this to students' self-discipline as well, based on the last seminar's results to do so again would be, as they say, "the triumph of hope over experience." Moreover, rather than have just one, it seems to me useful to have a number of "mileposts" (as we say in "GANTT" and "PERT" chart project management language). What follows are my proposals for now. I am willing to modify them -- if the class unanimously agrees on what it wants them to be sufficiently prior to the milepost in question.

a. Document assignment: deadline. See the January 5 memo, under the heading "‘Document' Assignment." Your deadline for this one, as announced January 5, is January 26 at 4:00 p.m.

b. Categories, topics and narrowing: in general. [1] A "category" would be something like "privacy on the Internet." Within the category of "privacy" might be topics associated with information exchanged during the course of sales over the Internet. Those topics might be further narrowed by focusing on sales involving credit cards, or specifically VISA. And those topics might be further narrowed by specifying a particular piece of information that is collected during these transactions, or a particular system for recording (and possibly selling) that information, or a sub-section of some statute/regulation involving such transactions. [2] Pick a topic within a category that is contained within an area of law, or law school course, with which you already have some background. For example, if you have not had antitrust, or any experience with antitrust law and doctrines, you are putting an enormous burden on yourself in this seminar if you are -- necessarily and simultaneously -- trying to master some area of law about which you know nothing. [3] The reason to narrow your topic is not only to simplify and focus your task ("work smarter, not harder"), but also to increase the likelihood that you will end up producing a Web-published paper that will make a genuine contribution to the body of legal literature. (Not incidentally, of course, this also reflects more favorably on you when others read it.) You should end up being, if not the only, at least one of a very small handful of lawyers who know more about your subject than anyone else on earth.

c. Categories, topics and narrowing: the deadlines. I have been, and will be, available to you to help you think through the selection of categories, possible topics, and how to narrow them appropriately. This will, almost always in my experience, take more than a single one-on-one office conference or e-mail exchange. Because most of you have not yet begun this process with me, and because I will be at the Aspen conference the next couple of days (this week and next) I am setting February 2 at 5:00 as the final deadline for your having concluded this process and settled on a sufficiently narrowed topic.

d. Initial research, outlining and rough drafts. The next two weeks -- February 2-February 13 -- will require a little more investment of time on your part than the first two weeks of the seminar. During this two week period you should have done enough of your initial research that you are able to hold a conference with me during the week of February 9th to discuss how your topic/paper/research is shaping up, and present to me no later than February 13 at 3:00 p.m. either [1] a detailed (and at least three-level) outline of how you propose to organize your paper, or (if your hatred of outlines is so severe that they interfere with your doing your best work), [2] a rough draft of your paper [with the possibility of a -- very limited -- option of indicating, within brackets, what will be inserted where there are brief omissions]. This will give us some additional time for conferences February 16, 17 and 18 designed to enable you to get me committed to the general approach you are taking at this stage. (The pro bono American Bar Association media law legislative drafting project in Tbilisi, Georgia, FSU -- originally scheduled for the first two weeks of the semester -- will now, probably, involve my absence sometime during the February 19-28 period.)

e. First draft preparation, additional research. You will have from February 19 until whenever you leave for spring break, but in no event later than March 13th at 12:00 noon (spring break is March 14-22) to do the additional research and writing necessary to prepare your formal "first draft." The reason I pick this deadline is to insure that [1] you either get the much-needed spring break recess, or, if you do have work to catch up on during that week, that at least I am not contributing even more to it, and [2] I have a free week (I don't take spring break) during which I can do some attentive, detailed reading, editing, and grading of your first drafts, without outside distractions, in time to enable you to have the necessary time to prepare final drafts.

f. Final draft preparation, additional research and writing. On the assumption we can hold one-on-one conferences the week of March 23-27 to discuss the necessary additional research, writing, organization, proof reading, and rewriting on your papers, this will leave you a little over two weeks to do that work. The deadline for the final draft will be April 16 at 4:00 p.m. The reason for selecting this deadline, similar to the reason for the deadline before spring break week, is to give you an extra week -- at least one without additional burdens associated with this seminar -- to finish up your outlines and otherwise prepare for the beginning of final exam week April 29. (On April 22 -- our last class session -- we will either/or both have a dinner at the house, or have additional presentations of participants' papers.)

5. Presentations. Individuals' oral presentations will be scheduled (with advance notice) but not at this time. As you can see from the schedule just outlined, final drafts will not be finished in time for everyone to base their presentation on a final written draft. Thus, presentations necessarily will be on a somewhat more informal, "work in progress" basis.

Note: This Web page contains links to memos related to the Cyberspace Law Seminar taught by former FCC Commissioner Nicholas Johnson in the Spring 1998 semester. It is intended for use by students at the University of Iowa College of Law, Iowa City, Iowa, USA, enrolled in the Cyberspace Law Seminar [Catalog: 91:624].